Hobart Stadium: $750 million cost

Remove this Banner Ad

Professor Knowall said:
Latest news - Macquarie Point now the preferred site. This is easily the best site in Hobart for any new stadium -
www.abc.net.au

Macquarie Point selected as Tasmania's AFL stadium location, ABC understands

A shift in the Tasmanian government's position will see Macquarie Point become the preferred location, with an official announcement expected within the next 24 hours.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
It's interesting to see the new Hobart stadium will hold only 23000 yet the UTAS stadium development will take it up to 27000 in a city only half the size.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

An early concept design for a Maq Point Stadium.

www.abc.net.au

'I'm sick of it': Premier's Facebook rant to defend big spend on AFL stadium

Tasmania's Premier goes on the offensive at those who question his plan to spend an estimated $375 million of taxpayer money on a new Hobart stadium in order to launch a local AFL team, as a federal Liberal colleague says he has reservations over the cost.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

b4c82638b1bf00668c7ca2906f599387.jpg
 
I don't know why the AFL would insist on Tassie building a 23,000 capacity stadium unless you did not want to make it happen. The reason I say this is Launceston is 19,000 and UTAS is 21,000 and can be extended. Why 23,000, which is obviously the figure the AFL insisted on? I mean, if you are going to build a stadium fir a new team in an Aussie Rules state wouldn't you make it more like 40,000?

I can understand why the Federal Govt would be skeptical in providing money when they see 2 already existing stadiums with around 23,000 anyway. If I was in govt I would automatically knock this back. The proposal has no merit. There are already stadiums that can be extended to fit that capacity and more.

The AFL are just having a lend yet again. They have NEVER wanted a team in Tassie because it has always been seen as fiscally unsustainable. Maybe they should have rethought GWS & Suns, especially Suns. The problem with making a team work on the Gold Coast is that every code has failed because they forced a team on them. Same with the AFL. Gold Coast already had financially successful Aussie Rules teams, Soccer teams, Rugby League teams. But each time they forces a franchise on them. No wonder no code has flourished there. The AFL continued that stupid practice even though all the evidence said DO NOT GO THERE. Then stuck them in a 27,500. Pathetic.

Now they do the same again to Tassie. Make them build a useless stadium, which they may not be able to get Federal funding for

On JAT-L29 using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
No, that ain't it. Firstly, the GC and GWS have expanded the tv rights on the East Coast to the point where networks are willing to pay 4.5 billion as of 2025. How that adds up I don't know, but suits with a better grasp of market share have deemed this to be fine. What is true is that it depended on local content in all three big markets (V, N and Q), and that meant two teams in the northern states, a side every week local. It's got nothing to do with crowd size and everything to do with advertising exposure. Because GC and GWS are there, the AFL hasn't thrown the Tasmanian AFL bid out with the Chrisco catalogues that arrived in the mail...

Secondly, Tasmania is a regional market, which means the tv suits don't care. The team can't add much to the bid outside ten games, so you could probably bet there are 20th team rumblings somewhere, but for the moment the team can't be seen by the AFL to be a backward step. Therefore its bid needed to be exceptional, and it has been, to the point where Tony Cochrane did a 180 and fully endorses it...you cannot understate this as significant validation! The AFL's hostility, which used to be derision, now revolves around Tassie having leading facilities and financial backing they don't have to lift a finger for, so yes, they are calling for the best smaller stadium in the league, or pretty close to it, to be built...

Governments will build stadiums based upon return, and again not crowd size. If a market exists for two stadiums, an upgrade to York Park and a brand new one in Hobart, it will happen if the business case is good. If they build the stadium, it will be because suits have added up a forecast profit...

Being a GC resident for a few years myself, teams haven't worked there for a variety of reasons, but it's mainly been because the sports have either been minority anyway (basketball, soccer, baseball), or were run horribly by fairly despotic businessmen! Guaranteed, if the GC got a BBL franchise, it would be the biggest thing since gum with nuts, and both the Suns and Titans are stabilising after some really stupid management over the years. But forced on them? The GC has traditionally been a place where people go to root, pillage and plunder, so following the local sporting team has never been a thing until recently, when people who emigrated started families - this young generation was born there, so now the GC has its first ever generation of people who identify as Gold Coasters and there are enough of them to base markets around. Noone's copping anything, they are just being offered, which is what happens when there's a lot of people in one place looking like a juicy demographic. If any big league pulls out of the GC thinking things will fail, they are idiots, they know it, and this is why they keep pumping...the dam will break...
 
