Battery Project - Chairman's Statement

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Jhesus another feckin smokescreen to divert us from actual football. They will also just tell us what they want us to know. Yet another publicity stunt.

[Yngwie]

14 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

Frankly, I rather doubt that anything I might say to any councillor is going to make them change their mind now. 

All fans can really do there is make councillors aware that if they vote to overturn the decision and give our club a very bleak future, it will be remembered by ICT fans at the next council elections. Councillors are there to represent their communities and at the moment the main voices heard by councillors are from a few disgruntled residents.

[STFU]

24 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

All fans can really do there is make councillors aware that if they vote to overturn the decision and give our club a very bleak future, it will be remembered by ICT fans at the next council elections. Councillors are there to represent their communities and at the moment the main voices heard by councillors are from a few disgruntled residents.

Shame the fans didn't have the same power to remove club directors who's decisions are leaving the club with a very bleak future.

[Jack Waddington]

29 minutes ago, STFU said:

Shame the fans didn't have the same power to remove club directors who's decisions are leaving the club with a very bleak future.

Well, we can, but it involves the final day of the season and an unmentionable action that could lead to a banning order, and not stopping until change happens

[STFU]

10 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

Well, we can, but it involves the final day of the season and an unmentionable action that could lead to a banning order, and not stopping until change happens

You've missed the part where I said "the same power".

I'm not suggesting for a moment that anyone should be breaking the law...and it's probably not wise for you to be doing so publicly either.

[wilsywilsy]

1 hour ago, Yngwie said:

Councillors are there to represent their communities and at the moment the main voices heard by councillors are from a few disgruntled residents.

Does that also include the community where this controversial proposal is planned, who had raised legitimate unanswered questions about it, and had zero councillors representing their ward at the last vote? 

 

[wilsywilsy]

Deary me. Are these club pressers written by Morrison or Gardiner after a couple of shandies? Yokel bumpkin chat. 

[Yngwie]

42 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

Does that also include the community where this controversial proposal is planned, who had raised legitimate unanswered questions about it, and had zero councillors representing their ward at the last vote? 

 

Of course it does. 

Genuinely interested to know if you will be going along to hear the club’s perspective on all this - or do you not want to hear it?!

[Robert]

I’m away on Wednesday so won’t be able to attend. Had there been more notice of the meeting, I’d have been able to rearrange commitments to attend.

I hope some sensible, searching questions are asked (and answered) relating to the club’s financial position, the delaying of the accounts, what actions will be taken if planning is rejected, what the future looks like etc etc.

The club has rightly been criticised for poor communication with fans, so I hope this is a genuine desire to be open and honest, not just in the presentation but in answering questions, even difficult questions that they may not like.

There have been positive signs from the Chairman and Scott Young attending the Fans’ Meetings organised by the Supporters Trust, and I hope this meeting is a sign that the club (belatedly) recognises the need for positive fan engagement.

I look forward to seeing what feedback is provided by those who do attend.

[dougiedanger]

2 hours ago, wilsywilsy said:

Deary me. Are these club pressers written by Morrison or Gardiner after a couple of shandies? Yokel bumpkin chat. 

It's just amateurish waffle peppered with passive-aggressive threats you might expect from a disgruntled fans' group, where the spokesman is the only one with the O Grade in English.

[robbylad]

I wonder if this is in reaction to a "Change.org" petition doing the rounds. 

[+DoofersDad]

16 hours ago, Yngwie said:

All fans can really do there is make councillors aware that if they vote to overturn the decision and give our club a very bleak future, it will be remembered by ICT fans at the next council elections. Councillors are there to represent their communities and at the moment the main voices heard by councillors are from a few disgruntled residents.

Much as I want our football club to thrive, there are rather more important issues impacting on people's day to day lives which will influence how I vote in the next Council elections.

Edited March 4 by DoofersDad

[+Gringo]

The late notice of the meeting suggests to me that they don't really want anyone to go. 

[wilsywilsy]

12 hours ago, Yngwie said:

Of course it does. 

Genuinely interested to know if you will be going along to hear the club’s perspective on all this - or do you not want to hear it?!

I will be all ears.

[highlandexile]

 following the bewildering behaviour of certain Highland Councillors in seeking to overturn a democratically lawful decision to award the club with planning permission for the ICT Battery Farm, I feel we must enlighten our fans re just what has been going on in relation to this most crucial matter and I will answer all and any questions relating to the Battery Farm 

 

I’m finding the above statement from the club very uncomfortable as a supporter of the club.  Its seems that anyone who does not support the battery farm somehow does not support the future of the club.

Its also a bit of a contradiction that, the club are objecting to the overturn of a democratically lawful decision, even though the council are more than lawfully entitled to call this decision in to the full council.  But the chairman made it clear that if the planning decision went against them they could raise a challenge with the Scottish Government!

This all feels like a publicity stunt to bully the councillors to vote in favour of a planning application that many do not feel comfortable with.

It’s also disappointing that the club are finally engaging with supporters but only taking questions relating to the battery farm.  When really most of us are wanting answers as to how we got to this situation and would question the running of the club in general.  The current board really do not seem to have any other plans if the battery farm fails.

Without the accounts being made public, its hard to see how bad things really are financially but rumours are the club could have made up to a million pounds in losses.  When you compare this to other clubs like Ayr and Morton who have both managed to make small profits despite having a similar support to us, what is going so badly wrong with us?

So many questions, but I feel this meeting will be nothing but Highland Council bad and its all their fault if the club fails!

