Tag: hobart

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”.

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.

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…