2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Must say the crowd numbers surprised me as well.

Six o'clock closing was not removed until 1966 and the comp started in 1956. I wonder if they had a special liquor licence that may go someway towards explaining the high attendances.

Perhaps it was the other way round.  I wonder whether six o'clock closing contributed to attendance by giving people something to do after the pubs closed, whether liquor was available at the ground or not.

19 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

May we ask your vintage RN ?

Sorry Kids is referring to the original night series. It was played near the end of the season and was between the teams who didn't make the finals. The games were played at the old Lakeside Oval and due to the lack of strong lighting both on the ground and in the crowd area the event was notorious.

You of course are referring to our magnificent win at Waverley in 1987

Some wonderful history

This article contains some info on what they term the VFL night series...(Looks like we won in 1971 !!... the last year it was played)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VFL_Night_Series

The 1987 series is apparently known as the AFL night series

Thank you for correctly pointing out I was talking about the old night series Diamond, it never occurred to me to differentiate between those goldenish days and the Waverly ones. I have never known an atmosphere like that old series since then. Dad would get my brother and myself into the ground, go off to the pub or greyhounds and meet us at the end of the game. We were very young but never felt the slightest danger.

10 hours ago, praha said:

Every area is "historic" in context, Neil. We allow cars to park every week on this "historic" parkland. I've lived in East Melbourne and have been privy to the community events, meetings and whatnot. These are people that spend weeks debating whether or not an alleyway down a backstreet should be named after a madam that used to own a brothel during WW2. It is a bubble of a suburb where its long-term residence live in delusion that the world surrounds them, rather than them being part of the world. You couldn't find a more isolated and self-important group of people if you tried.

Turning a small part of the park into an oval with a thin layer of metal pole fencing isn't going to "change the historic layout". Nor is a building over railway tracks. If I learned anything while living in the area it's that if we listened to absolutely everything the inner-city champagne socialists spew, we'd likely still be getting around in horse and carriage. 

Yarra Park was placed on the Victorian Heritage registry in 2010 - with special emphasis on the layout and the tree planting - with an emphasis that this should not be altered. As no oval of a size suitable for our training could be provided in the Park without removing historic pathways and trees; and as the proposed 6 storey development proposed over the rail line would effectively block existing views into the park, good luck with trying to get anything approved within the park. I just don’t believe it would happen. 

Hence my thoughts on the area covered by Goshs Paddock Ovals 1 and 2. None of the above restrictions would apply. 

9 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

Yarra Park was placed on the Victorian Heritage registry in 2010 - with special emphasis on the layout and the tree planting - with an emphasis that this should not be altered. As no oval of a size suitable for our training could be provided in the Park without removing historic pathways and trees; and as the proposed 6 storey development proposed over the rail line would effectively block existing views into the park, good luck with trying to get anything approved within the park. I just don’t believe it would happen. 

Hence my thoughts on the area covered by Goshs Paddock Ovals 1 and 2. None of the above restrictions would apply. 

You have my vote NC. You have to wonder why the MFC thought they could over come these problems.

50 minutes ago, old dee said:

You have my vote NC. You have to wonder why the MFC thought they could over come these problems.

maybe they really didn't think they had a chance, od, but by proposing this as their first choice it may have been a ploy to get more favourable support (and money) for their second (and real) choice

1 hour ago, old dee said:

You have my vote NC. You have to wonder why the MFC thought they could over come these problems.

Thanks for articulating one reason I have my doubts about Pert if he is wasting club money and resources on a doomed plan.

On 5/9/2019 at 6:32 PM, Wrecker45 said:

Pert will have us positioned somewhere between Melbourne and Perth.

Dud.

Why does he go on triple m and talk about our game plan? He was removed from Collingwood for having too much involvement with the football department. 

He should be getting us the football facilities we need as CEO. Needs to learn his position.

We will never ever win a Flag with Pert at the Helm, Bookmark it!! Come to think of it it won't matter who is at the Helm.. after 55 years , Im not sure another 55 will make much difference!!

