Charles Bannerman

Another thought. What if the Scottish Government overrides today’s decision and gives the scheme the go ahead…. but so much fear and alarm has by now been spread by local residents that house prices in the surrounding area take a nosedive?

10 minutes ago, Fraz said:

No chance this will get passed I assume #greenspace 

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/10-bungalows-planned-on-greenfield-site-near-caledonian-cana-345011/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

As was the massive area at Holm Mills, now circumscribed by the West Link…. and where hundreds of houses are now being built. It would have been an ideal site for a public park.

5 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

I'm not sure I would go that far and say it's scaremongering. There were some reasonable concerns highlighted today about fire safety and the environment that was all under lined by the lack of legislation that could offer any comfort. At least petrol stations have tight regulations and controls from HSE and other regulatory bodies that planners and councils can lean in to.

I think that the club’s prospects of acceptance were on a dicky wicket once safety issues came into the equation. It’s easy to argue between the loss of 2% of a large green area by taking the Inner Moray Firth plan as the letter of the law on the one hand, and on the other a green initiative that will yield £125K per annum for the Council and hugely help one of Inverness’s highest profile organisations. However Elfin Safety seems to trump everything.

Also, it’s easy for people in our position to highlight the benefit to the club but the ordinary person on the street or councillor in the chamber often has no partisan interest and could validly argue (Devil’s Advocate kite alert!) that the self-inflicted financial failings of a football club, notwithstanding its good PR etc for Inverness, cannot be taken into consideration in the course of deciding a planning application.

Unfortunately this is the second non-football money making project that has been floated as a panacea, with no potential pitfalls initially flagged up…. until they suddenly emerged from left field.

There was no indication that the Concert Company could encounter any difficulties…. until it went bust at great cost to the club’s local reputation. And now there’s the Battery Farm that suddenly ran into planning difficulties and we are where we are now.

One of my concerns is that very little was revealed about the BF until the club meeting held the other week in response to the sudden public emergence of planning issues. Now that we know what the planning issues were - and irrespective of anyone’s viewpoint on them - was it not clear from the start that this was a project that could attract planning concerns, so at least came with some uncertainties? And if so why were we told so little about this project until a very late stage?

So now… around two years on from the birth of the Concert Company… the club’s financial security continues to proceed ever deeper into a black hole.

On 3/10/2024 at 10:41 AM, old caley girl said:

If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd wonder why the Council parking attendants made an appearance yesterday? 

They appeared also to be aware that there were potentially rich pickings from a large crowd at the Half Marathon and were booking people there - including, apparently, in the Archive Centre car park.

5 hours ago, CELTIC1CALEY3 said:

Here is the conclusion that members were presented with at the South Planning Committee before approving it;

CONCLUSION 5.1 Following the submission of additional information both the Council’s Environmental Health Officer and Ecology Officer have removed their respective objection and subsequently reasons for refusal 2 and 3 are no longer relevant. 5.2 Nevertheless, it is not considered that the submission has adequately justified the loss of designated open space as a result of industrial development and therefore the proposal’s impact on designated open space remains as assessed in the Report considered by the South Planning Applications Committee at its meeting on 22 November 2023. The recommendation is to refuse the application on the grounds of the impact on the open space. 6. IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Resource: Not applicable 6.2 Legal: Not applicable 6.3 Community (Equality, Poverty and Rural): Not applicable 6.4 Climate Change/Carbon Clever: Not applicable 6.5 Risk: Not applicable 6.6 Gaelic: Not applicable 7.

RECOMMENDATION Action required before decision issued Notification to Scottish Ministers N Conclusion of Section 75 Obligation N 44 Revocation of previous permission N Subject to the above actions, it is recommended to REFUSE the application for the following reason: 1. The proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) Policy 20 a), and Highland-wide Local Development Plan Policy 75 by virtue that it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the Open Space is not fit for purpose, nor has substitute provision has been offered to meet the needs of the local area, nor is it considered that the proposal for the development of the Open Space would significantly contribute to the spatial strategy for the area, which aims to: ‘concentrate development on existing settlements, create sustainable new communities, provide the infrastructure and transport network required to support these communities whilst ensuring the area’s most valuable built and natural assets are protected.’ Consequently it is not considered that the threshold of maintaining the overall integrity of the Open Space network is achieved.

The Notice of Amendment being considered by the full Council this Thursday is to review the decision.  That would suggest the issue is solely about 'the integrity of the Open Space network' . If members were misinformed, there was a mistake in law, or new material information has come to light could justify a review.  On the basis that the review is purely about the integrity of the Open Space - the Council's agenda does not clarify this - then I would expect all Councillors able to address the review are taken for a site visit prior to the meeting, as were the Planning Committee members. 

The current decision of the Committee in the draft minute is as follows:

Amendment: Mrs I MacKenzie, seconded by Mr R Jones to approve the application because, while it was acknowledged that the development would result in a loss of open space, the development would encourage, 44 promote, and facilitate renewable energy storage and so would comply with policy 11 of NPF4. It was considered that the benefits gained under policy 11 of NPF4 outweighed the loss of open space and therefore the application should be granted, with powers delegated to officers in consultation with the Chair and members who had participated in the decision to develop the appropriate conditions.

 https://www.highland.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/4950/highland_council/attachment/83016

Is an English translation of this available? I’ve lost my Gibberish - English Dictionary.

30 minutes ago, Satan said:

That's an argument for a city council , which is for another day.

For another day indeed - but it’s still one that needs to be had at some point.

2 hours ago, RiG said:

Yeah that final paragraph is an embarrassing inclusion. Suspect someone bundled that on at the end but it's not overly helpful. The rest of it is a bit better in that it at least focuses on planning matters rather than petty point scoring. 

I think that the club also needs to remember that this debate/campaign is being held in a very public arena, so overly aggressive communications with Councillors are also being seen by the whole community, and this is bound also to influence the perception of the club by that public. Here we also have to consider that public perception of ICT took a considerable knock after the collapse of the concert company and I fear that further damage could be done here. It’s unfortunate that the dire finances also exclude the employment of some advice on PR.

1 hour ago, DoofersDad said:

Better late than never.  We will now have to wait and see whether it is too late.  The earlier pronouncements with their arrogant and bullying tones will not have gone down well with many in the Council and will undoubtedly have harmed the case.  This latest communication is a much more measured message from the Chairman.  It sticks to the salient points and provides sound arguments for approval which are relevant to the application.  For instance, whilst acknowledging that a small amount of green space would be lost, the statement highlights that additional trees and shrubs would be planted with a resultant biodiversity gain.

 All councillors will now have these arguments and I rather doubt that receiving multiple copies of the same email will make them any more likely to vote in favour.  As STFU says, the cards are all dealt.  Let's just hope there is not another joker in the pack.

 

I said at the meeting that I didn’t think it was a good idea to antagonise the Council in the run up to this vote. God knows, Highland Council is a complete mess and in far more respects than this, but I reckon you need to be pragmatic so it’s not a good idea to tell them that under the current circumstances. 

9 hours ago, STFU said:

The cards are dealt, and we now wait to see how it plays out.

I'm not confident the vote will go in favour of the battery storage, and a quick search shows that in 8 appeals to the DPEA in 2022/23 involving Highland Council, only one was upheld.

The club's focus seems to be fixed on a couple of very specific lines in the various legislation, with little regard given to context.

i.e. they highlight net zero and government support for renewables, but ignore that legislation and support also exists for the protection of green spaces.

What will be weighed here is the value of one against the other.

Even if the club can prove there was a mistake made in the process, that does not automatically mean that it would be ruled the end decision was wrong.

Based on the information given to us at the meeting, I think STFU has hit the nail on the head with the “loss of green space v net zero contribution” summary, although if these councillors were to be pragmatic, they would also take into account (without necessarily admitting it!) the extra £125K in business rates - even if they don’t give a toss about the future of club that has brought the Highlands untold public attention through winning the Scottish Cup and playing in Europe. (Indeed, how valuable to the Highlands was “going ballistic” alone?

It’s difficult to quantify the “green energy dividend”, even with the numbers provided by the club, but it does appear to be significant. However, I think that the real power (no pun intended!) behind the argument in favour is the statistic we were given that the installation would only occupy 4% of the green area on that site, leaving 96% still untouched. I might also add that a hell of a lot of potential green space at places like the West Link and Craig Dunain seems to be yielded up by the Council to house builders without a hair being turned - and there are doubtless other similar instances.

One further point. What would it look like if Councillors from over 100 miles away were seen to turn out mob handed and overturn a decision taken by an admittedly small but perfectly legal group of their colleagues representing areas much closer to the installation in question.

50 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

It’s a bit extreme to be talking about the club not existing and taking the trust down with it.

In the likely worst case, the club declares itself insolvent and goes into administration. Take the points deduction hit, restructures the debt (pennies in pound), come out of admin. The trust is an independent corporate identity and takes nothing financially from the club so wouldn’t be impacted. 

Worst, worst case the creditors don’t agree a deal and the only route out of admin is liquidation and we are in Sevco territory. Gardiner will be slavering over these comparisons. 

