South County GC Closed

newport2

Gambino wrote: »

I never missed a fairway in my life.

Your driving must be as consistant as the integrity of your posts is.

ArielAtom

Gambino wrote: »

Then one of your ex captains and an eminent senior member are telling lies.

Lies!!!!!!!!!

matt-dublin

Heath is only 1500. no joining fee. And as a member you get free rounds and competition prizes as glen fees.

i think you can play opens at guest rates as well

Gambino

newport2 wrote: »

Your driving must be as consistant as the integrity of your posts is.

Both are better than your spelling and grammar.

A lot of mis-information and twisted versions of what happened and is happening at South County have been thrown in here. If you compare this with the facts that have emerged (and will continue to emerge) I think you will look at other people's integrity instead of mine.

Whyner

Anyone playing The Heritage this Sat for E10? They offered us a cheap round while we get things sorted out. I'm booked in.

Mount Wolseley on Sun and Concra on Tue. That will give anyone a hard on.

Gambino

matt-dublin wrote: »

Heath is only 1500. no joining fee. And as a member you get free rounds and competition prizes as glen fees.

i think you can play opens at guest rates as well

Never played it - or heard much about it to be honest. Its down near Portlaoise isn't it? A bit far.

I see Heritage are courting us too - that's in the same area.

Can't you play all opens at guest rates? Isn't that what opens are?

Russman

Whyner wrote: »

Mount Wolseley

Now THERE'S a golf course !!

matt-dublin

Gambino wrote: »

Never played it - or heard much about it to be honest. Its down near Portlaoise isn't it? A bit far.

I see Heritage are courting us too - that's in the same area.

Can't you play all opens at guest rates? Isn't that what opens are?

Druids heath that is, you can play druids glen at guest rates instead of full cost.

opens are cheaper than normal fees, but cheaper again if you're a guest of a member.

its near kilcoole/greystones/newtown

Whyner

Gambino wrote: »

Never played it - or heard much about it to be honest. Its down near Portlaoise isn't it? A bit far.

I see Heritage are courting us too - that's in the same area.

Can't you play all opens at guest rates? Isn't that what opens are?

You're all over the place Gambino. Go back and re-read that.

newport2

Gambino wrote: »

Both are better than your grammar.

A lot of mis-information and twisted versions of what happened and is happening at South County have been thrown in here. If you compare this with the facts that have emerged (and will continue to emerge) I think you will look at other people's integrity instead of mine.

Gambino

matt-dublin wrote: »

Gambino wrote: »

Never played it - or heard much about it to be honest. Its down near Portlaoise isn't it? A bit far.

I see Heritage are courting us too - that's in the same area.

Can't you play all opens at guest ra zItes? Isn't that what opens are?

Druids heath that is, you can play druids glen at guest rates instead of full cost.

opens are cheaper than normal fees, but cheaper again if you're a guest of a member.

its near kilcoole/greystones/newtown

Sorry, thought you were talking about The Heath. Didn't connect to the earlier stuff. I think Druids Heath is OK but I would always want to be on the Glen. A bit like Royal Dublin and St Annes.

sodbuster77

Latest from the Captains:


We received a message today that some members have joined Dublin City Golf Club.
The said members were up in the SCGC playing golf and when finished were talking to one of the Landlords.
They informed the landlord that they had not received any news, from the committee with regard to playing back in the SCGC.

Unfortunately the Landlords have been unable to give us the answers we need to begin the reintroduction into the SCGC.
As soon as we get them answers from the Landlords we will let you the members know.

We could send messages every day, believe me things are changing every day.
However till the Landlords get their act together and are able to give us firm commitments we will not be advising any re-entry to the SCGC.

We are doing the best of our ability to get things moving quickly.
If the Landlords did the best of their ability, rather than worrying about whether we are keeping you informed we might be able to move quicker.

ArielAtom

Not looking good for a return.

Almaviva

sodbuster77 wrote: »

Latest from the Captains:

We received a message today that some members have joined Dublin City Golf Club.
The said members were up in the SCGC playing golf and when finished were talking to one of the Landlords.
They informed the landlord that they had not received any news, from the committee with regard to playing back in the SCGC.

Unfortunately the Landlords have been unable to give us the answers we need to begin the reintroduction into the SCGC.
As soon as we get them answers from the Landlords we will let you the members know.

