Yngwie

47 minutes ago, STFU said:

Do some people really think that we are the only team on the receiving end of inept officiating and that we find ourselves where we are as a result?

Don’t think anybody has said that, have they?

Is this why Dougal wants an affiliation with FC Augsburg? 

Some posters are living in the present not the past!

Today was the day that I finally gave up on us getting to the promotion play-offs.
At the end of November I was confident we could do it. End of January after the win at Raith I was hopeful. That hope has been fading through February, and now I finally accept it’s all about staying up. Offer me 8th place and I’ll take it.

Anyone else still clinging on to hope?

51 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

A further factor, which I had previously missed, is the Notice of Termination of Ian MacDonald as Company Secretary and which was submitted to Companies House the day before the Registration of Charge documents were submitted.  There has been nothing submitted to say a replacement has been appointed.  Ian joined the Board of Directors way back in 1997 and was on the Board till 2004 when he took on the role of Company Secretary.  Maybe I have missed something, but there appears to have been no statement from the club about him giving up his role after over 25 years service to the club.  Surely, notice of this low key departure being submitted to Companies House on the day before the Registration of Charge documents were submitted is no coincidence.

His actual date of departure as stated on the form was 10 months ago so it wouldn’t be related to the charge. No replacement needed as companies no longer need to have a company secretary.  The club still should have filed the form promptly at the time though. 

Bad result for us, and useless match officials.

How many councillors are there? We know that at least 20 put their names to this new vote, and you have to imagine that they are all unhappy with the initial outcome.

Who was on the Panel, the chairman of our planning applications committee?

1 hour ago, STFU said:

If the question is 'Could the club have been reasonably expected to have done more?', then for me the answer yes.

I was highlighting the fact that there was an option for the club to have the decision makers look over their submission ahead of time.  This would have allowed them to deal with some of the concerns/objections raised in a more timely fashion and might have even avoided the situation that has now arisen.

From my following of what's happened, nobody with the planning dept has objected to anything (it's not their place to do so).  What they have done is highlighted areas where the proposal does not meet planning requirements.

You'll also get no argument from me that the last planning meeting was a shambles.  Having realised that only 5 of the planning committee were eligible to vote the chair should have not allowed it and immediately referred it to full council for a decision.  By allowing it and then asking for it to be referred, especially given how he voted, the chair has opened himself and his peers up to accusations of foul play.

People keep saying that all concerns and objections were met, but that is also not the case.  The loss of protected green land was not satisfactorily addressed, which is why it was still recommended for rejection.  There were also still a number of conditions to be attached to address remaining concerns on other aspects and it's not certain all of these can/will be met.  Even of it is accepted at full council, there's no guarantee the club gets a pay day.  Conveniently they will have created enough of a shitstorm to then blame it on delays and everyone else messing them around.  As I said at the start of this post, they refused an option which could easily have expedited things.

It wouldn’t. The fact that the site is on green land means that the planning department's advice would have been that the project is incapable of meeting their requirements for recommending approval - unless you know of a way to build a battery farm without taking up any space!

I’m pretty sure the club knew all along that this would be the biggest challenge and the only way to overcome it would be to stress the wider benefits to the community and to the environment that would result from it going ahead, which is what they did.

28 minutes ago, STFU said:

At the original meeting it was pointed out that the club had refused to take up the offer of pre-submission advice from the planning dept.

What’s your point? ILE and their experts oversaw the application and have been through this process many times. And what do you think the planning department’s pre-submission advice would have been, given that they are totally against it happening?

The club did very well to overcome the hurdles that were put in front of them and to convince enough voters to get it through a quorate vote. 

It was an inevitability that Graham would score against us, it was just a question of whether we could score more than them. In fairness 3 would normally be enough to win and is the encouraging thing we can take from today, if we want to be positive.

3-3 FT, Anderson red carded which Robbo said on radio was a terrible decision.

1 hour ago, Robert said:

One thing to note, regardless of anyones view of the Battery Park or the Board / CEO, is that the club is required to submit its accounts by the end of February.

With the planning decision now delayed until March, the club may not get the necessary sign offs from their Auditors given the Battery Park is by no means certain.

That threatens the very future of the club, as administration (or worse) become real possibilities.

 

Good reminder about the accounts filing deadline, but I don’t see that in itself as a problem. One option would be to delay signing the accounts until the matter is resolved, which leads to a very small penalty from Companies House. The other is that the accounts disclose the need for additional funding which is what we did last year, possibly worsening to the extent that the auditors have to state that there is fundamental uncertainty as to whether the club can continue as a going concern.

The accounts aspect of this isn’t ideal but it’s the least of our worries!

I don’t disagree that there are bread and butter things like that that we need to do much better, but what’s the upside from those things? It’s a 5 figure sum, when we need to survive is a 7 figure sum like the gain from the battery project (hopefully).

3 minutes ago, robbylad said:

They had a full-time,  competitive club to run. That's going well eh?

We got relegated. That wasn’t their fault.

4 minutes ago, Hiro said:

Regardless, I'm utterly fed up of our chairman and CEO and these projects.  I wish they would just concentrate on the nuts and bolts of running a football club rather than than these expensive and time consuming schemes. 

The reason for pursuing additional sources of income is so that we actually have a full-time, competitive club for them to run. 

Freeport Convention?

Savage Gardiner? 
 

1 hour ago, DWH said:

The club seem to be on a continuing descent. A similar cup tie 20 years ago would have been a competitive affair with ICT giving as good as they got.

Our first 20 years were a more or less continuous upward progression where everyone from top to bottom of the club were in it together....................we now seem to be in reverse and if nothing changes, we'll be back in the bottom division in another 5 to 10 years.....

Truly awful.

There are problems and concerns, but come on, you seem to have forgotten that only last season we beat 2 Premiership sides on our way to the final where we put in a very competitive performance against Celtic.

Brilliant strike from Doran by the way. Shame it didn’t really count for anything, it was a goal that deserved to win a match.

On 2/9/2024 at 5:38 PM, Robert said:

Alex Samuel is a doubt for tomorrow.

Sportscene tonight said that he has a broken hand.

Billy Dodds is available. So is Derek Adams. Spoilt for choice!

1 hour ago, Duke of Inverness said:

And he didn't even sub the central defender on a yellow card. 

When the player’s dad had travelled up to see him?!