58 minutes ago, Maximum said:

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?

No, it’s the club that’s missing something…

17 minutes ago, chookrat said:

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

The level of self-delusion here is startling.

It’s bordering on fan fiction.

‘No, no, they can’t be incompetent and misaligned… it’s actually 4D chess and they have already done it twice over. Yes, that’s it.’

the dilemna

waverley is a step forward from what we have now, but it doesn't satisfy all our needs

waverley is also a step backwards in strengthening our quest for caulfield which could satisfy more of our needs

1 hour ago, Maximum said:

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?

No, they won't be playing games at Waverley...yes, you're missing something.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

the dilemna

waverley is a step forward from what we have now, but it doesn't satisfy all our needs

waverley is also a step backwards in strengthening our quest for caulfield which could satisfy more of our needs

I just don’t get this thinking - we’ve never had a home base, we get some sort of one and now people are annoyed because Caulfield gets potentially gets pushed back? Who cares - it’s a HUGE upgrade over anything we’ve ever had? What’s difficult about this - it’s the right call, if it adds a few years to Caulfield it simply doesn’t matter - would you rather something now or still nothing in seven, eight, nine, 10 years etc? It’s a no brainer

Personally, from the perspective of accessibility, I'd prefer Waverley to Caufield anyway.

Does put us more in the population growth belt than Caufield as well at the same time as being a little more central east where alot of our younger supporters live.

6 hours ago, Roost it far said:

I'm hoping it's the opposite. Caulfield is looking good so we're prepared to move to an interim location.

Is it at all possible that we’ve struck a deal with Caulfield and so have signed on for Waverley as an interim solution? Could there be further announcements coming soon?

3 hours ago, Macca said:

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

The CEO says Caulfield is 3-5 years.. I go by what the club says not what people on forums speculate

Just now, Oxdee said:

The CEO says Caulfield is 3-5 years.. I go by what the club says not what people on forums speculate

Well it's already been 2 years and 4 months

My concern is the lack of dialogue with regards to the progress. No comment (or silence) can mean a lot

The club must know that the supporter base would be getting a bit toey

The other concern is our relationship with the MRC ... they've voiced their concerns with regards to the possible disruption to racing with the now, infamous, tunnel venture

Potential losses in the $Millions have been bandied about if race meetings are cancelled. That will get the trusts attention

But we're not hearing anything positive from the club and most of the time we're not hearing anything at all

Until now with the advent of Waverley ... plenty of chatter and lots of positives

Anyway, time will tell

Footnote; I'm all for the training base at Caulfield but in my view, there's a few hurdles to overcome including the costing ($100Million has been talked about and that's a lot of money to raise)

Edited 10 hours ago10 hr by Macca

1 hour ago, heath55 said:

I just don’t get this thinking - we’ve never had a home base, we get some sort of one and now people are annoyed because Caulfield gets potentially gets pushed back? Who cares - it’s a HUGE upgrade over anything we’ve ever had? What’s difficult about this - it’s the right call, if it adds a few years to Caulfield it simply doesn’t matter - would you rather something now or still nothing in seven, eight, nine, 10 years etc? It’s a no brainer

Spot on, Caulfield is 3-5 yrs and a chance it may not happen, first time in my 50+ yrs of my supporting member I will be able to visit the club under 1 roof, current administration has achieved more than any other previously.

I tuned into the radio and heard the end of a conversation about the move. I recall hearing $20 million mentioned - can someone shed any light on this - was it in relation to Caulfield or the government contributing $20 million to renovating Waverley (which doesn’t make sense to me). Or am I just losing the plot and imagining things?

Edited 9 hours ago9 hr by Ethan Tremblay
Or did the AFL pay $20 million to purchase the venue?

On 07/04/2025 at 14:08, KozzyCan said:

Is there any reason we couldn't move into Waverley Park as a temporary measure until we get Caufield? At least the club would be under one roof immediately but you don't need to consider it a permanent solution.

Boom.

4 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I tuned into the radio and heard the end of a conversation about the move. I recall hearing $20 million mentioned - can someone shed any light on this - was it in relation to Caulfield or the government contributing $20 million to renovating Waverley (which doesn’t make sense to me). Or am I just losing the plot and imagining things?

To your edit - the AFL bought Waverley from the hawks for about $20 mil last year, could be that?

On 07/04/2025 at 16:08, KozzyCan said:

Is there any reason we couldn't move into Waverley Park as a temporary measure until we get Caufield? At least the club would be under one roof immediately but you don't need to consider it a permanent solution.

I like it as a permanent solution!

On 30/03/2025 at 16:44, Ethan Tremblay said:

At the lake? I use to go yabbying there.

wasn't that Caulfield ??

