Thirty-three years after the Victorian Football League officially became national, Tasmania has finally been granted an AFL licence.
Despite what the AFL may want you to believe about this being exciting and momentous for Tasmania, many living in the state are feeling the exact opposite.
For a state which unlike New South Wales and Queensland has always embraced Australian rules football as its main code, produced many champions of the game and has one of the oldest surviving football leagues in the TSL, the question most people are asking is, why has it taken this long?
Why were parts of the country which neglected Australian rules for decades in favour of rugby league granted licences, while the AFL continuously made it as difficult as possible for Tasmania to get its own team? Of course, the answer to this is money.
The league has long prioritised growing the game in areas that have the biggest population and the most commercial appeal, even if the people living in those areas don’t share that same interest. All because the AFL are more interested in weakening the NRL than they are in rewarding the strongest football communities in the country, many of whom happen to be in Tassie.
Through living in Tasmania for over a year I’ve seen first hand the passion the local community share for AFL. The rivalry between Glenorchy and North Hobart is just as fierce as Collingwood-Carlton. Every weekend parents bring their kids and sit in the same stands that they sat in themselves decades earlier.
The number of volunteer parents and coaches who dedicate their weekends to supporting local footy is as strong as you’ll see in any country town in Victoria.
Contrast that to the AFL’s priority regions on the Gold Coast and western Sydney and it’s like chalk and cheese. Two regions which have had little to no history of Australian rules football, and have been given 10s of millions by the AFL to prop up manufactured teams still can’t even pull a crowd of over 15,000 despite their large populations.
The issue, though, which has angered Tasmanians more than anything since the AFL’s announcement is the building of the new $740 million stadium on Macquarie Point.
High-profile media figures such as Eddie McGuire (who has long admitted to protecting the AFL’s bottom line over the heart of the game) have been quick to spin this outrage as Tasmanians being misinformed, ungrateful, caring more about social issues than footy or simply not wanting their own team.
For all the reasons stated in the first paragraph this is just a complete fabrication of reality designed to shift the blame onto Tasmanians rather than highlight the AFL’s lies and double standards when it comes to the issue of Tasmania.
As many Tasmanians from all political stances have stated, the Apple Isle has two perfect AFL-standard venues already: one in Launceston that holds 19,000, the other in Hobart that holds 20,000, both of which have regularly hosted AFL games for the best part of 20 years.
University of Tasmania Stadium in Launceston. (Photo by Dylan Burns/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
If the new $715 million stadium was set to actually become a major 50,000-seat venue, then the AFL would have an argument to make for Tasmania to need a new, larger stadium which would be the MCG of the state. But that is not the case – the new stadium will only hold 23,000 people, essentially the same as the other two AFL-standard grounds the state already has!
When Gillon McLachlan was asked why Tasmania needed a new stadium his only answer was that Gold Coast and GWS needed “significant upgrades” on their stadiums in order to gain an AFL licence. More lies. Carrara Stadium in 2009 only needed an upgrade of $126 million to raise the capacity from 11,000 to 22,500, and Sydney Showground only needed a $65 million facelift to increase the capacity from 13,000 to 25,000.
If the essentially $100 million was put towards a redevelopment of York Park or Bellerive, you could bring the capacity to well over 30,000 on either of those grounds, which would easily go past the new stadiums capacity and at just a fraction of the cost. It’s simple math.
Then, they say the stadium must have a roof! The AFL aren’t even trying to hide their hypocrisy on that one. As it stands there is only one AFL stadium in the country that has a roof. A roof has never ever been a requirement for any new stadium, let alone a football team in order for AFL games to be played there. If you add a roof, you’re already looking at the cost blowing out to well over $1 billion.
[roar_daily_edm
Despite how incompetent the AFL were in bungling McLachlan’s replacement as CEO, I don’t believe they are the same when it comes to the issue of Tasmania given this is an issue they’ve had well over 20 years to deal with.
Deep down they know how hypocritical they are compared to how they dealt with the two new teams from a decade ago, how they still give the Gold Coast and GWS millions of dollars in handouts each year because they are desperate for those teams to eventually work while continuously making it as difficult as possible for Tasmania.
That’s the only rational explanation I can give for this whole stadium debacle.
The fact the AFL has been willing to invest only a measly $15 million into the stadium itself while demanding a new $715 million stadium is a requirement if they want a team, when the facts show there is a much more cost-efficient way of doing it all, makes me and the Tasmanian public believe the AFL didn’t want it to happen. That they thought putting a high-priced and politically costly bounty on the Tasmanian government’s back like a stadium would make them fold on the issue.
The AFL know full well about the housing crisis that is crippling the state at the moment and how spending that amount of money on infrastructure (not football itself) doesn’t play well with the Tasmanian public.
Shame on you, AFL, yet again showing such a blatant disrespect for the people of Tasmania who you know full well deserve their own team more than several other states in the AFL, but even more shame on the Victorian media who have chosen to promote the AFL’s lies and hypocrisy on the stadium issue rather than call it out for what it is.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
nice rant. Zero argument.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
High performance facilities like what? This is the big con wasting hundreds of millions on training facilities on groups of druggies who would go to the dirtiest dunnies in the land to score their stash. Spend the sports science money on the Olympic athletes who need it. The skills are practiced with a ball in an open field not in some overblown luxury bathhouse facilities. When did anyone in the past become good because of gold plated taps and marble bathrooms.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
and a permanent team requires the full high performance facilities day in, day out. Not just a half decent ground to rock up to on match day.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
Thats correct the massive difference is the sporting teams come for the day and leave with Tasmania's money every time, and a local team will spend their money in Tasmania and support the local economy.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
there's a massive, massive difference between FIFO teams 3 or 4 times a year each and a permanently based club. Massive difference. That you can't make that distinction means your argument is seriously flawed to begin with.
