Yngwie

37 minutes ago, lightlamp2 said:

According to the courier article a few days ago. The councillors that voted to recall the decision belonged mainly to the SNP and Greens. Believe it was something like 14 SNP councillors and 3 out of 4 Green councillors.

Disappointing but not surprising. Hypocritical NIMBYs, as I feared. The bigger concern is that when it gets appealed to the Scottish Government, they will be very reluctant to overturn the decision and thereby discredit and humiliate their own politicians. We are in worse trouble than I previously thought.

To what extent are councillors likely to vote as political blocks, as they normally do, or do they get a free vote on matters like this? 

It would be nice to think that the SNP and Greens, who form the government whose policy encourages approval of these schemes and is committed to net zero etc, will stick to their principles and not suddenly become NIMBY hypocrites. Likewise the other main parties are always falling over themselves to stress their green credentials.So it’ll be a walk in the park, right? If only…

If anyone can bring themselves to feel at all positive, we are now unbeaten in 5 and have 3 consecutive clean sheets. 

FT 0-0, meh. I feel so sorry for our home fans this season, so little to cheer.

3 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

the Council have decided that all councillors with planning training and no disqualifying interest should make the decision

That’s interesting, I had initially thought that this vote was amongst all councillors.

What constitutes a disqualifying interest - having attended ICT matches? What about councillors who might have an affiliation with a rival club who would be beneficiaries from our demise, going part time or having to shut the youth set up?

Of course, but I was referring to the quotes in the article rather than the slide the community councils had produced.

1 hour ago, dougal said:

The article in the courier gives an eye watering account what certain communities in Inverness think of ICT.

No, it gives the views of one person, an anonymous spokesperson.

2 hours ago, wilsywilsy said:

Deary me . That is quite a wild leap you are making here Mr Morrison. 

If you are not 100% with us, you are against us. Or something like that. 

Add Wilsy to the Councillor Oldham and Jeff Bezos ICT vendetta conspiracy. 

I note that you still haven’t denied involvement in it.

Exactly, how many people do they really represent. And what’s it got to do with 3 of those community councils, only one of them has relevance for this application. If they want to involve others then we can point out that community councils representing 60,000 local residents did NOT sign up to it!

There is only one valid point which is the one the planning committee used in its recommendation to reject, the rest of it is irrelevance and misdirection. Sorry Wilsy, I know you and your pals put a lot of effort into it but it’s pretty feeble and does not stand up to scrutiny.

2 hours ago, RednBlackComeback said:

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/4-community-councils-representing-13-700-residents-unite-to-344556/

 

Shall we have a game of spot the difference?

Read these extracts from the presentation against the project, then read Wilsywilsy’s posts on this thread. Uncanny!

“Contrary to multiple statements made… the land is not owned by Inverness Caledonian Thistle Football Club.

“In addition, the applicant emphasises that the ICT Community Trust is a main beneficiary, but fails to explain how ‘the financial benefits accrued from the development will be managed through the ICTFC Community Development Trust’.

“Moreover, public statements from the applicant suggest that their primary concern is addressing the football club's debts.”

Dunc’s son of course. 6’5” target man, was on loan at Forfar but struggled to get game time there. 

We’ve had Cameron Ferguson on trial for the last month, 20yo recently released by Newcastle. Well done to our scouting network for finding him! 

Was there anything that changed your mind or will you still be voting against it next week?

4 minutes ago, old caley girl said:

Wasn't asked but a,good question. 

It is, but worrying about where the money will come from in 4 years time compared to worrying about how we will pay the wages and suppliers this month?! 
I guess the idea is that we get 4 more attempts at getting back to the only league where we are viable as a full time club, and in the absence of a major new investment in that time, we then have to cut costs accordingly.

7 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

How about the other claim in the planning docs:

“As a community owned project, the development will directly contribute to the local Highland economy over its life"

Ok. Now we know it’s to be sold immediately - this claim is also misleading.

I can apply for planning permission for an extension to my house with the intention of selling it at a profit. I don’t need to disclose that in the application and I’m not being misleading. In the case of this project, the highland economy will still benefit from the project over its life, both from the facility itself and from the club and its offshoots spending the proceeds. It’s all just well written in a way to talk up the benefits, what else would you expect an applicant to do?

4 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

Deliberately vague and couched in language aimed at clearly giving the impression that the community trust will benefit quite directly and in a significant and non-trivial way.

And all the indications are that they will, even if the actual amount is at the club’s discretion.

8 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:This is in the same planning document where they stated categorically that the club owned the land (they admitted tonight they do not).

I don’t know what they said in the document or tonight, but the beneficial rights to and control over land can come in the form of full ownership, a lease, or another contractual arrangement so is it possible that you are making inconsequential technicalities that have no impact on the merits of the case?

3 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

Yes. They said: “A significant proportion of the financial benefits accrued from the development will be managed through the ICTFC Community Development Trust. "

No, as you have quoted they said a proportion of the benefits would go there. Not all of it. Not even the majority of it. They used a deliberately vague term rather than specifying a number.

13 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

I was surprised no one followed through on this. The planning application was all about the trust getting the cash

Was it? Haven’t read it in full but I thought it said the project would allow investment in such community things rather than saying all of the cash would go there.

8 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

Very rarely used, but still used occassionally (confirmed by a councillor after the meeting). Bizarre seeing David Stewart of all people riffing on this myth implyingh there is some ICT vendetta here (politician and fibbing ehh). For example from a few months back: https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/breaking-council-orders-work-on-academy-street-plans-to-be-324788/.

The example you give of Academy Street is one where there is a huge amount of public interest, being one of the main streets of the highland capital.
5% of a former golf course on the outskirts isn’t really of the same strategic importance to the council, is it?

10 minutes ago, lightlamp2 said:

If it gets approved we get approximately £3.4 Million lump sum.

Yeah but the board shouldn’t be pursuing this and should be focusing instead on traditional football matters and cutting the wage bill further. Wait what, £3.4m?!  

Anyone got a match report from tonight? Were ICT’s tactics defensive or attack minded? Any own goals or red cards?

Am I correctly remembering that both Roman Golobart and David Davies were on loan and both won our player of the year award?

I was also at that Clyde game and also remember it for being the only time I saw Glancy score. Wikipedia tells me he got 6 in 3 seasons and was a really poor investment by Pele.

Don’t think Glancy was a loan, I thought we paid about £25k for him, one of our highest transfer fees!