1 hour ago, binman said:

This is good, and i think well over due - ie the club coming out and putting Clarry 'on extended leave to deal with his ongoing health issues'. 

Without getting into the specifics of his issues and what is happening for Clarry the absolute right approach by the club is taking a health focused approach - for Clarry, the team and fans. 

Making it clear he is on extended leave takes some of the pressure off, allows fans to recalibrate and come to terms with the likelihood we won't see him in the team for a while.

But perhaps even more importantly it means the rest of the team can focus on their own preparation without some of the fugazi.

Easy to forget i reckon how stressful and unhelpful this has all been on his teammates, particularly those who have been long term mates such as tracc and Salo.  

Personally i'm approaching the situation like Clarry had an ACL last season. He's out, he's not coming anytime soon and it's not clear how long it will be before he does come back. 

I'm sending positive vibes Clarry's way and wish him nothing but the best. 

Hopefully some more positive vibes on the still locked Clarry thread pinned above.

Do my eyes deceive me or was that Fritter right in the middle of everyone having finished the 2ker. What a comeback if that’s right. 

Edited January 11, 20241 yr by Its Time for Another

9 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

It’s got absolutely nothing to do with its proximity to mine. I’ve done the six-hour round trip on public transport numerous times and would be happy to *continue doing so if it was a good ground FOR SPECTATORS, but it’s not. There’s seating for only 300 people, and that’s in the sole stand which is reserved for players’ families and friends. So effectively, zero seating. There’s no protection from the gale force winds. There’s not a nearby train station. There’s no shops and/or pubs, eateries nearby. And the biggest problem is that spectators can’t get close enough to watch training. Therefore, for spectators… it sucks.

*that said, I’ll continue to make the trek there for our W matches, especially since the girls hate playing there and would sooner play at Ikon. Having a decent crowd makes it less sh!ttty for them. 

Theres no doubting your passion WCW and well may it continue. Im with you.

It does make my thoughts on he difficulty of  a training ground inside a racing track at Caulfield verses a purpose built greenfield site at Port Melboune /Fishermans Bend more meaningful.

Id be happy for you to join our project group to develop a facility that meets all of our stakeholders, players,  admin, sponsors, supporters and of course a new and expanding demographic.

 

9 hours ago, dpositive said:

It does make my thoughts on he difficulty of  a training ground inside a racing track at Caulfield verses a purpose built greenfield site at Port Melboune /Fishermans Bend more meaningful.

Id be happy for you to join our project group to develop a facility that meets all of our stakeholders, players,  admin, sponsors, supporters and of course a new and expanding demographic.

 

dp, what exactly is "our project group"?  how many members does it have?  does it have a web site?  does it hold regular meetings? etc etc

6 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

dp, what exactly is "our project group"?  how many members does it have?  does it have a web site?  does it hold regular meetings? etc etc

The facilities working group consists of Kate Roffey, David Rennick, Geoff Porz, Gary Pert, Alan Richardson, George de Crispegny and Chris Kearon. They meet fortnightly and far more regularly as and when required by Caulfield, the AFL & State government namely. Updates are provided at all board meetings. There is no website and Gary Pert is quick to inform any one that its workings are highly commercial in confidence. 

10 hours ago, dpositive said:

Theres no doubting your passion WCW and well may it continue. Im with you.

It does make my thoughts on he difficulty of  a training ground inside a racing track at Caulfield verses a purpose built greenfield site at Port Melboune /Fishermans Bend more meaningful.

Id be happy for you to join our project group to develop a facility that meets all of our stakeholders, players,  admin, sponsors, supporters and of course a new and expanding demographic.

 

Explain...   difficulty of training ground inside Caulfield....

and go......

29 minutes ago, Dannyz said:

The facilities working group consists of Kate Roffey, David Rennick, Geoff Porz, Gary Pert, Alan Richardson, George de Crispegny and Chris Kearon. They meet fortnightly and far more regularly as and when required by Caulfield, the AFL & State government namely. Updates are provided at all board meetings. There is no website and Gary Pert is quick to inform any one that its workings are highly commercial in confidence. 

danny, i think dp is talking about a different "group", hence the query

10 hours ago, dpositive said:

Theres no doubting your passion WCW and well may it continue. Im with you.

It does make my thoughts on he difficulty of  a training ground inside a racing track at Caulfield verses a purpose built greenfield site at Port Melboune /Fishermans Bend more meaningful.

Id be happy for you to join our project group to develop a facility that meets all of our stakeholders, players,  admin, sponsors, supporters and of course a new and expanding demographic.

 

Thank you, dpositive. I’ll politely decline. I’m the first to admit to knowing bugger all about where the best location is for our home base. I don’t feel strongly for or against any of the suggestions. My point was simply that Casey Fields is a sch!tt-hole of a ground from a spectator’s perspective. 

