Belvedere Park.. Any progress? !!

[casey scorp]

So when does the Moorabbin lease end officially ?

Tad worried now...

35 years or something like that

It is now closer to, but still over, 30 years (provided we are still based there). If we move our base, we lose the right to it.

That is not fact at all. Matter of fact the Saints think they will keep the pokies there for sure. The ground goes but we have no need for that.

We wont lose our right to it because we are maintaining a Social Club / merchandise store at the location

I think the Social Club have a "Water Tight" lease at Moorabbin until 31 October 2040 !!

There is a lease until a bit over 30 years. Eastern might be right on the money when he says until 31 October 2040.

The right to the lease goes when we no longer maintain an admin/training base there.

Posturing to the contrary by the club is huff and puff.

Even if we still had the right to the lease (which we won’t if we leave), there would have to be doubt that our EGMs will be sufficiently profitable that we will be able to secure them in the post-2012 gaming environment when all the rules change.

At the moment we are entitled to continue to occupy the site because the club is still based there.

If the Saints leave Linton Street, then inevitably, the club (if it’s sensible) and the Council will come to an agreement about a transition whereby the Council allows the club to continue occupation until 2012 when the club won’t want the gaming premises any more anyway because the EGMs won’t be available to it.

Given that Belvedere Park isn’t going anywhere fast, maybe nothing will have happened by 2012 anyway. As long as we haven’t moved the admin/training base we are not in breach of the lease, and we can continue to occupy the whole Moorabbin Reserve just as we want to.

[Mr Magic]

CaseyScorp,
Have you seen the actual lease we have at Moorabbin?

[The Craw]

but the training base is moving and the sooner people get used to it the better

Are you 100% sure about this?

New CEO and Seaford seems to have stalled around the same time he was put into the position.....wiser heads.....wiser heads.

[St Fidelius]

Interesting to note that Frankston is now wanting an AFL Club to affiliate with them, because as it stands they are gone come 2011...

They have made a submission to Essendon as their affiliation with Bendigo will expire at the end of this year...

Frankston is asking for more money from the AFL and the local Council in order to remain after next year.

Pity they have knocked us back on three occasions and Carlton on at least one occasion...

Maybe there is something else developing in the background

[Bernard Shakey]

I know this has nothing to do with Seaford, but my Neighbourhood Watch Newsletter says Narre Warren is the worst place in the state for burglaries.
Thank goodness we're not going to Casey Fields.

[St Fidelius]

What I mean by that is that Frankston claim that their attendance is down after the fire that burnt down their grandstand and are losing money...

They are after funding from the council and the worry is that the AFL donation of around $100,000 to all VFL Clubs may not continue in 2011.


I just feel the Seaford deal has stalled because there might be something into this, I might be wrong, but just why has this Seaford site has not progressed??

[casey scorp]

CaseyScorp,
Have you seen the actual lease we have at Moorabbin?

No I haven't, but I know there is one (and having followed this very closely over a few years I have picked up enough to know some of the provisions).

Have you seen the lease we have at Belvedere Park?

[casey scorp]

I know this has nothing to do with Seaford, but my Neighbourhood Watch Newsletter says Narre Warren is the worst place in the state for burglaries.
Thank goodness we're not going to Casey Fields.

While your comment may have nothing to do with Seaford, it also has nothing to do with reality.

Police data for 2007/08 shows that, for residential burglaries, the following rates per 100,000 people were relevant:

Frankston - 566.8
Kingston - 409.0
Casey - 387.2

If this is your defining criterium, Casey Fields was the best location of the three alternatives that once existed. Linton Street is the next best........and then far way the worst of the three is Seaford.

I hope that St KFC's methodology and research in evaluating alternatives was a bit more thorough than your's, but I'm not too sure of that given the debacles that have accompanied this whole process since June 2006.

Thanks for the free kick in the goalsquare.

[Mr Magic]

CaseyScorp,
Have you seen the actual lease we have at Moorabbin?

No I haven't, but I know there is one (and having followed this very closely over a few years I have picked up enough to know some of the provisions).

