1 minute ago, Mouseymoo said:

Hawthorn did OK there. Stop winging.

Why did they want to leave?

I never thought Caulfield would take years of negotiations

Edited March 10Mar 10 by lorn

17 minutes ago, old dee said:

If we move to Waverley it removes the need for the government to do something at Caulfield any time soon. The Caulfield project then gets moved into the same draw as the rail link to tulla. The AFL will be happy to have waverley used and will not have to give money to the mfc at the same time as money to the Tassie team. We will be stuck there for at least the next decade. We might as well change our name to the Waverley Demons.

Despite all the rhetoric otherwise...what you say is true i think

5 minutes ago, old dee said:

Why did they want to leave?

Did the Hawks not have all the money to pay for the new premises upfront? Makes a move a lot easier

With plenty in the bank and with all the guaranteed funding from various parties, why not make a move to the swanky new premises?

What we've done is have the new swanky training venue all lined up but we haven't got the funding (yet)

Where's the money, old dee?

I haven’t lived in Melbourne for some time, so forgive me if there is an obvious issue. But that being said, I’m struggling to understand why people have such as issue with it? I’ve been reading through a few pages now and it seems generally accepted that the ground is in great shape, there are existing facilities there that accommodate everyone. It’s meaningfully closer to the city than Casey.

Is it that it’s not “ours”, or that it’s a second choice?

Would love someone to spell out the negatives for me please

The issue for the Hawks is that they only had the one oval to train on (Waverley) where as we'll have Waverley for the Seniors and Casey (for Casey, AFLW & VFLW)

The Hawks would have had a 2nd oval to train on but without all the creature comforts (Gym, pool etc)

So they've now got everything under the one roof at the facility at Dingley. In many ways, they had to move

Edited March 10Mar 10 by Macca

Good move for the club in more way's then one. A nice red n blue coat of paint a she'll be shining new... onwards and upwards we can get the afl to fund a mini upgrade of the facilities... and we're good to go, if when caulfield gets done it's done...

2 hours ago, old dee said:

I vowed I would never go back to that [censored] hole and never did. If we end up back you can be sure I won't break the vow.

Melbourne Footy Club care factor..

Perhaps for the 1st time in 46 yrs we will have the club all under one roof at Waverley, Caulfield is 3-5 yrs away… good move by the club, get the connection head office all the way through

Having a training base is definitely better than not having one. Smart move. It makes us a little more attractive over the next 5 years while the bold goal of Caulfield takes place.

2 hours ago, Macca said:

My gut feeling is that we've grabbed hold of Waverley because we've hit a hurdle with Caulfield (funding)

We would be relying on the State Govt. to cough up the tens of $Millions and that may or may not be forthcoming

The AFL might have even stepped in and told us to grab Waverley while it's still available

Again, just an opinion

You do realise Caulfield could be up to 5 years away even if an announcement is made tomorrow. Do you want to stay in a substandard facility at goschs paddock and a travel to Casey?

For this to break a few hours after the new CEO stated we will look at interim options once Caulfield is signed off - is pretty bad communication from the club. This should have come from Guerra today during the interview with Whately and spin the hell out of it...

Its a great solution for the interim - but jeebus get the communication story right

Just now, Oxdee said:

You do realise Caulfield could be up to 5 years away even if an announcement is made tomorrow. Do you want to stay in a substandard facility at goschs paddock and a travel to Casey?

When did Caulfield become 5 years? In the last few days? There were plenty talking completion dates of 2027 or 2028 not so long ago

Waverley as an alternate only became a talking point in the last couple of months. Before that, nothing

And I applaud the club for moving to Waverley. But don't be surprised if it's a permanent move

We get into Waverley and everyone's then happy. Soon enough the talk will be, why Caulfield? We don't need it and we still haven't got the funding required anyway? "Let's save our money"

I'd prefer Caulfield but the silence about the facility since before the AGM is deafening

And now, suddenly, we're moving into Waverley in the next few weeks? I reckon we grabbed the opportunity before that opportunity was gone

As stated in a previous post, the Hawks had to move as they didn't have another facility like we do (Casey)

For the MFC, Waverley is an ideal fit. Just a tick over 20 minutes from Casey to Waverley too

Are we sure Waverley is a good idea?

