News
    There is no UNITY without COMM-UNITY : Please sign the petition at change.org CLICK HERE ///---///\\\---\\\ JOIN the Supporters Trust : We need Supporter #TogetherNESS more than ever and to speak with one voice. Join the Trust today CLICK HERE ///---///\\\---\\\
Jump to content

Battery Project - Chairman's Statement


DoofersDad

Recommended Posts

There is no cost for the appeal and if the case is as robust as the club claim, then they won't need much, if any, additional professional input.

Instigating legal action against the council is a whole different matter.

  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, STFU said:

There is no cost for the appeal and if the case is as robust as the club claim, then they won't need much, if any, additional professional input.

Instigating legal action against the council is a whole different matter.

Ok fair enough I’m quite happy to be corrected. 
So if we won the appeal how much of the reported 3.4 million we receive installing the battteries goes to pay off debt?

Dougal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dougal said:

Ok fair enough I’m quite happy to be corrected. 
So if we won the appeal how much of the reported 3.4 million we receive installing the battteries goes to pay off debt?

Dougal

Based on profitability from our CEO and Chairman's previous ventures, we'll probably add a million to the debt.

  • Agree 1
  • Thank You 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, STFU said:

Based on profitability from our CEO and Chairman's previous ventures, we'll probably add a million to the debt.

Quite frightening how things are going 

Dougal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, STFU said:

They don't need a legal case for appeal, it is their right to do.  Just as it was the Highland Council's right to call the decision in to full committee.

The 'side case' of taking legal action for corruption (which seems to be the jist of Gardiner's allegations) may actually delay any appeal if Scottish Government don't want to get involved while that's going on.

On the other hand, if the applicants can identify a strong legal case then the Scottish Government may feel that granting the appeal quickly would prevent an embarrassing court case.  Either way, the shenanigans at the council will give the applicants options about the next steps.  

Of course, we need to bear in mind, that whilst getting the planning permission is vital to the finances of the club, they are not the only players with an interest here.  ILI and whatever company it is who would actually build and operate the BESS will have a big say in the next steps.  Obviously it is all just speculation on our behalf and we have no idea of the detail of what the details of the contractual arrangements are between the interested parties.

I should add here that I have maybe been a little unfair in my earlier criticism of the club with regard to the weaknesses in the application.  ILI and the prospective operator are the experts in this area and are the ones who should have the experience to get it right and to anticipate likely barriers to approval.  But given the risk to the club of the project not going ahead, the club clearly has a responsibility to make sure the application is watertight and they have failed in that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

You do realise that, whatever you think of his abilities, getting rid of our Chairman any time soon would equate to switching off our life support machine?!

 

But he appears to be a big part of the reason why we are on a life support machine in the first place.

  • Agree 1
  • Well Said 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Yngwie said:

You do realise that, whatever you think of his abilities, getting rid of our Chairman any time soon would equate to switching off our life support machine?!

 

He put us on that life support machine in the first place. Things were going relatively swimmingly under Kenny Cam

 

Nothing changes the fact that without him the club dies instantly, unless another rich fool can be found first.

 

23 hours ago, Jack Waddington said:

He put us on that life support machine in the first place. Things were going relatively swimmingly under Kenny Cam

Cameron was the one who was responsible for the start of our financial troubles.  Allowed Hughes to sign up players on contracts we couldn't afford and them appointed Foran on a 4 year contract.

 

23 hours ago, Jack Waddington said:

He put us on that life support machine in the first place. Things were going relatively swimmingly under Kenny Cam

Bollocks, have you forgotten Mr Rae?

 

23 hours ago, Yngwie said:

Nothing changes the fact that without him the club dies instantly, unless another rich fool can be found first.

That, sadly, is probably the grim reality.  This is a time when all who want a rosy future for the club need to bury their differences and try to find a way out of the mess.  From a fans' perspective we need the Supporters Trust to be as strong and representative as possible.  A strong fans voice at Board level needs to be part of the solution.

 

23 hours ago, Satan said:

Bollocks, have you forgotten Mr Rae?

Tbf my knowledge of chairmen kinda evaporates in the times before KC. The nostalgia of when we were good kinda just blanks out all the uh ohs

 

23 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

Cameron was the one who was responsible for the start of our financial troubles.  Allowed Hughes to sign up players on contracts we couldn't afford and them appointed Foran on a 4 year contract.

If he’d allowed Yogi to speak to United in the first place I don’t think we’d be in this situation. 

 

Graham Rae came in after relegation (there were a few short term appointments) and was there for two years, his regime brought Gardiner in, and Ross Morrison was vice chair.

 

Ross Morrison isn't the money man that some seem to think he is.  It's David Cameron and Alan Munro (with one non board member) who have been carrying the bulk of the financial burden the last few years.  Getting rid would have zero financial implications for the club.

 

23 hours ago, Yngwie said:

Nothing changes the fact that without him the club dies instantly, unless another rich fool can be found first.

Well FOOLS we certainly seem to find easily !

