For everyone freaking out about moving to Glen Waverley - it’s clear that it will make a big difference to the staff and players to be under one roof / not have to travel out to Casey (at least not as frequently)

Of course everyone would rather be at a permanent home base, and yes there should be criticism if Caulfield falls through, but until that time the club should be doing whatever will best support staff and players alike

If that means some time at Waverley, then so be it

Edited February 8Feb 8 by demoncat

4 minutes ago, Mgdee said:

Build an admin building at Casey. Home base solved.

Feel like we're going to be on our own here, but I agree. If Caulfield winds up being too hard, just do what is the norm in every other professional sport around the world and invest heavily in a facility on the outskirts of the city.

1 minute ago, demoncat said:

For everyone freaking out about moving to Glen Waverley - it’s clear that it will make a big difference to the staff and players to be under one roof / not have to travel out to Casey (at least not as frequently)

Of course everyone would rather be at a permanent home base, and yes there should be criticism if Caulfield falls through, but until that time the club should be doing whatever will best support staff and players alike

If that means some time at Waverley, then so be it

They're still going to be travelling to Casey. As I understand it, all a move to Waverley would do is bring admin under the same roof, and swap the Gosch's sessions to the adopted facility.

Edited February 8Feb 8 by Davos

3 minutes ago, Davos said:

They're still going to be travelling to Casey. As I understand it, all a move to Waverly would do is bring admin under the same roof, and swap the Gosch's sessions to the adopted facility.

Players have supposedly gone on record saying they’re excited for the move - unless it’s just PR speak (which granted it might be) why would they be excited to have to travel even more than they currently do to Gosch’s? Surely Waverley could cater for at least some of the more intensive sessions they usually run at Casey on Mondays and Fridays?

9 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Yeah unfortunately I too think we made a blunder not going for an experienced head in Thomas.

Guerra has been a disappointment so far.

Dazzle he’s been in the job 4-5 months, what were you expecting he would achieve in that time? The major thing he needed to ensure was sponsorship for the 2026 season, which seems it is sorted. We can’t be putting the home base issues on his shoulders yet, he would’ve spent the first couple of months getting around that and heaps of other things to do with the role.

I’m all for holding people accountable and critically analysing their job, but he needs at least 12 months in the role before we can actually make judgements on his success as CEO.

Edited February 8Feb 8 by DistrACTION Jackson

Guerra is all talk. Flips and flops to fit the best optics narrative. He went on public record saying Tom Hawkins was coming in and he can’t even get that across the line. He’s not labelled with the lack of a training base but he’s said as little as anyone before him and constant meaningless dribble like the rest. The sponsorships so far have proved as much. Grill’d gone after a year? MA Services group? I could go on.

Not getting Keith Thomas for football reasons and going for Guerra was once again, a monumental mistake. So disappointing.

1 minute ago, BC_1718_DC said:

Guerra is all talk. Flips and flops to fit the best optics narrative. He went on public record saying Tom Hawkins was coming in and he can’t even get that across the line. He’s not labelled with the lack of a training base but he’s said as little as anyone before him and constant meaningless dribble like the rest. The sponsorships so far have proved as much. Grill’d gone after a year? MA Services group? I could go on.

Not getting Keith Thomas for football reasons and going for Guerra was once again, a monumental mistake. So disappointing.

What has MA Services Group got to do with Guerra?

I would imagine Grill’d decided to bail before Guerra came on board.

6 hours ago, Redleg said:

In a facility that another club couldn’t wait to be rid of.

Hawks won 4 flags including a 3 peat at Waverley! Prob have outgrown it but I would rather us all under 1 roof until hopefully Caulfield is ever done,

Are the facilities at Waverley better than what we have now? Genuine question.

I see a move to Waverley as a concession that any brand new home base is a long way off. Wouldn't it be a huge waste of money if we moved there for 2 or 3 years when we have AAMI park and Casey.

The AFL would be our landlords. I presume rent won't be cheap.

2 hours ago, Dannyz said:

We don’t fit under one roof but we’re a 5 minute walk in the great southern stand of the G.

Do the players really need to be seeing the corporates day in day out to be a good football club! It’s an absolute furphy for mine.

It does beg the question, for mine, is what we have currently actually 'broken' ? Is it so dire it needs 'fixing' ?

Or does someone just want it all warm.and fuzzy ?

On first announcement that we might entertain Waverley I thought this might be a resoundingly good idea , as an interim 'solution'.

