STFU

15 minutes ago, Duke of Inverness said:

A goal every 8 games in the Championship. Just not good enough. Simples. 

Based on minutes played, he's probably as proficient as any of our strikers at the moment.

38 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

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.

I guess it's very easy for someone who doesn't live in Inverness, let alone the Highlands, to lazily call Nimby on anyone who may disagree with the siting of this Battery Storage facility?

1 hour 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.

A fairly proportionate spread across all factions

There are 13 from the SNP:
Paul Oldham, Nairn and Cawdor
Michael Cameron, Inverness Central
Tamala Collier, Cromarty Firth
Kate MacLean, Inverness Central
Drew Millar, Skye
Ken Gowans, Inverness South
Ian Brown, Inverness Millburn
Glynis Campbell-Sinclair, Culloden and Ardersier
Marianne Hutchison, North, West and Central Sutherland
Chris Birt, Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh
Liz Kraft, Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh
Sarah Fanet, Fort William and Ardnamurchan
Emma Knox, Aird and Loch Ness

There are five Lib Dems:
Alasdair Christie, Inverness Ness-side
Richard Gale, East Sutherland and Edderton
Angus MacDonald, Fort William and Ardnamurchan
Trish Robertson, Culloden and Ardersier
John Grafton, Caol and Mallaig

Four Independents:
Thomas MacLennan, Fort William and Ardnamurchan
Sarah Atkin, Black Isle
Sean Kennedy, Dingwall and Seaforth
Calum Munro, Skye

Three Conservatives:
Barbara Jarvie, Nairn and Cawdor
Liz Saggers, Caol and Mallaig
Andrew Sinclair, Inverness South

Green councillors Chris Ballance (Aird and Loch Ness), Andrew Baldrey (Caol and Mallaig) and Kate Willis (Fort William and Ardnamurchan) have also signed.

As well as two members of the Highland Alliance group: Matthew Reiss (Thurso and Northwest Caithness) and Andrew Jarvie (Wick and East Caithness).

---------------------

It would be interesting to know how many of those have the relevant planning training and will be a part of the vote.

2 hours ago, Yngwie said:

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…

The same SNP and Greens whose policies also support the retention and improvement of Green Spaces?

5 hours ago, Satan said:

Someone from Dingwall clutching at straws?

No, the fingers would be webbed in that case.

19 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

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

I'll be digging out the firestick and joining Bezos in the growing global screw ictfc out of millions campaign.  Rumours that Musky has had a satellite strategically positioned so he can watch and save himself £20 as well.

3 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

 

It was the planning department that recommended rejection on that one point Yngwie refers to, and the planning committee which decided to reject the recommendation and approve the application.  Now that the Council have decided that all councillors with planning training and no disqualifying interest should make the decision, it is open to them to reject the application on any issue they consider relevant.

For instance, the Community Councils state: " The BESS site guidelines from the National Fire Chiefs’ Council make it irrefutably clear that this steep site and planning application for an industrial chemical energy storage site has multiple unresolvable safety issues."  That is strong stuff.  But the club's statement states: "Fire risk etc is not a material planning consideration." and "The Head of Protection and Preparedness for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service confirmed they had no issues with this application."  

These positions are polar opposites.  If I were a Councillor charged with being part of the decision making group, I would want clarification here.  One assumes the Council has received formal professional advice and that this provides detailed reasons why the potential risks identified in the NFCC's guidelines are not such as to warrant rejection of this application.

If I was a Community Councillor I would also wish to see the local advice and a site risk assessment before signing up to such an uncompromising statement saying that the site has "multiple unresolvable safety issues".

I don't know what professional advice has been given.  What I do know is that there are people on one side or the argument or other and maybe, both,  who are making strong statements either with no evidence to back them up, or knowingly contradictory to the evidence.  I suspect we will hear a good bit more about this before the Council make their final decision.

At the last planning meeting (you can watch it online) the planners expressed concern at the lack of guidance/legislation in regards to fire and safety aspects of battery storage facilities.  They recommended that a condition be placed on the granting of planning consent in relation to this, but I don't recall the details of that.

There were also other conditions to be attached to the consent which may have proved problematic.  It was far from a straight forward 'thumbs up and carry on' approval, where use of protected green space was the only concern.

50 minutes 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. 

It's only a matter of time before they start thinking you're caleyd.

18 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

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.

Dare I suggest that turning up for a council committee meeting would look like them doing the job they were elected to do?

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.

