Mac Point Stadium! - "Tas Says Yes!"

[catters05]

Where are all the small to medium corporate boxes?

 

[Truetiger]

Where are all the small to medium corporate boxes?

I’m unsure about them in that video, Would have them i know that.

 

[BoomerRoo]

Interesting pics

 

[Kappa]

The stadium is changing how some 'rusted-on' voters will cast their ballot

Whether or not to spend many millions of dollars on a stadium in Hobart is a question being weighed by voters, with some saying they'll change who they usually vote for.

www.abc.net.au

by-the-by ..... kevin bonham social media posts of late suggest some weird and whacky behaviour going on in and around the nationals election campaign ...... are we at all surprised (at the nats i mean ..... not dr bonham - who im sure is a fine person)

"Tasmanians from a range of demographics filled in the Your Say form but a majority of respondents were over the age of 60."

This made me giggle.

Basically no one would talk to them apart from 70 years who wanted to rant about a stadium that they'll be dead before its completed.

 

[fargothegreat]

"Tasmanians from a range of demographics filled in the Your Say form but a majority of respondents were over the age of 60."

This made me giggle.

Basically no one would talk to them apart from 70 years who wanted to rant about a stadium that they'll be dead before its completed.

The crowd photos from anti-stadium rallies have all been a sea of white hair.

 

[Hodgey 15]

What we learnt from the Macquarie Point stadium Planning Commission hearings​

What we learnt from the Macquarie Point stadium hearings

Amid a state election campaign, Tasmania's Planning Commission has continued assessing the proposed Macquarie Point AFL stadium. Here's what it heard during the past fortnight's hearings.

www.abc.net.au

 

[madmug]

The ground capacity is a little bit disappointing.

Its ZERO at the moment! So onward & upward!!!

 

[madmug]

What we learnt from the Macquarie Point stadium Planning Commission hearings​

What we learnt from the Macquarie Point stadium hearings

Amid a state election campaign, Tasmania's Planning Commission has continued assessing the proposed Macquarie Point AFL stadium. Here's what it heard during the past fortnight's hearings.

www.abc.net.au

Its unfortunately easy to see the Greens lies about so much of their emotional irrational opposition to this venture. They focus on hating football but miss the multiuse value of it. The ignore any positive economic value. They ignore the social value. They deliberately lie with 'yes team, no stadium' BS. They ignore the business case which underpins the rationale for this facility in this space.
Yes its expensive, but it has generational economic & social value. Most opponents are nearer the geriatric stage of life. That tells you they have limited future prospects to worry about paying for it, or enjoying it. They seem not to care about their grandkids etc. Just a perceived lack of hospital space for them now! Greens should stick to fixing the Salmon industry & kissing trees, that simple.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Its unfortunately easy to see the Greens lies about so much of their emotional irrational opposition to this venture. They focus on hating football but miss the multiuse value of it.

You rail against their lies, but lie about their position. You couldn't recognise your own hypocrisy? Show me a single quote about "hating football".

The reason they "miss the multi use value of it" is because it barely has any. Hobart is unlikely to see an increase in men's international cricket. This notion that promoters are going to cart a plane load of gear across the water instead of playing a another show at Docklands has never had any merit, and other than that we're largely talking about events that already happen in Tasmania, but would just see an upgraded venue and surroundings.

They ignore the social value.

This is the argument that does win, and will win people over. It's the one that the 2 major parties recognise, and are desperately trying to run, while the Greens only counter argument is economic.

The benefit of the stadium isn't a concert or a winter test match. The benefit of the stadium is the cultural value, it's the benefit to the small business in the city and Salamanca on match days, it's the benefits to Tasmanian young people as UTas likely follows the model that UC has partnering with the Brumbies or UWS has with the Giants or City had with RMIT, where a genuine top tier sporting club (especially one with male & female teams) brings with it all this knowledge and experience and opportunity for young people that doesn't currently exist, it's giving young people something to be excited about and a reason to stay, it's about another opportunity to create that incredibly united sense of community that the Jack Jumpers and Hurricanes provided.

It's an infinitely more credible argument than "the Foo Fighters played in Geelong that one time after all the hundreds of millions of dollars spent at Kardinia Park". But I guess it's what makes the whole debate so complex and paradoxical - while the stadium itself is almost entirely a political and financial issue, the team is a cultural benefit. And not even one that politicians benefit from, the community does.

