Hobart’s stadium ‘has some problems’ as Tasmania’s AFL deal becomes a political football

Tasmania’s bid for its own AFL team has been intertwined with a stadium at Macquarie Point ever since Gil McLachlan turned up in Hobart in 2022 and pointed at the grey, mostly-vacant land.

The deal was then formalised in writing last year when the AFL stipulated if there was no stadium, there would be no team.

But now, it’s become a key sticking point on the first day of the state election campaign, as both the Liberals and Labor try to shape the narrative over the deal — and whether it can be changed.

The price tag is at the centre of the debate.

Jeremy Rockliff says the AFL deal doesn’t need to be renegotiated.(ABC News: Maren Preuss)

The Tasmanian government set the total cost at $715 million in 2022, with a state contribution of $375 million, and the rest to come from the federal government, borrowings, and the AFL.

Since then, various stadia projects in Australia have experienced major cost blowouts.

But Premier Jeremy Rockliff is sure of his figures.

And in an attempt to prove this, he announced on Thursday that the state’s contribution would be capped at $375 million, and “not one red cent more”.

“What this clearly says is that we’ve drawn a line in the sand,” Mr Rockliff said.

The original cost estimates included $85 million from “borrowings” through commercial leases.

Mr Rockliff said the stadium would continue to rely on private investment to become viable.

“We are now open to the private sector to come in and invest in the precinct,” he said.

“We always said that will need to be an equity injection through the private sector.”

Two men in suits stand on a football field

Jeremy Rockliff and former AFL boss Gil McLachlan at the announcement of the Tasmanian team deal.(ABC News: Luke Bowden)

The contract with the AFL states that the Tasmanian government is “solely responsible” for cost overruns.

The federal government has already capped its contribution.

But Mr Rockliff said his price cap did not breach this part of the AFL deal.

“There’s no need to renegotiate the arrangements,” he said.

Labor wants AFL back at the negotiating table

Labor, on the other hand, has promised to bring the AFL back to the negotiating table.

Another aspect of the AFL deal is that the stadium must be ready by the 2028 season, or the Tasmanian club will start facing financial penalties.

Labor leader Rebecca White said both the cost estimate for Macquarie Point, and the 2028 deadline, needed to be revisited.

Rebecca White flanked by two other women at a press conference, standing before a microphone.

Rebecca White has promised to bring the AFL back to the negotiating table if Labor wins the election.(ABC News: Ashleigh Barraclough)

“It’s evident to everybody that you can’t build a stadium at Macquarie Point for that price, and in the timeline that the premier has said he can,” Ms White said.

She argued the premier’s price cap policy was an admission that the stadium would not come in under budget – and she questioned whether private investors would be lining up.

“Where are all the private investors coming from?” she said.

“The premier is dreaming if he thinks he’s going to pluck private investors out of thin air to prop up his pet project at Macquarie Point.”

It was unclear which aspects of the deal Labor would try to renegotiate.

The AFL did not respond directly to questions about whether the price cap was a breach of the deal, or if it would be willing to negotiate with a future Labor government.

Port area of a city with buildings, cars and hills in the background

The government is confident the stadium will fit on the Macquarie Point land.(ABC News: Maren Preuss)

AFL spokesperson Jay Allen said the club was proceeding as planned.

“The AFL’s position is that a clear requirement of the 19th licence is that the team is conditional on a new 23,000-seat roofed stadium at Macquarie Point,” he said.

“We look forward to the unveiling of the club’s name and colours in March.”

Stadium has some political problems 

Economist Saul Eslake believed the cap showed the premier had some issues to address.

“I think that’s a recognition from a political point of view that the stadium has some problems,” he said.

“I certainly think the AFL has extracted an extraordinarily high price from Tasmania, to have a team in the AFL.”

Economist Saul Eslake

Saul Eslake says private investors will be essential for the new stadium.(Four Corners)

It did not mean the stadium was cancelled, however.

Mr Eslake said that private investment was always going to be important for the project.

“If the government can attract private sector investment, or investment from super funds into this … I think there is a business case for entities like that to have some interest in it,” he said.

The group behind an alternative stadium proposal – on reclaimed land on the nearby Regatta Grounds – believes it has already secured private sector investment.

A artist's impression of a rounded silver building jutting into a river.

The alternative proposal for a waterfront stadium in Hobart put forward by a private consortium.(Supplied)

Proponent Dean Coleman has long been critical of the government’s $715 million price tag, arguing that a stadium would cost about $20,000 per square metre.

This would take the government’s proposal to $1.2 billion.

Mr Coleman said his group had private interest in its stadium proposal.

“We have written confirmation from three tier one financial corporations (including Australia’s largest investment bank) that want the opportunity to partner with the state government,” he wrote in a letter to the premier on Thursday.

