All Activity

Basic question and apologies if already clarified. How long does the Lease have left on it before it falls due for renewal or renegotiation? Future ‘landlords’ might not be as supportive as the current land owners. What’s to stop them altering the terms? Given the issues house owners are having in England with landowners holding the leaseholder to ransom I trust it is a very long term lease. The UK Parliament are currently looking at ways to protect house owners from excessive demands from landowners. It is a serious problem. Not saying that could happen to MFC, but protections need to be agreed at the outset.

Lucas Weir goes out on loan to Cowdenbeath.

Im hoping all this extra time on the training ground will pay dividends. Id love to see us pass Aberdeen to death, totally dominate possession, reduce them to zero shots on target and score all 4 of ours. Passing with a purpose!

Not any more or less concerned about this game than the others. The hard truth in this league is if you're not at it, any team can take a point or three from you. If we are at it, I think we can win by a goal or three. Robbo, of course will be trying to kick us off the park.

He could have been at Fir Park if he wanted to, but chose the bright lights and glamour of Norfolk instead.

Oh I'll give it a go. Appreciate you're being the diplomat here, but you have to see the paradox in a policy drafted in summer 2025 expressly providing for a vote on the sale of a training facility that, at that point, we didn't have. Going on that we could have also added in the club shall not sell any gold reserves. Isn't there a bit of a “run before you walk” issue here? We're applying the literal wording to selling, while ignoring the literal circumstances that it's impossible get to selling without first going through funding. The policy anticipated a non realised training ground as a major club asset. The question is why that apparently only applies once we're selling it, rather than when we're committing millions to create it. The literal interpretation is moot.

A few posts brought stuff up so I'll work my way through them Not quite as I originally envisaged it. I actually put together a fairly extensive presentation on this, looking at some best-practice stadia such as Parken in Copenhagen and Aalesund's stadium. The link should still be somewhere in the thread Kmcaplin started, although I'd probably update it now as it's two years old. My preference filled in the corners, with hospitality and other functions integrated into those areas, rather than simply having four separate stands. The main stand, with the principal hospitality offering, would predominantly be for Well fans, much as the POD is now, while away-fan hospitality could be contained within their own dedicated area. The allocation between home and away supporters would also be flexible. I'd want the stadium designed so that we could maximise the home support when demand was there, with the away fans getting whatever allocation was appropriate rather than building the stadium around giving them a huge fixed allocation. I'd also favour robust rail seating behind both goals, so that, like at Freiburg, supporters can choose whether they want to stand or sit. And yes, I'd be delighted if we eventually got to the point where Motherwell could say to the OF, “sorry lads, you're getting the mandated 5% this season.” We shouldn't design our stadium around maximising their attendance. On 18,000 being too big, I think that's slightly looking at the question backwards. I'm not suggesting we need to sell 18,000 tickets for every game. The point of the additional capacity is that it gives us room to grow our own support, provides flexibility for bigger fixtures and potentially creates additional revenue streams, while the club can initially budget on the basis of operating as a 13,000-seat stadium. We've effectively settled at a baseline of around 6,000 home supporters thanks to Jens, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think that a new stadium, if designed and operated properly, could lift that. There's a novelty factor initially, but there are also things you can do to make the stadium and matchday experience more attractive in the longer term. And the occupancy argument is worth putting into perspective. If we had 8,000 people in an 18,000-capacity stadium for a midweek February game against St Johnstone, that is 44% occupancy. Two years ago we had around 4,300 home supporters at a similar fixture in a 13,000-capacity stadium, which was only about 33% occupancy. So yes, visually there would be more empty seats but that can be address with perception tricks. But I'd rather have 18,000 seats and 8,000 people with the ability to grow than have 13,000 seats and find that we've designed our ceiling around today's attendance. And there's another reason for the capacity. An 18,000-seat stadium potentially moves us into a different category for things beyond a