New facilities at Springfield - update: Federal funding under review

[chopperduck]

It might not amount to anything, but Bob and the Sprinfield land corp have shown their hand. Its clear who they are out for and whose interests they have at heart, and it's not the Brisbane Lions.

In no universe is playing games from Ipswich in the best interest for our club. Any half wit with half a clue would know that, but Bob isnt here for us, he is here for SLC.

 

[dlanod]

Sigh. Is crack really that cheap up in Brisbane that our chairman seems to be smoking it so thoroughly?

 

[chopperduck]

We desperately need the right person at the top. Problem is the AFL is supporting the rubbish that is going on.

 

[dlanod]

Re-reading it, Bob does mention it in the context of the Gabba ground arrangement, so it could potentially be a negotiating position.

“We are looking to extend the agreement that we have to play games at the Gabba,” he said.
“But obviously if the Springfield opportunity goes ahead what we want to try and do is vary that agreement.”

Having said that, the board continues to have a complete lack of credibility so any of the benefit of the doubt should not be going their way.

 

[GingerGreatness]

I remember watching the Bears playing at Carrara too. And look what it is now... A home ground for another team.

Without the finance, the move is kaput. On that basis, it just reads like a pipedream. While the worry is not having a 'plan B', I'm ok with it if it is just trying to use the seemingly 'blinkered thinking' to put some pressure on the Gabba negotiations. The deal with the Gabba is a nightmare, so there may be some postulating going on.

 

[cozhawk19]

Whilst being a Hawks supporter, I am also a lover of football. As such I have been a Lions member for the past 5 years to get my fix of live football. If it’s not the Hawks playing them I always support the Lions.

I have lived my life on the northside and my wife comes from the Western Corridor. Growing up, Australian Rules had it’s place on the northside and was easy to find and interact with like minded people on it. Yes, Rugby League was number 1 but Aussie Rules had it’s place.

I find it hard to fathom why they would develop their home base in the Western Corridor as it is a massive Rugby League/Union area. A large chunk of the Polynesian community have settled within that western area and they are massive League/Union fans and you can see that with junior players coming through within the NRL and Super Rugby teams. They are supreme, well built, athlete’s which really compliment those sports.

Whilst it is probably a good deal and great area for the facilities, my belief is they will not get the buy in from the community there, unless it’s an ambitious plan to get that rapidly growing community behind them. The AFL tried with Israel Folau in the Western Sydney area and I’m not sure how that turned out in respect to community engagement.

In respect to moving games out there, I hope they do not. My son when he is older will come with me to the footy and will probably grow into a Lions supporter as he will have regular access to them. I wont be making the hike out there to watch games of footy and that would be a shame.

Sorry for the ramblings, just wanted to add my thoughts.

 

[notting18]

Re-reading it, Bob does mention it in the context of the Gabba ground arrangement, so it could potentially be a negotiating position.

I saw it as completely a part of the Gabba negotiations and didn't even think anyone would get upset by the comments (Didn't we say similar things about Metricon the last time we were negotating with the Gabba trust?). However, it just shows that fans have no trust in the board so they should've managed the PR better. If you had Leigh saying it, without the Springfield connections, it may have been more digestable to the fans as a negotiating tool.

 

[western royboy]

 

[notliondown]

Re-reading it, Bob does mention it in the context of the Gabba ground arrangement, so it could potentially be a negotiating position.

Having said that, the board continues to have a complete lack of credibility so any of the benefit of the doubt should not be going their way.

That's the only faint hope I have of his logic being sound - he's using it as a wedge to finally get some pull on the Gabba's leasing rights. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

It almost seems to me that he has no place talking about Springfield. He should excuse himself from any commentary on it and appoint another obviously independent member or even Holmes to update the public and members alike. Conflict of interest or not you can bet its an awfully fine line.

Just out of interest, has any other team ever had fixture matches played at their training ground on a regular basis without some sort of forced conditions ie construction of other grounds etc? Surely if the Gabba is available then that arrangement is with the AFL not the Lions?

 

[GingerGreatness]

Maybe belongs in the numpty thread, but I have some vague recollection of there being a clause in the Gabba contract that AFL in South East Qld must be played there - didn't the Suns have to beg, borrow and steal to get a release from that clause?

 

[GingerGreatness]

Mmmm, a reference to something similar anyway...

In a serious setback to the AFL's recently adopted full-speed approach to issuing a 17th licence to a consortium based in the region, a contract with the Queensland Government stipulates the Gabba, 80km away in Brisbane, must be used for all season matches until the end of 2015.
...
The arrangement, struck via Queensland government body Major Sports Facilities Authority (MSFA), says a second AFL team being based in south-east Queensland must "play one half of its AFL premiership season matches at the Gabba".
That clause expires in September 2015.

 

[dlanod]

Maybe belongs in the numpty thread, but I have some vague recollection of there being a clause in the Gabba contract that AFL in South East Qld must be played there - didn't the Suns have to beg, borrow and steal to get a release from that clause?

