It’s amazing how, up until the AFL footyhead lobby had to justify a giant inner-city stadium at taxpayers’ expense, no-one had ever suggested it.
Even AFL Tasmania themselves, with serviceable facilities at York Park and Bellerive Oval matches for AFL matches, and local grounds like the Twin Ovals at Kingston, TCA Ground and the North Hobart Oval, had enough for what they needed.
Cricket has never filled either York Park or Bellerive Oval at their current capacities, even at big events like an Ashes Test in the south and must-win Hurricanes games in the north. Sheffield Shield cricket these days is played before crowds of three hundred or so diehards.
But it’ll be multi-purpose they argue. It’ll have a roof.
Quite. Neither soccer nor rugby want an oval stadium, roof or nay; they want a rectangular one like Melbourne’s AAMI Park that can and does host both A-League, NRL and other suitable events. Indeed, a rectangular stadium would be a requirement for a Tasmanian team to join the A-League.
Both those sports have non-league events that they are looking to farm out around the country to spread the popularity of their sport. Hence a rectangular stadium could well host Olympic football qualifiers, other youth championships, a rugby 7s competition, perhaps even games at a rugby league or union World Cup.
That’s the sport done pretty much done. Let’s make our last stop the Department of Sport and Recreation. Sort of. It’s now Active Tasmania, and sits within the framework of the hideous behemoth that is the Department of State Growth.
Their website has a quite useful guide to developing sporting facilities.
Here’s some of their sage advice:
– preparing a business plan is an important step for, any organisation that is considering developing a sport and recreation facility;
– provide information on any community consultation undertaken that identifies support, demand, usage and future potential;
– provide an assessment of similar facilities in other comparable communities/locations;
– outline the demonstrated need for the facility (what is the current, and projected, situation that has created a need for the
project);
– provide an assessment of alternative options that have been considered (for example, use and/or modify an existing facility);
– outline why this location is deemed the most appropriate (what others have been considered);
– etc.
Laughably, not a zot of this work was done before the Macquarie Point moneymulcher was announced. Nor has it been done since.
One suspects the Project of State Significance process will force some of it to be done. ‘Too late’ she cried as she waved her wooden leg.
So clearly there’s one rule for the swan-in suits of the AFL, and another set of quite different requirements for community groups who have to effectively beg for scraps from the table of the Very High Kings, particularly around election times.
We can deduce that because sports grant funding is split across several categories: facilities grants, equipment grants, recurrent funding for peak bodies, travel subsidies, support for hosting national championships. Best as can be made out, this year the grants will total about $8.05 million. Maybe we’ve missed some, so let’s round it up to $9 million. Bugger it, $10 million is our last offer.
Compare that with the supposedly-capped $375 million Tasmanian government contribution to the stadium build. It’s at least 37 years’ worth of sports grant funding at today’s prices.
For a project that had no plan, no consultation, no demonstrated need, no assessment of alternative options and so on.
What about other events? Don’t they need a big stadium with a roof?
Firstly, do you think the groundskeepers of said you-beaut footy castle are going to be very keen to host showjumping, giant truck races, Party in the Paddock and the like on their hallowed turf? Seems unlikely. Protecting the green stuff jacks up bump-in and bump-costs for events, and costs kill events faster than Donald Trump kills the brain cells of civil discourse.
What about concert promoters and the arts industry? Were they banging on for years about wanting a giant tub with the acoustics of a steel foundry but, ahh, a pretty skylight? The choir is not familiar with that tune, sire.
In fact what arts organisations typically want is guaranteed recurrent funding so they can plan long-term and grow local talent. Exhibit A, the Baroque Festival not obtaining funding and packing off to Queensland on a jet-powered harpsichord.
Guess what, creative people are really good and being creative and bringing their art and their festivals to venues right across the island, including pop-up spaces. They already do it.
Experienced tour promoters have already come out and said that Hobart doesn’t have the right size, location or demographic for large stadium tours. Smaller-scale concerts in Hobart will easily fit into the Derwent Entertainment Centre or the new Hobart Showgrounds arena, already under construction.
What about Liberal government megaphone Tourism Industry Council of Tasmania, surely they wanted a stadium? Mute as a rooted newt, milud. Typically their wish-lists have been more hotels, a convention centre, and more transport capacity in airports and the Spirits.
Could a convention centre be squeezed into the Macquarie Point site? Let’s put it this way: a convention centre of suitable proportions would fit a lot more easily if there were no gormless footybarn hogging most of the site. In this case yon multi-purpose stadium is not the solution, it’s the problem.
What about other Liberal government megaphones Tasmanian Hotels Association and Master Builders Association? Up until the AFL announcement, absolutely mum as a numb plum, chum. Their must-dos were industry training and no pokies restrictions (THA) and if you go back to the MBA Priorities Statement in their 2021 Annual Report, they want housing, training and various administrative tweaks. No-one was demanding a football stadium.
Would the venue be suitable for carols by candlelight, markets, Ramadan prayers, trade union stop work meetings and the like? Private parties? Weddings? Anything?
Whilst some of these might work, at the right price, it’s not as if they don’t happen already. The stadium would simply be moving them from existing venues and that is not in itself a reason to build one.
So who exactly was calling for a flash new stadium? Weatherproofed, yanno. Big video screens. Folding seats.
Was it the community at large? Architects? Hobart City Council? A series of high-level social and cultural reports? A massive petition? A group of eminent Tasmanians from a diversity of backgrounds? Other sporting codes, whose numbers vastly outnumber AFL participants? Infrastructure Tasmania? (Covid response body) PESRAC? Political representatives, of which Clark/Hobart has at least seven with direct responsibilities, plus arguably a share of senators?
The answers, in correct order, are: no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no and no.
Golly, bet a few of you playing at home got all ten out of ten.
But do not pass Go and do not collect three-hundred and seventy-five gasquillion bongobucks, because despite all that the amazing stadium is somehow still on the agenda.
The all-singing, all-dancing stadium loony tunes show on ice that will be all things to all comers, that in fact was not suggested nor desired nor lobbied for by any group whatsover in Tasmania, not even by the current users of Bellerive Oval, is still being lauded as a viable idea.
It was an unwanted and unknown idea until the AFL CEO and the 18 Apostles smashed in the door, jumped over the counter and yelled “empty the till, and do it quick if ya know what’s good fer ya!”
Now, apparently, it is What We Need. A Godsend. To the stadium cult, blinded by world-class floodlights or perhaps the buzz of buying a $10 Devils sticker the other night, it is a Game-Changer. Our Saviour. It’s hard to tell if the T on the jumper is for Tall tale or Taradiddle.
Amazing.
On Saturday we effectively have a referendum on the stadium. The Premier made sure of that by making stadium funding his key announcement on the first day of the campaign, and then harping on same at last night’s final leaders’ debate.
The Liberal Party are the only party stubborn clinging to the must-have-coliseum and AFL-deal-is-more-untouchable-than-Elliot-Ness positions that split the party and ultimately brought down the government. All other parties and most independents are either staunchly opposed, somewhat opposed, or are prepared to consider other options.
Anything less than a 50% vote for the Liberal Party will mean the stadium referendum fails.
Democracy, go do your stuff and do it amazingly.
Alan Whykes is Chief Editor of Tasmanian Times, and former Vice-President of a national sporting body. He quite likes roofs, as a rule.
Roderick
March 22, 2024 at 01:00
Well, Tasmania can have a team – but it does not have to be a part of the AFL. If the AFL refuses to allow the transparent Tasmanian team to play with it, then the Tasmanian team can play with itself. So we now have a jumper, a name, a mascot and members, but no team. How many players will be Tasmanians? The transparent Tasmanian team is clearly invisible to many at this stage. How can you build and promote a team which has no identifiable players? Why is the government expending vast amounts of taxpayers’ money on advertising, administrators, and all those other hangers on when there is no visible team?
I read recently that a Tasmanian team may poach players from other Australian teams – and I have to ask “Why?” Mind you, we had two state Premiers who were not Tasmanians, namely Messrs Gray and Bacon.
The Tasmanian team should be out there now, training how to effectively cause concussions and the many other injuries players inflict on others. They should be trained how to snort cocaine, abuse their partners, engage in drunken fights inside and outside nightclubs, pubs, bars etc. Kiddies will aspire to play the game like you do.