10 hours ago, dpositive said:

Theres no doubting your passion WCW and well may it continue. Im with you.

It does make my thoughts on he difficulty of  a training ground inside a racing track at Caulfield verses a purpose built greenfield site at Port Melboune /Fishermans Bend more meaningful.

Id be happy for you to join our project group to develop a facility that meets all of our stakeholders, players,  admin, sponsors, supporters and of course a new and expanding demographic.

 

I think a polite request to ask you to stop flogging a dead horse is the appropriate comment given your seemingly unstoppable support for Fisherman's Bend after the decision has been made to pursue Caulfield Racecourse for our new training facility.

 

43 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

dp, what exactly is "our project group"?  how many members does it have?  does it have a web site?  does it hold regular meetings? etc etc

Thanks for the question. Answers are all still in the development stage, (similar to Caulfield).

I have not yet had a response from Gary Pert to questions I raised at the AGM, which are pretty critical in establishing financial potentials. 

I have had expression of interest from 3 others with different skill sets, and still seeking any support from dland members. I did raise in my apparently lengthy preamble at the AGM that Joe Gutnick made the point (at the terrible Dallas Brook Hawthorn plan), that while the board at the time presented a great slide show of the proposal No one asked him. That is why I have reached out to the members for support of my perhaps folly. Again I am hoping that Gary Pert and the club may provide some input that can decrease the effort required.

Dont have particular desire to establish a website, but if required and skill available will incorporate that.

Havent had meetings but as I am in the country can see development of Zoom or similar as i get more information. ATM am pleased that this site has a useful online facility. I will need to have face to face meetings and probably site inspections as part of development process.

So very much in favour of proceeding but do not have project timelines beyond this and the AGM  presentation.

I am happy to take calls at 0448110212  for further detail  

 

46 minutes ago, Dannyz said:

The facilities working group consists of Kate Roffey, David Rennick, Geoff Porz, Gary Pert, Alan Richardson, George de Crispegny and Chris Kearon. They meet fortnightly and far more regularly as and when required by Caulfield, the AFL & State government namely. Updates are provided at all board meetings. There is no website and Gary Pert is quick to inform any one that its workings are highly commercial in confidence. 

Would anticipate meeting with this group to discuss some of the issues I raised in my submission at AGM.

46 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Explain...   difficulty of training ground inside Caulfield....

and go......

Yes a bit glib. 

I did outline previously that I have seen a sports ground inside the race track at Hong Kong. It was a great facility, especially to watch the races, but the football ground was less than ideal. Also the restraints of being in a facility controlled by the racing industry will need to be adressed and overcome.

I am not opposed to consideration of Caulfield just believe it is better to have a couple of horses in the race to use an appropriate metaphor. Maybe the club will detail why I am flogging a dead horse or why it should be put down, until then I am happy to try and get  an alternative bet.

20 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Thank you, dpositive. I’ll politely decline. I’m the first to admit to knowing bugger all about where the best location is for our home base. I don’t feel strongly for or against any of the suggestions. My point was simply that Casey Fields is a sch!tt-hole of a ground from a spectator’s perspective. 

Thanks WCW. I have similar thoughts on best location, but will certainly consider your comments on spectator perspective, which I see as a significant factor of the development.

 Feel free to add comment at any time. 

13 hours ago, Its Time for Another said:

Do my eyes deceive me or was that Fritter right in the middle of everyone having finished the 2ker. What a comeback if that’s right. 

Your eyes don’t deceive you, not on this occasion anyways.

Fritta not only completed the time trial, he did it in just under what they were hoping for. The coaches are “thrilled to bits” with his progress. 

22 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think a polite request to ask you to stop flogging a dead horse is the appropriate comment given your seemingly unstoppable support for Fisherman's Bend after the decision has been made to pursue Caulfield Racecourse for our new training facility.

 

As mentioned in posts above I am not trying to stop the pursuit of Caulfield. My questions to date have been to establish what investigation of alternatives has occurred and also to provide some competitive options which may impact costing factors.

Can be easily stopped if answers required. I will restrain my use of this site but feel it is a valuable tool for all members. You can ignore if you feel inclined, but also welcome comments,

35 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Thank you, dpositive. I’ll politely decline. I’m the first to admit to knowing bugger all about where the best location is for our home base. I don’t feel strongly for or against any of the suggestions. My point was simply that Casey Fields is a sch!tt-hole of a ground from a spectator’s perspective. 

Outside is a skit hole, inside is not bad! But what would I know??

3 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Outside is a skit hole, inside is not bad! But what would I know??

Oh, the indoor facilities are amazing.  State of the art, super impressive. It’s the spectator experience that sucks. 

