All Activity

No, you're not alone G & F. I agree 100% that the club should give interested fans the first bite to undertake work for the club irrespective whether its for payment or volunteering. Looking after your local community is a 2 way process. Well done to the club on that score. The club should however, have involved the supporters at a far earlier stage, as you rightly point out. The club submitted plans to the Council on 13 March and it was almost a month later that one of our own spotted, by accident I may add, the application on the planning website. Not a good look for a fan owned club. Now I'm not advocating that fans should have been consulted on the design, number of rooms, or the colour of the roof or anything so mundane. However given the substantial cost, scale of strategic investment, and the fact that the club does not even own the land on which the facility is to be erected I would have thought that the membership would have been informed, at the very least. A bit more transparency and accountability would have been sensible and justified. Thats before the issue of a POD replacement/stadium relocation is taken into account. I quite get that the need for a new training facility is pressing and won't wait 10 or 15 years or whatever. However, it would have made sense to consider this development as part of the wider issue. Maybe it has but we just haven't been told? The Society has generally improved consultation with members over minor issues, but this should also extend to major ones too.

Having to rely on Wilson for the season gives me the fear Dave, hes too slow and i dont think he is comfortable with our playing out from the back style.

I've no inside info whatsoever, but linking the various snippets together, I'd say its very likely. The question then is do we ship Wilson out and bring in an understudy or competition for Williams?

The gaffer said

I really hope Longelo doesnt leave, the difference between having him on the pitch over Wilson is wild!!!!!!!!!

The proof will be in the pudding as they say. If we are sitting in 5 years time still in the top flight with a brand new POD built still challenging for top 6 and European football then all will be well in the world. Id like a cup win as well, but happy to wait a little longer for that if we are transforming the club in the process.

Agreed. I defended his ‘building incrementally’ statement a few weeks ago a statement that looks to have been naive. This takes time, comfortable in those at the helm to trust the process.

If Alfred can coach some shooting into him, he'll be our next 5millon sale.

Thankfully he, and we, won't have as many plastic games this season.

Basically, for the avoidance of doubt, I think the SFA are a corrupt body. We all saw what happened at the end of last season, or at the very least had our suspicions for years. But hey ho. I stand by my previous statement: we should have a closed top league of two clubs who play each other 38 times a season and can riot and vandalise each other's grounds every week. I'm glad the club is appealing the fine. I don't think McInnes said anything wrong or untrue that day. I still think both Glasgow clubs' allocations at Fir Park should be restricted to the top tier only in light of the pitch invasions and other instances of "over exuberance" (if you can call it that). I don't think there's any more to be said now. I'm going to enjoy at least 30 league games this season and hope we do well. But if I never see or hear about either Glasgow club again, I'll be a happy man.

The quality of signings are decent and as long as loanees are limited to a selected few then fine . I do wonder if our new manager has a bias for young players . Hopefully not to Gannon level . From his recent interview it’s clear that there’s still more to come between now and the end of the window . Expect more in midfield and attack . Also suspect more will leave . JT , AP maybe Thor. Also got a niggling feeling that Longelo may leave . Very interesting month to come for both ins and outs .

That's what I thought too. Paulsen was probably expecting a cleaner shot, but it was whipped in - although gently - with a lot of spin and it probably kicked up off the plastic at a weird angle.

Would love to watch a training session with Said doing shooting practice. His teammates must be in hysterics!

Ah, bugger. Did not see that.

Lets be honest about that HB had a couple of half chances over the two games that Paulsen had to deal with but our defence was never really in any trouble. It was two clean sheets but in the context of the team we were playing were hopeless. Two clean sheets in the first two league games will be more praiseworthy.

No. The land it will be built on is owned by the Dalziel High School War Memorial Trust and will remain in their hands. That has been a concern of mine.

He signed a new 3 year deal in April.

I think that is Lowry’s position too. A new tactic?

I see he's in the last year of his deal at Bristol, and seems to be on loan every season. So if he's any good we might get him for free at the end of the season.

Indeed, defence part of that reason also.

If our new signing registered today, he just beat the deadline to be included in the squad for this one.

Great news...Long overdue for a club at our level to have a dedicated training ground

Two clean sheets

The wee ball boy is devastated

Maybe I'm on my own here, but I really hope not. The final paragraph caught my eye: That's something I've long advocated for. Give Motherwell supporters first bite at the cherry. Harness the goodwill that exists and, where it's competitive to do so, keep the money, work and goodwill within our own support and community. What I can't get past, though, is the juxtaposition of asking for supporter involvement now rather than earlier when the planning itself was being made. We're a fan-owned club, we're sold on greater transparency and accountability, told these are fundamental. Yet a decision as significant as relocating the club's day-to-day operations for the foreseeable future appears to have been progressed almost entirely behind closed doors. The only reason it was even discussed before today is because an eagle-eyed supporter happened to spot the planning application on the NLC website. Deciding where the club will be based from 9 to 5, Monday to Friday, in perpetuity isn't a minor operational matter. It's a strategic decision that sits firmly within the remit of the Well Society and, ultimately, its membership. Naturally, some well kent faces will wheel out the often cited "fan-owned, not fan-run". But that should neither become a straw man nor a shield against accountability, nor a way of closing down legitimate questions from the very people who own the club. Fan ownership has to mean meaningful involvement in decisions of this scale. A decision of this permanence sits firmly within the remit of the membership and should have been subject to proper consultation and a vote. To suggest that an individual owner with over 70% of the entity would have limited input in advance of a decision of this magnitude would be difficult to imagine. It is therefore hard to justify why this has seemingly been delegated solely to the two Well Society representatives on the club board or treated as an executive matter for the Society board, rather than something requiring wider member engagement. Fan ownership does not mean members should be involved in every operational decision or that the club cannot move forward without a vote on every matter. It does, however, mean that decisions of this scale and permanence should involve the people who collectively own the club. This should not be presented as a fait accompli as the press release makes out, particularly when its hard to see how we'll ever own the surrounding land. That means the long-term value, control and flexibility of the asset will always be constrained, making meaningful consultation before reaching this point even more important. The WS's own document (found here: https://thewellsociety.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/TheWellSocietyMajorVotesPolicy.pdf) states: 3. Definition of a Major Vote ● A ballot of the membership will be progressed if it meets any of the following major vote criteria: ● Large-Scale Financial Decisions o Taking on significant debt (e.g., major loans, stadium financing). o Selling club assets (stadium, training ground, or other major facilities). ● The Society Board retains the discretion to call a ballot of the membership on issues beyond the defined criteria, where it considers there to be a potential impact on the club’s structure, financial stability, governance, or identity. It's hard to reconcile how a decision that determines where the club's primary operations will be based for decades does not at least warrant consideration under this policy. Selling as asset such as a training ground is identical to buying one. This is the first major test of a policy adopted last summer, and members deserve clarity on why it has not been invoked. From the outside looking in, it appears the very people who collectively own the club have been bypassed, rather than empowered, by a process that should have placed them at the centre of the decision.