Caseyscorp.

Any news on the elections and how it could potentially affect the Dees (assuming you are familiar with the council and councillors)?

I noticed two of the three against the deal lost.

Any info appreciated.

cheers

been a bit of debate on the VFL site re this issue

I don't know how much truth is in the following post...no doubt Casey Scorp will reply

"The ratepayers have spoken or one could say have Shouted. Only two Casey councillors returned to office. The incumbents all are anti MFC deal. The Ratepayers want nothing to do with the MFC at their expense and the election results give the council a clear mandate to withdraw from any such commitment. I Love democracy."

been a bit of debate on the VFL site re this issue

I don't know how much truth is in the following post...no doubt Casey Scorp will reply

"The ratepayers have spoken or one could say have Shouted. Only two Casey councillors returned to office. The incumbents all are anti MFC deal. The Ratepayers want nothing to do with the MFC at their expense and the election results give the council a clear mandate to withdraw from any such commitment. I Love democracy."

Doesn't the word "committment' speak for itself? If there is an agreement in place maybe the MFC would be happy for the City of Casey to pay damages and compensation for a breach of it.

That wasn't a quote from "Zebraman," and I don't think Zeb is necessarily happy about this.

Having said that, I don't know where the quote is from

That wasn't a quote from "Zebraman," and I don't think Zeb is necessarily happy about this.

Having said that, I don't know where the quote is from

Thanks for that explanation. I have edited my post to reflect it not being a statement from Zebraman.

Apology to Zebraman that I misread the post.

Sorry...I quoted a guy with a nickname of "Coaster"....

I have no beef with either Melbourne or the Casey council....

From reading http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/mediareleases2....asp?Item=13067

The Casey pavilion upgrade will cost $2,100,000

1. Casey Council $1,250,000 (of which $750,000 has already been provided for in the 2008-09 Budget, with the balance of $500,000 to be funded from savings in the delivery of the 2007-08 Capital Works Program

budget)

2. Melbourne Football Club $500,000

3. Sport and Recreation Victoria VFL Program $350,000

And

Cr Halsall said ‘Original negotiations proposed by Melbourne Football Club included the transfer of a Council land asset worth $500,000. However, this has been replaced with an immediate cash injection of $500,000 towards the pavilion extension, ensuring that this Council funding allocation is a further investment into a Council-owned asset. So while Council’s total contribution is still the same, the value of Council’s capitalised assets will be $500,000 greater.’

It seems from reading that press release that Melbourne are actually paying $500 Grand to train out there. I don't really think that is cause for complaints by the locals

hmmmm. Once again it seems we'll help build up a football ground only to never own a part of it

I think Casey is a good move but if our presence there increases the value of the asset, should have some stake in it? Especially if we are contributing $500K.

Were we were originally going to get a parcel of land worth $500K? because now we are paying $500K. That is a one million dollar turnaround. Did I read that correctly?

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628...File/3999-2.pdf

In a related, if slightly off topic bit of news.

Casey is set to get even bigger.

State government announces their investigation into moving the Urban Growth Boundary.

The only thing that the council are saying is that the original proposal called for us to get the deed to $500k worth of real estate. The council has changed that to kicking in an extra $500k to the pavilion upgrade, which we would have previously had to find ourselves. It is a wash.

The only thing that the council are saying is that the original proposal called for us to get the deed to $500k worth of real estate. The council has changed that to kicking in an extra $500k to the pavilion upgrade, which we would have previously had to find ourselves. It is a wash.

Thanks. With that in mind I had to unbold the sentence in my previous post

I asked this question on demonology but didn't get a response, but aren't the funds going into redevelopment of the ground? I didn't think we were getting ANYTHING for this except a roof over our heads and a ground we can train on in the summer. In response we have a heavey community involvement in an effort to gain a foothold in the suburbs.

I was under the impression that we come away with no assets. Therefor, the money that they are talking about is not money to the Melbourne Football Club but to Casey Fields.

I asked this question on demonology but didn't get a response, but aren't the funds going into redevelopment of the ground? I didn't think we were getting ANYTHING for this except a roof over our heads and a ground we can train on in the summer. In response we have a heavey community involvement in an effort to gain a foothold in the suburbs.

I was under the impression that we come away with no assets. Therefor, the money that they are talking about is not money to the Melbourne Football Club but to Casey Fields.

