South County GC Closed

GreeBo

Gambino wrote: »

Drove past South County today. The course looked fantastic and in great condition. Obviously plenty of work going into it and good to see plenty of people out. I hope the naysayers aren't too dissapointed.

Looking forward to playing at the weekend.

Were there many people playing?

Gambino

GreeBo wrote: »

Gambino wrote: »

Drove past South County today. The course looked fantastic and in great condition. Obviously plenty of work going into it and good to see plenty of people out. I hope the naysayers aren't too dissapointed.

Looking forward to playing at the weekend.

Were there many people playing?

I saw groups on each of the holes visible from the road but don't know if that was the case all over. Nice to see in any case.

Hacker111

Hacker111 wrote: »

can someone answer me a question...I'm not up to speed.... what happened to sizeable bank debt, was it secured by an insolvent asset less company that has been wound up (as land is in famers name)..... did bank get screwed and new "structure" starts a fresh (debt less) with a clean slate..... I doubt the bank lent to a company against a lease as only tangible security.... please clarify for me

anyone in a position to answer this?

vikingdub

Hacker111 wrote: »

anyone in a position to answer this?

Not sure but I think that the only security the bank will have is what is actually owned by the 2004 company, which I assume is the clubhouse and very little else.

I imagine all will be revealed at the shareholders and creditors meetings on the 31st, which should be informative to say the least.

ismee

looking forward to the 31st answer's are coming down the track ?and there is going to be a hell of a train crash with a lot of collateral damage people who think they so smart and its all sorted ?well see you all the 31st so

vikingdub

ismee wrote: »

looking forward to the 31st answer's are coming down the track ?and there is going to be a hell of a train crash with a lot of collateral damage people who think they so smart and its all sorted ?well see you all the 31st so

I too am looking forward to the 31st, lots of questions to be answered by the Board. Whether we get answers or not remains to be seen.

ismee

just hope people are honest and give us the answers we deserve :pac:

vikingdub

ismee wrote: »

just hope people are honest and give us the answers we deserve :pac:

I would settle for the truth and explanation for their behaviour.

ismee

here here well said that's all any of us want its the pure silence since this broke that's got my goat up

Gambino

ismee wrote: »

here here well said that's all any of us want its the pure silence since this broke that's got my goat up

Pure silence? What about the meeting at Citywest on the 16th and the email messages from the Captains?

Gambino

vikingdub wrote: »

I would settle for the truth and explanation for their behaviour.

Whose behaviour?

alitoast

Hi Folks, how do (former?!?!) members book golf in SC if the website portal is closed, i assume its the good old fashioned phone call??

ShriekingSheet

Gambino wrote: »

Whose behaviour?

I assume he means the guys who took thousands of euro off people, days before locking the gates.

Gambino

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

I assume he means the guys who took thousands of euro off people, days before locking the gates.

You reckon they kept it?

ShriekingSheet

Gambino wrote: »

You reckon they kept it?

No. Accepting thousands of euro of payment into a club that's about to shut it's gates is disgraceful enough in itself.

Gambino

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

No. Accepting thousands of euro of payment into a club that's about to shut it's gates is disgraceful enough in itself.

So what should they have done - close the gates sooner?

Mister Sifter

Gambino wrote: »

So what should they have done - close the gates sooner?

Well, if it was obvious that the club was heading for the wall - and it seems pretty effing clear that SC was - then, yes, they should have taken action a lot sooner instead of throwing (honest people's) good money after bad.

Gambino

Mister Sifter wrote: »

Well, if it was obvious that the club was heading for the wall - and it seems pretty effing clear that SC was - then, yes, they should have taken action a lot sooner instead of throwing (honest people's) good money after bad.

When would have been the right time to make that decision? Before they knew that 120 members (including 55 shareholders) were not going to renew?

ShriekingSheet

Gambino wrote: »

So what should they have done - close the gates sooner?

If they made the call, or even just held a meeting 30 days sooner hundreds of members would not be out of pocket, and the land owner would still now have the course re-opened.

Instead, they made the call after hundreds of people had paid up, and all the money went down the toilet with the company.

Gambino

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

If they made the call, or even just held a meeting 30 days sooner hundreds of members would not be out of pocket, and the land owner would still now have the course re-opened.

Instead, they made the call after hundreds of people had paid up, and all the money went down the toilet with the company.

Subscriptions were due by end April and they made the call on May 7th. I would have considered that a reasonable and realistic time frame. I'm one of the hundreds who paid up but I am more inclined to lay some of the blame on the 120 or so of my (former) clubmates who didn't.

