Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I highly doubt Melbourne are seeking a mini stadium. I think they’ll just want a training ground. AFLW could be played at Punt Road.
Not even sure if it ever had the legs to get off the ground.I was reading the other day this one is dead in the water. Is this the case?
Not even sure if it ever had the legs to get off the ground.
It would be strange for a team named Melbourne to move out to the suburbs, but if they really want a shiny new facility/training ground then they might have to.True, it did have “thought bubble” written all over it.
There really isn’t any options there for Melbourne to build, unless they’re somehow granted the north-eastern corner of Gosch’s Paddock, which I doubt. Otherwise they’d have to be across the road in Punt Road somewhere and their players could play Frogger to get to the ground. Seeing how they are with moving targets, that’s a recipe for a disaster.
Might be out to the suburbs for them I think. Fawkner Park is huge and a closeby option, not sure they’d be permitted to build anywhere there though.
It would be strange for a team named Melbourne to move out to the suburbs, but if they really want a shiny new facility/training ground then they might have to.
True, it did have “thought bubble” written all over it.
There really isn’t any options there for Melbourne to build, unless they’re somehow granted the north-eastern corner of Gosch’s Paddock, which I doubt. Otherwise they’d have to be across the road in Punt Road somewhere and their players could play Frogger to get to the ground. Seeing how they are with moving targets, that’s a recipe for a disaster.
Might be out to the suburbs for them I think. Fawkner Park is huge and a closeby option, not sure they’d be permitted to build anywhere there though.
Foxfooty.com.au can reveal president Glen Bartlett is heading up a working group that has discussed moving the administration and football staff to a small triangular pocket of land adjacent to Punt Road and the Yarra River and next to Goschs Paddock.
View attachment 739419
I'm assuming they mean the Blue pocket, and not the red one?
The way the article reads, I'd assume the blue section, but it was so small I assumed I must've misread. Unless they're planning on going four stories tall, I'm not sure the blue section is much good to them.Your red section is prime public park, they’d face plenty of hurdles wanting to privatise and build on that I think.
The way the article reads, I'd assume the blue section, but it was so small I assumed I must've misread. Unless they're planning on going four stories tall, I'm not sure the blue section is much good to them.
What's the need to be based in Yarra Park anyway? The connection with the club's beginnings is preserved by playing every Melbourne home game at the G, isn't that enough? You'd figure clubs are better off training near where their fans live, to better engage with them. If Casey is too far away for the players, could they buy out one of the ovals around Toorak/Malvern/Glen Iris?
Understandable, but I never said "for free".Parkland is finite in Melbourne, and rate payers are loathe to hand it over for free to for profit sports groups. This is because these groups want exclusive control of the ground, it and kicks out all the local footy and cricket clubs.
Understandable, but I never said "for free".
Read up on the backlash about a lacrosse team being moved from Dorothy Laver Reserve so it can be a closed synthetic turf grounds exclusive for soccer. Or the fight in Footscray over Melbourne Victory wanting to take over one of their parks for a training facility.
Parkland is finite in Melbourne, and rate payers are loathe to hand it over for free to for profit sports groups. This is because these groups want exclusive control of the ground, it and kicks out all the local footy and cricket clubs.
When Richmond CC agreed to hand over control of punt road to the footy club, it was conditional on us finding them a new ground. Because most grounds are already at capacity, that took years, and in the end saw them move 25km out to Glen Waverley
Of the three options touted, only Fawkner Park faces these same public use issues. Goschs Paddock screws the storm and pies (so who cares), and Melbourne Uni isn't public access parkland
Collingwood does not train at goschs paddock....we train at Olympic Park which is adjacent to the glasshouse / Holden centre
The difference between this proposal (and also the soccer ones) is the reduction of public land. Collingwood's ultimate move to Olympic Park has affectively resulted in two grounds traditionally fenced off now having public access
Debatable figures. Land zoned for residential dwellings likely costs more than parkland. I would imagine Melbourne could carefully research the usage of all grounds in the area and see if a couple of them are under-utilised, then work out whether the tenants of one could be reasonably parcelled off to the others. Maybe that situation exists, maybe it doesn't. That's why my post is asking a question rather than making a sweeping declaration.500sqm blocks sell in Glen iris for $1.5m. assume it costs $2000sqm (a big discount on what developers will offer). Buying something like AH Smith Reserve in Gardiner will cost $50m. And that's before compensation to existing clubs, and.building the actual facility. Assume that's $50m, you are at $100m with no relocation compo, no community benefit compo, and the usual escalation in costs these programs have.
Take the Hawthorn approach. Save money over several years. Build a good relationship with the government they sell games to, and hopefully find a good sponsorship deal out of it. Build influence with government to get them to chip in, like Hawthorn's $50m subsidy for Dingley. I never said this plan was easy or simple for Melbourne, otherwise it would have been done already.Where do you see the demons getting this coin from.given their current finances?
Didn't mean you "train" there all the time. You do use it (as do the Dees and storm), so depriving you guys of access to an existing resource is a negative the demons would need to counter.
And your points obvious about your arrangement, and completely irrelevant to the demons because they are not talking about giving up Casey. As such, it's why I've said the public access issue is a loser for them, because they are wanting something for free effectively
Debatable figures. Land zoned for residential dwellings likely costs more than parkland. I would imagine Melbourne could carefully research the usage of all grounds in the area and see if a couple of them are under-utilised, then work out whether the tenants of one could be reasonably parcelled off to the others. Maybe that situation exists, maybe it doesn't. That's why my post is asking a question rather than making a sweeping declaration.
Take the Hawthorn approach. Save money over several years. Build a good relationship with the government they sell games to, and hopefully find a good sponsorship deal out of it. Build influence with government to get them to chip in, like Hawthorn's $50m subsidy for Dingley. I never said this plan was easy or simple for Melbourne, otherwise it would have been done already.
Or take the St Kilda approach and forego the exclusive use of the ground.
No, we don't train at goschs at all. We have management access of Olympic Park
I said government, not just council. Hawthorn had a $20m commitment from Federal Labor and no doubt are in the ear of State Labor too asking for assistance.Building relationships with council had nothing to do with it.
Depends on its frequency of use and the availability of alternative facilities, surely.As for the figures, council need to get the sale and the rezoning through the inevitable appeals process from community groups (as is already happening with the two examples i cited). You said sell it commercially, that means at a rate enough to buy off public support, and you don't do that buy selling publicly accessible parkland in prime residential areas at firesale rates
I said government, not just council. Hawthorn had a $20m commitment from Federal Labor and no doubt are in the ear of State Labor too asking for assistance.
Depends on its frequency of use and the availability of alternative facilities, surely.
This may very well be the case. But do you have a citation for it? Can you confirm that it applies to the areas where Melbourne's main supporter base is located? And as I said previously, it's not impossible to take the St Kilda approach and share the facilities, but I suppose that depends on what Melbourne are inclined to do.As for frequency of use, as I said at the start, grounds in Melbourne at at capacity in most suburbs. Growth in soccer and women's footy has put a massive strain on existing resources, with clubs needing more grounds - not less