The VFL Park (Waverley Park) record for the Melbourne Football Club in VFL/AFL home-and-away matches was:

• Games played: 98

• Wins: 37

• Losses: 61

• Draws: 0

• Win percentage: ~37.8%

Notable Melbourne moments at VFL Park

• Worst loss in VFL/AFL history:
  Melbourne lost to Fitzroy 36.22 (238) to 6.12 (48) in 1979 — a 190-point margin, still the biggest loss in league history.

• And we don’t talk about that particular final

@Demonland, can we now change the topic to 'All Under One Roof', or the like? Waverley, and the Caulfield plans beyond it, are SO much more than 'Training ground' (which we have never not had btw).

Ta.

The move to Caulfield was first mooted and talked about at club level (partnership with CRRT announced) in December 2023

It's now March 2026 and people are speculating that moving in day is 5 years away! That's close on 7 and a half years, all up (and counting)

The years are flying past and it's just as well that Waverley became available

I'm confused. Will the Casey VFL team and Melbourne AFLW teams be playing games at Waverley Park now? Isn't it surrounded by houses instead of stands? How is it fit for official matches? And how can Casey play in Waverley? Not great for the City of Casey. Am I missing something?

Can someone explain the benefits of all under one roof mantra? I know it sounds good but what will be the tangible benefits, what were the burning problems? Macca has emphasised the better playing surface and the better viewing areas. Given our coaches have locked the gates during training at Casey for years I am not sure anyone will be necessarily getting a welcome at Waverley training.

4 minutes ago, fredblackham said:

Are we sure Waverley is a good idea?

The VFL Park (Waverley Park) record for the Melbourne Football Club in VFL/AFL home-and-away matches was:

• Games played: 98

• Wins: 37

• Losses: 61

• Draws: 0

• Win percentage: ~37.8%

Notable Melbourne moments at VFL Park

• Worst loss in VFL/AFL history:
  Melbourne lost to Fitzroy 36.22 (238) to 6.12 (48) in 1979 — a 190-point margin, still the biggest loss in league history.

• And we don’t talk about that particular final

Yeah I can recall we weren’t great out at Waverley, particularly from the mid 1990’s until the closure.

I wonder had we played West Coast at the G rather than Waverley in the 1990 semi final, things may have been different. We had a great record at the g but couldn’t beat the good teams at Waverley that year.

As for the training venue, will we still train at Casey at times, or 100% at Waverley?

4 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Can someone explain the benefits of all under one roof mantra? I know it sounds good but what will be the tangible benefits, what were the burning problems? Macca has emphasised the better playing surface and the better viewing areas. Given our coaches have locked the gates during training at Casey for years I am not sure anyone will be necessarily getting a welcome at Waverley training.

The club basically imploded over the past few years and our leadership had no idea how to deal with it. Don’t think the separation helped.

1 hour ago, Rednblueriseing said:

Good move for the club in more way's then one. A nice red n blue coat of paint a she'll be shining new... onwards and upwards we can get the afl to fund a mini upgrade of the facilities... and we're good to go, if when caulfield gets done it's done...

Are Haynes Paint still a sponsor ?

5 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Can someone explain the benefits of all under one roof mantra? I know it sounds good but what will be the tangible benefits, what were the burning problems? Macca has emphasised the better playing surface and the better viewing areas. Given our coaches have locked the gates during training at Casey for years I am not sure anyone will be necessarily getting a welcome at Waverley training.

I reckon that was another reason the Hawks moved (they couldn't have closed sessions)

Where as we can still have closed sessions at Casey if we choose to. That's the luxury of having 2 decent venues

I'm wondering whether we could ever have closed sessions at Caulfield as the surrounds etc is public land

Are we moving out of the MCG totally? Will the Demon Shop be out there?

34 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Can someone explain the benefits of all under one roof mantra? I know it sounds good but what will be the tangible benefits, what were the burning problems? Macca has emphasised the better playing surface and the better viewing areas. Given our coaches have locked the gates during training at Casey for years I am not sure anyone will be necessarily getting a welcome at Waverley training.

Having the head office at the G then 2 seperate training venues, AAMI park may be over the footbridge but may as well be other side of town… they are not connected, it dosent guarantee you success but if you want evidence have a a look the last 2 seasons with Roffey radio interview its seems she never left the G and so disconnected front the Trac injury, the interview with Pert & Goodwin re culture issues …

4 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

I find it odd that this comes up only hours after Guerra essentially said we wouldn’t consider a Waverley move until Caufield was sorted. Some misalignment or just bad communication?

Is this his way of saying Caulfield is done wothout saying it directly.