normal Saturday afternoon. Bigger matches, cup ties, concerts, events and other uses become more viable. You don't need to fill it every week for the additional capacity to have value. Ultimately, I don't think 18,000 should be judged on whether we can fill 18,000 every week. It should be judged on whether the additional capacity can be delivered at a sensible incremental cost and whether the additional opportunities and revenue it creates justify that cost. If the answer to those questions is no, then 18,000 is too big. But I'd like to see that calculation rather than simply assume it is. My analogy wasn't intended to suggest there is one correct answer to the house question, or that everyone should buy the biggest and newest house available. It was to illustrate the disconnect between how some people are talking about funding a new stadium and how we actually approach major financial commitments in the real world. When we commit to what is probably the biggest financial burden most of us will ever make, we weigh up what we want, what we can afford, what we can borrow, what we already have, what we might gain and what risks we're prepared to accept. Some people prioritise location, some space, some condition, some schools or community, and some will choose to renovate rather than move. That's exactly the sort of exercise I think the club should be doing with the stadium question. Compare the options properly, including the financial and non-financial considerations, rather than starting with the assumption that because we already have Fir Park, spending whatever it takes to keep it is automatically the sensible option. And equally, if that exercise concludes that staying at Fir Park and redeveloping it is the better option, I'm perfectly happy with that. I'm arguing for the comparison to be made, not for one particular answer to be predetermined. I don't think how you've taken my analogy quite works because you're assuming that Fir Park is a house that needs a few repairs and cosmetic improvements. That's not really what we're talking about. If my house needed the roof repaired, I'd obviously repair the roof. If it needed rewired, I'd rewire it. But if I was looking at any of a major extension, substantial structural work, subsidence, underpinning, demolition and rebuilding part of the property, I'd be asking a different question: is it actually more sensible and cost-effective to keep modifying this property, or would I be better off buying something that already gives me what I need and turnkey ready? That's not hypothetical either. A friend of mine looked at a major kitchen extension that would have taken the house substantially into the garden. Once the costs and disruption were properly considered, they decided it made more sense to move to a property that already had the internal-external space they wanted. The cost was broadly comparable. That's much closer to the stadium question. I'm not against refurbishing Fir Park if that proves to be the best option. In fact, if a properly costed plan shows that we can achieve everything we need for significantly less money and with less disruption, then great. But repair and improve what we have isn't automatically the financially prudent option simply because we already own it. At some point the scale of the work becomes substantial enough that you have to compare the two options properly: what does a comprehensive Fir Park redevelopment actually cost, what does it deliver, what are the risks and disruption, and how does that compare with the cost and benefits of a new stadium? That's the comparison I'd like to see rather than assuming the answer before we've seen the numbers. But I think Fir Park, like the site it sits on, will always be limiting to our aspirations and potential. I had the same perception seeing the CalMac Ferry nonsense and Edinburgh Trams, so I ask the question on P&B when I published my presentation there. StAndrew7 who doesn't work in construction but aligned with the process outlined why here, it certainly adds context. https://forum.pieandbovril.com/topic/230925-motherwell-fc-a-thread-for-all-seasons/page/3822/#comments I'd add that made me seek out ways to overcome this being an issue and found this really well laid out explanation of how the Madrid subway was extended under budget and ahead of schedule. It's a project management geeky but still interesting in how they completely tore up the way of running capital projects and it was a massive success. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utt-KnIMB3o Finally and I've stressed this at length and in answer to your most recent post, I'll do it again for clarity, my proposal allows the club to operate as it does at present based on 13,000 seats and the revenues that brings in, none of our current income would be used to fund the stadium (I did make a provision for 30% of transfer profits could be funnelled in to reduce the balance which seems both fair and prudent).

