Goggles & Flippers

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 thirty 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 under 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 £33 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 £61. 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.

You've totally misunderstood the post and the reason for highlighting what I did. You are correct that funding a training complex today with £15m in the bank from the past two summers would not need finance, however is our bank balance inversely linked to how rules and process are applied? We got into a mess in 2024 because Dickie was lockstep with McMahon and the WS was neutered and sidelined. We had a vote forced on us under flimsy reasoning which failed because ultimately it was amateur with too little on offer to carry the majority, 1 in 5 still felt £2m on tic, over five years for half the club and full control was worth it for some US razmataz and potential doors that may open. Even with Bair's imminent sale and Lennon in the building. In the aftermath things were tightened up, there was the recently announced Working Together document, as yet it's not been published, we are the only fan owned club that hasn't published their's. One of those things introduced was the Major Votes policy because the WS recognised that not everything could be delegated by the membership to the elected board and what triggered one was defined. It was adopted last summer. Now you may be in the shoulder shrug, "it's a football decision", "too much overreach", "I don't care" which is your prerogative and you would get to express that, show ambivalence, abstain or soapbox if you choose, however it is completely unrelated to if the policy is invoked by what is in black and white and the spirit behind it's writing. It is a multi phase commitment, on surrounding land we don't own with a multi million pound commitment (at least £3.5m from what we can see and I'll be generous and say £1.5m from what has still to be revealed. If you think £5m does not constitute "Large-Scale Financial Decisions" then let's move on to the provision below. "Selling club assets (stadium, training ground, or other major facilities)", the inference here is selling them needs a vote, then funding them does too. So I guess the question is where is your line in the sand, does selling Eli Just for £6m grant decision makers a hall pass and the ability to cherry pick which rules apply? Undoubtedly it would cost more to secure land and not a metre or two beyond our building's footprint. A 4G pitch and floodlights in the middle of the existing running track is +£1m. In the event of anything happening, that investment can only be retained by the Memorial Trust, that's +£1m spent we can never realise. Not as if we'd even be allowed to roll up the carpet and sell it. Kilmarnock's Bowie Park, is costing over £7m. The first phase features full-size pitches, a nine-a-side pitch, and a 250-seat spectator stand. The completed facility will house a multi-floor complex including a gym, tactical seminar rooms, medical rooms, and changing spaces to bring the men's first team, youth academy, and women's team under one roof. Importantly 9-10 acres of land can always be resold and realise value, an isolated changing room block, kitchen, offices, gym and lecture theatre, not so much. Killie's 4G pitch at least would sit on two acres of their/Bowie's land. Killie/Bowie get into the mire, Bowie Park can be sold and could very well be an ACME Cala Homes estate to help them out of any bind. To your question, buying land (where?) .... aye very good, you're a lot better than acting that dopey. The issue here is with the ink still dry on the Major Votes policy, it was either overlooked (best case), actively ignored or cynically brushed off (worst case). If you are cool with that, then fine, you do you, but don't take cheap shots at me for still believing that integrity and consistency matters. As for clearly misunderstanding the costs, the difference here is mate, I've at least shown a degree of effort, research and working. You may disagree, but beyond just saying it's a load of shite, I've not seen anything tangible than a very easy line to wheel out on a forum which took you all of 10 seconds to type.

