Tasmanian AFL Team

[whatwhat say what 23,431]

think you've completely missed my point @Ouch! - and i certainly don't think i'm relentlessly negative but you do you - which is that there's no increased media rights value in a 19th team, which is what funds the competition...so they'll want to get a 20th team in quick smart; where will it be?

tasmania should've had a team eons ago, agreed, but because of the perceived / actual value of adding a team where there's already fans they were ignored in favour of making the correct / not 'right' decision to go with the northern franchises to open up into new markets and increase tv rights value

i've heard all of that @Purple77 re bellerive, but i just don't think they need a new stadium with a roof at macquarie point, particularly if it can't be utilised for international cricket as well as afl due to having a roof

isn't hobart the second driest city during winter, or some bizarre stat like that? so...does it really need a roof?

[daisycutter 29,892]

2 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

think you've completely missed my point @Ouch! - and i certainly don't think i'm relentlessly negative but you do you - which is that there's no increased media rights value in a 19th team, which is what funds the competition...so they'll want to get a 20th team in quick smart; where will it be?

tasmania should've had a team eons ago, agreed, but because of the perceived / actual value of adding a team where there's already fans they were ignored in favour of making the correct / not 'right' decision to go with the northern franchises to open up into new markets and increase tv rights value

i've heard all of that @Purple77 re bellerive, but i just don't think they need a new stadium with a roof at macquarie point, particularly if it can't be utilised for international cricket as well as afl due to having a roof

isn't hobart the second driest city during winter, or some bizarre stat like that? so...does it really need a roof?

i think you overrate the international cricket argument.

most profitable cricket is t20 and roof is no problem and in fact a benefit.

odi and test cricket attendances are dropping alarmingly and the chances of a test match(s) in tassie are low, as is true for international odi

Edited March 26, 2024 by daisycutter

[whatwhat say what 23,431]

8 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i think you overrate the international cricket argument.

most profitable cricket is t20 and roof is no problem and in fact a benefit.

odi and test cricket attendances are dropping alarmingly and the chances of a test match(s) in tassie are low, as is true for odi

Does it really need a roof tho?

[Ouch! 2,269]

2 hours ago, greenwaves said:

I agree.  I think the AFL has taken advantage of Tasmania's desperation for a team to get a new stadium out of them.

Again, you realise that the Gold Coast Council/Qld Govt had to upgrade Metricon as part of the licensing to get it into AFL. That wasn't the AFL paying for the upgrade, it was Taxpayer money. It was a requirement as part of the license. Similar with the showgrounds. This might appear different, but it's really not.

https://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/colin-carter-all-the-reasons-why-a-new-afl-stadium-should-be-supported-built-in-tasmania/news-story/89f786e91033a62e61f6501f526067c2 

This article is worth a read, Colin Carter did an independent review of the business case for the team, he then presented to the AFL commission and the presidents. It was mentioned (although don't think it's in this article) that the business case itself identified that a new stadium is essential for the team, albeit not immediately. The AFL and the clubs decided that it would need to be done as part of the 19th license. It was always identified as being required and being in the city itself.

[daisycutter 29,892]

56 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

Does it really need a roof tho?

of course it doesn't technically

but it would stop concerts or t20 games being cancelled or ruined

it would also attract better attendances to all events in winter

it would make it potentially  available to more events you'd never otherwise consider 

[Ouch! 2,269]

56 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

Does it really need a roof tho?

Think of the roof as much about protecting the ground from wind as it is about the cold. The proximity to the mountain, and the river leaves a lot of Hobart exposed to severe winds. Both Bellerive Oval and York Park are highly susceptible to wind, and it doesn't make for a good game.

[Ouch! 2,269]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

i think you overrate the international cricket argument.

most profitable cricket is t20 and roof is no problem and in fact a benefit.

odi and test cricket attendances are dropping alarmingly and the chances of a test match(s) in tassie are low, as is true for odi

Test cricket has no rules stating that it cannot be played under a roof apparently. I believe that the issue is more that no country has ever requested that a test match be played in a roofed stadium either, so it's more that the ICC would need to make a ruling on such a thing. 

[daisycutter 29,892]

8 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

of course it doesn't technically

but it would stop concerts or t20 games being cancelled or ruined

it would also attract better attendances to all events in winter

it would make it potentially  available to more events you'd never otherwise consider 

added: it would also vastly improve the quality of football

 

Edited March 26, 2024 by daisycutter

[monoccular 17,642]

9 hours ago, Roost it far said:

Could the 20th come from the NT?

Absolutely NO; population too small and Darwin certainly unsuited to winter football - humid, wet, hot.  Alice has a far better winter footy climate notwithstanding the disaster of 2023 (coldest day on record and very unseasonable rain in the area) but the population is way too small.

18 teams dilute the talent pool already, 19 then 20 will just make it worse.  16 would be better.  Solution - merge the three teams that have been going to Tasmania (North, Hawks, Saints) as the Tassie Devils.   Otherwise just relocate the Kangaroos and keep it at 18.

