Saints homeward bound!!

[gringo]

I remember Luke Ball coming to the kids footy club and gushing over the Lexus centre. He said he left us and it was like coming from another era. He said he went in the door at the Pies and the professionalism and standards of the environment made you feel different and more professional, said he knew he'd made the right decision. He def gave the impression that the environment was a huge factor to performance and general well being.

I notice no word of location though. The argument is location not facilities. Why did BJ go to Tullamarine when he lives in Brighton if distance is an issue. We will get very good players wherever we train once we want to get them. To think otherwise is plain silly IMO of course. No one could claim Tullamarine is a better suburb than Seaford surely.

I believe that the whole facility and location of Seaford looks of the standard of my kids junior footy club and is in an even worse spot. It looks humble and desperate. It says we are nobody and stand for not very much. The vibe a power club gives off translates to how the players put in and buy in. The Junction is loud proud and dominant. The Seaford linen centre is like a guy who stands at the back so every else can go first.

[HitTheBoundary]

Hit the Boundary if the club has to pay extra $$$ just to get a player to Seaford than that in itself is surely evidence of what Con is stating?

Seaford is a shyte hole miles from no where - with apart from the freeway traffic the club having little to no commercial exposure! It was just another disgraceful decision by the clubs executives and board to add to their littany of poor administration throughout their history!

I did not say the club should stay at Seaford - reread my above posts.

I merely disagree with Cons assertion that an elite player would never choose the Saints because of the Seaford location, for reasons I have also stated in a previous post.

[Con Gorozidis]

Firstly - I'm not sure why Tullamarine is a benchmark? There is no evidence that Tulamarine will be a success.
People try and use Hawthorns move as a benchmark but thre reality is that Mulgrave is only 13km from Melbournes population centre (Glen Iris). Seaford is 35km.

Add to that the idea that 'Location doesnt matter because we can just pay overs' is fundamentally flawed.
BJs move to the Bombers was almost certainly based on them paying overs (the 4th year) and maybe the chance of playing finals. So it was probbaly worth an extra $1m for him ot move over 4 years.

Becuaser we live in a Salary Cap world - we need to assume that in the long run and on average - all slaries are equal.

So people need to stop coming up with ridiculous arguments about Seaford meaning we just pay more - we wont and cant.

The question is all things being completely equal on salary (a valid assumption because that is the regime we live in) would people be attracted to Seaford over other clubs offering the exact same money???

The answer is clearly NO.

Add to that - player attraction is but one of the reasons I am pro Junction.

The others are corporate, cultural, historical, social and the ability to attract new members and fans from outside the (dwindling) rusted-ons. So if you truly support Seaford - you need to address all of those other reasons as well as a very limp defence on player attraction. Good luck with that!

But if people feel comforted by thinking Seaford is all great then they can go on - but its an emotional decision. Not factual.

The only one who liked the idea was Arcie Fraser. Its sad some supporters are still buying into Archie Fraser. He has surely moved on with his life.

[Con Gorozidis]

Hit the Boundary if the club has to pay extra $$$ just to get a player to Seaford than that in itself is surely evidence of what Con is stating?

Seaford is a shyte hole miles from no where - with apart from the freeway traffic the club having little to no commercial exposure! It was just another disgraceful decision by the clubs executives and board to add to their littany of poor administration throughout their history!

I did not say the club should stay at Seaford - reread my above posts.

I merely disagree with Cons assertion that an elite player would never choose the Saints because of the Seaford location, for reasons I have also stated in a previous post.

What are thre reasons? You cant rely on us always paying overs. That is not an option in an equal salary cap regime. (And if we dindt have an SC - we would be even further disadavanted but that is a whole other topic).

And I gave 5 reasons to go the Junction. Seems you were nitpicking.

[HitTheBoundary]

Hit the Boundary if the club has to pay extra $$$ just to get a player to Seaford than that in itself is surely evidence of what Con is stating?

Seaford is a shyte hole miles from no where - with apart from the freeway traffic the club having little to no commercial exposure! It was just another disgraceful decision by the clubs executives and board to add to their littany of poor administration throughout their history!

I did not say the club should stay at Seaford - reread my above posts.

I merely disagree with Cons assertion that an elite player would never choose the Saints because of the Seaford location, for reasons I have also stated in a previous post.

