I'm sorry but 33 posterior planting hours per year doesn't justify the expenditure of $35 million dollars out of the public purse. Especially when there are already two perfectly good stadia providing the same opportunity.
If the need for a new purpose built stadium is a deal breaker for an AFL team in Tasmania then I'm happy to strike my name off the supporters list. I suspect I would not be alone.
It's simply not necessary. No ifs - no buts - it's just not.
If the problem is that it's perceived to be required for the team concept to get across the line, then it's the perception that needs to change - not the budget.
As the International Olympic Committee has learned - if a governing body continues to demand more and more of host cities then the bids dry up.
Sport is not about grandeur in facilities - it's about participation and opportunity at the base and excellence for the elite.
Sure support from fans is a critical part - and their enjoyment of their attendance at an event is important. But the expenditure on their comfort must have boundaries especially when a facility has limited usage.
As the New South Wales Government learned when it proposed prior to the last state election to demolish three well-appointed stadia in Sydney, the public know unnecessary largesse when it's plonked fair and square before their eyes. In the end it's proceeding with only one of the re-developments - and even that has backfired on them with costs skyrocketing so much even at the demolition stage that the successful tenderer wanted out.
Folk from interstate who attended the stunning presentation of the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo at the Olympic Stadium in Sydney last week were dumbfounded when they saw a totally fit-for purpose venue that had been proposed for destruction and rebuild.
Stadium development and maintenance strategy needs to hit the pause button - locally, nationally and internationally.
Whilst pausing it might be appropriate to reflect on what a spare $35 million could be spent.
If it's available for facilities then perhaps we could ponder the plight of everyday Tasmanians who attend other sporting venues way more often than 11 days per year.
The Domain and St Leonards Athletics Centres are used for carnival competitions on 100 and 60 occasions per year respectively - for on average seven hours per day. That's 600 and 420 posterior planting hours for each per annum - for most of which spectators, parents and athletes waiting for their next events have no cover over their seat or no seat at all.
A fraction of $35 million would fix that problem as it would for countless sporting venues all over the state which face the same problem - all used way more often than just over two handfuls of days per year.
Whether stand-alone AFL teams for Tassie means playing at one or two venues, the two facilities that we already have, perhaps with a bit of a spruce-up, are more than adequate.
Those who observe that $35 million could be allocated to addressing the state's health and hospital needs have a stronger argument.
But there's another idea that would counter both our deteriorating personal health and create an increased interest in sport across the board - to the benefit of a potential Tassie AFL team or two.
How about we invest that sizeable sum in re-invigorating physical education and sport in Tasmanian schools? That would deliver way more potential AFL players - boys and girls than providing a more comfortable seat for them to sit on to watch others play. But more importantly it will improve the physical literacy of every young Tasmanian.
We cannot afford another generation to pass through our education system without access to quality physical activity and exposure to life options in individual or team sport.
We used to be an active society. The last thing we need is to spend significant amounts of public monies on incentivising us to sit down rather than run around.