8 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Ok. I am suprised by that, but you are more connected than I

I am sure Scopus prefer the relocation to a different area…

No, we do.

7 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

from the horse's mouth if not from the mouth of the mrc chairman?

john kanga would seem to be a serious thorn in the mfc's side

He seems to be publicly against it, but he is not the person or part of the authorities in charge of the precinct.

7 hours ago, Redleg said:

He seems to be publicly against it, but he is not the person or part of the authorities in charge of the precinct.

What chance do give us?

2 hours ago, Roost it far said:

What chance do give us?

I believe it will happen and am actually happy about the pivot on the site, as I wrote before and have always believed, it is a far better site, giving us a bigger area, with better access, on a corner position, not hemmed in, in an internal sliver of land.

It borders the track, with easy access to the inner area, where ovals etc would be situated.

It also allows any buildings to be built further from the racecourse grandstand and more out of view from them, obviously on the other side of the track and of course, not interfering with the view of the racetrack.

It also allows avoiding shadowing, as it would be on the south side of the racecourse.

I don’t think money will be the issue, as we have a decent percentage already committed and the AFL owes us and there will be some Government contribution at some stage, as Caulfield is still an area a Government would want to have, both State and Federally and there is going to be community benefit as part of the project.

12 hours ago, Superunknown said:

Ex bayside resident here, now northern rivers

Dog owner, runner, cyclist , golfer

The notion you retain elsternwick for dog walkers is beyond me

Same for Caulfield (noting the I think comments by mt scopus head)

Like, seriously

We’ve anthropicised dogs far too much

What I mean by that is the idea you don’t develop a sporting club / fields Because Dog Walking is crazy

So is razing bayside golf clubs for housing (how about just cutting immigration to the pre Howard long term average of 90k pa?!)

With the space they have at Caulfield they could have a god damn petting zoo if they wanted.

13 hours ago, Adam The God said:

The only reason Barlow would have a seat at the table is if he was willing to put his hand in his pocket big time...

Last I checked his family net worth was $1.95b.... he could fund the whole thing and still have a small amount of $1.85b leftover

23 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I believe it will happen and am actually happy about the pivot on the site, as I wrote before and have always believed, it is a far better site, giving us a bigger area, with better access, on a corner position, not hemmed in, in an internal sliver of land.

It borders the track, with easy access to the inner area, where ovals etc would be situated.

It also allows any buildings to be built further from the racecourse grandstand and more out of view from them, obviously on the other side of the track and of course, not interfering with the view of the racetrack.

It also allows avoiding shadowing, as it would be on the south side of the racecourse.

I don’t think money will be the issue, as we have a decent percentage already committed and the AFL owes us and there will be some Government contribution at some stage, as Caulfield is still an area a Government would want to have, both State and Federally and there is going to be community benefit as part of the project.

Good to hear, I’m not concerned about the money either, wouldn’t surprise if the umpires joined us as well. Really hope we get this up, such a great site.

6 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Good to hear, I’m not concerned about the money either, wouldn’t surprise if the umpires joined us as well. Really hope we get this up, such a great site.

i reckon the maggots will end up at waverley

8 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

Last I checked his family net worth was $1.95b.... he could fund the whole thing and still have a small amount of $1.85b leftover

We can call it the 7/11 Centre

30 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I believe it will happen and am actually happy about the pivot on the site, as I wrote before and have always believed, it is a far better site, giving us a bigger area, with better access, on a corner position, not hemmed in, in an internal sliver of land.

It borders the track, with easy access to the inner area, where ovals etc would be situated.

It also allows any buildings to be built further from the racecourse grandstand and more out of view from them, obviously on the other side of the track and of course, not interfering with the view of the racetrack.

It also allows avoiding shadowing, as it would be on the south side of the racecourse.

I don’t think money will be the issue, as we have a decent percentage already committed and the AFL owes us and there will be some Government contribution at some stage, as Caulfield is still an area a Government would want to have, both State and Federally and there is going to be community benefit as part of the project.

Thanks Redleg. So much negativity is floating around on this site that its good to hear an informed and positive take. Next to winning a flag I dont think theres anything Ive wanted more as a dee supporter since we left the MCG.

Just now, KozzyCan said:

We can call it the 7/11 Centre

I'm all for it if it helps get the place funded!

We can have a 7-eleven setup right out front.

1 minute ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

I'm all for it if it helps get the place funded!

We can have a 7-eleven setup right out front.

Surely we can get some dodgy Slurpee sponsorships for the players we're keen on trading in.

6 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

Surely we can get some dodgy Slurpee sponsorships for the players we're keen on trading in.

I can see the newspaper headlines now...

Doping scandal! Dees players hopped up on sugar from under the table 7/11 deal!

Melbourne's season on ice after Slurpee-gate

Edited June 19, 2025Jun 19 by DeelightfulPlay

45 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I believe it will happen and am actually happy about the pivot on the site, as I wrote before and have always believed, it is a far better site, giving us a bigger area, with better access, on a corner position, not hemmed in, in an internal sliver of land.

