On 30/12/2025 at 19:52, KozzyCan said:

Absurd? The club all but promised an update at the AGM only to hose it down when it came time to deliver. So it all amounted to a bunch of hot air.

Are you saying the club promised to say something but didn't? That has never happened before.

On 19/12/2025 at 13:34, Redleg said:

You do understand that we are looking to use Crown Land, which is usually meant for community use, not solely for a Professional AFL club, to the exclusion of the community.

The school are working hand in hand with us and supporting each other and just maybe a small use by the school of the ovals, when not used by the MFC, is the catalyst for the Trust and Government to approve and contribute to the project, because of some COMMUNITY use.

With the President saying we are really close, but are unable to announce it yet, I would think is a clear indication it is proceeding, but that the timing of the announcement is not ours to choose.

I am as keen and impatient as all Demon fans for this to happen and am choosing to be positive not negative.

I have a personal stake in this, as I want to start my retirement, knowing that I can walk to training and watch my beloved team train, in the company of like minded Demon fans and then maybe continue the discussion over a coffee or beer at the nearest provider. Exercise, refreshment, Demon training engagement, the occasional hug from Ghosty and MFC discussion, will be a great start for Redleg, filling in the non working days.

Hopefully I can add more tomorrow, if I get to speak to any MRC committee persons who are happy to discuss the topic.

Come to Slithera city mate, happy to give you the guided tour of all creatures great and small! Agree with others this Caulfield thing is a reefer addicts pipe dream!

Edited January 4Jan 4 by picket fence

1 hour ago, Gouga said:

There is always a lot of talk about how capable our board is...very little to show however.

I don't know who would talk up their capabilities.

Nothing over the last few years has shown that.

Unlike onfield success, memberships etc the training ground issue is one that is firmly within the bailiwick of the Board.

So many wasted years but more damning directionless

20 hours ago, picket fence said:

Come to Slithera city mate, happy to give you the guided tour of all creatures great and small! Agree with others this Caulfield thing is a reefer addicts pipe dream!

Scared of snakes, so please accept my thanks and my declining of your offer.

Caulfield will happen, but like most, I was disappointed to not get more info at the AGM, even if we were asked not to announce anything.

We could have been given some info on what we were discussing with the authorities, without making any announcements.

20 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Unlike onfield success, memberships etc the training ground issue is one that is firmly within the bailiwick of the Board.

So many wasted years but more damning directionless

Spot on.....

Even this thread has been going since 2020, and for the older people on this site, it goes back even longer...

At the "merger" rallies Brian Dixon said something along the lines of "we don't want second rate facilities like Glenferrie...we want the best in the league"

That was now 30 years ago, and we still don't have anything!

In recent times we have been told the Board has been investigating:

1. A facility outside the MCG toward Jolimont station. Never going to fly because of local resident opposition ...ever. Yet time and effort was wasted.

2. Car Park F at AAMI....still left us with substandard oval on Public land at Gosch's with shared facilities with Storm, Victory etc

3. Car Park E at AAMI ...overlooked by Collingwoods facility, and an even smaller footprint...yeah that'll work!

4. We were promised by the CEO at a sponsors event in 2022 that something would be definitely be announced by year end, but could't say anything yet because it was "commercial in confidence"

5. 4 years later we have the same with Caulfied....can't say anything, even after redevelopment was touted in 2023!

Edited January 4Jan 4 by george_on_the_outer

For all of us frustrated with the lack of news on Caulfield, I suggest we focus our attention on a deal to be struck between Deakin Uni and Mt Scopus Burwood.

This is the key - and in my humble view, it will happen.

If you look at the map below. A new SRL station next to Deakin will be a reality (eventually), Deakin Burwood campus is landlocked, but the Mt Scopus Burwood campus next door is up for sale. The proceeds to be used to fund the school's Caulfield ambitions.

MFC's new development cannot proceed until this deal is done.

5 minutes ago, Blind_turn said:

For all of us frustrated with the lack of news on Caulfield, I suggest we focus our attention on a deal to be struck between Deakin Uni and Mt Scopus Burwood.

This is the key - and in my humble view, it will happen.

If you look at the map below. A new SRL station next to Deakin will be a reality (eventually), Deakin Burwood campus is landlocked, but the Mt Scopus Burwood campus next door is up for sale. The proceeds to be used to fund the school's Caulfield ambitions.

MFC's new development cannot proceed until this deal is done.

Why is the MFC facility locked into Mt Scopus?

Doesn't make sense.

Just now, rjay said:

Why is the MFC facility locked into Mt Scopus?

Doesn't make sense.

It isn’t.

6 minutes ago, Blind_turn said:

For all of us frustrated with the lack of news on Caulfield, I suggest we focus our attention on a deal to be struck between Deakin Uni and Mt Scopus Burwood.

This is the key - and in my humble view, it will happen.

If you look at the map below. A new SRL station next to Deakin will be a reality (eventually), Deakin Burwood campus is landlocked, but the Mt Scopus Burwood campus next door is up for sale. The proceeds to be used to fund the school's Caulfield ambitions.

