Hobart Stadium: $750 million cost

[madmug]

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.

Its the ETFE permanent clear roof, like Dunedin's stadium roof. But I think you knew that.
Like Adelaide, it's the centrality, which is yet another issue that mitigates against Bellerive oval.

 

[Ratdweller]

...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:

View attachment 2435249

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

I was referring to ground amenities, corporate facilities and usage of scaffold stands. Replacing the scaffold stands at UTAS with permanent stands and improved amenities under the new stands with permanent facilities would cost $150million and improve the spectators experience significantly.

 

[Ratdweller]

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.

Very good, forgive my misunderstanding? that one of the 2022 prerequisite conditions of the admittance of to the AFL was the full funding of a Macquarie Point Stadium. The roofed stadium was very much part of the proposal put forward by the Tasmanian Government in 2022 to sweeten the deal as part of the submission, so if on cost grounds, the roof is omitted from the design and instead perhaps a larger capacity 30,000 seat arena with roofing only covering the seats is built for $400 million, would this satisfy the AFL requirements? Would Tasmania still get its AFL team? It's an interesting question. It also begs the question of why a gold plated stadium is proposed for Hobart while UTAS arena will still only see comparatively modest upgrades, when the proposal is to split Tasmanian home games evenly between two cities?

 

[Teen Wolf]

I was referring to ground amenities, corporate facilities and usage of scaffold stands. Replacing the scaffold stands at UTAS with permanent stands and improved amenities under the new stands with permanent facilities would cost $150million and improve the spectators experience significantly.

And it would still not be anywhere near on par with Engie Stadium because seats are a really important amenity for modern stadia.

Very good, forgive my misunderstanding that one of the 2022 prerequisite conditions of the admittance of to the AFL was the full funding of a Macquarie Point Stadium. The roofed stadium was very much part of the proposal put forward by the Tasmanian Government in 2022 to sweeten the deal as part of the submission, so if on cost grounds, the roof is omitted from the design and instead perhaps a larger capacity 30,000 seat arena with roofing only covering the seats is built for $400 million, would this satisfy the AFL requirements? Would Tasmania still get its AFL team? It's an interesting question. It also begs the question of why a gold plated stadium is proposed for Hobart while UTAS arena will still only see comparatively modest upgrades, when the proposal is to split Tasmanian home games evenly between two cities?

Well it's September 2025, so no, those questions aren't interesting anymore given they were all answered in the aforementioned task force report from December 2019.

 

[Ratdweller]

And it would still not be anywhere near on par with Engie Stadium because seats are a really important amenity for modern stadia.


Well it's September 2025, so no, those questions aren't interesting anymore given they were all answered in the aforementioned task force report from December 2019.

The 2019 report was six years ago and many subsequent detailed reviews, reports and subsequent findings have been completed since then based on more up to date analysis rendering any 2019 analysis as irrelevant. Further, since 2019 the stadium's design has changed significantly to what was initially proposed, the cost has significantly ballooned and all of the subsequent reviews over this period have increasingly concluded that there is no viable business case for building and operating a $1.3 billion stadium in Hobart (a city smaller than Geelong). Yet there are those (including Tasmanian politicians) ignoring the reports and the wishes of the majority of Tasmanians who want a football team, but not at any cost. Only a fool (or the Victorian Labor Party led by Jacinta Allen (Who are the Grand Wizards at blowing billions of tax payer dollars)) would ever hypothetically propose a $12.8 billion upgrade to the MCG underpinned by 7.15 million Victorians. But this is exactly the proportional equivalent of what the proponents of a $1.3 billion stadium in Tasmania are asking 578,000 Tasmanians to swallow That is the point.

