The Stadium!

[nobbyiscool]

Obviously the Domain is further to walk though and I know some suggested rebuilding the TCA ground but that would be hard considering it's heritage listed.

Really? Why? It's a shithole!

 

[Mr Taswegian]

Really? Why? It's a shithole!

They just saw it as a potentially cheaper option!

 

[nobbyiscool]

They just saw it as a potentially cheaper option!

It feels like such a traditionally Tasmanian thing to do, to "heritage list" these old pieces of garbage that have no historical, tourist or monetary value.

As they say, this is why we can't have nice things...

I last went to the TCA ground in 2001 for AC/DC (hadn't even planned to go, i went by accident) - the place was falling down then.

 

[My_Username]

They wont walk.
And they dont have the cover of that because if the govt are smart they will wedge the afl by offering altered deal terms (which means they arent walking away)
The afl are elitists that love to bully people but at the end of the day they are a business.
Getting tassie done if the price is say an extra 100mil and other modifications is worth it to afl because of the long term revenue it will generate.

Its a lot more than 4 years-theres no other new club that is realistically ready to go before 2030 at least which means the afl cant go to 20 teams for at least the next 15-20 years if they walk from this (which is why they wont).
I dont think the new govt (if theres a change of govt) will agree to the terms rockliff would have, but they wont walk away either and neither will the afl so it will end up being a compromise somewhere in the middle.

Another 100 million?

LOL.

and I have no idea where you think all this extra revenue is coming from.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

The assessment they did on potential sites found Mac point followed by Regatta Point to be the most suitable location although maybe the Domain might be an option.

I've never quite understood why options based around the TCA ground haven't gotten off the ground. It'd probably require you to move some things around within the Domain, but the space is there

The assessment you’re referring to is the site selection report. They compared 4 sites at the Domain (including the TCA) with Mac Point & Regatta Point and they were all substantially inferior. It’s Mac/Regatta Point or bust.

https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/412435/2._Hobart_Stadium_-_Site_Selection_Process_Report_-_MCS_Management_and_Consulting_in_conjunction_with_PhilpLighton_Architects.pdf

 

[Engimal v3]

* the ******* stadium.

 

[Hodgey 15]

AFL chief stands firm on stadium requirement for Tassie

AFL CEO Andrew Dillon has reiterated Tasmania must build a stadium to become the 19th AFL club

www.afl.com.au

 

[Perry Pie]

Well here are. When there is a team to follow in a footy state people follow it. I think the interest in the Devils is far greater than anyone expected. Not just within Tassie, but from all over.

This brings us back to the stadium...

The 23k plan is now looking on the low side. Why? Well I think we need to have capacity for occasional followers, certainly for tourist fans. So 23k may be a bit low, but we also need to make sure we dont go wasting $ by going too big... that is for the designers to get right.

What features do we need? Do we want most capacity on the wings? How tall? How space much for premium seating (selling premuim packages for "boxes" for interstate fans?), What about some small standing areas behind the goals?

AND the roof? (I dont think a roof over the whole ground is needed for footy, but could be good for the other uses - cricket, an indoor test match? Soccer...) The roof needs to be justified by the non-football use I think, does it pay for itself.

 

[TFC]

30k with the ability to expand in future would be ideal. 23k is definitely too small, especially if it's constructed in a way that prohibits increasing capacity in future.

 

[Teen Wolf]

The 23k plan is now looking on the low side. Why? Well I think we need to have capacity for occasional followers, certainly for tourist fans. So 23k may be a bit low, but we also need to make sure we dont go wasting $ by going too big... that is for the designers to get right.

What features do we need? Do we want most capacity on the wings? How tall? How space much for premium seating (selling premuim packages for "boxes" for interstate fans?), What about some small standing areas behind the goals?

30k with the ability to expand in future would be ideal. 23k is definitely too small, especially if it's constructed in a way that prohibits increasing capacity in future.

While these concepts are by no means set in stone, they give an idea of what's already being considered:

 

[Turbochook]

On the Midweek Tackle on Fox they had a segment 'roof or no roof'. They all agreed that the easiest way for the AFL to compromise is to let the roof go. Apparently, a club official has said it's a no brainier to forgo the roof and save $300M. Perhaps it could be placed in the 'to be commenced later' basket and everyone saves face and just moves on.

I for one hate the idea of a roof. Almost all away games, except a few at Docklands, will be played in outside conditions, especially most finals and the GF. Imagin playing half your games in a bubble and then the other half out in the wind and rain. Seems like a perfect way to hobble a side who will become acclimatized to perfect conditions.

