Hobart Stadium: $750 million cost

Remove this Banner Ad

Gibbke said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are attempting to distract the issue by introducing North Melbourne into the discussion and I am not buying into it. North Melbourne FC have absolutely no relevance to this thread. Money is not going to fix the issues that prevail at North Melbourne in the present or the future. Their issues lay in player management and coaching and relocation will not fix that. Financially they are sound - in fact one of only a handful of clubs not carrying debt, they have brand new and expanding facilities at Arden Street and a membership base of 46,500. Contrast that to their position back in 2008 when the AFL was trying to relocate them to the Gold Coast. In 2008 the club carried $8 million in debt, membership was 18,000, and Arden Street was a dilapidated dump. So North Melbourne FC are not going anywhere! I rest my case Your Honour!

Consider that Richmond endured 15 years in the football wilderness (remember their supporters spitting on their coach and players as they left the field after games (only eight years ago)) and hadn't won a Premiership since 1980 yet nobody suggested that they move and become the Tassie Tigers did they?

Consider that Carlton has only started winning after 20 years between 2001-2020 of being the AFL easy beats, yet nobody suggested that they relocate to Woop Woop did they?

When Hawthorn originally started playing in Launceston back in 1999 they couldn't win a raffle, membership was in the toilet and they used to get flogged mercilessly by teams like Essendon for several years before finally getting back on the winning list under Alistair Clarkson in the late 2000s. Yet nobody suggested over their years in the wilderness that they relocate to Launceston did they? GEEZ as a Hawthorn supporter your memory is short!

Consider Melbourne, no GF victory in 57 years, declining membership, bailed out by the AFL who almost called in the administrators at one point several years ago. They were flogged most rounds for decades until only the last three years. Yet nobody suggested that they relocate to Tasmania to become the Tassie Devils did they?

SO WHAT IS YOU GRIPE AGAINST NORTH MELBOURNE? Team fortunes ebb and flow with time - or perhaps you are not old enough to have witnessed that yet? No AFL team has stayed down forever ... nor has any AFL team consistently sat at the top forever.

Now, back on point of discussion - I am discussing in this thread how Tasmania proposes to fund not just the construction of a proposed $750 mil stadium, but how they intend to keep it financially viable for just several AFL games per year? Nobody in this thread has answered that - Nobody, and certainly not Eddie (Spend bucket loads of tax-payer money without a justified business case) Maguire. Please keep the discussion relevant and on point :thumbsu:
 
Last edited:
........what the f###....?!?

Shoot me down...? Comprehension is not one of your strongpoints, and your head is so far up your own sanctimonious arse that you've completely failed to notice what was being said. Reread both posts in and around yours, just above...

Might even use the line "do you know who I am"...would love to walk into a joint like Katie Perry did the other day and be in that position, it's even on the bucket list, but this will have to do...I'm quite possibly the biggest supporter of a Tasmanian home grown AFL side on this site! Seeing as you can be bothered writing that lengthy pile of s**t, maybe you can be bothered researching who you're bashing via post search - one bitching post after another heaping abuse upon mainlanders and Tasmanian AFL naysayers, some of it even coherent and researched. I'm 52 and a Tasmanian who virtually grew up on York Park, so yeah, I've seen a bit. I'm also one of the biggest supporters of current AFL teams, including and especially North Melbourne, not having to put up with the bullshit constantly heaped on them by suits.

All four of your bolded team examples are factually wrong. Ouch. All of those teams have had the pressure flung on them when they failed, even Carlton. In 1997, after the miraculous lifeline saved the team, I became a Hawk member, one of 27k who utterly obliterated the membership record of every team in history to that point, only stopping when they were fine and had stopped travelling to Qld. No short memories here.

Your last paragraph? Bit of a control freak, hey? I'm usually more eloquent, but...meh - F### Off, Your Honour.
 
Gibbke said:
All four of your bolded team examples are factually wrong. Ouch. All of those teams have had the pressure flung on them when they failed, even Carlton. In 1997, after the miraculous lifeline saved the team, I became a Hawk member, one of 27k who utterly obliterated the membership record of every team in history to that point, only stopping when they were fine and had stopped travelling to Qld. No short memories here.
Click to expand...

Um well thats not true. Of the Victorian Clubs, Essendon had more members in 1997, and West Coast/Adelaide and Port Adelaide all had more still.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The_Wookie said:
Um well thats not true. Of the Victorian Clubs, Essendon had more members in 1997, and West Coast/Adelaide and Port Adelaide all had more still.
Click to expand...
You're right. Greatest rise in a season is what I meant, which was the line bandied around at the time...
 
Last edited:
Gibbke said:
........what the f###....?!?

