Jump to content

Moving to Torvean ?


Recommended Posts

No. My understanding is that HRC are bidding for a share of additional funding that will provide a multi purpose indoor sports facility alongside the current plans of all weather outdoor facilities. Training facilities for ICT are also hoped for. Story here. http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/News/20million-pot-opens-doors-for-sports-hub-plan-11072014.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless your stadium has a roof on it then no. A multi purpose indoor facility cannot, even with the best of imaginations, be made a football stadium. If a stadium was planned then it would need to be multi sport to gain the funding. That means running track round the pitch and long jump in the centre spot. And think of the mess the shot putt would make of the carpet. Not to mention the javelin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless your stadium has a roof on it then no. A multi purpose indoor facility cannot, even with the best of imaginations, be made a football stadium. If a stadium was planned then it would need to be multi sport to gain the funding. That means running track round the pitch and long jump in the centre spot. And think of the mess the shot putt would make of the carpet. Not to mention the javelin.

Oh well, if you say so Alex it must be right!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. My understanding is that HRC are bidding for a share of additional funding that will provide a multi purpose indoor sports facility alongside the current plans of all weather outdoor facilities. Training facilities for ICT are also hoped for. Story here. http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/News/20million-pot-opens-doors-for-sports-hub-plan-11072014.htm

That is also my understanding - with "bidding for a share" being the operative term. Caley Thistle already have a stadium at a location of the club's own choice which has effectively already had two separate contributions of public money - when it was built in 1996 (£1.8M) and the tax concessions when the ICT Trust was set up in 2001. On the latter subject, I seem to recollect that one of the legal requirements for the ICT Trust to be set up in order to gain these concessions was that it should benefit all sports and not just football. I am not so far clear of the extent to which sports other than football have benefited from this requirement so far.

Priority number one has to be the multi purpose indoor facility to which Alex refers. There are sports across the area crying out for such a facility. On the other hand if a training area for ICT and other football clubs can also be provided, all well and good. In terms of location, Fort George is far from ideal and who knows - any indoor facility may save a trip to Dingwall when the snow arrives.

Edited by Charles Bannerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Unless your stadium has a roof on it then no. A multi purpose indoor facility cannot, even with the best of imaginations, be made a football stadium. If a stadium was planned then it would need to be multi sport to gain the funding. That means running track round the pitch and long jump in the centre spot. And think of the mess the shot putt would make of the carpet. Not to mention the javelin.

Oh well, if you say so Alex it must be right!

 

No not if I say so. All I've written is my interpretation of what the courier says, what the original Torvean plan says and the SportScotland policy for awarding this funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No. My understanding is that HRC are bidding for a share of additional funding that will provide a multi purpose indoor sports facility alongside the current plans of all weather outdoor facilities. Training facilities for ICT are also hoped for. Story here. http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/News/20million-pot-opens-doors-for-sports-hub-plan-11072014.htm

That is also my understanding - with "bidding for a share" being the operative term. Caley Thistle already have a stadium at a location of the club's own choice which has effectively already had two separate contributions of public money - when it was built in 1996 (£1.8M) and the tax concessions when the ICT Trust was set up in 2001. On the latter subject, I seem to recollect that one of the legal requirements for the ICT Trust to be set up in order to gain these concessions was that it should benefit all sports and not just football. I am not so far clear of the extent to which sports other than football have benefited from this requirement so far.

Priority number one has to be the multi purpose indoor facility to which Alex refers. There are sports across the area crying out for such a facility. On the other hand if a training area for ICT and other football clubs can also be provided, all well and good. In terms of location, Fort George is far from ideal and who knows - any indoor facility may save a trip to Dingwall when the snow arrives.

 

 

On point one....it's fairly well known and accepted that the "public funds" received in 1996 were nothing more than a means for the local authority to pay for infrastructure improvements from funds other than those earmarked for such things.  Whilst technically accurate, the reality is that it did little to directly assist the club...they were merely the vehicle through which the money was shifted.

 

In regards to the Trust that was set up to take ownership of the stadium....that had little/nothing to do with tax concessions.  Even if it was, I would be surprised if it has ever benefited from any tax concessions which would not be afforded to any company with trading losses.  It could actually be argued that the most tax efficient thing to have done would be to leave the stadium and debt within the club so that those losses could have been offset against the clubs tax bill.

 

Since the Trust hadn't (up to the last time I checked) turned a profit, then there's no chance of any surplus existing to be distributed to any sport.

