Training Ground?

[Diamond_Jim 11,745]

The penny dropped for me this morning...

Today's Age has an in depth article today on the battle for control of the Melbourne Park precinct. Well worth a read but it mentions Gosch's Paddock as a possible site for a 25k AFL stadium. Makes sense as the future home of Women's football and if the cost of roofing is not prohibitive a summer music venue for use when Rod Laver etc are tied up by the tennis.

If the powers that be wanted this to happen the quid pro quo for us is funding of a replacement training facility at a venue such as Caulfield.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/the-speech-that-sparked-a-bitter-feud-over-the-future-of-melbourne-park-20240110-p5ew9q.html

Live Nation isn’t the only organisation with ideas for new venues. Collingwood boss Craig Kelly floated plans for a new AFL stadium on a part of Gosch’s Paddock, which is currently the training ground of the Melbourne Demons.

“I know Richmond [Football Club] and ourselves have both said that if there was an opportunity as a code with the AFL … we’d be more than happy to explore how do we have another facility there that can be utilised for that sort of 25,000 seat [stadium].”

The AFL, Melbourne Football Club and Richmond Football Club declined to comment.

As an aside here's another on the Collingwood wish list:

In the push-and-pull fight for land, the powerful Magpies often come out on top. They expanded their empire in 2007 by secretly lobbying to push out the Victorian Institute of Sport and Athletics Victoria from what is now known as the Glasshouse.

Kelly wants to secure tenancy for another 50 years and told The Age about Collingwood’s vision to expand further, adding a grandstand and permanent cafe so the facilities could be used as an AFLW venue.

Edited January 12 by Diamond_Jim

[Mazer Rackham 14,969]

MFC: "we'd like to develop Gosch's as a state-of-the-art training fac--"
Minister: "public land, cutting down trees, limited use, etc etc etc, don't call us, well call you"

CFC: "got an idea for something on Gosch's"
Minister: "OMG Collingwood just called me, get my signature stamp ready"

[dpositive 1,547]

6 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

The penny dropped for me this morning...

Today's Age has an in depth article today on the battle for control of the Melbourne Park precinct. Well worth a read but it mentions Gosch's Paddock as a possible site for a 25k AFL stadium. Makes sense as the future home of Women's football and if the cost of roofing is not prohibitive a summer music venue for use when Rod Laver etc are tied up by the tennis.

If the powers that be wanted this to happen the quid pro quo for us is funding of a replacement training facility at a venue such as Caulfield.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/the-speech-that-sparked-a-bitter-feud-over-the-future-of-melbourne-park-20240110-p5ew9q.html

Live Nation isn’t the only organisation with ideas for new venues. Collingwood boss Craig Kelly floated plans for a new AFL stadium on a part of Gosch’s Paddock, which is currently the training ground of the Melbourne Demons.

“I know Richmond [Football Club] and ourselves have both said that if there was an opportunity as a code with the AFL … we’d be more than happy to explore how do we have another facility there that can be utilised for that sort of 25,000 seat [stadium].”

The AFL, Melbourne Football Club and Richmond Football Club declined to comment.

Surely Richmond and Melbourne would have more claim to a facility than Collingwood. Perhaps  move the pies to port and we reclaim AAMI.

[Fritta and Turner 3,652]

19 hours ago, Macca said:

Posted the following on the training thread but this thread is more appropriate

I reckon the MRC will welcome us with open arms.  We'll be seen as a partner in a win/win situation

Just an opinion mind you and a gut feeling but I reckon the MRC will see us coming in as a way of growing their own membership and a chance to make $$$'s on non race days

For the MFC, we'll get exactly what we want in terms of training grounds & indoor facilities for the players.  As well as buildings for the admin 

The supporters would get a great view of training and/or practice games from the existing stands and any new stands (Western end of the course?) 

*See image below*

So the building near the winning post (white roof) is the main grandstand.  If you were at the races, the back straight is a fair way away but the 2 training grounds would be a lot closer than that

As for the 2 ovals, one might run alongside the home straight (n.b. the home straight isn't pointed directly West (so no Sun issues) The other oval more towards the back straight (?)

A lot of the existing buildings and stables from about the 2000m mark to the 1400m mark were formerly used for training horse but Caulfield is no longer a training facility.  The horses are brought in on race days and there are heaps of stables behind the main grandstand for use on racedays

So our building requirements could be put up anywhere from the 2000m mark to the 1400m mark ... incorporating a grandstand (?)

