Who would have thought the club would get their own mail so horribly wrong?

31 minutes ago, old dee said:

What is the problem DD. I am not on X and no intention of swelling the coffers  of the owner. 

Does not say much, but just he has mail,*(roumer) saying its miles off.. if ever getting done.

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

This is a rather assured take from Mark, who doesn’t indulge himself in innuendo (as far I can see) and who also has strong links to identities on the Caulfield side of town. It is hard to believe that the club would release the news if it wasn’t at least sure that funding could be secure by some trusted means, albeit timely news to settle a disgruntled supporter base. 
I can’t help but feel the Glen Eira serving face of the campaign is very flawed. I believe this a project that will truly indulge only the MFC and very vaguely the racing club. Private investment through Yourland has been explored and knocked back. Perhaps there is someone else willing to front up. 

I'm not surprised by Allen's take.

The club's announcement was very carefully crafted.

It said the feasibility study was 'stakeholder engagement' which I took to mean (unknown) local community groups.  Therefore it didn't include other stuff usually in such a study (eg macro level business case, risks etc) that lead to a go/no go decision that has a very high assurance of going ahead. 

The 'tell' tucked away in mfc's email is:  While the success of the feasibility study does not ensure the future of the project ...

Without being too cynical the announcement looked like a dressed up progress report.  That there was no press conf let alone fanfare from other key stakeholders:  AFL, Racing, Local Gov't etc says achieving a limited feasibility study is no big deal.

As to the timing: the club needs some feel good news out there ...

7 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

I'm not surprised by Allen's take.

The club's announcement was very carefully crafted.

It said the feasibility study was 'stakeholder engagement' which I took to mean (unknown) local community groups.  Therefore it didn't include other stuff usually in such a study (eg macro level business case, risks etc) that lead to a go/no go decision that has a very high assurance of going ahead. 

The 'tell' tucked away in mfc's email is:  While the success of the feasibility study does not ensure the future of the project ...

Without being too cynical the announcement looked like a dressed up progress report.  That there was no press conf let alone fanfare from other key stakeholders:  AFL, Racing, Local Gov't etc says achieving a limited feasibility study is no big deal.

As to the timing: the club needs some feel good news out there ...

If this is the case, and this doesn't get the go ahead, Pert and the board should resign.

until proven otherwise, one is a piece of scuttlebutt by a 3aw rumour and the other is an official statement by the club

no need to jump at shadows

Maybe the Dees could have members and supporters contribute or pledge towards the new training base, admin headquarters & social club centre. 

Buy A Brick type campaign with your name, family name or in memory of a loved one   

its been done by many many clubs here in the AFL, other sports clubs in Australia and throughout the world.  
 

 

2 hours ago, Mickey said:

If this is the case, and this doesn't get the go ahead, Pert and the board should resign.

The problem for you is that the majority here understand that getting a feasibility study ticked off is simply an acknowledgement by the major players that a specific proposal can be achieved. If it is not achieved because of a range of other roadblocks, it doesn’t mean the Board needs to be ejected. A large number here can see that the Caulfield option is one that would satisfy almost all of our needs regarding a home base. Would you prefer the Board take none of the prescribed actions for establishing such a base for fear of failure?

2 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

I'm not surprised by Allen's take.

The club's announcement was very carefully crafted.

It said the feasibility study was 'stakeholder engagement' which I took to mean (unknown) local community groups.  Therefore it didn't include other stuff usually in such a study (eg macro level business case, risks etc) that lead to a go/no go decision that has a very high assurance of going ahead. 

The 'tell' tucked away in mfc's email is:  While the success of the feasibility study does not ensure the future of the project ...

Without being too cynical the announcement looked like a dressed up progress report.  That there was no press conf let alone fanfare from other key stakeholders:  AFL, Racing, Local Gov't etc says achieving a limited feasibility study is no big deal.

As to the timing: the club needs some feel good news out there ...

Exactly the way I read and why I haven't once jumped up fist pumping over this news.

I'm sceptical on where this currently sits.

34 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Exactly the way I read and why I haven't once jumped up fist pumping over this news.

I'm sceptical on where this currently sits.

Can you please make a list of any MFC business that you have not been sceptical of over, say, the last 100 years? Shouldn’t take you long!

11 hours ago, Demon17 said:

Chin up Old Dee.

You will be around for the opening, just that your moniker on Demonland will be "Older Dee"

 

Pardon me but I am already there.

Money was found for Casey Fields, and a reasonable facility has resulted, whose only (major) knock, it generally seems, is location. Is that capital investment realisable in any way, for reinvestment at Caulfield, with lease-back at Casey for AFLW and VFL?

30 minutes ago, waynewussell said:

Can you please make a list of any MFC business that you have not been sceptical of over, say, the last 100 years? Shouldn’t take you long!

Nah

Edited September 19, 2024Sep 19 by dazzledavey36

11 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

It's not so much about the crown leasehold it's the ability to transfer the leasehold and its improvements at value. This leasehold will be littered with covenants limiting its end use. There is not a great market for AFL facilities.

In the case of Hawthorn and Essendon they can subject to planning approval sell the underlying land for industrial or residential use.

We could end up like say North Melbourne which carries a large asset on its books in the form of "leasehold improvements" at Arden Street. Take that asset out of their balance sheet and it looks rather sick.

In short we need to raise fresh capital to complete this activity or better still get the Government to pay for it a la Geelong and Footscray.

Not owning the land is a concern. Not sure what appreciation you can get with depreciating facilities. We were able to make a nice profit from the Bentleigh club because we owned the land. 
 

4 hours ago, Mickey said:

If this is the case, and this doesn't get the go ahead, Pert and the board should resign.

That would be much worse than where we were at the start of the week

21 minutes ago, Bowserpower said:

That would be much worse than where we were at the start of the week

About 50,000 volts worse if you know what I mean!

