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

[boncer34]

Double standard designed to increase the costs and decrease the economic benefit. Wonder why they're doing that.

The_Wookie has written several excellent tweets on the report I recommend people read.

 

[speedpeck23]

Why can't they build it like Docklands with corporate money and lease it for 30 years and then buy it back for $1 like the AFL did.

They haven't got a Waverley Park to sell.

 

[The_Wookie]

Take a read yourself.

Because unlike the backroom deals done by the Tasmanian Government and AFL House to get this thing built, this latest report from the Tas Planning Commission report is published for all to see.

Pretty much EVERY document on this process is available for all to access and download free of charge.

Contract

• 2023 Tasmania AFL Club Funding and Development Agreement

Team

• 2009 Senate Enquiry in GWS and Tasmania AFL Bid
• 2018 – AFL Tasmania Steering Committee Findings
• 2019 – Tasmania AFL Task Force Report
• 2020 – Legislative Council Select Committee – Final Report on AFL in Tasmania
• 2021 Carter Review Tasmania Licence

Stadium

• 2023 – Proposed Hobart Stadium
• Hobart Stadium – Capacity Optimisation analysis
• Hobart Stadium – Cost benefit Analysis
• Hobart Stadium – Economic Impact of new Arts, Entertainment and Sports Precinct
• Hobart Stadium – Pre Feasibility Study for Regatta Point and Macquarie Point Sites
• Hobart Stadium – Site Selection Process Report
• Independent review of the Maquarie Point Stadium (Gruen Jan 2025).
• Mac Point Precinct Plan (Aug 2024)
• Macquarie Point – Estimating the economic contribution of commercial uses at the new arts, entertainment and sports precinct
• Mac Point – Key views
• Macquarie Point – Strategic Business Case
• Final Guidelines – Macquarie Point Stadium POSS
• KPMG Financial Impact Report
• Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium POSS Report
• Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium – Planning Commission Recommendation
• Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium – Planning Commission Integrated Assessment Report

 

[Altum Volantes]

It'll get done.

Hopefully with the roof, which seems an elaborate demand by the league....to anyone who hasn't watched an AFL game played in Tasmania over the last 20 years.

It has to have a roof or the quality of footy will be awful - smartest thing the AFL has done is stay strong on the roof - possibly the smartest thing they've done to protect the quality of the product since creating Chris Judd in that lab back in 80s.

 

[Festerz]

It'll get done.

Yes, I have no doubt it will. WITH a roof - subject to major engineering issues being revealed in pre-construction works.

Because the Planning Commission findings are non binding on the Tasmanian Parliament and given both the major parties have consistently supported the project going ahead, and hold the majority in terms of numbers, I think the chances of the legislation for constructing the stadium being approved is a near certainty.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Yes, I have no doubt it will. WITH a roof - subject to major engineering issues being revealed in pre-construction works.

Because the Planning Commission findings are non binding on the Tasmanian Parliament and given both the major parties have consistently supported the project going ahead, and hold the majority in terms of numbers, I think the chances of the legislation for constructing the stadium being approved is a near certainty.

No, it’s a HAMMER BLOW for the Tassie team and the state’s footy dream is in TATTERS and on the BRINK OF DEATH!!!

Just ask any media outlet

 

[Walshawk]

Gotta agree here.

People sometimes forget what a small state Tasmania is, so having the Tassie taxpayer on the hook here was always going to be high risk.

If we go ahead with the team, will Bellerive and York Park be good enough to host 11 games a year? I would think so. And if the side ends up being popular enough then the conversation about a new stadium could happen again?


Just think baby steps is the way to go here

Little changed they play at Bellerive. More likely is a stadium at the same site but without a roof. It will be around half the height/bulk Withwith a roof, and $300m cheaper. Problem solved.

 

[The_Wookie]

Little changed they play at Bellerive. More likely is a stadium at the same site but without a roof. It will be around half the height/bulk Withwith a roof, and $300m cheaper. Problem solved.

I suspect thats the compromise the league will reluctantly go for.

 

[The Feeder Club]

Yes, I have no doubt it will. WITH a roof - subject to major engineering issues being revealed in pre-construction works.

Because the Planning Commission findings are non binding on the Tasmanian Parliament and given both the major parties have consistently supported the project going ahead, and hold the majority in terms of numbers, I think the chances of the legislation for constructing the stadium being approved is a near certainty.

They don't hold the majority in the upper house though, labor and liberal combined only have 6 of the 15 seats. Which as an aside raises the question of how stupid the upper house voting system must be, but anyway.

So even though both labor and liberal support the stadium, they need some independents to vote for it too. Or they need to creatively find a way to bypass parliament approval to build it, which is what the premier is apparently iexploring

 

[Walshawk]

I suspect thats the compromise the league will reluctantly go for.

