A key element of a potential Melbourne Football Club redevelopment of Caulfield Racecourse would see racing suspended for close to a year as conflict emerges on future plans for the complex.

The football club have been vocal in their wish to move to the race course, and it has support, but discussions around relocating the organisation to Caulfield are complex, with significant differences emerging over the scale and design of the precinct.

The football club and the Melbourne Racing club remain opposed on key issues on how football could coexist with racing, which now risk delaying or scuppering any progress.

The competing visions for the site have created uncertainty about how the complex would ultimately look – and what it would mean for the future of racing at the venue.

The football club, the MRC and various government bodies have been working towards a new hub, a massive new complex, including a new administrative building, football ovals and community facilities.

But while supporters of the $100m development are hopeful the development will still proceed, they fear the impasse on crucial elements, including the creation of a new tunnel underneath the racetrack which would see racing close for a possible 12 months, could prove fatal to the shift.

The closure of the race track would potentially cost the MRC tens of millions of dollars and they vehemently oppose the idea.

The football club are currently working through a business case to set up its new base at the racetrack, with an outcome due mid 2026, it told its members.

Several sources with knowledge of the talks have told Betsy the two parties are some distance apart on the design of the complex, including the football club’s new administration building, new football ovals and parking.

The course is managed in part by the Caulfield Racecourse Trust, who have communicated racing cannot suffer in any development.

But the most controversial topic is the football club’s strong wish for a new pedestrian tunnel underneath the racetrack.

The football club are adamant they want a multi-million-dollar tunnel underneath the racetrack to a new administration building the club want to build on the Neerim side of the racing complex.

The construction of a tunnel, sources told Betsy, would see racing at the track stop for up to 12 months, if not longer. The tunnel would be estimated to cost more than $10 million.

Tunnel vision

The football club, understandably, want their players to have direct access to their new training facilities from their proposed main hub.

Issue is, if the club continues to look at developing the site on Neerim Road for their main building where the old Aquanita stables were based, they need to find a way to get the players and staff from the building to inside the racetrack where the ovals would be based.

Players can’t go over the track out of OHS fears for the players, plus staff for the race club are concerned about the damage to the track from the constant foot traffic. The race club too have OHS fears.

The football club have also rejected any proposal that would see players drive around 200m to the ovals from an existing tunnel from where the hub would be built.

Rather, they have proposed a tunnel between their proposed base and where the new ovals would be built.

The racing club is vehemently against the tunnel out of real fears they couldn’t race at Caulfield for at least a year plus, while others expect it could be even longer. The cost to the club if racing was to shut would be in the tens of millions of dollars.

Betsy has been told there have been heated discussions between the two clubs previously on numerous occasions and despite being told racing wouldn’t budge on the issue, the football club presses on. A feasibility study is currently being completed which will deal with many issues, including the tunnel.

But several people with knowledge of the talks say unless the football club budge or find another solution, the development could be dead.

The MRC said the MFC proposal cannot impact racing.

”The Victorian Government and the MRC are aligned that racing remains the primary and protected use of Caulfield. Any proposal must ensure there is no disruption to racing operations, track integrity, member access, or urban amenity and impact on the local community arising from any planned development,” the club said in a statement.

Artist impressions of the new Melbourne complex

New hub friction

Insiders say they thought a solution had been found when a proposal was put forward for the two clubs to build a brand-new joint facility.

The building would have been built on a site on the Station Street side of the racecourse. It is unclear whether the site is club or government owned.

The hub would house both clubs but specially built to allow the football club to create their own space and branding.

Crucially, it would allow players to access a pedestrian tunnel already there, saving millions of dollars and would see no disruptions to racing.

Betsy is told the idea came with strong state government support.

But as the idea started to gain traction within both clubs, it hit a hurdle. The football club’s board said no.

The club’s board is alleged to have rejected the idea because they remain steadfast they want their own facility, which does have merit, but whether its possible at Caulfield is another question.

But the rejection was a significant step back for the project. It also is said to have drawn lines in the sand for both.

Artist impressions of the new Melbourne complex

Racing going cold

Initially, the MRC saw opportunity with the idea of Melbourne joining the racecourse facility.

