1 hour ago, Lucifers Hero said:

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.

My understanding of a feasibility study is it determines the likelihood of a project being completed successfully, weighing up the risk analysis and other critical aspects. Like how science never proves theories but supports them. Is that on the right track LH?

1 hour ago, layzie said:

My understanding of a feasibility study is it determines the likelihood of a project being completed successfully, weighing up the risk analysis and other critical aspects. Like how science never proves theories but supports them. Is that on the right track LH?

Feasibility studies in a manufacturing environment usually involves a customer - supplier study about the product to be delivered. High level review without being too technical, just enough.

In a nutshell it determines if that specific partnership can deliver on time, with quality and the expected production volumes.

My take on this is that this is MFC convincing the MRC and other key stakeholders that the project is feasible - sustainable.

 

This whole thing is playing out like one of those old afternoon TV soap operas. Will it ever end?

Tune in next week same time same station for episode 5376 of Homeless,The never ending Quest!

From my ignorant of procedures position I see 3 stages, first, permission and agreement of affected parties, second, detailing plans, costing and financing and third construction. 

I believe we have passed the first stage and have allowed about 9 months for the second.

I would think the third stage would take somewhere in the region of 12-24 months.

If this timetable is achieved, pre season 2028 would hopefully see it completed.

Edited September 20, 2024Sep 20 by Redleg

5 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

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.

That's the problem though. Pert's given himself another year by releasing a statement that has potentially had holes poked in it within 12 hours.

8 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

That's the problem though. Pert's given himself another year by releasing a statement that has potentially had holes poked in it within 12 hours.

And what are the chief holes in it Adam that you can see? 
BTW a hole or part of the feasibility  has passed in my assumption all the stakeholders as of now. 

My take on that is that most of any small holes or potential are still able to tweaked. This is not a final document and many people in D/L from my observations over the last 5 years are mostly turning this into another opportunity to have a throw of a dart because they eitherdon’t agree on some details or are upset that they have been caught on the run with their time predictions that were blowing out this project date or forgot never to be completed in their lifetime. 

And based on the statement both Perty and Kate have done us proud, despite some posting of some doubt by some malcontents.

Clearly no other party in the Board has the running knowledge to take up this now and a compromise option is for another stage to be completed while the best chance of all is available for success. If anyone wants to challenge this so be it but it appears to be the best option and is fact. 

 

7 minutes ago, 58er said:

And what are the chief holes in it Adam that you can see? 
BTW a hole or part of the feasibility  has passed in my assumption all the stakeholders as of now. 

My take on that is that most of any small holes or potential are still able to tweaked. This is not a final document and many people in D/L from my observations over the last 5 years are mostly turning this into another opportunity to have a throw of a dart because they eitherdon’t agree on some details or are upset that they have been caught on the run with their time predictions that were blowing out this project date or forgot never to be completed in their lifetime. 

And based on the statement both Perty and Kate have done us proud, despite some posting of some doubt by some malcontents.

Clearly no other party in the Board has the running knowledge to take up this now and a compromise option is for another stage to be completed while the best chance of all is available for success. If anyone wants to challenge this so be it but it appears to be the best option and is fact. 

 

The holes are that it might not go ahead, and that's already the murmurs. Meanwhile, the feasibility study now gives way to a business case phase, which surely should have been apart of the last 12 months of [censored] around on the feasibility study...

Edited September 20, 2024Sep 20 by Adam The God

32 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

That's the problem though. Pert's given himself another year by releasing a statement that has potentially had holes poked in it within 12 hours.

holes? as opposed to the 'not what i'm hearing' from 3aw? hearing from..?

this was always going to the process - the notion that it's 'had holes picked within it within 12 hours' and that releasing it has 'bought [someone] a year' is such a negative way of looking at the announcement

mfcss manifest, indeed

 

 

 

1 minute ago, whatwhat say what said:

holes? as opposed to the 'not what i'm hearing' from 3aw? hearing from..?

this was always going to the process - the notion that it's 'had holes picked within it within 12 hours' and that releasing it has 'bought [someone] a year' is such a negative way of looking at the announcement

mfcss manifest, indeed

 

 

 

I love how those who have lost trust in the admin are being painted. Oh, you're just suffering from MFCSS if you don't sit around clapping a dressed up update. Pert's been in the job five years and we've managed a 12 month feasibility study.

It's not MFCSS, it's MFCFMD.

6 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

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.

So no-one should resign? So no accountability for the CEO who has been there since 2018 and penned a 4-year strategic plan suggesting construction commencement in the MCG precinct in 2023? There may be good reasons why that didn't/hasn't happened, but the members haven't been told? Is that possibility officially dead? - I suspect Yes. Please tell us - or is the MCG precinct  Plan B? Any of this home base failure part of the external reviews going on?

Perhaps not - because one review is of the Board itself and most of them have been there 3 years or less (so can claim the last plan wasn't theirs). And the other review is of the football department. Guess who isn't specifically being reviewed?

6 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

I love how those who have lost trust in the admin are being painted. Oh, you're just suffering from MFCSS if you don't sit around clapping a dressed up update. Pert's been in the job five years and we've managed a 12 month feasibility study.

