On 06/12/2020 at 22:20, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I don't think it's odd. There could be a number of reasons such as land value(ie, keeping it from becoming more expensive), Government directive (ie, if it's government owned land or a government-led project, the government might be insisting on secrecy) or not wanting to give those who may oppose the development opportunities to kill off the proposal before the funding is locked away. 

Stop being logical LDC. For god sake man can’t you see the conspiracy here? 

  On 06/12/2020 at 23:59, old dee said:

Stop being logical LDC. For god sake man can’t you see the conspiracy here? 

I know the internet is full of conspiracy theories, misinformation and, unfortuately, personal abuse. What astounds me is how much appears on a site like this one where everyone who contributes is essentially on the same side!

  On 07/12/2020 at 00:04, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I know the internet is full of conspiracy theories, misinformation and, unfortuately, personal abuse. What astounds me is how much appears on a site like this one where everyone who contributes is essentially on the same side!

Yes some days you would think we were on the Tigers site arguing the Dees point of view. The electronic world of the 21st century has some great benefits but the social media area is the haven of ever nut case and there even nutter theories. 

  On 06/12/2020 at 22:20, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I don't think it's odd. There could be a number of reasons such as land value(ie, keeping it from becoming more expensive), Government directive (ie, if it's government owned land or a government-led project, the government might be insisting on secrecy) or not wanting to give those who may oppose the development opportunities to kill off the proposal before the funding is locked away. 

You will need to explain the land value one to me, keeping it from becoming more expensive, especially as it applies to an area in close proximity to the MCG. 

  On 03/12/2020 at 09:43, Better days ahead said:

I think Port Melbourne is as good a spot as any. The whole area is ripe for development. 

Not just as "good as any" better than most.

  On 04/12/2020 at 22:20, Kent said:

other than North port oval ( smaller that Etihad or MCG) where else is there enough space in Port

I thought all  the large industrial sites have been snapped up by landbankers

Perhaps with govt support some of the land bankers can be redefined.

  On 07/12/2020 at 03:32, Half forward flank said:

You will need to explain the land value one to me, keeping it from becoming more expensive, especially as it applies to an area in close proximity to the MCG. 

I could imagine that a potential site may become more expensive to buy or lease should it become clear that it is in consideration for all or part of a redevelopment. I expect that much of the land will likely be Government owned, but some could be privately owned. I wouldn't want us to have to pay over the odds (to buy or lease) because it leaked out that we were considering that site. 

  On 05/12/2020 at 07:53, Neil Crompton said:

It would appear that a significant number of posters on here for some reason don't believe a word of what Glen Bartlett has told us at the beginning of July about our new training facility. In his podcast he has clearly stated that: 

- our new training and administration facility will be in the MCG precinct area.

- it will include a social club

- the training oval will not be MCG size - due to space restrictions

- we will have a second training facility at Casey (including MCG size oval, and a good sized indoor kicking area)

- the initial phase (to analyze option sites, establish the requirements for the new development, and recommend a preferred option) has been completed

- the second phase of the development is now in full swing - ie focusing on the preferred site only, and finalizing the Concept Master Plan for this site.

- the entire process from analysis, through concept development, to detailed design to construction completion was going to be about a 4 year process (from memory)

Until proven otherwise, I'm more than happy to not only believe what Glen has outlined, but also to be very excited about what he has outlined. Yes its too many years overdue, but it looks very real at the moment. 

 

Thanks NC 

Had not seen that articulated.

Was there any detail of the initial phase analysis of options? Was Port Melbourne included in that?

4 year process probably not too long for a substantial development, but it would be good to see the announcement and that the preferred site was in fact The site.

Until then I restrain my excitement as it still doesn't look any more real.

  On 07/12/2020 at 04:28, dpositive said:

Perhaps with govt support some of the land bankers can be redefined.

So d how would you define them? 

There is a group who were in the know and snapped up the large sites

  On 07/12/2020 at 05:28, Kent said:

So d how would you define them? 

There is a group who were in the know and snapped up the large sites

I think a govt process allows for compulsory acquisition, with values set by independent body. I think that also follows set negotiation processes.

As DJ I think said there is still some commercial areas which might be conducive to alternative relocation exchange etc.

Should have been a consideration in phase 1 of the process I'd imagine 

  On 07/12/2020 at 05:28, Kent said:

So d how would you define them? 

There is a group who were in the know and snapped up the large sites

Could have added that those" in the know" may be subject to insider trading or conflict of interest regulation. So I assume none of that went on  so ROI decisions would be applied.

