CBDees

We’ve had a few results in our favour so far this weekend, not only our come-from-behind win, but Geelong, Richmond and Hawthorn’s losses and seeing Essendon being pushed by the Suns. If North can slog out a win against Sydney and West Coast bring Collingwood back to earth, our quest for Top Four may not be a pipe dream. Icing on the cake if Freo cause an upset against Port. Our destiny is in our hands but yesterday’s Third Quarter has renewed my faith that we can do it!

Up until last week, we had a chance of picking up a few St Kilda supporters as well! Little hope of that now! ?

Your spelling is a tragedy in itself! Haven’t you got spell-check?

No I suspect that you have it right (judging from Google Maps) and there is an adjacent play area as well. Obviously the MFC proposal would have to limit itself to the railway land (which may involve a 99year lease or purchase?) as apportioning/alienating ‘public land’ would be a step too far. Perhaps the Club is planning administrative functions on the lower levels (with a pleasant view of the trees) allowing the ‘Members Bar’ an elevated view of the training ground at a similar level to Level 2 at the “G”! I am sure that the building design will cater for staff, players and members when they consider orientation (e.g. player’s facilities don’t need a view as there will only be dog-walkers there when they are not training)!

I think that this is the objective of the plan, players facility right next to the ground and a MFC Member’s Bar/Lounge overlooking the training ground.

Because Gosch’s Paddock is only a wind-swept oval. It doesn’t address bringing all our functions together under one roof nor provide a facility for members!

I think that you are overlooking the fact that there are two aspects to this proposal. Firstly we develop a HQ building with our admin, gym, “DemonShop”, phsios, etc (plus a licensed club facility for Demon members to meet adjacent the MCG)! Secondly we have a training area of a similar size to the “G”, located immediately next door and overlooked by the former. The ground would service most training exercises (or modifications of same) that I have observed at Gosch’s Paddock and (should we want to do full match simulation) Gosch’s Paddock is only a warm-up jog away. We also have Casey at our disposal. Nothing is going to be perfect (except if we get 52 week access to the MCG) however, as Bartlett stresses, this was the option identified as having more positives than other scenarios considered!

What Bartlett said in the paper this morning was encouraging. The idea that there is no fencing proposed will resonate with the local resident dog walkers and, when it is all said and done, if we need to do full match simulation then Gosch’s Paddock is still only a short jog away. Other aspects of training can take place in Yarra Park and you only need one set of goal posts to practice goal kicking. The most influential residential neighbour (Rupert Myer) isn’t effected and it doesn’t hinder his view through to the city! It may well work and they seem to have looked at all aspects before letting it hit the press.

It has been ten days and over 400 Demonland posts since the Hun broke this on the front page. There have been good comments raised in favour and also valid arguments against in support of Gosch’s Paddock as another option! Since it must have been leaked/given to the Hun by the Club, surely it is time for the President to make an announcement (or give us further details) either outlining the Club’s rationale for this proposal or hosing down our expectations?

The trees fronting Wellington Parade are within the rail reservation and most likely self-seeded. As trees go they are not attractive specimens. For some reason, there are seven trees missing from the footpath which Council for some reason hasn’t replaced. Replacing these (after we build our facility) will certainly improve the streetscape from what currently exists.

I cannot believe that you are suggesting we site the venue on the basis that people will “spur of the moment” hop off the train with kids in tow when they see our HQ! I have never met any parent that has hopped off a train with their kids on the basis of noticing a Club building and I would be disappointed if the MFC board in their revenue projections had this as a serious element in their choice of the site. Although it serves less train lines (Jolimont), it also services two busy tram lines and the area is jam-packed at the conclusion of any match. It is also only 100 metres from the ground.

I have just written to Ellen Sandell (my local Greens member) telling her that local residents (apart from Copuchas and his mates) look forward to her support for a MFC training facility in Yarra Park!

Just for the record, l have been integrated in the East Melbourne community for 38 years and have served on the Committee of the East Melbourne Group (however it is not a competition)!

How on earth do you know what the residents want or don’t want considering this was only announced in the Hun yesterday and hasn’t been advertised? You are making unfounded claims, albeit you obviously object as a resident (NIMBY.)! I have actually spoken to a number of East Melbourne residents in the past 24 hours and none seemed particularly troubled (although I suspect Rupert Myer who possibly covets his view along the rail alignment may be an ally of yours)! After all, the shops and commercial offices directly opposite where the low-level car park could potentially be sited don’t really have an issue with detriment to their amenity.

