Copuchas

1 hour ago, Damo said:

Please someone, anyone, report on this mornings training session

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.

2 hours ago, deespicable me said:

Fair enough, I saw that you didn't back the decision, just gave insight to the umpires thought process that has given rise to him giving the softest of frees, and then hiding behind the guise of "correct interpretation". 

If we all hide behind facades nothing will change. 

Did you agree the free should have been paid? Will you be happy when the same free is paid against us?

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.

1 minute ago, deespicable me said:

No worries, you can believe that was a "correct" free all you like. Almost every free is "technically" correct or can be argued so, as they do every week when decisions are questioned.

But if you reckon it was a deserved free and the umpire shouldn't have kept his whistle dry then I'll certainly beg to differ. That type of free is what makes Footy unwatchable

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!

16 hours ago, deespicable me said:

The worst decision of the evening (among many) was the push in the back free to Hoges in the 3rd quarter. A lovely easy goal. It's great as we become a serious side that we can have periods and occasions where the umpires see things our way and give us that "good old push along".

I hate the umpires more than Essendon but the last two weeks at hostile home grounds where you expect decisions to go against you they have been fairly good. (or equally awful to both teams)

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.

3 minutes ago, P-man said:

Don’t we want Eagles to win? This keeps Norf in the hunt for the 8. The more teams we can knock out of the pack the better.

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.  

58 minutes ago, Rocky said:

ha, maybe.. but its fair to say that we're all hoping for that to happen.

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.....

7 minutes ago, chookrat said:

Jolimont is the perfect spot. Gregory, my driver, can park and wait at the Sofitel while I have a scotch or two with the lads before travelling home. Swan street is a bit of a cess pool. 

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

47 minutes ago, CBDees said:

I have just written to Ellen Sandell (my local Greens member) telling her that local residents (apart from Copuchas and his mates) look forward to her support for a MFC training facility in Yarra Park! 

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!

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

i'd be interested to know what specific problems to amenity that east melbourne/jolimont residents might have

maybe copouchas could itemise them for us so we could discuss them

(i appreciate we are not in possession of detailed plans of any mfc proposal)

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.

11 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Do you mean Ellen Sandell was asking what concerns locals about the MFC proposal specifically or was it a more general question not linked to yesterday's announcement? If it's the former, she's been quick out of the blocks and suggests to me that she's already decided to object to it and wants to get the community to support her. 

Quote

Just generic and purely coincidental Dee-vina, although one of the boxes to tick is "Protect local parks and heritage" so it's clearly one of her hot buttons!!  Think she's just researching ahead of the upcoming State Election....the outcome of which may well shape where this proposal heads next...

21 minutes ago, CBDees said:

How on earth do you know what the residents want or don’t want considering this was only announced in the Hun yesterday and hasn’t been advertised? You are making unfounded claims, albeit you obviously object as a resident (NIMBY.)! 

I have actually spoken to a number of East Melbourne residents in the past 24 hours and none seemed particularly troubled (although I suspect Rupert Hamer who possibly covets his view along the rail alignment may be an ally of yours)! After all, the shops and commercial offices directly opposite where the low-level car park could be sited don’t really have an issue with detriment to their amenity.

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...

5 minutes ago, CBDees said:

As I suggested before, the 2-3 stories required for car-parking could be accommodated in a separate building immediately to the East of the MFC proposal. As you admit (above) there is no necessity for a ‘multi-storey’ car park (which you claim in post #237) or for 2-3 floors of the MFC proposal to be allocated for parking as you now claim ((post #246).

l am sure that a well-designed car parking provision could meet Council and community expectations!

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.

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i think you are conflating the parking issue. the mfc is part of the mcc and some parking (for club players, officials) should be available in the mcc parking area at least at certain times. the southern stand of the mcg is also to be redeveloped and no doubt will include more parking than it does now. on the building height limit, have you seen the current building heights on wellington pde? i don;t think we want to build anything higher than this

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?   

16 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Confirmed: Watts not playing.

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

32 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i think it clear that the club is looking at a new location that can also include revenue generating assets. with this in mind the yarra park/wellington pde nexus is vastly superior to the more isolated goschs paddock/punt rd nexus from a commercial point of view 

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!

