Tasmania Team entering 2028. VFL team 2026. Gov has votes to pass Upper House. Official vote 4/12. Job almost done lads - congrats!

[Jack Mundy]

Is there anything you can invest in Tasmania that will see a positive return on investment though.

If you ran the same economic modelling that has been run on the stadium through any investment project, it would show a negative return for anything, because Tasmania is a failing state where half the kids don't finish high school, is full of cranky retirees that only want money to prolong their miserable lives rather than leave behind a better future for their state after they're dead, and the tourism that Tasmania gets is essentially a bunch of naked weirdos who run in a river (which naturally has a ceiling in its appeal) rather than the mass market appeal of the most popular sports competition in the nation and other events such as major concerts.

If we accept that we have to make some investment in Tasmania though, the obligation is on you to come up with an idea that structurally changes Tasmania's demographics and economy, as opposed to just screaming "healthcare! hospitals!" as if it's a solution for planning for the future of Tasmania.

So according to you nothing is Tasmania returns money, but you want to spend billions on project there?! Being serious, AFL shouldn't have demanded roof or even Hobart location. I think they thought Tassie government weren't dumb enough to agree. They were wrong.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

So according to you nothing is Tasmania returns money, but you want to spend billions on project there?!

You misunderstand me.

I'm saying that running any economic model of a return on investment for any infrastructure product whatsoever would return a cents on the dollar outcome, because the inputs of such economic modelling are a reflection of a Tasmanian economy that is poor. People in Tasmania don't have a lot of money to fuel an economy, because it is an aging uneducated society that doesn't have industry or tourism. The idea of the stadium is to change the fundamentals of the Tasmanian economy, or to at least get the ball rolling on that, ie, to not make it an aging state that has uneducated people without tourism. Essentially change the inputs into the economic modelling that assumes (incorrectly) that the nature of the Tasmanian economy will be unchanged over the life of the stadium.

By extension, and following the logic that you shouldn't build a stadium on the economic modelling that returns 53c on the dollar, you wouldn't build any infrastructure in Tasmania because any figure would be less than 100c per dollar for any infrastructure project whatsoever, which would lead to the outcome that you wouldn't build anything at all in Tasmania, which is obviously a preposterous answer because society marches forward through infrastructure that leads to developing and more complex economies. And hospital beds don't change the nature of Tasmanian society for the better that a stadium and AFL team might.

Being serious, AFL shouldn't have demanded roof or even Hobart location. I think they thought Tassie government weren't dumb enough to agree. They were wrong.

Being serious, the AFL absolutely needs a 20,000+ seat home stadium as the primary stadium for any teams - the economics of running an AFL team to be simply operational dictates a certain level of revenue generated from being able to sell expensive tickets in modern stadiums that all 18 existing clubs are able to do.

Suggesting a Tasmania team could be based out of, what, Launceston, is even more ridiculous because no players or staff would want to live there nor is the population enough to actually generate revenue for a team. You're the one not being serious.

The AFL didn't demand a roof. The Tasmanian government brought the idea of a roof to the AFL, because the Tasmanian Government sees uses for the stadium beyond big field grass sports (conferences, JackJumpers playoff games, etc.) that are worth the extra cost that a roof brings. The AFL agrees that a roof would be better obviously and agreed to it but the AFL was never actually forced to make a decision on whether they'd introduce a team without a roof or whether they'd ask for one, before the Tasmania government said we'll build a roof anyway (which you should know if you know enough about the development of this team). You don't even know the basic timeline and facts of the events unfolding with how the AFL and Tasmanian government communicated yet you want to criticise.

 

[Jack Mundy]

You misunderstand me.

I'm saying that running any economic model of a return on investment would return a cents on the dollar outcome, because the inputs of such economic modelling are a reflection of a Tasmanian economy that is poor.

By extension, and following the logic that you shouldn't build a stadium on the economic modelling that returns 53c on the dollar, you wouldn't build any infrastructure in Tasmania because any figure would be less than 100c per dollar for any infrastructure project whatsoever, which would lead to the outcome that you wouldn't build anything at all in Tasmania, which is obviously a preposterous answer because society marches forward through infrastructure that leads to developing and more complex economies.

Being serious, the AFL absolutely needs a 20,000+ seat home stadium as the primary stadium for any teams - the economics of running an AFL team to be simply operational dictates a certain level of revenue generated from being able to sell expensive tickets in modern stadiums that all 18 existing clubs are able to do.