If so, we go through months of planning and the same process again. That would likely mean delayed entry to 2029.

 

[The_Wookie]

If so, we go through months of planning and the same process again. That would likely mean delayed entry to 2029.

I think the team goes ahead as planned. They just need the stadium to be confirmed. The contract anticipates delays if required - those fees can probably be waived if everything is firmed up - contract has to be modified if theres no roof anyway

 

[rapidfire7]

The Devils need to be put on the back burner until if and when the stadium is built. If it takes another 5, 10 or 20 years, so be it. Things need to be done right from the beginning or not at all (if the team is going to have any chance of success).

 

[greening22]

Wrong. It was the Tasmanian Government via the Taskforce in 2019 who approached the AFL and said: "if we spend approx $300m on a new CBD-based roofed stadium, will you give us our own team?"

The AFL's response: "Yes. And we'll also give you $15m to help build it. And about $350m to setup the club."

According to the report on the ABC Online today - September 17 - concerning the proposed Hobart Stadium, the estimated costs have now blown out again from the previous estimate of $945 million to now $1.13 billion. Given this trend, why is the AFL only going to contribute $15 million which is effectively only a paltry 1.3% of the new estimated total cost? If the AFL is so determined to have this new stadium built, why are they not budging on this ,$15 million contribution? I would have thought that the AFL could afford to make a more substantial contribution. I look forward to further comments. Goodnight & good luck.

 

[MightyHawks]

There'll be plenty of players willing to play for Bucks and the increased pay day and have the opportunity to be the first captain or leaders of the Devils - guys the Devils could target like Will Ashcroft, Caleb Serong, Matt Rowell, Noah Anderson, Touk Miller, Tom Green, Will Day, Zak Butters and Chad Warner

The Devils could target Bombers players too.

 

[My_Username]

According to the report on the ABC Online today - September 17 - concerning the proposed Hobart Stadium, the estimated costs have now blown out again from the previous estimate of $945 million to now $1.13 billion. Given this trend, why is the AFL only going to contribute $15 million which is effectively only a paltry 1.3% of the new estimated total cost? If the AFL is so determined to have this new stadium built, why are they not budging on this ,$15 million contribution? I would have thought that the AFL could afford to make a more substantial contribution. I look forward to further comments. Goodnight & good luck.

Because it's not the AFL that wants a club in Tas.

They're willing to accept a club in Tas provided they meet certain criteria, including...A new, roofed, stadium. (presumably with the club getting a very generous share of the ground revenue, regardless of what it costs, in order to ensure the club is financially viable).

The people of Tas (and thus their politicians) want the club, and are marching headlong into building this massive white elephant in order to make it happen.

 

[Toump Ass]

The amount of mainlanders that come on a holiday, leave and come back to live is astronomical.

I googled this.

"The state's population reached 575,756 as of 31 December 2024, an increase of 1,580 persons (0.28%) from the previous year, marking the lowest annual growth rate among all Australian states and territories"

That doesn't sound astronomical to me?

 

[Altum Volantes]

Little changed they play at Bellerive. More likely is a stadium at the same site but without a roof. It will be around half the height/bulk Withwith a roof, and $300m cheaper. Problem solved.

If they build it without a roof it will be an absolute blight on the competition and we will never see a decent game of footy played in that state - just like the last 20+ years.

Do it right or don't bother.

It's not like we NEED to add this team - especially not without getting rid of another one.

 

[Bipolar Bear]

I googled this.

"The state's population reached 575,756 as of 31 December 2024, an increase of 1,580 persons (0.28%) from the previous year, marking the lowest annual growth rate among all Australian states and territories"

That doesn't sound astronomical to me?

All 3 of my neighbors within the last 2 years have the exact story I mentioned. Two from NSW, one from VIC.
My mate owns a cafe and hears this daily.

The issue with Tasmania is for every mainlander moving to Hobart, there's a kid in their late teens/early 20s moving to the Mainland for opportunities they can't get here.

 

[Not a mere cat]

13 million for steel boxes that actually cost $2400 each. .

Not true. $13 mill total roll out of the programme. Confirmed actual cost was $2400 per bin (which is comparable to cost of steel charity bins) x 40 = $96k. The remaining $12.9m was on all the other costs. This lie was spouted by the libs and proven to be false

 

[HairyO]

Pretty much EVERY document on this process is available for all to access and download free of charge.

