wilsywilsy

38 minutes ago, Robert said:

I’m no expert on this, but surely if the club ceases to exist the ICT Community Trust ceases to exist in its current form, as it is linked to a club and therefore loses the funding that comes to Trusts linked to SPFL clubs.

Therefore, if my understanding is right, the future of Community Trust projects is intrinsically linked to the future of the club.

It’s a bit extreme to be talking about the club not existing and taking the trust down with it.

In the likely worst case, the club declares itself insolvent and goes into administration. Take the points deduction hit, restructures the debt (pennies in pound), come out of admin. The trust is an independent corporate identity and takes nothing financially from the club so wouldn’t be impacted. 

Worst, worst case the creditors don’t agree a deal and the only route out of admin is liquidation and we are in Sevco territory. Gardiner will be slavering over these comparisons. 

3 hours ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

Also, how do the Trust and its functions benefit if the club goes part time as a result of missing out on this investment?

For all intents and purposes, this is the same question as the one you have a shown blind spot on i.e. “how does the trust benefit if the club debts and operating losses swallow up all the money from the project?”

35 minutes ago, STFU said:

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?

It was indeed one of the reasons he cited. Jeff Bezos is balls deep in councillor Oldhams vendetta against ICT. 

22 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

The application form lists the company/organisation applying as being the club rather than the trust.

Hmm could be short form of Inverness Caledonian Thistle Football Club, Inverness Caledonian Thistle Community Development.

The BESS submission has submitted different versions of the application forms and documents naming all of ILI Group, Fairways Battery Storage Limited, and Inverness Caledonian Thistle Football Club as the applicant company. I wouldn't place too much value in that form.

29 minutes 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).

All of the media coverage,  the trusts own website, and the planning application make it sound like its the trusts project managed by Craig Masterson. Happy to be corrected if you want to highlight where this outlines its not the trusts.

29 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

In terms of the club's finances, the club doesn't have to wipe all of its debt before it invests in new facilities. Investing in new facilities can ultimately ensure the club climbs out of debt by providing the basis for developing sustainable new income streams.

Yeah. Indeed. That is possible - speculate to accumulate and all that jazz. But the chairman has said twice now that the debt will be cleared. So I think it seems reasonable to surmise that the debt is a priority. And if it is, then my question is legitimate.

39 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

Interesting that people are disputing the benefit to the Community Trust when there is currently a planning application in with the Council - in the ICT Community Development Department's name - for a £700k development at the IRA playing fields. Which certainly won't be followed through if the battery application doesn't get passed.

Independant of the club, the trust have done a brilliant job securing the long term lease plus funding and grants to take the project this far.

Feel free to pick the bones out of the fag packet financial figures I have posted previously which are broadly in sync with what Gardiner said last night. As of May 2022 the club were under water circa -£1.3M. Gardiner said the burn rate in the championship is £700K-£900K a season. So the accounts to May 2023 will likely show the club are roughly -£2M in the red. Project that through to May 2024 (-£2.7M) and May 2025 (-£3.4M) and I think it becomes a legitimate question: how much of this £3.4M being injected into the club will find its way to the trust?

54 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Thank you for your observation, OCG, and also to Willsy. That was totally resolved after the meeting when I had a good chat with the Chairman. He’s clearly under a lot of pressure and perhaps my use of the term “sales pitch” in relation to the start of his statement wasn’t the best choice when I was just trying to suggest that there was no urgent need to “sell” the benefits of a battery farm to the people who were there. I was more concerned about finding out how much money was involved, what the implications for the club were if this is delayed or refused, what the club’s precise role is and what the mechanics of the whole project were.

I think we are now a fair bit further on in understanding what we had previously perceived to be “Caley Thistle’s battery farm worth a ‘seven figure sum’ to the club.”

It easy to think up questions on hindsight of course. But out of interest, did you manage to tease out any additional information on how the asset was valued, who valued it, or who the buyers are?

37 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

Was there anything that changed your mind or will you still be voting against it next week?

Hah, good one. Nah, not really. Nothing that was said last night was new to anyone who has followed the details with the exception of the £3.4M figure that captivated the audience.

It was interesting Morrison seemed to stop and quickly move on when asked to reveal who the buyers were - that could have turned into an uncomfortable moment given the rumours circulating the cities drinking establishments about who the buyers are.

3 minutes ago, old caley girl said:

I think the chairman's slightly aggressive response to Charles Banbermans question probably put people off?