Suggesting a Tasmania team could be based out of, what, Launceston, is even more ridiculous because no players or staff would want to live there nor is the population enough to actually generate revenue for a team. You're the one not being serious.

The AFL didn't demand a roof. The Tasmanian government brought the idea of a roof to the AFL, because the Tasmanian Government sees uses for the stadium beyond big field grass sports (conferences, JackJumpers playoff games, etc.) that are worth the extra cost that a roof brings. The AFL agrees that a roof would be better obviously and agreed to it but the AFL was never actually forced to make a decision on whether they'd introduce a team without a roof or whether they'd ask for one, before the Tasmania government said we'll build a roof anyway (which you should know if you know enough about the development of this team). You don't even know the basic timeline and facts of the events unfolding with how the AFL and Tasmanian government communicated yet you want to criticise.

Lol, modern stadium is no prerequisite for selling tickets and a modern stadium doesn't need a roof. Grant money is all Tassie team needs to exist, but AFL would rather that go to area where game can grow. Afl never wanted Tassie team.
Unlikely, premier pulled concept of stadium with roof out of the air but we know AFL refused to budge on that point when government wanted to renegotiate recently. Like I said AFL didn't think government was dumb enough to spend billions on stadium. Will be disaster for everybody.

 

[boncer34]

Reports say they get back 53 cents for every dollar they spent and state will go deeper into debt

Is that 53c only on the money Tassie invest or 53c on every dollar invested?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Lol, modern stadium is no prerequisite for selling tickets

It quite literally is - corporate facilities to put your high-paying members, sponsors, coterie members etc. need to exist.

Existing AFL clubs generate a fair chunk of their revenue because individuals, small businesses, rich lawyers that support a team etc. are happy to pay four figures for something like a player sponsor. You actually need a function venue and nice seats before a game to put them in, otherwise nobody would buy a player sponsorship.

a modern stadium doesn't need a roof.

I never said it does but clearly the Tasmanian government thinks the benefits of the roof, given that they're moving forward with the stadium, outweighs the cost - perhaps you get a national conference that you otherwise wouldn't have, worth millions to the economy.

Grant money is all Tassie team needs to exist,

I guess it's entirely possible that a Tassie team could have existed in an undeveloped Bellerive if the Tasmania government thought it more prudent to fund the team to the tune of $30 million per year (or similar), given the lack of revenue generation, and convince the AFL through even more money and perhaps things like a bigger salary cap to have players train and play permanently in unimpressive venues and facilities.

But it's something that we'll never know because the Tasmania government decided it more prudent to reduce the difference between $30 million per year and the $12 million per year that they're currently committed to, to the stadium, which has a return in non-football uses.

I suppose we have to trust that Gutwein and Rockliff are not idiots, that on the proviso that they're going to invest into an AFL team, it's more economic responsible to do it via stadium investment and not through grant investments.

Afl never wanted Tassie team.

For the purposes of inducting new teams we have to consider both the AFL and existing teams, who have a say in the introduction of a new team (they never handed over this power as they handed over other powers in the 80s and 90s).

As a paying Western Bulldogs member I certainly don't want my club president voting in a Tasmania team without a new stadium, because I have a brain and can work out how much a drain on the AFL economy reduced revenue streams is.

Unlikely, premier pulled concept of stadium with roof out of the air but we know AFL refused to budge on that point when government wanted to renegotiate recently.

God forbid that the AFL actually doesn't want to be toyed around with, and given the AFL's commitment and spend on the project (it's AFL money that is currently paying the current operations of the team, such as Brendan Gale's salary), that they want certainty from Tasmania's end. That is no hanging matter. If Tasmania said that they were going to build a roof the AFL is entirely in its merits, having started going through the process of actually introducing a team such as figuring out draft concessions, to insist that the Tas Government not waver on that.

Like I said AFL didn't think government was dumb enough to spend billions

Funnily enough, neither did I, the AFL set minimum standards for introducing a team that would ensure that they wouldn't be subsidising the team that were high enough that I didn't think the Tasmanian government would go for it.

The Tasmanian government to their credit have worked incredibly hard to try and figure out a way that the stadium could be as beneficial as possible - getting Cricket on board, making it a good venue for non-sports events, etc. I guess if you're going to build a multi-purpose stadium, make it as multi-purpose as possible.

