Stadium ownership

[TheKnowledge]

derisory

Excellent use of the word.

[EWS]

What do people think would happen if everyone sent a letter with just one question on it.

'Who owns the stadium'

Or stand outside the staidum on a match day with a big sign that says;

'Who owns the stadium?'

If we stand on the footway across from the entrance, we can't be removed as we are not on ICT's land

[CaleyD]

You could stand in the centre circle and not be on ICT's land

[EWS]

But I am sure that the club would argue that you are tresspassing if you stood on the other side, and as such try to remove you.

Pretty sure the polis would remove you too if you were standing there.

[Jay_7]

But I am sure that the club would argue that you are tresspassing if you stood on the other side, and as such try to remove you.

Pretty sure the polis would remove you too if you were standing there.

There is no such thing as a trespass law in Scotland.

[EWS]

Yes I know, but you can still be asked to move off of their land by the police.

[Wilsononourwing]

"It is a perpetual myth that there are no trespass laws in Scotland. Even before the recent Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, trespass has long been a delict (civil wrong) which is remediable by the remedies of interdict and damages. However, The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 amends the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 and establishes a statutory right of access.

Certain types of trespass have been criminal since the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 was passed, an Act no-one has ever heard of. Section 3 makes it an offence for any person to lodge in any premises, or occupy or encamp on any land, being private property, without the consent of the owner or legal occupier. Admittedly this section envisages a degree of permanency which will not be present in every situation of trespass. "

[Jay_7]

"It is a perpetual myth that there are no trespass laws in Scotland. Even before the recent Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, trespass has long been a delict (civil wrong) which is remediable by the remedies of interdict and damages. However, The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 amends the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 and establishes a statutory right of access.

Certain types of trespass have been criminal since the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 was passed, an Act no-one has ever heard of. Section 3 makes it an offence for any person to lodge in any premises, or occupy or encamp on any land, being private property, without the consent of the owner or legal occupier. Admittedly this section envisages a degree of permanency which will not be present in every situation of trespass. "

Nice copy and paste. If you were to go down to TCS and stand in the centre circle - you are not trespassing. They could ask you to leave and if you refuse the police can become involved, but it still isn't trespass.

[PullMyFinger]

If you were to go down to TCS and stand in the centre circle - you are not trespassing. They could ask you to leave and if you refuse the police can become involved, but it still isn't trespass.

While it may not technically be called trespass, at the moment it would be classed as breaking and entering which is a more serious offence and I advise against it. Maybe you mean during a game in which case it would be public nuisance or with a collection of friends you'd possibly be read the riot act. The more serious consequence of course is the wrath of Tommy. So in summary, gonnaenodaethat!!!

We'll have DornochCaley on shortly advising us that all property is theft. :tonguecheek:

[CaleyD]

I wasn't suggesting anyone do it (please don't)....just making the point that ICT have no land to shift you from. I wonder if they would have the actual owner come shift you though? :tonguecheek:

[Jay_7]

I wonder if they would have the actual owner come shift you though? :tonguecheek:

If that were the case, I'd argue it was 100% worth it! No doubt Montgomery Burns would just have Smithers release the hounds though.

[Renegade]

What would happen if the real owner came down and stood in the centre circle?

[PullMyFinger]

Is this thread getting a bit lost?

So who owns the stadium?

It is increasingly obvious that in one guise or another all parts which make the whole are either solely or jointly owned/controlled by David Sutherland.

The only part I am concerned about is that the club contributed to the cost of the North and South stands but appear to have received no collatoral from the deal.

But we are a small club and I trust that David Sutherland and his board representatives have the best interests of ICT at heart.

Do we want the stadium back in the clubs hands? Not with an unserviceable debt!

Wihout David Sutherland we probably wouldn't have a club to follow anyway.

To most fans it doesn't matter who owns the stadium as long as things are ok on the park.

Long live the King.

:tonguecheek:

But, if I win the EuroMillions this week all bets are off and all the Muppets are out.

[big man]

good post

[Kirishima]

Well, despite things looking rosy on the pitch, I hope that the board, as im sure they would wish, doesnt think people will forget the one question on people's lips.

Yes, DS saved the club, yes, he put in money, yes he will always be remembered for that, for making ICT and a large part of its illustrious history. But we can't live on past plaudits forever.

Look the answer may be straightforward, above board, whatever...but if it is, why is it not fortcoming? Why is their no evidence of a stadium in a trust company? Why are we raking through public documents and getting nowhere?

Is the stadium in the trust company or not? Simple.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

good post

Yes - I would actually agree with that - but the interest of the club at heart - answer yes and no - and perhaps no businessman goes into any deal without looking at what is in it for them and/or protecting their investment.

