Battery Project - Chairman's Statement

[bdu98196]

On 3/3/2024 at 8:20 PM, Robert said:

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.

Try contact the club directly, there could be a platform for online participation?

[highlandexile]

25 minutes ago, bdu98196 said:

Try contact the club directly, there could be a platform for online participation?

I've sent an email to the SLO asking about the possibility of a live stream.  Will see what the response is.

[wilsywilsy]

2 hours ago, Row S said:

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.    

I see - gotcha. In the defence of the council in this instance, they did first re-home the entire existing use-case for that land up to the new Kings course. Sutherland and Cameron bought Fairways in 2019 and closed the 18 hole golf course. Via proxy, they are now trying to shoe horn a BESS onto that land. Maybe they should have proposed building the BESS on the old Torvean golf course instead.

[Yngwie]

Regarding the meeting the club are holding tomorrow, I’m struggling to think of any reason why they would hold a session like this if they thought the project was going to get the green light.

[old caley girl]

3 hours ago, bdu98196 said:

Try contact the club directly, there could be a platform for online participation?

Think folk already have and radio silence so far 

[STFU]

What's the points penalty for administration these days?

[wilsywilsy]

4 hours ago, old caley girl said:

Think folk already have and radio silence so far 

I am still surprised they are risking hosting this at all. Never mind making it accessible live on the internet for the worlds voyeurs to peer in.

Edited March 5 by wilsywilsy

[old caley girl]

57 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

I am still surprised they are risking hosting this at all. Never mind making it accessible live on the internet for the worlds voyeurs to peer in.

I think it could turn into mayhem? Seems very risky 

[Charles Bannerman]

43 minutes ago, old caley girl said:

I think it could turn into mayhem? Seems very risky 

So should they have given the Rose Street Hall a stay of execution to host this meeting, OCG? Could have saved a lot of demolition costs.

[old caley girl]

56 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

So should they have given the Rose Street Hall a stay of execution to host this meeting, OCG? Could have saved a lot of demolition costs.

Never thought we'd be in a position like those meetings ever again Charles tbh 

[Charles Bannerman]

1 hour ago, old caley girl said:

Never thought we'd be in a position like those meetings ever again Charles tbh 

I’m not “in and around” nearly as much as I used to be in years gone by, but I seem to be detecting a degree of unhappiness and anger about the club’s current status. It’s not the same kind of issue as in 1993/94, but are you suggesting that levels of discontent are in that ballpark?

Edited March 6 by Charles Bannerman

[+DoofersDad]

10 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I’m not “in and around” nearly as much as I used to be in years gone by, but I seem to be detecting a degree of unhappiness and anger about the club’s current status. It’s not the same kind of issue as in 1993/94, but are you suggesting that levels of discontent are in that ballpark?

It's very different from 93/4, but there can be little doubt that confidence in the current regime at the club is low and is getting lower.  Whether that lack of confidence morphs into general anger will depend on how the club responds to the outcome of the Council's deliberations - whatever the result.

I'm not going to the meeting tonight.  I simply don't see the point.  Like Yngwie, I am struggling to see why they would hold a meeting if they expected the full Council to approve the scheme.  And if they don't expect it to be approved, then how is the meeting going to change anything?  

By "enlightening" us on the issues, does the Chairman then expect us to lobby councillors in our droves in a last desperate bid to change their minds?  If so, then it would have been far more sensible to have done so by emailing shareholders and ST holders and putting relevant detail on social media, in order to facilitate the lobbying.  Had this been done at the point of notifying us of the meeting, any lobbying could be in full swing by now.

The reasons for refusing the application are now known to the very specific.  Presumably the club and its business partners have, in turn, developed very specific responses to those reasons and these will be detailed tonight.  But why wait?  Why hasn't this been communicated before?

To me, this sounds more like a PR exercise designed to "enlighten" us about how hard the Board and the CEO have been working to secure the future of the club and how it will not be their fault if the project is not approved and we lurch into a major financial crisis.  It sounds like a desperate attempt to keep the supporters onside with the management of the club.  My concern is that it is more likely to have the opposite effect and will also antagonise the Council even more than they have already done.

I hope I'm wrong.

[STFU]

I agree that the expected narrative will very much be one of how it's everyone elses fault, and zero accountability from the club.

Wouldn't surprise me if they also try to ramp up the heat with talks of bankruptcy and points deductions, with strong undertones of "if you're not for us, you're against us".

Any refusal to answer questions on how we have ended up in this position will only antagonise disgruntled fans even further.

Like DoofersDad, I'm not really sure there's anything in the invite to suggest the meeting will provide any meaningful enlightenment, and may do more harm than good.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

I suspect that the original thinking behind this meeting has backfired and they have put themselves right in front of the dissenting headlights. The difference between 93/94 is that everybody wanted to be involved in those meetings whereas today very few see any point in going.

[caley1]

Wonder what the next failed plan will be from Scot Gardiner ? Soon  be looking at plan C then plan D as we already have had plan A and more likely Plan B nonsense . Trying to involve fans to save your bacon is laughable . Tonight is going to be very interesting 

Standing room only tonight if Scot Gardiner was organising the seats . Couldn’t organise a **** up in a brewery let alone a concert .

[Yngwie]

Anyone got a match report from tonight? Were ICT’s tactics defensive or attack minded? Any own goals or red cards?

