Training Ground?

[Sir Why You Little 37,239]

So far we have a colour brochure….

[whatwhat say what 23,060]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

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

another example of them showing that they are exploring every opportunity that they can

[biggestred 5,183]

I mean, it's a feasibility study. And the answer was yes, it's feasible. Which is better than it's unfeasible. Which is what we got trying to do anything near the mcg.

[No. 31 1,352]

2 minutes ago, biggestred said:

I mean, it's a feasibility study. And the answer was yes, it's feasible. Which is better than it's unfeasible. Which is what we got trying to do anything near the mcg.

Bingo. Accurate and succint summary 👍😊

[daisycutter 29,795]

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

So far we have a colour brochure….

i'm so excited ... i just can't wait for the black and white one 😎

[Dr. Gonzo 24,358]

23 hours ago, Mickey said:

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

Well they just bought themselves another 9 months with this press release, right?

[Dr. Gonzo 24,358]

18 hours ago, layzie said:

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

[Dr. Gonzo 24,358]

4 hours 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). 

It was part of the 2020-23 strategic plan to commence construction on new facilities within the MCG precinct by 2023.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,358]

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

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

And the Goschs park triangle

[whatwhat say what 23,060]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

And the Goschs park triangle

no stone left unturned but alas no sods neither

[bluey 1,118]

 

Edited September 20, 2024 by bluey

[Harvey Wallbanger 1,073]

Oh dear - I thought we had that side of politics covered? Who does he barrack for?

[Harvey Wallbanger 1,073]

5 hours ago, biggestred said:

I mean, it's a feasibility study. And the answer was yes, it's feasible. Which is better than it's unfeasible. Which is what we got trying to do anything near the mcg.

Did you read the extract? - We got to the second stage of a feasibility last time. Don't get me wrong. I hope it happens - but please keep us informed. The members might actually be able to help. There are a lot of us.

[YesitwasaWin4theAges 6,711]

2 hours ago, bluey said:

 

Jee that's no good.

Local residents left out of the consultation process by the MFC.

[dice 712]

7 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

Oh dear - I thought we had that side of politics covered? Who does he barrack for?

Saints. Ex Caulfield Grammar too. Probably hates all the blue blood Melbourne Grammar Demon supporters 🤣

[Rednblueriseing 831]

5 hours ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

Jee that's no good.

Local residents left out of the consultation process by the MFC.

What did you want the club to do call up every resident and ask, 'is it ok if we build a home base in the middle of the racecourse or would you rather stare at empty grassland'?

I mean no one will care once it's built, and will just add value to the area.

[Lucifers Hero 40,422]

12 hours ago, bluey said:

 

That isn't a good sign.  I hope the mfc didn't blindside him and other pollies/key stakeholders..

Pert's memo said:

"...the feasibility study for our proposed new training and administration facility at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve has been successfully completed and approved to progress to the next stage...

This phase of the process has focused heavily on stakeholder engagement and garnering local support for the project. The positive sentiment from so many local community organisations and groups has been wide-spread and the feasibility study has definitely highlighted the community’s desire to see this project come to life".

Unfortunately he doesn't say who the 'stakeholder engagement' was with nor who approved the study to progress to the next stage. 

This is the survey Southwick has put online for residents.  https://www.davidsouthwick.com.au/survey/caulfield-racecourse-funding  It is fairly basic and the sort of survey one would include early in a feasibility study with variations for each type of stakeholder.  It could just be a pollie being seen to do the resident's bidding but who knows how much he was consulted during the process and briefed prior to the press release. 

A bit more info from Pert would help quieten negative reactions.

[daisycutter 29,795]

2 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

That isn't a good sign.  I hope the mfc didn't blindside him and other pollies/key stakeholders..

Pert's memo said:

"...the feasibility study for our proposed new training and administration facility at Caulfield Racecourse Reserve has been successfully completed and approved to progress to the next stage...

