Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
South County GC Closed
Options
Comments
-
-
Just to be clear. I have no role in the meeting and I have no say or influence over what happens at it. I just hope that all sides of the story get heard.charlieIRL wrote: »0 -
Latest email from the Captains
SCGC UPDATE.
Many thanks for your patience to date.
If we can prevail on you to wait just a while longer we would hope that we will make a return to the SCGC golf very soon.
This Thursday a Liquidator will be appointed at the meeting called by the Board of the SCGC to be held in the City West Hotel.
Pending the outcome of these meetings we would hope that we will be in position to agree with the Landlords to resume the running of both the Lady and Men's clubs.
We have had meetings with the Landlords and have agreed an outline on how we will proceed in getting the clubs back running. We have sent the Landlords a letter with our proposals for moving forward. We have had a positive response to these requests.
These proposals will allow us to run our weekend competitions, Medals, Open Days etc, hopefully starting in early June. We will initially run on a manual system but would hope to have the BRS System up and running by end of June. This then would allow us to restart using the 2012 diary without too many changes.
If all works well we would envisage having a reintroduction weekend where members will
1.Sign-on for the appropriate Direct Debit (DB) system.
�70.00 x 7 for members who were on the direct debit system
�50.00 x 3 for members who had paid up their fees in full
2.Pay GUI/Golf sure (�39) or ILGU/Golf sure (�45)
3.Pay �50 into a �purse� system for Competition Fees, (Competition Fees Account ...CFA) IE. �5 per competition or �10 for a Medal/Major Comps.
While the above seems simple it will as said, depend upon the outcome of the meeting with the liquidator on Thursday.
Once we get the go ahead, we are in a position to start enrolling members into the �New SCGC�. However this will take time and will be very busy for the committees. Your patience will be needed as will your assistance.
This offer will be a new start for the members of the SCGC. It is open to all existing members and new members. We have discussed the fees for 2013 with the Landlords and while nothing has been decided, naturally the more members we have the better the bargaining power we will have in our negotiations
Once again thank you for your patience. All going well we will be back in contact with you shortly advising you of the start date.0 -
We owe a debt of gratitude to the Captains and Committees for their efforts on behalf of the members. Those complaining about the "slow pace" of developments do not seem to appreciate the scale and complexity of what needs to be done, and is being done.
I tip my hat to Michael, Sheelagh and the others for the effort they are putting in and responsibilities they have taken on.0 -
We owe a debt of gratitude to the Captains and Committees for their efforts on behalf of the members. Those complaining about the "slow pace" of developments do not seem to appreciate the scale and complexity of what needs to be done, and is being done.
I tip my hat to Michael, Sheelagh and the others for the effort they are putting in and responsibilities they have taken on.
I have not seen anyone complain about the slow pace, more the lack of information.0 -
Advertisement
-
You don't think complaints about things "dragging on" qualify?We owe a debt of gratitude to the Captains and Committees for their efforts on behalf of the members. Those complaining about the "slow pace" of developments do not seem to appreciate the scale and complexity of what needs to be done, and is being done.
I tip my hat to Michael, Sheelagh and the others for the effort they are putting in and responsibilities they have taken on.
I have not seen anyone complain about the slow pace, more the lack of information.0 -
-
HAS ANYONE ATTENDED THE CREDITORS MEETING??0
-
A civilised meeting for the most part. The Chairman gave a detailed history of the clubs finances from its inception and went through the events of the last few months and weeks in considerable depth. It was obvious (and undisputed) that the shortfall in renewals since January was unsustainable and this was the reason the bank pulled the plug.HAS ANYONE ATTENDED THE CREDITORS MEETING??
It was also interesting to learn that discounts, deferrals and offsets in subs cost the club about €100,000 in income over the past few years.
Boards position on EGMs etc explained, but probably not to everyones satisfaction.
Some stuff about the night the place was closed, equipment etc.
All motions carried.
Some gripes and rants but not too bad.
Above relates to shareholders meeting. Creditors meeting followed and was technical in nature.0 -
A civilised meeting for the most part. The Chairman gave a detailed history of the clubs finances from its inception and went through the events of the last few months and weeks in considerable depth. It was obvious (and undisputed) that the shortfall in renewals since January was unsustainable and this was the reason the bank pulled the plug.
