dpositive

You anticipated my intervention that the failure to attract public transport infrastructure could provide a negotiating trigger. That the "quasi utopian development" could maybe benefit from an entertainment facility incorporating corporate and retail. A practical community facility that requires the infrastructure especially if supported by an AFL club attracted there with space allocated for the training grounds. Could be a mutually beneficial submission. You may be correct about the architectural wankers involvement, but they would have to shove aside the property and financial investors who have been encouraged over the years and are even now trying to recover their excessive outlays. I should add I have no financial interest in either area but am prepared to offer my project management and consultation experience. As you and other Dlanders may enjoy, the response to me has been muted. There has been genuine interest expressed but most are content to wait for the Caulfield project to kick off. I am also not opposed to that, but just see some opportunities to play projects off against each other to negotiate a better deal and get a better outcome. To do that would require greater detail. I do thank the 3 members who have contacted me offering their direct participation. We are all very much aware of our limited knowledge and experience in such a large project but are willing to continue to investigate options further and expand our ideas. I incidently have had no response from the club to my questions, but am looking on that positively, that the club are preparing a considered response. I would appreciate meeting the sub committee and may suggest that as a more convenient forum to resolve some issues.

i reckon its great that all the options have different skills, as it gives really good flexibility in using the squad to give players rest or exposure depending on their development. Also in providing better match up on opposition and play different structures so opposition coaches cant just develop a single plan to combat us.

Have noted before that May glides seemingly effortless. Amazing for such a big unit.

Theres been a bit of discussion about Tracs kicking and mentioning his high ball drop. These fantastic shots of 666 show that to still be the case while other players have both low and high. It des seem that the high ball drop is more likely when a quick kick is actioned and the player is less balanced. Could the nature of Trac as a burst player be the seed for his high ball drop and the key fo his inaccuracy?

its a wonder they didn't speculate that Oliver and Smith were hiding drugs in banana coverages which are a common subterfuge as everyone (who reads their rubbish)will instantly believe and call for the delisting of the Melbourne Football club who allow this practice to flourish. They will quote the Dland promotion of bananas over many years as an indication of the supporters role and indicating they should be banned from football for life.

Are these AFL assigned, nominated or requested. I think we should get WCW to chat with them and get them on side. Show them what a great bunch we are. and tell them to tell all their friends in the locker room what a great team we are, How we do have backs , necks and dont throw the ball. Ask them is there anything they could help us with to improve our tackling. Or indeed if there is anything we as supporters can do to help our side.

i think we have the list to execute an offensive structure and rely on our defensive structure. my tactic is 1 get in front 2 stay in front. looking forward to undefeated for the year until a clean run through to the flag

Impressive looking presentation and indicates a pretty large investment. Has the benefit of consolidating the racing footprint which does release space for other ventures, ie Footy grounds. So certainly plenty of potential. Id like to see someone with drone skills do a similar presentation over Fishermans Bend/ Port Melbourne or Williamstown. Im pretty sure you could see similar potential. The FB board does have some pretty impressive visuals on their website and an apparently measured and structured development program. Caulfield certainly has public transport and access over FB/PM or W but again FB particularly as a greenfield site has great potential to curate transport services to a new space incorporating entertainment/ sports /retail and corporate services. Similar concerns to others about the racing industry involvement as they have never been seen as a benevolent partner with competing bodies. While others are seeing some mutual benefits they are based on MFC being an attractive list. Not sure Id like this as a business model going forward. I will be interested in the answers to my questions to the board which will provide some clarity to the discussions past and future.

Can you contact me Bluey on 0448110212. You will have seen my comments and you may be able to add some valuable insights. Thanks

Thanks dc this was just one of the real estate matters that initiated my original contact with Kate. I believe there is plenty of available land , most owned by developers, many overseas many investor only, all encouraged by various state governments and intent on profiteering. Kate was unaware of this site which did make me question the statements at AGM that they had interviewed everyone. In her defence Kate did indicate some of the investors and also stated that the real estate requirements were just to much. Again my proposal will be for a facility with community, retail, corporate , entertainment features and may even be attractive to existing or potential sponsor. I believe there are still some pretty large warehouse sites in FB . The FB board are well established and have some pretty established plans, but may be still open to different ideas. Im in the country but still interested in anyone with insight into FB/PM

i had responded to this perhaps on other thread.

It would seem to me that weight is just one key factor in injury management. While weight can be muscle weight v Bone weight V just plain fat(my main component) it would seem a necessary measure to ensure loads arent out of kilter. It would also be a factor in collision occurances. While it may not be relevant to everyone all the time and can obviously fluctuate due to many factors I think most health issues need to be monitored for weight. Could justifiably be a fact that only insiders have .

Surely Richmond and Melbourne would have more claim to a facility than Collingwood. Perhaps move the pies to port and we reclaim AAMI.

I suppose I should declare I do not have any financial or any other interest in FB or PM or Caulfield. Havent got enough room here for two ovals either.

