Hobart Stadium: $750 million cost

[Roogal]

Meaning 10K could have attended, but only 8K turned up?

Since COVID no AFL games with exception of the 2020 and 2021 GFs have seen grounds reach full allowable capacities. I don't need to go any further on this point because it is reinforced by the fact that AFL attendances are down 25% across the board this year despite no crowd cap restrictions.

The debate as to whether the existing two stadiums are significantly upgraded in Tasmania or whether a massive amount is spent on a new roofed stadium can only be settled in Tasmania. Certainly the construction of a 27,000 capacity, state of the art roofed arena in Hobart would likely see the death nell for UTAS stadium or it being largely sidelined to a couple of games per season, perhaps. If several hundred million is invested in a new stadium, it's highly unlikely that you'd see another dollar spent at either Blundstone or UTAS for a very long time.

 

[kranger]

I hadn’t seen this report previously. So I thought it was worth sharing in the Stadium threads.

A new stadium is needed. Bellrieve would be the worst club stadium in the AFL by a fair margin. It needs decent corporate and broadcast facilities, and should have a capacity of 30k. No roof, no moveable stands, no fancy waterfront. Tas govt report covers all location options here https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/...0/Feb_2022_Hobart_Stadium_Location_Report.pdf

With 6 sites investigated within the red blob.

 

[Walshawk]

Since COVID no AFL games with exception of the 2020 and 2021 GFs have seen grounds reach full allowable capacities. I don't need to go any further on this point because it is reinforced by the fact that AFL attendances are down 25% across the board this year despite no crowd cap restrictions.

The debate as to whether the existing two stadiums are significantly upgraded in Tasmania or whether a massive amount is spent on a new roofed stadium can only be settled in Tasmania. Certainly the construction of a 27,000 capacity, state of the art roofed arena in Hobart would likely see the death nell for UTAS stadium or it being largely sidelined to a couple of games per season, perhaps. If several hundred million is invested in a new stadium, it's highly unlikely that you'd see another dollar spent at either Blundstone or UTAS for a very long time.

The Tas govt commitment is for no less than four games per season in Launceston. A $200m renovation of the UTAS precinct has been approved by the state govt and $65m has been allocated in the recent state budget. $200m includes an expansion to $27K (Stage 1 - new outer wing) and new 5K indoor stadium (Stage 2 - for basketball). The commitment is that this will happen regardless of the AFL bid. It is supposed to happen in 2023/24. However, this masterplan is also overblown. it includes retractable seating on the outer wing, which is clearly not necessary. You could build a new, simple outer wing 8K stand for $50m or less.
The whole thing is a mess.
examiner.com.au/story/7780039/afl-aspiration-an-investment-in-tasmania/

 

[Roogal]

The Tas govt commitment is for no less than four games per season in Launceston. A $200m renovation of the UTAS precinct has been approved by the state govt and $65m has been allocated in the recent state budget. $200m includes an expansion to $27K (Stage 1 - new outer wing) and new 5K indoor stadium (Stage 2 - for basketball). The commitment is that this will happen regardless of the AFL bid. It is supposed to happen in 2023/24. However, this masterplan is also overblown. it includes retractable seating on the outer wing, which is clearly not necessary. You could build a new, simple outer wing 8K stand for $50m or less.
The whole thing is a mess.
examiner.com.au/story/7780039/afl-aspiration-an-investment-in-tasmania/

It begs many more questions than providing any real answers. I have to ask, and no doubt many others would too, whether it really is feasible to spend $200 mil on a 27,000 capacity stadium for the sake of four (that's just 4) AFL games per season in Launceston (a city of 85,000)? I've definitely heard some BS in my time, and the people of Tasmania are seemingly copping it from their government and proponents of Tassie AFL in waves. I'd suggest that Launceston will more likely get $60-70 mil which would easily fund a new permanent 10,000 seat stand at UTAS to replace the metal stands in its outer.

Consider - The Vic Government have spent since 2007 $240 million re-building Kardinia Park in Geelong (population 245,000) which hosts 10 AFL games, plus AFLW, T20 cricket and A League soccer every year. The Federal Government stumped up $250 mil to build a 25,000 capacity rugby Stadium in Townsville (population 185,000) for 11 NRL home games for the NQ Cowboys. Even humble Ballarat will most likely only get in the order of $60 million to increase the permanent seating capacity of Mars Stadium from 5,127 to about 15-18,000 as part of an upgrade for the Commonwealth Games and for subsequent ongoing use as a 20,000 capacity AFL and T20 venue after the Games.

Is the Tasmanian government seriously going to spend $750 mil on a roofed 27,000 capacity AFL stadium in Hobart (to host just 6-7 home games per season) and another $200 mil in Launceston for just 4 home games? It really doesn't make any dollars nor sense to spend $950 million for 2 small stadiums in a state of just over half a million people. The Tasmanian government couldn't justify any business case that would back such a great expense for two relatively low capacity stadiums that would ultimately host so few home games each.

Would the Tasmanian tax-payers accept that degree of largess and excess? The Tassie taxpayers would be rightly asking why their schools are falling apart, classes are over-crowded and hospitals and health care aren't up to scratch?

Alternatively, if a Hobart Stadium is to be built, they would have to significantly scale back their stadium ambitions for Hobart if football is indeed to be split between two cities as proposed. A new Hobart stadium might be roofed, but may lack a lot of the unrealistic gold plated bells and whistles that the AFL are demanding. Alternatively, it may prove much cheaper to spend $350 million to compulsorily acquire land around Blundstone Arena and build new stands around the entire stadium to create a natural wind block, construct a multi-level car park and to develop the water frontage to Blundstone. Also is a roof really necessary and why is the AFL demanding it? After all it only rains 626 mm (25 inches) per year in Hobart compared to Geelong's 522 mm (21 inches) and Adelaide's 520 mm. Heavens Perth gets 790 mm per-year (36 inches); and Brisbane gets 1200 mm (48 inches) per-year and the AFL doesn't demand a roof over the Gabba or Metricon. With a roof comes very high overhead running costs and turf maintenance issues, so in addition to the higher up-front cost of building a roofed stadium, the Tasmanian government would be saddled with a stadium that has significantly higher ongoing running costs.

It all begs the question of whether the AFL or Melbourne's AFL Clubs perhaps aren't secretly white-anting Tasmania's AFL bid by pricing Tasmania out of the game by placing unrealistic and unaffordable conditions upon the bid?

 

[robo_1]

It begs many more questions than providing any real answers. I have to ask, and no doubt many others would too, whether it really is feasible to spend $200 mil on a 27,000 capacity stadium for the sake of four (that's just 4) AFL games per season in Launceston (a city of 85,000)? I've definitely heard some BS in my time, and the people of Tasmania are seemingly copping it from their government and proponents of Tassie AFL in waves. I'd suggest that Launceston will more likely get $60-70 mil which would easily fund a new permanent 10,000 seat stand at UTAS to replace the metal stands in its outer.

Consider - The Vic Government have spent since 2007 $240 million re-building Kardinia Park in Geelong (population 245,000) which hosts 10 AFL games, plus AFLW, T20 cricket and A League soccer every year. The Federal Government stumped up $250 mil to build a 25,000 capacity rugby Stadium in Townsville (population 185,000) for 11 NRL home games for the NQ Cowboys. Even humble Ballarat will most likely only get in the order of $60 million to increase the permanent seating capacity of Mars Stadium from 5,127 to about 15-18,000 as part of an upgrade for the Commonwealth Games and for subsequent ongoing use as a 20,000 capacity AFL and T20 venue after the Games.

Is the Tasmanian government seriously going to spend $750 mil on a roofed 27,000 capacity AFL stadium in Hobart (to host just 6-7 home games per season) and another $200 mil in Launceston for just 4 home games? It really doesn't make any dollars nor sense to spend $950 million for 2 small stadiums in a state of just over half a million people. The Tasmanian government couldn't justify any business case that would back such a great expense for two relatively low capacity stadiums that would ultimately host so few home games each.

Would the Tasmanian tax-payers accept that degree of largess and excess? The Tassie taxpayers would be rightly asking why their schools are falling apart, classes are over-crowded and hospitals and health care aren't up to scratch?

Alternatively, if a Hobart Stadium is to be built, they would have to significantly scale back their stadium ambitions for Hobart if football is indeed to be split between two cities as proposed. A new Hobart stadium might be roofed, but may lack a lot of the unrealistic gold plated bells and whistles that the AFL are demanding. Alternatively, it may prove much cheaper to spend $350 million to compulsorily acquire land around Blundstone Arena and build new stands around the entire stadium to create a natural wind block, construct a multi-level car park and to develop the water frontage to Blundstone. Also is a roof really necessary and why is the AFL demanding it? After all it only rains 626 mm (25 inches) per year in Hobart compared to Geelong's 522 mm (21 inches) and Adelaide's 520 mm. Heavens Perth gets 790 mm per-year (36 inches); and Brisbane gets 1200 mm (48 inches) per-year and the AFL doesn't demand a roof over the Gabba or Metricon. With a roof comes very high overhead running costs and turf maintenance issues, so in addition to the higher up-front cost of building a roofed stadium, the Tasmanian government would be saddled with a stadium that has significantly higher ongoing running costs.

It all begs the question of whether the AFL or Melbourne's AFL Clubs perhaps aren't secretly white-anting Tasmania's AFL bid by pricing Tasmania out of the game by placing unrealistic and unaffordable conditions upon the bid?

I think the roof is more a temperature thing than for rain.. there was a Friday night game in June 2016 north and Richmond it was about 4 degrees

 

[Roogal]

I think the roof is more a temperature thing than for rain.. there was a Friday night game in June 2016 north and Richmond it was about 4 degrees

Unless they plan on heating the stadium, a roof might actually make it colder if the stadium cannot warm up during the day. It can be colder than a mother in law's kiss inside Marvel on a Winter night too I'm still convinced that the roof thing is simply a ploy by the AFL clubs to try to price the stadium and AFL out of Tasmania's reach. Maybe I'm just being cynical.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

I think the roof is more a temperature thing than for rain.. there was a Friday night game in June 2016 north and Richmond it was about 4 degrees

Unless they plan on heating the stadium, a roof might actually make it colder if the stadium cannot warm up during the day. It can be colder than a mother in law's kiss inside Marvel on a Winter night too I'm still convinced that the roof thing is simply a ploy by the AFL clubs to try to price the stadium and AFL out of Tasmania's reach. Maybe I'm just being cynical.

As I'm sure you are aware the stadium roof will be open on the days that are warm enough.

 

[CrowFan77]

So, it is OK for North Melb and Hawthorn to play AFL games in Tas, but the same grounds are not adequate for a Tasmanian team. WTF?

 

[robo_1]

So, it is OK for North Melb and Hawthorn to play AFL games in Tas, but the same grounds are not adequate for a Tasmanian team. WTF?

I don’t see why the importance for the stadium straight away to be honest I doubt they’ll get a Friday or Saturday night game for the first few years anyway.. you can play the higher crowd drawing games at York park and lower at Bellerive then in years 3-5 get the stadium sorted

 

[My_Username]

For a lot less than $750M, surely they make a huge dent in the transport and parking issues at Bellerive?

Even at $1M per, you could buy/flatten 100 houses and use the space to build/widen a few roads, expand the footprint of the ground and add a decent sized parking lot for $100M

Another $200M to add a new stand (etc) to the ground, and you'd be talking about a decent ground with reasonable access for less than half the price of the proposed new ground.

I'm just spitballing of course, and I'm sure there would be some NIMBY issues to deal with, but $750M decent slab of money, and that allows for a lot of alternatives.

 

[My_Username]

So, it is OK for North Melb and Hawthorn to play AFL games in Tas, but the same grounds are not adequate for a Tasmanian team. WTF?

I think it's more about demonstrating the level of commitment.

The finances need long term financial commitment from the Tas government and AFL to really work, and given governments can be a bit fickle at times (and make the laws/rules), some at the AFL seem to want proof they wont be left holding the baby.

That's not to say it's fair that they require that, but it is what it is.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

I don’t see why the importance for the stadium straight away to be honest I doubt they’ll get a Friday or Saturday night game for the first few years anyway.. you can play the higher crowd drawing games at York park and lower at Bellerive then in years 3-5 get the stadium sorted

For a lot less than $750M, surely they make a huge dent in the transport and parking issues at Bellerive?

Even at $1M per, you could buy/flatten 100 houses and use the space to build/widen a few roads, expand the footprint of the ground and add a decent sized parking lot for $100M

Another $200M to add a new stand (etc) to the ground, and you'd be talking about a decent ground with reasonable access for less than half the price of the proposed new ground.

I'm just spitballing of course, and I'm sure there would be some NIMBY issues to deal with, but $750M decent slab of money, and that allows for a lot of alternatives.

Several different options are being looked at for the location of a stadium but unfortunately Blundstone is not one of them although I believe it should be looked at.

