Copuchas

Clarry went one handed because he didn't want to commit to the contest. Ditto Langdon on the ground ball. Jeez they're hard to watch....

All dates from team selection last night. Dogs ins are good, Gawn didn't get up, English did. Hitherto nervous Dogs fans piled in.

21 degs forecast, sunny with low humidity. But the strong westerly is still forecast (32kmh gusting to over 40). That is slightly diagonally across the ground at Metricon. Probably not a great day for Naughton and a fair bit of ground ball to be won.

Actual Dimwit quote: “Because I guarantee you a few players out there making comment, mainly David Schwarz, I played a Grand Final (in 2000) against that bloke and within 20 minutes of the game he was crying, so (he should) have a look at himself at some stage.” I have always hated every one of the thugs from that 2000 team of scum: Wallis, Hardwick, Long to name a few. Indeed, it has carried over to the point where I abhor Richmond more than any other team in the AFL and I am hoping like hell there's an Adelaide oval elimination final coming up. If I was Goodwin, I'd get the Ox to address the boys during the week.

It's worth keeping in mind that VandenBerg has had two quite significant head knocks in his last outings. It would be abnormal if this didn't impact his output. I'll be watching intently this afternoon to see how he goes.

Whilst I'm completely aligned with the thrust of your thread Nasher, I'm really surprised not to have read any analysis on the near elimination of biased umpiring performances during the Covid crisis and the obvious conclusion that the "noise of affirmation" phenomena is an irrefutable reality.

All MCC members are required to nominate the club they support. Tickets should be made available to the Full members of the competing clubs in the first instance, with a ballot process if necessary.

well I guess he did have a brother so there's some evidence....

Silvagni out with gastro so it's one apiece on the withdrawals front...

The biggest concern I have with Jack is that he's stopped pivoting on his feet when laying tackles. I think they concluded that the driving action in his aggressive tackling was conveying too much pressure through his feet and exacerbating his injury. His tackling has fallen away dramatically and lost its impotency as a result. A great shame as it was his one wood.

One aspect of our post season surgery count that warrants further investigation is the extent to which they were collision related injuries attributable to an aggressive contested game style. I liked the contested brand the Dees played last year but found myself wondering what the physical toll would ultimately be. It would be an interesting analysis for someone to undertake a very crude cut of contested footy ranking versus non-soft tissue injuries. I also wonder how sustainable it is to have contested footy as your one wood....or even worse, your only wood. You need look no further than West Coast to see it's not natural to be able to bring that level of commitment week in, week out.

You and CBDees and others keep referring to the oval as if that was the only component of the proposal. It was the six storey building over the railway line that fundamentally alters the Wellington Pde streetscape and vista that was the fatal flaw.

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?

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.....