 

Always amazes me that members of the local media pay such close interest to financial operations at ICT (whilst constantly drawing the wrong conclusions) but very rarely spot (or would it be more accurate to say, take such public interest in?) the more obvious goings on elsewhere!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that there are no 'goings on' elsewhere. Ross County, like ourselves are prudently run and any expense they incurred in upgrading their stadium to join the SPL is solidly underwritten by their well heeled and benevolent chairman. Again, much like ourselves, they live within their means on a day to day basis. In my view, while their may be shortcomings in the local press and media, they are missing nothing in that respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

No. My understanding is that HRC are bidding for a share of additional funding that will provide a multi purpose indoor sports facility alongside the current plans of all weather outdoor facilities. Training facilities for ICT are also hoped for. Story here. http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/News/20million-pot-opens-doors-for-sports-hub-plan-11072014.htm

That is also my understanding - with "bidding for a share" being the operative term. Caley Thistle already have a stadium at a location of the club's own choice which has effectively already had two separate contributions of public money - when it was built in 1996 (£1.8M) and the tax concessions when the ICT Trust was set up in 2001. On the latter subject, I seem to recollect that one of the legal requirements for the ICT Trust to be set up in order to gain these concessions was that it should benefit all sports and not just football. I am not so far clear of the extent to which sports other than football have benefited from this requirement so far.

Priority number one has to be the multi purpose indoor facility to which Alex refers. There are sports across the area crying out for such a facility. On the other hand if a training area for ICT and other football clubs can also be provided, all well and good. In terms of location, Fort George is far from ideal and who knows - any indoor facility may save a trip to Dingwall when the snow arrives.

 

 

On point one....it's fairly well known and accepted that the "public funds" received in 1996 were nothing more than a means for the local authority to pay for infrastructure improvements from funds other than those earmarked for such things.  Whilst technically accurate, the reality is that it did little to directly assist the club...they were merely the vehicle through which the money was shifted.

 

In regards to the Trust that was set up to take ownership of the stadium....that had little/nothing to do with tax concessions.  Even if it was, I would be surprised if it has ever benefited from any tax concessions which would not be afforded to any company with trading losses.  It could actually be argued that the most tax efficient thing to have done would be to leave the stadium and debt within the club so that those losses could have been offset against the clubs tax bill.

 

Since the Trust hadn't (up to the last time I checked) turned a profit, then there's no chance of any surplus existing to be distributed to any sport.

 

Always amazes me that members of the local media pay such close interest to financial operations at ICT (whilst constantly drawing the wrong conclusions) but very rarely spot (or would it be more accurate to say, take such public interest in?) the more obvious goings on elsewhere!!

 

What a promptly composed and remarkable historical revision!

 

On point one, it's fairly well known  that the budget for the Caledonian Stadium, even after economies were made, was a million pounds short and without the £900,000 which eventually came from the Inverness Common Good Fund its viability would at best have been highly questionable. Added to that there was Objective 1 cash, money from INE and also from the Football Trust and HRC which made a total public purse contribution of something like £1.8 million. Of course we all know that the road which was part of the planning requirements for the stadium has also been a Godsend in terms of creating access to the harbour etc, but you can't get away from the fact that one third of the cost of putting the stadium there was met from public funds. Money well and appropriately spent, but public funds all the same. These are my gleanings from the several Council meetings I sat through and it is also consistent with the account in Against All Odds which was approved prior to publication by the ICT Board, one member of which is also currently an ICT director should you want to take the opportunity to confirm anything with him.

 

In regards to the Trust, it is also an inescapable fact that one of the legal conditions for the Trust to be set up around 2001 was that it would be obliged to benefit all sports and not just football. Irrespective of its profit and loss situation, that was the way it was and it was well documented at the time. Distribution of any surplus was never specifically mentioned but I have always wondered how the Trust might be in a position to fulfil this part of its obigation.

 

I also note with some interest your more recent somewhat changed viewpoint on the Trust and allied matters even though, given the current security situation, it must be some time since you have been in a position to holiday in Damsacus :smile:

Edited by Charles Bannerman
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that there are no 'goings on' elsewhere. Ross County, like ourselves are prudently run and any expense they incurred in upgrading their stadium to join the SPL is solidly underwritten by their well heeled and benevolent chairman. Again, much like ourselves, they live within their means on a day to day basis. In my view, while their may be shortcomings in the local press and media, they are missing nothing in that respect.

Good point Kingsmills. Unfortunately on the face of it, they seem to have a bigger "football" budget than we have. I wish we had a "sugar daddy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I'd be that keen on a 'sugar daddy'. They can elevate clubs to an artificial level and when the plug is pulled...the club usually comes crashing down.

I can see Brora actually getting into the Scottish League - they have a useful side, but the Tokelys and Munros are getting older - their benefactor is going to have to keep funding replacements. It's risky to presume the finance will be continuous - Brora would drop like a stone if their financier stopped his cash input. I'd rather we lived within our means.

However, if I were to win the lottery, I'd certainly give the club a one-off payment. Likely 5%.

Incidentally, whatever became of the £250,000 cash injection from Kingsmills Mains?...were they called?

Edited by Sneckboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, whatever became of the £250,000 cash injection from Kingsmills Mains?...were they called?

I can possibly explain - at the risk of further complaints about undue local media interest in ICT's financial affairs from the club's media coordinator, whose earlier intervention now has me wondering if that was therefore an official statement of the club's viewpoint on this issue?