 

[Teen Wolf]

On the Midweek Tackle on Fox they had a segment 'roof or no roof'. They all agreed that the easiest way for the AFL to compromise is to let the roof go. Apparently, a club official has said it's a no brainier to forgo the roof and save $300M. Perhaps it could be placed in the 'to be commenced later' basket and everyone saves face and just moves on.

Lol, you'd be getting a fully retractable roof for $300m.

Explained on main board:

10% of the overall costs for a hard fixed stadium roof would be typical. Using ETFE means a reduction of up to 60% in costs on big projects like this. $50m is therefore a very safe ballpark figure for covering the playing area.

There was a proposal to build a rectangular 150m x 160m ETFE roof over the seats and field of Hindmarsh Stadium for $45m. While that was 10 years ago, the inflation is balanced out by the fact that covering the field of a 140m x 170m oval requires 20% less material.

 

[Turbochook]

Lol, you'd be getting a fully retractable roof for $300m.

Explained on main board:

10% of the overall costs for a hard fixed stadium roof would be typical. Using ETFE means a reduction of up to 60% in costs on big projects like this. $50m is therefore a very safe ballpark figure for covering the playing area.

There was a proposal to build a rectangular 150m x 160m ETFE roof over the seats and field of Hindmarsh Stadium for $45m. While that was 10 years ago, the inflation is balanced out by the fact that covering the field of a 140m x 170m oval requires 20% less material.

I was quoting the show but misheard (hearing is poor after 30 years in a noisy environment), they actually said hundreds of millions, but still a bit over I guess

Still hate the idea of playing in a bubble, will be a disadvantage everywhere but home. Will always be a handicap until most other grounds also have a roof.

 

[peetoo]

While these concepts are by no means set in stone, they give an idea of what's already being considered:

View attachment 1933380


View attachment 1933381

Having the majority on one wing works well for rectangular config. You can move the playing area closer to that side. Soccer and rugby generally wouldn’t fill the stadium, but the option to 40k even temporarily would work for World Cup fifa type games
Also good for concerts where seating behind stage is notused
Some if soccer stadiums have lower level retractable at one end so that concert stages cabin be placed there

 

[Teen Wolf]

Still hate the idea of playing in a bubble, will be a disadvantage everywhere but home. Will always be a handicap until most other grounds also have a roof.

Adds up to on average 9 indoor H&A games each season (7 Hobart, 2 Marvel), while the other 15 would be outdoors as well as training year-round in Rosny.

 

[Jazny]

I was quoting the show but misheard (hearing is poor after 30 years in a noisy environment), they actually said hundreds of millions, but still a bit over I guess

Still hate the idea of playing in a bubble, will be a disadvantage everywhere but home. Will always be a handicap until most other grounds also have a roof.

Trust me. The roof will be what makes this stadium great and worth building. I hope the AFL does not budge an inch.

Nobody will care if the stadium costs $550m, $650m or $715m. It's all the same to them. Getting rid of the roof, the only part that will make this stadium attractive to international acts over other potential venues, would be the the biggest waste of money possible. Remember this isn't just an AFL stadium, and you might be the 0.1% of AFL purest who loves watching wet and windy games of football from underneath your raincoat while you shiver in the cold, but the vast majority dont. Even if they did, it would still make the stadium less multi-purpose.

It has to be able to host MONA festivals, concerts, exhibitions and cricket. The roof is 100% essential.

 

[peetoo]

Trust me. The roof will be what makes this stadium great and worth building. I hope the AFL does not budge an inch.

Nobody will care if the stadium costs $550m, $650m or $715m. It's all the same to them. Getting rid of the roof, the only part that will make this stadium attractive to international acts over other potential venues, would be the the biggest waste of money possible. Remember this isn't just an AFL stadium, and you might be the 0.1% of AFL purest who loves watching wet and windy games of football from underneath your raincoat while you shiver in the cold, but the vast majority dont. Even if they did, it would still make the stadium less multi-purpose.

It has to be able to host MONA festivals, concerts, exhibitions and cricket. The roof is 100% essential.

Not forgetting dirt bikes and monster trucks, religious crusades

 

[Reginald Perrin]

Not forgetting dirt bikes and monster trucks, religious crusades

I would definitely go to that event.

 

[Turbochook]

Trust me. The roof will be what makes this stadium great and worth building. I hope the AFL does not budge an inch.