We could send messages every day, believe me things are changing every day.
However till the Landlords get their act together and are able to give us firm commitments we will not be advising any re-entry to the SCGC.

We are doing the best of our ability to get things moving quickly.
If the Landlords did the best of their ability, rather than worrying about whether we are keeping you informed we might be able to move quicker.

Is this thread becoming more and more like something from The Twilight Zone or Twin Peaks ? Maybe the owls saw something up in those hills. Above, a not quite decoded message from the backwards speaking dwarf. But maybe it makes perfect sense to some.

Gambino

Almaviva wrote: »

sodbuster77 wrote: »

Latest from the Captains:

We received a message today that some members have joined Dublin City Golf Club.
The said members were up in the SCGC playing golf and when finished were talking to one of the Landlords.
They informed the landlord that they had not received any news, from the committee with regard to playing back in the SCGC.

Unfortunately the Landlords have been unable to give us the answers we need to begin the reintroduction into the SCGC.
As soon as we get them answers from the Landlords we will let you the members know.

We could send messages every day, believe me things are changing every day.
However till the Landlords get their act together and are able to give us firm commitments we will not be advising any re-entry to the SCGC.

We are doing the best of our ability to get things moving quickly.
If the Landlords did the best of their ability, rather than worrying about whether we are keeping you informed we might be able to move quicker.

Is this thread becoming more and more like something from The Twilight Zone or Twin Peaks ? Maybe the owls saw something up in those hills. Above, a not quite decoded message from the backwards speaking dwarf. But maybe it makes perfect sense to some.

It sounds as if tempers are getting a bit frayed. Lets hope cool heads prevail.

Ding Ding

sodbuster77 wrote: »

Latest from the Captains:


We received a message today that some members have joined Dublin City Golf Club.
The said members were up in the SCGC playing golf and when finished were talking to one of the Landlords.
They informed the landlord that they had not received any news, from the committee with regard to playing back in the SCGC.

Unfortunately the Landlords have been unable to give us the answers we need to begin the reintroduction into the SCGC.
As soon as we get them answers from the Landlords we will let you the members know.

We could send messages every day, believe me things are changing every day.
However till the Landlords get their act together and are able to give us firm commitments we will not be advising any re-entry to the SCGC.

We are doing the best of our ability to get things moving quickly.
If the Landlords did the best of their ability, rather than worrying about whether we are keeping you informed we might be able to move quicker.

Communication let the Board down and it looks like it is letting the Committee down now as well. There has been a lack of progress updates from the committee and this is leading to people scattering.

Good or bad news should be communicated regularly. Again I acknowledge that the committee are working on a voluntary basis and I commend their efforts but time is drifting by and so are people unfortunately.

It would be useful if the members or prospective members were aware of what the issues are. Surely all financial headaches are now for the landlords and the committee are only concerned with golfing matters.

Gambino

Ding Ding wrote: »

sodbuster77 wrote: »

Latest from the Captains:


We received a message today that some members have joined Dublin City Golf Club.
The said members were up in the SCGC playing golf and when finished were talking to one of the Landlords.
They informed the landlord that they had not received any news, from the committee with regard to playing back in the SCGC.

Unfortunately the Landlords have been unable to give us the answers we need to begin the reintroduction into the SCGC.
As soon as we get them answers from the Landlords we will let you the members know.

We could send messages every day, believe me things are changing every day.
However till the Landlords get their act together and are able to give us firm commitments we will not be advising any re-entry to the SCGC.

We are doing the best of our ability to get things moving quickly.
If the Landlords did the best of their ability, rather than worrying about whether we are keeping you informed we might be able to move quicker.

Communication let the Board down and it looks like it is letting the Committee down now as well. There has been a lack of progress updates from the committee and this is leading to people scattering.

Good or bad news should be communicated regularly. Again I acknowledge that the committee are working on a voluntary basis and I commend their efforts but time is drifting by and so are people unfortunately.

It would be useful if the members or prospective members were aware of what the issues are. Surely all financial headaches are now for the landlords and the committee are only concerned with golfing matters.

I agree up to a point. You can't negotiate in public. Lets see just how much scattering is done at the end of it all. Yes some have left but my sense is that fewer have committed to anywhere else than some would have us believe. Not yet anyway.

frost53

:eek: Jeez Gambino...what an insufferable self-opinionated yoke you are.
If I do do go back to SC, I'll bring a large can of bull**** repellant in case I bump into you.