Have you seen the lease we have at Belvedere Park?

No, but then again I'm not making any comments on what's in/out of the lease, unlike you are.

I was just enquiring whether you'd asctually seen the lease so that you know what is actually in it or not?

Seemes like a reasonable question - why so defensive?

You make a categorical statement that we will be breaking our lease if we move our training base to Seaford.

How do you know it for a fact?

Or is it just your opinion and not fact?

[casey scorp]

You make a categorical statement that we will be breaking our lease if we move our training base to Seaford.

How do you know it for a fact?

Or is it just your opinion and not fact?

Show me where I made a categorical (sic) statement that we would be breaking our lease if we moved our training base to Seaford.

What I said was that, if we moved to Seaford, under the terms of the lease we would not be entitled to continue to occupy the Moorabbin Reserve.

Provided you are informed, then you and I both know the situation and know that there is a court dispute just around the corner if the Saints move to Seaford and maintain their stated intention to occupy the reserve.

While I don't have a copy of the lease, I keep my ears and eyes open.

Now it's only my opinion that you know the situation - maybe you don't.

You can say maybe I don't too. That's true. But others can judge whether what I bring to the table has any veracity.

[casey scorp]

But maybe during the week something has started, so I'll go down on Saturday and have a Captain Cook. And I'll provide an updated report.

Just dropped over to BP. No action on site, although there is a lovely new sign declaring that this is a "Victorian Government Project". Cost is $10.43 million (the "+ any extra" has disappeared it seems). There is a bevy of consultants listed, who are no doubt feeling a bit nervous that this sign has gone up with their names on it.

And the completion date is "mid 2010".

Interesting to note that Frankston is now wanting an AFL Club to affiliate with them, because as it stands they are gone come 2011...

They have made a submission to Essendon as their affiliation with Bendigo will expire at the end of this year...

Frankston is asking for more money from the AFL and the local Council in order to remain after next year.

Pity they have knocked us back on three occasions and Carlton on at least one occasion...

Maybe there is something else developing in the background

What I mean by that is that Frankston claim that their attendance is down after the fire that burnt down their grandstand and are losing money...

They are after funding from the council and the worry is that the AFL donation of around $100,000 to all VFL Clubs may not continue in 2011.


I just feel the Seaford deal has stalled because there might be something into this, I might be wrong, but just why has this Seaford site has not progressed??

In another speculation of Machivalean scheming, could it be that the Saints are just waiting to see whether Frankston FC falls over (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/ ... 42,00.html), and then just slideback into the void back at Frankston Park?

[Mr Magic]

You make a categorical statement that we will be breaking our lease if we move our training base to Seaford.

How do you know it for a fact?

Or is it just your opinion and not fact?

Show me where I made a categorical (sic) statement that we would be breaking our lease if we moved our training base to Seaford.

What I said was that, if we moved to Seaford, under the terms of the lease we would not be entitled to continue to occupy the Moorabbin Reserve.
Provided you are informed, then you and I both know the situation and know that there is a court dispute just around the corner if the Saints move to Seaford and maintain their stated intention to occupy the reserve.

While I don't have a copy of the lease, I keep my ears and eyes open.

Now it's only my opinion that you know the situation - maybe you don't.

You can say maybe I don't too. That's true. But others can judge whether what I bring to the table has any veracity.

Firstly, I have absolutely no idea what is in a lease that was signed between the City of Moorabbin and St Kilda Football Club in 1964/65. Given that I don't know, how on earth can I or anybody else who hasn't seen it comment on what will/won't transpire if we move our training base to Seaford.

It's not like it's a secret what our intentions are is it?
City of Kingston isn't being hoodwinked by what we're doing.
If there's going to be litigation over it, why haven't they attempted to get an injunction to stop us?

Secondly, On one hand you state (I've bolded it for you) that you never stated we would be breaking our lease.
The very next sentence in your post is (I've bolded it as well) 'if we moved to Seaford, under the terms of the lease we would not be entitled to occupy.......'

