Battery Project - Chairman's Statement

[caley1]

59 minutes ago, STFU said:

ICTFC is NOT a community organisation, they undertake zero community activity and despite their claims in the most recent rant, they have almost zero fan engagement.  They can't even organise a kids Christmas party.

ICT Community Trust is a seperate, self funded, self staffed and independently operated organisation.  It is they who do the community work the club are taking credit for.

Likewise with the ICT Women.

Given how the club has operated the last few years, it clear that they have taken way more from the community than they have given, and until we know the figures we can't know how much, if anything, might find it's way to good causes.  We're only taking the word of people who have shown time and again that their word is worthless.

It baffles me that people think that football clubs should be allowed to just hoover up and **** away money as they please.  Any other business wouldn't last 2 minutes if they operated in this manner.

The council planning committee aren't doing much for their image, but given the circumstances I think it's right that this goes to full council.  Full council should also be kicking the ass of the planning dept.

It should never have gone to a vote once they realised only 5 were eligible to do so and should have been redirected to full council at that stage.  The meeting may have been quorate, but 5 people should never have been considered representative.

It's as if the planning committee and club are having a competition to see who is the least competent.

Exactly .The land is green open space which Inverness is vastly running out of . Messrs Cameron and Sutherland knew when buying this land the restrictions of which the land had . But no they think they are bigger and better than anyone else and can do as they please .Not seeing them donating it to the community for parks , walks etc .  Putting a battery project near hundreds of houses and schools is Insane . if our chairman and CEO did a fraction of work in promoting our club instead of trying to do a quick fix . Like I have said many times SG is so unpopular in our football community that it’s near impossible to gain much support by public and businesses alike . Are the rest of the board blind into what’s going on . We are an Inverness club representing the Highlands not bloody Tayside or Glasgow 

[IBM]

5 hours ago, wilsywilsy said:

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).

 

You have to give the councillors a bit of slack for not turning up as there was a bit of snow on the ground. 

Edited February 14 by IBM

[Stephen Malkmus]

1 hour ago, STFU said:

Planning policy is also that you don't build on green space, and you certainly don't put industrial use on green spaces.

No it isn't. There are numerous examples across the UK in the past two years of battery storage developments being permitted on green belt land as decision makers have realised that the threat of climate change is more important than an arbitrary green belt/open space designation.

[Satan]

57 minutes ago, STFU said:

I think you may have misread my post because your response makes no sense to me.

Nothing I said in the post you initially replied to had anything remotely to do with or mentions the CEO.

I was pointing out that they (chair & vice) might not have raised the issue of irregularities if the vote had gone their way, and they wouldn't have had to bring up the 'quorate' at all, or seek advice on how to involve the full council to reverse the decision that they didn't vote for.

It plainly reads they regard their voting position was the correct one,despite the outcome although they stated that they accepted the decision and moved on.

Really?

 

[wilsywilsy]

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". 

[ymip]

ICTFC is NOT a community organisation, they undertake zero community activity and despite their claims in the most recent rant, they have almost zero fan engagement.  They can't even organise a kids Christmas party.
I said we were a "community supported organisation", as in which other organisation in Inverness generates the numbers through the door? Which other organisation has generated the level of publicity for the city and visitor spin offs?  There were rather a lot of Hibs fans in town last week spending money in bars, restaurants, hotels, etc.  Not sure any other organisation in the city can say the same. 

ICT Community Trust is a seperate, self funded, self staffed and independently operated organisation.  It is they who do the community work the club are taking credit for. 
As per almost every other professional club in Scotland. It's done to facilitate funding which we wouldn't be able to access under the auspices of the club, as I'm sure you're well aware.  To say it's wholly separate/unrelated entity from ICTFC entity is disingenuous in the extreme. 

Likewise with the ICT Women.

Given how the club has operated the last few years, it clear that they have taken way more from the community than they have given, and until we know the figures we can't know how much, if anything, might find it's way to good causes.  We're only taking the word of people who have shown time and again that their word is worthless.
What exactly has the club taken? We were forced into a merger by the INE and have done nothing but raise the profile of the city ever since. 

It baffles me that people think that football clubs should be allowed to just hoover up and **** away money as they please.  Any other business wouldn't last 2 minutes if they operated in this manner.
Access road aside, how exactly have we hoovered up public money, please enlighten me. 