What are thre reasons? You cant rely on us always paying overs. That is not an option in an equal salary cap regime. (And if we dindt have an SC - we would be even further disadavanted but that is a whole other topic).

And I gave 5 reasons to go the Junction. Seems you were nitpicking.

My reasons? Already answered you on the previous page in this thread - in direct response to your questions.
If you're going to keep asking me the same thing, then at least read what I write in reply.

[WinnersOnly]

Chaps it is all relative at the present time until things are sorted with the Junction Oval. I am sure internally the club recognizes it made a blunder moving to Seaford - although they could never afford to admit it. So lets call a truce and agree that the Junction Oval if it eventuates in a functional and cost affective manner for the club would be superior to Seaford!

[HitTheBoundary]

Chaps it is all relative at the present time until things are sorted with the Junction Oval. I am sure internally the club recognizes it made a blunder moving to Seaford - although they could never afford to admit it. So lets call a truce and agree that the Junction Oval if it eventuates in a functional and cost affective manner for the club would be superior to Seaford!

Agreed.

Actually, I don't think Con and I are too far apart on our viewpoints, I just differ in the degree that I consider Seaford to be a negative in attracting players.

[plugger66]

Firstly - I'm not sure why Tullamarine is a benchmark? There is no evidence that Tulamarine will be a success.
People try and use Hawthorns move as a benchmark but thre reality is that Mulgrave is only 13km from Melbournes population centre (Glen Iris). Seaford is 35km.

Add to that the idea that 'Location doesnt matter because we can just pay overs' is fundamentally flawed.
BJs move to the Bombers was almost certainly based on them paying overs (the 4th year) and maybe the chance of playing finals. So it was probbaly worth an extra $1m for him ot move over 4 years.

Becuaser we live in a Salary Cap world - we need to assume that in the long run and on average - all slaries are equal.

So people need to stop coming up with ridiculous arguments about Seaford meaning we just pay more - we wont and cant.

The question is all things being completely equal on salary (a valid assumption because that is the regime we live in) would people be attracted to Seaford over other clubs offering the exact same money???

The answer is clearly NO.

Add to that - player attraction is but one of the reasons I am pro Junction.

The others are corporate, cultural, historical, social and the ability to attract new members and fans from outside the (dwindling) rusted-ons. So if you truly support Seaford - you need to address all of those other reasons as well as a very limp defence on player attraction. Good luck with that!

But if people feel comforted by thinking Seaford is all great then they can go on - but its an emotional decision. Not factual.

The only one who liked the idea was Arcie Fraser. Its sad some supporters are still buying into Archie Fraser. He has surely moved on with his life.

What has your comment about Tullamarine being a success or not got to do with BJ moving. The point is he moved to a place that is basically no better then Seaford because of reasons you mentioned. I think that backs up exactly what im saying. We will get players to Seaford if we pay enough and show signs of improvement. We wont get players to the JO of we don't pay enough and we don't look like improving.

You really do lost the plot whne discussing things con when you come out with lines like if people feel Seaford is all great then go on. I don't think its great and I have said many times doesn't matter where you train. Its seems you think the move to the JO will prove some magical way of getting players. I say it will get down to money and how the side is going. The same reason we would get players at seaford.

[Con Gorozidis]

Firstly - I'm not sure why Tullamarine is a benchmark? There is no evidence that Tulamarine will be a success.
People try and use Hawthorns move as a benchmark but thre reality is that Mulgrave is only 13km from Melbournes population centre (Glen Iris). Seaford is 35km.

Add to that the idea that 'Location doesnt matter because we can just pay overs' is fundamentally flawed.
BJs move to the Bombers was almost certainly based on them paying overs (the 4th year) and maybe the chance of playing finals. So it was probbaly worth an extra $1m for him ot move over 4 years.

Becuaser we live in a Salary Cap world - we need to assume that in the long run and on average - all slaries are equal.

So people need to stop coming up with ridiculous arguments about Seaford meaning we just pay more - we wont and cant.

The question is all things being completely equal on salary (a valid assumption because that is the regime we live in) would people be attracted to Seaford over other clubs offering the exact same money???

The answer is clearly NO.

Add to that - player attraction is but one of the reasons I am pro Junction.

