3 hours ago, I'va Worn Smith said:

No sure of your point??? Mine was that the club just doesn't address the Waverley issue directly and I wonder why?

I was just asking out of interest, I wasn’t contradicting what you were saying

l think we are holding off on Waverley as a bargaining chip as others want the space at Gosch paddock.

You sign off on Caulfield and we are happy to go to Waverley in the interim. Otherwise we stay until its done

Edited March 19Mar 19 by Demons1858

Hi, did anybody pick up any tid bits of information regarding the proposed facilities over last weekend.

On 19/03/2026 at 18:45, Demons1858 said:

l think we are holding off on Waverley as a bargaining chip as others want the space at Gosch paddock.

You sign off on Caulfield and we are happy to go to Waverley in the interim. Otherwise we stay until its done

Richmond will just end up using Waverley if we drag our feet.

2 hours ago, bluey said:

Hi, did anybody pick up any tid bits of information regarding the proposed facilities over last weekend.

I was attending Perth Demons function briefly and Pres and CEO simply said “very important we resolve” as part of getting setup well off field.

5 minutes ago, 1964nowMORE said:

I was attending Perth Demons function briefly and Pres and CEO simply said “very important we resolve” as part of getting setup well off field.

That's probably as helpful as them saying "we need more wins".

Edited March 25Mar 25 by Redleg

40 minutes ago, Redleg said:

That's probably as helpful as them saying "we need more wins".

Not wrong though!

Why do we always snooze... If Richmond get it only as a intrim training venue

You can have the Lexus centre.

MFC, Nah.

You can have Waverley.

MFC, Nah.

Approx 14,693 days (start of 1986) that we have been homeless. We must just be unlucky.....

Incredibly poor management by the club - why the hell does it matter if Caulfield is locked in or not? Surely the ENTIRE POINT OF THE MOVE is Waverley is much better than AAMI/Goschs?

Why were some of you so invested in Waverley?

I mean, I know the terrible reasons but rattle them off…

Ahh, I hate being right sometimes.

This is a pretty rubbish outcome to let a homebase slip through our fingers. We don't want to be stuck at Waverley, so we'll choose to be stuck at Casey instead. Makes sense.

I much prefer Goschs to Waverley.

3 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

Ahh, I hate being right sometimes.

This is a pretty rubbish outcome to let a homebase slip through our fingers. We don't want to be stuck at Waverley, so we'll choose to be stuck at Casey instead. Makes sense.

We were never giving up Casey. The plan was giving up Gosch for Waverly, if Caulfield was locked in

Just now, DeelightfulPlay said:

We were never giving up Casey. The plan was giving up Gosch for Waverly, if Caulfield was locked in

The VFL would still be played there but surely we wouldn't be splitting training across two grounds if we could get the whole club under one roof.

21 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Why were some of you so invested in Waverley?

I mean, I know the terrible reasons but rattle them off…

Because for the first in like four decades, they’d finally have everyone under one roof, in one place - whilst still have access to Casey.

We are literally the ONLY team that is split in three different locations - it is idiotic to not take up Waverly - caufield is the best part of a 7-10 years away

12 minutes ago, Damo said:

I much prefer Goschs to Waverley.

It makes no sense from a total club perspective - it is fumbling at its finest…Richmond clearly have absolutely no issue going to Waverly - why do we?

Disappointing.

Good news. We need to hunker down at Gotch's until Caulfield is approved.

Don't mind us staying. Tigers are there less than 12 months. Still room to move in if needed. More posturing perhaps

I don’t understand why the club is linking Waverley to Caulfield, as surely where we’re based over the next few years has no bearings on negotiations?

I mean if the club doesn’t want to go to Waverley that’s one thing, but I really hope we’re not fumbling the bag here and end up with neither Waverley OR Caulfield because of some misguided attempt at using Gosch’s as leverage

Edited March 25Mar 25 by demoncat

On another note, I really feel the club owes the members an update soon

Obviously they can’t make an announcement around Caulfield if negotiations are still ongoing, but there’s been enough noise about us committing (and then not committing) to Waverley, as well as the supposed troubled state of Caulfield, to warrant some kind of statement