1 minute ago, dpositive said:

As mentioned in posts above I am not trying to stop the pursuit of Caulfield. My questions to date have been to establish what investigation of alternatives has occurred and also to provide some competitive options which may impact costing factors.

Can be easily stopped if answers required. I will restrain my use of this site but feel it is a valuable tool for all members. You can ignore if you feel inclined, but also welcome comments,

Kate Roffey very specifically and clearly dealt with Fishermans Bend at the AGM. They investigated it. The primary issue was that all of the land that would be relevant for the MFC is owned privately. There is no public land that is suitable for our purposes. Any prospect of buying the private land would be financially not possible. What are you missing. You keep flogging this and it has been covered by the Club. I know this is a forum and anyone can post whatever they like but please move on. 

She made it clear they had welcomed any proposals from anyone and had investigated them all including Port Melbourne. Port would only ever have room for the exisiting oval not another one and the club needs two which they can get at Caulfield. 

My own view is that Fishermens Bend is no where near where most of our supporters/members live and would be a pain in the [censored] to get to in terms of public transport. Caulfield is ideally placed for access and is in close proximity to what the club knows is the centre of our supporter/membership base. Most importantly at this point at least for a feasibility study, it is being backed by the multiple stakeholders who are required to approve and finance it. It's been settled on after years of work. Lets move on.

I will try and restrict my reports to the training ground thread but feel inclined to intervene in any thread that might help my action. I amcertainly only trying to get the best outcome for the club.

38 minutes ago, dpositive said:

Yes a bit glib. 

I did outline previously that I have seen a sports ground inside the race track at Hong Kong. It was a great facility, especially to watch the races, but the football ground was less than ideal. Also the restraints of being in a facility controlled by the racing industry will need to be adressed and overcome.

I am not opposed to consideration of Caulfield just believe it is better to have a couple of horses in the race to use an appropriate metaphor. Maybe the club will detail why I am flogging a dead horse or why it should be put down, until then I am happy to try and get  an alternative bet.

You raise an interesting point. Will our facilities at Caulfield be controlled by the racing industry (represented by the racecourse's tenant, the Melbourne Racing Club) or will the Melbourne Racing Club and the Melbourne Football Club be equal tenants with each having equal power? 

11 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

You raise an interesting point. Will our facilities at Caulfield be controlled by the racing industry (represented by the racecourse's tenant, the Melbourne Racing Club) or will the Melbourne Racing Club and the Melbourne Football Club be equal tenants with each having equal power? 

I reckon the MRC will welcome us with open arms.  We'll be seen as a partner in a win/win situation

Just an opinion mind you and a gut feeling but I reckon the MRC will see us coming in as a way of growing their own membership and a chance to make $$$$'s on non race days

For the MFC, we'll get exactly what we want in terms of training grounds & indoor facilities for the players.  As well as buildings for the admin 

The supporters would get a great view of training and/or practice games from the existing stands and any new stands (Western end of the course?) 

I'll post up an image of the course directly as to how I see the configuration

*See image below*

So the building near the winning post (white roof) is the main grandstand.  If you were at the races, the back straight is a fair way away but the 2 training grounds would be a lot closer than that

As for the 2 ovals, one might run alongside the home straight (n.b. the home straight isn't pointed directly West (so no Sun issues) The other oval more towards the back straight (?)

A lot of the existing buildings and stables from about the 2000m mark to the 1400m mark were formerly used for training horse but Caulfield is no longer a training facility.  The horses are brought in on race days and there are heaps of stables behind the main grandstand for use on racedays

So our building requirements could be put up anywhere from the 2000m mark to the 1400m mark ... incorporating a grandstand (?)

The oval at the top (Glen Huntly Park) will give you an idea of the space available elsewhere (specifically inside the actual racecourse) ... you could fit 3 or 4 ovals inside the actual racecourse

Again, the above is just a personal opinion not based on any data or info.  I certainly don't have any inside knowledge.  Others may see things way differently

Here's the image of the course

Further down is a video of a horse well worth following (gamble responsibly)

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Its Time for Another said:

 

My own view is that Fishermens Bend is no where near where most of our supporters/members live and would be a pain in the [censored] to get to in terms of public transport. Caulfield is ideally placed for access and is in close proximity to what the club knows is the centre of our supporter/membership base. Most importantly at this point at least for a feasibility study, it is being backed by the multiple stakeholders who are required to approve and finance it. It's been settled on after years of work. Lets move on.

This is the issue.

 

Not only is FB Port/South territory, its one of the more difficult places to get to by transport.

No train or tramline, only a bus that starts its service from Queen Victoria Market.

Is Harry Petty running or walking or sitting or lying?

If that is him wearing 35 he is actually flying.😁😁