Maybe I'm on my own here, but I really hope not. The final paragraph caught my eye: That's something I've long advocated for. Give Motherwell supporters first bite at the cherry. Harness the goodwill that exists and, where it's competitive to do so, keep the money, work and goodwill within our own support and community. What I can't get past, though, is the juxtaposition of asking for supporter involvement now rather than earlier when the planning itself was being made. We're a fan-owned club, we're sold on greater transparency and accountability, told these are fundamental. Yet a decision as significant as relocating the club's day-to-day operations for the foreseeable future appears to have been progressed almost entirely behind closed doors. The only reason it was even discussed before today is because an eagle-eyed supporter happened to spot the planning application on the NLC website. Deciding where the club will be based from 9 to 5, Monday to Friday, in perpetuity isn't a minor operational matter. It's a strategic decision that sits firmly within the remit of the Well Society and, ultimately, its membership. Naturally, some well kent faces will wheel out the often cited "fan-owned, not fan-run". But that should neither become a straw man nor a shield against accountability, nor a way of closing down legitimate questions from the very people who own the club. Fan ownership has to mean meaningful involvement in decisions of this scale. A decision of this permanence sits firmly within the remit of the membership and should have been subject to proper consultation and a vote. To suggest that an individual owner with over 70% of the entity would have limited input in advance of a decision of this magnitude would be difficult to imagine. It is therefore hard to justify why this has seemingly been delegated solely to the two Well Society representatives on the club board or treated as an executive matter for the Society board, rather than something requiring wider member engagement. Fan ownership does not mean members should be involved in every operational decision or that the club cannot move forward without a vote on every matter. It does, however, mean that decisions of this scale and permanence should involve the people who collectively own the club. This should not be presented as a fait accompli as the press release makes out, particularly when its hard to see how we'll ever own the surrounding land. That means the long-term value, control and flexibility of the asset will always be constrained, making meaningful consultation before reaching this point even more important. The WS's own document (found here: https://thewellsociety.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/TheWellSocietyMajorVotesPolicy.pdf) states: 3. Definition of a Major Vote ● A ballot of the membership will be progressed if it meets any of the following major vote criteria: ● 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). ● 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. It's hard to reconcile how a decision that determines where the club's primary operations will be based for decades does not at least warrant consideration under this policy. Selling as asset such as a training ground is identical to buying one. This is the first major test of a policy adopted last summer, and members deserve clarity on why it has not been invoked. From the outside looking in, it appears the very people who collectively own the club have been bypassed, rather than empowered, by a process that should have placed them at the centre of the decision.

For anyone else as stadium geeky as me, here's a well rounded video on the new Roma proposal (same colour adjacent). You'll see they're onto their second draft and its been held up with archeological and residents issues over a green space/park. They've used the Populos Architecture firm (they seem to a monopoly of the big stadium projects as it's their specialty). Also, ignore the price tag, this isn't look at what we can have type post. Probably more pertinent since the on field performance is something often invoked by Jens, Bodo-Glimt are financing a new £90-100m stadium. It seems to be a campus, 10k capacity. However I'd caveat it with, due to their sovereign wealth fund, central government has a lot of cash. Second the cost of living is roughly double to here or it was when I was there extensively in 2016-19 with work. There's also extra complexity and demands constructing and surviving in such a climate. It's a city of 55,000 and I'm surprised they didn't go for a larger capacity however they also don't have two teams within 15 miles that's support can fill 60k stadia.

I’m done in that front for various reasons. I have a different view on what fan ownership looks like, how it should be implemented. Most importantly my stance on transparency and accountability doesn’t align any more.

It’s just little things too @Kmcalpin a new POD or stadium needs a large production/commercial kitchen, the training complex as shown has one (however, only catering to 40? at any time). The new stadium/POD would probably have a hot and cold plunge, the new facility has both, more doubling up. All significant costs in isolation but minor in the overall sums discussed. Everything on one campus has economies where spaces and functions imperative to put on football matches on Saturday’s at 15:00 can be utilised every day without having a satellite clone which has its own costs (construction and ongoing).

Typing into the wee hours on here in a specific thread is my only outlet on this subject.

I think this in itself creates a whole different level of increased local backlash than you maybe assume. A sandstone school (listed?) building with an emotive history of its own being moved to a site elsewhere would be a lot more of a rallying call for a wider set of residents than those inconvenienced by matchday crowds and car parking. Knowetop’s catchment goes down into Greenacres. The school grounds themselves are about two acres, would you be advocating for what is currently the Hunter stand to be the new main stand? One five a side pitch would have to go. If you’re proposing an increase in the capacity of the Hunter it’s dead in the water. Under this you’d image we’d have to contribute to the new school cost, demolition, replace the POD as it’s on life support, then start of the Hunter then the McLean roof and seats. We’d be at £20m all about keeping the centre circle where it is currently? I’d ask when the council is talking about closing libraries and sports centres because they’re broke then asking them to finance a new school is a hard ask. It would be a brace set of councillors to support such a move. Remember our previous Academy was shelved because the Bullfrog (God rest her soul) pub team objected. @Wee Alpha the issue here is you’re dropping our capacity by 2,500-3,000 because I guess 10k is a round number? Our gate revenues are reduced from their current levels. The current operational gap would increase so there’s a lot more emphasis on the hospitality to make it up. using 2,500 seats x 6 games x £24 = £350k, that’s quite a lot of extra cash to find. Maybe scarcity would allow us to charge more? On Thursday we had 8,000 Well fans inside FP due to the nature of the fixture but not far off the heights at the tail end of last season. Move the fans in the McLean into the covered bucket seats in the POD and we’ve maxed out our home availability. Why would we consider capping the easiest revenue source we have available? I’ve tried to stress so much through this, 5,000 extra OF tickets realises £10m over 20 years. The OF orcs finance 25%-35% of our stadium and we don’t touch our current income.

