The Stadium!

[jj15]

There was intense opposition from the usual suspects when the SA Gov’t ploughed ahead with the Adelaide Oval redevelopment and then when the WA Govt pushed through despite all the opposition to the new Perth Burswood stadium. All that opposition just vanished into thin air once the stadiums were completed.

The social license is always ultimately determined by the end result, not the means.

Agree but they get 22 AFL games and a test match.
This will get 7 AFL games and no test match.
It will be great for those game days but after that we need a more detailed and concrete plan on what its use will be.

Well we don’t, it will be built no matter what, that’s been abundantly clear since day one. It’s just hard when your a teacher at a school and the department says we can’t afford a TA in your class to help at $30 dollars an hour to comprehend.

 

[sherb]

Well we don’t, it will be built no matter what, that’s been abundantly clear since day one. It’s just hard when your a teacher at a school and the department says we can’t afford a TA in your class to help at $30 dollars an hour to comprehend.

I've been around a fair while, and I'll tell you this - politicians (particularly those of the modern day variety) NEVER adequately fund health, education and the like. Regardless of what infrastructure is built.

So, while your feelings are understandable, they are futile - because not building the stadium will not address education funding shortfalls. I guarantee it.

And that argument also goes for the broader "I'd rather our roads, police, health, education, (whatever) get sorted instead of building a stadium" opposition to the stadium. Because no stadium will not see any of those areas getting satisfactorily funded.

It's a cynical viewpoint, I know, but from my experience it's bang on.

So let's just build the stadium, give the state an asset, get our AFL team and keep pushing for these other areas to be funded adequately.

 

[Walshawk]

Cutting the government red tape and drawn out process will save millions. Good move by the Premier.

 

[Cam Payne]

I've been around a fair while, and I'll tell you this - politicians (particularly those of the modern day variety) NEVER adequately fund health, education and the like. Regardless of what infrastructure is built.

So, while your feelings are understandable, they are futile - because not building the stadium will not address education funding shortfalls. I guarantee it.

And that argument also goes for the broader "I'd rather our roads, police, health, education, (whatever) get sorted instead of building a stadium" opposition to the stadium. Because no stadium will not see any of those areas getting satisfactorily funded.

It's a cynical viewpoint, I know, but from my experience it's bang on.

So let's just build the stadium, give the state an asset, get our AFL team and keep pushing for these other areas to be funded adequately.

The roads, schools and health care will be even worse, but at least they'll have a shiny new thing to enjoy until government bypassing 'red tape' sees the thing sink into the Derwent.

 

[Jazny]

The roads, schools and health care will be even worse, but at least they'll have a shiny new thing to enjoy until government bypassing 'red tape' sees the thing sink into the Derwent.

In other things that won't happen...

 

[sherb]

The roads, schools and health care will be even worse, but at least they'll have a shiny new thing to enjoy until government bypassing 'red tape' sees the thing sink into the Derwent.

I was actually back in Tassie recently, the state of road funding doesn't seem to be too bad when the state can afford a big, shiny new bridge over the Derwent.......

 

[jj15]

I've been around a fair while, and I'll tell you this - politicians (particularly those of the modern day variety) NEVER adequately fund health, education and the like. Regardless of what infrastructure is built.

So, while your feelings are understandable, they are futile - because not building the stadium will not address education funding shortfalls. I guarantee it.

And that argument also goes for the broader "I'd rather our roads, police, health, education, (whatever) get sorted instead of building a stadium" opposition to the stadium. Because no stadium will not see any of those areas getting satisfactorily funded.

It's a cynical viewpoint, I know, but from my experience it's bang on.

So let's just build the stadium, give the state an asset, get our AFL team and keep pushing for these other areas to be funded adequately.

Yerp I’m all for it as I’m healthy and educated.

I just don’t think the Government or Gale needs to say this is for the kids. If we were for the kids we would take that money and make sure every kid with a learning plan that mandates they get 1:1 support actually gets it. As being able to read, write and do basic maths is something every kid deserves.

Kids have dreamt of playing AFL and then achieved it without having a Tasmanian team. Look at Menzies. From Bridgewater and now playing for Essendon. To suggest you need a team in your backyard at all costs for kids to be able to dream and then do it is disrespectful to people like that.

 

[TassieSaint]

Yerp I’m all for it as I’m healthy and educated.

I just don’t think the Government or Gale needs to say this is for the kids. If we were for the kids we would take that money and make sure every kid with a learning plan that mandates they get 1:1 support actually gets it. As being able to read, write and do basic maths is something every kid deserves.

Kids have dreamt of playing AFL and then achieved it without having a Tasmanian team. Look at Menzies. From Bridgewater and now playing for Essendon. To suggest you need a team in your backyard at all costs for kids to be able to dream and then do it is disrespectful to people like that.

Disagree thoroughly with your second paragraph. Just because we still have some players drafted does not bely the fact that Tasmanian football locally and representation at AFL level has fallen off a cliff in the last 30-40 years.

