I don't think there is any need to rush this. Melbourne needs to do what is best for Melbourne and if taking time to work on the detail is a part of that process then I'm all for them taking all the time they need.

As it is they will be training there, and so aren't disadvantaged (maybe weights training) and will be better off than training in public parks so yeah, take your time Dees, do it once and get it right

I don't think there is any need to rush this. Melbourne needs to do what is best for Melbourne and if taking time to work on the detail is a part of that process then I'm all for them taking all the time they need.

As it is they will be training there, and so aren't disadvantaged (maybe weights training) and will be better off than training in public parks so yeah, take your time Dees, do it once and get it right

Exactly. Due diligence needs to be done. Imagine what sort of laughing stock we'd be if in a year's time it comes out that we made a huge mistake for some unseen reason and we're stuck with the deal for 30 years??

I'll happily stand , sit, rollover corrected bu I thought the essence of the impase was MFC wants the same sorta deal timelines that the Scorps do...thst all. Just want 10 x 10 x 10 ..they are rightfully baulking at 30..as who knows what shppens in 20-30 years time etc.

I'll happily stand , sit, rollover corrected bu I thought the essence of the impase was MFC wants the same sorta deal timelines that the Scorps do...thst all. Just want 10 x 10 x 10 ..they are rightfully baulking at 30..as who knows what shppens in 20-30 years time etc.

yeah, I do seem to remember something along those lines

(a short while later)

found it http://cranbourne.yourguide.com.au/news/lo...ng/1278989.aspx

I understand the sentiments of taking time to carefully make a decision, but one of the problems could be how long the Council is prepared to wait.

It has already been waiting since the 5 August Council meeting , and $1.4 million is now being eyed off by some Councillors for other projects.

So far the Councillors supporting MFC have resisted efforts to redirect the money, but how long will this patience last?

How long does MFC need to take to consider its position?

Anyway, time will tell how the meeting today reported in the Herald Sun went. Hopefully Cameron Schwab will make an announcement.

From the HUN today.

So casey holds around 14,000?

Surely with a bit of work we could get to 20,000 and host freo there too?

The possibilities are really exciting me thinks.

Casey Fields would sure be heaps cheaper than the G or the Dome. Even if a few people didn't bother to make the trek out to Casey (people from the other side of the city perhaps) surely we would still make money instead of losing it as we do when we get a poor crowd at the major stadiums.

Not to mention that parking is free! A bonus for those of us who usually drive to the city to watch matches.

Why does it concern me that nothing has been made public of the meeting between Casey and MFC yesterday. Surely there cant have been that much unknown or ambiguous requiring further delving ??

Well..if I was supercilious I might think he's saying this just for me ..lol

Demon's talks back on track

Now this is better on a number of fronts. Firstly its going forward albietly a little slower than most would like and secondly its Schwab doing the talking, as it ought to be

About time there was a seriously positive statement, instead of the rhetoric.

I don't get it....

30 years?!!!

Surely that's far too much of a committment for a cash-strapped club. 10 years would have been pushing it. How do we know what the climate is going to be in 30 years?!!

Surely that's far too much of a committment for a cash-strapped club.

I think it's set up as 3 x 10 -- I imagine we have the option to continue/cease (but am not sure).

However, what's the cash-strapped part got to do with it?

The '$600,000' worth of community involvement is like the '$100' worth of calls on a mobile plan -- the dollar figure's virtually meaningless.

10 years would have been pushing it. How do we know what the climate is going to be in 30 years?!!

It wouldn't be much good if we were turfed out after 10 years for a different team, left with no 'area' to build a supporter base.

If we want to build support in Casey, we need to be there for the long haul.

Surely that's far too much of a committment for a cash-strapped club.

What's this cash-strapped business?

Haven't we recently raised in excess of $3m to unstrap ourselves?

About time there was a seriously positive statement, instead of the rhetoric.

Yes it was a positive statement and I would of liked to read Mike Tyler's response from City of Casey. He didn't return calls. Is he that busy? Or has a muzzle been put on him

The '$600,000' worth of community involvement is like the '$100' worth of calls on a mobile plan --

It wouldn't be much good if we were turfed out after 10 years for a different team, left with no 'area' to build a supporter base.

If we want to build support in Casey, we need to be there for the long haul.

I see. But $600,000 Per year... I realise it's not a lump-sum payment, but there still is cost involved in community service. My point being, would we be committing to an equivalent if our base was, say, the rectangular stadium? (Not re-igniting that one, just interested for arguements' sake) If the over-all package is a great deal cheaper, then you can live with that sort of commitment, because in the end our financial position is improved. I would just hate to think that if our fortunes improve in ten years, and we want to take advantage and install ourselves as a presence in MELBOURNE, then wouldn't it be considered a bit of a ball and chain?

I'm the first to admit, I don't know a whole lot about this, and 11 pages of a thread is a LOT to read... So I'm more looking for instruction than arguing for the negative.

As for being turfed out. I would imagine that a 3 x 10 year deal would suit us more. We could reassess at the end of ten years, and if our supporter base is dwindling in an important area, and not gaining enough at Casey, then I would HOPE we would be free to turf THEM. My point being that 30 years ironclad commitment seemed more a limiting factor. I would have thought flexibility would be a big issue, given the uncertainty in the AFL climate, as well as the worlds' economic climate.

What's this cash-strapped business?

Haven't we recently raised in excess of $3m to unstrap ourselves?