 

[My_Username]

Several different options are being looked at for the location of a stadium but unfortunately Blundstone is not one of them although I believe it should be looked at.

So it seems.

Just annoys me to see another beautiful ground with character and history be replaced by yet another generic soulless concrete lump just to make some property developers rich(er).

(and yes I am aware of the irony of me saying that having just suggested tearing down 100 homes).

 

[robo_1]

Several different options are being looked at for the location of a stadium but unfortunately Blundstone is not one of them although I believe it should be looked at.

I disagree.. it’s in a bad spot surrounded by streets hard to expand and with suburban houses around with narrow streets when there’s a big crowd always choked up with traffic.. but I also thing the regatta grounds floating stadium is a bad idea

I always thought TCA ground was a better option than Bellerive when they upgraded it

 

[Mr Taswegian]

I disagree.. it’s in a bad spot surrounded by streets hard to expand and with suburban houses around with narrow streets when there’s a big crowd always choked up with traffic.. but I also thing the regatta grounds floating stadium is a bad idea

I always thought TCA ground was a better option than Bellerive when they upgraded it

It is a worry that they are still trying to decide on a location when we are less than two months from a decision. I think Macquarie Point and Kgv oval are the best options but I'm not sure if Kgv is one of the options they are currently looking at.

 

[robo_1]

It is a worry that they are still trying to decide on a location when we are less than two months from a decision. I think Macquarie Point and Kgv oval are the best options but I'm not sure if Kgv is one of the options they are currently looking at.

Still plenty of room around for parks or whatever they’re wasting money on there currently and plenty of parking at the regatta grounds and around the domain plus cbd carparks

Obviously the stadium won’t be as big as marvel but here’s a rough idea

 

[magic_johnson!]

For a lot less than $750M, surely they make a huge dent in the transport and parking issues at Bellerive?

Even at $1M per, you could buy/flatten 100 houses and use the space to build/widen a few roads, expand the footprint of the ground and add a decent sized parking lot for $100M

Another $200M to add a new stand (etc) to the ground, and you'd be talking about a decent ground with reasonable access for less than half the price of the proposed new ground.

I'm just spitballing of course, and I'm sure there would be some NIMBY issues to deal with, but $750M decent slab of money, and that allows for a lot of alternatives.

NIMBY to deal with? That would be appalling urban design, and completely detrimental to the town. More cars on the road, a concrete empty expanse of a carpark and a less pedestrianised suburb would an be atrocious, 1950s Esque approach that and never be considered

 

[My_Username]

NIMBY to deal with? That would be appalling urban design, and completely detrimental to the town. More cars on the road, a concrete empty expanse of a carpark and a less pedestrianised suburb would an be atrocious, 1950s Esque approach that and never be considered

I did consider building a subway system, but it seemed excessive in a town the size of Hobart.

 

[Gibbke]

A dozen AFL games a year and some cricket.

Is a new stadium really needed? Has the current need really outgrown what is already available?

Honestly? No, it's not. This is the next ploy from the AFL to shut Tasmanians up.

First, it was utter derision. "Not in my lifetime" from Andy, and a drunken spray from Fitzpatrick. Both were forced to adopt the conciliatory line "next cab off the rank" when Tassie answered with a Deloittes presentation signed off by economists and financial experts greater than the AFL will ever be...

Then it was Fitzpatrick's parting gift, blaming Tassie's failure to join the national comp on North South parochialism. Anyone who watched the Roos GC misadventure saw how the AFL would do expansion in the future. North were told they would get 50m upfront if they moved to the GC, and relinquished control of their board to the AFL. That second bit is why North told them to EAD, and then aggressively went back to their "we are North Melbourne" attitude, dropping the Kangaroos renaming thing they had going on. They've made it very clear they want to keep their identity, which makes Eddie's current stance a pile of crap. If Tassie gets a team, it will be a deal between the state government and the AFL, and no home grown Tasmanian with actual power except for the relevant minister will be allowed within parking distance of that boardroom - they will run the show, as they already do as AFL Tasmania...north v south will be irrelevant...until:

This stadium. Reminds me of John Howard's magnanimous gesture to create a Republican Referendum, where a bunch of monarchists sat yawning with their arms folded while a bunch of republicans with wildly different viewpoints slugged it out for two weeks and came up with essentially nothing, which then got rejected just like he planned. Tell the Tasmanians they need to unite to spend a shitload of cash on something only one end will benefit from, and watch them either miss the deadline or come up with something stupid or already rejected - maintaining the current stadiums, which were perfectly fine until someone said "expansion". Then watch as a mainland population fifty times bigger than the Tasmanian one drown out their voices with more unfounded unviability arguments already smashed by Deloittes...