 

20 hours ago, STFU said:

Ross Morrison isn't the money man that some seem to think he is.  It's David Cameron and Alan Munro (with one non board member) who have been carrying the bulk of the financial burden the last few years.  Getting rid would have zero financial implications for the club.

That’s interesting. But Morrison must have been putting significant money in recently because he’s been granted security over the clubs assets until he gets repaid, no?

 

19 hours ago, Yngwie said:

That’s interesting. But Morrison must have been putting significant money in recently because he’s been granted security over the clubs assets until he gets repaid, no?

No, it could mean that he's put in money he can't afford, or is unwilling to lose, unlike others.

We're getting a little off topic for this thread, sorry, but it got me thinking and we could actually end up in a situation where the club is forced into administration before the planning appeal is heard, Ross Morrison gets control of the battery storage company through the charge, Scottish Government overturn the refusal, and he pockets the £3.4 million.

If anyone is looking for a conspiracy, and if my understanding of the charge is correct, then Ross Morrison could be seen as having a vested interest in the club going into administration.

 

19 hours ago, Yngwie said:

That’s interesting. But Morrison must have been putting significant money in recently because he’s been granted security over the clubs assets until he gets repaid, no?

In earlier years, Tulloch put £5 million into the club and then Muirfield Mills contributed almost £1 million. More recently there’s been more cash put in by various people in an ongoing battle against administration. Some of this has been by share purchase, which is traceable through Companies House, and we suspect that there’s also been a fair bit of cash loaned by people both within and outwith the board. We have a fair idea of who they may be, but how much is less clear. For them, this is a bit like a game of Pontoon. Stick or twist? Hope it doesn’t go bust so you lose everything you have put in … unless you have preferred creditor status. The question is - for how long can this go on, with constant heavy losses covered by benefactors on a hand to mouth basis?

Meanwhile, over the bridge, it’s not that different, except that it’s easier to identify Ross County’s benefactor, and the amounts are rather greater. Over the last 8 years, Ross County has had £9.6 million in loans from its parent company written off. That’s an average of £1.2 million a year. But how much longer can that also go on?

(EDIT - I’ve just noticed that this is actually a match day thread.. not the battery farm one. Apologies, but I’m just following the flow!)

Edited by tm4tj
All these posts taken from Matchday thread as they are more relevant to Battery Project and the fallout from that.
  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
  • Disagree 1
  • Well Said 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Leaky Blinder said:

Clearly Dens Park is not a designated green belt zone I wonder if Scot Gardiner ever touted a battery farm there

It would probably sink into the deep mud that was clearly afflicting the penalty spot there yesterday morning.😩

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Reality said:

battery-storage-press-release-v2.docxAnother perspective on the battery storage proposal

Another perspective:

"The WHO conservatively projects 250,000 additional yearly deaths by the 2030s due to climate change impacts"

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health

This image shows the number of BESS faciilities granted planning permission in the UK in the last five years. One event in Liverpool several years ago, where no one was harmed, is not an adequate basis for forming a judgment on the safety of these facilities. Nor is the list in the Word document which generally relates to very small scale incidents in countries where the facilities are less regulated than in the UK.

image.thumb.png.1106a785b85efaf9487dc9f184a5b29f.png

Edited by Stephen Malkmus
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

Another perspective:

"The WHO conservatively projects 250,000 additional yearly deaths by the 2030s due to climate change impacts"

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health

This image shows the number of BESS faciilities granted planning permission in the UK in the last five years. One event in Liverpool several years ago, where no one was harmed, is not an adequate basis for forming a judgment on the safety of these facilities. Nor is the list in the Word document which generally relates to very small scale incidents in countries where the facilities are less regulated than in the UK.

image.thumb.png.1106a785b85efaf9487dc9f184a5b29f.png

Assuming it's actually fully used (the national grid skip rates for batteries have been grim) and remains optimal (batteries generally don't), the ICT bahh’rhee farm will allegedly save 20,000 tonnes of CO2 a year.


At its very best it will save 0.006% of the UKs emission. That is about 0.00005% of global emissions. We just need to build 2 million of these to save the world. The green wet dream.


Interesting link in the doc above to that EPRI wiki of BESS failures. Looks like there has been more than a few issues. First page shows a fire at a BESS in Australia a few months ago which was using Tesla batteries that Morrison said was planned for this site.


The UK HSE considers the monster batteries in BESS as the same as a lithium battery you might put in your TV remote, which is hilarious. How bad must the regulations be in the countries you say are "less regulated than the UK"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

Assuming it's actually fully used (the national grid skip rates for batteries have been grim) and remains optimal (batteries generally don't), the ICT bahh’rhee farm will allegedly save 20,000 tonnes of CO2 a year.

At its very best it will save 0.006% of the UKs emission. That is about 0.00005% of global emissions. We just need to build 2 million of these to save the world. The green wet dream.


Interesting link in the doc above to that EPRI wiki of BESS failures. Looks like there has been more than a few issues. First page shows a fire at a BESS in Australia a few months ago which was using Tesla batteries that Morrison said was planned for this site.


