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.

[0Neils40yarder]

Great news...Long overdue for a club at our level to have a dedicated training ground 

[Kmcalpin]

1 hour ago, StirlingDosser said:

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

No. The land it will be built on is owned by the Dalziel High School War Memorial Trust and will remain in their hands. That has been a concern of mine. 

[steelboy]

2 hours ago, Goggles & Flippers said:

 

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.

 

Building a clubhouse and upgrading the training pitches doesn't involve selling club assets or taking on debt. It also doesn't determine 'where our primary operations will be based' because our primary operation is playing matches at Fir Park. We need better training facilities. Working with Dalziel War Memorial Trust to upgrade Dalziel Park is by far the best option. Buying land (where?) and building a completely new facility would cost a fortune and take years.

I've also been reading your posts about a new stadium and you are clearly massively underestimating how much a completely new stadium would cost never mind a new stadium and combined training facility.

 

 

[steelboy]

2 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

No. The land it will be built on is owned by the Dalziel High School War Memorial Trust and will remain in their hands. That has been a concern of mine. 

What are you concerned about?

[Kmcalpin]

15 hours ago, Goggles & Flippers said:

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.

No, you're not alone G & F. I agree 100% that the club should give interested fans the first bite to undertake work for the club irrespective whether its for payment or volunteering. Looking after your local community is a 2 way process. Well done to the club on that score. 

The club should however, have involved the supporters at a far earlier stage, as you rightly point out.  The club submitted plans to the Council on 13 March and it was almost a month later that one of our own spotted, by accident I may add, the application on the planning website. Not a good look for a fan owned club. Now I'm not advocating that fans should have been consulted on the design, number of rooms,  or the colour of the roof or anything so mundane. However given the substantial cost, scale of strategic investment, and the fact that the club does not even own the land on which the facility is to be erected I would have thought that the membership would have been informed, at the very least. A bit more transparency and accountability would have been sensible and justified. 

Thats before the issue of a POD replacement/stadium relocation is taken into account.  I quite get that the need for a new training facility is pressing and won't wait 10 or 15 years or whatever. However, it would have made sense to consider this development as part of the wider issue. Maybe it has but we just haven't been told?  

The Society has generally improved consultation with members over minor issues, but this should also extend to major ones too. 

[Goggles & Flippers]

On 7/31/2026 at 10:25 PM, steelboy said:

Building a clubhouse and upgrading the training pitches doesn't involve selling club assets or taking on debt. It also doesn't determine 'where our primary operations will be based' because our primary operation is playing matches at Fir Park. We need better training facilities. Working with Dalziel War Memorial Trust to upgrade Dalziel Park is by far the best option. Buying land (where?) and building a completely new facility would cost a fortune and take years.

I've also been reading your posts about a new stadium and you are clearly massively underestimating how much a completely new stadium would cost never mind a new stadium and combined training facility.

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.

[Kmcalpin]

On 7/31/2026 at 10:31 PM, steelboy said:

What are you concerned about?

Although we don't know the terms of any agreement or lease with the Memorial Trust, there are various legal and financial risks.  Its quite possible, that at the expiry of any agreement, that ownership of the buildings would revert to the Trust. Could we acquire a mortgage or loan to finance the building assuming we don't pay for it outright? Could the Trust at any point require the demolition, at the club's cost? Are we paying ongoing ground rent or lease fees? Do we require the permission of the Trust for any future phases of the development? Who comes good for the maintenance of the surrounding infrastructure eg access roads?  A lot of the devil could be in the detail, to which we will never have access. Now the Trust seems an honourable organisation and I'm sure that it is. However what if ownership changes at some point during the lease? Would the next landowner be so understanding and co-operative? 

Now many of these concerns may be totally unfounded, I just don't know. However the above potential concerns can be summarised as having no control, over the land on which the facility is to be built.  Thats my concern. 

[steelboy]

27 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

 

Now many of these concerns may be totally unfounded, I just don't know. However the above potential concerns can be summarised as having no control, over the land on which the facility is to be built.  Thats my concern. 

I'm confident the club have the competence to agree a lease with DHSWMT that protects our interests. 

Other people might disagree but if we can't make Dalziel Park work for us it's hard to imagine that we would have the competence to acquire land and build a new training ground from scratch.