Jump to content

dees189227

Peter Jackson on SEN 24/10/17

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, DemonOX said:

At a guess it could be to do with sharing the facilities I suppose. 

Would like to know the reasoning behind it tbh. 

I was shown round our training facilities about 4 years ago and was quite impressed.

Excellent gym, swimming pool, locker room, meeting rooms etc. all looked to my inexperienced eye quite state of the art. At the time I saw no one in the building from one of the other codes so I cannot say if that's a problem. However my guide being employed by the club would only speak in positive terms about the facility. And it certainly is better than what we had beforehand, but no where near as good as we had some 40 years ago. But that training facility (MCG) will not be available again, mores the pity.

I just hope Mr Jackson and the president and board of the club can pull a rabbit from the hat some time soon.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, It's Time said:

which I have no doubt wouldn't have required our first rounder next year. 

Speculation.

Happy we got Lever, worth every penny. What he'll bring on field and off is part of what will continue to transform this club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Caller stated that Jordan Lewis “Gave us nothing”

was it someone on here?

??????? We got him for nothing and gave us his leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In PJ I trust. 

Edited by Ethan Tremblay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

What about turning one of the current MCG car parks into an oval? I suspect (have nothing to back that up but a gut feel as they tend to be closed a fare part of the AFL season) those car parks will not be around for much longer. 

Good luck with that one. Every Greenie in the state would be down there lying in front of the dosers. And where will the Possums live?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, old dee said:

Good luck with that one. Every Greenie in the state would be down there lying in front of the dosers. And where will the Possums live?

I've got a green leaning but I'd happily make a hat out of possum for a Dees training ground next to the cricket nets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

 

Purely guessing, but when stakeholders are mentioned, that means we have to convince government.....Now apart from the railyards being covered, and the reality of the MCG not being available for cricket season, the only piece of land close by is where we currently train i.e. Gosh's paddock.  Could we be trying to get something built there, that we don't have to share and can house club offices as well?

 

We have to try to sell something that is for the public good to get the government involved. Richmond has the multi cultural centre there. My question is What could we offer on that land that would cover that reason...that isnt offered at the pies or the tiges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

We have to try to sell something that is for the public good to get the government involved. Richmond has the multi cultural centre there. My question is What could we offer on that land that would cover that reason...that isnt offered at the pies or the tiges?

Literacy programs?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Literacy programs?

lol good point!

It strikes me that Olympic park and Punt road are gated and not that accessible. I think The hawks at Waverley had gym memberships available for the public  for off training hours for example and Im sure buying a gym membership also bought them a club membership of some kind.  Maybe we offer recreational facilities ...AND literacy programs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, It's Time said:

It is a great option. Makes total sense. Should be done but unlikely to be. They just opened a brand new $30mill training and social/function facility adjacent to the Glass House and overlooking the Olympic Park oval. The function centre is a revenue maker. 

We blew our chance on this one over 10 years ago when it was offered to us and we knocked it back saying we couldn't afford the $10mill fit out and Eddie jumped in and sold the naming rights to Lexus for an upfront fee of $10mill which covered the redevelopment costs. I hate to have to say Hats off to him.

Yes makes you wonder what Einsteins were running the club then

Wasnt it Paul form Gray Advertising or Jiimmy? Dumb club then  hopefully smarter now

BTW are they still in business in Melboiurne Orstralia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

We have to try to sell something that is for the public good to get the government involved. Richmond has the multi cultural centre there. My question is What could we offer on that land that would cover that reason...that isnt offered at the pies or the tiges?

How about we sell bruise free footy

That might work??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Collingwood FC burnt a few bridges with the Collingwood Council when they vacated the ground a few years back and of course the Council now represents an affluent area of Melbourne which is not necessarily enamoured with Collingwood FC.

There does however seem to be a lot of government money floating around for "community sporting facilities" eg Whitten Oval, Kardinia Park etc so perhaps the Council might let the pies come back if it meant getting the maintenance costs off their books.

Does anyone know the ownership and cost structure for the Lexus centre and the adjoining oval. Hard to see the MFC having the money to buy it but perhaps a deal could be found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

He also said that the Lever trade was effectively trading for just pick 5 when you account for all the points.

How does a first round and a future first round add up to  a first round no. 5? TWO DOES NOT GO INTO  ONE .   

Better if we kept the future first round.  FD didn't do the home work . One second round for Watts not good.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Skuit said:

Literacy programs?

That or a dental clinic.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nosoupforme said:

How does a first round and a future first round add up to  a first round no. 5? TWO DOES NOT GO INTO  ONE .   

Better if we kept the future first round.  FD didn't do the home work . One second round for Watts not good.

 

 

Not positive here, but I think PJ is referring to the points system the AFL assign draft picks for father son/academy picks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BAMF said:

Not positive here, but I think PJ is referring to the points system the AFL assign draft picks for father son/academy picks.

Thanks for your input. I  am glad that the trade period is over now. Moving on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, nosoupforme said:

One second round for Watts not good.

He came 21st in the B&F (for the same number of games as Nathan Jones. Who came second.)

We were lucky to even get a second rounder for him.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing "Two first round picks", and it frustrates me because that is a skewed reading of the trade. 

The trade was (simplified) 2 first round picks for Lever and a second round pick. Effectively it was giving a first round pick next year and downgrading our first pick this year. Or like trading our first round pick next year for 2 second rounders this year.

It is actually almost the same deal as giving up a first and second round pick outright. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Axis of Bob said:

I keep hearing "Two first round picks", and it frustrates me because that is a skewed reading of the trade. 

The trade was (simplified) 2 first round picks for Lever and a second round pick. Effectively it was giving a first round pick next year and downgrading our first pick this year. Or like trading our first round pick next year for 2 second rounders this year.

It is actually almost the same deal as giving up a first and second round pick outright. 

Agreed its frustrating  me too. We didnt just give up 2 first rounders as some here keep saying....we also got a second rounder back.  I guess the deal will get accurately judged only in hindsight as the actual players involved make their mark. Personally Im wrapped to bring in this kind of quality...and am struggling with the negativity that took over so many on this site. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bing181 said:

He came 21st in the B&F (for the same number of games as Nathan Jones. Who came second.)

We were lucky to even get a second rounder for him.

The evidence is there he finished 21st. However I can go into this deeper . l wont .

Thanks for your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't get the sense at all that PJ would be leaving after 2018. Besides which the whole point of his discussion was a transition plan and with only a year remaining on his contract, that's unlikely to be before his current contract runs out.

I'm glad he stuck up for Viney and Taylor, who he said would have drafted Lever in his draft year. The insinuation I got was we'd kept in contact ever since.

His comments on Watts were comforting in that they completely aligned with mine and many others on Demonland. He inferred Jack was a nice guy (who he'll catch up for coffee with when Jack returns from overseas), but he played nice out on the field and we no longer want to settle for nice. I'm glad we traded Jack and I'm certain it won't bite us in the arse long term.

The other thing PJ mentioned was that he's sure Jack will be back at the club one day. I hope this provides some solace to the small group who are angry about the trade.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

Agreed its frustrating  me too. We didnt just give up 2 first rounders as some here keep saying....we also got a second rounder back.  I guess the deal will get accurately judged only in hindsight as the actual players involved make their mark. Personally Im wrapped to bring in this kind of quality...and am struggling with the negativity that took over so many on this site. 

If I've learned anything from being Demonland, it's not how well our players go, but apparently how much better any player picked later in the draft goes which will determine how good this deal was.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, binman said:

What he said.

And PJ for that matter. We are at a huge disadvantage. Look at what the tigers have at Punt road. Punt Road plays a huge role in that club - it is their foundation and is a big part of their identity .

I suspect the Lexus center does not work for the pies and Vic park would be much better. Where would pies fan go if they won a flag (shudder). I suspect Vic park not that rather soulless place they have now. Would work great for us though. The practice match and VFL game there i saw was terrific. It would be perfect for us

If it's a soulless place for the scum, I'm confused as to how it would be perfect for us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, nosoupforme said:

The evidence is there he finished 21st. However I can go into this deeper . l wont .

Thanks for your opinion.

I'll go as deep as required - we wanted him gone, there was one buyer, they only have so many picks to offer, we got the best deal that Port could come up with.

Some might think he was worth a pick in the 20s.  Reality is, there would be no chance that Port was going to offload other player/s to move up the draft order to suit our demands.  They only had pick 31 to deal with, and we accepted it and wiped our hands clean of another wasted number 1 pick of "that" era (other than than 15% of his salary over the next two years).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My God does this Watts thing ever stop?

surely everyone has had there 5 cents worth by now.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×