Training Ground?

[Diamond_Jim 12,443]

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 23,620]

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 24,069]

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 12,443]

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 22,475]

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 53,856]

 

[george_on_the_outer 7,486]

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 812]

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 23,620]

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 749]

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?

[layzie 33,646]

Who would have thought the club would get their own mail so horribly wrong?

[Rednblueriseing 812]

31 minutes ago, old dee said:

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

Does not say much, but just he has mail,*(roumer) saying its miles off.. if ever getting done.

[Dannyz 2,606]

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

This is a rather assured take from Mark, who doesn’t indulge himself in innuendo (as far I can see) and who also has strong links to identities on the Caulfield side of town. It is hard to believe that the club would release the news if it wasn’t at least sure that funding could be secure by some trusted means, albeit timely news to settle a disgruntled supporter base. 
I can’t help but feel the Glen Eira serving face of the campaign is very flawed. I believe this a project that will truly indulge only the MFC and very vaguely the racing club. Private investment through Yourland has been explored and knocked back. Perhaps there is someone else willing to front up. 

[Lucifers Hero 39,083]

I'm not surprised by Allen's take.

The club's announcement was very carefully crafted.

It said the feasibility study was 'stakeholder engagement' which I took to mean (unknown) local community groups.  Therefore it didn't include other stuff usually in such a study (eg macro level business case, risks etc) that lead to a go/no go decision that has a very high assurance of going ahead. 

The 'tell' tucked away in mfc's email is:  While the success of the feasibility study does not ensure the future of the project ...

Without being too cynical the announcement looked like a dressed up progress report.  That there was no press conf let alone fanfare from other key stakeholders:  AFL, Racing, Local Gov't etc says achieving a limited feasibility study is no big deal.

As to the timing: the club needs some feel good news out there ...

[Mickey 4,594]

7 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

I'm not surprised by Allen's take.

The club's announcement was very carefully crafted.

It said the feasibility study was 'stakeholder engagement' which I took to mean (unknown) local community groups.  Therefore it didn't include other stuff usually in such a study (eg macro level business case, risks etc) that lead to a go/no go decision that has a very high assurance of going ahead. 

The 'tell' tucked away in mfc's email is:  While the success of the feasibility study does not ensure the future of the project ...

Without being too cynical the announcement looked like a dressed up progress report.  That there was no press conf let alone fanfare from other key stakeholders:  AFL, Racing, Local Gov't etc says achieving a limited feasibility study is no big deal.

As to the timing: the club needs some feel good news out there ...

If this is the case, and this doesn't get the go ahead, Pert and the board should resign.

[whatwhat say what 22,475]

until proven otherwise, one is a piece of scuttlebutt by a 3aw rumour and the other is an official statement by the club

no need to jump at shadows

[spirit of norm smith 15,870]

Maybe the Dees could have members and supporters contribute or pledge towards the new training base, admin headquarters & social club centre. 

Buy A Brick type campaign with your name, family name or in memory of a loved one   

its been done by many many clubs here in the AFL, other sports clubs in Australia and throughout the world.  
 

 

[waynewussell 5,118]

2 hours ago, Mickey said:

If this is the case, and this doesn't get the go ahead, Pert and the board should resign.

The problem for you is that the majority here understand that getting a feasibility study ticked off is simply an acknowledgement by the major players that a specific proposal can be achieved. If it is not achieved because of a range of other roadblocks, it doesn’t mean the Board needs to be ejected. A large number here can see that the Caulfield option is one that would satisfy almost all of our needs regarding a home base. Would you prefer the Board take none of the prescribed actions for establishing such a base for fear of failure?

[dazzledavey36 53,856]

2 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

I'm not surprised by Allen's take.

The club's announcement was very carefully crafted.

It said the feasibility study was 'stakeholder engagement' which I took to mean (unknown) local community groups.  Therefore it didn't include other stuff usually in such a study (eg macro level business case, risks etc) that lead to a go/no go decision that has a very high assurance of going ahead. 

The 'tell' tucked away in mfc's email is:  While the success of the feasibility study does not ensure the future of the project ...

Without being too cynical the announcement looked like a dressed up progress report.  That there was no press conf let alone fanfare from other key stakeholders:  AFL, Racing, Local Gov't etc says achieving a limited feasibility study is no big deal.

As to the timing: the club needs some feel good news out there ...

Exactly the way I read and why I haven't once jumped up fist pumping over this news.

I'm sceptical on where this currently sits.

[waynewussell 5,118]

34 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Exactly the way I read and why I haven't once jumped up fist pumping over this news.

I'm sceptical on where this currently sits.

Can you please make a list of any MFC business that you have not been sceptical of over, say, the last 100 years? Shouldn’t take you long!

[Older demon 2,725]

11 hours ago, Demon17 said:

Chin up Old Dee.

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

 

Pardon me but I am already there.

[Timothy Reddan-A'Blew 4,958]

Money was found for Casey Fields, and a reasonable facility has resulted, whose only (major) knock, it generally seems, is location. Is that capital investment realisable in any way, for reinvestment at Caulfield, with lease-back at Casey for AFLW and VFL?

[dazzledavey36 53,856]

30 minutes ago, waynewussell said:

Can you please make a list of any MFC business that you have not been sceptical of over, say, the last 100 years? Shouldn’t take you long!

Nah

Edited September 19 by dazzledavey36

[Oxdee 308]

11 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

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.

Not owning the land is a concern. Not sure what appreciation you can get with depreciating facilities. We were able to make a nice profit from the Bentleigh club because we owned the land. 
 

[Bowserpower 137]

4 hours ago, Mickey said:

If this is the case, and this doesn't get the go ahead, Pert and the board should resign.

That would be much worse than where we were at the start of the week