The thought of administration appals, but can’t be ignored even as a remote possibility. We don’t know exactly how much is owed to various people who have been chipping in to keep the club going, so we do have to wonder how much money, given in benevolent gestures to plug holes, might be at stake. Also, with all this spotlight on the club’s finances, how willing might local traders be to do business with it if they perceive some danger of bills not being paid, or only paid in small part? Unfortunately, I have to add that the demise of the concert company will already have done nothing to ease any such concerns. And if the administration horror show did materialise, how unwilling might future benefactors and suppliers be after the club emerged from it? There’s a huge amount riding on the next few weeks…. and minimal room for manoeuvre.

4 hours ago, wilsywilsy said:

It easy to think up questions on hindsight of course. But out of interest, did you manage to tease out any additional information on how the asset was valued, who valued it, or who the buyers are?

I don’t believe that valuation emerged as an issue at all.

1 hour ago, old caley girl said:

I think the chairman's slightly aggressive response to Charles Banbermans question probably put people off? 

Tbh I think folk were respectful and were listening carefully and taking everything in? I think there may be further questions when/if meeting goes against us next week? Mainly how do they get accounts passed whilst we wait on result of ScotGov appeal and how will club be funded to keep going until then? 

Decent turnout and probably would have been more if more notice 

Thank you for your observation, OCG, and also to Willsy. That was totally resolved after the meeting when I had a good chat with the Chairman. He’s clearly under a lot of pressure and perhaps my use of the term “sales pitch” in relation to the start of his statement wasn’t the best choice when I was just trying to suggest that there was no urgent need to “sell” the benefits of a battery farm to the people who were there. I was more concerned about finding out how much money was involved, what the implications for the club were if this is delayed or refused, what the club’s precise role is and what the mechanics of the whole project were.

I think we are now a fair bit further on in understanding what we had previously perceived to be “Caley Thistle’s battery farm worth a ‘seven figure sum’ to the club.”

I have to say that I feel a good deal more positive about the whole business, now that some vital information is in the public domain following tonight’s meeting. The absolute game changer is that the sum involved is £3.4M or, as the Chairman put it “seven Ryan Christies”. However that figure could in part be a little vulnerable, especially if planning is delayed. And we were also told that there’s going to be some kind of “Caley Thistle Battery Farm Company” that will sell interests to concerns on the industry and these deals. The club has a 40 year lease on the land, which appears to be owned by Messrs Cameron and Sutherland. There was a lot of stuff making the point about how beneficial battery farms are and how low planning risk this is. I’m not sure what value that approach is so late in the day but I gather that everyone on the club’s mailing list will be getting an email with Councillors’ addresses for lobbying purposes.

As far as I can see, the situation is that if it goes through in the 14th, then the £3.4M is pretty well in the bag. And if it doesn’t, all is not necessarily lost because there’s optimism that an appeal to the Scottish Government would be successful, but at some cost. Specifically, that could take 6-9 months, a perhaps modest slice of the £3.4M might be lost, there would be significant cash flow challenges and the accounts, which have been delayed until the end of May, would be expected to show a less favourable “going concern” status from the auditor.

However I also note that, with echoes of the £900K of 1995/96, KCs now seem to be mobilised so I suppose disappearance into the legal morass can’t be discounted. I did venture to suggest that if the Council tie themselves in knots… they could always pay the £3.4M from the Commob Good Fund.

1 hour ago, old caley girl said:

Never thought we'd be in a position like those meetings ever again Charles tbh 

I’m not “in and around” nearly as much as I used to be in years gone by, but I seem to be detecting a degree of unhappiness and anger about the club’s current status. It’s not the same kind of issue as in 1993/94, but are you suggesting that levels of discontent are in that ballpark?

43 minutes ago, old caley girl said:

I think it could turn into mayhem? Seems very risky 

So should they have given the Rose Street Hall a stay of execution to host this meeting, OCG? Could have saved a lot of demolition costs.

Looks as if the locals haven’t taken too well to the visit of Duncan and the lads!

1 hour ago, Yngwie said:

I was wondering how long it would be til someone suggested the M word!

I’d be open to a merger but my terms would be ICT’s name, colours, stadium and history, merging with Roy’s money.

Don’t even mention it! Last spring, when I was still writing a column for the Courier, I did one on what I’ve been saying here - that I don’t think the immediate local area can support two sizeable clubs and, that in a normal business scenario, a merger would make sense BUT (very large but) football is NOT normal business so the idea was inconceivable.

However they published this online with a headline claiming I was calling for a merger and, with most people unable to go behind the paywall, I got serially slaughtered for something I didn’t say… and even rejected.

In a football environment, it’s a total non-starter.

17 minutes ago, johnnykipper said:

Why does the battery farm affect accounts that ended in May 2023 (9 months ago)?

