The new emperor's new clothes!

[st.byron]

Never said that it was better than Moorabbin. I'm not fussed TBH.

Surely we should be balancing up what the situation would be at Moorabbin compared to what the situation would be at Belvedere Park. If Seaford is not better than Moorabbin, then we shouldn’t be going there.

Aoart from not being Linton St, please list the negatives...

Here's a few, and I'm sure there'd be more....

Costs of installing services – will have to be brought in at Belvedere Park, whereas they are already provided at large capacity to Linton Street

What services are you referring to? In many cases retro-fitting or modifying existing sub-standard facilities costs more than installing new ones.

Water – a touchy issue amongst sporting clubs. Linton Street is already taken into account in the Kingston formula for watering sports grounds. Diverting extra water to Belvedere Park will require taking it from another reserve, resulting in unhappy local sports clubs.

Don't know enough about it to form an opinion. How do you know water will be diverted from other reserves?

Planning permit necessary at Belvedere Park – putting the project in the hands of objectors and VCAT (the club’s promise of 2010 seems great at the moment, but how realistic is it?)

As per other threads on Seaford the planning permit has been lodged and with no objections could be granted on 23rd Dec.

Oval Construction – will come at a substantial cost, whereas a 1st class oval already exists at Linton Street.
Cost is accounted for in the project budget.

Unhappy local residents – extra traffic, new buildings on open space, intrusion of a non-local facility into local open space
What evidence do you have that residents might be unhappy? I could just as easily surmise that local residents will be happy to have a new facilitiy.

Sports clubs expelled from existing playing field – existing Belvedere Park tenant clubs will be forced to go elsewhere, whereas at Moorabbin we already are the only tenant.
Which clubs? Source? Evidence?

Location, location, location – Belvedere Park is crap with a capital C.
This is a subjective opinion with a capital S. Easy access, 45 minutes from the city on the freeway, positions us as "the club" for the peninsula and bayside.

VFL aligned club – left behind up Beach Road near Moorabbin.
Excellent that we're now aligned with Sandy. Makes complete sense. For all of the complaints from Barks and yourself about this location I'm yet to see either of you come up with a viable alternative.

Access – up residential streets, with poor connectivity to the main road network.
Utter crap. Very close to freeway. Easier than fighting the traffic through East Bentleigh and McKinnon.

Lease – only over the development area at Belvedere Park (even excluding the oval), whereas at Moorabbin Reserve we control almost the entire reserve (building area, oval, carparking, parkland).
What difference does this make?

Professionalism – we’ve got a record of rushing into announcing projects and not delivering (ie Moorabbin redevelopment, Frankston Park). Our reputation with the AFL, the State Government and other professional organisations must be teetering on a precipice. Don’t forget, they are mostly funding the project – not us.
For the first time in our history we're on the verge of having quality, professional facilities on a par with other leading clubs and you reckon our reputation's taking a hit.

Start Date – when we can start at Belvedere Park is unknown, and is hostage to objections, Council decision and VCAT in the planning process, whereas (subject to a satisfactory negotiation with Kingston Council) we could get underway very soon at Moorabbin.

Casey Scorp, your list of negatives appears to have been put together with the intention of making up as many negatives as possible, whether they're based on facts or not. Many of those things you've listed are simply you surmising that something might be a negative without providing any evidence at all. The only thing there that could be a drawback is water if it has any potential to cost the club heaps in ongoing maintenance.

[casey scorp]

Casey Scorp, your list of negatives appears to have been put together with the intention of making up as many negatives as possible

WayneJudson42 asked for a list of the negatives.

[WayneJudson42]

Casey Scorp, your list of negatives appears to have been put together with the intention of making up as many negatives as possible

WayneJudson42 asked for a list of the negatives.

Is that the best you can do?

Once again, I'll make the point... the negs are subjective based on supporters whims and views.

The bottom line for the club should e to deliver 1st class facilities for players. Period.

I honetly doubt that with the money the players make, travel would be an issue.

The facility and it's primary purpose of existance must be to deliver the best possible training facilities and support for the players.

As yet, I have seen no objections from residents or any word of discontent about the proposal. Faankly, in my experience of these matters... it doesn't matter where you go, there'll always be a vocal minority who carry on.

Now, in direct response to some of your points (and I won't duplicate what's already been replied to)...

The matter of going to VCAT etc and possibility that completion date will be delayed. This is simply not a valid reason to knock the proposal on the head. Delays can and will happen anywhere. Ludicrous line of argument IMO.

Unhappy local residents? Where's the proof?

Oval constrution? How hard will that be? seriously?

Why is Seaford a crap location? Once again, whom is the facility there to serve? The players or supporters views of what makes a great location?

What's Sandy got to do with us? Silly argument again. Yes they are aligned. So what? It's not our reserves team.

Access for whom? The players or supporters who might just decide to watch training once every 3 years?

Lease? A lease is a lease is a lease. You have access, but no ownership.
Whilst I'm at it... I am yet to hear any objectors volunteer to put up the money to buy some freehold land.

Reputation? That's funny. So now we should abandon the idea because we'll be perceived as unprofessional? Are you serious? My 3 year old could put up better reasons than you have.


Like I stated, I'm not a shareholder, so I don't see how people can get off taking a swipe at the club.

Perhaps you and BArks can get off your butts and put a petition together?

Otherwise, let it go.

[st.byron]

Casey Scorp, your list of negatives appears to have been put together with the intention of making up as many negatives as possible

WayneJudson42 asked for a list of the negatives.

yes and you haven't come up with any that have any substance.

[saint08]

What I think is worth mentioning, is the lack of alternatives open to the club.