28 minutes ago, timbo said:

going to pack this apart - the plan for the CBD is just that, the CBD. The proposed positioning is what, 1.1km from the Spring St Wellington Pde corner. I doubt that the proposed 30km/h pedestrian overlay would extend there, so in reality this could be a very good spot for a car park.

The way Australian society is, and with the delays in/lack of proper public transport, there's still going to be a lot of car traffic looking for parking and driving around especially in that corridor.

 

(your other points about consultation etc are obviously apt)

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!

59 minutes ago, CBDees said:

We are all biased! I admit that. The only valid disadvantage that you raise in my view is the car parking potential on the alternative Swan Street site (for players and administration/support staff)! This could be covered by constructing a car park also over the rail cutting, immediately to the East of the Yarra Park option which the Club is exploring.y

Let’s continue to workshop the options to arrive at the best outcome for the Club, players and members!

p.s. thanks for the spellcheck (I always have trouble with bureaucratic)!

p.s. Although I have limited engineering expertise, l am familiar with planning law as an ex building surveyor /statutory planner and director of a construction company (with a Master of Business in Property)! I am just suggesting that we should not discount any option at this stage and I am sure that the Melbourne board has done their due diligence on all short-listed scenarios.

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.

1 hour ago, CBDees said:

It’s a nice map link but I’m not sure how many times you have been to training?

The MFC trains at the Southern half of Gosch’s Paddock (not abutting Swan Street). There is a series of soccer fields in between which are heavily used and an effective barrier between the AFL oval and any mooted administration/training  HQ mooted over Swan Street. 

Also, make no mistake, the buerocratic and logistic hurdles involved trying to gain approvals and then build over Swan Street and the tram lines vs taking a 99 year lease over rail lines (already sunk within a culvert) makes it a much inferior option.

And for what? With the Yarra Park proposal we have a potential HQ with street frontage, immediately abutting rail and tram, overlooking our training oval and 100 metres from the MCG. In your option, we would have a costly elevated HQ overlooking soccer fields, further from the MCG and essentially equidistant from our current training oval than current facilities are.

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.

5 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

True, I have no idea about engineering. 

I guess I took the dialogue so far to mean literally over the Jolimont station.

Given the limitations you mention, is it feasible to build over the tracks to the city end of Jolimont station (and leave it intact)?  Again, in a way that reduces a building's street mass and landscaped into its surrounds. 

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.

22 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Jolimont tracks and station are already sunken well below street/park level. It is effectively underground as it runs under Wellington Pde to the East.

With clever design (and maybe lowering tracks a bit further) only 3/4 stories of the proposed 6 would not be visible above ground level.  Furthermore, with the increasingly popular 'green roofs' architecture the building could easily be camouflaged from the street and to blend into its parkland surrounds.  And for those worried about losing trees, a replanting program should cover it. 

Lobby groups will lobby.  But there is a lot more for the community to gain from this than to lose.  Just needs to be worked through with them.

A Red and Blue colour scheme on the externals of the building would work very well don't you think...

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.....

8 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The local member for the State seat of Melbourne, in which Yarra Park resides, is Ellen Sandell (Greens party). She's already been on radio complaining about it.

It would be good politics for Gosch's park to be restored as "proper" parkland when we leave.

My suspicion (with no evidence to back it up) is that getting out of poker machines might have been a pre-condition to getting State and/or Federal funding for the project. The Western Bulldogs got federal money for the redevelopment of Whitten Oval on that condition. It's the perfect time to be seeking State and Federal support with both governments heading towards elections within the next 11 months (or sooner).

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...

4 minutes ago, CBDees said:

The current President of the “East Melbourne Group” is possibly the inner suburb’s biggest NIMBY!

Yes, Murray's already on the job!

It may well be that this is a pincer play between Bartlett and McGuire (and the new Lord Mayor Sally Capp who's a Collingwood Board member) to get traction on the sensible outcome which would be to cover over the Richmond - Flinders Street rail corridor.

Don't shoot the messenger guys, but as East Melbourne resident that lives a couple of hundred metres from the proposed development, I think this is going to be VERY difficult to get up, most particularly the office component which would place a 6 story barrier between East Melbourne and Yarra Park.  The oval may be more doable but even then, the residents have been campaigning for years that Yarra Park is just that....a park.  Not a car park, not a sporting field.   Furthermore, the civil works required to incorporate a level oval on what is a quite pronounced sloping piece of parkland would completely change the nature of the area.   I'll be very surprised if this gets traction.