In other words, would it now be appropriate to run the headline "ICT SLAM CASH-OBSESSED LOCAL HACKS"?

 

The name of the consortium was actually Muirfield Mills and as I recollect the money, which was for the purchase of shares, was duly paid prior to May 31 2013 and hence appeared in the appropriate place in the 2012-13 accounts. In return, the Muirfield Mills consortium were also given a place on the ICT board for their representative who is Richard Smith. Any clarification of what, if any, role the Tulloch shareholding had in this process and what percentage of the voting rights Muirfield Mills now controls would be interesting.

So, having doubtless exceeded the degree of interest in ICT's financial affairs deemed appropriate for a local journalist, I will turn to the OP of this thread.

 

That states - Could it be that a multi-purpose stadium with a synthetic surface is being earmarked for the use of ICT plus others at Torvean - plus a shared indoor centre for training purposes ?

 

As far as I can see, that is simply kite flying since this highly speculative statement is neither made in any context, nor is it based on any direct information. As Alex also appears to have done, I can only assume that it is based on recent reports that a possible share for Inverness of a £20M pot of cash could lead to a multi purpose indoor facility and a synthetic all-weather surface. This could, reportedly, include training facilities which could be used by ICT along with facilities for many,many other sports clubs in the local area.. At no point has anyone mentioned the facility kite-flown in the OP which is light years away from what the Council has in mind and several points up the Richter Scale of costs.

The possibility of a replacement for Fort George as a training venue for ICT has apparently been formally raised though, so it would be relevant to discuss this.

Edited by Charles Bannerman
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't get is with all this road malarkey that frankly I don't care about, why did they not put parking spaces in? Stewards enquiry.

Also the marina is ridiculously placed, takes me ages to walk to a game from my yacht. Disgrace.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, must have really hit a nerve in order to get that reaction.

Is your objective to try and silence me and prevent me from commenting on what you say?...or do you have some other motive?

No, merely to achieve some clarification of the significance of statements about the local media made on a club-related website by someone who has official responsibility within the club for media matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wow, must have really hit a nerve in order to get that reaction.

Is your objective to try and silence me and prevent me from commenting on what you say?...or do you have some other motive?

No, merely to achieve some clarification of the significance of statements about the local media made on a club-related website by someone who has official responsibility within the club for media matters.

 

 

Seems to me to be not unreasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wow, must have really hit a nerve in order to get that reaction.

Is your objective to try and silence me and prevent me from commenting on what you say?...or do you have some other motive?

No, merely to achieve some clarification of the significance of statements about the local media made on a club-related website by someone who has official responsibility within the club for media matters.

 

 

My personal views expressed on here (should) have the same significance/baring on my position with ICT as your personal views have in regards to your position with those who contract you for your services.

 

I do find it a tad crass (and out of character) that you would use your position with the agencies who contract you for your services to try and somehow threaten or intimidate me....or anyone for that matter.

 

Every day is an education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

My personal views expressed on here (should) have the same significance/baring on my position with ICT as your personal views have in regards to your position with those who contract you for your services.

 

 

 

Apart from suggesting that you familiarise yourself in more detail with the principles of conflict of interest, I am not going to burden this thread any more with what has become a private difference of opinion similar to our earlier one about the ICT Trust and related matters which, since your Damascene conversion, you now seem to make it your life's mission to defend to the death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

My personal views expressed on here (should) have the same significance/baring on my position with ICT as your personal views have in regards to your position with those who contract you for your services.

 

 

 

Apart from suggesting that you familiarise yourself in more detail with the principles of conflict of interest, I am not going to burden this thread any more with what has become a private difference of opinion similar to our earlier one about the ICT Trust and related matters which, since your Damascene conversion, you now seem to make it your life's mission to defend to the death.

 

 

Perhaps wise given the unpleasantly personal tone your private argument seems to have developed which is, at the very least, flirting with site rules on both sides.  

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal views expressed on here (should) have the same significance/baring on my position with ICT as your personal views have in regards to your position with those who contract you for your services.

 

Apart from suggesting that you familiarise yourself in more detail with the principles of conflict of interest, I am not going to burden this thread any more with what has become a private difference of opinion similar to our earlier one about the ICT Trust and related matters which, since your Damascene conversion, you now seem to make it your life's mission to defend to the death.

Well said Charles. I didn't realise this guy had any "official" standing within the club but having already branded me a "spineless coward" I think maybe the club should be more selective in their appointments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frck me I throw in a wee enquiring feckin question and I reel in some biggies.

Three further questions:

I did pose the question from a speculative perspective. I wondered IF there could be a spin-off fer ICT. I still do and the responses so far only say to me that nobody actually knows - do they ?

Was CB as irritating a **** pre merger or has his fairy tale beliefs shoved him over the edge ?

What is the official title for a gopher / Rottweiler at the club ?

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy