South County GC Closed

DODris

Anyone play SC this weekend ? What are the conditions like. I hope the place is being maintained !

Gambino

DODris wrote: »

Anyone play SC this weekend ? What are the conditions like. I hope the place is being maintained !

Played yesterday. Course is in wonderful shape. Greens and fairways are immaculate. Rough is a bit thicker than before in spots but there is a generous first cut. Wasn't in a bunker. They looked OK.
Good buzz. Ladies had a match and they laid on a great spread in the spike bar.

Golfingfanatic

DODris wrote: »

Anyone play SC this weekend ? What are the conditions like. I hope the place is being maintained !

Played there yesterday. I went up with negative expectations but was hugely and pleasantly surprised. The fairways were immaculate and the greens, although fractionally slow, were in very good condition. The Poa Annua grass is seeding at present (as it is is everywhere in the country) which leads to the greens being not as quick as they can be.

There is a very generous first cut of rough, but outside that the rough has sprouted up. Looking down on the back nine from the 11th tee, the course looks amazing and very well defined. I know some people might moan about the long rough, but to get into it, you'd need to hit a very bad shot, so you couldn't really complain!

Well done the landlords!

Golfingfanatic

A few questions that I feel must be answered at next Thursday's EGM to appoint a Liquidator.

1. Did any of the board have their loans to the club repaid and if so in what circumstances? There was a time that you could have your loan repaid by a new member introduced by you paying you €3,000 directly instead of the club. Did any of the board members piggy back onto this by intercepting genuine membership enquiries and claiming them as their introductions?

2. How many of the board paid their sub for 2012 in full and upfront?

3. Of those board members who opted for direct debit this year, how many changed to direct debit this year?

These are questions which the Liquidator must investigate. If it is shown that any of the board used inside knowledge to better themselves at the expense of the shareholders, then this could have very serious implications for them personally.

Russman

Golfingfanatic wrote: »

These are questions which the Liquidator must investigate.

Really ? Is that within his/her remit ?

Golfingfanatic

Russman wrote: »

Really ? Is that within his/her remit ?

Yes, absolutely. One of the Liquidator's duties is to investigate the company and the actions of its directors.

Gambino

Golfingfanatic wrote: »

A few questions that I feel must be answered at next Thursday's EGM to appoint a Liquidator.

1. Did any of the board have their loans to the club repaid and if so in what circumstances? There was a time that you could have your loan repaid by a new member introduced by you paying you €3,000 directly instead of the club. Did any of the board members piggy back onto this by intercepting genuine membership enquiries and claiming them as their introductions?

2. How many of the board paid their sub for 2012 in full and upfront?

3. Of those board members who opted for direct debit this year, how many changed to direct debit this year?
These are questions which the Liquidator must investigate. If it is shown that any of the board used inside knowledge to better themselves at the expense of the shareholders, then this could have very serious implications for them personally.

Given that 55 shareholders reneged on their commitment to pay their subs at all, a focus on how the board members paid theirs is somewhat irrelevant. This is just another wearisome and pointless distraction to getting the club back on its feet.

Dr_Colossus

Gambino wrote: »

Given that 55 shareholders reneged on their commitment to pay their subs at all, a focus on how the board members paid theirs is somewhat irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant? Who better to access the club and it's financials than the board who were put in a position to run the club. Shareholders are investors and generally have nothing more to go on than audited accounts and public information. The board would have insider knowledge and if they opted to use this for their own benefit then it puts a further dark cloud over the management of the club.

Gambino

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

How is it irrelevant? Who better to access the club and it's financials than the board who were put in a position to run the club. Shareholders are investors and generally have nothing more to go on than audited accounts and public information. The board would have insider knowledge and if they opted to use this for their own benefit then it puts a further dark cloud over the management of the club.

They were as entitled to pay by DD as anyone else. I know a few people who switched to DD this year - for a variety of reasons. By all means investigate if they abused their positions re loan repayments. Hell, parade them through Brittas in a tumbril if you like but I am much more interested in getting our situation resolved and the club re-instated and re-invigorated. If Thursday's meeting is going to degenerate into finger pointing etc. I think I'll just sign my proxy and leave you to it.
And if any of the 55 shareholders who brought the club down by refusing to honour their contracts turn up and start bitching, I hope they get short shrift.

