All Activity

Now, now don't go picking on the darlings of Scottish Football.

No chance Dykes. Totally against our signing policy and totally past it now.

Probably another UEFA rule. Goalkeeper was in all white. They like clear differentiation.

100% this, hes brutal, we have enough dross alleged strikers on the books already with Hendry and Stamatelopoulos, we dont need any more.

Somebody put claret socks in the wash with the white shorts! 🤪

Agreed. Anyone know why we wore them on Thursday?

A signing like Dykes is exactly the opposite to what we need dont think its going to happen anyway 100 percent more of a Hibs signing.

That will be the away end at Celtic Park buggered then! 😍😍😍

Oh jeese, no! For me let’s not waste a penny of our valuable money even if we could afford it on this total donkey! Lets allow Charlton to waste theirs whilst we sign an unknown with the opportunity to play for our great wee club.

Lowrys past means NOWT he now has a future its now up to him “ the bawz at his feet “

Going through the UEFA guidelines, I noticed this clause: "18.05 Spectator areas must provide unobstructed lines of sight of the field of play." Now there are restricted view seats in both the Hunter and POD stands. Were these seats left unallocated on Thursday evening?

For younger readers who wouldn't get the reference, I append this old Sportscene footage to explain:

Going slightly off at a tangent. The new kit looks 100 times better with the claret shorts.

Aw come on man

You mean Ange?

I understand what you said. I just don't see him doing much better in the Premiership than his 1 goal for Birmingham the season he played in League 1. His best ever season was 12 league goals in 42 games 6 years ago and he hasn't hit double figures since. Falls in to the overrated category for me, but just my opinion.

Happy to counter it, because I don't think we're actually disagreeing as much as it might seem. I completely accept a new stadium will have ongoing maintenance costs. Every stadium does. My point wasn't that, once the borrowing is paid off, every penny suddenly becomes available for players. It was that the financing cost disappears, while the additional revenue streams remain. The comparison also has to be against Fir Park, not against a hypothetical stadium with zero costs. Fir Park already requires ongoing maintenance, and as it heads towards 100 years old those costs are only likely to increase. Any new stadium will also need upkeep, but as that stadium moves into it's third decade from completion you'd expect significantly lower major maintenance requirements than we're facing with Fir Park with a replaced POD or not. So the question becomes whether the extra revenue comfortably exceeds both the financing costs while the debt exists, and the lifecycle maintenance costs afterwards. Just to illustrate why I think it does, I'll use deliberately very conservative assumptions. To avoid inflation muddying the waters, let's assume 2026 revenues and 2026 costs throughout and assume a hypothetical key hand over in 2030 and last mortgage payment in 2050. The gap between income and expenditure should remain broadly comparable in real terms as inflation is difficult to predict. Attendances - I've proposed an 18–20k stadium. We look like we'll have around 5,500–6,000 season ticket holders this season thanks in part to Jens. Twenty years from now I've assumed only another 2,000 added to our home gate, giving a regular home support of around 8,000. That's hardly an ambitious forecast and a modest year on year increase even with the novelty of a new stadium. Using the figures the club published through Our Club, Our Future above and supplied to the WS by the club. An extra 2,000 home supporters works out at roughly £343k per season. Allowing for VAT and rounding down, I've only credited £275k. Away support - I've assumed increasing the Old Firm allocation from the current McLean capacity (around 4,800) to 10,000. Using a Cat A ticket price of £33, deducting VAT and allowing for concessions gives an average of roughly £24 per seat. 3.5 Old Firm home games per season × 5,000 extra seats = around £420k, which I've rounded down to £400k. I've also assumed Hearts bring around 7,000 supporters once or twice a season. So using an average of 1.5 games gives another £60k, again rounded down. Commercial and hospitality - Motherwell's published commercial income in 2024/25 was around £985k. St Johnstone generated around £1.2m in the same period, despite averaging considerably smaller crowds. If a modern stadium with vastly improved hospitality, double the current average attendance, conferencing and sponsorship opportunities. Increased commercial income of £450k, I'd argue that's a very cautious estimate. Non-matchday restaurant - Instead of a hospitality suite sitting empty for most of the week, sweat the asset and open it to the public. 70 covers per day (split between lunch and dinner). Average spend £24. 320 trading days. That's around £540k turnover. A well-run independent restaurant might make 12–18% net profit, but I've assumed only £60k profit. Office space Subletting office space to organisations like the Well Society, community partners or other tenants: £50k. Naming rights Most research I've found suggests £100k–150k is achievable. I've only assumed £80k. Caveat: some of the above income would be available to a revamped Fir Park, just not with the same opportunity or amounts. A new stadium would offer a tripling of our hospitality offerings and space in a modern environment that is now expected. Our attendances however will forever be locked at 13,000 with no scope to exploit the OF. The Hunter always having columns obscuring the view unless we rebuild with a novel bit of structural engineering. So from above, an ultra conservative £1.375m that becomes available. that's before we even start talking about concerts, exhibitions, conferences, functions, improved catering, additional sponsorship inventory, or other events. Combine with what we must spend every year on a creaking Fir Park or even a Fir Park with a new POD, can you honestly envisage maintenance of over £1.7m every single year needed? So yes, there will absolutely be maintenance costs. But unless those maintenance costs somehow exceed the additional recurring revenue every single year, the principle still holds. Once the borrowing is gone, the debt repayments disappear, but the extra revenue streams continue and ultimately funnel into the football department. That's really the point I was trying to make.

He doesnt currently play in the Scottish Premiership. And I never said we should sign him. But that doesnt mean he wouldnt score goals in the SPL for the right club.

If there was ever a player who survived purely on his past reputation then he's it. Been dugmeat for years.

For Lyndon Dykes read Lydia the Tatooed Lady. No thank-you. The guy takes money under false pretences.

He current form is 3 goals in each of the past 2 seasons. Would rather keep Said up front that waste a penny on Dykes.

Lyndon Dykes would absolutely score goals in the Scottish Premiership. But he is way out of our price range. So we wont and shouldnt be signing him.

You have no soul! 😍😍😍

Didn't Celtic sing that first😂.

Nooooooo that gives me the fear. Major donkey!