Thats how the AFL bends the state govt over its ass's..
happened in SA as well.  The Adelaide oval aready had 100million spent on within the previous decade before the 500 million was added,

And that doesnt include the govt buying from the SACA
the ground is used for AFL, the cricket.

the occasional concert , one off events ( like the A league final ,  rugby international )

The business case for the hugely expensive stadium is "if you owe me some money, that's your problem. if you owe me a lot, that's mine". The AFL is trying to tie up a generation of funding in what is primarily an AFL venue and sub optimal for others. Not only will Tasmania be under for 750 million with an ongoing commitment of some ~10 million yearly additional funding for the team, you can bet they will continually tighten the screws and demand more because "you built it, it's up to you to use it". Other sports will have no access to funding because the money simply isn't there. It's positively gormless. Hold the state hostage with its own money - the classic sunk cost fallacy dictating all sport funding decisions (and sadly, s lot of the overall public works budgets as well) for the next generation. Is the roof retractable? That's a beautiful present with all those moving parts on its 30th birthday.

Let it sink in that it's more than half the cost of Stadium WA and a capacity of 25,000.

Your answer should have been "No".  The AFL is projected to get 27.5% of total attendance at the venue.  The projected average attendance at the Tassie AFL games across the state is 21k which is greater than both UTAS Stadium and Blundstone Arena can hold.

What was initially the plan was for UTAS to be developed by replacing the temporary stands with a single 2 tier stand.  This would have increased capacity to 5k greater than at Blundstone and would have seen the 4 big drawing games played in the north, to replace the current Hawthorn games, while the other 7 games would have been played at Blundstone where capacity is effectively 19k.  If after the settling in period it was found, as expected, that Blundstone's capacity was holding back attendance in the south then a CBD venue would have to be built.

For reasons known only to Premier Gutwein and the AFL the proposal was changed to building the Hobart stadium straight up.

The anti-development brigade is arguing against the Macquarie Point proposal but they are not the only ones.  It has been interesting following the discussion in The Mercury online.  The main argument against the proposed stadium is that "we already have 2 good stadium so spend the money on ...".  For anyone who understands the trends in modern stadiums and fan expectations this argument is false.  Neither of the existing stadiums meets what is built into a modern Tier 2 stadium and as both don't have the required capacity significant upgrading in both quality and capacity is required if Tassie does get an AFL licence.  Also neither UTAS nor Blundstone is suitable for the uses planned for the multipurpose venue.

Albo already has the Business Case and has said his people are studying it.  It is quite a thorough document with the site selection, demand analysis, costings and foundation assessments done by reputable consultants.  I would prefer the TCA site but it has quite a few negatives as well.

Albo gave $50m to the Macquarie Point site to remove the contaminated soil and clean up the site etc which has (almost) been completed, eventually.  The bridge has dragged on too but it is going forward now.

The costings surprise me.  Based on stadium construction in Australia over the last 20 years I can't see how the initial figure of $750m was arrived at even allowing for half of the venue being over the river.  The Business Case cites both Metricon Stadium on the Gold Coast and the proposed stadium in Christchurch as examples of the type of stadium they are talking about.  Metricon is a 25,000 seat oval stadium built pre Covid at $11k per seat.  The stadium in Christchurch is a 30,000 seat multipurpose rectangular venue with a permanent roof and the contract price has come in at A$641m or $21.4k per seat.  That is a very wide difference ie a factor of 2.  The NZ contract price is a lot higher than their pre covid estimate and that may have been factored in to the Hobart estimate but even if it has the $21.4k per seat works through to A$492m for the 23,000 seat stadium proposed for Hobart.  What brings the price up to the $715m stated in the Business Case?  That price includes $150m for site works and a $64m allowance for rising costs.  Until the design is reworked through the normal iterative process we won't know what the actual cost is.

Unfortunately, yes.

They see votes in it. They are  proffering the false argument the anti-development brigade are trying to stop an AFL team in Tassie.

Sports Minister, Annika Wells, doesn't see the necessity for a stadium. All the Tassie Federal  Labor MPs and Senators are campaigning against it.

Albo has stated he wants to see a sound business case from the Tassie Rockliff Liberal government.

He has been burnt before. In  the previous Gillard government,  in his  ministerial duties ( infrastructure?) he allocated millions to the  Tassie Liberal government to develop the Macquarie Point area ( where the mooted stadium is supposed to be built) and the Bridgewater Bridge. The state Liberal government has done zilch to galvanise  those projects.

I'm pretty sure Also won't get burnt again.

yeh, agree with this, Darwin has buckley's of getting a license

Whilst it would be a good will story for the game.
Darwin have no chance of getting an AFL license.
It's all about the $$$ which is why they expanded to south east qld & west sydney during their last round of expansion.

Darwin simply doesn't have the population to sustain a professional AFL side.

 
Darwin is planning to apply for the 20th spot.  In 2021 they prepared concept drawings for each of 2 options for a 25,000 seat stadium.

That’s spot on Bettega.

The AFL would need a 20th license to add an extra game for tv and there are no adequate options on the table and relocation has its own dreaded issues.

Unfortunately I can see Tasmania getting lip service and the AFL will up it’s demands in a game of chicken.