As I suggested before, the 2-3 stories required for car-parking could be accommodated in a separate building immediately to the East of the MFC proposal. As you admit (above) there is no necessity for a ‘multi-storey’ car park (which you claim in post #237) or for 2-3 floors of the MFC proposal to be allocated for parking as you now claim ((post #246). l am sure that a well-designed car parking provision could meet Council and community expectations!

We are all biased! I admit that. The only valid disadvantage that you raise in my view is the car parking potential on the alternative Swan Street site (for players and administration/support staff)! This could be covered by constructing a car park also over the rail cutting, immediately to the East of the Yarra Park option which the Club is exploring.y Let’s continue to workshop the options to arrive at the best outcome for the Club, players and members! p.s. thanks for the spellcheck (I always have trouble with bureaucratic)! p.s. Although I have limited engineering expertise, l am familiar with planning law as an ex building surveyor /statutory planner and director of a construction company (with a Master of Business in Property)! I am just suggesting that we should not discount any option at this stage and I am sure that the Melbourne board has done their due diligence on all short-listed scenarios.

It’s a nice map link but I’m not sure how many times you have been to training? The MFC trains at the Southern half of Gosch’s Paddock (not abutting Swan Street). There is a series of soccer fields in between which are heavily used and an effective barrier between the AFL oval and any mooted administration/training HQ mooted over Swan Street. Also, make no mistake, the buerocratic and logistic hurdles involved trying to gain approvals and then build over Swan Street and the tram lines vs taking a 99 year lease over rail lines (already sunk within a culvert) makes it a much inferior option. And for what? With the Yarra Park proposal we have a potential HQ with street frontage, immediately abutting rail and tram, overlooking our training oval and 100 metres from the MCG. In your option, we would have a costly elevated HQ overlooking soccer fields, further from the MCG and essentially equidistant from our current training oval than current facilities are.

In both options you probably wouldn’t be buying the land for the training oval (which would remain public open space)! We would merely have an agreement to use the new ‘oval’ similar to current arrangements. The ‘air space’ over the line is much more feasible in EM as the tracks are in a culvert (contained within a rail reservation) versus elevated tracks in Richmond. Options of building Clubrooms and training facilities on public land South of Gosch’s Paddock would be hard to sell to Government as it could only involve alienation of existing public land irrespective of how unattractive and little-used it currently is. Leasing of of railway land would be similarly priced in either East Melbourne or Richmond however development costs would most likely be substantially more when we are talking about construction over elevated rail.

You aren’t related to “Bitter but Optimistic” are you?

Simple answer is ‘Vote Labor’ if they back us! (I will be happy to get rid of Ellen Sandell and Adam Brandt in Melbourne electorate: Liberal has never been a contender!)

It was never planned as a ‘home ground’ (as that is always going to be the “G”) but as our training ground, with our administration, gym, training facilities, ‘Demon Shop’ (presumably) and, most important, our “Social Club” right next to the “G” where we can congregate post match and even use during the week (like a “Gold Class” Bentleigh Club)! A place where we can feature our memorabilia and walk past our trophy cabinets stacked with Premiership Cups!

Just to clarify where we are talking about!

We can forget Richmond station and focus on travelling direct to Flinders Street Station. From there the #75 tram and the Epping and Hurstbridge Lines take you directly to our HQ!

Agreed and certainly a lot closer to the “G” for supporters after we win a Final (or home-and-away) than the Southside of Gosch’s Paddock that the others want. It also has the advantage that it doesn’t involve supporters have to travel the extra distance post-game past Richmond station.

Not decrying Gosch’s Paddock but it is a fair step out from Swan Street and there is a soccer training oval in between. Any building would have to be at the Southern end which is a fair hike from Richmond Station and (as l suggested in post #140) equidistant or further than the Yarra Park option! It is not a suggestion of grassroots supporters vs well-heeled nor Labor/Green vs Liberal! It is simply the location with the least downside for all supporters (albeit the fact that it entails a very slight grade when approaching from a Southern direction)!