The expected price for the new stadium will be $715 million so a reduction of 35 million with them asking for 240 million from the federal government and $90 million to come from Private Equity.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Wolftone said:
I don't know why the AFL would insist on Tassie building a 23,000 capacity stadium unless you did not want to make it happen. The reason I say this is Launceston is 19,000 and UTAS is 21,000 and can be extended. Why 23,000, which is obviously the figure the AFL insisted on? I mean, if you are going to build a stadium fir a new team in an Aussie Rules state wouldn't you make it more like 40,000?

I can understand why the Federal Govt would be skeptical in providing money when they see 2 already existing stadiums with around 23,000 anyway. If I was in govt I would automatically knock this back. The proposal has no merit. There are already stadiums that can be extended to fit that capacity and more.

The AFL are just having a lend yet again. They have NEVER wanted a team in Tassie because it has always been seen as fiscally unsustainable. Maybe they should have rethought GWS & Suns, especially Suns. The problem with making a team work on the Gold Coast is that every code has failed because they forced a team on them. Same with the AFL. Gold Coast already had financially successful Aussie Rules teams, Soccer teams, Rugby League teams. But each time they forces a franchise on them. No wonder no code has flourished there. The AFL continued that stupid practice even though all the evidence said DO NOT GO THERE. Then stuck them in a 27,500. Pathetic.

Now they do the same again to Tassie. Make them build a useless stadium, which they may not be able to get Federal funding for

On JAT-L29 using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

Screenshot_20221223-151130_Drive.jpg
Screenshot_20221223-151309_Drive.jpg
 
catters05 said:
Should just build it at 28k and not worry about expansions or if leaving at 23k, build a lot of corporate boxes.
Click to expand...

How many hundred million more would 28K cost?

As for the corporate boxes, I think that's a given. The rich and powerful never miss out. They'd rather 10 more in corp boxes than 100 more in the stands.
 

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS SAYS PROPOSED HOBART STADIUM WOULD DELIVER $306 MILLION DEFICIT OVER 20 YEARS​

Article Source: Australian Leisure Management Website

Cost-benefit analysis says proposed Hobart Stadium would deliver $306 million deficit over 20 years

JANUARY 20, 2023
CONSULTANTS / FINANCE / GOVERNMENT / VENUES

A cost-benefit analysis of the cost of the proposed new stadium at Hobart's Macquarie Point commissioned by the Tasmanian Government has indicated that the venue would generate a loss of more than $300 million over 20 years of operation. While analysis from MI Global Partners, commissioned by Tasmania's Department of State Growth, says a stadium in Hobart would stimulate "civic and community pride", it suggests the cost of the planned venue to be $1 billion, or $618.1 million in 2022 values, when factoring in costs for construction, operation, and acquiring events.

Completed in November but only published on the Department's website this week, the estimates that over the 20 years after construction is complete, the stadium will generate $1 billion, largely through tourism and financial benefits. However, when taking into account the costs of paying interest on borrowing to fund the venue, as well as alternative uses of that money, this was discounted to $311.9 million in 2022 values. Overall, that will equal a $306 million loss, and a benefit-to-cost ratio of 0.5.

However, the report goes on to outline several additional social benefits that should be considered, but cannot not be quantified in a cost-benefit analysis.
These include "civic and community pride", improving Hobart's brand, increased participation in sport, and the stadium becoming a "catalyst for broader invigoration of Macquarie Point". The analysis does not question the Tasmanian Government’s projected cost for the stadium, with a build cost figures in the region of $715 to $750 million having previously been revealed as having merely been a "ballpark" amount.

Construction of the venue, described as a "once in a generation" opportunity by the Tasmanian Government is opposed by the Tasmanian Labor and Green parties.

Request for $240 million in Federal Government funding

With the Tasmanian Government seeking $240 towards the supposed $715 million cost of the new venue, Australasian Leisure Management Publisher Nigel
Benton has questioned what sort of precedent this would set for other planned venues, particularly the rebuilding of the Gabba for the Brisbane Olympics and the ACT Government's proposed new stadium. Benton explains "such a commitment would be the largest ever by the Federal Government to a stadium, exceeding the $100 million for the Queensland Country Bank Stadium in Townsville - by 140%!. Once such a commitment is made it would be expected that the ACT Government would seek a similar amount for its planned new Canberra stadium while the Federal Government’s in principle backing for 2032 Olympic venues in Brisbane, including the rebuilding of the Gabba, would very quickly rise towards $1 billion.”
 
theyellowsash said:
Lets be honest, tas are only doing this because the afl are being dickheads about the tas team and still leaning in this idea that the money isn't there. The afl are basically forcing tas to spend they money to prove they have the money.

Just give them a ******* team and let them upgrade bellreive
Click to expand...
It’s a crock. Absolute greed.
AFL just don’t want to spend its TV agreement money on the basis of the COVID restrictions in 2020 and 2021.
GWS and Gold Coast being accepted with substandard stadiums is hypocritical.
 
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