ArielAtom

I would love to go to this meeting alas not being a shareholder will not allow it. I feel sorry for the guys who have invested heavily over the years and yes they should be allowed to get answers from the board as to their actions running up to the closure of the club. I think anyone who lays the blame at the feet of the 55 shareholders and thinks nothing else was wrong is living on a different planet.

There must be something rotten to the core for 55 people to walk away from a considerable investment if its not for financial reasons.

I hope the shareholders that post here keep us informed of the outcome of the meeting.

On another note, there has been a lot of posting by people on here about the "club". How many "club" men went up to Edmondstown to support the JC team?

Gambino

ArielAtom wrote: »

I would love to go to this meeting alas not being a shareholder will not allow it. I feel sorry for the guys who have invested heavily over the years and yes they should be allowed to get answers from the board as to their actions running up to the closure of the club. I think anyone who lays the blame at the feet of the 55 shareholders and thinks nothing else was wrong is living on a different planet.

There must be something rotten to the core for 55 people to walk away from a considerable investment if its not for financial reasons.

I hope the shareholders that post here keep us informed of the outcome of the meeting.

On another note, there has been a lot of posting by people on here about the "club". How many "club" men went up to Edmondstown to support the JC team?

I don't think anyone is saying that nothing else was "wrong". In the ultimate analysis, we all failed. However the frantic and hysterical efforts to deny ANY culpability to the reneging shareholders is pathetic.
Part of the contract entered into by shareholders was that they would pay their annual sub. It is hardly unreasonable of the club - i.e. the rest of us - to expect them to honour it.

Dr_Colossus

Gambino wrote: »

They were as entitled to pay by DD as anyone else. I know a few people who switched to DD this year - for a variety of reasons. By all means investigate if they abused their positions re loan repayments. Hell, parade them through Brittas in a tumbril if you like but I am much more interested in getting our situation resolved and the club re-instated and re-invigorated. If Thursday's meeting is going to degenerate into finger pointing etc. I think I'll just sign my proxy and leave you to it.
And if any of the 55 shareholders who brought the club down by refusing to honour their contracts turn up and start bitching, I hope they get short shrift.

Firstly I'm not a member or shareholder and don't hold any invested interests in South County but from an interested party looking in your blame of shareholders bringing down the club by not renewing their membership is rather strange.

Sure everyone is entitled to switch to DD but it's the board who decided to close the club without holding an EGM. If that same board all suddenly switched to paying by DD this year knowing the club may be in trouble but yet took in full membership payments from existing and new members then it doesn't look kindly on them from an intersider dealing perspective.

You're all talk about getting the club re-instated and re-invigorated and fair play for that, I do hope the club survives and the course thrives in the future. However you firstly have to get to the root of the initial problem and weed the club of it's rot to ensure that the new club doesn't continue down the same path. If that's pointing fingers at members or shareholders who didn't renew their membership then I don't hold much hope.

Shareholders like any ordinary member are entitled to let their membership lapse. Just because they have an investment in the running of the club, which they paid handsomely for, doesn't mean they are contractually obliged to pay for membership and as such I don't understand your comment regarding same.

Whyner

Gambino wrote: »

Given that 55 shareholders reneged on their commitment to pay their subs at all, a focus on how the board members paid theirs is somewhat irrelevant. This is just another wearisome and pointless distraction to getting the club back on its feet.

Take off the blinkers Gambino. How is it irrelevant if all the board switched over to DD this year just before it all went kaput?

Some of your posts are intelligent, some are just daft and plain stupid and let you down. Of course they can ask those questions, they invested and want to know if they got shafted.

You're not the only one who wants to get the club back up and running, answers will need to be provided at some stage whether you like it or not.

Did you own a share? If so, Would you not like to know what happened it?

Gambino

Shareholders like any ordinary member are entitled to let their membership lapse. .[/QUOTE]
You obviously didn't read the small print. Shareholders are liable for their annual sub. They can lease their membership but if they fail to pay their sub, they forfeit their share. That might seem tough but it was part of the original deal and was intended to ensure that the club had a reliable income stream.