This phase of the process has focused heavily on stakeholder engagement and garnering local support for the project. The positive sentiment from so many local community organisations and groups has been wide-spread and the feasibility study has definitely highlighted the community’s desire to see this project come to life".

Unfortunately he doesn't say who the 'stakeholder engagement' was with nor who approved the study to progress to the next stage. 

This is the survey Southwick has put online for residents.  https://www.davidsouthwick.com.au/survey/caulfield-racecourse-funding  It is fairly basic and the sort of survey one would include early in a feasibility study with variations for each type of stakeholder.  It could just be a pollie being seen to do the resident's bidding but who knows how much he was consulted during the process and briefed prior to the press release. 

A bit more info from Pert would help quieten negative reactions.

I don't see anything that problematic, luci.

the mfc hasn't consulted with all locals. only some (unspecified) local interst groups.

there will always be nimbys and the first thing they do is contact their local member

all southwick has done is offer a forum (questionnaire) to get more broader feedback. There is nothing coming from him in terms of dissatisfaction. He is just following up on an issue raised by some constituents.

presumably when he has more data from his survey, he will approach the mfc (if they don't approach him first)

so, at this stage nothing to see here other than noise

[Lucifers Hero 40,422]

21 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

I don't see anything that problematic, luci.

the mfc hasn't consulted with all locals. only some (unspecified) local interst groups.

there will always be nimbys and the first thing they do is contact their local member

all southwick has done is offer a forum (questionnaire) to get more broader feedback. There is nothing coming from him in terms of dissatisfaction. He is just following up on an issue raised by some constituents.

presumably when he has more data from his survey, he will approach the mfc (if they don't approach him first)

so, at this stage nothing to see here other than noise

Yes, as I said I think Southwick is simply doing the resident's bidding with the survey.

I'm pleased the Caulfield project has taken a step forward.  Nonetheless, my frustration is it is difficult to gauge what that means when Pert's release is vague and so many things one would expect to see in a feasibility study, at least at a macro level, have been pushed into the Business Case phase.

[Demon Disciple 12,313]

I’ve been in to the middle of the racecourse numerous times and it ain’t exactly teeming with local residents. Funnily enough, neither is Caulfield Park most days.

This is just locals complaining for the sake of it, and I doubt they’ll be complaining when there are 2 lovely footy ovals for them to play on (as well as soccer pitches), if/when this gets built.

As a local resident, I cannot see any downside for the MFC to build here (and I’d be saying exactly the same thing if another footy club were to be attempting to build there too).

[ChaserJ 5,169]

15 hours ago, bluey said:

 

Getting 100% consensus on anything is a rare thing, and so many punters put self interest above all. It’s possible that forums existed and people either missed/ignored them or did participate, but can’t see their specific feedback in the outcomes.

[640MD 3,482]

On 19/09/2024 at 23:01, Oxdee said:

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. 
 

You can trade the asset and the lease but it diminishes in relative value   Over time  and the closer you get to the lease renewal year.   But normally you get first option. 
 

Depending I suppose on how long 99 years 

Does that mean 2 premiership cups 

Whale oil.  Beef hooked,  we’ll be dead. 
go for it as hard as we can. 

[640MD 3,482]

Just emailed the local federal member, 

get one from one side of political fence and praps one from the other  cannot but be good

No idea if it will help but it might

[sue 9,151]

16 hours ago, bluey said:

 

Not much in the survey.    https://www.davidsouthwick.com.au/survey/caulfield-racecourse-funding

and nothing to prevent bogus submissions.

[daisycutter 29,795]

2 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

I’ve been in to the middle of the racecourse numerous times and it ain’t exactly teeming with local residents. Funnily enough, neither is Caulfield Park most days.

This is just locals complaining for the sake of it, and I doubt they’ll be complaining when there are 2 lovely footy ovals for them to play on (as well as soccer pitches), if/when this gets built.

As a local resident, I cannot see any downside for the MFC to build here (and I’d be saying exactly the same thing if another footy club were to be attempting to build there too).

make sure as a resident you reply to southwick's survey

same to all you others who live in his electorate