Why are we talking about Deakin when the site is right next to Monash Uni? Surely their sports science people can use our buildings from time to time and whack a Monash logo on somewhere, it can be sold as an educational site and help MRC with their debt issues.

1 hour ago, whatwhat say what said:

Looks like Casey to me…

Waverley better be a stop gap

That is Dingley, not Waverley

16 hours ago, Redleg said:

That’s why we shouldn’t move there.

Why move to facilities that weren’t good enough for another club, even temporarily?

With Gosch's now in demand from Tennis and the Pies, we should keep the pressure on for Caulfield, by staying until it is ready to move to.

What is the relevance of being closer to Casey, when players don’t go from Waverley to Casey, but rather from their homes to Casey?

Don’t like the sounds of this.

Am I missing something?

I could not agree more.

Casey is a class facility now. AAMI suits the players.

I don’t see why this needs changing unless Caulfield isn’t coming to fruition?

We should be putting 100% of our resources and effort in to Caulfield, not 50/50 Caulfield/Waverley.

16 hours ago, Redleg said:

With Gosch's now in demand from Tennis and the Pies, we should keep the pressure on for Caulfield, by staying until it is ready to move to.

Completely agree 'Red', but unfortunately I don't trust this board to get things right.

It would be another in a long line of poor decisions and covering a....

37 minutes ago, Dannyz said:

I don’t see why this needs changing unless Caulfield isn’t coming to fruition?

Yep...

16 hours ago, Adam The God said:

Why are we talking about Deakin when the site is right next to Monash Uni? Surely their sports science people can use our buildings from time to time and whack a Monash logo on somewhere, it can be sold as an educational site and help MRC with their debt issues.

the only talk of deakin was in relation to mr scopus, as deakin is a possible/likely buyer of their burwood campus, which they need to sell to finance their new caulfield race course campus. some here thought scopus might somehow be part of our delays

I am intrigued as to what, if any, is advantageous to using Waverley ( ostensibly) in any interim.

🤔🤷

17 hours ago, Redleg said:

That’s why we shouldn’t move there.

Why move to facilities that weren’t good enough for another club, even temporarily?

With Gosch's now in demand from Tennis and the Pies, we should keep the pressure on for Caulfield, by staying until it is ready to move to.

What is the relevance of being closer to Casey, when players don’t go from Waverley to Casey, but rather from their homes to Casey?

Don’t like the sounds of this.

Am I missing something?

Spot on Redleg, it isnt difficult to hold the line that our main training ground is Gotch's Paddock until such time as Caulfield is approved and State and Federal Governments chip in the $70 million. If they come up short I would be holding onto Gotch's and sub leasing it to the Filth to cover the interest and principal.

34 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

I am intrigued as to what, if any, is advantageous to using Waverley ( ostensibly) in any interim.

🤔🤷

All the club under one roof.

11 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

All the club under one roof.

In a facility that another club couldn’t wait to be rid of.

Another potential angle on this is that if the Caulfield project does get the final green light soon - still an if, of course - then whilst the project is being rolled out the Club could save quite a bit of money by moving to Waverley (and use it the same way it uses the AAMI/Gosch's facility now.) I understand it is not cheap to rent the AAMI space.

I suspect that the move to Waverley would only occur if Caulfield was a definite "GO", and is announced as such. That does have the other short-term effect of the entire club being "together", but of course only at times when the Footy Department is at Waverley....maybe instead of just Wednesdays at the moment they might train there say twice per week?

That fits in with the intent of Tennis Australia to increase their footprint in January with Collingwood sliding across to AAMI/Gosch's during that period.

4 minutes ago, Redleg said:

In a facility that another club couldn’t wait to be rid of.

I’m in full agreement Red. It only makes sense to me if it’s a 2 or 3 year interim while we build at Canfield. So, I’m only saying that in that scenario I can see the sense in it… outside of that I can’t.

As an alternative to Caulfield… this would be one of the more depressing outcomes, if not THE most, in my 55 years as a supporter. And…as you know…there’s some decent competition for that title.

How we haven’t got a venue yet in 2026 is mind blowing to me.

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

I am intrigued as to what, if any, is advantageous to using Waverley ( ostensibly) in any interim.

🤔🤷

It saves players moving to various locations. If training, weights, meetings etc can be done in 1 spot then I think it’s a positive.

18 hours ago, Redleg said:

That’s why we shouldn’t move there.

Why move to facilities that weren’t good enough for another club, even temporarily?

With Gosch's now in demand from Tennis and the Pies, we should keep the pressure on for Caulfield, by staying until it is ready to move to.

What is the relevance of being closer to Casey, when players don’t go from Waverley to Casey, but rather from their homes to Casey?

Don’t like the sounds of this.

Am I missing something?

Caulfield is DEAD in the water, where Waverley is at the moment the only viable option

17 hours ago, The Jackson FIX said:

That is Dingley, not Waverley

yairs, i was aware

i don't wanna be at casey either

1 hour ago, GawnOfTheDead said:

How we haven’t got a venue yet in 2026 is mind blowing to me.

have not really had a home since 1964, tbh

5 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

have not really had a home since 1964, tbh

Just now, WildDogDee said:

  5 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

have not really had a home since 1964, tbh

How many other professional teams in the world don’t have their own facilities? Saying that. Do Melbourne storm and victory complain like we do?

I’ve had a gutfull to be honest, but the lack of communication from Smith and Guerra has been inexcusable.

12 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

have not really had a home since 1964, tbh

Disgraceful. They should stop worrying about doing all things to please all persons and just focus on making the club better.

Drop the Alice Springs trip which we seemingly always lose and have only 10,000 attendance if that.

Get a ground where the team will thrive. So simple.

11 minutes ago, WildDogDee said:

How many other professional teams in the world don’t have their own facilities? Saying that. Do Melbourne storm and victory complain like we do?

Storm and Victory fit under the one roof. We don't! I don't think the sharing is as much of a problem (although not ideal) as our club being scattered between three sites.

1 hour ago, picket fence said:

Caulfield is DEAD in the water, where Waverley is at the moment the only viable option

Could you be any more negative about everything but Jeffo if you tried?

24 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Could you be any more negative about everything but Jeffo if you tried?

Explain then the delay after delay after delay in this Caulfield venture? If Waverley is available take it and build it up, now how is that a negative oh I forgot we have Slithera central and a public park to train on, oh Bliss

Edited 3 hours ago3 hr by picket fence

Losing Gosch's to train at Waverley would be next level incompetent unless Caulfield is announced at the same time. I'd say we'd need a board spill and the quick exit of Guerra if this is how it transpires......Surely not.