That Old Chestnut - Do We Move Or Do We Stay

[Goggles & Flippers]

14 minutes ago, 0Neils40yarder said:

The school playground doesn't stop the east stand from functioning 

Not sure what the cooper issue is?

And as for the main stand, I dont think it needs to run full length for it to allow us to rebuild it 

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.

[wellfan]

The constraints of the current Fir Park site are plain to see. But with the principle of development for a football stadium already established there, nobody will ever convince me there isn’t a viable proposal that responds to those constraints in a creative yet pragmatic way. Whether that’s a complete demolition and redevelopment or a phased approach of continually replacing and upgrading the stadium bit by bit, I’d take either of those over relocating to an identikit plastic shithole on a soulless brownfield site on the edge of town.

Every realistic option at Fir Park has to be exhausted, and sensible compromises made where necessary, before we consider something as drastic as leaving our home for Ravenscraig. 

[0Neils40yarder]

1 minute ago, wellfan said:

The constraints of the current Fir Park site are plain to see. But with the principle of development for a football stadium already established there, nobody will ever convince me there isn’t a viable proposal that responds to those constraints in a creative yet pragmatic way. Whether that’s a complete demolition and redevelopment or a phased approach of continually replacing and upgrading the stadium bit by bit, I’d take either of those over relocating to an identikit plastic shithole on a soulless brownfield site on the edge of town.

Every realistic option at Fir Park has to be exhausted, and sensible compromises made where necessary, before we consider something as drastic as leaving our home for Ravenscraig. 

Aye probably said it better than I could 

[Goggles & Flippers]

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

[weeyin]

There are plenty of counter examples to that, but that's not really the point. I vistied Wrigley Field last year, and they did a fantastic job refurbishing their classic building to keep its character, but bring it into the 21st century.

However, as I said, I'm in favour of a new build, but there are legitimate concerns about its design. I honestly can't think of any Scottish team that has moved stadiums (stadia?) in the past 20 or 30 years where I was impressed with the new one.

Forest Green Rover's plan for "Eco Park" is quite an attractive proposition, but that is budgeted at 100 million.

I also have less faith in the local authorities or government in providing the necessary levels of support it may need.

I do have faith in the current board to make good decisions, but any new build still carries mutliple risks, and mitigating those risks can lead to compromises we might not like.

 

[Kmcalpin]

A minor side issue in the great scheme of things I know. A family member told me tonight that the owner of the Steelworks is going to reopen Club 100 as a sports type bar.  That should kybosh any talk of the club taking over the site or premises. 

[weeyin]

4 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

A minor side issue in the great scheme of things I know. A family member told me tonight that the owner of the Steelworks is going to reopen Club 100 as a sports type bar.  That should kybosh any talk of the club taking over the site or premises. 

Good. 

[Onthefringes]

4 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

A minor side issue in the great scheme of things I know. A family member told me tonight that the owner of the Steelworks is going to reopen Club 100 as a sports type bar.  That should kybosh any talk of the club taking over the site or premises. 

Club realised it wasn’t viable decades ago and it’s believed same recently.

Complex ownership issues and the extensive building work never mind refurbishment compound the problem.

They’ve ran the Steelworks into the ground, I’d be amazed to see them turn this white elephant around.

Bowling club seeing the benefit as the club/society pay lip service to their beer garden and Cooper Suite.

[wellfan]

5 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

A minor side issue in the great scheme of things I know. A family member told me tonight that the owner of the Steelworks is going to reopen Club 100 as a sports type bar.  That should kybosh any talk of the club taking over the site or premises. 

The owner of the Steelworks couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery. A big crowd was expected last night, yet they only opened the small bar and left it understaffed. I was told they kept the larger bar closed because they wanted to keep it clean and tidy for the next morning. Apparently, even if they had opened it, they didn’t have enough staff to run it.

It’s another example of a business owner failing to grasp that investing a bit more in staffing can generate greater profits through quicker service and higher sales. And don’t even get me started on trying to cater for a crowd with a single gents’ urinal and one cubicle.

[Goggles & Flippers]

On 7/22/2026 at 7:40 PM, Spiderpig said:

The sums of money mentioned to me would back up that statement.

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.

[Stuwell2]

19 hours ago, Goggles & Flippers said:

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.

Although I normally agree or at least see the merit in your opinion, this point I have to disagree with as by the time the mortgage is paid off there will be upkeep costs that would potentially take up that cash. Not saying I disagree with moving to a new stadium and that it is wrong just don’t think this part of the argument is correct. 

[Goggles & Flippers]

6 hours ago, Stuwell2 said:

Although I normally agree or at least see the merit in your opinion, this point I have to disagree with as by the time the mortgage is paid off there will be upkeep costs that would potentially take up that cash. Not saying I disagree with moving to a new stadium and that it is wrong just don’t think this part of the argument is correct. 

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.

[Goggles & Flippers]

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):

1. Broadcast-standard floodlighting.
2. A press area.
3. A main camera gantry on the halfway line.
4. A reliable secondary power supply.
5. Dugouts meeting competition regulations.
6. 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.