It's not MFCSS, it's MFCFMD.

but i don't understand why you expected it to be any different

they said this time last year the feasibility study was expected to take the majority of the 2024 year

an announcement has now been made of next steps

the way you automatically assume the worst outcome is mfcss to which i can only aspire; i'm not that hardwired to negativity

i say 'we'll see'

i have hope, which i think as a football fan is what you want, rather than going full hanrahan - "we'll all be rooned!"

 

6 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

The holes are that it might not go ahead, and that's already the murmurs. Meanwhile, the feasibility study now gives way to a business case phase, which surely should have been apart of the last 12 months of [censored] around on the feasibility study...

And where are  these murmurs coming from ? Informed stakeholders ? Biased D/Lers with gripes as I outlined. 
Govr people in the know ? Not someone from ???! 
Scuttlebut ?? 
Stirrers dissatisfied with the process like you? What expert tile do these people have and if it’s a one off what’s wrong. 

Please enlighten me .

And as stability in this project is vital it’s undoubtedly an advantage to keep informed and appropriate personnel involved. 

Unless you have changed your post name recently I don’t recall you on this forum until fairly recently so I have reservations about you post and opinions which are mostly negative and trifling at best. 

Of course it might not go ahead at Caulfield but seems after such a location search of 5 years we should be urging this vital project to go ahead unless any major reasons are mounted against its existence. 

That has not  been done IMO with mostly cheap shots trying to undermine the next stage and existing proof of our Club with positivity and feasibility established after many months of hard work. 
 

4 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

but i don't understand why you expected it to be any different

they said this time last year the feasibility study was expected to take the majority of the 2024 year

an announcement has now been made of next steps

the way you automatically assume the worst outcome is mfcss to which i can only aspire; i'm not that hardwired to negativity

i say 'we'll see'

i have hope, which i think as a football fan is what you want, rather than going full hanrahan - "we'll all be rooned!"

 

You're right, you don't understand where I'm coming from mate.

I do not trust Pert or the board. They've given too many reasons not to trust them, which have been provided ad nuseum by myself and others on Demonland.

Pert and co have had a major job to do over 5+ years and have managed a 12 month feasibility study that doesn't even apparently include the financials and the business case. It's not good enough. It's not MFCSS to suggest by their own markers, the progress has been treacle slow.

19 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

I love how those who have lost trust in the admin are being painted. Oh, you're just suffering from MFCSS if you don't sit around clapping a dressed up update. Pert's been in the job five years and we've managed a 12 month feasibility study.

It's not MFCSS, it's MFCFMD.

You do know the real location has not been the chosen one until very recently. Probably a newcomer like you to this longed for base for our Club. Rome was not built in a day and developments like this are an example.

Please check how long the Hawks hav had Dingley as their location. You may learn something on builds like theirs and ours. 

2 minutes ago, 58er said:

 

Unless you have changed your post name recently I don’t recall you on this forum until fairly recently so I have reservations about you post and opinions which are mostly negative and trifling at best. 

 

 

click on person's avatar picture

on profile ,just to right of profile name is a little circle with an arrow on the end

hover over that and you will see poster's previous profile names

25 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

So no-one should resign? So no accountability for the CEO who has been there since 2018 and penned a 4-year strategic plan suggesting construction commencement in the MCG precinct in 2023? There may be good reasons why that didn't/hasn't happened, but the members haven't been told? Is that possibility officially dead? - I suspect Yes. Please tell us - or is the MCG precinct  Plan B? Any of this home base failure part of the external reviews going on?

Perhaps not - because one review is of the Board itself and most of them have been there 3 years or less (so can claim the last plan wasn't theirs). And the other review is of the football department. Guess who isn't specifically being reviewed?

Not sure what rock you’ve been living under mate but they literally came out and said the Yarra park precinct wasn’t possible (around 2019/20). 

14 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

You're right, you don't understand where I'm coming from mate.

I do not trust Pert or the board. They've given too many reasons not to trust them, which have been provided ad nuseum by myself and others on Demonland.

Pert and co have had a major job to do over 5+ years and have managed a 12 month feasibility study that doesn't even apparently include the financials and the business case. It's not good enough. It's not MFCSS to suggest by their own markers, the progress has been treacle slow.

first two years under pert were to try and get us closer to the mcg - was a bust, but at least they tried, including going through a process and getting knocked back

caulfield has been in train for the last two years, and it's another throw at the stumps but at least we can clearly see that the board is trying everything to make it happen

you've said you don't trust the board; cool, i guess

i am giving the benefit of the doubt as they have - from what i can determine - been pretty clear in their aims and outcomes and timelines around trying to get us a home base for the duration of the time since ol mate out west, jackson, and roos were parachuted into the club

first step was casey (win), next was yarra park (fail), third is caulfield (we'll see)

arguably, we're closer to something actually happening than we've ever been since 1964

i see that as a good thing rather than a bad one, which to me says that - despite massive issues amongst themselves, clearly - the board and administration have worked as best as they can to actually make it happen

i look at the prospect of a base at caulfield and a satellite site at casey to accommodate our four sides as a massive win that should give us a leg up in the competition for years to come

i hope it happens; you expect it won't

i couldn't deal with being that negative about something that i, ultimately, have no control over

Edited September 20, 2024Sep 20 by whatwhat say what

2 minutes ago, Adam The God said:

You're right, you don't understand where I'm coming from mate.

