I don’t understand the appeal of Fisherman’s Bend or Port Melbourne. We have no ties to these areas.

Caulfield Racecourse is right in our “heartland” as they call it. 
I couldn’t think of a better outcome.

Just gotta close.

9 minutes ago, Mach5 said:

I don’t understand the appeal of Fisherman’s Bend or Port Melbourne. We have no ties to these areas.

Caulfield Racecourse is right in our “heartland” as they call it. 
I couldn’t think of a better outcome.

Just gotta close.

I know several people very close to the redevelopment at Caulfield. My understanding is they would happily welcome Melbourne there but Dees don’t have anywhere close to the $ they want (as it stands).  

1 hour ago, The Jackson FIX said:

I know several people very close to the redevelopment at Caulfield. My understanding is they would happily welcome Melbourne there but Dees don’t have anywhere close to the $ they want (as it stands).  

Interesting, wouldn’t have thought we were way off $$$$. Sale of Bentleigh Club and years of generous donations from Foundation Heroes would have raised a healthy deposit. No doubt we would rely on some level of government funding. Sincerely hope we get it as Caulfield for me ticks so many boxes. 

1 hour ago, The Jackson FIX said:

I know several people very close to the redevelopment at Caulfield. My understanding is they would happily welcome Melbourne there but Dees don’t have anywhere close to the $ they want (as it stands).  

if Caulfield's a thing:

If Porz, Rennick and Roffey can't swing a deal, not sure who can.

2 hours ago, Mach5 said:

I don’t understand the appeal of Fisherman’s Bend or Port Melbourne. We have no ties to these areas.

Caulfield Racecourse is right in our “heartland” as they call it. 
I couldn’t think of a better outcome.

Just gotta close.

The appeal of Port Melbourne is just that. Port MELBOURNE it is the only suburb area that contains the name of the club and has the heritage links as the port that associates it with the club. Port Melbourne have similar club colours to MFC and a rich history. 

Fishermans Bend is a green field site that has plenty of underutilised open and warehouse spaces. It has government endorsement (both parties) and recognition of huge population growth. There is an established development body and potential to have improved access and entertainment and community facility. both developeers and govt may be attracted to consider such a facility if investment by a suitable body.

Ron Barassi SNr oval is close to the area although you have to search to find it. its on the river near what was the old port.a new facility in FB could be a fitting site for the Ron Barassi facility.

46 minutes ago, Dee Viney Intervention said:

Interesting, wouldn’t have thought we were way off $$$$. Sale of Bentleigh Club and years of generous donations from Foundation Heroes would have raised a healthy deposit. No doubt we would rely on some level of government funding. Sincerely hope we get it as Caulfield for me ticks so many boxes. 

these resources provide a solid down payment which could allow access to further private investment funds (superannuation and financial) and an opportunity to supplement government support to have our own owned portion of a larger facility.

I agree we have some great performers on our board who will be able to exert influence for the best deal for the club.

35 minutes ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

if Caulfield's a thing:

If Porz, Rennick and Roffey can't swing a deal, not sure who can.

As Ive said we have some great people on the board.

I have been to Hong Kong and seen the football facility in the centre of the racing course.. It was not ideal for connection but was agreat entertainment facility attached to a racecourse.

The principal operation will always be a race club not a football club. We would be a minor tenant to another industry. Fishermans Bend offers greenfield site that we can control.

On 15/10/2023 at 18:46, Dannyz said:

This is what I keep touching on.

We won a flag out of AAMI park, Brisbane won 3 out of corparoo which is/was division 3 VAFA level, Waverley is nothing special for the Hawks 3. 

It isn't the be all and end all in elite performance. 

I think there is a huge difference in that we don't have our admin, training ground, gym, recovery etc all in the one place.

No matter how hard people try, it  makes a large disconnect whereby you aren't bumping into people around the water cooler, talking social media, admin, board, managers, players etc

Hard to one entity.

And while people look at 2021, we were in the training hub for a long time. Everyone talked about being in unity and working with purpose and togetherness. No surprise that our 'selflessness' mantra was a huge part of 2021. That seems to have disappeared IMO

 

3 hours ago, The Jackson FIX said:

I know several people very close to the redevelopment at Caulfield. My understanding is they would happily welcome Melbourne there but Dees don’t have anywhere close to the $ they want (as it stands).  

Yeah, the issue would be funding contribution from the state govt who are flat broke currently. It’d need to be a longterm goal & being politicians, they won’t commit to something beyond the next election (nor should we rely on any promises that far into the future).

