Hobart Stadium: $750 million cost

[Ratdweller]

Albatross? FFS its an investment, a 50 year investment. Something still has to be built on the parcel of land. Its an old industrial site that been there with sheds & crap on it for over 40 years!!! Nothing else will invigorate the city like the Stadium/Convention centre complex. Even the city council economic review said it'd be worth $180million p.a to the city & create over 800 full time equivalent jobs. The Devils alone will create some 150 jobs, including players. They bring guaranteed $375million from the AFL in the first decade of operation. The business case says why the stadium is needed. The position ensures maximum economic benefit for local businesses in the city & waterfront area. The same effect that the new stadium provided to Townsville, being closer to the CBD. Also a scaled down positive effect like the Adelaide oval provided to the Adelaide CBD.
The TPC is a planning assessment tool. It knocks back most developments. The Government overruled it last year regards the Stony rise development in Devonport. The community needed & wanted that facility. So the TPC isn't the final arbiter. The things they mention will be reviewed, but Government will push on, as they should.

An investment which three independent high level and government sponsored reviews have all concluded will never pay itself off. In February this year a survey of Tasmania's four Federal Electorates revealed that three of them were overwhelmingly against the stadium, and the only one that was in favour contains Hobart, and even then it was 51% in favour and 49% against. That is not overwhelming support in any persons book.

The State Government might attempt to bulldoze this project through Parliament by ignoring all advice, but it could ultimately bring them down if they are seen to be blatantly ignoring the voter's leaving the state with a powerful legacy of debt and a huge white elephant. For every hospital not built or upgraded, for any deterioration of the state's school system and infrastructure, Tasmanians will no doubt salve themselves in at least having a 23,000 seat indoor footy stadium in Hobart. They certainly won't let the Premier or his government forget it. But, as long as the visiting footy fans from Melbourne are happy, because as we all know, Victorians don't give a s*** about debt.

I am glad that you mentioned Townsville, because that stadium was entirely paid for by the Turnbull Federal government, which was a massive pork barreling gift that cashed in on the wave of emotions in NQ falling out from the NQ Cowboys 2015 Premiership win. It got funded for nothing more than to buy the Federal seat of Herbert in the forthcoming 2016 Federal election. The Queensland state government reluctantly contributed 50% of the construction cost because their own business case modelling and subsequent report had warned them that its construction cost and ongoing operating costs would never be recovered by its projected revenues over a 40 year life span. More over the Townsville stadium seats 25,000 and compared with the Hobart proposal cost a mere $250 million to build. Yet there is a clear pro Hobart Stadium minority trying to convince a significant anti stadium majority that a $1.2 billion 23,000 capacity stadium in Hobart can somehow break even when there has not been one report that supports the viability of this proposal. GOD, no wonder this country is in a sea debt (and that Australia is paying $50 million per day in interest on its Federal government debts alone) that our Grandkids will still be paying off 60 years from now.

 

[Seedsfan]

An investment which three independent high level and government sponsored reviews have all concluded will never pay itself off. In February this year a survey of Tasmania's four Federal Electorates revealed that three of them were overwhelmingly against the stadium, and the only one that was in favour contains Hobart, and even then it was 51% in favour and 49% against. That is not overwhelming support in any persons book.

The State Government might attempt to bulldoze this project through Parliament by ignoring all advice, but it could ultimately bring them down if they are seen to be blatantly ignoring the voter's leaving the state with a powerful legacy of debt and a huge white elephant. For every hospital not built or upgraded, for any deterioration of the state's school system and infrastructure, Tasmanians will no doubt salve themselves in at least having a 23,000 seat indoor footy stadium in Hobart. They certainly won't let the Premier or his government forget it. But, as long as the visiting footy fans from Melbourne are happy, because as we all know, Victorians don't give a s*** about debt.