I do not trust Pert or the board. They've given too many reasons not to trust them, which have been provided ad nuseum by myself and others on Demonland.

Pert and co have had a major job to do over 5+ years and have managed a 12 month feasibility study that doesn't even apparently include the financials and the business case. It's not good enough. It's not MFCSS to suggest by their own markers, the progress has been treacle slow.

You can’t produce a feasibility study until a location is decided. That’s recent say 18 months to a year.

Again are you aware that the logistics that there are a number of stakeholders and we don’t chair or control the progress of this whole project. Can’t you understand this?? 

The time and the posts plus the sweat  and worry over  the last 5 years as many D/Lers have bleated their displeasure impatience plus anger in the process time have all been a complete waste of misguided energy at not realising the state of the project due to the large number of stakeholders.

Thats partly ignorance and just plain niavity.  It will raise its ugly head no doubt over the next 9 mths. Please don’t rock the boat until April /May or better June. Take a rest all you over zealous naysayers. 

5 hours ago, layzie said:

My understanding of a feasibility study is it determines the likelihood of a project being completed successfully, weighing up the risk analysis and other critical aspects. Like how science never proves theories but supports them. Is that on the right track LH?

I agree. 

While there are no guarantees I didn't see info that provides that likelihood.

We are on the same page layzie.

3 hours ago, Redleg said:

From my ignorant of procedures position I see 3 stages, first, permission and agreement of affected parties, second, detailing plans, costing and financing and third construction. 

I believe we have passed the first stage and have allowed about 9 months for the second.

I would think the third stage would take somewhere in the region of 12-24 months.

If this timetable is achieved, pre season 2028 would hopefully see it completed.

Red, I think you’ll find it is actually more stages than 3. Once the feasibility stage is approved, I’d suggest that final design / for-construction plans would then proceed - you don’t expend the cost of detailed design/construction details without the feasibility stage being signed off. Then the Tender is undertaken, reviewed and the Contract awarded. Finally construction commences.

6 hours ago, Redleg said:

It will come and be imbibed by the DL masses.

If this gets up and i'm still alive and kicking i will be shouting any DLander i meet at the bar there with their poison of choice.

Including your good self Mr Leg.

Hoping Mr Old gets to see this also.

4 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

If this gets up and i'm still alive and kicking i will be shouting any DLander i meet at the bar there with their poison of choice.

Including your good self Mr Leg.

Hoping Mr Old gets to see this also.

Malibu and diet coke or Khalua on the rocks thanks.

13 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

Red, I think you’ll find it is actually more stages than 3. Once the feasibility stage is approved, I’d suggest that final design / for-construction plans would then proceed - you don’t expend the cost of detailed design/construction details without the feasibility stage being signed off. Then the Tender is undertaken, reviewed and the Contract awarded. Finally construction commences.

I just lumped a couple of tasks in one step.

1 hour ago, whatwhat say what said:

first two years under pert were to try and get us closer to the mcg - was a bust, but at least they tried, including going through a process and getting knocked back

caulfield has been in train for the last two years, and it's another throw at the stumps but at least we can clearly see that the board is trying everything to make it happen

you've said you don't trust the board; cool, i guess

i am giving the benefit of the doubt as they have - from what i can determine - been pretty clear in their aims and outcomes and timelines around trying to get us a home base for the duration of the time since ol mate out west, jackson, and roos were parachuted into the club

first step was casey (win), next was yarra park (fail), third is caulfield (we'll see)

arguably, we're closer to something actually happening than we've ever been since 1964

i see that as a good thing rather than a bad one, which to me says that - despite massive issues amongst themselves, clearly - the board and administration have worked as best as they can to actually make it happen

i look at the prospect of a base at caulfield and a satellite site at casey to accommodate our four sides as a massive win that should give us a leg up in the competition for years to come

i hope it happens; you expect it won't

i couldn't deal with being that negative about something that i, ultimately, have no control over

you missed out "there was aami carpark F (fail"

1 hour ago, Foopy on the telly said:

Not sure what rock you’ve been living under mate but they literally came out and said the Yarra park precinct wasn’t possible (around 2019/20). 

Extract below from the end of year 2022 Annual report:

The Club continued discussions regarding a long-term Training & Administration Facility, participating in second stage feasibility study with the Victorian State Government on a site within the Melbourne & Olympic Parks precinct. Securing an appropriate outcome is a strategic priority of the Club, however it is a long-term project that can only move at the speed determined by the Victorian State Government given our requirement for land and funding. We thank the Victorian State Government and AFL for their continued support as we pursue a long-term home for the Club. 

You may be thinking about the proposal to build over Jolimont station which got scotched in the time frame you mentioned.

The extract above does remind us of the distance between a feasibility study (that one had a second stage!) and construction commencing......and/or nothing happening at all.