Battery Project - Chairman's Statement

[STFU]

22 minutes ago, Satan said:

If it had gone the other way,  would the chair and his vice who voted against it have raised the issue as being barely quorate. Which is irrelevant anyway, it either is or it isn't, no barely about it.

They've clearly been upset and after some 'advice' on how to get their results have rustled up some signatures.

That's a total non point, and just noise on the part of the CEO.

Why would they appeal something they agreed with?  Would it make sense to ask why the club didn't appeal the decision when it went in their favour?

[+Hiro]

Highland Council covering themselves in glory yet again. If I understand it correctly certain people were asked to recuse themselves due to potentially having a conflict of interest (e.g. having been to a match in the home end). The council are now calling it in due to not enough inverness people voting.  Pretty shambolic and bordering on shady.

Regardless, I'm utterly fed up of our chairman and CEO and these projects.  I wish they would just concentrate on the nuts and bolts of running a football club rather than than these expensive and time consuming schemes.  The concert company was a fiasco and this is potentially heading the same way.

[Yngwie]

4 minutes ago, Hiro said:

Regardless, I'm utterly fed up of our chairman and CEO and these projects.  I wish they would just concentrate on the nuts and bolts of running a football club rather than than these expensive and time consuming schemes. 

The reason for pursuing additional sources of income is so that we actually have a full-time, competitive club for them to run. 

[robbylad]

4 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

The reason for pursuing additional sources of income is so that we actually have a full-time, competitive club for them to run. 

They had a full-time,  competitive club to run. That's going well eh?

[Jack Waddington]

If I had a quid for every time the coonsil's made a right arse of themselves, I'd have Sheikh Mansour'd this club into the Champions League...

[Yngwie]

3 minutes ago, robbylad said:

They had a full-time,  competitive club to run. That's going well eh?

We got relegated. That wasn’t their fault.

[STFU]

Pursuing other sources of income is fine, it's this thing with whoring out the clubs name and reputation to the highest bidder and greedy projects that's unacceptable.

They could have rented the stadium to an experienced concert operator and taken a nice wee rental income every year.  Instead they go all Johnny Big Baws, attach the club name to an unaffiliated (yeah right!) company, **** it up, and are now unlikely to see any promoter come near us in future.  Not to mention the reputational damage and money lost by local companies.

If the battery storage was such a winner, then it could have been done by ILI without need to attach the club name and they then make a major donation, or do a big sponsorship deal to pass on the proceeds.  The developers knew it would need the 'community benefit' leverage to have any chance, so the club are all over it like a cheap suit and the clubs name, reputation and.possibly even it's existence, are again on the line.

Meanwhile, the club have totally taken the eye off the ball with fan engagement, matchday experience, and the product on the park.

There's **** all for fans to be proud of when it comes to Caley Thistle at the moment.

[STFU]

On 2/8/2024 at 9:46 PM, Yngwie said:

Criticise them all you want on other matters, it’s justified, but on this particular one surely even you can put your grievances aside and acknowledge that it’s a rather miraculous rabbit out of a hat!

Looks like that rabbit might have myxomatosis.

[STFU]

19 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

The reason for pursuing additional sources of income is so that we actually have a full-time, competitive club for them to run. 

The way things are going there won't be any club to run.

[robbylad]

9 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

We got relegated. That wasn’t their fault.

Relegation is  a real possibility this season.  Who's fault will that be? There hasn't been any sustained progress since that relegation. Who's been running the show?

[Satan]

40 minutes ago, STFU said:

That's a total non point, and just noise on the part of the CEO.

I think you'll find it's from the horses mouth, or maybe the other end depending on whether it's the vice chair or the chairs turn to lead the pantomime horse.

[+Hiro]

56 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

The reason for pursuing additional sources of income is so that we actually have a full-time, competitive club for them to run. 

Correct.  However, this means building good relationships with local businesses to secure additional commercial income or benefits. Not shafting them with side projects that go bust leaving them out of pocket.  It means looking into membership schemes, hiring out of facilities on a more regular business - the nuts and bolts of running a football club.

It is not pursuing risky projects which take money and time.  Projects which are diverting time and resource of people working for the club.

[Yngwie]

I don’t disagree that there are bread and butter things like that that we need to do much better, but what’s the upside from those things? It’s a 5 figure sum, when we need to survive is a 7 figure sum like the gain from the battery project (hopefully).

