Battery Project - Chairman's Statement

[bdu98196]

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?

[CELTIC1CALEY3]

45 minutes 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?

One point of view. Another is that Highland Council is once again complaining about budget pressures and service cuts. From a cost benefit point of view the battery farm is a win for the Council and definitely for the club. 

[wilsywilsy]

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.

Edited February 21 by wilsywilsy

[wilsywilsy]

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.

Edited February 21 by wilsywilsy

[Charles Bannerman]

Thank you for these responses and any others would be welcome in an attempt to clarify exactly what is going on here. I am more than prepared to be corrected on this, but it is, however, beginning to look likely that this is far from “Caley Thistle’s battery farm” and more like the club being used as a vehicle for ILI to gain access to suburban site for an industrial installation. Whether there is also an element of using the club’s position as a prominent local sporting entity as a lever to realise this objective is perhaps also worth considering.

As an ITandC shareholder (very minor!), I’m a bit disappointed that more clarity has not been provided to those who actually own the club. When the BF was mentioned at the last AGM, it didn’t appear to be at an advanced enough stage for detail to be sought, and in any case everyone was still smarting from the demise of the Concert Company. The BF issue will certainly need to be pursued at the next AGM although, remembering that the date of the last one breached the requirements of the company’s Articles of Association by several months, it’s not clear when that might take place.

One further observation - for how long would the “seven figure sum” or whatever other benefit is expected here keep the ever present financial wolf from the door, given that there may be loans to pay off (?) and also the fundamentally large loss making football operation?

Edited February 21 by Charles Bannerman

[Robert]

Again, all I can do is to refer to what the Chairman said at the Fans’ Meeting.

He said the funding would allow investment in facilities at the ground which would secure future income streams. One is the Home Car Park, allowing it to be used as a car park for staff involved in the Red John construction project. I think he also mentioned the Sports Bar, but I can’t be certain on that.

He also made it clear that, without this sum (and we don’t know how much the “seven figure sum” is) the club will be unable to continue with all its current activities, indicating that it would affect the Trust, Academy, Women’s Team etc.

That’s my recollection of what he said, but others in attendance may be able to add more detail or things I have missed. 

[buckett]

3 hours ago, Robert said:

One is the Home Car Park, allowing it to be used as a car park for staff involved in the Red John construction project.

 

Even that seems a bit vague. Surely there are more convenient areas to park between the Stadium and the project?

[Robert]

I understand it is a planning condition for Red John that there is no parking at the site to minimise traffic on the road to the scheme, so construction workers get bussed in, and it’s been agreed with the club that the car park can be used, presumably (my assumption) on condition that the surface is improved. This then gives the club an income stream.

The intention is that there will be more fans’ meetings arranged by the Supporters Trust so anyone with questions will be welcome to come along and put them direct to representatives of the club. 

[CmonTheCaley]

Does anyone know when the councils re-vote for if the project goes ahead?

[Robert]

The next meeting of the full Council is on 14 March so that is the earliest it can be considered.

[Yngwie]

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.

[Robert]

1 hour 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.

74 from a Google search.

Given that only 5 out of 15 members of the Planning Committee could vote, primarily as the other 10 had not been at the Committee meeting that deferred the decision or had not been at the site visit, how are other Councillors now qualified to determine the case when they’ve had no involvement in the discussions and not visited the site?

Presumably that increases the chances of an appeal being successful if one is needed.

 

[STFU]

Or it gets passed back to planning with instructions that the rest attend a site visit before another vote.  Kicking the decision further down the road.

[Robert]

48 minutes ago, STFU said:

Or it gets passed back to planning with instructions that the rest attend a site visit before another vote.  Kicking the decision further down the road.

If that happens, it may well reduce the sum the club receives. The Chairman said that the figure had reduced because the planning application was not approved on the original date, causing a deadline in the deal to be missed, and the market for Battery Parks is seemingly not as strong as it was when the deal was struck.

D-day is hopefully three weeks today. 

[wilsywilsy]

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.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Willsy + CB + return to CTO + Macaroni = concern + possible CEO conflict. Feel slightly sorry for peeps who no a lot more but unable to share. This is undoubtedly the worst and most serious case of communication breakdown with the fan base. I really fear for the existence of the club and the only short term solution appears to be the Battery Project succeeding and the guilt parties taking their spoils and leaving others to pick up the broken pieces. I will always be pro- Dunc but I also fear that his appointment was a smokescreen and was subsidised by those looking for personal gain. And what can we feckin do other than wait. 

[STFU]

Alan Savage waiting in the wings to buy the club for a quid.

[Robert]

1 hour ago, STFU said:

Alan Savage waiting in the wings to buy the club for a quid.

Anything’s possible!