Once this silly business is over, the AFL can happily bend Tasmania back over the table...

 

[The_JHF_Clinic]

It begs many more questions than providing any real answers. I have to ask, and no doubt many others would too, whether it really is feasible to spend $200 mil on a 27,000 capacity stadium for the sake of four (that's just 4) AFL games per season in Launceston (a city of 85,000)? I've definitely heard some BS in my time, and the people of Tasmania are seemingly copping it from their government and proponents of Tassie AFL in waves. I'd suggest that Launceston will more likely get $60-70 mil which would easily fund a new permanent 10,000 seat stand at UTAS to replace the metal stands in its outer.

Consider - The Vic Government have spent since 2007 $240 million re-building Kardinia Park in Geelong (population 245,000) which hosts 10 AFL games, plus AFLW, T20 cricket and A League soccer every year. The Federal Government stumped up $250 mil to build a 25,000 capacity rugby Stadium in Townsville (population 185,000) for 11 NRL home games for the NQ Cowboys. Even humble Ballarat will most likely only get in the order of $60 million to increase the permanent seating capacity of Mars Stadium from 5,127 to about 15-18,000 as part of an upgrade for the Commonwealth Games and for subsequent ongoing use as a 20,000 capacity AFL and T20 venue after the Games.

Is the Tasmanian government seriously going to spend $750 mil on a roofed 27,000 capacity AFL stadium in Hobart (to host just 6-7 home games per season) and another $200 mil in Launceston for just 4 home games? It really doesn't make any dollars nor sense to spend $950 million for 2 small stadiums in a state of just over half a million people. The Tasmanian government couldn't justify any business case that would back such a great expense for two relatively low capacity stadiums that would ultimately host so few home games each.

Would the Tasmanian tax-payers accept that degree of largess and excess? The Tassie taxpayers would be rightly asking why their schools are falling apart, classes are over-crowded and hospitals and health care aren't up to scratch?

Alternatively, if a Hobart Stadium is to be built, they would have to significantly scale back their stadium ambitions for Hobart if football is indeed to be split between two cities as proposed. A new Hobart stadium might be roofed, but may lack a lot of the unrealistic gold plated bells and whistles that the AFL are demanding. Alternatively, it may prove much cheaper to spend $350 million to compulsorily acquire land around Blundstone Arena and build new stands around the entire stadium to create a natural wind block, construct a multi-level car park and to develop the water frontage to Blundstone. Also is a roof really necessary and why is the AFL demanding it? After all it only rains 626 mm (25 inches) per year in Hobart compared to Geelong's 522 mm (21 inches) and Adelaide's 520 mm. Heavens Perth gets 790 mm per-year (36 inches); and Brisbane gets 1200 mm (48 inches) per-year and the AFL doesn't demand a roof over the Gabba or Metricon. With a roof comes very high overhead running costs and turf maintenance issues, so in addition to the higher up-front cost of building a roofed stadium, the Tasmanian government would be saddled with a stadium that has significantly higher ongoing running costs.

It all begs the question of whether the AFL or Melbourne's AFL Clubs perhaps aren't secretly white-anting Tasmania's AFL bid by pricing Tasmania out of the game by placing unrealistic and unaffordable conditions upon the bid?

I believe there are a few misconceptions in your post.

1. Launceston doesn’t just serve 85,000 people. It’s the regional hub of Northern Tasmania so if you also include the satellite towns within 30 mins drive then the population is about 120,000. Also, the third main population region of Tassie is the NW coast (around 100,000) who are 1-2 hours drive from Launceston, yet 3-4 hours drive from Hobart. Therefore, if the club only plays games in Hobart, then you’re essentially resigning half of the state to a long commute to attend all home games.

2. The $200mill UTAS Stadium precinct plan is not just to upgrade the footy ground; it’s also to build a new high performance centre and basketball stadium so the Jack Jumpers can play some NBL games in the North of the state. Your comparisons with the cost of GMHBA, Townsville Stadium etc are irrelevant. It’s worth noting that in the case of basketball the Jack Jumpers and state government have recognised the benefits of games in Hobart and Launceston, the Hurricanes have as well.

3. The AFL taskforce report recommended that the AFL club should be based in Hobart, but play games at both ends of the state. This was supported by Colin Carter and is also supported by the state government because they want the economic benefits of hosting AFL games to be spread to both ends of the state.

4. Comparisons with the Gabba and Metricon re rainfall are also pointless due to the huge differences in climate between SE Qld and Tassie. The vast majority of Qld’s rainfall occurs during the summer when footy isn’t played whilst Tassie experiences most of its rain during the footy season. FWIW, I agree with you that a roofed stadium is excessive and unnecessary, but this shouldn’t be the example to justify that opinion.

 

[Roogal]

I believe there are a few misconceptions in your post.

1. Launceston doesn’t just serve 85,000 people. It’s the regional hub of Northern Tasmania so if you also include the satellite towns within 30 mins drive then the population is about 120,000. Also, the third main population region of Tassie is the NW coast (around 100,000) who are 1-2 hours drive from Launceston, yet 3-4 hours drive from Hobart. Therefore, if the club only plays games in Hobart, then you’re essentially resigning half of the state to a long commute to attend all home games.

2. The $200mill UTAS Stadium precinct plan is not just to upgrade the footy ground; it’s also to build a new high performance centre and basketball stadium so the Jack Jumpers can play some NBL games in the North of the state. Your comparisons with the cost of GMHBA, Townsville Stadium etc are irrelevant. It’s worth noting that in the case of basketball the Jack Jumpers and state government have recognised the benefits of games in Hobart and Launceston, the Hurricanes have as well.

3. The AFL taskforce report recommended that the AFL club should be based in Hobart, but play games at both ends of the state. This was supported by Colin Carter and is also supported by the state government because they want the economic benefits of hosting AFL games to be spread to both ends of the state.

4. Comparisons with the Gabba and Metricon re rainfall are also pointless due to the huge differences in climate between SE Qld and Tassie. The vast majority of Qld’s rainfall occurs during the summer when footy isn’t played whilst Tassie experiences most of its rain during the footy season. FWIW, I agree with you that a roofed stadium is excessive and unnecessary, but this shouldn’t be the example to justify that opinion.

Thank you for clarifying. Although you missed the point completely about populations and stadium usage. Launceston may sit as the regional capital of Northern Tasmania, but it still essentially sits in a population basin of 220,000 overall. A separate stadium in Hobart would service a population basin of approx 300,000. The two stadiums in Launceston and Hobart would only stage 4 and 7 AFL games respectively per year. I quoted Geelong (bigger population than Hobart) which sits in the heart of a more densely populated basin of the Surf Coast and the Bellarine Peninsula (400,000 people or 80% of the population of Tasmania) and whose stadium hosts 11 AFL games per season. Townsville is a unique situation because while it does host 11 home NRL games per year, it doesn't host much else. The Countrybank Stadium (as it is known) was totally Federally funded as a Pork Barrelling gift to buy 2016 election votes. The Queensland Government didn't invest a cent on it because their own auditing of the Townsville Stadium in 2018 during the early stages of its construction deemed that the 25,000 capacity venue would not be viable, would never fully pay its way, and end up being a money pit on the City of Townsville and the Queensland Government.

I understand the justification of investing $200 mil in Launceston on a number of venues and a precinct upgrade, no argument there. However, the very idea of spending as much as $750 mil in Hobart on a 7 game per-year venue seems totally ludicrous. If the proposal was $300 mil on a new 27,000 seat stadium then that is realistic because $300 mil would build a real showpiece for both AFL and cricket. Alternatively a $200-300 mil upgrade and expansion of the Blundstone Arena area coupled with waterfront development would be realistic too.

Only the Tasmanian tax-payers can answer whether they would be prepared to fund upward of $900(+) mil for the Hobart and Launceston venues. I am curious because I imagine that it must be generating a lot of discussion over there, particularly from other government sectors (Education, Health, Public Transport etc.). $900-$950 million is a massive investment for a state that has barely 8% of the population of Victoria (where some are arguing that $2.6 billion is an excessive amount to be spent on the Commonwealth Games and its venues in a few years). Certainly every time there is a ramping issue at a local hospital; or nurses, teachers or police start rallying for a pay rise in Tasmania, they will bring up the moneys being spent on the stadiums as their rallying cry to argue and build their case as to why they are getting short changed in their departments or under-paid. Goodness, Stevie Wonder can see that coming.

