tigerpie wrote:Nobody wants to sit out in sideways rain and hail when it's -1.
No crowds no devils.
So a 23000 seat stadium with a roof might guarantee a decent return rather than 5000 a week maybe
When it's raining and hailing in Hobart, it's not -1.
And when it's -1, it's not raining and hailing.
And rain and cold are unlikely to deter many Tasmanians from heading along.
Given the support for a team there, I would expect strong crowds.
I've got no idea how you've pulled out 5,000 a week - if the Kangaroos can consistently get 6 or 7,000 to their games, I think a local team will easily average double that.
Then, factor in that not every match will be at night, and some will be early in the season with relatively warm weather, and I think the intention's for only 7 or 8 games to be played in Hobart per season (with the remainder in Launceston).
You're looking at [insert current cost estimate, allowing for the usual blowouts] for, at best, a very marginal increase in crowds, if that. (I concede that the increase in revenue - given the corporate boxes likely to be placed in the proposed stadium - is probably better than marginal.)
Even considering all that, I'm not necessarily opposed to the new stadium. But the idea that it's a necessity to have a shiny new venue with a roof in one of Australia's driest capitals - for a winter sport no less - is absurd, in my view.
If I were a Tasmanian taxpayer, I wouldn't be keen on stumping up for that (or the state borrowing money to do so).