THE time has come for the state government to wipe its hands of AFL footy in the state.
AFL boss Gillon McLachlan states a new stadium must be built before a licence is given to Tasmania.
That is blackmail. There is no mention of it putting in any money as it did to the reconstruction of Carrera/Metricon in Queensland.
As for the other issue of a roof, so why one here? Why not Metricon or Optus stadiums?
There are only 40 roofed stadiums in the world but we have to have one.
Then the new stadium has to seat 27,000 people. How hard it is to upgrade UTAS Stadium from 22,000 to 27,000?
Then there is the issue of where football will be played. There is no way known the game will be split between the two centres.
With a stadium costing $750 million-plus, even blind Freddy can see all the games will be played in Hobart.
The average attendance there is only 9000 people.
I think the time has come to pull the pin on this venture for two reasons.
One is I believe the state can't afford it because the AFL will put very little money into the state. Secondly, the AFL does not want a Tasmanian team in the competition.
I HAVE been a football volunteer in Tasmania for 47 years and absolutely love the game, but I just can't sit in silence and watch the AFL bully Tasmanian footy.
I would love to see Tassie playing in the AFL, but to ask our small state to spend $750 million on a stadium is ridiculous.
The two stadiums we have here are more than capable of holding great games and great crowds, which we have proved since Hawthorn came to Tassie.
We sit here and watch. Richmond and Port Adelaide only get a crowd of 21,500 at the MCG, with Richmond being the biggest member base team in Victoria.
We don't have the population to require a huge stadium. Build another hospital and look after the whole population.
WHY is our government putting money into an AFL team and another stadium when there are people living in tents in church grounds and on the side of the highway?
THERE is a lot of discussion in the US about the right to bear arms, and rightly so.
The NRA and many others say they have an unfettered right to do so, whereas that is not what the Second Amendment says.
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow for a paramilitary militia to fight against the British.
This was written in the context of a "well-regulated" militia, (which is totally absent today), and it was written in the context of single-shot muskets.
The use of military-style automatic and semi-automatic weapons was most certainly not anticipated or sanctioned by the Second Amendment and such weapons should be banned.
The idea of a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun is largely rubbish.
Good guys with guns can use a pistol or rifle or shotgun.
There is no room for military-style weapons.
THE joy of the family's return to Biloela is a reminder of the delight in Launceston when in 2002 we brought a young Afghan Hazara family home from their reassignment to detention at Woomera.
Some of us in the community learnt deeply about reciprocated love, from proud and humble people from a distant culture.
Others did not, leaving another 20 tough years for another such homecoming.
THERE seems to be a widespread perception that when Australia's emissions are reduced, effects like flooding, bushfires and droughts will diminish.
If Australia's emissions were reduced to zero tomorrow, there would be no discernible change in these effects because our global contribution is only a tiny 1 per cent.
Until the other 99 per cent of emissions are greatly reduced, there will be no relief for us.
Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.