To give context, the SA government last year killed a $600 million plan to build a Rod Laver Arena style stadium in the heart of Adelaide adjacent to the Adelaide Oval on the grounds of excessive cost, choosing to invest the $600 mil back into the State's hospitals. It seems that $600 mil on a stadium was considered excessive in a state of 1.5 million. Further when we consider the grief that the NSW government got into a few years ago when it was proposed to rebuild Stadium Australia at a cost of $1.5 billion in a state of nearly 8 million people. In the end they were forced by the sheer weight of public opinion to scale back their ambitions considerably.

As I said in an earlier post, we on the mainland can only observe, but ultimately it is the Tasmanian people who will decide what they want or whether it can be afforded. We understand that there is a real desire for a dedicated State representative team in Tasmania, but it does seem to many of us from commentary here and in other threads that the AFL are placing ridiculous caveats and excessive venue requirements on the bid in order to secure the deal. More over the AFL does not have a great history of investing in Stadiums, instead leaving that up to governments to build their stadiums, so the AFL should in no way get to have any say at all in the stadium except that it meets capacity, corporate hosting, broadcasting and lighting requirements.

The existing stadiums have served the people of Tasmania, the AFL and Cricket Australia well for two decades now, and certainly nobody would argue against the ongoing development, upgrading or improvement of the existing stadiums even further (within the state's budgetary limitations) as it improves the facilities for both visitors and locals as well as helps to attract other major events. And I am sure that the Tasmanian people are acutely aware of that. In the end it is the Tasmanian people who will decide what they can or should afford and not the AFL or anybody on the mainland.

 

[The_JHF_Clinic]

I agree with much of what you’ve said. The taskforce plan was to have the initial UTAS upgrade ready for season one, with it to host the high-drawing games and BA to host games against the less-supported teams. Then after 3-4 years the new stadium would be built and it would be a 6-5 or 7-4 split of games in Hobart’s favour.

No one even contemplated a roofed stadium until Eddie came out 12 months ago and said it’s a “must”. Of course he (along with most mainland commentators) didn’t consider the nuances regarding Tasmania’s economy, politics, population distribution etc that make the delivery of such projects in Tasmania extremely unpopular and difficult (if not impossible).

If they scrapped the roof and were able to deliver the UTAS upgrade and new Hobart stadium for $600 mill approx then it would clearly be far more palatable for the locals. Generally, the Tas media has completely sensationalised the issue (since the opposition Labor party publicly opposed it) and failed to explain that a significant % of the costs would be federally funded anyway, which has added to the angst and opposition from some sections of the community.

From my perspective, upgrading BA would be a waste of time and money. The initial decision to develop it as Hobart’s main stadium was short-sighted because it was the cheapest option, instead of the best option. Two decades on and it no longer meets the requirements of 21st century sports fans, so at this stage, to pump more money into it would be ridiculous.

 

[Mr Taswegian]

I agree with much of what you’ve said. The taskforce plan was to have the initial UTAS upgrade ready for season one, with it to host the high-drawing games and BA to host games against the less-supported teams. Then after 3-4 years the new stadium would be built and it would be a 6-5 or 7-4 split of games in Hobart’s favour.

No one even contemplated a roofed stadium until Eddie came out 12 months ago and said it’s a “must”. Of course he (along with most mainland commentators) didn’t consider the nuances regarding Tasmania’s economy, politics, population distribution etc that make the delivery of such projects in Tasmania extremely unpopular and difficult (if not impossible).

If they scrapped the roof and were able to deliver the UTAS upgrade and new Hobart stadium for $600 mill approx then it would clearly be far more palatable for the locals. Generally, the Tas media has completely sensationalised the issue (since the opposition Labor party publicly opposed it) and failed to explain that a significant % of the costs would be federally funded anyway, which has added to the angst and opposition from some sections of the community.

From my perspective, upgrading BA would be a waste of time and money. The initial decision to develop it as Hobart’s main stadium was short-sighted because it was the cheapest option, instead of the best option. Two decades on and it no longer meets the requirements of 21st century sports fans, so at this stage, to pump more money into it would be ridiculous.

It would have to be a $300 million stadium in Hobart or nothing and of course UTAS will require an upgrade considering it will be the home of AFL up here in the my neck of the woods.

 

[Roogal]

No one even contemplated a roofed stadium until Eddie came out 12 months ago and said it’s a “must”. Of course he (along with most mainland commentators) didn’t consider the nuances regarding Tasmania’s economy, politics, population distribution etc that make the delivery of such projects in Tasmania extremely unpopular and difficult (if not impossible).