But upon more reflection I just don't see how we're particularly any better off.

Got me flummoxed to be honest.

If only interim until a possible 'Caulfield ' what ( again) is the real benefit ?

If there's no Caulfield then we could be selling ourselves a prime position up Schitts Creek.

2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

If only interim until a possible 'Caulfield ' what ( again) is the real benefit ?

Everyone under the one roof, easier to get a park, and saving $$$$ by only paying a peppercorn rent to the AFL

Take Waverley, on a 10 year lease or buy outright, invest in plant and equipment upgrade facilities and make it home! Coz Caulfield is a MAJOR BUST

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

What has MA Services Group got to do with Guerra?

I would imagine Grill’d decided to bail before Guerra came on board.

Some due diligence before putting them on the back of the jersey? - luckily the investigative journailsm did MA in so quickly, no-one really noticed their intended association with us....

13 hours ago, picket fence said:

Explain then the delay after delay after delay in this Caulfield venture?

Assuming you want an answer and you’re not just having a whinge, I’d recommend you actually read the thread where there are multiple people explaining why this negotiation is taking time.

With all due respect to all those so anguished about the distance to travel to, and inconvenience attached to ,the multiple training facilities we currently utilise…in past years I’d be at training many times at both Casey and Goschs when I’d have the entire viewing facilities to myself.

In reality, how likely are the whingers here likely to attend training at a new facility after the novelty wears off and the cold of winter sets in on another unsuccessful season?

The club is not guaranteed to be a better performer because a sparkling new head office and drinking facilities are built overlooking the playing field.

2 hours ago, The Jackson FIX said:

Assuming you want an answer and you’re not just having a whinge, I’d recommend you actually read the thread where there are multiple people explaining why this negotiation is taking time.

Yes and No... imo

Yes...as to the ideas of why... No ...as there's no substantial expansion to any of that. It's all.. it might be this...might be that.

You see.. nothing has actually been communicated. Nothing. A lot of 'nudge nudge'... followed up by "crickets".

We had...announcements that announcements are forthcoming....and then the afore mentioned ....crickets !!

Anyone who has ever dealt with any developments knows the nature of the hurdles.. but i can tell you if this were just another Commercial development with any of a number and type of stakeholders there WOULD be updates... be progress, because thats what it's actually about, progression..I.e.. building the building. If there was neither the project managers would be fired and replaced. The notion that no news is acceptable is a nonsense. There may well be constraints but these are not covered by the Secret Squirrel Act. If this is all subject to X Y and Z then a competent management would explain the who, the why and relevant timelines.

Thats how it should be done.

Then we have the MFC

12 hours ago, Fritta and Turner said:

Everyone under the one roof, easier to get a park, and saving $$$$ by only paying a peppercorn rent to the AFL

My understanding that lack of parking is one of the major reasons that Hawthorn were desperate to leave Waverley. The public gym, the cafes and other businesses, and of course the residents are all fighting for a very limited number of car parks.

Hawthorn were saying that they had outgrown Waverley when they started planning Dingley a decade ago, so not sure how we would fit everyone under one roof if Hawthorn couldn't.

They also had no ability to run closed training sessions there, although we already have that problem with Gosch's.

Clearly there would be a financial benefit to being there, but that would be all.

3 hours ago, The Jackson FIX said:

Assuming you want an answer and you’re not just having a whinge, I’d recommend you actually read the thread where there are multiple people explaining why this negotiation is taking time.

Which is WHY with so many stakeholders the thing will ultimately not get up!

12 minutes ago, poita said:

My understanding that lack of parking is one of the major reasons that Hawthorn were desperate to leave Waverley. The public gym, the cafes and other businesses, and of course the residents are all fighting for a very limited number of car parks.

Hawthorn were saying that they had outgrown Waverley when they started planning Dingley a decade ago, so not sure how we would fit everyone under one roof if Hawthorn couldn't.

They also had no ability to run closed training sessions there, although we already have that problem with Gosch's.

Clearly there would be a financial benefit to being there, but that would be all.

presumably the difference is that we have additional facilities at casey whereas hawthorn only had waverley until the move to dingley was completed, which is such a bigger parcel of land than waverley ever could be

we're looking to, effectively, need to accomodate four teams - aflm, vflm, vflm, vflw - plus all the administration of the club itself

if caulfield happens we'll be in a great position, with caulfield and casey available to us

2 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

presumably the difference is that we have additional facilities at casey whereas hawthorn only had waverley until the move to dingley was completed, which is such a bigger parcel of land than waverley ever could be

we're looking to, effectively, need to accomodate four teams - aflm, vflm, vflm, vflw - plus all the administration of the club itself

if caulfield happens we'll be in a great position, with caulfield and casey available to us

I think this is why we should have no need of an interim facility (Waverley)...we already have Goschs and Casey.