It was also interesting to learn that discounts, deferrals and offsets in subs cost the club about €100,000 in income over the past few years.
Boards position on EGMs etc explained, but probably not to everyones satisfaction.
Some stuff about the night the place was closed, equipment etc.
All motions carried.
Some gripes and rants but not too bad.
As a non shareholder, I would like to thank the board for your input.0 -
Advertisement
-
A civilised meeting for the most part. The Chairman gave a detailed history of the clubs finances from its inception and went through the events of the last few months and weeks in considerable depth. It was obvious (and undisputed) that the shortfall in renewals since January was unsustainable and this was the reason the bank pulled the plug.
It was also interesting to learn that discounts, deferrals and offsets in subs cost the club about €100,000 in income over the past few years.
Boards position on EGMs etc explained, but probably not to everyones satisfaction.
Some stuff about the night the place was closed, equipment etc.
All motions carried.
Some gripes and rants but not too bad.
Above relates to shareholders meeting. Creditors meeting followed and was technical in nature.
Presentation by chairman was poor, he could not use a mic which made it difficult to hear. The basis of his presentation was that the company was never really viable as the required level of membership had never been reached to service the debt.
More questions left unanswered than answered, the Board initially unable to answer questions as to how much was collected in fees between January and April, then gave two different figures. Answers to question as to why the situation had not been communicated to members early were completely unsatisfactory. When questioned as to how the landlord gained access to the clubhouse denied responsibility!!! No member of the board saw fit to ensure that the clubhouse was secure. Also denied any responsibility for the Data Protection implications of the landlord gaining access to members personal data.
Staff left unpaid for the last two weeks of April which is disgraceful, if there was no money to pay staff at the end of April then clearly the membership should have been informed and the company wound up earlier. How many people paid in May?
When questioned about the reasons why members had not paid, replied that the members who had not paid were surveyed and those who were in financial difficulties were offered the option to downgrade to 7,5, or 1 day membership. Further questioning revealed that not all had been either surveyed or offer the "downgrade".
Between 2009 and 2011 members in financial difficulty had been permitted to offset due against their loans, this practice was stopped in 2012. This is the "offsets" that Gambino refers to. The loans we given by the member to keep the club afloat. Gambino likes to infer that people were in taking something from the club by doing this, he does not seem to have any problem with those who managed to get their loans repaid. Some members had been able to have their loans repaid by introducing a new member. At that point the joining fee had been reduced to €3k and the member was reimbursed when the new member paid up.
There were no rants, just people asking valid questions, many of which remained unanswered.
The motions related to the winding up of the company and there nothing to be gained by opposing them.
It is all in the hands of the liquidator now and the liquidator has the power to investigate the actions of the board in the lead up to the closure.
It remains to be seen if the club will continue as a joint venture between the members and the landlord.0 -
There was a bit of a rant from one eejit who didn't understand the difference between an auction and a liquidation.A civilised meeting for the most part. The Chairman gave a detailed history of the clubs finances from its inception and went through the events of the last few months and weeks in considerable depth. It was obvious (and undisputed) that the shortfall in renewals since January was unsustainable and this was the reason the bank pulled the plug.
It was also interesting to learn that discounts, deferrals and offsets in subs cost the club about €100,000 in income over the past few years.
Boards position on EGMs etc explained, but probably not to everyones satisfaction.
Some stuff about the night the place was closed, equipment etc.
All motions carried.
Some gripes and rants but not too bad.
Above relates to shareholders meeting. Creditors meeting followed and was technical in nature.
Presentation by chairman was poor, he could not use a mic which made it difficult to hear. The basis of his presentation was that the company was never really viable as the required level of membership had never been reached to service the debt.
More questions left unanswered than answered, the Board initially unable to answer questions as to how much was collected in fees between January and April, then gave two different figures. Answers to question as to why the situation had not been communicated to members early were completely unsatisfactory. When questioned as to how the landlord gained access to the clubhouse denied responsibility!!! No member of the board saw fit to ensure that the clubhouse was secure. Also denied any responsibility for the Data Protection implications of the landlord gaining access to members personal data.
Staff left unpaid for the last two weeks of April which is disgraceful, if there was no money to pay staff at the end of April then clearly the membership should have been informed and the company wound up earlier. How many people paid in May?