Opportunities to make money that is, plus seek significant investment in their own facilities by the state government.

But Betsy is told the appetite for significant change is waning. The benefits to racing of any shift, presently, are not enough. As the details are fleshed out, sharp minds are starting to realise they will lose control over key parts of the complex that was created for racing. Like football, its environmental and social elements are crucial to its success.

The race club too is becoming tired at times of their dealings with the football club, frustrated by a lack of understanding of their needs and previously, the personnel they have worked with.

Much of the site isn’t managed by the race club, but by the trust. But the messaging both privately and publicly from the trust and the state government is racing can’t suffer from the development, nor can it shut during construction.

There are also financial concerns the racing club has regarding the football club.

Some of the ideas put forward will take at least $100m to execute. The football club doesn’t have anywhere near that kind of money. While they will undoubtedly receive government support plus some donations from wealthy benefactors and even the AFL, there is concerns much of the planning could be derailed by cost.

Racing, too, knows that it has the most important negotiating tool up its sleeve – time. The football club needs to move out of its current base and fast. The state government, plus nearby tenants including Collingwood, Melbourne Storm and even Tennis Australia would be keen to have them shift quickly. But while the MRC can sit and wait, the football club needs this project greenlit.

Community access

Local MP and deputy opposition leader David Southwick in attacking the state government recently, pointed out the local areas as having Victoria’s lowest public open space provision in Victoria.

The Caulfield community is a passionate clientele and will want their say on the site.

There is often community frustration about access to the racecourse already to get to the parklands inside the course.

There are real fears, despite the premature nature of the discussions, that they may lose parts of the space already there to a professional football club.

The club wants at least two football ovals built. While they will rightly argue they too can be accessed by the wider community, locals fear it won’t be enough.

Adding complexity in the broader precinct’s evolving land mix is the arrival of Mount Scopus Memorial College, who purchased land from the race club for $195 million. The land sold was crucial in clearing debt the club has – but has again raised community concerns about mixed use of the site if Melbourne arrives and even nearby traffic snarls.

Politics is everything

When MFC CEO Paul Guerra is not working to help his club win premierships, he sits on the Racing Victoria board, which raises obvious conflicts.

It has been speculated that Guerra’s hiring at Melbourne was in part for his strong contact book in racing and government.

The relationship between Guerra and the most powerful man in Victorian racing, Jonathan Munz is a curious watch.

Munz once campaigned in 2022 to have Guerra removed from the RV board as part of a spill motion, which did not eventuate. It is believed Guerra’s inclusion in the spill was down to being in the wrong place at the wrong time as the two did not know each other, rather than anything personal.

Munz is now the vice-chairman at the MRC and wields enormous power in the sport. This includes at Racing Victoria.

The two are now believed to be on good terms and Guerra’s remaining on RV board is seen by some as good for both parties if there is any hope of getting the deal done. But for Guerra to get his club into Caulfield, he’ll need to convince Munz first.

There were murmurs from some within the RV board about whether Guerra should remain on the RV board while he was Melbourne’s CEO. Why he would want to do both [or have the time] is another question.

But given his term was recently extended until 2027, the issue, for now, is somewhat redundant.

While it was Racing Minister Anthony Carbines who extended Guerra’s term, responsibility for the Crown land at Caulfield sits with Environment Minister Steve Dimopoulos, who is believed to be watching progress closely.

Path forward

Those who spoke to Betsy for the piece, and only did so if they could remain anonymous, believe there is still a chance for the project to get the nod. But not as Melbourne currently want it and any progress will take concessions from both sides, especially the football club.

The state government likes the idea of a shared infrastructure as well as eliminating costly elements, such as the construction of a tunnel. While the tunnel alone would cost millions, the economic impact to the race club would be even greater. Racing as a code, too, would potentially suffer through a drop in wagering if Caulfield could not be used.

The two bodies need to find common ground on the operational responsibilities on the site, which would protect both sides’ long term goals.

What they had to say

Betsy put a number of questions to Guerra and the football club and they declined to comment.

