Or maybe he was suggesting that Number 16 will become a Starr?  

Bailey Laurie to be be nicknamed "Ringo" henceforth.

 

 

Could the whole deal be a huge weight on his shoulders?  16 Tons is a huge weight, let's face it.

 

 

3 hours ago, dpositive said:

At the AGM there was an emphasis on the two oval model. Pert stated needed 16 acres to consolidate all club functions. Also stated a number of times that 16 hours of training time for players. Maybe just fixated on number 16.

Im still ambivalent on Caulfield, it still seems to have quite a few issues relying on cooperation with other parties that do not have the MFC as their primary focus. There will be compromises that may degrade the outcomes desired.

In a number of random informal conversations at the AGM it was mentioned that the club had invested a large sum on Goschs and leaving the site to another club was not ideal. That that club appears to be the Pies was even worse. MFC would be abandoning its status as the founding club at the MCG site if relocated to the recognised race track. Our history was acknowledged by Brad and recognised as a significant identity factor for the club. I see it will be difficult to establish that at a site that is so strongly identified as a racing site. it was also recognised that there is an identified population demographic that is not as diverse as an expanding and progressive club needs to grow.

A closet TJ fan maybe? Personally, I've been fixated on the number 11 for 40 years.

Just drove into the racecourse mid field area and it is massive.

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

Just drove into the racecourse mid field area and it is massive.

It is isn't it.   Very deceiving from any other vantage point. 

7 hours ago, Farmer said:

I think the article raises many issues worthy of thought.

Gosch’s Paddock we share with Storm and Victory. Quite unsatisfactory, we must have our own space and facility. 
Waverley apparently available pre season 2026

Caulfield available when? Likely next decade. Ever heard of VCAT? Even if we have broad support, any local individual or sporting association can issue proceedings in VCAT which takes 2 years .

none of our present top line players will get to use the facilities at Caulfield. 

Hawks are leaving W because, like all AFL teams, they need 2 ovals so they are going to Dingley— further from the CBD. They are NOT leaving because of poor facilities. The facilities have enabled them to win 4 flags !
Whether we go to Caulfield or Waverley we will keep Casey ( upon which we have spent a lot ). A combination of Waverley/ Casey works fine. Surface conditions at W are apparently first rate .

Lighting? AFL players train during the daytime , not at night. Lights are needed for matches at night. There won’t be matches at night at Waverley ( or Caulfield)

when we all struggled to get to and from Waverley it was due to the fact that 20,00 to 40,000 others were trying to do likewise. Waverley is very close to the freeway, in fact easier for  most MFC supporters to get to than will be Caulfield . Admittedly there will be public transport access to C .

Ryan’s piece mentioned 2 options, buying Waverley or leasing it . I’m concerned that putting all eggs into the C  basket makes us vulnerable to pressure from anyone wanting to make the most of the situation. If my suggestions as to the drawn out timetable are accurate, why not lease Waverley for, say 3/4 years . Suck it and see. If Caulfield becomes just too hard we are not bound to it .

And finally cost! Do we really need to spend $100m for training facilities ? I suspect that the Waverley option would cost less than one third of that 

 

 

 

Totally understand that Waverley could be seen as an upgrade on our current situation allowing us to bring Admin and the Footy Dept together. But it would really only be a band-aid solution and we’d be in the same position Hawthorn have found themselves in, needing more space and eventually moving further out.

IF we can pull Caulfield off we’ll have all the space we need and (finally) our own first class admin / office and training grounds / gyms / rehab areas etc etc all together in the one CLUB. It’s a no-brainer.

4 hours ago, Redleg said:

Just drove into the racecourse mid field area and it is massive.

It’s a huge amount of largely wasted land. It’ll be a real shame if this doesn’t go our way.

It's not wasted,  52 years ago I used it for football training    running around twice. Was enough to get nice and warm. Then play with the footballs 

Federal league well and truly gone. Someone must run around it these days,

But yes.  I think a wasted opportunity if we let it slip 

 

Edited December 22, 2024Dec 22 by 640MD

The difference with ware we train now is really only the time delay between Richmond and Caulfield. And there are express trains what 15 minutes, or less

1 hour ago, 640MD said:

It's not wasted,  52 years ago I used it for football training    running around twice. Was enough to get nice and warm. Then play with the footballs 

Federal league well and truly gone. Someone must run around it these days,

But yes.  I think a wasted opportunity if we let it slip 

 

i think it's not so much a case of us letting it 'slip' but if it doesn't work out, it's not for want of trying

we've had three or goes at getting a home base in the last decade or so, and we feel - to me at least - like we are closer than we've been in my lifetime, and probably since the 60s

11 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

i think it's not so much a case of us letting it 'slip' but if it doesn't work out, it's not for want of trying

we've had three or goes at getting a home base in the last decade or so, and we feel - to me at least - like we are closer than we've been in my lifetime, and probably since the 60s

But when? Not before 2030. And I sense that MRC under Kanga are less keen on MFC than the previous admin 

I agree - but at least there is a plan; we'll be at Casey/Gosch's for the next few years. Good news for Kev! Maybe we will get more clarity when the Strategic Plan is "revealed" to us......?

