Hawthorn moving training base to dingley

[BrianSpeaking]

Jake Niall is a twit, obviously didn't do one iota of research. It may have been a market garden in the 19th century Jake, but that was over 120 years ago.
Here is why this is a bad decision for Hawthorn, great to see a journo report facts!

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/hawthorn...ry-of-the-hawks-new-base-20150603-ghg1ku.html

There is a reason the Hawthorn Football Club was able to find a spare 28-hectare site in suburban Melbourne for their new football base – a big slice was a dump.

Victoria's pollution watchdog has issued four clean-up notices for the Din San site in Dingley in the past three years and will be testing for elevated methane gas levels at the site this month.

The site was used as a landfill for "solid inert wastes" from February 1983 to June 2012.

Advertisement
The Environment Protection Authority told Fairfax Media the Din San landfill site is "now being managed post closure and has been issued two Pollution Abatement Notices (PAN) that require investigations into how the land will be rehabilitated to address any potential risks".

The notices have compliance dates from June to December this year.

The EPA said it would then issue a final long-term clean-up notice that would require ongoing management of the site.

"A third Pollution Abatement Notice is currently in place that requires the site to address elevated landfill gas readings on the surface of the landfill. EPA will be assessing compliance with this notice this month," the authority said.

The EPA said any new development on the site would require planning approvals from Kingston City Council.

The authority said it would assist council in assessing the potential risks of any new proposal.

"Landfills require long-term management after closure, however with appropriate measures in place they can be rehabilitated for uses such as parks and playing fields over time," a spokeswoman for the authority said.

In September 2014 an EPA officer detected elevated methane levels at the site and ineffective capping.

Last year the EPA also raised concerns about groundwater quality at the site and said there was no "leachate management or monitoring".

In addition to the landfill issues on the Din San site, the area has also been subject to bad odours.

There are six landfills licensed in the Clayton and Dingley area and two green waste facilities in the area.

On its website, the EPA says it "knows the odour being experienced by residents is not acceptable and we are working hard to address the issues".

"Since November 2010, we have issued 23 pollution abatement notices to sites in the area, requiring them to address odour impacts on the community," the EPA said.

A spokeswoman for the Hawthorn Football Club said "the club is aware of the pollution abatement notices for the site, and will have environmental experts assess the site further throughout the 18-month due diligence process".

And the club may have caused a stink with plans to exit its current base at Waverley.

Monash Council said it would like the Waverley Park oval to remain public open space.

The council said it would meet with the Hawthorn Football Club with the aim of ensuring the football oval remained public open space. The council said heritage protections apply to parts of Waverley Park including the remaining grandstand and the oval.

"People can access the oval at the moment and we'd like that to continue. It's a popular space used by families as a place to play kick-to-kick or to go for a jog or a walk," Monash mayor Paul Klisaris said.

The Hawks are hoping to part finance the new Dingley base with the part sale or lease of their Waverley base.

Hawthorn's spokeswoman said: "The club is yet to make a determination on the future of Waverley Park and will be consulting with Monash Council and other key stakeholders on any decision."

 

[NarklesHelmet]

Built it up using what exactly? I don't see anyone offering us buckets of cash to stay at Seaford and improve it. Plus it's out of date already, how is waiting another 5-15 years before it gets up to standard going to help? I think you need to accept that Seaford was a bad idea that may as well have been dead before it started. Better selling the idea to members doesn't change the fact that it's underfunded and in a less than ideal location.

Tulla isn't considered too far because it's actually good and fills its role well. Seaford is far away and not what we need.

The thing people forget about the Hawks is that almost 20 years back they were on the brink of merging. Then 10 years ago they were going through a rebuild like us now. Fast forward 10 years and they have pocketed 3 flags, loads of money and new members. Yes, they had luck with their Waverley deal but what Hawthorn go to show is that with a forward thinking but stable board to take advantage of on-field success, anything is possible. So when you question "with what money could we improve/have improved Seaford" I'm suggesting that we need to commit to a 20 year plan to turn us into a club like Hawthorn wherever we are based and that money will follow on-field success as long as we have a stable board.

