20 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Not if it isn’t the right proposal or the right requirements. 

Our current situation is more than adequate to make sure of something and not over leverage and ruin the club for a nebulous goal of being ‘under one roof.’

Strategic Plans are important and to have a North Star to aim toward is required in any endeavour. But don’t let yourself be behoved to words in a document if it isn’t the right time or place.

And be wary of those that pick and choose what is held to measurement and decree.

Sheesh. So the next Strategic Plan we receive from the Board and Management we should regard as a 'North Star' statement, a far-off objective - no accountability (or at least an explanantion) for its non-implementation?

50 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Sheesh. So the next Strategic Plan we receive from the Board and Management we should regard as a 'North Star' statement, a far-off objective - no accountability (or at least an explanantion) for its non-implementation?

Tell me, what else did the Strategic Plan say? Most importantly, about success on field? 

I will wait.

We don’t need the best facilities in the AFL. We need facilities that are of a quality to give us the best shot at premiership success.

1 hour ago, rpfc said:

Not if it isn’t the right proposal or the right requirements. 

Our current situation is more than adequate to make sure of something and not over leverage and ruin the club for a nebulous goal of being ‘under one roof.’

Strategic Plans are important and to have a North Star to aim toward is required in any endeavour. But don’t let yourself be behoved to words in a document if it isn’t the right time or place.

And be wary of those that pick and choose what is held to measurement and decree.

i'm stealing this and using it in a strategic planning re-write that i'm currently doing

1 hour ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Sheesh. So the next Strategic Plan we receive from the Board and Management we should regard as a 'North Star' statement, a far-off objective - no accountability (or at least an explanantion) for its non-implementation?

this tells me we have a very different definition as to what a strategic plan is

Edited February 11, 20232 yr by whatwhat say what

Perhaps there has been some fan/member engagement from the club, but of the many surveys I receive from the club every year, I have never been consulted about my feelings on a training base.  I know the fan base is only a small part of the decision making process, but there is a long held assumption and policy from multiple MFC administrations, that we MUST be in the CBD/MCG precinct.

Having watched Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn, Brisbane, West Coast, Fremantle all move away from the traditional homes in order to significantly upgrade their facilities, we've now spent decades waiting for something that, realistically, doesn't seem to be happening.  There's no votes in developing another sporting center in the CBD, if anything, you'd lose some.  Cutting down a single tree from a public green space would results in protests at best, which club and definitely government don't want.

I'm 40 years old and in my lifetime, the MCG has never been exclusively ours.  I hold no real allegiance to the area outside of the actual MCG.

I want to see us develop a facility that can hold its own against other teams in the league and that requires space and political will that simply doesn't exist in the MCG precinct.  We are hamstrung by the promises of multiple boards.
 

2 hours ago, rpfc said:

Tell me, what else did the Strategic Plan say? Most importantly, about success on field? 

I will wait.

No question about that. Tick, tick, and another tick. Well done Football Department.

Now, MFC Facilities Working Group, back to those meetings with Government?

1 hour ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Perhaps there has been some fan/member engagement from the club, but of the many surveys I receive from the club every year, I have never been consulted about my feelings on a training base.  I know the fan base is only a small part of the decision making process, but there is a long held assumption and policy from multiple MFC administrations, that we MUST be in the CBD/MCG precinct.

Having watched Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn, Brisbane, West Coast, Fremantle all move away from the traditional homes in order to significantly upgrade their facilities, we've now spent decades waiting for something that, realistically, doesn't seem to be happening.  There's no votes in developing another sporting center in the CBD, if anything, you'd lose some.  Cutting down a single tree from a public green space would results in protests at best, which club and definitely government don't want.

I'm 40 years old and in my lifetime, the MCG has never been exclusively ours.  I hold no real allegiance to the area outside of the actual MCG.

I want to see us develop a facility that can hold its own against other teams in the league and that requires space and political will that simply doesn't exist in the MCG precinct.  We are hamstrung by the promises of multiple boards.
 

We don’t have a traditional home (suburb) to leave. We were born out of the MCG. We left the MCG in the 80’s for a number of years and it was a disaster. 
we must stay connected to the ‘G.