  On 07/12/2020 at 04:28, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I could imagine that a potential site may become more expensive to buy or lease should it become clear that it is in consideration for all or part of a redevelopment. I expect that much of the land will likely be Government owned, but some could be privately owned. I wouldn't want us to have to pay over the odds (to buy or lease) because it leaked out that we were considering that site. 

Gotta say what you suggest is all just guess work. I do not believe that it is at the point of selecting between two or more sites, Phase 2, according to Bartlett,  when no one can even identify one site being looked at within the MCG precinct.

Edited December 7, 20204 yr by Half forward flank

  On 07/12/2020 at 06:43, Half forward flank said:

Gotta say what you suggest is all just guess work. I do not believe that it is at the point of selecting between two or more sites, Phase 2, according to Bartlett,  when no one can even identify one site being looked at within the MCG precinct.

It's your prerogative not to do so, of course, but I'll accept what the President has said, as helpfully summarised by Neil Crompton a couple of pages back.

"- the initial phase (to analyze option sites, establish the requirements for the new development, and recommend a preferred option) has been completed

- the second phase of the development is now in full swing - ie focusing on the preferred site only, and finalizing the Concept Master Plan for this site."

 

  On 07/12/2020 at 22:00, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

It's your prerogative not to do so, of course, but I'll accept what the President has said, as helpfully summarised by Neil Crompton a couple of pages back.

"- the initial phase (to analyze option sites, establish the requirements for the new development, and recommend a preferred option) has been completed

- the second phase of the development is now in full swing - ie focusing on the preferred site only, and finalizing the Concept Master Plan for this site."

 

so the preferred site is??? I'm with HFF and don't think we have a site yet. Again when did the 4 year plan commence ? We are at least 18m months in.

 

  On 07/12/2020 at 22:05, Kent said:

so the preferred site is??? I'm with HFF and don't think we have a site yet. Again when did the 4 year plan commence ? We are at least 18m months in.

 

It's a sad state of affairs when we can no longer trust the statements of public figures. 

 

  On 07/12/2020 at 22:00, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

It's your prerogative not to do so, of course, but I'll accept what the President has said, as helpfully summarised by Neil Crompton a couple of pages back.

"- the initial phase (to analyze option sites, establish the requirements for the new development, and recommend a preferred option) has been completed

- the second phase of the development is now in full swing - ie focusing on the preferred site only, and finalizing the Concept Master Plan for this site."

 

My recollection of the interview Bartlett did back in July is that he was bullish on the home base. Plans to be announced imminently (my impression 6-12 months). He didn’t give himself much wriggle room should the plans hit a snag, put his neck on the line well and truly. No announcement within the next 12 months and he’ll have to resign.

  On 07/12/2020 at 22:05, Kent said:

so the preferred site is??? I'm with HFF and don't think we have a site yet. Again when did the 4 year plan commence ? We are at least 18m months in.

 

Is the reason you don't think we have a site because they haven't yet told you what the site is?

  On 07/12/2020 at 23:32, whelan45 said:

Is the reason you don't think we have a site because they haven't yet told you what the site is?

They have said nothing but to outline a process over 4 years

we either have a preferred site or not

I see no reason for the lack of clarity

  On 08/12/2020 at 00:20, Kent said:

They have said nothing but to outline a process over 4 years

we either have a preferred site or not

I see no reason for the lack of clarity

I disagree with the opinion that because the public doesn't know the preferred site yet, we must not have one. 

Edited December 8, 20204 yr by whelan45
Typo

  On 08/12/2020 at 00:20, Kent said:

They have said nothing but to outline a process over 4 years

we either have a preferred site or not

I see no reason for the lack of clarity

Just because you cannot see a reason for the lack of clarity, does not mean there isn't one.

Does anyone know what year we stopped training at the MCG  AKA our home?

I bet it correlates with our lack of success and that we trained on the MCG in the 1960s and before.

Edited December 8, 20204 yr by Pickett2Jackson

  On 08/12/2020 at 01:25, Pickett2Jackson said:

Does anyone know what year we stopped training at the MCG  AKA our home?

I bet it correlates with our lack of success and that we trained on the MCG in the 1960s and before.

Well after we fell in a hole. 

  On 08/12/2020 at 01:17, whelan45 said:

I disagree with the opinion that because the public doesn't know the preferred site yet, we must not have one. 

I agree with this. I would expect we will not know until plans are quite advanced, and funding in place.

It's quite possible the reason they haven't announced our preferred site, is that most of us will simply not like it.

  On 08/12/2020 at 01:17, whelan45 said:

I disagree with the opinion that because the public doesn't know the preferred site yet, we must not have one. 

Disagree all you like that's great.

In the absence of something there is nothing! There is no reason that the club shouldn't talk about the preferred option