3 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

The Club has officially dumped the Yarra Park plan. Pert said this in a pre game interview on radio. Still wants to create the base in the inner city sports precinct. 

My bet is we stay at an upgraded Goschs Paddock and build nearby for gym, FD and admin centre.

Hello to those who argued that it was a goer. 

The desire to be inner city speaks to a particular audience that does not address the current reality. I would need to look closer at our history  but what does the Melbourne in MFC stand for , the CBD area, the greater Melbourne area. or a particular type of City gentleman. Or was it just a clever name at inception. The reality was virtually no one lived in the CBD at inception and immediately out of the CBD we were surrounded by Sth Melbourne, Nth Melbourne, Carlton, Fitzroy, Collingwood and Richmond respectively. Hawthorn prospered moving to Waverly and will benefit again by moving to Keysborough. I think anything that does not massively incorporate community interests is bound to never live up to expectations and that is tremendously difficult to achieve when inner city land is so tight held and affords very limited community facilities.

8 minutes ago, Sorry kids said:

The desire to be inner city speaks to a particular audience that does not address the current reality. I would need to look closer at our history  but what does the Melbourne in MFC stand for , the CBD area, the greater Melbourne area. or a particular type of City gentleman. Or was it just a clever name at inception. The reality was virtually no one lived in the CBD at inception and immediately out of the CBD we were surrounded by Sth Melbourne, Nth Melbourne, Carlton, Fitzroy, Collingwood and Richmond respectively. Hawthorn prospered moving to Waverly and will benefit again by moving to Keysborough. I think anything that does not massively incorporate community interests is bound to never live up to expectations and that is tremendously difficult to achieve when inner city land is so tight held and affords very limited community facilities.

some would argue the mfc suburban territory is the cbd, east melbourne, jolimont, plus maybe toorak, south yarra, kooyong and prahran (or even just the land roughly bordered by the yarra, se freeway, st.kilda rd and dandenong rd) 

agree it's difficult to define

Edited June 23, 20196 yr by daisycutter

3 minutes ago, Sorry kids said:

The desire to be inner city speaks to a particular audience that does not address the current reality. I would need to look closer at our history  but what does the Melbourne in MFC stand for , the CBD area, the greater Melbourne area. or a particular type of City gentleman. Or was it just a clever name at inception. The reality was virtually no one lived in the CBD at inception and immediately out of the CBD we were surrounded by Sth Melbourne, Nth Melbourne, Carlton, Fitzroy, Collingwood and Richmond respectively. Hawthorn prospered moving to Waverly and will benefit again by moving to Keysborough. I think anything that does not massively incorporate community interests is bound to never live up to expectations and that is tremendously difficult to achieve when inner city land is so tight held and affords very limited community facilities.

In 1851, just before the formation of the MFC, the population of The City of Melbourne (which included parts of Fitzroy but not Richmond or Collingwood or other inner 'towns') was 23,000.

Here's a photo of Bourke St in 1858, the year we were founded:

on what medium did pert say that the yarra park plan - which was not under his stewardship either, fwiw - was doa?

i only heard him on sen and they didn't talk about it at all

it was mostly about the coaching changes (on which he was very strong, despite king reckoning we've treated mccartney like crap) and the gambling issues currently all the rage

11 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

on what medium did pert say that the yarra park plan - which was not under his stewardship either, fwiw - was doa?

i only heard him on sen and they didn't talk about it at all

it was mostly about the coaching changes (on which he was very strong, despite king reckoning we've treated mccartney like crap) and the gambling issues currently all the rage

Today's The Age

Edited June 23, 20196 yr by Moonshadow

17 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

In 1851, just before the formation of the MFC, the population of The City of Melbourne (which included parts of Fitzroy but not Richmond or Collingwood or other inner 'towns') was 23,000.

Here's a photo of Bourke St in 1858, the year we were founded:

 

1 minute ago, Sorry kids said:

 

Thanks Moonshadow, but probably not many of "our sort of chap"

1 hour ago, mauriesy said:

It was a silly idea and was never going to be approved. Too much loss of parkland, and too much local opposition.

Not entirely sure that loss of parkland was that great, but it was a solution that was sure to draw some intense opposition because it sounds like it would take up a lot of area. Trees being relocated is a common occurrence there and the footprint was never going to be that great. It’s more a case of people being opposed to change in general (because they’d prefer it to be a Saturday carpark/mudbath?)

On 5/9/2019 at 2:32 PM, old dee said:

So where rjay?

I think the most common sense one is the head quarters by the Yarra adjacent to the current training ground. It would have to though included everything: admin, coaching, gym and recovery, player facilities, and club facilities for members. This means a bloody big garage underneath.

l can’t see any other way. 

ld be more than happy to congregate after the game in the members bar overlooking the Yarra.

