Jump to content

Punt Road redevelopment

Blind_turn
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

1 hour ago, 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? 

  • Quote
    • Haha 2
     
    3 minutes ago, 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!

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    18 minutes ago, 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. 

  • Quote
    •  
    5 hours ago, 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. 

  • Quote
    On 12/3/2020 at 8:43 PM, 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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    On 12/5/2020 at 9:20 AM, 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.

  • Quote
    53 minutes ago, 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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    On 12/5/2020 at 6:53 PM, 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.

  • Quote
    •  
    58 minutes ago, 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

  • Quote
    1 minute ago, 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 

  • Quote

    5 minutes ago, 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.

  • Quote
    2 hours ago, 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 by Half forward flank

  • Quote
    15 hours ago, 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."

     

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    2 minutes ago, 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.

     

  • Quote
    2 minutes ago, 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. 

  • Quote

     

    22 minutes ago, 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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    1 hour ago, 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?

  • Quote
    46 minutes ago, 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

  • Quote
    57 minutes ago, 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 by whelan45
    Typo

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    1 hour ago, 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.

  • Quote

    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 by Pickett2Jackson

  • Quote
    29 minutes ago, 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. 

  • Quote
    1 hour ago, 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.

  • Quote
    •  
    1 hour ago, 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

  • Quote

    • Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • NON-MFC: Round 13

      Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • 39 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: Collingwood

      Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Like
      • 259 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Thanks
      • 47 replies
      Demonland
    View All