Goggles & Flippers

Good post and thanks for bringing a number of people on board with the terminology and implications (albeit from the outside looking in). I was inclined not to get into this debate for a number of reasons, the most prominent is I've now reached a stage where I think change needs a groundswell of the membership to offer the board pause. Outwith impending doom or selling the club for a ginger bottle, wider fan interest has fallen off massively since the summer of 2024. Therefore we may see the odd tweak here and there but nothing substantial. The second is I prickle at the reframing of the WS as a subscription model. That is patently untrue and covered in another thread where I posted the summary of a meeting in the Cooper Suite where it was discussed. While it may be convenient to characterise it as such, the direct debit was introduced to allow people to attain the base membership of £300 in easier chunks than a lump sum. It was up to them to continue on if they were inclined to the next tier. Supporters will say, well if you want fan ownership it needs constant nurturing, it's naive to think you can contribute £300 in 2011 and that's you. The converse of that is Motherwell is a business that we patronise, most of us with a season ticket. £10 per month to the WS could be looked at as a 25-30% tax the person sitting next to you who's not a member or who is but doesn't wish to contribute and already thinks £25 per game is approaching a high water mark. Many of us may also own a nominal amount of shares in various companies, none of these companies contact us regularly as a shareholder asking for a contribution to advance or safeguard that business. It's also worth noting that Motherwell's shares are not publicly traded. I've already advocated using some of the WS pot in the Old Chestnut thread, I said £500k in that which in theory could enhance the cost of the facility by 25% (if a £2m build cost is assumed). The reason for this is our academy and player trading dwarf our gate receipt income, therefore it makes sense to make whatever we aspire to the very best it can be in scale and ambition. The reason I was happy to advocate this was I think the vast majority of WS members would support it, improving a youth academy is usually catnip to an average football fan. Second it would be something the WS could point to rather than the £868k debt sitting on the club's balance sheet or the countless other amounts frittered away into the ether over the years. Another reason is something that has came up on this thread repeatedly, the relegation/rainy day/slush/break in case of emergency fund (pick your poison). There was a number identified that allowed us to continue our top flight operations but without top flight incomes for one season (ideally two - just in case). It will allow us breathing space not to have a player fire sale and maintain staff. As has been pointed out, figures in 2011 don't hold water in 2026 due to inflation and new costs that weren't a thing back then (employers NI jumping). However, I think this is pertinent to this debate, the environment and place the club was in 15 years ago. Every penny was a prisoner and we robbed Peter to pay Paul. Due to breaking our transfer record twice within a calendar year, we're in the black and much, much healthier today. As conveyed at the AGM, Lennon's fee consisted of eight payments, staggered, so mid-summer and January? So three banked already? Would it be safe to assume Swansea negotiated a similar schedule for Eli Just? If so, the club is due an injection of cash probably in excess of the presumed cost of relegation for the next four seasons. Income of over one million a year (from each player) was not a thing in 2011 and unless that income is already sidelined or apportioned, then it's in play (if we assume Watt and Ward's income has covered our summer spending spree). With respect to the WS debt the club holds. At the outset we were sold on it would move to and fro between the society and the club in times of need. The analogy used was a bellows. The £868k has sat on the clubs books for a number of years, could it have been repaid? Maybe after Turnbull or a significant amount returned but there's been no desire by the debtor or request from the creditor. It's presence undoubtedly helped with Erik as he showed his hand and it became yet another straw for that poor camel. However the question on it I have is two-fold: If the club endeavoured to return the money to the WS, the clubs accounts would be improved? Holding stagnant debt, approximately 15% of your turnover isn't ideal if the club ever needed to engage with banks, financial institutions or lenders. Second, if the club was in dire straits then the first port of call would always be the WS and under the arrangement, funds released to the club as a secured loan. Therefore the facility we currently have in place and some are loathe to change because of the security, could that still be invoked but the WS holding onto all monies until it was asked for them?

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 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.