Shoot me down...? Comprehension is not one of your strongpoints, and your head is so far up your own sanctimonious arse that you've completely failed to notice what was being said. Reread both posts in and around yours, just above...

Might even use the line "do you know who I am"...would love to walk into a joint like Katie Perry did the other day and be in that position, it's even on the bucket list, but this will have to do...I'm quite possibly the biggest supporter of a Tasmanian home grown AFL side on this site! Seeing as you can be bothered writing that lengthy pile of s**t, maybe you can be bothered researching who you're bashing via post search - one bitching post after another heaping abuse upon mainlanders and Tasmanian AFL naysayers, some of it even coherent and researched. I'm 52 and a Tasmanian who virtually grew up on York Park, so yeah, I've seen a bit. I'm also one of the biggest supporters of current AFL teams, including and especially North Melbourne, not having to put up with the bullshit constantly heaped on them by suits.

All four of your bolded team examples are factually wrong. Ouch. All of those teams have had the pressure flung on them when they failed, even Carlton. In 1997, after the miraculous lifeline saved the team, I became a Hawk member, one of 27k who utterly obliterated the membership record of every team in history to that point, only stopping when they were fine and had stopped travelling to Qld. No short memories here.

Your last paragraph? Bit of a control freak, hey? I'm usually more eloquent, but...meh - F### Off, Your Honour.
Click to expand...
And you still haven't answered the original question. You chose to take the thread off the track of relevance by trying to drag North Melbourne into the discussion. Probably as a poor attempt at the "Nothing to see here" approach taken by the proponents advocating a $750 million spend in Hobart. In a state with 8% of the population of Victoria where the Federal Government had to step in and take control of one its hospitals (Devonport) due to lack of funding only six years ago. Consider what a $750 million build would be the equivalent of in Victoria (a State of 6.5 million people (13 times the population of Tasmania)). $750 million AUD of tax payer money in Tasmania is the equivalent to spending $9.375 billion AUD of taxpayer money in Victoria and you rationalise that, that scale of spending on a small football stadium for seven games per year is acceptable to all Tasmanians? Get real!!!

To put it in perspective, any Victorian Premier advocating a $9.375 billion spend on a stadium to host seven AFL games per year in Victoria would be either laughed out of the state, voted out of office or committed to a psychiatric ward. Particularly as our health system is in just as bad of shape and copped the same beating as the health systems of every other state during the pandemic. Tasmania's hospitals and health system is no exception and is struggling too.

I come back to my original point of "how Tasmania proposes to fund not just the construction of a proposed $750 mil stadium, but how they intend to keep it financially viable for just several AFL games per year?" Again you have not attempted to answer that question in any way except to go on the attack because someone questions the viability of the spend and you have not even attempted to present a coherent response except to go on the defensive. They say that "one shouldn't argue with an idiot because they'll drag you down to their level", and mate you are not giving me or any other forumers due credit by attempting to justify the unjustifiable. I shall put you on my ignore list hence forth because any attempt at decent rational discussion seems completely wasted upon you. Regards, have a nice life :)
 
Last edited:
Roogal said:
I come back to my original point of "how Tasmania proposes to fund not just the construction of a proposed $750 mil stadium, but how they intend to keep it financially viable for just several AFL games per year?" Again you have not attempted to answer that question in any way except to go on the attack because someone questions the viability of the spend and you have not even attempted to present a coherent response except to go on the defensive. They say that "one shouldn't argue with an idiot because they'll drag you down to their level", and mate you are not giving me or any other forumers due credit by attempting to justify the unjustifiable. I shall put you on my ignore list hence forth because any attempt at decent rational discussion seems completely wasted upon you. Regards, have a nice life :)
Click to expand...

Stadium will have plenty of cricket played there, ODIs and BBL as well as Shield and the odd Test, plus other soccer/rugby fixtures the TasGov will lure down there to play in a decent venue. It becomes a more viable entertainment venue that the incumbent. its not just the 5 or 6 AFL games, its everything else that gets bundled in to it. Thats without the indirect economic and tourism bonuses that flow out from the new venue.

That said, its hard to see more than 20 odd major event days in any given year. Optus/Docklands/Adelaide Oval/MCG all start with a mimimum of 44 major event days a year.
 
Roogal said:
And you still haven't answered the original question. You chose to take the thread off the track of relevance by trying to drag North Melbourne into the discussion. Probably as a poor attempt at the "Nothing to see here" approach taken by the proponents advocating a $750 million spend in Hobart. In a state with 8% of the population of Victoria where the Federal Government had to step in and take control of one its hospitals (Devonport) due to lack of funding only six years ago. Consider what a $750 million build would be the equivalent of in Victoria (a State of 6.5 million people (13 times the population of Tasmania)). $750 million AUD of tax payer money in Tasmania is the equivalent to spending $9.375 billion AUD of taxpayer money in Victoria and you rationalise that, that scale of spending on a small football stadium for seven games per year is acceptable to all Tasmanians? Get real!!!

