lightlamp2

Queens park must love us. We've been an excellent feeder club for them.

Look at the positives. We train at Fort George

What happened yesterday was the result of a lethal concoction we've been taking all season. A combination of multiple factors. The board. Not just Gardiner who seemed to be the focal point for the anger. As if he was responsible for it all. He obviously bears responsibility. As does the rest of the board. Up to and including the chairman. The buck stops with him. The fans. We've always been under supported despite punching above our weight. The day trippers that only turn up for the big games. Where would we be if they all turned up every week I wonder? The "City". I don't class this place as a city. It's a town. For multiple reasons. This town doesn't deserve a Scottish cup winning, European side such as ours that brought prestige by carrying the name of this town and many thousands of travelling fans up here spending their money every weekend. The people. It's quite clear to me now that Inverness is the 3rd most supported team in Inverness which is a depressing statement to have to say. Not only do the people that live here stay away from our club. Many actively detest it. Old firm glory hunters born and raised in this town who would like nothing more than to see us fold and Highland football die off. Leaving everyone having to drive 3 hours down the A9 to watch any kind of football. That's if they survive the journey because of the central belt masters they worship refusing to dual the road. The council. What can you do? a 2% loss of green space on an unused golf course that would have netted us £3.5M. Approved. But the two councillors didn't like the way the vote went so did their best to make sure it didn't go through. Very few of them there actually care about the club obviously. But if your own council doesn't give a toss about you. What hope do we have. But we get what we deserve. This same council is the one that turns academy street into a karting track. Turns the ironworks into an empty lot. Builds a bridge to nowhere. And people still vote them in. It's a vicious circle. But we get the politicians we deserve. Luck. I'll end it with this. I've felt the writing was on the wall for a while now. Maybe we just spilt too many salt shakers. Broke too many mirrors. But you see this happen to many other "big clubs" in the championship. Dunfermline, St Mirren, Falkirk and Hamilton to name a few. If you stagnate for too long in the championship. You will face the drop. Yet again we've had a record breaking points total for being relegated. It doesn't feel like we could have done anything to avoid it. It genuinely felt like this was written for us. I've not really talked about the on field matters much. A lot has been said already which I agree with. To be honest I don't know if any manager would have saved us. We were 3 points off 5th. 1 point of safety, If Billy Mckay's penalty went in against Dunfermline? But it didn't. If luck was on our side maybe it would have.

People really hate us in this town don't they?

He was there in the directors box. Along with Jamie Carragher.

The club did address the green space issue. It takes up 2 percent of the total space of an overgrown and unkempt field of grass. It also results in a net biodiversity gain. The judgement call was left up to councillors as to whether kids using their sledges in winter was more valuable than 3 and a half million for a local business, 125K business rates for the council. And contribution towards net zero.

Spot on. The club should just lie down and accept NIMBY councillors who prioritise sledging over 3 and a half million for a local business without kicking up a fuss. The Council have a lot of integrity and really have the best wishes of Inverness at its heart. You can see this from how they gave us the UNESCO registered bridge built on the river ness. And thank god they had the resolve to ignore the 99% of residents here who wanted to save the ironworks. And voted to turn it into a hotel. God bless the councillors. Who know better than us. Our club should be ashamed of daring to speak out against our betters

Clearly this Councillor doesn’t have any sort of agenda against us. Nope!

That was disgraceful. He was out of order for bringing up relevant points. Where as Oldham could lie about non existent intimidating emails that his fellow councillors rubbished immediately after. You even had one councillor making reference to her safety and drawing comparisons to how MP’s like Jo Cox were murdered. All because we sent in emails. It’s clear many on the Highland Council believe they are above us. And free from any and all criticism

We get the politicians we deserve! As I always say

Yet lying about being intimidated and threats similar to what MP’s faced is okay to say. Despite 5 other councillors stating they’ve received the same emails and they weren’t intimidating at all. Why wasn’t that ruled out of order? What relevance does that have to the application?

Are you actually a fan? As I can’t understand any fan of our football club who values 2 percent of a patch of grass over £3.4 Million for the club. Given you’re such a cheerleader for the council im sure you also support those same councillors approving another hotel in place of the ironworks and spending money on a bridge to nowhere along the River Ness

Refused by 30-23 vote. What a surprise!

