THE BRISBANE Lions have stepped up the search for a new training and administration facility after their original choice at Springfield was clouded in controversy.
After announcing the western Brisbane suburb would house the new facility in August 2013, it hit one hurdle after another and is now being reviewed.
The Lions sent a letter to their members on Friday outlining the process it is taking to find a new base.
The committee assembled to examine the issue is new CEO Greg Swann and directors Andrew Wellington, Sarah Kelly and Leigh Matthews – all not involved in the original decision.
The proposed Springfield facility has been one big problem child for the Lions over the past 14 months.
Firstly, Lions chairman Bob Sharpless – who is also the deputy chairman of the Springfield Land Corporation - rose the ire of members with a perceived conflict of interest in the decision.
Secondly, the federal Labor government was ousted last September – erasing a $15 million pre-election promise and putting a massive hole in the site's funding.
The committee has now met with various regional councils, governments and private enterprises, and visited a number of venues, to assess their options.
They have a prepared a shortlist – that still includes Springfield – but will not be making the rest public.
"Committee members began by stating that they could understand the logic applied when the Springfield option was agreed to almost 18 months ago, and they concur it was the only fundable, triple-A venue option at the time," the letter to members said.
"However, the committee has found that much has changed over that period including a funding gap in the Springfield proposition which has yet to be solved."
The criteria to identify the new base includes the availability of funding and financial impact on the club; well-being and retention of players and staff, with regard to both the quality of facilities and location; opportunity to provide commercial activity; and the potential to partner with other elite sporting organisation or community groups.
"At this stage, we would like to re-affirm that no directors with an interest in any of the final options for the facility will participate in the final Board vote on the issue," the letter said.
