Jump to content

DoofersDad

+06: Site Sponsor
  • Posts

    5,608
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    267

DoofersDad last won the day on March 17

DoofersDad had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

41,499 profile views

DoofersDad's Achievements

International Player

International Player (7/10)

  • Great Support Rare

Recent Badges

5k

Reputation

  1. If we can't sign him for that reason, one has to ask why he was here in the first place - apart from the point that if he isn't good enough for Forfar, why would anyone think he was good enough for us?
  2. Maybe he's not documented it because there is no money left to pay him for doing the extra work. It must be absolutely galling for the the creditors to be told there is no money to pay them for the work they did, when the lead director of the Concert Company continues to put money into the football club and, presumably, make money with his other business interests. It might be legal, but it ain't right. It certainly isn't a good way to get the wider Inverness business community behind the club.
  3. You may not have realised that sadly a man died in a house fire in Dingwall last month.
  4. ht. 2-0 ft. 3-1 ICT. Billy Mckay Utd. Moult crowd. 7654
  5. But he appears to be a big part of the reason why we are on a life support machine in the first place.
  6. He seems to be giving every indication that he thinks it was mistake coming here. Whatever division we are in next season, I doubt big Dunc will be the manager.
  7. On the other hand, if the applicants can identify a strong legal case then the Scottish Government may feel that granting the appeal quickly would prevent an embarrassing court case. Either way, the shenanigans at the council will give the applicants options about the next steps. Of course, we need to bear in mind, that whilst getting the planning permission is vital to the finances of the club, they are not the only players with an interest here. ILI and whatever company it is who would actually build and operate the BESS will have a big say in the next steps. Obviously it is all just speculation on our behalf and we have no idea of the detail of what the details of the contractual arrangements are between the interested parties. I should add here that I have maybe been a little unfair in my earlier criticism of the club with regard to the weaknesses in the application. ILI and the prospective operator are the experts in this area and are the ones who should have the experience to get it right and to anticipate likely barriers to approval. But given the risk to the club of the project not going ahead, the club clearly has a responsibility to make sure the application is watertight and they have failed in that.
  8. Terry Butcher was a guest of the club today. Did I miss something or was he not invited out and introduced to the fans? I was rather looking forward to giving him a good round of applause as a "thank you" for some of the best and most exciting football we've seen in the 30 year history of the club.
  9. A lovely day for a game of football but the storm clouds are gathering around the stadium. On the whole, I think the players put a lot of effort in and tried their best, but the sad fact is, that as a group, they just aren't good enough. Again we started brightly and with a bit more quality could have been 2 up in the first 15 minutes. Ayr were no great shakes, but once they settled into the game, we rarely found any space where it mattered. There are times when we pass the ball neatly in midfield and keep possession, but when we get into the final third and and are put under more pressure, we either lose the ball or pass it back. We create very little. It is clear that Fergusson has his preferred way of playing and he ain't going to change it. He wants us to play out from the back and through the park. It's brilliant to watch when Manchester City do it, but with all due respect to our lads, they don't have the vision or skill to do it. Time and time again we start to play out from the back and are just too slow to make progress, we allow the opposition to regroup and organise their defence and we can't find a way through. It's just boring.
  10. Different rules for different meetings it seems. There appears to be plenty in all these machinations for the Club and Partners' legal team to explore in making their case for appeal.
  11. I'm sorry, but you are completely missing the point here. The club only addressed this issue after the planning committee's 3-2 vote in favour had been taken back to the whole council. At the time, I commented on this and said that the net biodiversity gain should be enough to justify the loss of the small amount of loss of green space. I commended the Chairman on that more focussed and restrained statement. The point is, that the club and its partners had not made the biodiversity argument earlier. One of the earlier concerns of the planning department was concerns from the ecology officer about the loss of biodiversity. That concern was very simply resolved by a commitment to plant more trees and shrubs. Problem solved with a 30 second thought process! After a 30 month planning process for a development which they knew the planners would not support because of the green space issue, it simply beggars belief that the simple solution of planting a range of trees and shrubs on the site was not a key part of the original application. Having said that, I absolutely agree that the sledging and dog walking arguments were incredibly weak. Arguments around business rates etc were simply not relevant to planning and were an unnecessary distraction.
  12. Maybe people are misjudging his personality? The style of play we are playing is his style of play. In his pre-match interview he said he wasn't going to change that.
  13. So they shouldn't have gone through the pre-application consultation because all it would have done is to tell them what they already knew, that the site is on green space and could not be supported by the planning department. So, instead they are supposed to just submit the application in full knowledge that it is not going to be supported? Hmm. A "pretty low risk project"? When you know the Planing Department cannot support it? I don't think so! Back in November, the chairman posted a rambling video prior to the original planning committee meeting on 22nd November, in which he urged councillors to vote for the application. He told them it "doesn't make any sense" to reject it and it would "be a travesty if it is refused". He was prompted to do this after having what he referred to as the "devastating news" that the planners had recommended refusal on 4 grounds - 3 of which were easily resolvable. The Committee subsequently deferred the decision in order that the applicants could provide the further information required to satisfy the planners concerned. In his video, Morrison stated that there had already been a two and a half year planning process, so I really don't think going through the pre-application process would have resulted in delays. To the contrary, having engagement with the planning officials would surely have flagged up the issues which resulted in a delay to the application and inconvenience to the Council. The other thing that is evident from this is that after 30 months of planning, they simply arrogantly assumed that because the BESS scheme would make such a positive contribution to net zero targets, this would override any objections about the loss of green space. It would appear that there had been no discussion with anyone at the Council as to what might be required to overcome an issue which, apparently, requires the planning department to recommend refusal. Whilst Morrison is not using any belligerent language in this video, being told it would be a travesty if the application does not get approval will also not have gone down well with Councillors. People want to be persuaded by reasoned argument; not lectured to. Had there been better engagement with the Council and a case presented which robustly addressed the green space issue, this application could have sailed through in November. Instead it may well not get the go-ahead at all.
  14. But they didn't really go through the proper process if they didn't use the Council's pre-application consultation process. This might have allowed them to fully address the issues of concern and have the application go through with a "better look" which would not have triggered the subsequent process. The subsequent process might be very unusual, but I assume it is a legitimate one or else the Council officials would not have allowed it to be used. No doubt the club will, quite rightly, take legal advice on this. Whether it got through the planning committee vote or not is actually not really relevant in terms of judging how the club behaved. Clearly the application had some issues associated with it and there was a significant risk it would not go through the committee and get planning permission. They put the application in knowing that it was on protected green space, so, of course there was a risk. The club put the future of the club against that risk and that, to my mind, was reckless. It would still have been reckless had they won the vote yesterday. If you staked your household's life savings on an even money favourite at Cheltenham, then win or lose, it would still be a very reckless thing to to. If you are going to stake all your savings on something, then you need to be like Putin in today's election and get all the necessary arrangements in place to make sure you do win. The club and its partners failed to do the necessary work to ensure the application's smooth progress and then reduced the chances of it going through subsequently by antagonising the very people they needed to persuade. I should add that I am in no way defending the elected councillors here. It does appear that there are some who have some kind of agenda. Others on both sides of the argument could barely string two words together and were utterly incapable of making a coherent argument to support their voting intention. The whole episode is just a shambles all round.
  15. Can I suggest sticking it on Mckay instead?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy