wilsywilsy

Since relegation in May 2017 and up to year ending May 2022 the club had lost about £3M. The club is now another 2 years into the same hole. Despite some transfer cash (£200K Dan Mackay?), sell on clause boosts from Christie?, and reaching the Scottish cup final, I would not be surprised to see total losses from May 2017 to May 2024 > £4M.

The chairman joined the club in 2018 and Gardiner in 2019. This creeping financial situation has unfolded on their watch. Instead of facing down the bread and butter basics of cloth cutting and improving the football business, they have made a sh1t or bust bet on a bizarre and controversial left-field project (I shudder when I see folk describe it as innovative).

4 hours ago, Yngwie said:

How many councillors are there? We know that at least 20 put their names to this new vote, and you have to imagine that they are all unhappy with the initial outcome.

At least 30 of the 74 councilors signed the ammendment that effectively reset the planning decision.

1 hour ago, bdu98196 said:

This is just using the community angle to lever the process in their favour on a mutually beneficial arrangement for a project that likely would be instantly rejected without using the local links.

Is it really much different to a developer building or financing local groups to support a play park or school or community facility in return for having their proposal passed? This is just the private company directly returning finances to a group that supports the community project - youth groups, school visits etc (just its all centered around football)?

There is a lack of clarity what or whether directors will directly benefit on a personal level, but again is that really any different to most of these 'mutually beneficial' deals?

It is different insomuch as: they will target building on land already outlined for development, and, there are guidelines for all developers of houses to contribute towards the local infrastructure, including schools and designated green space/play areas etc for the benefit of all its residents.

There are no guidelines that say the council should approve an application for land that is protected open space because it will save a mismanaged football club from (allegedly) going into administration and which might have some unquantified "benefit" to a football specific section of the community...... but here we are and that is the levers they are pulling.

10 hours ago, STFU said:

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.

Nailed it.

As Robert says above: the chairman was quite clear at the meeting - the club get a one off windfall from this project and ZERO on-going revenues. This is a tacit admission that they intend to flog it ASAP on to another party.

How this benefits the community beyond the (alleged) immediate survival of the club is a mystery. As Mr Bannerman highlights, this has all been horribly opaque and does not sit well.

14 hours ago, Yngwie said:

Unless you know of a way to build a battery farm without taking up any space!

Unless Cameron, Morrions et al can defy physics then obviously it will consume space. The issue is their choice of space. We are supposed to believe that one of the biggest land owners in the area couldn't find a viable brown field site, or, a site that is already marked for development in the IMFDP. As you say, the planners were just following their protocols about this area being protected green space.

14 hours ago, Yngwie said:

I’m pretty sure the club knew all along that this would be the biggest challenge and the only way to overcome it would be to stress the wider benefits to the community and to the environment that would result from it going ahead, which is what they did.

Remind us where the club, or the trust, or whoever it is that really benefits from this project, transparantly and publicly unveiled all this socio-economic data to make their case? Some greenwashing strap lines and a few puff peices about free meals for kids that the trust already provides is no where near good enough IMHO. I am amazed folk are so trusting of this mob. 

17 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I’m not convinced that the quite aggressive approach taken by the Chairman on the front page of today’s Courier is the best way to win friends and influence people when there’s another, much bigger, Council vote to be negotiated next month.

Yup. Classic crybully. Like I said earlier in the thread, folk are being very quick to play the man and not the ball (to use another sporting metaphor).

45 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Unfortunately, we now already have a bid to contest a quorate planning decision - which the club manager yesterday, deploying delightful metaphor, eloquently described as trying to keep replaying the game until they get the result they want - and that rearguard action already looks ominous.

I think this is a reasonable and understandable metaphor to deploy in the cicumstances. However, let’s not kid ourselves - the club are being hypocrites on this. They have made it quite clear all along in public that they intend to appeal if/when things don’t go their way.

5 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

It is a sad sign of the times that the sheer stupidity of the Chair and Vice Chair of the planning committee does not surprise me. It is of course appropriate, that Councillors with a relevant interest in a scheme declare that interest. But how many of the committee members actually have a relevant interest in ICT?  Going to watch them from time to time is hardly a relevant interest. 