My whole point is that with a board operating properly, we would have either never moved to Seaford or have made it work for us by securing permission to expand to surrounding public parklands etc. I spent a couple of months a few years back visiting football clubs in England and seeing their training facilities with an old uni mate working for clubs there. They value space over everything. You would never hear a professional club or athletes bemoaning their facilities being too "far away" from a city like what was happening at our club (especially when Seaford really isn't that far away). Luckily I feel that with Finnis and co on board, we are heading in the right direction and I think we will make wherever we end up work for us. But I believe space is key and the Hawks do too after traveling abroad to other facilities and witnessing best practice. I also believe that the AFL as an industry blindly follow other clubs and if you take a risk as a club reward is great. I just would hate to see us being led back into the city to a more cramped area, thinking that the convenience of Moorabin and the romanticism is important over the ability to grow, rather than doing what the Hawks, Bombers and best clubs in the world are doing by moving out to more spacious surroundings. It looks like this move is gonna work financially for the club which is good of course but it shouldn't be the only factor in the move if we want to be leaders. We need to move to a place that fits our needs better as a professional football club and the players best, and, most importantly, a facility that can deliver us premierships, not just move so the boys enjoy their coffee more.

 

[BrianSpeaking]

Narkle, come over to my place now, it's a still night and I just took my dog for a stroll on Mordialloc beach, I could smell the stench from the beach.

Moorabbin is a gold mine, it offers us all we could ever want. Do yourself a favour and drop into Kingston council, the plans will blow your balls off.

 

[Periphery]

Do yourself a favour and drop into Kingston council, the plans will blow your balls off.

We can view the plans? What if we aren't a local resident?

 

[BrianSpeaking]

Not sure, I asked for a look when I handed over 5 large for my rates.

 

[felsty]

As an employee within the planning industry, anyone can go in and see the plans, so long as its still within the advertisement period, which I assume it is.

We can view the plans? What if we aren't a local resident?

 

[sauce_head]

Jake Niall is a twit, obviously didn't do one iota of research. It may have been a market garden in the 19th century Jake, but that was over 120 years ago.
Here is why this is a bad decision for Hawthorn, great to see a journo report facts!

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/hawthorn...ry-of-the-hawks-new-base-20150603-ghg1ku.html

I guess it's good their team colours will be appropriate for the new location.

 

[#1_pigeonracer]

Their due diligence will uncover that ongoing care of this site will cost six figure sums annually, probably not preceded by a 1.

 

[Geronimo#]

Narkle, come over to my place now, it's a still night and I just took my dog for a stroll on Mordialloc beach, I could smell the stench from the beach.

Moorabbin is a gold mine, it offers us all we could ever want. Do yourself a favour and drop into Kingston council, the plans will blow your balls off.

I live in nsw. What are the proposed plans?

 

[Nutsngum]

I live in nsw. What are the proposed plans?

Waterslides. Only the worlds best flowing straight into the Lenny Hayes reflecting pool.

 

[1873 United]

My biggest concern is that Dingley is a St.Kilda strong hold of the past, with many locals still holding ties to the club through the Moorabbin era. I am of the opinion like others have mentioned that these bogans are trying to muscle in, perhaps this is due to the fact that the East (Doncaster) isn't as accommodating as Hawforn first thought.

Matt Finis and the team need to stabilise the saints over the next 10 years, rebuild our club and piss on every tree between Portsea and Port Melbourne, reestablishing our territory.

Go Saints

 

[VDS66]

My biggest concern is that Dingley is a St.Kilda strong hold of the past, with many locals still holding ties to the club through the Moorabbin era. I am of the opinion like others have mentioned that these bogans are trying to muscle in, perhaps this is due to the fact that the East (Doncaster) isn't as accommodating as Hawforn first thought.

Matt Finis and the team need to stabilise the saints over the next 10 years, rebuild our club and piss on every tree between Portsea and Port Melbourne, reestablishing our territory.

Go Saints

I think I understand where you're coming from re the east corridor. Demographics aren't what they once were. Same reason I was never in favour of a return to the Junc Oval.

 

[McCrann]

Hawthorn moving into 'saints territory'.
Watch hawthorn make it work for players and supporters, unlike stkilda.
Hawthorn has one foot in the bayside area now.
Dingley is only 10-15 min drive from seaford.

Next to Moorabbin Airport. Looks like we'll be eye to eye with them.

 

[McCrann]

That area the Hawks are after is so under utilised, I can't believe it's such a huge land bank. The thing the hawks have is space. Seaford already doesn't have enough parking and the only way to increase it would be to hand over public land. Ours at seaford looks humble and is already too small. It was poor planning. Moorabin will have the same issues. It has lost a lot of the old parking areas that are now planted out public space. Good VFL ground but I can't see how we make it big enough to suit needs in a suburban area. The Hawks are getting hectares. I can see us rushing into another stuff up. The area the Hawks are getting is near Moorabin airport. We should jump in with them and see if we could do a dual development or something. Two training ovals and two club houses. Seaford is geographically isolated for people who've near to the city.

That's all very well - but why on Earth would we want to be anywhere near Moorabbin Airport??? </s>

 

[ike2112]

The thing is you are right and it has always annoyed me about the attitude towards Seaford. So many big football clubs around the world base themselves as far out from a city as we have at Seaford but you hear nothing of it. For our club, it is as if Seaford is on the moon from the way people go on about it. The Hawks looked at best practice overseas and are following it which is why I thought we had moved there as well. Seaford could be great if it was embraced and improved upon.

The issue I had with Seaford wasn't the distance, cos that should be expected.

It was
a) the facilities weren't up to scratch; there were office staff in portakabins after only 11 months as they'd already ran out of space
b) the fan connection was being lost. Look at what the club's been pushing the last 18 months; all about fan engagement and being out in the community and getting people in. Moorabbin is getting people excited.

We have to accept we have a lower budget than a club like Hawthorn. They have that budget partly through great fan numbers as a result of a project started 10+ years ago. There was little for the fans at Seaford, so it was solely about the players and admin staff. But the facilities weren't state of the art for players, and were too small for admin.

 

[ike2112]

Aggressive move. Hawks should piss off up north. Next thing you know they'll be in New Zealand.

I actually think they will be in NZ. They are the only other club with a NZ recruit. They are potentially a greater draw. If I was the AFL and wanted to grow more in NZ, sending Hawks seems to make more sense. Even the NZ academy guernsey looks like the Hawks clash but in black.
I expect Saints to drop the NZ thing at renewal.

 

[Procrastinator35]

I actually think they will be in NZ. They are the only other club with a NZ recruit. They are potentially a greater draw. If I was the AFL and wanted to grow more in NZ, sending Hawks seems to make more sense. Even the NZ academy guernsey looks like the Hawks clash but in black.
I expect Saints to drop the NZ thing at renewal.

There's a good reason for that....We were in NZ before you, until the AFL moved in on us....Heatherley, Tatupu & N'Gata are all on rookie/scholarships.

We also did clinics & invested time & money promoting the game over there, before the AFL had the bright idea of sending you guys there.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

The issue I had with Seaford wasn't the distance, cos that should be expected.

It was
a) the facilities weren't up to scratch; there were office staff in portakabins after only 11 months as they'd already ran out of space
b) the fan connection was being lost. Look at what the club's been pushing the last 18 months; all about fan engagement and being out in the community and getting people in. Moorabbin is getting people excited.

We have to accept we have a lower budget than a club like Hawthorn. They have that budget partly through great fan numbers as a result of a project started 10+ years ago. There was little for the fans at Seaford, so it was solely about the players and admin staff. But the facilities weren't state of the art for players, and were too small for admin.