Unfortunately, when Butterss and his group looked exhaustively for years at alternatives to Moorabbin, the drop dead barrier , was that despite some pretty strong AFL and State Govt "behind the scenes" pushing, the councils in the better inner city locations, just said a blancket "no".

They cant be told by State govt that they must give land to the club.

So the suburbs of port melbourne ,the albert park precinct, stkilda, south melbourne and others were all explored , but no go.

Councils in inner areas want more public parkland access for residemnts, and don't want it tied up with afooty club facility that locks in the use of the land for 30 or more years under a lease. Nor did they want to put millions of dollars in.

Would Moorabbin have been better? SURE IT IS A BETTER LOCATION...But that is irrelevant unless the council was prepared to fully back it and fund it.. the local paper reports - and more importantly the council minutes, show that despite 5 years of trying, the council moved over time more and more against the idea. At the end it was clear to both old and new boards, and Archie, that it was never ever going to happen.

So then it was a case of the next best. The only 2 who wanted to give land and put in millions of dollars were casey and frankston.

We can argue the respective merits of those 2 for a long time...but we were never going to get a deal that was good for the club at moorabbin...or guess what...IF WE WERE , THEN THE BOARDS AND THE EXEC WOULD AFTER 5 YEARS OF TRYING ,HAVE DONE SO.

[WayneJudson42]

What I think is worth mentioning, is the lack of alternatives open to the club.


Unfortunately, when Butterss and his group looked exhaustively for years at alternatives to Moorabbin, the drop dead barrier , was that despite some pretty strong AFL and State Govt "behind the scenes" pushing, the councils in the better inner city locations, just said a blancket "no".

They cant be told by State govt that they must give land to the club.

So the suburbs of port melbourne ,the albert park precinct, stkilda, south melbourne and others were all explored , but no go.

Councils in inner areas want more public parkland access for residemnts, and don't want it tied up with afooty club facility that locks in the use of the land for 30 or more years under a lease. Nor did they want to put millions of dollars in.

Would Moorabbin have been better? SURE IT IS A BETTER LOCATION...But that is irrelevant unless the council was prepared to fully back it and fund it.. the local paper reports - and more importantly the council minutes, show that despite 5 years of trying, the council moved over time more and more against the idea. At the end it was clear to both old and new boards, and Archie, that it was never ever going to happen.

So then it was a case of the next best. The only 2 who wanted to give land and put in millions of dollars were casey and frankston.

We can argue the respective merits of those 2 for a long time...but we were never going to get a deal that was good for the club at moorabbin...or guess what...IF WE WERE , THEN THE BOARDS AND THE EXEC WOULD AFTER 5 YEARS OF TRYING ,HAVE DONE SO.

Who are you, and why do you talk sense??

[saint08]

An avid watcher of the site , but a slow typer so i dont contribute that often... and my apologies for talking sense...most inappropriate and for that i apologise....

[WayneJudson42]

An avid watcher of the site , but a slow typer so i dont contribute that often... and my apologies for talking sense...most inappropriate and for that i apologise....

Strike 1!

[st.byron]

What I think is worth mentioning, is the lack of alternatives open to the club.


Unfortunately, when Butterss and his group looked exhaustively for years at alternatives to Moorabbin, the drop dead barrier , was that despite some pretty strong AFL and State Govt "behind the scenes" pushing, the councils in the better inner city locations, just said a blancket "no".

They cant be told by State govt that they must give land to the club.

So the suburbs of port melbourne ,the albert park precinct, stkilda, south melbourne and others were all explored , but no go.

Councils in inner areas want more public parkland access for residemnts, and don't want it tied up with afooty club facility that locks in the use of the land for 30 or more years under a lease. Nor did they want to put millions of dollars in.

Would Moorabbin have been better? SURE IT IS A BETTER LOCATION...But that is irrelevant unless the council was prepared to fully back it and fund it.. the local paper reports - and more importantly the council minutes, show that despite 5 years of trying, the council moved over time more and more against the idea. At the end it was clear to both old and new boards, and Archie, that it was never ever going to happen.

So then it was a case of the next best. The only 2 who wanted to give land and put in millions of dollars were casey and frankston.

We can argue the respective merits of those 2 for a long time...but we were never going to get a deal that was good for the club at moorabbin...or guess what...IF WE WERE , THEN THE BOARDS AND THE EXEC WOULD AFTER 5 YEARS OF TRYING ,HAVE DONE SO.

Good post. I've asked those bagging Seaford several times to come up with a GENUINE alternative but haven't seen one posted as yet.
Barks keeps on about Elsternwick Park and in this thread he's of on a tangent about the Junction Oval, but nowhere has anybody come up with any evidence that these sites are genuine options. They're just nice ideas with no basis in practical application.
If the board hadn't opted for Seaford, we still might be searching for a site, no closer to having a quality training facility to enable us to compete with other clubs on a level playing field.

[Bernard Shakey]

We had 1st class facilities in 1965 at Moorabbin.

We still have the lease for longer than i will be alive, why the canal don't we use it?

[Saints Premiers 2008]

this thread really hasnt taken off b4e...

[saint08]

We had 1st class facilities in 1965 at Moorabbin.

We still have the lease for longer than i will be alive, why the canal don't we use it?

Because the council wont allow the redevelopment of the ground....and certainly not put in money.

[Mr Magic]

We had 1st class facilities in 1965 at Moorabbin.

We still have the lease for longer than i will be alive, why the canal don't we use it?

And first class facilities for the times at Junction Oval in 1900 - why on earth did we leave there in 1965 to go to outer suburbia?

[WayneJudson42]

We had 1st class facilities in 1965 at Moorabbin.

We still have the lease for longer than i will be alive, why the canal don't we use it?

And first class facilities for the times at Junction Oval in 1900 - why on earth did we leave there in 1965 to go to outer suburbia?