22 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

from the horse's mouth if not from the mouth of the mrc chairman?

john kanga would seem to be a serious thorn in the mfc's side

14 hours ago, Redleg said:

He seems to be publicly against it, but he is not the person or part of the authorities in charge of the precinct.

Nobody likes the sound of Kanga voice more than himself.

He is chairman of a tenant within the Caulfield trust as will MFC. He doesn't control the land.

It kind of begs the question. If the 'new' location is possibly better than the other, why wasn't it looked at in the first instance ? 🤔🤷‍♂️

Anyway. Will be interested to see how take 2 progresses.

Edited June 20Jun 20 by beelzebub

It also begs the question, when is a CEO not a CEO.

The club hired a guy and has since banned him from participating In involvement in our greatest ever venture, because he's flat chat organising a luncheon in October for his previous employer.

The guy that was the CEO but retired, and was rehired has now been sacked, but may be rehired again if we need his expertise.

The man that applied for the job, but was knocked back, is now doing such a magnificent job is now the acting CEO until the banned guy has finished sorting out the menu for his luncheon come October.

This has again pushed the business case back and everybody is expected to believe it, because luckily we are now able to change oval locations, and technical drawings to a better position, that we overlooked in the first place.

If this tale doesn't sound crazy then nothing will.

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

It kind of begs the question. If the 'new' location is possibly better than the other, why wasn't it looked at in the first instance ? 🤔🤷‍♂️

Anyway. Will be interested to see how take 2 progresses.

Perhaps it wasn't available at the time but things changed?

20 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

Perhaps it wasn't available at the time but things changed?

The press articles suggest that the new location is currently leased by the CRRT to the MRC and the MRC house equipment there. My undertstanding is that the original, now "landlocked" plot (due to the Mt Scopus option) was vacant.

5 hours ago, I'va Worn Smith said:

Under Howard the Net Overseas Migration (NOM) was higher then, under Howard and his immigration Minister, Phillip Ruddock, was higher than it is now in real terms. Overseas property investment largely caused the housing crisis.

Without wishing to politicise the thread, that’s absolutely not the case re: numbers.

Overseas purchases are a part of the problem but certainly not the main cause.

39 minutes ago, Superunknown said:

Without wishing to politicise the thread, that’s absolutely not the case re: numbers.

Overseas purchases are a part of the problem but certainly not the main cause.

Sorry, but it's what I do for a job. Obviously I need to get another job. Check the stats and if you still think that you are right, please provide your source.

2 hours ago, bluey said:

It also begs the question, when is a CEO not a CEO.

The club hired a guy and has since banned him from participating In involvement in our greatest ever venture, because he's flat chat organising a luncheon in October for his previous employer.

The guy that was the CEO but retired, and was rehired has now been sacked, but may be rehired again if we need his expertise.

The man that applied for the job, but was knocked back, is now doing such a magnificent job is now the acting CEO until the banned guy has finished sorting out the menu for his luncheon come October.

This has again pushed the business case back and everybody is expected to believe it, because luckily we are now able to change oval locations, and technical drawings to a better position, that we overlooked in the first place.

If this tale doesn't sound crazy then nothing will.

Does anyone know why the board said Guerra can't get stuck into Caulfield negotiations?

Good grief - hawks buy Waverley for $1, sell it back for $20m…meanwhile Dees remain homeless

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-leading-the-race-to-buy-waverley-park-from-hawks-20250620-p5m932.html

Clearly we should move in asap, none of our players or board will be around to see the Caulfield bs eventuate.

If the racetrack happens in 10/20 years ok make a decision then.

Nothing will move until we appoint a CEO and President, which is very unlikely in the next decade.

26 minutes ago, bluey said:

Clearly we should move in asap, none of our players or board will be around to see the Caulfield bs eventuate.

If the racetrack happens in 10/20 years ok make a decision then.

Nothing will move until we appoint a CEO and President, which is very unlikely in the next decade.

i suspect it'll be the new umpire's home

it's one oval; doesn't accomodate afl, aflw, vfl, vflw teams - exactly why dingley are in, well, dingley

42 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

i suspect it'll be the new umpire's home

it's one oval; doesn't accomodate afl, aflw, vfl, vflw teams - exactly why dingley are in, well, dingley

Even if we could rent the ground for $20 a week, we need to do this.