Gambino

frost53 wrote: »

:eek: Jeez Gambino...what an insufferable self-opinionated yoke you are.
If I do do go back to SC, I'll bring a large can of bull**** repellant in case I bump into you.

Thanks. That's the sort of feed back that tells me I'm on the right track. Keep it coming.

Hacker 2

Can anyone take a look at this link and advise? http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=21761.0

Ding Ding

As mentioned before the indisputable fact is that the 120 members not renewing is what collapsed the club, not the board and not the landowners.

These 120 people probably have a mixture of feelings ranging from guilt to satisfaction. Throwing stones at the board, landowners, members, non members etc will achieve nothing.

However if there is a smaller group of loyal members who want to simply play golf on a championship golf course, then the loss of others with negative agendas will be no bad thing in the long term interests of the new club.

Hopefully the committee and landowners can resolve matters shortly so we can get back to going for that 65 in the medal or the 45 points in the company of other loyal members which is what it's all about at the end if the day

Sure we can go visit those who abandoned ship and beat the socks off them (in golf) wherever they've gone

Russman

I think another poster argued that point many, many, pages ago on this thread.
IMO the question should be "why did 120 people not renew ?"

The inference, intended or not, seems to be an apportionment of blame of some sort on those who left - ridiculous in my opinion. Are the board to blame for driving these people away maybe ?

People are free to join or not join a club. You can't expect members to just "take" whatever the committee/board/factions throw at them and just carry on paying a sub. Life's not like that.

Now, I've no idea what went on in SC, but from what's been posted on here it seems reasonable to assume an Us Vs Them mentality between the powers that be and the general membership reached a tipping point. Not particularly uncommon for people on a committee to develop a power complex but it seems that SC was on such knife edge financially that it didn't take much for everything to go t1ts up.

Why did these not members feel sufficiently loyal to make some sacrifices for the sake of the club ?

Gambino

Russman wrote: »

I think another poster argued that point many, many, pages ago on this thread.
IMO the question should be "why did 120 people not renew ?"

The inference, intended or not, seems to be an apportionment of blame of some sort on those who left - ridiculous in my opinion. Are the board to blame for driving these people away maybe ?

People are free to join or not join a club. You can't expect members to just "take" whatever the committee/board/factions throw at them and just carry on paying a sub. Life's not like that.

Now, I've no idea what went on in SC, but from what's been posted on here it seems reasonable to assume an Us Vs Them mentality between the powers that be and the general membership reached a tipping point. Not particularly uncommon for people on a committee to develop a power complex but it seems that SC was on such knife edge financially that it didn't take much for everything to go t1ts up.

Why did these not members feel sufficiently loyal to make some sacrifices for the sake of the club ?

At the risk of raking over old coals, I would just point out that being a shareholder in South County carried certain obligations, one of which was to pay your annual subscription. The concept behind that is pretty obvious; as a shareholder you carry some responsibility for the well-being and survival of the project. You are not just "a customer" to be nurtured or retained; you are expected - because you volunteered - to be part of the solution, not of the problem. You are in a club.

Since the virtual dissapearance in entry fees, the churn in club memberships has been huge and it is a fact of life that commitment is a lot less than it used to be. In the killing zone that is the battle for market share, South County adopted a marketing strategy that involved attracting new members at a lower, introductory rate for their first and (with conditions) second year. This approach is consistent with that used by mobile phone companies, TV cable providers, insurance companies and many others. Such strategies are based on fairly well developed actuarial numbers for those who join, those who leave, those who stay etc. The rates that applied were calculated against the competitive environment - what was on offer elsewhere for those in the target market. Similar startegies - or variations thereon - are to be found in most clubs in the Dublin area and many beyond. Given that we were offering a superior product to most of the competition, it was not unreasonable to expect to keep more than we lost and a growth in member numbers was part of the deal the club negotiated with the bank.

Part of the calculations is that amidst the general "churn", you will leak some - but not many - of your "core" group. These are the people who leave for genuine reasons - death, illness, emigration, poverty or whatever. What the club did not accurately predict was the number of core members who would "rebel" against this strategy. Perhaps they can be blamed for that, but if they did, their biggest mistake was being niaive enough to expect the shareholders to honour their agreements.