I don’t think anyone is suggesting otherwise. I personally don’t mean any ill will to any player who came to us and didn’t work out, for whatever reason. But if they signed for us and were pretty hopeless then they’re going to get mentioned when it comes to discussing players that basically failed. And I say that as someone who has met, shook hands with and found Andy Roddie to be a top class guy…and yet I thought he was hopeless for us back in the mid 90s. The same applies to Alex Burns although I’ve never spoken to him personally…but I know plenty who have.

You win some....lose some. It's all the same to me. Regards Lemmy Grizzlyg

For some players a move simply doesn't work out. It could be for a whole bunch of reasons, often many of them not even football-related. As a club, we've seen our fair share of successful player moves, so when one doesn't go as well as we'd hoped, we just need to accept it and move on.

Reading the exchange between @Goggles & Flippers & @Speedie85 I think there are really two separate questions being conflated here. The first is whether the Dalziel Park project falls within one of the mandatory triggers in the Major Votes Policy. On the wording as it stands, I don't think it does. The policy is quite specific about the circumstances in which a ballot must take place, and capital investment in a training facility is not one of them. On that narrow point, Speedie's interpretation is difficult to argue with. The second question is different though, and I think this is where the discussion becomes more interesting. The policy also gives the Society Board discretion to call a vote on matters outside the listed criteria where there may be an impact on the club's structure, financial stability, governance or identity. That doesn't mean every large decision has to be put to the membership, and nor should it. The Club Board has to be able to operate and make significant commercial decisions without everything becoming a referendum. But equally, the discretionary clause has to mean something. If the figures being discussed around Dalziel are broadly accurate, and the club is committing several million pounds to a long-term infrastructure project on land it does not own outright, then I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether the Society Board considered that discretionary provision and, if so, what led it to conclude that a membership vote was not appropriate. That is not the same as saying the policy has been breached. For me, that is the important distinction. The mandatory criteria create certainty. If one of them is triggered, the Board has no choice about whether members get a vote. The discretionary provision exists for significant situations which fall outside those criteria, where the Board still thinks the implications are serious enough to justify wider member involvement. Acknowledging that discretion does not make the specific criteria redundant. It simply means the policy has two levels, mandatory matters and exceptional matters requiring judgement. Where I think the argument in favour of scrutiny is strongest is not around the semantics of whether "selling a training ground" should somehow also mean "developing a training ground". I don't think the current wording supports that. The stronger issue is the nature and scale of the investment itself. If the club is ultimately putting £3m, £5m, or whatever the final figure turns out to be into Dalziel, members are entitled to understand what the club is receiving in return. What are the tenure arrangements? How long are they secured for? Who owns the improvements? What happens at the end of the lease or agreement? What protections exist around the money being invested? What alternatives were considered? Those are proper governance questions. The same applies to the financing point. It is obviously positive that the club is in a position where it may not need to borrow to fund major projects, but the absence of debt does not automatically make a capital allocation decision a good one. Equally, debt is not automatically bad. What matters is the cost, the security, the repayment profile, the risks and what asset or long-term value is being created. That is particularly relevant if there is a wider stadium discussion taking place at the same time. There is an opportunity-cost question around committing several million pounds to Dalziel now versus retaining some of that capital as part of a future stadium or combined infrastructure solution. That doesn't mean one option is right and the other is wrong, but it is a strategic question worth understanding. I also think it is worth being precise about what fan ownership means here. The Society is the majority shareholder, but that does not mean members should be approving day-to-day or even every major operational decision. The Club Board still has a proper governance role and has to be able to exercise judgement independently. Fan ownership does, however, mean there should be clarity around which decisions sit with the Club Board, which sit with the Society Board, and which are significant enough to go back to the membership. So for me the fair position is this: Dalziel does not appear to trigger an automatic Major Vote under the policy as currently drafted. But that does not make the discretionary clause irrelevant. Given the potential scale and unusual nature of the investment, I think it is entirely reasonable to ask whether the Society Board considered exercising that discretion, and if it did not believe a vote was necessary, to explain why. That is a governance question rather than an accusation of procedural breach. If anything, the debate probably shows one area the Society may want to tighten when the policy is reviewed. The current wording is clear around ownership changes, debt, asset sales and relocation, but much less clear around very large capital commitments. A future version could distinguish more explicitly between mandatory reserved matters, discretionary major matters and ordinary delegated Club Board decisions. That would probably prevent exactly this kind of argument next time.

Any thing like St Mirren would be a disaster it's the worse viewing and match day experiance In the league with St Johnstone second worst only because of a higher stand with slightly better view of the game. Fir Park has to be revamped . But history and tradition seem to take second place now with some . A new stadium will leave us with massive debt to pay off diverting money from the team budget. Better struggling to get tickets for a full Fir Park than playing in a half full new one. Supporting Motherwell most of my life for over 55years we won't be playing this type of football forever more seen it all before highs and lows . We need to keep our feet on the ground and be realistic . Revamp FP and keep the rest for a rainy day. New stadium will be a weight around our neck for decades to come.

I'm a bit worried about this game, simply because Aberdeen are absolutely shite and by all measures we should take care of them. A win keeps confidence building, another defeat and our good start takes a knock. I can see us dropping a point / points in this one.

Watched the Celtic - St Johnstone game last night and our former youth player Reece McAleer was absolutely brilliant. Wouldn't mind him being brought back at some point as he definitely has the physicality we lack in midfield

Fair enough. I hate Stadiums like St Mirrens and St Johnstones. How much more expensive would it have been to fill in the corners. Even Livingstons 10,000 seater is better than those two.

I dont think anyone would advocate for a smaller stadium than we currently have...I was more meaning the general design of the Paisley effort

Eric Deloumeaux and Yassin Moutaouakil(sp) have got to be up there too. Likewise the Austrian duo of Franz Resch and Mario Dorner who McLeish spent the entire summer chasing only for them to both leave by the end of September of that season.

If everyone is fit I’d say first six names in any starting line up are Paulsen, Johnny K, Moorman, Longelo, Fadinger and Lowry the remaining five I could probably change my mind every time I think about it. Tough task (good problem) for AJ on team selection/formation.

Oh Elivas Shivute is right up there with biggest waste of space as was Bob Malcolm but at least we didn't pay any cash for them.

And a Stadium like St Mirrens would severely restrict our capacity for income. We have a capacity for 4800 away fans every game, St Mirren have capacity for 1400 that's why their average crowds were so far behind us last season (8620 v 6835) we had room for more home fans and alot of away fans. If we were to build a new stadium it cannot be with a capacity any less than 12,000.