MFC's new development cannot proceed until this deal is done.

Please explain why? At the moment I cannot see what Mt Scopus's funding has to do with our development at Caulfield?

32 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

Please explain why? At the moment I cannot see what Mt Scopus's funding has to do with our development at Caulfield?

Scopus paid $195mil to purchase their new Caulfield site. To fund that, they need to sell their Burwood site.

Firstly there is no Board as such, elected by the share holders(members)

In my view there a bunch of cobbers whom pass the baton around amongst themselves.

If you don’t believe me try and stand for a vacancy.

Caulfield is a bust, an idea first touted as. Social club venue in the 1980’s.

If there was in reality any good news the board would be ramping up the rhetoric, but instead have gone to ground.

I still don’t believe a Government on their knees financially are going to shell out 100 million plus to a very minor boutique football club with little popular support.

There is also the moral argument, moving young men into a venue that promotes gambling, alcohol and the mistreatment of animals.

I often wonder what Peter Jackson would think of us today.

1 hour ago, Blind_turn said:

Scopus paid $195mil to purchase their new Caulfield site. To fund that, they need to sell their Burwood site.

Sorry.. what they're intending to do with a privately owned piece of land can logically have no impact on what the MFC does in conjunction with a separate entity.

Or put another way... this clusterfuch is entirely our own.

1 hour ago, bluey said:

Firstly there is no Board as such, elected by the share holders(members)

In my view there a bunch of cobbers whom pass the baton around amongst themselves.

If you don’t believe me try and stand for a vacancy.

Caulfield is a bust, an idea first touted as. Social club venue in the 1980’s.

If there was in reality any good news the board would be ramping up the rhetoric, but instead have gone to ground.

I still don’t believe a Government on their knees financially are going to shell out 100 million plus to a very minor boutique football club with little popular support.

There is also the moral argument, moving young men into a venue that promotes gambling, alcohol and the mistreatment of animals.

I often wonder what Peter Jackson would think of us today.

This has always been our biggest problem. We don't have a social footprint. Clubs like the Bulldogs and Saints are "small" but they have community presence. We don't have a footprint in any specific region outside of claiming a "spiritual home" in the affluent inner-south east, political wastelands that are either Liberal strongholds or taken over by Independents. In a state like Victoria, that is a big issue. The Bulldogs have fantastic presence in the West, far greater than Essendon imo. We are competing for state money in areas that don't really demand it: politically or from a community perspective. Honestly as this point we should just redevelop Casey and make it a permanent home, increase presence along the Peninsula. Mt Martha and beyond is basically dominated by Demons supporters (except during Summer).

1 hour ago, bluey said:

Firstly there is no Board as such, elected by the share holders(members)

In my view there a bunch of cobbers whom pass the baton around amongst themselves.

If you don’t believe me try and stand for a vacancy.

Caulfield is a bust, an idea first touted as. Social club venue in the 1980’s.

If there was in reality any good news the board would be ramping up the rhetoric, but instead have gone to ground.

I still don’t believe a Government on their knees financially are going to shell out 100 million plus to a very minor boutique football club with little popular support.

There is also the moral argument, moving young men into a venue that promotes gambling, alcohol and the mistreatment of animals.

I often wonder what Peter Jackson would think of us today.

Bluey, if you believe that Racing promotes the "mistreatment of animals" why do you still remain part of the MRC.

Also I would suggest you attend an AGM or other function whereby you are able to have a discussion with a Board member and become fully aware of the amount of work that they do.

With regard to Peter Jackson, I was told by a "Senior" Board member that PJ remains a "Melbourne person". What he thinks of the current situation at Caulfield is anther matter but the whole exercise was always going to be a difficult ask only to be made even more difficult with our current State Government's empty coffers. The Board are however looking at other funding means.

I have attended AGM and spoken with board members and am certainly aware of the effort they devote and the passion they have for the club. it is partly the reason I have not pursued the Fishermans Bend project any further. I did receive some indication of support through Dland members but little beyond that and certainly not at the more influential and board level.

I believe there have been many opportunities to be involved in the development of the FB precincts. the total site once overseen by a separate board is now under the direct supervision of Department of Transport. It is still proposed to establish a community of 80,000. There is an opportunity to develop a social community footprint (as indicated by Praha) close to the Port of Melbourne and the Ron Barassi senior oval.

A comprehensive entertainment , retail, commercial centre could provide a destination centre for that community and a transport hub for the emerging population. The matter of transport has indeed been a significant issue on development but one which should be exploited with a visionary approach. I also felt the exploration of an alternative site would hasten negotiations.

I regret the lack of that vision but align myself with the club and the Caulfield project. Until it is abandoned or completed I will watch with interest and support the club.

7 minutes ago, dpositive said:

I have attended AGM and spoken with board members and am certainly aware of the effort they devote and the passion they have for the club. it is partly the reason I have not pursued the Fishermans Bend project any further. I did receive some indication of support through Dland members but little beyond that and certainly not at the more influential and board level.