I am glad that you mentioned Townsville, because that stadium was entirely paid for by the Turnbull Federal government, which was a massive pork barreling gift that cashed in on the wave of emotions in NQ falling out from the NQ Cowboys 2015 Premiership win. It got funded for nothing more than to buy the Federal seat of Herbert in the forthcoming 2016 Federal election. The Queensland state government reluctantly contributed 50% of the construction cost because their own business case modelling and subsequent report had warned them that its construction cost and ongoing operating costs would never be recovered by its projected revenues over a 40 year life span. More over the Townsville stadium seats 25,000 and compared with the Hobart proposal cost a mere $250 million to build. Yet there is a clear pro Hobart Stadium minority trying to convince a significant anti stadium majority that a $1.2 billion 23,000 capacity stadium in Hobart can somehow break even when there has not been one report that supports the viability of this proposal. GOD, no wonder this country is in a sea debt (and that Australia is paying $50 million per day in interest on its Federal government debts alone) that our Grandkids will still be paying off 60 years from now.

Cool we will keep the comp at 18 teams and Tassie will further fade into irrelevance

 

[Ratdweller]

Cool we will keep the comp at 18 teams and Tassie will further fade into irrelevance

I stand by what I said earlier: "AFL can work in Tassie in the two existing venues, but they simply don't need that $1.2 billion albatross hanging around their necks."

A significantly more modest $150 million per venue spent on each of the two existing stadium's would give spectators excellent comfort and amenities, player facilities that would be as good as any in the land and not break the state's coffers.

 

[Seedsfan]

I stand by what I said earlier: "AFL can work in Tassie in the two existing venues, but they simply don't need that $1.2 billion albatross hanging around their necks."

A significantly more modest $150 million per venue spent on each of the two existing stadium's would give spectators excellent comfort and amenities, player facilities that would be as good as any in the land and not break the state's coffers.

Split games across two dumps with poor corporate facilities straight out of the West Tigers play book and we can see how great they are going

 

[Section 5]

Split games across two dumps with poor corporate facilities straight out of the West Tigers play book and we can see how great they are going

And yet they are playing there already.
Not that i agree about Victorian teams playing in Tasie in the first place.
The two teams playing in the state is also costing the Tasmanian government money
They of course argue it boost tourism in the area.
It does, but overall is it worth the outlay

Also, if lots of people do travel what % of the crowd is local v interstate

 

[Seedsfan]

And yet they are playing there already.
Not that i agree about Victorian teams playing in Tasie in the first place.
The two teams playing in the state is also costing the Tasmanian government money
They of course argue it boost tourism in the area.
It does, but overall is it worth the outlay

Also, if lots of people do travel what % of the crowd is local v interstate


View attachment 2430118

It’s like saying playing games in Alice means Traeger Park is ready to host an AFL team full time

 

[Section 5]

Regarding posters who think the Tasmania government should just go ahead and make the city relevant in the sporting world or the world in general.
That's all well and good but have those posters considered where Tasmania gets their revenue from.
WA and Queensland get huge revenue from big deposits of iron ore, coal and gas.
Other states also have the ability to get revenue from way more arears than Tasmania.
Because of Tasmania's small population, raising taxes won't get them out of the debt issue and would infuriate the locals.

Tasmania's revenue graph below:
The vast majority of their money comes from GST and Government grants (schools/hospitals etc)
They can argue for a better deal on those but can't themselves directly increase this revenue stream.

To pay off their ballooning debt they can't rely on royalties like say Qld & WA.
They just have taxation (light blue) a reasonable but still smallish slice of the pie.
Then the smallest piece being "Other" revenue.

In my opinion the Government would be better spending way smaller amounts of money to improve the site that is reasonably close to the city.
Better still put it to private enterprise to see what they believe will make money and improve the city overall.

This way they should be able to afford upgrades to the two existing ovals used at present.

Also, the thread title should probably change to indicate a figure over $1 billion. Or add in brackets (now $1+ billion)

 

[Billy ray]

the Feds could pay them say $600m (pretend tassie is PNG NRL team)

 

[Teen Wolf]

They'll have to settle for $240m from the Federal government and $360m from the AFL, which is a lot better than the $0 they'd be getting if they chose to redevelop Bellerive instead.