Another point I've mentioned before, but I think it's worth giving it a post of its own in this thread, is the proposed training facility at Dalziel Park. When the plans were first published, I gave my thoughts on the design and, if I'm honest, I hope the final product is significantly more ambitious than what's shown in the planning documents. However, with the extraordinary tsunami of transfer income we've generated this summer, I think it's only right that we revisit whether Dalziel Park still represents the best long-term investment for the club. The documents submitted to North Lanarkshire Council describe this as Phase 1. That consists of the new building, equipment/storage sheds and converting the running track pitch to an all-weather surface with floodlights. That wording itself suggests/infers there will be a Phase 2? What does that look like? Upgrading the five-a-side pitches? Covering one with indoor dome? Additional parking? Or does it ultimately make sense to become a full club base, allowing us to move operations away from K-Park and cease renting? If that's the intention, there are further costs to consider. We'd need facilities capable of hosting Women's and Academy fixtures. Under current SWPL 1 ground regulations, the minimum capacity is 1,300 spectators. At present we effectively work around this by using K-Park, which only holds around 660 spectators (400 seated). A permanent home would also require things such as (from SWPL guidance): Broadcast-standard floodlighting. A press area. A main camera gantry on the halfway line. A reliable secondary power supply. Dugouts meeting competition regulations. Appropriate changing facilities and supporting infrastructure. When the plans first appeared, a few people took a punt and estimated the building alone at somewhere between £1.5 million and £2.2 million, which doesn't seem unreasonable. Looking at comparable projects, the additional infrastructure isn't insignificant either. FIFA Quality Pro artificial pitch including engineered sub-base, shock pad and drainage: £850k-£1.1m Broadcast-standard floodlighting: £150k-£250k Backup generator and associated services: £80k-£100k A modest 1,300-capacity stand with changing rooms, media facilities and basic hospitality: I'd struggle to see this coming in at much under £1.2m Additional parking, landscaping and site works: £150k+ Obviously not everything would necessarily happen at once, but it's not difficult to see the total investment reaching £4-5 million over any multiple phases. The other aspect I'm less clear on is ownership. Dalziel Park is a charitable trust and, unless I've misunderstood the arrangement, Motherwell wouldn't actually own the land. We may have an excellent long-term lease with favourable terms, but ultimately it would still be a major investment on a site we don't control as an asset. Happy to be corrected if I've got that wrong. None of this is intended as criticism of any Dalziel Park facility. If the club proceeds with it, it will be a significant improvement on what we have now. Few clubs are co-located but that's down to land availability, if Celtic cold have secured 10 acres beside Parkhead, would they still prefer Lennoxtown? What I'm really asking is whether this summer has changed the equation. If Ravenscraig has now entered the fray to genuinely being considered for a new stadium, should we pause before committing several million pounds on Dalziel Park's phase 1 & possibly 2 and ask whether some or all of that investment would be better directed towards a wider football campus instead? We'd still need at least three full-size grass training pitches for rotation, along with 5/7-a-side pitches. But many of the expensive elements we're potentially talking about at Dalziel Park .... hospitality, changing rooms, media facilities, floodlighting, generators, kitchens, parking, offices, catering and security, would already exist as part of a wider stadium development. Would a gym block booked from 9-12 Monday to Friday not be monetised to the public outside those hours? The biggest challenge is the main playing surface. A natural grass stadium pitch simply isn't designed to cope with 40-plus competitive matches every season, particularly when the women's season extends into the summer and removes much of the recovery and renovation window grounds staff traditionally rely on. That raises an interesting question. Is there a technically and financially viable way of incorporating an interchangeable natural grass and artificial surface (or second grass pitch) within the stadium footprint? It would undoubtedly consume a significant portion of any savings made elsewhere and add considerable engineering complexity, so it's far from a cheap solution. However, if it could be achieved, the benefits are substantial. You'd create a venue capable of operating virtually 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It could host first-team, women's and academy football, community use, multi-sport events and commercial hires, while ensuring every Motherwell FC team has a permanent home on a single site. The increased utilisation would also create revenue opportunities that simply aren't available from a stadium that's used for a couple of dozen afternoons each year. Maybe the answer is still Dalziel Park. Maybe a split-site model remains the best option. But even with a rebuilt POD there would be a host of duplication of facilities with Dalziel Park and a weekday disconnect that doesn't exist currently. I'm just not convinced that, after the financial position we've put ourselves in this summer, it isn't worth stepping back and asking whether our long-term infrastructure strategy should be a little more ambitious than it looked 12 months ago.

