STFU

3 hours ago, tm4tj said:

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

44 minutes ago, MacOne said:

Misses the point of Our club'. A nice statement, but aren't you the one who most weeks is looking for reasons not to attend matches? Surely as it is 'our club' we should support it regardless of what executives, managers, and for that matter, players, come and go. 

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.

2 hours ago, Yngwie said:

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. 

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.

1 hour ago, bdu98196 said:

TBF, if the application was 'shoddy' is that really fully at the door of the club, you surely blame the experts ILI given their involvement having provided consultants and support. Sounds like another cheap dig at the board based on bias rather than facts.

Additionally let's not overlook this application was approved was so clearly those with the decision making powers thought more of it than some online experts.

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

47 minutes ago, tm4tj said:

 

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.

15 hours ago, Satan said:

I think you'll find it's from the horses mouth, or maybe the other end depending on whether it's the vice chair or the chairs turn to lead the pantomime horse.

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

13 minutes ago, caley100 said:

As opposed to house builders who build houses by the hundred on Any Green field site they find without much opposition from planning.

And.. leave a token gesture of a 100 sq ft playpark.

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

24 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

The 'ball' being the fact that planning policy at all levels is clear that grid scale battery storage is essential to meet Scotland's net zero targets.

The Council being swayed by ten dog walkers who might lose 1/50th of their space for exercising their dogs and a community council living in fantasy land is embarrassing. If they refuse it and the decision is appealed, the Council will lose.

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

2 hours ago, ymip said:

It's pretty clear where this is heading and how this will ultimately impact the club's viability moving forward. Another example of the council's complete indifference to the club which, despite our current paltry crowds, remains the largest community supported organisation in the city.

You've got to laugh at the loss of green space argument which seems to be the crux of the matter.  I left Inverness 30 odd years ago and in the intervening period the city has probably doubled in size with barely an improvement in community facilities and the loss of massive tracts of green space for housing, retail, etc.  Yet this particular scheme has the planning committee's knickers in a twist like no other in living memory.  I find this latest U-turn very strange, bordering on the highly dodgy.  Councillor Oldham's "barely quorate" comment is bizarre.  It either is or isn't, it's akin to suggesting someone's barely pregnant. Absolute ludicrous and clearly a man with an agenda.

Alas, another entirely predictable omnishambles which drags the club's name and the city's credibility through the mud.

       

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.

19 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

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

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

On 2/8/2024 at 9:46 PM, Yngwie said:

Criticise them all you want on other matters, it’s justified, but on this particular one surely even you can put your grievances aside and acknowledge that it’s a rather miraculous rabbit out of a hat!

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.

22 minutes ago, Satan said:

If it had gone the other way,  would the chair and his vice who voted against it have raised the issue as being barely quorate. Which is irrelevant anyway, it either is or it isn't, no barely about it.

They've clearly been upset and after some 'advice' on how to get their results have rustled up some signatures.

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?

13 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

The chairman of the south planning committee is an absolute pillock. He wasn't concerned about being a representative from Fort William, rather than Inverness, when he cast the deciding vote to replace the Ironworks with a hotel.

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.

It would be interesting to look at loan utilisation in the 4/5 years leading up to our Scottiish Cup win in 2015.

My perception is that we had a period of fairly low player turnover and few loans.  Which was likely the key to those golden years.

14 hours ago, forresjags said:

Such is the apathy that Hibs probably outnumbered the home support today.

Only until they started disappearing through the floor...lol

2 minutes ago, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

I suspect my knees are in better shape. Great player and great servant. But he is past his sell by date and is the ideal 20 - 30 minutes substitute.

Nah.  He's our version of the 6 Million Dollar Man.  They have rebuilt him.

Not sure if he's got 90 minutes in him, but a first 45, with half time break, could still see him contributing for the first 60 mins of a game.

I'd rather have that, with a chance of us getting our nose in front, than bringing him on cold at the end when we're chasing a game.

It's got to be worth a go, as it can't get much worse than at present.

I'm assuming the club would be able to cite the 4 year and 10 year rule for unlawful development to prevent any action against them in relation to planning at this time?

That still doesn't excuse having a stand (or stands) that are unsafe, and I imagine there are safety certificates required.

Again, our CEO has history here.  Only this time he seems to have overlooked new flooring instead of new seats.

Hopefully this is just a very isolated issue and we don't end up with both North and South stands being closed pending full inspection and repairs, and the cost that comes with that.

I think Doran would do well for us in a number 10 role.  He has shown time and again his ability to score from distance, and he and Billy have enough time together to inject a bit of much needed creativity in the final third.