The UK HSE considers the monster batteries in BESS as the same as a lithium battery you might put in your TV remote, which is hilarious. How bad must the regulations be in the countries you say are "less regulated than the UK"?

Of course one BESS on its own will make a minimal contribution to addressing climate change. The problem is that for almost every one of these applications a coterie of NIMBYs propagate the same scaremongering arguments which need to be challenged, otherwise none of these facilities would ever be built and we'd make even slower progress towards addressing climate change than we currently are.

On the safety point: fire services in the UK attend 22,000 house fires in an average year. Should we stop building houses? Obviously not, because the societal benefit outweighs the negligible risk. Even for the Melbourne BESS you cite, which is an extremely rare incident, nobody was injured, as was the case at the only recorded BESS fire in the UK in Liverpool. 

  • Agree 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

On the safety point: fire services in the UK attend 22,000 house fires in an average year. Should we stop building houses? Obviously not, because the societal benefit outweighs the negligible risk. Even for the Melbourne BESS you cite, which is an extremely rare incident, nobody was injured, as was the case at the only recorded BESS fire in the UK in Liverpool. 

To be fair to the NIMBYs, building houses is a weak comparison to use - houses aren't packed to the rafters with explosive chemical compounds (well, mine isn't..... although I dunno what my youngest keeps under that bed of his).

Edited by wilsywilsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/17/2024 at 8:11 AM, DoofersDad said:

I should add here that I have maybe been a little unfair in my earlier criticism of the club with regard to the weaknesses in the application.  ILI and the prospective operator are the experts in this area and are the ones who should have the experience to get it right and to anticipate likely barriers to approval.  But given the risk to the club of the project not going ahead, the club clearly has a responsibility to make sure the application is watertight and they have failed in that.

Absolutely. IMHO they were recklessly casual about it going into the council meeting last year (was it November?) with 4 open statutory objections unaddressed. This was at the some time as they were mewling in the media about how a planning rejection would be an existential threat to the club. If it was a sh1t or bust situation, there is no way you would do that  (unless you were an entitled arrogant idiot).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

To be fair to the NIMBYs, building houses is a weak comparison to use - houses aren't packed to the rafters with explosive chemical compounds (well, mine isn't..... although I dunno what my youngest keeps under that bed of his).

The only relevant comparison is that living in a house is statistically more dangerous than living close to a battery farm.

Totally agree that ILI's application was clearly done on the cheap, however.

Edited by Stephen Malkmus
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wilsywilsy said:

To be fair to the NIMBYs, building houses is a weak comparison to use - houses aren't packed to the rafters with explosive chemical compounds

Mains gas though? And don’t get me started on cars and lorries, mobile bombs laden with explosive fuel! And then we have chemical factories, oil refineries, nuclear power plants and so on, which all obtained planning permission. Risk is everywhere you look.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

The only relevant comparison is that living in a house is statistically more dangerous than living close to a battery farm.

Totally agree that ILI's application was clearly done on the cheap, however.

This is false equivelance. Is that statistically plausible when there's probably more houses in Dingwall (apparently they have some) than there are BESS installations around the world?

  • Well Said 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

Mains gas though? And don’t get me started on cars and lorries, mobile bombs laden with explosive fuel! And then we have chemical factories, oil refineries, nuclear power plants and so on, which all obtained planning permission. Risk is everywhere you look.

Of course it is. But it doesn't mean its wrong, or surprising, when a bunch of folk stand up and say "here, I don't really like this new risk..... so what are you going to do about mitigating it?"

"chemical factories, oil refineries, nuclear power plants" don't get planning permission on protected green space in the middle of houses (well the ones that haven't burnt down due to all the statistical fire risks).

Edited by wilsywilsy
  • Well Said 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

This is false equivelance. Is that statistically plausible when there's probably more houses in Dingwall (apparently they have some) than there are BESS installations around the world?

There are zero recorded instances of local residents in the vicinity of a BESS facility being injured by the facility catching fire or exploding.

Even accounting for the massive number of houses relative to BESS facilities, it's still riskier to simply live in a house.

Edited by Stephen Malkmus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

There are zero recorded instances of local residents in the vicinity of a BESS facility being injured by the facility catching fire or exploding.

Even accounting for the massive number of houses relative to BESS facilities, it's still riskier to simply live in a house.

This is sample bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wilsywilsy said:

This is sample bias.

The most relevant bias being displayed here is cognitive bias from people who understand that climate change is happening, but believe that an absolutely miniscule risk to themselves is worth scuppering this project over. 

The largest recorded wildfire in UK history occurred 26 miles west of Inverness just last year. That's a fire that we should be concerned about.

Edited by Stephen Malkmus
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wilsywilsy said:

This is false equivelance. Is that statistically plausible when there's probably more houses in Dingwall (apparently they have some) than there are BESS installations around the world?

You may not have realised that sadly a man died in a house fire in Dingwall last month. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy