SA Footy

Rik E Boy wrote:We will do what we did last time. I think we gave Stevie J, Pops, Chapman and Kelly the nudge. Geez it hurt watching Chapman in particular run around in an oppo jumper. He was one of my favourite Cats of all time. I reckon a few Cats will finish up pretty soon. Don't reckon Duncs has much left, he's copping a bad injury every year now and he comes back a little worse each time. Stanley is near the end as well and for a similar reason. Hawkins and Dangerfield are freaks but maybe two more years for each. Non-Geelong people are only starting to realise now just how special Hawkins is. He is somehow getting better, the Benjamin Button of football, but obviously that can't continue for ever. I think Geelong have already begun to plan for the replacement of these guys with Whyte, Knevitt, Murdoch, Dempsey, Neale still under wraps. The acquisition of Ollie Henry has been massive and Bowes and Bruhn have only hinted at the value they will represent. Bruhn in particular looks very promising but needs some development. And don't forget, we go fairly well with Free Agency too so I don't think we will see anything too radical from the Cats.

regards,

REB

MW wrote:

am Bays wrote:

MW wrote:Smart politician would be able to argue the money generated by an AFL team in the state would be used for public housing

What money? Expenditure (goods and services) go to the Feds, maybe some stamp duty and payroll tax not sure 100 - 200 people on their payroll will produce many houses.

Is this being owned by the Tassie government so will they scoop the profits?

Yeah you're right, Tassie govt chose to bring AFL to its state to f..k over it's residents...

Booney wrote:

am Bays wrote:

MW wrote:Smart politician would be able to argue the money generated by an AFL team in the state would be used for public housing

What money? Expenditure (goods and services) go to the Feds, maybe some stamp duty and payroll tax not sure 100 - 200 people on their payroll will produce many houses.

Is this being owned by the Tassie government so will they scoop the profits?

For starters an organisation that turns over about $55-60m is about to lob on their shores. Payroll tax from 40 blokes earning $15m between them ( by then with next TV deal ), AFLW, administration etc. There's going to be some high income earners entering their economy.

Add in 3000-6000 people heading down there every second week to support the visiting team and the potential to attract some international acts to perform in the venue and the revenue generated will be substantial.

Grow the size of the pie and the % of the pie used on housing increases with it.

Booney wrote:I'd have thought they'd build it to hold 20-25,000 on 70% +/- of the space and leave some as terrace / hill to allow for future expansion if need be. In time if needed build another stand for 5-7000 people taking it to 30,000 +/-.

The pipe dream of getting a stadium with a roof for $750m is just that.

Booney wrote:I'd have thought they'd build it to hold 20-25,000 on 70% +/- of the space and leave some as terrace / hill to allow for future expansion if need be. In time if needed build another stand for 5-7000 people taking it to 30,000 +/-.

The pipe dream of getting a stadium with a roof for $750m is just that.

MW wrote:Smart politician would be able to argue the money generated by an AFL team in the state would be used for public housing

RB wrote:

MW wrote:Smart politician would be able to argue the money generated by an AFL team in the state would be used for public housing

A counterargument would be that you may as well just use public funds to build public housing now, rather than use it to build a stadium and wait five or six years for it potentially to generate revenue for the state government.

At any rate, I tend to agree with AMB that the AFL team is unlikely to generate a significant amount of additional revenue for the Tassie state government.

Vamos wrote:Plenty of stadium experts in here

tigerpie wrote:If people can't get a ticket then the only tourism will be internal apart from a thousand or so. That's nowhere near enough to make an impact really.
As has been said the stadium budget is not even close to the final cost.
The roof will be shade sails or tarps at that price.

stan wrote:

tigerpie wrote:If people can't get a ticket then the only tourism will be internal apart from a thousand or so. That's nowhere near enough to make an impact really.
As has been said the stadium budget is not even close to the final cost.
The roof will be shade sails or tarps at that price.

Dis you say tarps?
I know someone who can help you out with that.

tigerpie wrote:

stan wrote:

tigerpie wrote:If people can't get a ticket then the only tourism will be internal apart from a thousand or so. That's nowhere near enough to make an impact really.
As has been said the stadium budget is not even close to the final cost.
The roof will be shade sails or tarps at that price.

Dis you say tarps?
I know someone who can help you out with that.

I don't reckon that barb's got any sting left in it.

Vamos wrote:Plenty of stadium experts in here

tigerpie wrote:If people can't get a ticket then the only tourism will be internal apart from a thousand or so. That's nowhere near enough to make an impact really.
As has been said the stadium budget is not even close to the final cost.
The roof will be shade sails or tarps at that price.

Dutchy wrote:

tigerpie wrote:If people can't get a ticket then the only tourism will be internal apart from a thousand or so. That's nowhere near enough to make an impact really.
As has been said the stadium budget is not even close to the final cost.
The roof will be shade sails or tarps at that price.

North and Hawks currently get millions every year for playing footy down there due to the tourism it brings, ive been twice in the last 3 years for footy but then toured the state afterwards. Having 11-12 games down there and having the likes of Carlton, Essendon, Collingwood travel there will be huge for Tassie economy.

I suspect the new team will no more than 15k of core fans that go every week (after the initial sugar hit), which leaves 10k of seats for opposition supporters.

Booney wrote:I'd have thought they'd build it to hold 20-25,000 on 70% +/- of the space and leave some as terrace / hill to allow for future expansion if need be. In time if needed build another stand for 5-7000 people taking it to 30,000 +/-.

The pipe dream of getting a stadium with a roof for $750m is just that.