Training Ground?

[Redleg 41,428]

12 hours ago, rpfc said:

About as long as the cheque took to clear

No cheque, they have an option to buy and need to raise funds and sell their other school properties.

This is driven by the State Government, who want their campus in Burwood for a Deakin extension and transport hub.

The school has spent a lot of money developing that Burwood campus and are actually moving when they don't have to, but as a result are looking at a new facility, with 3 campuses combined, which is what they were asked to examine, as I said, by the State Government.

As an aside, the MRC stuffed up big time with their new mounting yard and are close to $200m in debt. The land could have been sold to developers, who might have stopped the football club proposal with their developments and as a result had no community use.

This is actually a benefit to Victorians with the Burwood sale, the school getting a combined and new junior and senior school campus close to where many of their students live, a benefit to the racing industry with the MRC not selling Sandown to pay the MRC debt, a new base for the MFC hopefully and more community use of facilities and improvements to the areas of the racecourse and surrounds, where people atm can't walk in or utilise the area.

PS: The MRC has already sold off the carparks on the Northern side to developers and they have been developed into hundreds of apartments, that essentially have no wider community use whatsoever, unless you frequent the Coles in the shopping centre or the sushi shop.

Edited December 10 by Redleg

[Redleg 41,428]

2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Out of curiosity what's the benefit to the racing club of having the MFC in the middle of the track. They're not a charity

Let's start with increased community use of Crown land that they don't own, the chance of getting more members by an affiliation with the MFC and more people interested in racing, a more attractive area than currently exists, greater use of their facilities and services like events, functions, catering, exams, all of which provides them with income, just to name a few benefits.

I can already see an MFC day at the races, with races named after Dees champions, where all MFC members enter for free, with lots of attractions and specialty food stalls, with food named after Dees players and discounted MRC memberships being sold to MFC members and then a Dees home game at the G where the MRC members get free entry, along with some of the stuff above etc, etc, etc. 

Edited December 10 by Redleg

[Redleg 41,428]

1 hour ago, Damo said:

I agree. Where was the Risk assessment that this might happen? Where was the tested plan and consultation with MRC? The project is well under way, well that is what I hadunderstood. Now it really looks like no one will take responsibility for this seemingly utter stuff up. 

And we have already lost the first game next year too. Gee!

[In Harmes Way 7,823]

13 hours ago, Demonland said:

I don’t believe the sites overlap. Someone close to the school project sent me this. 

Are these technical plans drawn to scale Andy?

[DistrACTION Jackson 9,228]

5 minutes ago, In Harmes Way said:

Are these technical plans drawn to scale Andy?

Confirming Andy engaged with an architect for these

[Diamond_Jim 12,628]

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Its not their land. It's the Caulfield Trusts land and the Caulfield Trust is broke because the racing club leases what they actually genuinely use (track and grand stand area) at a very discount rate.

Having redeveloped their track and booted out all the horse trainers there's no incentive for the racing club to make a genuine offer to pay to use the infield area or precinct 5 (south east former stables earmarked for indoor sports) or 6 (vacant wedge proposed for MFC use).

By far the best use of an open unused space that can't be developed with any height is for sporting ovals/general recreation on non race days.

 

The key words in your response are "pay to use".

This is what worries me about Caulfield... We will pay $100M plus to develop the facility and then "we pay to use" it.

Contrast this with other clubs like Hawthorn etc who don't "pay to use" their training grounds

If the lease is for 99 years at $1 per year that would be different

[bluey 1,117]

How many organisations will share this one little oval, will look like downtown Beirut.

 

 

 

 

[chookrat 4,268]

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Error 1. MRC don’t control the land, Caulfield trust do. We seemingly have a strong relationship with Caulfield trust.

Error 2. Scopus bought land we were never intending to buy. Our wedge of land isn’t impacted by this sale in any large way.

The main complication here is more competiton to be the developer/controller/anchor tenant of the planned ovals. 

That comes down to relationships with the Caulfield trust, the local council (who will likely assume responsibility for community access/use) and any local sporting clubs including the large and influential Ajax footy club.

Im generally a pessimist and expect the competition for the ovals to be incredibly fierce with Scopus next door. But it was never going to be easy and no one ever expected it was. 