We have? We're still a LOOONG way behind the power clubs, and are not paying our full salary cap. I wouldn't say we're "unstrapped" yet. I have hope, but we're still in a relatively desperate stage in MFC's history.

I see. But $600,000 Per year... I realise it's not a lump-sum payment, but there still is cost involved in community service.

What cost is there? Do we need to reimburse the players for sending them to a school etc? Are the costs anywhere near what we decide the 'appearance fee' is worth?

I don't know any of the details, but I don't really put much stock in the $600,000 figure. We may incur some 'real' costs, but I can't see that there'll be anywhere near the $600,000 mentioned.

I think of it as an investment in building support in the Casey area.

My point being, would we be committing to an equivalent if our base was, say, the rectangular stadium? (Not re-igniting that one, just interested for arguements' sake)

Although there doesn't seem to be much progress. we haven't canned the rectangular stadium.

The Club has continued to say that our home is in Melbourne.

It's planned that Casey will be our summer training venue (not our permanent all-year-round base).

Fair enough...

I think I'm just touchy about us shifting so far away from our spiritual home. I, like many others, am worried that it may be seen as a halfway step to being shifted interstate by those at AFL house. Hopefully Casey to the MFC turns out to be more like Tassie is to the Hawks.

If you look at the glass half full, it's one step back so that we can take two steps forward. Hopefully it continues this way.

I, like many others, am worried that it may be seen as a halfway step to being shifted interstate by those at AFL house.

I'd suggest that if anything, this deal will further root us in Victoria.

Having read most of the Casey-related posts, I can't remember that view being pushed by (m)any.

It's certainly not a worry that for me.

Hopefully Casey to the MFC turns out to be more like Tassie is to the Hawks.

More like Waverley IMO.

Perhaps we could play the odd game there in future *shrug

I'd suggest that if anything, this deal will further root us in Victoria.

A two edge sword of a comment if ever there was one.

I think it's set up as 3 x 10 -- I imagine we have the option to continue/cease (but am not sure).

It wouldn't be much good if we were turfed out after 10 years for a different team, left with no 'area' to build a supporter base.

The key to the whole thing is it had to be a win/win and a working thing for both parties. If it isnt working for us then we'd be mugs to continue pushing the barrow, if it is working then as much a mug not to have continigencies to enable its continuance !

Either way...commiting in spirit to 30 is fine..committing on paper however is foolhardy. 10 x 10 x 10 is only sensible and practical way to safeguard efforts and potentials for all parties.

What cost is there? Do we need to reimburse the players for sending them to a school etc? Are the costs anywhere near what we decide the 'appearance fee' is worth?

This is very much the point many fail to connect with...its a value, not a cost.

It's planned that Casey will be our summer training venue (not our permanent all-year-round base).

Again you hit it onthe head...many despite many postings by some of us to highlight this either just dont get it or are incapable of such

I think I'm just touchy about us shifting so far away from our spiritual home.

This has become the permanent urban myth abouth Melbourne isnt it. That is..that we really HAVE a home. This is surely the whole point, we dont !! We are unique in the league in that we did grow out of that ground ( the G ) as opposed a neighbourhood etc. But it ceased to really be home after our last Cup when the Tiges moved in. Its all gone down hill since that point in time really

This is very much the point many fail to connect with...its a value, not a cost.

Exactly, and these would be things that the club and players are already doing, difference is that they will be concentrating their community efforts in the Casey region

Exactly, and these would be things that the club and players are already doing, difference is that they will be concentrating their community efforts in the Casey region

Mate..i'd buy you an ice cream or a beer..or both.!! lol How this is so often overlooked amuses me. Its about concentrating/directing efforts for a better and discernable return

Yes it was a positive statement and I would of liked to read Mike Tyler's response from City of Casey. He didn't return calls. Is he that busy? Or has a muzzle been put on him

He might have methane and Council election matters to keep him busy at the moment. Given he was reportedly surprised to find that MFC was expressing concern about the 30 year arrangement the club itself had previously proposed, I imagine he’d be happy enough that it was back on track after how long MFC has been discussing the matter with the Council.

I'd be surprised if there was any muzzle - most of the Councillors are very supportive of the CEO and the MFC project it seems.

Mate..i'd buy you an ice cream or a beer..or both.!! lol

mmmmmm a beer spider, droool

Pure conjecture, but I wonder how much of this "stalling" is really centred on a miscommunication. Or ppl hearing but not listening !! It quite possible that MFC did indeed ( as reported by all accounts ) suggest a 30 year involvement. Its equally probable that it really meant it in 10 year increments as it understands the Casey Scorps does with dealing with Casey.

Just as likely that certain things WERNT spelt out by both parties and along the way elements were assumed to be (a) when they were really meant as (b ). Everyone continues along their happy paths all thinking what 'they ' are thinking until someone points out that (a) is not (b ).

Suddenly there is a problem. Not one off deals, not one even of intent but suddenly of legal commitment as opposed to ideal intent. I've seen similar things happen in other dealings where the idea was OK..but suddenly the detail was misinterpreted..

Hell. anyone who's bought and/or sold a house etc will know what is said is not always on the contract.

Im just thinking this is all about things assumed..that simply were misinterpretations. Be suprised if it wasn't all sorted soon.

Whisper is that we've agreed to terms and the deal has been done, just needs to be inked. Will be made official in the next few days

Heard from someone at the scorpions, same thing reported on BF also from a source at scorps.