2 hours ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

if Caulfield's a thing:

If Porz, Rennick and Roffey can't swing a deal, not sure who can.

Is the prospect of being in the MCG precinct officially dead? If so, it would be nice for members to know that.

Re Caulfield - are we just at the feasibility stage? Does anyone know? That's where we were re Jolimont 5 years ago......

My understanding is that the Future Fund is locked away - not to be used for any new facility.

Sounds like one of the bigger recent cases of ‘beggars can’t be choosers’. Understand that it has to be just right though.

1 hour ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Is the prospect of being in the MCG precinct officially dead? If so, it would be nice for members to know that.

Re Caulfield - are we just at the feasibility stage? Does anyone know? That's where we were re Jolimont 5 years ago......

My understanding is that the Future Fund is locked away - not to be used for any new facility.

I posted the info below about 12 months ago, HTD; a timetable that would suggest the answer to your question might not yet quite be known. The big change, of course, is the Commonwealth games situation, and a further year of the State's financial situation. The 2027 Rugby World Cup remains as a timing factor.

On 02/11/2022 at 15:20, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

I'm inclined to this GSS redevelopment possibility, with you and @Sir Why You Little. Apologies, everyone, if the detail below has already been canvassed. I also note it would seem a strategic plan 'fail' as pointed out by @Dr. Gonzo.

From 'felix.net' in 'Felix Project News', claiming itself to be 'Australia's Favourite Construction Blog' [with my numbering]:

1. $2M+ State/MCC/G funding was committed mid year to '... complete the business case for the [GSS] redevelopment project.'

2. Development won't start until 2027, after the 2026 opening of the Commonwealth Games and a possible 2027 Rugby World Cup, and '... is expected to be undertaken in sections, enabling the ground still to be used for major events ...'

3. Quoting MCC's Stuart Fox: 'This [State/MCC/G] funding will allow the MCC and the State ... to develop detailed plans around scope options, funding [my italics] ... ' etc

4. The project '... will ... include "best-in-class facilities" for event and non-event [my italics] days.'

5. '...new elite player facilities will ... be incorporated into the stand.'

6. The stand '... will ... have better connections ... potentially to the Melbourne and Olympic Park precincts.'

7. Paraphrasing, the stand will open up to the Yarra Park surroundings.

8. It will '... also feature ... a possible hotel to generate additional revenue ...'

Points 1 and 2 provide an 'it's early days' reason for a current, at least 'nothing to report' silence. All the points to varying degrees involve a likely (lead?) tenancy, as opposed to an 'owned' facility elsewhere, which points to 'commercial in confidence' and 'negotiation' reasons for a current silence. Current MFC director and property lawyer David Rennick is involved (and good!) Point 3 indicates scope development is still very much in play in negotiations.

Points 4, 5 and 6, supported by point 3, provide the hint that player needs we have debated in here can, and likely will, be met.

Points 7 and 8 suggest a component of 'corporate' type construction, in which MFC corporate needs could be met. I wonder if point 7 might be met be a fill-in of the triangle formed with Brunton Ave outside Gate 5(?)

Sadly point 2 would suggest such new facilities could be instrumental only in our next premiership window!😉

 

 

8 hours ago, Mach5 said:

Yeah, the issue would be funding contribution from the state govt who are flat broke currently. It’d need to be a longterm goal & being politicians, they won’t commit to something beyond the next election (nor should we rely on any promises that far into the future).

Agree on all of the above.  Government stumps up or we might be in trouble with this option.

 

And sadly our state is staring down years of covid-response debt pain so the MFC’s training facilities is hardly a priority.

 

I’d imagine the ‘public value’ argument that Collingwood leveraged when they got funded would be difficult to use because my best guess is Caulfield are already delivering on that as part of the redevelopment.

I hope that many Melbourne members (including myself) ask this question about a Home Base and the progress of it at the upcoming AGM.

It was part of our Strategic Plan and it is vital that this objective is met.

No more excuses. Just get it done!

On 23/10/2023 at 12:12, Rab D Nesbitt said:

There's no reason to think that Fishermen's Bend won't end up as the same soulless, windswept, high-rise concrete wasteland occupied by short term overseas students that have little or no interest in our indigenous game, just like the Docklands precinct currently is. Anyone that doesn't think this is giving too much credit to urban planners,  developers and politicians. 