1 hour ago, Sorry kids said:

Thanks for articulating one reason I have my doubts about Pert if he is wasting club money and resources on a doomed plan.

but this supposed preference for yarra park occurred before pert came on board

the board probably initially gave him instructions to explore it further. if so, he has been rather quiet about it since, which could mean it has gone cold. we haven't had a statement from the club on this issue for some time, so we are just guessing

14 hours ago, Sorry kids said:

My memory is of winning a night flag at the old Sth Melbourne ground. Late 60s, early 70s, I could be wrong after all these years though. Anyone else remember.

I remember lying in bed excitedly listening to that game on my crystal radio set (true story), alligator clip attached to my cold metal hospital style bedhead as an aerial. The good old days.

Never quite understood how those things worked. No batteries?

30 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

but this supposed preference for yarra park occurred before pert came on board

the board probably initially gave him instructions to explore it further. if so, he has been rather quiet about it since, which could mean it has gone cold. we haven't had a statement from the club on this issue for some time, so we are just guessing

I understand it was initially explored before he came on board. You say we are just guessing, that is true. and do you think that is a situation Members and supporters should be in after he has had enough time to cast his eye over it and meet with stakeholders. As Redleg said their are obstacles to the plan that make it extremely unlikely to be an option.

37 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

I remember lying in bed excitedly listening to that game on my crystal radio set (true story), alligator clip attached to my cold metal hospital style bedhead as an aerial. The good old days.

Never quite understood how those things worked. No batteries?

It runs off the power of the radio signal itself. How loud it is in your ear depends on how much signal you can "collect" with the antenna. Using a big chunk of metal (like your bedhead) collects more signal, so, the radio works better.

If you're driving in a multi-storey car park, you will find that your car AM radio works best if you are under some big water pipes. They act as giant antennas. If you could clip your crystal radio to one, you would get awesome reception.

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

maybe they really didn't think they had a chance, od, but by proposing this as their first choice it may have been a ploy to get more favourable support (and money) for their second (and real) choice

Or maybe they were just trying to avoid questions at the then AGM dc.

there may be a plan b however on past form you would be excused for thinking the Yarra park plan had a far bit of mushroom factory involved.

1 hour ago, Sorry kids said:

I understand it was initially explored before he came on board. You say we are just guessing, that is true. and do you think that is a situation Members and supporters should be in after he has had enough time to cast his eye over it and meet with stakeholders. As Redleg said their are obstacles to the plan that make it extremely unlikely to be an option.

anything he does (or doesn't do) on this project would have to go through the board. it may be his project to pickup but it's not his baby. your (our) issue with lack of public clarity is more likely a board issue than a pert issue. let's hope we hear an update before too long, but i wouldn't be burying anyone in particular yet.

8 hours ago, daisycutter said:

anything he does (or doesn't do) on this project would have to go through the board. it may be his project to pickup but it's not his baby. your (our) issue with lack of public clarity is more likely a board issue than a pert issue. let's hope we hear an update before too long, but i wouldn't be burying anyone in particular yet.

Well then, and I do not mean to be argumentative but either Pert thinks the project is a goer to keep pursuing or he does not have the ability to persuade the Board to drop it. Every day lost continues the embarrassment of Goschs paddock and lost opportunity. 

1 hour ago, Sorry kids said:

Well then, and I do not mean to be argumentative but either Pert thinks the project is a goer to keep pursuing or he does not have the ability to persuade the Board to drop it. Every day lost continues the embarrassment of Goschs paddock and lost opportunity. 

well that's just an assumption. there may be a lot of work going on in the background and good reasons for not making premature  public statements. just because we don't know is no reason to assume the worst, let alone start throwing blame around. if you are so concerned you could always mail the club and ask for some illumination. 

ill throw you one from left field, that probably has little to no chance of getting up, but why not...we are spit balling after all...

What about the Brunswick Street Oval. It has plenty of parkland around it. It can serve the community and it is loated in Melbourne's first suburb. It is as close to the city as one could ask for. There would be some obvious problems around parking, but there is space. It could be a great resurrection of a traditional VFL ground though. It has potential. 

Here is the satellite image. https://www.google.com/maps/search/brunswick+street+oval/@-37.7888106,144.9804102,275m/data=!3m1!1e3

The current dimensions are odd, but could be improved. Given the popularity of Fitzroy as an inner city hub, it could well be worth exploring. You'd need to leave the original pavillion, but there is space next to the tennis club and adjacent to the bowls club. The obvious issue would be parking and getting the lefties that live in the area to approve it.  

33 minutes ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

ill throw you one from left field, that probably has little to no chance of getting up, but why not...we are spit balling after all...

What about the Brunswick Street Oval. It has plenty of parkland around it. It can serve the community and it is loated in Melbourne's first suburb. It is as close to the city as one could ask for. There would be some obvious problems around parking, but there is space. It could be a great resurrection of a traditional VFL ground though. It has potential. 

Here is the satellite image. https://www.google.com/maps/search/brunswick+street+oval/@-37.7888106,144.9804102,275m/data=!3m1!1e3

The current dimensions are odd, but could be improved. Given the popularity of Fitzroy as an inner city hub, it could well be worth exploring. You'd need to leave the original pavillion, but there is space next to the tennis club and adjacent to the bowls club. The obvious issue would be parking and getting the lefties that live in the area to approve it.  

If you think the East Melbourne residents are NIMBY's wait until you meet the gentry of North Fitzroy

Edited May 23, 20196 yr by Diamond_Jim

28 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

If you think the East Melbourne residents are NIMBY's wait until you meet the gentry of North Fitzroy

I grew up there. So i am well in the know. 

Edited May 24, 20196 yr by Leoncelli_36

48 minutes ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

I grew up there. So i am well in the know. 

Possibly a slight change in demographic since then L36!

19 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Possibly a slight change in demographic since then L36!

i lived there from 1996-2002, I don't know that it is much different. I accept your point though. Some of the development within the area has not exactly been in keeping with traditions of the North Fitzroy. Have a look at the apartment block arounf Jamieson and Freeman street 

2 hours ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

i lived there from 1996-2002, I don't know that it is much different. I accept your point though. Some of the development within the area has not exactly been in keeping with traditions of the North Fitzroy. Have a look at the apartment block arounf Jamieson and Freeman street 

I actually enjoy my rare visits there L36 although i doubt I'll be checking that block out anytime soon.  I'm assuming you are suggesting some sort of mad fully glassed minimalist looking sky scraper that can be seen from 20kms in any general direction.

2 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

I actually enjoy my rare visits there L36 although i doubt I'll be checking that block out anytime soon.  I'm assuming you are suggesting some sort of mad fully glassed minimalist looking sky scraper that can be seen from 20kms in any general direction.

hahaha. I think it is only three stories. It edges the gardens and the oval. It is very minimalist and not in keeping with Victorian feel of the neighbourhood. I was surprised it was approved, but then again, there are large blocks going up all over Collingwood, Fitzroy and surrounding areas now. Anything is possible under the City of Yarra...even a room to use illegal drugs freely. 

To me it seems the MFC has set themselves a very difficult objective i.e. To get a training ground close to the MCG.

Once you set that as the major objective you are at the least making it difficult and at the most impossible.

i am just like everyone else right now a mushroom!

who knows the club might spring a Hugh surprise on us all and achieve that objective.

It is extremely disappointing that the club that started the game has after half a century no home, we are the only team in the AFL in this position.

Surprise me soon Mr Pert or for god sake let's move to the surburbs and give our team the best chance of success. 

Edited May 24, 20196 yr by old dee

6 hours ago, daisycutter said:

well that's just an assumption. there may be a lot of work going on in the background and good reasons for not making premature  public statements. just because we don't know is no reason to assume the worst, let alone start throwing blame around. if you are so concerned you could always mail the club and ask for some illumination. 

I have never had any satisfactory communication from the Club in any previous correspondence in matters of significance. Frankly I am surprised anyone would be defending the Clubs in  finding a respectable, modern training facility. After the best part of 50 years I am not being unreasonable in being skeptical. In particular what are Perts qualifications to put together and pull off a proposal of such significance.   

5 minutes ago, Sorry kids said:

I have never had any satisfactory communication from the Club in any previous correspondence in matters of significance. Frankly I am surprised anyone would be defending the Clubs in  finding a respectable, modern training facility. After the best part of 50 years I am not being unreasonable in being skeptical. In particular what are Perts qualifications to put together and pull off a proposal of such significance.   

How about him being in the middle of the Pies move to Olympic park?

That seems a pretty good qualification to me.