Copuchas

Preliminary final even, semis are this weekend.

As a frustrated MCC member who can't get MCC visitors tickets, I'll be buying a few kids tickets using MFC memberships that haven't seen a shot in anger all year and then getting pass outs from the MCC reserve in to the public reserve so that we can keep our group together.

I was there, albeit briefly. Big crowd present, gorgeous morning with a spring feel in the air. There was a noticeably positive vibe amongst the whole group. The focus during my time there was on skills with one drill involving a coaching staff member throwing the ball at a player whose task was then to side-step a tackler, brace for the tackle, fire off a handball to a team mate whilst being tackled whose job was then to snap for goal (Goody was running a session about 25-30m in the fwd pocket). The rehab group had Viney, Hunt, Joel Smith and Baker in it and all seemed to be moving well. Viney didn't join the main group in the time I was there. I don't believe Hibberd was present at all. The only guy who looked to be disinterested and going through the motions was Dion Johnstone. It's previously been commented upon that he's unlikely to get a contract next year.

Swans with Sinclair, Eagles with Lycett and GWS with Lobbe......yawn. Give him a rest for a week or two and get on with it.

Deespicable, in the footy I grew up watching, it's not a free kick. But my biggest gripe with AFL umpiring is around consistency of interpretation and on that score, the process applied and the resultant free kick was at least consistent with what they've been doing on the unrealistic attempt front this season.

Possibly you've misread my post? I didn't opine on the virtue of it being paid a free kick, I simply provided insight as to how the AFL are umpiring the "unrealistic attempt" decision, which is not as far as I am aware, even a rule within the Laws of the Game. You'd do well to vent your frustrations at the AFL rather than shoot the messenger who's shone light on what you were unable to decipher on game day!

It was not a push in the back free kick per se, it was an unrealistic attempt at a mark free kick and as with everything AFL they have introduced a formal process to assist the umpires in the adjudication of the decision. That process dictates that if you fly for the ball, make contact with the player in front and don't get a finger on the ball, it is a prima facie unrealistic attempt. You may disagree with that process but it was umpired 100% correctly with this season's interpretation of that rule.

No!!! We don't want West Coast finishing 2nd and hosting two home finals. We need to win to play in finals, irrespective of who gets the last spot in the 8. And if we can't win two more games, we shouldn't and won't be there.

Not this Demonlander. Absolutely hoping for a Norf win as I don't accept WCE have 2nd spot (and home finals) locked away, nor that a top 4 spot is beyond the Dees. It is pointless us hoping for everyone outside the eight to fall away, just so we can fall in to finals. Someone will be there with 13 wins. We need to win our way in to finals and strive to get a double chance, hopefully with as many Victorian based clubs in the top 4 as possible.

One factor that hasn't been mentioned is the weather...the forecast is for dry conditions but with a stiff northerly breeze continuing in to the evening. Maybe it drops out later in which case it will be a good toss to win. Our ability to modify our game plan and style to the weather conditions (rain / dew / wind) hasn't been compelling over the last 18 months. I watched on initially with amazement and ultimately disgust in Hobart last year..... I really hope there's some thought going in to this aspect and that the Casey curtain raiser opportunity means there's ZERO possibility of getting it wrong. We can absolutely win this game if we avoid rookie errors in the planning and match day coaching decisions. Over to you Goody.....

Actually, this is probably closer to the truth of the true drivers around this project than anything in this thread to date!

Hahaha, I've just done the same thing CB. 1st time I've communicated with a Green politician in my life! My message slightly different to yours possibly!

Daisycutter, I'm not sure time will allow me to do justice to your request. A few pointers for consideration though: 1) People buy in to any community in part for the amenity of the local area. The amenity of East Melbourne is substantial and property values reflect this. In no particular order: access to the city, quiet streets (relatively for inner city); parks, gardens and sporting fields in close proximity (note they are ALL different, a fact lost here on Demonland); the extremely attractive street scape and views across parks and gardens eg from Wellington Pde; heritage buildings and homes; nearby sports and entertainment precincts; quick access to major arterial roads and public transport etc etc. All are drivers. 2) Negative amenity also exists in East Melbourne: crime; drug and alcohol affected citizens passing through to neighbouring suburbs, restricted access to parking, high level of illegal parking by non-residents; aircraft (particularly helicopter) noise; peak hour cut throughs; outrageous council taxes; very restrictive planning regimes (good and bad perhaps); etc etc 3) The demographic in East Melbourne is an older demographic and that's likely to always be the case as homes are generally smaller in size and the nearby schools aren't attractive to those who can afford properties here. 4) The whole discussion on here presupposes that local residents would derive increased amenity from losing a current park facility in order to have it replaced by a sporting field. In addition that the lost amenity of the Wellington Pde street scape is either unimportant or an improvement. And that the as yet unsolved MCG car parking issue (and subsequent flow-on to East Melbourne and Richmond streets) can be exacerbated with no consequence. 5) My contention is that the net outcome for the majority of residents is negative amenity and therefore it will be vigorously opposed. And the fact that the seat is currently held by the Greens at both a Federal and State level and that the Melbourne City Council is a residents amenity focused council will make it difficult for a State Govt of whatever persuasion to ride roughshod over the concerns I've flagged and others that will be raised. 6) The case against becomes more compelling when the MFC can absolutely achieve the vast majority of it's requirements by staying at Gosch's Paddock, modifying it to be a truly elite facility and constructing commercial premises / HQ in an already established sporting precinct that is a stone's throw from the G. Witness the building that went up as part of the tennis centre redevelopment project as an example and see my earlier comments on redeveloping the clay tennis courts area. In any event, time will tell.

I thought Rupert Hamer died in 2004! I know the issues that concern residents because I'm integrated in the community. You sound like you're integrated in the construction industry. Any conflict of interest to declare?? Anyway, let the horses run. Hope you got your flyer in the post from Ellen today asking what concerns you? I'm seriously thinking about filling mine in and I abhor the greens!! Taking the dog for a walk down in Yarra Park now...

2-3 stories is multi-storey CBDees and is exactly what residents don't want! Well apart from yourself.... And as for Daisycutter's let's not get too hung up on parking approach....this just exacerbates the existing problem of saturated parking for residents in East Melbourne. And that's before parking has even been reduced or eliminated in Yarra Park... which I might add is inevitable. I'm all for the Dees having a home but it must be where adequate infrastructure can be placed. From any perspective, the Jolimont location looks like a forced fit. Another possible site is the en tou cas tennis courts on Swan street that are part of the Melbourne Park complex. Put a building in there similar to the one that was built adjacent to the tennis center, relocate the tennis courts to the roof of it. Direct linkage across the rail lines to the G via the existing footbridge. Redevelop Gosch's paddock to incorporate an MCG sized footprint (not that the Tigers seem to have too many MCG difficulties given training's on the small Punt Rd ground!). All of these pushbacks and more will be thrown at this project and by any analysis it's difficult seeing it overcome them.

so one minute it's the ease of undertaking commercial activity (presumably for tenants and their customers) and the next it is parking for MFC players and officials via the Brunton Ave MCG southern stand car park will be fine? Really?

Hhhhmm....the one week hamstring injury....rare beast that...

2 or 3 stories of the Jolimont site would need to be dedicated to car parking (unless a separate car parking building gets up). A higher building would likely be approved for the Richmond station site given the already elevated railway and the other buildings in the area and parking would be underground. Way more commercial space, jeez we could even open an alternative scan clinic to compete with the monopoly over at AAMI. Car Sales.com.au don't seem to go all that badly being run out of the Punt Rd precinct!

Timbo, in addition to living in East Melbourne, I'm also fortunate enough to have a home in W1 in Central London (not the business district). If you look at what's playing out in London in terms of the congestion charge etc and you look at the growth projections for Melbourne, it's pretty clear where things are headed from a public transport versus car point of view. You're missing my point on today's news re CBD - it's the same people who are in charge for planning in the area we're talking about ie Melbourne City Council. And don't get me wrong, I'm a mining industry guy, not some inner urban latte sipping socialist greenie!

tkx CBDees. On a day when news breaks about active planning work to eliminate cars from the CBD / slow them to 30kmh / increase cycle times for pedestrians, I have to express doubt that a multi story car park on the fringe of an inner Melbourne park is going to get up in this day and age. And I'm sorry, as passionate as I am about the Dees and cognisant of the need for a true home, an option that is the "best outcome for the Club, players and members" but which doesn't fully consider the wishes of the community and residents is frankly going nowhere. Collingwood can make the Holden Centre work away from their spiritual home of Vic Park so it's dismissive to say that Gosch's Paddock can't be expanded upon in what already is a clearly designated sporting precinct.

Your total bias clearly on display CBDees!! - there is precisely one soccer field between the area flagged by DV8 and the AFL oval in Gosch's Paddock that's currently used by the MFC and the distance is all of 120m to the goal square of the AFL oval - it is not at all heavily used, no more heavily used than the AFL oval, which is barely used - you continue to rabbit on about building over Swan Street, even though DV8 has explained that his concept is to use the under utilised area in front of the southern entrance of Richmond Station - you dismiss the very valid point made by DV8 that underground car parking could be incorporated in this site which is not available at the Jolimont site due to the railway "culvert" - that would be railway cutting but even though you're an architect you clearly have limited engineering knowledge - there will be bureaucratic (as opposed to buerocratic) issues to deal with for any proposal put forward. It's called planning law.

The station butts right up against the Wellington Pde Sth road over-bridge so there's no space down that end. The planning issue here is that nobody to date has proposed an economically feasible solution that addresses all issues. Total elimination of car parking from Yarra Park is a laudable objective but is it realistic to force all MCG sporting precinct patrons on to public transport? I'd suggest not. Richmond station is an ugly eyesore that would benefit from redevelopment of some kind. The railway reservation between Richmond and Flinders Street is a vast area and unattractive. Most of it could be placed underground (or the cheaper option is to roof over it) but given the insistence that it's mainly green space that's created, there's no commercial proposition on which this can take place. I think the issue that the MFC will have is that their project will get lost in the larger debate about what to do.

you've obviously never worked in railway engineering LH! There's a tunnel portal one end of the area being contemplated (with West Richmond station the other end) and Jolimont station (heritage listed?) the other. The tracks are going nowhere.....

and the Federal member is Adam Bandt! So it certainly looms as a battle! What will be interesting to hear will be Guy's perspectives on the concept, having seemingly flipped from a pro-development bulldozer to a development naysayer. No guarantee he gets in of course...