I think we are in a strong position, the Caulfield trust will want to maximise the use of land within the parameters of its purpose and the opportunity to develop the inside of the racecourse into football ovals and provide facilities for an elite sporting club for our national football code is good for both parties. 

As mentioned by other posters the land purchased by Scopus is not the same spaces that we have outlined in the feasibility study and I would be very surprised if all parties did not have an idea of the overall plan during Feasibility stage.

I'd also be surprised if Scopus purchasing land would have any impact on our access to our ovals in the middle of the racetrack as they would have the most leverage for such a land use agreement prior to their offer to purchase land being accepted.

[Oxdee 438]

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

No cheque, they have an option to buy and need to raise funds and sell their other school properties.

This is driven by the State Government, who want their campus in Burwood for a Deakin extension and transport hub.

The school has spent a lot of money developing that Burwood campus and are actually moving when they don't have to, but as a result are looking at a new facility, with 3 campuses combined, which is what they were asked to examine, as I said, by the State Government.

As an aside, the MRC stuffed up big time with their new mounting yard and are close to $200m in debt. The land could have been sold to developers, who might have stopped the football club proposal with their developments and as a result had no community use.

This is actually a benefit to Victorians with the Burwood sale, the school getting a combined and new junior and senior school campus close to where many of their students live, a benefit to the racing industry with the MRC not selling Sandown to pay the MRC debt, a new base for the MFC hopefully and more community use of facilities and improvements to the areas of the racecourse and surrounds, where people atm can't walk in or utilise the area.

PS: The MRC has already sold off the carparks on the Northern side to developers and they have been developed into hundreds of apartments, that essentially have no wider community use whatsoever, unless you frequent the Coles in the shopping centre or the sushi shop.

A rare win, win, win for all parties 

[DemonOX 8,800]

If the school and racing club have been in negotiations for 12 months then I am sure the MFC would have known about this and made plans for it. 
The school is buying freehold land and ours is Caulfield Trust/Crown land.

I am sure all will be ok. 

[Oxdee 438]

19 minutes ago, DemonOX said:

If the school and racing club have been in negotiations for 12 months then I am sure the MFC would have known about this and made plans for it. 
The school is buying freehold land and ours is Caulfield Trust/Crown land.

I am sure all will be ok. 

I believe that MFC admin will be freehold and its training ovals will be crown owned. 

[DeeSpencer 26,081]

2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

The key words in your response are "pay to use".

This is what worries me about Caulfield... We will pay $100M plus to develop the facility and then "we pay to use" it.

Contrast this with other clubs like Hawthorn etc who don't "pay to use" their training grounds

If the lease is for 99 years at $1 per year that would be different

I agree, but an old tip in Dingley is the best the Hawks could afford, we won’t be able to afford to outright own anything within metro Melbourne yet alone the heartland.

I’m also not sure how many clubs actually own the land their facilities are built on. 

My concern is less about owning and more about monetising our facility.

Richmond are up to about 120million in revenue with 50million or so from their health and fitness projects. They are protected as their football revenue surely drops away over the next few years.

If we sink every dollar the club has in to a new facility we should make sure it at least generates some money to pay for itself outside of football revenue. Not sure that’s the case.

[Demon Disciple 12,274]

1 hour ago, bluey said:

How many organisations will share this one little oval, will look like downtown Beirut.

 

 

 

 

At least it will be level then

[daisycutter 29,738]

4 hours ago, No. 31 said:

The Scopus purchase rather than property developers doesn't really effect what the Demons are trying to do at the Caulfield RC. One possible impact is Scopus pushing for use of one or both of the ovals. There is also the Glen Huntly public oval that can play a role too. A regime of use to satisfy all could be still feasible given that the Dees still intend on using Casey into the future as well.

Caulfield Bears now play at Koornang Park in Carnegie (near where the 67 tram terminates).

and additionally ... the 2 planned developments could actually be beneficial to each other if they can work together

[Sir Why You Little 37,127]

I am a bit concerned at how much money Mt Scopus are paying for their land. 
$195 million is a huge commitment and it will mean they have a large say in what happens in the future, regardless of promises made now. 
The MFC must tread very carefully with this, I would be extremely wary. 
Paying that sort of money will definitely give them a voice at Council Meetings….

 

[Grr-owl 1,251]

6 hours ago, Dee Viney Intervention said:

Used by Caulfield Bears who play in Southern FNL.  I think Caulfield Park could be a good solution for Caulfield Grammarians to relocate to but you would have to sweeten the deal for them. Not sure that they would want to relocate but I guess everybody has a price. 

Ajax play there. Bears are at Koornang Park.

[Billy 2,544]

8 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

There is no way the NIMBY's will approve the MFC development unless community use is a priority. Local pollies and people agree that Glen Eira has the smallest amount of green space of all Melbourne municipalities and want that to change....

Having lived in Asia and the Middle East, it is bizarre how some Australians define a small amount of green space, but there you go.... It's the same phenomenon as most people believing they are middle class.... Worth 5-10 million? Middle Class. Worth 10-20 million? Middle class. Worth .5-1 million? Middle Class....

Truth is, unless you're living on the street, Australians are rich already because they speak English natively, go to school, get to vote for their "leaders", can insult politicians personally in public without being murdered, and are pretty much guaranteed of at least one meal a day.

Today I'm going out on my balcony and shout at my neighbors, "Wake up!"  

Thanks for the sermon & l thought this topic was about training facilities 

[censored]!!!

[Demon Disciple 12,274]

21 minutes ago, Billy said:

Thanks for the sermon & l thought this topic was about training facilities 

[censored]!!!

[adonski 12,427]

 

[TRACATTACK 207]

5 hours ago, Redleg said:

Let's start with increased community use of Crown land that they don't own, the chance of getting more members by an affiliation with the MFC and more people interested in racing, a more attractive area than currently exists, greater use of their facilities and services like events, functions, catering, exams, all of which provides them with income, just to name a few benefits.

I can already see an MFC day at the races, with races named after Dees champions, where all MFC members enter for free, with lots of attractions and specialty food stalls, with food named after Dees players and discounted MRC memberships being sold to MFC members and then a Dees home game at the G where the MRC members get free entry, along with some of the stuff above etc, etc, etc. 

Some great ideas there

[Demon17 5,203]

I'm not overly concerned about the mt scopus plan de-railing the MFC. It won't given ovals are crown land. mainly and there solid land tenure rights and obligations for lessee and lessor under the Crwon Land resreves ACt, unless the MRC Trust has its own Act.

But what an interesting AGM it will be next week - maybe?

[DeeZone 10,101]

7 hours ago, Fuchsias Forever said:

It appears that the proposed relocation of the Caulfield Racecourse as a home base was nothing more than a performative exercise orchestrated by the board and CEO. The project seemingly lacked genuine intent, yet the club expended significant time and financial resources on a feasibility study and concept drawings. Was there any consultation with the Caulfield Racecourse Board, particularly given reports that the Mount Scopus agreement has been under negotiation since late 2023.

If the club were genuinely committed to securing a new home base, it is conceivable that any well-informed board member could have foreseen the impracticality of this concept at minimal cost.

The pertinent question, therefore, is whether the former CEO or President breached their fiduciary duties, thereby causing measurable harm to the football club. This matter may warrant closer scrutiny in light of potential continued governance failures.

 

Where did yo pull that out of FF????

[dazzledavey36 55,328]

 

[Adam The God 30,407]

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I am a bit concerned at how much money Mt Scopus are paying for their land. 
$195 million is a huge commitment and it will mean they have a large say in what happens in the future, regardless of promises made now. 
The MFC must tread very carefully with this, I would be extremely wary. 
Paying that sort of money will definitely give them a voice at Council Meetings….

 

Start looking elsewhere, you reckon?

[Demonland 73,140]

Melbourne CEO Gary Pert has welcomed the announcement of Mount Scopus Memorial College’s intention to develop a new campus.

“We welcome the announcement that Mount Scopus Memorial College intend to be our neighbour, building a new campus adjacent to Caulfield Racecourse,” Pert said. 

“It’s important to clarify that the club and Mount Scopus sites are separate parcels of land, that may result in us being neighbours in the future.

“The Melbourne Football Club are currently preparing a business plan that is based on our facility and our two training ovals all being built on the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust land.

“We see incredible potential in working alongside the community and community based organisations, including Mount Scopus, to create meaningful synergies and mutual benefits for both communities and to enhance the Glen Eira area.”