Yes, good luck with your efforts to lobby against it.
The problem I see is that it's the Tassie government pushing for the 19th team in the AFL.
I get the impression the AFL doesn't really want it, so they are going to make a totally unreasonable demand, and the Tassie Government either comes to the party or there's no Tassie team.
that's my reading of it

Well good luck with your campaign because up until now the AFL has been successful with each and every money grab that they have made on government

The stupidity in which governments operate in never ceases to amaze me. 

I'm involved in a large coalition of pressure groups campaigning  against the stadium.

As a few posters have  suggested earlier, the state Rockliff Liberal  government claims they have no money to allocate for homelessness, and ostensibly can't pay any modest wage rises to a plethora of public spector workers, but have pledged to support a superfluous stadium.

They have pledged 400 million to spend on a stadium when York Park and Bellerive are adequate. They intend to give taxpayers' money to Murdoch/Foxtel/AFL.

Also, there is a  campaign  from the state parliamentary Labor Party against the stadium. Also, Federal  Labor MPs and Senators are launching a campaign against it too.

If you read the business case you will see that the venue will target an average of 44 events per annum with total attendance of 580,000.  Of that 580,000 the AFL will draw 160,000 to games.  That is 27.5% of total attendance at the stadium.

There is a fair bit of opposition and there are lots of different reasons for it.  Of those that object to its location some believe the site should stay with its current usage, others think the site should be used for infrastructure that appeals to a wider cross section of the community, others believe that there shouldn't be development without provision for parking, yet others don't want any development in the city etc,.  Some don't think we need a stadium because we have two good stadiums and the money could be used for better purposes.  Of those with this view most believe the funds should be reallocated to health, education, transport and housing with paying for increased salaries a popular view.  They don't seem to understand that a one off input to these service areas doesn't achieve a long term effect because whether the spending is on infrastructure or operations there isn't ongoing funding to keep it it going.  There are lots of other opinions and many hold their view very strongly but I have listed these ones to show there isn't any one issue that is driving the opposition.  

Well, that's sort of how it's panning out, but there is a fair bit of opposition to it.

Do you really think that they would spend $715m on a stadium for 7 AFL games a year?

Cmon. This is an afl stadium fair and square. 

don't be misled it'll be afl controlled and managed 3 games poor attempt at inclusion of minorities to garner more public funds for their benefit as usual just review recent historical decisions of this nature 

The venue is not only for sports events and even with projected sports events the AFL usage is less than half.

So the AFL a billion dollar organisation would get another 240 million hand out? Yet people say we dont deserve more than ten million a year

That s a little ambitious for WU "home" games I would have thought....  Unless they cover up the Jack Jumpers mural at Hobart Airport on game day with the glorious "rooftops and bitumen" logo......

The business case says that they will get 3 A-league games a year with average attendance of 7,500. I doubt whether they will spend any additional money on the venue to cater for football.

But But we always get the crumbs if that 

Joke of an idea. Football gets crumbs off the table once again our game must not endorse this new stadium 

Although the site selection document mentions retractable stands the business case doesn't so the intention might be to play rectangular pitch sports in an oval format ground.

The allocation over the forward estimates for health, housing, education and roads in the Tassie budget are all record amounts and the feds are bringing significant extra funds for housing in 2024.  The stadium construction funding doesn't come in until 2025 so it is only then that there is a choice between funding the stadium or infrastructure in the areas you mentioned.

Not as good as a dedicated rectangular stadium, but better than a pure oval. The question that many Tasmanias are asking is why is it even being considered when Bellerive Oval is perfectly fine for the footy and cricket. As a day 0 fan of a potential Tasmanian A-League team I am very supportive of it, but as a Tasmanian there are much better things to spend money on, such as housing and health 

More on this new $750 million roofed stadium for Hobart.
Would you believe, the business case actually mentions hosting 3 A-League games per annum (at an average of 7,500 attendees).

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-23/hobart-afl-stadium-business-case-released/101800410

"The government earlier commissioned a report which cited attendance estimates, released under Right to Information.

This included a prediction that seven regular season AFL matches would average crowds of 20,000, that three A-League and two Super Rugby matches would get 7,500 each, and the Big Bash League would average 10,000 across four matches.

The document also estimated the stadium would attract three international-standard concerts per year with 30,000 people in attendance.

The business case continued to cite this document for its attendance estimates.

Also included in the business case are testimonials from supporters of the project, including UK entertainer Robbie Williams, current and former AFL players and identities and local media, tourism, hospitality and union figures. "

won't be many $$$'s left- I can guarantee you 100 % that'll be the case 

The State Government has set aside funds to establish a Tasmanian Stadiums Trust which would cover York Park, Bellerive Oval and potentially other sites such as the DEC (basketball).

Apparently part of their purpose will be to undertake a feasibility study for a rectangular stadium and narrow down the most likely potential locations to a preferred site.

I figure the AFL team outcome in March 2022 will be a pivotal outcome for a rectangular stadium decision in 2022/23 particularly if a possible AFL license requires significant stadium investment. If so there won’t be many $$$ left for other stadiums and it may need to be mostly private funding.

Oh, I thought the Matildas where tacking on to the site of the new sports centre and building a new base there. The "old" CFG site I thought would still be available.

Fair enough, any idea where Victory would be looking at?

no. the Matildas are moving in there.