Yes. The AFL-Gabba contract has been renegotiated at least twice so far because of the Suns. Once to allow the Suns to play at Metricon, and a second time to remove the clause that forced QClash games to be played at the Gabba (added in the previous negotiation).

 

[chopperduck]

The government did pour money into the Gabba to upgrade it as long as it would be used. Yet its ironic that we need government fundimg for facilities that might one day pull us away from the Gabba. I couldnt see the gabba not hosting AFL.

 

[western royboy]

The government did pour money into the Gabba to upgrade it as long as it would be used. Yet its ironic that we need government fundimg for facilities that might one day pull us away from the Gabba. I couldnt see the gabba not hosting AFL.

What else does it do?

 

[Bucking Beads]

These clowns are kidding. Games in Springfield?? Bob Sharpless is in fantasy land.

 

[James North]

This move strikes me as Less than Sharp.

 

[POBT]

I think it is a negotiating tactic because nothing else makes sense but, even then, it is a pretty poor tactic.

"Hey Government, if you don't give us favourable tenancy terms at the Gabba, we'll play games at Springfield. By the way, can you give us some funding to pay for the stadium at Springfield? Hello? Hello? Hello? Mobile reception must be poor."

 

[James North]

Yeah, really it could only be a tactic ... otherwise it surely isn't genuinely in the interest of the club (his role).

 

[POBT]

Yeah, really it could only be a tactic ... otherwise it surely isn't genuinely in the interest of the club (his role).

Which goes back to the point made by a few others. He's just shit at communicating with members.

What he could have said was: "Look, we love playing at the Gabba and want to remain there but, in reality, any deal there has to be mutually beneficial for both parties. Everyone knows our club's long term strategy is to play at the Gabba and train at Springfield. But playing at Springfield has to be an option that we consider down the track, if the Gabba as a playing venue is bad for our club."

 

[Hollow Knight]

Which goes back to the point made by a few others. He's just shit at communicating with members.

What he could have said was: "Look, we love playing at the Gabba and want to remain there but, in reality, any deal there has to be mutually beneficial for both parties. Everyone knows our club's long term strategy is to play at the Gabba and train at Springfield. But playing at Springfield has to be an option that we consider down the track, if the Gabba as a playing venue is bad for our club."

Yeah, unfortunately I think he is all over the shop because he is wearing multiple hats.

A statement like the above would be very reassuring from a chairman without links to other parties who will benefit from the arrangement.

Still furious at the way the board deal was done. The same interest groups are running the show, with the exception of Lethal (who is pretty much contained to football department matters) and is being dangled in front of our eyes as a distraction like jangling car keys in front of a baby.

 

[Panthera]

Just the one simple (I think) question from me:

Will moving to Springfield ensure our future stability financially to turn our huge losses into profits and allow us to spend money wherever/whenever it is needed?

 

[Tassie4ever]

Let's come right out with it- they're only on the Board to further their business interests. Especially our Chair.

Which is why we're broke. We never see any of the money flowing through to the club. It all disappears into the multi-millionaires' pockets.

Are we all too blind to see the huge, indeed mega, marketing opportunity offered by opening a Springfield AFL facility which can only be a rolled-gold money-spinner for land sales out in the boondocks [where the only Queensland passenger rail extension constructed since 1912 has been opened- maybe Queensland Rail is in on the fix too?].

Seriously.

 

[dlanod]

I'm sensing some sarcasm...

...eventually. Queensland Rail did it for me. Can't believe in them doing anything competent.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Let's come right out with it- they're only on the Board to further their business interests. Especially our Chair.

Which is why we're broke. We never see any of the money flowing through to the club. It all disappears into the multi-millionaires' pockets.

Are we all too blind to see the huge, indeed mega, marketing opportunity offered by opening a Springfield AFL facility which can only be a rolled-gold money-spinner for land sales out in the boondocks [where the only Queensland passenger rail extension constructed since 1912 has been opened- maybe Queensland Rail is in on the fix too?].

Seriously.

Burpen-spring-****ing-gary-field!!!!

Seriously though, if the Springfield case is such an obvious, open-and-shut panacea that any sane and independent director would get behind (and I am not saying it isn't), why did Angus Johnson only step down once the AFL arranged for another high ranking Springfield official to be parachuted onto not only the board, but directly into the chairmanship (immediately holding the casting vote that comes with it).

Tassie, you can patronise people all you want for their opposition to the Springfield project (although ironically your opposition to Burpen*******gary seems far less substantiated than theirs), but you don't have to be a 9/11 truther to think something whiffs about the machinations behind all this. Perception counts for a lot.

I still think the project ticks a few boxes but part of me feels like we are being taken a little bit for a ride and that the "best interests of the club" aren't the only criteria driving the project.

I see the hardline pro-Springfielders and the hardline anti-Springfielders as equally strange at this point. I think healthy skepticism is in order, especially with a board that has had, and continues to have, transparency issues

 

[Bucking Beads]

Does the club really need 2 training fields at the new base? Maybe if we compromise to only having 1 field we can stay in the Brisbane area.