The council planning committee aren't doing much for their image, but given the circumstances I think it's right that this goes to full council.  Full council should also be kicking the ass of the planning dept.
As someone who has clearly fallen out of love with the club your views on this seem extremely jaundiced. To be crystal clear I'm no fan of the CEO or the general stewardship of the club in recent years but it's my club, I travel all over the country following the team and I would prefer that we don't end up part-time or out of business. I'd rather we didn't have to rely on a Battery Farm planning approval to keep us afloat but if that's what it takes then so be it.  Reading your posts it would seem that your game plan is to stand over the corpse of the club telling us you told us it'll all end in tears. This seems a decidedly odd stance to adopt for someone who claims to be a fan of the club - different strokes for different folks, I guess. The shortcomings of the current custodians of the club are evident to all but the happiest of happy clappers. Personally I'll hold my nose and swallow the battery farm medicine until such time as a credible alternative materialises. 

My comments on the green belt subsist, to use this as grounds for rejection in Inverness, a city which has allowed rampant development on the green belt for the benefit of a small number of wealthy individuals and private companies, with almost zero community benefit, is frankly laughable.

It should never have gone to a vote once they realised only 5 were eligible to do so and should have been redirected to full council at that stage.  The meeting may have been quorate, but 5 people should never have been considered representative.
If the Council can't get their act together to muster then that's their problem. Quorate is quorate, move on.

It's as if the planning committee and club are having a competition to see who is the least competent.
Not going to argue with you there.

 

[+DoofersDad]

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.

 

[caley100]

6 hours ago, STFU said:

Then maybe the smart decision would have been for the club to have gone for a housing development instead of battery storage.

No no no...   All they need to do (ICT) is build a wee play park near the battery storage facility - sorted!

[wilsywilsy]

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.

Edited February 14 by wilsywilsy

[Jack Waddington]

Got a word in from Big Dunc, the coonsil better watch out now!

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/this-absolutely-stinks-caley-thistles-slams-highland-co-342390/

[Robert]

One thing to note, regardless of anyones view of the Battery Park or the Board / CEO, is that the club is required to submit its accounts by the end of February.

With the planning decision now delayed until March, the club may not get the necessary sign offs from their Auditors given the Battery Park is by no means certain.

That threatens the very future of the club, as administration (or worse) become real possibilities.

 

[bdu98196]

13 minutes ago, Robert said:

That threatens the very future of the club, as administration (or worse) become real possibilities.

 

None of which is unique to just this regime though, as the club has systematically over the years failed to develop a sustainable model and create alternate revenue streams.

[Stephen Malkmus]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/inverness-caledonian-fc-baffled-by-councils-extra-time-on-battery-plan-vr86k0tjm

[Yngwie]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

One thing to note, regardless of anyones view of the Battery Park or the Board / CEO, is that the club is required to submit its accounts by the end of February.

With the planning decision now delayed until March, the club may not get the necessary sign offs from their Auditors given the Battery Park is by no means certain.

That threatens the very future of the club, as administration (or worse) become real possibilities.

 

Good reminder about the accounts filing deadline, but I don’t see that in itself as a problem. One option would be to delay signing the accounts until the matter is resolved, which leads to a very small penalty from Companies House. The other is that the accounts disclose the need for additional funding which is what we did last year, possibly worsening to the extent that the auditors have to state that there is fundamental uncertainty as to whether the club can continue as a going concern.

The accounts aspect of this isn’t ideal but it’s the least of our worries!

[old caley girl]

1 hour ago, bdu98196 said:

None of which is unique to just this regime though, as the club has systematically over the years failed to develop a sustainable model and create alternate revenue streams.

Agree. Big high risk projects whilst forgetting their core business which is football 

[Charles Bannerman]

There will doubtless be a few other old buffers on here who will remember the ghastly, clusterboorach that the Council got itself into on a previous occasion when it was involved in a decision that had existential implications for Caley Thistle - namely the £900K grant towards the stadium road in 1995-96.

There’s no need to detail the Town Hall obstructiveness,, QCs’ opinions, scandalous rearguard action by Council officials and nitpicking about Dave Stewart’s use of the word “payable” in a motion to the Council that eventually saw IDC go out of existence under an ignominious cloud before the money was paid from the Common Good Fund… but it was desperate stuff.

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.