That is not to say we cannot have other facilities, but don’t cut the cord with the MCG

28 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

No question about that. Tick, tick, and another tick. Well done Football Department.

Now, MFC Facilities Working Group, back to those meetings with Government?

Yes, that would be a tactic toward achieving an action to realise a tenet of the strategy.

But there are no promises in the complicated world of building, capital works, approvals, and political influence - just like there are no promises in the elite and cut throat world of AFL and yet we did realise the lofty promise of the strategy with flags in the men’s game and women’s game.

Truly remarkable results from this board.

20 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

We don’t have a traditional home (suburb) to leave. We were born out of the MCG. We left the MCG in the 80’s for a number of years and it was a disaster. 
we must stay connected to the ‘G.

That is not to say we cannot have other facilities, but don’t cut the cord with the MCG

That’s what I don’t understand.

Why do we need to train near the MCG?  If we had access to the G, then that’s another matter, but as it stands we are training in sub-standard facilities just to be close to the MCG.

 
 

37 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

That’s what I don’t understand.

Why do we need to train near the MCG?  If we had access to the G, then that’s another matter, but as it stands we are training in sub-standard facilities just to be close to the MCG.

 
 

We need to have foundations at the MCG. I hope the Club is quietly planning to be part of the New Southern Stand,   keep Casey, no problem  but we need to be a part of the ‘G  It is the heart

i saw Gosch’s Paddock last week. It is far rom a sub standard surface. What we have now is adequate. But of course we have to strive to be better. 
 

9 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

We need to have foundations at the MCG. I hope the Club is quietly planning to be part of the New Southern Stand,   keep Casey, no problem  but we need to be a part of the ‘G  It is the heart

i saw Gosch’s Paddock last week. It is far rom a sub standard surface. What we have now is adequate. But of course we have to strive to be better. 
 

Fair enough, but is it any more our heart than Victoria Park was for the Magpies or Glenferrie was for the Hawks?

I think the MCG is part of our identity; an oval 500m down the road is not.

But it really is a matter of opinion, which is what I suggested in my original post.  I am curious to know what the supporter base feel about it.  Board after board tells us it’s important, and I’m not so convinced the majority agree now that we see it’s all a bit of a pipe dream. 
 

 

I’m convinced the real benefit of better facilities is in recruiting players from other clubs. Why do you need the weights room and pool right next to the football ground?

2 hours ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

That’s what I don’t understand.

Why do we need to train near the MCG?  If we had access to the G, then that’s another matter, but as it stands we are training in sub-standard facilities just to be close to the MCG.

I agree. IMO this romantic notion that we must be near the G doesn't hold water. We play there and we are attached to the MCC, but I'd rather us have best practice training and admin facilities away from the MCG precinct than put up with this endless wait to be hopefully squashed in to a car park space next to AAMI park and still train on public parkland.

It's a matter of being pragmatic and ensuring that our players, men and women, have the best facilities soon, not in 15 or 20 years time.

If we are offered a twin oval, brand new development with indoor training and pool facilities at Caufield, we should jump at it.

And I reckon a supporters social club as part of it would be a waste of money. Would be unused or severely under used

Was anything said at the recent AGM regarding this.

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Was anything said at the recent AGM regarding this.

AGM is on Monday, 20 February 2023 at the Olympic Room, MCG at 6.30 pm.

It is no coincidence that Geelong is able to attract players from other clubs without having to pay overs. They have by far spent/received the most taxpayer money in the league on facilities, and are the only club who are allowed to train on their home ground.

30 minutes ago, chookrat said:

It is no coincidence that Geelong is able to attract players from other clubs without having to pay overs. They have by far spent/received the most taxpayer money in the league on facilities, and are the only club who are allowed to train on their home ground.

They spend most of summer training at Deakin. Success (which is hugely boosted by having a home ground, regardless of how much they train on it), lifestyle and strong local business ties (with the afl the strongest tie of the lot) is why they win.

They could move training to a new (5 star) oval in Armstrong Creek and do just as well.

In fact I shouldn’t suggest it because they probably will. 

