Independent report into Hobart's proposed new stadium has found the costs of the project have been significantly underestimated

[Smithdogmaddog]

Stadium doesn't need a roof, this should be the wriggle room in the negotiations that gets it done.

If Tassie come out and say to the AFL we will go ahead with it 100% if you take the roof off the table do you really think the AFL will want to be the bad guys and say no over something that makes no logical sense since Hobart is the 2nd driest capital city in Australia.

 

[rainwizard39]

Weren’t they going to be playing 4 or 5 games a year at Launceston anyway? Unless they were also getting a roof, it doesn’t make sense for the AFL to be this firm on the one in Hobart needing a roof.

 

[Cleric]

These sort of things always blow out and once they're built, no one gives two shits.

From concept to build there's going to be inflation. with a major project that isn't a few grand, it's a few million dollars.

Alan Barnett in WA was a bit of a knob but at least he said '**** this in fighting about the site of the new stadium, we're doing one here' and we got Optus. people forget the new WA stadium was bickered about for about 15 years. everyone had an opinion and in the end we got a good venue.

Also the amount of money governments spend on shit.... you're paying for someone's meal or work flight right now.

Yep. All the nay sayers and bed wetters have all gone silent now the stadium is built and is excellent.

The same thing will happen in Tassie.
In SA we had the North Adelaide mouth breather association who were dead against lights to AO so they could play night games. That's the reason they tried those retractable light stands to keep the residents happy. They were against the redevelopment. When the Crows were looking at buying the old Adelaide Aquatic centre for their new headquarters, the locals all came out with their chalk and wrote their slogans on the concrete around the centre.

Just build it and they won't look back. If Tassie goes to the Feds and asks for another couple of hundred million for the stadium otherwise the AFL team will fall over they will get it.

 

[Breretonisahood]

Don’t know why the AFL is so hung up on a fancy new roofed stadium. Expansion is about TV revenue, not revenue from bums on seats at a fancy stadium. A bit of a tart up of the existing stadiums making sure that TV camera positions and media centre are would be all that’s needed.

 

[Happy_Neale]

The roof is for the wind, not the rain. North Tassie winds are insane at times

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Stadium doesn't need a roof, this should be the wriggle room in the negotiations that gets it done.

If Tassie come out and say to the AFL we will go ahead with it 100% if you take the roof off the table do you really think the AFL will want to be the bad guys and say no over something that makes no logical sense since Hobart is the 2nd driest capital city in Australia.

if you are going to build a new stadium, the roof cost on its own is irreverent in the scheme of things.

You might save 20% of the cost now, but in the long term everyone will look back and said we should have done it.

Like all infrastructure projects, this stadium needs to be thought about for the next 20 years, not 20 months.

 

[The Feeder Club]

Yep. All the nay sayers and bed wetters have all gone silent now the stadium is built and is excellent.

The same thing will happen in Tassie.
In SA we had the North Adelaide mouth breather association who were dead against lights to AO so they could play night games. That's the reason they tried those retractable light stands to keep the residents happy. They were against the redevelopment. When the Crows were looking at buying the old Adelaide Aquatic centre for their new headquarters, the locals all came out with their chalk and wrote their slogans on the concrete around the centre.

Just build it and they won't look back. If Tassie goes to the Feds and asks for another couple of hundred million for the stadium otherwise the AFL team will fall over they will get it.

I'm not making comment on the merits or otherwise of either AO or Macquarie Point, but this is not the gotcha point you think it is. Of course people opposed to any development on the basis of cost or heritage or aesthetics or whatever will be most vocal when they are trying to prevent approval of the development, that's the only realistic point that they can influence the outcome. If they lose, the mere fact that they are no longer as vocal doesn't mean they're happy that it's now built or that their concerns were illegitimate, it just means they lost and there's no point wasting time.
If my neighbour puts in a DA to bulid a three storey house that blocks my view, I'll be very vocal writing to council opposing it. If I lose and he builds it, I still won't be happy but there's no point me still writing to council either

 

[Cleric]