Move into AFL receivership, forget Smithy in the alps living in his chateau, forget Guerra, allow the AFL to appoint the next Jackson and Roos, we are a basket case, completely incompetent, couldn’t manage a milk bar, we are cooked on and off the field.

Edited June 20Jun 20 by bluey

37 minutes ago, bluey said:

Even if we could rent the ground for $20 a week, we need to do this.

Move into AFL receivership, forget Smithy in the alps living in his chateau, forget Guerra, allow the AFL to appoint the next Jackson and Roos, we are a basket case, completely incompetent, couldn’t manage a milk bar, we are cooked on and off the field.

Solid hanrahan’ing

3 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

Good grief - hawks buy Waverley for $1, sell it back for $20m…meanwhile Dees remain homeless

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-leading-the-race-to-buy-waverley-park-from-hawks-20250620-p5m932.html

And moving into a new state of the art training centre & we a going around in circles!

Can I ask a silly question, how is it that Hawthorn (who already had a "home" in Glenferrie Oval) were able to get into one new training ground that was state of the art at the time, and then be able to move into another while we have been essentially homeless for decades.

Is it incompetence on our part? Is it us being too stuck with trying to be in the heartland of the MCG? Is it funds? Is it size of club, and therefore desirability for governments to help out?

I just can't work out how this has been going on for the entirety of my following Melbourne (30 years).

On 19/06/2025 at 13:11, dpositive said:

Not sure what council and what site you are referring to.

Havent seen any proposal at Fishermans Bend put to any council, but you may have more insight than me into what approaches the MFC made during feasibility rounds. I could get little information from Pert or Roffey beyond " we examined FB and it was too expensive" No detail who they examined any site with.

Now there's an idea - replace the ridiculously named "Round Zero" with the MFC torturous home base plan inspired "Feasibility Round".

21 hours ago, beelzebub said:

To all who suggest P.M.

Ever tried to get to that place.. ??

Getting to Port Melb. Vs Casey , let’s ask the players ,coaching staff , members & supporters

Edited June 20Jun 20 by Demonsone

On 20/06/2025 at 08:46, Roost it far said:

Good to hear, I’m not concerned about the money either, wouldn’t surprise if the umpires joined us as well. Really hope we get this up, such a great site.

We don't need the maggots to get this over the line.

They can jog on and train with the pies or Jeelong teams they actually favour in game.

11 hours ago, Pates said:

Can I ask a silly question, how is it that Hawthorn (who already had a "home" in Glenferrie Oval) were able to get into one new training ground that was state of the art at the time, and then be able to move into another while we have been essentially homeless for decades.

Is it incompetence on our part? Is it us being too stuck with trying to be in the heartland of the MCG? Is it funds? Is it size of club, and therefore desirability for governments to help out?

I just can't work out how this has been going on for the entirety of my following Melbourne (30 years).

Hawthorn got waverley for $1 because:

• the afl no longer wanted to manage the ground

• they negotiated that hawthorn was committed to using it as a base

• the deal was beneficial for both parties

• it was understood that it would eventually predominantly be redeveoped for housing

and the $1 was symbolic - they had to pay for quite significant redevelopment and relocation costs as part of the agreement

their fundraising ability dwarfs ours - see jake niall's series of articles about the club power brokers here https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-afl-s-powerbrokers-20250423-p5ltn4.html

geoff harris has donated over $10m to kickstart their new dingley home; they bought it for around $8m about a decade ago

ian dicker has donated close to $2m over the course of the last decade as part of their 'foundation heroes' as well as negotiating with mirvac to give them the community aspect of dingley

once kennett left their board a few years back they also got $15m from the govt

compare it to mfc of recent times:

According to Melbourne’s list of Foundation Legend benefactors, Thurin – a lifelong Demons fan – is the only supporter to have donated at least $1 million

quite simply, our über-rich don't put their money behind the club like other supporter's wealthy benefators do in - the except being diamond joe who was rumoured to have tipped in $2.7m in the mid-90s to help better balance our debt

Edited June 21Jun 21 by whatwhat say what

1 hour ago, whatwhat say what said:

quite simply, our über-rich don't put their money behind the club like other supporter's wealthy benefators do in - the except being diamond joe who was rumoured to have tipped in $2.7m in the mid-90s to help better balance our debt

That is not rumour it’s fact as stated by the club in reports and the media.

