All Activity

Friends don't let friends do Twitter/X.

A very Good Read

Now maybe called Georgie Thug now instead of Gent. Thought he was great at Motherwell.

Look8ng for a good performance and a win. Better control of the ball and get right in their face. 2-0 well. Lowry and Maswanhise to get the goals.

What about Tom Sparrow must be well thought of as he's currently first choice captain

And a local tattoo artist by looks of it

If i was going on a long haul flight to Australia this thread would be perfect reading to pass the time! 🤣🤣 Just kidding, lots of great debate

Had a quick look and this looks like an enormous amount of work. Will look furrit to digesting it at leisure and full marks for finding the true origin of our beautiful C&A: Lord Hamilton of Dalzell's racing colours were red and white.

I've built a club-by-club history of Scottish football and, being a Motherwell supporter, the Motherwell page is the one I've worked hardest on: https://scottishfootballhistory.scot/clubs/motherwell/ Every claim on it links to where it came from. The 1927 Spain tour, the treble season and the 1886 Glencairn/Alpha origins are all there, credited to Motherwell F.C. History and the Heritage Trust where the images are theirs. Where the sources disagree, the page says so instead of choosing. I'd like to know what you make of it - what you'd want added, what reads wrong, what's missing. There's a corrections page and anything you flag gets fixed and logged.

That's not the same Lucas Weir.

Some strange goings on regarding Georgie Gent recently. He's been dropped/frozen out by Barnsley, due to attutide problems, and loaned out short-term to a team 3 or 4 divisions below in the National League It popped up randomly on one of my socials and it seems that he's managed to get in with the wrong crowd since moving clubs after he left us, been involved in a doxxing incident, and hanging around with a racist groundsman?! Then and Now

Looking at the information shared by Phil, it certainly would appear that building the new training ground does not fall under the criteria for a member vote if we do not require to borrow any money to finance it. However, given that we all know there is imminent work required on the stadium and that a feasibility study has been undertaken to look at options, I dont think its being churlish to suggest that one might impact the other, and that there could be a scenario where the money being used to finance the new training ground may be used more efficiently/effectively elsewhere. Now it might well be the case that a new stadium is years down the line and and the new training ground is needed now, or the feasibility study has indicated that re-developing Fir Park is by far the most cost effective option or the easiest to deliver. If this is the case a simple communication to members outlining the decision making / thought process would undoubtedly be welcomed and allay any concerns that may exist.

I think that's a fair point, and probably an important distinction from the Major Votes question. Whether the project required a formal ballot is one issue. Whether members should have been properly informed about something of this scale is another, and I think the case for the latter is much stronger. If supporters first became aware of the plans because somebody happened to spot the planning application on the Council website, then regardless of what the Major Votes Policy says, that doesn't feel like particularly good communication from either the club or the Society. You wouldn't expect members to be consulted on every planning application or piece of capital expenditure, but this isn't a replacement boiler or some minor work at Fir Park. It's a potentially significant, multi-phase development of the club's training infrastructure and, presumably, one of the larger capital commitments the club has made for some time. There also shouldn't really be anything commercially sensitive about saying, in broad terms, that the club intends to develop new training facilities at Dalziel, why it believes Dalziel is the right long-term option, what the broad scope of the project is and how it fits into the club's overall infrastructure strategy. In fact, as you say, it's positive news. Under normal circumstances you'd expect the club to want to talk about it. For me this gets to a wider point about fan ownership. Member involvement doesn't have to mean a vote on everything. In most cases it should mean something much simpler: members are kept informed about major developments, given enough information to understand the reasoning behind them, and are not finding out about strategically important decisions by accident. The Club Board should absolutely be allowed to get on with running the club. But the quid pro quo for that operational freedom should be a reasonable level of transparency, particularly when decisions involve substantial sums of money or shape the club's infrastructure for years to come. So even if the conclusion is that Dalziel never warranted a Major Vote, I think there is still a legitimate question about why there wasn't proactive communication much earlier in the process. And arguably that is the easier thing to fix. It doesn't require changing governance structures or putting every decision to a ballot. It just requires a better understanding of what members should reasonably expect to be told, and when. That's exactly the sort of information I'd like to see clarified if I'm being honest. I don't know the answer on the length of the lease or agreement, and I've not been able to find it in anything that's publicly available, although that doesn't mean it isn't out there. The club has described Dalziel as the best long-term site, which presumably means fairly substantial protections have been negotiated, but it would be useful for members to know what those protections actually are. The comparison with residential leasehold problems in England isn't quite like-for-like I don't think, because we're dealing with a Scottish commercial/property arrangement here, but I think the underlying point is absolutely valid. A landlord couldn't simply decide halfway through a properly agreed fixed-term arrangement that they fancy completely different terms because the people running the Trust have changed. The contract stands. The more important questions are what happens at rent reviews, whether there are break clauses, what happens if the land changes ownership and, crucially, what happens when the existing term eventually expires. There's another issue I'd probably put ahead of all of those as well: who ultimately owns what the club is paying to build? From what I can see, and I stand to be corrected by someone more in the know, under Scots property law, substantial buildings and improvements on leased land can become part of the land itself unless the agreement provides protections to the contrary. If we're spending millions on a training building, pitches and associated infrastructure, I'd therefore want to know exactly what economic interest the club retains in that investment. So rather than simply asking "how long is the lease?", I'd like to understand the whole package: the length of the agreement, renewal rights, rent and rent-review provisions, break clauses, protection if ownership of the land changes, who owns the building and pitch, what happens to those improvements when the agreement ends, and whether Motherwell has any right to compensation for the value it has created. If the answer is that we've secured the site for, say, several decades on favourable terms with strong renewal and property protections, then that removes a large part of the concern. If the security is considerably shorter or dependent on goodwill when it comes up for renewal, that's a very different proposition when you're talking about this level of capital investment I'd reckon. And that's really why I think greater disclosure around Dalziel would be useful. Nobody needs commercially sensitive clauses or the full legal agreement published, but there should be enough information available for members to understand what the club is actually acquiring or securing in return for the money being spent.

A pertinent question Denny, which has not been answered. I think it has been raised before on here, and still no answer has been forthcoming. The current Dalziel Trust is currently a friendly and cooperative landlord, but as you rightly point out, we can't always assume that to be the case. It has to put its own interests, and not those of MFC, first. We can only guess that the lease is very long term i.e. something like 99 years but we simply don't know. Also, we have not been told what if any legal safeguards have been built into the agreement. It raises all manner of questions.

Good post David. I'm not sure that a vote would be absolutely necessary; it may be, but at the very least, the members should have been kept informed and we weren't. As has been posted before, the members and indeed the wider fan base, only found out about the Dalziel development completely by accident, after a vigilant fan stumbled across the application on the Council's weekly list. Indeed its highly likely that "non fans" (i.e. local residents), if I may be allowed to use that term, were informed before fans. The Club and Society should have been more open by publicising the proposals in advance. Its a very newsworthy item - why would you not do that?

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. I didn't know his father is David Weir.

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