 

[Section 5]

They'll have to settle for $240m from the Federal government and $360m from the AFL, which is a lot better than the $0 they'd be getting if they chose to redevelop Bellerive instead.

The AFL have only committed $15 million into the stadium construction. A token amount really.

The other $360 million of AFL funds come after its construction and over a decade.

The federal government would defiantly come to partly funding redevelopment of the other grounds.
As long as the state contributed their larger share of the funds.

 

[Teen Wolf]

The AFL have only committed $15 million into the stadium construction. A token amount really.

The other $360 million of AFL funds come after its construction and over a decade.

Meaning the stadium doesn't get built without the AFL's $360m commitment.

The federal government would defiantly come to partly funding redevelopment of the other grounds.
As long as the state contributed their larger share of the funds.

Wow they'd defiantly do that, would they? As in defy previous statements by Anthony Albanese (who would be pissed if Tassie didn't follow through on Mac Point)?

 

[Section 5]

**Meaning the stadium doesn't get built without the AFL's $360m commitment.


***Wow they'd defiantly do that, would they? As in defy previous statements by Anthony Albanese (who would be pissed if Tassie didn't follow through on Mac Point)?

** Well it is an agreement binding all parties. The AFL will pay their commitment if everything falls into place
The agreement is subject to lots of other things like a roof and 50% penalties if not finished on time.
The AFL outsmarted the state government.
If things don't progress as agreed upon, the AFL just pulls out. If things progress but delayed the State is up for penalties.


*** Of course they would if everything fell through.
However, it would be up to the State to approach the Commonwealth not the other way around.

The problem is if everything falls over, the state can just forget about AFL in general other than the North and Hawks agreements

You (in Victoria) and i (in Qld.) won't have to pay anything if the stadium goes ahead.
The people of Tasmania will cop the burden

 

[Teen Wolf]

Well it is an agreement binding all parties. The AFL will pay their commitment if everything falls into place
The agreement is subject to lots of other things like a roof and 50% penalties if not finished on time.
The AFL outsmarted the state government.
If things don't progress as agreed upon, the AFL just pulls out. If things progress but delayed the State is up for penalties.

"we will build a new roofed CBD stadium"
"cool, when?"
"By 2029"
"put it in writing and we'll give you a team, plus $360m"

Behold the AFL, master manipulators!

Of course they would if everything fell through.
However, it would be up to the State to approach the Commonwealth not the other way around.

The problem is if everything falls over, the state can just forget about AFL in general other than the North and Hawks agreements

You (in Victoria) and i (in Qld.) won't have to pay anything if the stadium goes ahead.
The people of Tasmania will cop the burden

Plenty of stadiums have not received federal funding. There's only one guarantee of Hobart getting stadium funding from the Australian government. It's either delusional or disingenuous to say they'd definitely fund an alternative after being slapped in the face.

And btw your last statement is even more absurd. It's not Tasmania, but taxpayers from every other state, bearing the burden of Albanese's $240m pledge.

 

[Section 5]

"we will build a new roofed CBD stadium"
"cool, when?"
"By 2029"
"put it in writing and we'll give you a team, plus $360m"

Behold the AFL, master manipulators!


Plenty of stadiums have not received federal funding. There's only one guarantee of Hobart getting stadium funding from the Australian government. It's either delusional or disingenuous to say they'd definitely fund an alternative after being slapped in the face.

And btw your last statement is even more absurd. It's not Tasmania, but taxpayers from every other state, bearing the burden of Albanese's $240m pledge.

Your first part is just weird and does not deserve a reply.

The second.
Wow
That may have slipped my mind, NOT
So, Tasmania pays what could be a total of around $1.5 billion divided by a population of 576,000. that they can't afford.
And the rest of Australia's population of 27.5 million (that also included Tasmania by the way) pay $240 million
......................

‘Too big for the site’: Tasmanian AFL stadium should not be built, says independent planning commission

Proposed Macquarie Point venue a condition for state entering AFL in 2028, but report argues it would cause ‘unacceptable adverse impacts on Hobart’

www.theguardian.com

On the financial cost, the commission estimated the project would saddle Tasmania with a $1bn debt, rising to $1.8bn over a decade, far exceeding the state government’s pledged contribution of $375m.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Your first part is just weird and does not deserve a reply.

