22 minutes ago, Stiff Arm said:

I tend to agree, based upon the rumored cost and short timeline.

Small population/economy, with considerable disadvantage outside of Hobart. The money the Tas State government has committed would do a lot for education, healthcare and employment generally.

Would it be a different story if the Fed govt put in the majority of the funds? Maybe.

I find it hard to believe a 25,000 seat stadium would cost around $1.5b which is what it will be (if not more) when the first ball is bounced.

The roof is unnecessary. I've watched the Dees in Canberra mid winter when it was 6 deg all afternoon and sleet came in at 45deg. Fcs, the Hawks game there had snow! If there's no need for a roof there, the AFL should ease up on it for Tassie.

AFL requirements making it near impossible for this to happen

Basically the AFL want a Brand new Stadium (almost free of charge).

The roof is stipulated so that they can budget for full houses regularly, regardless of weather conditions.

The Tasmanian Government has made it clear for months that there is no budget for a Stadium at that Price.

If the AFL want a Roofed Stadium, they are going to have to pay for at least 75% of it themselves

I can’t see that happening. The Broadcast Contract will not expand by much with Tasmania involved

They already watch the game as it is

52 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Hospitals here get enough $$$, it is poorly spent. Stadium will be good for us.

I’ll tell you what’s poor spending, a $1.4 billion stadium in Tasmania that you can’t play cricket at. I just found this out and honestly thought it must be a joke. It’s a lot of money for a handful of AFL games in front of say 15,000 and some concerts.

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Basically the AFL want a Brand new Stadium (almost free of charge).

The roof is stipulated so that they can budget for full houses regularly, regardless of weather conditions.

The Tasmanian Government has made it clear for months that there is no budget for a Stadium at that Price.

If the AFL want a Roofed Stadium, they are going to have to pay for at least 75% of it themselves

I can’t see that happening. The Broadcast Contract will not expand by much with Tasmania involved

They already watch the game as it is

Other than the feel good factor nothing about Tasmania makes sense.

1. It dilutes the existing thin pool of players

2. It dilutes the already thin sponsorship market

3. It won’t add much more to tv rights.

This country struggles to support the current 18 teams. It’s absurd to now put in another team to an already struggling competition.

This needs to be shut down

43 minutes ago, Oxdee said:

Other than the feel good factor nothing about Tasmania makes sense.

1. It dilutes the existing thin pool of players

2. It dilutes the already thin sponsorship market

3. It won’t add much more to tv rights.

This country struggles to support the current 18 teams. It’s absurd to now put in another team to an already struggling competition.

This needs to be shut down

it won't add anything to the tv rights...until a 20th team comes in

with daz n / the saudi pif taking over from the murdochs owning foxtel, there's already talk they want to ditch the production of the mag shows for fox footy / league, as they're too expensive for minimal return

there's so much uncertainty as to the future of the rights value because of the changed landscape of the provider at the start of this current rights cycle, let alone the future rights cycle beyond 2032

Edited June 4Jun 4 by whatwhat say what

12 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

it won't add anything to the tv rights...until a 20th team comes in

with daz n / the saudi pif taking over from the murdochs owning foxtel, there's already talk they want to ditch the production of the mag shows for fox footy / league, as they're too expensive for minimal return

there's so much uncertainty as to the future of the rights value because of the changed landscape of the provider at the start of this current rights cycle, let alone the future rights cycle beyond 2032

I wonder if the gravy train might be coming to the end of the cycle...

43 minutes ago, rjay said:

I wonder if the gravy train might be coming to the end of the cycle...

we'll know in 2030

10 minutes ago, Demonland said:

grow the game = increase value of broadcast rights + volume of wagering

the notion that the northern franchises have some altruistic intent to expand afl into uncharted areas is absurd

The MFC gains nothing from Tassie coming into the competition.

60 % 0f Tasmanians dont want the government to committ 1 Billion dollars of borrowed money in a stadium

Government will fall and alternative government will be gunshy

1 hour ago, whatwhat say what said:

grow the game = increase value of broadcast rights + volume of wagering

the notion that the northern franchises have some altruistic intent to expand afl into uncharted areas is absurd

Without growth comes decline. The altruistic nature was to preserve the league intern benefiting most clubs financially. A Tasmanian team won’t be doing this.

11 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

The MFC gains nothing from Tassie coming into the competition.

A nice away trip

On 23/05/2025 at 20:50, Clintosaurus said:

Stadium location is fine. Road infrastructure is terrible but won't be worse as a result.

The independent report found that it's a poor location.

it's...off?

Speaker Michelle O’Byrne has voted with the yes, in support of the no confidence motion, 18-17.

The motion of no-confidence has succeeded.

Edited June 5Jun 5 by whatwhat say what

So here we have an instance of a political football being.... a political football.

In all honesty, the competition is not good enough to support the 18 teams at the moment, let alone a 19th or 20th.

It really should go back to 16 teams, ideally with fewer teams in Melbourne. But that’s never going to happen.

Can someone remind me...

Has the AFL agreed to underwrite the annual operating costs of the Devils in a manner similar to North, the Suns etc.

Is there a limit on the rent that the Stadium "owner" can charge the new team. If it's a market rent the team will have great difficulty getting anywhere close to breakeven.

Future not looking positive for Devils

• Stadium not wanted by 60% of Tasmanians

• Cost blow out to $1.5b or more

• Higher stadium demands than other AFL stadiums (roof, waterside location, timing)

• Stadium location debatable

• Unlikely to play cricket there due to roof shadows, so only AFL and 'events'

• Pointy end draft concessions other clubs despise

• Further player and sponsorship pool diluting

• Small population will mean small attendances and revenue

• No underwrighting guarantees from AFL, unlike GWS

• Doesn't add to tv rights significantly

Despite this, and in true Australian political style, the premier signed off on contract demands that were always going to be impossible to meet

If by some chance the team does get off the ground in 2028 or whenever it is proposed to enter the competition, my bet is they will struggle on and off the field and will fold within 5-10 years. They're always going to be behind the 8 ball

welcome norwood, fnq or Canberra

On 04/06/2025 at 16:15, Colm said:

The roof is the big issue for me. We should have told the AFL where to go when they demanded a roof. No other expansion team or any team for that matter had such a demand put on them.

Weather here is ok to already play 8 games a season without any roof. We get less rain than NSW and Queensland. Yes it’s colder and maybe a bit windy. Deal with it.

Roof also means that no cricket games could be played there so it would just be around 8 AfL games a season as o assume 3/4 would be played in Launceston.

AFL is played in Canberra while it's snowing. It's an outdoor sport fcs!

How on earth have they played league footy and produced so many champions over the years without a roofed stadium?!!!

Edited June 5Jun 5 by Stiff Arm

20 hours ago, Oxdee said:

Other than the feel good factor nothing about Tasmania makes sense.

1. It dilutes the existing thin pool of players

2. It dilutes the already thin sponsorship market

3. It won’t add much more to tv rights.

It’s absurd to now put in another team to an already struggling competition.

Not many would say the comp is struggling, in some key areas including talent pool I definitely agree with you and im mostly about game standard, not who has a team, TV shows etc