When questioned about the reasons why members had not paid, replied that the members who had not paid were surveyed and those who were in financial difficulties were offered the option to downgrade to 7,5, or 1 day membership. Further questioning revealed that not all had been either surveyed or offer the "downgrade".
Between 2009 and 2011 members in financial difficulty had been permitted to offset due against their loans, this practice was stopped in 2012. This is the "offsets" that Gambino refers to. The loans we given by the member to keep the club afloat. Gambino likes to infer that people were in taking something from the club by doing this, he does not seem to have any problem with those who managed to get their loans repaid. Some members had been able to have their loans repaid by introducing a new member. At that point the joining fee had been reduced to €3k and the member was reimbursed when the new member paid up.
There were no rants, just people asking valid questions, many of which remained unanswered.
The motions related to the winding up of the company and there nothing to be gained by opposing them.
It is all in the hands of the liquidator now and the liquidator has the power to investigate the actions of the board in the lead up to the closure.
It remains to be seen if the club will continue as a joint venture between the members and the landlord.
Most questions were answered factually but I realise that some peoples agendas don't operate on the basis of reality.0 -
How typical of Gambino to refer to one of his fellow members and stakeholders as an "eejit". I would hardly refer to this person's contribution as a rant. He was understandably upset and perhaps didn't quite understand why such a low figure was being attributed to he clubhouse as an asset.
I was highly amused at the adroit attempts by the board to allocate blame to the nasty landlords! Imagine, the cheek of them insisting on being paid their rent!
Anyway, to the issue of loans given to the club by its members. Some members were able to recover their loans by introducing new members whose joining fee of €3,000 was used to repay the introducing member's loan. There has been substantial comment by some who claim to be "in the know" that certain Board members intercepted some genuine membership enquiries and "adopted" these applicants as their own and thus had their loans repaid. If this is the case, it would have been a gross abuse of their position and could be considered as acting against the interests of the shareholders. The Liquidator must investigate this.
The problems of the club stemmed from the first board who took over the club from the developers. The developers undertook at the sales process to sell the 711 shares and hand the club over to the members debt free. The handover board, despite the developers being in deep trouble, handed them a inexplicably soft deal by taking over their debt and paying them the full €23,000 for over 200 unsold shares! There are some who believe that the handover board had dark intentions, as evidenced by this crazy imposition of debt on the members and their subsequent financial transactions.
There is no doubt that the current board rescued the club from this position and worked tirelessly for the benefit of the members. They, did, however, lose the run of themselves in the end, became increasingly arrogant and dismissive of members and were responsible for a bad atmosphere in the club, which doubtlessly had a major part to play in so many committed members deciding to leave.0 -
-
Golfingfanatic wrote: »How typical of Gambino to refer to one of his fellow members and stakeholders as an "eejit". I would hardly refer to this person's contribution as a rant. He was understandably upset and perhaps didn't quite understand why such a low figure was being attributed to he clubhouse as an asset.
I was highly amused at the adroit attempts by the board to allocate blame to the nasty landlords! Imagine, the cheek of them insisting on being paid their rent!
Anyway, to the issue of loans given to the club by its members. Some members were able to recover their loans by introducing new members whose joining fee of €3,000 was used to repay the introducing member's loan. There has been substantial comment by some who claim to be "in the know" that certain Board members intercepted some genuine membership enquiries and "adopted" these applicants as their own and thus had their loans repaid. If this is the case, it would have been a gross abuse of their position and could be considered as acting against the interests of the shareholders. The Liquidator must investigate this.
The problems of the club stemmed from the first board who took over the club from the developers. The developers undertook at the sales process to sell the 711 shares and hand the club over to the members debt free. The handover board, despite the developers being in deep trouble, handed them a inexplicably soft deal by taking over their debt and paying them the full €23,000 for over 200 unsold shares! There are some who believe that the handover board had dark intentions, as evidenced by this crazy imposition of debt on the members and their subsequent financial transactions.
There is no doubt that the current board rescued the club from this position and worked tirelessly for the benefit of the members.
Thanks for that - seems like a very balanced synopsis.
And this right here...Golfingfanatic wrote: »They, did, however, lose the run of themselves in the end, became increasingly arrogant and dismissive of members and were responsible for a bad atmosphere in the club, which doubtlessly had a major part to play in so many committed members deciding to leave.
...is where the whole problem stems from.