The oval at the top (Glen Huntly Park) will give you an idea of the space available elsewhere (specifically inside the actual racecourse) ... you could fit 3 or 4 ovals inside the actual racecourse

Again, the above is just a personal opinion not based on any data or info.  I certainly don't have any inside knowledge.  Others may see things way differently

Here's the image of the course ...

 

 

Hi Macca,

Just remember that the MRC dont own Caulfield, it is crown land managed by a Trust.  MRC pays a nominal rent.  Perhaps the MRC would welcome us if we used some of their facilities for events or meetings.

[rjay 23,901]

10 hours ago, Macca said:

If we end up there I've got no doubt the MRC will be eyeing off our 70,000 members (might be 90,000 or more by the time we take up residence!)

Well 'Macca' as you know with my love of racing (not), they needn't bother with me...

[Macca 16,173]

23 minutes ago, Jontee said:

Hi Macca,

Just remember that the MRC dont own Caulfield, it is crown land managed by a Trust.  MRC pays a nominal rent.  Perhaps the MRC would welcome us if we used some of their facilities for events or meetings.

Yeah I knew that but I can't see how things haven't progressed this far unless we were dealing with a club (MRC) that has opened up their arms to us

Put it this way, if there was any hostility involved, why would our club & Pert be so excited about the venture?

In my opinion, the MRC want us to come in, it's not necessarily us being desperate to get there.  Could be that we found each other and there is a terrific opportunity for both clubs

[Macca 16,173]

2 hours ago, rjay said:

Well 'Macca' as you know with my love of racing (not), they needn't bother with me...

Well, by the time we get there we'll have a lot more more than 70,000 members and amongst those numbers, there are any number of horse racing enthusiasts and keen punters.  Or people who like a flutter now and again

And there are many like you but you only represent a percentage, not all

Yes, problem gambling exists but those types often have personality disorders (I've known a few) and if wasn't the horses it would be some other form of gambling.  Or the grog or drugs or whatever

And as I've said to you before rjay, being a passionate supporter of a footy club is a gamble.  We put our whole emotional energy into it and when we lose, we often act like problem gamblers.  Blaming everything in sight (umpires = jockeys)

And it's a financial investment as well being a keen footy fan, let's not forget that.  And we don't like doing our money

*Sack the coach*

*Get rid of that player, he's useless*

etc etc

 

 

Edited January 13 by Macca

[george_on_the_outer 6,970]

This article is from over 2 years ago....one does wonder why it has taken so long for the MFC to get involved, instead of all the mucking around with Goschs and the Jolimont proposals during that time?

Anyhow it shows artists impressions of what can be done inside the existing track.  Note up to 7 sporting fields.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/caulfield-racecourse-unveils-570m-sports-entertainment-precinct-plan-20210413-p57iu8.html

 

 

 

Edited January 12 by george_on_the_outer

[drysdale demon 4,151]

1 hour ago, Macca said:

Yes, problem gambling exists but those types often have personality disorders (I've known a few) and if wasn't the horses it would be some other form of gambling.  Or the grog or drugs or whatever

Around 80% of problem gamblers are addicted to poker machines.

Edited January 13 by drysdale demon
spelling

[Neil Crompton 4,722]

Sorry, but i had posted this in the wrong thread:

dp while i admire your enthusiasm, do you really know what's required to mount an alternative option to the Club?

Do you know what physical facilities are actually required by the Club? 

Do you know how much physical space would be required to house these facilities?

These are the very first steps before you can look at any possible alternative site. I'm guessing you don't really have these basic ingredients yet.

Only then can you go out looking for suitable public land. I say public because any privately owned land would have a price tag that we could never afford. 

Then the hard part begins. Looking for public land that does not have heritage issues (ie the MCG Precinct); does not cause a loss of public visual amenity (ie the Yarra Park proposal); does not make homeless other sporting or recreation bodies, does not take away much required public open space; a site that can provide public benefit from some of the proposed works; a site that is easily accessible etc etc etc. Then when you think you have all that nailed down, you have to find the financial backing for that site. Therefore, it ain't as easy as seeing a vacant block of land and declaring that would make a good site! 

I'm afraid dp, that without having these basic initial criteria in hand, the Club - while they might appreciate your effort - will not take you seriously. That is most likely why you have not had a number of your questions answered.

But on a more positive note, the Caulfield site really excites me as a proposal - much, much more than anything we had previously proposed in the MCG precinct. (I've been in the Master Planning game for a long time, so i do have some knowledge of these processes). I think we will all be extremely happy if we pull this proposal off. It's almost like we have waited 20 years for Caulfield to come along. 

