STFU

Alan Savage waiting in the wings to buy the club for a quid.

Or it gets passed back to planning with instructions that the rest attend a site visit before another vote. Kicking the decision further down the road.

The 30th anniversary was last week.

The club are acting as rent-a-stooge. ILI knew they'd need an angle to get around the use of protected green space and the club is being used to play the "won't someone think of the children" card to add pressure for approval. Messrs Cameron and Sutherland would have known the same. Donating a worthless bit of land (without planning consent) to the club that could potentially be turned into a 7 figure windfall makes some sense if they want any chance of getting back money they've loaned. If successful, it also sets a precedent for development on the rest of the old golf course.

Ferguson doesn't strike me as the type of manager who'd put up with a coach that wasn't doing what was expected of him.

Whatever it is, it's too much. I wouldn't even have him at the club if he was paying us to be there.

Hopefully it's successful or we've just thrown away another couple of grand.

And doesn't have to look very hard.

Also. We have 3 property developers on our board of directors with many decades of planning experience between them. Not sure that allows us much room to play the "we needed to rely on external parties" excuse.

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.

Definitely no malice, but undoubtedly a high foot. I don't think the rules even require contact to be made to justify a card in such a situation. That's why an appeal would be a waste of time and money. Looking at the conceded penalty as well, and it's not clear if there was any contact. If there was, it was minimal. Unfortunately, we've twice given the ref a decision to make when we maybe didn't have to, and when you do that there's always a chance it goes against you.

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.

After watching the highlights, I don't think we should waste money we don't have appealing the red card.

Isn't it amazing how the club always have someone or something between themselves and accountability when things go teets up?

Sadly, he's sounding more and more like Robbo with every interview. It would be good if the interviewer could ask something like "Do you think the tactics were right?", or even prompt an explanation for substitutions.

I think you may have misread my post because your response makes no sense to me.

Then maybe the smart decision would have been for the club to have gone for a housing development instead of battery storage.

Planning policy is also that you don't build on green space, and you certainly don't put industrial use on green spaces.

ICTFC is NOT a community organisation, they undertake zero community activity and despite their claims in the most recent rant, they have almost zero fan engagement. They can't even organise a kids Christmas party. ICT Community Trust is a seperate, self funded, self staffed and independently operated organisation. It is they who do the community work the club are taking credit for. Likewise with the ICT Women. Given how the club has operated the last few years, it clear that they have taken way more from the community than they have given, and until we know the figures we can't know how much, if anything, might find it's way to good causes. We're only taking the word of people who have shown time and again that their word is worthless. It baffles me that people think that football clubs should be allowed to just hoover up and **** away money as they please. Any other business wouldn't last 2 minutes if they operated in this manner. The council planning committee aren't doing much for their image, but given the circumstances I think it's right that this goes to full council. Full council should also be kicking the ass of the planning dept. It should never have gone to a vote once they realised only 5 were eligible to do so and should have been redirected to full council at that stage. The meeting may have been quorate, but 5 people should never have been considered representative. It's as if the planning committee and club are having a competition to see who is the least competent.

The way things are going there won't be any club to run.

Looks like that rabbit might have myxomatosis.

Pursuing other sources of income is fine, it's this thing with whoring out the clubs name and reputation to the highest bidder and greedy projects that's unacceptable. They could have rented the stadium to an experienced concert operator and taken a nice wee rental income every year. Instead they go all Johnny Big Baws, attach the club name to an unaffiliated (yeah right!) company, **** it up, and are now unlikely to see any promoter come near us in future. Not to mention the reputational damage and money lost by local companies. If the battery storage was such a winner, then it could have been done by ILI without need to attach the club name and they then make a major donation, or do a big sponsorship deal to pass on the proceeds. The developers knew it would need the 'community benefit' leverage to have any chance, so the club are all over it like a cheap suit and the clubs name, reputation and.possibly even it's existence, are again on the line. Meanwhile, the club have totally taken the eye off the ball with fan engagement, matchday experience, and the product on the park. There's **** all for fans to be proud of when it comes to Caley Thistle at the moment.

That's a total non point, and just noise on the part of the CEO. Why would they appeal something they agreed with? Would it make sense to ask why the club didn't appeal the decision when it went in their favour?

The council did not make any decision to close the Ironworks, that was the property owner. Going by some accounts, the operator was quite happy to get out of the lease as it wasn't making money. Sucks that it's gone, but blame lies elsewhere.

If the original decision had gone the other way, then the club wouldn't have accepted the 'democratic process' and would absolutely be appealing it, as would have been their right. The full council can recall any decision by the planning committee or any other committee so are exercising their right.