I think your reply a reasonable interpretation of the literal wording penned by your fair hand Philip, but I'm not convinced it stands up when you consider what the policy is actually intended to achieve. The obvious difficulty is that you're treating the listed criteria as though they are the entirety of the policy, when the final paragraph specifically gives the Society Board discretion to call a ballot on matters beyond those criteria where there is a potential impact on the club's structure, financial stability, governance or identity. More importantly, I think there is a slightly artificial distinction being drawn between selling a major club asset and committing several million pounds to develop one. The policy specifically identifies the stadium and training ground as “major facilities”. The bullet point “selling club assets” cannot sensibly be read in isolation from decisions about substantial investment in those assets. Otherwise you end up with the rather absurd position that members must be consulted before selling the training ground, but not before committing several million pounds to substantially develop one. Perhaps a better alternative to "Selling club assets" would be "Major asset transactions" as that works better as a catchall, regardless of the syntax, the core point remains the same. I'm not suggesting that every expenditure on a club facility requires a membership ballot. Clearly it doesn't. Replacing a roof, installing new equipment or carrying out routine improvements would be entirely different. But once you're talking about a multi-million-pound capital project, with the potential to materially affect the club's finances and its future infrastructure, built as an effective island inside the Dalziel Memorial Trust site I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask why the Society Board didn't at least consider exercising the discretion explicitly given to it in the final paragraph. And that's really the point I'm making. I don't think the answer can simply be it doesn't meet the exact wording of one of the bullet points. If that were the intention, there would be little purpose in giving the Board discretion over matters which fall outside those defined criteria. If the Board considered it, decided it didn't warrant a vote and can explain why, that's one thing. But saying the policy wasn't triggered by the precise wording of the bullet points doesn't really answer whether the Board should have exercised the discretion that the policy expressly gives it.

That does seem to be sticking and a cudgel with a few. If I say is an 18,000 stadium and the business plan is to have over half the crowd being Motherwell fans, does that sit easier? The OF get what's left over as the aim as it should be with any stadium is to fill it. I genuinely think the bounce from the local community could be signifcant. Away crowd vandalism has certainly increased in the past 20 years. As has general lawlessness at the football. If you go onto YouTube and find any OF game in the 2000's you'll noticeably see the aisles clear. Now every game is met with a clean up and bill. The Bears/GB doesn't absorb (or they do and shoulder shrug) that their club is on the hook for all damage as do our boisterous mob.

Unfortunately as has been discussed we've moved beyond the debate stage. Dalziel Park being green lit leans heavily into your wish. I have no idea if £8m is correct or fair for a POD demolishing and rebuild. But for that we have a major inconvenience for at last one season, loss of income and 3/4 of the way along the touchline. £8m in a £30m development is a stand and half. And most importantly, plenty of room. Our premium POD offering just now is 91 Lounge 20m x 7m give or take. offfffttttt.

So you would move but you need a number and funds in the bank to match that number. Fair enough.

Why would Kryk and the rest be employing analytics and scouring Europe for the most progressive young managers that no only compete at the business end of the table, entertain and get folk through the door to then turn round and say, you know what we need? SMiSA 2.0! There's been enough learned from stadium design as much from mistakes made to best practice to know what helps build atmosphere and bring in crowds rather than keep them away. Seat pitch and rake, acoustics, facilities, etc. wouldn't be ignored, because it's not what we seem to be doing*. *Granted I've written extensively that the WS rank and file have been willfully ignored .... but you get what I mean.

I'm not asking them to fund it, I'm suggesting that making 18,000 seats available gives us the opportunity to help fund it for a relatively modest increase in cost (well 40% more concrete and seats) compared with simply replicating the 13,000 we currently have. The fact that they have 53,000 and 62,000 capacity stadiums which are often full suggests there is at least scope to get 18,000 seats sold. Over 20 years, that represents at least £10m in additional revenue. If I'm being asked how we pay for it, I'm simply pointing to the most straightforward and sustainable wealth generator available to a football club: arses on seats. And this is really where I think we're talking past each other. Your position seems to have evolved from preferring a revamped POD, to concerns that Ravenscraig would be a white elephant, to the potential issue of being outnumbered or out-contributed by OF fans, and now to whether we'll ever sustain a 10k to 12k home support. Or maybe its all of them combined. I'm happy to debate any of those points, but it can sometimes feel that whenever I put forward something to address one concern, the discussion simply moves on to another. I'm not saying those concerns aren't valid, just that I'd like us to properly weigh up the potential benefits alongside the risks rather than assuming the risks are necessarily decisive.

