‘Hard to think of a more wasteful project’: Economist slams ‘bloody-minded’ AFL over stadium

The economist behind an independent review of Hobart’s proposed Macquarie Point stadium has accused the Tasmanian government of misleading taxpayers over the project’s cost and described the AFL’s insistence on a new, roofed venue as “bloody-minded”.

Speaking ahead of a crucial gathering of all 18 AFL club presidents in Melbourne before Tuesday night’s Australian Football Hall of Fame dinner, Dr Nicholas Gruen said the cost of the stadium would far outweigh the benefits.

The presidents are set to discuss progress on the stadium, which remains a central condition of the Devils’ entry into the league in 2028.

“This is not just bloody-mindedness from the AFL,” Gruen told this masthead.

“It’s the worst combination of bloody-mindedness and self-harm you can imagine.”

The Tasmanian government appointed Gruen to assess the project early in 2025 as part of a political deal with the Jacqui Lambie Network.

Now he has completed an update of that review, commissioned by the anti-stadium Macquarie Point Vision Ltd, and concluded the project would impose a net cost on Tasmania of more than $1 billion and deliver less than 40 cents of economic benefit for every dollar invested.

The report estimates the stadium would increase state debt by $2.3 billion by 2040 and warns that figure could be substantially higher if major project cost blowouts occur.

The latest government estimate put total capital costs of the stadium at $1.13 billion. Gruen’s latest report has that figure at $1.5 billion, with more pessimistic modelling putting the cost at $1.75 billion.

The Tasmanian government promised $375 million for the stadium, the federal committed $240 million to the precinct and AFL has promised $15 million. The funding gap would be covered by state borrowings.

Asked whether the Rockliff government had misled Tasmanians about the cost of the project, Gruen said: “I think the only honest answer to that question is yes.”

Gruen asserted his independence from the anti-stadium lobby and rejected suggestions his opposition to the stadium stemmed from a desire to stop Tasmania obtaining an AFL team.

The Our Place group, which is part of Macquarie Point Vision Ltd, has sent a letter to the 18 club presidents calling on them to give up their power of veto, which allows them to withdraw their support for the team if there is no roofed stadium.

“There are lots of people in Tasmania who support the stadium, who say it’s going to be an economic boon for Tasmania, and that’s complete rubbish,” Gruen said.

“It will cost Tasmania about a billion dollars to have this stadium.

“But if Tasmanians feel that’s worth a billion dollars to them because they want a team, I can fully understand that and it’s a perfectly rational thing to do.

“But as a piece of economic policy, it’s hard to think of a more wasteful project.”

Gruen’s revised modelling argues the stadium’s net cost to Tasmania has risen from $795 million in his original review to more than $1 billion, while a more pessimistic scenario puts the cost closer to $1.8 billion.

The league has repeatedly maintained the Devils will enter the competition in 2028 and that the Macquarie Point stadium will be built.

Gruen criticised the league’s stance.

“The AFL, I think quite outrageously, and very much flying in the face of its own interests, has insisted on this stadium,” he said.

His report argues the financial benefit to the Devils of playing at a new stadium is worth about $5 million to $6 million a year — an amount he believes could be delivered through direct financial support at a fraction of the cost. It suggests a subsidy model combined with upgrades to existing venues could be achieved for around a tenth of the cost of building Macquarie Point.

“The net benefit to the Devils from the stadium is a bit less than $6 million a year in revenue,” Gruen said.

“That could be achieved at about one tenth of the cost of building a stadium by simply subsidising the Devils by that amount.”

The AFL did not answer questions about the Gruen report, including when the Devils would be granted a permanent licence.

“The Devils and the stadium continue to make great progress, and we look forward to welcoming a team for Tasmania into the competition in 2028,” a league spokesman said.

The Tasmanian government was contacted for comment.

The argument that the future of the Devils should be separated from the stadium debate is set to gain attention at the presidents’ meeting ahead of hall of fame festivities.

The AFL’s current arrangements give existing clubs a significant say over the Devils’ future should the stadium fail to proceed.

Gruen believes Tasmania should challenge the league directly.

“If I was premier, I would ring up the AFL and say, ‘you have a perfectly viable pathway to get what you need and we’re not going to give you what you want’,” he said.

“You can still get what you want, which is a competitive Tasmanian team.”

Gruen dismissed suggestions he had become aligned with organised anti-stadium campaign groups and said he was not involved in any campaign directed at club presidents.

Our Place spokesman Roland Browne said in a letter to club presidents that the AFL should renegotiate its deal with the Tasmanian government.

“That veto power is no longer an asset to you, it’s a burden,” the letter read.

“We understand you’ve got a job to do. You’ve got to look after your own team first. But think about the kids in the stand that you see at games, cheering on their heroes. Are you going to be the one to kill the Tassie teams for these kids?”

While supporters argue the stadium would transform a neglected section of Hobart’s waterfront, Gruen said the development risked doing long-term damage to the area and raised concerns about the impact on sight lines between Hobart’s Cenotaph and the waterfront.

“[But] the main thing I’m thinking of is Tasmanians’ desire to have a team,” he said.

“I’ve never said Tasmanians shouldn’t have this stadium.

“I’ve said I don’t like the way our political system is managing this because it’s not making the choices clear.”

Construction tenders are due to provide an updated estimate of the stadium cost later this year.

Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage in the country. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter