Hobart 'Stadium 2.0' developer's company in liquidation, as he works on new waterfront project

Company behind rejected Hobart 'Stadium 2.0' concept in liquidation Thu 9 Jul 2026 at 5:22am In short: Tasmanian developer Dean Coleman's company, which was involved in the rejected 'Stadium 2.0' plan for Hobart, is in liquidation, owing creditors $6 million and $145,000 in unpaid superannuation to employees. Mr Coleman said the failed stadium project was a "significant" factor in the company's financial position. What's next? He is currently involved in another development proposal at Regatta Point — a housing project — but has told the ABC that his role is only advisory and communicative. A development company connected to Hobart's rejected 'Stadium 2.0' design has gone into liquidation, with its owner now involved in a new development proposal on the city's waterfront. Dean Coleman is the director and secretary of SolutionsWon Group, a property development company that works on commercial, residential and industrial projects. In 2023, Mr Coleman, alongside several high-profile Tasmanians, including a former Labor premier, put forward the bid for Stadium 2.0 or MAC 2.0 — a 23,000-seat roofed stadium built on reclaimed land on the River Derwent. It was proposed by a separate company called Stadia Precinct, which, according to ASIC, Mr Coleman is also a director and secretary of. That 'Stadium 2.0' design option was quashed in 2024 by the Tasmanian government, which described it as an "unacceptable risk". In December last year, SolutionsWon Group went into liquidation. Liquidation documents show the company owed $6 million to its creditors and $145,000 in superannuation to its employees. Other debts included: - $1 million to the Australian Taxation Office - $948,000 to National Australia Bank - $315,000 to Gray and Johnson Real Estate - $285,000 to Archwon Design - $41,000 to Paddington Property Group In a statement, Mr Coleman said the company had invested in major private sector projects over several years. "The unsuccessful MAC2.0 bid was a significant factor in the company's financial position, and the company was ultimately placed into liquidation,"he said. New Hobart proposal Last month, Mr Coleman and Hobart Councillor John Kelly announced a new proposal to develop the waterfront at Regatta Point, under the name Regatta Quay Precinct (RQP), which included 220 apartments and a large car park. "The new RQP Team are largely the original Stadium 2.0 team," a RQP spokesperson told the ABC in June. Following questions from the ABC regarding the liquidation of SolutionsWon Group, Mr Coleman said that RQP was not an attempt to revive the company, and that his role was advisory and communicative, "rather than that of a project proponent or developer". "Having led much of the original precinct planning work, I have been asked only to assist in explaining the concept and the technical work already undertaken," Mr Coleman said. "Following the MAC2.0 process, Hobart City Councillor John Kelly requested that elements of the broader precinct planning, excluding the stadium, be made available for renewed public consideration. "At this stage, Regatta Quay Precinct is a project concept rather than an operating business entity." Mr Coleman said RQP and SolutionsWon Group were completely separate entities, and RQP should "ultimately be assessed on its planning, transport, economic and community merits". The Hobart City Council has agreed to be briefed about the development, and Mr Coleman said governance, ownership and delivery structure would be established if it progressed. "To be clear, no formal project has been announced, no development application has been lodged, and no investment process has commenced," Mr Coleman said. Councillor John Kelly said he wanted to ensure that the transport, parking and waterfront plans from the Stadium 2.0 project were "not simply discarded". "I asked whether aspects of the broader precinct planning, excluding the stadium itself, could be revisited because I believed they contained ideas worthy of further discussion,"Cr Kelly said. "That should not be interpreted as support for any particular development proposal. "I have no commercial relationship, partnership or financial interest in the proposal, and this would be a clear conflict of interest."