Training Ground?

[Rednblueriseing 820]

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.

[Lucifers Hero 39,083]

12 hours ago, bluey 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.

[daisycutter 29,568]

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

[Lucifers Hero 39,083]

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.

[Demon Disciple 11,970]

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).

[ChaserJ 4,943]

15 hours ago, bluey said:

 

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.

[640MD 3,335]

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. 

[640MD 3,335]

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

[sue 9,085]

16 hours ago, bluey said:

 

Not much in the survey.    https://www.davidsouthwick.com.au/survey/caulfield-racecourse-funding

and nothing to prevent bogus submissions.

[daisycutter 29,568]

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

[old dee 23,647]

At the risk of upsetting 58er. I will believe it when construction starts if I am alive. 

[whatwhat say what 22,503]

2 hours ago, sue said:

Not much in the survey.    https://www.davidsouthwick.com.au/survey/caulfield-racecourse-funding

and nothing to prevent bogus submissions.

this survey is purely data harvesting

[sue 9,085]

1 minute ago, whatwhat say what said:

this survey is purely data harvesting

all the more reason to give it bogus personal data.

[Abyssal 465]

Seeking clarification please.

1. Assuming the facility has no re-sale value,  what would be the attraction to potential investors?

2. Would the MFC be required to pay rent to the MRC?

3. Considering the facility would have an extremely long life span with guaranteed use by the MFC couldn’t the club seek a loan from the AFL?

4. Should the club obtain finance how are they then able to afford to make the repayments otherthan from goodwill donations from charitable supporters or being able to increase their revenue?

[daisycutter 29,568]

4 minutes ago, Abyssal said:

Seeking clarification please.

1. Assuming the facility has no re-sale value,  what would be the attraction to potential investors?

2. Would the MFC be required to pay rent to the MRC?

3. Considering the facility would have an extremely long life span with guaranteed use by the MFC couldn’t the club seek a loan from the AFL?

4. Should the club obtain finance how are they then able to afford to make the repayments otherthan from goodwill donations from charitable supporters or being able to increase their revenue?

what makes you think assumption #1 is correct?

[Abyssal 465]

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

what makes you think assumption #1 is correct?

Is it on Crown land?

What other large sporting bodies would be interested in taking it over from the MFC?

 

[DeeZone 9,458]

On 20/09/2024 at 13:42, Adam The God said:

The holes are that it might not go ahead, and that's already the murmurs. Meanwhile, the feasibility study now gives way to a business case phase, which surely should have been apart of the last 12 months of [censored] around on the feasibility study...

That’s not how it works Adam and I don’t believe that any of the stakeholders are the ones trying to poke holes in it. Everyone needs to chill and see how the business plan works out, instead of jumping at shadows and supposition.

[whatwhat say what 22,503]

26 minutes ago, DeeZone said:

That’s not how it works Adam and I don’t believe that any of the stakeholders are the ones trying to poke holes in it. Everyone needs to chill and see how the business plan works out, instead of jumping at shadows and supposition.

that's not very mfcss of you

when things are glum there's worse to come!

[Adam The God 29,937]

28 minutes ago, DeeZone said:

That’s not how it works Adam and I don’t believe that any of the stakeholders are the ones trying to poke holes in it. Everyone needs to chill and see how the business plan works out, instead of jumping at shadows and supposition.

You don't think the initial feasibility study should have covered financials?

[DeeZone 9,458]

5 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

You don't think the initial feasibility study should have covered financials?

I don’t know Adam I’m not privy to any of the discussions that have taken place over the past 6 months.

[chookrat 4,247]

On 20/09/2024 at 14:58, Neil Crompton said:

Red, I think you’ll find it is actually more stages than 3. Once the feasibility stage is approved, I’d suggest that final design / for-construction plans would then proceed - you don’t expend the cost of detailed design/construction details without the feasibility stage being signed off. Then the Tender is undertaken, reviewed and the Contract awarded. Finally construction commences.

I reckon the business case stage might include a functional design that informs costs and forms the basis for the tender, which could combine the detailed design and construction in the one tender. This would allow civil works to commence immediately upon awarding the tender while undertaking the detailed design for buildings so that construction can start as soon as the site is ready.

[daisycutter 29,568]

3 hours ago, Abyssal said:

Is it on Crown land?

What other large sporting bodies would be interested in taking it over from the MFC?

 

lots of asset, resaleable property in australia is on crown land leasehold.

in fact as mentioned earlier the whole of canberra is

[Bitter but optimistic 22,213]

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

lots of asset, resaleable property in australia is on crown land leasehold.

in fact as mentioned earlier the whole of canberra is

Who the [censored] would want to buy Cantberra  ?

[Redleg 40,740]

2 hours ago, Adam The God said:

You don't think the initial feasibility study should have covered financials?

No real point in chasing funding when you don’t have a project.

First stage gives us a project.

Now design and funding.

[Adam The God 29,937]

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

No real point in chasing funding when you don’t have a project.

First stage gives us a project.

Now design and funding.

Again, surely you'd have a finance plan at this stage.