The others are corporate, cultural, historical, social and the ability to attract new members and fans from outside the (dwindling) rusted-ons. So if you truly support Seaford - you need to address all of those other reasons as well as a very limp defence on player attraction. Good luck with that!

But if people feel comforted by thinking Seaford is all great then they can go on - but its an emotional decision. Not factual.

The only one who liked the idea was Arcie Fraser. Its sad some supporters are still buying into Archie Fraser. He has surely moved on with his life.

What has your comment about Tullamarine being a success or not got to do with BJ moving. The point is he moved to a place that is basically no better then Seaford because of reasons you mentioned. I think that backs up exactly what im saying. We will get players to Seaford if we pay enough and show signs of improvement. We wont get players to the JO of we don't pay enough and we don't look like improving.

.

Your whole argument is a non-sequitur because it relies on salary.

Ive outlined several times - that the decision (on location as a factor in player attraction) has to made where pay and salary are equal overall.
You cant say we are going to - on average - pay over average compared with the rest of the competition.

I cant be bothered explaining this because i dont think u are bright enough to get it.

But the variable of 'location' (this is what is been discussed here) needs to be measured where all other variables are equal.
This is a valid assumption in assessing 'location' because across the board all salary should be equal in a SC regulated environment.

This you cannot use 'salaries' in this debate. It is completely irrelevant - so I ask you to stop doing it.
I'm not sure you can grasp that concept. You keep repeating the same thing . 'If' we pay more.
On average - over time - and across all players - We cant pay more - we can only pay the same.

BJ left for more cash - this is known as an 'independent variable'.

Ill state it one more time:

1. all things being equal (this is a valid assumption in a salary cap constrained world) - then Seaford is a competitive disadvantage as a location in terms of player attraction.
2. Player attraction is but one of several factors why I prefer the JO to S.

You keep harping on and on with non-sequitar arguments because you think you have a point about Tullamarine = Seaford. You dont have a point because as stated salary is:

a) an independent variable to location
b) will become equal across the board over time so is therefore not relevant


Why I bother with half-wits Ill never know. And to think you are the 'thought leader' on here. Well just leave it at that.
Once again you dont make a clear view - you think you have a winner by scoring a 'point' on BJ when in fact you dont. Your 'point' is non sensical. But I don't expect you will ever understand why and will probably argue back. Please dont reply. Go and ask someone else to maybe explain it to you.

[stinger]

Firstly - I'm not sure why Tullamarine is a benchmark? There is no evidence that Tulamarine will be a success.
People try and use Hawthorns move as a benchmark but thre reality is that Mulgrave is only 13km from Melbournes population centre (Glen Iris). Seaford is 35km.

Add to that the idea that 'Location doesnt matter because we can just pay overs' is fundamentally flawed.
BJs move to the Bombers was almost certainly based on them paying overs (the 4th year) and maybe the chance of playing finals. So it was probbaly worth an extra $1m for him ot move over 4 years.

Becuaser we live in a Salary Cap world - we need to assume that in the long run and on average - all slaries are equal.

So people need to stop coming up with ridiculous arguments about Seaford meaning we just pay more - we wont and cant.

The question is all things being completely equal on salary (a valid assumption because that is the regime we live in) would people be attracted to Seaford over other clubs offering the exact same money???

The answer is clearly NO.

Add to that - player attraction is but one of the reasons I am pro Junction.

The others are corporate, cultural, historical, social and the ability to attract new members and fans from outside the (dwindling) rusted-ons. So if you truly support Seaford - you need to address all of those other reasons as well as a very limp defence on player attraction. Good luck with that!

But if people feel comforted by thinking Seaford is all great then they can go on - but its an emotional decision. Not factual.

The only one who liked the idea was Arcie Fraser. Its sad some supporters are still buying into Archie Fraser. He has surely moved on with his life.

What has your comment about Tullamarine being a success or not got to do with BJ moving. The point is he moved to a place that is basically no better then Seaford because of reasons you mentioned. I think that backs up exactly what im saying. We will get players to Seaford if we pay enough and show signs of improvement. We wont get players to the JO of we don't pay enough and we don't look like improving.

.

Your whole argument is a non-sequitur because it relies on salary.

Ive outlined several times - that the decision (on location as a factor in player attraction) has to made where pay and salary are equal overall.
You cant say we are going to - on average - pay over average compared with the rest of the competition.

