chookrat

This thread has a stench about it that reeks of the poor Melbourne of old. Lets close it down and instead celebrate when Kozzy signs a long term deal.

Fully agree DD. With JVR I suspect only one of BB and TMac will play consistently and with Schache back it provides the opportunity for Petty to permanently move forward. By the end of 2023 there may not be room for TMac and BB in the side, although both could go on for another couple of years if they are fit.

As frustrating as it is Demonsone I believe we will get there with a decision within the next couple of years that we will be happy with. I get annoyed seeing the amount of funding other clubs receive for facilities while we have not yet been able to get commitment from stakeholders for a site. Personally I reckon our facilities will be planned in alignment with the Southern Stand redevelopment, e.g. as part of the business case they are looking at access and transport links to the MCG which will require quite a bit of planning in the surrounding area which any MFC facility would be connected to.

At a minimum we could put a portaloo there so the players have somewhere to go when their training on Gotch's.

Thanks OD. I'm thinking that we would still play at the G for our home games but also host 2 - 3 games per season at the smaller stadium at Docklands which would primarily be used for AFLW, VFL, perhaps a cricket team and other codes we align with. For VFL I think we should seriously look at breaking away from Casey and either aligning with an existing team (e.g. Port Melbourne if they ran into financial problems and needed to align with an AFL team for survival, or start our own Melbourne based team). While I get the logic of aligning with a growth corridor I'm not convinced we are converting many new members from Casey and I suspect we would do better focussing on growth in the Melbourne / Docklands precinct over the medium to longer term.

If we look at the Docklands I'm wondering if we look at breaking away from our 'relationship' with the MCC and the a lesser extent the MCG. Make the Docklands precinct our own and include a small boutique stadium with capacity for 10-20k (with room to expand capacity in future decades) for our AFLW and VFL side as well as matches with GWS, GCS and the new Tassie team. The area is a wasteland and the presence of Melbourne would benefit the area, as long as it's not just a place for the admin to function and footy department and team to operate behind closed doors. To do it properly we would also want to break away from Casey and go "All In"to the new location as it will be something we need to work not only for 5 - 10 years but the next 50. I don't see the point in moving from MCG/Olympic Park/Gotch's to Docklands unless it is a whole of club move that we own as part of our identity. It would also be worth considering aligning with teams from other codes, e.g. United, Storm, Rebels etc. And making the move together.

I still think we should have a preliminary discussion with the Tasmanian Government re what sort of facilities they could offer if we were to consider relocation. The AFL and State Government would both have kittens. Imagine the headline that the oldest sporting club in the world is considering leaving it's spiritual home due to a lack of commitment and investment from the State Government over the past 30 - 40 years.

It could be nothing but is anybody here concerned about May's body language?

Thanks BDA. Re the 'second stage's feasibility study does anyone know when the 'first stage' was undertaken? E.g. is it the stage that we self funded before securing joint funding and the process set out by the State Government or was the first stage completed recently and have we progressed to a new stage?

Bandicoot, the political benefit isn't for voters in the electoral district of Melbourne, but rather the areas where Melbourne supporters are based such as in the Inner South and Inner Eastern suburbs. While these are traditionally safe Liberal seats, a couple of thousand votes in some of these electorates, e.g. Sandringham, would be enough for the seat to change hands. I don't see much political downside in the State Government pledging facilities in the MCG precinct as the only votes they would lose are a handful of inner city residents in seats that they will not win.

If we wanted to really stir things up the club could announce it is having preliminary discussions with the Tas Government re relocation due to a lack of commitment from the State Government and AFL for our women's and men's programs.

Realistically there is space in the MCG precinct, the challenge is securing buy-in from the necessary stakeholders to cut through the red tape. I believe we will have first class facilities in the MCG within the next 5 - 7 years I just think we don't have the political clout to drive the process and so need to work within the process set out by the State Government.

Either this or demolish the eyesore that is Fed Square and build something there.

OD, I would think that the votes for providing the MFC with a home in the MCG precinct would translate into votes in the Inner South. The major parties are not likely to win inner city seats in the future but I would think Labor would have picked up votes in the Inner South if they had pledged a home for the MFC in the MCG precinct without losing anything in the city.

Disappointed to see the development isn't billions of dollars of car parks, but I guess carparks near train stations in local electoratea is a federal government responsibility.

Lord Nev, there is open grass everywhere and if we cut a few trees down there is even more room. From memory the Jolimont proposal wouldn't have even required any trees to be cut down and admin would have been over the railway. From what I understand the main objection has been from a few hundred East Melbourne locals concerned that they will lose space to walk their dogs and if the state government are onboard it wouldn't take much to cut through their nonsense.

Lord Nev, while the money is not the issue a lack of commitment at AFL and State Government level to approve an option where we can build is. Our club has been working on options for more than 5 years now and to not have an announcement shows a lack of conviction to get this done. The land is there, the options are feasible, it should be a matter of choosing the best one and getting started.

Exactly OD and with inflation you are lucky to get any change of $25m to put a flag on a bridge these days.

It's interesting to note that the Octagon for Mixed Martial Arts, which is necessary to host MMA events, was banned in Victoria until 2015. Meanwhile 100's of horses were dying on the track each year with many 1,000's more being turned into dog food if they were not good enough at racing. Governments are highly conflicted when it comes to gambling regulation.

McQueen, I don't have an issue with whether people gamble either but do have concerns with the amount of gambling related advertising in sport. This not only presents issues for those addicted to gambling but also normalised gambling for kids, e.g. they are so heavily exposed to advertising that glamorises gambling at a young age that by the time they are an adult they are de-sensitised to it's harmful effects. As a parent I want to be able to take my kids to the Footy or watch a game on TV without gambling ads everytime the play stops.

I would have thought we'd have an in principle agreement with the State Government that we would have facilities in the MCG precinct and the timing of an announcement. It seems silly that we'd participate and contribute funding to the working group without this commitment up front. When the Gotch's paddock resurfacing was announced I thought Gary Pert nailed it in explaining how sub par our training ground had been since we used to train on the MCG as our home ground. The AFL needs to step up and lobby the State Government who need to step up and accept a viable option whether it be AAMI Park, the MCG Southern Stand, above the Jolimont Railway tracks or the area near the Freeway south of Gotch's paddock. That there is nothing to announce is a cop out as there should be an agreement by now on which development our facilities will be part of regardless of whether all of the detailed work is completed. I wouldn't mind the club publicly lobby on the lack of AFL and State Government funding we have received in comparison to every other club, e.g. publish a ladder of facility funding and where we sit, the state of our grounds since we were blocked from training on our home ground the MCG, and the funding we have contributed to work up options and present to the AFL and State Government which have been knocked back.

Is there any reason why either Joel Smith or Schache cannot play Petty's role in the backline and to play Petty forward? We probably need to prepare for our next batch of KPF's by only playing one of Ben Brown or TMac in the side along with a younger KPF. Also happy for JVR to get a run noting that he would likely struggle as our key target and would benefit through a TMac/Ben Brown and Petty to occupy their key best defenders.

I like Robb and reckon he could spin a good yarn, as long as the story isn't too complex and no more than a couple of paragraphs long.

Valid points. What I will say re Ross Lyon is that he led a dominant team that were with a kick of winning two grand finals. There is a good argument that he did almost everything right and was a bit unlucky to not have won a Premiership.

It's interesting that Ratten was at Hawthorn from 2012 to 2018. It doesn't make alot of sense that he was offered a 2 year contract extension mid-season and then terminated a few months later by the very people who extended his contract. Might be a coincidence but maybe not.