Battery Project - Chairman's Statement

[Yngwie]

8 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

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/.

The example you give of Academy Street is one where there is a huge amount of public interest, being one of the main streets of the highland capital.
5% of a former golf course on the outskirts isn’t really of the same strategic importance to the council, is it?

[Howdenender]

Chairman said that ultimate aim is to make the club self sustaining. Stressed that club now owns all the ground surrounding the stadium and intend to use some of the money as “seed capital” to take planned projects forward , which would generate income on an ongoing basis.

[Yngwie]

13 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

I was surprised no one followed through on this. The planning application was all about the trust getting the cash

Was it? Haven’t read it in full but I thought it said the project would allow investment in such community things rather than saying all of the cash would go there.

[wilsywilsy]

8 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

The example you give of Academy Street is one where there is a huge amount of public interest, being one of the main streets of the highland capital.
5% of a former golf course on the outskirts isn’t really of the same strategic importance to the council, is it?

It has been well discussed on here that this project is at least a bit controversial. The tight 3/2 vote underlines that. But that’s irrelevant. My point is that Ross Morrison, David Stewart, and others were making false claims tonight. Honest mistake or deliberate malfeasance? Make your own mind up. 

[wilsywilsy]

7 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

Was it? Haven’t read it in full but I thought it said the project would allow investment in such community things rather than saying all of the cash would go there.

Yes. They said: “A significant proportion of the financial benefits accrued from the development will be managed through the ICTFC Community Development Trust. "

This is in the same planning document where they stated categorically that the club owned the land (they admitted tonight they do not). 

More honest mistakes I am sure. 

 

[Yngwie]

3 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

Yes. They said: “A significant proportion of the financial benefits accrued from the development will be managed through the ICTFC Community Development Trust. "

No, as you have quoted they said a proportion of the benefits would go there. Not all of it. Not even the majority of it. They used a deliberately vague term rather than specifying a number.

[IBM]

1 hour ago, lightlamp2 said:

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. 

Thanks for the feedback lightlamp2,

That's a shocking example using the Broomhill game as one example, what did they expect?  If we had played either of the old firm away there would be no complaints as Buckie Thistle made a lot from their game against Celtic did. 

I am sure that the Buckie Thistle board will use their money more wisely than our club has done.  On saying that I hope it works out for our club of we are fecked! 

[Yngwie]

8 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:This is in the same planning document where they stated categorically that the club owned the land (they admitted tonight they do not).

I don’t know what they said in the document or tonight, but the beneficial rights to and control over land can come in the form of full ownership, a lease, or another contractual arrangement so is it possible that you are making inconsequential technicalities that have no impact on the merits of the case?

[wilsywilsy]

Just now, Yngwie said:

No, as you have quoted they said a proportion of the benefits would go there. Not all of it. Not even the majority of it. They used a deliberately vague term rather than specifying a number.

Deliberately vague and couched in language aimed at clearly giving the impression that the community trust will benefit quite directly and in a significant and non-trivial way. The reality outlined tonight is that the trust is at the mercy of the club, its debt, operating losses, and the car park investments. 

How about the other claim in the planning docs:

“As a community owned project, the development will directly contribute to the local Highland economy over its life"

Ok. Now we know it’s to be sold immediately - this claim is also misleading.

[Yngwie]

4 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

Deliberately vague and couched in language aimed at clearly giving the impression that the community trust will benefit quite directly and in a significant and non-trivial way.

And all the indications are that they will, even if the actual amount is at the club’s discretion.

[Yngwie]

7 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

How about the other claim in the planning docs:

“As a community owned project, the development will directly contribute to the local Highland economy over its life"

Ok. Now we know it’s to be sold immediately - this claim is also misleading.

I can apply for planning permission for an extension to my house with the intention of selling it at a profit. I don’t need to disclose that in the application and I’m not being misleading. In the case of this project, the highland economy will still benefit from the project over its life, both from the facility itself and from the club and its offshoots spending the proceeds. It’s all just well written in a way to talk up the benefits, what else would you expect an applicant to do?

