New Training Facility

[weeyin]

in his presser this week, Jens mentioned he had a lot of input into the project, so I'm assuming it meets his needs.

[Goggles & Flippers]

On 4/10/2026 at 3:26 PM, weeyin said:

in his presser this week, Jens mentioned he had a lot of input into the project, so I'm assuming it meets his needs.

And that in one statement highlights the glass ceiling (pun not intended) many of our own fans put in place often artificially.

The guy is saying weekly he wants the players to be the best they can be, exceed their what they assume is their own personal limitations and we’re seeing that played out. But yeah, with this, the bare minimum will suffice ….

All I’ve said since my first post on the subject is it could be so much more with little effort or cost.

Just my observation.

[Kmcalpin]

Only one objection to the plans.

[weeyin]

17 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Only one objection to the plans.

Is it from St Mirren?

[wellfan]

14 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

Only one objection to the plans.

The average NIMBY would swear the sky is green just because they can.

[Orinoco]

15 hours ago, weeyin said:

Is it from St Mirren?

I heard it was someone called W Collum.

[Kmcalpin]

Only one objection to the proposed plans. The Sun however, covers it in depth and makes an issue of it. 

[Kmcalpin]

The training facility plans were approved yesterday by North Lanarkshire Council, with a small number of routine conditions and notes attached e.g. unrecorded mine workings; tree preservation etc. The application, for which permission lasts for 3 years, did not require to go before the Planning Committee, due to its straightforward nature and small number of representations, which were all addressed satisfactorily.      

[weeyin]

13 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

The training facility plans were approved yesterday by North Lanarkshire Council, with a small number of routine conditions and notes attached e.g. unrecorded mine workings; tree preservation etc. The application, for which permission lasts for 3 years, did not require to go before the Planning Committee, due to its straightforward nature and small number of representations, which were all addressed satisfactorily.      

That's good news.

[Kmcalpin]

I forgot to add that we are also receiving a contributory grant from the SFA for the development. 

[StirlingDosser]

Is ownership of the facility going to be fully in the hands of the club or are we purely going to own the pavilion?

[Goggles & Flippers]

Maybe I'm on my own here, but I really hope not. The final paragraph caught my eye:

Quote

"We also see the development of the training ground as very much a community effort. We would therefore encourage any supporters who feel they may be able to assist – whether through trade skills, the supply of materials, or any other support that could benefit the club – to get in touch and fill in a short survey outlining how they may be able to help."

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.