Speaking to someone who was at the meeting and they said Scot Gardiner was claiming that Firesticks were part of the reason the club are in such a dire financial position.  That true?

3 hours ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

The IRA application is not independent of the club as it is being made in the Community Development Department's name (not in the name of the Trust).

ICT Community Development ARE the Trust, and not two separate entities.

Scroll to the bottom of the trust website - https://www.icttrust.org.uk/ - and click on Articles of Association, for confirmation.

Then you can come back again with a new story on how this is all working in your head.

I agree that the expected narrative will very much be one of how it's everyone elses fault, and zero accountability from the club.

Wouldn't surprise me if they also try to ramp up the heat with talks of bankruptcy and points deductions, with strong undertones of "if you're not for us, you're against us".

Any refusal to answer questions on how we have ended up in this position will only antagonise disgruntled fans even further.

Like DoofersDad, I'm not really sure there's anything in the invite to suggest the meeting will provide any meaningful enlightenment, and may do more harm than good.

What's the points penalty for administration these days?

Portuguese guy is called Estamos Falhando.

10 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

Well, we can, but it involves the final day of the season and an unmentionable action that could lead to a banning order, and not stopping until change happens

You've missed the part where I said "the same power".

I'm not suggesting for a moment that anyone should be breaking the law...and it's probably not wise for you to be doing so publicly either.

24 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

All fans can really do there is make councillors aware that if they vote to overturn the decision and give our club a very bleak future, it will be remembered by ICT fans at the next council elections. Councillors are there to represent their communities and at the moment the main voices heard by councillors are from a few disgruntled residents.

Shame the fans didn't have the same power to remove club directors who's decisions are leaving the club with a very bleak future.

Not my experience, I see plenty of shirt wearing young scrotes kicking about in Caley tops, and can't recall seeing many young Gypos clad in County colours.

I was questioned elsewhere on whether the club should scrap our academy programme in order to save money.

Given that we don't seem to want to give them proper opportunity for first team football, even ones who have shown they can contribute at that level, then not only are we letting these lads down, but there's little/no return for the investment, so maybe best all round to get rid.

Anyone know if there's any limit on the number of loan players you can have at a club?  If there's none, then we could end up with a full squad of them next season.

11 hours 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.

Of course the club should be expected to live within it's means.  There's also nothing to say that those willing and able to do so shouldn't be allowed to make substantial contributions (within financial fair play rules) which can be included within that.  It's happened since day 1 with ICTFC, and at many other clubs.

The problem here is that we have clearly gone way beyond that and are generating losses beyond that which they are willing/able to cover, and which the club cannot afford to repay.

Should we have cut the wage bill?  Definitely, and started with the CEOs.

Youth setup?  It's unclear how much the club actually pay towards this, but if we can't afford it, it should go...sadly.  But congratulations on feeding into the "won't someone think of the children rhetoric"

Financial loans?  Should not be made if they are putting the club.in a financially precarious position, certainly not secured loans on club assets.

Non-football income sources?  Of course they should pursue these, but the current CEO/Chair have shown themselves to be incapable of coming up with anything that's actually doing this and have damaged the clubs reputation, and are threatening it's existence, in their many failed ventures.

Recent tactics to delay the release of the y/e 2023 accounts would indicate that the club is no longer considered a going concern by the auditors, and it blows my mind that you are trying to defend the people, and their actions, which are responsible for that.

Would you rather no club, than a club that operates within it's means at a lower level?

14 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

It’s a smart move by the club under the circumstances, but obviously it isn’t at all good that we have these circumstances.

The smart move would have been not putting the club in this position to begin with, no?

14 minutes ago, Robert said:

I don’t think anyone will disagree with that at all, but the reality is that we now find our future squarely in the hands of the Councillors at the forthcoming meeting. 

Not a comfortable position to be in!

Personally, I think the locating of the battery storage is wrong and I'm angry that we're in a position where my thoughts on that will be seen (by some) as my somehow wishing bad on the club. 

All I want is the charlatans gone and for us to get back to being a club with at least some moral fibre.

It's not right that a wrong (in my view) has to be done to secure any kind of future for ICTFC.  It's not right that Councillors have to make a decision knowing it could be catastrophic for ICTFC.  It's not right that this whole sorry affair is driving division among fans.

It is not the council who have put the club in this situation, it is one entirely of their own making.

The club should never have put itself in a position where they are relying on some grand scheme to pay the bills and spending money they don't have to feed their egos.

The worst thing is that Scot Gardiner has history on this front, and we were well warned.