Training Ground?

[Diamond_Jim 12,627]

22 minutes ago, 640MD said:

It needs to be kept in mind.  That this is Crown Land. It’s leased.  We will not own it, will perhaps own the building.  We can take it with us when we leave.  

Not sure about asset gain.

Agree. This is why we should not be using Future fund capital on the build. At least Essendon and Hawthorn own their land.

[Kent 2,914]

12 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

For one reason or another , as it were, I'll put aside the funding issue...if there is one.

The idea of permits etc can be the quagmire. That said if G.E. is indeed onboard ( at least atm in their current guise ) this may not prove much of an impediment.  If they truly are happy to see this unfold then they'll  just stamp it and stand aside. 

Back to money. I have a suspicion it's been hard  for the club to lock money/grants/commitment in as there's actually been no location to allocate to. Lots of iffy in the clouds stuff in the past. Here we have a location, heads of agreements, concepts and preliminary designs....I.e something specific. 

I don't see $$$ as being any problem. 

From a "build" perspective  much could be done simultaneously as two distinct parts/sites. 1) Admin and Training 2) Ovals/Pav .

Should be able to do 18mnths/2y wo to go once greenlit.

We're  not building docklands  here...  it's not that complicated. 

Go Dees

Talk to the cfmeu before you make any predictions

[beelzebub 23,382]

5 minutes ago, Kent said:

Talk to the cfmeu before you make any predictions

Have you noticed Melbourne's  skyline lately... 

Stuff gets built. It's not all ...bogeyman theatre.

[Redleg 41,420]

38 minutes ago, 640MD said:

It needs to be kept in mind.  That this is Crown Land. It’s leased.  We will not own it, will perhaps own the building.  We can take it with us when we leave.  

Not sure about asset gain.

I am not sure if that is correct.

I thought the stables area, where the building will go, was actually land owned by the MRC.

The ovals of course will be on Crown land, but we would probably get a 100 year lease. 

[beelzebub 23,382]

Just now, Redleg said:

I am not sure if that is correct.

I thought the stables area, where the building will go, was actually land owned by the MRC.

The ovals of course will be on Crown land, but we would probably get a 100 year lease. 

Hasn't worried MRC too much in the past.

100 y lease / owning...    much of a muchness really in great scheme of things.

Ppl wouldn't be living in Canberra if worried  ;) 

[layzie 33,991]

52 minutes ago, 640MD said:

It needs to be kept in mind.  That this is Crown Land. It’s leased.  We will not own it, will perhaps own the building.  We can take it with us when we leave.  

Not sure about asset gain.

That's right, and especially relevant in Victoria so something to think about. 

Edited September 18 by layzie

[No. 31 1,304]

I don't think MFC will be getting a 5 year lease with 1 option to renew.

There will certainly be specific long term leasing arrangements made.

Also, the land where the admin/training building is on may possibly not be Crown Land, some portions of land outside the race tract at Caulfield RC are held by the MRC as freehold. The two training ovals will certainly be on Crown Land though.

Might even be subject to a specific Act of Parliament as Princes Park is.

If you want freehold land then you have to look at urban fringe like Tullamarine or Dingley. If you want an inner urban area a long term lease is far more likely.

As mentioned abive, people in the A.C.T. still purchase real estate on 100 year leases.

[layzie 33,991]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It was a stupid business decision, cost us millions and pokies are still rampant. The pokies didn't disappear, the dollars just went elsewhere. Meanwhile AFL and clubs happy to cosy up to gambling companies.

I hate the pokies but while they exist I'd rather the money go to the MFC than to Woolworths and Coles.

It was a moral decision that I am proud that we made. 

However the elephant in the room was always going to be how we would replace that revenue. 

Just five years earlier we needed serious AFL help and serious involvement from them in getting our club back on track. Without knowing the club's balance sheet that well I do know that as controversial as pokies were, they brought in consistent $$. 

I'm proud to support a club that leads the way in many social initiatives but I'd also like as to have a strong asset base. 

[george_on_the_outer 7,695]

17 minutes ago, layzie said:

 

However the elephant in the room was always going to be how we would replace that revenue. 

Just five years earlier we needed serious AFL help and serious involvement from them in getting our club back on track. Without knowing the club's balance sheet that well I do know that as controversial as pokies were, they brought in consistent $$. 

 

...and unfortunately the members will find out once the financials come out this year without pokies revenue.  Meanwhile other clubs still have theirs or are going to "divest" sometime......

[old dee 23,871]

18 hours ago, waynewussell said:

I think you will find that the playing fields will be ready long before the whole complex is completed.

It's still not even approved and 2025 is only 3 months away I will stay with 2030.

[whatwhat say what 22,932]

6 hours ago, 58er said:

BTW when are you “guessing “ what ladder position the Dees  will finish in 2025 - 2030.

Oh and what will you have for breakfast in 2027. 

I am guessing it’s all too much for you  and you will have brain overload and give up. 

Good luck ! 

2025-30 - we'll finish somewhere between 1 and 19, hopefully closer to 1

coffee

i think you missed my follow-up where i said how excited i am by this announcement, and that to get it fully built by 2030 would be a brilliant result for the club

[old dee 23,871]

6 hours ago, 58er said:

Congrats OD You are the first Demonlander to record your 100th NEGATIVE comment. Record pace and why stop now Your 2030 prediction is so you.

Just remember both you and I might not be here if 2030 is the opening date. 

I am far more positive than you and in time for 2028 or middle/ late 2027 might be a total completion date.