What next?   Will these numpties be arguing that no councillor should be allowed to vote on any housing proposal due to a “relevant interest” of being generally supportive of building more homes to alleviate the housing crisis?

As for complaining that more Inverness based Councillors didn’t vote, words fail me.  What on Earth did they expect if they come up with such spurious examples of “relevant interests” which are obviously going to prevent Inverness councillors from voting! 
 

And what don’t they understand about what a quorum is?  A meeting is either quorate or it isn’t.  If it is, then the vote is perfectly valid under the rules of the organisation.

 

Where is this revisionism on here coming from? At the November meeting 14 of the 16 possible councillors turned up. Only 2 of them declared an interest due to them being on the ICT ladies team committee and in the ICT supporters club. 

That left 12. They voted to defer the decision for a site visit, which did the club a massive favour. Only 6 turned up at the site visit last week - that failure to attend eliminated another 6 from the vote(the councillors knew they would be excluded by not turning up). One of the remaining 6 later withdrew from the vote during the debate on Wednesday morning. That left 5.

Instead of bleating about the chair (and 29 others) calling this out, you have to question why all these councillors were knowingly and willingly going into hiding and removing themselves from the vote on such a high profile and controversial application.

2 hours 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.

The ball being you, the press, the club, making it personal. Based on your previous posts, I think you know fine well it's not as clear cut as: "batteries go anywhere coz net zero, init". 

12 hours ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

The hotel development needed planning permission, and this was decided by the south planning committee. If permission had been refused, there would likely still be a cultural use at the site.

That is beside the point anyway - the Chair of the commitee is claiming that the battery decision isn't valid because not enough Councillors from Inverness voted on it. Yet he represents Fort William, and has been happy to vote in favour of the hotel development at the Ironworks and against the battery farm last week.

I hope the club embarrass the Council over this, it's a shambles.

You are playing the man and not the ball here. The chair was 1 of 7 councillors who voted for the hotel on the IronWorks.

He was 1 of 30 (thirty!) who supported the ammendment that put the battery project planning application to the wider council for further scrutiny and a vote.

9 hours ago, Jack Waddington said:

Makes you wonder why they weren't there at the appeal meeting full stop.

As someone else said, there's probably absentees due to conflict of interest. When its specifically an Inverness issue, surely the smart thing to do would be drag in the Inverness Councillors, but instead they've taken one from an area 66 miles away and others from god knows where.

They've cocked up, made their bed and they need to lie in it.

All the coonsil have done here is made themselves look heinously incompetent.

This is a wild post. What appeal meeting? The application was heard at the routine South planning committee (16 councilors). The committee includes representives from all across the South of the Highlands and Inverness.

At Novembers meeting there were more councillors than at last weeks meet. But several of them voted for the deferrment so they could visit the site. Many who voted for the visit then didn't turn up for the site meeting, which immediately excluded them from the vote - as they said on Wednesday, a member has to be at all the meetings for them to be allowed to participate in the vote.

IMHO what happened on Monday is asking searching questions of the Inverness councillors on the committee and beyond. Where the f*ck were you? Why did you shy away from this? Why did you wilfully chose to skip the site visit knowing full well you would be excluded from the vote?

Only 1 of the 5 who could vote was from an Inverness ward and not a ward close to the project. Now it will be heard by the full council (assuming they don't all hide from it again).

29 minutes ago, Satan said:

Where is all this salt coming from?

Not the new batteries - they will be leaking lithium into the water ways.

1 hour ago, Yngwie said:

You’ve made quite a few interesting and informative contributions on this subject, which I appreciate and I’m sure others do too. I’m curious though - is it the case that you didn't want this application to succeed?

Ach, I'm obviously not against the idea of the club pursuing revenue opportunities, and I'm not fully against this planning application...... although I do think it is flawed based on the public data. Trying to apply some critical thought to the details as I see them and be objective instead of only seeing $$ and debt free Champions League like the other cheer leaders.

18 hours ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

@sheepslagger has issued a statement 

https://ictfc.com/club-statement-battery-farm-application-approval/

“I was pleased to be there in person today at the Highland Council’s HQ to see democracy in action.” 

That is quite a reach from the esteemed chairman after months of emotive public lobbying. Of the 5 councillors who were allowed to participate in the vote, none of them represented the areas impacted by the development. Donald Trump democracy.

