The advantage of a land asset evaporated when we (correctly) abandoned the Frankston Park option. Given that the land bonus disappeared, the logical point to go back to would have been consideration of options prior to making a decision influenced by the land issue (November 2007). Of course you would now add in the new option of Belvedere Park to the previous options of Casey Fields and Linton Street. Very quickly you would drop Casey Fields, as by now (September 2008) it has disappeared as an option.Solar wrote:just a couple of thoughts
there were only ever two options in the past 6-12 months, that was casey or frankston. We went for frankston because they offered a freehold piece of land. This fell through and they insteed offered to put more money up front into the construction of the seaford training facility. We have had this discussion re: the advantages of a land assest (worth only what it can be sold for or use as an asset for lending purposes), so it was still a good income as long as the club keeps the costs down.
On the pokies issue, AOK I get your view but it ignores the situation at the time. When the linton street plan was developed the loan was going to rely on a certain amount of pokie income. Once the council decided that a certain amount of pokies would have to go (despite the fact that extra pokie machines went up the road to the sandbelt... hmmm politics..) the linot street development would always fail. Perhaps if the council and club were on better terms they might have developed another income stream which would create a better outcome. Yet remember such situations as when a certain council member brought the press to a protest in the moorabin reserve over the loss of important parkland (it's a bloody car park!!).
There are positives and negatives for the seaford decision. Yes its further away from the city but I'm not sure why that effects the players? jump on one of the freeways and your there in no time. It is being developed in what is seen as a area of population increase. The facilities sound like they will be top notch and the amount of our outlay is in our hands.
The hysteria on here is a little over the top.
So, there is an $11 million facility to build, and poker machines are not an issue (given they aren’t a consideration at Belvedere Park).
Contributions of $6 million from the AFL/State Government are guaranteed.
The question is, how do you fund the balance of $5 million?
At BP, Frankston Council says it will put in $3 million. ST KFC is to fund $1.43 million plus all additional costs (that seems to = $2 million at least!)
At Linton Street, if Kingston Council was prepared to put in $3 million, we would be miles ahead because:
• we would control a very large site (we have the lease already over a huge reserve area)
• the oval and other infrastructure already exists (not the grandstand which is being removed courtesy of other arrangements)
• we maintain our existing base (certainly a consideration if everything else is equal), although a counter argument could be that we could retain existing Moorabbin supporters and tap into a new supporter area)
• we keep the social club facility, with some gaming revenue (which can be upgraded if the gaming revenue can justify CapEx) – we will lose the gaming revenue when we have to surrender the lease if we move out.
The big question is – would Kingston Council put in $3 million? Perhaps they would if part of the deal involved a reduction in the number of gaming machines (I would question whether the current facility derives optimum return from the 83 gaming machines deployed there). I’m not sure what the new rules do, but I’m sure I saw a reference to the ability to “sellâ€