[RiG]

Presumably the meeting has been arranged to try and get fans onside and distract from the ludicrous position that we are in where a battery energy storage scheme is critical to the future of the football club.

[+DoofersDad]

The Courier's daily briefing today has a section about the meeting.  Below the intro piece is an invitation to "read more here".  When you click on that, you get "Sorry, the article you have requested is no longer available".  This article presumably contains a bit more than the basic statement which they published yesterday and which is still available on the Courier site.  It may mean nothing, it may be a technical glitch or there may have been a reason why they pulled the article.  Just seems a bit strange though.

[wilsywilsy]

I agree with the developing view in the other posts - the haste at which this has been organised seems quite unusual. This is not the sign of an organisation operating a smooth and well thought out fan engagement process. It does not require a huge leap of imagination to suspect this is all reactive and/or a tad desperate ahead of next weeks vote.

It is possibly risky too. If fans start twisting the agenda to other important matters i.e. the lack of financial reports and AGMs, or the companies house shenanigans with last minute year end date changes, or why there are still so many expensive non-playing employees on the payroll, they could be in for a tough and revealing night.

Edited March 4 by wilsywilsy

[Jack Waddington]

6 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

they could be in for a tough and revealing night

Well that or calling the meeting short/hoofing people out for bringing up alternative issues.

[RiG]

1 hour ago, DoofersDad said:

The Courier's daily briefing today has a section about the meeting.  Below the intro piece is an invitation to "read more here".  When you click on that, you get "Sorry, the article you have requested is no longer available".  This article presumably contains a bit more than the basic statement which they published yesterday and which is still available on the Courier site.  It may mean nothing, it may be a technical glitch or there may have been a reason why they pulled the article.  Just seems a bit strange though.

I'd be surprised. The Courier and P & J largely regurgitate the same information already available in the public domain then have the cheek to stick it behind a paywall. 

Edited March 4 by RiG

[wilsywilsy]

57 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

Well that or calling the meeting short/hoofing people out for bringing up alternative issues.

Indeed - straight out of the dictators playbook. If the intention of, and rhetoric during, the meeting is to rally support due to the alleged existential financial threat failure of this project carries, then I would say that any questions relating to this peril are fair game. It is described as an "open" Q&A after all and this situation is ripe for going all in with a "3 whys" grilling.

Edited March 4 by wilsywilsy

[Robert]

I wonder if any media will be in attendance? They were represented at the most recent Fans’ Meeting.

[Row S]

Unfortunately, I can't attend as making my biennial pilgrimage to Rome this week. Nevertheless, I'd rather the Club Directors focused on the Planning merits of the proposal.

In the officials' report to the last South Planning Applications Committee, their remaining objection issue was the loss of locally important open space, now an abandoned golf course taken over by dog walkers. Then look at the abandoned holes of the old Torvean course, owned by the Highland Council and also taken over by dog walkers. The Council has earmarked that locally important open space for development, mostly for housing and possibly a primary school. Double standards or what? Highland Rugby Club were promised additional pitches on that land but the Council reneged. Worth raising but can we trust the Council to support a development that benefits another important City sports club?

Edited March 4 by Row S

[wilsywilsy]

9 hours ago, Row S said:

Unfortunately, I can't attend as making my biennial pilgrimage to Rome this week. Nevertheless, I'd rather the Club Directors focused on the Planning merits of the proposal.

In the officials' report to the last South Planning Applications Committee, their remaining objection issue was the loss of locally important open space, now an abandoned golf course taken over by dog walkers. Then look at the abandoned holes of the old Torvean course, owned by the Highland Council and also taken over by dog walkers. The Council has earmarked that locally important open space for development, mostly for housing and possibly a primary school. Double standards or what? Highland Rugby Club were promised additional pitches on that land but the Council reneged. Worth raising but can we trust the Council to support a development that benefits another important City sports club?

I'm not sure exactly which bit of ground you are referring to at Torvean? I presume its the bit that used to be holes 10-14 of the old course? If so, it is indeed outlined and approved in the long term development plan (IMFLDP) for sympathetic mixed developments.

In the same IMFLDP they outlined the green corridor that includes Fairways as protected open green space. The IMFLDP took years of consultation and was approved by the entire council. For the BESS planning application at Fairways, the planners have just pointed at the approved development plan and said: "sorry, this isn't land open to development". I'm not sure where you see the double standards in that?

As part of the West link road development, the Highland rugby club lost one of four pitches but got an impressive new club house and an all weather pitch to compensate. Andy Little said the club were delighted with the outcome of the redevelopment - I am not aware of them expecting any more from the council.

 

Edited March 5 by wilsywilsy

[Row S]

You're quite a planning guru wilseywilsey. I was merely pointing out that the Council was quite happy to allocate a large chunk of its own abandoned golf course area (yes, holes 10 to 14 at Torvean) for development in its own IMFLDP but not allocate any of the privately owned former Fairways/Castle Heather 18 hole course for development in the same LDP. That to me is double standards. Of course there are no potential NIMBYs overlooking the Torvean land which is why it probably sailed through the consultation process un-noticed. 

In the preparation of the 2013 Ness-side and Torvean Development Brief, the Rugby Club was heavily involved in the consultation process. At the time a large area was shown for further sports pitches on that part of the Torvean golf course, partly to compensate for the loss of land at Canal Park and partly to help rugby and football facilities (the Academy at Charleston) expand in future. That all changed in the 2019 update of the Development Brief after the rugby facilities were redeveloped at Canal Park and the West Link road was completed. Thereafter the new IMFLDP merely endorsed that.        

Edited March 5 by Row S