The Stadium!

[Turbochook]

Are there any mods on this board at all?

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

The way those opposed to the stadium are acting, and talking. Is like the TAS tax payer will be paying for the entire cost of the stadium.

They are covering pretty much half of it. You hear them bring up the total cost all the time, and not what TAS IS paying. I suppose the bigger number seems scarier.

Stadium opponents are also team opponents by default. Opposing the stadium and team, means you are in favour of declining:

1. Federal Mac Point precinct funding - $240m

2. AFL funding towards AFL and AFLW teams, talent pathways and community football - $360m over 10 years.

3. AFL funding for stadium ($15m) and high performance centre ($10m).

To start with, that’s $625m of external funding that will not flow into this state without a new stadium and AFL team. This is before you consider any of the economic benefits generated during the construction of the stadium ($300m), operation of the stadium ($85m per annum) and having locally-based AFL + AFLW teams ($120m pa).

As Clarko said during his consultancy work for the Tas Government, “this isn’t a sporting decision, it’s an economic decision.”

 

[The_Wookie]

What is the main reason fuelling opposition to the stadium?
I would have thought it's entirely about the distribution of tax payers funding, no matter what the final amount is.

Still think the AFL will cave in and the independents will get their housing, health and education funds.

Might result in a better arrangement for all stakeholders than the original one.

Sources I have say the AFL and the clubs are absolutely adamant the deal wont change.

The real bad part: Stadium or not - homeless and health is still going to be an issue. No Government wants to make the hard decisions that sort the rental crisis and build social housing, and there is never enough money for health and education.

 

[Perry Pie]

Nah that's horse s**t. Tasmania has some of the worst education, health and housing issues in Australia. The population is shrinking, again, and is amongst the oldest in the country; meaning very complicated health issues and a shrinking tax base (along with a shrinking GST carve out).

When you think of Tasmania's issues think of the NT on steroids. Most young people leave for the mainland for much better opportunities, Hobart rentals are more expensive than Sydney and it's a dead end for anyone wishing to advance their careers compared to the mainland or overseas.

What you fail to realize is that while Hobart is the biggest city, the majority of the population live in the north. Homelessness, educational outcomes and health services mean far more to them than Hobart getting a Gucci Bag stadium. I am pro stadium but understand why eating and seeing a doctor is more important to a great many of us.

The economic well being of the State is why an AFL team based in Tassie is so important. It creates economic activity, skilled jobs and a connection with millions every week for most of the year. The team is an economic gain for the State no matter how its cut. Thousands of jobs in Tassie to build the stadium & support infrastructure (half paid from outside the State, largely spent in state). Ongoing employment by the team and in media and other support systems (physios, admin, etc). Tourism, especially important in the March to September period when numbers are lower.
Good scheduling will help tourism too, back to back games in Hobart / Launceston against Melboune clubs will result in some people coming over for week, staying between games, touring the state.
Its not either/or re health, education, team/stadium - its the lot thats needed.

 

[Truetiger]

Are there any mods on this board at all?

Have been deleting comments. Let’s keep this on topic everyone thanks.

 

[Mr Tassie]

Jagqui Lambie is demanding a rethink on the Hobart stadium if the liberals want her support. The whole viability goes out the door for the team if they don't build the stadium. The greens and Jagqui Lambie party obviously don't understand they will have to ignore the whole business plan that was undertaken by experts in the field if they are to axe the stadium.

 

[Hodgey 15]

Jagqui Lambie is demanding a rethink on the Hobart stadium if the liberals want her support. The whole viability goes out the door for the team if they don't build the stadium. The greens and Jagqui Lambie party obviously don't understand they will have to ignore the whole business plan that was undertaken by experts in the field if they are to axe the stadium.

I actually don't think she gives a stuff about AFL Tassie team.
She'd gladly burn it to the ground if she doesn't get her way or something significant from negotiations.
I'm wondering if there may be a bit of parochialism rolled into her opposition of Macq Point Stadium also.

 

[Mr Tassie]

I actually don't think she gives a stuff about AFL Tassie team.
She'd gladly burn it to the ground if she doesn't get her way or something significant from negotiations.
I'm wondering if there may be a bit of parochialism rolled into her opposition of Macq Point Stadium also.

That is why I think our stadium is at risk but one of her candidates pushing for a place in parliament is pro stadium so hopefully he gets in. I know a lot of people are very parochial up here in the north, so it would be a sad day to see us lose the team due to the pathetic North South divide.

 

[Jazny]

Everyone is tough until they have to actually face the reality that no stadium = no team.

 

[wanderlust1985]

I'm entirely new to this conversation and zero skin in the game. Why is the AFL insistent on a new stadium? Why not just upgrade York Park and Bellerive?

The Tasmanian team might actually want to split their games between the venues to give more fans access to games.

 

[Jazny]

I'm entirely new to this conversation and zero skin in the game. Why is the AFL insistent on a new stadium? Why not just upgrade York Park and Bellerive?

The Tasmanian team might actually want to split their games between the venues to give more fans access to games.

TL;DR reason: Bellerive sucks and not worth upgrading.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I'm entirely new to this conversation and zero skin in the game. Why is the AFL insistent on a new stadium? Why not just upgrade York Park and Bellerive?

The Tasmanian team might actually want to split their games between the venues to give more fans access to games.

Bellerive is tucked in suburban streets and can't be upgraded. Even if it could, a new stadium will help generate enough revenue from matchdays itself that Tasmania Govt/AFL doesn't have to cover losses. AFL operating costs outside of player payments (which are roughly equivalent to the AFL standard distribution from clubs, mainly made up of TV revenue) is about $30 million. Tasmania's population just isn't enough to generate $30 million worth of sponsorship, memberships, ticket sales etc. Even with the increased revenue that a new stadium will produce, the Tasmanian government is already committing $12 million a year, which means we can safely assume that they're spending that amount to get to a breakeven point and even in a brand spanking new stadium the Tasmania team will only generate $18 million per year of its own revenue through standard memberships, sponsorships etc.

 

[Mr Tassie]

Is I'm entirely new to this conversation and zero skin in the game. Why is the AFL insistent on a new stadium? Why not just upgrade York Park and Bellerive?

The Tasmanian team might actually want to split their games between the venues to give more fans access to games.

The plan is to play 4 games in Launceston and the rest in Hobart but Bellerive is definitely not suitable in soo many ways.

 

[kalex6251]

lambies isnt the only mp causing trouble ..... wilkies efforts overnight reveals his very clear anti-afl intent

 

[GudOnya]

lambies isnt the only mp causing trouble ..... wilkies efforts overnight reveals his very clear anti-afl intent

I thought Wilkie was an AFL fan to be honest.

Either way though the drug testing and player "cover up" side of that story is a non-starter, the press haven't worked it out yet but the real issue there is Bartlett getting the arse from MFC and the AFL's obvious connections to that after he wanted drug testing done at a coaching and executive level.

AFL won't let it effect them too much though, probably throw Gill under the bus since he's gone and then blame the Bartlett stuff on Melbourne. The players and drugs bit will be found to be a non-issue soon enough.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

If the Tasmanian government doesn't want to pay, the AFL has an equal right to also not want to pay for the AFL team. The AFL has been nothing but unambiguously clear right from the start of the bidding process that there has to be a premium stadium in Tasmania, and the Tasmanian bidders have understood that the AFL is reasonable in their request for asking so.

It's just deceptive - or lying by admission - by politicians to leave out the fact that any change in a new stadium will simply mean no Tasmanian team. I suppose it's what we expect from politicians (of all persuasions), but if I was a Tasmanian who had more of a passing awareness of it from the AFL, I would be very annoyed.

No if the afl were to walk away over that (which they wont imo) they would need to own that decision rather than blame govts and pretend they are being forced to withdraw. No offence to you personally but the afl never takes accountability for decisions it makes because no one insists they be accountable. We need to hold them to a better standard than that.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

No if the afl were to walk away over that (which they wont imo) they would need to own that decision rather than blame govts and pretend they are being forced to withdraw. No offence to you personally but the afl never takes accountability for decisions it makes because no one insists they be accountable. We need to hold them to a better standard than that.

The AFL has never, ever, ever tried to claim that they are committed to a team outside of a new stadium. That has been communicated with aboslute clarity right from the beginning:

Full statement: Tasmania awarded 19th AFL licence

Hear from Gillon McLachlan and Premier Jeremy Rockliff as Tasmania is awarded the 19th AFL licence

www.afl.com.au

This morning the AFL signed binding commitments with the Tasmanian Government that committed to delivering on those conditions, including partnering with the Federal Government for the construction of a 23,000-seat roofed stadium at Macquarie Point.

The blame would be entirely justified, and they don't have to pretend they are being forced, it is literally the conditions of the signed agreement. It was made point blank clear in the quote above in the AFL's official statement. Notice the word 'binding'.

Keep in mind that the Tasmanian government has committed to funding the team $12 million per year. An alternative option which the AFL I'm sure would accept is if the Tasmanian government agreed to fund the team tens of miilions of dollars more (say $50+ million) to account for the fact that the AFL and its clubs making this decision does not want to have its league play 11 home games in Tasmania at its existing stadium setup for reasons of both general revenue-raising and the general existence of a team that nobody will want to play for.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Totally agree, it's too far down the track to reverse out, and it would a poor look.
The very least the AFL and the Feds should do is accept more or all of the cost over runs.
You would think the Lambie mob could be talked into this, with some kind of appeasement of their own key issues.

I think that is the most likely compromise.

 

[Teen Wolf]

No if the afl were to walk away over that (which they wont imo) they would need to own that decision rather than blame govts and pretend they are being forced to withdraw. No offence to you personally but the afl never takes accountability for decisions it makes because no one insists they be accountable. We need to hold them to a better standard than that.

Um... The only way to make the AFL accountable is to build the stadium, thereby forcing them to follow through on making Tasmania the 19th team.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Some vocal politicians mistakenly thought that voicing opposition will help them win an election. It didn't help, which would suggest Tasmanians for the most part are not opposed to the new stadium.


Presumably you meant to respond to the person who is actually saying the AFL will change a contract that they have no need to change.

Indeed, the time to negotiate is before you sign the papers. Now it's building time.

The afl will re negotiate in order to get it built because that is their least worst option (as it wont get built otherwise).

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Um... The only way to make the AFL accountable is to build the stadium, thereby forcing them to follow through on making Tasmania the 19th team.

No the afl is accountable for their decisions either way whether they choose to go forward with the stadium or not.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

No the afl is accountable for their decisions either way whether they choose to go forward with the stadium or not.

If in the absence of a new stadium the Tasmanian Government is happy to fund the team to the tune of tens of millions of dollars more per year than their previous $12 million per year commitment, in order to cover for the difference in revenue generation that the team is missing out on without the new stadium (as well as the increased cost to the AFL for having to have a team play in inferior conditions, that they do not want, as a sort of nusience payment), then sure.

Nobody wants that to or remotely thinks that will happen though because the Tasmanian Government's money is far better spent on a stadium that can be used for other uses than football (as well as the linked inflow of hundreds of millions of federal funding and the AFL's $15 million commitment, too) rather than the ongoing costs of running a football team.

 

[Teen Wolf]

The afl will re negotiate in order to get it built because that is their least worst option (as it wont get built otherwise).

Dream on, pal.

No the afl is accountable for their decisions either way whether they choose to go forward with the stadium or not.

"Either way"?? The AFL has already made their decision: no stadium = no team.

It just seems like some people don't want to accept that, and would rather engage in delusional renegotiation fantasies.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

The AFL has never, ever, ever tried to claim that they are committed to a team outside of a new stadium. That has been communicated with aboslute clarity right from the beginning:

Full statement: Tasmania awarded 19th AFL licence

Hear from Gillon McLachlan and Premier Jeremy Rockliff as Tasmania is awarded the 19th AFL licence

www.afl.com.au

The blame would be entirely justified, and they don't have to pretend they are being forced, it is literally the conditions of the signed agreement. It was made point blank clear in the quote above in the AFL's official statement. Notice the word 'binding'.

Keep in mind that the Tasmanian government has committed to funding the team $12 million per year. An alternative option which the AFL I'm sure would accept is if the Tasmanian government agreed to fund the team tens of miilions of dollars more (say $50+ million) to account for the fact that the AFL and its clubs making this decision does not want to have its league play 11 home games in Tasmania at its existing stadium setup for reasons of both general revenue-raising and the general existence of a team that nobody will want to play for.

You are missing the point on two fronts.

The afl knew when they signed the agreement that rockliff wouldnt last the full term. They also knew it was highly likely (anyone that understood tas politics predicted this a while ago) any new govt would be a minority and any such minority would push for changes to the contract.
So unless the afl are absolute morons there is no change of circumstances that they couldnt have forseen then.

Secondly theres a difference between 'no new stadium no team' and 'a new stadium at a different price to the negotiated deal'. The afl may have been clear on the former but they never ever made any commitment to the latter being their position. So if youre saying the afl would refuse that offer and walk away then they were never really genuinely committed to getting this done. And they would be fully accountable for that. They absolutely can build the stadium under different contractual terms if they choose to. They have the capacity to do that and they cant pass off accountability on that. Unless people let them.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Dream on, pal.


"Either way"?? The AFL has already made their decision: no stadium = no team.

It just seems like some people don't want to accept that, and would rather engage in delusional renegotiation fantasies.

No one is saying no stadium.
Im trying to be polite but you are not understanding the facts.

As you will see in the near future its actually quite the opposite of delusional.