We Bat deep with lawyers on our board , I expect we Re in for the long haul , this isn’t Como park or Brunswick st oval it’s the home of a professional sports club , the show must go on
News Jack Dyer Stand -Demolition Has Begun
- Thread starter Oprah From Tigerland
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Banned
- #1,102
we should make a second royal hotel in the new stand
we would clean up from oppo supporters after every gameday
we would clean up from oppo supporters after every gameday
- Apr 27, 2014
- 6,827
- 10,553
- AFL Club
- Richmond
lol so tell me in which of the recent 37 years in the wilderness would the Tigers have won a premiership if we had had a bit bigger training ground? 1982? Not to mention that from inception to 2010-ish, the club wasn't even using the centre of the ground for half the year as it was a cricket pitch, and yet we are still just a few cups behind the leaders, having been in the league for less time than them.
We shouldn't forget that PRO is actually the Richmond Cricket Ground. We just ten years ago muscled out the Richmond Cricket Club who had been playing there since 1854. That's already a massive change in the traditional use of the arena, and it's place in Richmond community life.
Back then Gale said we wanted a Docklands-sized training ground once we got the cricketers out. Apparently that has now escalated to MCG size and we now have to muscle out the heritage stand too?
It's pretty clear what is going on here. The club is having a fantastic run, but it needs to keep its feet on the ground and understand that it has to curb some of the exuberance and ambition to live within the Richmond community.
Hmm could prob revive the old Richmond Social club ,,,if those car parks could talk ,,, anyways moving right along
Did you conveniently gloss over that the amenities are insufficient for the size of club we are now , the size of arena has fa to with the case for
Doesn’t suit the narrative Bo
- Oct 2, 2008
- 9,089
- 19,338
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Brothers of Destruction
Is Brunswick Street ovals 'stand' heritage listed?
Cause a few years ago, I walked up to see the historic stands only to find 100+ homeless people and pigeons settling there like a little community, drinking and drug abusing.
Do you really want that for Tigerland? Cause if Richmond move away from Richmond, the site will lose its soul, only for a crumpled piece of crap left behind.
Australians have a fixation on trying to heritage list everything, this isn't the Parthenon or the Pyramids ffs, it's a 100 year old worn out building.
Cause a few years ago, I walked up to see the historic stands only to find 100+ homeless people and pigeons settling there like a little community, drinking and drug abusing.
Do you really want that for Tigerland? Cause if Richmond move away from Richmond, the site will lose its soul, only for a crumpled piece of crap left behind.
Australians have a fixation on trying to heritage list everything, this isn't the Parthenon or the Pyramids ffs, it's a 100 year old worn out building.
- Aug 25, 2007
- 3,134
- 10,110
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond VFL
Spot on.
“Architectural significance” lol.
It’s a decrepit old stand that offers bugger all to the local community.
The new facility will offer much more to the Richmond community.
- Apr 27, 2014
- 6,827
- 10,553
- AFL Club
- Richmond
well we have to work this out! does it have fa to do with it?
The pro-demolishionists were talking about cramped offices a year ago, now womens toilets at the gym mentioned too.
10 years ago we needed Docklands size training ground, now MCG-size is required?
What is the true priority for the club?
sregit
Premiership Player
'club to curb some of the exuberance and ambition to live within the Richmond community' Are you joking? RFC needs to expand facilities to cater for AFLW, VFL , Wheelchair, KG and admin. Plus improve member facilities. If you don't expand when you're affluent, when do you?
If the club leaves PRO because it can't accommodate the required infrastructure, how will you feel about that dilapidated old stand that will not be maintained by anyone?
It's the location that counts 'RICHMOND', not an old stand that is past is use by date. I understand people want to keep the history but surely not to the detriment of the club moving forward.
Last edited:
- Apr 27, 2014
- 6,827
- 10,553
- AFL Club
- Richmond
To the latter point, people protect and restore dilapidated old buildings all the time precisely because they inform our sense of place. The vista looking across PRO to the JD stand is iconic for 10s of 1000s of people who pass there every day, and I think the David Mandie building has also achieved a special place in peoples hearts in much a shorter time.
I am all-for expansion, but by adding to that rich tapestry of significant buildings, there is space to do it and an opportunity to fix the Bruntun Av/Richmond station safety hazard at the same time.
I am not all-for expanding the training surface to be the size of the MCG, I think that is over-exuberant and would take too much amenity away from that corner of Yarra Park.
