New facilities at Springfield - update: Federal funding under review

[western royboy]

I don't know how I'd feel seeing money for Springfield when there's a whole bunch of other fairly essential services that look to be copping it

Ending counselling for farmers for example, if we're talking changes to regional spending ...

There is simply no way under the current economic climate that this project will receive federal funding particularly under the RDAF umbrella. It would be political suicide to even consider it.

 

[Hollow Knight]

That's nice wantok, but I was making a case against using a particular piece of land, not making the case for Springfield.

 

[Dom PC]

That's nice wantok, but I was making a case against using a particular piece of land, not making the case for Springfield.

I think the point of that post was to suggest that there are environmental impacts where ever we end up. Which is a fair point to make when you had that argument as part of your case against the area I suggested.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I think the point of that post was to suggest that there are environmental impacts where ever we end up.

Pretty poor point then. Not all environmental impacts are the same and considering one piece of land is nature reserve and one is zoned development land owned by a land corporation, we are comparing applies and oranges. Even if we concede the environmental issue (which I don't) there are still a whole range of physical and approval practicalities that haven't been addressed, let alone making an economic case as well.

But of course this is the Brisbane board where just as you can't support Leppitsch without hating Voss, you can't talk practically about the non-viability of development sites without being a flag waving Springfield sycophant.

Black and white thinking 4eva!!!!! No shades of grey! No shades of grey!

 

[patfullfankezz]

Pretty poor point then. Not all environmental impacts are the same and considering one piece of land is nature reserve and one is zoned development land owned by a land corporation, we are comparing applies and oranges. Even if we concede the environmental issue (which I don't) there are still a whole range of physical and approval practicalities that haven't been addressed, let alone making an economic case as well.

But of course this is the Brisbane board where just as you can't support Leppitsch without hating Voss, you can't talk practically about the non-viability of development sites without being a flag waving Springfield sycophant.

Black and white thinking 4eva!!!!! No shades of grey! No shades of grey!

Why not, it's a decent book!

 

[Dom PC]

Pretty poor point then. Not all environmental impacts are the same and considering one piece of land is nature reserve and one is zoned development land owned by a land corporation, we are comparing applies and oranges. Even if we concede the environmental issue (which I don't) there are still a whole range of physical and approval practicalities that haven't been addressed, let alone making an economic case as well.

But of course this is the Brisbane board where just as you can't support Leppitsch without hating Voss, you can't talk practically about the non-viability of development sites without being a flag waving Springfield sycophant.

Black and white thinking 4eva!!!!! No shades of grey! No shades of grey!

Peace TBD. Jeez. I was trying to validate his post and you come out all passive aggressive on me...

I feel like you have taken a very negative approach to my idea when the only sound argument you have made against it is the nature reserve...

Can you give any other reasons why it wouldn't be worth further investigation? I am happy to be wrong, but I just don't think that one hurdle you keep mentioning justifies a 50 million dollar company crossing if off their list of potentials.

 

[Kernel Kurtz]

If Minnippi Parklands isn't already protected for environmental and historical reasons, it should be.

As a side note that was once my family's ancestral land when it was a dairy farm. I don't consent to the development.

Well there you go , I remember going there one day as a very young fella with a family friend , she used to go there to get milk , I'm talking early 70's.
Then I used to go there and ride motor bikes , oops I mean I used to know people that used to ride motorbikes there.
From what I know the council wants to develop the west side of Bulimba creek,not the whole lot but closer to behind where Bunnings is. other sugestions I have heard over the years has been a golf course. These areas are good old fashion bushland , not much left in Brisbane these days.
Good old Porters farm, showing my age.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I feel like you have taken a very negative approach to my idea when the only sound argument you have made against it is the nature reserve...

Actually I gave more than that. Easier for you to re-read than me to re-post.

 

[Tassie4ever]

I've been hanging around these pages far too long- TBD is now beginning to make eminent commonsense. He hits all the salient issues spot on.

One thing- to dismiss Springfield as some itty bitty little satellite suburb, and "planned" to boot, is a bit rich. There will be over 200000 people living there over the next 25 years.

Anyway, with what has happened over the past couple of days I'd say Springfield's chances have taken a distinct turn for the worse, no matter what.

It always struck me that probably the main reason for our predicament in the shape of the GC and all the riches thrown their way is the "architect" syndrome. That is, the architect wants to leave behind an edifice to their own brilliance, and bugger you the client. The Big D being the architect in this case of course.

 

[Hollow Knight]

From what I know the council wants to develop the west side of Bulimba creek,not the whole lot but closer to behind where Bunnings is.

Yeah the small pocket near Bunnings would be subject to much more lucrative commercial interest than a sporting facility should it be made available. No commercial viability for the Lions there whatsoever and certainly no peppercorn agreements.

No chance of a Pokie Palace there either with Carina Leagues Club just up the road.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I've been hanging around these pages far too long- TBD is now beginning to make eminent commonsense. He hits all the salient issues spot on.

Backhanded compliment accepted.

Anyway, with what has happened over the past couple of days I'd say Springfield's chances have taken a distinct turn for the worse, no matter what.

I don't necessarily think so.

I think Sharpless just got a bit of a spanking from Gill for exacerbating the conflict-of-interest perceptions by speaking of his "personal dream" of premiership footy being played at Springfield. If Sharpless is going to simultaneously wear both his Springfield Land Corporation polo shirt and his Brisbane Lions scarf, the AFL want him to be very mindful about what signals his words are sending.

Overall though, I still think the AFL are firmly pro-Springfield.

 

[Tassie4ever]

Backhanded compliment accepted.



I don't necessarily think so.

I think Sharpless just got a bit of a spanking from Gill for exacerbating the conflict-of-interest perceptions by speaking of his "personal dream" of premiership footy being played at Springfield. If Sharpless is going to simultaneously wear both his Springfield Land Corporation polo shirt and his Brisbane Lions scarf, the AFL want him to be very mindful about what signals his words are sending.

Overall though, I still think the AFL are firmly pro-Springfield.

Again, on reflection, you are probably correct. Always assuming that the Springfield numbers stack up.

Re the apparent lack of moola flowing from our seemingly buoyant facility at Springwood, I did warn some time ago that the Club had gotten into bed with some very unsavoury [some would say Mafia] people from Adelaide. Maybe this has something to do with it.

 

[POBT]

The only way I can see that Springfield has suffered a loss is if the AFL decides that Sharpless cannot continue to be Chair whilst the Springfield negotiations are continuing and if the main reason Springfield is leading the race is because it has had someone on the board (Johnson and now Sharpless) promoting it over equally meritorious proposals.

While I dislike the perceived conflict immensely, I am not convinced that Springfield is the first choice simply because of AJ/Bob's barracking.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I read the Springwood reference in the article as saying it is generating good revenue but is is just a further indictment that the Lions still can't get their overall financial affairs in order.

 

[Hollow Knight]

The only way I can see that Springfield has suffered a loss is if the AFL decides that Sharpless cannot continue to be Chair whilst the Springfield negotiations are continuing and if the main reason Springfield is leading the race is because it has had someone on the board (Johnson and now Sharpless) promoting it over equally meritorious proposals.

While I dislike the perceived conflict immensely, I am not convinced that Springfield is the first choice simply because of AJ/Bob's barracking.

Yeah, I have a similar gut feeling POBT but it does still beg the question why Sharpless had to be parachuted straight into the chairmanship.

Being pragmatic, Springfield seems to tick the most boxes considering our limited options, and I'd feel pretty damn okay about if we didn't have some genuinely bizarre (and seemingly unnecessary) politics happening as a sideshow.

People don't like feeling that they are being taken for a ride and in the vacuum of transparency the club insists on maintaining, a perception of griminess has naturally formed, and as they old adage goes... sunlight is the best disinfectant.

 

[POBT]

Yeah, I have a similar gut feeling POBT but it does still beg the question why Sharpless had to be parachuted straight into the chairmanship.

What option was there to get AJ to stand down? Matthews and Power were in the opposing faction. McGregor doesn't seem all that interested in a prominent role. Milner wouldn't have been accepted by the Fresh Start mob. And the AFL had made it clear that an EGM was not to happen.

I guess incredibly an wealthy businessman running a major corporation which appeared genuinely interested in the club was something the AFL got a bit too excited about.

If AJ pushed for Sharpless as Chair because he wanted a steady hand on the Lions-Springfield partnership, then we're probably never going to prove that. But I'm not sure that that would have been a factor in the AFL facilitating Bob's rise to the Chair role.

Being pragmatic, Springfield seems to tick the most boxes considering our limited options, and I'd feel pretty damn okay about if we didn't have some genuinely bizarre (and seemingly unnecessary) politics happening as a sideshow.