initially yes, but the hope is our home gate increases steadily and their share is diminished to make way for the good guys, nothing would be as satisfying in 2040 as saying sorry, you're down to 6,000 this season because 12,000 Dossers have bought season tickets ..... It's all about how you frame it I suppose. I'm happy to get the OF fans to fund a nice shiny state of the art ground because the club they follow are happy to vacuum up our academy kids and divert funds away from locals who buy into the religious and glory hunting stuff. I'm suggesting 18,000 seats available, not 10,000 to the OF but initially they would possibly take it. Unless, from the first season we're in it, we get the 8,000 that we had for HJK or Freiburg as our datum, add on 2,000 because of the novelty of a new stadium then the maximum we can offer OF is 8,000 tickets. In addition to point one in the earlier post: We maintain our current playing budget and in theory that is ring fenced purely for football operations (unlike some clubs that really have to cut their cloth to fund a stadium). I'd also suggest 30% of all transfer profits to be made available to pay off the loan earlier. Important to stress profits and not income as that takes into account what they arrived for and agents fees. While we will not realise what we did this past summer every year, if you take ballpark £15m from the last two windows with minimal spent for Eli and Lennon, Watt and Ward (£5m would be available). The last two summers were definitely a high water mark and an outlier (for now). The income received does allow us to have this conversation. If we use a handover of 2030 between then and 2050, even if you were fiscally conservative, would it be fair to apportion an average transfer profit of £1m per annum (£20m over 20 years) and another £300k for the pot (£6m over 20 years). The club would still have the lion's share (70%) for reinvestment in players and academy.

Sure and I can answer that, I don't disagree with the underlying point about risk. A £30-40m commitment is obviously a completely different proposition and I'd want to know exactly how it would be serviced, what the downside scenarios look like and what happens if the current level of player trading isn't sustained. My £250k house analogy wasn't meant to suggest that taking on a £30m mortgage is somehow equivalent to an individual taking out a mortgage. It was really about the standard being applied to the club: that it somehow needs to have every penny sitting in cash before it can even contemplate a major investment. Nobody buying a house says, “I can't afford this because I don't have £250k in my bank account.” They look at income, expenditure, existing assets, borrowing capacity and the risks if circumstances change as well as projected wage increases or any lump sums (bonus', inheritance, etc.) coming their way. The club should be doing exactly the same exercise. In my scenario I suggested we go from a 13,000 stadium to a 18,000 one and make those additional 5,000 seats available to a guaranteed three OF fixtures (possibly four if top six is secured) with potential for two Hearts fixtures (I don't think they'd take the full 10,000 allocation but can assume it would over their current 5,000). Over 20 years that brings in an extra £10m than we realise at present. If you wish to apply that to the mortgage analogy I illustrated, it's now like buying a £250k house on a £35k salary, finding £10k to stick a plumbed garden room studio at the bottom of the garden and stick it on Air B&B for £25k a year income. That changes the complexion of the means to repay the mortgage. To keep the analogy going if you were let go, your personal finances dictate if you get a stop gap job to keep the wolf from the door, do some side hustles or if you do a job that allow it, a few 'homers'. While a football club can't lose it's job, the equivalent is relegation. Reduced revenues demand the club bounces right back up to the top division. For at least one season we have the WS buffer fund, beyond that it gets gets tricky. However, we would also have means to earn money from the stadium outwith matches. A brand new 18,000 stadium would have a whole raft of ways to make money to keep the finance payment schedule over what we currently have. As outlined already, concerts, events, conferences, restaurant, cafe, office and business' rent, gym and Scotland U21/womens, cup finals, etc. Before anyone says we're a football club, sure, a space is rented and we take the rent with favourable access rights granted. What I've proposed to date is five fold: We maintain our current playing budget and in theory that is ring fenced purely for football operations (unlike some clubs that really have to cut their cloth to fund a stadium). We exploit the OF dominance in our area and follow the precedent set by the McLean stand in the mid 90's to fund a significant portion of the build. A new stadium offers no upheaval, relocation, or loss of income during development. The residents around FP would welcome it. We reduce our costs by co-locating all assets and 'sweat' the stadium and ancillary grounds 24/7-365. Consider new revenue streams not even on our radar or we would be capable of at present, there are so many opportunities. While I'm happy with the conclusion for some being “the numbers don't stack up, so we stay at Fir Park and rebuild the Main Stand.” What I don't think is acceptable is reaching that conclusion before the owners have even been properly involved in assessing the proposal. That's the bit I'm arguing about. I'm not advocating a £30m mortgage. I'm saying the people who own the club should get to see the numbers, understand the risks and have a say in whether the opportunity is worth pursuing. If, after doing that, the answer is “too risky, let's rebuild Fir Park”, fair enough. That's a perfectly legitimate position. But that's very different from saying “we can't possibly do it because we don't have £30m sitting in the bank”, which isn't really how major capital projects work.