 

[kalex6251]

exercised rectangular code trolls crying foul over the proposed hobart stadium was always going to happen ..... and the closer to the vote we get the more agitated they become

 

[speedpeck23]

Tasmanians want the stadium. There was a telling difference in the vast disparity between the anti and pro-stadium rallies held over the past 2 weekends. Not only was the anti stadium rally overwhelmingly attended by an elderly crowd, devoid of children, parent and indeed pretty much anyone under pensionable age, but the turnout was so poor that the attendees were told at the start to "spread out to make the crowd look better" -

View attachment 2488532

Compare that to the pro-stadium rally which attracted a crowd 10 times larger, despite all the rain and which packed out the whole park - there was no room to spread out, with the overflow having to gather down at the water-front. And there were thousands of mums, dads and kids, which were entirely absent from the aged old hippies of the anti-brigade -

View attachment 2488533

My concern for the stadium in that there are at least 100,000 Tassie Devil members and only a 23,000 seat stadium.

 

[Canberra Pear]

My concern for the stadium in that there are at least 100,000 Tassie Devil members and only a 23,000 seat stadium.

Just checking, you're joking, right?

100k members, only charged $10, accumulated over a year and a half, is very different from 100k ticketed members. It's different from a Collingwood or West Coast with 100k members trying to fit into a 23k stadium.

And that 100k is split across the island. A decent chunk is based in the north and will rarely travel to Hobart.

Mac Point will sell out for the first few seasons, but its capacity is equal to 9% of the city. Long-term, 23k is a good number.

 

[kickazz]

Just announced Foo Fighters playing a gig at UTAS stadium in Launceston in January.

Complete coincidence, or is this a "look at what you could have more of" moment?

 

[Truetiger]

Just announced Foo Fighters playing a gig at UTAS stadium in Launceston in January.

Complete coincidence, or is this a "look at what you could have more of" moment?

lol Good on the Tasmanian Gov, showing all the No people that yes they will come.

 

[Canberra Pear]

Just announced Foo Fighters playing a gig at UTAS stadium in Launceston in January.

Complete coincidence, or is this a "look at what you could have more of" moment?

Could be a bit of a backfire.

"Look, we don't even need a new stadium to get these acts."

 

[Financialpanther]

Could be a bit of a backfire.

"Look, we don't even need a new stadium to get these acts."

about 250k people in the south disagree with this statement.

 

[Truetiger]

Could be a bit of a backfire.

"Look, we don't even need a new stadium to get these acts."

Disagree one off show to prove a point. Couldn’t play there long-term. Hope it rains lol

 

[boncer34]

Bec Thomas confirms support.

Bad luck Jack.

 

[Truetiger]

Bec Thomas confirms support.

Bad luck Jack.

So will most likely: Definitely get approved good times

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Bec Thomas confirms support.

Bad luck Jack.

She’s the OG hater.
Right?

 

[TheTassieHawk]

Bec Thomas is a confirmed YES

Hobart stadium one step closer as key independent Bec Thomas declares support

‘This has been the hardest decision of my political career’…

pulsetasmania.com.au

 

[Professor Knowall]

Just announced Foo Fighters playing a gig at UTAS stadium in Launceston in January.

Complete coincidence, or is this a "look at what you could have more of" moment?

This has to be fake news, right? After all, miserable anti-stadium geezers have been posting away for the last 2 years explaining that big name acts will never come to Tasmania because of ... reasons. Apparently Bass Strait is an impenetrable barrier that makes it impossible for big rock bands etc to ever come to Tasmania.

 

[Truetiger]

This has to be fake news, right? After all, miserable anti-stadium geezers have been posting away for the last 2 years explaining that big name acts will never come to Tasmania because of ... reasons. Apparently Bass Strait is an impenetrable barrier that makes it impossible for big rock bands etc to ever come to Tasmania.

some of those anti are saying they’re not a big name lol

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[The_Wookie]

This has to be fake news, right? After all, miserable anti-stadium geezers have been posting away for the last 2 years explaining that big name acts will never come to Tasmania because of ... reasons. Apparently Bass Strait is an impenetrable barrier that makes it impossible for big rock bands etc to ever come to Tasmania.

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[Jack Mundy]

$875 million cap. Stadium will cost well over a billion. They going to stop construction well they run out of money?!

 

[Professor Knowall]

$875 million cap. Stadium will cost well over a billion. They going to stop construction well they run out of money?!

As pointed out numerous times - and as many times you have ignored - the Fed Govt has committed to at least $240 m and given Albo's comments in Parliament last week urging support for the stadium, they would chip in a bit more if need be. But I'm guessing you will again ignore all this.

 

[Professor Knowall]

some of those anti are saying they’re not a big name lol

Oh, of course. Sorry, I totally forgot that anyone not named Taylor Swift isn't a big name entertainment act.