A brand-new multipurpose stadium in Hobart brings Tasmania way more positives than negatives, despite the not-so-civil war erupting in the state.
Those against the stadium are trying their hardest to prevent it, bemoaning that the state government should be spending its money on more housing much-needed investments in the healthcare system.
Doomsayers on the ‘No Stadium’ bandwagon have already put forward a bunch of negatives, from no one going to support the team to the stadium not being able to attract big events to the state to make it worthwhile.
Some politicians have insisted that the majority of Tasmanians are against the stadium, but that doesn’t stack up; the ‘Yes Team Yes Stadium’ Facebook group has attracted 17,334 members, and many stickers branding the same message have been flying out of shops and the offices of local MPs offices.
In this author’s opinion, it has become clear that the majority of Tasmanians are keen on both an AFL team and a new stadium, and the minority are against one or both.
The latter would be the best thing for Tasmania in the long run; not only for the AFL team that we have been so desperate for and deserving of for decades, but also for the return off the biggest and best events to the state in the years to come.
It will provide another chance for Tasmania to put itself back on the map and become a must-visit part of the country, alongside the usual destinations of Sydney and Melbourne.
Unfortunately, Blundstone Arena can’t be the stadium we need, and cannot be made into a world-class venue capable of achieving this; which means we have to get the Macquarie Point facility up and running and built without further outrage.
The positives will outweigh any negatives that people try and float about, too.
Most notably of these positives is this: while Tasmania has a rich sporting history, it has seen many of the state’s best athletes, especially for Australian Rules, head to the mainland, with many young footballers jetting off the national draft or even state leagues, to improve their chances of cracking the big time, and never looking back.
The new stadium and team will bring to life some of these athletes’ lifelong dreams of playing sport on the main stage, while keeping them in the state they grew up in.
Melbourne’s Marvel Stadium has seen cricket, pro wrestling, musical concerts and many other major events over the years. There is no reason the new Tasmanian stadium wouldn’t fare similarly once completed.
Sure, Marvel Stadium has had its issues, with its surface coming under scrutiny due to regular injuries in the AFL, and issues during A-League games as well.
University of Tasmania Stadium in Launceston. (Photo by Dylan Burns/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
But on the other hand, it has become a massive attraction for major events – the same events that Tasmania could expect to attract once their new stadium is up and running.
Tasmania has previously hosted pre-season NRL games, as well as various A-League fixtures both in Hobart and Launceston. Marvel Stadium has also hosted a major pro-wrestling event from the WWE in 2002, and the Perth-based Optus Stadium was the host of the WWE Elimination Chamber only last week.
These stadiums have helped bring tourist dollars to their states to significantly boost their economies – why can’t Tasmania get a piece of that action for themselves?
Some of the biggest events in the world have left Tasmania off their maps for years – this could be the island nation’s time to pounce, showcasing itself as a prime hosting venue for international acts, thereby bringing in money, tourists and exposure as well.
This money could then go back into housing, as well as all the other alternatives those against the new stadium have put forward.
The entire island needs to get behind the project as Macquarie Point slowly but inevitably becomes a reality.
The stadium will bring a positive outcome for all of Tasmanians. It’s time we realised it.
Chris Lewis
Roar Guru
ok, dont actually believe that. Yes, build a stadium in time, when it is affordable and so on. But Tassie team has good enough facilities to start now with some minor adjustments.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Burt Lancaster said it best
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
And we've never made the Quarters in Men's.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
GWS is not Australian Football heartland; Tassie is.
RT
Roar Rookie
It's not about participation it's about attendance. And AFL attendance allows them to partially fund stadia, not to mention the millions put into GWS and Gold Coast.
Punter
Roar Rookie
The AFL got new stadiums build in the Western Suburbs for the Giants based on lies from the AFL on participation rates in Western Surburbs, which was far less than Soccer. So why shouldn't soccer get good funding on Participation rates. Swimming has high participation rates, very low attendances, yet with government funding we wouldn't get Olympic golds.