RunningBounce
Premiership Player
- Jun 12, 2013
- 4,484
- 10,143
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I look at it the other way around. We didn't make the plans in secret. It was in the papers one year ago. It was on the telly one year ago. Did the National Trust see an issue then? Why are they raising trouble now?
The other issue I have with this point of view is that experts on the heritage and history of the Richmond FC are the Richmond FC - not National Trust. Do you think O'Neal, Gale, Rhett Bartlett and Roland who runs the museum just brushed over this decision? This is a big deal for our club. It was not taken lightly. And it was resolved properly. A year ago. I didn't particularly like the decision but I made my peace with it. This is the way forward.
Anyone disputing it now (including the National Trust) is just shit stirring.
RunningBounce
Premiership Player
- Jun 12, 2013
- 4,484
- 10,143
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Amen, Tiger. And the dirt underneath the turf. That spot, OUR spot under the sun, is where the heritage value lays.
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,367
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
You must have amnesia.
I can tell you the lack of women's facilities was definitely mentioned. How do I know this? Because I posted it.
When we were bidding for govt funds (along with every other club), I attended a Tommy Hafey Club function at which Peggy made it clear what the govt priorities were.
It wasn't supporting AFL players getting better change rooms or training areas. It was increasing the scope and support for the development and training of women's AFL pathways.
The fact we lost the aflw application for the second time we knew would hurt us, and ultimately it did (we got nothing)
There are three reasons the govt is chipping in money:
1) aflw
2) KGI
3) BHF
The last two have outgrown their space in the existing building. The first wasn't even a consideration.
And oddly enough all three are moving into the new building.
And the club has 100% rejected the notion of shipping off these arms to the suburbs. We are all Richmond FC, and just look at Melbourne to see what happens to club culture when you have everyone working in separate parts of the city
- Jun 13, 2018
- 14,410
- 39,523
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Inter Milan, Real Madrid
It's a heritage building in a heritage sports and park precinct.
My original point the other day was the National Trust heritage experts were not consulted at first.
We live in a democracy.
If they deem a building has heritage value they have a right to intervene.
The Junction Oval development is the best, combining retention of the heritage stands and a new wing.
My original point the other day was the National Trust heritage experts were not consulted at first.
We live in a democracy.
If they deem a building has heritage value they have a right to intervene.
The Junction Oval development is the best, combining retention of the heritage stands and a new wing.
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,367
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
1) what is the permanent staff based at Junction road vs punt road?
2) how many millions extra are you prepared to spend? People's solutions so far are putting most of our floors underground or having punt road or Brunton Avenue in a tunnel. When the solution is going to send this over $100m, is it worth it and who's paying for it?
- Apr 27, 2014
- 6,827
- 10,553
- AFL Club
- Richmond
So this thing about an MCG-size training ground has not been on your radar either? I hadn't heard that till this thread.
In the perfect world of course we want 'all of the above', I'm just trying to work out the order of priorities for the club.
sregit
Premiership Player
The cost of restoration work far exceeds building. To get the required facilities a budget of at least 2 to 3 times that of building would be required. The new proposed buildings are prefabricated and would go up in half the time at half the cost. I love old buildings being restored, however, this is usually a govt heritage process. No non govt organisation can justify this. Richmond needs to get bang for its buck and as an organisation be responsible in its decision making. We are not in the business of restoring buildings for the sake of heritage.
As for the existing buildings, I am just as fond of the recent additions as the JD stand. This tells me that it's not the buildings we are in love with. It's the location. We walk past PRO on our way to the G and say that's home. We belong here. We will continue to do that even when there's a new house on the site.
RunningBounce
Premiership Player
- Jun 12, 2013
- 4,484
- 10,143
- AFL Club
- Richmond
You're gunna have to explain this to me.
I have full faith that Richmond FC and the Board would have consulted the appropriate heritage experts at the time. I may be wrong, but I'd honestly be surprised. We don't mess this stuff up lately. Do you have evidence that we didn't consult the appropriate heritage experts?
So why do the National Trust have any say? Why do we have to go to them?
I don't want to lose the stand either, but this is the way forward decided by the democratic principles of our Board, and I believe in it.
tugga
Hall of Famer
- May 9, 2006
- 36,023
- 72,313
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Tottenham,NY Rangers,Red Sox, SA Spurs
Firstly, I love heritage buildings and architecture in general.
But the stand is an eyesore (to me) and isn't even that old.
It serves no useful purpose whatsoever.
Bulldoze it.
But the stand is an eyesore (to me) and isn't even that old.
It serves no useful purpose whatsoever.
