Dr.SHERRIN wrote:
Mosquito Fleet wrote:
For example, the existing Visy headquarters could be accomodated easily by modifying and integrating that building under a substantial grandstand that would overlay.
Hmmm...that's not doable...
If the ground did come back as that 3rd Melbourne venue - it would be an AFL controlled ground venue...otherwise known as a 'Clean Stadium'. That'd be the only way that the Roos and Dogs would consider playing games there, as you'd never revert to what happened in the old days with Hawthorn and Fitzroy leasing the ground from us.
That doesn't bother me, as we'd still clear around 300k (minimum) for every home game. So in an ideal world, Carlton would have a seven-four home games split involving Visy Park, with the majority at the MCG, and that would - without a shadow of a doubt provide a better financial return than the current deal. And appease the majority of supporters I would have thought.
Thanks Doc! Unless we receive an engineer's opinion to the contrary, I would consider the development of a new grandstand, technically feasible. By saying it is not doable, I am not clear as to what you mean?
In regards to your suggestion, I am certainly open-minded to the idea that the Roos and the Dogs could have some common interest with Carlton. Whether it is as a co-tenant or co-owner, would depend upon what those two clubs are financially contributing to the development. Can I assume that Carlton owns the freehold land at Princes Park?
On the issue of the MCG, I query whether there are currently too many tenants at the MCG? Is there enough room to fit another tenant such as Carlton, in addition to the present tenants of Collingwood, Hawthorn, Melbourne, Richmond, the Cricket Club and the AFL itself? Am I missing anyone?
I consider it unusual though, as to why a powerful Club like Carlton would want to share a home ground with its arch enemy Collingwood. Would Manchester United wish to share a home ground (say for example, Wembley) with Liverpool or Arsenal?