I’ve come around to Waverley (pretty quickly 😂) but only if Guerra was telling the truth regarding Caulfield yesterday on radio. Not overly fussed if 3-5 years becomes 5-7, just want the deal done and announced sooner rather than later. I’m confident the money can be raised and as long as all the ego’s can agree it feels like a win win is eminently possible at Caulfield. The fact Waverley only has one oval is largely mitigated by our access at Casey. Remember Casey also has a carpet like oval and gym facilities so to say we now don’t have elite training digs is pretty disingenuous.

8 hours ago, heath55 said:

I just don’t get this thinking - we’ve never had a home base, we get some sort of one and now people are annoyed because Caulfield gets potentially gets pushed back? Who cares - it’s a HUGE upgrade over anything we’ve ever had? What’s difficult about this - it’s the right call, if it adds a few years to Caulfield it simply doesn’t matter - would you rather something now or still nothing in seven, eight, nine, 10 years etc? It’s a no brainer

firstly i see the following: Caulfield > Waverley > Current

The club (and the press) also have said that they see a waverley move as an interim move

goschs paddock has suddenly become a bargaining asset with collingwood and tennis australia (incl vic gov) being strategically interested (possibly richmond too). Therefore, my concern is that if we give up aami without any caulfield guarantees we could be stranded at waverley. I say could be, because there may in fact be some guarantees re caulfield that are close to being announced, but we are just in the dark at this stage.

i don't see waverley as a long term solution for exactly the same reasons as hawthorn did, and these have been discussed many times here (expansion ability, 2 ovals, closed training, aflw, vfl, vflw etc)

step warily

26 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

firstly i see the following: Caulfield > Waverley > Current

The club (and the press) also have said that they see a waverley move as an interim move

goschs paddock has suddenly become a bargaining asset with collingwood and tennis australia (incl vic gov) being strategically interested (possibly richmond too). Therefore, my concern is that if we give up aami without any caulfield guarantees we could be stranded at waverley. I say could be, because there may in fact be some guarantees re caulfield that are close to being announced, but we are just in the dark at this stage.

i don't see waverley as a long term solution for exactly the same reasons as hawthorn did, and these have been discussed many times here (expansion ability, 2 ovals, closed training, aflw, vfl, vflw etc)

step warily

You still have access to casey IF need be - we're talking like we aren't coming from that far back that waverly isn't a viable option - Hawthorn won how many premierships whilst training at waverly? If we get stuck there for the next decade, that is objectively a significantly better option than what they have now.

Had to be done.

Just hope Caufield is showing promise.

29 minutes ago, heath55 said:

You still have access to casey IF need be - we're talking like we aren't coming from that far back that waverly isn't a viable option - Hawthorn won how many premierships whilst training at waverly? If we get stuck there for the next decade, that is objectively a significantly better option than what they have now.

know all that. waverley (+casey) is fine as an interim and an improvement. just not optimal longer term

even if we go to caulfield we will still have a role for casey, but it won't be critical

Someone posted on here the other day that staying out at AAMI Park until Caulfield is signed off is a legitimate leverage piece.

And the CRRT have extended the MOU with the club for Caulfield, so it is conceivable we're getting closer, but I do wonder what leverage the AFL are applying for us to move to Waverley.

Maybe the club needs to be more strategic in how they close this deal with the state government.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by Adam The God

Just as a side issue, Hawks are upset that their new base is very windy and they are now looking at measures to reduce wind gusts over the area.

Figures of $500k have been mentioned for posts and protective sheeting to reduce, but not eliminate wind gusts.

I’ve been pretty strongly in support of Waverley but I’m a bit concerned by how cagey the club has been on the topic when they want to move in over the next few weeks. I can’t really see how that strategy helps us secure Caufield. Perhaps someone else can enlighten me.

The club has been pretty good at communicating in the new era but on this topic they’ve been poor. As members we just want clarity.

3 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

Someone posted on here the other day that staying out at AAMI Park until Caulfield is signed off is a legitimate leverage piece.

And the CRRT have extended the MOU with the club for Caulfield, so it is conceivable we're getting closer, but I do wonder what leverage the AFL are applying for us to move to Waverley.

Maybe the club needs to be more strategic is how they close this deal with the state government.

I posted that staying could be the best leverage to get Caulfield done.

I didn't know that the CRRT had an MOU with us yet. If they have that is great.

If the State Government role is only some funding and they are asking us to not make any announcements at this point, for obvious reasons, that is also good, if we have an airtight commitment for the funding from them, or any new Government.

If the AFL is now involved in pushing us to Waverley temporarily, that could well be as a result of an agreement, involving them with funding also.

A lot of unknowns here, but the public use of the words "interim for Waverley until Caulfield is done" is a great sign that it will happen.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by Redleg

23 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Just as a side issue, Hawks are upset that their new base is very windy and they are now looking at measures to reduce wind gusts over the area.

Figures of $500k have been mentioned for posts and protective sheeting to reduce, but not eliminate wind gusts.

It’s laughable that a development of this scale, for this specific purpose, is now deemed unacceptable due to something so simple.