2 hours ago, joeboy said:

With all due respect to all those so anguished about the distance to travel to, and inconvenience attached to ,the multiple training facilities we currently utilise…in past years I’d be at training many times at both Casey and Goschs when I’d have the entire viewing facilities to myself.

In reality, how likely are the whingers here likely to attend training at a new facility after the novelty wears off and the cold of winter sets in on another unsuccessful season?

The club is not guaranteed to be a better performer because a sparkling new head office and drinking facilities are built overlooking the playing field.

With all due respect the need for one comprehensive facility has nothing to do with supporters attending training, and everything to do with player and administration cohesion and retention.

Name another AFL club that trains at 2 separate facilities every week, an hour apart from each other?

This is the ONE issue I firmly believe the members can, and must, hold the administrators and board to account on. We can’t know the inner workings of relationships and game plans, but we can very clearly see that we haven’t had a home for a very long term. The first thing Goodwin said when asked about the club was ‘I won’t miss driving to Casey’.

It’s pathetic that it hasn’t been sorted, particularly in light of the Premiership and the boost of income that brought to the club. It looks less likely everyday, and it’s the one issue our members are right to be furious about.

I live in the inner West and see Bulldogs players every week out and about - because they live here, as it’s 10 minutes to training. Where do our players live? Our administration? Close to the freeway so they can go in 2 different directions for no reason other than the board hasn’t got its act together for generations?

No other business I know would do this.

I think the current arrangement at Gosch's is painfully underestimated by most here. A training ground in the heart of this city's sports precinct which is just a short walk from modern gym facilities is respectable, to say the least! Access to training for supporters is sensational! I hope to never set foot on the Waverley complex for the rest of my living days! I want us to continue the Gosch's arrangement until a perfect replacement is identified, funded and built! Vive la Paddock!

3 hours ago, poita said:

My understanding that lack of parking is one of the major reasons that Hawthorn were desperate to leave Waverley. The public gym, the cafes and other businesses, and of course the residents are all fighting for a very limited number of car parks.

Hawthorn were saying that they had outgrown Waverley when they started planning Dingley a decade ago, so not sure how we would fit everyone under one roof if Hawthorn couldn't.

They also had no ability to run closed training sessions there, although we already have that problem with Gosch's.

Clearly there would be a financial benefit to being there, but that would be all.

And of course we would become the best wet weather team in the AFL.

Wettest area in Melbourne and one of the coldest.

Players would absolutely love it.

1 hour ago, waynewussell said:

I think the current arrangement at Gosch's is painfully underestimated by most here. A training ground in the heart of this city's sports precinct which is just a short walk from modern gym facilities is respectable, to say the least! Access to training for supporters is sensational! I hope to never set foot on the Waverley complex for the rest of my living days! I want us to continue the Gosch's arrangement until a perfect replacement is identified, funded and built! Vive la Paddock!

Supporter access to training is such an imbecilic reason to justify any decision on where our training ground should be.

I’m a bloody broken record on this but I have seen a few more think like me lately.

I do not want them to care about ‘the social aspect’ for supporters.

I don’t think ‘co-location’ matters.

Casey is a great facility even if it’s a drive for some. Boo hoo.

And, as an aside, they suits need a lesson from a PR person on when and how to communicate to stakeholders, lest they continue to make a fool of themselves.

23 hours ago, Demons11 said:

It saves players moving to various locations. If training, weights, meetings etc can be done in 1 spot then I think it’s a positive.

This can all be done at either Casey or AMMI

2 hours ago, waynewussell said:

I think the current arrangement at Gosch's is painfully underestimated by most here. A training ground in the heart of this city's sports precinct which is just a short walk from modern gym facilities is respectable, to say the least! Access to training for supporters is sensational! I hope to never set foot on the Waverley complex for the rest of my living days! I want us to continue the Gosch's arrangement until a perfect replacement is identified, funded and built! Vive la Paddock!

This is the exact reason we don't currently have a home base. The push to be within the MCG's shadow has cost Melbourne numerous opportunity for venue's which have now dried up.