But there is a broader point when talking about the impact on young people, for decades the state has suffered from the drain of youth heading to the mainland for better opportunities. A project like this has the potential to be transformational in that respect, not just the direct impact of the jobs it will create and flow on to the economy, but the cultural shift that it will bring. By far the biggest and most positive change to Tassie in my lifetime has been Mona and it's associated events which have changed the way we're perceived both externally and internally. The stadium and the team have the potential to be even more impactful.

 

[nobbyiscool]

There was intense opposition from the usual suspects when the SA Gov’t ploughed ahead with the Adelaide Oval redevelopment and then when the WA Govt pushed through despite all the opposition to the new Perth Burswood stadium. All that opposition just vanished into thin air once the stadiums were completed.

The social license is always ultimately determined by the end result, not the means.

Tassie is so different to those examples.

Tasmania has a history not just of environmentalism, but of activism, of public participation, of people power influencing decision making. It's baked into Tasmania's history, especially over the last 40-50 years, and now people know that they have that power.

I didn't raise social license in the context of major projects, I raised in the context of the history of development in Tasmania. Community opposition starts to fester and spiral, and projects fail.

For the record, my sense is that most people who are hesitant are like me - we want the team, we want the stadium, we're happy with the location, we're excited about the potential benefits and activations around footy and other major events.

But I think a lot of people struggle with this notion of a blank cheque, cos no one believes they can get it done under $800m, and because Tasmania has such a fraught recent economic record, an extra $100-200m (perhaps even more) isn't something you can find in the ashtray of your car.

 

[Father Jack]

I'm sure the reasons have been explained to you, you need to be prepared to listen however.

The only reason I've heard is that the AFL commanded it

 

[The_Wookie]

The only reason I've heard is that the AFL commanded it

look deeper then. Stadium was first recommended by the Tasmanian Task Force and put forward by the Government.

 

[Father Jack]

look deeper then. Stadium was first recommended by the Tasmanian Task Force and put forward by the Government.

Those aren't reasons

 

[Saucery]

I've been around a fair while, and I'll tell you this - politicians (particularly those of the modern day variety) NEVER adequately fund health, education and the like. Regardless of what infrastructure is built.

So, while your feelings are understandable, they are futile - because not building the stadium will not address education funding shortfalls. I guarantee it.

And that argument also goes for the broader "I'd rather our roads, police, health, education, (whatever) get sorted instead of building a stadium" opposition to the stadium. Because no stadium will not see any of those areas getting satisfactorily funded.

It's a cynical viewpoint, I know, but from my experience it's bang on.

So let's just build the stadium, give the state an asset, get our AFL team and keep pushing for these other areas to be funded adequately.

The arguments about spending the money on services and public wages never happens, all governments (especially conservative) see it as building up ongoing costs, as opposed the one-off infrastructure spend. The truth is no amount of money Tasmania could raise will fix the health/educations systems here.

Saul Eastlake was commissioned in May to conduct an independent review of the state's finances, agreed to by the Liberal government and Jacqui Lambie Network as part of the confidence and supply deal that helped Jeremy Rockliff remain as premier (sounds familiar right?).

Anyway, Saul recommended a raft of changes from removing stamp duty (encouraging immigration) and applying a broad-based land tax to make those who own massive amounts of the state's assets pitch in, as well as increasing payroll tax.

The Government politely thanked him for his work and said they were completely ignoring his report and would rather push ahead with finding ‘operational efficiencies’ within the government departments (or just slashing services spending) than impose any new taxes (on the wealthy).

In short stadium or not social services from health, education, emergency services were always going to get it in the neck, going forward it will just be greater as the cost of servicing the state debt grows. It’s a question of ‘how much’ not ‘what’ those services will suffer.

 

[Rail King]

The arguments about spending the money on services and public wages never happens, all governments (especially conservative) see it as building up ongoing costs, as opposed the one-off infrastructure spend. The truth is no amount of money Tasmania could raise will fix the health/educations systems here.

Saul Eastlake was commissioned in May to conduct an independent review of the state's finances, agreed to by the Liberal government and Jacqui Lambie Network as part of the confidence and supply deal that helped Jeremy Rockliff remain as premier (sounds familiar right?).

Anyway, Saul recommended a raft of changes from removing stamp duty and applying a broad-based land tax to make those who own massive amounts of the state's assets pitch in, as well as increasing payroll tax.

The Government politely thanked him for his work and said they were completely ignoring his report and would rather push ahead with finding ‘operational efficiencies’ within the government departments (or just slashing services spending) than impose any new taxes (on the wealthy).

In short stadium or not social services from health, education, emergency services were always going to get it in the neck, going forward it will just be greater as the cost of servicing the state debt grows. It’s a question of ‘how much’ not ‘what’ those services will suffer.

You tell him, oh great one. I don't know where we'd be without you telling us what to think.

 

[Saucery]

You tell him, oh great one. I don't know where we'd be without you telling us what to think.

