Mac Point Stadium! - "Tas Says Yes!"

[Father Jack]

The stadium is necessary because:

Blundstone is outdated, has reached it capacity to be upgraded, and is in a residential area. Throwing money at Blundstone is just pointless and wasted.

A roofed stadium provides the best spectator experience in Tasmania given how windy Hobart is especially. The AFL does not want unbroadcastable games to be played every other week in Tasmania. A modern roofed stadium will attract more visitors.

The new stadium will have a bigger capacity, 23k initially able to go to 30k+

CBD location of Mac Point gives it easier access and close proximity to bars, restuaraunts and other amenities.

State of the art facilities for broadcasting as well as corporate and spectator facilities. Blundstone is a regional backwater oval, Mac Point will be one of the best stadiums in Australia!

But beside location, broadcasting, spectator experience, being upgradable, tourist friendly, comfortable, properly zoned and weather proof, what has Mac Point ever done for us?

Fair enough about Blundstone, but gee we've wasted a fair bit of coin on that then over the years if was never fit for purpose, and as for the roof, well that isn't really necessary as unroofed stadiums can built in a way to negate wind (and surely building the bloody thing right on the river in the first place only exacerbates this), and all the rest is highly questionable to the point where the premier is trying to railroad the thing through without going through the proper channels set up for this sort of thing. I mean, capacity and comfort can be had without splurging a billion plus dollars that I'm not sure we can really afford in the first place.

But yes, I understand that you just have to have faith and believe and not question, that's how you get things done

 

[Jazny]

Fair enough about Blundstone, but gee we've wasted a fair bit of coin on that then over the years if was never fit for purpose, and as for the roof, well that isn't really necessary as unroofed stadiums can built in a way to negate wind (and surely building the bloody thing right on the river in the first place only exacerbates this), and all the rest is highly questionable to the point where the premier is trying to railroad the thing through without going through the proper channels set up for this sort of thing. I mean, capacity and comfort can be had without splurging a billion plus dollars that I'm not sure we can really afford in the first place.

But yes, I understand that you just have to have faith and believe and not question, that's how you get things done

Once it's done, you will wonder why it was ever controversial.

Do you honestly think that if the stadium is stopped, Tasmania will be a noticeably better place to live than if it goes ahead?

 

[Father Jack]

Once it's done, you will wonder why it was ever controversial.

Do you honestly think that if the stadium is stopped, Tasmania will be a noticeably better place to live than if it goes ahead?

Well I don't believe the opposite to be necessarily true, it might be but all we've seen so far to support it are some very optimistic guesses.

 

[Islander]

It was interesting to hear Eric Abetz on Monday on abc Hobart saying that they may or may not have private investment for the stadium. I think the government needs to come out and confirm where all the money is coming from for the stadium because without it we won't be building it unfortunately. I'm a huge supporter of the stadium and our team but my guess is they are struggling to attract private investors due to the cost benefit ratio of just 0.5. I look forward a stadium but without the money we will not be building it so all the debate will of been pointless.

 

[Truetiger]

Can we cut out the name calling and insults please.
There's having a civil argument and then there's trying to score points by hurling insults at each other.
It's not a good look for anybody.

Posts that remain offensive will be deleted. We all have moments of vulnerability, but they shouldn’t escalate into personal attacks. Additionally, we do have an ignore button; please use it. Everyone is entitled to their own perspective.

 

[sherb]

So many perfectly good reasons that you can't articulate any and have to resort to a personal attack instead.

It wasn't meant to be personal and it most certainly wasn't an attack. I apologize if it came across that way.

It's simply that the reasons for the stadium (which is what you specifically asked for) have been repeatedly set out - here and elsewhere. Given that, for me at least, if someone is still asking for those reasons their mind is closed off to the idea and I am not going to waste my time explaining it, yet again. I've been through it enough, particularly on socials, with people who refuse to listen, particularly to extremely solid and logical arguments. But kudos & thanks to Jazny for taking the time to do so here instead of me.

Bear in mind, seeking justification for the stadium itself is completely different to accepting the need for it while questioning varying aspects - location, financing & size of spend, design, proposed use, roof/no roof, etc etc. Of course there should be questions asked about these and other aspects of the project - however many are doing it from a position of steadfast opposition rather than support, regardless of whatever information is provided to them.

Given all that, I accept your right to hold your views on the matter but I really don't feel like continually going over already explained information and positions with you. It's tiring.

 

[Father Jack]

It wasn't meant to be personal and it most certainly wasn't an attack. I apologize if it came across that way.

It's simply that the reasons for the stadium (which is what you specifically asked for) have been repeatedly set out - here and elsewhere. Given that, for me at least, if someone is still asking for those reasons their mind is closed off to the idea and I am not going to waste my time explaining it, yet again. I've been through it enough, particularly on socials, with people who refuse to listen, particularly to extremely solid and logical arguments. But kudos & thanks to Jazny for taking the time to do so here instead of me.

Bear in mind, seeking justification for the stadium itself is completely different to accepting the need for it while questioning varying aspects - location, financing & size of spend, design, proposed use, roof/no roof, etc etc. Of course there should be questions asked about these and other aspects of the project - however many are doing it from a position of steadfast opposition rather than support, regardless of whatever information is provided to them.

Given all that, I accept your right to hold your views on the matter but I really don't feel like continually going over already explained information and positions with you. It's tiring.

I'm not against a new stadium generally speaking, I'm just against this specific one as I think it's way too expensive with features that aren't required and is being railroaded through with opponents being labeled as anti-progress or anti-team or anti-Tasmania. Why can't we do up York Park (which we're doing anyway) and base the team there while we come up with a stadium that actually makes sense and the whole state can get behind?

For a lot of people it just comes down to not wasting money on something that's not required in its current format and will be expensive to maintain going forward. The only argument I've seen which addresses why we need this specific stadium is that the AFL sez so.

And yes, it also gets very tiring trying to explain your position when it feels like anything but complete acceptance of this stadium is treated like treason.

 

[TassieSaint]

I'm not against a new stadium generally speaking, I'm just against this specific one as I think it's way too expensive with features that aren't required and is being railroaded through with opponents being labeled as anti-progress or anti-team or anti-Tasmania. Why can't we do up York Park (which we're doing anyway) and base the team there while we come up with a stadium that actually makes sense and the whole state can get behind?

For a lot of people it just comes down to not wasting money on something that's not required in its current format and will be expensive to maintain going forward. The only argument I've seen which addresses why we need this specific stadium is that the AFL sez so.

And yes, it also gets very tiring trying to explain your position when it feels like anything but complete acceptance of this stadium is treated like treason.

So your proposal is to base the team in Launceston (which will not work) indefinitely, and then... Build a stadium somewhere else at some unspecified later date? At a better location than a vacant site in the centre of Hobart... In the future when construction costs have, what, gone down...?

That's what does my head in about anti-Stadium people, you drill down into what they'd rather do and inevitably it makes no sense

And jeez Jazny posts an entire list of reasons, and your takeaway is still that it's only because the AFL says so? Because, what, the AFL secretly wants to bankrupt the state? It's like talking to a brick wall.

 

[Saucery]

Once it's done, you will wonder why it was ever controversial.

Do you honestly think that if the stadium is stopped, Tasmania will be a noticeably better place to live than if it goes ahead?

The fact is whether it's built or not it will be a drain on the economy. To not build now it will save some money today and more in debt servicing but will be a terrible look for any company thinking of investing in our state, that affect could cost even more in the long run and take longer to undo.

We can't take another Gunns debacle. It's the lesser of evils to go ahead, if the governments modeling (guesstimations) is correct and it breaks even then that's a big win. But even if not, to turn back now will make us look as shambolic as Victoria hosting/not hosting the commonwealth games.

They have a massive economy to shield them from the fallout from that, we simply don't. It's as much about credibility as costs now for the state.

 

[3rd Grade Maggy]

It was interesting to hear Eric Abetz on Monday on abc Hobart saying that they may or may not have private investment for the stadium. I think the government needs to come out and confirm where all the money is coming from for the stadium because without it we won't be building it unfortunately. I'm a huge supporter of the stadium and our team but my guess is they are struggling to attract private investors due to the cost benefit ratio of just 0.5. I look forward a stadium but without the money we will not be building it so all the debate will of been pointless.

 

[Father Jack]

So your proposal is to base the team in Launceston (which will not work) indefinitely, and then... Build a stadium somewhere else at some unspecified later date? At a better location than a vacant site in the centre of Hobart... In the future when construction costs have, what, gone down...?

That's what does my head in about anti-Stadium people, you drill down into what they'd rather do and inevitably it makes no sense

And jeez Jazny posts an entire list of reasons, and your takeaway is still that it's only because the AFL says so? Because, what, the AFL secretly wants to bankrupt the state? It's like talking to a brick wall.

Why wouldn't it work in Launceston?

 

[sherb]

The fact is whether it's built or not it will be a drain on the economy. To not build now it will save some money today and more in debt servicing but will be a terrible look for any company thinking of investing in our state, that affect could cost even more in the long run and take longer to undo.

We can't take another Gunns debacle. It's the lesser of evils to go ahead, if the governments modeling (guesstimations) is correct and it breaks even then that's a big win. But even if not, to turn back now will make us look as shambolic as Victoria hosting/not hosting the commonwealth games.

They have a massive economy to shield them from the fallout from that, we simply don't. It's as much about credibility as costs now for the state.

The look is terrible already, let alone if the stadium weren't to go ahead. Who in their right mind would want to invest in a significant project in Tassie given the ****fight the stadium has turned into?

I get the desire for the state to retain its charm, but it's still the 21st century, and Tassie can't expect to have the benefits of a modern society and economy while still wanting to stay stuck back in the good old days.

It's amazing that anything gets built there. I was back home recently and drove past the new, under construction, Bridgewater bridge - how the hell did that get approved? I mean, there's a perfectly good bridge there already, surely the money would have been better spent on health, education, etc..........

 

[Saucery]

The look is terrible already, let alone if the stadium weren't to go ahead. Who in their right mind would want to invest in a significant project in Tassie given the ****fight the stadium has turned into?

I get the desire for the state to retain its charm, but it's still the 21st century, and Tassie can't expect to have the benefits of a modern society and economy while still wanting to stay stuck back in the good old days.

It's amazing that anything gets built there. I was back home recently and drove past the new, under construction, Bridgewater bridge - how the hell did that get approved? I mean, there's a perfectly good bridge there already, surely the money would have been better spent on health, education, etc..........

$300,000 bus stop remains unused eight months on over design dispute

State Growth identified design flaws in the council-built bus stop that are yet to be fixed…

pulsetasmania.com.au

Don't get me started on the ferries, luck is 90% of mainlanders have no idea (or want to know) what goes on down here.

 

[sherb]

$300,000 bus stop remains unused eight months on over design dispute

State Growth identified design flaws in the council-built bus stop that are yet to be fixed…

pulsetasmania.com.au

Don't get me started on the ferries, luck is 90% of mainlanders have no idea (or want to know) what goes on down here.

Yep, the ferries debacle was mentioned to me when I was there on my trip. What an embarrassment.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Why wouldn't it work in Launceston?

Because the AFL and its clubs that vote in new teams do not want a team based in Launceston. In fact, they do not even want a team based in Hobart, for more than one year before the new stadium is built.

The majority reason of this is simply money.

An AFL team needs about $45 million to be operational. About $20 million of this is through AFL distribution, but the clubs need to be able to raise about $25 million independently, most of which is gotten through selling seats in your home games (through memberships, tickets outside memberships, or corporate packages that include tickets).

It really goes without saying that existing stadia in Tasmania, with the ability to sell tickets in those stadia, fall well, well short of the $25 million.

Even if they were to get 23,000 people exactly to every game, most reasonable projections of revenue even in the new stadium with updated corporate box facilities etc. is a shortfall of that $45 million which is why there's another agreement between the AFL and the Tasmanian government agreed to government funding of the team to $12 million per year.

While the AFL has an interest as the custodian of the game to protect footy in Tasmania, I get that, it equally has to protect the interests of its existing clubs, especially in areas such as admitting new clubs. The AFL is constituted this way - as the VFL/AFL constitutionally went away from a club-delegate run system to an independent commission based system, the club-delegate system remained for admitting new clubs - and the clubs don't want to subsidise Tasmania if they have to play away games in a crappy stadium, and for additional distribution to go to the Tasmania team, which would have to increase from the $12 million a year if they are able to sell fewer tickets in stadiums that have smaller capacity and lesser facilities (therefore cheaper tickets) than the new Hobart stadium.

None of what I'm saying is particularly new: elements of what I described above was written in the original Carter report:

https://footyindustry.com/docs/Carter_Review_Tasmania_Licence_2021.pdf

And the AFL's response:

AFL statement on findings of the Colin Carter report

Gillon McLachlan has written to AFL Club Presidents summarising the Colin Carter Review of the Tasmanian Taskforce submission for a team for Tasmania

www.afl.com.au

I want to be clear I'm not here to make judgements about what the AFL should be doing ergo Tasmania, does its history and contribution to the code mean that the AFL should accept that money isn't anything, it's okay for the team to lose money given cultural/history/positive externality reasons etc.

Just that it's it's factual and uncontroversial that the AFL has sometime competing obligations to be the custodian of the code, generate revenue to fulfil its obligations, and work in the interests of the existing clubs, that an AFL team needs about $45 million in annual revenue, and that a Tasmanian team will generate $x of revenue with a new stadium and $y of revenue without it.

Lastly, even if we ignore pure revenue itself (lets say for the sake of argument the Tasmanian Government would be willing to fund the team $25 million rather than $12 million making the revenue from tickets irrelavent) the AFL and its clubs still may not want to have a team permanently out of those smaller stadiums, as it would decrease the overall product, would have issues with player development and retention, clubs may not desire to play away games at those stadiums, assuming teams still play 11 home games you're taking away a revenue-generating Melbourne vs. Melbourne big game matchup by introducing them, etc. etc.

Lastly, other than the new stadium being strictly necessary for an AFL team, the stadium may have benefits in use other than just for AFL and Cricket games through use in concerts, other sports, activating the inner city area of Hobart etc. I'm a bit sceptical myself of how often the stadium will be used other than just for footy and cricket, or should these events happen how often they'll be a 23,000 person sellout, but I'm not denying that it doesn't exist.

And with all due respect (and this isn't meant to be a personal attack), if you're invested enough in the Tasmanian team to have posted enough in this thread and this board about it, this post should not be new information to you, so it's strange I'm spelling it out.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

There is an agreement to give Tasmania a team if they build a proper modern stadium with a roof by 2029.

Undermining or advocating for pulling out of that agreement is just increasing the chances that the AFL delay their entry to the competition or cancel the whole thing.

If you think that is complicated, I don't know what else to tell you.

If you think its that simple then you are being so simple that I don't know what else to tell you either so it's best we both move on.

 

[sherb]

And jeez Jazny posts an entire list of reasons, and your takeaway is still that it's only because the AFL says so? Because, what, the AFL secretly wants to bankrupt the state? It's like talking to a brick wall.

Yeah, all he did was validate the point I was making about it being a waste of time continually explaining things to stadium opponents.

 

[Hodgey 15]

Formal petition launched against Mac Point stadium in Legislative Council​

Formal petition launched against Mac Point stadium in Legislative Council

The Greens are backing the parliamentary petition started by Janice Overett…

pulsetasmania.com.au

 

[BoomerRoo]

Formal petition launched against Mac Point stadium in Legislative Council​

Formal petition launched against Mac Point stadium in Legislative Council

The Greens are backing the parliamentary petition started by Janice Overett…

pulsetasmania.com.au

Ah Janice, can confirm she's a very ordinary person...... I've shared many a poignant discourse with Janice.

For someone that's an author, she hates you using "big" words in "discussions".

 

[RedmanWasHere]

I hope those against the stadium who are wrestling fans watched WrestleMania 41 which had a transparent roof used rather well.

Might come around to pro stadium.

 

[Truetiger]

I hope those against the stadium who are wrestling fans watched WrestleMania 41 which had a transparent roof used rather well.

Might come around to pro stadium.

Once the stadium is built, everyone will be for it. People just need something to complain about.

 

[Hodgey 15]

Ah Janice, can confirm she's a very ordinary person...... I've shared many a poignant discourse with Janice.

For someone that's an author, she hates you using "big" words in "discussions".

I'd never heard of her before now.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Once the stadium is built, everyone will be for it. People just need something to complain about.

If that's the case, why do we get sucked in?

 

[Truetiger]

If that's the case, why do we get sucked in?

I have no idea, but the hype and excitement surrounding the Adelaide Oval upgrades are quite similar to those surrounding the recent developments in Hobart. Once the development are complete, people and visitors will flock to the stadium.

 

[BoomerRoo]

I'd never heard of her before now.

She runs* the No Stadium group here in the state......

*Roland Browne, Richard Flanagan and The Greens