Punter
Roar Rookie
Na your point & RT above brought in again. “Compare that to other sporting codes (esp those with private owners), who hold their hands out to the government to fully-fund shiny new stadiums, and then whinge to the media if they don’t get it.”
AR
Roar Rookie
Punter: “…but Sam Kerr and Ange are global superstars..” Me: “This discussion is about smaller stadia, and how sporting codes can best organise themselves to approach governments to secure funding…” Punter: (mentions Sam Kerr and Ange 3 more times in next post) :happy:
RT
Roar Rookie
You don’t get it. All you can say look how popular soccer is for participation. You haven’t addressed the core point you argued about, ie “Compare that to other sporting codes (esp those with private owners), who hold their hands out to the government to fully-fund shiny new stadiums, and then whinge to the media if they don’t get it.” In fact you are just like the powers in those codes.
RT
Roar Rookie
Anyway Nicky, welcome to The Roar. Looking forward to your sporting contributions.
Punter
Roar Rookie
Yes I do get it, it's you who don't. Football has the largest participants of any sport in this country at grassroots level. Rge Matildas & the Socceroos, throw in the prestige of global superstars of a Sam Kerr & Ange are big ticket items in this country. You can't go from Grassroots to the big ticket items (maybe in AFL you can, small world), but all the Matildas, including Sam Kerr & Socceroos Including Ange has all gone thru the A-League club or an NPL club & they need stadiums to play in. This is the important bit. Yes A-League is not as big in attendances as AFL, but there is a much bigger picture in play here. To get good results in WCs & get the Same Kerrs & Anges, you need to invest. I know you will never understand this but you can't say I haven't tried.
RT
Roar Rookie
You are on the right track. I said debate on its merits not on what the money could otherwise be used for (because governments have ignored those problems previously). You are doing that, but not with anything substantial. (I am not saying whether or not the business case stacks up BTW.)
RT
Roar Rookie
I don't need to. Me telling you that an AFL match attracts more tourists than an ALeague match is like you telling me that a soccer World Cup attracts more tourists than Chess World Cup. Some things are obvious.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
The AFL wanted an excuse not to have a team in Tasmania, they worked out they would demand an expensive new stadium to stop a Tasmanian team, but the only way they could make it so ridiculously expensive at such a capacity it to put a roof over it. The last thing they expected was Tasmania would agree to their demands. A roof is the last thing needed given Hobarts low rainfall . A 23k capacity is going to attract what events to Tasmania. I know a lot of people who have gone to Tasmania for a holiday, people go there because its got the got a green rep etc. The first point of debate in this mess is to get rid of the roof.
Caniva
Roar Rookie
Here is an explainer on the GST distribution https://www.cgc.gov.au/about-gst-distribution
Caniva
Roar Rookie
"Tasmania has to repay every cent of the Federal money ($300 million) from our GST revenue in coming years." This is simply not true. It is a grant. It does not need to be repaid. The GST is allocated based on a formula designed to ensure that all states have an equal capacity to deliver the same level of services. For this reason, Tasmania has always got substantially more GST per capita reflecting the fact it is economically weaker and so can't raise as much state revenue. What may be confusing you is that the grant may have been in part justified on the basis that the stadium and AFL team will help improve the economic outcomes for Tasmania so it will be less dependent on redistribution from the rest of the country in the future. It is actually a good justification for the Feds to have contributed far more to this stadium.
Nicky
Roar Rookie
Lol. The AFL is putting in a mere $10 million of the $70 million for the HPC.
Nicky
Roar Rookie
Except we have to repay the Federal money, which was never for a stadium, back from our GST revenue.
Nicky
Roar Rookie
#Fantasy. Can you give us a verifiable fact for that claim?
Nicky
Roar Rookie
What merits? Decades of debt, interest, deficits and losses to the detriment of essential services clearly lacks merit. Where does the government get the money for the repayments over coming decades? Borrow more millions to repay the millions they've already borrowed? (More) cuts to essential services? Increased state taxes? No? Where then?