Fan owed, not fan run was a phrase often trotted out by Feely and Dickie, which in hindsight seemed to mean, let us get on with abolishing the Trust we lead in favour of £300k a year from Erik. But there is an important distinction here. In a fan-owned club, there is an expectation that on the big stuff, where we play, where we spend several million pounds on infrastructure, etc., you ask the owner. Nobody would have sidestepped Boyle or Hutchison on something of that scale. You may find it inconvenient, irritating or have a low appetite for engaging over just getting on with it, but that is part of the price of the model, a model in place when you accepted a position and/or role. If you don't want the owners to have a say in major decisions, you can choose not to work for a fan ownership vehicle. I could understand an argument about moving goalposts if any the board were brought in before fan ownership and suddenly finding themselves subject to a different governance model. But they weren't. Of the two seats reserved for club employees, Caldwell met most of the WS board before his appointment and, by all accounts, said (yes, italics again) the right things about fan ownership, mutual respect, two way street, etc. Two others are there because they were elected to the WS board, so in theory they believe in and support the model. The final two are there because the owners saw merit in what they offered and invited them. 99.9% of the decisions in the club are made by the board or by department heads on a day to day basis. That's what the board and department heads are there for. But, like any business, there is a point where a capital expenditure becomes too significant to be decided in isolation. Everyone understands where their personal discretion ends. That is precisely why I wrote the need for a major-votes policy into Our Club, Our Future as a key deliverable following the events of summer 2024. it was driven because if it wasn't for Jay and others, the handing over of the keys by McMahon and Dickie would have been a formality. The next step was defining exactly what should trigger a vote. That was written after I was no longer involved, but when eventually published it looked robust and, importantly, clear. It was adopted last summer. Yet here we are. A feasibility study was commissioned. Architects were appointed. A planning application was prepared and submitted. And now more than £3m is apparently about to be spent. If it hadn't been for an eagle-eyed Well fan spotting it, the first most of us would have heard about it would have been a month or so ago. As it was, we found out in mid-April, which in itself is unacceptable. And then the timeline makes the explanation an even harder circle to square. In mid-February, we were told the feasibility study had arrived only two weeks previously and there wasn't enough time to properly review it before the AGM. Yet within the following eight weeks, it was reviewed, a substantial planning application had been green lit, produced and submitted. Elevations, sections, floorplans, site plans, renderings, traffic management and environmental reports were all compiled. Unless a significant amount of that is stock or boilerplate material, that takes time. Granted, some drawings take less time than when I studied architecture, and AI can now spit out passable 3D material quickly enough to convey an idea. Although, for what it's worth, the image on the official site is grossly out of scale. The bigger point is this: the process was well underway long before the owners/wider fanbase were meaningfully brought into the process was the 31st of July, the point we were was to ask for help with materials, labour or services. Most Motherwell supporters, whether they want radical change or would rather preserve tradition, probably have a number in their head that makes a move possible. That's why people cite Euromillions wins or a run in the Champions League. It's shorthand for, “if we suddenly had the money, we'd do it.” For me, and for some others, the transfer record of the past 13 months changes the conversation. For the first time, it feels as though we may have choices rather than simply having to accept whatever is inevitable. For others, the number might be £50m, allowing the whole thing to be paid for outright. But what I find odd is the standard some seem to be applying, that the club should somehow have all the money sitting in the bank before even considering the possibility. That's not how ordinary people make major financial decisions. Someone on here urging caution sitting in their £250k house they bought while earning £35k a year has to be on some level of irony.