I'm not making comment on the merits or otherwise of either AO or Macquarie Point, but this is not the gotcha point you think it is. Of course people opposed to any development on the basis of cost or heritage or aesthetics or whatever will be most vocal when they are trying to prevent approval of the development, that's the only realistic point that they can influence the outcome. If they lose, the mere fact that they are no longer as vocal doesn't mean they're happy that it's now built or that their concerns were illegitimate, it just means they lost and there's no point wasting time.
If my neighbour puts in a DA to bulid a three storey house that blocks my view, I'll be very vocal writing to council opposing it. If I lose and he builds it, I still won't be happy but there's no point me still writing to council either

You underestimate how much of a motivation the "I told you so" argument is.
If any of their concerns were proven to be right they would be even louder than they initially were.
They disappear because their arguments were proven to be unfounded, and the overall feeling in the community is positive towards the project, so they are no longer relevant.

Maybe we have a much more exaggerated version of it in Adelaide with the North Adelaide Ratepayers who constantly go up against any progress.
We have classic examples with the AO upgrade and what is known as the old LeCornu site in North Adelaide.
A prime piece of real estate that was earmarked for a major project, and the North Adelaide ratepayers resisted every single attempt to build on it. They wanted it to be an open park. This dragged on for over 30 years, until the state government got sick of it and passed new legislation to take away the Adelaide city council, which was majority North Adelaide residents, ability to stop any redevelopment.
It sat there as an eyesore for over 30 years.

We saw a bit of this when the Grand Prix went to Albert Lake as well.
There is a vocal minority who are well organised and will oppose any progress. The same is happening in Tassie.

 

[Tbonefreo]

Who created this mess?

 

[Black Diamond]

It depends what is motivating those against such projects.

Fundamentally a huge amount of tax-payer money is going to be spent on a piece of infrastructure on prime realestate. The Tasmanian (and frankly, Australian) public are within their rights to ask questions about this.

It is a very nice piece of land for which the public may think has a better use.

The proposed stadium is not necessarily viable for a state the size of Tasmania. Hobart is a small town and does not even have a train or tram system. Tasmania is a very small state. They are literally only doing it to get a football team, and not everyone likes football or wants to support the Devils.

This is not NIMBYism or anti-progress. These points are just part of a normal social and political discussion about what a society should value and prioritise.

 

[GenericUsername202]

The roof is for the wind, not the rain. North Tassie winds are insane at times

This. People in here are severely underestimating how awful Tasmania's weather is during the winter month. You would have games that become legit compromised because of the wind, which is why a roof is essential

 

[HirdsTheWord]

It depends what is motivating those against such projects.

Fundamentally a huge amount of tax-payer money is going to be spent on a piece of infrastructure on prime realestate. The Tasmanian (and frankly, Australian) public are within their rights to ask questions about this.

It is a very nice piece of land for which the public may think has a better use.

The proposed stadium is not necessarily viable for a state the size of Tasmania. Hobart is a small town and does not even have a train or tram system. Tasmania is a very small state. They are literally only doing it to get a football team, and not everyone likes football or wants to support the Devils.

This is not NIMBYism or anti-progress. These points are just part of a normal social and political discussion about what a society should value and prioritise.

i mean this is fair and it's a question Tasmania needs to ask itself.

If it wants to be part of the big show, they know what they need to do. if they don't fair enough, but this opportunity likely won't come around again if they knock it back. So, they need to accept that.

 

[Cleric]

The roof component costs 207 million, meaning the stadium without a roof will still cost over 700 million. The federal government is paying 240m to the cost which pays for the roof and then some. The AFL is putting 15m in, when they didn't put one cent into either AO or Optus. The federal government only put in 30m to AO and nothing in to Optus.
Tasmania is getting more charity than anyone else got and they still arnt happy.

They actually think they can have an AFL team and play their games at Bellreive.
They are clearly far too backwards to understand what's required to play in the AFL.
We tried, but they just wernt ready.
Let the existing teams get the talent on their lists that Tassie would have got.

 

[PerthBoy86]

Just let them play at Ninja/Blundstone ffs. They already play games there. Sure, it gets a bit blustery, but average rainfall in winter in Hobart is no higher than Melbourne (which is actually not that high, contrary to what some believe, its mostly drizzly. Spring tends t to the wettest season in both cities). They didnt make GC build a new stadium with a roof. The new stadium can come later when/if the Devils get bigger.