I believe there have been many opportunities to be involved in the development of the FB precincts. the total site once overseen by a separate board is now under the direct supervision of Department of Transport. It is still proposed to establish a community of 80,000. There is an opportunity to develop a social community footprint (as indicated by Praha) close to the Port of Melbourne and the Ron Barassi senior oval.

A comprehensive entertainment , retail, commercial centre could provide a destination centre for that community and a transport hub for the emerging population. The matter of transport has indeed been a significant issue on development but one which should be exploited with a visionary approach. I also felt the exploration of an alternative site would hasten negotiations.

I regret the lack of that vision but align myself with the club and the Caulfield project. Until it is abandoned or completed I will watch with interest and support the club.

A progress announcement has been very close a couple of times but is subject to confirmation on government funding. Club, AFL, sponsor and benefactor funding for the project is confirmed.

If the State Gov funding falls through, the former and current (to a degree) board only have themselves to blame for ignorantly giving this project a scope of 3-4km radius from the MCG for near on 10 years. The likes of PM as you have mentioned are sites that originally came and went because of their lack of proximity to the G.

54 minutes ago, Dannyz said:

A progress announcement has been very close a couple of times but is subject to confirmation on government funding. Club, AFL, sponsor and benefactor funding for the project is confirmed.

If the State Gov funding falls through, the former and current (to a degree) board only have themselves to blame for ignorantly giving this project a scope of 3-4km radius from the MCG for near on 10 years. The likes of PM as you have mentioned are sites that originally came and went because of their lack of proximity to the G.

and a lack of vision, innovation and negotiation.

3 hours ago, Dannyz said:

A progress announcement has been very close a couple of times but is subject to confirmation on government funding. Club, AFL, sponsor and benefactor funding for the project is confirmed.

If the State Gov funding falls through, the former and current (to a degree) board only have themselves to blame for ignorantly giving this project a scope of 3-4km radius from the MCG for near on 10 years. The likes of PM as you have mentioned are sites that originally came and went because of their lack of proximity to the G.

Are you saying that if the government don’t come to the party the project is dead?

18 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Are you saying that if the government don’t come to the party the project is dead?

Thats always going to be the case... How does one come up with $30m? Private equity? Where is the payback.

6 minutes ago, Madz said:

Thats always going to be the case... How does one come up with $30m? Private equity? Where is the payback.

$30M is exactly what the HFC secured (50/50 from federal and state). This is at least what we should be asking for. No Footy club would be able to enter into this type of capital project without govt support. It helps having an ex-premier pull some string no doubt. They also contributed $73M to the new precint in Dingley as well. Much of which came from the sale of Waverly back to the AFL...but the funfact is they never really bought it off the AFL, but the AFL did cough up about 20 big ones to effectively take it off their hands.

Edited January 5Jan 5 by GS_1905

If Government don’t chip in they’ll have some serious questions to answer considering the largesse piled into other AFL clubs. The community access will be the sell and if our board and CEO can’t raise the funds then they should resign on mass. We can no longer remain the only club without a proper home base. We all wait patiently 😂

10 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Spot on.....

Even this thread has been going since 2020, and for the older people on this site, it goes back even longer...

At the "merger" rallies Brian Dixon said something along the lines of "we don't want second rate facilities like Glenferrie...we want the best in the league"

That was now 30 years ago, and we still don't have anything!

In recent times we have been told the Board has been investigating:

1. A facility outside the MCG toward Jolimont station. Never going to fly because of local resident opposition ...ever. Yet time and effort was wasted.

2. Car Park F at AAMI....still left us with substandard oval on Public land at Gosch's with shared facilities with Storm, Victory etc

3. Car Park E at AAMI ...overlooked by Collingwoods facility, and an even smaller footprint...yeah that'll work!

4. We were promised by the CEO at a sponsors event in 2022 that something would be definitely be announced by year end, but could't say anything yet because it was "commercial in confidence"

5. 4 years later we have the same with Caulfied....can't say anything, even after redevelopment was touted in 2023!

I have confidence in one thing George. I will never see a new/ good home for the MFC. I have heard so many options from so many boards that I just roll my eyes these days. It is a half century wait and counting.

I don’t see a Government contribution of say $30m being removed, as scuttling the project.

First, it would be unlikely to not get anything, if that was the figure that was originally promised, even if there was a reduction and secondly, say 30000 adult members of the MFC, if there was no other way to get the missing contribution, would only need to up their membership by $100.00 a year for 10 years to cover that whole amount.

That member contribution of course relates to the whole $30m and without any other efforts to find that amount.

I don’t see us losing a Government contribution, given the contribution made to other clubs.

Also with Tassie coming in, the TV rights will increase and the AFL may have more to provide if there was a shortfall.

Then of course there will be the extra money we will get for winning the next few flags.

Per other comments above I cannot see the State Government not contributing given they have an obligation to contribute financially to the facilities of all Victorian AFL clubs, that we have recieved by far the least funding of all AFL clubs and have the worst facilities of any AFL clubs. If this is genuinely a stumbling block then perhaps we start talks with the NT Governments re what they could offer if we relocate.