The second.
Wow
That may have slipped my mind, NOT
So, Tasmania pays what could be a total of around $1.5 billion divided by a population of 576,000. that they can't afford.
And the rest of Australia's population of 27.5 million (that also included Tasmania by the way) pay $240 million
......................

‘Too big for the site’: Tasmanian AFL stadium should not be built, says independent planning commission

Proposed Macquarie Point venue a condition for state entering AFL in 2028, but report argues it would cause ‘unacceptable adverse impacts on Hobart’

www.theguardian.com

On the financial cost, the commission estimated the project would saddle Tasmania with a $1bn debt, rising to $1.8bn over a decade, far exceeding the state government’s pledged contribution of $375m.

The rest of Australia, despite contributing $240m, doesn't get a new roofed stadium and new AFL team in their state, genius.

Everybody with a pulse knows Tasmanians will benefit well beyond the inflated costs that 80-year-old handwringers love to spew.

The Tasmanian government initiated the idea of a new stadium. You can't think of a response to that fact. And nobody cares.

 

[Section 5]

The rest of Australia, despite contributing $240m, doesn't get a new roofed stadium and new AFL team in their state, genius.

Everybody with a pulse knows Tasmanians will benefit well beyond the inflated costs that 80-year-old handwringers love to spew.

The Tasmanian government initiated the idea of a new stadium. You can't think of a response to that fact. And nobody cares.

You obviously believe and that's your prerogative:
1- A new team and new Stadium in Tasmania is needed
2- It is affordable to Tasmanians
3- If built it will pay for itself.

I am not about to go back and forth with you. I have no idea about your posting history.

Any figures i quoted are either from the Bureau of Statistics, the Tasmanian State’s Planning Commissions recent report or the AFL themselves.

I will leave it up to others interested in the new stadium to make up their own minds.

 

[Teen Wolf]

I am not about to go back and forth with you. I have no idea about your posting history.

I have no idea about your posting history, either. No... wait. You're the poster who told me the Palaszczuk government will "eat the Brisbane Lions alive" for refusing to play out of Carrara for 4 years.

How'd that turn out? ha ha ha ha ha

Somehow I don't think Jeremy Rockliff will be soliciting your political advice.

 

[kranger]

The second.
Wow
That may have slipped my mind, NOT
So, Tasmania pays what could be a total of around $1.5 billion divided by a population of 576,000. that they can't afford.
And the rest of Australia's population of 27.5 million (that also included Tasmania by the way) pay $240 million
......................

‘Too big for the site’: Tasmanian AFL stadium should not be built, says independent planning commission

Proposed Macquarie Point venue a condition for state entering AFL in 2028, but report argues it would cause ‘unacceptable adverse impacts on Hobart’

www.theguardian.com

On the financial cost, the commission estimated the project would saddle Tasmania with a $1bn debt, rising to $1.8bn over a decade, far exceeding the state government’s pledged contribution of $375m.

In regards to how much the rest of Australian’s will be paying… just going back to your earlier post…

Regarding posters who think the Tasmania government should just go ahead and make the city relevant in the sporting world or the world in general.
That's all well and good but have those posters considered where Tasmania gets their revenue from.
WA and Queensland get huge revenue from big deposits of iron ore, coal and gas.
Other states also have the ability to get revenue from way more arears than Tasmania.
Because of Tasmania's small population, raising taxes won't get them out of the debt issue and would infuriate the locals.

Tasmania's revenue graph below:
The vast majority of their money comes from GST and Government grants (schools/hospitals etc)
They can argue for a better deal on those but can't themselves directly increase this revenue stream.

To pay off their ballooning debt they can't rely on royalties like say Qld & WA.
They just have taxation (light blue) a reasonable but still smallish slice of the pie.
Then the smallest piece being "Other" revenue.

In my opinion the Government would be better spending way smaller amounts of money to improve the site that is reasonably close to the city.
Better still put it to private enterprise to see what they believe will make money and improve the city overall.