Gambino is right about one thing. The club sunk because committed members left. He's just either too thick, or too burdened with agenda to admit the root cause of why they all left.0 -
When someone has something explained to them repeatedly and clearly but persists in making ridiculous assertions, I think eejit is one of the milder terms that could be applied.Golfingfanatic wrote: »How typical of Gambino to refer to one of his fellow members and stakeholders as an "eejit". I would hardly refer to this person's contribution as a rant. He was understandably upset and perhaps didn't quite understand why such a low figure was being attributed to he clubhouse as an asset.
I was highly amused at the adroit attempts by the board to allocate blame to the nasty landlords! Imagine, the cheek of them insisting on being paid their rent!
Anyway, to the issue of loans given to the club by its members. Some members were able to recover their loans by introducing new members whose joining fee of €3,000 was used to repay the introducing member's loan. There has been substantial comment by some who claim to be "in the know" that certain Board members intercepted some genuine membership enquiries and "adopted" these applicants as their own and thus had their loans repaid. If this is the case, it would have been a gross abuse of their position and could be considered as acting against the interests of the shareholders. The Liquidator must investigate this.
The problems of the club stemmed from the first board who took over the club from the developers. The developers undertook at the sales process to sell the 711 shares and hand the club over to the members debt free. The handover board, despite the developers being in deep trouble, handed them a inexplicably soft deal by taking over their debt and paying them the full €23,000 for over 200 unsold shares! There are some who believe that the handover board had dark intentions, as evidenced by this crazy imposition of debt on the members and their subsequent financial transactions.
There is no doubt that the current board rescued the club from this position and worked tirelessly for the benefit of the members. They, did, however, lose the run of themselves in the end, became increasingly arrogant and dismissive of members and were responsible for a bad atmosphere in the club, which doubtlessly had a major part to play in so many committed members deciding to leave.
How typical of the paranoia and factionalism that destroyed SC that someone even at this lenghty remove would insinuate "dark intentions" to the previous Board, who also inherited a difficult situation. How also typical that the "bad atmosphere" is blamed on the board, rather than on the almost tribal factionalism in certain sections of the club.
The "allegation" of Board members hijacking new member applications to their own benefit has been thrown out there for mischevious purposes and without the slightest evidence to support it. Also typical.
By the "arrogance" of the current Board, read an insistence that members meet their commitments, with no more "side"deals. How dare they.
The Data Protection issue was dealt with yesterday. There was a misunderstanding - I thought cleared up - over how the Groupon link to the SC website was effected. The only other issue was an email sent by the landlords from the club's system to all members the day after the closure. It is possible - but highly unlikely - that this involved direct access to individual email or text addresses/numbers. To amount to anything, an individual would have to (a) make a direct approach to the DP Commissioner and (b) show that their data had been explicitley accessed - i.e. they were not just included in a "broadcast" message.
However it is nice to see that some people are more interested in pursuing this sort of crap and complaining about the Chairman's microphone skills - than getting on with it.0 -
-
Golfingfanatic wrote: »How typical of Gambino to refer to one of his fellow members and stakeholders as an "eejit". I would hardly refer to this person's contribution as a rant. He was understandably upset and perhaps didn't quite understand why such a low figure was being attributed to he clubhouse as an asset.
I was highly amused at the adroit attempts by the board to allocate blame to the nasty landlords! Imagine, the cheek of them insisting on being paid their rent!
Anyway, to the issue of loans given to the club by its members. Some members were able to recover their loans by introducing new members whose joining fee of €3,000 was used to repay the introducing member's loan. There has been substantial comment by some who claim to be "in the know" that certain Board members intercepted some genuine membership enquiries and "adopted" these applicants as their own and thus had their loans repaid. If this is the case, it would have been a gross abuse of their position and could be considered as acting against the interests of the shareholders. The Liquidator must investigate this.
The problems of the club stemmed from the first board who took over the club from the developers. The developers undertook at the sales process to sell the 711 shares and hand the club over to the members debt free. The handover board, despite the developers being in deep trouble, handed them a inexplicably soft deal by taking over their debt and paying them the full €23,000 for over 200 unsold shares! There are some who believe that the handover board had dark intentions, as evidenced by this crazy imposition of debt on the members and their subsequent financial transactions.
