Jump to content

Training Ground?

Romey
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

 

I mean, it's a feasibility study. And the answer was yes, it's feasible. Which is better than it's unfeasible. Which is what we got trying to do anything near the mcg.

  • Quote
    • Like 8
     
    2 minutes ago, biggestred said:

    I mean, it's a feasibility study. And the answer was yes, it's feasible. Which is better than it's unfeasible. Which is what we got trying to do anything near the mcg.

    Bingo. Accurate and succint summary 👍😊

  • Quote
    1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

    So far we have a colour brochure….

    i'm so excited ... i just can't wait for the black and white one 😎

  • Quote

    23 hours ago, Mickey said:

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

    Well they just bought themselves another 9 months with this press release, right?

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
    4 hours ago, Foopy on the telly said:

    Not sure what rock you’ve been living under mate but they literally came out and said the Yarra park precinct wasn’t possible (around 2019/20). 

    It was part of the 2020-23 strategic plan to commence construction on new facilities within the MCG precinct by 2023.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
     
    3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

    you missed out "there was aami carpark F (fail"

    And the Goschs park triangle

  • Quote

    IMG_1571.thumb.jpeg.d10f564e10cbcbd4f126ad903dcfde20.jpeg

     

    Edited by bluey

  • Quote
    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 1
    5 hours ago, biggestred said:

    I mean, it's a feasibility study. And the answer was yes, it's feasible. Which is better than it's unfeasible. Which is what we got trying to do anything near the mcg.

    Did you read the extract? - We got to the second stage of a feasibility last time. Don't get me wrong. I hope it happens - but please keep us informed. The members might actually be able to help. There are a lot of us.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    2 hours ago, bluey said:

    IMG_1571.thumb.jpeg.d10f564e10cbcbd4f126ad903dcfde20.jpeg

     

    Jee that's no good.

    Local residents left out of the consultation process by the MFC.

  • Quote
    7 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    Oh dear - I thought we had that side of politics covered? Who does he barrack for?

    Saints. Ex Caulfield Grammar too. Probably hates all the blue blood Melbourne Grammar Demon supporters 🤣

  • Quote
    • Shocked 1

    5 hours ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

    Jee that's no good.

    Local residents left out of the consultation process by the MFC.

    What did you want the club to do call up every resident and ask, 'is it ok if we build a home base in the middle of the racecourse or would you rather stare at empty grassland'?

    I mean no one will care once it's built, and will just add value to the area.

  • Quote
    • Like 11
    12 hours ago, bluey said:

    IMG_1571.thumb.jpeg.d10f564e10cbcbd4f126ad903dcfde20.jpeg

     

    That isn't a good sign.  I hope the mfc didn't blindside him and other pollies/key stakeholders..

    Pert's memo said:

    "...the feasibility study for our proposed new training and administration facility at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve has been successfully completed and approved to progress to the next stage...

    This phase of the process has focused heavily on stakeholder engagement and garnering local support for the project. The positive sentiment from so many local community organisations and groups has been wide-spread and the feasibility study has definitely highlighted the community’s desire to see this project come to life".

    Unfortunately he doesn't say who the 'stakeholder engagement' was with nor who approved the study to progress to the next stage. 

    This is the survey Southwick has put online for residents.  https://www.davidsouthwick.com.au/survey/caulfield-racecourse-funding  It is fairly basic and the sort of survey one would include early in a feasibility study with variations for each type of stakeholder.  It could just be a pollie being seen to do the resident's bidding but who knows how much he was consulted during the process and briefed prior to the press release. 

    A bit more info from Pert would help quieten negative reactions.

  • Quote
    • Like 6
    2 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

    That isn't a good sign.  I hope the mfc didn't blindside him and other pollies/key stakeholders..

    Pert's memo said:

    "...the feasibility study for our proposed new training and administration facility at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve has been successfully completed and approved to progress to the next stage...

    This phase of the process has focused heavily on stakeholder engagement and garnering local support for the project. The positive sentiment from so many local community organisations and groups has been wide-spread and the feasibility study has definitely highlighted the community’s desire to see this project come to life".

    Unfortunately he doesn't say who the 'stakeholder engagement' was with nor who approved the study to progress to the next stage. 

    This is the survey Southwick has put online for residents.  https://www.davidsouthwick.com.au/survey/caulfield-racecourse-funding  It is fairly basic and the sort of survey one would include early in a feasibility study with variations for each type of stakeholder.  It could just be a pollie being seen to do the resident's bidding but who knows how much he was consulted during the process and briefed prior to the press release. 

    A bit more info from Pert would help quieten negative reactions.

    I don't see anything that problematic, luci.

    the mfc hasn't consulted with all locals. only some (unspecified) local interst groups.

    there will always be nimbys and the first thing they do is contact their local member

    all southwick has done is offer a forum (questionnaire) to get more broader feedback. There is nothing coming from him in terms of dissatisfaction. He is just following up on an issue raised by some constituents.

    presumably when he has more data from his survey, he will approach the mfc (if they don't approach him first)

    so, at this stage nothing to see here other than noise

  • Quote
    • Like 5
    • Thanks 1
    • Clap 1
    21 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

    I don't see anything that problematic, luci.

    the mfc hasn't consulted with all locals. only some (unspecified) local interst groups.

    there will always be nimbys and the first thing they do is contact their local member

    all southwick has done is offer a forum (questionnaire) to get more broader feedback. There is nothing coming from him in terms of dissatisfaction. He is just following up on an issue raised by some constituents.

    presumably when he has more data from his survey, he will approach the mfc (if they don't approach him first)

    so, at this stage nothing to see here other than noise

    Yes, as I said I think Southwick is simply doing the resident's bidding with the survey.

    I'm pleased the Caulfield project has taken a step forward.  Nonetheless, my frustration is it is difficult to gauge what that means when Pert's release is vague and so many things one would expect to see in a feasibility study, at least at a macro level, have been pushed into the Business Case phase.

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    I’ve been in to the middle of the racecourse numerous times and it ain’t exactly teeming with local residents. Funnily enough, neither is Caulfield Park most days.

    This is just locals complaining for the sake of it, and I doubt they’ll be complaining when there are 2 lovely footy ovals for them to play on (as well as soccer pitches), if/when this gets built.

    As a local resident, I cannot see any downside for the MFC to build here (and I’d be saying exactly the same thing if another footy club were to be attempting to build there too).

  • Quote
    • Like 9
    • Thanks 1

    15 hours ago, bluey said:

    IMG_1571.thumb.jpeg.d10f564e10cbcbd4f126ad903dcfde20.jpeg

     

    Getting 100% consensus on anything is a rare thing, and so many punters put self interest above all. It’s possible that forums existed and people either missed/ignored them or did participate, but can’t see their specific feedback in the outcomes.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    On 19/09/2024 at 23:01, Oxdee said:

    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. 
     

    You can trade the asset and the lease but it diminishes in relative value   Over time  and the closer you get to the lease renewal year.   But normally you get first option. 
     

    Depending I suppose on how long 99 years 

    Does that mean 2 premiership cups 

    Whale oil.  Beef hooked,  we’ll be dead. 
    go for it as hard as we can. 

  • Quote

    Just emailed the local federal member, 

    get one from one side of political fence and praps one from the other  cannot but be good

    No idea if it will help but it might

  • Quote
    •  
    2 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

    I’ve been in to the middle of the racecourse numerous times and it ain’t exactly teeming with local residents. Funnily enough, neither is Caulfield Park most days.

    This is just locals complaining for the sake of it, and I doubt they’ll be complaining when there are 2 lovely footy ovals for them to play on (as well as soccer pitches), if/when this gets built.

    As a local resident, I cannot see any downside for the MFC to build here (and I’d be saying exactly the same thing if another footy club were to be attempting to build there too).

    make sure as a resident you reply to southwick's survey

    same to all you others who live in his electorate

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • NON-MFC: Round 15

      As the Demons head into their Bye Round, it's time to turn our attention to the other matches being played. Which teams are you tipping this week? And which results would be most favourable for the Demons if we can manage to turn our season around? Follow all the non-Melbourne games here and join the conversation as the ladder continues to take shape.

      • 140 replies
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Port Adelaide

      Of course, it’s not the backline, you might argue and you would probably be right. It’s the boot studder (do they still have them?), the midfield, the recruiting staff, the forward line, the kicking coach, the Board, the interchange bench, the supporters, the folk at Casey, the head coach and the club psychologist  It’s all of them and all of us for having expectations that were sufficiently high to have believed three weeks ago that a restoration of the Melbourne team to a position where we might still be in contention for a finals berth when the time for the midseason bye arrived. Now let’s look at what happened over the period of time since Melbourne overwhelmed the Sydney Swans at the MCG in late May when it kicked 8.2 to 5.3 in the final quarter (and that was after scoring 3.8 to two straight goals in the second term). 

      • 2 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Essendon

      Casey’s unbeaten run was extended for at least another fortnight after the Demons overran a persistent Essendon line up by 29 points at ETU Stadium in Port Melbourne last night. After conceding the first goal of the evening, Casey went on a scoring spree from about ten minutes in, with five unanswered majors with its fleet of midsized runners headed by the much improved Paddy Cross who kicked two in quick succession and livewire Ricky Mentha who also kicked an early goal. Leading the charge was recruit of the year, Riley Bonner while Bailey Laurie continued his impressive vein of form. With Tom Campbell missing from the lineup, Will Verrall stepped up to the plate demonstrating his improvement under the veteran ruckman’s tutelage. The Demons were looking comfortable for much of the second quarter and held a 25-point lead until the Bombers struck back with two goals in the shadows of half time. On the other side of the main break their revival continued with first three goals of the half. Harry Sharp, who had been quiet scrambled in the Demons’ first score of the third term to bring the margin back to a single point at the 17 minute mark and the game became an arm-wrestle for the remainder of the quarter and into the final moments of the last.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Gold Coast

      The Demons have the Bye next week but then are on the road once again when they come up against the Gold Coast Suns on the Gold Coast in what could be a last ditch effort to salvage their season. Who comes in and who comes out?

        • Like
      • 111 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: Port Adelaide

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 16th June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect the Dees disappointing loss to the Power.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 32 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: Port Adelaide

      The Demons simply did not take their opportunities when they presented themselves and ultimately when down by 25 points effectively ending their finals chances. Goal kicking practice during the Bye?

        • Like
      • 252 replies
      Demonland
    View All