Personally I think our best XI when everyone is fit is: Paulsen SOD McGinn Moormann Longelo Priestman Fadinger Maswanhise Lowry Said Palmer-Houlden

Yes unless its a government project. Before I left Scotland I had only two project go over budget (both involved existing properties which were far worse than thought), usually it due to client change during construction (Politicians are by far the worst). I'm not 100% sure but ptretty sure Saint Mirren, Parkhead and McDiarmid Park were all in budget.

I think that is the basic plan for across all 4 leagues, yes. And you're right - frankly its buttons. The prize money deduction thing is additional for the premiership only, as far as i'm aware. Yeah i think it needs voted in by the clubs but not 100% sure. Disclaimer to eveything i'm saying is that I have only read a couple articles on this 😂

I don't disagree that specificity was an improvement it was needed from the outset of the WS in the 2010's. Before the policy there was uncertainty about what would trigger a vote, and having defined criteria is obviously better than having none. My point isn't that the specificity is a weakness. It's that we shouldn't confuse having specific triggers with those triggers being exhaustive in every circumstance. The discretion clause is where I think we differ. I don't read it as creating an obligation to put every significant decision to a vote either. I read it as giving the Board a mechanism to deal with significant decisions that don't neatly fall within the specified criteria but which could nevertheless have a material impact on the club's finances, structure, governance or identity. And I think a multi-million-pound investment in a major club facility is precisely the sort of situation where at least asking that question would be reasonable. But this investment isn't a standard, buy some land, level and irrigate four football pitches and build a facility. It's build a facility with no clarity on the land/rent/arrangement etc. The £8m or so rumoured for Kilmarnock's new ground is very much an asset and why Bowie has retained ownership of the site. We are looking at funding at least £3m for phase one and safe to say there's a phase two in the works. If that's a further £2m then we're £5m into Dalziel Park and limited asset value. It's not too much to ask for justification. I also think there is something missing from looking at the policy purely through the literal wording of the bullet points. Yes, it doesn't specifically say “funding” or “capital investment”. But neither does it make much sense to interpret the document without considering the spirit in which it was produced and the renewed relationship it was intended to establish between the Society and the club and extolled in every correspondence for the past two years. The whole point of the exercise was to provide clarity around what fan ownership actually means when the club is faced with major strategic decisions. If we reduce that to does the exact transaction appear verbatim in one of the bullets?, we risk defeating some of the purpose of having the policy in the first place. The Society is now the majority shareholder and therefore the owner. The club board is effectively operating on behalf of those owners. That doesn't mean the Society should be running the club or approving day-to-day expenditure. Far from it. But it does mean there should be a meaningful distinction between operational autonomy and major strategic decisions. On the sale/development distinction, I accept that the wording currently says disposal rather than investment. But that's also why I think it's fair to question the logic of it rather than simply point to “that's what it says”. The policy identifies the training ground as a major facility. Surely the financial and strategic significance of committing several million pounds to developing that facility doesn't suddenly become irrelevant because we're spending money on it rather than receiving money from selling it. I also don't think changing the policy next summer really answers the question of whether the existing discretion could have been used in this case. If the Board genuinely considered the project and concluded that it didn't warrant a membership vote, I'd be interested in knowing that. What I struggle with is the suggestion that because “training ground investment” isn't one of the words in the list, the discussion ends there. And just on the financing point, I agree entirely that having the cash available rather than needing to borrow is a positive. But having the money available doesn't make the decision any less significant to the owners. I think your last sentence slightly caricatures the argument I'm making. I'm not saying let's take out a £30 to 40m mortgage and hope for the best. I'm saying that financing isn't automatically synonymous with bad debt. I'm also advocating that due to duplication a lot of what is proposed at Dalziel Park could be rolled into a new stadium development along with the £3-5m we're about to commit to. We already have examples of very favourable financing arrangements. The Scottish Government loan is one, and the loan from the Well Society to the club is another. There have also been occasions where money was provided to the club and ultimately written off rather than simply being added to the debt. So I don't think any need to borrow money is, in itself, an argument against doing something. The terms, cost, repayment profile, security, affordability and downside risk are what matter. If a stadium project required borrowing on terms that left the club dangerously exposed, I'd be opposed to it. If, on the other hand, there was a sensible financing structure, a sustainable repayment plan and sufficient headroom to withstand a few lean years, I'd at least want that option properly assessed and shared ... you know like how it's meant to be. That's why I'm reluctant to start from the assumption that the only acceptable way to build it is to have the entire cost sitting in the bank. We should be looking at what is financially prudent and sustainable, rather than treating debt itself as the red line. If we have reached a position where the club can contemplate spending several million pounds of its accumulated resources on major infrastructure without borrowing, that's exactly the sort of major strategic decision where I'd expect fan ownership to mean something.

Can I ask if there is any large project like building a new stadium, hospital , school, football ground in Scotland that has ever came in or under budget in the last 40 years. Feasibility studys usual find in favour of the general veiws of who is paying for it in the first place and can be very subjective.