Gambino

Whyner wrote: »

Take off the blinkers Gambino. How is it irrelevant if all the board switched over to DD this year just before it all went kaput?

Some of your posts are intelligent, some are just daft and plain stupid and let you down. Of course they can ask those questions, they invested and want to know if they got shafted.

You're not the only one who wants to get the club back up and running, answers will need to be provided at some stage whether you like it or not.

Did you own a share? If so, Would you not like to know what happened it?

I have no idea if any or all the board switched to DD - and I don't particularly care because it has no relevance to what happens next.

Yes, I had a share and I know exactly what happened to it.

Dr_Colossus

Gambino wrote: »

Shareholders like any ordinary member are entitled to let their membership lapse. .

You obviously didn't read the small print. Shareholders are liable for their annual sub. They can lease their membership but if they fail to pay their sub, they forfeit their share. That might seem tough but it was part of the original deal and was intended to ensure that the club had a reliable income stream.[/QUOTE]

Ok thanks, didn't know that. As said I'm not a shareholder so didn't read any small print and as such shouldn't have posted the above comment when I didn't know it to be fact. Yes it is tough but as part of the shareholding contract then fair enough, that's the risk one takes. The below comment certainly holds true in that case so.

ArielAtom wrote: »

There must be something rotten to the core for 55 people to walk away from a considerable investment if its not for financial reasons.

Whyner

Gambino wrote: »

I have no idea if any or all the board switched to DD - and I don't particularly care because it has no relevance to what happens next.

Yes, I had a share and I know exactly what happened to it.

Again, it's not all about you you you. Some people do care, why can't you see that?

You seem to enjoy being treated like sh!te, so be it.

Learn from your mistakes, ever hear that before? I won't get drawn into further debate with you because; you have not come clean on what you know; have some ulterior motive or you just keep repeating your same points over and over. Good to have a devils advocate anyway

GreeBo

ArielAtom wrote: »

There must be something rotten to the core for 55 people to walk away from a considerable investment if its not for financial reasons.

Not really, considering the current economic climate.
We had 19 people not come back this year and its not because the club is hiding some dirty financial secret, those people either couldnt afford or perhaps justify spending that money on golf.

ArielAtom

GreeBo wrote: »

Not really, considering the current economic climate.
We had 19 people not come back this year and its not because the club is hiding some dirty financial secret, those people either couldnt afford or perhaps justify spending that money on golf.

That was my point. If they are all gone for financial reasons that is the economic climate we are in, however it has been said that some would not pay. The difference is the would not's from the could not's.

Whyner

GreeBo wrote: »

Not really, considering the current economic climate.
We had 19 people not come back this year and its not because the club is hiding some dirty financial secret, those people either couldnt afford or perhaps justify spending that money on golf.

Do they have a lease option or did they wave goodbye to their joining fee? Can they rejoin with no joining fee in a year or two?

Golfingfanatic

The South County Golf Clubs (Mens and Ladies) are subsets of The South County Golf CLub (2004) Ltd which will be put into liquidation this week. Once this happens, the golf clubs will cease to exist. If the members wish to continue as a club, those who are left will have to form a new golf club and elect a new committee, including next year's Captain. :p:p The existing committee undertook last Wednesday week to speak to the landlords and revert to the members. A bit disappointing that we have heard absolutely nothing back from them since.

Gambino

ArielAtom wrote: »

That was my point. If they are all gone for financial reasons that is the economic climate we are in, however it has been said that some would not pay. The difference is the would not's from the could not's.

Not only that, there is a number who didn't pay (in part or in full) last year but expected the rest of us to carry them and pay for their golf and the good course to which they felt entitled.

Funnily enough, some of them were the first and loudest to complain if there was something not to their liking.

As I said in an earlier post, if the meeting on Thursday wants to get into the financial affairs of the board, why not publish all the information - those who didn't pay, those who squeezed discounts, those who insisted their loans be offset etc. This didn't start in the last few months. Lets get it all out there so we can weed out all the "rotten" stuff and all start afresh.

bustercherry

Golfingfanatic wrote: »

The South County Golf Clubs (Mens and Ladies) are subsets of The South County Golf CLub (2004) Ltd which will be put into liquidation this week. Once this happens, the golf clubs will cease to exist. If the members wish to continue as a club, those who are left will have to form a new golf club and elect a new committee, including next year's Captain. :p:p The existing committee undertook last Wednesday week to speak to the landlords and revert to the members. A bit disappointing that we have heard absolutely nothing back from them since.