Don't the AFL see the chaos and inequities of an odd number of teams as displayed in the VFL?? Sorry forgot that the AFL have never had the slightest interest in inequity.

[rjay 25,306]

Interesting to watch how this plays out...

[TassieDevil 156]

14 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

Does it really need a roof tho?

If you've ever sat at either Bellerive or Pork Barrel Stadium watching footy in the depths of winter you'd understand why a roof is needed.

I'm not sure if a roof would add to heat capture but a crowd of 23K would generate some heat that a roof would likely capture.

I'm unqualified in any relevant fields - but I have spent winters watching footy in Tassie and it gets bone chilling

 

[TassieDevil 156]

On 26/03/2024 at 10:29, Rab D Nesbitt said:

You make some fair points there, specifically, if both current grounds are good enough for North and Hawthorn to play in them then why can't the Devils? As for the Gabba if they took out all of the silly deck chairs at one end and huge LED screen that flashes Neds betting ads on the outer wing they could fit in more people. 

I get the feeling that the AFL are too far down the road with this now to back out and that any state government down there could probably stall the new stadium issue without it compromising the entry date of their new team. 

The playing surfaces at both grounds are fine - and that's about it.

Bellerive is bang in the middle of suburbia and has limited potential for growth and dreadful transport options.

York Park - aka Pork Barrel stadium - would mean that many Hobart fans won't attend. It's a horrible spectator experience.

The stadium is more about the spectator experience - as long as they get the surface right - if they get that right they will be looking at good crowds, and interstate fans wanting to come down for the experience.
 

[Roost it far 9,539]

17 hours ago, Purple77 said:

This stadium debate, and criticism on cost, drives me up the bend.

All criticism is based on the principle. How can you possibly spend so much money when people are homeless and dying on ambulance ramps?

Of course those things are more important. Literally ANY investment can be positioned less appropriate/worthy than those things.

It shouldn't prohibit investment. Because at the end of the day... $715M, or $2B if it overruns, is not actually a lot of money. The original figure represents 9% of ONE year of the existing budgeted spend on Health, without accounting for Housing. The stadium cost will be spread out across multiple years, which means as a % of health, it is even lower. The stadium budget wouldn't necessarily otherwise be available for Health, as the spend has only been made available for this specific project (which is especially the case for the federal $240M contribution).

Comments on the cost as a taxpayer I don't get either. It's the same as talking about salary management at AFL clubs. You've got absolutely zero control on how its spent, so it's moot to talk about. 

Jacqui Lambie went on The Project and ranted that Tasmania can't afford the Stadium, because Mick Malthouse (you read correctly) said Tasmania can't afford it. I'm not misinterpreting, that is what she said. Everything she says on this matter is invalid.

I implore the doubters to not be hung up on the principle of the spend, recognise its not a lot of money, and start seeing the opportunity this will bring Tasmania.

Rubbish. This is yet another classic example of wealthy corporates making themselves comfortable on the public purse. The AFL is swimming in cash. An upgrade of an existing stadium to hold 20-25,000 is all Tassie needs atm. As far as I can see it’s ill conceived, the site is debatable, the cost over runs all but guaranteed because of the site and it’s not needed. The AFL has ignored the game in Tassie for so long it’s almost gone at a local level. That amount of money could be so much better spent it’s not even funny. We’ve become brainwashed into thinking we need to spend billions to get anything. In truth Tasmania and the AFL could have a stadium, local level footy club support and all Tasmanians on board for a fraction of that amount. 

[Purple77 1,003]

1 hour ago, Roost it far said:

Rubbish. This is yet another classic example of wealthy corporates making themselves comfortable on the public purse. The AFL is swimming in cash. An upgrade of an existing stadium to hold 20-25,000 is all Tassie needs atm. As far as I can see it’s ill conceived, the site is debatable, the cost over runs all but guaranteed because of the site and it’s not needed. The AFL has ignored the game in Tassie for so long it’s almost gone at a local level. That amount of money could be so much better spent it’s not even funny. We’ve become brainwashed into thinking we need to spend billions to get anything. In truth Tasmania and the AFL could have a stadium, local level footy club support and all Tasmanians on board for a fraction of that amount. 

Yep, except it won't.

We'll just disagree on this, but the team doesn't work in Bellerive. Nor will the other initiatives slated for the multi-purpose use of Macquarie Point.

Invest in community initiatives or don't. Just stop thinking the investment would go elsewhere otherwise.

[Ouch! 2,269]

2 hours ago, Roost it far said:

An upgrade of an existing stadium to hold 20-25,000 is all Tassie needs atm. As far as I can see it’s ill conceived, the site is debatable, the cost over runs all but guaranteed because of the site and it’s not needed. The AFL has ignored the game in Tassie for so long it’s almost gone at a local level. That amount of money could be so much better spent it’s not even funny. We’ve become brainwashed into thinking we need to spend billions to get anything. In truth Tasmania and the AFL could have a stadium, local level footy club support and all Tasmanians on board for a fraction of that amount. 

