That Old Chestnut - Do We Move Or Do We Stay

[Happyhonest]

On 7/27/2026 at 12:08 AM, Goggles & Flippers said:

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.

This all makes sense.  If we take bodo as the model improving the team allows more money generated.  The issue then is if we do move to a football campus as suggested in the other post then can and do we have the finances for a new stadia and a trading ground together.  
 

this makes me think that we should develop a phase 2/3 level of training ground now to improve players youth team and attract new players with the level and sophistication of the facilities and not build a new stadium.  Not ideal and I see the merit in the football campus  but don’t want to use the financial windfall just to go bust two years down the line.

 

on a side note that bodo glint stadium looks the dogs….

 

love the idea of fives pitches padel etc around it with sustainable features.  Anyone with a 100 mill spare? 

[Goggles & Flippers]

On 8/30/2026 at 12:45 PM, Happyhonest said:

This all makes sense.  If we take bodo as the model improving the team allows more money generated.  The issue then is if we do move to a football campus as suggested in the other post then can and do we have the finances for a new stadia and a trading ground together.  
 

this makes me think that we should develop a phase 2/3 level of training ground now to improve players youth team and attract new players with the level and sophistication of the facilities and not build a new stadium.  Not ideal and I see the merit in the football campus  but don’t want to use the financial windfall just to go bust two years down the line.

 

on a side note that bodo glint stadium looks the dogs….

 

love the idea of fives pitches padel etc around it with sustainable features.  Anyone with a 100 mill spare? 

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."

[stv]

1 hour ago, Goggles & Flippers said:

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."

In over our heads and ideas above our station . Sorry but thats all i see .We are a provincial football club not property investors or property tycoons , or landlords or hotelliers depending on others to rent etc from us.  It's Scotland, we are a wee club football club .There is global uncertainty and uncertainty in Scotland. Football is only a money maker if your a top club in European stages or English. We will need to cut our cloth to suit our financial limitations and geographical position ie 16 miles from the arse cheeks in a wee country of 4.5 million people. Most of whom are far from rich.

[Spiderpig]

2 hours ago, Goggles & Flippers said:

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."

Aye ok then fancy new stadiums and training facilities, feasabillity studies, its all a bit hypothetical pie in the sky BS for a club of our size and means.

Personally id settle for decent, fit for purpose seats in the POD.

[Goggles & Flippers]

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.

[Kmcalpin]

14 hours ago, Goggles & Flippers said:

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).

I'm fully with you this Goggles, as I've said before.  Now we could discuss ad infinitum on this thread about the actual size of a proposed new stadium ranging anywhere from 10K to 18K and all stops in between, but thats for another day. Yes, a new stadium would be very expensive but so would staying at Fir Park as you show here. Costs apart, Fir Park is  now no longer fit for purpose in 2026. As you rightly say our stadium is hemmed in by a 20th century land use legacy. The footprint is very tight and limits what can be done. Specific points:

* The POD is on life support and needs demolished and replaced urgently. Space for development is severely restricted by the housing near Mrs Baillies. That will never change. 

* The Hunter Stand at minimum needs a new roof.  Its the wrong shape, with access limited to one end and as we've seen recently long queues building up on busy match days. There is no room whatsoever to expand to the east. Catering and toilet facilities are poor and always will be. The views are also poor due to the low inclination of the seating and steel supports, which result in impaired access for some. 

* The McLean Stand is ageing and replacement of seating is already an issue. 

* The Cooper Stand is probably in the best health, but the hospitality facilities are sub standard and access for disabled fans is problematic, if not impossible. 

* At some stage, the floodlights will need replacement but I've no idea of the cost of that.

No doubt there other maintenance issues about which we are unaware. 

Safety standards are ever evolving and each year more work needs to be done, at considerable cost, just to maintain the status quo. The world has changed but Fir Park hasn't kept pace and never will be able to. Fans in 2026 will simply not tolerate the same standard of facilities our predecessors did 60 or 70 years ago. 

[joewarkfanclub]

Regardless of your opinion on stay or go, this IS a major decision for the club, which lets remember, IS owned by the fans.

I think the feasibility study requires to be published, if only for transparency purposes.

The board should then put forward their preferred option and any alternative for the consideration of the clubs owners.

Its not quite up there with the Barmack proposal in terms of importance, who owns the club will always top the list. But where we play our football is a close second.

[Spiderpig]

1 hour ago, joewarkfanclub said:

 

The board should then put forward their preferred option and any alternative for the consideration of the clubs owners.

 

The club going ahead with the Dalziel park proposals is for me a big hint that they want to stay at Fir Park, as it makes no financial sense to spend millions on new training facilities that could be incorporated into a new build stadium site and have everything on the one site.

I think the cost of a new stadium for a club of our size is beyond our means so staying at Fir park with all its faults and the no doubt high refurb costs etc might be the cheaper and financially sensible option.

Also if we do decide to move it has to be to a stadium design thats suitable and acceptable to the fans, and not a generic 4 stand open corner soulless ground that we would alk hate.