I think this is the crux of where we are at present. Whether anyone feels the board gets a free pass because of the managerial recruitment and the general perception that the club has been well managed in recent history is, ultimately, I'm sorry to advise, a matter of personal opinion. Likewise, some are seemingly quite happy to overlook ratified policies designed to protect everyone involved and provide clarity, because their personal ambivalence towards those policies appears to be directly linked to the state of our bank balance ..... £1m in the bank and operating loss "can you explain yourselves please" vs £15 million in transfer business in 13 months, "do what you like lads". You may believe that, despite those processes being in place, the ordinary fan shouldn't meddle. These are all positions I've seen voiced on this subject in the past month on both forums. But if you're going to argue that, then surely the alternative and fair position is that the 'owners' of the club should at least have been furnished with the bare minimum supporting documentation, allowing us to review it, ask questions and form an informed opinion. At the very least, it moves the discussion beyond the rather convenient position and potentially the banked on one of assuming a lot of fans will say "I'm not qualified to have an opinion on it." Keeping transfers ultra secret and family members in baseball caps and scarves is fun and welcome but for that in isolation. We were told at the AGM that the feasibility report had been received two weeks previously and that the board hadn't had sufficient time to digest it. But you're two weeks out from the one event in the calendar where you are directly accountable to the club's owners. Couldn't you at least skim it? Turn to the final page conclusions, understand the broad recommendations and provide a condensed summary to the people you're ultimately answerable to. The business we've done recently means we're at a fork in the road with true choices when before our path was very much defined for us. Reality check: in theory, we're a fan-owned club (yes, the italics are deliberate). With that comes an expectation, rightly or wrongly, of a greater level of transparency and accountability than you might reasonably expect from a traditional local businessman, whale or venture-capital. That's part of the bargain and covenant of fan ownership. And whether each individual fan personally has an appetite for that level of scrutiny is ultimately immaterial. A process was defined for matters of this nature. It was ratified, presumably for good reason, and it exists to provide protection and clarity for everyone involved. That process has, to a large extent, been ignored and a plan steamrollered. And that's the bit I find concerning. Not necessarily the outcome, not even necessarily the decision that was made, it's the precedent that has now been set. If a ratified process can simply be bypassed because, in this particular instance, it was inconvenient, expensive or ultimately could have been opposed to a desired outcome, what's to stop exactly the same thing happening again? If some recall, the club had to be reigned in when Sevco faced demotion to the 4th tier, Derek Weir and Dempster outlined the real implications for the club, but they still took it to the support/owners even if they personally may have voted the opposite way due to their roles as directors. However they then had a mandate. Once you've established that a process can be ignored because it worked out alright this time, you've rather undermined the whole point of having the process in the first place.

I think there’s a few things here that need cleared up. If you value the memories and uniqueness of Fir Park and loathe to move because it’s what you know, value tradition, etc. just say that. Don’t use we couldn’t afford anything new as a Trojan Horse to get your point across, because we certainly could. Finding a financier and dealing with Ravenscraig may offer issues of their own, but if we’re clever we can afford it. Likewise the other bad faith argument is the soulless Lego brick SMiSA/McDairmid and fear of us getting something similar. Why would anyone think we go you know what that’s the pinnacle of stadium design let’s emulate it, fans will love it. Remembering the fans “in theory” own the club so couldn’t have it imposed upon us. Saying that, we were meant to have a say on this as per a ratified major votes document, the feasibility study should have been made available or at very least a snapshot because we know they can cite “commercially sensitive” to bypass doing that and we’re meant to have a working together agreement that’s also yet to be published, yet every other fan owned club in Scotland has it front and centre on their ownership groups website. Yes it’s going to be a revamped Fir Park because that’s what we’ll do as it’s what we’ve always done, just this time we’ve got a wad of money in the bank or promised to be in the bank.

