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

[kid_a]

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.

Ive seen plenty of games in Tassie that have been played on a crisp and sunny afternoon

 

[Shipping Report]

While the whole ‘why are we building a stadium when we need infrastructure and amenities?’ always annoys me because it’s not how government funds and projects work and as much as I think an AFL team would have plenty of unforeseen economic and intangible but real benefits, I just don’t think it’s in the appetite or worthwhile.

The Gold Coast and GWS stadiums are used for as many AFL games as this would be but they’re barebones, built to be cheap shells with pretty minimal design flair and heaps of exposed ‘concourses.’ This thing is basically unprecedented in Australia, you’re building a mini Optus Stadium for some pretty minimal usage.

Won’t even go into the issues around young men living in Tasmania, how many Tasmanians seem entirely noncommittal to supporting this side (they all seem happy with their Collingwood, St Kilda, Richmond, and Hawthorn), the lopsided fixture, the fact we have about 100 players too many who aren’t AFL standard and how overextended the careers of bang average players are, the fact a 20th team needs to come in that’d just add to these issues and exist in a market that really doesn’t need it…

It was never going to get done and I swear Gillon left this as a shit in a parcel parting gift and I’d love to know why.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

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?

Does it provide an age demographic?
I'd suggest the majority are retirees looking for somewhere cheap to settle.

I cant see 18-26yo's staying past FA age.

 

[speedpeck23]

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.

The AFL Commission is behoven to the existing AFL clubs.

 

[Walshawk]

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.

Why do you think no roof will be a blight? Everyone hates the roof at Marvel.

 

[Altum Volantes]

Why do you think no roof will be a blight? Everyone hates the roof at Marvel.

Why do you think the AFL are insisting on the roof?...

 

[Walshawk]

Why do you think the AFL are insisting on the roof?...

Tell me.

 

[Purple Suit]

While the whole ‘why are we building a stadium when we need infrastructure and amenities?’ always annoys me because it’s not how government funds and projects work and as much as I think an AFL team would have plenty of unforeseen economic and intangible but real benefits, I just don’t think it’s in the appetite or worthwhile.

The Gold Coast and GWS stadiums are used for as many AFL games as this would be but they’re barebones, built to be cheap shells with pretty minimal design flair and heaps of exposed ‘concourses.’ This thing is basically unprecedented in Australia, you’re building a mini Optus Stadium for some pretty minimal usage.

Won’t even go into the issues around young men living in Tasmania, how many Tasmanians seem entirely noncommittal to supporting this side (they all seem happy with their Collingwood, St Kilda, Richmond, and Hawthorn), the lopsided fixture, the fact we have about 100 players too many who aren’t AFL standard and how overextended the careers of bang average players are, the fact a 20th team needs to come in that’d just add to these issues and exist in a market that really doesn’t need it…

It was never going to get done and I swear Gillon left this as a shit in a parcel parting gift and I’d love to know why.

I've never understood the lack of talent argument. The population of Australia has grown more than the number of AFL teams. The only thing that more teams means is that the gap between the best and the worse might grow if the best team has a bigger percentage of good players compared to the worse team who might have very few.

It's a mix of the top 100 on the best team vs a mix of the bottom 400-600 on the worst. Injuries, adding interchange numbers all have the same effect. Back when it was 12 teams and 18 on the field the whole comp was basically 220 players plus injury replacements.

It's always going to be a bigger gap with more teams but it's not to do with the talent. No one complains about the Olympics having too many countries when there is still the same number of medalists.

 

[HairyO]

I've never understood the lack of talent argument. The population of Australia has grown more than the number of AFL teams.

Has that population growth been in places where Aussie Rules is played and made up of people who play Aussie Rules?

My bet is the population of Aussie Rules playing people has not kept up with the expansion of the teams.

 

[Rotayjay]

Has that population growth been in places where Aussie Rules is played and made up of people who play Aussie Rules?

My bet is the population of Aussie Rules playing people has not kept up with the expansion of the teams.

I agree - most of our population growth comes from immigration. A large portion of recent immigration is from countries where Aussie rules doesn't register a blip on the radar.

 

[HairyO]

I agree - most of our population growth comes from immigration. A large portion of recent immigration is from countries where Aussie rules doesn't register a blip on the radar.

And most go to Sydney with some in Melb and some in Brisbane and very little elsewhere.

 

[The Feeder Club]

If we get to 20 clubs and have the current list size of 42 that's 840 players.
How much better would the competition be if instead we had 14 clubs with 60 players, also being 840 players?
Squads would be big enough to rest pkayers strategically and run a 26 round season to play everyone H&A, massively increasing competition fairness.
They could even run a reserve competition if they chose to.
The problem in the AFL is too many clubs, not too few good players.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

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.

The AFL don't really care if they get a club in Tassie or not. Its far too small a market, that they already dominate more than any other, to get any sort of return from. The AFL already milks the state for than is sustainable.
They would like the extra rights money from a 20th team and 10th match. And they wanted a PR win if seeming to give Tas the chance. After 30 years of pressure from media about the missing state it was far better PR to give Gil a final politcal win of being seen to make an offer - ideally one that was too bad to accept, so the AFL aren't seen as the bad guys.

The clubs do want to make sure that if there is a Tas club any future government has no choice to pur bad moiney after bad propping it up with the Tas side getting minimal financial support from the AFL. An unaffordable white elephant guarantees that, what government wants to sit on a $1b asset that sent the state even further in financial collapse and have it used at third capacity or more 2-3 days a year if that; when by spending more money they don't have it could be used 10-12 times a year.
They teally expected the Tas government to say "no" to those demands. Any sane government would have done. But despite the best electoral system in the world, Tas produces the most amazing mix of incompetent and corrupt in the nation. So incompetent its very difficult to tell where the corruption begins.