[Kmcalpin]

1 hour ago, Spiderpig said:

The club going ahead with the Dalziel park proposals is for me a big hint that they want to stay at Fir Park

You could well be right Allan  but the club should be doing more than just hinting about its preferred option. It should be coming out and telling us. 

[grizzlyg]

1 hour ago, Spiderpig said:

The club going ahead with the Dalziel park proposals is for me a big hint that they want to stay at Fir Park, as it makes no financial sense to spend millions on new training facilities that could be incorporated into a new build stadium site and have everything on the one site.

I think the cost of a new stadium for a club of our size is beyond our means so staying at Fir park with all its faults and the no doubt high refurb costs etc might be the cheaper and financially sensible option.

Also if we do decide to move it has to be to a stadium design thats suitable and acceptable to the fans, and not a generic 4 stand open corner soulless ground that we would alk hate.

Yep pal I agree with fact with I just don't know how we would fund a new stadium. I would love us to regenerate Fir Park but I totally get the cost of this also.   I dont sit in POD but it needs so much work as do the other stands.

And yes if we decided to move to new stadium it has to be unique and not bog standard 4 stands a bit like st mirren's

[Goggles & Flippers]

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.

[Onthefringes]

For those who favour a notion of redeveloping current home - yet to see anything tangible offered, how would you view redevelopment?

Footprint is prohibitive, future access will be restricted as the periphery ring road eventually takes shape are just two examples for consideration.

[Spiderpig]

48 minutes ago, Onthefringes said:

For those who favour a notion of redeveloping current home - yet to see anything tangible offered, how would you view redevelopment?

Footprint is prohibitive, future access will be restricted as the periphery ring road eventually takes shape are just two examples for consideration.

We are all aware of the constraints that a revamped Fir park would present but for me i would be up for staying and keeping all the memories etc, as long as the stadium was up to a modern standard  as much as it can be within its limitations. We obviously cant knock the stadium down and start again so it would be done in stages, there will be disruption but nothing that cant be overcome.

However until we see any potential proposals and timescales its nigh on impossible to make any informed comment.

So I hope that whatever the club decide to do the supporters will be consulted via the WS or whatever other means they choose as we all have valid inputs.

[grizzlyg]

3 hours ago, Onthefringes said:

For those who favour a notion of redeveloping current home - yet to see anything tangible offered, how would you view redevelopment?

Footprint is prohibitive, future access will be restricted as the periphery ring road eventually takes shape are just two examples for consideration.

One of my concerns bud would be infrastructure around a new build. Would there be improved transport links, etc?     Pros and cons with both options about staying or moving.

 

[Onthefringes]

42 minutes ago, grizzlyg said:

One of my concerns bud would be infrastructure around a new build. Would there be improved transport links, etc?     Pros and cons with both options about staying or moving.

 

Very much so.

Transport links are generally improved when there’s appetite to do so by key stakeholders.

Still, question was asked on how others view redeveloping our current home. 

[grizzlyg]

15 minutes ago, Onthefringes said:

Very much so.

Transport links are generally improved when there’s appetite to do so by key stakeholders.

Still, question was asked on how others view redeveloping our current home. 

If it was possible I would demolish POD stand and build a brand new one. Not sure if it would be possible and also fully appreciate the Hunter and McLean stands need a lot of work.  Cooper stand fine so it wouldn't need upgrade.

No easy solutions 

[joewarkfanclub]

I wouldnt expect most fans to be abreast of all the information required to make a fully informed decision on whether to refurb Fir Park or rebuild elsewhere.

Obviously there are emotions involved either way. 

Thats exactly why it is important to have the feasibility report published, together with a laymans summary of what it means for the club.

[0Neils40yarder]

1 hour ago, grizzlyg said:

If it was possible I would demolish POD stand and build a brand new one. Not sure if it would be possible and also fully appreciate the Hunter and McLean stands need a lot of work.  Cooper stand fine so it wouldn't need upgrade.

No easy solutions 

Of course its possible to knock down the POD and rebuild it on the exact same footprint...that the footprint is the same doesn't mean that the facilities within the stand or the configuration of it would be the same as it is currently.

The malaise around the South Stand is something that has caught me off guard a wee bit, I genuinely didnt realise it was in such a bad nick, but is it purely cosmetic, that a good clean and some paint will sort, or is it much more acute than that?

The East has had its issues for as long as there have been seats in it, mainly around exiting the stand after matches and concourse being narrow.

For me, we look at replacing the POD, with a functioning, money making facility with much better hospitality facilities, a bar, a restaurant etc. This can be done with finance that currently exists within the club and a much smaller mortgage than what we'd be left holding for any new stadium at the Craig.

[Goggles & Flippers]

1 hour ago, joewarkfanclub said:

I wouldnt expect most fans to be abreast of all the information required to make a fully informed decision on whether to refurb Fir Park or rebuild elsewhere.

Obviously there are emotions involved either way. 

Thats exactly why it is important to have the feasibility report published, together with a laymans summary of what it means for the club.

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.