 

[The_Wookie]

The 2019 report was six years ago and many subsequent detailed reviews, reports and subsequent findings have been completed since then based on more up to date analysis rendering any 2019 analysis as irrelevant. Further, since 2019 the stadium's design has changed significantly to what was initially proposed, the cost has significantly ballooned and all of the subsequent reviews over this period have increasingly concluded that there is no viable business case for building and operating a $1.3 billion stadium in Hobart (a city smaller than Geelong). Yet there are those (including Tasmanian politicians) ignoring the reports and the wishes of the majority of Tasmanians who want a football team, but not at any cost. Only a fool (or the Victorian Labor Party led by Jacinta Allen (Who are the Grand Wizards at blowing billions of tax payer dollars)) would ever hypothetically propose a $12.8 billion upgrade to the MCG underpinned by 7.15 million Victorians. But this is exactly the proportional equivalent of what the proponents of a $1.3 billion stadium in Tasmania are asking 578,000 Tasmanians to swallow That is the point.

I simply adore how the price keeps going up when opponents post

 

[Section 5]

I simply adore how the price keeps going up when opponents post

Hobart's planned AFL stadium 'too big, too costly', report finds

The proposed Macquarie Point AFL stadium in Hobart should not proceed, a long-awaited assessment from the Tasmanian Planning Commission recommends.

www.abc.net.au

The proposed Macquarie Point AFL stadium in Hobart should not proceed, a long-awaited assessment from the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) has recommended.

The final report finds that the stadium would "diminish the economic welfare" of Tasmania, the government's cost-benefit remains significantly overestimated, and it would have an "irrevocable and unacceptable" impact on Hobart's landscape.

It estimates that the government would need to accumulate $1 billion in debt for construction costs, which would rise to $1.8 billion over 10 years, and taxes would need to increase $50 million per year over 30 years.

The report states the construction cost equates to $5,900 per Tasmanian household not reliant on Commonwealth income support.

 

[The_Wookie]

Hobart's planned AFL stadium 'too big, too costly', report finds

The proposed Macquarie Point AFL stadium in Hobart should not proceed, a long-awaited assessment from the Tasmanian Planning Commission recommends.

www.abc.net.au

The proposed Macquarie Point AFL stadium in Hobart should not proceed, a long-awaited assessment from the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) has recommended.

The final report finds that the stadium would "diminish the economic welfare" of Tasmania, the government's cost-benefit remains significantly overestimated, and it would have an "irrevocable and unacceptable" impact on Hobart's landscape.

It estimates that the government would need to accumulate $1 billion in debt for construction costs, which would rise to $1.8 billion over 10 years, and taxes would need to increase $50 million per year over 30 years.

The report states the construction cost equates to $5,900 per Tasmanian household not reliant on Commonwealth income support.

Ive read the reports which include a whole lot of stuff that is not part of the stadium build.

 

[Section 5]

Ive read the reports which include a whole lot of stuff that is not part of the stadium build.

I am not sure what you really mean by that
The total cost of preparing the site and surrounds plus the build, the IT and signage +everything else should be included in the build costs.

The "Proponents" report link below.
See page 127 for their $754 million estimate that they had to adjust for the commission
This is most likely where you, the media and some others are getting a cost figure from.
It is a good report especially if you want more details on what the stadium looks like at concept stage.
Don't forget though they are the "Proponents" of the stadium build and mostly report on the positive and far less on the negative.

https://www.tas.gov.au/dpac/macquarie-point-multipurpose-stadium-consultation/project-of-state-significance-key-documents/Macquarie-Point-Multipurpose-Stadium-Summary-Report-MPDC-September-2024.pdf

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

The Commission report link in reply to the "Proponents" report

https://www.planning.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/829379/Integrated-Assessment-Report.pdf

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

The planning commission's report (236 pages) is in reply to the "Proponents" 269-page glossy report from KPMG

They address all the details proposed.
They also requested further details from them and held their own hearings that the proponent also attended.
The hearings and additional requests from the Commission had the "Proponent" update their $775 million estimate.
So, they were really hiding the true estimate costs to the commission until pushed further.
As highlighted below the costings are not the commissions they are from the "Proponent"

Below pages 32 & 33 of the commission's report.
Note the car park of 374 spaces is 2 levels (cut back from 3) and located under the stadium

 

[mysteryman666]

The longer this drags on, the less likely it's going to happen unfortunately

 

[Tandy]

Even though I'm a pro stadium guy I just let myself think....what if they just said righto huge upgrades to Hobart and Launceston stadiums. Which may have included surrounding infrastructure and roads and stations and parking somewhere (haven't been there so idk) everyone was on board and it was all on track for mid 2027 completion.