I can’t see that it would directly do so but (and this is only a guess on my part) if planning permission were to be granted on March 14th, then might that positively influence any “Going Concern” statement within any accounts issued after that date?

Perhaps, as an Edit, I should add that the club’s “Going Concern” status has been a significant issue at at least one recent AGM.

53 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

If you are saying we should live within our means then you are effectively saying we should have gone part time years ago after getting relegated and we would likely have been relegated again by now. Can you confirm that if we had, you’d be applauding the board for their financial prudence?! 

Instead, they tried to get us back to the top flight by maintaining a very competitive (expensive) squad and our impressive youth set up, and got close to promotion a couple of times. In doing so the club racked up huge losses every season and some generous individuals dug deep into their own pockets to keep us going.

They have said for years this business model doesn’t work and needs supplemented by non-football income so they pursued concerts and, very innovatively, the battery farm.

It’s easy to criticise, especially when we are in such a poor position both financially and in the league, and mistakes have been made, but what specifically should have been done different that would make a 7 figure difference to us now?

Should’ve slashed the wage bill, giving up on Premiership aspirations? Go part time, and end up as a League 1 side?

Should’ve shut down the youth set up?

Should not have loaned us their own money to keep us going?

Should not have sought non-football income sources?

Those are the only realistic options I can think of. Rather than criticise all the time I just try putting myself in their position and wonder what in terms of the business model I would have done differently over the years. It’s not easy.

I have tried for years to be optimistic as I can about the financial future and, while several factors have been operating, I think there is one huge and probably unavoidable fundamental - the Inner Moray Firth plus some hinterland is an insufficient base for two “sizeable” football clubs. It was fine at the start in the Third Division with an added novelty factor, but as Caley Thistle and Ross County both grew and moved up the leagues, that progress was only made possible by £5M from Tullochs and some very good club and football management in the case of ICT and repeated subsidy of Ross County by Roy MacGregor. In County’s case, their latest loss of £579K has been announced today and that has been written off, as it tends to be annually, by their “holding company”. And even that level of ongoing subsidy is JUST keeping the club in the Premiership.

In the case of ICT, the factors I mentioned there worked through the system some years ago and since about 2018 the club has been substantially loss making and dependent on ad hoc emergency handouts as it now clings to second tier status. There have also been other factors and members of the business community tell me that Inverness Caledonian Thistle is not flavour of the month in many quarters - especially since the collapse of the Concert Company where the club netted a large stadium rent before the company went bankrupt, leaving local traders out of pocket.

The bottom line (personal view) is that the local area is unable to sustain these two clubs ant current levels and, should Roy MacGregor’s support of County end, the deficit would be even greater. However, in a football environment there is NO way out of a situation where two companies are fundamentally loss making in the same marketplace, unless one shrinks massively.

It would appear that the battery farm might well be another short term fix, and a big one, but here there is a dilemma. Much as we would love to see this latest income source realised, the Councillors who will be making the decision are obliged to do so solely on the merits/demerits, practicability, safety, environmental implications etc. That the football club has a substantial financial interest cannot be a consideration in a completely isolated planning situation.

46 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

Are you sure?  There's nothing on the club's website to say they've done this!  

Around 4pm today, which should have been deadline day for the club’s accounts, a notification appeared on Companies House that IT and C’s accounting period had been shortened by a day to May 30th 2023. This apparently entitles a company to an extension of their deadline for publishing accounts by three months, and is apparently an established device for achieving this.

5 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

If they always leave a gap of 15 months between AGMs, they cease to be AGMs.  It would be 4 AGMs in 5 years.  My understanding is that the requirement in the Articles of Association to have an AGM means that there should be an AGM held in each financial year, i.e, between  1st June and 31st May.  The 15 month rule would therefore only come into play if the previous AGM had been held before the end of February last year - which it wasn't.  I think it needs to be held by the end of May in order to comply with the Articles of Association.

As I recollect, the Articles of Association say that there must be an AGM in each calendar year and that there must never be more than 15 months between them. The last one was 19 months after its predecessor and there was no AGM at all in 2022.

On 2/25/2024 at 4:22 PM, Yngwie said:

Is this why Dougal wants an affiliation with FC Augsburg? 

Maybe… but he’s also probably already been out to buy his lederhosen and long white socks.

7 hours ago, Robert said:

The Board is answerable to the shareholders.

Our accounts are due tomorrow, so there should be an AGM date announced at some point in the foreseeable future. 

The last AGM was on 26th April 2023, and it was more than four months in default of the deadline stated in the company’s Articles of Association. This also means that there is no obligation to hold another one before 26th July 2024, and even that may be subject to further delay if there is another default.