Battery Project - Chairman's Statement

[wilsywilsy]

37 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

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

Hah, good one. Nah, not really. Nothing that was said last night was new to anyone who has followed the details with the exception of the £3.4M figure that captivated the audience.

It was interesting Morrison seemed to stop and quickly move on when asked to reveal who the buyers were - that could have turned into an uncomfortable moment given the rumours circulating the cities drinking establishments about who the buyers are.

Edited March 7 by wilsywilsy

[old caley girl]

4 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

Hah, good one. Nah, not really. Nothing that was said last night was new to anyone who has followed the details with the exception of the £3.4M figure that captivated the audience.

It was interesting Morrison seemed to stop and quickly move on when asked to reveal who the buyers were - that could have turned into an uncomfortable moment given the rumours circulating the cities drinking establishments about who the buyers are.

Oh do share lol

Edited March 7 by old caley girl

[Charles Bannerman]

1 hour ago, old caley girl said:

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 

Thank you for your observation, OCG, and also to Willsy. That was totally resolved after the meeting when I had a good chat with the Chairman. He’s clearly under a lot of pressure and perhaps my use of the term “sales pitch” in relation to the start of his statement wasn’t the best choice when I was just trying to suggest that there was no urgent need to “sell” the benefits of a battery farm to the people who were there. I was more concerned about finding out how much money was involved, what the implications for the club were if this is delayed or refused, what the club’s precise role is and what the mechanics of the whole project were.

I think we are now a fair bit further on in understanding what we had previously perceived to be “Caley Thistle’s battery farm worth a ‘seven figure sum’ to the club.”

[Stephen Malkmus]

Interesting that people are disputing the benefit to the Community Trust when there is currently a planning application in with the Council - in the ICT Community Development Department's name - for a £700k development at the IRA playing fields. Which certainly won't be followed through if the battery application doesn't get passed.

 

 

[wilsywilsy]

54 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Thank you for your observation, OCG, and also to Willsy. That was totally resolved after the meeting when I had a good chat with the Chairman. He’s clearly under a lot of pressure and perhaps my use of the term “sales pitch” in relation to the start of his statement wasn’t the best choice when I was just trying to suggest that there was no urgent need to “sell” the benefits of a battery farm to the people who were there. I was more concerned about finding out how much money was involved, what the implications for the club were if this is delayed or refused, what the club’s precise role is and what the mechanics of the whole project were.

I think we are now a fair bit further on in understanding what we had previously perceived to be “Caley Thistle’s battery farm worth a ‘seven figure sum’ to the club.”

It easy to think up questions on hindsight of course. But out of interest, did you manage to tease out any additional information on how the asset was valued, who valued it, or who the buyers are?

[+roarer]

5 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

It easy to think up questions on hindsight of course. But out of interest, did you manage to tease out any additional information on how the asset was valued, who valued it, or who the buyers are?

I thought you new, or was that just a tease?

[wilsywilsy]

39 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

Interesting that people are disputing the benefit to the Community Trust when there is currently a planning application in with the Council - in the ICT Community Development Department's name - for a £700k development at the IRA playing fields. Which certainly won't be followed through if the battery application doesn't get passed.

Independant of the club, the trust have done a brilliant job securing the long term lease plus funding and grants to take the project this far.

Feel free to pick the bones out of the fag packet financial figures I have posted previously which are broadly in sync with what Gardiner said last night. As of May 2022 the club were under water circa -£1.3M. Gardiner said the burn rate in the championship is £700K-£900K a season. So the accounts to May 2023 will likely show the club are roughly -£2M in the red. Project that through to May 2024 (-£2.7M) and May 2025 (-£3.4M) and I think it becomes a legitimate question: how much of this £3.4M being injected into the club will find its way to the trust?

 

Edited March 7 by wilsywilsy

[Stephen Malkmus]

2 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

Independant of the club, the trust have done a brilliant job securing the long term lease plus funding and grants to take the project this far.