I'm not a lawyer but I wuld have thought that if we've done something to stop our entitlement to occupying the premises in our lease , THEN THAT IS BREAKING THE LEASE?

Thirdly, why would there be a lawsuit from the City of Kingston against us? If they are stopping us from occupying then surely the only possible lawsuit would be from us aginst them?


It's pretty apparent to anybody who can read that you've got a severe 'blind spot' on this matter and most posts you make on it reflect your inability to accept that the Board decided not to go to your beloved City of Kingston and that you will not 'forgive' them for that 'slight'.

You may well be correct that the Seaford facility won't be finished on time, but maybe your posts would be taken more seriously if they didn't have that 'tinge of glee' about them?

[casey scorp]

[It's not like it's a secret what our intentions are is it?
City of Kingston isn't being hoodwinked by what we're doing.
If there's going to be litigation over it, why haven't they attempted to get an injunction to stop us?

Secondly, On one hand you state (I've bolded it for you) that you never stated we would be breaking our lease.
The very next sentence in your post is (I've bolded it as well) 'if we moved to Seaford, under the terms of the lease we would not be entitled to occupy.......'

I'm not a lawyer but I wuld have thought that if we've done something to stop our entitlement to occupying the premises in our lease , THEN THAT IS BREAKING THE LEASE?

Thirdly, why would there be a lawsuit from the City of Kingston against us? If they are stopping us from occupying then surely the only possible lawsuit would be from us aginst them?

Oh dear! Comprehension and logic needed. It's lucky for your clients that you're not a lawyer. Got to rush out to something, but I'll dismantle your arguments later in the day.

[saint75]

Is there any possibility at this late stage of the game that we will stay at Moorabbin? I don't mind moving if we have to but I would much prefer to remain at Moorabbin!

[casey scorp]

[It's not like it's a secret what our intentions are is it?
City of Kingston isn't being hoodwinked by what we're doing.
If there's going to be litigation over it, why haven't they attempted to get an injunction to stop us?

Because they don’t need an injunction. You get an injunction to stop another party from acting in a way that will cause you damage. Kingston doesn’t care if St KFC leaves, so it won’t get an injunction to stop the Saints leaving.

Secondly, On one hand you state (I've bolded it for you) that you never stated we would be breaking our lease.
The very next sentence in your post is (I've bolded it as well) 'if we moved to Seaford, under the terms of the lease we would not be entitled to occupy.......'

I'm not a lawyer but I wuld have thought that if we've done something to stop our entitlement to occupying the premises in our lease , THEN THAT IS BREAKING THE LEASE?

There is a difference between breaking a lease on the one hand, and seeking to retain occupancy under different circumstances to those envisaged in the lease on the other hand.

Essentially, the lease provides:

• you can have the land for x years on condition that you continue use it as the base for the football club
• if the land is no longer used as the base for the club, then the lease terminates.

Now if St KFC “breaks the leaseâ€

[casey scorp]

Is there any possibility at this late stage of the game that we will stay at Moorabbin? I don't mind moving if we have to but I would much prefer to remain at Moorabbin!

Yes. If the Board recognises the folly of BP.

We lease the land already, so don't need to negotiate that.

We have the same money from the club, the AFL and the State Government which can be spent at either location.

The only issue is the cash contribution from the Council. Frankston is tipping in $3 million - Kingston haven't been asked whether they would be prepared to do so.

Kingston's position is that they don't care if we leave. BUT if there was an alternative put to them by a non-confrontational St KFC Board, looking for a win-win outcome, then there is every likelihood of an acceptable outcome (including cash from Kingston).

There are only 16 AFL clubs in Australia - don't be misled into thinking that Kingston wouldn't want the Saints if an acceptable outcome could be negotiated. Every Council wants high-profile clubs; as an example just look at Frankston. It is prepared to put in $3 million cash + build an AFL standard oval. It has trumpeted the economic analysis, which estimates over $40 million of economic benefit to the municipality if St KFC relocates there. While $40 million may be questionable, there is definitely benefit in having an AFL club in terms of economic impact, profile and community pride.