Does anyone know if the training facilities has been started

 

[Tandy]

 

[Section 5]

I am against entering an extra team to the AFL so against the Stadium and admitting the Devils.
However, i am happy enough to supply information as lots of people are for the stadium and Devils coming into the AFL.

A fair bit more detail for those interested on the high-performance design on the links below.

https://www.kingborough.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/DA-2025-277-00-10-Kingston-View-Drive-7-Arilung-Place-and-Gormley-Drive-Kingston.pdf

https://www.kingborough.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/DA-2025-277-02-Landscape-Plans.pdf

 

[Section 5]

Nothing really new in today's AFL article

'Baptism of fire': Devils boss uncertain on stadium vote result

The chief executive of the Tasmania Devils remains uncertain if state parliament will vote for a stadium vital for entry to the AFL and AFLW

www.afl.com.au

 

[parano1a]

The vote to build the stadium is set to pass the Legislative Council as a majority of Tasmanian Upper House MPs have pledged their support for the project.

 

[Section 5]

I can't see this ending well for Tasmanians.
They needed three independent Senate votes, and it looks like they will get them.
Prepare for some sizeable tax increases and reduced services Tasmanians.
Moodys this week downgraded Tasmania's credit rating and with the Stadium likely to go ahead most other agencies will follow (I believe some others have already done so). That's higher interest rates on an increasing debt level.
Interest likely to reach $698 million by 2028/29 up from $230 million last year

The Tasmanian Government is in a lot of trouble with debt. The people just have not been hit with anything big yet to reign it in.

Tasmania's budget 'pretty dire' with 'no easy way out', economists say

Independent economist Saul Eslake and Deloitte's Cedric Hodges warn there is no easy way out of Tasmania's dire budget situation, after the treasurer delivered an "interim" budget with little in the way of concrete solutions for fixing the state's debt.

www.abc.net.au

He pointed out the non-financial public sector as a whole, which includes government business enterprises (GBEs), is expected to incur cash deficits of $8.7 billion over the four years to 2028-29, and net debt is forecast to rise to about $19 billion by mid-2029.

Mr Eslake said that debt was larger, as a percentage of gross state product, than that of any other jurisdiction.

The state's net financial liabilities, which take into account debt carried by the GBEs (such as Hydro Tasmania, TasNetworks and TT-Line) and Tasmania's unfunded superannuation liability, are projected to rise from $22.8 billion this financial year to $28.5 billion in 2028-29.

Another article below.

https://ruthforrest.com.au/opinion/tasmanias-budget-smoke-mirrors-and-a-20-billion-debt-mountain/

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

A vote to approve an AFL stadium on Hobart's waterfront will now pass

A stadium on Hobart's waterfront has gained enough support to pass parliament, after independents Casey Hiscutt, Bec Thomas and Tania Rattray declared they would support the contentious project.

www.abc.net.au

To get 2 of the 3 votes in the Senate:
(1)
Ms Thomas was one of several uncommitted independents prior to Wednesday but confirmed her support with a list of "safeguards" agreed to by the government.

These included a $875 million cap on state government funding — the state's current publicly-stated commitment — and that any blowouts would see the government seek more funds from the Commonwealth, AFL or private sector.

It could also require another vote in parliament to release further funds, or to have the stadium "reduce in scope" if further funding cannot be secured.
(2)
"Mr Harriss told parliament he needed a promise from the government that it was "fair dinkum" on addressing the state's finances, including considering tax increases before he would support the stadium.