The number of shareholders who did not pay seems to be around 55. I do not know exactly how many were in the "can't" and "won't" pay camps but we know that about 45 people attended a meeting to discuss a subscription boycott and proposed putsch against the board the very night the club was closed. You can make your own estimates.

You are right about the Us V Them mentality and I have aluded to that in earlier posts. South County was not unique in being infested with internicine strife but we seem to have had more than our fair share of it.

With luck, the worst of them will move on and leave the new club to those who want to be part of it.

not bothered

Russman wrote: »

I think another poster argued that point many, many, pages ago on this thread.
IMO the question should be "why did 120 people not renew ?"

The inference, intended or not, seems to be an apportionment of blame of some sort on those who left - ridiculous in my opinion. Are the board to blame for driving these people away maybe ?

People are free to join or not join a club. You can't expect members to just "take" whatever the committee/board/factions throw at them and just carry on paying a sub. Life's not like that.

Now, I've no idea what went on in SC, but from what's been posted on here it seems reasonable to assume an Us Vs Them mentality between the powers that be and the general membership reached a tipping point. Not particularly uncommon for people on a committee to develop a power complex but it seems that SC was on such knife edge financially that it didn't take much for everything to go t1ts up.

Why did these not members feel sufficiently loyal to make some sacrifices for the sake of the club ?

I agree with your points and having seen some of the comments made about ex members joining other clubs how can you blame them.
Gambino seem to think that the final numbers wont be as bad as they think. He is living in cuckoo land. This board is the talk of the town and I predict he will drive more members to go elsewhere and anyone out there looking for a club will be thinking to themselves why would I join a club with that "Gombino" in it.
He says all the negative people and s..t stirrers are gone. Not all of them while he is still there.
South County has lost a lot of people who were strong supporters of the club and clubhouse over the last 10 years and many clubs will be lucky to get them. "Gombino" may think otherwise .
I am sad that it has finished but having seen the e-Mail from the committee I dont think the working arrangement between the landlords and the committees has got off to a good start and in the future it will be the landlord that will call the tune.
I hope they get it resolved soon and those people who paid up front get to play for the rest of the year .

frost53

As I said

Gambino wrote: »

At the risk of raking over old coals, I would just point out that being a shareholder in South County carried certain obligations, one of which was to pay your annual subscription. The concept behind that is pretty obvious; as a shareholder you carry some responsibility for the well-being and survival of the project. You are not just "a customer" to be nurtured or retained; you are expected - because you volunteered - to be part of the solution, not of the problem. You are in a club.

Since the virtual dissapearance in entry fees, the churn in club memberships has been huge and it is a fact of life that commitment is a lot less than it used to be. In the killing zone that is the battle for market share, South County adopted a marketing strategy that involved attracting new members at a lower, introductory rate for their first and (with conditions) second year. This approach is consistent with that used by mobile phone companies, TV cable providers, insurance companies and many others. Such strategies are based on fairly well developed actuarial numbers for those who join, those who leave, those who stay etc. The rates that applied were calculated against the competitive environment - what was on offer elsewhere for those in the target market. Similar startegies - or variations thereon - are to be found in most clubs in the Dublin area and many beyond. Given that we were offering a superior product to most of the competition, it was not unreasonable to expect to keep more than we lost and a growth in member numbers was part of the deal the club negotiated with the bank.

Part of the calculations is that amidst the general "churn", you will leak some - but not many - of your "core" group. These are the people who leave for genuine reasons - death, illness, emigration, poverty or whatever. What the club did not accurately predict was the number of core members who would "rebel" against this strategy. Perhaps they can be blamed for that, but if they did, their biggest mistake was being niaive enough to expect the shareholders to honour their agreements.

The number of shareholders who did not pay seems to be around 55. I do not know exactly how many were in the "can't" and "won't" pay camps but we know that about 45 people attended a meeting to discuss a subscription boycott and proposed putsch against the board the very night the club was closed. You can make your own estimates.

You are right about the Us V Them mentality and I have aluded to that in earlier posts. South County was not unique in being infested with internicine strife but we seem to have had more than our fair share of it.