17 hours ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Perhaps there has been some fan/member engagement from the club, but of the many surveys I receive from the club every year, I have never been consulted about my feelings on a training base.  I know the fan base is only a small part of the decision making process, but there is a long held assumption and policy from multiple MFC administrations, that we MUST be in the CBD/MCG precinct.

Having watched Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn, Brisbane, West Coast, Fremantle all move away from the traditional homes in order to significantly upgrade their facilities, we've now spent decades waiting for something that, realistically, doesn't seem to be happening.  There's no votes in developing another sporting center in the CBD, if anything, you'd lose some.  Cutting down a single tree from a public green space would results in protests at best, which club and definitely government don't want.

I'm 40 years old and in my lifetime, the MCG has never been exclusively ours.  I hold no real allegiance to the area outside of the actual MCG.

I want to see us develop a facility that can hold its own against other teams in the league and that requires space and political will that simply doesn't exist in the MCG precinct.  We are hamstrung by the promises of multiple boards.
 

Correct the ship has possible sailed for a one roof solution within the mcg precinct & not having a crack at the existing board as they have delivered a flag across all our teams & banking $$$ but it’s time this can which is been kicked down the road by previous incompetent boards & find a solution worthy of our club that bears the name of the city with such long history!

19 hours ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Fair enough, but is it any more our heart than Victoria Park was for the Magpies or Glenferrie was for the Hawks?

I think the MCG is part of our identity; an oval 500m down the road is not.

But it really is a matter of opinion, which is what I suggested in my original post.  I am curious to know what the supporter base feel about it.  Board after board tells us it’s important, and I’m not so convinced the majority agree now that we see it’s all a bit of a pipe dream. 
 

 

Spot on, have they ever surveyed the members? No. A minority have the ear of the board and seemed weld to the G. However my discussions last year with a board person said otherwise. 

Just a question. If we move our headquarters away from the G area, do we risk losing it as our home ground over time? Could our home games there be whittled away and relocated to Marvel?  The game is all about the dollar now and we don't always pull crowds particularly given the number of interstate sides we play there.

For what it's worth, I don't care where our base is, so long as it's all under the one roof and equal to or better than the facilities of other sides. If moving out of the G precinct has any implications for where our home ground is down the track (noting Marvel is also in the City of Melbourne) then, no thanks. I'm happy to play the odd game there, but if it crept up to four or five games a year....  yes, I'm cynical but I really don't trust the AFL.

9 minutes ago, Roger Mellie said:

Just a question. If we move our headquarters away from the G area, do we risk losing it as our home ground over time? Could our home games there be whittled away and relocated to Marvel?  The game is all about the dollar now and we don't always pull crowds particularly given the number of interstate sides we play there.

For what it's worth, I don't care where our base is, so long as it's all under the one roof and equal to or better than the facilities of other sides. If moving out of the G precinct has any implications for where our home ground is down the track (noting Marvel is also in the City of Melbourne) then, no thanks. I'm happy to play the odd game there, but if it crept up to four or five games a year....  yes, I'm cynical but I really don't trust the AFL.

Tenancy agreements are with the MCC not the AFL. Fixturing by the AFL is not associated with where a training base is located. 

Regardless, we will lose our meagre admin areas in the MCG when the Southern stand development is started in 2027(? ).  So we need to have something permanent in place before then. 

4 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Tenancy agreements are with the MCC not the AFL. Fixturing by the AFL is not associated with where a training base is located. 

Regardless, we will lose our meagre admin areas in the MCG when the Southern stand development is started in 2027(? ).  So we need to have something permanent in place before then. 

True but tenancy agreements are also about the $, which explains why Collingwood has so many games written in the contract. If we average lower crowds will that then be justification for Carlton/Essendon demanding more games? If we no longer have a presence in the City of Melbourne (other than game day), is that further justification? I hope not.

Having said that, I will attempt to dial back the cynicism.

Edited February 13, 20232 yr by Roger Mellie
Adding more wisdom

 

7 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

Very frustrating and one wonders how the Swans continue to get things done, not sure who’s funded 70mill, hope the afl hasn’t! Yet our club that bears the name of the city is training in a paddock & has to drive 50+ minutes to Casey! Club has done an amazing job in winning flags across all the teams but we are getting left behind big time