[daisycutter 28,507]

fyi

city of port philip recently bought auspost warehouse adjacent to the port ground for about $40m.  they outbid the state government so it is now privately owned by council who would be expecting a return on their investment.

Council reels in Auspost Fishermans Bend site - Australian Property Journal

p.s. i don't know who owns the warehouses north-west of the oval

Edited January 13 by daisycutter

[Wells 11 4,703]

2 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

The penny dropped for me this morning...

Today's Age has an in depth article today on the battle for control of the Melbourne Park precinct. Well worth a read but it mentions Gosch's Paddock as a possible site for a 25k AFL stadium. Makes sense as the future home of Women's football and if the cost of roofing is not prohibitive a summer music venue for use when Rod Laver etc are tied up by the tennis.

If the powers that be wanted this to happen the quid pro quo for us is funding of a replacement training facility at a venue such as Caulfield.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/the-speech-that-sparked-a-bitter-feud-over-the-future-of-melbourne-park-20240110-p5ew9q.html

Live Nation isn’t the only organisation with ideas for new venues. Collingwood boss Craig Kelly floated plans for a new AFL stadium on a part of Gosch’s Paddock, which is currently the training ground of the Melbourne Demons.

“I know Richmond [Football Club] and ourselves have both said that if there was an opportunity as a code with the AFL … we’d be more than happy to explore how do we have another facility there that can be utilised for that sort of 25,000 seat [stadium].”

The AFL, Melbourne Football Club and Richmond Football Club declined to comment.

As an aside here's another on the Collingwood wish list:

In the push-and-pull fight for land, the powerful Magpies often come out on top. They expanded their empire in 2007 by secretly lobbying to push out the Victorian Institute of Sport and Athletics Victoria from what is now known as the Glasshouse.

Kelly wants to secure tenancy for another 50 years and told The Age about Collingwood’s vision to expand further, adding a grandstand and permanent cafe so the facilities could be used as an AFLW venue.

Intersting. On the positive it helps get us funding… and that’s a real and brilliant outcome. But, if I’m reading you right,  the thorn in the roses of this idea is that CFC magically gets the go ahead to build a stadium for their woman’s team at Godches?  This when we couldn’t get [censored] done there. 

As good as I think Caulfield will be I may have to stab myself every time I pass Goschs if it becomes a cfc stadium. 

If it was a neutral venue ie The home of woman’s footy and we were a founding member, that’s  one thing. But what’s the likliehood of that. 

[dpositive 1,547]

45 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

Sorry, but i had posted this in the wrong thread:

dp while i admire your enthusiasm, do you really know what's required to mount an alternative option to the Club?

Do you know what physical facilities are actually required by the Club? 

Do you know how much physical space would be required to house these facilities?

These are the very first steps before you can look at any possible alternative site. I'm guessing you don't really have these basic ingredients yet.

Only then can you go out looking for suitable public land. I say public because any privately owned land would have a price tag that we could never afford. 

Then the hard part begins. Looking for public land that does not have heritage issues (ie the MCG Precinct); does not cause a loss of public visual amenity (ie the Yarra Park proposal); does not make homeless other sporting or recreation bodies, does not take away much required public open space; a site that can provide public benefit from some of the proposed works; a site that is easily accessible etc etc etc. Then when you think you have all that nailed down, you have to find the financial backing for that site. Therefore, it ain't as easy as seeing a vacant block of land and declaring that would make a good site! 

I'm afraid dp, that without having these basic initial criteria in hand, the Club - while they might appreciate your effort - will not take you seriously. That is most likely why you have not had a number of your questions answered.

But on a more positive note, the Caulfield site really excites me as a proposal - much, much more than anything we had previously proposed in the MCG precinct. (I've been in the Master Planning game for a long time, so i do have some knowledge of these processes). I think we will all be extremely happy if we pull this proposal off. It's almost like we have waited 20 years for Caulfield to come along. 

i had responded to this perhaps on other thread.

[dpositive 1,547]

32 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

fyi

city of port philip recently bought auspost warehouse adjacent to the port ground for about $40m.  they outbid the state government so it is now privately owned by council who would be expecting a return on their investment.

Council reels in Auspost Fishermans Bend site - Australian Property Journal

p.s. i don't know who owns the warehouses north-west of the oval

Thanks dc this was just one of the real estate matters that initiated my original contact with Kate. I believe there is plenty of available land , most owned by developers, many overseas many investor only, all encouraged by various state governments and intent on profiteering. 

Kate was unaware of this site which did make me question the statements at AGM that they had interviewed everyone. In her defence Kate did indicate some of the investors and also stated that the real estate requirements were just to much. 

Again my proposal will be for a facility with community, retail, corporate , entertainment features and may even be attractive to existing or potential sponsor. 

I believe there are still some pretty large warehouse sites in FB . The FB board are well established and have some pretty established plans, but may be still open to different ideas.

Im in the country but still interested in anyone with insight into FB/PM

[Roost it far 6,040]

23 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

Intersting. On the positive it helps get us funding… and that’s a real and brilliant outcome. But, if I’m reading you right,  the thorn in the roses of this idea is that CFC magically gets the go ahead to build a stadium for their woman’s team at Godches?  This when we couldn’t get [censored] done there. 

As good as I think Caulfield will be I may have to stab myself every time I pass Goschs if it becomes a cfc stadium. 

If it was a neutral venue ie The home of woman’s footy and we were a founding member, that’s  one thing. But what’s the likliehood of that. 

I'd guess that there's not enough room or money to build us a stadium, administration, a pool, a gym, conference rooms and ideally a second oval for Gosch's to become our home. I'd say Caulfield has the room and the prospect of housing both our sides in comfort. 

[Diamond_Jim 11,745]

24 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

But, if I’m reading you right,  the thorn in the roses of this idea is that CFC magically gets the go ahead to build a stadium for their woman’s team at Godches?  This when we couldn’t get [censored] done there. 

Two different grounds and to a large degree based on separate development concepts

The 25k stadium at Gosch's would be for everyone. I assume the prime users would be the Women's game assuming the game grows to regularly attract say 15k. This would be one of the main reasons why the State funds it.

Separately Collingwood want to develop the Olympic Park oval for their Women's team by adding a grandstand

 

[58er 5,608]

On 25/11/2023 at 19:34, Redleg said:

Yes we were.

It’s called timing and short of funding it himself ( after his salvation funding of us) he Joe G was quite right in refusing involvement in a scheme we had no way of getting off the ground. 

Perhaps his only error was not to appear as if we had done  any sums etc. on the matter. 

[george_on_the_outer 6,970]

19 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Two different grounds and to a large degree based on separate development concepts

The 25k stadium at Gosch's would be for everyone. I assume the prime users would be the Women's game assuming the game grows to regularly attract say 15k. This would be one of the main reasons why the State funds it.

Separately Collingwood want to develop the Olympic Park oval for their Women's team by adding a grandstand

 

The reality, as alluded to in the article, is that because Gosch's is public land, that it will not be developed.  The locals will be up in arms in exactly the same way as the stupid proposal we had for Jolimont. 

In a way, this is good for us, because we will have Gosch's available to use as is, however second rate. 

What is truly concerning is that Collingwood and Richmond had plans that they had proposed ( even if they won't proceed?)....where were ours?

[No. 31 535]

I would say the likelihood of a boutique 25K stadium at Gosch's Paddock is low. Who will fund this? There would be plenty of local community opposition I would think, perhaps not as heated as at Yarra Park but still substantial.

Also the footptint of this stadium may erode into the training fields for the two professional rugby code clubs who train at AAMI/Gosch's Paddock - Melbourne Storm in Rugby League and Melbourne Rebels in Rugby Union (Carn the Rebs!).

I would have thought the bang for buck would be much better investing in Princes Park as a home for AFLW. A new 25K stadium at Gosch's would not come cheap whilst Princes Park wouldn't require much investment to turn it into a quality 25K stadium without any local planning headaches.

Edited January 13 by No. 31

[No. 31 535]

On 12/01/2024 at 13:20, beelzebub said:

My own thoughts are this will and possibly should only be viewed as a training facility and not a playing location..as such.  But....  Cursory investigation shows that the water table there is around at LEAST 50-60 M.  So ??     You could feasibly DROP the playing surface of at least one oval and construct  viewing stands which would not impose upose the surrounding areas. Capacity would not need to be huge.

Interesting about the water table being so deep, you could possibly sink one of the ovals to provide some solid capacity for viewing ... 🤔

[Kent 2,581]

16 hours ago, No. 31 said:

Interesting about the water table being so deep, you could possibly sink one of the ovals to provide some solid capacity for viewing ... 🤔

I had a quick look at the available data Water tables looks closer to - 5.0 metres to me which could limit your excavation proposal  Will have a closer look at available bore data

[daisycutter 28,507]

16 hours ago, No. 31 said:

Interesting about the water table being so deep, you could possibly sink one of the ovals to provide some solid capacity for viewing ... 🤔

looking at some photos of the caulfield track online and it looked to me that the inner part inside the track was already a couple of metres lower.

could have just been a deceptive photo though

[—coach— 3,466]