The race club confirmed discussions remain ongoing.

‘’The MRC is open to exploring Melbourne Football Club potentially establishing a high performance training centre and administrative facility in the centre of the racecourse and adjacent land administered by the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust (CRRT). No plans have been agreed and no final design, layout or infrastructure decisions have been settled,’’ the club said.

‘’MRC is working collaboratively with the Government and the Caulfield Recreational Reserve Trust to assess feasibility and long-term sustainability.”

• It’s important to note here Guerra once sat on the board of racing.com [once my employer] however my dealings with him were limited. But when we did come across each other he was helpful and polite. He declined to comment or provide background to this story.

14 minutes ago, Demonland said:

A key element of a potential Melbourne Football Club redevelopment of Caulfield Racecourse would see racing suspended for close to a year as conflict emerges on future plans for the complex.

The football club have been vocal in their wish to move to the race course, and it has support, but discussions around relocating the organisation to Caulfield are complex, with significant differences emerging over the scale and design of the precinct.

The football club and the Melbourne Racing club remain opposed on key issues on how football could coexist with racing, which now risk delaying or scuppering any progress.

The competing visions for the site have created uncertainty about how the complex would ultimately look – and what it would mean for the future of racing at the venue.

The football club, the MRC and various government bodies have been working towards a new hub, a massive new complex, including a new administrative building, football ovals and community facilities.

But while supporters of the $100m development are hopeful the development will still proceed, they fear the impasse on crucial elements, including the creation of a new tunnel underneath the racetrack which would see racing close for a possible 12 months, could prove fatal to the shift.

The closure of the race track would potentially cost the MRC tens of millions of dollars and they vehemently oppose the idea.

The football club are currently working through a business case to set up its new base at the racetrack, with an outcome due mid 2026, it told its members.

Several sources with knowledge of the talks have told Betsy the two parties are some distance apart on the design of the complex, including the football club’s new administration building, new football ovals and parking.

The course is managed in part by the Caulfield Racecourse Trust, who have communicated racing cannot suffer in any development.

But the most controversial topic is the football club’s strong wish for a new pedestrian tunnel underneath the racetrack.

The football club are adamant they want a multi-million-dollar tunnel underneath the racetrack to a new administration building the club want to build on the Neerim side of the racing complex.

The construction of a tunnel, sources told Betsy, would see racing at the track stop for up to 12 months, if not longer. The tunnel would be estimated to cost more than $10 million.

Tunnel vision

The football club, understandably, want their players to have direct access to their new training facilities from their proposed main hub.

Issue is, if the club continues to look at developing the site on Neerim Road for their main building where the old Aquanita stables were based, they need to find a way to get the players and staff from the building to inside the racetrack where the ovals would be based.

Players can’t go over the track out of OHS fears for the players, plus staff for the race club are concerned about the damage to the track from the constant foot traffic. The race club too have OHS fears.

The football club have also rejected any proposal that would see players drive around 200m to the ovals from an existing tunnel from where the hub would be built.

Rather, they have proposed a tunnel between their proposed base and where the new ovals would be built.

The racing club is vehemently against the tunnel out of real fears they couldn’t race at Caulfield for at least a year plus, while others expect it could be even longer. The cost to the club if racing was to shut would be in the tens of millions of dollars.

Betsy has been told there have been heated discussions between the two clubs previously on numerous occasions and despite being told racing wouldn’t budge on the issue, the football club presses on. A feasibility study is currently being completed which will deal with many issues, including the tunnel.

But several people with knowledge of the talks say unless the football club budge or find another solution, the development could be dead.

The MRC said the MFC proposal cannot impact racing.

”The Victorian Government and the MRC are aligned that racing remains the primary and protected use of Caulfield. Any proposal must ensure there is no disruption to racing operations, track integrity, member access, or urban amenity and impact on the local community arising from any planned development,” the club said in a statement.

Artist impressions of the new Melbourne complex

New hub friction

Insiders say they thought a solution had been found when a proposal was put forward for the two clubs to build a brand-new joint facility.

The building would have been built on a site on the Station Street side of the racecourse. It is unclear whether the site is club or government owned.