Makes the Bombers  20 year Finals drought look like a Century or at least like our Flag drought of 57 years.  

 

Not sure why when people state the actually state of affairs it is labed negative. Sadly however I do agree with you I doubt I will see it finished which I find sad as I have been following the nomadic mfc for as long as I can remember.

[Sir Windsor 219]

I wonder if Beaumaris Sec college area was ever considered. It already has MCC facilities including two ovals ( not sure on dimensions). 

There is also plenty of space there for administration buildings and an indoor facility. 

 

[Demon17 5,202]

2 hours ago, 640MD said:

It needs to be kept in mind.  That this is Crown Land. It’s leased.  We will not own it, will perhaps own the building.  We can take it with us when we leave.  

Not sure about asset gain.

It will appear on our Balance Sheet and has true value, not something like treating players as assets.

The whole state runs on long term crown land leases. Nothing serious in that.

Think Yarra Park, or Cunningham Pier Geelong(which the late Frank Costa held a 99 year lease for, then a serious building built on the end. Frank wasn't concerned), 

[Demon17 5,202]

53 minutes ago, old dee said:

Not sure why when people state the actually state of affairs it is labed negative. Sadly however I do agree with you I doubt I will see it finished which I find sad as I have been following the nomadic mfc for as long as I can remember.

Chin up Old Dee.

You will be around for the opening, just that your moniker on Demonland will be "Older Dee"

 

[Diamond_Jim 12,627]

It's not so much about the crown leasehold it's the ability to transfer the leasehold and its improvements at value. This leasehold will be littered with covenants limiting its end use. There is not a great market for AFL facilities.

In the case of Hawthorn and Essendon they can subject to planning approval sell the underlying land for industrial or residential use.

We could end up like say North Melbourne which carries a large asset on its books in the form of "leasehold improvements" at Arden Street. Take that asset out of their balance sheet and it looks rather sick.

In short we need to raise fresh capital to complete this activity or better still get the Government to pay for it a la Geelong and Footscray.

[old dee 23,871]

1 hour ago, Demon17 said:

Chin up Old Dee.

You will be around for the opening, just that your moniker on Demonland will be "Older Dee"

 

Try very old dee!

[Dr. Gonzo 24,274]

2 hours ago, layzie said:

It was a moral decision that I am proud that we made. 

However the elephant in the room was always going to be how we would replace that revenue. 

Just five years earlier we needed serious AFL help and serious involvement from them in getting our club back on track. Without knowing the club's balance sheet that well I do know that as controversial as pokies were, they brought in consistent $$. 

I'm proud to support a club that leads the way in many social initiatives but I'd also like as to have a strong asset base. 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, the issue is replacing that revenue. Get rid of pokies, fine, but what will happen down the track when we have our hands out for AFL dollars again? In the meantime will we fall further behind the other clubs who still have pokies cash rolling in? Will we also excuse ourselves from other income received via sponsorship from gambling companies? Will the AFL cancel their sponsorships and "joint partnerships" with gambling companies or companies that rely on that income (ie broadcasters)?

We shot ourselves in the foot and now face a giant hole in our income.

[Diamond_Jim 12,627]

15 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't necessarily disagree with you, the issue is replacing that revenue. Get rid of pokies, fine, but what will happen down the track when we have our hands out for AFL dollars again? In the meantime will we fall further behind the other clubs who still have pokies cash rolling in? Will we also excuse ourselves from other income received via sponsorship from gambling companies? Will the AFL cancel their sponsorships and "joint partnerships" with gambling companies or companies that rely on that income (ie broadcasters)?

We shot ourselves in the foot and now face a giant hole in our income.

I don't follow the pokie machine industry in depth but as I recall we exited at the top of the market I think. Since then the various restrictions and licensing amendments have made the individual pokie machines far less valuable. So income wise perhaps we have not lost that much. On the other hand we missed the big boom in land prices and perhaps a sale of the Bentleigh club today would have given more.

The real answer is a big future fund with diverse assets such as those held by US universities. They take decades to build but you need to start sometime

[whatwhat say what 22,932]

The Melbourne Racing Club has sensationally ruled out rebel John Kanga’s push to spill the board at a special general meeting.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/racing/melbourne-racing-club-bury-caulfield-rebel-s-push-to-spill-the-board-20240919-p5kbww.html

[dazzledavey36 55,316]

 

[george_on_the_outer 7,695]

4 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

I don't follow the pokie machine industry in depth but as I recall we exited at the top of the market I think. Since then the various restrictions and licensing amendments have made the individual pokie machines far less valuable. So income wise perhaps we have not lost that much. On the other hand we missed the big boom in land prices and perhaps a sale of the Bentleigh club today would have given more.

The real answer is a big future fund with diverse assets such as those held by US universities. They take decades to build but you need to start sometime

No..the return in terms of yield from the pokies was far greater than what could be gained from any investment which is not in the junk bond-crypto type areas.  They would have to reach about 10% return to just break even from what we had before. 

[Rednblueriseing 825]

21 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

Surely the Club wouldn’t come out publicly if it wasn't at least %80 sure it will get done.

[old dee 23,871]

12 minutes ago, Rednblueriseing said:

Surely the Club wouldn’t come out publicly if it wasn't at least %80 sure it will get done.

What is the problem DD. I am not on X and no intention of swelling the coffers  of the owner. 

[KozzyCan 764]

34 minutes ago, Rednblueriseing said:

Surely the Club wouldn’t come out publicly if it wasn't at least %80 sure it will get done.

Do you realise what club you barrack for?