“Unlike the stadium 1.0 proposal we can cap the cost at $750 million because our other components including the car park, hotel and apartment complex contribute significantly to the cost of the stadium.”

A concept design for different transportation modes at the Macquarie Point precinct.

The stadium was pitched as an “urban renewal project”, including improved infrastructure for the surrounding area.(Supplied: Macquarie Point Development Corporation)

The government’s stadium is being assessed by the Tasmanian Planning Commission.

At the conclusion of that process, it will require the approval of both houses of parliament – in the next term of government.

The Macquarie Point Development Corporation is appointing a quantity surveyor, which should provide an updated cost estimate for the stadium later this year.

LoadingLoading…

Source link

#Hobarts #stadium #problems #Tasmanias #AFL #deal #political #football

‘It takes a village’: The price we pay to keep our kids in sport

For Sarah McGovern, keeping her kids in sport is crucial, but also overwhelming.

“This year’s soccer registration was two weeks earlier than usual. We were going to pay the rates, but I put them off and thought, they can just be late,” she says.

For both boys, MiniRoos registration fees are $300 — but they also need to fork out for boots (kids’ feet grow fast), shin pads and uniform kits each season.

It’s a long drive to buy new gear, so when she’s not teaching at the nearby preschool, Sarah often spends her time hunting for second-hand items closer to home.

“I keep an eye out on buy, swap and sell Facebook pages. The club doesn’t offer subsidies, and they don’t have second-hand soccer boots,” Sarah says.

“It might not seem like a lot to other people, but we’ve got to plan for these things.”

Jasper (left) and his big brother Charlie have developed friendships, fancy footwork and lifelong skills.()

Living on a lower income in a regional NSW town, there’s the added fuel costs to get to training and game day.

Summer swimming lessons also impact the budget, but it means the kids are safe around water, where their dad, Aaron works long hours as a skipper.

For Jasper, 6, and Charlie, 8, who are both autistic and have ADHD, playing soccer means everything to them.

Sarah says it’s worth every cent to see them develop lifelong skills and self-confidence.  

And with Jasper being offered a spot on the representative team next year, they’re still figuring out whether they can afford to travel to training twice a week and pay for the higher soccer fees.

For now, the family manages to scrape by.

But not all families can prioritise sport

Recent data from the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) AusPlay survey reveals that the cost of sport in Australia — as well as time commitments — are two of the most common reasons why many kids across the country aren’t participating.

It shows 43 per cent of children aged 14 and under participated in out-of-school organised sports activities at least once a week. 

And children were less likely to participate if they were from a low-income family, lived in a remote or regional area, or spoke a language other than English at home.

It also shows families on average spend $600 per child last year on sport, compared to $520 in 2019.

Source link

#takes #village #price #pay #kids #sport

‘I am concerned’: Emails from Tasmanian premier to AFL boss show strains before funding offer increased

The AFL squeezed an additional $54 million out of the Tasmanian government for a new state team, despite the premier initially arguing extra funding would “compromise sound economic governance”, right to information documents reveal.

The series of emails — dated between June 7 and November 17 last year — appear to show the relationship between AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan and Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff becoming increasingly tense, as the pair negotiate the state’s funding contribution to a new team.

The emails show the premier’s correspondence but do not include responses from Mr McLachlan.

In May last year, the Tasmanian government made an offer to the AFL of $10 million per year for 10 years, plus an additional $50 million to cover the team’s establishment costs.

On June 7, Mr Rockliff met with Gillon McLachlan in Hobart to discuss that offer further and sent a letter to all 18 existing club presidents asking them to support Tasmania’s funding proposal, describing it as “well above what has been acceptable to the AFL for new teams in the recent past”.

Following that meeting, Mr McLachlan described the funding offer to the media as “a good start”.

Macquarie Point has been chosen as the site of a yet-to-be-funded AFL stadium in Hobart.()

More than a month later, on July 23, Mr Rockliff sent an email to Mr McLachlan saying the offer had not changed, calling it “fair and strong” and at the high end of the range outlined in the report compiled by former Geelong president Colin Carter on the establishment of a 19th AFL team.

The report had recommended state funding of between $7-11 million per year.

Premier to Mr McLachlan, July 23:

…No expansion club has ever come near replicating an offer like this, and while there is value because the state will derive a return, I will be clear that our government will withdraw its offer if the AFL doesn’t respect its magnitude.

In the email, Mr Rockliff also referred to state’s need to contribute funding to a new purpose-built AFL stadium, which the AFL had outlined the need for in its business case for a Tasmanian team.

…The government has made it publicly clear that we will not fully fund a stadium, and in fact we will draw a line under a maximum contribution of up to 50 per cent, delivered on a site and at a cost that is acceptable to Tasmanians.

This is a decision for the State of Tasmania, not the AFL.