 

[PerthBoy86]

The roof is for the wind, not the rain. North Tassie winds are insane at times

Hobart is in the southeast of the state. Wind speeds aren't all that much higher than Melbourne. Launceston is comparatively calm but gets even colder than Hobart due to being inland, like frost is common. West Coast of Tassie is a different story, rains almost every day with strong gusts in winter.

 

[The Feeder Club]

There is a vocal minority who are well organised and will oppose any progress. The same is happening in Tassie.

There was a poll that said 67% of Tasmanians are opposed to their stadium. I don't know if this is accurate or not but it seems more than a minority

 

[dmc333]

There was a poll that said 67% of Tasmanians are opposed to their stadium. I don't know if this is accurate or not but it seems more than a minority

Yeah, but they don't have a constant voice in the media and can't cry for the camera.

 

[Black Diamond]

I have not been to Bellerive but I did go to Subiaco, an inadequate venue where WC and Fremantle played until the end of 2017.

Perth may not be as cold as Hobart, but it is still very wet and extremely windy.

Subiaco was also packed into a suburb and surrounded by houses, albeit with a trainline right beside the venue.

I doubt Bellerive is a worse facility.

 

[Monsterdarlz]

GWS is a vanity project by the afl that was never going to work and Gold Coast should of been the Southport sharks atleast tassie is footy heartland and I’d back them to have better support then the above

 

[Walshawk]

I have not been to Bellerive but I did go to Subiaco, an inadequate venue where WC and Fremantle played until the end of 2017.

Perth may not be as cold as Hobart, but it is still very wet and extremely windy.

Subiaco was also packed into a suburb and surrounded by houses, albeit with a trainline right beside the venue.

I doubt Bellerive is a worse facility.

Maybe, maybe not. But Perth is the s3co d biggest AFL market and teams there do not have trouble attracting or retaining players. Devils will also need to increased revenue from a bigger and better stadium. With the increased capacity, more corporate facilities and better amenities, they can earn more than twice as much from 23k at the new stadium than 16k - 17k @ Bellerive. And the state might get twice as many travelling fans. Look at how many more away fans go to games @ SCG v Showgrounds in Sydney.

 

[Black Diamond]

Maybe, maybe not. But Perth is the s3co d biggest AFL market and teams there do not have trouble attracting or retaining players. Devils will also need to increased revenue from a bigger and better stadium. With the increased capacity, more corporate facilities and better amenities, they can earn more than twice as much from 23k at the new stadium than 16k - 17k @ Bellerive. And the state might get twice as many travelling fans. Look at how many more away fans go to games @ SCG v Showgrounds in Sydney.

I am deeply sceptical of spending huge sums of public money so a football team might be a success eventually.

 

[The Lobbster]

I am deeply sceptical of spending huge sums of public money so a football team might be a success eventually.

They’re trying to get the stadium built so the AFL doesn’t have to prop up the Devils forever. The AFL is happy to fund the giants and suns because they’re theoretically eventually going to capture a market with very little AFL presence. Tasmania is a known market where you’re probably not capturing a whole lot of new money.

They AFL will have to deal with the losses once the team gets going. They’re trying to use other money to help prevent losses in the future. Presumably without the better facilities the business case doesn’t make much sense.

 

[Black Diamond]

They’re trying to get the stadium built so the AFL doesn’t have to prop up the Devils forever. The AFL is happy to fund the giants and suns because they’re theoretically eventually going to capture a market with very little AFL presence. Tasmania is a known market where you’re probably not capturing a whole lot of new money.

They AFL will have to deal with the losses once the team gets going. They’re trying to use other money to help prevent losses in the future. Presumably without the better facilities the business case doesn’t make much sense.

I understand all of this. I am just convinced a huge injection of public money is the way to go.

And if that means no team, then so be it.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Why do people bring up GC and GWS as some sort of a reason for Tassie not needing an elite facility? The AFL have just learnt from past mistakes.

 

[Cyclops]

She'll be right. The grandkids can pay for the AFLs circuses.