Surely you mean the committee and captains for the rest of this year too?

I was at the meeting and disappointed with the lack of communication we have had since. The whole situation has been dragging a bit and people must be looking elsewhere now. I was lucky as I was paying by DD and won't be rejoining as I don't feel the club will retain the existing non-shareholder members, who paid in full, next year. I just don't see the numbers this year adding up and with less next year I don't see the place being sustainable. I hope I am wrong but there is plenty of value, without all this nonsense, to be had elsewhere.

GreeBo

Whyner wrote: »

Do they have a lease option or did they wave goodbye to their joining fee? Can they rejoin with no joining fee in a year or two?

Their joining fee is gone. There are no shares etc, you pay a joining fee and a yearly sub. If you leave, they are all gone.

ArielAtom

Gambino wrote: »

Not only that, there is a number who didn't pay (in part or in full) last year but expected the rest of us to carry them and pay for their golf and the good course to which they felt entitled.

Funnily enough, some of them were the first and loudest to complain if there was something not to their liking.

As I said in an earlier post, if the meeting on Thursday wants to get into the financial affairs of the board, why not publish all the information - those who didn't pay, those who squeezed discounts, those who insisted their loans be offset etc. This didn't start in the last few months. Lets get it all out there so we can weed out all the "rotten" stuff and all start afresh.

Gambino,

I am a member and have not heard that. Where are you getting your info. How is this public knowledge or is this just rumours? I have been hearing some of the rumours that are doing the rounds and they are hilarious!! Maybe your info is just rumours or have you a reliable source to the no payers?

vikingdub

Gambino wrote: »

Shareholders like any ordinary member are entitled to let their membership lapse. .

You obviously didn't read the small print. Shareholders are liable for their annual sub. They can lease their membership but if they fail to pay their sub, they forfeit their share. That might seem tough but it was part of the original deal and was intended to ensure that the club had a reliable income stream.[/QUOTE]

Only the chosen few were given that option, some who were in financial difficulties made a request to lease their membership and were refused, while those who were "well connected" were given this option.

There is no guarantee that the shareholders will vote to approve the Liquidator that the board are proposing.

Gambino

ArielAtom wrote: »

Gambino wrote: »

Not only that, there is a number who didn't pay (in part or in full) last year but expected the rest of us to carry them and pay for their golf and the good course to which they felt entitled.

Funnily enough, some of them were the first and loudest to complain if there was something not to their liking.

As I said in an earlier post, if the meeting on Thursday wants to get into the financial affairs of the board, why not publish all the information - those who didn't pay, those who squeezed discounts, those who insisted their loans be offset etc. This didn't start in the last few months. Lets get it all out there so we can weed out all the "rotten" stuff and all start afresh.

Gambino,

I am a member and have not heard that. Where are you getting your info. How is this public knowledge or is this just rumours? I have been hearing some of the rumours that are doing the rounds and they are hilarious!! Maybe your info is just rumours or have you a reliable source to the no payers?

The best way to separate rumour from reality is to publish it all. I would hope that everyone is happy with that?

ArielAtom

Gambino wrote: »

The best way to separate rumour from reality is to publish it all. I would hope that everyone is happy with that?

Couldn't agree more. It would be nice to see who defaulted last year, this year, who moved to DD this year and a detailed explanation to the shareholders how the decision to close it up without consulting them came about. Hopefully there will be full disclosure for all the shareholders. They might be able to move on then.

Here's hoping for a full disclosure.

charlieIRL

Gambino wrote: »

The best way to separate rumour from reality is to publish it all. I would hope that everyone is happy with that?

I wouldn't post that publically here Gambino, if the information is there for the general public to see then let them go and find it. If its not please don’t post it here.

Gambino

charlieIRL wrote: »

I wouldn't post that publically here Gambino, if the information is there for the general public to see then let them go and find it. If its not please don’t post it here.

We are talking about the meeting on Thursday morning next.