To put it in perspective, any Victorian Premier advocating a $9.375 billion spend on a stadium to host seven AFL games per year in Victoria would be either laughed out of the state, voted out of office or committed to a psychiatric ward. Particularly as our health system is in just as bad of shape and copped the same beating as the health systems of every other state during the pandemic. Tasmania's hospitals and health system is no exception and is struggling too.

I come back to my original point of "how Tasmania proposes to fund not just the construction of a proposed $750 mil stadium, but how they intend to keep it financially viable for just several AFL games per year?" Again you have not attempted to answer that question in any way except to go on the attack because someone questions the viability of the spend and you have not even attempted to present a coherent response except to go on the defensive. They say that "one shouldn't argue with an idiot because they'll drag you down to their level", and mate you are not giving me or any other forumers due credit by attempting to justify the unjustifiable. I shall put you on my ignore list hence forth because any attempt at decent rational discussion seems completely wasted upon you. Regards, have a nice life :)
Click to expand...
If you reread the original two posts I put up only a page or two back, and this time sit back a bit and use your comprehension skills without throwing a tanty, you'll see I'm not attacking North Melbourne. Had to sit back myself and try to read between your rant and figure out exactly where you got set off...I think "North has to go" was the bit where the bug was truly jammed in your arse. Anyway, no...I was writing it imagining the viewpoint of people I disparagingly describe as suits, and their preoccupation with rationalisation...it would suit Eddie just fine to see North go, just as I would see it as an utter tragedy...

I'd apologise for the misunderstanding, but you made too much of a dickhead of yourself, so when the penny finally drops you can go work on your personality. Let's just say we're on the same side...
 
Last edited:
Roogal said:
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.
Click to expand...
This isn't exactly true. The AFL chipped in $3m for Stage 2, and potentially for Stage 3, although I can't find a definitive source either way.

Having said that, $3m to $6m out of $200m total spend is fukc all, and the state government should be demanding more games fixtured at the ground to compensate for funding.
 
JohnZ said:
This isn't exactly true. The AFL chipped in $3m for Stage 2, and potentially for Stage 3, although I can't find a definitive source either way.

Having said that, $3m to $6m out of $200m total spend is fukc all, and the state government should be demanding more games fixtured at the ground to compensate for funding.
Click to expand...

Geelong FC, as ground manager and a significant contributor in their own right should have made that demand. (or at least made sure it was a big part of the discussions). Pretty much every ground deal comes with such provisions. That they didn't must raise some doubts about their desire to play 11 games/year there.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Johnny Bananas said:
Sensible decision. The price is reduced to a more reasonable level and it still has a roof for providing a more pleasant environment when its cold.
Click to expand...
Won't be able to host cricket though which means it will really struggle to be viable with just 7 AFL games and the possibility it may attract other events.
 
Mr Taswegian said:
Won't be able to host cricket though which means it will really struggle to be viable with just 7 AFL games and the possibility it may attract other events.
Click to expand...
Yes it will. If they can play baseball in stadiums with roofs, they can play cricket too.

Mr Taswegian said:
Cricket ball hitting the roof will be a problem and also shadows will be very bad with the proposed roof.
Click to expand...
They can make a very tall roof, and shadows can be fixed with lighting. Cricket has been played at Marvel many times with the roof closed.
 
Johnny Bananas said:
Yes it will. If they can play baseball in stadiums with roofs, they can play cricket too.


They can make a very tall roof, and shadows can be fixed with lighting. Cricket has been played at Marvel many times with the roof closed.
Click to expand...

The roof at Docklands is 38m high (yes, I just looked it up) and they play cricket under that.

Hobart will be a smaller stadium however with the stands being lower. An arch/dome might be doable, but it would need to be a fair bit to give sufficient clearance, but that would probably add to the cost and complicate the shadows. Adding lighting to reduce shadows would be another extra cost of course, both for setup and operations.
 
Mr Taswegian said:
Yes the deal between the Gov and AFL includes a guarantee to play games here in Launceston.
Click to expand...

I agree, but more than any deal, I'd say it would be necessary to get the buy in from the northern half of the state for the new team, and for a new club that is somewhat light on having the population base to support it to start with, pissing off half of that potential base wouldn't be a very good move.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Victorian
New 15,000 seat Newcastle Stadium proposal
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
RedV3x
RedV3x
E
Third Stadium in Melbourne
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
133
Views
12K
catters05
C
BanquoUtd
Stadium proposals for Darwin team
Replies
1
Views
1K
Johnny Bananas
Johnny Bananas

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top