This way they should be able to afford upgrades to the two existing ovals used at present.

Also, the thread title should probably change to indicate a figure over $1 billion. Or add in brackets (now $1+ billion)


View attachment 2430132

More than one-third of Tasmania’s revenue comes from GST distribution (which Tasmania receives 1.7x more than it contributes https://www.cgc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-03/Occasional Paper 11.2 - GST distribution to states and territories in 2024-25 final version.pdf )

Tasmania also gets another one-fourth of its revenue from Federal grants…

I.e in addition to the budget that the Federal government will pay for, then of the portion that Tasmania does pay for the Stadium out of its state budget, a significant portion of that state budget is also funded by the mainland.

 

[Section 5]

In regards to how much the rest of Australian’s will be paying… just going back to your earlier post…


More than one-third of Tasmania’s revenue comes from GST distribution (which Tasmania receives 1.7x more than it contributes https://www.cgc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-03/Occasional Paper 11.2 - GST distribution to states and territories in 2024-25 final version.pdf )

Tasmania also gets another one-fourth of its revenue from Federal grants…

I.e in addition to the budget that the Federal government will pay for, then of the portion that Tasmania does pay for the Stadium out of its state budget, a significant portion of that state budget is also funded by the mainland.

Thats correct.
They rely too heavily on revenue from the commonwealth as i pointed out.
Even with that revenue stream which they have no control over, they still find themselves in a bad debt situation.
In other words even with the majority of their revenue coming from the Commonwealth (mainland) they struggle to pay what is already owed.

To pay off any additional debt the State Government can't increase that revenue stream.
However, this mainland revenue stream likely increases each year, but so does all the state expenses
They will have to find the extra stadium money from taxation or the smaller "other revenue". Thats unlikely.
Governments can always find money if they want to and go down the austerity path.
Thats a quick way to get voted out though.
So, the likely outcome is more borrowing and more debt.

The below article came out a month before the Tasmanian election.

.....................................

https://www.sauleslake.info/wp-content/uploads/2025-06-25-Tasmanias-public-finances-a-comparison-in-eight-charts.pdf

Below the second last page 5 of 7

And finally, as noted above with regard to the 'general government' sector, these figures for the non-financial public sector exclude unfunded superannuation liabilities. Tasmania's GBES have more of those (in dollars) than any other jurisdiction's except NSW. So when you include them, Tasmania's non-financial public sector net financial liabilities are projected to increase by 12.8 percentage points of GSP over the next four years (compared with an average of only 2.5 pc points of GSP across all states and territories), to 60.2% of GSP by 30th June 2029. Again, that is by a wide margin the largest of any state or territory - the next highest is the Norther Territory with 44.0% of GSP by 30th June 2029, and then Victoria with 37.2% - and well above the all-states-and-territories average of 29.7% of GSP



The clear message from all of this is that Tasmania cannot afford another election like the last three have been - where the winner carries commitments to spend upwards of $1½ billion over the following four years, without having uttered a word as to how that additional spending might be paid for. Indeed, Tasmania can't really afford to spend all of what's already in the forward estimates in the most recent budget, unless whoever wins the forthcoming election is prepared to take steps to raise additional revenue, or is willing to cut some of the spending which is already in those forward estimates. So far, the parties contesting next month's election are promising to spend money without saying, in any meaningful or credible detail, how they're proposing to pay for it - albeit that, so far, the numbers are more modest than in the past three election campaigns.

 

[Section 5]

The AFL require the stadium completed for the start of the 2029 season
So, i assume it must be ready by September/October 2028 for trials and testing etc.

Below article mentions the vote won't happen till the end of 2025.
If passed by the lower house it then goes to the senate.
Thats cutting things very close being just a 3-year construction timeframe.

Gale: It would break my heart if Tassie stadium is not approved

“So, if there is no stadium, that is a material change to the deal."

www.sen.com.au

"The vote on whether the stadium is to be approved or not is set to take place is likely to take place towards the end of the year."