If they scrapped the roof and were able to deliver the UTAS upgrade and new Hobart stadium for $600 mill approx then it would clearly be far more palatable for the locals. Generally, the Tas media has completely sensationalised the issue (since the opposition Labor party publicly opposed it) and failed to explain that a significant % of the costs would be federally funded anyway, which has added to the angst and opposition from some sections of the community.

On your first point, F**K WHAT EDDIE MAGUIRE SAYS! Eddie is a dreamer who has far too much time on his hands and seems to be very good at dreaming up fanciful ways of spending gargantuan amounts of tax-payer money on stadiums that aren't needed (and there's a whole thread dedicated to this topic alone on BF) .

On your second point, Tasmania might strike it lucky and get an arrangement where the AFL, the Tas State Govt and the Fed Govt come up with some split funding arrangement for a new Hobart stadium. Although the AFL have a really poor record of funding stadium construction and development in the 21st Century. They left the construction of Metricon and redevelopment of the Gabba completely to the QLD Government, the re-construction of the Adelaide Oval entirely to Cricket SA and the SA State Govt, the construction of Optus Stadium was fully funded by the West Aussie Govt and of course the re-development of their own stadium (which is the AFL's own private property) at the Docklands is somehow being fully funded by the Vic State Govt.

The only reason that the AFL came on board to fund 30% of the construction of the Northern Stands at the MCG in 2004-2006 was because they were emphatically told by the State Government (who actually own the MCG) that the AFL would have no say in how the Northern Stands were to be built or have any future say in the ongoing usage of the MCG (after 2006) unless they contributed. The AFL haven't contributed a cent to GMHBA Stadium's redevelopment (2005-the present). So expect the AFL to demand the terms but not to put up much else.

The Federal Government certainly also have a chequered record when it comes to big stadium funding nationally. They have contributed very little to the development of the afore-mentioned stadiums with only one small exception. They have invested many times more into NSW and QLD rugby stadiums than any cricket ground/AFL stadium over the last 30 years (Consider Accor Stadium and Countrybank Stadium as cases in point). They made the terms of their original $90 million funding commitment so unrealistic for the MCG back in 2004-2006 that the Victorian Govt had to bite the bullet and pick up the $90 mil Federal share. Since then they have only contributed $5.5 million in Victoria to the installation of lights at GMHBA Stadium, so the grand total of Federal funding for major AFL Stadium contribution for Victoria since 2000 totals $5.5 million. For SA and WA it's been even less. Further, there is no commitment from the Federal Government to fund any stadium development in regional Victoria for the 2006 Comm Games, so it appears that the costs associated with redevelopment and upgrading Mars Stadium will be borne up by the Ballarat Council and the State Government.

Below: Country Bank Stadium Townsville - Cost $250 million - 25,000 capacity - Urban population 185,000 - Population within 120km radius 210,000.
Fully Federally funded.​

Below: Kardinia Park Geelong - Redevelopment cost $250 million - 40,000 capacity - Urban population 269,000 - Population within 50km radius 510,000.
At least the Federal Government coughed up $5.5 mil for the new lights.​

Before development 2004



After development 2025


Considering that there is a new Federal government, Tasmania may be able to make a successful case based upon tourism potential and inner-urban redevelopment of disused crown land in inner Hobart for at least a 30-33% shared funding arrangement. But based upon their history and a $280 billion deficit, I wouldn't place too much hope on Federal Government picking up any significant share of the cost. GOOD LUCK!

 

[Gibbke]

On your first point, F**K WHAT EDDIE MAGUIRE SAYS! Eddie is a dreamer who has far too much time on his hands and seems to be very good at dreaming up fanciful ways of spending gargantuan amounts of tax-payer money on stadiums that aren't needed (and there's a whole thread dedicated to this topic alone on BF) .

No, he's the opposite. He's a very astute operator who knows how to articulate his position, and then use his accumulated clout to get what he wants...

His North Melbourne proposal is a very good one if you're thinking like a suit or a mainlander. Suits want rationalisation so North has to go, and they want the TV product to appeal to Victorians. Mainlanders have no clue as to what Tasmanians think or their ability to spend, and don't gaf as to their footy legacy even though a disproportionate four members of their Team of the Century come from Tassie. Eddie has thought through a proposal that appeals to the boardroom, and benefits Collingwood...

And this is what the Tassie bid is up against.