Tasmania Tasmania Devils, welcome to the AFL. Mens team to enter 2028. Womens team TBA. Labor declares support for Stadium 6/5

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

That ridiculous 'heated plastic grass' letter got published in Tuesday's Mercury, so expect to start hearing it en masse form the no stadium crowd.
 
That ridiculous 'heated plastic grass' letter got published in Tuesday's Mercury, so expect to start hearing it en masse form the no stadium crowd.
I actually think it is satire. They can't really think. right?

A Battery Point doctor talking about ordinary people and says these are the requirements. Gotta be.
 
I actually think it is satire. They can't really think. right?

A Battery Point doctor talking about ordinary people and says these are the requirements. Gotta be.

You might be on to something there...

In 2013 he presented a paper at the Future of Education Conference in Florence Italy on the ‘Use of Humour in Online Teaching'

Otherwise, just a general plonker.
 
If Tassie doesn't want it, I know a 160 year old club that would, the Williamstown Seagulls, give it to them.
Guess it's up to you to decide down in Tassie, do you want to progress and have an economic boost and the chance of a football team and jobs or stay stagnant instead.
 
7.1k to the footy today for the state game. It was also a show for support for the stadium.

Good atmosphere and Tassie won by 7 points.
Has any of the equivelant games ever reached anywhere near that kind of crowd? It's more than what North Melbourne can get to Bellerive.
 
Has any of the equivelant games ever reached anywhere near that kind of crowd? It's more than what North Melbourne can get to Bellerive.
It was so Tasmanian.

Didnt, hear the final siren due to the volume of the crowd. The match was a bit scrappy but enjoyable to watch and always close.

North can get 7K when they play the average sides. I think that was the crowd at the Adelaide match earlier in the year but don't quote me on that. They would get 10K+ against the bigger sides. In saying that, this was a state game which would normally have gotten 1K to it.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

That doesn't include 2000 odd children that got in free as well

But it probably includes some tickets who pre-brought but didnt turn up.

When I entered, I didn't notice any clicker person counting the crowd. Have Heard they used ticket sales as an indication of crowd size than actual attendees. Who knows.
 
But it probably includes some tickets who pre-brought but didnt turn up.

When I entered, I didn't notice any clicker person counting the crowd. Have Heard they used ticket sales as an indication of crowd size than actual attendees. Who knows.
It's been funny hearing the no stadium group coming out saying that it was a poor turn out, clearly they don't understand it's a state game not an AFL game with Tasmania playing.
 
It was so Tasmanian.

Didnt, hear the final siren due to the volume of the crowd. The match was a bit scrappy but enjoyable to watch and always close.

North can get 7K when they play the average sides. I think that was the crowd at the Adelaide match earlier in the year but don't quote me on that. They would get 10K+ against the bigger sides. In saying that, this was a state game which would normally have gotten 1K to it.
2012​
11127​
14113​
25240​
12620​
GWSWC
2013​
13223​
10265​
23488​
11744​
SYDPA
2014​
10641​
10702​
21343​
10672​
STKADEL
2015​
17544​
12011​
14346​
43901​
14634​
RICHWCSTK
2016​
12607​
17844​
16495​
46946​
15649​
MELBRICHSYD
2017​
8758​
10064​
13939​
32761​
10920​
GWSADELMELB
2018​
14266​
7194​
11176​
32636​
10879​
CARLGWSWC
2019​
12799​
7832​
10696​
8202​
39529​
9882​
SYDGWSSTKMELB
2021​
6009​
3462​
5060​
6719​
8033​
29283​
5857​
MELBGWSBRISGCGEEL
2022​
8663​
5114​
5072​
9713​
28562​
7141​
GEELPAADELHAW
2023​
6310​
5025​
11335​
5668​
PAGWS
 

Honestly - The logical thing to do is get rid of the roof requirement.

Bring down the cost drastically. The locals can get behind it better if it costs $500M rather than $750M.
And my main point is it makes future redevelopment a whole lot easier.

If I was Tassie based. What side would I be on?
I'd be trying to push new stadium without roof, but if it was new stadium with roof, or no stadium at all. I'd be going with the roof. And hold it up my sleeve for the next 30 years to say "I told you so" when it backfires long term in regards to future costs.
 
Honestly - The logical thing to do is get rid of the roof requirement.

Bring down the cost drastically. The locals can get behind it better if it costs $500M rather than $750M.
And my main point is it makes future redevelopment a whole lot easier.

If I was Tassie based. What side would I be on?
I'd be trying to push new stadium without roof, but if it was new stadium with roof, or no stadium at all. I'd be going with the roof. And hold it up my sleeve for the next 30 years to say "I told you so" when it backfires long term in regards to future costs.

The stadum is more symbolic than anything though.

The AFL knows that a Tas team is borderline on having enough support to work, and want a commitment from the government to support it so they're not left holding the bag by themselves with 'equalisation' measures.

A $750M stadium means the government is, in effect, commited to support the club beyond the contractual requirments. (unless they want to be left with a massive white elephant).

Would $500M have the same effect? Probably, but more means more skin in the game, so the AFL would want the number as high as possible.
 
The stadum is more symbolic than anything though.

The AFL knows that a Tas team is borderline on having enough support to work, and want a commitment from the government to support it so they're not left holding the bag by themselves with 'equalisation' measures.

A $750M stadium means the government is, in effect, commited to support the club beyond the contractual requirments. (unless they want to be left with a massive white elephant).

Would $500M have the same effect? Probably, but more means more skin in the game, so the AFL would want the number as high as possible.
I disagree that it is symbolic.

They need to fix the Blundstone issue in hobart. That post above just showcases how bad the attendance has been. It has been happening for the Hurricanes as well.

This land is ripe for development. It would improve attendance by making it easier for people to go to the footy. Most of my friends just can't be bothered by the traffic or hill unless it is something they really want to watch.

It would have happened eventually and perhaps it is a bit soon for a lot of people. BUT, this land is/was wasting away for so long. And they wanted to build a library and Park. Feels like such a waste.
 
I disagree that it is symbolic.

They need to fix the Blundstone issue in hobart. That post above just showcases how bad the attendance has been. It has been happening for the Hurricanes as well.

This land is ripe for development. It would improve attendance by making it easier for people to go to the footy. Most of my friends just can't be bothered by the traffic or hill unless it is something they really want to watch.

It would have happened eventually and perhaps it is a bit soon for a lot of people. BUT, this land is/was wasting away for so long. And they wanted to build a library and Park. Feels like such a waste.

I meant from the AFL's POV and how it is a factor in granting a team there.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top