I cant be bothered explaining this because i dont think u are bright enough to get it.

But the variable of 'location' (this is what is been discussed here) needs to be measured where all other variables are equal.
This is a valid assumption in assessing 'location' because across the board all salary should be equal in a SC regulated environment.

This you cannot use 'salaries' in this debate. It is completely irrelevant - so I ask you to stop doing it.
I'm not sure you can grasp that concept. You keep repeating the same thing . 'If' we pay more.
On average - over time - and across all players - We cant pay more - we can only pay the same.

BJ left for more cash - this is known as an 'independent variable'.

Ill state it one more time:

1. all things being equal (this is a valid assumption in a salary cap constrained world) - then Seaford is a competitive disadvantage as a location in terms of player attraction.
2. Player attraction is but one of several factors why I prefer the JO to S.

You keep harping on and on with non-sequitar arguments because you think you have a point about Tullamarine = Seaford. You dont have a point because as stated salary is:

a) an independent variable to location
b) will become equal across the board over time so is therefore not relevant


Why I bother with half-wits Ill never know. And to think you are the 'thought leader' on here. Well just leave it at that.
Once again you dont make a clear view - you think you have a winner by scoring a 'point' on BJ when in fact you dont. Your 'point' is non sensical. But I don't expect you will ever understand why and will probably argue back. Please dont reply. Go and ask someone else to maybe explain it to you.

you've got his number mate.........you will get far more pleasure out of this site though if you don't bother with half-wits at all....i don't.....

[plugger66]

Firstly - I'm not sure why Tullamarine is a benchmark? There is no evidence that Tulamarine will be a success.
People try and use Hawthorns move as a benchmark but thre reality is that Mulgrave is only 13km from Melbournes population centre (Glen Iris). Seaford is 35km.

Add to that the idea that 'Location doesnt matter because we can just pay overs' is fundamentally flawed.
BJs move to the Bombers was almost certainly based on them paying overs (the 4th year) and maybe the chance of playing finals. So it was probbaly worth an extra $1m for him ot move over 4 years.

Becuaser we live in a Salary Cap world - we need to assume that in the long run and on average - all slaries are equal.

So people need to stop coming up with ridiculous arguments about Seaford meaning we just pay more - we wont and cant.

The question is all things being completely equal on salary (a valid assumption because that is the regime we live in) would people be attracted to Seaford over other clubs offering the exact same money???

The answer is clearly NO.

Add to that - player attraction is but one of the reasons I am pro Junction.

The others are corporate, cultural, historical, social and the ability to attract new members and fans from outside the (dwindling) rusted-ons. So if you truly support Seaford - you need to address all of those other reasons as well as a very limp defence on player attraction. Good luck with that!

But if people feel comforted by thinking Seaford is all great then they can go on - but its an emotional decision. Not factual.

The only one who liked the idea was Arcie Fraser. Its sad some supporters are still buying into Archie Fraser. He has surely moved on with his life.

What has your comment about Tullamarine being a success or not got to do with BJ moving. The point is he moved to a place that is basically no better then Seaford because of reasons you mentioned. I think that backs up exactly what im saying. We will get players to Seaford if we pay enough and show signs of improvement. We wont get players to the JO of we don't pay enough and we don't look like improving.

.

Your whole argument is a non-sequitur because it relies on salary.

Ive outlined several times - that the decision (on location as a factor in player attraction) has to made where pay and salary are equal overall.
You cant say we are going to - on average - pay over average compared with the rest of the competition.

I cant be bothered explaining this because i dont think u are bright enough to get it.

But the variable of 'location' (this is what is been discussed here) needs to be measured where all other variables are equal.
This is a valid assumption in assessing 'location' because across the board all salary should be equal in a SC regulated environment.

This you cannot use 'salaries' in this debate. It is completely irrelevant - so I ask you to stop doing it.
I'm not sure you can grasp that concept. You keep repeating the same thing . 'If' we pay more.
On average - over time - and across all players - We cant pay more - we can only pay the same.

BJ left for more cash - this is known as an 'independent variable'.

Ill state it one more time:

1. all things being equal (this is a valid assumption in a salary cap constrained world) - then Seaford is a competitive disadvantage as a location in terms of player attraction.
2. Player attraction is but one of several factors why I prefer the JO to S.

You keep harping on and on with non-sequitar arguments because you think you have a point about Tullamarine = Seaford. You dont have a point because as stated salary is:

a) an independent variable to location
b) will become equal across the board over time so is therefore not relevant


Why I bother with half-wits Ill never know. And to think you are the 'thought leader' on here. Well just leave it at that.
Once again you dont make a clear view - you think you have a winner by scoring a 'point' on BJ when in fact you dont. Your 'point' is non sensical. But I don't expect you will ever understand why and will probably argue back. Please dont reply. Go and ask someone else to maybe explain it to you.

Are you actually capable in having a conversation with making it personal. By the looks of your posts on this topic the answer is clearly no but at least you have Stinger on your side. Wow. And all the things you say you can use, you have used but hey you don't read what you write every often and do change your mind like the wind. The other thing you have done for years is get on a topic and then stay on it until you get bored and start another topic. None that ever come off or work out. It was how big a player was but now its we cant get stars because we train in Seaford even though we haven't tried to get any since we started there and that is somehow your proof that we cant get them.

I don't get this pay the same cash rubbis. If we trained in Seaford next year and offered the same as the Hawks for a very good GC player my best guess is they would choose the hawks everytime. If we did the same at Seaford they would do the same everytime. Of course its about salaries when you are a bottom club whan chasing very good players so you cant say all things being equal. Its complete rubbish.

Are you actually saying if we train t the JO we will get very good players even if we pay the same and are no good? That is fantasyland stuff. BJ wouldn't have gone to Essendon without a pay rise and a longer contract just the pies wont get anyone while they are struggling just because of their location. We aren't buying houses with views here. We are dealing with professional athletes who will most of the time take the best option for them if they are considering moving clubs. It isn't that hard to understand. Well not for people who stay in the one location long enough to meet a friend.

[BakesFan]

The St Kilda FC has two 'spiritual' homes... The Junction & Moorabbin....... sadly, Seaford is the result of club egos vs council egos.

A return to either The Junction or Moorabbin would be the "feel good" story of the decade for the AFL.... and the AFL will despeartely need every 'feel good' story they can get......given the way the Essendope debacle will continue to pan out.

"The Saints return to The Junction" or "The Saints return to Moorabbin" would give our beloved club an unbelievable boost.

The AFL NEED this to happen......An inaugaral VFL club returning to its spiritual home with a 'boutique' stadium that would host 20-25,000 spectators.

We need stadium that could be used to host the lower drawing Vic teams vs interstate team clashes; but still provide a 'cauldron'-type crowd. A stadium that would provide a positive $$ return to the struggling Vic clubs. A stadium that would make The Docklands management reconsider their current predatory arrangements.

[plugger66]

The St Kilda FC has two 'spiritual' homes... The Junction & Moorabbin....... sadly, Seaford is the result of club egos vs council egos.

A return to either The Junction or Moorabbin would be the "feel good" story of the decade for the AFL.... and the AFL will despeartely need every 'feel good' story they can get......given the way the Essendope debacle will continue to pan out.

"The Saints return to The Junction" or "The Saints return to Moorabbin" would give our beloved club an unbelievable boost.

The AFL NEED this to happen......An inaugaral VFL club returning to its spiritual home with a 'boutique' stadium that would host 20-25,000 spectators.

We need stadium that could be used to host the lower drawing Vic teams vs interstate team clashes; but still provide a 'cauldron'-type crowd. A stadium that would provide a positive $$ return to the struggling Vic clubs. A stadium that would make The Docklands management reconsider their current predatory arrangements.

I don't know where we will end up but it seems it could be the ground outside the JO but we will never have our own ground or another shared ground apart from the G or Etihad. It isn't possible especially since the AFL will own Etihad in 14 years. They wont want another ground and the little cost of around 200 million would make it impossible.

I hope we end up with a ground to train that has faculties equal to most if not all clubs.

[stinger]

The St Kilda FC has two 'spiritual' homes... The Junction & Moorabbin....... sadly, Seaford is the result of club egos vs council egos.

A return to either The Junction or Moorabbin would be the "feel good" story of the decade for the AFL.... and the AFL will despeartely need every 'feel good' story they can get......given the way the Essendope debacle will continue to pan out.

