All Activity

Reports tonight that Just's fee is £6m + add ons. We'll probably have to pay Horsens a cut.

March goes through precinct then up Windmillhill st normally

Ross Tierney scored a late winner for Bohemians in the first leg of their European qualifier.

If its a yacht then you could finance a new stadium. If it's an internal cabin on a cruise ship then enjoy your cocktails.

While I am on a roll I hope mrs baillies bar is better organised tomorrow. Was ridiculous last week queueing for 20 mins to get a drink. Not going there tomorrow as that totally put me off going there in future

Not sure bud, think starting in town centre

Any idea where this walk is? Please tell me it’s not up Airbles road. I need to drive a pensioner up to the game and with the road works going in I can be doing without any other delays.

I dont think there is a stadium in the world that requires maintenance...its just the way it is. Im on a boat in the med just now, so apologies for short reply as im a bit pished

I think there is also a willful oversight that hospitality spends are on the increase and patrons demand a certain experience to justify that expense. What we offer is not amazing in 2026, by 2046 it will be archaic without looking at our target audience and adjusting our offering. Fixing FP is just sticky plaster-ing the problem. If we take the projected £8m and £5m I outlined above as the top end of our spend would it not make more sense to put that into something new, bespoke and itself OK for 30 years before any major upgrade works? It's a strange one that we don't look to secure our club's future in the same we do in our own lives. I suspect very few of us live in the same place we did after moving out of our parents home. Transitioning from renting in some cases or buying and taking on debt beyond our current income but manageable because the debt is designed to allow us to progress. We do it because we aspire to more and get our foot on the ladder. As we transition through life we upgrade often to a family home and/or to something that reflects our income and lifestyle aspirations. I suspect the vast majority on here have taken out a mortgage with no guarantees on continued employment or security, but for Motherwell to do it is a step too far?

Probably get my nose bitten off as you aren't allowed to criticise them but I hear bois are doing a walk tomorrow to stadium which will be great and well supported.....however....can you leave the flares at home? I know we have plenty cash but we cant keep paying out fines for flare displays. Get that drum and vocal chords in full flow. Thats best way to support us. COYW

Both Longelo and Maswanishe took part in the latest training session on official site. Surely suggests both will take at least some part tomorrow night

The problem is that the refurbishment of Fir Park won't stop there. Once the POD is addressed then there are 3 other stands as well as assorted issues then needing addressed. That will easily run into 7 figures if not more. A veritable money pit.

We are all forgetting something really important that has emerged on the other side of the pond over the last few weeks, we all know refereeing is corrupt to the bigger ugly teams with the budgets and influence but what they are not telling us about todays hearing was that McInnes used the big red phone n called Donald….hence why his game was suspended….we are so silly arent we!

So if the SFA felt that the VAR decision at Fir Park wasn't the worst ever, which one do they think is?

The sums of money mentioned to me would back up that statement.

Exactly this.

I and others have tried to illustrate that a new stadium offers significant revenue boosts to cover the cost. Staying at FP isn't doing up the 60 year old POD, as soon as that's done it's addressing the 33 year old McLean (roof and seats) then onto the Hunter which is essentially a terrancing shed with a 60? year old structure and roof. By the time that is all done the Cooper will need work. Fir Park very much is the Forth Bridge, by the time you finish painting it, you start again. I'd venture that by revamping the POD, the associated loss in premium revenues, the upheaval, the temporary fixes to allow us to continue hosting games, then fixing the McLean and the Hunter in turn, we're easily looking at £5m beyond the cost of the POD replacement which I still contend will be a nightmare in planning and consultant/architect/lawyers fees.

The independent report into the OF pitch invasion is pretty damning for the SFA. It basically says that they are not using their powers consistently and I think there is an implication that they are far too lenient on the Old Firm in particular. In this particular situation, the two tier policing of Motherwell and Derek McIness could not be more blatant. McInnes comments were said in anger on live television in the immediate aftermath of a highly volatile ending to the match at FP. His comments were heard by millions. They were inflammatory and clearly called into question the integrity of the officials. Watt posts on social media to a considerably smaller audience, a comment that may question the competence of the decision but not the integrity of it and his punishment is worse. You cannot get a more direct and obvious comparison. The SFA have had time to consider this response and will know themselves the discrepancies in this decision making so you have to come to the conclusion that they simply don't care.

Part of what McInnes said was also along the lines of "I didn't need to ask who the penalty was for when I was told". What he said was definitely worse than anything Watt came out with.

The SFA are a disgusting organisation.

I think you need to look more closely at McInnes' comments. Yes he said they were disgusting, but he also implied there was an agenda hence questioning the integrity of the officials. Watt didnt do that. He just said it was tge worst VAR decision ever. McInnes' comments were also in relation to a game he was not involved in. He was also the manager aka "leader" of his club at that time, therefore in a position of trust, if you will. The 2 cases are NOT comparable. The fact that the individual committing the lesser offence received the greater punishment, might be described as "disgusting". Just my opinion mind you.....

Having looked into it a bit more over the past few days, I don't actually think the issue is that the SFA took action. Rule 72 exists to stop people publicly accusing referees of bias or incompetence, and if Elliott Watt admitted his comments breached that rule, then some form of sanction was always likely to be on the cards. What I do struggle with is the lack of transparency and consistency. Watt received a four match ban with nothing suspended, while the club was fined over the social media video. Yet the SFA's public statement gives virtually no reasoning. It doesn't explain what specific words or parts of the video crossed the line, what aggravating factors were considered, or why those particular punishments were appropriate. That's hard to reconcile when you look at previous cases. Brendan Rodgers received a two-match ban after describing the officiating as "incompetence", but one of those matches was suspended from what I can tell? As someone already mentioned, Callum McGregor said after Trusty's red card: "We may as well all go up the road and stop playing football if that's going to be a red card every single week." No action appears to have been taken, I'm guessing because the SFA viewed that as criticism of the decision itself rather than an allegation of bias or incompetence by the officials? Honestly, it's hard to actually determine how they reach their decision half the time. I understand that different cases can absolutely justify different punishments, but the SFA doesn't publish anywhere near enough detail for anyone to understand why those differences exist. Why was McGregor's criticism acceptable, Rodgers received one immediate match and one suspended, while Watt received four immediate matches? There may well be legitimate reasons, but if there are, they're not being explained as far as I can tell. For me, that's the real issue. If you're going to dish out significant sanctions, particularly a four-match ban for a player, you should also publish clear reasons so clubs and supporters can see how the decision was reached and why it's consistent with previous cases. At the moment, that transparency just isn't there.

I have two questions - 1. Was the mitigation that McInnes was wearing his Rangers tie at the hearing? 2. Was Infantino included on the Panel? It's not the corruption that is the most infuriating. It's the fact they are so open about it and don't care who sees it. And if Motherwell make a noise about it then they will be cited again. I'm just waiting on Hearts getting a wee phone following the little sing song from their fans last night.

Well technically he got a four match ban with one suspended and I don’t think what he said was that much worse, he said it was “disgusting” which is more or less what every Motherwell fan was saying about the decision. However I would like to see us as a club asking why he was served a four with one suspended whilst our player was given a straight four game ban. The fact that Watt is no longer our player is irrelevant, it was handed down to him whilst he was and he was perfectly within his rights to question such a ridiculous decision.

Good to hear the club at a high level, has got back to you...I honestly believe we are an extremely well run club at the moment and thats down to the likes of Brian and Kyrk. As for the main stand, I've listened and read the details from guys on here and p&Bovril, but I just dont see how a new stadium at huge, huge cost is more viable than redoing the main stand completely at what would be a much smaller, huge cost.