The Stadium!

[threenewpadlocks]

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 isnt predictable.

Yes, but they also would have communicated and briefed the terms of the signed contract with such people involved in Tasmanian politics.

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.

The terms of the signed, binding agreement was a 23,000 seat, roofed stadium at Macquarie Point. That's the specific wording. If the stadium is different to those three elements (capacity, roof, location), then they did make a commitment to the latter - that the agreement can be voided if that is not the nature of the stadium.

So if youre saying the afl would refuse that offer and walk away then they were never really genuinely committed to getting this done

Yes, yes they would. They would walk away if that wasn't the stadium. Everyone who thinks about the Tasmanian team for more than 90 seconds and has more than half a brain can understand the fact that the AFL does not want to have a team that will not be able to self-sustain enough revenue through the main operations that teams do by selling tickets, memberships, and sponsorship.

I agree they were never really committed to getting an AFL team absent the conditions of that stadium done. But claiming that they were is not a claim that anyone understanding the situation was making. The fact that various political leaders e.g. were is just fundamentally mishandling the truth.

I think you're overstating the reputational damage that would be done to the AFL if they were to walk away from a team if they didn't have a stadium. It would be minimal. And even if the AFL were committed, it can be vetoed by two-thirds of the clubs anyway (believe me as an Western Bulldogs member I would be encouraging my club, as a voting member, to not vote in a full-time Tasmanian team if the AFL were to give it tens of millions of dollars of extra funding a year. I'm entirely fine and agree with that my club voted yes, as did all clubs unanimously, to a Tasmanian team playing the roofed, 23,000 seat stadium located at Mac Point).

They absolutely can build the stadium under different contractual terms if they choose to.

Of course they can, but their past actions (like the demand for the stadium in the first place) suggest that they don't want to.

You're also missing the key point that the AFL clubs would also have to re-vote on the new team there was a new contract.

 

[The Blue Weirdo]

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

I might be over confident here, but there is no doubt that the AFL are tripping over themselves to get this Tasmanian team happening.
Some kind of renegotiation/compromise will need to occur to appease the new coalition government(a totally separate entity to the original contract signees) , but the stadium will get built and don't underestimate how desperate the AFL are to expand their brand.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I might be over confident here, but there is no doubt that the AFL are tripping over themselves to get this Tasmanian team happening.
Some kind of renegotiation/compromise will need to occur to appease the new coalition government, but the stadium will get built and don't underestimate how desperate the AFL are to expand their brand.

AFL will probably accept a slightly worse stadium if the Tas government agrees to up their $12 million per year commitment to the team. Which actually, in my view, is the more sensible way for Tasmania to spend its money/

Simply the projected economic benefit of the stadium, purely outside of football (and cricket) games was pie in the sky stuff. Even with a high-quality stadium they were not going to get enough concerts, other sports or major events at anywhere near the amounts claimed that would bring 'economic benefit' to the stadium.

 

[Teen Wolf]

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

I think I'm "understanding the facts" enough to know a few delusional people have said "no stadium", to which apparently you're oblivious.

They absolutely can build the stadium under different contractual terms if they choose to.

And instead the AFL chose the terms that lined up with the business case.

So if youre saying the afl would refuse that offer and walk away then they were never really genuinely committed to getting this done.

They are committed to the contract they signed. That's the point of a contract. It makes clear the commitment of all concerned parties.

 

[The Blue Weirdo]

The stadium design would be un-negotiable in my opinion(you don't want a half-arsed one), but the the funding arrangement could easily be adjusted to suit all parties.
Who knows, the Feds could increase financial support for the Independents demands for housing etc. in return for a stable Tassie government and a brand new stadium.
Nobody is deemed to back down.

 

[Perry Pie]

AFL will probably accept a slightly worse stadium if the Tas government agrees to up their $12 million per year commitment to the team. Which actually, in my view, is the more sensible way for Tasmania to spend its money/

Simply the projected economic benefit of the stadium, purely outside of football (and cricket) games was pie in the sky stuff. Even with a high-quality stadium they were not going to get enough concerts, other sports or major events at anywhere near the amounts claimed that would bring 'economic benefit' to the stadium.

Thats why new stadium needs more games, that should be negotiated by the Tassie govt...
A minimum of 9 at new stadium is needed (10 better).
A Hawthorn away in Launceston can be one of the Devils 4 games there. Can have another Melbourne team play a home game in Hobart or Launceston (on rotation, every Melbourne team sacrafices 1 home game every 8 seasons), that would give 4 in Launceston + 9 in Hobart.
Add in doing something on Gather Round too perhaps (someone else suggested that earlier) and we can start to see some decent stadium use.
Cricket under the roof is an interesting idea, maybe a test under the roof?

 

[peetoo]

If the olympics can accept change of stadium plans (location not structure) then surely the AFL can accept another equivalent not mac point.

AFL was happy for private equity in docklands stadium

 

[BoomerRoo]

It certainly has been an interesting week.

I don't think the election was as negative as "some" suggest;

1: Liberals will form government with the help of David "The Kingmaker" O'Byrne as I mentioned before the election.
2: Tucker and Alexander, "The Traitors" are gone and good riddance to them.
3: Rebecca White tapped on the shoulder.
4: I'm hearing the new Labor "leadership" is looking at a strategy re-think (or Bec-Flip) when it comes to the Tas FC infrastructure.
5: Regardless of what many think, Jeremy and Jacqui get along rather well, here come the "trade offs".
6: There are 175 thousand (and still climbing) reasons why the Devils and it's proposed training base & home ground will get "done".

See you at the polls in 6 months

 

[Mr Tassie]

It certainly has been an interesting week.

I don't think the election was as negative as "some" suggest;

1: Liberals will form government with the help of David "The Kingmaker" O'Byrne as I mentioned before the election.
2: Tucker and Alexander, "The Traitors" are gone and good riddance to them.
3: Rebecca White tapped on the shoulder.
4: I'm hearing the new Labor "leadership" is looking at a strategy re-think (or Bec-Flip) when it comes to the Tas FC infrastructure.
5: Regardless of what many think, Jeremy and Jacqui get along rather well, here come the "trade offs".
6: There are 175 thousand (and still climbing) reasons why the Devils and it's proposed training base & home ground will get "done".

See you at the polls in 6 months

Where have you heard that the Labour party are considering a rethink on Tas FC infrastructure?

 

[BoomerRoo]

Where have you heard that the Labour party are considering a rethink on Tas FC infrastructure?

From my mates IN the Labor party and IN Unions Tas, a couple in particular hold very senior positions. The CFMEU privately, were perplexed initially with Labors stance, which soon went to seething.....

Doesn't mean it'll happen, the issue they have is that everything they've said during the election, will come back at them, but it's a watch and see.

 

[BoomerRoo]

With 170,000 foundation members for Tasmania's AFL team, does Labor need to change its stadium position?

Labor stalwarts and unions believe Tasmanian Labor needs to rethink its stance on the proposed Hobart AFL stadium following its election loss, with one commentator saying confusion over its policy contributed to defeat.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Perry Pie]

So where are we now really?
Mac Point still makes sense as a location for the stadium. Building a stadium somewhere else will not in itself save significant money to build & may cost more if more road/transport/stadium infrastructre is added (TAC & Regatta Point for example). Bear in mind that any transport spending to make Mac Point work will also help the CBD works year round. I do not see any other site will have any advantage over Mac Point, all other options are worse.
The capacity selected at 23,000 was not based on much data, it was a lot of assumptions. There is now new data, with +175,000 people buying the memberships that will lead most to believe that 23,000 is probably too low a capacity. This is something to be considered by Governments & AFL. Adding another 5,000 at this stage will be a modest increase in cost. Bear in mind we have a cost envelope but no stadium design at this point.
The roof, probably makes sense. But it has to be cost effective on a lot of levels. Indoor grass has been done, but if I was the designers I would want to study that in detail. Ventilation and heat will be critical too. Worth also noting that an AFL field is much bigger that fields for other sports. For me a roof be great, but not at any cost...
Said it before, we need more than 7/8 mens AFL games pa...
These are the questions Governments, Council & AFL will have to work through when staduim design is considered. Do we go 28,000 no roof or 23,000 with roof to stay in budget? Does it need more games to cover cost over runs? What other compromises will be needed (budget, transport, wow factor - at Mac Point in needs the wow factor).

 

[Teen Wolf]

Waste of time pretending non-negotiables, like the roof, can be negotiated.

5k extra seats is probably going to cost $60m. On the other hand, they can just put an Adelaide Oval hill (one of which fits 3,500 people) at each of the ground, and suddenly the capacity is bumped up to 30k at a fraction of the cost.

Nothing in the agreement says they can't have a big chunk of standing room, and furthermore doing so would lean into the local/community vibe that the club already seems keen on.

 

[peetoo]

Waste of time pretending non-negotiables, like the roof, can be negotiated.

5k extra seats is probably going to cost $60m. On the other hand, they can just put an Adelaide Oval hill (one of which fits 3,500 people) at each of the ground, and suddenly the capacity is bumped up to 30k at a fraction of the cost.

Nothing in the agreement says they can't have a big chunk of standing room, and furthermore doing so would lean into the local/community vibe that the club already seems keen on.

The ends in Dunedin are in little annexes. Could the hill or hills as you described be behind big Perspex partition, opened up when more than 23k expected
Whichever way, those ends in Dunedin would have been quite cheap to add later

 

[The Blue Weirdo]

The ends in Dunedin are in little annexes. Could the hill or hills as you described be behind big Perspex partition, opened up when more than 23k expected
Whichever way, those ends in Dunedin would have been quite cheap to add later

View attachment 1943616

Crikey!
That's an ugly building...presume it's only half built?

I do like the standing room areas idea...fmd, it's only 2 hours duration, more fun, better atmosphere

 

[Perry Pie]

Crikey!
That's an ugly building...presume it's only half built?

I do like the standing room areas idea...fmd, it's only 2 hours duration, more fun, better atmosphere

Doesnt look any better now its fully built. That look is exactly what should NOT be built at Mac Point. There is things to learn from Dunedin, especially growing the turf.

Some standing room behind the goals is a good idea anyway.

 

[Burnsy01]

Definitely need some standing room

 

[Mr Tassie]

Definitely need some standing roomi

I don't think any roofed stadiums around the world include standing room.

 

[Mr Tassie]

The liberal government has received crossbench support so they can form government.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I don't think any roofed stadiums around the world include standing room.

In any case, standing room may be valuable to get more people thorugh the gates when reserves matches in the VFL and AFLW matches are played there. When there's only a few thousand going and you want a family/community feel on the grass with kids running around etc. rather than just a seated stadium.

 

[Mr Tassie]

In any case, standing room may be valuable to get more people thorugh the gates when reserves matches in the VFL and AFLW matches are played there. When there's only a few thousand going and you want a family/community feel on the grass with kids running around etc. rather than just a seated stadium.

I agree!!

 

[Truetiger]

The liberal government has received crossbench support so they can form government.

Very good news.

 

[Mr Tassie]

Very good news.

I wonder what deals they made when it comes to the afl team and stadium.

 

[FilthyMule]

I think at the end of the day barring something disastrous, the stadium will get done. AFL wants a team in Tasmania, the fanbase is clearly there with the amount of founding memberships bought, and from what I have seen even fans of other AFL clubs feel it is great that Tasmania is getting a team.

Waiting game for a lot of reasons, but am gonna try to stay positive about it and assume it will work out.

Now just waiting for that official Devils merch to drop haha.

 

[Perry Pie]

I think at the end of the day barring something disastrous, the stadium will get done. AFL wants a team in Tasmania, the fanbase is clearly there with the amount of founding memberships bought, and from what I have seen even fans of other AFL clubs feel it is great that Tasmania is getting a team.

Waiting game for a lot of reasons, but am gonna try to stay positive about it and assume it will work out.

Now just waiting for that official Devils merch to drop haha.

You are right. Or should I say you would be if the world of politics, government administration and business was a totally rational place with people acting with good faith and integrity. Unfortunately we are dealing with humans in positions of power and authority where the terms "good faith" and "integrity" have elastic meanings.
So we need to keep supporting and pushing and watching.
I think it will happen because both Libs & Labour will not want to be seen to kill it. They will play games of course, but being seen to be responsible for killing the team is not where any politician will want to go.
The design of the stadium is now critical. Has to be super good looking for the site and not stupidly expensive.