The hub would house both clubs but specially built to allow the football club to create their own space and branding.

Crucially, it would allow players to access a pedestrian tunnel already there, saving millions of dollars and would see no disruptions to racing.

Betsy is told the idea came with strong state government support.

But as the idea started to gain traction within both clubs, it hit a hurdle. The football club’s board said no.

The club’s board is alleged to have rejected the idea because they remain steadfast they want their own facility, which does have merit, but whether its possible at Caulfield is another question.

But the rejection was a significant step back for the project. It also is said to have drawn lines in the sand for both.

Artist impressions of the new Melbourne complex

Racing going cold

Initially, the MRC saw opportunity with the idea of Melbourne joining the racecourse facility.

Opportunities to make money that is, plus seek significant investment in their own facilities by the state government.

But Betsy is told the appetite for significant change is waning. The benefits to racing of any shift, presently, are not enough. As the details are fleshed out, sharp minds are starting to realise they will lose control over key parts of the complex that was created for racing. Like football, its environmental and social elements are crucial to its success.

The race club too is becoming tired at times of their dealings with the football club, frustrated by a lack of understanding of their needs and previously, the personnel they have worked with.

Much of the site isn’t managed by the race club, but by the trust. But the messaging both privately and publicly from the trust and the state government is racing can’t suffer from the development, nor can it shut during construction.

There are also financial concerns the racing club has regarding the football club.

Some of the ideas put forward will take at least $100m to execute. The football club doesn’t have anywhere near that kind of money. While they will undoubtedly receive government support plus some donations from wealthy benefactors and even the AFL, there is concerns much of the planning could be derailed by cost.

Racing, too, knows that it has the most important negotiating tool up its sleeve – time. The football club needs to move out of its current base and fast. The state government, plus nearby tenants including Collingwood, Melbourne Storm and even Tennis Australia would be keen to have them shift quickly. But while the MRC can sit and wait, the football club needs this project greenlit.

Community access

Local MP and deputy opposition leader David Southwick in attacking the state government recently, pointed out the local areas as having Victoria’s lowest public open space provision in Victoria.

The Caulfield community is a passionate clientele and will want their say on the site.

There is often community frustration about access to the racecourse already to get to the parklands inside the course.

There are real fears, despite the premature nature of the discussions, that they may lose parts of the space already there to a professional football club.

The club wants at least two football ovals built. While they will rightly argue they too can be accessed by the wider community, locals fear it won’t be enough.

Adding complexity in the broader precinct’s evolving land mix is the arrival of Mount Scopus Memorial College, who purchased land from the race club for $195 million. The land sold was crucial in clearing debt the club has – but has again raised community concerns about mixed use of the site if Melbourne arrives and even nearby traffic snarls.

Politics is everything

When MFC CEO Paul Guerra is not working to help his club win premierships, he sits on the Racing Victoria board, which raises obvious conflicts.

It has been speculated that Guerra’s hiring at Melbourne was in part for his strong contact book in racing and government.

The relationship between Guerra and the most powerful man in Victorian racing, Jonathan Munz is a curious watch.

Munz once campaigned in 2022 to have Guerra removed from the RV board as part of a spill motion, which did not eventuate. It is believed Guerra’s inclusion in the spill was down to being in the wrong place at the wrong time as the two did not know each other, rather than anything personal.

Munz is now the vice-chairman at the MRC and wields enormous power in the sport. This includes at Racing Victoria.

The two are now believed to be on good terms and Guerra’s remaining on RV board is seen by some as good for both parties if there is any hope of getting the deal done. But for Guerra to get his club into Caulfield, he’ll need to convince Munz first.

There were murmurs from some within the RV board about whether Guerra should remain on the RV board while he was Melbourne’s CEO. Why he would want to do both [or have the time] is another question.

But given his term was recently extended until 2027, the issue, for now, is somewhat redundant.

While it was Racing Minister Anthony Carbines who extended Guerra’s term, responsibility for the Crown land at Caulfield sits with Environment Minister Steve Dimopoulos, who is believed to be watching progress closely.