Premier ‘concerned’ by AFL’s ‘latest requirements’

A month later, Mr McLachlan sent an email to Mr Rockliff which is not included in right to information release. However, it includes a cover letter that describes it as including “the key elements of the proposed partnership between the AFL and Tasmanian Government for a 19th AFL licence”.

While it is not clear exactly what the AFL CEO considered the “key elements” for a deal to be, the premier appears to have been unimpressed. A week later, he wrote back:

Premier to Mr McLachlan, August 29:

…I am concerned that the latest AFL requirements compromise current community expectations, sound economic governance and ultimately the sustainability of the club.

Achieving a common objective … will require further substantive engagement between our respective teams that is both socially responsible and mutually beneficial.

In respect of timelines and having only received the response to our May offer last week, I believe this engagement should be expedited as a matter of priority.

But less than a month later, on September 14, Mr Rockliff sent another email to Mr McLachlan, saying Tasmania had now upped its offer to $10 million per year for 15 years.

Mr Rockliff said this upgraded offer came following a “shift in the economic environment and the increase in forecast operating costs for a Tasmanian team since the formulation of the taskforce’s business case”.

He also stressed that Mr McLachlan did not have free rein to speak for Tasmania when talking with other club presidents.

“I must also reiterate that any information going to club presidents that represents Tasmania’s position and interests in regard to the Tasmanian team bid, must first be approved by me,” Mr Rockliff wrote.

He ended the letter with:

Premier to Mr McLachlan, September 14:

My very strong view is that the government’s commitment … underpins a case that cannot be refused by any fair minded person, particularly anyone that has the best interests of the code at heart.

I look forward to your response to the above.

The stadium will only become a reality if the federal government commits funding to it, with a decision expected in next month’s federal budget.()

That revised offer was presented to the AFL club presidents, again calling for their support.

A week later, the Tasmanian government announced that the taxpayer contribution to the team has been revised to $144 million over 12 years, plus $60 million to establish a high-performance complex in Hobart.

That equates to an increase of $44 million for yearly funding since the initial offer plus an additional $10 million in establishment costs.

Concept designs and a “cost plan” for the “AFL Team High Performance Training and Administration Facility” were attached to an email to Mr McLachlan on August 11 but those documents were not available in the freedom of information document release. 

The government had initially hoped a vote by the club presidents on whether to offer Tasmania a 19th licence would take place in August last year, and continually stressed the need for the AFL to agree on a funding deal so the clubs had a proposal to vote on.

However, the funding of the Hobart stadium has become a sticking point.

While the Tasmanian government is willing to contribute $375 million, it will need substantial federal investment to get the project off the ground.

While the state is hoping funding will be provided in the May federal budget, no pre-funding announcement has been made, and it appears the AFL would not take the Tasmanian team bid to the club presidents until they feel assured the stadium will be built.

Loading…

Source link

#concerned #Emails #Tasmanian #premier #AFL #boss #show #strains #funding #offer #increased

Big bank earnings in spotlight following historic failures: ‘Every income statement line item is in flux’.

JPMorgan Chase & Co.
JPM,
-0.11%
,
Citigroup Inc.
C,
+0.20%

and Wells Fargo & Co.
WFC,
+2.74%

— along with PNC Financial Services Group Inc.
PNC,
+0.37%

and BlackRock Inc.
BLK,
+0.05%

— report earnings Friday as Wall Street’s fixation on a recession continues to run deep. And following the implosion of Silicon Valley Bank
SIVBQ,
-12.21%
,
Signature Bank
SBNY,
+3.97%

and Silvergate Bank
SI,
-2.72%
,
along with efforts to seal up cracks in First Republic Bank
FRC,
+4.39%

and Credit Suisse Group AG
CS,
+1.27%
,
Wall Street is likely to review quarterly numbers from the industry with a magnifying glass.

“Every income statement line item is in flux and the degree of confidence in our forecast is lower as the probability of a sharper slowdown increases,” Morgan Stanley analyst Betsy Graseck said in a note on Wednesday.

For more: Banks on the line for deposit flows and margin pressure as they reel from banking crisis

She said that the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank last month would trigger an “accelerated bid” for customers’ money, potentially weighing on net interest margins, a profitability gauge measuring what banks make on interest from loans and what they pay out to depositors. Tighter lending standards, she said, would drive up net charge-offs — a measure of debt unlikely to be repaid — as borrowers run into more trouble obtaining or refinancing loans.

Phil Orlando, chief investment strategist at Federated Hermes, said in an interview that tighter lending standards could constrain lending volume. He also said that banks were likely to set aside more money to cover loans that go bad, as managers grow more conservative and try to gauge what exposure they have to different types of borrowers.

“To a significant degree, they have to say, what percentage of our companies are tech companies? What percentage are financial companies? Do we think that this starts to dribble into the auto industry?” he said. “Every bank is going to be different in terms of what their portfolio of business looks like.”

He also said that last month’s bank failures could spur more customers to open up multiple accounts at different banks, following bigger concerns about what would happen to the money in a bank account that exceeded the $250,000 limit covered by the FDIC. But as the recent banking disturbances trigger Lehman flashbacks, he said that the recent banking failures were the result of poor management and insufficient risk controls specific to those financial firms.

“COVID was something that affected everyone, universally, not just the banking companies but the entire economy, the entire stock market,” he said. “You go back to the global financial crisis in the ’07-’09 period, that’s something that really affected all of the financial service companies. I don’t think that’s what we’re dealing with here.”

Also read: Banking sector’s growing political might could blunt reform in wake of SVB failure, experts warn

JPMorgan
JPM,
-0.11%

Chief Executive Jamie Dimon has said that Trump-era banking deregulation didn’t cause those bank failures. But in his annual letter to shareholders last week, he also said that the current turmoil in the bank system is not over. However, he also said that the collapse or near-collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and its peers “are nothing like what occurred during the 2008 global financial crisis.”

“Regarding the current disruption in the U.S. banking system, most of the risks were hiding in plain sight,” Dimon said. “Interest rate exposure, the fair value of held-to-maturity (HTM) portfolios and the amount of SVB’s uninsured deposits were always known — both to regulators and the marketplace.”

“The unknown risk was that SVB’s over 35,000 corporate clients – and activity within them – were controlled by a small number of venture capital companies and moved their deposits in lockstep,” Dimon continued. “It is unlikely that any recent change in regulatory requirements would have made a difference in what followed.”

The Federal Reserve’s decision to raise interest rates, along with a broader pullback in digital demand following the first two years of the pandemic, stanched the flow of tech-industry funding into Silicon Valley bank and caused the value of its bond investments to fall.

Don’t miss: An earnings recession seems inevitable, but it might not last long

But the impact of those higher interest rates — an effort to slow the economy and, by extension, bring inflation down — will be felt elsewhere. First-quarter earnings are expected to decline 6.8% for S&P 500 index components overall, according to FactSet. That would be the first decline since the second quarter of 2020, when the pandemic had just begun to send the economy into a tailspin.

“In a word, earnings for the first quarter are going to be poor,” Orlando said.

This week in earnings

For the week ahead, 11 S&P 500
SPX,
+0.36%

components, and two from the Dow Jones Industrial Average
DJIA,
+0.01%
,
will report first-quarter results. Outside of the banks, health-insurance giant UnitedHealth Group
UNH,
+0.70%

reports during the week. Online fashion marketplace Rent the Runway Inc.
RENT,
+3.75%

will also report.

The call to put on your calendar

Delta Air Lines Inc.: Delta
DAL,
+0.69%

reports first-quarter results on Thursday, amid bigger questions about when, if ever, higher prices — including for airfares — might turn off travelers. The carrier last month stuck with its outlook for big first-quarter sales gains when compared with prepandemic levels. “If anyone’s looking for weakness, don’t look at Delta”, Chief Executive Ed Bastian said at a conference last month.

But rival United Airlines Holdings Inc.
UAL,
+1.50%

has told investors to prepare for a surprise loss, even though it also reported a 15% jump in international bookings in March. And after Southwest Airlines Co.’s
LUV,
+0.03%

flight-cancellation mayhem last year brought more attention to technology issues and airline understaffing, concerns have grown over whether the industry has enough air-traffic controllers, prompting a reduction in some flights.

For more: Air-traffic controller shortages could result in fewer flights this summer

But limitations within those airlines’ flight networks to handle consumer demand can push fares higher. And Morgan Stanley said that strong balance sheets, passengers’ willingness to still pay up — albeit in a concentrated industry with a handful of options — and “muscle memory” from being gutted by the pandemic, could make airlines “defensive safe-havens,” to some degree, for investors.

“It is hard to argue against the airlines soaring above the macro storm underneath them (at least in the short term),” the analysts wrote in a research note last week.

The numbers to watch

Grocery-store margins: Albertsons Cos.
ACI,
+0.53%
.
— the grocery chain whose merger deal with Kroger Inc.
KR,
+0.96%

has raised concerns about food prices and accessibility — reports results on Tuesday. Higher food prices have helped fatten grocery stores’ profits, even as consumers struggle to keep up. But Costco Wholesale Corp.
COST,
-2.24%
,
in reporting March same-store sales results, noted that “year-over-year inflation for food and sundries and fresh foods were both down from February.” The results from Albertsons could offer clues on whether shoppers might be getting a break from steep price increases.

Source link

#Big #bank #earnings #spotlight #historic #failures #income #statement #line #item #flux