5 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Can someone explain the benefits of all under one roof mantra? I know it sounds good but what will be the tangible benefits, what were the burning problems? Macca has emphasised the better playing surface and the better viewing areas. Given our coaches have locked the gates during training at Casey for years I am not sure anyone will be necessarily getting a welcome at Waverley training.

I reckon that was another reason the Hawks moved (they couldn't have closed sessions)

Where as we can still have closed sessions at Casey if we choose to. That's the luxury of having 2 decent venues

I'm wondering whether we could ever have closed sessions at Caulfield as the surrounds etc is public land

Are we moving out of the MCG totally? Will the Demon Shop be out there?

34 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Can someone explain the benefits of all under one roof mantra? I know it sounds good but what will be the tangible benefits, what were the burning problems? Macca has emphasised the better playing surface and the better viewing areas. Given our coaches have locked the gates during training at Casey for years I am not sure anyone will be necessarily getting a welcome at Waverley training.

Having the head office at the G then 2 seperate training venues, AAMI park may be over the footbridge but may as well be other side of town… they are not connected, it dosent guarantee you success but if you want evidence have a a look the last 2 seasons with Roffey radio interview its seems she never left the G and so disconnected front the Trac injury, the interview with Pert & Goodwin re culture issues …

4 hours ago, KozzyCan said:

I find it odd that this comes up only hours after Guerra essentially said we wouldn’t consider a Waverley move until Caufield was sorted. Some misalignment or just bad communication?

Is this his way of saying Caulfield is done wothout saying it directly.

58 minutes ago, Maximum said:

I'm confused. Will the Casey VFL team and Melbourne AFLW teams be playing games at Waverley Park now? Isn't it surrounded by houses instead of stands? How is it fit for official matches? And how can Casey play in Waverley? Not great for the City of Casey. Am I missing something?

No, it’s the club that’s missing something…

17 minutes ago, chookrat said:

Is this his way of saying Caulfield is done wothout saying it directly.

The level of self-delusion here is startling.

It’s bordering on fan fiction.

‘No, no, they can’t be incompetent and misaligned… it’s actually 4D chess and they have already done it twice over. Yes, that’s it.’

the dilemna

waverley is a step forward from what we have now, but it doesn't satisfy all our needs

waverley is also a step backwards in strengthening our quest for caulfield which could satisfy more of our needs

1 hour ago, Maximum said:

I'm confused. Will the Casey VFL team and Melbourne AFLW teams be playing games at Waverley Park now? Isn't it surrounded by houses instead of stands? How is it fit for official matches? And how can Casey play in Waverley? Not great for the City of Casey. Am I missing something?

No, they won't be playing games at Waverley...yes, you're missing something.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

the dilemna

waverley is a step forward from what we have now, but it doesn't satisfy all our needs

waverley is also a step backwards in strengthening our quest for caulfield which could satisfy more of our needs

I just don’t get this thinking - we’ve never had a home base, we get some sort of one and now people are annoyed because Caulfield gets potentially gets pushed back? Who cares - it’s a HUGE upgrade over anything we’ve ever had? What’s difficult about this - it’s the right call, if it adds a few years to Caulfield it simply doesn’t matter - would you rather something now or still nothing in seven, eight, nine, 10 years etc? It’s a no brainer

Personally, from the perspective of accessibility, I'd prefer Waverley to Caufield anyway.

Does put us more in the population growth belt than Caufield as well at the same time as being a little more central east where alot of our younger supporters live.

6 hours ago, Roost it far said:

I'm hoping it's the opposite. Caulfield is looking good so we're prepared to move to an interim location.

Is it at all possible that we’ve struck a deal with Caulfield and so have signed on for Waverley as an interim solution? Could there be further announcements coming soon?

3 hours ago, Macca said:

When did Caulfield become 5 years? In the last few days? There were plenty talking completion dates of 2027 or 2028 not so long ago

Waverley as an alternate only became a talking point in the last couple of months. Before that, nothing

And I applaud the club for moving to Waverley. But don't be surprised if it's a permanent move

We get into Waverley and everyone's then happy. Soon enough the talk will be, why Caulfield? We don't need it and we still haven't got the funding required anyway? "Let's save our money"

I'd prefer Caulfield but the silence about the facility since before the AGM is deafening

And now, suddenly, we're moving into Waverley in the next few weeks? I reckon we grabbed the opportunity before that opportunity was gone

As stated in a previous post, the Hawks had to move as they didn't have another facility like we do (Casey)

For the MFC, Waverley is an ideal fit. Just a tick over 20 minutes from Casey to Waverley too

The CEO says Caulfield is 3-5 years.. I go by what the club says not what people on forums speculate

Just now, Oxdee said:

The CEO says Caulfield is 3-5 years.. I go by what the club says not what people on forums speculate

Well it's already been 2 years and 4 months

My concern is the lack of dialogue with regards to the progress. No comment (or silence) can mean a lot

The club must know that the supporter base would be getting a bit toey

The other concern is our relationship with the MRC ... they've voiced their concerns with regards to the possible disruption to racing with the now, infamous, tunnel venture

Potential losses in the $Millions have been bandied about if race meetings are cancelled. That will get the trusts attention

But we're not hearing anything positive from the club and most of the time we're not hearing anything at all

Until now with the advent of Waverley ... plenty of chatter and lots of positives

Anyway, time will tell

Footnote; I'm all for the training base at Caulfield but in my view, there's a few hurdles to overcome including the costing ($100Million has been talked about and that's a lot of money to raise)

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by Macca

1 hour ago, heath55 said:

I just don’t get this thinking - we’ve never had a home base, we get some sort of one and now people are annoyed because Caulfield gets potentially gets pushed back? Who cares - it’s a HUGE upgrade over anything we’ve ever had? What’s difficult about this - it’s the right call, if it adds a few years to Caulfield it simply doesn’t matter - would you rather something now or still nothing in seven, eight, nine, 10 years etc? It’s a no brainer

Spot on, Caulfield is 3-5 yrs and a chance it may not happen, first time in my 50+ yrs of my supporting member I will be able to visit the club under 1 roof, current administration has achieved more than any other previously.

I tuned into the radio and heard the end of a conversation about the move. I recall hearing $20 million mentioned - can someone shed any light on this - was it in relation to Caulfield or the government contributing $20 million to renovating Waverley (which doesn’t make sense to me). Or am I just losing the plot and imagining things?

Edited 18 minutes ago18 min by Ethan Tremblay
Or did the AFL pay $20 million to purchase the venue?