Yeh it looks like a good space and only needs the racing industry to be happy. and you have a good set of binoculars like they do. Seriously not opposed just like to see the detail.

Thanks for your considered comments. Haven't been to Caulfield for years and yes understand there is plenty of room. I am aware of the racing industry involvement and how this may compromise any club interes. I agree that we should not be looking at a game facility which would require more seating but more a training admin area. Corporate and retail for the proposed local community has greater potential in a greenfield site which is why I m looking at FB. No One needs to be compromised at FB or turfed out. Have you been to FB it is huge. It is true that real estate there is perhaps compromised by hungry developers but ther is also potential for joint development. It is part of the reason I have sought dlandr and MFC member knowledge. It is true that it may be a pain to get to at the moment but the development board and the demands of 80,00 population may remedy that. an appropriate entertainment facility may even help the board achieve some transport reforms. Happy to discuss on 0448110212.

Thanks for your considered thoughts. Do I know what is required to mount n alternative. Not really but I hope i can recruit enough people with skills and ability to prepare a positive alternative. Although I would be pleased if the club can provide answers to my questions which show this option is not at all possible. I have asked the club what physical features they require as the only response i Have had is a total acreage site. I believe there is some flexibility and the Caulfield option will provide some greater detail as i hope will discussion with the club. I have some thoughts on the desired requirements and discussion with some members has given me an expanded idea of options and proposals. I am not sure of the public land requirements in the Port Melb/ Fishermans Bend area but the fact that 80,000 is projected population would indicate some need for public areas which may be fulfilled by an appropriate private public venture . Fishermans Bend is a greenfield site and with its own board of management it would seem an ideal place to start. there is a lot of potential and I personally do not have the clout or authority to obtain answers.. I hope there are enough people with interest to appraise an alternative site. The club entering negotiations with only one option, Particularly when this option is with the racing industry which is in the same competitive space (entertainment/sport) is both good and bad . Good that there is some mutual benefit and economy of scale , bad because the industry is competing with a club. Again I would be pleased to have the club reassure members how this will be adressed. You seem to have some experience greater than myself or others who have contacted me and I am reassured by your interest. I would be happy to discuss further with you and invite you to contact me on 0448110212. or alternatively if you can maintain your review of any options I present I would be grateful. .

I could add that in my initial discussion Kate was not aware that Australia Post had a significant warehouse that ad some potential.

well without diverting discussion Kate did not and could not detail who she had spoken with ( commercial in confodence0 BUtT Has never in any discussion detailed who in the FB board or in our membership identified who she has spoken with. I have sought this info in a confidential response. There does seem to be some capacity for community facilities and if the projections of population are even close better public transport will be a given .I think the projected underground include a station i the precinct can be improved with a MFC investment.

I will try and restrict my reports to the training ground thread but feel inclined to intervene in any thread that might help my action. I amcertainly only trying to get the best outcome for the club.

As mentioned in posts above I am not trying to stop the pursuit of Caulfield. My questions to date have been to establish what investigation of alternatives has occurred and also to provide some competitive options which may impact costing factors. Can be easily stopped if answers required. I will restrain my use of this site but feel it is a valuable tool for all members. You can ignore if you feel inclined, but also welcome comments,

Thanks WCW. I have similar thoughts on best location, but will certainly consider your comments on spectator perspective, which I see as a significant factor of the development. Feel free to add comment at any time.

Yes a bit glib. I did outline previously that I have seen a sports ground inside the race track at Hong Kong. It was a great facility, especially to watch the races, but the football ground was less than ideal. Also the restraints of being in a facility controlled by the racing industry will need to be adressed and overcome. I am not opposed to consideration of Caulfield just believe it is better to have a couple of horses in the race to use an appropriate metaphor. Maybe the club will detail why I am flogging a dead horse or why it should be put down, until then I am happy to try and get an alternative bet.

Would anticipate meeting with this group to discuss some of the issues I raised in my submission at AGM.

Thanks for the question. Answers are all still in the development stage, (similar to Caulfield). I have not yet had a response from Gary Pert to questions I raised at the AGM, which are pretty critical in establishing financial potentials. I have had expression of interest from 3 others with different skill sets, and still seeking any support from dland members. I did raise in my apparently lengthy preamble at the AGM that Joe Gutnick made the point (at the terrible Dallas Brook Hawthorn plan), that while the board at the time presented a great slide show of the proposal No one asked him. That is why I have reached out to the members for support of my perhaps folly. Again I am hoping that Gary Pert and the club may provide some input that can decrease the effort required. Dont have particular desire to establish a website, but if required and skill available will incorporate that. Havent had meetings but as I am in the country can see development of Zoom or similar as i get more information. ATM am pleased that this site has a useful online facility. I will need to have face to face meetings and probably site inspections as part of development process. So very much in favour of proceeding but do not have project timelines beyond this and the AGM presentation. I am happy to take calls at 0448110212 for further detail