Training Ground?

[Macca 17,113]

12 hours ago, old dee said:

Spot on layzie. It is almost a quarter of the way through the 21st century. Forget the past it is gone. Caulfield it is. The only other option is Casey. 

Both, old dee

According to Pert at the AGM tonight, we'll be at Caulfield* and keep Casey as a 2nd training centre.  We do have 4 teams so it makes sense

 

*See last post on the previous page on the why's and wherefore's re Caulfield (an overview from the AGM)

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by Macca

[dpositive 1,819]

On 18/12/2023 at 22:11, Diamond_Jim said:

Have we missed out on a big opportunity at Port Melbourne....

A highly sought-after piece of industrial land in Port Melbourne will be turned into open space and sporting grounds after the local council won a bidding war, quashing the state government’s plan for a new primary school on the site.

City of Port Phillip Mayor Heather Consulo announced on Monday the $38.8 million purchase of a 1.54-hectare site adjoining North Port Oval – also known as ETU Stadium – at 509 Williamstown Road in Port Melbourne and the wider Fishermans Bend precinct. The land was the site of an Australia Post warehouse.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/school-v-sports-clubs-the-future-of-this-port-melbourne-site-decided-20231218-p5es6q.html

Kate said at the AGM that she had spoken to everyone . Pert said at the AGM that they had looked at every option. 

I may be too late

[No. 31 1,382]

15 hours ago, Macca said:

Both, old dee

According to Pert at the AGM tonight, we'll be at Caulfield* and keep Casey as a 2nd training centre.  We do have 4 teams so it makes sense

 

*See last post on the previous page on the why's and wherefore's re Caulfield (an overview from the AGM)

 

Its on youtube, worth watching for those that have not seen it. Clear and concise presentation.

 

[Macca 17,113]

36 minutes ago, No. 31 said:

Its on youtube, worth watching for those that have not seen it. Clear and concise presentation.

 

Thanks, and you're a good addition to the site even though you're a bluebagger!

Just don't tell @Redleg heehee

[D Rev 631]

14 hours ago, dpositive said:

Kate said at the AGM that she had spoken to everyone . Pert said at the AGM that they had looked at every option. 

I may be too late

I am late to this thread, so apologies if Im treading on old ground.

I *just* saw the Port Melbourne announcement: https://www.portmelbournefc.com.au/city-of-port-phillip-announce-redevelopment-plans/?fbclid=IwAR3eDRse-qnQ6WimemOSWjL5El9qmww_n1eGVnvYqaw2303Nx6E-RgF7yV4

Got to say I'm really disappointed that we didn't pursue this further with Port Melbourne, if we did.  There is enough room there for a second ground and a training centre. 

I'm really confused as to how Caulfield Race track is a better fit than Port Melbourne.

The logistics are much, much better than Caulfield.  Where are we training at Caulfield - in the middle of the track?

Really disappointed and keen to learn more about this decision making process.

 

[greenwaves 498]

35 minutes ago, D Rev said:

Where are we training at Caulfield - in the middle of the track?

That's what it sounds like to me

[Its Time for Another 4,303]

41 minutes ago, D Rev said:

I am late to this thread, so apologies if Im treading on old ground.

I *just* saw the Port Melbourne announcement: https://www.portmelbournefc.com.au/city-of-port-phillip-announce-redevelopment-plans/?fbclid=IwAR3eDRse-qnQ6WimemOSWjL5El9qmww_n1eGVnvYqaw2303Nx6E-RgF7yV4

Got to say I'm really disappointed that we didn't pursue this further with Port Melbourne, if we did.  There is enough room there for a second ground and a training centre. 

I'm really confused as to how Caulfield Race track is a better fit than Port Melbourne.

The logistics are much, much better than Caulfield.  Where are we training at Caulfield - in the middle of the track?

Really disappointed and keen to learn more about this decision making process.

 

They mentioned they had looked at every option including Port and Fisherman’s Bend. There were prohibitive issues with every one they looked at. Caulfield is brilliant logistically. It’s in the centre of the heartland. It’s accessible from 3 different train lines. It’s 10 minutes from the MCG. It has only become an option quite recently as the Govt has decided to open it up to wider community use than just the racecourse. There is ample room for two MCG size grounds. All the space for cutting edge sports facilities admin and supporters all in the one precinct. I real need in the area for the facilities so multiple stakeholders who will invest and have an interest in it happening rather than not happening. The timeframe will be something like 4 years if it all gets approved. A lot of work has gone on by many stakeholders to get to this feasibility stage. There is an in principal agreement to pursue this. Pert said that in response to Gary Hardeman asking if we could be gesumped again like Collingwood did at Olympic Park. 

[Sir Why You Little 37,310]

2 hours ago, No. 31 said:

Its on youtube, worth watching for those that have not seen it. Clear and concise presentation.

 

Thanks for that one

[fr_ap 2,544]

1 hour ago, Its Time for Another said:

They mentioned they had looked at every option including Port and Fisherman’s Bend. There were prohibitive issues with every one they looked at. Caulfield is brilliant logistically. It’s in the centre of the heartland. It’s accessible from 3 different train lines. It’s 10 minutes from the MCG. It has only become an option quite recently as the Govt has decided to open it up to wider community use than just the racecourse. There is ample room for two MCG size grounds. All the space for cutting edge sports facilities admin and supporters all in the one precinct. I real need in the area for the facilities so multiple stakeholders who will invest and have an interest in it happening rather than not happening. The timeframe will be something like 4 years if it all gets approved. A lot of work has gone on by many stakeholders to get to this feasibility stage. There is an in principal agreement to pursue this. Pert said that in response to Gary Hardeman asking if we could be gesumped again like Collingwood did at Olympic Park. 

I'm no fan of Caulfield the area or the South-East in general - (I know a lot of you live there but tbh there are far better places to live in Melbourne that are relatively unexplored by the standard East/Southeast types) - but I agree that this seems like a terrific option for our base which ticks a lot of boxes. We were always going to have to compromise on a few things but all in all this seems to have relatively few. 

I'm not sure of the appeal/obssession with Port Melbourne, which in some parts is basically inaccessible by public transport. 

Beggars cant be choosers...  

[D Rev 631]

1 hour ago, Its Time for Another said:

They mentioned they had looked at every option including Port and Fisherman’s Bend. There were prohibitive issues with every one they looked at. Caulfield is brilliant logistically. It’s in the centre of the heartland. It’s accessible from 3 different train lines. It’s 10 minutes from the MCG. It has only become an option quite recently as the Govt has decided to open it up to wider community use than just the racecourse. There is ample room for two MCG size grounds. All the space for cutting edge sports facilities admin and supporters all in the one precinct. I real need in the area for the facilities so multiple stakeholders who will invest and have an interest in it happening rather than not happening. The timeframe will be something like 4 years if it all gets approved. A lot of work has gone on by many stakeholders to get to this feasibility stage. There is an in principal agreement to pursue this. Pert said that in response to Gary Hardeman asking if we could be gesumped again like Collingwood did at Olympic Park. 

Thanks for this but it all feels a bit like we are being sold a monorail.

Firstly, I don't think its brilliant logistically and it's certainly not in the 'heartland'.  It's the Melbourne Football Club, not Caulfield.  It may be on 3 train lines, but they certainly aren't the 3 that all members or fans are on.  It's very limited thinking to have the view we are a inner SE club, we need to think bigger than that.

Also, Caulfield is not 10 min from the MCG unless you have a helicopter.  Again, monorail.

While the racecourse "could" house two MCG-sized grounds, will it?  There doesn't seem to be any solid plans or even drawings that have been shared, and no word from the VRC around their agreement to any of this.  It's like buying a Toyota Camry and saying "it could go 400km/h" - without saying you need to drop it out of a plane to do so.

A principal agreement really doesn't hold much water.

There may well be a need for facilities in the area, but that's hardly reassuring around who is going to pay for it or support it.

 

[D Rev 631]

2 hours ago, greenwaves said:

That's what it sounds like to me

How bloody ridiculous.  It's Casey 2.0

[greenwaves 498]

Just now, D Rev said:

How bloody ridiculous.  It's Casey 2.0

I don't think it's a problem as long the training grounds are full size and at a high standard it should be fine

[bluey 1,118]

5 years is a long time in MFC time, and here we are, inserting ourselves back into a gambling venue, and the heinous business of betting on animals.

[beelzebub 23,390]

5 hours ago, D Rev said:

I am late to this thread, so apologies if Im treading on old ground.

I *just* saw the Port Melbourne announcement: https://www.portmelbournefc.com.au/city-of-port-phillip-announce-redevelopment-plans/?fbclid=IwAR3eDRse-qnQ6WimemOSWjL5El9qmww_n1eGVnvYqaw2303Nx6E-RgF7yV4

Got to say I'm really disappointed that we didn't pursue this further with Port Melbourne, if we did.  There is enough room there for a second ground and a training centre. 

I'm really confused as to how Caulfield Race track is a better fit than Port Melbourne.

The logistics are much, much better than Caulfield.  Where are we training at Caulfield - in the middle of the track?

Really disappointed and keen to learn more about this decision making process.

 

Yes.. the middle...maybe a  bit to the left..or such..

Have you any idea of the amount of area there ?? 

Edited December 20, 2023 by beelzebub

[No. 31 1,382]

3 hours ago, D Rev said:

 

Firstly, I don't think its brilliant logistically and it's certainly not in the 'heartland'.  It's the Melbourne Football Club, not Caulfield.  It may be on 3 train lines, but they certainly aren't the 3 that all members or fans are on.  It's very limited thinking to have the view we are a inner SE club, we need to think bigger than that.

Also, Caulfield is not 10 min from the MCG unless you have a helicopter.  Again, monorail.

 

I often catch the Cranbourne & Pakenham Line trains and usually do Richmond to Carnegie in 13 minutes. You won't do Calufield Racecourse to MCG in 10 minutes but you will do Caulfield Station to Richmond Station in about 10 minutes.

Actually, the Cranbourne & Pakenham Line trains will use the new Metro Tunnel scheduled to open late 2024 or early 2025 and will mean that Caulfield will become easily accessible to the the inner north and the western suburbs by public transport.

[Grr-owl 1,257]

10 hours ago, No. 31 said:

I often catch the Cranbourne & Pakenham Line trains and usually do Richmond to Carnegie in 13 minutes. You won't do Calufield Racecourse to MCG in 10 minutes but you will do Caulfield Station to Richmond Station in about 10 minutes.

Actually, the Cranbourne & Pakenham Line trains will use the new Metro Tunnel scheduled to open late 2024 or early 2025 and will mean that Caulfield will become easily accessible to the the inner north and the western suburbs by public transport.

Right on. And according to the club there is no better option. If there is one, someone should lay it out here. Do a comparison using the criteria Perty discussed at the AGM. Space, accessibility, availability et al., and (I suspect) the biggest issue of all: willingness to cooperate with MFC...

Edited December 20, 2023 by Grr-owl

[layzie 34,339]

19 hours ago, No. 31 said:

Its on youtube, worth watching for those that have not seen it. Clear and concise presentation.

 

Nice, thanks very much for that!

[dpositive 1,819]

13 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

Right on. And according to the club there is no better option. If there is one, someone should lay it out here. Do a comparison using the criteria Perty discussed at the AGM. Space, accessibility, availability et al., and (I suspect) the biggest issue of all: willingness to cooperate with MFC...

that was the reason for my questions at the AGM. I am prepared to undertake a feasibility study  as I think it is worthwhile having some alternatives for comparison and competition. But it is important to compare like with like. As Kate has said FB may be too expensive to obtain the required land space but alternatively as pointed out by others Caulfield might well be a cheaper option with limited investment return.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

15 hours ago, fr_ap said:

I'm not sure of the appeal/obssession with Port Melbourne, which in some parts is basically inaccessible by public transport.

Port Melbourne is a bastard to get to, by any means, from anywhere.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

14 hours ago, bluey said:

5 years is a long time in MFC time, and here we are, inserting ourselves back into a gambling venue, and the heinous business of betting on animals.

No need to jump to conclusions. We may be strategically partnering with the dog food and glue industries.

[whelan45 203]

15 hours ago, D Rev said:

Thanks for this but it all feels a bit like we are being sold a monorail.

Firstly, I don't think its brilliant logistically and it's certainly not in the 'heartland'.  It's the Melbourne Football Club, not Caulfield.  It may be on 3 train lines, but they certainly aren't the 3 that all members or fans are on.  It's very limited thinking to have the view we are a inner SE club, we need to think bigger than that.

Also, Caulfield is not 10 min from the MCG unless you have a helicopter.  Again, monorail.

While the racecourse "could" house two MCG-sized grounds, will it?  There doesn't seem to be any solid plans or even drawings that have been shared, and no word from the VRC around their agreement to any of this.  It's like buying a Toyota Camry and saying "it could go 400km/h" - without saying you need to drop it out of a plane to do so.

A principal agreement really doesn't hold much water.

There may well be a need for facilities in the area, but that's hardly reassuring around who is going to pay for it or support it.

 

Out of interest, do you live closer to Port Melbourne than Caufield?

[D Rev 631]

26 minutes ago, whelan45 said:

Out of interest, do you live closer to Port Melbourne than Caufield?

As the bird flies I do, by car its probably the same amount of time, no idea about public transport.

My point was more about having a central (Melbourne) location than one in the SE suburbs.

 

 

[Redleg 41,949]

19 hours ago, Macca said:

Thanks, and you're a good addition to the site even though you're a bluebagger!

Just don't tell @Redleg heehee

He knows. Not happy Jan.

[rjay 25,307]

15 hours ago, bluey said:

5 years is a long time in MFC time, and here we are, inserting ourselves back into a gambling venue, and the heinous business of betting on animals.

This is the one thing I'm uneasy about...

[GM11 787]

15 hours ago, bluey said:

5 years is a long time in MFC time, and here we are, inserting ourselves back into a gambling venue, and the heinous business of betting on animals.

Not forgetting that AFL is just as much a betting business.