Feel free to pick up on the financial figures I have posted previously which are broadly in sync with what Gardiner said last night. As of May 2022 the club were under water circa -£1.3M. Gardiner said the burn rate in the championship is £700K-£900K a season. So the accounts to May 2023 will likely show they are roughly -£2M in the red. Project that through to May 2024 (-£2.7M) and May 2024 (-£3.4M) and I think it becomes a legitimate question: how much of this £3.4M being injected into the club will find its way to the trust?

 

The IRA application is not independent of the club as it is being made in the Community Development Department's name (not in the name of the Trust).

As the club state in the material for the battery application, the Trust will be a direct beneficiary of the funding the battery farm will deliver, in terms of having use of the new Hub, not through having money paid directly to it. In that sense it's not a benefit in terms of direct funding but a benefit in terms of having a facility to use. This is still a valid community benefit in planning policy terms.

In terms of the club's finances, the club doesn't have to wipe all of its debt before it invests in new facilities. Investing in new facilities can ultimately ensure the club climbs out of debt by providing the basis for developing sustainable new income streams.

 

[wilsywilsy]

29 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

The IRA application is not independent of the club as it is being made in the Community Development Department's name (not in the name of the Trust).

All of the media coverage,  the trusts own website, and the planning application make it sound like its the trusts project managed by Craig Masterson. Happy to be corrected if you want to highlight where this outlines its not the trusts.

29 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

In terms of the club's finances, the club doesn't have to wipe all of its debt before it invests in new facilities. Investing in new facilities can ultimately ensure the club climbs out of debt by providing the basis for developing sustainable new income streams.

Yeah. Indeed. That is possible - speculate to accumulate and all that jazz. But the chairman has said twice now that the debt will be cleared. So I think it seems reasonable to surmise that the debt is a priority. And if it is, then my question is legitimate.

Edited March 7 by wilsywilsy

[Stephen Malkmus]

15 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

All of the media coverage,  the trusts own website, and the planning application make it sound like its the trusts project managed by Craig Masterson. Happy to be corrected if you want to highlight where this outlines its not the trusts.

Yeah. Indeed. That is possible - speculate to accumulate and all that jazz. But the chairman has said twice now that the debt will be cleared. So I think it seems reasonable to surmise that the debt is a priority. And if it is, then my question is legitimate.

The application form lists the company/organisation applying as being the club rather than the trust. 

 

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Are you sure that it wasn't just being CB that put people off

[wilsywilsy]

22 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

The application form lists the company/organisation applying as being the club rather than the trust.

Hmm could be short form of Inverness Caledonian Thistle Football Club, Inverness Caledonian Thistle Community Development.

The BESS submission has submitted different versions of the application forms and documents naming all of ILI Group, Fairways Battery Storage Limited, and Inverness Caledonian Thistle Football Club as the applicant company. I wouldn't place too much value in that form.

[Satan]

1 hour ago, wilsywilsy said:

It easy to think up questions on hindsight of course. But out of interest, did you manage to tease out any additional information on how the asset was valued, who valued it, or who the buyers are?

Can you not just get that info down your local boozer?

[Jack Waddington]

4 hours ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

Interesting that people are disputing the benefit to the Community Trust when there is currently a planning application in with the Council - in the ICT Community Development Department's name - for a £700k development at the IRA playing fields. Which certainly won't be followed through if the battery application doesn't get passed.

Thats going ahead with or without the battery farm. All on the back of an SFA/SportScotland Grant(s), with further input from the Highland Council (surprising, I know).

[STFU]

3 hours ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

The IRA application is not independent of the club as it is being made in the Community Development Department's name (not in the name of the Trust).

ICT Community Development ARE the Trust, and not two separate entities.

Scroll to the bottom of the trust website - https://www.icttrust.org.uk/ - and click on Articles of Association, for confirmation.

