FRANKSTON DEAL NOT DONE YET
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/ ... 42,00.html
Sounds like Melbourne are holding off for a better deal somewhere else.
We wont commit to 30, because we don't know where we will be in 30 years.
Aren't Melbourne committed to using the multi purpose rectangular stadium for something?
mic
Sounds like Melbourne are holding off for a better deal somewhere else.
We wont commit to 30, because we don't know where we will be in 30 years.
Aren't Melbourne committed to using the multi purpose rectangular stadium for something?
mic
No one ever built a statue for a critic.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 641
- Joined: Fri 19 Sep 2008 2:19pm
- Been thanked: 8 times
I've backed you in past posts here Scorps, but it is ridiculous to suggest that one of the main reasons the Saints didn't go to Casey Fields was because a high profile player didn't want to train there.casey scorp wrote:It wouldn't be appropriate to say, but it happens to be true. You can choose to believe it, or just dismiss it because it's not public knowledge. I don't mind either way.Mr Magic wrote:I must have missed this somewhere along the way.
Would you mind enlightening me on who the 'very high profile player' from teh Saints was that affected the Saints decision on whether to take up at Casey or not?
My point was in the full quote you have referred to is that players should not be involved in strategic decisions of a club.
You've lost your credibility with me.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005 1:40am
- Location: Hampton/Gold Coast
- Been thanked: 7 times
It’s certainly surprising, and I thought it would be in hibernation now.plugger66 wrote: Cannot beleive we are still talking about Casey as we arent going there and they are now the opposition.
However:
• SENsaintsational reactivated it on 9 October and then it went to sleep for another week
• Mr Magic reactivated it yesterday.
bigmicka wrote:
Sounds like Melbourne are holding off for a better deal somewhere else.
We wont commit to 30, because we don't know where we will be in 30 years.
Aren't Melbourne committed to using the multi purpose rectangular stadium for something?
mic
MFC is committed to the Melbourne Rectangular Stadium as its permanent home. They want to do summer training at Casey Fields, as well as use it for NAB matches.
I didn’t suggest it as speculation – I just passed on what I’d been told by a well placed person.GrumpyOne wrote:I've backed you in past posts here Scorps, but it is ridiculous to suggest that one of the main reasons the Saints didn't go to Casey Fields was because a high profile player didn't want to train there.
You've lost your credibility with me.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12799
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 812 times
- Been thanked: 434 times
But the problem seems to be that the MFC wants the City of Casey to spend millions of dollars on facilities for them but seems to be 'dragging its feet' on committing long term (a 30 year term was proposed by MFC,not Casey).casey scorp wrote:bigmicka wrote:t;]
Sounds like Melbourne are holding off for a better deal somewhere else.
We wont commit to 30, because we don't know where we will be in 30 years.
Aren't Melbourne committed to using the multi purpose rectangular stadium for something?
mic
MFC is committed to the Melbourne Rectangular Stadium as its permanent home. They want to do summer training at Casey Fields, as well as use it for NAB matches.
So where does that now leave Casey?
I might humbly suggest CaseyScorp that it is now 3 AFL teams that City of Casey has courted and given MFC's seeming reluctance to 'put pen to paper' that the problem is probably not with the AFL Clubs but with the site of the venue?
You can sing and dance all you like but Club after Club after Club doesn't seem to want to participate. Surely everybody else cannot be wrong and only you and your fellow Casey Spruikers be right?
What is the fair dinkum problem that seems to create an insurmountable stumbling block to these AFL Clubs?
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005 1:40am
- Location: Hampton/Gold Coast
- Been thanked: 7 times
That is a fair question on the surface, and you'd wonder whether it's one common thing that is an impediment or whether it has been different reasons for each club.Mr Magic wrote:What is the fair dinkum problem that seems to create an insurmountable stumbling block to these AFL Clubs?
However, make no mistake, it was MFC courting Casey.
It will be interesting to see what happens with MFC, and whether it likewise never comes to an agreement with Casey.