Good point. I work in said windswept soulless high-rise wasteland these days with said overseas students. Have made it standard practice to tell them that all overseas students are obliged to support the Melbourne Football Club. I explain that it is a law, and say that they ticked the MFC box on the landing card as they flew in and now must follow through. Doesn't seem to be having the effect I assumed it would, but you never know... 

31 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

Good point. I work in said windswept soulless high-rise wasteland these days with said overseas students. Have made it standard practice to tell them that all overseas students are obliged to support the Melbourne Football Club. I explain that it is a law, and say that they ticked the MFC box on the landing card as they flew in and now must follow through. Doesn't seem to be having the effect I assumed it would, but you never know... 

Love it. We should have an MFC presence in international arrivals ready to hand over a supporters pack to every ‘New Australian’ emigrating to our state. 

On 25/10/2023 at 08:20, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

if Caulfield's a thing:

If Porz, Rennick and Roffey can't swing a deal, not sure who can.

So far a F for the trio. Casey forever? 

4 hours ago, old dee said:

So far a F for the trio. Casey forever? 

Maybe a bit harsh on Porz - he was just put on the Board just last month.

Rennick has been on since October 2020.

Roffey has been on the Board since 2013 and has chaired the Board's Facilities Working Group since 2019.

Edited October 26, 20231 yr by Hawk the Demon
Typo

20 hours ago, The Jackson FIX said:

Agree on all of the above.  Government stumps up or we might be in trouble with this option.

 

And sadly our state is staring down years of covid-response debt pain so the MFC’s training facilities is hardly a priority.

 

I’d imagine the ‘public value’ argument that Collingwood leveraged when they got funded would be difficult to use because my best guess is Caulfield are already delivering on that as part of the redevelopment.

Governments have an obligation to fund sporting clubs equitably and we should hold State and Local Government to this given we have funded half of the feasibility study.  If the Government is broke then sell us the land at market value less what they would otherwise contribute.

5 hours ago, chookrat said:

Governments have an obligation to fund sporting clubs equitably and we should hold State and Local Government to this given we have funded half of the feasibility study.  If the Government is broke then sell us the land at market value less what they would otherwise contribute.

Not an expert in government policy, obligations or lobbying but I reckon there would be many examples of ‘grossly inequitable’ funding of sporting clubs. 
 

I coach a junior, inner-suburban football team. Our club is huge and heavily -subscribed but our facilities are beyond awful, we barely get a cent from the government. When we play the teams in ‘emerging suburbs’ the disparity in facilities is mind-boggling. Some of these joints are better than Marvel.

Seeing as the Melbourne Football Club has now won the McClelland Trophy.

My question is, should some of that $1 million dollars go toward the setting up of our Home Base?

8 minutes ago, Supreme_Demon said:

Seeing as the Melbourne Football Club has now won the McClelland Trophy.

My question is, should some of that $1 million dollars go toward the setting up of our Home Base?

Yeah it may pay for an advisor on planning for a couple of months.

Half the  money is going into general revenue, the rest is being split up equally between mens and womens teams.

Edited October 29, 20231 yr by drysdale demon
more information

On 23/10/2023 at 12:41, Sir Why You Little said:

Sure. But a Lease can still be broken, it is a dangerous thing to do

OMG !  So a lease is as useful as a coaching contract with cast iron guarantee 🤔🙄

On 26/10/2023 at 15:48, chookrat said:

Governments have an obligation to fund sporting clubs equitably and we should hold State and Local Government to this given we have funded half of the feasibility study.  If the Government is broke then sell us the land at market value less what they would otherwise contribute.

chookrat - nothing personal, but are you naïve?  Governments may have “moral”  obligation to do things equitably, but have they ever done so?  

On 26/10/2023 at 20:55, The Jackson FIX said:

Not an expert in government policy, obligations or lobbying but I reckon there would be many examples of ‘grossly inequitable’ funding of sporting clubs. 
 

I coach a junior, inner-suburban football team. Our club is huge and heavily -subscribed but our facilities are beyond awful, we barely get a cent from the government. When we play the teams in ‘emerging suburbs’ the disparity in facilities is mind-boggling. Some of these joints are better than Marvel.

Yeh, the government doesn't give a rats if MFC has facilities less than other clubs.  They look at the community benefit, you need to add layers, the Pies used Netball to get money then folded their Netball side.  Richmond use bash Houli Academy, Essendon paraolyimpics, Carlton and dogs home of female football. What is our sell.

I guess in our own minds we are the good guys

WE have zero chance in my view of any government money Just the way it is.

We are perceived as a wealthy club with wealthy members 

what is in it for any government to give us monetary support