Jump to content

Featured Replies

Always had a bad feeling about this place.

 
53 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

We're in for a bumper year if we're training the house down before we even get there.

We are so fired up we are burning the places down around us too!

 

i would imagine this is all now an investigation and insurance process

With overlays of heritage requirements cant see this as causing anything but delay.

The MFC project is not directly affected or even on that side of the site so may not be too disastrous.

 
On 23/12/2024 at 12:02, DistrACTION Jackson said:

The land isn’t owned by the MRC, so other than providing input they won’t have a say on the final decision.

Who owns it then?? Also, Im warming to the Waverley solution!

Edited by picket fence


25 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Who owns it then?? Also, Im warming to the Waverley solution!

It is owned by the people of Glen Eira with a Trust providing governance.

What element are you warming to? Taking the sloppy seconds of Hawthorn? If it were up to scratch for redevelopment, they would have done it themselves.

I'm warming to sitting tight at AAMI Park where the players love coming to work, with an elite backup facility at Casey until the right piece of land to set us up for the next 50 years is available to the MFC. 

Edited by Dannyz

17 minutes ago, Dannyz said:

It is owned by the people of Glen Eira with a Trust providing governance.

Wouldn't it be owned by the State of Victoria as Crown Land (and goverened by the Racecourse Reserve Trust)?

Agreed on Waverley, if it was any good as a training facility in 2025 the Hawks would not be ditching it. 

If Caulfield was to fall through, staying put at Gosch's/AAMI would make sense.

 

1 hour ago, picket fence said:

Who owns it then?? Also, Im warming to the Waverley solution!

Waverley is one oval.  The Hawks cannot use lights there due to the residential buildings right up the the fence.  It is still a concrete grandstand and does not have the facilities inside which are needed today.

Finally, it has been inhabited by snakes for the past 30 years.  So probably not suitable for you, in case there have been some left behind.....

 
1 hour ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Finally, it has been inhabited by snakes for the past 30 years. 

Known in my neck of the woods as "Danger Noodles".


10 hours ago, Dannyz said:

It is owned by the people of Glen Eira with a Trust providing governance.

What element are you warming to? Taking the sloppy seconds of Hawthorn? If it were up to scratch for redevelopment, they would have done it themselves.

I'm warming to sitting tight at AAMI Park where the players love coming to work, with an elite backup facility at Casey until the right piece of land to set us up for the next 50 years is available to the MFC. 

It is available at Caulfield so you can stop warming your seat at AAMI Park which is not the solution as you know. 

PF astounds me for such a MFC person being misled by the Waverley Park discontents following one article in the paper. No one has even visited there in 30 years other than Hawks fans and why would they be moving out of there spending more than a million $$$AUD at Dingley if it could be bought up to anything near a satisfactory base for the.next 50/100 years.   
And DP harping on Fishermen’s Bend. Perry has already advised about all other possibilities that they have been examined and considered and unfortunately further discontents still persist with previously discarded training base possibilities. 

Onwards and upwards at Caulfield. 

39 minutes ago, 58er said:

It is available at Caulfield so you can stop warming your seat at AAMI Park which is not the solution as you know. 

PF astounds me for such a MFC person being misled by the Waverley Park discontents following one article in the paper. No one has even visited there in 30 years other than Hawks fans and why would they be moving out of there spending more than a million $$$AUD at Dingley if it could be bought up to anything near a satisfactory base for the.next 50/100 years.   
And DP harping on Fishermen’s Bend. Perry has already advised about all other possibilities that they have been examined and considered and unfortunately further discontents still persist with previously discarded training base possibilities. 

Onwards and upwards at Caulfield. 

Sorry didnt realise I was "harping on". Assume you mean Perty not Perry.

I thought I have held back  from commenting and indeed indicated my support for Caulfield while  indicating my reservations. Perhaps I would have protested less had I received response to my questions from Perty. I  sought questions  "about all other possibilities that they have been examined and considered" and received no responses.  I indicated that my intention was to ensure that I did not want to prejudice any negotiations and again received no responses to my questions. Nor was I afforded any acknowledgement or communication from the board to meet and discuss any of my thoughts. 

I appreciated that I was just one member (although I did receive many comments of support from random member contacts) and that the board were busy with their own issues. I should add that I also received  comments  along the lines that the board needed to concentrate on its issues and not be distracted by answering the questions I raised. That was the reason I held back. I have not raised the issue with the club and again appreciate that many of the "possibilities" they examined,  the "examinations" they may have conducted and "considerations" they had undertaken  may have been subject to commercial in confidence or similar restraints. Because of the lack of information I did not and have not proceeded. 

I look forward to a total club Training and admin facility at Caulfield and hope that the new board will  engage with members in an improved fashion. I have seen some evidence of that and hope that this continues. Perhaps I may redraft my questions to Perty to the new board amending Fishermans Bend to Caulfield, although on reflection much of the preamble which related to expanding population demographics do not apply to the Caulfield project and again may distract Pert from his aims and may be considered to be just harping on.

I apologise for any offense or for wasting anyones time. I am happy to discuss any matters with anyone and perhaps harp on too much.

I hope to hear you all barracking for the Dees as I will be whenever I can get to games, or training.  

On 07/01/2025 at 14:21, Dannyz said:

It is owned by the people of Glen Eira with a Trust providing governance.

What element are you warming to? Taking the sloppy seconds of Hawthorn? If it were up to scratch for redevelopment, they would have done it themselves.

I'm warming to sitting tight at AAMI Park where the players love coming to work, with an elite backup facility at Casey until the right piece of land to set us up for the next 50 years is available to the MFC. 

Maybe if we wait 100 years something right will turn up. In the meantime we can continue sharing sun standard facilities with storm, victory and melb city. 

26 minutes ago, Oxdee said:

Maybe if we wait 100 years something right will turn up. In the meantime we can continue sharing sun standard facilities with storm, victory and melb city. 

Oh FFS. 

Sad Cry GIF by First We Feast
 

The current situation is evidently good enough to produce athletes and for them to perform at the highest level. 

Supporters seeing a co-joined heartland training and admin base are placing their own emphasis and bias into what it is ‘solving’… I have heard everything from your whining screed above about shared [censored] facilities, to the ‘club being brought together’, to some nuffies on here thinking they will go and have a drink there every second Thursday in retirement like they did in 1976.

Give me a break - I can be indifferent to this, but not when you get all whiny and annoying.


@rpfc To be fair to @Oxdee, sharing facilities with numerous others is far from ideal, otherwise everyone else would be doing it. 

Our current facilities whilst adequate, no doubt would be at the bottom in terms of quality amongst other clubs, that ain’t going to attract players to the club. Nor will it see the club thrive, merely hanging around.

Theres no point waiting for the ‘perfect’ or ‘best’ opportunity, as it may not present itself for years, if at all. I’d prefer the club have the fortitude to pounce on this opportunity, rather than fail to act due to fear of something ‘better’ being forthcoming in the future.

11 hours ago, rpfc said:

Oh FFS. 
The current situation is evidently good enough to produce athletes and for them to perform at the highest level.

 

No it's not. Yes we won a flag, but it was during a covid season when clubs were hubbing etc so the benefit or otherwise of our facilities was significantly reduced. Yes a kg is a kg but looking at our history and the comments from past players it is clear having substandard/shared facilities is not how a modern professional organisation should be run.

Additionally, relying on facilities in the boondocks of Casey significantly hampers our ability to recruit in players. All things being equal, if a player has a choice between us, Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond or even Footscray, Essendon, St Kilda or North we are at a disadvantage when looking solely at the training facilities and the commute that would be required. It is ridiculous this situation has been allowed to continue for so long. I think Caulfield is less than ideal but far more preferable than what we have now (should it come to fruition).

Edited by Dr. Gonzo

27 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

No it's not. Yes we won a flag, but it was during a covid season when clubs were hubbing etc so the benefit or otherwise of our facilities was significantly reduced. Yes a kg is a kg but looking at our history and the comments from past players it is clear having substandard/shared facilities is not how a modern professional organisation should be run.

Additionally, relying on facilities in the boondocks of Casey significantly hampers our ability to recruit in players. All things being equal, if a player has a choice between us, Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond or even Footscray, Essendon, St Kilda or North we are at a disadvantage when looking solely at the training facilities and the commute that would be required. It is ridiculous this situation has been allowed to continue for so long. I think Caulfield is less than ideal but far more preferable than what we have now (should it come to fruition).

Why do you think Caulfield is less than ideal?

18 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

@rpfc To be fair to @Oxdee, sharing facilities with numerous others is far from ideal, otherwise everyone else would be doing it. 

Our current facilities whilst adequate, no doubt would be at the bottom in terms of quality amongst other clubs, that ain’t going to attract players to the club. Nor will it see the club thrive, merely hanging around.

Theres no point waiting for the ‘perfect’ or ‘best’ opportunity, as it may not present itself for years, if at all. I’d prefer the club have the fortitude to pounce on this opportunity, rather than fail to act due to fear of something ‘better’ being forthcoming in the future.

That is not the feeling I have or  that most Caulfield proponents are approaching the bade there.  If that’s your opinion fine but this is not a throw at the stumps project, but a well constructed case for a major Club base facility in an ideally located locality containing the necessary training and administrative requirements for major portion of this 21st century. 

9 hours ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

Why do you think Caulfield is less than ideal?

It's in the middle of a horse track and it's outside the MCG precinct.


7 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's in the middle of a horse track and it's outside the MCG precinct.

The MCG precinct is never going to happen. Understand the middle of a race track thoughts, however it is really only used as a race track on weekends and a few weekdays in racing season….

23 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

No it's not. Yes we won a flag, but it was during a covid season when clubs were hubbing etc so the benefit or otherwise of our facilities was significantly reduced. Yes a kg is a kg but looking at our history and the comments from past players it is clear having substandard/shared facilities is not how a modern professional organisation should be run.

Additionally, relying on facilities in the boondocks of Casey significantly hampers our ability to recruit in players. All things being equal, if a player has a choice between us, Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond or even Footscray, Essendon, St Kilda or North we are at a disadvantage when looking solely at the training facilities and the commute that would be required. It is ridiculous this situation has been allowed to continue for so long. I think Caulfield is less than ideal but far more preferable than what we have now (should it come to fruition).

Boo hoo. Living on that side of the bay is a nice life.

People and AFL players choose to go and live in Geelong. 

 
8 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Boo hoo. Living on that side of the bay is a nice life.

People and AFL players choose to go and live in Geelong. 

I'm sure that's the kind of winning pitch Tim Lamb uses when speaking to prospective recruits.

13 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's in the middle of a horse track and it's outside the MCG precinct.

Agree 100% By the way, The timelords are offering Gallifrey as an alternative, and why not, it takes no time to get there!


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...

Featured Content

  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Clap
      • Like
    • 196 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • Like
    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Like
    • 509 replies