There is still time to turn this thing around, provided the club is prepared to acknowledge that it stuffed up. That, in itself though, may take greater courage than it has. My guess, however, is that all involved in delivering the project will push determinedly on ignoring the realities of the obvious disbenefits of BP, and the obvious benefits of building the same complex at Linton Street instead.

[Mr Magic]

[It's not like it's a secret what our intentions are is it?
City of Kingston isn't being hoodwinked by what we're doing.
If there's going to be litigation over it, why haven't they attempted to get an injunction to stop us?

Secondly, On one hand you state (I've bolded it for you) that you never stated we would be breaking our lease.
The very next sentence in your post is (I've bolded it as well) 'if we moved to Seaford, under the terms of the lease we would not be entitled to occupy.......'

I'm not a lawyer but I wuld have thought that if we've done something to stop our entitlement to occupying the premises in our lease , THEN THAT IS BREAKING THE LEASE?

Thirdly, why would there be a lawsuit from the City of Kingston against us? If they are stopping us from occupying then surely the only possible lawsuit would be from us aginst them?

Oh dear! Comprehension and logic needed. It's lucky for your clients that you're not a lawyer. Got to rush out to something, but I'll dismantle your arguments later in the day.

I await with bated breath further smug and trite repsonses from the 'psychic' caseysccorp who hasn't actually seen the lease but 'knows' what's contained in it.

BTW, could you rspond earlier than 6pm with tonight's Tattslotto numbers as well?


In all seriousness, when are you going to admit to yourself that when St kilda chose not to pursue the 'Casey Option', your allegiances changed?

It would seem quite obvious to me (and apparently others on this forum)that your #1 allegiance now is to Casey Scorpions and not St Kilda?

Maybe if you'd chosen not to buy a membership ticket for your new 'second team', Melbourne, and either upgraded your Saints membership, bought some Saints merchandise, or just donated it to the Saints I'd believe your protestations more.

The fact that you chose to financially donate to a competitor of the Saints purely because they were planning a move to Casey shows me where your true priorities lie. (and no, its not the same as donating to the Kangaroos last year in their hour of need).

Yours was a deliberate decision to 'donate' to MFC because of the Casey connection.

Why the reticence to come clean about this?
There's nothing wrong with admitting you follow Casey first.
Why keep up the charade? Does admitting it embarrass you somehow?

It's not like your forum name doesn't spell it out.
Afterall you didn't choose to call yourself 'caseysaint', 'casey' or any other available derivative, but did choose 'caseyscorp'.

When Casey plays Sandy do you barrack/hope for the MFC players in the Casey team to beat their Saints opponents in the Sandringham team?
How do you reconcile your 'divided loyalties'?

Personally I don't care who you choose to support and in what order, provided you're honest about it.
Afterall we're entitled to know when you post on this and allied topics if you're a Saints or Scorpions fan foremost, aren't we?

[Mr Magic]

[It's not like it's a secret what our intentions are is it?
City of Kingston isn't being hoodwinked by what we're doing.
If there's going to be litigation over it, why haven't they attempted to get an injunction to stop us?

Because they don’t need an injunction. You get an injunction to stop another party from acting in a way that will cause you damage. Kingston doesn’t care if St KFC leaves, so it won’t get an injunction to stop the Saints leaving.

Secondly, On one hand you state (I've bolded it for you) that you never stated we would be breaking our lease.
The very next sentence in your post is (I've bolded it as well) 'if we moved to Seaford, under the terms of the lease we would not be entitled to occupy.......'

I'm not a lawyer but I wuld have thought that if we've done something to stop our entitlement to occupying the premises in our lease , THEN THAT IS BREAKING THE LEASE?

There is a difference between breaking a lease on the one hand, and seeking to retain occupancy under different circumstances to those envisaged in the lease on the other hand.

Essentially, the lease provides:

• you can have the land for x years on condition that you continue use it as the base for the football club
• if the land is no longer used as the base for the club, then the lease terminates.

Now if St KFC “breaks the leaseâ€

[casey scorp]

I've said it before, I'm a Saints supporter first & Scorpions 2nd. That won't change.