1 hour ago, Kent said:

I had a quick look at the available data Water tables looks closer to - 5.0 metres to me which could limit your excavation proposal  Will have a closer look at available bore data

 

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

looking at some photos of the caulfield track online and it looked to me that the inner part inside the track was already a couple of metres lower.

could have just been a deceptive photo though

Hey chaps, as I'm currently working on the site at the moment I can confirm the inner part of the track is several meters lower than the track it self, but the more interesting part is how deep they dug an area called the 'parade ring' which is part of work package 3 (WP3). See the photo below which shows the parade ring which is about 6-7m below ground level and had no problems with water table. The upper level is ground level. They have installed a massive concrete pit at one end which is another 5+m deeper again as a collection point for all the stormwater collected on the lower levels and I don't believe they had too many issues with ground water at that depth, but I'm less sure on that.

Have also added a photo of the mounting yard which ramps down from the track. The horses are housed in stalls around the outer edge of the parade ring then get walked through an underground tunnel which connects to the mourning yard where the jockeys mount up. Patrons can stand on the upper decks and look down onto the horses in both areas.

Currently work packages 1, 2 and 4 are complete with work package 3 coming to an end. More work packages to start later this year which will involve demolition and replacement of the main grandstand which is not heritage listed.

Check out this video which takes you down into both the parade ring and mounting yards.

https://mrc.racing.com/mrc-masterplan/latest-videos

Cheers, coach

Edited January 13 by —coach—

[dpositive 1,547]

53 minutes ago, —coach— said:

 

Hey chaps, as I'm currently working on the site at the moment I can confirm the inner part of the track is several meters lower than the track it self, but the more interesting part is how deep they dug an area called the 'parade ring' which is part of work package 3 (WP3). See the photo below which shows the parade ring which is about 6-7m below ground level and had no problems with water table. The upper level is ground level. They have installed a massive concrete pit at one end which is another 5+m deeper again as a collection point for all the stormwater collected on the lower levels and I don't believe they had too many issues with ground water at that depth, but I'm less sure on that.

Have also added a photo of the mounting yard which ramps down from the track. The horses are housed in stalls around the outer edge of the parade ring then get walked through an underground tunnel which connects to the mourning yard where the jockeys mount up. Patrons can stand on the upper decks and look down onto the horses in both areas.

Currently work packages 1, 2 and 4 are complete with work package 3 coming to an end. More work packages to start later this year which will involve demolition and replacement of the main grandstand which is not heritage listed.

Check out this video which takes you down into both the parade ring and mounting yards.

https://mrc.racing.com/mrc-masterplan/latest-videos

Cheers, coach

Impressive looking presentation and indicates a pretty large investment.

Has the benefit of consolidating the racing footprint which does release space for other ventures, ie Footy grounds. So certainly plenty of potential.

Id like to see someone with drone skills do a similar presentation over Fishermans Bend/ Port Melbourne or Williamstown. Im pretty sure you could see similar potential. The FB board does have some pretty impressive visuals on their website and an apparently measured and structured development program.

Caulfield certainly has public transport and access over FB/PM or W but again FB particularly as a greenfield site has great potential to curate transport services to a new space incorporating entertainment/ sports /retail and corporate services.

Similar concerns to others about the racing industry involvement as they have never been seen as a benevolent partner with competing bodies. While others are seeing some mutual benefits they are based on MFC being an attractive list. Not sure Id like this as a business model going forward. 

 I will be interested in the answers to my questions to the board which will provide some clarity to the discussions past and future.

[Older demon 2,166]

The face of Caulfield Racecourse has changed dramatically over the years. In the mid 70's many clubs used the back straight for pre-season running. Queens Ave had lots of parking, and markers let you know what was 100m, 200m and 400 m for those dreaded repeat sprints and you ran on lush grass. To get access to the commons was under a bridge of Glen Mira & Kambrook. It has always been a seriously underutilised access parkland. Where there were 2 major carparks there is now a massive high rise of so-called student housing.

From this thread, I think it is obvious that this is the site to make our home base. There is so much infrastructure there, facilities and what will draw the funding is coupling it with a sports complex that welcomes other sporting tenants. From other articles, it is a reasonable assumption that AFLW and to a lesser extent AFL need a 25K seat stadium for certain games. Let someone else build them. Without knowing the club plans in detail I think Caulfield is fit for purpose for world-class training facilities, housing administration and being accessible to players staff and supporters. Get in before someone else gets in or someone decides we need wetlands for birds and fauna (like Glen Eira have done to the old Elsternwick golf course)