With luck, the worst of them will move on and leave the new club to those who want to be part of it.

not bothered

Gambino wrote: »

At the risk of raking over old coals, I would just point out that being a shareholder in South County carried certain obligations, one of which was to pay your annual subscription. The concept behind that is pretty obvious; as a shareholder you carry some responsibility for the well-being and survival of the project. You are not just "a customer" to be nurtured or retained; you are expected - because you volunteered - to be part of the solution, not of the problem. You are in a club.

Since the virtual dissapearance in entry fees, the churn in club memberships has been huge and it is a fact of life that commitment is a lot less than it used to be. In the killing zone that is the battle for market share, South County adopted a marketing strategy that involved attracting new members at a lower, introductory rate for their first and (with conditions) second year. This approach is consistent with that used by mobile phone companies, TV cable providers, insurance companies and many others. Such strategies are based on fairly well developed actuarial numbers for those who join, those who leave, those who stay etc. The rates that applied were calculated against the competitive environment - what was on offer elsewhere for those in the target market. Similar startegies - or variations thereon - are to be found in most clubs in the Dublin area and many beyond. Given that we were offering a superior product to most of the competition, it was not unreasonable to expect to keep more than we lost and a growth in member numbers was part of the deal the club negotiated with the bank.

Part of the calculations is that amidst the general "churn", you will leak some - but not many - of your "core" group. These are the people who leave for genuine reasons - death, illness, emigration, poverty or whatever. What the club did not accurately predict was the number of core members who would "rebel" against this strategy. Perhaps they can be blamed for that, but if they did, their biggest mistake was being niaive enough to expect the shareholders to honour their agreements.

The number of shareholders who did not pay seems to be around 55. I do not know exactly how many were in the "can't" and "won't" pay camps but we know that about 45 people attended a meeting to discuss a subscription boycott and proposed putsch against the board the very night the club was closed. You can make your own estimates.

You are right about the Us V Them mentality and I have aluded to that in earlier posts. South County was not unique in being infested with internicine strife but we seem to have had more than our fair share of it.

With luck, the worst of them will move on and leave the new club to those who want to be part of it.

You keep harping on about the 45 to 55 shareholders that left. What about the 75 seven day and five day memebrs that left in January. In your actuarial calculations that you made did you expect that number to leave. Why did they leave. Answer. Too dear.
So, for 2012 you get another 75 in at reduced prices the shareholders subsidise them and they go in Jan 2013 because they wont pay €1700 in year two.
Get over the fact that your strategy didnt work and stop blaming people who were entitled to walk away because they couldnt afford it any more of were fed up with the way the club was run. Just like AIB shares the SCGC ones were worth nothing and you could hand it back anytime you wanted.
Name the other clubs in the area that offer differentail pricing for 7 day members ?
You seem to know a lot about everything because you keep your ear to the ground. You were not at the meeting the night before the club closed down and neither was I but I was told by someone at the meeting that the final outcome was that 4 people were to ask for a meeting with the board and discuss issues that had been raised.
That to me seems a balanced outcome. But if you are a dictator that would be seen as a revolution and would need to be put down.

ArielAtom

Gambino, who was at this meeting that happened The day the club folded? Does anyone know who attended? Are these the shareholders who left? I am really interested in this as I had not been aware that there was an organised boycott.

Gambino

ArielAtom wrote: »

Gambino, who was at this meeting that happened The day the club folded? Does anyone know who attended? Are these the shareholders who left? I am really interested in this as I had not been aware that there was an organised boycott.

I wasn't there so my info is third hand. I believe it was organised by someone who is reported to have already left but was keen to do as much damage as possible for reasons that I won't go into here. Some who attended tried to talk sense but were ignored. It ended up as a gripe session, with no decisions. When it was asked who would go forward as a replacement board, they all sat on their hands. Pretty well sums them up.

PARlance

I've developed an online version of Stockholm syndrome with this thread...

Gambino, please stop posting, we get your point.
(Gambino, don't stop posting please)

Gambino

ArielAtom wrote: »

Gambino, who was at this meeting that happened The day the club folded? Does anyone know who attended? Are these the shareholders who left? I am really interested in this as I had not been aware that there was an organised boycott.

I wasn't there so my info is third hand. I believe it was organised by someone who is reported to have already left by then but was keen to do as much damage as possible for reasons that I won't go into here. Some who attended tried to talk sense but were ignored. It ended up as a gripe session, with no decisions. When it was asked who would go forward as a replacement board, they all sat on their hands. Pretty well sums them up.