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

[VinnieB]

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

I agree that the benefits for Tasmania will be great.

Still think it makes zero sense for the AFL, as a business, to have a team in Tasmania.

 

[Black Diamond]

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

If that is the case, then the AFL has reached a conclusion different to that of the independent report. What exactly does the AFL know that the investigators don't?

The AFL is not pushing this for benevolent reasons. And you are inadvertently acknowledging the same by saying the stadium will mitigate the risk to the AFL.

And I don't care about what we already send to Tasmania. It doesn't follow that every injection of cash is equally necessary or viable.

 

[My_Username]

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

Albo would consider that a positive.

 

[My_Username]

If that is the case, then the AFL has reached a conclusion different to that of the independent report. What exactly does the AFL know that the investigators don't?

The AFL is not pushing this for benevolent reasons. And you are inadvertently acknowledging the same by saying the stadium will mitigate the risk to the AFL.

And I don't care about what we already send to Tasmania. It doesn't follow that every injection of cash is equally necessary or viable.

AFL is looking at different criteria to the report.

The report is looking at if the team will be good for Tas.

The AFL cares if the team will be good for the AFL. (and how harmful it would be to the AFL to say no).

If the club routinely makes significant losses, and the AFL has to pump lots of money into it ever year, it could be 'viable' (in that it would keep running), good for Tas (more money coming into the state than leaving, along with extra entertainment, etc) and thus get a big tick from the 'independent report', and yet still have the AFL opposed to the idea.

My thought about the stadium from the start was that it was the AFL's way of committing the Tas government to it...If they'll sink $300M into a stadium, then they'll probably come up with another $5M/yr in 'sponsorships' if the club proves to be struggling financially.

Of course, as that $300M keeps blowing out (what's their share now? 6 or 700M?), the Tas gov really should reevaluate the whole deal and probably walk away from it, but in a way it proves the point of the previous paragraph...Once 'committed', governments tend to just keep throwing money at things, even long after it becomes clear that it's become a bad deal.

 

[The Educator]

If that is the case, then the AFL has reached a conclusion different to that of the independent report. What exactly does the AFL know that the investigators don't?

The costs of running an AFL club......the needs for an AFL club to be successful......the benefits and opportunities of having an AFL club etc

The AFL is not pushing this for benevolent reasons. And you are inadvertently acknowledging the same by saying the stadium will mitigate the risk to the AFL.

They are not "pushing it". The AFL responded to a very concerted push from Tasmania....a rooved stadium was actually an output of the Tasmanian feesibility study. It was then a part of the package that got the AFL took to its 18 clubs to get agreement.

The point about mitigating risk to the AFL is that it is all downside financial risk. I.e. having another basket case club in an area of very limitited commercial value. The upside transformative potential for Tasmania is enormous.

The blind moralisers are contorting the equation so they can wring their hands at the big bad AFL

And I don't care about what we already send to Tasmania. It doesn't follow that every injection of cash is equally necessary or viable.

The point I was making is that the rest of the nation cross subsidises Tasmania hundreds of millions a year pricesely because of a relative lack of economic capacity. The only way that is reduced is if there is a step change in Tasmanian economic capacity

 

[brutus76]

AFL chips in 100m
Elphinstone group 200m (and their equipement is used to develop and build and some naming rights as a kick back)
Canva Group 200m (and their products get used for advertising and social platforms at the new stadium and some naming rights as a kick back)
Private/corporate/media investors make up the rest

 

[My_Username]

AFL chips in 100m
Elphinstone group 200m (and their equipement is used to develop and build and some naming rights as a kick back)
Canva Group 200m (and their products get used for advertising and social platforms at the new stadium and some naming rights as a kick back)
Private/corporate/media investors make up the rest

Why would they do this?

 

[brutus76]

Why would they do this?

1. Why not?
2. Giving back to Tasmania
3. Getting a few kickbacks and leaving a family legacy

 

[My_Username]

1. Why not?
2. Giving back to Tasmania
3. Getting a few kickbacks and leaving a family legacy

1. Because there people/groups/organisations don't make money by throwing it away.
2. Why? They've already given.
3. Like? What would they get that would be be worth hundreds of millions?

