Zinger! .... you've not lost your touch yet quite a pivot from the points I was making
Your response is almost entirely conjecture. You've ignored the substance of my post and substituted a series of "what if's". That's your prerogative, but at least acknowledge that you're no longer arguing whether the Major Votes policy applies, you've moved on to speculating about how a future project might be delivered. Is that a sidestep or a stepover? It's certainly not a rebuttal.
My post wasn't asking whether you prefer Dalziel Park or Ravenscraig, we're at either end of what is, a distinctly separate debate on this. You have came out supporting upgrading Dalziel Park as the more sensible and financially frugal option, and that's a perfectly valid poistion.
The point I raised was about governance. If the club commits to a multi-million-pound project, does the Major Votes policy apply? That is the question you haven't answered.
Instead, you've moved the discussion towards hypothetical costs, contaminated land and construction difficulties. Those are legitimate considerations, but they don't address whether the process that was introduced last summer should be followed or the major question marks over ownership and residual value of anything we do at Dalziel Park.
As for the research point, there's a difference between evidence and speculation. I've looked at comparable projects, the wording of the policy, publicly available information and the wider context. Your response is largely built around "could", "might" and "possibly". Again, nothing wrong with raising risks, but let's not pretend that is the same thing as researching the issue.
Ravenscraig was a steelworks during one of the least regulated industrial periods in this country's history. Of course there are areas where ground conditions may need assessed and have been. There are also three former mine entrances around the Jeviston end. That's actual research.
Equally, there are now housing developments on parts of the site, so the suggestion that the area is some unusable contaminated wasteland doesn't stand up. If there are areas unsuitable for buildings, then grass pitches are hardly the most challenging use of land and a good remedy.
The reason Ravenscraig has stalled is far more complicated than your "contaminated" assertion. The 2008 financial crisis, the pandemic, political posturing and obstruction, delays around infrastructure, North Lanarkshire Council's handling of the site and the wider lack of investment in the area have all played their part.
Halfords and Evans Halshaw were demolished a couple of years ago. The bridge over the railway was built. Where are the roads and roundabout it was supposed to facilitate?
So yes, I've researched this considerably more than you have demonstrated.
On the point about expertise, I actually agree with you. Motherwell FC does not have a construction team sitting on the payroll capable of delivering a project of this scale. Our chairman used to try and create a buzz about jeans and t-shirts yet he's knocking the football figurehead thing out of the park, I've seen nothing to suggest he won't gen up or delegate to more knowledgeable heads on the matter.
That's why construction projects aren't run by football clubs. They employ architects, quantity surveyors, project managers, engineers and specialist contractors for the duration fo the project. No different to when the football department needs expertise, it goes to the market and recruits it.
And nobody is suggesting cost pressures don't exist. Inflaton and supply chain issues are real. But projects are still being delivered. Glasgow has cranes everywhere. Developers, councils and businesses haven't stopped building; they have adapted, adjusted scope and found innovative ways to make projects work.
I hope you appreciate that we recieve ÂŁ33 for every adult OF ticket sold at present. We purchase materials at today's prices but in 20 years time with inflation running at 3.1% we receive a significant increase in revenues yet if we seek finance, its based on today's build cost. In 2046 following the past 20 years we're be charging ÂŁ61.
My post was about whether the club is following its own governance policy. Your response is about whether you think Ravenscraig is the right option.
Those are two different discussions and by all means ignore the parts of my post you don't have an answer for, but at least acknowledge them for the benefit of the wider audience. Otherwise it gives the impression that you're engaging selectively with the bits that you find easiest to challenge rather than addressing the actual point being made.
Although I think this is all moot, the desire to get a training ground complex green lit is to facilitate the demolition of the POD with little things liek the equalisation of season ticket prices throughout the home stands as minor tells. However, as a fan owned club we're doing this in reverse and being told what's happening rather than help mould it.