Bulldoze it.
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,367
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
yep, it was also in the plan years ago
back during the last redevelopment, an MCG sized arrangement wasnt possible at all because of the stand (and our budget)
the "solution" was Craigieburn. but that really wasnt workable, and we stopped playing there even in the off season pretty quickly
- Jan 3, 2012
- 47,485
- 97,541
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Chelsea FC, Victory, All Blecks,
Probably because some campaigner has got his or her knickers in a knot and made it an issue for the trust, probably some campaigner from on here
reminds me of this classic from the 80's.
That song aside, Tear it down. Make way for a new stand commensurate with our club's standing in the game. Nothing less than a cool building like the LV Raiders' "Death Star" stadium in Las Vegas. A building you can see from space - massive black oval with a yellow stripe across the roof.
That song aside, Tear it down. Make way for a new stand commensurate with our club's standing in the game. Nothing less than a cool building like the LV Raiders' "Death Star" stadium in Las Vegas. A building you can see from space - massive black oval with a yellow stripe across the roof.
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,367
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
Im answering this in a separate post because it deserves a proper answer.
back when the Mandie building was built, we had this at RFC:
- RFC mens senior team (still were with coburg back then, so the players jumped between the two and coaches were not all here)
- KGI
Since then, the following has happened:
- massive expansion of football dept
- big expansion of admin, marketing, membership, and support roles
- Reserves moved in-house
- AFLW team
- Next Generation Academy
- expansion of the KGI
- establishment of our indigenous transition school
- Bachar Houli Foundation
- Aligned Leisure
- Training JV with Swinburne
now, some here say "kick out xxxxx" we have plenty of room. Here is the argument against each:
1) Kick Out the Women!!!
There is a big advantage to sharing things like medical teams, rehab staff and so on. Also coaches benefit for sharing ideas and learning off of each other. The AFLW is being taught the same gameplan for example as the AFL team (as is the VFL). Splitting them means duplicating some resources needlessly.
Our govt funding was only granted because of the AFLW/KGI/BHF. Remove a key part of this, we lose the funding for Punt Road. While this may mean we get a great new AFLW facility at Glen Waverley (for example), it means no upgrade for our mens team. We are effectively using the expansion for the women to improve a lot of our common use facilities, and we lose this by splitting the two.
Also, they are Richmond. They are not a circus act, a novelty, or something lesser. They wear the same jumper as the mens team because they are Richmond. We dont have "Richmond A" and "Richmond B"
The consequence is we need more room. We dont have female change rooms, and this severely limits our ability to have both teams train and work at the same time.
2) Play our VFL/AFLW games elsewhere!!!
Go to other boards, people are enthusiastic about the idea of Richmond playing out of Princes Park. Means bigger crowds for us, and helps justify spending more on that site. Neg is everyone on our board hates that idea, and we want our home to be Punt Road.
Reality is our lights and crowd capacity hurt our ability to be scheduled for particular games.
3) Move the KGI/BHF out!!!
This we cannot do. The govt funding is tied to these (and the AFW). Move them out, and you can guarantee the govt money stays strictly with the KGI.
Also dont underestimate the benefit of the KGI and BHF on our mens team. Much of the improvement off field for Martin has been tied back to the work he does with the KGI. Working with the kids on leadership helped him develop himself as a leader. This is an inhouse resource we shouldnt send away (geographic separation means contact only happens when it HAS to happen. Our players regularly speak to the kids during their breaks and when they are training in the Laguntas)
4) Move out Aligned Leisure!!!
This on the surface sounds like a no brainer, BUT there is a big but!
we have been a little cunning with AL. While it appears to be a standalone separated business, we have integrated the **** out of it. Students from our Swinburne training get potential access to jobs with AL. So we want those two to be close together (a likely job is a big motivator for people signing up to these training arrangements). Also the NGA used the AL network of sites are bases to run programs out off across our region. Now with the AFL taking over the academies, what involvement we will have up there is still TBD, but my understanding is the club is not happy to walk away completely, and is still trying to figure out how we can do this in a post covid world. Again, a reason we want to keep AL and our junior development workers under the same roof.
5) Move out Swinburne!!!
See above. Also learn from VU and the doggies. Their sports science courses are now in hot demand because you study real life situations at WO. Having our training on site makes it "real" and more likely to get punters signing up
So what does all this mean? If we keep everything together, we have to expand. To do this it either means replacing the JDS, or moving our entire base.
Seaford is available, just saying.
Last edited:
Similar threads