Sorry this is just total crud, and shows you know nothing about the two stadiums, Bellerive will not upgrade to this size, it's in the suburbs and York Park is NOT IN THE CAPITAL CITY. How many times does this need to be said!!!!

Also, please everyone understand this.  THE COST is NOT $715 or $1Billion to the Tasmanian Taxpayers, it's $375 Million.. the rest is being paid by Federal Capital works money, the AFL and private investors.

If this stadium does not go ahead, not only does the other 400 mil not get spent in Tasmania, but all of the money that the AFL is committing over the next 10 years, (300+ million) for junior development pathways, the high performance/community football etc, that all goes.

[Rab D Nesbitt 8,774]

4 hours ago, TassieDevil said:

The playing surfaces at both grounds are fine - and that's about it.

Bellerive is bang in the middle of suburbia and has limited potential for growth and dreadful transport options.

York Park - aka Pork Barrel stadium - would mean that many Hobart fans won't attend. It's a horrible spectator experience.

The stadium is more about the spectator experience - as long as they get the surface right - if they get that right they will be looking at good crowds, and interstate fans wanting to come down for the experience.
 

Agree about Bellerive. I’ve been there a few times and it’s awkward to get to and only has the one generic pub nearby. The one in Launceston looks like it’s mostly portable grandstands. 

[whatwhat say what 23,431]

16 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

Sorry this is just total crud, and shows you know nothing about the two stadiums, Bellerive will not upgrade to this size, it's in the suburbs and York Park is NOT IN THE CAPITAL CITY. How many times does this need to be said!!!!

Also, please everyone understand this.  THE COST is NOT $715 or $1Billion to the Tasmanian Taxpayers, it's $375 Million.. the rest is being paid by Federal Capital works money, the AFL and private investors.

If this stadium does not go ahead, not only does the other 400 mil not get spent in Tasmania, but all of the money that the AFL is committing over the next 10 years, (300+ million) for junior development pathways, the high performance/community football etc, that all goes.

if the stadium doesn't go ahead / gets blocked by tasmanian parliament, do you think the team will still happen despite the afl's determination that 'no stadium = no team'?

[greenwaves 498]

1 hour ago, Ouch! said:

THE COST is NOT $715 or $1Billion to the Tasmanian Taxpayers, it's $375 Million.. the rest is being paid by Federal Capital works money, the AFL and private investors.

There's no way it's costing $375 million.  This cost will blow out.

[Ouch! 2,269]

20 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

if the stadium doesn't go ahead / gets blocked by tasmanian parliament, do you think the team will still happen despite the afl's determination that 'no stadium = no team'?

no.

Edit: Sorry just to clarify. I dont' think this will proceed regardless of the support of 200k supporters. The Club presidents of the other 18 clubs will pull the pin on the project. GC, Sydney, Collingwood and some other clubs were lukewarm at best. I suspect Hawthorn and North are 'supportive' but secretly covet the cash that will no longer be afforded them.

Edited March 27, 2024 by Ouch!

[Ouch! 2,269]

16 minutes ago, greenwaves said:

There's no way it's costing $375 million.  This cost will blow out.

Ok, I respectfully ask you to read before commenting.

I said, the Tas Gov contribution WILL BE CAPPED AT $375Million. The Stadium is costed at $715, which includes the $240mil from the federal govt, $15mil from AFL, the remainder comes from private investment.

[whatwhat say what 23,431]

4 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

no

and what's yr feeling as to the likelihood - or otherwise - of it getting passed through tasmanian parliament?

[Ouch! 2,269]

15 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

and what's yr feeling as to the likelihood - or otherwise - of it getting passed through tasmanian parliament?

I actually think that the Liberal party will look to engage with Labor to get this through, not to rely on Lambie or Greens.

Bec White... 3 failures at elections as opposition leader... there are rumours that the party position differs from Bec White.

[TassieDevil 156]

16 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

if the stadium doesn't go ahead / gets blocked by tasmanian parliament, do you think the team will still happen despite the afl's determination that 'no stadium = no team'?

No stadium = no team. AFL unequivocal about that - which opponents don't get. 

Tasmania vs AFL is no contest.  We need them more than they need us.

[Demonland 73,485]

 

[Ouch! 2,269]

Quick update today:

As expected and predicted, new opposition leader for Labor, Dean Winter has come out and changed the party position on the AFL stadium in Tasmania. They still say they'll hold the govt to account on the spend, but they are now supporting the stadium, and the jobs that it will bring both in construction and ongoing.

Wasn't all that surprising given that many Labor figures are involved in local football, and they typically like to position themselves with the unions, and about jobs and infrastructure.

Not over the line by any means, but less of a political football now (sorry bout the pun!)