Yeah, indeed - I suspect so. It was a softball question too and it didn't deserve the confrontational response it got from Morrison.

11 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I have to say that I feel a good deal more positive about the whole business, now that some vital information is in the public domain following tonight’s meeting. The absolute game changer is that the sum involved is £3.4M or, as the Chairman put it “seven Ryan Christies”. However that figure could in part be a little vulnerable, especially if planning is delayed. And we were also told that there’s going to be some kind of “Caley Thistle Battery Farm Company” that will sell interests to concerns on the industry and these deals. The club has a 40 year lease on the land, which appears to be owned by Messrs Cameron and Sutherland. There was a lot of stuff making the point about how beneficial battery farms are and how low planning risk this is. I’m not sure what value that approach is so late in the day but I gather that everyone on the club’s mailing list will be getting an email with Councillors’ addresses for lobbying purposes.

The opening presentation set the tone as expected. Big pitch on the upsides of BESS, dismissed all concerns with some odd and weak examples, made the council the villains and implied there is a vendetta behind why this has faced some resistance. I was surprised at how personal they made that. The club want to stick with this tactic, stay on the attack, and have everyone pepper councillors mailboxes.

The early drop of the £3.4M number certainly wooed the crowd. From then on, I thought the room was surprisingly partisan. Case in point being the boo'ing and heckling of the councillor which was embarrasing. 

14 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

And all the indications are that they will, even if the actual amount is at the club’s discretion.

If the club are already >£2M under water as estimated, and they have at least one more season in the championship, that’s nearly £3M torched  before May 2025. That doesn’t leave much wiggle room for investments and trust donations. 

2 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

I can apply for planning permission for an extension to my house with the intention of selling it at a profit. I don’t need to disclose that in the application and I’m not being misleading. In the case of this project, the highland economy will still benefit from the project over its life, both from the facility itself and from the club and its offshoots spending the proceeds. It’s all just well written in a way to talk up the benefits, what else would you expect an applicant to do?

Your planning application wouldn’t be packed full of rhetoric that implies much of the financial benefits from your garage will provide a significant uplift for a local charity.

Just now, Yngwie said:

No, as you have quoted they said a proportion of the benefits would go there. Not all of it. Not even the majority of it. They used a deliberately vague term rather than specifying a number.

Deliberately vague and couched in language aimed at clearly giving the impression that the community trust will benefit quite directly and in a significant and non-trivial way. The reality outlined tonight is that the trust is at the mercy of the club, its debt, operating losses, and the car park investments. 

How about the other claim in the planning docs:

“As a community owned project, the development will directly contribute to the local Highland economy over its life"

Ok. Now we know it’s to be sold immediately - this claim is also misleading.

7 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

Was it? Haven’t read it in full but I thought it said the project would allow investment in such community things rather than saying all of the cash would go there.

Yes. They said: “A significant proportion of the financial benefits accrued from the development will be managed through the ICTFC Community Development Trust. "

This is in the same planning document where they stated categorically that the club owned the land (they admitted tonight they do not). 

More honest mistakes I am sure. 

8 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

The example you give of Academy Street is one where there is a huge amount of public interest, being one of the main streets of the highland capital.
5% of a former golf course on the outskirts isn’t really of the same strategic importance to the council, is it?

It has been well discussed on here that this project is at least a bit controversial. The tight 3/2 vote underlines that. But that’s irrelevant. My point is that Ross Morrison, David Stewart, and others were making false claims tonight. Honest mistake or deliberate malfeasance? Make your own mind up. 

46 minutes ago, lightlamp2 said:

If it gets approved we get approximately £3.4 Million lump sum.

I was surprised no one followed through on this. The planning application was all about the trust getting the cash, to spin the "community" benefits of the project. But they basically said tonight: "the club get first dibs on the £3.4M to pay of debt and they will use the remainder to make the club sustainable i.e. the car parks". this again confirmed what was said at the start of Feb - there is no long term cash flow from this for anyone, including the trust. If they are losing £650K-£900K a year in the championship, then if there is no promotion in 2 years, they are back to square one.

46 minutes ago, lightlamp2 said:

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.

Very rarely used, but still used occassionally (confirmed by a councillor after the meeting). Bizarre seeing David Stewart of all people riffing on this myth implyingh there is some ICT vendetta here (politician and fibbing ehh). For example from a few months back: https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/breaking-council-orders-work-on-academy-street-plans-to-be-324788/.

4 hours ago, old caley girl said:

Think folk already have and radio silence so far 

I am still surprised they are risking hosting this at all. Never mind making it accessible live on the internet for the worlds voyeurs to peer in.