There is no doubt that the current board rescued the club from this position and worked tirelessly for the benefit of the members. They, did, however, lose the run of themselves in the end, became increasingly arrogant and dismissive of members and were responsible for a bad atmosphere in the club, which doubtlessly had a major part to play in so many committed members deciding to leave.
It was not the current board but the previous one that worked tirelessly to try to put the club on a sound footing.0 -
By the "arrogance" of the current Board, read an insistence that members meet their commitments, with no more "side"deals. How dare they.
The Data Protection issue was dealt with yesterday. There was a misunderstanding - I thought cleared up - over how the Groupon link to the SC website was effected. The only other issue was an email sent by the landlords from the club's system to all members the day after the closure. It is possible - but highly unlikely - that this involved direct access to individual email or text addresses/numbers. To amount to anything, an individual would have to (a) make a direct approach to the DP Commissioner and (b) show that their data had been explicitley accessed - i.e. they were not just included in a "broadcast" message.
However it is nice to see that some people are more interested in pursuing this sort of crap and complaining about the Chairman's microphone skills - than getting on with it.
There were plenty of "side deals" over the years, including the offer to some members of a "downgrade" to 7, 5, & 1 day membership, others were allowed to "defer" their payments.
The DP issue is completely separate to the use of the branding on Groupon and was not satisfactorily resolved. The landlord accessed members information and used it to send emails, it is the responsibility of the data controller, the board or an person appointed by the board, to ensure that data is secure and only used for the purpose for which it was gathered. The solicitor admitted as much, members should make complaints to the DP commissioner. Either you do not understand the DP legislation or as, usual you are being disingenuous. It was not a "broadcast" message, whatever that is, it was a direct email communication with members using personal data which the Board failed to protect.
The groupon question related to the use of the company branding and the link to the website. The brand is an asset and has a value and as the solicitor pointed out it is illegal for another party to use another's branding to "pass off" as the brand.
The chairman's inability to make a presentation is yet another example of the lack of communication skills demonstrated.
You have been highly selective in the manner in which your report what actually occurred at the meeting.0 -
Does anyone know how many members have moved to other clubs? If Southcounty is saved will there be sufficient numbers to form a club?0
-
Advertisement
-
-
I think the majority are taking a wait and see approach, a enormous amount of time, effort and money has been invested in the club and would hate to see it return to farm land. However, it remains to be seen what deal can be done with landlord/liquidator/members.Does anyone know how many members have moved to other clubs? If Southcounty is saved will there be sufficient numbers to form a club?
The company no longer exists so it will be down to the captains to lead the negotiations with the landlord/liquidator in the members interests and communicate developments.0 -
When someone has something explained to them repeatedly and clearly but persists in making ridiculous assertions, I think eejit is one of the milder terms that could be applied.
How typical of the paranoia and factionalism that destroyed SC that someone even at this lenghty remove would insinuate "dark intentions" to the previous Board, who also inherited a difficult situation. How also typical that the "bad atmosphere" is blamed on the board, rather than on the almost tribal factionalism in certain sections of the club.
The "allegation" of Board members hijacking new member applications to their own benefit has been thrown out there for mischevious purposes and without the slightest evidence to support it. Also typical.
By the "arrogance" of the current Board, read an insistence that members meet their commitments, with no more "side"deals. How dare they.
The Data Protection issue was dealt with yesterday. There was a misunderstanding - I thought cleared up - over how the Groupon link to the SC website was effected. The only other issue was an email sent by the landlords from the club's system to all members the day after the closure. It is possible - but highly unlikely - that this involved direct access to individual email or text addresses/numbers. To amount to anything, an individual would have to (a) make a direct approach to the DP Commissioner and (b) show that their data had been explicitley accessed - i.e. they were not just included in a "broadcast" message.
However it is nice to see that some people are more interested in pursuing this sort of crap and complaining about the Chairman's microphone skills - than getting on with it.
I have read all the posts on boards since the message went out that South County had closed and the reason for my post now is that from my name I wasnt bothered. Once they closed the gate that was my club gone for good. Anything that would replace it would never be the same. We ceased to be part of a golf club that was ours. From now on the landowner will run it and the best of luck to him. He did nothing wrong except do what it said on the lease, take back his land on default. I wont be part of any new club where control has moved from the members to the landowner.
This Gambino person seems to have access to an awful lot of information yet protests that he/she has no connection with the board.