He actually pledged $3m and had paid up $2.7m when he got into financial trouble and couldn’t pay the last $300k.

It is the biggest donation to the MFC in our history and to give him some more credit, he was responsible for us getting the Bentleigh club, which gave us our whole future fund of about $25m on its sale and if I recall correctly, also was involved in getting the Oakleigh club, which we later also got millions for when we quit the Pokies industry.

We will get the money for Caulfield, when it’s finally approved fully.

2 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

Hawthorn got waverley for $1 because:

• the afl no longer wanted to manage the ground

• they negotiated that hawthorn was committed to using it as a base

• the deal was beneficial for both parties

• it was understood that it would eventually predominantly be redeveoped for housing

and the $1 was symbolic - they had to pay for quite significant redevelopment and relocation costs as part of the agreement

their fundraising ability dwarfs ours - see jake niall's series of articles about the club power brokers here https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-afl-s-powerbrokers-20250423-p5ltn4.html

geoff harris has donated over $10m to kickstart their new dingley home; they bought it for around $8m about a decade ago

ian dicker has donated close to $2m over the course of the last decade as part of their 'foundation heroes' as well as negotiating with mirvac to give them the community aspect of dingley

once kennett left their board a few years back they also got $15m from the govt

compare it to mfc of recent times:

quite simply, our über-rich don't put their money behind the club like other supporter's wealthy benefators do in - the except being diamond joe who was rumoured to have tipped in $2.7m in the mid-90s to help better balance our debt

We don't have anything for them to tip money into though. What should they do, donate millions for the club to [censored] it up against the wall on consultants doing feasibility studies?

The club should just invest in property to derive some kind of non-footballing income.

32 minutes ago, Redleg said:

That is not rumour it’s fact as stated by the club in reports and the media.

He actually pledged $3m and had paid up $2.7m when he got into financial trouble and couldn’t pay the last $300k.

It is the biggest donation to the MFC in our history and to give him some more credit, he was responsible for us getting the Bentleigh club, which gave us our whole future fund of about $25m on its sale and if I recall correctly, also was involved in getting the Oakleigh club, which we later also got millions for when we quit the Pokies industry.

We will get the money for Caulfield, when it’s finally approved fully.

Two biggest mistakes in recent history - not taking up the offer to move into Olympic Park/Pies facility and getting out of the pokies. Both decisions have/will cost us big time long term.

14 hours ago, Pates said:

Can I ask a silly question, how is it that Hawthorn (who already had a "home" in Glenferrie Oval) were able to get into one new training ground that was state of the art at the time, and then be able to move into another while we have been essentially homeless for decades.

Is it incompetence on our part? Is it us being too stuck with trying to be in the heartland of the MCG? Is it funds? Is it size of club, and therefore desirability for governments to help out?

I just can't work out how this has been going on for the entirety of my following Melbourne (30 years).

Yes to all of the above. Same for me and @old dee ...we have been seeing it for 50 years!.

Brian Dixon at the merger meetings said something along the lines of " we don't want to merge. We don't want second rate facilities like at Glenferrie. We want the best facilities"....how ironic today.

37 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

We don't have anything for them to tip money into though. What should they do, donate millions for the club to [censored] it up against the wall on consultants doing feasibility studies?

The club should just invest in property to derive some kind of non-footballing income.

neither did harris for dingley tho - it was all based upon expectation to invest

the future fund is our club's investment arm, rather than property, and appears to have been successful for the club

getting waverley for $1 is just one of the great strategic moves in modern times

Just now, whatwhat say what said:

the future fund is our club's investment arm, rather than property, and appears to have been successful for the club

trouble is that it doesn't produce as much income/profit as the pokies were. ( I'm not a fan of them, but they kept the club afloat for 20 years)

Edited June 21Jun 21 by george_on_the_outer