The AFL has handed a grenade to Tasmania. Asking the state to build a roofed stadium with a 23,000 capacity at a cost of $750 million has set them up to fail.
The AFL has never wanted a Tasmanian team. They are only concerned about one thing and that is bottom line and profit.
The entry of a Tasmanian team to the AFL will do little to increase profit as most Tasmanians already watch AFL, so the AFL would not gain any extra viewers to charge more for TV rights. All a Tasmanian team will do for the AFL is cause headaches for rostering and scheduling.
It took former Premier Will Hodgman to form a task force of prominent Tasmanian business identities to put forward a compelling business case to the AFL that it could not ignore. Even then the AFL were stubbornly commissioning the Carter report which ruled a relocated team would be the best option.
It then took new Premier Peter Gutwein to force the AFL’s hand by refusing to heavily support the Hawthorn and North Melbourne games played in Tasmania until a concrete timeline of entry into the competition was handed down. Along with many prominent AFL journalists and former Tasmanian players, the push for a Tasmanian team became so compelling the AFL was forced to relent.
The Tasmania Devils foundation jumper is revealed. (Photo by Michael Willson/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
The AFL is acutely aware of the North / South rivalry in the state and they know that any government which backed a team based in the south would get voted out.
This rivalry goes back to the early 2000’s when the then Premier Jim Bacon upgraded York Park and delegated Hawthorn games to be played there.
He said at the time ‘cricket in the south and AFL in the north’. A lot of northerners believe that the home of AFL should be in the north, and more than 20 years later would relish a team based in the south. That was proved on the weekend with the current Liberal government, which is backing the new stadium based on a 12% swing against it at the state election – plus the three electorates north of Hobart voting in three Jacqui Lambie candidates who oppose the Hobart stadium.
The crazy part about demanding a new covered, 23,000 seat stadium is that the current Blundstone Arena holds 19,500.
The AFL expect Tasmania to build a new stadium at a cost of $750 million for an increase of only 3,500. What is even crazier is that the stadium will only hold seven home games per year, as four home games have to be played at York Park to try and appease northerners.
York Park’s $130 million upgrade is feasible for four games in the north, but Blundstone Arena is not ok for seven games in the south?
Even crazier still, the AFL demands the stadium has a roof on it for these seven games per year when Hobart is Australia’s second driest capital city. Further, AFL games are regularly played in Canberra and Ballarat and both cities are colder than Hobart in winter and have no roof.
There is no doubt the new stadium has many economic benefits including winter tourism which is always slow that time of year and has the potential to transform the city – as has the upgraded Adelaide Oval and many other stadiums around the country.
There is also no doubt to Tasmanians that the team needs to be based in the south because we need the ability to attract young players and build on a grassroots system that is hard to do in Launceston. Launceston also doesn’t have the hotel capacity to cater for a large influx of mainland supporters when big clubs like Carlton and Collingwood play here.
The AFL are fully aware of the North / South rivalry and have put a $750 million weight on Tasmania’s shoulders. Jacqui Lambie naively believes that she can renegotiate the deal, but the AFL won’t renegotiate because they are just waiting to pull out of the deal.
It will make life a lot simpler for them and make no difference to their bottom line. Jacquie Lambie and her voters will go down in history as the people who killed Tasmanians ‘AFL dream.
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
Of course it is when you factor the cost of a roof, and then relative cost of a roof to its size. There's a reason why there aren't any roofs on multi use stadiums (football and baseball) in Japan under 40k in capacity: they are a criminal waste of money for the square metreage that needs covering. And a cricket ground has another 15%-20% more ground to cover over.
BigAl
Roar Rookie
@Tufanooo April 4th 2024 @ 11:19pm What is your point here ? That it's preferable to roof a larger venue than a smaller one ?
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
If something is justifiable then costs are what they are. A roof is not justifiable And nor are the ridiculous wishes of your football brethren by the way
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
Because they have unroofed stadiums in FAR colder climates and have no issue attracting tenants and events. Do I need to spell it out?
Gilberto
Roar Rookie
Absolutely for $750m the govt earning a modest 5% return of $37.5m could offer to run an NRL team, an A League team, and host a Test match every year.
Gilberto
Roar Rookie
Yes imagine telling Ballarat, Canberra or Geelong they need a roof. There's also the issue of the horrendous construction costs in Australia.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#Tufanooo So I'm not sure what you're expecting to compare with in North America, Russia or Northern Japan......
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
Yeah, cause 56k and 30k are definitely comparable....
dargerovitch
Roar Rookie
@tufanoo. Hence RT's confusion. Matthew Richardson is RichO , not Ritchie. All of us who suffer through the commentary of the lamentable Brian Taylor know that only too well.
BigAl
Roar Rookie
Marvel Stadium Melbourne ?
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
Just to give you a different in the size of what would need to be built...and why a roof is nonsense. Forsyth Barr has a similar capacity but a footprint of approximately 21,000sqm. This stadium (using Bellerive as a guide) would have a footprint of 35,000sqm and no increase in capacity compared to Forsyth. Considering the footprint, and that roofs are inherently expensive as there isn't any concrete in a roof, a roof is about 35% of the total cost of that stadium. And for what benefit? The probability of rain impacting a match is really quite low. The stats are clear on it. There is a 10% chance of medium or heavy rain impacting a match at a ground (a bit higher in some markets, a bit lower in others. The wettest AFL venue, by far, is the unroofed Sydney). Hobart sits close to the average (about 12%) 12% chance if rolled out to the new stadium in Hobart is 1 game a year. It doesn't need a roof for that figure. And it's not cold. Canberra deserves a roofed stadium before Hobart.
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
And, the roof for Hobart stadium is part of it being available for multiple events, and in this day and age a new stadium that size without a roof is on the way to redundancy. Absolutely not true. There are literally dozens of stadiums built in the past decade in far colder climates that are not roofed and used year round for sport and entertainment. Yankees stadium, shea stadium, new meadowlands, all have been rebuilt in the past 10 years, all get year round use. None with a roof. Spurs' new stadium. No roof. A roof is handy for stadiums with big capacities. It is a waste of money for a 30k oval shaped stadium with decent weather. The probabilities of the roof being needed are about 1 in 23 games. Once a season.
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
Yes, because no government has ever walked away from a contract before....
BigAl
Roar Rookie
I don't know where they're all coming from, but being amongst the crowds that flood over the Matagarup Bridge to the stadium since they both have been built is quite special. And, the roof for Hobart stadium is part of it being available for multiple events, and in this day and age a new stadium that size without a roof is on the way to redundancy. There is a roof over Marvel stadium and plenty of quite inspiring stadia with rooves world wide.
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
You have to look at larger grounds (think baseball, but even then they are smaller than a cricket ground). There are no indoor stadiums in baseball, in a major centre, with a stadium capacity that small.
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
You're talking a rectangle stadium on about 40% the footprint of an oval stadium.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#Tufanooo "The Govt should call the bluff." Except..............the Govt has already signed the contracts. That's not really a bluff then.......that's a reneg.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
what about Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin??
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
Agreed on the first part, Micko. It's the roof. If there wasn't that ridiculous requirement, there wouldn't be an issue. The roof is a criminal waste of money. There is no comparable stadium on the planet with a roof over it, and this includes North America, Russia, and Northern Japan where it is BEASTLY cold in winter.
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
Adelaide yes. What benefit to the CBD has Optus stadium given? It's a 40 minute hike from Perth station and the mall.