I am not surprised that Charlie B has sat in the wings as the hints to the ownership are clear in "Against All Odds" - just read between the lines. It is clearly in the hands of lawyers now and the silence is acceptable in the legal and business sense - but come on - we all know the answer to "Who owns the Stadium ?" - why do you think that it has been so cleverly concealed.

I get slated about the muppets but I am sure that Grasser does have the club at heart but he is now in a no win situation which he should have removed himself from many moons ago and is now as cemented as a Tullochs foundation. I am sure that most of the Board have the club at heart as well but are now in the realms of a secret society and a self Preservation Society - which of course divides itself from the fans.

So I dont call them Muppets for the above - I call them Muppets for the amateurish, selfish, reactive and chaotic manner in which they have ATTEMPTED to run this club into the ground over the last 2-3 seasons. They have been inept and the creators of their own demise and/or anger of the fan base. They have made ridiculous footballing decisions, they have stuck by the unstickable and cast aside the faithful - in a retaher cruel and despicable manner. They have told "white lies" left right and centre and have not had the guts to admit the truth when they were caught out - So will they ever change with that in mind.

Why doesnt DS simply throw in the towel ? - Love of ICT ? Self preservation ? Or perhaps the skeletons would fall out of the cupboard ?

And finally - they owe a big debt to Butcher as he is the character - both on and off the park - that has saved their erses. Lets hope he has armoured pannelling on the back of his vest but he has the backing of the majrity of the fan base and beginning to pick up on the park - which makes him unsackable and/or indispensable at the moment really.

[Council Juice]

"It is a perpetual myth that there are no trespass laws in Scotland. Even before the recent Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, trespass has long been a delict (civil wrong) which is remediable by the remedies of interdict and damages. However, The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 amends the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 and establishes a statutory right of access.

Certain types of trespass have been criminal since the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 was passed, an Act no-one has ever heard of. Section 3 makes it an offence for any person to lodge in any premises, or occupy or encamp on any land, being private property, without the consent of the owner or legal occupier. Admittedly this section envisages a degree of permanency which will not be present in every situation of trespass. "

Does section 3 not mean that you are not allowed to lodge on private land without permission. You are still, I think, entitled to walk onto and around providing you are not disruping the status of the area. Much like you can't actually squat or claim squatters rights in Scotland. There is no such thing here. You need an agreement with the land/property owner to reside on their land/property.

The most the police would ever do is remove you from the pitch anyway. It would be incredibly unlikely charges would be brought against you.

[Kirishima]

Either way nothing in the Courier. After running the story about sacking the stadium announcer, I would have expected a follow up story or pursuit for a statement, clarfiication, fact, or spokesman denial/comment...nothing of the sort. Why not?

[caleyboy]

Either way nothing in the Courier. After running the story about sacking the stadium announcer, I would have expected a follow up story or pursuit for a statement, clarfiication, fact, or spokesman denial/comment...nothing of the sort. Why not?

Maybe someone had a word with the reporter or maybe even the editor or maybe even the owners. :001:

[Kirishima]

Either way nothing in the Courier. After running the story about sacking the stadium announcer, I would have expected a follow up story or pursuit for a statement, clarfiication, fact, or spokesman denial/comment...nothing of the sort. Why not?

Maybe someone had a word with the reporter or maybe even the editor or maybe even the owners. :001:

Well, either it is very poor reporting or very underhand meddling. Its one or the other, and personally, I'm not of the opinion it's the former. Things like this happen all the time, a wee phone call, chat, words such as "unfortunate", "regrettable" muttered and that's that. If anyone from the Courier is reading this, then i have a few words for you. Journalists you are not.

[Kirishima]

Not a peep from the Courier on the stadium. Lots about Alan Savage's lady friend suing him,which of course is much more pertinent to the folk of Inverness. But no questions about the stadium, one sees.

A Free Press? Maybe The West Highland is the only Free Press nowadays. Poor.

[Scotty]

The issue has not gone away Kirishima. There may be a lull right now, but the question is still uppermost in a lot of minds.

[Kirishima]

Well, I hope it is uppermost in everbody's mind. Lost a lot of respect for the Courier over this, they are quiet pathetic (sic) really and obviously in the pockets of their advertisers. Hope that there is a bandwagon coming I can jump on, else I'll start building one of my own...

[Pele_Is_God]

Maybe most people are just concentrating on matters on the park, after all we could win the league.

[Kirishima]

Maybe most people are just concentrating on matters on the park, after all we could win the league.

Right, so just forget the stadium...can't do two things at once.