Really can’t see why this can’t be done. It is also an area in melbourne where local residences are minimal, although the few people who live in Cremorne I’m sure wouldnt agree. Perhaps we should invite them all to be members!!

4 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

I think the most common sense one is the head quarters by the Yarra adjacent to the current training ground. It would have to though included everything: admin, coaching, gym and recovery, player facilities, and club facilities for members. This means a bloody big garage underneath.

l can’t see any other way. 

ld be more than happy to congregate after the game in the members bar overlooking the Yarra.

Really can’t see why this can’t be done. It is also an area in melbourne where local residences are minimal, although the few people who live in Cremorne I’m sure wouldnt agree. Perhaps we should invite them all to be members!!

I think this is the only real option we’ll be left with in the end, and I’ve havent heard of any realistic alternatives.

I’ve noticed the area under the overpass just before the bridge is currently a fenced off area storage area for heavy machinery and temp fence, etc. Not sure what works it is in relation to.

A difficult and expensive build next to the Yarra with a deep basement required, although a riverside bar does appeal. Yarra council are a bloody nightmare to deal with, trade waste and waterproofing costs will go through the roof. Could be a very expensive money pit, but we’re running out of options.

Sending Collingwood back to Vic Park would be the best in my opinion, but it’s dependent on them and we could be waiting a while.

1 minute ago, Mach5 said:

I think this is the only real option we’ll be left with in the end, and I’ve havent heard of any realistic alternatives.

I’ve noticed the area under the overpass just before the bridge is currently a fenced off area storage area for heavy machinery and temp fence, etc. Not sure what works it is in relation to.

A difficult and expensive build next to the Yarra with a deep basement required, although a riverside bar does appeal. Yarra council are a bloody nightmare to deal with, trade waste and waterproofing costs will go through the roof. Could be a very expensive money pit, but we’re running out of options.

Sending Collingwood back to Vic Park would be the best in my opinion, but it’s dependent on them and we could be waiting a while.

I agree M5. Unfortunately l can’t see the Pies buying it, inspite of their “ancestral home” [censored]. Eddie is not that silly, although he does sometime have Trump tendencies!

3 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I knew I shouldn't have opened this thread.  Just so depressing to be homeless.

Back to the drawing board.

I agree LH. I am just staggered the way those on here are prepared to be pushed around by the powers that be. The Dogs, Pies, Roos, Tigers, Saints got world class clubs facilities, mostly paid by the public dollar, because they knew how to play the public game: ie to access the government dollar. Having been in this field for most of my adult life, l am staggered by how naive the MFC have been in this area. 

Our fate is Casey, away from our rightful heritage, unless we become very much more ruthless. State Government are always ripe for the picking by AFL clubs - it is simply we are yet to realise it, unlike most of the Melbourne competition.

ruthless we are not!

There are better ways for us....

10 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

I agree LH. I am just staggered the way those on here are prepared to be pushed around by the powers that be. The Dogs, Pies, Roos, Tigers, Saints got world class clubs facilities, mostly paid by the public dollar, because they knew how to play the public game: ie to access the government dollar. Having been in this field for most of my adult life, l am staggered by how naive the MFC have been in this area. 

Our fate is Casey, away from our rightful heritage, unless we become very much more ruthless. State Government are always ripe for the picking by AFL clubs - it is simply we are yet to realise it, unlike most of the Melbourne competition.

ruthless we are not!

There are better ways for us....

 

I don’t think it’s got anything to do with a lack of being ruthless or a lack of trying; it’s the fact these other clubs didn’t grow out the MCG so have their own existing grounds to develop.

Bulldogs have Whitten Oval, Richmond have Punt Rd, Carlton, Hawthorn, Geelong, etc... Even StKilda have Moorabbin, although they detoured to Seaford for a while.

We’re looking at a completely Greenfields acquisition in an area where land comes at a premium. It’s simply not that easy and it’s something no other club has had to face in recent times.

Collingwood came to the MOPT precinct but at a time where we were a basket case (although should have been doing the same) and Eddie had placed himself in positions of influence to take advantage of the opportunity (Vic Aths, etc).

1 hour ago, Sorry kids said:

The desire to be inner city speaks to a particular audience that does not address the current reality. I would need to look closer at our history  but what does the Melbourne in MFC stand for , the CBD area, the greater Melbourne area. or a particular type of City gentleman. Or was it just a clever name at inception. The reality was virtually no one lived in the CBD at inception and immediately out of the CBD we were surrounded by Sth Melbourne, Nth Melbourne, Carlton, Fitzroy, Collingwood and Richmond respectively. Hawthorn prospered moving to Waverly and will benefit again by moving to Keysborough. I think anything that does not massively incorporate community interests is bound to never live up to expectations and that is tremendously difficult to achieve when inner city land is so tight held and affords very limited community facilities.

The MFC was formed as part of the Melbourne Cricket Club, who were based at The MCG. 