It looks like they are also proposing taking $500 million from one area (future funding) and putting it towards the Stadium.
That money was earmarked for "Government businesses include Homes Tasmania, Hydro Tasmania and other government-business enterprises."
They must think a Stadium is more important.
............................................

Planning Commission Report.
Key findings of the Planning Commission report

• Negative cost-benefit ratio: The TPC found that for every dollar spent, the project would only generate about $0.45 in return.
• Insurmountable planning issues: The commission argued that the city planning challenges associated with the project were too significant to overcome.
• Other concerns: The report also warned about potential future impacts such as tax increases and cuts to other services.

 

[Spanna_]

I have just written this article, if anyone is interested in having a read through.

Not a Tasmanian but doesn't seem like this plan has not been thought through adequately.

Hobart's new stadium is a bad idea

Why the AFL's ultimatum to Tasmania is absurd

spncrrb.substack.com

 

[The_Wookie]

I have just written this article, if anyone is interested in having a read through.

Not a Tasmanian but doesn't seem like this plan has not been thought through adequately.

Hobart's new stadium is a bad idea

Why the AFL's ultimatum to Tasmania is absurd

spncrrb.substack.com

well you're gonna lose a lot of us at "AFL ultimatum". I wont bother with the rest.

 

[Spanna_]

well you're gonna lose a lot of us at "AFL ultimatum". I wont bother with the rest.

Understandable, but is it not one? It's been pretty clear from the league right from the start, no stadium, no team...

 

[Ratdweller]

Well the decision has been made by those responsible for government in Tasmania and that's that. Irrespective of what happens going forward, it is now on the heads of those who approved it to make it work. If it doesn't, those people might be held accountable. In Victoria the State Government have made an art form out of building massive projects that each have blown out by tens of billion of dollars and not a hint of any accountability whatsoever from the people of Melbourne who keep re-electing them Maybe Tasmanians think differently, or maybe they reward financial incompetence too. Time will tell.

 

[Section 5]

Well the decision has been made by those responsible for government in Tasmania and that's that. Irrespective of what happens going forward, it is now on the heads of those who approved it to make it work. If it doesn't, those people might be held accountable. In Victoria the State Government have made an art form out of building massive projects that each have blown out by tens of billion of dollars and not a hint of any accountability whatsoever from the people of Melbourne who keep re-electing them Maybe Tasmanians think differently, or maybe they reward financial incompetence too. Time will tell.

I sort of agree, but Tasmania appears to be different and have gone to the polls early a few times recently.

I would think that in a "stadium decision" that is very divided, the major opposition party would see a big chance to win some votes, and be a point of difference to the present government
They are in opposition and nothing to lose in opposing the stadium. That's irrespective of previous being in favor. Just use the Planning Commission Report as a reason for the change of opinion.
They had a mountain of facts to hit the Government with, but for some unknown reason chose to go with the government.

So, who will the public blame. They can only vote against individuals really.
The people will have to cast their vote again in a few years' time.
Usually, one of Liberal or Labor will win. Even 3 independent senators got week at the knees and voted for the stadium.
So, who do the people vote for to rectify the ever-increasing debt and likely increased taxes and services to come.
There is only Liberal, Labor & Independents and they all voted for the stadium.

 

[madmug]

Understandable, but is it not one? It's been pretty clear from the league right from the start, no stadium, no team...

Quite simply, Launceston was not an option for the base of an AFL club. Bellerive oval is not up to standard, has crap access, & cannot be expanded. Also inner city venues eg Adelaide Oval, are much better for local businesses & patrons to enjoy the whole experience. SO your claim of some AFL ultimatum ignores the above facts, & that club financial stability is paramount to the League & its other clubs. The stadium was arrived at via the Tasmanian AFL task force study. The roof was seen as important for fan comfort, & vital when trying to attract other activities, anytime of day or night, any time of year. ie it was a Tasmanian idea & decision. Simple as that, but you missed it!

 

[parano1a]

Not a Tasmanian but doesn't seem like this plan has not been thought through adequately.

So you're saying it has been thought through adequately?