Nobody will care if the stadium costs $550m, $650m or $715m. It's all the same to them. Getting rid of the roof, the only part that will make this stadium attractive to international acts over other potential venues, would be the the biggest waste of money possible. Remember this isn't just an AFL stadium, and you might be the 0.1% of AFL purest who loves watching wet and windy games of football from underneath your raincoat while you shiver in the cold, but the vast majority dont. Even if they did, it would still make the stadium less multi-purpose.

It has to be able to host MONA festivals, concerts, exhibitions and cricket. The roof is 100% essential.

Pretty sure all those things go on in Hobart now, without a roofed stadium but agree to disagree.

 

[BoomerRoo]

Trust me. The roof will be what makes this stadium great and worth building. I hope the AFL does not budge an inch.

Nobody will care if the stadium costs $550m, $650m or $715m. It's all the same to them. Getting rid of the roof, the only part that will make this stadium attractive to international acts over other potential venues, would be the the biggest waste of money possible. Remember this isn't just an AFL stadium, and you might be the 0.1% of AFL purest who loves watching wet and windy games of football from underneath your raincoat while you shiver in the cold, but the vast majority dont. Even if they did, it would still make the stadium less multi-purpose.

It has to be able to host MONA festivals, concerts, exhibitions and cricket. The roof is 100% essential.

Correct! The roof is the key to making the stadium "multipurpose". I can't go into too much detail for obvious reasons, but it's certainly more "cost effective" to install the roof in the initial build and not "down the track".

ETFE was always in our planning for various reasons, cost, strength, recyclable and a lot less "difficult" to repair.

 

[The Blue Weirdo]

I can see the AFL covering for any cost 'blow outs' in a Labour election victory renegotiation.
Sounds fair to me... think the AFL are in a better financial position to raise more sheckles than homeless Tassie's.

 

[Jazny]

I can see the AFL covering for any cost 'blow outs' in a Labour election victory renegotiation.
Sounds fair to me... think the AFL are in a better financial position to raise more sheckles than homeless Tassie's.

That won't happen. Labor might get some small things like a minor change in location, or getting rid of the $4m dollars a year late fee, or maybe they will extend the length of the contract so the AFL can't withdraw the license after 12 years like they currently technically can (but won't). I dont think they will get more money out of the AFL, or any budging on the roof.

They might get more money from the Feds though?

 

[Perry Pie]

How do you save much money on the stadium?
No roof, $50-$75mil, but then you get just a football stadium.
Somewhere else, marginal savings if a better site to build on is used, $50 - $75 mil maybe.
Cost cutting, super basic stadium, maybe $50m.
Mac point is a risky site for a big build so will have fat contingency, but thats not real money.
So savings of $150m - $200m, you end up with a cheap sh1t stadium on your water front for the world to see... bad idea.
If its Mac Point it has to be first class, nothing else will do it... It will be a shame if that site is not used, but if politicos want to game it & cheap out so be it.

If I was going to "renegotiate" anything as the AFL I would consider offering more games at the new ground... Some extra games against Melboune clubs at the new ground for several years. That would help the business case. UTAS keeps 4 (incl Hawks v Devils, an "away" game). Hobart gets Roos v Devils (an "away" game) plus a couple more each year. You can then have 11 games in Hobart. Use the new stadium more is the answer, not a cheaper stadium.

 

[Perry Pie]

How do you save much money on the stadium?
No roof, $50-$75mil, but then you get just a football stadium.
Somewhere else, marginal savings if a better site to build on is used, $50 - $75 mil maybe.
Cost cutting, super basic stadium, maybe $50m.
Mac point is a risky site for a big build so will have fat contingency, but thats not real money.
So savings of $150m - $200m, you end up with a cheap sh1t stadium on your water front for the world to see... bad idea.
If its Mac Point it has to be first class, nothing else will do it... It will be a shame if that site is not used, but if politicos want to game it & cheap out so be it.

If I was going to "renegotiate" anything as the AFL I would consider offering more games at the new ground... Some extra games against Melboune clubs at the new ground for several years. That would help the business case. UTAS keeps 4 (incl Hawks v Devils, an "away" game). Hobart gets Roos v Devils (an "away" game) plus a couple more each year. You can then have 11 games in Hobart. Use the new stadium more is the answer, not a cheaper stadium.

Another thought is using "Gather round"?

 

[peetoo]

Another thought is using "Gather round"?

3 years of gather round might do the trick.

With 19 an uneven number have tas play Thursday then again the following Tuesday
The remaining 8 games 1 Fri 3 sat 3 sun 1 mon sat sun double headers or use Blundstone or York park

17 Hobart 7 York park yearly for 3 years ( which only needs minimal investment) is 1 more than Perth stadium gets now