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.

It's a massive investment and while this summer is an eye-popping perfect storm, three years ago selling K** for £550k was seen as a coup, it would be a brave supporter of this football club to suggest we can mimic it again in the near future. But maybe a Watt style £2m here or there is a new datum thanks to our style and approach. I get within our psyche there is a need for a rainy day mindset, the WS was created to offer it after all. It's a thing in this part of the world because we're no stranger to economic upheaval and a feeling of few sunny days to make our hay. The overall cost is at first glance potentially frightening, we have the jeopardy of relegation always hanging over us, our new found wealth is in theory an insulator and in worst case scenarios, a January slush fund to buy our way to safety. Un upgraded POD is upheaval for 15 months ideally so a whole season lost of its hospitality offering and temporary costs to relocate changing rooms and other functions held within the stand. After completion, there would be an uptake on hospitality going forward, maybe we can make the building sweat its assets seven days a week if it's restaurant is open the same as Tynecastle. We won't alter the capacity of Fir Park or the general aesthetic. Then we move on to the other stands assessing their triage order. A new stadium offers it to be built and commissioned similar to Everton with Goodison and the Hill Dickinson, where you move without upheaval or penalty. I've tried to illustrate how every extra 1,000 seats made available to OF or Hearts supporters realises approximately £2m over the 20 year life of any finance arrangement. I think what's important, we sell someone for say £2m in future, we can dump that into our mortgage, financing the stadium isn't solely down to increased attendances, hospitality and additional uses, player trading will always be part of the club and if co-located with our academy/training facility can be very much justiifed. However, the main thing which I haven't highlighted yet is when the stadium is paid off, early or on time, from that day forward the increased revenues generated flow directly and solely into the football department and academy in perpetuity.

I really don’t get why anyone defaults to think that if we do move we’ll endeavour to build the single worst thing we can devoid of any merit or atmosphere. I’ve only ever see St Mirren but our sloppy seconds than the other way round. I think to convince people it’s more about human nature. I’m often drawn to something I studied while at uni. The Golden Gate Bridge was initially opposed be literally everyone. Today it’s inconceivable to imagine San Francisco without it and it’s universally loved as a cultural icon. Groups: U.S. War Department Feared the bridge would obstruct military operations or, if destroyed in war, block the entrance to San Francisco Bay. Shipping companies Thought it would interfere with navigation and large ships entering the harbour. Southern Pacific / Golden Gate Ferries Didn’t want to lose their profitable ferry monopoly. Sierra Club and conservationists Argued it would scar the natural landscape and damage the environment. Taxpayer groups Believed it was far too expensive and financially reckless, especially during the Depression. Board of Supervisors and civic leaders Worried about debt, toll revenue and political risk. Engineers Claimed it couldn’t survive the currents, winds and fog. Strauss’ original design was mocked as an “upside-down rat trap.” Residents and preservationists Felt it would ruin the beauty and character of the Golden Gate and Marin Headlands. More detail here: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/goldengate-opposition

Everyone is funnelled into a 4m wide gate to leave. Theres no scope for any ancillary sales or expansion. The space under us can’t be used. It is limited for disabled access and its roof will need replaced soon. Due to the curve of Knowetop Avenue it cuts the corner off the Cooper (it’s stepped in) the. If massive wall has to be maintained, we looked to demolish it 15 years ago and told no. WS looking at funding a lift. The Cooper bar is a particularly uninspiring space. The POD has a very narrow footprint, the width of the centenary interrupted by columns define it. Upstairs rooms such as the 91 suite can effectively fit 12 chairs abreast with an access corridor down the middle. boardroom Even smaller. above the sponsors lounge is now taken over by the media team I understand. None of these facilities are enough or fitting for a club looking to close its operational funding gap.

A school playground, a street that cuts off the coroner of the Cooper and a couple of houses that ensure the Main stand can never stretch the full length of the pitch while sitting on a residential street for me shows no amount of money can remedy the limitations of FP.

Is there any amount of money we could have in the bank and your be OK with a switch or is FP only regardless or anything else?