17 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

2025-30 - we'll finish somewhere between 1 and 19, hopefully closer to 1

coffee

i think you missed my follow-up where i said how excited i am by this announcement, and that to get it fully built by 2030 would be a brilliant result for the club

That’s the spirit WSWS

19 hours ago, Kent said:

Yes at Caufield races surrounded by problem gamblers who fund the joint

Completely ill informed comment. Won’t have a thing to do with the running of the MRC. 
No wonder your posting name is the same as one of our most disappointing players who didn’t succeed when we gave him licence to play with the Saints.  A wasted career unfortunately with both Clubs. 

9 hours ago, waynewussell said:

The problem for you is that the majority here understand that getting a feasibility study ticked off is simply an acknowledgement by the major players that a specific proposal can be achieved. If it is not achieved because of a range of other roadblocks, it doesn’t mean the Board needs to be ejected. A large number here can see that the Caulfield option is one that would satisfy almost all of our needs regarding a home base. Would you prefer the Board take none of the prescribed actions for establishing such a base for fear of failure?

It seems like the majority, including me, absolutely understand that the feasibility study is just one step in the right direction. However, a number of board members, and this CEO, were brought on specifically to solve the home base problem. You can't honestly say that, if they have progressed this without a strong belief that it would go ahead, that they should stay?

It has taken all of 1 day for doubts to be raised about whether this goes ahead. Now, if this doubts are unfounded, happy days. I'm not saying their right or wrong. But if it does eventuate that this doesn't go ahead, after all the time and money spent, yes, I think Pert and the board should resign.

I should point out a feasibility study cannot be a guarantee a project will happen.  

A feasibility study should have a detailed road-map to completion with several points of go/no-go decisions.  The email would have had more substance if a high level version was published indicating among other things, that there was support (at least in principle) from AFL, Racing, governments, community to undertake their responsibilities within the road-map time frames.

Having said that, I see no reason for anyone to resign as we simply won't know if he project goes ahead for a year or more.

Edited September 19, 2024Sep 19 by Lucifers Hero

12 minutes ago, Mickey said:

It seems like the majority, including me, absolutely understand that the feasibility study is just one step in the right direction. However, a number of board members, and this CEO, were brought on specifically to solve the home base problem. You can't honestly say that, if they have progressed this without a strong belief that it would go ahead, that they should stay?

It has taken all of 1 day for doubts to be raised about whether this goes ahead. Now, if this doubts are unfounded, happy days. I'm not saying their right or wrong. But if it does eventuate that this doesn't go ahead, after all the time and money spent, yes, I think Pert and the board should resign.

I must have missed something. 

Yes some have not been positive ( for reasons that they have been surprised that this is moving at (long) last.

Prey tell what’s the major reason that this project may not go ahead? 
Permits? Finance? Board ineptitude? 

In my mind many are sceptical and negative as they all don’t understand the depth of research and liability to all stakeholders to be cleared. 
so they just get general and throw darts about the place with no strength or science to further the their own scepticism and opinions of the recent past ( 5-10 years)delays due to location mainly. 

If we are to be judged on our reaction this week from Demonlanders to this most positive procedure indicating a YES and ongoing further advice on the next stage it would be lukewarm at best. All the naysayers and nitpickers are refusing to embrace this stage as a resounding plus on its journey 

Amazing after 190 pages of bluff and bluster plus the anger and discontent with the details and process and its delay and accusations and vehemence of sackings and resignations etc. 

In my opinion if this is an example of Club culture then we have failed miserably. In fact this wonderful forum has along with some other purposes now regressed into a whining winging and at large a very negative base for about 75% to bleat about the Club. The glass is about quarter full. 
If we keep persisting with this attitude there will be nothing left of the 3/4/5 years recently of success. Grown ups know that life is not all roses and that it produces thorns to be overcome. Part of that is HOW WE DO IT! 

And it has already started to turn around, yes we don’t know how Clarry will return and play Trac has his fitness and pre season to solve plus major decisions in trading drafting and coaching allocations are still to be made.

But we have only really lost ANB a hard replacement just like Gus. Who will step up and take care of our house keeping and team ethos and spirit? 
Leadership from the 5/6 should be more apparent not just Max and JV plus Rick  and Maysie. 

I don’t think we are going to go lower but we need a reset of our game plan and attitude of enjoying playing and bonding together for the team just like in 2021.  There was no real reason at the end of 2020 why we would win the Flag in 2021. Yes our defence started to produce good performances but the bonfire night helped remarkably to anoint a new playing culture and the result. 

AFL is so even at the moment that our 4 close losses by 10 points in total would have seen us on 15 - 8. Four more goals. 

Let’s be honest if we ever get our forward line up and going kicking goals we are shoe in for Top4. 

So it’s our/your choice Let’s restart in pre season and embrace positively our Club for this investment will payoff in spades during the season. And it starts with not throwing the dummy out of the cot and staying firm with MEMBERSHIP and ATTENDANCE at absolutely as many game as possible Not penalising the Club over something a 3 yo would cry about for 2 mins. And move on!!!

The choice is ours/yours let’s throw the angry pills away and Go Dees in 2025. 

On 18/09/2024 at 09:59, Demonland said:

 

Where's the bar?

Edited September 19, 2024Sep 19 by Demon Dynasty

13 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Where's the bar?

We are still setting it.

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

We are still setting it.

I hope this was said in good 'spirit' and you 'mulled' over it before having a bit of a 'wine' Mr Leg.

I would like to see some 'proof' at some point!

6 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

I hope this was said in good 'spirit' and you 'mulled' over it before having a bit of a 'wine' Mr Leg.

I would like to see some 'proof' at some point!

It will come and be imbibed by the DL masses.