6 hours ago, Farmer said:

But when? Not before 2030. And I sense that MRC under Kanga are less keen on MFC than the previous admin 

The land isn’t owned by the MRC, so other than providing input they won’t have a say on the final decision.

I think Farmer's point is that the MRC can stir up trouble if they think it is in their interests - see the VCAT comment. The CRRT clearly wanted two gorillas to deal with, rather than one - if the CRRT were ever to get funding to develop the space they are responsible for. The CRRT were never going to get significant funding out of the MRC. The question is whether the two gorillas can live on the same turf, or will the old gorilla fight the new one....?

9 minutes ago, Harvey Wallbanger said:

I think Farmer's point is that the MRC can stir up trouble if they think it is in their interests - see the VCAT comment. The CRRT clearly wanted two gorillas to deal with, rather than one - if the CRRT were ever to get funding to develop the space they are responsible for. The CRRT were never going to get significant funding out of the MRC. The question is whether the two gorillas can live on the same turf, or will the old gorilla fight the new one....?

CRRT?

35 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

CRRT?

Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust

1 hour ago, Harvey Wallbanger said:

The question is whether the two gorillas can live on the same turf, or will the old gorilla fight the new one....?

I don’t think we’d get in the way of Mount Scopus all that much. Apart from the one building that will be our training base and outside their land, the ovals inside the racecourse would provide them with fantastic ovals to utilise when not in use by us (they’ll also have their own private oval within their land.

3 hours ago, Harvey Wallbanger said:

I agree - but at least there is a plan; we'll be at Casey/Gosch's for the next few years. Good news for Kev! Maybe we will get more clarity when the Strategic Plan is "revealed" to us......?

My suggestion that MFC might get to Caulfield in, or shortly after 2030 has  drawn scorn from  Dees fans who are friends. One directed me to The Age of 3 June 2015 when the Hawks announced they had bought the land at  Dingley and hoped to move there in 4/5 years. Now, they expect to finish at Waverley at the end of 2025.  Thus their expectation as to timing was 100 percent wrong . The other matter raised by the same friends is that MFC clearly expects a contribution from the VIC Govt for the Caulfield development .  We find it very hard to imagine that in the present circumstances there will be any such contribution.

2 hours ago, Farmer said:

My suggestion that MFC might get to Caulfield in, or shortly after 2030 has  drawn scorn from  Dees fans who are friends. One directed me to The Age of 3 June 2015 when the Hawks announced they had bought the land at  Dingley and hoped to move there in 4/5 years. Now, they expect to finish at Waverley at the end of 2025.  Thus their expectation as to timing was 100 percent wrong . The other matter raised by the same friends is that MFC clearly expects a contribution from the VIC Govt for the Caulfield development .  We find it very hard to imagine that in the present circumstances there will be any such contribution.

one difference btw dingley and caulfield racecourse is that the ground doesn't have to treated for hazardous materials

i seem to recall that that caused some delay there

38 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

one difference btw dingley and caulfield racecourse is that the ground doesn't have to treated for hazardous materials

i seem to recall that that caused some delay there

and dingley is hardly hawks homeland (but then tassie or arctic park hardly was, either)

59 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

and dingley is hardly hawks homeland (but then tassie or arctic park hardly was, either)

Dingley is a 💩 hole, plain and simple

40 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Dingley is a 💩 hole, plain and simple

I’m in dingley at the moment

i agree with this comment

4 hours ago, Farmer said:

The other matter raised by the same friends is that MFC clearly expects a contribution from the VIC Govt for the Caulfield development .  We find it very hard to imagine that in the present circumstances there will be any such contribution.

Don't disagree with that, though it does depend on how you pitch it (AFLW, Umpiring?) and what benefits to the local community are included.  I always thought this proposal would pass/fail on the $$$.  I am impressed that the club is committing $15 mil already and raising $10 mil from supporters - I think I have got that right?

6 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

I don’t think we’d get in the way of Mount Scopus all that much. Apart from the one building that will be our training base and outside their land, the ovals inside the racecourse would provide them with fantastic ovals to utilise when not in use by us (they’ll also have their own private oval within their land.

By the two gorillas I mean the MRC and the MFC, not Mount Scopus...

4 minutes ago, Harvey Wallbanger said:

By the two gorillas I mean the MRC and the MFC, not Mount Scopus...

We understood that! Don’t worry!