daisycutter

2 hours ago, Ghostwriter said:

I’ve just been told training times have changed. Instead of the scheduled 12:30pm start, they’re starting at 3:30pm, if training here at all (nothing’s set in stone for today).

I’m here now and while I’m keen I’m not certifiably insane. Even @Roost it far wouldn’t expect me to wait here for over three hours, right Big Rooster?!

not good enough. you should give tom morris a call

4 hours ago, demoncat said:

I get that Redleg and I hope we’re using whatever leverage we have with Gosch’s, but I reckon we’re over egging just how much leverage Gosch’s will give us in relation to government and AFL support for Caulfield (unless you’ve heard different?)

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

Just now, Rab D Nesbitt said:

The thing is though daisy, it's a public park. Do we really have any bargaining power? Even if we do stay who's to say we won't still get punted elsewhere for the duration of the Australian Open?

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"

17 hours ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

I’m torn between moving for our own benefit and staying put to spite Richmond and Collingwood.

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?

10 hours ago, bluey said:

That’s very funny, obviously for safety and accountability we will require a swipe card system to be installed for entry and exit.

We don’t want drunken race goers utilising our tunnel for purposes it wasn’t designed for.

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.

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 😉