Hi Pates

I saw your question but I don't have the answer, although it may have been a question to all :-)

cheers

I asked this question on demonology but didn't get a response, but aren't the funds going into redevelopment of the ground? I didn't think we were getting ANYTHING for this except a roof over our heads and a ground we can train on in the summer. In response we have a heavey community involvement in an effort to gain a foothold in the suburbs.

I was under the impression that we come away with no assets. Therefor, the money that they are talking about is not money to the Melbourne Football Club but to Casey Fields.

My understanding is that the MFC were offered land as an asset (around $500,000) worth, however because they are in debt they preferred to just have the cash.

That cash is then being put back into Casey Fields for developing the stand.

The end result being that no money is changing hands as the $500,000 is going back into Casey Fields and assuming that a deal is agreed upon then what Melbourne get out of it is upgraded facilities at Casey Fields (instead of the land).

From reading http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/mediareleases2....asp?Item=13067

The Casey pavilion upgrade will cost $2,100,000

1. Casey Council $1,250,000 (of which $750,000 has already been provided for in the 2008-09 Budget, with the balance of $500,000 to be funded from savings in the delivery of the 2007-08 Capital Works Program

budget)

2. Melbourne Football Club $500,000

3. Sport and Recreation Victoria VFL Program $350,000

And

It seems from reading that press release that Melbourne are actually paying $500 Grand to train out there. I don't really think that is cause for complaints by the locals

hmmmm. Once again it seems we'll help build up a football ground only to never own a part of it

I think Casey is a good move but if our presence there increases the value of the asset, should have some stake in it? Especially if we are contributing $500K.

Were we were originally going to get a parcel of land worth $500K? because now we are paying $500K. That is a one million dollar turnaround. Did I read that correctly?

Your funding breakdown is correct, MFC will pay 500k in a join venture with Casey and the VFL/Vic government if approved to upgrade the pavilion so it is an appropriate AFL training facility. The club will receive no asset in return however has been given the option of using the ground for up to 30 years. Obviously I don't have the legal contracts however this was all stated in the notes for the Casey Council meeting I think around August.

This 500k may also be a payment in regards to a lease agreement, however I'm not sure so don't take my word. The agreement seems to have changed since that meeting I attended, however I haven't heard anything about the funding for the proposed works changing. The only changes I am aware of is the changes to the community program which hasn't been disclosed by the club or Casey Council yet.

Thanks for the replies

Just to clarify :-) is it $500K straight from the Dees or is it $500K from Casey to the Dees as a substitute for the land asset which now goes back to Casey/pavilion?

cheers & all info appreciated

$500K from Casey to the Dees as a substitute for the land asset which now goes back to Casey/pavilion?

This one.

It’s all in the 5 August 2008 Council papers.

Until July the pavilion extension was only going to cost $1.6 million, funded by:

$0.75m Council

$0.50m MFC

$0.35m State Government.

Council was to give a $500,000 block of land to MFC.

MFC then asked for the pavilion to be increased in size at a cost of an extra $500,000 to $2.1 million. MFC asked that the $500,000 extra cost be funded by the Council increasing its cash contribution from $750,000 to $1.25 million (instead of giving the club a $500,000 block of land). The Council agreed to do that.

The $2.1 million pavilion extension was to be funded by:

$1.25m Council

$0.50m MFC

$0.35m State Government.

MFC will have access to the facilities for 30 years, during which time the club will deliver a substantial community program.

While the club puts in $500,000 cash, and undertakes the community program, the benefits for the club are substantial:

• “ownership” of a major growth corridor in which to create major community connections and a substantial on-going and sustainable membership base

• a summer training base (“one with goal posts” according to Dean Bailey)

• a winter training venue once/fortnight

• a location for NAB Challenge matches (better to be at Casey Fields than in SA 2 weeks out from Round 1)

• with further development of the site, a location for NAB Cup matches

• a long term VFL partnership based at a shared facility

• guaranteed access to one of the best non-AFL competition grounds in Victoria.

There’s a few things there that MFC hasn’t enjoyed for a few decades (if ever).

It’s the sort of opportunity which might come only a couple of times a century to make a major change in direction. Yes, it might be a one-off $500,000 cost. But its an investment in the long-term future of the club.