So, you end up with a horror show we have. Which will no doubt be built, and probably be a rather nice stadium that chalks a completely unnecessary and unjustifiable cost in building and maintenance.
Some things are not worth the cost. The clubs and state politics combined made sure an AFL team in Tasmania is one of those.

 

[Purple Suit]

And most go to Sydney with some in Melb and some in Brisbane and very little elsewhere.

That's not true. Perth has the highest % growth rate of all major Australian cities. Melbourne has the highest actual number.

I see kids footy over here and there are other ethic group's kids playing. I see a multicultural mix in certain suburbs. From what I've seen, Indians mainly stick to cricket (in the nets over winter) but you get the occasional one come through.

Population is population. The kids that are good at it are going to like it and stick it through. New migrants might not instantly give their kids footies but I'm sure their grandkids will have them. Italians and Greek's probably copped the same criticism during the 50's and 60's before they became household names in the sport.

 

[The_Reaper]

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.

Then just don’t build the stadium and don’t have a team. No problem

 

[the big lebowski]

If we get to 20 clubs and have the current list size of 42 that's 840 players.
How much better would the competition be if instead we had 14 clubs with 60 players, also being 840 players?
Squads would be big enough to rest pkayers strategically and run a 26 round season to play everyone H&A, massively increasing competition fairness.
They could even run a reserve competition if they chose to.
The problem in the AFL is too many clubs, not too few good players.

14 clubs equals 2 less games per week.

Thats 22% less tv product. Where the afl make most of its money. Not to mention less sponsors, interest etc. plus you alienate existing devoted fans.

The alternative is to add Tassie, which pays for itself and expand to 20 teams an have 10 games per week.

More money vs less money.

 

[My_Username]

14 clubs equals 2 less games per week.

Thats 22% less tv product. Where the afl make most of its money. Not to mention less sponsors, interest etc. plus you alienate existing devoted fans.

The alternative is to add Tassie, which pays for itself and expand to 20 teams an have 10 games per week.

More money vs less money.

The alternative view is that not all product is equal.

If you dropped the 'worst' 2 games each week you'd lose a lot less than 22% of viewers (and by extension sponsors, interest, etc).

I do agree that alienating existing fans would be an issue, but there would be a cost/benefit calculation and mitigation measures that could be done there.

Conversely, the expenses are reverse linear...the teams most likely to be excluded are the ones that cost the tend to league more.

I'm not suggesting this should be done, but the idea that losing 2 games would equate to losing 22% of 'the AFL' is massively over-simplistic.

The irony is probably that continued expansion would lead to excluding clubs in effect anyway as every expansion makes 2 divisions more likely, and some clubs would be likely to spend much more time in the lower grade, effectively removing them from the top tier of the competition.

 

[The Feeder Club]

14 clubs equals 2 less games per week.

Thats 22% less tv product. Where the afl make most of its money. Not to mention less sponsors, interest etc. plus you alienate existing devoted fans.

The alternative is to add Tassie, which pays for itself and expand to 20 teams an have 10 games per week.

More money vs less money.

Not quite, 26x7 =182. 23x9=207. So essentially you would lose one game a week over the course of a yeark, for a much fairer (because it's true H&A) and IMO better competition

 

[catters05]

Melbourne people seem to hate marvel stadium, move it to Hobart.

 

[Proper Gander]

Melbourne people seem to hate marvel stadium, move it to Hobart.

I’d stuff it in a cannon and fire it at the sun

 

[VinnieB]

For $1 billion, you’d think they could have a better design.

Didn’t Albanese give $600 million for Papua New Guinea’s NRL team, yet will only give Tasmania $200 million?

The Tasmanian Government could always threaten to come to an arrangement with the Chinese. That should shake a few extra $$$ from Albo

 

[VinnieB]

A Tasmanian team will be a disaster for the AFL. Makes zero sense.

 

[Black Diamond]

The Tasmanian Government could always threaten to come to an arrangement with the Chinese. That should shake a few extra $$$ from Albo

Victoria tried that and Albanese was ok with it.

 

[Black Diamond]

I remain hopeful this will fall over.

It is a grotesque waste of public money which the nation’s citizens are within their rights to oppose.

Great to see some Tasmanian push back against the AFL too. If the price of your own team is an economic disaster then they should say no to the stadium.

Reckless and contemptuous by the AFL to require a new stadium at all let alone a roof. They have no care at all for the health of the state.

 

[The Educator]

I remain hopeful this will fall over.

It is a grotesque waste of public money which the nation’s citizens are within their rights to oppose.

Great to see some Tasmanian push back against the AFL too. If the price of your own team is an economic disaster then they should say no to the stadium.

Reckless and contemptuous by the AFL to require a new stadium at all let alone a roof. They have no care at all for the health of the state.

Actually I suspect the AFL are very convinced this will be a boon for the state. The stadium requirement was an assurance it would mitigate the financial risk a Tasmanian club poses to the AFL

The nation's citizens currently transfer a significant amount of money from the mainland to the Tasmania every year, precisely because it doesn't have the economic capacity to raise sufficient revenue itself to meet its service delivery needs

https://www.cgc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-03/TAS_2025.pdf

The football club has the potential to be transformative to Tasmania

The debate around this is dominanted by profound ignorance and emoting