[Robert]

This is a total shambles and, to me, the Council has messed up and some Councillors are now taking fright at the backlash. Surely the Committee, especially the Chair and Vice Chair, should have been advised on the implications of only one third of them being able to vote, and referred the decision to the full Council rather than creating further uncertainty.

Meanwhile, in other news:

https://ictfc.com/ictfc-announces-partnership-with-autovision/

 

[Jack Waddington]

59 minutes ago, Robert said:

This is a total shambles and, to me, the Council has messed up and some Councillors are now taking fright at the backlash. Surely the Committee, especially the Chair and Vice Chair, should have been advised on the implications of only one third of them being able to vote, and referred the decision to the full Council rather than creating further uncertainty.

Makes you wonder why they weren't there at the appeal meeting full stop.

As someone else said, there's probably absentees due to conflict of interest. When its specifically an Inverness issue, surely the smart thing to do would be drag in the Inverness Councillors, but instead they've taken one from an area 66 miles away and others from god knows where.

They've cocked up, made their bed and they need to lie in it.

All the coonsil have done here is made themselves look heinously incompetent.

[+Fraz]

I'm no Gardiner fanboy and I'm not sure how much he's been involved anyway as it seems to me to be more from board level. Regardless the club have to look at ways at generating income away from the matchday as we will never make enough from tickets, pies and hospitality to make ourselves viable long term in the Championship. 

External revenue generation is something that we desperately need and could help us survive long term if done right. If done wrong (like the concerts) then it's a double whammy of losing money and damaging our reputation in the community. 

This is why imo they lean so much into the good work that the Community Trust do. As they do way more to promote ICT positively in The Highlands than the actual club does. 

[wilsywilsy]

9 hours ago, Jack Waddington said:

Makes you wonder why they weren't there at the appeal meeting full stop.

As someone else said, there's probably absentees due to conflict of interest. When its specifically an Inverness issue, surely the smart thing to do would be drag in the Inverness Councillors, but instead they've taken one from an area 66 miles away and others from god knows where.

They've cocked up, made their bed and they need to lie in it.

All the coonsil have done here is made themselves look heinously incompetent.

This is a wild post. What appeal meeting? The application was heard at the routine South planning committee (16 councilors). The committee includes representives from all across the South of the Highlands and Inverness.

At Novembers meeting there were more councillors than at last weeks meet. But several of them voted for the deferrment so they could visit the site. Many who voted for the visit then didn't turn up for the site meeting, which immediately excluded them from the vote - as they said on Wednesday, a member has to be at all the meetings for them to be allowed to participate in the vote.

IMHO what happened on Monday is asking searching questions of the Inverness councillors on the committee and beyond. Where the f*ck were you? Why did you shy away from this? Why did you wilfully chose to skip the site visit knowing full well you would be excluded from the vote?

Only 1 of the 5 who could vote was from an Inverness ward and not a ward close to the project. Now it will be heard by the full council (assuming they don't all hide from it again).

 

Edited February 14, 2024 by wilsywilsy

[wilsywilsy]

12 hours ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

The hotel development needed planning permission, and this was decided by the south planning committee. If permission had been refused, there would likely still be a cultural use at the site.

That is beside the point anyway - the Chair of the commitee is claiming that the battery decision isn't valid because not enough Councillors from Inverness voted on it. Yet he represents Fort William, and has been happy to vote in favour of the hotel development at the Ironworks and against the battery farm last week.

I hope the club embarrass the Council over this, it's a shambles.

You are playing the man and not the ball here. The chair was 1 of 7 councillors who voted for the hotel on the IronWorks.

He was 1 of 30 (thirty!) who supported the ammendment that put the battery project planning application to the wider council for further scrutiny and a vote.

Edited February 14, 2024 by wilsywilsy

[ymip]

It's pretty clear where this is heading and how this will ultimately impact the club's viability moving forward. Another example of the council's complete indifference to the club which, despite our current paltry crowds, remains the largest community supported organisation in the city.