People don't like feeling that they are being taken for a ride and in the vacuum of transparency the club insists on maintaining, a perception of griminess has naturally formed, and as they old adage goes... sunlight is the best disinfectant.

You already know that I definitely agree with that. This makes me as uncomfortable as anyone.

 

[Hollow Knight]

What option was there to get AJ to stand down?

An EGM.

Sorry if you misinterpreted my previous post as an attack by the way. It was originally intended to express a similar view. I know well and truly where you stand.

 

[Skoob]

I read the Springwood reference in the article as saying it is generating good revenue but is is just a further indictment that the Lions still can't get their overall financial affairs in order.

I thought the club (Springwood) was doing well, but it would be a couple of years before turning a profit. It still has to pay for itself (which is normal) so I can't see an expectation that it would be contributing to any profitable revenue. At the moment it is an extra cost.
Once it is paid for, I expect things will look a bit rosier.

 

[POBT]

An EGM.

See ninja edit.

Sorry if you misinterpreted my previous post as an attack by the way.

I can never stay angry at you. (I didn't interpret it as an attack).

 

[western royboy]

If AJ pushed for Sharpless as Chair because he wanted a steady hand on the Lions-Springfield partnership, then we're probably never going to prove that. But I'm not sure that that would have been a factor in the AFL facilitating Bob's rise to the Chair role.

What other possible reason is there for Sharpless being on the Board at all? Because I can't see it.

 

[POBT]

What other possible reason is there for Sharpless being on the Board at all? Because I can't see it.

As per my post. Incredibly wealthy businessman in charge of a successful local company. He wants in. Can bring a wealth of experience and expertise in running successful and profitable orgainsations. On the face of it, what's not to like?

Now whether he and AJ had cooked up something more nefarious is debateable but ultimately, you can't prove it and, moreover, it is probably defamatory.

 

[patfullfankezz]

Even if the Board did decide to about-face and be "transparent", how much would anyone be willing to believe?

Once trust is broken...

 

[POBT]

There is only so far the board can go in terms of transparency. I mean, if they have entered into discussions with several parties, then they would have done so on the basis of commercial confidentiality. The unsuccessful parties may not even want to make public the fact that they were in discussions with the Lions.

Having said that, some transparency around the selection methodology and selection criteria would be a good start. They've given us bits and pieces (mostly Holmes, from what I recall) but nowhere have they come out and said "here are all the facts that we're willing/able to disclose".

 

[Hollow Knight]

Having said that, some transparency around the selection methodology and selection criteria would be a good start.

Bingo. An independent audit at some stage could be nice (albeit not exactly cheap). As part of the Terms of Reference I would require the auditor to confirm that :

- the selection criteria and methodology was sound
- the selection of proposed sites was "thorough and robust"
- the criteria was applied fairly to all proposed sites
- that the unsuccessful sites were indeed less suitable once the criteria was applied. The specific sites do not need to be specifically disclosed if there are indeed confidentiality restrictions.

That would be all the transparency I require.

 

[Sanchez365]

And this is a bit of an Australia/AFL problem. For whatever reason our kids generally don't seem to mature as quickly or accept the need to move to follow their dream. Soccer kids do it way tougher and seem to cope ok. U.S kids, athletes or not, grow up knowing that they'll move away from home at the end of high school. There was an article recently talking about the AFL thinking about increasing the draft age to 20 or something with the AFL themselves taking care of the 18-20 age group as part of a wider equalisation program. I feel this may be a good thing.

The main problem with the changing of the draft age is that if you changed it from 18 - 20, there would effectively be two drafts where the player depth would be extremely small (as the best 18 year old kids would already be taken). I could see if working of they implemented it something like this:

(Assuming by the 2017 draft only 20 hear olds could be drafted)

2014 draft - 18 year olds could only be selected in the first two rounds, 20+ year olds for the rest of the draft

2015 draft - 18 year olds could only be selected in the first round of the draft, 19 year olds in the second round, 20+ the year after that

2016 draft - 19 year olds only available in the first round of the draft, 20+ year olds all rounds after that

2017 draft - only players aged 20+ years old.

How ever it is done it would need to be staggered in some way SL that the draft is not crazyily diluted when we eventually get to 20+ year players only. Imagine if they did that this year when we had pick 1 (if that happened), and the best player we would be able to draft would effectively be off the rookie list from the 2012 draft cause all the "best" 18, year olds from that year had already been taken.