Can't blame some people for wanting the benefit of one without the shortcomings of the other. Admittedly though, it's an argument that ignores how much weaker that community and cultural contribution is if they're just a small team playing on suburban grounds. It doesn't really present the image of success and professionalism and the notion of being equal to all the mainland teams, which then diminishes all of those opportunities that I mentioned.

 

[madmug]

You rail against their lies, but lie about their position. You couldn't recognise your own hypocrisy? Show me a single quote about "hating football".

The reason they "miss the multi use value of it" is because it barely has any. Hobart is unlikely to see an increase in men's international cricket. This notion that promoters are going to cart a plane load of gear across the water instead of playing a another show at Docklands has never had any merit, and other than that we're largely talking about events that already happen in Tasmania, but would just see an upgraded venue and surroundings.




This is the argument that does win, and will win people over. It's the one that the 2 major parties recognise, and are desperately trying to run, while the Greens only counter argument is economic.

The benefit of the stadium isn't a concert or a winter test match. The benefit of the stadium is the cultural value, it's the benefit to the small business in the city and Salamanca on match days, it's the benefits to Tasmanian young people as UTas likely follows the model that UC has partnering with the Brumbies or UWS has with the Giants or City had with RMIT, where a genuine top tier sporting club (especially one with male & female teams) brings with it all this knowledge and experience and opportunity for young people that doesn't currently exist, it's giving young people something to be excited about and a reason to stay, it's about another opportunity to create that incredibly united sense of community that the Jack Jumpers and Hurricanes provided.

It's an infinitely more credible argument than "the Foo Fighters played in Geelong that one time after all the hundreds of millions of dollars spent at Kardinia Park". But I guess it's what makes the whole debate so complex and paradoxical - while the stadium itself is almost entirely a political and financial issue, the team is a cultural benefit. And not even one that politicians benefit from, the community does.

Can't blame some people for wanting the benefit of one without the shortcomings of the other. Admittedly though, it's an argument that ignores how much weaker that community and cultural contribution is if they're just a small team playing on suburban grounds. It doesn't really present the image of success and professionalism and the notion of being equal to all the mainland teams, which then diminishes all of those opportunities that I mentioned.

The Green chant of Yes team No stadium is a lie. The economics of the Devils team is based on the stadium. The Greens constantly blame the monster AFL for putting the Government in the position of having to build it. Thats patent BS. Its the Government who devised the better utility & value of the Roofed Multiuse stadium/convention centre complex over any other concept. The Greens & the myriad of 'fake' Independents who rail against the facility & have very little of anything else to be positive about. No mention of what else they'd put on MacPoint which would offer anything like the long-term economic & social benefit the stadium facility & team would offer.

 

[nobbyiscool]

The Green chant of Yes team No stadium is a lie. The economics of the Devils team is based on the stadium. The Greens constantly blame the monster AFL for putting the Government in the position of having to build it. Thats patent BS. Its the Government who devised the better utility & value of the Roofed Multiuse stadium/convention centre complex over any other concept. The Greens & the myriad of 'fake' Independents who rail against the facility & have very little of anything else to be positive about. No mention of what else they'd put on MacPoint which would offer anything like the long-term economic & social benefit the stadium facility & team would offer.

People talk about these problems as though they're unique to Tasmania though - they aren't, there are always political opponents, there are always NIMBYs.

You don't win by dismissing them, you win by convincing them of the vision and the opportunities and bringing them on the journey with you. Cos unfortunately if you're completely dismissive of people's concerns to the point you run roughshod over them and the established processes? There are a hell of lot of levers for opponents to pull, and as we say in campaigning? "If you can't win, delay."

In Tasmania, people pull those levers. Ask Paul Lennon, he knows it. Robin Gray knew it. I'd suggest you ask John Gay, but he died a criminal, having allegedly defrauded investors, many of them Tasmanian, of millions of dollars, while getting Tasmanian politicians to dismiss the concerns of opponents and run roughshod over political process while Gay became a millionaire many times over...

