Nick maybe living in a bubble...I've heard different from other people.

I'm interested in the views of our Tasmanian supporters on this site.

Where does this sit?

16 minutes ago, rjay said:

Nick maybe living in a bubble...I've heard different from other people.

I'm interested in the views of our Tasmanian supporters on this site.

Where does this sit?

a lot lot less than nick says

most surveys i've seen are on very small numbers (e.g. 500) and probably quite unreliable for many reasons. however it is probably very tight as to what the public think

You can feel where this is heading and the AFL need to be careful that it doesn't become the scapegoat.

AFL needs to make a clear statement re-confirming its position.

Otherwise....

Labor and Liberals back the stadium as part of their election promises. No party gets a majority but Labor puts together a co-alition that has a vague commitment to the stadium like "We're committed to the build when we've dealt with immediate economic priorities." Meanwhile we implore the AFL to allow a team using the existing facilities which we are prepared to spend $100M upgrading.

The spin will win as usual but who is the better spinner

And then there's the "cash" alternative. $10M to each club might change the approach by each club.

Edited June 7Jun 7 by Diamond_Jim

i think the afl have set a barrier too high to jump over

wouldn't need to be too much of a cynic to think this has been set up (by afl) to fail

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

i think the afl have set a barrier too high to jump over

wouldn't need to be too much of a cynic to think this has been set up (by afl) to fail

They have done well for once.

feel for the Tasmanians. there's no reason why they shouldn't have a Tassy based team

on the brightside, i'm glad the draft won't be compromised.

Edited June 7Jun 7 by BDA

On 06/06/2025 at 15:53, rjay said:

Nick maybe living in a bubble...I've heard different from other people.

I'm interested in the views of our Tasmanian supporters on this site.

Where does this sit?

People who like footy want the stadium and people who don’t like it, don’t want it. 🤷‍♂️ I highly doubt Nick Riewoldt would rub shoulders with too many anti-footy commoners given his background.

Most of the friction is around the location and the cost. The conversation gets swamped by highly emotive but low in sense arguments like health budgets etc, when the cost to build equates to about 3 months of health budget.

It’s also hard to get sensible economic numbers on it because the planning council intentionally hired anti-stadium analysis on it - that’s why the government tried to bypass it, and would have succeeded if the (pro-stadium) opposition hadn’t just skittled them for unrelated reasons.

Another part of the aggravation is the reason the cost is so high is because of the AFL’s requirement for a roof, which as far as I can tell is based on some suit at HQ going to Bellerive Oval once and being really cold, rather than any kind of analysis on weather patterns in Hobart, because it rains here less than any other city where AFL is played other than Adelaide. This is causing the cricket bodies to say the current design is unsuitable for cricket, which is muddying the economic waters further. I went to the Hobart Hurricanes cup winning match at Bellerive and it was one of my favourite sporting experiences ever. If it had been at a new stadium with double the crowd, it would have been amazing. And anyone who’s been to Marvel Stadium in the middle of winter knows the roof might keep the rain away but it doesn’t do much for the cold.

Anyway, this is the one opportunity we’re going to get to bring AFL to Tasmania full time, and it’s about to be blown by a hostile AFL and an incompetent government. Cool.

2 hours ago, Nasher said:

People who like footy want the stadium and people who don’t like it, don’t want it. 🤷‍♂️ I highly doubt Nick Riewoldt would rub shoulders with too many anti-footy commoners given his background.

Most of the friction is around the location and the cost. The conversation gets swamped by highly emotive but low in sense arguments like health budgets etc, when the cost to build equates to about 3 months of health budget.

It’s also hard to get sensible economic numbers on it because the planning council intentionally hired anti-stadium analysis on it - that’s why the government tried to bypass it, and would have succeeded if the (pro-stadium) opposition hadn’t just skittled them for unrelated reasons.

Another part of the aggravation is the reason the cost is so high is because of the AFL’s requirement for a roof, which as far as I can tell is based on some suit at HQ going to Bellerive Oval once and being really cold, rather than any kind of analysis on weather patterns in Hobart, because it rains here less than any other city where AFL is played other than Adelaide. This is causing the cricket bodies to say the current design is unsuitable for cricket, which is muddying the economic waters further. I went to the Hobart Hurricanes cup winning match at Bellerive and it was one of my favourite sporting experiences ever. If it had been at a new stadium with double the crowd, it would have been amazing. And anyone who’s been to Marvel Stadium in the middle of winter knows the roof might keep the rain away but it doesn’t do much for the cold.

Anyway, this is the one opportunity we’re going to get to bring AFL to Tasmania full time, and it’s about to be blown by a hostile AFL and an incompetent government. Cool.

Thanks 'Nasher', much appreciated.

A pity the AFL seem so inflexible yet it's ok for GWS & GCS to play on what are to all intents and purposes suburban grounds.