 

[Teen Wolf]

The ramifications of not meeting construction and availability dates will be insignificant, in the grand scheme of things, as long as there is progress.

The AFL will just keep pushing back the sunset date. Plus, the government's $4.5m additional payment to the club gets refunded on a pro rata basis.

 

[Ratdweller]

Split games across two dumps with poor corporate facilities straight out of the West Tigers play book and we can see how great they are going

Dumps? Have you actually been to GWS home ground? It's currently on par in every way with UTAS stadium and yet it is considered good enough to be an AFL home ground. Ninja Stadium in its present form features excellent corporate facilities and a more modest $150 million would replace the existing 6000 capacity standing hill with an extra 10,000 covered seats. A $150 mil investment at that Ninja would easily put it on par with Kardinia Park for amenities. $150 million spent at UTAS would replace all of its existing scaffold stands with permanent stands and provide permanent bar and catering facilities to make it as good as any ground in the AFL. What else could they possibly want?

Oh yeah, that's right a roof! A damn expensive roof to cover a stadium in Hobart, a city that gets half of the annual rainfall of Sydney and Brisbane, yet the AFL has never demanded that the SCG, ENGIE Stadium, or the new Victoria Park Stadium must have a roof. Simply the AFL want a gold plated solution because somebody else is paying for it. For the money proposed to be wasted at Macquarie Point, you could install solid gold dunny seats equipped with warmed bidet sprayers in every toilet at both UTAS and Ninja. Yes Hobart can get cold, but footy is indeed a Winter sport and spectators going to the footy in Hobart in the main have the good sense to be dressed for the occasion. Perhaps warmed bidets in the loos would keep the punters bottoms warm ... At least they wouldn't be freezing their a***** off.

 

[Teen Wolf]

...UTAS has 13,106 seats. And somehow that's "on par" with the 23k seats at the Giants' home ground?


Also, Bellerive has 12k seats:



Pretty clear it's impossible to build anything close to a 10,000-seat grandstand on that tiny hill.

 

[madmug]

Dumps? Have you actually been to GWS home ground? It's currently on par in every way with UTAS stadium and yet it is considered good enough to be an AFL home ground. Ninja Stadium in its present form features excellent corporate facilities and a more modest $150 million would replace the existing 6000 capacity standing hill with an extra 10,000 covered seats. A $150 mil investment at that Ninja would easily put it on par with Kardinia Park for amenities. $150 million spent at UTAS would replace all of its existing scaffold stands with permanent stands and provide permanent bar and catering facilities to make it as good as any ground in the AFL. What else could they possibly want?

Oh yeah, that's right a roof! A damn expensive roof to cover a stadium in Hobart, a city that gets half of the annual rainfall of Sydney and Brisbane, yet the AFL has never demanded that the SCG, ENGIE Stadium, or the new Victoria Park Stadium must have a roof. Simply the AFL want a gold plated solution because somebody else is paying for it. For the money proposed to be wasted at Macquarie Point, you could install solid gold dunny seats equipped with warmed bidet sprayers in every toilet at both UTAS and Ninja. Yes Hobart can get cold, but footy is indeed a Winter sport and spectators going to the footy in Hobart in the main have the good sense to be dressed for the occasion. Perhaps warmed bidets in the loos would keep the punters bottoms warm ... At least they wouldn't be freezing their a***** off.

I don't know where you get the idea its a roofed stadium FOR the AFL. Its a roofed stadium to improve the facility for ALL sports & events it holds. The roof was proposed by the TasGov's task force, not the AFL. As was the idea of an attached Convention centre. All within a short walk of the CBD & Waterfront area. An inner city stadium means small businesses, pubs, eateries etc would benefit from events at the nearby stadium. That is the biggest advantage over Boot Park which was always a stupid place to build a stadium. The Dunedin roofed stadium is most probably where they roof idea came from. The advantage here is that we'll see cricket on the ground too. At least T20 to start with.

 

[The_Wookie]

The Dunedin roofed stadium is most probably where they roof idea came from.

As opposed to the only other AFL stadium in the world with a roof...Docklands? lol

But Adelaide is the model in terms of location and events.