All Activity

Yup, really strong squad now. Strongest i have seen in ages

I totally get that Hodge will likely be the preferred starter given what we paid for him and the fact we will want to develop him into a future profit. Hiwever, the question was what do YOU think is our strongest 11. I think Oscar gives us more mobility and athleticism in the middle of the park, whilst not being a significant downgrade technically on Hodge. What a debate to be having though? Good player or other good player!

But of course if Hodge not playing well then yes would be on bench. I really like him though, been a good signing

If 18,000 and 8,000 OF fans where would they be seated? Behind both goals i assume? Your points are great and you have went to great depth explaining them but the less OF fans at games the better. We don't need their money as much these days ( unlike st j who gave sellik 3 stands last night) Plus 18,000 too big. We cant sell out our stadium just now. But off park and on it so much improvement in past 18 months

We paid £500k for Hodge, he ain't going to be sitting on bench. Priestman is great also. Injuries abd suspensions will always be there.

I'll be honest. I haven't had much time to read all the details, but that approach does make more sense, at least for the smaller clubs. I hope that is only to start discussion, however, or as others have said, it could end up a bit of a damp squib. We need to find a path for the youngsters to get meaningful competitive game time appropriate for their level.

I think the specificity is the strength of the policy, not a weakness. Before adoption, there was no clarity on what would trigger a vote; deliberately naming the criteria is a positive step forward. Indeed this was one of seven key items which the Society consulted all adult members on last summer; including changes to membership tiers and benefits, introduction of Global memberships, updates to rules of association, introduction of a member's code of conduct and development of a funding policy. On discretion; I read that highlighted paragraph the other way round. It's discretion to call a vote by exception, not a standing obligation to weigh every significant decision against it. For me the purpose was to leave the door open for something genuinely outside the criteria but of equivalent weight; not to function as a catch-all that reopens the specific list every time. If it worked the way you're suggesting, the named criteria would barely matter, since almost anything sizeable could be routed through discretion instead. On the sale versus development point. I reckon that's fair, albeit I wouldn't go as far as absurd. I note the policy is due for review next summer. So if there a view that capital investment in major facilities should sit alongside disposal as a trigger, then that's the kind of change worth putting forward. And on financing; I'd suggest that it's a real positive of where the club has got to over the last couple of years: that there's finance available to progress projects like this without the need to take on debt.

I agree people will have their own thoughts on stama For me he tried and gave what he could when he put a jersey and did cause defences a headache when either the ball was put in with a cross or just being rounded about the area. my fav memory is the stenny announcer last year you hear saying apolos stamamatatelopus i think he gain about 20 vowels credit to the guy for trying but butchered it will and trully lol

I think your reply a reasonable interpretation of the literal wording penned by your fair hand Philip, but I'm not convinced it stands up when you consider what the policy is actually intended to achieve. The obvious difficulty is that you're treating the listed criteria as though they are the entirety of the policy, when the final paragraph specifically gives the Society Board discretion to call a ballot on matters beyond those criteria where there is a potential impact on the club's structure, financial stability, governance or identity. More importantly, I think there is a slightly artificial distinction being drawn between selling a major club asset and committing several million pounds to develop one. The policy specifically identifies the stadium and training ground as “major facilities”. The bullet point “selling club assets” cannot sensibly be read in isolation from decisions about substantial investment in those assets. Otherwise you end up with the rather absurd position that members must be consulted before selling the training ground, but not before committing several million pounds to substantially develop one. Perhaps a better alternative to "Selling club assets" would be "Major asset transactions" as that works better as a catchall, regardless of the syntax, the core point remains the same. I'm not suggesting that every expenditure on a club facility requires a membership ballot. Clearly it doesn't. Replacing a roof, installing new equipment or carrying out routine improvements would be entirely different. But once you're talking about a multi-million-pound capital project, with the potential to materially affect the club's finances and its future infrastructure, built as an effective island inside the Dalziel Memorial Trust site I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask why the Society Board didn't at least consider exercising the discretion explicitly given to it in the final paragraph. And that's really the point I'm making. I don't think the answer can simply be it doesn't meet the exact wording of one of the bullet points. If that were the intention, there would be little purpose in giving the Board discretion over matters which fall outside those defined criteria. If the Board considered it, decided it didn't warrant a vote and can explain why, that's one thing. But saying the policy wasn't triggered by the precise wording of the bullet points doesn't really answer whether the Board should have exercised the discretion that the policy expressly gives it.

From what I read the proposal was for an additional 1M put in by the SFA that was split between all clubs in the top 4 divisions hence the reason it won't be worth most clubs in the top flights time especially not Rangers, Celtic, Hearts etc as there isn't really any incentive. Where it would make a difference is from the championship downwards because even 30/40k each as incentive will encourage those teams to take on and play our younger players as it will be extra revenue and shouldn't really affect their performance

That does seem to be sticking and a cudgel with a few. If I say is an 18,000 stadium and the business plan is to have over half the crowd being Motherwell fans, does that sit easier? The OF get what's left over as the aim as it should be with any stadium is to fill it. I genuinely think the bounce from the local community could be signifcant. Away crowd vandalism has certainly increased in the past 20 years. As has general lawlessness at the football. If you go onto YouTube and find any OF game in the 2000's you'll noticeably see the aisles clear. Now every game is met with a clean up and bill. The Bears/GB doesn't absorb (or they do and shoulder shrug) that their club is on the hook for all damage as do our boisterous mob.