2 hours ago, Nasher said:

Another part of the aggravation is the reason the cost is so high is because of the AFL’s requirement for a roof, which as far as I can tell is based on some suit at HQ going to Bellerive Oval once and being really cold, rather than any kind of analysis on weather patterns in Hobart, because it rains here less than any other city where AFL is played other than Adelaide. This is causing the cricket bodies to say the current design is unsuitable for cricket, which is muddying the economic waters further. I went to the Hobart Hurricanes cup winning match at Bellerive and it was one of my favourite sporting experiences ever. If it had been at a new stadium with double the crowd, it would have been amazing. And anyone who’s been to Marvel Stadium in the middle of winter knows the roof might keep the rain away but it doesn’t do much for the cold.

Anyway, this is the one opportunity we’re going to get to bring AFL to Tasmania full time, and it’s about to be blown by a hostile AFL and an incompetent government. Cool.

in fairness, the current design IS unsuitable for cricket

the docklands carpark is one of the worst places to watch live sport i've ever been to; utterly soulless

i wonder when head office will need to make a call as to whether the team can continue to march on as it stands

8 minutes ago, rjay said:

Thanks 'Nasher', much appreciated.

A pity the AFL seem so inflexible yet it's ok for GWS & GCS to play on what are to all intents and purposes suburban grounds.

The construction work at the ground in Ballarat must be to put a roof on it I guess.

meanwhile, are richard and martin flanagan the best writing brothers oztraya has ever had? i can't think of two related people who are so eloquent with their words

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/i-love-tassie-footy-and-we-need-a-team-but-the-afl-s-stadium-ultimatum-takes-a-special-kind-of-arrogance-20250609-p5m5x8.html

It was a stupid idea in the first place and will thin the talent pool.

Don't build a house on sand

sounds like they may have some good young fellas?

From the Real Footy newsletter. So much detail being worked on and put out there; so much effort. Can the AFL really be playing a game of we-really-tried-but-you-let-yourselves-down-Tassie, with its $80,000-per-seat stadium spec??

$5m sign-on pool, a bounty of draft picks: AFL reveals list concessions for Tasmania

Jon Pierik

The AFL’s bid to make the Tasmania Devils competitive from day one have been revealed, including giving the fledgling club a signing bonus pool of $5 million to secure star talent from rivals.

The list concessions, rubber-stamped by the AFL Commission last week, also include having the Devils trade six of their11 first-round draft picks across their first three years in the AFL.

They have been given picks Nos.1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13, and the first selection of each subsequent round in their first draft, which is expected to be in 2027, ahead of their AFL debut in 2028.

Four of these picks – Nos.5, 7, 11 and 13 – will need to be used in trades.

In their second and third drafts, the Devils will have their own first-round selection, as well as being handed picks Nos.5 and 9 in each year. However, the No.5 pick must be traded. They will also have the first selection in each subsequent round.

The Devils will have multiple years to trade those picks, allowing them to be used in the ensuing two national drafts.

While a bonus signing pool had been floated, that the pool is up to $5 million will ensure the Devils are an attractive option for established talent willing to make a move.

Collingwood star Nick Daicos told this masthead this year that he wouldn’t rule out a move to Tasmania.

“I’d never rule anything out. It’s hard to picture, obviously, it’s so far away – but I’m very happy at Collingwood now,” he said.

The Devils will have two years to snare up to 18 uncontracted players as free agents from rival clubs, with a maximum of one player per club. Clubs that lose uncontracted players will be handed compensation picks in return.

Other key components of the Devils’ list build includes:

• Four mini-draft selections over two years to on-trade access to star 17-year-olds for following drafts;

• Access to pre-list draft talents in their 17th year, spread across two years;

• Access to Tasmanian prospects from two years before the club’s entry year, with the players able to bypass drafts and play in the state league team;

• Priority access to Tasmanian prospects as academy players, similar to the Northern Academy model, with the ability to pre-list eligible academy players for the first four years before the AFL reviews the club’s access;

• Access to pre-list players who have previously nominated for the national draft but have not been selected or are not currently AFL listed;

• Access to players as father-sons if their father was born in Tasmania and played at least 100 AFL games;

• A flexible list size for the Devils’ first five AFL seasons, allowing up to 48 players on the list until their fourth year before reverting to regular levels by their sixth season.

In a statement, the AFL said the list concessions given to the Devils will be subject to review, depending on any changes to the overall draft system.

The Devils continue to search for a senior coach, with Collingwood great Nathan Buckley among the candidates.

@Demonland, delete 'Hypotheticals on'?

18 minutes ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

@Demonland, delete 'Hypotheticals on'?

yeh change the hypothetical from entry concessions to the club itself.

Jokes aside, will be interesting to see how they utilize that sign on bonus

I wonder if we they can trade off the 17 year old as of next year. If so Baxter Sruk is a massive watch next year along with key forward Jake Miller.

People have been saying the Tassie team will be a joke

So what do they do?

Only announce Jye Menzie as their first player signing

BANG! Take that!

Daicos going to Tassie would be beautiful

the 2027 draft concessions - in the year in which those picks become eligible to be traded - has rendered them worthless

Player related but I feel like jack billing’s would be a great target for them for the VFL. Lots of experience and character

Speaking of 'hypotheticals,' if Russell Robbo has an AFL standard kid (no idea if he has kids), is said kid eligible for Tas and Dee's or just Tas?