Those who doubt whether the club should be investing in a development where it does not receive any equity should think of the cost of not doing it.

been a bit of debate on the VFL site re this issue

I don't know how much truth is in the following post...no doubt Casey Scorp will reply

"The ratepayers have spoken or one could say have Shouted. Only two Casey councillors returned to office. The incumbents all are anti MFC deal. The Ratepayers want nothing to do with the MFC at their expense and the election results give the council a clear mandate to withdraw from any such commitment. I Love democracy."

Any news on the elections and how it could potentially affect the Dees? Assuming you are familiar with the council and councillors of course

I noticed two of the three against the deal lost

Any info appreciated

cheers

From vflfooty.com

Coaster wrote:

The ratepayers have spoken or one could say have Shouted. Only two Casey councillors returned to office. The incumbents all are anti MFC deal. The Ratepayers want nothing to do with the MFC at their expense and the election results give the council a clear mandate to withdraw from any such commitment. I Love democracy.

caseyscorp wrote:

Actually 3 were returned to office - 2 supporters and 1 opponent of MFC.

There were 7 Councillors defeated - 4 supporters and 3 opponents.

So it's pretty much line ball if you are trying to use the election results as determining a mandate.

Doesn't the word "committment' speak for itself? If there is an agreement in place maybe the MFC would be happy for the City of Casey to pay damages and compensation for a breach of it.

There's no agreement signed yet, so there's no commitment. There's offer but no acceptance from MFC it seems. Bit hard to claim damages when you haven't signed an agreement I would have thought!

Thanks casey scorp

Appreciated

Edit Wednesday 3/12 9.25am:

casey scorp: Those who doubt whether the club should be investing in a development where it does not receive any equity should think of the cost of not doing it.

casey scorp I agree with your point but I do have one reservation that is down the track Melbourne FC may well be in the same position from an asset point of view as they are now, have a spiritual home but lose the rights to it. My worry is that in the future they may be out maneuvered by circumstances that don't exist yet and be out in the cold again. It maybe a baseless fear as I hope the community side of the alignment and the hopeful growth in a fan base in the area would prevent it but history is sometimes a roadmap of the future

As far as the cost of not doing it. Fully agreed, I don't think the club can continue as a professional out fit if it doesn't engage in this venture given it's current predicaments with supporter base, training facilities and identity

cheers

My understanding is that with the Rectangular Stadium deal we were/are going to pay $500K per YEAR to be tenants. No assets changing hands.

This may put things in a little perspective.

This is from memory though & I can't be bothered looking it up, so i may be wrong.

It’s all in the 5 August 2008 Council papers.

Until July the pavilion extension was only going to cost $1.6 million, funded by:

$0.75m Council

$0.50m MFC

$0.35m State Government.

Council was to give a $500,000 block of land to MFC.

MFC then asked for the pavilion to be increased in size at a cost of an extra $500,000 to $2.1 million. MFC asked that the $500,000 extra cost be funded by the Council increasing its cash contribution from $750,000 to $1.25 million (instead of giving the club a $500,000 block of land). The Council agreed to do that.

The $2.1 million pavilion extension was to be funded by:

$1.25m Council

$0.50m MFC

$0.35m State Government.

MFC will have access to the facilities for 30 years, during which time the club will deliver a substantial community program.

While the club puts in $500,000 cash, and undertakes the community program, the benefits for the club are substantial:

• “ownership” of a major growth corridor in which to create major community connections and a substantial on-going and sustainable membership base

• a summer training base (“one with goal posts” according to Dean Bailey)

• a winter training venue once/fortnight

• a location for NAB Challenge matches (better to be at Casey Fields than in SA 2 weeks out from Round 1)

• with further development of the site, a location for NAB Cup matches

• a long term VFL partnership based at a shared facility

• guaranteed access to one of the best non-AFL competition grounds in Victoria.

There’s a few things there that MFC hasn’t enjoyed for a few decades (if ever).

It’s the sort of opportunity which might come only a couple of times a century to make a major change in direction. Yes, it might be a one-off $500,000 cost. But its an investment in the long-term future of the club.

Those who doubt whether the club should be investing in a development where it does not receive any equity should think of the cost of not doing it.

Great post Caseyscorp. I don't doubt it at all after thinking of the actual cost to the club if its not done.

I've liked the idea from day 1.

Lets hope moving forward that it is still in the best interests for both parties!

My understanding is that with the Rectangular Stadium deal we were/are going to pay $500K per YEAR to be tenants. No assets changing hands.

This may put things in a little perspective.

This is from memory though & I can't be bothered looking it up, so i may be wrong.

Good point