 

[brutus76]

Elphinstone Group would get their equipment used in the contract for the development of the land and stadium as a kickback for their financial investment

Canva would get their products used in advertising at the stadium and could have an agreement made with the AFL where their products and services are used in all AFL and club platforms including design, marketing, sales and communications

Canva Stand
Elphinstone Stand
Goals ends are the Peter Hudson end and the Jack Riewoldt end
Nick Riewoldt wing

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Elphinstone Group would get their equipment used in the contract for the development of the land and stadium as a kickback for their financial investment

Canva would get their products used in advertising at the stadium and could have an agreement made with the AFL where their products and services are used in all AFL and club platforms including design, marketing, sales and communications

Canva Stand
Elphinstone Stand
Goals ends are the Peter Hudson end and the Jack Riewoldt end
Nick Riewoldt wing

I think you're a bit optimistic about how much the marketing value of that is. It's in the low 7 figures at best, they're not going to be offering up 10x that

 

[threenewpadlocks]

AFL is looking at different criteria to the report.

The report is looking at if the team will be good for Tas.

The AFL cares if the team will be good for the AFL. (and how harmful it would be to the AFL to say no).

You don't at all believe that the AFL at all could be actually more expert than the Tasmanian government in understanding the economic change of an AFL team? They very well could be. They have more detailed information and realistic projection on tourism etc. to Tasmania if they were to host teams.

 

[My_Username]

You don't at all believe that the AFL at all could be actually more expert than the Tasmanian government in understanding the economic change of an AFL team? They very well could be. They have more detailed information and realistic projection on tourism etc. to Tasmania if they were to host teams.

I don't think the AFL particularly cares about such things. Good or bad for Tas isn't really their wheelhouse.

They care about (and are, presumably, expert in) the economic effects on the AFL from adding a new team (or not).

The AFL's only interest in what is good, or bad, about the economic effects of a team in Tas would start and stop with how it influences their negotiations with the Tas government.

 

[Tasmanian saint]

 

[My_Username]

View attachment 2434016

"We support it, except when we can use the inevitable changes in costs/details for political points scoring".

 

[The Feeder Club]

View attachment 2434016

Seems more and more it's the upper house indrpendents that will be heroes or villians, depending on which side you're on

 

[HairyO]

"We support it, except when we can use the inevitable changes in costs/details for political points scoring".

Im sure they will help draft cost schedules where pay rates are not massively inflated like every single other government project around the country...

 

[Tasmanian saint]

"We support it, except when we can use the inevitable changes in costs/details for political points scoring".

No doubt but as long as they vote it threw parliament that’s all that counts really

 

[Tasmanian saint]

Seems more and more it's the upper house indrpendents that will be heroes or villians, depending on which side you're on

Only need two out of eight independents votes to get it threw it will pass it’s just the time line that will get dragged out quite a bit

 

[Woolly Mammoth]

Only need two out of eight independents votes to get it threw it will pass it’s just the time line that will get dragged out quite a bit

Not wanting to be a smart arse, but you mean through or threw as in thrown out?

 

[Tasmanian saint]

Not wanting to be a smart arse, but you mean through or threw as in thrown out?

Yeah sorry spell check I mean through parliament and I’ve heard they need 3 independents not 2

 

[The Feeder Club]

Sounds like this morning enough independents have declared they will support the stadium that the parliament will pass the bill to build it.
For better or worse it's hello Devils

 

[Shipping Report]

The stadium will blow out to cost 3 billion dollars and be one of those ‘value builds.’ They’ve already changed the design to have open concourses… works on the Goldy where it’s often 18 degrees in footy season. Won’t work in the most southerly city to Antarctica and located a hundred metres from a bay.

Will be a shitfest and they’ll be a terrible team forever.

 

[Teen Wolf]

The stadium will blow out to cost 3 billion dollars and be one of those ‘value builds.’ They’ve already changed the design to have open concourses… works on the Goldy where it’s often 18 degrees in footy season. Won’t work in the most southerly city to Antarctica and located a hundred metres from a bay.

Will be a shitfest and they’ll be a terrible team forever.

None of that is true.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Looking forward to what will be my 2nd team coming in.

High cost, hopefully long term reward.