Path forward

Those who spoke to Betsy for the piece, and only did so if they could remain anonymous, believe there is still a chance for the project to get the nod. But not as Melbourne currently want it and any progress will take concessions from both sides, especially the football club.

The state government likes the idea of a shared infrastructure as well as eliminating costly elements, such as the construction of a tunnel. While the tunnel alone would cost millions, the economic impact to the race club would be even greater. Racing as a code, too, would potentially suffer through a drop in wagering if Caulfield could not be used.

The two bodies need to find common ground on the operational responsibilities on the site, which would protect both sides’ long term goals.

What they had to say

Betsy put a number of questions to Guerra and the football club and they declined to comment.

The race club confirmed discussions remain ongoing.

‘’The MRC is open to exploring Melbourne Football Club potentially establishing a high performance training centre and administrative facility in the centre of the racecourse and adjacent land administered by the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust (CRRT). No plans have been agreed and no final design, layout or infrastructure decisions have been settled,’’ the club said.

‘’MRC is working collaboratively with the Government and the Caulfield Recreational Reserve Trust to assess feasibility and long-term sustainability.”

• It’s important to note here Guerra once sat on the board of racing.com [once my employer] however my dealings with him were limited. But when we did come across each other he was helpful and polite. He declined to comment or provide background to this story.

Wow - more in this article than we’ve heard from any stakeholder in years

Unfortunately it doesn’t inspire much faith in the board though

I’m not sure why the broadly agreed upon option of sharing the facility with MRC isn’t suitable. Yes it would be preferable to have our own facility but if that means killing the project (due to the tunnel issue) then surely we go back to the initially agreed plan?

If the club lets this opportunity slip because they’re too pig headed to compromise then they all deserve to be turfed out

Sure it would be nice however I genuinely don’t see the necessity for a tunnel for direct access to the inside of the track. If the MCG can host thousands of concert goers on the oval at a Taylor Swift concert then surely we can roll some protective mats across 20 metres of track from outside to inside and safely get across without damaging the track. Just [censored] get on with it and think outside the square.

Good read, though I’m not sure what Betsy is?

One thought on the tunnel, perhaps the answer is a type of electronic bridge that can automatically go up and down depending if racing is on. In 2026 surely that is an option?

1 minute ago, demoncat said:

Wow - more in this article than we’ve heard from any stakeholder in years

Unfortunately it doesn’t inspire much faith in the board though

I’m not sure why the broadly agreed upon option of sharing the facility with MRC isn’t suitable. Yes it would be preferable to have our own facility but if that means killing the project (due to the tunnel issue) then surely we go back to the initially agreed plan?

If the club lets this opportunity slip because they’re too pig headed to compromise then they all deserve to be turfed out

Couldn’t agree more. Pig headedness over a [censored] tunnel. We have been crying out for this for decades.

Could be worse though, I could get an email from the club asking me to amend my will.

3 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

Good read, though I’m not sure what Betsy is?

One thought on the tunnel, perhaps the answer is a type of electronic bridge that can automatically go up and down depending if racing is on. In 2026 surely that is an option?

Betsy is a racing media company. So it makes sense they would take the racing clubs side.

But if this is correct, and the Board can't or won't get this done, they should all resign

13 minutes ago, Mickey said:

Betsy is a racing media company. So it makes sense they would take the racing clubs side.

But if this is correct, and the Board can't or won't get this done, they should all resign

Ahhh ok. It did feel very racing focused, so that makes sense.

But yes, I hope our board are being practical with this given a home base is the most important thing we need to sort out. If we lose it due to small little changes etc then heads should roll.

Re the tunnel, how about we get in there first and start building goodwill with everyone and then we can explore down the track even?

How does building a walking tunnel under track mean its closed for a year?? The article feels very lopsided.

I'm no engineer, but I can't for the life of me see why construction of a tunnel would mean no racing for a year no matter how it was done.

But if true, how about an overpass - extra exercise for the players going up and down.

18 minutes ago, sue said:

I'm no engineer, but I can't for the life of me see why construction of a tunnel would mean no racing for a year no matter how it was done.

But if true, how about an overpass - extra exercise for the players going up and down.