2 hours ago, Row S said:

I was merely pointing out that the Council was quite happy to allocate a large chunk of its own abandoned golf course area (yes, holes 10 to 14 at Torvean) for development in its own IMFLDP but not allocate any of the privately owned former Fairways/Castle Heather 18 hole course for development in the same LDP. That to me is double standards.    

I see - gotcha. In the defence of the council in this instance, they did first re-home the entire existing use-case for that land up to the new Kings course. Sutherland and Cameron bought Fairways in 2019 and closed the 18 hole golf course. Via proxy, they are now trying to shoe horn a BESS onto that land. Maybe they should have proposed building the BESS on the old Torvean golf course instead.

9 hours ago, Row S said:

Unfortunately, I can't attend as making my biennial pilgrimage to Rome this week. Nevertheless, I'd rather the Club Directors focused on the Planning merits of the proposal.

In the officials' report to the last South Planning Applications Committee, their remaining objection issue was the loss of locally important open space, now an abandoned golf course taken over by dog walkers. Then look at the abandoned holes of the old Torvean course, owned by the Highland Council and also taken over by dog walkers. The Council has earmarked that locally important open space for development, mostly for housing and possibly a primary school. Double standards or what? Highland Rugby Club were promised additional pitches on that land but the Council reneged. Worth raising but can we trust the Council to support a development that benefits another important City sports club?

I'm not sure exactly which bit of ground you are referring to at Torvean? I presume its the bit that used to be holes 10-14 of the old course? If so, it is indeed outlined and approved in the long term development plan (IMFLDP) for sympathetic mixed developments.

In the same IMFLDP they outlined the green corridor that includes Fairways as protected open green space. The IMFLDP took years of consultation and was approved by the entire council. For the BESS planning application at Fairways, the planners have just pointed at the approved development plan and said: "sorry, this isn't land open to development". I'm not sure where you see the double standards in that?

As part of the West link road development, the Highland rugby club lost one of four pitches but got an impressive new club house and an all weather pitch to compensate. Andy Little said the club were delighted with the outcome of the redevelopment - I am not aware of them expecting any more from the council.

57 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

Well that or calling the meeting short/hoofing people out for bringing up alternative issues.

Indeed - straight out of the dictators playbook. If the intention of, and rhetoric during, the meeting is to rally support due to the alleged existential financial threat failure of this project carries, then I would say that any questions relating to this peril are fair game. It is described as an "open" Q&A after all and this situation is ripe for going all in with a "3 whys" grilling.

I agree with the developing view in the other posts - the haste at which this has been organised seems quite unusual. This is not the sign of an organisation operating a smooth and well thought out fan engagement process. It does not require a huge leap of imagination to suspect this is all reactive and/or a tad desperate ahead of next weeks vote.

It is possibly risky too. If fans start twisting the agenda to other important matters i.e. the lack of financial reports and AGMs, or the companies house shenanigans with last minute year end date changes, or why there are still so many expensive non-playing employees on the payroll, they could be in for a tough and revealing night.

12 hours ago, Yngwie said:

Of course it does. 

Genuinely interested to know if you will be going along to hear the club’s perspective on all this - or do you not want to hear it?!

I will be all ears.

Deary me. Are these club pressers written by Morrison or Gardiner after a couple of shandies? Yokel bumpkin chat. 

1 hour ago, Yngwie said:

Councillors are there to represent their communities and at the moment the main voices heard by councillors are from a few disgruntled residents.

Does that also include the community where this controversial proposal is planned, who had raised legitimate unanswered questions about it, and had zero councillors representing their ward at the last vote? 

1 hour ago, DoofersDad said:

But whilst they inherited a mess and have faced obstacles not of their making, the way they have gone about trying to reinvigorate the club have undoubtedly done more harm than good and have antagonised a lot of people on the way.  It's time for a new approach.

Valid and fair points @DoofersDad and I can't fault your historic look back over the pre Morrison era.

Perhaps they did not inherit the best hand. But Morrison has had about 6 years on the board and Gardiner has been employed as CEO for 5 years. On and off the pitch no progress has been made in that time - there is plenty evidence to underline how affairs are actually in reverse.

As you say: the club seems as alienated as ever from the majority of the city population and its businesses.  If they can't stabilise the finances and build a vibrant and growing community of supporters engaged and behind the club, they will always be bobbing from last minute loans to financial crisis to harebrained get-rich-quick schemes.