12 hours ago, STFU said:

All that can only happen if there's anything left after clearing debts.

If I remember correctly the clubs financial report usually surfaces under the cover of darkness around about February so we will probably have a clearer picture of how badly the club is holed under the waterline soon. Up to May 2023 anyway.

I think operating losses have been ranging between £400K and £800K in recent years. The cup final would have helped the 22/23 numbers. The rumour I heard was that most of the money from the cup run was swallowed up by a debtor demanding repayment of short term cash flow he had provided.

I imagine the report for year ending May 23 will show the club is still weighed with debt > £1.5M. I would expect the 23/24 season has been terrible from an operating perspective made even worse by all the ongoing personnel sagas. I wouldn't be surprised if the black hole that first needs filled is > £2M.

From the same BESS planning application: "As a community owned project, the development will directly contribute to the local Highland economy over its life."

The obvious inference from this statement is that a "community" entity owns the BESS project. And, this entity will reap the financial rewards via the profits it generates through its life. But, as has now been exposed, the club plan to cut and run from the project as soon as they get a whiff of a windfall that can plug their current self induced financial black hole. What other myths are in this planning application?

The narrative has been, and continues to be, incoherent. The much peddled socio-economic benefits used to justify industrial development on protected green belt land are clearly just a smoke screen for bailing out the clubs dire finances.

2 hours ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

If the asset is sold for £5 million, which seems to be about the going rate, then the profits will sustain the club for years. ILI claim in the planning documents that they aren't benefiting financially and that the profit from the development would go to 'ICT Battery Storage Ltd.' which is wholly owned by the club. I don't see how that is disingenuous.

I'm sure Gardiner has mentioned something about the projects being linked at some point, but probably not that it was linked to the Statkraft deal, that was just speculation on my part.

Yeah I understand that developers often off-load projects once the planning hard yards are done.

I have perhaps misinterpreted the long term community benefit being spun. I would see a quick sale as disingenuous insomuch as the club gets a one off pump-n-dump from the project that the directors can splurge. This is instead of partnering the project for the long term revenue prospects and sustaining those community benefits.

I would have doubts about a £5M valuation - maybe if it included the land. Even if it was that figure, I would be surprised if the real land owners (Cameron and co) are not lined up for a decent slice. Is it not widely publicised that ILI are getting kick backs from the club, such as using the car parks for Red John plant and equipment? If so, their claims in the planning application of getting no financial benefits loses credibility and becomes questionable - hard to believe a business would do all of this for free.

Anyways. Back to transfers.

37 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

I would imagine ILI will find a buyer pretty easily. They sold this one in December pre-construction. The money could come to us well before the facility is actually built.

https://renews.biz/90240/ili-sells-50mw-scottish-storage-project-to-edpr/

It may already actually be part of ILI's deal with Statkraft as the intention is that the BESS will connect to the scheme below as far as I can remember: 

https://www.hydroreview.com/hydro-industry-news/pumped-storage-hydro/statkraft-to-acquire-red-john-pumped-storage-hydro-project-from-ili/

To immediately sell the asset (which ever part of the asset the club actually owns) would seem pretty disingenuous would it not? The sales pitch and lobbying of councillors from the board was all on the premise of the projects revenue sustaining the club and its community projects to infinity.

I haven't seen anything to suggest this BESS was linked with Red John or the Stratkraft deal.

58 minutes ago, STFU said:

The business done in this window could conceivably been done without us spending any more than we were already on wages.

Without the battery farm money, then I don't see how we can rebuild for a strong/er season in 24/25 or even to the level we're at this season unless someone else throws a few hundred thousand into the abyss that is our finances.

Ferguson is doing what he can to keep the team in this league this season, but it falls to the CEO and Board to ensure finances are in place to allow him to do anything beyond that.

Our future will be determined by the Highland Council planning department.

Looking past the cozy sound bites, I wouldn't pin hopes on the BESS loading the coffers for a squad rebuild any time soon. If approved it will probably take a few years to build. Plus the BESS market is currently in the gutter - the big players in this space have seen revenues and profits plunge. Their seems to be a glut of BESS capacity already in the build pipeline around the UK too.

Anyone asked for, or seen, any data that backs up the claims this project is the equivalent of planting a million trees? Or the data that shows how it will make the club wealthier than the King (and not line the pockets of the allegedly "invested" individuals closely associated to the board room)?

I ask because I noticed two of the biggest financial players in this space, Gresham House Energy Storage Fund and Gore Street Energy Storage Fund, have been getting an absolute hounding on the markets over the last 6 months. Related news coverage suggests it is because of serious concerns about the funds ability to provide dividend cover i.e. the markets expecting the dividends to get slashed due to revenues dropping off.

15 hours ago, Fraz said:

If that's the only issue, it would be laughable if it's refused as there seems to be no issues with any other greenspace being gobbled up by Tulloch or any other developers for building houses. 

Not quite as straight forward as that. The land is part of the protected green space in the Inner Moray Firth Development Plan. The locations where volume builders, like Tulloch Homes, get to cram in their streets of identical and over priced boxes is marked on that same long term plan as development land.

17 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

You say that, but I'm not wrong am I. The Concert Co was only named as such because, as I said, we're the ones providing a venue and not much more.

So the tenant rebranded their entire business around the landlord?

The Inverness Caley Thistle Concert Company Limited with a registered office at Caledonian Stadium and the listed director being the club chairman, Morrison, was mismanaged into liquidation by Gardiner and Morrison. Yet you seem cold on anyone putting their thinking caps on and questioning the same gents on their latest, non football related, bright idea.

14 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Could anyone fill in exactly how this Battery Farm plan will operate?

Who will manage and operate the facility on a day to day basis? Who will physically oversee construction? Who will ensure that there is a market? Where is the set-up capital coming from? In practical terms, what is the nature of the link between the football club and ILI? What’s in it for ILI? When would funds be expected to arrive with the club? What does the club have to do in order to qualify for revenue from this facility? What are the projected profits? What’s the level of risk? If there are losses, who is liable and what would the implications be for the football club?

These are not hostile questions in any way. It’s just that, as a shareholder  in ITandCFC, developments over the last week have led me to realise that I know very little about this project, which it’s hoped will revolutionise the football club’s finances.

These are valid questions that should be put to the board et al who are waxing lyrical about how important the project is for "net zero" and the future security of the club. Some meaningful and quantifiable substance behind their green and financial sound bites would be helpful.

20 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

Neither of those are/were controlled by the club. ICTCC was created as a company just to try and make a wee bit off of making the stadium the cities primary concert venue, as opposed to a roundabout of The Bught, the Aquadome, Northern Meeting Park and ourselves, and lessons had been lost as it had been quite some time since the concert before it. As for the Green Port, thats not got anything to do with the club, and is only because we're in the Harbour/Port Area and have been included as we are one of the bigger companies in the area.

My point was that we have to at least consider objectively questioning the bold, yet somewhat amateur (see youtube video), claims from Gardiner and Morrison about this project and how it finances the club. They had their finger prints all over the mismanagement of the concert debacle and were excited puppies about the free port. They have chipped away at their own credibility.

39 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

So if I'm understanding this right, you're against a major investment for the club, that will provide us with a future for the forseeable future, which also benefits the local communities and the greater Highlands, not just in footballing terms, but with clean and renewable energy because you are wanting a field (that you can't even see from any surrounding road or footpath) to look like...a field...while also going off on a tangent to assume that they breezed over all other potential (and very limited) sites within city limits, just cos someone with links to the club happens to have land ownership?

Hmmm no, that's not what I said. I am pointing out that it was perfectly reasonable for the council planners to reject this despite the frantic and desperate last minute club lobbying with sound bites about the equivalent of planting one million trees and existential financial threats. I can step back if you prefer an echo chamber where everyone's shouting "council neanderthals, caley directors good guys".

To answer your other new points: has anyone even seen credible financials that would backup the claims this will save the future of the club? Like the concerts and free ports? It's not guaranteed to be clean or renewable energy that these batteries will store (and they are toxic as f*ck and hugely energy intensive to mine/make). Again, labouring the point, it maybe a field but it is part of protected green space that is surrounded by residential, office, and leisure - this is an indisputable fact.

Lastly, it is not going off on a tangent to question the attempts to find other sites - it was raised by @Stephen Malkmus so I responded. The document is weak IMHO and the planners effectively called it out as such.