2 hours ago, Roger Mellie said:

Storm and Victory fit under the one roof. We don't! I don't think the sharing is as much of a problem (although not ideal) as our club being scattered between three sites.

We don’t fit under one roof but we’re a 5 minute walk in the great southern stand of the G.

Do the players really need to be seeing the corporates day in day out to be a good football club! It’s an absolute furphy for mine.

2 hours ago, bluey said:

I’ve had a gutfull to be honest, but the lack of communication from Smith and Guerra has been inexcusable.

Guerra is all talk. Flips and flops to fit the best optics narrative. He went on public record saying Tom Hawkins was coming in and he can’t even get that across the line. He’s not labelled with the lack of a training base but he’s said as little as anyone before him and constant meaningless dribble like the rest. The sponsorships proved as much. Not getting Keith Thomas and going for Guerra was once again, a monumental mistake.

Build an admin building at Casey. Home base solved.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by Mgdee
Incorrect grammar

28 minutes ago, BC_1718_DC said:

  3 hours ago, bluey said:

I’ve had a gutfull to be honest, but the lack of communication from Smith and Guerra has been inexcusable.

Yeah unfortunately I too think we made a blunder not going for an experienced head in Thomas.

Guerra has been a disappointment so far.

For everyone freaking out about moving to Glen Waverley - it’s clear that it will make a big difference to the staff and players to be under one roof / not have to travel out to Casey (at least not as frequently)

Of course everyone would rather be at a permanent home base, and yes there should be criticism if Caulfield falls through, but until that time the club should be doing whatever will best support staff and players alike

If that means some time at Waverley, then so be it

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by demoncat

4 minutes ago, Mgdee said:

Build an admin building at Casey. Home base solved.

Feel like we're going to be on our own here, but I agree. If Caulfield winds up being too hard, just do what is the norm in every other professional sport around the world and invest heavily in a facility on the outskirts of the city.

1 minute ago, demoncat said:

For everyone freaking out about moving to Glen Waverley - it’s clear that it will make a big difference to the staff and players to be under one roof / not have to travel out to Casey (at least not as frequently)

Of course everyone would rather be at a permanent home base, and yes there should be criticism if Caulfield falls through, but until that time the club should be doing whatever will best support staff and players alike

If that means some time at Waverley, then so be it

They're still going to be travelling to Casey. As I understand it, all a move to Waverley would do is bring admin under the same roof, and swap the Gosch's sessions to the adopted facility.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by Davos

3 minutes ago, Davos said:

They're still going to be travelling to Casey. As I understand it, all a move to Waverly would do is bring admin under the same roof, and swap the Gosch's sessions to the adopted facility.

Players have supposedly gone on record saying they’re excited for the move - unless it’s just PR speak (which granted it might be) why would they be excited to have to travel even more than they currently do to Gosch’s? Surely Waverley could cater for at least some of the more intensive sessions they usually run at Casey on Mondays and Fridays?

9 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Yeah unfortunately I too think we made a blunder not going for an experienced head in Thomas.

Guerra has been a disappointment so far.

Dazzle he’s been in the job 4-5 months, what were you expecting he would achieve in that time? The major thing he needed to ensure was sponsorship for the 2026 season, which seems it is sorted. We can’t be putting the home base issues on his shoulders yet, he would’ve spent the first couple of months getting around that and heaps of other things to do with the role.

I’m all for holding people accountable and critically analysing their job, but he needs at least 12 months in the role before we can actually make judgements on his success as CEO.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by DistrACTION Jackson

Guerra is all talk. Flips and flops to fit the best optics narrative. He went on public record saying Tom Hawkins was coming in and he can’t even get that across the line. He’s not labelled with the lack of a training base but he’s said as little as anyone before him and constant meaningless dribble like the rest. The sponsorships so far have proved as much. Grill’d gone after a year? MA Services group? I could go on.

Not getting Keith Thomas for football reasons and going for Guerra was once again, a monumental mistake. So disappointing.

1 minute ago, BC_1718_DC said:

Guerra is all talk. Flips and flops to fit the best optics narrative. He went on public record saying Tom Hawkins was coming in and he can’t even get that across the line. He’s not labelled with the lack of a training base but he’s said as little as anyone before him and constant meaningless dribble like the rest. The sponsorships so far have proved as much. Grill’d gone after a year? MA Services group? I could go on.

Not getting Keith Thomas for football reasons and going for Guerra was once again, a monumental mistake. So disappointing.

What has MA Services Group got to do with Guerra?

I would imagine Grill’d decided to bail before Guerra came on board.

6 hours ago, Redleg said:

In a facility that another club couldn’t wait to be rid of.

Hawks won 4 flags including a 3 peat at Waverley! Prob have outgrown it but I would rather us all under 1 roof until hopefully Caulfield is ever done,

Are the facilities at Waverley better than what we have now? Genuine question.

I see a move to Waverley as a concession that any brand new home base is a long way off. Wouldn't it be a huge waste of money if we moved there for 2 or 3 years when we have AAMI park and Casey.

The AFL would be our landlords. I presume rent won't be cheap.

2 hours ago, Dannyz said:

We don’t fit under one roof but we’re a 5 minute walk in the great southern stand of the G.

Do the players really need to be seeing the corporates day in day out to be a good football club! It’s an absolute furphy for mine.

It does beg the question, for mine, is what we have currently actually 'broken' ? Is it so dire it needs 'fixing' ?

Or does someone just want it all warm.and fuzzy ?

On first announcement that we might entertain Waverley I thought this might be a resoundingly good idea , as an interim 'solution'.

But upon more reflection I just don't see how we're particularly any better off.

Got me flummoxed to be honest.

If only interim until a possible 'Caulfield ' what ( again) is the real benefit ?

If there's no Caulfield then we could be selling ourselves a prime position up Schitts Creek.

2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

If only interim until a possible 'Caulfield ' what ( again) is the real benefit ?

Everyone under the one roof, easier to get a park, and saving $$$$ by only paying a peppercorn rent to the AFL