TheGeneral
Roar Rookie
Yes trust the consultants. Lets see Optus Stadium. Projected cost was $700 million. Contracted cost over $900 million. ACTUAL COST $1.6 billion. You live in cloud cuckoo land if you think that the cost will come in as said.
Birdman
Roar Rookie
Lots of Hobart based Hawks supporters have had to 'endure' the drive home. Bit of a pain but hardly the ordeal you paint it to be. A Hobart stadium works on many levels that a tarted Bellerive Oval never could. Mind you, a fast train would be a good idea to get car traffic off the Midlands highway leaving it to the truckers and farmers.
Kenny Lickit
Roar Rookie
Eddie's Tassie rant on footy classified (17th may) bordered on hysterical. Not only the news reader, but Damian Barrett had to tell him to calm down. I would like to ask Eddie to state if he has any financial interest in Hobart real estate, or any connections to developers vying to build the proposed stadium. Also, the pro stadium camp attacking the integrity of those who are questioning this stadium is a tactic tried by Hillary Clinton on Trump supporters before the 2016 USA election. I heard on S.E.N a caller label Jaqui Lambie and people from the north of the state as "professional whiners". BILLIONS to be poured into Hobart, after North tassie has supported the AFL fo DECADES, since the days of St Kilda and Siren gate. And what does Launceston get out of this "tassie team"? A couple of token games a year, in a stadium with no roof? Does Gil and Eddie think the QUARTER OF A MILLION PEOPLE in northern Tasmania will drive the 3 to 5 hour journey home over BLACK ICE at night, along the midlands highway, dodging wallabies after watching a game in Hobart? There's something slightly sinister about all of this. If it really is about a tassie team, and NOT about cashing in on real estate deals, then the 100 year old historic Bellerive oval would be renovated, and the spare money would be used to build a fast train connecting Launceston to Hobart, that NOT only football fans could use, but be an incredible touridt asset for th whole of the state for the next 100 years, AND save deaths on the road.
Goalsonly
Roar Rookie
The sooner we get two tassie teams ... teams in Bendigo and Ballarat and Sheppharton and split divisions with footy every night the better.....
Gyfox
Roar Rookie
Macca: 1. The new AFL club training facilities in Launceston (not Hobart) 2, Chinese investors 3. Chinese students
The_Wookie
Roar Guru
Mate ive seen posts of yours that completely invented an extra 250-500m in stadium construction costs based on literally nothing. At least mine come direct from consultant reports to the TasGov
Chancho
Roar Rookie
Good point. Football stadiums here in Europe don't have roofs, and it's considerably colder here
dargerovitch
Roar Rookie
Yes , Maxy , but after driving to Hobart and watching the game , they could well be driving tired . especially after a night game. Not good.
joe19
Roar Rookie
'Not sure why a minority of Tasmanians are whingeing about this once-in-a-lifetime deal to get a modern stadium.' 'Not sure'? There is a plethora of information, online, outlining the reasons why many are against spending inordinate sums on a stadium. As for 'minority', I have seen a couple of polls - admittedly not large enough to be overly scientific - which show around 65% 'against', 20% 'for' and the rest undecided or indifferent. 'drive enormous economic activity'? The state government's own cost/benefit analysis predicts a loss of more than $300m over 20 years of operation. See link is below. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-20/afl-stadium-could-generate-300m-loss-mi-global-partners-analysis/101870704 'Anybody who thinks otherwise is short-sighted and/or naiive or possibly just a pessimistic argumentative fool.' This is simplistic in the extreme. Name calling is not an argument.
joe19
Roar Rookie
Ben Waterworth
Roar Guru
I would say there is less demand for a new bridge than a stadium. And also the traffic lead in to that area at Mac Point and Kangaroo Bluff would be terrible and bottle neck more than it does where the Tasman Bridge is right now
Ben Waterworth
Roar Guru
The hill is incredibly outdated and I always thought they should've just extended the David Boon stand right across to the members/media area. And also remove that god awful shed of a grandstand that still exists next to the hill. But then you say you're going to remove the hill, that opens up a whole other can of worms....
Simoc
Roar Rookie
And your $1.25bn figure comes out of thin air. Maybe your whole comment reeks of thin air. Make up a story. So lay out your figures so we know you are not b/s us.
Macca
Roar Rookie
Wht happens to the money the develpoers pay for it? Who moves in to th high end housing, what happens to their old homes?
JamesH
Roar Guru
No, I never said they were mutually exclusive. It's not as simple as one or the other, but neither is it as simple as saying none of that money would ever be spent on essential services. Investment in the stadium will inevitably limit (or be used as a reason for limiting) expenditure elsewhere, whether in those services or in other projects. That's simply the nature of balancing a Government budget. The question people are rightly asking is: if we have that money to invest in a stadium, what is the justification for doing so instead of making a decision to increasing funding to services that are deperate for it? This is where a transparent and thorough business case would have helped, rather than keeping everyone in the dark or committing to the stadium before the case was properly made. Show people the numbers; don't just tell them they're wrong and dismiss their concerns.