I was agreeing with him dumbass, did you bother to even read his post? That's one of the worst trolls in history!

 

[jj15]

Disagree thoroughly with your second paragraph. Just because we still have some players drafted does not bely the fact that Tasmanian football locally and representation at AFL level has fallen off a cliff in the last 30-40 years.

But there is a broader point when talking about the impact on young people, for decades the state has suffered from the drain of youth heading to the mainland for better opportunities. A project like this has the potential to be transformational in that respect, not just the direct impact of the jobs it will create and flow on to the economy, but the cultural shift that it will bring. By far the biggest and most positive change to Tassie in my lifetime has been Mona and its associated events which have changed the way we're perceived both externally and internally. The stadium and the team have the potential to be even more impactful.

Yer we have fallen off (currently 21 Tasmanian players in the AFL), but is this because kids have stopped dreaming or that other states have been open up to AFL? NGAs have uncovered more talent?

Don’t AFL TAS say as a state we still bat above our average?

MONA hasn’t stopped the drain though has it? I would argue our poor University is the main catalyst of young people leaving and then it’s the weather. Also MONA doesn’t have direct competition such as the stadium will have. We are up against the Adelaide Oval, Perth Stadium.

Yerp it will be great for the 7 games and 4 BBL games. I just don’t think outside that it changes much.

Do I want it? Yerp. But I don’t buy into any of the hyperbolic statements around it. Otherwise put some guarantees in place around what it will bring.

 

[sherb]

The only reason I've heard is that the AFL commanded it

A licence issuer placing conditions on the issuing of said licence is hardly a novel concept.

 

[sherb]

It's the economy, stupid.

It's always been the economy, the lack of jobs, the lack of opportunities, and the concentration of those opportunities. Using the Devils as an example? If you wanted to work in sports administration, sports management, sports medicine... There weren't those opportunities in Tasmania. The club is much, much more than the 80 men and women on the playing lists. It'll end up integrating/partnering with UTas, which will also improve the educational outcomes for people who never work anywhere near the Devils.

The notion that climate is the second biggest reason that kids leave Tasmania is absolutely ****ing ridiculous. I was one of the dozens that I knew who left, and not a single one of us left for climate, we all left for opportunity, be it educational or career (with the exception of one poor fool who left for love.)

Climate wouldn't be in the top 10 reasons that kids leave Tasmania. It would impact more old people than young.

I didn't realize you know me.

 

[Father Jack]

A licence issuer placing conditions on the issuing of said licence is hardly a novel concept.

And that's a good enough reason? Forget about whether or not it's a colossal waste of money, build it coz the AFL sez so

 

[sherb]

And that's a good enough reason? Forget about whether or not it's a colossal waste of money, build it coz the AFL sez so

There are perfectly good reasons, but there is no point explaining them (yet again, as they have been explained many times already) to someone who isn't interested in listening. It's a waste of time for both of us.

The future of humanity could rest on this stadium and you would still oppose it.

 

[Hodgey 15]

There are perfectly good reasons, but there is no point explaining them (yet again, as they have been explained many times already) to someone who isn't interested in listening. It's a waste of time for both of us.

The future of humanity could rest on this stadium and you would still oppose it.

This guy is just trolling for kicks. Ignore button is your friend when it comes to shit stirrers like that poster.

 

[Jazny]

Tassie is so different to those examples.

Tasmania has a history not just of environmentalism, but of activism, of public participation, of people power influencing decision making. It's baked into Tasmania's history, especially over the last 40-50 years, and now people know that they have that power.

Those active seventy people that turned up to the no stadium rally in Launceston were frightening.

 

[Father Jack]

There are perfectly good reasons, but there is no point explaining them (yet again, as they have been explained many times already) to someone who isn't interested in listening. It's a waste of time for both of us.

The future of humanity could rest on this stadium and you would still oppose it.

So many perfectly good reasons that you can't articulate any and have to resort to a personal attack instead.

 

[BoomerRoo]

Where's that "ignore" button again?

 

[Jazny]

So many perfectly good reasons that you can't articulate any and have to resort to a personal attack instead.

The stadium is necessary because:

Blundstone is outdated, has reached it capacity to be upgraded, and is in a residential area. Throwing money at Blundstone is just pointless and wasted.

A roofed stadium provides the best spectator experience in Tasmania given how windy Hobart is especially. The AFL does not want unbroadcastable games to be played every other week in Tasmania. A modern roofed stadium will attract more visitors.

The new stadium will have a bigger capacity, 23k initially able to go to 30k+

CBD location of Mac Point gives it easier access and close proximity to bars, restuaraunts and other amenities.

State of the art facilities for broadcasting as well as corporate and spectator facilities. Blundstone is a regional backwater oval, Mac Point will be one of the best stadiums in Australia!

But beside location, broadcasting, spectator experience, being upgradable, tourist friendly, comfortable, properly zoned and weather proof, what has Mac Point ever done for us?