[Jack Waddington]

2 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

Anyone got a match report from tonight? Were ICT’s tactics defensive or attack minded? Any own goals or red cards?

Basics from what I've heard is that if it fails next week then it goes to an appeal cos what the council did wasn't entirely legal apparently

[lightlamp2]

15 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

Anyone got a match report from tonight? Were ICT’s tactics defensive or attack minded? Any own goals or red cards?

Was a good meeting. Wasn't as bombastic or titanic as others on the forum were saying. Nobody asked any questions really about other matters. I'll just bullet point a few things

 

If it gets approved we get approximately £3.4 Million lump sum.

If it doesn't the club have already hired KC's to take it legal. Which they believe the Scottish Government will approve as they have stated in their national planning framework that battery storage is looked upon favourably.

There was a sense of bewilderment as to why we are where we are with the council. Namely one Cllr Oldham who has pulled out this very rarely used protocol as he didn't get the result he wanted.

The accounts were delayed because of the battery farm delay. As £3.4M will obviously change it significantly.

Possibility of going part time if this all fails. Significant cash flow problem. As one example. We lost money for the Broomhill SC game as they took 2 fans. But we split the gate. 

[Yngwie]

10 minutes ago, lightlamp2 said:

If it gets approved we get approximately £3.4 Million lump sum.

Yeah but the board shouldn’t be pursuing this and should be focusing instead on traditional football matters and cutting the wage bill further. Wait what, £3.4m?!  

[Jack Waddington]

2 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

Yeah but the board shouldn’t be pursuing this and should be focusing instead on traditional football matters and cutting the wage bill further. Wait what, £3.4m?!  

Approximately how many Ryan Christies is that?

[Howdenender]

Further to the above:

Each season in the Championship incurs a loss anywhere between £650,000 and £900,000.

Season ticket money covers the first two months of the season only.

Someone asked if rumour that we only had 3 months money in reserve were true. Chairman laughed and said he wished it was true!

if council refuse permission at meeting on 14th, club are very confident that Scottish government will overturn that decision. Trouble is that will take 3-6 months, and we will have serious cash flow issues.

[RednBlackComeback]

£3.4m sounds big, but, at current losses, that will only sustain the club for the next 4 seasons. What happens thereafter?

[wilsywilsy]

46 minutes ago, lightlamp2 said:

If it gets approved we get approximately £3.4 Million lump sum.

I was surprised no one followed through on this. The planning application was all about the trust getting the cash, to spin the "community" benefits of the project. But they basically said tonight: "the club get first dibs on the £3.4M to pay of debt and they will use the remainder to make the club sustainable i.e. the car parks". this again confirmed what was said at the start of Feb - there is no long term cash flow from this for anyone, including the trust. If they are losing £650K-£900K a year in the championship, then if there is no promotion in 2 years, they are back to square one.

46 minutes ago, lightlamp2 said:

There was a sense of bewilderment as to why we are where we are with the council. Namely one Cllr Oldham who has pulled out this very rarely used protocol as he didn't get the result he wanted.

Very rarely used, but still used occassionally (confirmed by a councillor after the meeting). Bizarre seeing David Stewart of all people riffing on this myth implyingh there is some ICT vendetta here (politician and fibbing ehh). For example from a few months back: https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/breaking-council-orders-work-on-academy-street-plans-to-be-324788/.

 

 

Edited March 6 by wilsywilsy

[Robert]

I wasn’t there tonight as I’m away for a few days and couldn’t change plans at short notice but, based on the comments from the club Chairman at the last Supporters Trust Meeting, they have plans to use the income to secure future income streams. The main example given was sorting the North Car Park, which will then be used by the workers during the construction of the Red John hydro facility, along with improvements to the Sports Bar.

[Charles Bannerman]

I have to say that I feel a good deal more positive about the whole business, now that some vital information is in the public domain following tonight’s meeting. The absolute game changer is that the sum involved is £3.4M or, as the Chairman put it “seven Ryan Christies”. However that figure could in part be a little vulnerable, especially if planning is delayed. And we were also told that there’s going to be some kind of “Caley Thistle Battery Farm Company” that will sell interests to concerns on the industry and these deals. The club has a 40 year lease on the land, which appears to be owned by Messrs Cameron and Sutherland. There was a lot of stuff making the point about how beneficial battery farms are and how low planning risk this is. I’m not sure what value that approach is so late in the day but I gather that everyone on the club’s mailing list will be getting an email with Councillors’ addresses for lobbying purposes.

As far as I can see, the situation is that if it goes through in the 14th, then the £3.4M is pretty well in the bag. And if it doesn’t, all is not necessarily lost because there’s optimism that an appeal to the Scottish Government would be successful, but at some cost. Specifically, that could take 6-9 months, a perhaps modest slice of the £3.4M might be lost, there would be significant cash flow challenges and the accounts, which have been delayed until the end of May, would be expected to show a less favourable “going concern” status from the auditor.

However I also note that, with echoes of the £900K of 1995/96, KCs now seem to be mobilised so I suppose disappearance into the legal morass can’t be discounted. I did venture to suggest that if the Council tie themselves in knots… they could always pay the £3.4M from the Commob Good Fund.

Edited March 6 by Charles Bannerman