"The Saints return to The Junction" or "The Saints return to Moorabbin" would give our beloved club an unbelievable boost.

The AFL NEED this to happen......An inaugaral VFL club returning to its spiritual home with a 'boutique' stadium that would host 20-25,000 spectators.

We need stadium that could be used to host the lower drawing Vic teams vs interstate team clashes; but still provide a 'cauldron'-type crowd. A stadium that would provide a positive $$ return to the struggling Vic clubs. A stadium that would make The Docklands management reconsider their current predatory arrangements.

very sound ideas mate...very sound

[Con Gorozidis]

Those defending Seaford keep trying to make out that the salary equation will always be in our favour.

Clearly it wont - mostly it will be equal.

Sometimes it will be in our favour (Hickey, Delaney) - Sometimes against (BJ) - but overall it MUST be equal.

If the argument for Seaford is that we will always be able to offer more money to offset the inconvenience- then clearly it is a completely flawed argument.

[BackFromUSA]

I remember Luke Ball coming to the kids footy club and gushing over the Lexus centre. He said he left us and it was like coming from another era. He said he went in the door at the Pies and the professionalism and standards of the environment made you feel different and more professional, said he knew he'd made the right decision. He def gave the impression that the environment was a huge factor to performance and general well being.

I notice no word of location though. The argument is location not facilities. Why did BJ go to Tullamarine when he lives in Brighton if distance is an issue. We will get very good players wherever we train once we want to get them. To think otherwise is plain silly IMO of course. No one could claim Tullamarine is a better suburb than Seaford surely.

I can think of 3 million reasons

[plugger66]

I remember Luke Ball coming to the kids footy club and gushing over the Lexus centre. He said he left us and it was like coming from another era. He said he went in the door at the Pies and the professionalism and standards of the environment made you feel different and more professional, said he knew he'd made the right decision. He def gave the impression that the environment was a huge factor to performance and general well being.

I notice no word of location though. The argument is location not facilities. Why did BJ go to Tullamarine when he lives in Brighton if distance is an issue. We will get very good players wherever we train once we want to get them. To think otherwise is plain silly IMO of course. No one could claim Tullamarine is a better suburb than Seaford surely.

I can think of 3 million reasons

Exactly and that is my point. It doesn't matter where you train if you pay enough. Distance wasn't an issue because of the money. We will get very good players at seaford when we want them. To think otherwise means its going to be a long time to improve especially if the JO thing takes years. I prefer to think money will get players, not the location.

[Con Gorozidis]

I remember Luke Ball coming to the kids footy club and gushing over the Lexus centre. He said he left us and it was like coming from another era. He said he went in the door at the Pies and the professionalism and standards of the environment made you feel different and more professional, said he knew he'd made the right decision. He def gave the impression that the environment was a huge factor to performance and general well being.

I notice no word of location though. The argument is location not facilities. Why did BJ go to Tullamarine when he lives in Brighton if distance is an issue. We will get very good players wherever we train once we want to get them. To think otherwise is plain silly IMO of course. No one could claim Tullamarine is a better suburb than Seaford surely.

BJ went cos he got an extra million $. Salary is a zero sum game overall i.e You win some You lose some.

And there is no guarantee he will stay in Brighton the next 3 years either.
He will probably move as he lived in Brighton because of its relative convenience to his old workplace. If he still remains living there in 2017 - then you may have a point.

And Ill believe all these big fish we are hoping to get when I actually see it.
Right now its based on pure speculation/fantasy.
There is nothing real to base this confidence on.

[plugger66]

I remember Luke Ball coming to the kids footy club and gushing over the Lexus centre. He said he left us and it was like coming from another era. He said he went in the door at the Pies and the professionalism and standards of the environment made you feel different and more professional, said he knew he'd made the right decision. He def gave the impression that the environment was a huge factor to performance and general well being.

I notice no word of location though. The argument is location not facilities. Why did BJ go to Tullamarine when he lives in Brighton if distance is an issue. We will get very good players wherever we train once we want to get them. To think otherwise is plain silly IMO of course. No one could claim Tullamarine is a better suburb than Seaford surely.

BJ went cos he got an extra million $. Salary is a zero sum game overall i.e You win some You lose some.

And there is no guarantee he will stay in Brighton the next 3 years either.
He will probably move as he lived in Brighton because of its relative convenience to his old workplace. If he still remains living there in 2017 - then you may have a point.