But what really worries me is that if we thought that the Council back in the 90s was bad…. the current local governance of Inverness is a whole lot worse. History is making me very uneasy about this one.

 

[wilsywilsy]

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.

Edited February 16 by wilsywilsy

[Charles Bannerman]

4 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

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.

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.

[wilsywilsy]

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).

Edited February 16 by wilsywilsy

[caley1]

16 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

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).

Club are also forgetting thousands of people and of which I am sure loads are fans of the club , live around the area earmarked and do not want this near themselves or their children and schools alike . It’s funny how our chairman ( who funnily does not live in Inverness ) is making such a loud noise when he wants to . When you’re looking for a football voice of him or his CEO they go back in to their shell . I was beginning to think he couldn’t speak or didn’t understand our highland twang. Run the club in a football manner like it used to be . Stop paying excessive wages to Gardiner would be a start . Jobs for boys becoming tiresome and wasting so much money no wonder the club is in a mess . It’s been run by amateurs . 

[Jack Waddington]

2 hours 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.

Unfortunately, in a situation like this, tough tits.

The club have every right to be pissed off at the current situation. They did everything the Council had asked to bring the project up to scratch, and it got approved, sealing a future for the club for however many years/decades to come.

But now, because the council haven't done their job properly, the club's back creeping towards deaths door.

It's like if you won EuroMillions and when you go to cash it in, they start babbling incoherently about how you didn't win because the machine that was giving out the numbers started playing up. You're not joing to stand there and say "oh, okay then" and periodically check in and say "hey guys, hows it coming along then?", you'd be kicking up an absolute storm demanding your winnings and readying up for a legal battle against them.

Have to remember it's not just football thats at stake here, it's people's jobs, before and after school activities for kids, leisure for seniors and this, that and the other that the Council are ready to send down the Ganges then sit on their hands when people start complaining.

[Robert]

6 hours ago, Yngwie said:

Good reminder about the accounts filing deadline, but I don’t see that in itself as a problem. One option would be to delay signing the accounts until the matter is resolved, which leads to a very small penalty from Companies House. The other is that the accounts disclose the need for additional funding which is what we did last year, possibly worsening to the extent that the auditors have to state that there is fundamental uncertainty as to whether the club can continue as a going concern.

The accounts aspect of this isn’t ideal but it’s the least of our worries!

I’m no expert in this, but does our club licensing not also have SFA requirements to meet about the timely filing of financial statements, and that they show the club to be a going concern?

Last year’s accounts were only approved by the Auditors due to the potential revenue from the Battery Park. That is now at risk and the Auditors may not feel able to provide the necessary sign off to the accounts: that was my concern when I highlighted the risk of administration or something worse.

The Chairman made it clear at the Fans’ Meeting that the Board members were not going to continue to plough money in and, indeed, the two recent payments made to the club, including one from the Chairman, came with protection to the lenders.

Events over the next few weeks will determine if we have a future, and how positive any future can look.

Getting back to on pitch maters, to make matters worse, with Dunfermline hosting Arbroath tomorrow, there is every chance that we will find ourselves second bottom after tomorrow’s game. 

[RiG]

On 2/16/2024 at 4:28 PM, Jack Waddington said:

Unfortunately, in a situation like this, tough tits.

The club have every right to be pissed off at the current situation. They did everything the Council had asked to bring the project up to scratch, and it got approved, sealing a future for the club for however many years/decades to come. 

They didn't really though. They submitted a shoddy application to begin with and didn't address all the points of concern (loss of green space) when handing in the extra info. That said, it's still a bizarre situation and Highland Council still come across as pretty inept. 

[bdu98196]

TBF, if the application was 'shoddy' is that really fully at the door of the club, you surely blame the experts ILI given their involvement having provided consultants and support. Sounds like another cheap dig at the board based on bias rather than facts.

Additionally let's not overlook this application was approved was so clearly those with the decision making powers thought more of it than some online experts.

 

 

[STFU]

1 hour ago, bdu98196 said:

TBF, if the application was 'shoddy' is that really fully at the door of the club, you surely blame the experts ILI given their involvement having provided consultants and support. Sounds like another cheap dig at the board based on bias rather than facts.

Additionally let's not overlook this application was approved was so clearly those with the decision making powers thought more of it than some online experts.

Isn't it amazing how the club always have someone or something between themselves and accountability when things go teets up?