Statement re Stadium Ownership

[CaleyD]

As I intimated would be the case recently, a statement has now been released regarding this subject and can be found HERE

As the person who was most vocal on this subject I'm glad that the subject can now be put to bed. My view may be slightly biased, but I think this serves as a great example of how the Supporters Trust can, if allowed, work as a great conduit between the fans and the club in resolving such matters and getting everyone working together.

My personal thanks to Kenny, DFS & DJS for inviting me to be a part of the discussions and taking the time to listen to the concerns I had raised. There really is no substitute for getting people round a table and talking things out properly.

[Yngwie]

So who owns the stadium?!

[caley100]

Ahhh.. yer not in the loop Ian

[CaleyD]

The Council "own" the land and there's a chain of leases which end up with the club. In the middle of all that you have a business structure which is set up to ensure that the interests of all parties are recognised and in the case of the club, fully protected.

The long and short of it is that nobody is able to sell up from under our feet and run off with the money, leaving the club in the lurch....which was the thing that has been of biggest concern.

[Johnboy]

So have all the concerns you set out on this post now been answered to your complete satisfaction?

Quote :

Can't say I was overly surprised by the (non) response to my question regarding stadium ownership/lease.

I'm not denying that the club got themselves out of a hole by selling the club, what I am questioning is the fact that when this was done we were led to believe that the new owners would be a charitable trust and not a company which is all but owned and controlled by a single person.

As I've stated before, the proposal of using a Charitable Trust appealed to people and gained favour because we were led to believe that once the Trust got into a position where debt was cleared then it would act for the benefit of the footballing and sports community. In short, we sold the club on the cheap on the basis that their might be some long term benefit for everyone. As it now appears, the club was, IMO, stolen from under our noses and put into private hands.

If the club are not willing to answer the question as to why this happened, then perhaps I should now direct my enquiries to the higher profile public figures who make up the Board of the Dormant Trust (which was suppose to receive stadium ownership) to ask why they have remained tight lipped on the affair, but are quite happy that their membership of that board be used on CV's and in public as some kind of status symbol? In fact, why does the Trust continue to exist at all, if not as an attempt to maintain the smokescreen?

As I understand it, the Trust Board Members have and may still include a number of influential local businessmen, councillors, an ex provost and a member of the Scottish Parliament.

[CaleyD]

Can't say I was overly surprised by the (non) response to my question regarding stadium ownership/lease.

Talk about turning things on it's head. I would say that this time I was completely taken by surprise in terms of how my questions were handled....and in a totally positive manner.

I'm not denying that the club got themselves out of a hole by selling the club, what I am questioning is the fact that when this was done we were led to believe that the new owners would be a charitable trust and not a company which is all but owned and controlled by a single person.

As I've stated before, the proposal of using a Charitable Trust appealed to people and gained favour because we were led to believe that once the Trust got into a position where debt was cleared then it would act for the benefit of the footballing and sports community. In short, we sold the club on the cheap on the basis that their might be some long term benefit for everyone. As it now appears, the club was, IMO, stolen from under our noses and put into private hands.

Based on the information to hand at the time I could draw no other conclusion. However, having had the missing bits of the jigsaw provided I would say that the actual situation could not be further from the assertions above....as I said, there's no substitute for sitting down round a table and talking things out.

If the club are not willing to answer the question as to why this happened, then perhaps I should now direct my enquiries to the higher profile public figures who make up the Board of the Dormant Trust (which was suppose to receive stadium ownership) to ask why they have remained tight lipped on the affair, but are quite happy that their membership of that board be used on CV's and in public as some kind of status symbol? In fact, why does the Trust continue to exist at all, if not as an attempt to maintain the smokescreen?

As I understand it, the Trust Board Members have and may still include a number of influential local businessmen, councillors, an ex provost and a member of the Scottish Parliament.

Your Inbox's should be a little quieter now gents!!!

Was I wrong? I'll admit I was wrong in some of the conclusions that were being drawn, but in my defence it's hard to draw positive/favourable conclusions when what you believe should be simple questions are being met by a brick wall and the "what are they hiding" feeling kicks in.

It's a little unfortunate things were allowed to get to the stage they did, and we can play the blame game all day long on who did what things right and what things wrong but my "campaign" (as it has been described) was not personal. I just want what's best for ICT and being at loggerheads with individuals...be they club officials, shareholders, other fans or whatever...does nothing to serve that purpose.

No doubt I'll have to suffer some "told you so" comments from one or two people.....but hey ho, such is life. Their will always be questions that need asked, and I'll never shy away from asking them. However, I believe that big inroads are being made into providing a proper channel for those questions and with a little bit of work by everyone we'll not see situations like this again.

We're heading in to one of the most important months in the clubs history...always seems to be a new "biggest" or "most important" with ICT, which is part of what's great about being a fan...and I am just glad that we can now do that with one less cloud hanging over the place.

[SMEE]

I was always under the impression that (initially anyway) the land was leased to the club, from the council, on an agreed 99year lease. Is this still the case?

[kiltarlity]

CaleyD, where does your lost stadium announcer job, fit in to all this?

[CaleyD]

I was always under the impression that (initially anyway) the land was leased to the club, from the council, on an agreed 99year lease. Is this still the case?

As said in the statement, back to back leases exist. Whilst the club do not lease directly from the council, the do still have a lease and it runs to the end of the previously agreed timescales with somewhere in the region of 94 years left on it.

CaleyD, where does your lost stadium announcer job, fit in to all this?

Whilst my being "outspoken" on the matter was muted as the reason for my being removed from that position, it was never something I would have allowed to get in the way of resolving other far more important issues. As such it's not something that has come up in the discussions that have taken place.

[Kirishima]

As much as I am happy to get the information, the fact that it had been over two years in the coming, and towards the end invlved sacking a volunteer and a club spokesman embarassing the name of ICT in the press with a petulant defence, i'm afraid i don't feel ****-a-hoop quite yet.

It remains as an example of the insular nature of the club, that instead of releasing this information from the get go, it took years and a silly dismissal of a volunteer to come out.

However, it is here now. I am happy it is. I am relieved. But it had better be the start of ICT and all non-playing staff to start working on PR. There is a long way to go before ICT can be called proficient in that realm.

[+Tree]

It is apparent from a number of things which have happened over the past month or so that the club realises that there are improvements to be made in the way in which it interacts with the supporters.

I see clarification of the stadium ownership as closure of a long running area of confusion.

With the positive manner in which Darren has been interacting with supporters via CTO and the reappointment of Kenny C with a view to improving communications there is acceptance that things could not continue in the manner of the past couple of years.

Clearly with results improving on the pitch, the overall atmosphere is much more positive than it was a few months back, however there at least an appreciation that improvements must be made. Time will determine whether this is successful, however this is a positive development.

If we can just sort out the aquifer, all will be well!

[Harry Chibber]

a lot of fuss over nothing then

it looks as though you have at least achieved some transparency from the club Caley D but at the same time you're a conspiracy theorist and have created hassle when there was no need for it... also lost a job out of it.

[Kirishima]

a lot of fuss over nothing then

it looks as though you have at least achieved some transparency from the club Caley D but at the same time you're a conspiracy theorist and have created hassle when there was no need for it... also lost a job out of it.

Don't agree with that. For well over two years there was no proof who owned the stadium, and nothing ever put into the public domain. Requests for information were ignored, and then supressed.

The "hassle" you refer to was i assume not the posts CaleyD made on the forum, (as you could also be accused of creating hassle) but rather how it was used by the club to dismiss a volunteer, and for the Inverness Courier to run the story, with a club spokesman saying Don was dismissed because he was asking questions about who owned the stadium.

It's all very well saying there was a lot of fuss over nothing after the announcement, as before you wouldnt be able to, would you?

[davie]

a lot of fuss over nothing then

it looks as though you have at least achieved some transparency from the club Caley D but at the same time you're a conspiracy theorist and have created hassle when there was no need for it... also lost a job out of it.

Come on Harry. Without Don, there would still be a Board that is pretty hopeless at PR and whose only strategy for it is to say nothing. He's at least forced the issue, and if he's calculated that it was worth his announcers job, then that's his business. Good on ya Don, I hope they do get you back and retire Mr. Happy.

[Scotty]

It is apparent from a number of things which have happened over the past month or so that the club realises that there are improvements to be made in the way in which it interacts with the supporters. I see clarification of the stadium ownership as closure of a long running area of confusion.

With the positive manner in which Darren has been interacting with supporters via CTO and the reappointment of Kenny C with a view to improving communications there is acceptance that things could not continue in the manner of the past couple of years.

Clearly with results improving on the pitch, the overall atmosphere is much more positive than it was a few months back, however there at least an appreciation that improvements must be made. Time will determine whether this is successful, however this is a positive development. If we can just sort out the aquifer, all will be well!

Yup, pretty much agree with all of this. The key in all of this for me is the re-appointment of Kenny and with it a renewed desire (on both sides) to talk about things rather than be talked at. Kenny is all about listening to both sides of an argument and cutting through the bull**** to get things done. I as a fan like that approach and just as crucially, can appreciate it if someone like that says to me "dont be so stupid, thats a bad idea" if I suggest something that is unworkable .... in other words, you know where you stand, and you get answers to (most) questions when asked. From having worked with Kenny over the years on the website I can also say he is very fan focused so will go to bat for us if and when there is a real issue to be dealt with.

a lot of fuss over nothing then. it looks as though you have at least achieved some transparency from the club Caley D but at the same time you're a conspiracy theorist and have created hassle when there was no need for it... also lost a job out of it.

Come on Harry. Without Don, there would still be a Board that is pretty hopeless at PR and whose only strategy for it is to say nothing. He's at least forced the issue, and if he's calculated that it was worth his announcers job, then that's his business. Good on ya Don, I hope they do get you back and retire Mr. Happy.

Yup, agree with Davie too. I have been the thorn in the club's side on a few occasions but from over here my point is often blunted these days. However, Don has taken up the mantle and without his constant pushing I very much doubt we would have seen quite as much (or even any) positive change in recent weeks.

Don was wrong, he freely admits that, but given the nature of the structure of the companies surrounding the stadium ownership debate, and who does and does not need to file certain paperwork, he didnt have, and couldnt get, the complete facts to join the dots. As it turns out, the club is protected and given the amount of research he did, if Don is happy to say his fears have been eased then I dont need any further convincing.

However, I still stand by the assertion I made at the time which is that the club could have quoshed the whole debate by coming out with this information there and then instead of allowing it to drag on. Don didnt start any conspiracy, he asked a question, and the silence surrounding that request for an answer caused any conspiracy theory .....

I have said it for years to the club ... when asked a question, answer it if you can (subject to confidentiality stuff) even if its not a positive answer. fans will appreciate it and if the club begins to get back its reputation for honest answers it will put an end to any conspiracy theories before they can even start.

Anyhoo - its a positive move from ICT. It is also positive to see club and trust working together, and I know that with Kenny involved club and CTO can and will also work together and we will see more positive news. with the lads doing it on the park, its a totally different feel to a month or two ago ...... and far more enjoyable.

[Kingsmills]

Clarity at last but why did the club take so long in being frank and open allowing relationships between the club and many suppoeters and shareholders to fester in the meantime ?

[Scotty]

That was the culture that was allowed to develop .... hopefully, recent events will have a positive effect on that caustic/toxic culture and we can move forward in creating a new culture of honesty and trust

[Kingsmills]

That was the culture that was allowed to develop .... hopefully, recent events will have a positive effect on that caustic/toxic culture and we can move forward in creating a new culture of honesty and trust

Hear hear.

[Scarlet Pimple]

Why was the culture allowed to develop[ you say?

Answer...Fear! And the antidote to that toxic feeling is ...discussion.

I don't think Don was "wrong" because he made statements based on information which he sought but which was not available to him at the times of his comments. Unless he had done this he could not have pursued the matter. The fact that he did, and in the process forced a positive outcome, suggests that his attitude and comments could have been more right than wrong at the time he made them.

Remember it's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil!

So,well done, honest Don!

I was wondering who actually penned the article on behalf of the Supoporters Trust? It was well written.

[Sorted]

Once I was keen on starting the Movement For Something. Nothing in particular just organising the principle that it is ok to be supportive of something. Nowadays we are surrounded by so and so against this, so and so against that, Cod Against Fishing, Deer Against Stalking ..... it goes on.

On top of this the oxygen given to the "against" body is always much greater that that given to the "for" body. Good news is no news. Two representations against is being inundated, two for is irrelevant.

This subject is typical of this culture. Check out the topic attacking the club, major shareholder etc. 120 odd posts over five pages with many nothing but desperate attempts to undermine and oozing with hope that "they've all been up to something". What feeds them? What motivates them? Who knows, they never have to explain themselves, just sit and hope, pray, that the conspiracy theory is true and soon we will all be able to hang and flog them close to the stadium the bestards tried to steal from us and make a fortune!

Where are they now?

The statement is issued,too late for my liking (but I am always inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt and, like all good aspects of Scottish justice, believe in innocence until guilt has been proven) but issued nonetheless. The 120 posts becomes 18 posts. The acknowledgment of mistaken judgment limited to those who only expressed concern for the right reasons (very few you note) not joined a witch hunt.

It will always be right that enthusiastic individuals like CD should question and be answered. We would all be poorer without that right and I applaud Don for doing so. What is sad however, is that the desperadoes aka lynch mob can disappear with their insinuations published without substance, damage set out done and nothing else required. Shame really.

Perhaps we should expect a certain level of accountability from posters not just the club?

Edited April 2, 2010 by Sorted

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

What about a Remove the Muppets campaign ?

[FoolPhysio]

Once I was keen on starting the Movement For Something. Nothing in particular just organising the principle that it is ok to be supportive of something. Nowadays we are surrounded by so and so against this, so and so against that, Cod Against Fishing, Deer Against Stalking ..... it goes on.

On top of this the oxygen given to the "against" body is always much greater that that given to the "for" body. Good news is no news. Two representations against is being inundated, two for is irrelevant.

This subject is typical of this culture. Check out the topic attacking the club, major shareholder etc. 120 odd posts over five pages with many nothing but desperate attempts to undermine and oozing with hope that "they've all been up to something". What feeds them? What motivates them? Who knows, they never have to explain themselves, just sit and hope, pray, that the conspiracy theory is true and soon we will all be able to hang and flog them close to the stadium the bestards tried to steal from us and make a fortune!

Where are they now?

The statement is issued,too late for my liking (but I am always inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt and, like all good aspects of Scottish justice, believe in innocence until guilt has been proven) but issued nonetheless. The 120 posts becomes 18 posts. The acknowledgment of mistaken judgment limited to those who only expressed concern for the right reasons (very few you note) not joined a witch hunt.

It will always be right that enthusiastic individuals like CD should question and be answered. We would all be poorer without that right and I applaud Don for doing so. What is sad however, is that the desperadoes aka lynch mob can disappear with their insinuations published without substance, damage set out done and nothing else required. Shame really.

Perhaps we should expect a certain level of accountability from posters not just the club?

Sorted, like your style man! :D

[Guest]

Perhaps we should expect a certain level of accountability from posters not just the club?

Spot on.

[Sorted]

My turn to be like a dog with a bone.

[Kirishima]

Most people talking on the subject were aware that DS had put a lot of money into the club, and also was the benefactor, and accepted that and were grateful. Yes, some were less rational but most of these gtf statements i ignore. Anyway, there was no witch hunt overall, unless you want to show me where, apart from the gtf posts, which are nonsense usually.

Nobody was right or wrong after this statement, how could they be, there was no info available. The question asked by most was who owns the stadium? We have an answer, later than most would have liked, but the answer is now here, and so fears have been allayed.

The answer is the end product, and i'm really appreciative of it