And Ill believe all these big fish we are hoping to get when I actually see it.
Right now its based on pure speculation/fantasy.
There is nothing real to base this confidence on.

As your opinion is as well. Guessing BJ will move. That's strong evidence. Con we may not move for many years. Are you actually saying the club will get no very good players in that time because of seaford? Why can Essendon get someone with money but we cant. BJ moved to Tullamarine when he lives at Brighton. Tullamarine is certainly not a better suburb than Seaford. I will say we will get a very good player the minute the club want one as long as we shown signs of improving and we pay enough. Exactly what we would have to do at the JO.

[Con Gorozidis]

As your opinion is as well. Guessing BJ will move. That's strong evidence. Con we may not move for many years. Are you actually saying the club will get no very good players in that time because of seaford? Why can Essendon get someone with money but we cant. BJ moved to Tullamarine when he lives at Brighton. Tullamarine is certainly not a better suburb than Seaford. I will say we will get a very good player the minute the club want one as long as we shown signs of improving and we pay enough. Exactly what we would have to do at the JO.

Dont you understand that he got a million more to move but that the salary factor is a zero sum game?

I dont think you actually get the concept.

Ill make it easier and put it in a way you can understand

Assume GWS and Sydney have identical salary caps.

Do you believe Sydney have any competitive advantage whatsoever over GWS due to location? Yes or No.

[Bunk_Moreland]

As your opinion is as well. Guessing BJ will move. That's strong evidence. Con we may not move for many years. Are you actually saying the club will get no very good players in that time because of seaford? Why can Essendon get someone with money but we cant. BJ moved to Tullamarine when he lives at Brighton. Tullamarine is certainly not a better suburb than Seaford. I will say we will get a very good player the minute the club want one as long as we shown signs of improving and we pay enough. Exactly what we would have to do at the JO.

Dont you understand that he got a million more to move but that the salary factor is a zero sum game?

I dont think you actually get the concept.

Ill make it easier and put it in a way you can understand

Assume GWS and Sydney have identical salary caps.

Do you believe Sydney have any competitive advantage whatsoever over GWS due to location? Yes or No.

No. Costs of Sydney's inner suburbs are twice the amount of Sydney's west.

You do know Greg Inglis lived in Altona Meadows when he was in Melbourne.

Players live all over the city, mainly in the east and to get to Seaford wouldn't be hard at all.

It is such a furphy this Seaford BS

[plugger66]

As your opinion is as well. Guessing BJ will move. That's strong evidence. Con we may not move for many years. Are you actually saying the club will get no very good players in that time because of seaford? Why can Essendon get someone with money but we cant. BJ moved to Tullamarine when he lives at Brighton. Tullamarine is certainly not a better suburb than Seaford. I will say we will get a very good player the minute the club want one as long as we shown signs of improving and we pay enough. Exactly what we would have to do at the JO.

Dont you understand that he got a million more to move but that the salary factor is a zero sum game?

I dont think you actually get the concept.

Ill make it easier and put it in a way you can understand

Assume GWS and Sydney have identical salary caps.

Do you believe Sydney have any competitive advantage whatsoever over GWS due to location? Yes or No.

But that is the thing you don't get Con. Clubs may have equal SC but they may and probably wont have equal room. We were in Moorabbin in 2009 and we were a top side but we couldn't get any good players because we had no money in the cap. If we were at the JO back then it would have been the same. Do you actually think we would get very good players at the JO if we offered the same money as the Hawks who train in Glen Waverley if the ladder positions stayed the same. Of course we wouldn't but we will have SC space so we may get very good players that the Hawks cant afford. BJ moved for money. The location to where he moved didn't stop him.

[Con Gorozidis]

I do remember GI lived in Altona Meadows yes. It was plastered all over the news.

There are thousands of professional footballers in Australia across 4 codes. So of course it will be easy to pick out individuals and then say 'there you go proved my point'. Joe Bloggs lives in Kabul.

