Mac Point Stadium! - "Tas Says Yes!"

[TassieSaint]

Yeah I never understood that conspiracy theory. If this all falls over, the optics for the league will be absolutely horrendous, especially at a time when NRL is expanding seemingly successfully. Not to mention the time and money invested by them already. If they didn't want the team they just would've said no, as they have multiple times before.

The difference this time is we presented a viable business case, a business case that only stacks up with the stadium.

 

[Truetiger]

- on LiSTNR

play.listnr.com

Triple M, worth listening

 

[TassieSaint]

- on LiSTNR

play.listnr.com

Triple M, worth listening

Not his best performance tbh but I think he's being careful not to attack the commision process or members too much for political reasons. It seems the approach is more brush it off rather than convince the public it's wrong. Maybe that's wise idk but I hope he's more convincing behind closed doors with the upper house MLCs.

 

[Hodgey 15]

Rockliff to push stadium order through parliament on November 4

Rockliff to put stadium order through parliament on November 4

Rockliff revealed the date at a sports luncheon, where he was urged to be ‘bold’…

pulsetasmania.com.au

 

[Truetiger]

Rockliff to push stadium order through parliament on November 4

Rockliff to put stadium order through parliament on November 4

Rockliff revealed the date at a sports luncheon, where he was urged to be ‘bold’…

pulsetasmania.com.au

Let’s hope we get the numbers, gives him time to figure it out.

 

[TassieSaint]

Would like it to be a lot sooner than that. What does that do to construction timelines? The original legislation was supposed to be July right.

I'm sure there's political reasons but jeez this is dragging out.

 

[The_Wookie]

Would like it to be a lot sooner than that. What does that do to construction timelines? The original legislation was supposed to be July right.

I'm sure there's political reasons but jeez this is dragging out.

a bonus election of two will throw a spanner in the works

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Tim Lane was on 5aa radio suggesting that AFLs terms of building a new stadium in Hobart was intended to fail knowing the state politics.

I dont think they want to cancel the team necessarily but the afl certainly wanted to tip in as little of their own money as possible and not expose themselves to financial risks if the date or costs overran. And they were banking on rockliff being a moron and not knowing how to negotiate a better contract which he is.

 

[The Blue Weirdo]

Why is the North Hobart oval not an acceptable site to develop the new Stadium?
Perhaps over a period of time even.

 

[fargothegreat]

Why is the North Hobart oval not an acceptable site to develop the new Stadium?
Perhaps over a period of time even.

No room

 

[TassieSaint]

MRW someone once again brings up an alternative location that was dismissed in lengthy reports years ago before the license was even awarded

 

[The Blue Weirdo]

MRW someone once again brings up an alternative location that was dismissed in lengthy reports years ago before the license was even awarded
View attachment 2433392

Aaand the MacPoint sight hasn' been dismissed I've noticed?

 

[TassieSaint]

Aaand the MacPoint sight hasn' been dismissed I've noticed?

If you're referring to the POSS report then yes, that is correct. They're claiming it is too big from a visual impact / amenity POV (which is subjective) and too expensive, not that there's something inherently unfeasible about the site itself. Obviously a large, vacant, centrally located site is a better idea than an already undersized and hemmed in ground in suburbia.

 

[fargothegreat]

Aaand the MacPoint sight hasn' been dismissed I've noticed?

There was a whole site selection study done by MCS ranking a bunch of different sites on a whole heap of factors. Mac Point & Regatta Point's scores were much higher than the other options (4 different sites along the domain including the existing TCA ground).

North Hobart Oval wasn't assessed due to not being big enough.

My personal preference has been Regatta Point due to the reduced visual impact, but I can understand why they've gone with Mac Point given it's much less risky site to build on.

The government's strategy is to let the private developers take on the risk of developing Regatta Point into housing, etc. after the stadium is built to recoup some of the costs.

 

[madmug]

MRW someone once again brings up an alternative location that was dismissed in lengthy reports years ago before the license was even awarded
View attachment 2433392

Most simply don't read. We have a comprehensive business case, done by the Government, not the AFL, that explains why the stadium. Its also a Stadium/convention centre complex. Its not just for footy. Its for a broader use than that. The Devils are the stadium anchor tenants. I think T20 will follow. The convention centre is badly needed.

 

[fargothegreat]

Most simply don't read. We have a comprehensive business case, done by the Government, not the AFL, that explains why the stadium. Its also a Stadium/convention centre complex. Its not just for footy. Its for a broader use than that. The Devils are the stadium anchor tenants. I think T20 will follow. The convention centre is badly needed.

People genuinely think the government is building a stadium at Mac Point because the AFL told them to.

 

[fargothegreat]

I still can't understand why Mac Point 2.0 isn't being considered as an alternative stadium. The two big criticisms in the TPC report were the visual impact of such a large building on the skyline of the waterfront and the cost to government.

Mac Point 2.0 addresses both of these.

 

[Never 9th]

I wonder if between now and Nov 4th there will be a push for the feds to cough up some more $.

how much are they giving Brissy again? $3.4B isn't it?

surely they can cough up another $200M - $300M for poor old Tassie.

...c'mon albo, help a brother out.

 

[The_Wookie]

I still can't understand why Mac Point 2.0 isn't being considered as an alternative stadium. The two big criticisms in the TPC report were the visual impact of such a large building on the skyline of the waterfront and the cost to government.

Mac Point 2.0 addresses both of these.

MacPoint 2 drastically underestimates the financial and environmental cost of land reclamation, and exists solely to feather the beds of the Federal Group and the like

 

[fargothegreat]

MacPoint 2 drastically underestimates the financial and environmental cost of land reclamation, and exists solely to feather the beds of the Federal Group and the like

Cost overruns sit with the developer under that proposal though, so if they'd underestimated it would be their problem.

I think it's probably too late to change now anyway. Labor has just confirmed support for the existing stadium.

 

[BoomerRoo]

MacPoint 2 drastically underestimates the financial and environmental cost of land reclamation, and exists solely to feather the beds of the Federal Group and the like

Never trust Paul Lennon.....

 

[TassieSaint]

I wonder if between now and Nov 4th there will be a push for the feds to cough up some more $.

how much are they giving Brissy again? $3.4B isn't it?

surely they can cough up another $200M - $300M for poor old Tassie.

...c'mon albo, help a brother out.

Maybe if the local federal member put his hand out for more $$$, when instead he's writing to the PM to tell him to cancel the funding

Realistically though I don't think we'll see anything more from the feds, there's not much political capital to be gained from them there. Maybe a bail out increase down the road if costs do blow out further.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Perhaps on reflection there should have been a referendum on the whole stadium thing, and then we would know if the people of Tassie was for or against the new stadium. Just saying

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Perhaps on reflection there should have been a referendum on the whole stadium thing, and then we would know if the people of Tassie was for or against the new stadium. Just saying

No, that's precisely why we have representative democracy and actual experts and leaders with balls, who understand things like development and vision for the future. You want your 74 year old retiree who will may very well pass on before the team comes into existence to vote on whether Tasmania should have a future or not?

 

[Aussie in exile]

No, that's precisely why we have representative democracy and actual experts and leaders with balls, who understand things like development and vision for the future. You want your 74 year old retiree who will may very well pass on before the team comes into existence to vote on whether Tasmania should have a future or not?

Was the stadium proposal in any of the parties manifesto at the last election?