You've got to laugh at the loss of green space argument which seems to be the crux of the matter.  I left Inverness 30 odd years ago and in the intervening period the city has probably doubled in size with barely an improvement in community facilities and the loss of massive tracts of green space for housing, retail, etc.  Yet this particular scheme has the planning committee's knickers in a twist like no other in living memory.  I find this latest U-turn very strange, bordering on the highly dodgy.  Councillor Oldham's "barely quorate" comment is bizarre.  It either is or isn't, it's akin to suggesting someone's barely pregnant. Absolute ludicrous and clearly a man with an agenda.

Alas, another entirely predictable omnishambles which drags the club's name and the city's credibility through the mud.

       

Edited February 14, 2024 by ymip

[Stephen Malkmus]

3 hours ago, wilsywilsy said:

You are playing the man and not the ball here. The chair was 1 of 7 councillors who voted for the hotel on the IronWorks.

He was 1 of 30 (thirty!) who supported the ammendment that put the battery project planning application to the wider council for further scrutiny and a vote.

The 'ball' being the fact that planning policy at all levels is clear that grid scale battery storage is essential to meet Scotland's net zero targets.

The Council being swayed by ten dog walkers who might lose 1/50th of their space for exercising their dogs and a community council living in fantasy land is embarrassing. If they refuse it and the decision is appealed, the Council will lose.

[STFU]

2 hours ago, ymip said:

It's pretty clear where this is heading and how this will ultimately impact the club's viability moving forward. Another example of the council's complete indifference to the club which, despite our current paltry crowds, remains the largest community supported organisation in the city.

You've got to laugh at the loss of green space argument which seems to be the crux of the matter.  I left Inverness 30 odd years ago and in the intervening period the city has probably doubled in size with barely an improvement in community facilities and the loss of massive tracts of green space for housing, retail, etc.  Yet this particular scheme has the planning committee's knickers in a twist like no other in living memory.  I find this latest U-turn very strange, bordering on the highly dodgy.  Councillor Oldham's "barely quorate" comment is bizarre.  It either is or isn't, it's akin to suggesting someone's barely pregnant. Absolute ludicrous and clearly a man with an agenda.

Alas, another entirely predictable omnishambles which drags the club's name and the city's credibility through the mud.

       

ICTFC is NOT a community organisation, they undertake zero community activity and despite their claims in the most recent rant, they have almost zero fan engagement.  They can't even organise a kids Christmas party.

ICT Community Trust is a seperate, self funded, self staffed and independently operated organisation.  It is they who do the community work the club are taking credit for.

Likewise with the ICT Women.

Given how the club has operated the last few years, it clear that they have taken way more from the community than they have given, and until we know the figures we can't know how much, if anything, might find it's way to good causes.  We're only taking the word of people who have shown time and again that their word is worthless.

It baffles me that people think that football clubs should be allowed to just hoover up and **** away money as they please.  Any other business wouldn't last 2 minutes if they operated in this manner.

The council planning committee aren't doing much for their image, but given the circumstances I think it's right that this goes to full council.  Full council should also be kicking the ass of the planning dept.

It should never have gone to a vote once they realised only 5 were eligible to do so and should have been redirected to full council at that stage.  The meeting may have been quorate, but 5 people should never have been considered representative.

It's as if the planning committee and club are having a competition to see who is the least competent.

[STFU]

24 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

The 'ball' being the fact that planning policy at all levels is clear that grid scale battery storage is essential to meet Scotland's net zero targets.

The Council being swayed by ten dog walkers who might lose 1/50th of their space for exercising their dogs and a community council living in fantasy land is embarrassing. If they refuse it and the decision is appealed, the Council will lose.

Planning policy is also that you don't build on green space, and you certainly don't put industrial use on green spaces.

[caley100]

25 minutes ago, STFU said:

Planning policy is also that you don't build on green space, and you certainly don't put industrial use on green spaces.

As opposed to house builders who build houses by the hundred on Any Green field site they find without much opposition from planning.

And.. leave a token gesture of a 100 sq ft playpark.

[STFU]

13 minutes ago, caley100 said:

As opposed to house builders who build houses by the hundred on Any Green field site they find without much opposition from planning.

And.. leave a token gesture of a 100 sq ft playpark.

Then maybe the smart decision would have been for the club to have gone for a housing development instead of battery storage.

[STFU]

15 hours ago, Satan said:

I think you'll find it's from the horses mouth, or maybe the other end depending on whether it's the vice chair or the chairs turn to lead the pantomime horse.

I think you may have misread my post because your response makes no sense to me.