Then you can come back again with a new story on how this is all working in your head.

[caley1]

7 hours ago, wilsywilsy said:

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. 

When Caley and Thistle were going through  the merger big numbers like this 3.4 million were repeatedly mentioned to woo the fans to get what they required . Funny how these promises fade once the chairman gets what’s needed . Sack S.G and that annually will save a hell of a lot of money.Funny how the club can continuously pay huge wages to someone that has been nothing but a disaster for the club. Or am I missing something ? Surely if you’re running on losses you look at where you can save money . So what does the club benefit having this CEO ?  

[tm4tj]

Chairmans response to meeting

Basically: thanks, will tell you more tomorrow...

 

[IBM]

38 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

Thats going ahead with or without the battery farm. All on the back of an SFA/SportScotland Grant(s), with further input from the Highland Council (surprising, I know).

I think the SFA/Sport Scotland grant was to provide drainage and not for the whole project but might be wrong.

[Stephen Malkmus]

22 minutes ago, STFU said:

ICT Community Development ARE the Trust, and not two separate entities.

Scroll to the bottom of the trust website - https://www.icttrust.org.uk/ - and click on Articles of Association, for confirmation.

Then you can come back again with a new story on how this is all working in your head.

Which one did the 2015 Cup Final flag belong to?

The only relevant matter is whether the Trust/Community Dept. will be benefiting from the battery application if it is approved. The Council accepted that they would be in their officer's report and at the last committee meeting. It seems unusual to me that some people here are desperate for them not to even have the chance of benefiting. Also, how do the Trust and its functions benefit if the club goes part time as a result of missing out on this investment?

Edited March 7 by Stephen Malkmus

[Charles Bannerman]

4 hours ago, wilsywilsy said:

It easy to think up questions on hindsight of course. But out of interest, did you manage to tease out any additional information on how the asset was valued, who valued it, or who the buyers are?

I don’t believe that valuation emerged as an issue at all.

[STFU]

Speaking to someone who was at the meeting and they said Scot Gardiner was claiming that Firesticks were part of the reason the club are in such a dire financial position.  That true?

[wilsywilsy]

35 minutes ago, STFU said:

Speaking to someone who was at the meeting and they said Scot Gardiner was claiming that Firesticks were part of the reason the club are in such a dire financial position.  That true?

It was indeed one of the reasons he cited. Jeff Bezos is balls deep in councillor Oldhams vendetta against ICT. 

[wilsywilsy]

3 hours ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

Also, how do the Trust and its functions benefit if the club goes part time as a result of missing out on this investment?

For all intents and purposes, this is the same question as the one you have a shown blind spot on i.e. “how does the trust benefit if the club debts and operating losses swallow up all the money from the project?”

[Robert]

I’m no expert on this, but surely if the club ceases to exist the ICT Community Trust ceases to exist in its current form, as it is linked to a club and therefore loses the funding that comes to Trusts linked to SPFL clubs.

Therefore, if my understanding is right, the future of Community Trust projects is intrinsically linked to the future of the club.

[wilsywilsy]

38 minutes ago, Robert said:

I’m no expert on this, but surely if the club ceases to exist the ICT Community Trust ceases to exist in its current form, as it is linked to a club and therefore loses the funding that comes to Trusts linked to SPFL clubs.

Therefore, if my understanding is right, the future of Community Trust projects is intrinsically linked to the future of the club.

It’s a bit extreme to be talking about the club not existing and taking the trust down with it.

In the likely worst case, the club declares itself insolvent and goes into administration. Take the points deduction hit, restructures the debt (pennies in pound), come out of admin. The trust is an independent corporate identity and takes nothing financially from the club so wouldn’t be impacted. 

Worst, worst case the creditors don’t agree a deal and the only route out of admin is liquidation and we are in Sevco territory. Gardiner will be slavering over these comparisons. 

Edited March 7 by wilsywilsy