Duncan Macpherson attended the meeting and was most likely in favour. He was about to point out how much of a hypocrite Oldham was. But then got shut down as apparently you can't speak your mind as an elected official. But lying and saying you've been intimidated by people supporting a battery farm is perfectly fine. This is what we are up against folks. Cognitive dissonance

The chairman who quite clearly has a bone to pick with us has thrown a jab at the emails we sent. Saying they were intimidating. Whereas the two following councillors to speak said they weren't intimidating at all. Really sounds like he is a holier than thou figure. Who doesn't like losing a vote. And doesn't like being challenged on it

Has anyone explained why the loss of 2 percent of green space is so sacrosanct? Given their own ecology officer said it would result in a net biodiversity gain. From the pictures I see of the site it's just a patch of overgrown grass that people walk through. But apparently that's worth more than 3.4 million?

The original decision hasn't been overturned? Great so the club can go ahead with the legal vote to approve planning permission I assume? Interesting to note the councillor in question was excluded from voting as he couldn't be arsed to turn up to the meeting. But still voted to overturn the result when he didn't get the vote he wanted.

I thought they couldn't comment either. But I had a reply from one Kate Maclean who said she is yet to be convinced. Is that not prejudicial? " Thanks for your email. Your position is noted, and I am always grateful to hear the views of constituents. As this is a planning matter, and despite not being a member of the planning committee, I cannot comment, and should not take a stance on this matter (it’s ‘quasi-judicial’). Councillors are expected to maintain an open mind on such decisions until they have heard both sides of the argument. You will understand that this topic has attracted the voicing of some deeply-held convictions, which rightly demonstrates the passion with which people support their local football club. While I support ICT attempts to assure it’s future financial stability, and in general support the idea of storage batteries, I am not yet convinced that this is the correct site for such a development. I look forward to the debate on Thursday. Best wishes Kate " Also had one from Michael Cameron basically blowing me off Thank you for your email, I have noted your concerns. The Notice of Amendment is a perfectly valid, legal and democratic process which has been used numerous times in the past. It does not mean that a decision has been reversed, it means that it is reviewed and is a way to ensure that better decisions are made since they have to be able to stand up to rigorous scrutiny. The original decision was marginal, made by a very small number of councillors and, obviously, has a high degree of public interest. I believe that given these circumstances, reviewing the decision is the right thing to do and is nothing to do with whether people liked the decision or not as you assert. In case you are unaware, the planning function delegated to the council is "quasi-judicial". This means that councillors are not asked to give their opinion on applications, they are tasked with judging whether or not applications meet planning policies and regulations. This may mean having to approve applications which you personally disagree with or reject applications which you support. Applications have to be assessed against information presented to the committee which includes reports from the applicant, council officers, statutory bodies, other stakeholders and anyone who objects to or supports the application. There are strict time limits for the submission of objections or support and these have to be based upon material planning matters, anything that is not material to planning cannot be considered. For councillors, discussion of applications outside of committee, public expressions in support of or objecting to applications, and declaring how you intend to vote prior to any decision, is deemed to be prejudicial and results in the councillor having an interest in the application. Councillors with an interest in an application must declare this and withdraw from the decision making process. Lobbying councillors, for example by using a co-ordinated campaign of emails, can actually have a negative effect if councillors reply expressing an opinion (either positively or negatively) and such responses are effectively on public record. Given the above, I will not be discussing the application from Intelligent Land Investments prior to the Highland Council meeting on Thursday, I hope you can appreciate my position and thanks again for taking the time to write. Regards, Michael

Anyone had any replies yet from Councillors? I've had two replies from SNP one's in Inverness. Both sound like they are against it naturally.

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.

Was a good meeting. Wasn't as bombastic or titanic as others on the forum were saying. Nobody asked any questions really about other matters. I'll just bullet point a few things If it gets approved we get approximately £3.4 Million lump sum. If it doesn't the club have already hired KC's to take it legal. Which they believe the Scottish Government will approve as they have stated in their national planning framework that battery storage is looked upon favourably. There was a sense of bewilderment as to why we are where we are with the council. Namely one Cllr Oldham who has pulled out this very rarely used protocol as he didn't get the result he wanted. The accounts were delayed because of the battery farm delay. As £3.4M will obviously change it significantly. Possibility of going part time if this all fails. Significant cash flow problem. As one example. We lost money for the Broomhill SC game as they took 2 fans. But we split the gate.

I don't see anything wrong in the statement. Dreadful refereeing is backed up by the SFA. Have we learned nothing from the Keatings saga? What recourse do we have other than releasing a damming statement? Which actually worked in his case. You can be sure if it was Celtic or Rangers they would be giving it a closer look.

I believe that's the record surpassed now yes?

Much appreciated to all the hearts fans for piling in on the tickets!

The absolute nerve of the man to say that.