The perennial difficulty across stadium developments is that the community benefit is unquantifiable, cos so much of it is non-monetary. Something like a partnership with UTas will have some headline numbers around UTas sponsoring the Devils, around the number of students involved, around player scholarships - but it can never really quantify the benefit of that relationship for hundreds, potentially thousands of students, across the course of their careers and try to figure out how responsible the relationship was for it. It can't quantify the benefit of the kids who didn't have to go interstate because there were opportunities in (eg) sports physiotherapy at Utas/the Devils in Hobart.

You can't really quantify the benefits of parochialism and passion beyond merch sales, but we all saw how excited and engaged thousands of school kids were around the JJs - I personally know one kid who wasn't going to school much at the time who was there that week. No immediate monetary value, but it was the most valuable thing in the world to her parents.

Impossible to quantify community and connection and memories and (eventual) nostalgia - all of which we learned had tremendous community value when we were all stuck inside 5 years ago, community and connection is the lifeblood of everything, without it we shut down.

Juxtapose the unquantifiable benefits with the costs - which are extremely quantifiable. And that which they can and do put a monetary value on is generally understood by everyone to be, at best a guesstimatee, and at worse complete guff. The major parties are struggling this debate that they should be winning, cos they're fighting the battle on several fronts.

The Devils themselves are doing it. It's more or less all their comms are focussed on at the moment, is selling the vision of the community benefit. The politicians aren't doing it anywhere near as well, cos they're getting bogged down in trying to sell financial benefits that people are cynical of, and aren't what will cause people to support the stadium anyway.

A business case to try and defeat an economic argument isn't how you win if no one believes in it.

Thing is that people don't even really need to be convinced of the finances, cos ultimately it'll be people's passion for the project that decides its success. It's what got us this far, it's been a passion project for 35 years.

I kind of miss campaigning, Tasmania was such a politically engaging place in which to grow up.

 

[Dogman 1]

All these clowns keep going on about the cost. Why don't they tell the truth, it's not costing 1 billion as fed govt are chipping in so it's only costing Tas around 650 million. So many economical benefits. Politicians please be truthful for once in your life.

 

[Black Panther]

ALP vote has collapsed according to a new poll today

And they were the ones that pushed for an election

What a shit show

 

[TassieSaint]

ALP vote has collapsed according to a new poll today

And they were the ones that pushed for an election

What a shit show

The latest polling looks like essentially status quo with maybe one or two extra green/independents at the expense of Labor or Libs. That would still be a terrible outcome imo. One, what would Libs have to give you to get independents on side? A lot of them their anti stadium stance is not genuine but still difficult to know how that would work. Two, it would be a disaster for Labor who forced this whole election. Not undeserved, but my concern there is Winter gets the arse and they flip flop again killing bipartisan support.

Never thought I'd be saying it but we need as strong a Liberal vote as possible next Sat.

 

[Coolangatta]

So is the stadium still alive or what?

 

[Hodgey 15]

The latest polling looks like essentially status quo with maybe one or two extra green/independents at the expense of Labor or Libs. That would still be a terrible outcome imo. One, what would Libs have to give you to get independents on side? A lot of them their anti stadium stance is not genuine but still difficult to know how that would work. Two, it would be a disaster for Labor who forced this whole election. Not undeserved, but my concern there is Winter gets the arse and they flip flop again killing bipartisan support.

Never thought I'd be saying it but we need as strong a Liberal vote as possible next Sat.

My concern is if Winter does get dumped as Labor leader whoever takes his place as leader of Labor may be more than happy to jump into bed with Green/Independents.

 

[Hodgey 15]

So is the stadium still alive or what?

 

[Truetiger]

ALP vote has collapsed according to a new poll today

And they were the ones that pushed for an election

What a shit show

Reminder will have an election day thread open come Saturday. Hope to see a few people there. Let’s get the stadium built.

 

[Turbochook]

All these clowns keep going on about the cost. Why don't they tell the truth, it's not costing 1 billion as fed govt are chipping in so it's only costing Tas around 650 million. So many economical benefits. Politicians please be truthful for once in your life.

I think part of the problem there is the Libs greatly and knowingly understated the costs from the get-go, and how much the taxpayers would be up for. It only got worse when the private investment idea was dumped (I believe wisely) and the up-front costs rose. It's left the public with the impression that the true figure could be anything and so they pick the one which best suits their personal narrative.

