STFU

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.

4 minutes ago, Douglas Mackenzie said:

That's your opinion STFU but still think we did alright as a team in fact think BBC had first half 47% us 53% Hibs.Mind we hit the crossbar and their first goal was a deflected shot.

Just amazed how quick some on here just look for all the negative things with the team,not considering seven are new and Dunc is rebuilding.

We always do well on the possession stat as teams are happy to let us fanny about with ball in our own half.

Technically we hit the cross bar, even if it was a ball that actually dropped on the top of it and was closer to hitting the back of the bar than the front if it.

I'm not calling for manager or player heads and agree that there are circumstances at play, but that doesn't mean we should be kidding ourselves things are better than they are.

17 minutes ago, forresjags said:

Oh f*** what next, things are really not good for us right now.

These temporary stands must be well past their sell by date by now.

It's the wooden panel flooring which failed.  This should be easy and relatively inexpensive to replace, as well as regularly checked under normal maintenance.  That has no baring on the structural integrity of the stands.

What's happened there is down to neglect on the club's part.

3 hours ago, Douglas Mackenzie said:

Don't agree with all the negative comments on here I thought the boys did okay especially the first half.

I thought ourback three of Mullen, Savage and Carracher did well enough and  looked solid  its our final third where we are struggling. 

3-1 flattered Hibs,the first two goals were a deflections and a mistake.

Dorans goal was quality.

We need to up the tempo and be more proactive.

I agree we need a striker and just a shame Samuel was out injured.

Just watched the highlights and I don't think 3-1 flattered Hibs at all.  A slightly less in form Ridgers and they could have been approaching double figures.

The loafers should have been an obvious sign.

I said after thr draw that I felt we were better when teams came at us, and if Hibs do that and we can get our nose in front then I'm confident we can get a result.

The danger is we concede early and Hibs then sit in a bit against us.