It borders the track, with easy access to the inner area, where ovals etc would be situated.

It also allows any buildings to be built further from the racecourse grandstand and more out of view from them, obviously on the other side of the track and of course, not interfering with the view of the racetrack.

It also allows avoiding shadowing, as it would be on the south side of the racecourse.

I don’t think money will be the issue, as we have a decent percentage already committed and the AFL owes us and there will be some Government contribution at some stage, as Caulfield is still an area a Government would want to have, both State and Federally and there is going to be community benefit as part of the project.

Couldn't agree more on the new site.

The south-eastern corner makes a lot of sense and would have more scope for development. As the son of an architect I had shadowing concepts drummed into me all my life. Sun positioning, time of year, angle of casting relative to building height etc. Almost couldn't get away from these conversations but thankfully it's given me some knowledge and this site would be much less invasive at all times of the year in terms of shadowing as opposed to the south-western corner.

The access is a big part of it too considering this will be one of the most commonly used features. Really hope we get some traction on this.

So hard for our club to secure a home and the only club in the AFL to not have one! I hope they are looking at alternative sites as Port Melbourne vfl ground is so ripe for development along with the whole fisherman bend redevelopment will see an extra 20k of people, the council have also acquired land next door for open parkland etc

2 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

We can call it the 7/11 Centre

Thought you were channeling our kicking there for a moment..

Prefer 11/7 😉

20 minutes ago, Demonsone said:

So hard for our club to secure a home and the only club in the AFL to not have one! I hope they are looking at alternative sites as Port Melbourne vfl ground is so ripe for development along with the whole fisherman bend redevelopment will see an extra 20k of people, the council have also acquired land next door for open parkland etc

To all who suggest P.M.

Ever tried to get to that place.. ??

2 hours ago, Wells 11 said:

Thanks Redleg. So much negativity is floating around on this site that its good to hear an informed and positive take. Next to winning a flag I dont think theres anything Ive wanted more as a dee supporter since we left the MCG.

Agree 100%.

If the South-Eastern corner of the Caulfield Racecourse has more space for development then that's a good thing. We definitely need to have room for a Melbourne Football Club museum to attract supporters. I think Carlton has a museum at Princes Park (Ikon Park) don't they?

As harsh as it sounds, this will be CEO David Guerra's, and the Melbourne Football Club Board's, number 1# priority (besides winning Premierships) in getting the Home Base built at the Caulfield Racecourse. If they cannot do this then they all should be sacked.

16 hours ago, Superunknown said:

......So is razing bayside golf clubs for housing (how about just cutting immigration to the pre Howard long term average of 90k pa?!)

Under Howard the Net Overseas Migration (NOM) was higher then, under Howard and his immigration Minister, Phillip Ruddock, was higher than it is now in real terms. Overseas property investment largely caused the housing crisis.

25 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

To all who suggest P.M.

Ever tried to get to that place.. ??

Im trying to stay out of this debate as I am happy for Caulfield to play out.

But its also why Im more attuned to Fishermans Bend than Port Melbourne.

FB is a greenfield site with redundant building and space which all governments have slated for a huge population centre. Access is acknowledged as appalling. A destination Stadium for retail, accommodation, entertainment, corporate, functions, which would service that population, plus a training administration complex for a high profile AFL club would demand improved access infrastructure and perversely would encourage it being improved .

22 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

from the horse's mouth if not from the mouth of the mrc chairman?

john kanga would seem to be a serious thorn in the mfc's side

14 hours ago, Redleg said:

He seems to be publicly against it, but he is not the person or part of the authorities in charge of the precinct.

Nobody likes the sound of Kanga voice more than himself.

He is chairman of a tenant within the Caulfield trust as will MFC. He doesn't control the land.

It kind of begs the question. If the 'new' location is possibly better than the other, why wasn't it looked at in the first instance ? 🤔🤷‍♂️

Anyway. Will be interested to see how take 2 progresses.

Edited June 20, 2025Jun 20 by beelzebub

It also begs the question, when is a CEO not a CEO.

The club hired a guy and has since banned him from participating In involvement in our greatest ever venture, because he's flat chat organising a luncheon in October for his previous employer.

The guy that was the CEO but retired, and was rehired has now been sacked, but may be rehired again if we need his expertise.

The man that applied for the job, but was knocked back, is now doing such a magnificent job is now the acting CEO until the banned guy has finished sorting out the menu for his luncheon come October.

This has again pushed the business case back and everybody is expected to believe it, because luckily we are now able to change oval locations, and technical drawings to a better position, that we overlooked in the first place.

If this tale doesn't sound crazy then nothing will.

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

It kind of begs the question. If the 'new' location is possibly better than the other, why wasn't it looked at in the first instance ? 🤔🤷‍♂️

Anyway. Will be interested to see how take 2 progresses.

Perhaps it wasn't available at the time but things changed?