Ill state it again to be slow and clear:

1. Overall - Seaford is not a competitive advantage for player attraction. Maybe you can argue it is neutral. I accept that as a valid view.
2. Even if it is a neutral on player attraction (which I dont believe) - I still maintain it represents a competitive advantage on many other factors such as:

2.1 Growing and expanding the members and fans beyond the dwindling rusted-ons
2.2. Improved social/community opportunities
2.3 Improved branding and marketing opportunities
2.4 Improves corporate and sponsorship opportunities

It is early days sure - but right here right now we have struggled for sponsorship and to attract any big fish in recent times. Now plenty of people seem to be either denying this, or just hoping wishing praying its just going to all turn around with the help of god.

I dont even really get why people want to defend Seaford with such gusto. Its kind of weird. 50 years of cultural history at the JO and no-one gives a crap about it. Just sad really. Think of a Saints museum & Cafe etc etc at the Junction. I cant really fathom how purported Saints fans could not want that.

Anyway Im not going to post in this thread again until there is further actual news.

If it happens I think it will be tremendous and give the club a chance of a future.

When we moved to Moorabbin in the 60s it was during a time of mass decentralisation. Things like Monash University and VFL Park summed up the thinking of the decades from 1955 to 1975. (this was largely a trend imported from the UK at that time).
This trend has been well and truly reversed in the last decade - with mass centralisation.
Moving back to the Junction will be a culmination of all these things and a real 'back to the future' moment.

It might be years away if ever but I hope Gillon McLachlan makes it happen....

P.s
If we win a flag at Seaford in the next five years - well you can all 'shove it right up me' Teddy Whitten style.

[plugger66]

I do remember GI lived in Altona Meadows yes. It was plastered all over the news.

There are thousands of professional footballers in Australia across 4 codes. So of course it will be easy to pick out individuals and then say 'there you go proved my point'. Joe Bloggs lives in Kabul.

Ill state it again to be slow and clear:

1. Overall - Seaford is not a competitive advantage for player attraction. Maybe you can argue it is neutral. I accept that as a valid view.
2. Even if it is a neutral on player attraction (which I dont believe) - I still maintain it represents a competitive advantage on many other factors such as:

2.1 Growing and expanding the members and fans beyond the dwindling rusted-ons
2.2. Improved social/community opportunities
2.3 Improved branding and marketing opportunities
2.4 Improves corporate and sponsorship opportunities

It is early days sure - but right here right now we have struggled for sponsorship and to attract any big fish in recent times. Now plenty of people seem to be either denying this, or just hoping wishing praying its just going to all turn around with the help of god.

I dont even really get why people want to defend Seaford with such gusto. Its kind of weird. 50 years of cultural history at the JO and no-one gives a crap about it. Just sad really. Think of a Saints museum & Cafe etc etc at the Junction. I cant really fathom how purported Saints fans could not want that.

Anyway Im not going to post in this thread again until there is further actual news.

If it happens I think it will be tremendous and give the club a chance of a future.

When we moved to Moorabbin in the 60s it was during a time of mass decentralisation. Things like Monash University and VFL Park summed up the thinking of the decades from 1955 to 1975. (this was largely a trend imported from the UK at that time).
This trend has been well and truly reversed in the last decade - with mass centralisation.
Moving back to the Junction will be a culmination of all these things and a real 'back to the future' moment.

It might be years away if ever but I hope Gillon McLachlan makes it happen....

P.s
If we win a flag at Seaford in the next five years - well you can all 'shove it right up me' Teddy Whitten style.

I think you are speaking to me and its good its a civilised discussion. I have never said there is an attraction to Seaford. For a start I live in east Bentleigh so it was better for me if I did want to attend training that we stayed where we were. We stuffed up big time because if we stayed where we were we would already have our own reserves side. And if we win a flag and if people shove it up anyone they have issues. I will be to busy being happy to worry about proving I was right and you were wrong. Anyway I don't see it as a right and wrong thing. I want us to train at the place with the best facilties. I don't care where it is and what I differ to you with is I don't think we get better players because we are at the JO. I think while you are a bottom side you get better players because you pay over and it wont matter where you train. And I honestly don't give a stuff about the JO because ll my good times were at Moorabbin. The JO is the Fitzroy ground or the saints cricket ground and cant stand the Saints as im a demons supporter so its all bad memories for me.

[Dave McNamara]

The JO is the Fitzroy ground or the saints cricket ground and cant stand the Saints as im a demons supporter so its all bad memories for me.

Finally the admission, after all these years...

Pluggsy is a... TROLL.