[merged into this thread]
It's what Garry Lyon is effectively suggesting here:
http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/two- ... 1d7tf.html
Two sides for total control
Garry Lyon
April 9, 2011
...But the facts are that there will always be an impasse, at some stage, about what is right for the AFL club and what is right for the VFL club. No matter how harmonious the relationship between the two clubs is, it cannot hope to compete with the likes of Geelong and Collingwood, whose hierarchy is long established and whose priorities are well known to every member of the organisation.
That's just a snippet of the whole piece he wrote earlier this week but I think he's spot on and it's a point that's been overlooked in recent discussion.
What were the costings of having our own team? That seems to be the prevailing argument against it, but can we afford
not to have one?
However, with Seaford now completed, and with our membership going over 40,000, the club must have significant cash reserves that can be invested into the development of the next generation of St Kilda players.
And the best place to groom them - as much as we like the alliance with Sandringham - is where we have control over them.
While I'm sure we get considerable input at Sandy into the players' development, I dare say that it should be total. Until we're at that point, we're going to have continual issues fast-tracking and developing our youth.