Dr_Colossus

Gambino wrote: »

I'm one of the hundreds who paid up but I am more inclined to lay some of the blame on the 120 or so of my (former) clubmates who didn't.

Why? Did you not think it unfair that new members pay over €400 less a year for the same privileges. With no entry fees and no barriers to entry in most clubs members are more nomadic and inclined to vote with their feet as more suitable venues and better offers become available.
Granted all clubs need new members but it should be easier to keep an existing member than gain a new one therefore SC's policy of offering such a discount to new members was bordering on insanity. If the existing membership options were attractive enough to keep existing members then they should be attractive enough to entice new members.

Gambino

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

Why? Did you not think it unfair that new members pay over €400 less a year for the same privileges. With no entry fees and no barriers to entry in most clubs members are more nomadic and inclined to vote with their feet as more suitable venues and better offers become available.
Granted all clubs need new members but it should be easier to keep an existing member than gain a new one therefore SC's policy of offering such a discount to new members was bordering on insanity. If the existing membership options were attractive enough to keep existing members then they should be attractive enough to entice new members.

Should have been? Well they obviously weren't and if you look at the deals on offer elsewhere, you would see why. Introductory offers are a standard feature in every industry that is looking to win share in a tight market. Do you get upset with your bank, credit card, mobile phone, TV or insurance provider every time they make an offer to entice new customers?

For all the complaints about the club's pricing strategy, I have yet to hear anyone explain how else it was supposed to compete for new members against other clubs, while meeting the income needs to run the place.

The board may have been less than perfect but its biggest mistakes were over-estimating the loyalty of its current members and shareholders and underestimating their short-sightedness.

ismee

well Dr colossus its plain to see someone knows what there talking about, its clear Gambino has a huge difference of the way the world works, seems to me that's what has this country in the state it finds itself today perhaps some people though it was a pis-ing completion ego's and all that sort of thing i can reach higher than you

link_2007

Gambino wrote: »

Subscriptions were due by end April and they made the call on May 7th. I would have considered that a reasonable and realistic time frame. I'm one of the hundreds who paid up but I am more inclined to lay some of the blame on the 120 or so of my (former) clubmates who didn't.

Let's assume 20 of these people left for reasons such as insufficient income, moved away etc and the remaining 100 renewed their subs. Do you think the club would have survived for the rest of the year?

ShriekingSheet

Gambino wrote: »

I have yet to hear anyone explain how else it was supposed to compete for new members against other clubs, while meeting the income needs to run the place.

And here we have a perfect example of how mislead your view is.

It has nothing got to do with competing for new members. The club would have survived if it had focused on keeping it's existing members.

They didn't say "we're winding up because we can't get new members in". They said that existing members weren't renewing.

Why weren't they renewing? Because the club was badly run.

vikingdub

Gambino wrote: »

Whose behaviour?

The board.

vikingdub

Gambino wrote: »

So what should they have done - close the gates sooner?

Called an EGM.

PhilipMarlowe

I love the subtle branding such as "naysayer" and the attempt at claiming that it's schadenfreude that people are feeling at the club's downfall when, speaking personally as an outsider, it's anonymous posters being disingenuous that really ticks me off. God knows I've seen plenty of it (on here) over the years and it's quite understandable that when someone smells bull****, they call it as they see it.

vikingdub

Gambino wrote: »

Should have been? Well they obviously weren't and if you look at the deals on offer elsewhere, you would see why. Introductory offers are a standard feature in every industry that is looking to win share in a tight market. Do you get upset with your bank, credit card, mobile phone, TV or insurance provider every time they make an offer to entice new customers?

For all the complaints about the club's pricing strategy, I have yet to hear anyone explain how else it was supposed to compete for new members against other clubs, while meeting the income needs to run the place.

The board may have been less than perfect but its biggest mistakes were over-estimating the loyalty of its current members and shareholders and underestimating their short-sightedness.

You have made you support for the, inexcusable, behaviour of the Board quite clear over your numerous posts. Constant repetition of the same mantra does not improve the content your posts nor is it likely to dissuade members/shareholders from seeking answers to valid questions.

Gambino

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

And here we have a perfect example of how mislead your view is.

It has nothing got to do with competing for new members. The club would have survived if it had focused on keeping it's existing members.

They didn't say "we're winding up because we can't get new members in". They said that existing members weren't renewing.

Why weren't they renewing? Because the club was badly run.

If the club relied on its 2011 membership base alone to pay the bills, the subs would have been even higher. The attraction of new members - at market rates - actually helped keep the subs DOWN, while we tried to ride out the storm.

The Board didn't run the club.