Mac Point Stadium! - "Tas Says Yes!"

[fargothegreat]

Isn't it mostly tax payer money being stumped up though? I tend to agree if the money was coming from private investors however doesn't this very fact suggest the project isn't capable of delivering profit, moreover almost every club President in the AFL are steadfast in their resolution that an additional team in the comp must be conditional on that team providing its own roofed stadium? This is assumed the President's, being mostly successful businessman, know an additional team won't be successful unless it's purely a TV and gambling product like the AFLs franchise teams who dominate the 4:40pm Sunday timeslot to maximise TV and gambling revenue?

There are President's in the comp who believe the AFL competition can't afford an additional team, but it could possibly be viable if a poor club like our club the Saints or North relocate and solve another problem that exists which is too many Melbourne teams.

There's private investment to come through the sale of the mixed use zone adjacent to the stadium, the underground car park and the Regatta Point residential development. All of which will transform the site from an industrial wasteland into a valuable part of the city.

If you're not convinced the team can be viable, I encourage you to go and read the business case. If you want to argue that the AFL can't afford Tasmania, then it can't afford several other teams, including your club St Kilda.

Yes, some presidents took a bit of convincing, but that was more to do with them selfishly trying to protect their own backyard than the business case not stacking up.

 

[sherb]

Painey nails it.

 

[The Majestic]

As a matter of interest, in around 1982 or 83, the Glenorchy football club put up a plan/stadium design to the Federal Government so as KGV could host VFL football. I was shown the proposal many years ago. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough political foresight to support it. Then TCA cricket FKT it up by getting the Bellerive proposal up, a year or two later.

Oh wow really. I never knew that. I just remember the vote on Glenorchy Stadium in the 90s and that was shot down in the end.

 

[Cairnsman]

If you want to argue that the AFL can't afford Tasmania, then it can't afford several other teams, including your club St Kilda.

From what I understand, it's not a case of the AFL can't afford a Tasmanian team, more the case it can't afford 19 teams AND 9 Melbourne teams all located within a 20km radius of the Melbourne CBD, hence why I say there are President's who would rather see the Saints and/or North either fold or become the Tasmanian team. I totally agree from a business perspective.

And so this is where the assumption comes from some that the AFL have placed the condition of a stadium with a roof. They know the only way Tasmania can become profitable to the AFL is if they make it purely a TV and gambling product like they did with the Suns and GWS and schedule the majority of their games in the 4:40pm time slot because they know Tasmanians, like Saints, North, GWS and the Suns, won't make the AFL money solely from membership and turnstile revenue. However, the 4:40 Sunday games are highly lucrative gambling games due to the exclusive time slot which draws in the gambling addicts who are referred to as "loss chasers". They use the last game of the round to try and recover their losses from the weekend of gambling.

And just like us Saints supporters, who have been anchored to the Sunday 4:40 time slot, we hate going to the footy on a cold miserable winters Sunday night when everyone else is winding down for the weekend, I trust Tasmanians will hate it just as much but they will need to suck it up because that's where they will play most of their games.

The AFL know this hence they require the stadium with a roof to make it a profitable gambling product.

 

[fargothegreat]

From what I understand, it's not a case of the AFL can't afford a Tasmanian team, more the case it can't afford 19 teams AND 9 Melbourne teams all located within a 20km radius of the Melbourne CBD, hence why I say there are President's who would rather see the Saints and/or North either fold or become the Tasmanian team. I totally agree from a business perspective.

And so this is where the assumption comes from some that the AFL have placed the condition of a stadium with a roof. They know the only way Tasmania can become profitable to the AFL is if they make it purely a TV and gambling product like they did with the Suns and GWS and schedule the majority of their games in the 4:40pm time slot because they know Tasmanians, like Saints, North, GWS and the Suns, won't make the AFL money solely from membership and turnstile revenue. However, the 4:40 Sunday games are highly lucrative gambling games due to the exclusive time slot which draws in the gambling addicts who are referred to as "loss chasers". They use the last game of the round to try and recover their losses from the weekend of gambling.

And just like us Saints supporters, who have been anchored to the Sunday 4:40 time slot, we hate going to the footy on a cold miserable winters Sunday night when everyone else is winding down for the weekend, I trust Tasmanians will hate it just as much but they will need to suck it up because that's where they will play most of their games.

The AFL know this hence they require the stadium with a roof to make it a profitable gambling product.

The narrative that the antis would have people believe is that the AFL dictated that we build the stadium.

The truth is that the roofed stadium came about because the government taskforce proposed it as a way to make the club more self-sufficient and strengthen the business case. The government then took this advice onboard and went to the AFL proposing to build a stadium in order to get the licence bid over the line. The AFL then made it a condition of the licence.

 

[sherb]

From what I understand, it's not a case of the AFL can't afford a Tasmanian team, more the case it can't afford 19 teams AND 9 Melbourne teams all located within a 20km radius of the Melbourne CBD, hence why I say there are President's who would rather see the Saints and/or North either fold or become the Tasmanian team. I totally agree from a business perspective.

And so this is where the assumption comes from some that the AFL have placed the condition of a stadium with a roof. They know the only way Tasmania can become profitable to the AFL is if they make it purely a TV and gambling product like they did with the Suns and GWS and schedule the majority of their games in the 4:40pm time slot because they know Tasmanians, like Saints, North, GWS and the Suns, won't make the AFL money solely from membership and turnstile revenue. However, the 4:40 Sunday games are highly lucrative gambling games due to the exclusive time slot which draws in the gambling addicts who are referred to as "loss chasers". They use the last game of the round to try and recover their losses from the weekend of gambling.

And just like us Saints supporters, who have been anchored to the Sunday 4:40 time slot, we hate going to the footy on a cold miserable winters Sunday night when everyone else is winding down for the weekend, I trust Tasmanians will hate it just as much but they will need to suck it up because that's where they will play most of their games.

The AFL know this hence they require the stadium with a roof to make it a profitable gambling product.

Guaranteed way to make a Tasmanian side fail.

 

[Aussie in exile]

The narrative that the antis would have people believe is that the AFL dictated that we build the stadium.

The truth is that the roofed stadium came about because the government taskforce proposed it as a way to make the club more self-sufficient and strengthen the business case. The government then took this advice onboard and went to the AFL proposing to build a stadium in order to get the licence bid over the line. The AFL then made it a condition of the licence.

I think we can say without little doubt that the state government will be voted out at the next election over the stadium rightly or wrongly, bu that's politics.

 

[sherb]

This piece references a couple of the former stadium considerations.

Discover Popular Videos | Facebook

Video is the place to enjoy videos and shows together. Watch the latest reels, discover original shows and catch up with your favorite creators.

www.facebook.com

 

[Reginald Perrin]

View attachment 2338544


View attachment 2338545

That's just embarrassing. Tossed straight out as it should have been.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

Bridget Archer changes tack to back Hobart stadium '100 per cent'

Former federal Liberal MP Bridget Archer once said a Hobart AFL stadium was "unnecessary". Now she says she supports the project, just days after seeking Liberal preselection for a possible state election.

www.abc.net.au

Anti-stadium politician back flips - now supports stadium.

Likely a much clearer indication of where the numbers are than any survey.

 

[Truetiger]

Election July 19th confirmed. Will have a “Game day “ thread for it if any interest.

 

[TassieSaint]

Looks like the election that nobody wants is on. Likely to end with more uncertainty and possibly the death of the team. Farrk this whole mess is depressing.

 

[fargothegreat]

I think we can say without little doubt that the state government will be voted out at the next election over the stadium rightly or wrongly, bu that's politics.

What makes you so sure? I'm seeing a lot of backlash towards Winter.

 

[Truetiger]

Looks like the election that nobody wants is on. Likely to end with more uncertainty and possibly the death of the team. heck this whole mess is depressing.

Depends on the result. Not over yet.

 

[Truetiger]

 

[jj15]

The team will go ahead no matter what with the stadium.

Still haven’t seen one thing to be worried about.

 

[madmug]

I think we can say without little doubt that the state government will be voted out at the next election over the stadium rightly or wrongly, bu that's politics.

I think you should have some doubts about that very 'certain' statement.
Politically speaking, the ALP leader is new & not well known, certainly not in the North. The ALP have lost their 2 biggest vote getters in White & O'Byrne. The libs have picked up Briget Archer who is well known & still quite liked in Bass. Rockliff is still very popular. The Greens are not particularly popular outside of Clark. The biggest & noisiest political opponents of the stadium are Northern FEDERAL politicians, the Greens & the Hobart city council. Both state Libs & Labs support the stadium.
I really do not see the Libs & Labs losing control of Parliament. At this stage I only see one new southern independent possibly getting elected, maybe. I also see one northern independent possibly losing his seat after his litany of drug related issues coming to the public's attention. Lambie doesn't have any operatives standing, at this stage. So I'm not so sure we'll see a great change in the balance of the Parliament. I guess we should be able to gauge better as this circus unfolds.

 

[davesnothere]

The team will go ahead no matter what with the stadium.

Still haven’t seen one thing to be worried about.

It's politics.

Be worried.

 

[TassieSaint]

View attachment 2340378

This is the day of the election? Would have thought you'd have it the weekend before.

 

[Truetiger]

This is the day of the election? Would have thought you'd have it the weekend before.

most people pre vote as they said can still do both.

 

[TassieSaint]

most people pre vote as they said can still do both.

Still limiting the attendance, and I was more thinking it may shift some fence sitters if they have a good showing before the polls.

I'll try and be there either way.

 

[Truetiger]

Still limiting the attendance, and I was more thinking it may shift some fence sitters if they have a good showing before the polls.

I'll try and be there either way.

I was thinking the same thing – if I had planned it, I’m unsure of the reasons behind it. Still, it’s worth attending though.

 

[Nugett]

Oh wow really. I never knew that. I just remember the vote on Glenorchy Stadium in the 90s and that was shot down in the end.

KGV would have been a better alternative than Bellerive. A lot more access to it. DEC car parking close by. A shorter drive for those coming from the North. Shame it got shot down.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Bridget Archer changes tack to back Hobart stadium '100 per cent'

Former federal Liberal MP Bridget Archer once said a Hobart AFL stadium was "unnecessary". Now she says she supports the project, just days after seeking Liberal preselection for a possible state election.

www.abc.net.au

Anti-stadium politician back flips - now supports stadium.

Yes what a surprise a politician or former politician changing their mind for their own benefit to appear to be on the side of the majority.

 

[Saucery]

The younger generation seem to be firmly on the side of the stadium, not just for sports but other events. Let them have it, it's they who are going to be servicing the debt in the long run anyways. They are getting handed down a world of problems and issues by us older generations so at least let them have something they want; they deserve that much. I hope the club comes out with a how to vote card so people understand a vote for anyone but either major party will endanger the whole project.