16 hours ago, Dannyz said:

Particularly after the club were happy to take supporter $$ to get Gosch’s extended to MCG sized. If I recall correctly, Peter Lawrence put up ~$100k.

Also moving to Waverley would add extra costs and I am concerned the AFL could somehow use it to keep us there.

3 minutes ago, Harvey Wallbanger said:

Very interesting - that's exactly where we want to be - south-east corner. Closer to Glenhuntly station than Caulfield.

On reflection, we would be closer to the Neerim/Queens Road intersection - which is classified as Park area. Makes sense as we would be leasing from the CRRT.

We would not be in that "generally non-residential land use"area, so this zoning would not be directly relevant to us.....

6 hours ago, picket fence said:

You are missing the piont it is a public not private facility! Whats to stop someone walking fido during training??

You mean walking the dog on an oval, being used in a training session by approximately 40 fit footballers, kicking footballs and running everywhere.

Yes I see that happening often.

21 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Isn't that where Glen Eira College and Glenhuntly Park Footy ground currently is?

You are right! My bad. Maybe there is little information value in today's announcement.

45 minutes ago, Redleg said:

You mean walking the dog on an oval, being used in a training session by approximately 40 fit footballers, kicking footballs and running everywhere.

Yes I see that happening often.

Piont is it is a PUBLIC PARK, Anyone can use it at any time, there are zero tenets of use or ownership

From my understanding the area highlighted in yellow is where we want to build our facility. Is that correct?

Just a guess but are we being smart in that we're offering to immediately vacate the MCG precinct, spend a few years in the Waverley wilderness in return for a heavy commitment of State Government money to an agreed fast track development at Caulfield.

Now that might be something we could be interested in.

Of course MFCSS tells me we're not that smart.

50 minutes ago, Blind_turn said:

You are right! My bad. Maybe there is little information value in today's announcement.

They could have meant the spot that @DistrACTION Jackson has highlighted. It is currently stables that are likely to be redeveloped.

5 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

From my understanding the area highlighted in yellow is where we want to build our facility. Is that correct?

I have heard this too. I believe the sticking point will be access to the track. I have heard we want to build a tunnel under the track. The Track/Racing authority do not want that due to the time it will take putting the track out of commission. They expect the club to ferry players by golf carts or bus all the way from the facility to a tunnel further away. Not very convenient if a player needs a leak or treatment.

3 minutes ago, Demonland said:

They could have meant the spot that @DistrACTION Jackson has highlighted. It is currently stables that are likely to be redeveloped.

I have heard this too. I believe the sticking point will be access to the track. I have heard we want to build a tunnel under the track. The Track/Racing authority do not want that due to the time it will take putting the track out of commission. They expect the club to ferry players by golf carts or bus all the way from the facility to a tunnel further away. Not very convenient if a player needs a leak or treatment.

I know a man who can help us out in the interim....

8 hours ago, picket fence said:

You are missing the piont it is a public not private facility! Whats to stop someone walking fido during training??

36 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Piont is it is a PUBLIC PARK, Anyone can use it at any time, there are zero tenets of use or ownership

Public oval. You mean like what Collingwood use. Anyone can use the oval or the running track around it.

9 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Piont is it is a PUBLIC PARK, Anyone can use it at any time, there are zero tenets of use or ownership

Ever played a cricket game on the wattle park oval, mr fence?

48 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Piont is it is a PUBLIC PARK, Anyone can use it at any time, there are zero tenets of use or ownership

Sorry Picket, are you talking about Caulfield or Goschs or Waverley?

if it’s Caulfield, the Trust will lease use of the ovals area to the MFC, for their use, with the ability potentially for other community use, when not needed by the MFC.

The buildings area would be leased I would imagine, to the MFC, for its exclusive use for a very, very long term.

40 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

From my understanding the area highlighted in yellow is where we want to build our facility. Is that correct?

Yes.

31 minutes ago, Demonland said:

They could have meant the spot that @DistrACTION Jackson has highlighted. It is currently stables that are likely to be redeveloped.

I have heard this too. I believe the sticking point will be access to the track. I have heard we want to build a tunnel under the track. The Track/Racing authority do not want that due to the time it will take putting the track out of commission. They expect the club to ferry players by golf carts or bus all the way from the facility to a tunnel further away. Not very convenient if a player needs a leak or treatment.

Berlzebub has posted that this tunnel could be done in a few weeks.

Then done at a time when there are no Caulfield race meetings.

3 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Berlzebub has posted that this tunnel could be done in a few weeks.

Then done at a time when there are no Caulfield race meetings.

only if ... the cfmeu is not contracted

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Just a guess but are we being smart in that we're offering to immediately vacate the MCG precinct, spend a few years in the Waverley wilderness in return for a heavy commitment of State Government money to an agreed fast track development at Caulfield.

Now that might be something we could be interested in.

Of course MFCSS tells me we're not that smart.

This thought has crossed my mind too. Otherwise the move to Waverley just seems to make no sense. Im sure we’re not that dull…Steven Smith is a smart cookie for one. I hope you’re right.

10 hours ago, picket fence said:

You are missing the piont it is a public not private facility! Whats to stop someone walking fido during training??

Common sense, I suppose! We are not all gates swinging in the breeze, fence! I'm clearly talking about maintaining our use of Gosch's as a better option than Waverley whilst a "Caulfield" is delivered. What point are you trying to make?

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

Ever played a cricket game on the wattle park oval, mr fence?

Yeah many a game and in fact was part of a team where I was privvy to the BEST HUNDRED I have seen from a team mate who has strong Melbourne Connnections

35 minutes ago, waynewussell said:

Common sense, I suppose! We are not all gates swinging in the breeze, fence! I'm clearly talking about maintaining our use of Gosch's as a better option than Waverley whilst a "Caulfield" is delivered. What point are you trying to make?

I reckon go with Waverley

On 09/02/2026 at 20:32, dazzledavey36 said:

Even with Gosch, admin are still completely separated from the football department.

They're all based out at the G.

One big factor of Waverly is being able to have both admin and footy department all under the same roof.

With that as well, we wont need to share gyn facilities anymore with Storm and Melbourne Victory.

I like the Waverley move and thinks it makes a lot of sense.

This isnt about what's best for supporters but more so being somewhere where we're able to finally fit somewhere as a footy club as a whole.

Do the staff want to go to Waverley? I would suggest NO.

4 minutes ago, old dee said:

Do the staff want to go to Waverley? I would suggest NO.

Based on zero evidence or fact.

You're just making your own assumption.

It was reported on here not long ago that the players are in fact looking forward to heading to Waverley.

Edited February 11Feb 11 by dazzledavey36

On 09/02/2026 at 22:56, Adam The God said:

They definitely do.

EDF3093 - Advanced sport and exercise science - Monash University

Call me pedantic, but that’s a unit not a program…

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

only if ... the cfmeu is not contracted

I think they are too busy in Court.

52 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Based on zero evidence or fact.

You're just making your own assumption.

It was reported on here not long ago that the players are in fact looking forward to heading to Waverley.

Gee PF I was only asking a question and giving a suggested answer there was no need to jump on me from your high horse. You can get back on now.

Edited February 11Feb 11 by old dee

1 hour ago, Grr-owl said:

Call me pedantic, but that’s a unit not a program…

Being a bit pedantic there