Yeah, agree. It always annoyed me hearing about the distance as an issue and I guess that's what I am bringing up in this thread. It is all about the facilities and to be honest, you just scratch your head thinking about the decision of our previous regime to move somewhere like Seaford that was further out with sub-standard facilities. All I want is for our board to, for once in my 30 odd years supporting this club, look 10-20 years ahead and stick to a plan. It is exciting to hear what is happening with the Moorrabin plans but we need to see it through. The reward could be to become a club like Hawthorn who have been run exceptionally since they almost merged almost 20 years back. I may be nuts but I reckon we have huge potential as a club. We are a real sleeping giant but we have to be careful not to let others encroach on our space.

 

[Defacto]

I actually think they will be in NZ. They are the only other club with a NZ recruit. They are potentially a greater draw. If I was the AFL and wanted to grow more in NZ, sending Hawks seems to make more sense. Even the NZ academy guernsey looks like the Hawks clash but in black.
I expect Saints to drop the NZ thing at renewal.

We won't because hawthorn will just completely take over. Deal is worth too much too and would help us attract sponsors

 

[ike2112]

We won't because hawthorn will just completely take over. Deal is worth too much too and would help us attract sponsors

The deal is worth $ to us because AFL pay us to do it. But if the AFL isn't making money on it, they will find a cheaper way to do it. If Hawks will do it without a 7-figure subsidy to convince them to do so, the AFL has to give that consideration. I'm amazed if what Procrastinator35 implies is true - that Hawks were doing the hard yards on it without any AFL subsidy, and AFL told them to back off. That decision would have cost the AFL a fortune. Albeit would have probably been in line with "fairness" of leaving NZ to us and half of Tassie to Hawthorn.

 

[Defacto]

The deal is worth $ to us because AFL pay us to do it. But if the AFL isn't making money on it, they will find a cheaper way to do it. If Hawks will do it without a 7-figure subsidy to convince them to do so, the AFL has to give that consideration. I'm amazed if what Procrastinator35 implies is true - that Hawks were doing the hard yards on it without any AFL subsidy, and AFL told them to back off. That decision would have cost the AFL a fortune. Albeit would have probably been in line with "fairness" of leaving NZ to us and half of Tassie to Hawthorn.

The AFL pays us to do it? Really? How much?

Last time I checked we did a deal with the city of Wellington for 500k for 1 game

 

[ike2112]

The AFL pays us to do it? Really? How much?

Last time I checked we did a deal with the city of Wellington for 500k for 1 game

They've never said the exact amount but after last year's game the chief wrote a members letter where a 7-figure sum was mentioned. Basically he was kind of saying "yes the crowd was crap and the ground not great, but we're being paid $1m to be there so get used to it".

 

[sauce_head]

I think I understand where you're coming from re the east corridor. Demographics aren't what they once were. Same reason I was never in favour of a return to the Junc Oval.

Yeah nah. The junction oval would have had incidental passing trade. Morrabbin and The Tip won't. The Tip to a lesser extent than Morrabbin.

 

[sauce_head]

There's a good reason for that....We were in NZ before you, until the AFL moved in on us....Heatherley, Tatupu & N'Gata are all on rookie/scholarships.

We also did clinics & invested time & money promoting the game over there, before the AFL had the bright idea of sending you guys there.

Tasmania says hi.

 

[Gold Member]

The deal is worth $ to us because AFL pay us to do it. But if the AFL isn't making money on it, they will find a cheaper way to do it. If Hawks will do it without a 7-figure subsidy to convince them to do so, the AFL has to give that consideration. I'm amazed if what Procrastinator35 implies is true - that Hawks were doing the hard yards on it without any AFL subsidy, and AFL told them to back off. That decision would have cost the AFL a fortune. Albeit would have probably been in line with "fairness" of leaving NZ to us and half of Tassie to Hawthorn.

http://www.foxsportspulse.com/assoc...ID=35687&&news_task=DETAIL&articleID=10572419
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_national_Australian_rules_football_team