For what it's worth I believe the stadium is a done deal. The AFL is caught between the Tasmanian political circus and the clubs. After a lifetime in industrial relations, I can see the roof being used as an ambit claim. The AFL cannot afford this expansion to fall over after the NRL have made huge headway with a new side in WA.

So, if need be, the AFL will drop the requirement for the roof in the initial build phase to appease those here who worry about the whole thing being too dominant and costly. It will give the other clubs a carrot to bring them onside, if necessary, like lifting football department spending soft caps, and the stadium can be constructed with the possibility of a roof being added later, once all the dust settles.

There's not a snowballs chance in hell this doesn't go through, no matter who forms government.

 

[jj15]

I think part of the problem there is the Libs greatly and knowingly understated the costs from the get-go, and how much the taxpayers would be up for. It only got worse when the private investment idea was dumped (I believe wisely) and the up-front costs rose. It's left the public with the impression that the true figure could be anything and so they pick the one which best suits their personal narrative.

For what it's worth I believe the stadium is a done deal. The AFL is caught between the Tasmanian political circus and the clubs. After a lifetime in industrial relations, I can see the roof being used as an ambit claim. The AFL cannot afford this expansion to fall over after the NRL have made huge headway with a new side in WA.

So, if need be, the AFL will drop the requirement for the roof in the initial build phase to appease those here who worry about the whole thing being too dominant and costly. It will give the other clubs a carrot to bring them onside, if necessary, like lifting football department spending soft caps, and the stadium can be constructed with the possibility of a roof being added later, once all the dust settles.

There's not a snowballs chance in hell this doesn't go through, no matter who forms government.

Yerp, been assured since announcement. Have never understood the worry. They are already underway having moved to Selfs point the sewerage.

 

[davesnothere]

So is the stadium still alive or what?

It’s on the roof.

 

[BoomerRoo]

 

[TassieSaint]

I wish I shared the confidence of some in here but for as resolute as Libs and Lab have been during the campaign, many of the anti stadium Indies are just as much so. Johnston and Peter George coming out today vowing to kill the project. At the end of the day someone has to blink. You would hope that a clear majority from the major parties being for the stadium (not to mention the federal govt) would be enough to get Indies on board to stop playing games with it but who knows. I do suspect a lot of them see it as an easy way to suck up some protest votes when the majors are both for it, but some of them are clearly dead set against it.

What would actually happen in that instance given the AFL is clearly not going to renegotiate... I guess that's where the team dies and these ****head nimbys get to blame the AFL for 'forcing' us to sign a deal with a stadium that would actually leave the club financially viable. You'd have to suspect the Greens know York Park would never work.

As an aside I find that flog George infuriating, not even elected yet and he's seeking to dictate terms for the state. Sadly it looks like he'll get in, the sheer amount of advertising he's got is more than any other candidate I've seen around Hobart. Why Climate 200 think a state election candidate railing against an infill development that will open up active transport in favour of an alternative that would require the majority of the crowd to drive is a good idea I will never understand, but apparently their pockets are deep enough that this is a priority for them.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Good read

Why York Park is not considered an alternative to the new Hobart stadium

The existing York Park stadium in Tasmania's north is often pointed to as already hosting AFL games and one that should be upgraded in favour of building a new arena in Hobart. Here is why that likely won't happen.

www.abc.net.au

I honestly think Tasmania would be better off if Launceston were the biggest city and capital. More central, less windy, less constrained by mountains. I guess that isn't going to happen. Would have been nice though. I much prefer Launy, even though I'm a big city person generally.

 

[Turbochook]

I honestly think Tasmania would be better off if Launceston were the biggest city and capital. More central, less windy, less constrained by mountains. I guess that isn't going to happen. Would have been nice though. I much prefer Launy, even though I'm a big city person generally.

It would have been had cargo ships not got so big that they cannot navigate the Tamar, which does have a lot of issues with silt at the city end. So, there it is, Hobart isn't a particularly big city, but it is much larger than Launie and has a pace, a hustle to it. That being said I much prefer it here too, it's as much a big country town as a city, and I prefer that much more than us having our own AFL team TBH.