And, not that I need to justify myself to you, but I still buy additional St KFC merchandise each year.

The fact that I buy an MFC membership as well because they are having a high profile presence in my local community and are aligned to my VFL team is entirely my choice. Too bad if you somehow think that is treason.

Interestingly, I hear a number of local people making similar comments about taking out an MFC membership (even though they don't barrack for Melbourne) because of the local connection.

[Mr Magic]

I've said it before, I'm a Saints supporter first & Scorpions 2nd. That won't change.

And, not that I need to justify myself to you, but I still buy additional St KFC merchandise each year.

The fact that I buy an MFC membership as well because they are having a high profile presence in my local community and are aligned to my VFL team is entirely my choice. Too bad if you somehow think that is treason.

Interestingly, I hear a number of local people making similar comments about taking out an MFC membership (even though they don't barrack for Melbourne) because of the local connection.

No problem as long as you're happy in your own beliefs and I'm happy with mine.

Now, more importantly, what about those tattsslotto numbers?

[casey scorp]

Do you honestly think the Board are complete and utter fools?
That they would deliberately act in a manner that would knowingly cause the Club to be sued?

If it's as open and shut as you claim it to be, then let's all go down there on Monday and demand they all leave office. They are knowingly causing our CLub to be sued - we should throw them out now before the damage is done.

The Board's problem is that the club has stuffed around for 3 years since the announcement of the Linton Street redevelopment. Most of that time has now been on the watch of the new Board.

They demonstrated that they were "men of action" shortly after taking over the club by rushing in and announcing the relocation to Frankston Park. It was ill-researched, resulting in a $5 million blow-out in the cost estimate.

Then, in order to maintain their stated position that they were moving to Frankston, they announced Belvedere Park. No loss of face there - it's still the same Council so of course its still the same thing! You can just hear the PR spin-doctors working out the slant to sell.

Only problem was that most of the pronounced benefits of an FP location weren't at BP.

So, having reflected on that, if you still think those are the actions of a strategic prudent Board then I guess you're happy to continue with comedy capers.

[casey scorp]

No problem as long as you're happy in your own beliefs and I'm happy with mine.

Now, more importantly, what about those tattsslotto numbers?

I'm happy with the first para - we'll have to agree to disagree. And time will tell whether the club's decisions have been correct or not.

Tatts - I prefer a strategic approach to investment. I can't help with Tattslotto numbers I'm sorry, but if I was to do it, I'd choose St KFC player numbers.

[Mr Magic]

No problem as long as you're happy in your own beliefs and I'm happy with mine.

Now, more importantly, what about those tattsslotto numbers?

I'm happy with the first para - we'll have to agree to disagree. And time will tell whether the club's decisions have been correct or not.

Tatts - I prefer a strategic approach to investment. I can't help with Tattslotto numbers I'm sorry, but if I was to do it, I'd choose St KFC player numbers.

Touche'

[ausfatcat]

Yes. If the Board recognises the folly of BP.

We lease the land already, so don't need to negotiate that.

We have the same money from the club, the AFL and the State Government which can be spent at either location.

Kingston's position is that they don't care if we leave. BUT if there was an alternative put to them by a non-confrontational St KFC Board, looking for a win-win outcome, then there is every likelihood of an acceptable outcome (including cash from Kingston)..

Whats acceptable to kingston and acceptable to the saints is a big difference, otherwise we would be there.

The only issue is the cash contribution from the Council. Frankston is tipping in $3 million - Kingston haven't been asked whether they would be prepared to do so.

What??? They negotiated for approx 5 years (2002 to 2007) and the most they were willing to put in was some disused property and 500grand for grandstand removal (which was provided by state funds anyway). Of course they have been asked they have been asked for 5 years, the council doesn't give a rats about us leaving, infact it is well estabilished some council members want us gone. They dicked us with the pokies deliberately when it was and still is within their power to guareentee them in accordance to the gambling act.

[ausfatcat]

BTW didn't someone on this forum have a look at Archies books a while ago in relation to this??