Contract

• 2023 Tasmania AFL Club Funding and Development Agreement

Team

• 2009 Senate Enquiry in GWS and Tasmania AFL Bid
• 2018 – AFL Tasmania Steering Committee Findings
• 2019 – Tasmania AFL Task Force Report
• 2020 – Legislative Council Select Committee – Final Report on AFL in Tasmania
• 2021 Carter Review Tasmania Licence

Stadium

• 2023 – Proposed Hobart Stadium
• Hobart Stadium – Capacity Optimisation analysis
• Hobart Stadium – Cost benefit Analysis
• Hobart Stadium – Economic Impact of new Arts, Entertainment and Sports Precinct
• Hobart Stadium – Pre Feasibility Study for Regatta Point and Macquarie Point Sites
• Hobart Stadium – Site Selection Process Report
• Independent review of the Maquarie Point Stadium (Gruen Jan 2025).
• Mac Point Precinct Plan (Aug 2024)
• Macquarie Point – Estimating the economic contribution of commercial uses at the new arts, entertainment and sports precinct
• Mac Point – Key views
• Macquarie Point – Strategic Business Case
• Final Guidelines – Macquarie Point Stadium POSS
• KPMG Financial Impact Report
• Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium POSS Report
• Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium – Planning Commission Recommendation
• Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium – Planning Commission Integrated Assessment Report

May want to check the links. Tried 2 and got 404 errors.

Double standard designed to increase the costs and decrease the economic benefit. Wonder why they're doing that.

The_Wookie has written several excellent tweets on the report I recommend people read.

Really? The funding states its for the broader area and the stadium. Does it state that the funding is being provided no matter the result with the stadium?

Do people believe the Feds will still go ahead?

Also, its still only $250m, is capped, and a fraction of the total cost. Tasmania bears the brunt of the costs and all of the risk with the inevitable overruns.

Why can't they build it like Docklands with corporate money and lease it for 30 years and then buy it back for $1 like the AFL did.

What corporate money is in Tasmania?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

If we go ahead with the team, will Bellerive and York Park be good enough to host 11 games a year? I would think so.

It is amazing that this is still a view that can get espoused and backed up by multiple likes.

The AFL and the Tasmanian club has been nothing but consistent that this is untrue, and your "would think so" is in direct contradiction to the word of the AFL and the current shell version of the club. To sya that you think this is in effect to be a conspiracy theorist. The stadium has to exist for the team.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

This one is always funny to me.

Meanwhile, the amount of mainlanders that come on a holiday, leave and come back to live is astronomical.

Tasmania's own statistics agency even says that Tasmania's the most harmed in the country for interstate migration:
Population-Snapshot-July-25-Ed.pdf https://share.google/PGoywK3U0ejJfu0i9

We actually measure and estimate these things. You don't have to go off vibes

 

[HairyO]

It is amazing that this is still a view that can get espoused and backed up by multiple likes.

The AFL and the Tasmanian club has been nothing but consistent that this is untrue, and your "would think so" is in direct contradiction to the word of the AFL and the current shell version of the club. To sya that you think this is in effect to be a conspiracy theorist. The stadium has to exist for the team.

The groups wanting $1.5b in government funding have been steadfast in their belief that $1.5b in government funding was the only possible solution?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The groups wanting $1.5b in government funding have been steadfast in their belief that $1.5b in government funding was the only possible solution?

But the economics of running a team are common sense. The club will need a revenue (and therefore spending base) of about $50 million. The TV media rights distribution covers players salary of about $15 million, the Tas government is chipping in $12 but the remaining $23 million is covered by the Tasmania team's own sponsorship, merchandise and crucially, tickets and memberships. That $23 million is the rough figure of revenue generation with the 23,000 seats of the new stadium. 11 home games across both stadiums is about $1000 per match day seat equivalent to those revenue sources. With lower capacity you're trying to generate $1500 per seat from Belleville which is unworkable with common sense, it is not worth that in society.

It's not a conspiracy theory because it's common sense to take the AFL at its word with logical back of the envelope calculations.

 

[HairyO]

But the economics of running a team are common sense. The club will need a revenue (and therefore spending base) of about $50 million. The TV media rights distribution covers players salary of about $15 million, the Tas government is chipping in $12 but the remaining $23 million is covered by the Tasmania team's own sponsorship, merchandise and crucially, tickets and memberships. That $23 million is the rough figure of revenue generation with the 23,000 seats of the new stadium. 11 home games across both stadiums is about $1000 per match day seat equivalent to those revenue sources. With lower capacity you're trying to generate $1500 per seat from Belleville which is unworkable with common sense, it is not worth that in society.

It's not a conspiracy theory because it's common sense to take the AFL at its word with logical back of the envelope calculations.

I assume all this is available but I dont feel up to trawling through all of the reports - particularly as some of Wookie's links dont work.

How much money do GCS and GWS independently generate separate to all the AFL money and sponsors sent their way?

What % of Tasmanians need to be 11 game members for their membership model to work?

How many non-Tasmanians need to attend each home game for the tourism model to work?