I think an overpass would have sight and shading issues for racehorses.

As I heard a while ago, the “ tunnel” was the real live issue and this article seems to corroborate that.

I thought it could be resolved fairly easily.

I note Beelzebub who seems to know about construction , said a tunnel could be completed in a few weeks and during a non racing period at Caulfield, so no inconvenience to the MRC.

I agree with another poster to get it approved without the tunnel and explore matting, a portable bridge or electric one, or whatever later on, but just get it done. Even ensuring players crossing the track in a sort of wider area, not all in a small lane, would ensure no damage to the track, especially if the crossing was done in runners or bare feet when dry. It is already used by people walking the track.

If this is the real holdup, then find a solution.

Man has landed on the moon.

Edited 9 hours ago9 hr by Redleg

As iterated Mars 2349 seems feasible, I'm now calling Caulfield over and outski! Back to the drawing board!

48 minutes ago, sue said:

I'm no engineer, but I can't for the life of me see why construction of a tunnel would mean no racing for a year no matter how it was done.

But if true, how about an overpass - extra exercise for the players going up and down.

Prefab cut and cover 6 weeks max

6 yrs if Cfmeu are involved

49 minutes ago, Kent said:

6 yrs if Cfmeu are involved

And don't forget the brown paper bags and ferraris

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

I think an overpass would have sight and shading issues for racehorses.

As I heard a while ago, the “ tunnel” was the real live issue and this article seems to corroborate that.

I thought it could be resolved fairly easily.

I note Beelzebub who seems to know about construction , said a tunnel could be completed in a few weeks and during a non racing period at Caulfield, so no inconvenience to the MRC.

I agree with another poster to get it approved without the tunnel and explore matting, a portable bridge or electric one, or whatever later on, but just get it done. Even ensuring players crossing the track in a sort of wider area, not all in a small lane, would ensure no damage to the track, especially if the crossing was done in runners or bare feet when dry. It is already used by people walking the track.

If this is the real holdup, then find a solution.

Man has landed on the moon.

I think the tunnel issue is surely solvable, although I am no expert. Surely there is a way to get it done without closing the track for anything like one year! Negotiation via media in play perhaps? :-)

It does seem a bit laughable (to this [censored] anyway) that the racing people can be precious about players walking on a track that horses race on ...

3 hours ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

Good read, though I’m not sure what Betsy is?

One thought on the tunnel, perhaps the answer is a type of electronic bridge that can automatically go up and down depending if racing is on. In 2026 surely that is an option?

What I took from the article was that Betsy works for or represents the MRC. Absolute slop journalism if you can even call it journalism.

36 minutes ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

It does seem a bit laughable (to this [censored] anyway) that the racing people can be precious about players walking on a track that horses race on ...

In metal horseshoes.

I read that as MRC want more $$$ from the Government

12 months of no racing while building a pedestrian tunnel under the track, is just ridiculous.

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

12 months of no racing while building a pedestrian tunnel under the track, is just ridiculous.

It is, do they think they are building the Burnley tunnel MK2?

They build under passes at train stations in a short amount of time.

I'm sure our tunnel would be similar.

5 minutes ago, Gorgoroth said:

It is, do they think they are building the Burnley tunnel MK2?

They build under passes at train stations in a short amount of time.

I'm sure our tunnel would be similar.

Agree.

It’s probably a 25 to 30 metre long by 3 metre wide pedestrian tunnel.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by Redleg

Yeah that doesn’t read well for the future of any move

33 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Agree.

It’s probably a 25 to 30 metre long by 3 metre wide pedestrian tunnel.

The only thing that could make it a little harder is if they wanted it sloped, no stairs and wide enough to take a cart through. But even then that’s prob not really harder, just different.

Casey looking better and better.

2 hours ago, Gorgoroth said:

It is, do they think they are building the Burnley tunnel MK2?

They build under passes at train stations in a short amount of time.

I'm sure our tunnel would be similar.

Caulfield Cup will have replacement greyhounds during this period.

Surely a retractable overpass or some type of protective mats during training times could be used. It’s not rocket surgery.