And I think that sums up the general mindset of our country. We limit ourselves at the outset, actually even before that. I get why we have the rain day mentality, there's various socio-economic reasons for it. Not a criticism lads, just our general make up as Scots unless you choose to buck the trend. I'm not suggesting we'd could do anything other than something appropriate or bankrupt the club, that would be grossly irresponsible. But you gotta aspire to more than the sum of your parts, trying to see that play out on the park is why we show up week after week isn't it? Being so focused on the here and now on stuff such as personal inconvenience gripes isn't for me. I've tried to illustrate why I think it could work and provided numbers (even if back of fag packet maths and no doubt with many holes), it's a bit more than nah it'll never work, we need to know our place, etc. Simply put Fir Park will always be limiting to our ambition and revenue. Maintenance will be like the Forth Bridge, the McLean is needing major work done to it throughout and probably the most pressing as we currently earn a fair whack of cash thanks to it. The POD is on life support and no longer fit for purpose. The Hunter will follow as it's roof needs addressed, then the floodlights and the Cooper, before the pitch or the McLean needs another touch up. All I've tried to show is rather than syphoning money into Fir Park that can be directed to a new venue that gives you 20-25 years with minimal maintenance. A new POD (is £8m fair? in construction and lost revenue), POD brought up to standard (£2m), other stands and infrastructure (£2m), ongoing maintenance over the next 20 years (£4m) and never realised commercial revenues because FP is hemmed into a residential area with limited premium options (£4m). I've highlighted that for ever 1,000 seats we make available to OF fans beyond their current 4,800 allocation (that brings in £2m extra income over 20 years, so sell 9,800 seats to OF/Hearts = £10m). Those all combined have us at £30m. If you feel that's generous, then what we're about to spend at Dalziel Park you can add in too as all the features of the new facility will already be part of any new main stand. That's all before you add in rents, SFA hiring the stadium for U21's etc, concerts and an expected boost in the home gate. Something of this magnitude can't be looked at as an isolated outlay but a long term investment. I do find it odd that folk are so quick to tell us to limit ambitions when pretty much most adults on this will buy or have bought a house worth more than they have available in the bank and in many cases will use every penny of the 5.5x their current salary to maximise what they can realise.

Maybe I misrepresented but I understood a football campus is something like what Man City have, the stadium and the training facility is essentially co-located/easily accessible. Was a simple thing to do in the aftermath of the Commonwealth games. The concern myself and many others have is by funding a multi-million pound facility at Dalziel Park we own either own the land as per the footprint of the building or will be on a long term favourable lease. If we ever need to realise the asset then who's going to be interested in securing an isolated building? The £1m astroturf in the middle of the running track will probably revert to to Dalziel Memorial Trust. The value in the asset would be if there was associated land and if in a pinch it could be sold either as is or for a change of use. Of course there's major pro's and con's for each option including speed of construction and ready made pitches at DP. The planned improvement would be welcome and undoubtedly an improvement on what we have, I am unsure if the modest plans are something that makes a young player think, I need to be here beyond the exposure and platform we claim to be able to provide. My preference for a campus is four fold; to avoid doubling up on infrastructure, to sweat the asset, to be a new hub/focal point for the area and to carry the club in to the future at pace. It's imperative the modern world that a building such as a stadium can't be used 25 days a year tops. Every nook and cranny of the building should be exploited for complementary ancillary business' and services. Caldwell's piece to camera the other day makes it clear Dalziel Park is going ahead without any pasky fan input other than if you own a lumberyard can you give us a bell. Funny 100 million is mentioned: https://www.thestadiumbusiness.com/2025/11/07/l35-set-to-deliver-stadium-for-banik-ostravas-return-home/ Designed by the firm who handled the Bernabeu refurb, of course it's not going to be cheap, it's very much a statement and central government is throwing money at it. One bit does resonate ..... "A unique facade – a tribute to coal and steel Nové Bazaly will hold 20,188 spectators, with a layout that includes two-tiered east and west stands and smaller single-tier north and south sections. The design pays homage to Ostrava’s mining and industrial heritage. The stadium will rest on a solid basalt stone base, recalling the quarry that once occupied the site. Its perforated metal facade will provide ventilation while partially concealing technical areas and reflecting the industrial character of the city. The stadium resembles a crown – not golden or ostentatious, but proud and working-class. It celebrates Ostrava’s industrial spirit and honors the generations who built this city and supported Baník through every era, the architects from L35 explained."

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.