It certainly seems, however, that MFC is keen to be at Casey Fields at least for a short term base for summer training. I went along to an information session the other night at Casey Fields for players transitioning from U18 to VFL and Chris Connolly was singing the praises of an MFC alignment and Casey Fields location for MFC to these players. So there must be something happening.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12799
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 812 times
- Been thanked: 434 times
CaseyScorp,casey scorp wrote:That is a fair question on the surface, and you'd wonder whether it's one common thing that is an impediment or whether it has been different reasons for each club.Mr Magic wrote:What is the fair dinkum problem that seems to create an insurmountable stumbling block to these AFL Clubs?
However, make no mistake, it was MFC courting Casey.
It will be interesting to see what happens with MFC, and whether it likewise never comes to an agreement with Casey.
It certainly seems, however, that MFC is keen to be at Casey Fields at least for a short term base for summer training. I went along to an information session the other night at Casey Fields for players transitioning from U18 to VFL and Chris Connolly was singing the praises of an MFC alignment and Casey Fields location for MFC to these players. So there must be something happening.
Do you honestly believe that if they (MFC) were offered any sort of alternative at a site closer to the CBD they'd even bother to talk to Casey?
The truth is that NM preferred to redevelop Arden Street than relocate to Casey.
The truth is that the Saints preferred to go to Frankston and when that fell over to Belvedere Park in Seaford tahn to relocate to Casey.
The truth is that MFC are only talking to Casey because they are nomads and have nowhere else to go. Until their new Rectangualr ground is finished and their tennancy their is organized they will look at almost any opportunity, albeit a short term one preferably.
Like it or not, it would appear that AFL CLubs are likening moving to Casey akin to moving to Werribee/Geelong.
And no matter how many times you and the rest of the City of Casey spruikers exhort us all to believe the wonders of Casey, teh AFL CLubs clearly don't believe you.
You're like Andrew Bolt trying to convince the readers of the Hun that thaere is no man-made global warming occuring. No matter how many times yuo say it, how many different ways you try to present it, no-one believes what you are trying to tell them.
after 28 pages of posts (mostly from Casey Scorp), finally we have a post that sums it all up.....Mr Magic wrote:CaseyScorp,casey scorp wrote:That is a fair question on the surface, and you'd wonder whether it's one common thing that is an impediment or whether it has been different reasons for each club.Mr Magic wrote:What is the fair dinkum problem that seems to create an insurmountable stumbling block to these AFL Clubs?
However, make no mistake, it was MFC courting Casey.
It will be interesting to see what happens with MFC, and whether it likewise never comes to an agreement with Casey.
It certainly seems, however, that MFC is keen to be at Casey Fields at least for a short term base for summer training. I went along to an information session the other night at Casey Fields for players transitioning from U18 to VFL and Chris Connolly was singing the praises of an MFC alignment and Casey Fields location for MFC to these players. So there must be something happening.
Do you honestly believe that if they (MFC) were offered any sort of alternative at a site closer to the CBD they'd even bother to talk to Casey?
The truth is that NM preferred to redevelop Arden Street than relocate to Casey.
The truth is that the Saints preferred to go to Frankston and when that fell over to Belvedere Park in Seaford tahn to relocate to Casey.
The truth is that MFC are only talking to Casey because they are nomads and have nowhere else to go. Until their new Rectangualr ground is finished and their tennancy their is organized they will look at almost any opportunity, albeit a short term one preferably.
Like it or not, it would appear that AFL CLubs are likening moving to Casey akin to moving to Werribee/Geelong.
And no matter how many times you and the rest of the City of Casey spruikers exhort us all to believe the wonders of Casey, teh AFL CLubs clearly don't believe you.
You're like Andrew Bolt trying to convince the readers of the Hun that thaere is no man-made global warming occuring. No matter how many times yuo say it, how many different ways you try to present it, no-one believes what you are trying to tell them.
No one wants to go to Casey on any sort of permenant level....
Its time to close the thread and let Casey Scorp post on the Dees site forever more....
Casey Fields "The Home of Wind Victoria" which is the only thing that will work out there...
Our best is yet
to come......
to come......