daisycutter

3 minutes ago, old dee said:

DC my fear is if we move to Waverley it is a handy way of getting the subject off the agenda that the AFL has and remember the new Tassie team is going to suck up lots of AFL money. It is a quick way for the AFL / state government to get the MFC out of Goschs. With no agreement on Caulfield if we move to Waverley we will be stuck there forever. Caulfield will be in the same draw as the Airport train service. Then be bought out every election year then quickly returned to the draw. The other wild card is the next election is in November it is difficult to see Labor being returned so what is the Liberal party / the red head party attitude? A move to Waverley will see us there forever.

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

29 minutes ago, heath55 said:

You still have access to casey IF need be - we're talking like we aren't coming from that far back that waverly isn't a viable option - Hawthorn won how many premierships whilst training at waverly? If we get stuck there for the next decade, that is objectively a significantly better option than what they have now.

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

8 hours ago, heath55 said:

I just don’t get this thinking - we’ve never had a home base, we get some sort of one and now people are annoyed because Caulfield gets potentially gets pushed back? Who cares - it’s a HUGE upgrade over anything we’ve ever had? What’s difficult about this - it’s the right call, if it adds a few years to Caulfield it simply doesn’t matter - would you rather something now or still nothing in seven, eight, nine, 10 years etc? It’s a no brainer

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

12 minutes ago, bluey said:

>>>>

Our tunnel must be wide enough to fit an ambulance and two people walking abreast the other way.

Our tunnel must have capacity to fit ten thousand people on a family day tour and to view pre finals training.

>>>>>

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

3 minutes ago, KozzyCan said:

I did just that and found this article. It may be what you are referring to

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/afl/magpies-open-to-vacating-nest-to-help-australian-open-keep-growing-20260202-p5nyy0.html

So basically the idea here is Pies would temporarily use Gosh's paddock during the Australian Open to accomodate Tennis Australia. But the article also explores other options and considering it's only a month we're talking about here I doubt that Gosch's is much of a trump card.

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

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

Casey !! VFL /AFLW

Nuff said

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

5 hours ago, Swooper Northey said:

Here's a look at the Waverley facilities which would be an upgrade on the split AAMI / Gosch's Paddock / MCG training and admin set up, allowing the club to bring everything under one roof.
https://www.commercialrealestate.com.au/property/2-stadium-circuit-mulgrave-vic-3170-2019818740
If this in used in the interim while Caulfield is being approved and eventually developed, it could be a positive.

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)

7 hours ago, old dee said:

Because IMO Dc they had grounds already e.g. The Dogs. we have zero as they wont let us on our home the G.

all probably true

i'm still hoping caulfied happens. might require a miracle

the lack of any progress news is a bit worrying ☹️

3 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

BTW: Where does the high roofed indoor training centre go?

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

6 hours ago, old dee said:

Correct pf. Also the racecourse track would be unusable for a considerable amount of a year. They simply don’t want the problems of creating ovals in the centre of their course. IMO heavy equipment would be needed in the creating the playing ovals. The only way to do that is to cross the racing track meaning repair work after the machinery is finished. So no racing for a considerable time. Sadly we will never IMO get a home there.

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

30 minutes ago, dice said:

And don't forget the brown paper bags and ferraris

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

12 months of no racing while building a pedestrian tunnel under the track, is just ridiculous.

yep, three things missing/wrong from extremely biased report

1. 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

2. suggestions of closing the track for 12 months are just laughable

3. the statement of a pedestrian tunnel costing $10m is likewise laughable. This is not a "big build" project.

score?

[please]

score?

1 hour ago, MrFreeze said:

Is there a possibility that Waverly would replace the use of Gosch's paddock/AAMI/MCG precinct while we still utilised Casey too?

much more than a possibility

don't forget - AFL, AFLW, VFL, VFLW

14 hours ago, Spirit of '87 said:

Seems somewhat prone to overstating.

would make an excellent demonlander 😉

3 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Berlzebub has posted that this tunnel could be done in a few weeks.

Then done at a time when there are no Caulfield race meetings.

only if ... the cfmeu is not contracted

9 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Piont is it is a PUBLIC PARK, Anyone can use it at any time, there are zero tenets of use or ownership

Ever played a cricket game on the wattle park oval, mr fence?

16 hours ago, Adam The God said:

Why are we talking about Deakin when the site is right next to Monash Uni? Surely their sports science people can use our buildings from time to time and whack a Monash logo on somewhere, it can be sold as an educational site and help MRC with their debt issues.

the only talk of deakin was in relation to mr scopus, as deakin is a possible/likely buyer of their burwood campus, which they need to sell to finance their new caulfield race course campus. some here thought scopus might somehow be part of our delays

4 minutes ago, Demonsone said:

Is that a fact? May be not a bad outcome, hawks won 4 flags at Waverley, lower cost outcome!

it would only be an interim move. if caulfield comes off it will be 2-3 year project to complete.

6 hours ago, rjay said:

Which sports grounds on Elgar Rd are you talking about?

on the above map, the area between the highlighted deakin campus, to the left, and along elgar road opposite plc. It is part of deakin.

2 hours ago, monoccular said:

  On 05/01/2026 at 10:11, Blind_turn said:

For all of us frustrated with the lack of news on Caulfield, I suggest we focus our attention on a deal to be struck between Deakin Uni and Mt Scopus Burwood.

the question is where will deakin get the money from. It will be substantial and the feds aren't just going to gift it.

the answer is those uni sports grounds along elgar road, slap in the middle of the new rail loop high development zone

the mt scopus site has existing sports grounds to replace them, and still provide a big area for deakin expansion (already including good existing teaching facilities).

no brainer