daisycutter

i haven't heard anyone here overegging it. merely pointing out its existence. all i've heard here is that having gosch's current tenancy is a form of leverage whilst other parties have stated they want it. that's pretty obvious. as to over egging who would have a clue, when we are not party to what is going on behind closed doors hence the ever waiting and the frustration of lack of timely info

yes we have a lease. same as the caulfied race track people have a lease on public land (even though it doesn't include what we are after) it's an incentive to get vic gov to sort out caulfield objectors (and provide some financial support) in order to support their current favourite, tennis australia, who want access to more space 'over the road' during the tennis and incidentally assist their other favourite collingwood get a second oval (except during the tennis open, which is not much of a sacrifice, being off season and short term). tennis australia and collingwood would be lobbying the gov to "get it done"

and, importantly, tennis australia gosch's is the bargaining power

hoe come dogs are allowed to have 30 players on the field and we can only have 18?

rubbish, bluey the south east tunnel will be part of the community recreational aspect of the mfc proposal to be shared by the mfc and the community. if you do your homework you will see that the council has long had a tunnel there in their community strategic plan for the area.

those are legitimate concerns, od. hence the discussion of potential leverage re aami's emerging strategic position

know all that. waverley (+casey) is fine as an interim and an improvement. just not optimal longer term even if we go to caulfield we will still have a role for casey, but it won't be critical

firstly i see the following: Caulfield > Waverley > Current The club (and the press) also have said that they see a waverley move as an interim move goschs paddock has suddenly become a bargaining asset with collingwood and tennis australia (incl vic gov) being strategically interested (possibly richmond too). Therefore, my concern is that if we give up aami without any caulfield guarantees we could be stranded at waverley. I say could be, because there may in fact be some guarantees re caulfield that are close to being announced, but we are just in the dark at this stage. i don't see waverley as a long term solution for exactly the same reasons as hawthorn did, and these have been discussed many times here (expansion ability, 2 ovals, closed training, aflw, vfl, vflw etc) step warily

the dilemna waverley is a step forward from what we have now, but it doesn't satisfy all our needs waverley is also a step backwards in strengthening our quest for caulfield which could satisfy more of our needs

he was (is?) a very good and talented footballer that's the best i can say for him. i never really warmed to him personally like i do for most of our boys

ambulance and family day crowd can use the existing drive-through tunnel on the mid west side new tunnel only needs to cater for low pedestrian numbers and a golf cart/trailer facility that the club now uses to move stuff around. All other larger vehicles can be driven through existing western tunnel stop trying to grandiose the requirements of a new south-east tunnel

aside from all that, the filth has had a need for a 2nd oval to better accommodate aflw,vfl and vflw close to their current location. currently they are quite restricted regarding expansion. same requirements with richmond but so far not much said publicly by them

just hope fritta doesn't get charged by the cops with participating in an affray 🫨

sad to see you go, maysie things won't seem the same without our backline general

i know. I just queried the "everything under one roof" claim waverley has good and bad. our current situation is not very good. everyone's patience is running rather thin

thanks for the link. some really good facilities there. but it's not "everything under one roof". Remember we have to cater for more than just the seniors. As well as AFL there is AFLW, then VFL and VFLW both including listed players, and only "just" room for 1 oval. solves some problems, but nowhere near "everything". better than now? maybe. one problem concerns me is that if we give up aami, before we have a "guaranteed" caulfield go ahead, we could be left in a weaker bargaining position. lots of people want to get their hands on aami (filth, ferals and tennis)

all probably true i'm still hoping caulfied happens. might require a miracle the lack of any progress news is a bit worrying ☹️

plenty of room, outside the track, in the mfc-favoured south-east corner

od, there is already a drive-through tunnel on the mid west side not all construction equipment would fit through, but those that don't could be craned in and left inside for extended periods. plus, there is no building construction inside, just equipment for ovals and landscaping. no necessity for long (if any) access across the actual track. it all looks quite manageable without much interference to the race club

yep, three things missing/wrong from extremely biased report It's not just mfc who want a south-east pedestrian tunnel. the local council strategic plan has had such a tunnel in their planning before the mfc became interested suggestions of closing the track for 12 months are just laughable the statement of a pedestrian tunnel costing $10m is likewise laughable. This is not a "big build" project.

score? [please]

score?

much more than a possibility don't forget - AFL, AFLW, VFL, VFLW

would make an excellent demonlander 😉

only if ... the cfmeu is not contracted