Edited February 22 by Robert

[Stephen Malkmus]

If anyone wants to write in support of the application you can register and do it on the Council's website here. Ignore what it says about S36/S37 applications. 

https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=RPE69PIHFYJ00

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

12 hours ago, STFU said:

Alan Savage waiting in the wings to buy the club for a quid.

It's written in the stars

[CELTIC1CALEY3]

I would imagine this is the source of the opposition:

14.Notices of Amendment (Planning) Should a Member of a Planning Applications Committee wish to have a decision on a planning matter re-considered by the full Council, they must submit (to the Head of Legal and Governance) a Notice of Amendment (Planning) not more than 3 working days after (but excluding) the date of the Committee meeting at which the resolution or decision was passed and no later than 5pm on the final day. For the avoidance of doubt, individual emails and/or individual written signatures will be accepted from Members who wish to submit and/or support Notices of Amendment (Planning). ~ 9 ~ Notices of Amendment (Planning) must be in writing, signed by 19 Members of the Council (including at least one third of the membership of the relevant Planning Application Committee) and will be submitted to the next scheduled meeting of the full Council.

[Jack Waddington]

20 hours ago, STFU said:

Or it gets passed back to planning with instructions that the rest attend a site visit before another vote.  Kicking the decision further down the road.

That probably won't happen. If it gets rejected in the next round, then thats the door effectively shut, but the club are geared up for a legal battle and quite possibly a ScotGov intervention appeal.

So if they stand their ground with the toys out of the pram, then there's still a glimmer of hope from a higher power

[+DoofersDad]

On 2/16/2024 at 10:04 AM, 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!

The Accounts for the year end to 31st May 2023 are due on Thursday.  It will be interesting to see if they are delivered on time and to see what they say.  

The accounts for 2021 were a full 3 months late, but those for 2022 were submitted on the due date.  It is maybe pertinent to remind ourselves that the club changed accountants in the intervening period, and it is certainly pertinent to remind ourselves on what was said in the accounts to justify the "going concern" status.

They stated that "The Company remains reliant on player trading, new funding streams and the continued financial support backing of its directors, shareholders and supporters".  So how much funding will these various streams provide?

One thing we have been very poor at recently is player trading.  There seems to have been nothing of note since we got a bit of cash for Daniel MacKay.  

The new funding streams are elsewhere listed in the accounts as being the Loch Ness Hydro Pump Project (i.e. payment for providing temporary car parking facilities), the battery project (uncertainties identified elsewhere in this thread) and the new Green Freeport (which they state in the accounts has "huge potential for the development of our site", but which the Chairman recently told us he is struggling to see how the club can get any benefit from.)

As for financial backers, the directors are now providing money to the club on a formal loan basis as detailed on the Registration of Charge documents submitted to Companies House on 11th Jan this year.  This strongly suggests that the level of financial input from the current directors is likely to be less in the future than it has been in the past.

A further factor, which I had previously missed, is the Notice of Termination of Ian MacDonald as Company Secretary and which was submitted to Companies House the day before the Registration of Charge documents were submitted.  There has been nothing submitted to say a replacement has been appointed.  Ian joined the Board of Directors way back in 1997 and was on the Board till 2004 when he took on the role of Company Secretary.  Maybe I have missed something, but there appears to have been no statement from the club about him giving up his role after over 25 years service to the club.  Surely, notice of this low key departure being submitted to Companies House on the day before the Registration of Charge documents were submitted is no coincidence.

The club got an easy time from shareholders at the AGM last April.  This year's AGM might be a bit more challenging for them.

 

[Yngwie]

51 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

A further factor, which I had previously missed, is the Notice of Termination of Ian MacDonald as Company Secretary and which was submitted to Companies House the day before the Registration of Charge documents were submitted.  There has been nothing submitted to say a replacement has been appointed.  Ian joined the Board of Directors way back in 1997 and was on the Board till 2004 when he took on the role of Company Secretary.  Maybe I have missed something, but there appears to have been no statement from the club about him giving up his role after over 25 years service to the club.  Surely, notice of this low key departure being submitted to Companies House on the day before the Registration of Charge documents were submitted is no coincidence.

His actual date of departure as stated on the form was 10 months ago so it wouldn’t be related to the charge. No replacement needed as companies no longer need to have a company secretary.  The club still should have filed the form promptly at the time though. 

[+DoofersDad]

2 hours ago, Yngwie said:

His actual date of departure as stated on the form was 10 months ago so it wouldn’t be related to the charge. No replacement needed as companies no longer need to have a company secretary.  The club still should have filed the form promptly at the time though. 

Thanks.  That would suggest he stood down at last years AGM.  I guess it hadn't been filed promptly because the Club no longer has a company secretary!  

OK, so clearly not related to the loans issue but it does seem bad that someone who has been a key person at the club for so long departs with apparently no statement from the club.  Interestingly, he is still listed as Company Secretary on the club website.