The MCG is our “Suburb” which is why i will always hope we build a Home near the ground. 

That doesn’t stop us traveling, but “Home” shall always be The MCG

7 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

 

I don’t think it’s got anything to do with a lack of being ruthless or a lack of trying; it’s the fact these other clubs didn’t grow out the MCG so have their own existing grounds to develop.

Bulldogs have Whitten Oval, Richmond have Punt Rd, Carlton, Hawthorn, Geelong, etc... Even StKilda have Moorabbin, although they detoured to Seaford for a while.

We’re looking at a completely Greenfields acquisition in an area where land comes at a premium. It’s simply not that easy and it’s something no other club has had to face in recent times.

Collingwood came to the MOPT precinct but at a time where we were a basket case (although should have been doing the same) and Eddie had placed himself in positions of influence to take advantage of the opportunity (Vic Aths, etc).

My point entirely. Eddie had the ear of the Labor Government (this is not a party political issue by the way) and was ruthless about its conclusion. We could have been. The political naivety knows no bounds!

Edited June 23, 20196 yr by Dees2014

35 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

My point entirely. Eddie had the ear of the Labor Government (this is not a party political issue by the way) and was ruthless about its conclusion. We could have been. The political naivety knows no bounds!

The Andrews govt didn’t help us much here.

 

Edited June 23, 20196 yr by Mach5

1 hour ago, Mach5 said:

A difficult and expensive build next to the Yarra with a deep basement required, although a riverside bar does appeal.

Basement near the Yarra..... bring a very deep cheque book... it is deep silt that has almost no bedrock around there.

If we must stay in town what about sharing with Port Melbourne... may help the socio economic case that one needs to build assuming there is some available land.

Out at Coburg today and they are busy re-developing...

"In 2018, following the efforts of the Coburg Football Club, the State Government of Victoria along with the City of Moreland announced a joint $6million investment into the redevelopment of the oval's grandstand and changerooms, set to commence in 2020 with further funding to be announced by both the Australian Football League and Cricket Australia. Once completed, the venue will once again be a modern and Female friendly football and cricket facility. "

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

I am now firmly in favour of Casey as it it can realistically deliver within three to five years all our needs. We have just wasted over two years on the pie in the sky Yarra Park plan unless it was a very sophisticated and cunning ambit claim.

4 hours ago, Dees2014 said:

I think the most common sense one is the head quarters by the Yarra adjacent to the current training ground. It would have to though included everything: admin, coaching, gym and recovery, player facilities, and club facilities for members. This means a bloody big garage underneath.

l can’t see any other way. 

ld be more than happy to congregate after the game in the members bar overlooking the Yarra.

Really can’t see why this can’t be done. It is also an area in melbourne where local residences are minimal, although the few people who live in Cremorne I’m sure wouldnt agree. Perhaps we should invite them all to be members!!

I think we should be thinking about working out something where we get the majority of our facilities tied in with the redevelopment of the great southern stand: https://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=649

Then we just need to figure out training ovals, is it possible we could get 1 session per fortnight on the MCG and the rest at Goshes?

 

3 hours ago, Mach5 said:

 

I don’t think it’s got anything to do with a lack of being ruthless or a lack of trying; it’s the fact these other clubs didn’t grow out the MCG so have their own existing grounds to develop.

Bulldogs have Whitten Oval, Richmond have Punt Rd, Carlton, Hawthorn, Geelong, etc... Even StKilda have Moorabbin, although they detoured to Seaford for a while.

We’re looking at a completely Greenfields acquisition in an area where land comes at a premium. It’s simply not that easy and it’s something no other club has had to face in recent times.

Collingwood came to the MOPT precinct but at a time where we were a basket case (although should have been doing the same) and Eddie had placed himself in positions of influence to take advantage of the opportunity (Vic Aths, etc).

Plus we had first dibs and turned it down!

7 minutes ago, —coach— said:

Plus we had first dibs and turned it down!

As I said, we were a basket case!

Do you recall who was in charge at that time?

1 hour ago, Mach5 said:

As I said, we were a basket case!

Do you recall who was in charge at that time?

Gutnick turned it down

6 hours ago, Mach5 said:

Not entirely sure that loss of parkland was that great, but it was a solution that was sure to draw some intense opposition because it sounds like it would take up a lot of area. Trees being relocated is a common occurrence there and the footprint was never going to be that great. It’s more a case of people being opposed to change in general (because they’d prefer it to be a Saturday carpark/mudbath?)

Why would we add the expense of moving trees, chop them down, put them in a big pile and burn them. 

Just to throw a random idea out there, but what about the MCC Kew site? It's struggled to survive even after the MCC took it over and invested heavily into it. Very much heartland as far as MFC goes too. Not 100% sure if the land size would cut it, but could be ways around that I guess.

 

 

R.I.P.  CBD or inner CBD options.  What a waste of time and resources that was.