The Society, as club owners (or in effect we, the ordinary members/fans) does need to be a bit more transparent especially over the feasibility study. The club has, quite rightly, been very professional and discreet in playing matters such as the appointment of our new manager and players. Our financial position is also healthy in the extreme. So well done to it for that. Quite an achievement all told. Of late, communication from the Society has been much improved through the roadshows for example. An encouraging development. However, this improvement has not extended to governance or major decisions of strategic importance on which the members should be consulted. Transparency has been in short supply. As an example, I checked the Society Board meeting minutes and found that the last ones to be uploaded to the website relate to 15 September 2025, almost a year ago. As a fan based organisation, the Society should be more open. Goggles & Flippers and Joewarkfanclub have both made excellent posts, with which I agree, in the last few days and they reflect my views. We've placed our trust in the Society Board, and through them in the club itself. It shouldn't be too much to ask that they be more transparent with us over major issues like stadium improvement/relocation.

A quick diversion from the stadium relocation or redevelopment debate. There's been a few mentions of the Society's Major Votes Policy and a suggestion that this has not been followed. As author of the policy but no longer a member of the Society board; my view is that the investment in the training ground at Dalziel Park wouldn't meet any of the explicit criteria. Here's a reminder on the terms and conditions of this policy which was adopted following a full membership consultation and vote last summer. A ballot of the membership will be progressed if it meets any of the following major vote criteria: Club Ownership & Sale o Any potential sale of Motherwell FC (full or partial ownership change). o Any external investment proposal that alters fan ownership. 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). Structural or Governance Changes o Changes to the Well Society’s voting structure or membership rules. o Amendments to the club’s constitution or governance model. Strategic Sporting Decisions o Joining external leagues, partnerships, or breakaway competitions. o Merging with or forming a direct affiliation with another club. Club Identity & Branding o Significant rebranding (badge/logo redesign, major kit identity shift). o Changing the club’s home stadium (permanent relocation). 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. Full policy available at the link: https://thewellsociety.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/TheWellSocietyMajorVotesPolicy.pdf

I’d have your selection but Hodge in place of Priestman. I like Oscar and rate him but I think Hodge could be exceptional after a run of games.

All great valid points but the old firm allocation is total no go from me. They get 3800 tickets at moment and look at the damage that gets caused by sellik fans. I aint going to go to a game with 8000 of them in an away section if it was a new 18000 stadium Just my opinion

I dont think we are miles apart.

The silence on it all is deafening to be fair

Unfortunately as has been discussed we've moved beyond the debate stage. Dalziel Park being green lit leans heavily into your wish. I have no idea if £8m is correct or fair for a POD demolishing and rebuild. But for that we have a major inconvenience for at last one season, loss of income and 3/4 of the way along the touchline. £8m in a £30m development is a stand and half. And most importantly, plenty of room. Our premium POD offering just now is 91 Lounge 20m x 7m give or take. offfffttttt.

Of course its a factor, just like winter will be a factor, fitba on the TV is a factor etc etc...our crowds fluctuate its as simple as that and I think we'd be mental to rely on bigger crowds at any new build. Ive already said on a couple of occasions that the club should be sharing their findings with the rank and file...Ive also stated that if I can be convinced that the numbers stack up via a proper business plan then I'd be open to changing my stance.

Aye essentially Im not dead set against it, but would rather stay put unless I was completely convinced we could afford it and it was in the clubs best interests. In much the same way, as I was in the 'get them punted' camp, with our main playing assets as I seen it as being in the clubs best interests, to get the best value they could after a great season.

Our last home game? The one that happened midweek after 6 weeks of playing Thurs/Sunday and large numbers of our fans outlaying on travel to European games? Any chance those would be factors on the crowd being down? If you choose to think that a better option isnt possible, then there is nothing that can be done to persuade you. However, if the club put forward such an option for consideration, say, in the form of a response to a feasibility study, then maybe that would be harder to ignore?

Because its the cheap option that wouldn't saddle us with a load of debt 🤷‍♂️

So you would move but you need a number and funds in the bank to match that number. Fair enough.

Why would Kryk and the rest be employing analytics and scouring Europe for the most progressive young managers that no only compete at the business end of the table, entertain and get folk through the door to then turn round and say, you know what we need? SMiSA 2.0! There's been enough learned from stadium design as much from mistakes made to best practice to know what helps build atmosphere and bring in crowds rather than keep them away. Seat pitch and rake, acoustics, facilities, etc. wouldn't be ignored, because it's not what we seem to be doing*. *Granted I've written extensively that the WS rank and file have been willfully ignored .... but you get what I mean.

Id prefer to stay where we are for sentimental reasons but also because I dont want the club saddled with lots and lots of debt which may see it come a cropper if a rainy day comes. I feel that a rebuilt Main Stand is within our means but a complete new build is not...unless its an absolute shiter of an effort like Paisley. You've set out your reasoning in a very considered and structured way, however i dont believe we will get to the stage of having the amount of home fans You've suggested, and ive absolutely no interest in supporting the option of having even more marauding Old Firm fans at our games than we already do. If there is a business plan (or some maddy willing to fund it for us) out there that proves palatable, and the club would benefit from it then Id change my stance, Ive no doubt.