Preferred training base apart from Moorabbin?

casey scorp · Sun 14 Oct 2007 6:53pm

The Peanut wrote:...... from what I have heard the Casey option may have some issues with one of the local councillors who has stated in the local paper that he isn't keen - same problem we have had with our Moorabbin negotiations.

The Kingston Council voting around key St Kilda issues was often 4-3. Not a strong level of support. As it is only one of the local Councillors at Casey stating he is not keen, that leaves quite a few others who are keen. The City of Casey, by a large majority, has made it clear that it would welcome the Saints.

The Peanut · Post: # 476099Post **The Peanut** » Sun 14 Oct 2007 7:48pm

casey scorp wrote: The Kingston Council voting around key St Kilda issues was often 4-3. Not a strong level of support. As it is only one of the local Councillors at Casey stating he is not keen, that leaves quite a few others who are keen. The City of Casey, by a large majority, has made it clear that it would welcome the Saints.

True but it is only one that has huge issues - On the voting night two of the others just quietly voted the other way and it was all set up before the discussion - they knew their vote wasn't needed and they probably just didn't want to be seen to be encouraging 'gaming' - but I do remember your comments after the Council meeting later that night - funny how two people can be in the same room at the same time and have completely different views of what happened - isn't it.

But look - I am not lobbying for Moorabbin, whenever I have my chance to talk to someone from the club that is involved I push hard for Junction Oval - I just can't see the club moving to Junction Oval or Casey Fields though - for completely different reasons.

Some say it makes sense to go to Casey - well I must be completely senseless because I don't understand why we would even comptemplate it at all. I nearly fell over when Frankston was mentioned - neverloan Casey. There are great facilities there and it is part of our heartland but there are great facilities all over the place.

The Cranbourne region is a growing area but with the Saints heavily involved with the Scorps and St Kilda being the only club south of the city - I would imagine we will pick up a healthy number of members from the area anyway.

But in the end if its the only logical place left when all the very complex issues are sorted well so be it.

casey scorp · Sun 14 Oct 2007 8:06pm

The Peanut wrote: True but it is only one that has huge issues - On the voting night two of the others just quietly voted the other way and it was all set up before the discussion - they knew their vote wasn't needed and they probably just didn't want to be seen to be encouraging 'gaming' - but I do remember your comments after the Council meeting later that night - funny how two people can be in the same room at the same time and have completely different views of what happened - isn't it.

I agree that one of the others may have quietly voted the other way, but there were definitely two who were adamantly opposed (this was to the sale of the land) - Cr Greg Alabaster & Cr Rosemary West.

Anyway, the point is there is only one Councillor at Casey who has been reported to be against it. And in fact his reported opposition revolved around it negatively impacting on local clubs (although I think it is a bit more deeply seated than that). However, in the same paper reps of other clubs were saying how good it would be for St Kilda to move to Casey.

GRAMophone · Sun 14 Oct 2007 10:46pm

I have to agree with aussierules that we should 'hang on to any shred of heritage that we can' by staying at Moorabbin if possible. Failing that I would selfishly support a centralish location. Being one of those strange supporters who now reside in the western suburbs, Frankston/Cranbourne etc sound like the end of the earth as far as ever being able to get there.

casey scorp · Thu 18 Oct 2007 11:07pm

The Peanut wrote:
casey scorp wrote: The Kingston Council voting around key St Kilda issues was often 4-3. Not a strong level of support. As it is only one of the local Councillors at Casey stating he is not keen, that leaves quite a few others who are keen. The City of Casey, by a large majority, has made it clear that it would welcome the Saints.
True but it is only one that has huge issues - On the voting night two of the others just quietly voted the other way and it was all set up before the discussion - they knew their vote wasn't needed and they probably just didn't want to be seen to be encouraging 'gaming' - but I do remember your comments after the Council meeting later that night - funny how two people can be in the same room at the same time and have completely different views of what happened - isn't it.

It is funny, but I guess that's just how it is. Everyone's perceptions are based on their own experiences. Some people hear a conversation/debate quite differently depending on their own experiences or values.

I went to the meeting thinking there was a 5% chance that the Saints would move to Casey Fields - I left the meeting convinced that those chances had skyrocketed. Although I saw a vote to sell the land to St Kilda FC (and it was reported positively "Saints set to stay etc"), I heard a debate which was filled with nervousness about the relocation of the gaming machines. As it transpired, the seeds of doubt sown in that debate flowered some months later into formal non-committal by the Council to the transfer of all the gaming machines to the South Road site.

I wasn't surprised because it reflected what I thought I heard on the night. I've attended a few Council meetings, and listened to debate about a range of matters. Although no-one could claim to be an expert on Council matters, I've developed an interested listening ear.