[wilsywilsy]

2 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

I can apply for planning permission for an extension to my house with the intention of selling it at a profit. I don’t need to disclose that in the application and I’m not being misleading. In the case of this project, the highland economy will still benefit from the project over its life, both from the facility itself and from the club and its offshoots spending the proceeds. It’s all just well written in a way to talk up the benefits, what else would you expect an applicant to do?

Your planning application wouldn’t be packed full of rhetoric that implies much of the financial benefits from your garage will provide a significant uplift for a local charity.

[wilsywilsy]

14 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

And all the indications are that they will, even if the actual amount is at the club’s discretion.

If the club are already >£2M under water as estimated, and they have at least one more season in the championship, that’s nearly £3M torched  before May 2025. That doesn’t leave much wiggle room for investments and trust donations. 

[old caley girl]

1 hour ago, RednBlackComeback said:

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

Wasn't asked but a,good question. 

[Yngwie]

4 minutes ago, old caley girl said:

Wasn't asked but a,good question. 

It is, but worrying about where the money will come from in 4 years time compared to worrying about how we will pay the wages and suppliers this month?! 
I guess the idea is that we get 4 more attempts at getting back to the only league where we are viable as a full time club, and in the absence of a major new investment in that time, we then have to cut costs accordingly.

[Jack Waddington]

2 hours ago, Howdenender said:

Chairman said that ultimate aim is to make the club self sustaining. Stressed that club now owns all the ground surrounding the stadium and intend to use some of the money as “seed capital” to take planned projects forward , which would generate income on an ongoing basis.

If thats the case, whats the craic with the plot to let next door to the ground, between the North Car Park and the bridge? Or is that outside of what we're in control of?

[Row S]

5 hours ago, Jack Waddington said:

If thats the case, whats the craic with the plot to let next door to the ground, between the North Car Park and the bridge? Or is that outside of what we're in control of?

I think that might still belong to David Sutherland. 

[RiG]

Surely an appeal to the DPEA doesn't really need input from a KC?  

[bdu98196]

8 hours ago, old caley girl said:

Wasn't asked but a,good question. 

Lots of criticism, sniping and still conjecture posted here on the matter yet seems when the opportunity presented some stayed silent.

[Ronaldo]

Can we open a vape shop at the battery farm? 

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Fer fecks Don - put a review of the Airdrie game on pronto. Imho it is as crucial to remain in the Championship this season. Why the feck did I choose to follow ICT and Everton. At least the Battery Farm in Albert Dock is almost finished.

 

[wilsywilsy]

11 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

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.

The opening presentation set the tone as expected. Big pitch on the upsides of BESS, dismissed all concerns with some odd and weak examples, made the council the villains and implied there is a vendetta behind why this has faced some resistance. I was surprised at how personal they made that. The club want to stick with this tactic, stay on the attack, and have everyone pepper councillors mailboxes.

The early drop of the £3.4M number certainly wooed the crowd. From then on, I thought the room was surprisingly partisan. Case in point being the boo'ing and heckling of the councillor which was embarrasing. 

[Yngwie]

Was there anything that changed your mind or will you still be voting against it next week?

[old caley girl]

2 hours ago, bdu98196 said:

Lots of criticism, sniping and still conjecture posted here on the matter yet seems when the opportunity presented some stayed silent.

I think the chairman's slightly aggressive response to Charles Banbermans question probably put people off? 

Tbh I think folk were respectful and were listening carefully and taking everything in? I think there may be further questions when/if meeting goes against us next week? Mainly how do they get accounts passed whilst we wait on result of ScotGov appeal and how will club be funded to keep going until then? 

Decent turnout and probably would have been more if more notice 

[wilsywilsy]

3 minutes ago, old caley girl said:

I think the chairman's slightly aggressive response to Charles Banbermans question probably put people off?

Yeah, indeed - I suspect so. It was a softball question too and it didn't deserve the confrontational response it got from Morrison.