Opinion: Russell Hanson says stadium benefits buried under misinformation

The campaign to stop the stadium is a campaign that will end the Tasmanian team. Rather than fear, can we look at the misinformation and rationally examine concerns, asks Russell Hanson.

$240 million for a football stadium in Hobart. Supplied Tasmania AFL Tasmania Devils AFL stadium

Why does Tasmania want to self-destruct when we are on the verge of a 33-year dream?

There are different views, fair enough, but what we have witnessed over the past 12 months is seeing these views distorted and a campaign of misinformation that sees Tasmania finally granted an AFL licence – but then just nine days after the official announcement of the 19th licence – it is in jeopardy.

The campaign to stop the stadium is a campaign that will end the Tasmanian team.

Rather than statements designed to garner fear, can we look at the misinformation and rationally examine concerns?

Russell Hanson of Lindisfarne submitted a detailed report in 2019 showing the economic return for Tas AFL team. Picture: Zak Simmonds

THE ISSUES

1. The team licence

A licence for an AFL team is at the sole discretion of the AFL and the 18 AFL clubs. They made a unanimous decision for a licence; conditional on a new stadium. Tasmania cannot dictate the terms of the licence.

2. Why did the AFL insist on a new stadium in Hobart?

Bellerive Oval has only 12,237 seats and cannot be upgraded to a required seated capacity of 23,000.

The claim that Bellerive has 20,000 seats is not true. It is 12,237 seated and 5000 standing.

The taskforce identified the need for a new stadium in Hobart in five to seven years.

We needed to prove absolutely that we are deserving, financially sustainable and successful from day one.

Aerial pictures of Hobart, Bellerive Oval (Blundstone Arena)

Colin Carter was engaged to examine our business case and he backed it, but he also said, “A ‘stadium strategy’ will be needed. This report hasn’t addressed stadium detail because it is reasonable to assume that the Tasmanian government will address stadium requirements as governments have done so well in every other state. Significant investment will be required.”

The AFL set up a working group of two senior AFL executives and taskforce members to examine 11 workstreams including stadiums and player retention.

All the workstreams needed to be resolved and approved before a licence issue.

Player retention was vital. The AFL was determined not to repeat problems that have plagued the Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney. The team had to be based in Hobart with state-of-the-art facilities, including a stadium, but it became quickly obvious that Bellerive could not provide the facilities nor the capacity.

The option of playing the most and all the big ticket games in Launceston – away from the players’ home base in Hobart – is bizarre and would be a recipe for total disaster with player retention.

The AFL would not issue a licence that would be “primed to fail”.

3. What is the stadium cost?

State Labor’s “a billion dollar stadium we don’t need”, plus the Lord Mayor Anna Reynolds’ “Congratulations Tassie, you’re the proud owner of an AFL team. And it only cost us $1bn” statements are aimed to mislead – as the stadium budget is $715m and Tasmania’s contribution is $375m not $1bn.

Labor’s answer on this is that the total cost of the stadium will blow out. However, after the Adelaide Oval rebuild their auditor-general stated the cost came in $8m below its capped budget; so it can be done.

4. What are the scenarios if Labor promises to stop the stadium?

If Labor wins the next state election and stops the stadium the consequences would be catastrophic. No Team.

Tasmania would also miss out on the significant economic benefits the construction of the proposed stadium and the ongoing running of such a facility would supply.

The Price Waterhouse Cooper (PwC) analysis of Hawthorn games calculated $28.5m per annum of economic benefit, which Labor accepts. But Labor refuses to accept the PwC analysis for the new stadium using the same principles. Why? Additional consumer spending of $162m per annum ($3.24bn over 20 years) plus the economic activity from the Tasmanian team $110m per annum ($2.2bn over 20 years).

Let alone $300m during construction and 4200 jobs, 950 ongoing and 360 generated by the Tasmanian team.

Breathtaking.

LAUNCESTON, AUSTRALIA - APRIL 23: Changkuoth Jiath of the Hawks in action at UTAS Stadium on April 23, 2023 in Launceston, Australia. (Photo by Michael Willson/AFL Photos via Getty Images)

5. Labor claims the stadium will lose $300m over 20 years.

That analysis did not account for all visitor spending nor the federal government tourism analysis for flow-on spending and it used the full cost of the stadium construction costs $715m; not the Tasmania contribution of $375m. These items would result in a net gain of just under $1bn, not a $300m loss.

6. What would the situation be if the stadium investment was paid off over 20 years?

A Labor additional spend of $375m would incur compounding interest over 20 years of $642.2m and the $375m still owing; however, if the stadium was paid off over 20 years the total including interest would be $594m and the stadium would be owned for $29.7m a year versus Labor’s $32.1m a year average interest.

In summary, the reality is the substantial positive economic impact on Tasmania is being buried under misinformation.

The Labor position is a scary scenario for all Tasmanians. We could potentially end up with compensation payments, lost reputation, no money left for social issues and no Tasmanian Team.

Russell Hanson is a Tasmanian AFL team advocate and a lifelong Australian football fan.