What is the history to date . This board took over some years ago and told us that we were in the ****. So the members coughed up 1 million and voted in that 7 day and 5 members could join. For those of you that dont remember, the magic figure for previous boards was 711 shareholders and once 90 or 95% was hit then new categories could be added.
Previous boards couldn't take in 5 or 7 day memebers. The new board now had that facility plus Kilternan came on board. That could have been the saviour of the club. We didnt do a good job there holding onto many as members.
The new board get €1 million plus new categories to work with and while other clubs lose 50 to 60 memebers a year this year i believe over 140 shareholders, seven day and 5 day left.
You have to ask why. Yes the board gave up their time but they lost the plot. For certain people on that board and one in particular it was all about power. I have heard that the atmosphere in the club over the last year was awful. People pick up on that and leave.
Did they honestly believe that they could get people to join at a discount price and that the following year they would pay the incresed amount. Why would they do that, Oh because of the great course, yes, the great clubhouse, not really, filthy showers and tired looking building, great atmosphere of a club, definitely not. They were not in the real world. South County was not worth the money being asked as they could move down the road for a better deal and yes the courses may not be as good but economics rules at present and price is key.
The best ambassador for the club was Raymie yet he was treated like dirt. He attracted members to the club yet I saw one post where a board member said we didnt need a pro. Is that true?
One thing Gambino is correct about is the different factions but the current board and one person in particular did more to encourage the in house fighting rather than to sort it out.
The bottom line is that there was a chance to sort out South County but it was blown and whatever way you look at it this board were at the helm when the ship went down and their names and some more than others will always be blamed for it and rightly so.
It will be interesting to see where they will be playing their golf for the rest of the year.
So Gambino whatever club gets you better watch out.0 -
However it is nice to see that some people are more interested in pursuing this sort of crap .
As I said, I have no connection with SCGC so I don't really care TBH, even though its informative to see how other club's situations might play out in the future, but unfortunately there are rules and regulations that need to be followed when a company exists. If they were not followed (and I assume its a big IF), then its right and proper for people to ask why and look for explanations. We haven't reached a situation where everything is just swept under the carpet purely because you want a golf club.
In fairness the microphone skills of someone is pretty unimportant in the bigger picture.:)0 -
Did anyone ask is the Board had all paid their subs up front this year or had any of them gone on DD??0
-
As I said, I have no connection with SCGC so I don't really care TBH, even though its informative to see how other club's situations might play out in the future, but unfortunately there are rules and regulations that need to be followed when a company exists. If they were not followed (and I assume its a big IF), then its right and proper for people to ask why and look for explanations. We haven't reached a situation where everything is just swept under the carpet purely because you want a golf club.
In fairness the microphone skills of someone is pretty unimportant in the bigger picture.:)
It is if the lack of such skills prevents his audience from hearing what he is saying and especially when what is being said is of vital importance to the audience - this was the case yesterday.0 -
eagleleyes wrote: »Did anyone ask is the Board had all paid their subs up front this year or had any of them gone on DD??
Question was not asked, one board member said that he had paid up front, did not hear any of the others say anything.0 -
I suppose the power point presentation with all the information over his shoulder was too hard to see with your eyes closed?As I said, I have no connection with SCGC so I don't really care TBH, even though its informative to see how other club's situations might play out in the future, but unfortunately there are rules and regulations that need to be followed when a company exists. If they were not followed (and I assume its a big IF), then its right and proper for people to ask why and look for explanations. We haven't reached a situation where everything is just swept under the carpet purely because you want a golf club.
In fairness the microphone skills of someone is pretty unimportant in the bigger picture.:)
It is if the lack of such skills prevents his audience from hearing what he is saying and especially when what is being said is of vital importance to the audience - this was the case yesterday.0 -
I suppose the power point presentation with all the information over his shoulder was too hard to see with your eyes closed?
You really are an arrogant person. I wasnt at the meeting and wont be back but it seems that all you can do is snipe at people who were there. it must be a terrible burden for you as a highly intelligent person to have to deal with as you say in your own words "idiots".
It might be better for you if a new club is formed to move on and find like minded people who can communicate on your level. God help that golf club.
It seems to me that South County would have been a better place if you had never been a member.0 -
Advertisement
-
Talked to a member who was at the meeting yesterday. He said it was a non event.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement