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
-
ajcurry123 wrote: »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)
I never previously understood the attraction of soaps. 0 -
It wasn't "my" strategy and I am not saying it was necessarily perfect in every way. It is also obvious that it didn't work. However it was a strategy designed in and for the times we live in. Maybe more members left after year one than was expected but the reality is that people have far more choice now than ever before. It may or may not be true but I was assured by the previous club manager than their exit polls did not show a strong price resistance to SC; decisions had more to do with more convenient options and the like. Some people also quit because they couldn't afford membership at any price.not bothered wrote: »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.
None of that alters the fact that 55 shareholders - who were not "entitled to walk away" and whom the club (i.e. the rest of us) were depending to carry their share of the burden in straitened times - welched on their part of the deal. And in some cases having "negotiated" discounts and deferrals over the previous years as well.
For "arrogance" and "dictatorship" - read applying the same rules to everyone and expecting people to honour their commitments.0 -
-
Yes. If a shareholder did not pay their sub or any other charges or levies due, their share reverted to the club and they remain a debtor for the amount due. That was in the original company rules (which applied when the club started) and remained in the M & A of the 2004 version.ajcurry123 wrote: »Was there a legal agreement saying the shareholders could not walk away Gambino?0 -
Yes. If a shareholder did not pay their sub or any other charges or levies due, their share reverted to the club and they remain a debtor for the amount due. That was in the original company rules (which applied when the club started) and remained in the M & A of the 2004 version.
Interesting, but how can they be a Debtor?
The model is that you pay in advance for membership, be it monthly or annually. This means there should never be a debt against your name.
If prepayment hasn't been received then the club should have not allowed those people to be members.
My thinking is that a debt should not be allowed to build up against a former member (that being someone who has failed to pay... the club should enforce this)0 -
Advertisement
-
That is true for members who were not shareholders. However shareholders had additional commitments to contribute to the club.ajcurry123 wrote: »
That'sYes. If a shareholder did not pay their sub or any other charges or levies due, their share reverted to the club and they remain a debtor for the amount due. That was in the original company rules (which applied when the club started) and remained in the M & A of the 2004 version.
Interesting, but how can they be a Debtor?
The model is that you pay in advance for membership, be it monthly or annually. This means there should never be a debt against your name.
If prepayment hasn't been received then the club should have not allowed those people to be members.
My thinking is that a debt should not be allowed to build up against a former member (that being someone who has failed to pay... the club should enforce this)0 -
Yes. If a shareholder did not pay their sub or any other charges or levies due, their share reverted to the clubThat is true for members who were not shareholders. However shareholders had additional commitments to contribute to the club.
If a shareholder doesn't pay their membership they lose their share(up to club to enforce this). .
They then lose any commitment they made to pay membership as a Shareholder.
In summary, 55 previous shareholders didn't pay membership, they lost their share, as a result they are not Obliged/Legally bound to pay a membership. They are "entitled to walk away"0 -
Incorrect. They remain liable for the amounts due. The club was entitled to pursue them through debt collectors and the courts. I believe this was contemplated and may even have happened if not overtaken by events. The liquidator could have pursued them also but presumably decided it wasn't worth it.ajcurry123 wrote: »Yes. If a shareholder did not pay their sub or any other charges or levies due, their share reverted to the clubThat is true for members who were not shareholders. However shareholders had additional commitments to contribute to the club.
If a shareholder doesn't pay their membership they lose their share(up to club to enforce this). .
They then lose any commitment they made to pay membership as a Shareholder.
In summary, 55 previous shareholders didn't pay membership, they lost their share, as a result they are not Obliged/Legally bound to pay a membership. They are "entitled to walk away"0 -
Another emailWhile we wait for the landlords to come back to us regarding playing back in the SCGC we have had an offer from the Heritage G C to come down there and sample their excellent facility.
A fee of €10.00 will be charged to any member of the SCGC who were members at the beginning of May. To do so please contact Dean in the Pro Shop. Please note that you will need id and that a list of members who to take up this offer will be recorded and sent back to the committee.
Contact details are:
Killenard
County Laois
Ireland
Tel. O53 78645
We also have had a very reasonable offer from the Heritage Management Team offering Full Membership to us the members of SCGC at very reasonable prices. You will be given this detailed offer in the coming days but if anyone wants the offer now, please contact the captain Michael Moore on
captainscgc2012@gmail.com
Yours in golf
Seems strange to be promoting offers from another club, no?0 -
On the 55 shareholders who didnt renew and indeed others who stopped paying their sub in prior years, they remained liable for the sub. It was not like a bank share where you may or may not receive a dividend, in effect you had a negative dividend every year equal to the annual sub until you disposed of the share.
The meeting on the evening prior to the close down was not regarding an organised boycott, varying opinions were offered and yes there were some of the 120 non payers who collapsed the club present.
An incorrect assumption has been made in various posts regarding the pricing strategy which offered a reduced sub in year 1/2. First of all this was an excellent idea to let new people try out the club and should have been even cheaper to 'price match' inferior courses and fill the membership. I appreciate that some people did not fully understand this model and the board should have done more to explain this and get members buy-in so the members would act as sales people rather than bitching about people getting in on a better deal which is small minded and misses the overall goal. The incorrect assumption is that people who availed of the offer did not renew, this only applied to a handful of cases. The walkout was by people who resented others getting a better deal in year 1.
As regards non payers a small proportion of these were 'cant pay', the vast majority were in the 'won't pay' category. There is no reason why SC would have a higher proportion of 'can't pay' people than anywhere else in the country.0 -
Advertisement
-
[/Quote]
Incorrect. They remain liable for the amounts due. The club was entitled to pursue them through debt collectors and the courts. I believe this was contemplated and may even have happened if not overtaken by events. The liquidator could have pursued them also but presumably decided it wasn't worth it.[/Quote]
Incorrect yourself, a liquidator is legally obliged to seek as much to money back for creditors as possible. Circa €30 in stamps and a letter from them is the very least they would do. A liquidator would not risk not sending this letter IF they felt these people were real debtors.
Shareholder doesn't pay sub -> share is taken away-> no longer a shareholder-> no longer liable for these life long debts that you claim
Could you clarify if, or how long, the agreement you talk of goes forward?0 -
On the 55 shareholders who didnt renew and indeed others who stopped paying their sub in prior years, they remained liable for the sub. It was not like a bank share where you may or may not receive a dividend, in effect you had a negative dividend every year equal to the annual sub until you disposed of the share.
The meeting on the evening prior to the close down was not regarding an organised boycott, varying opinions were offered and yes there were some of the 120 non payers who collapsed the club present.
An incorrect assumption has been made in various posts regarding the pricing strategy which offered a reduced sub in year 1/2. First of all this was an excellent idea to let new people try out the club and should have been even cheaper to 'price match' inferior courses and fill the membership. I appreciate that some people did not fully understand this model and the board should have done more to explain this and get members buy-in so the members would act as sales people rather than bitching about people getting in on a better deal which is small minded and misses the overall goal. The incorrect assumption is that people who availed of the offer did not renew, this only applied to a handful of cases. The walkout was by people who resented others getting a better deal in year 1.
As regards non payers a small proportion of these were 'cant pay', the vast majority were in the 'won't pay' category. There is no reason why SC would have a higher proportion of 'can't pay' people than anywhere else in the country.
I would have to disagree with this. A club is dependent on its existing membership. The hardcore members are the lifeblood of the club.Once they feel they are getting a raw deal you have problems. The existing members, many of whom had invested serious money in South County, obviously felt they were subsidising the new members. This was bound to create animosity.
With all clubs looking to be more competitive some of the SC members obviously decided to avail of offers elsewhere feeling they were getting better value for money. In the current market value for money seems to be a key aspect in decisions made by members.While you had new members joining because of the deals being offered this strategy would only have worked if existing members felt there was an incentive for them too.0 -
downthemiddle wrote: »On the 55 shareholders who didnt renew and indeed others who stopped paying their sub in prior years, they remained liable for the sub. It was not like a bank share where you may or may not receive a dividend, in effect you had a negative dividend every year equal to the annual sub until you disposed of the share.
The meeting on the evening prior to the close down was not regarding an organised boycott, varying opinions were offered and yes there were some of the 120 non payers who collapsed the club present.
An incorrect assumption has been made in various posts regarding the pricing strategy which offered a reduced sub in year 1/2. First of all this was an excellent idea to let new people try out the club and should have been even cheaper to 'price match' inferior courses and fill the membership. I appreciate that some people did not fully understand this model and the board should have done more to explain this and get members buy-in so the members would act as sales people rather than bitching about people getting in on a better deal which is small minded and misses the overall goal. The incorrect assumption is that people who availed of the offer did not renew, this only applied to a handful of cases. The walkout was by people who resented others getting a better deal in year 1.
As regards non payers a small proportion of these were 'cant pay', the vast majority were in the 'won't pay' category. There is no reason why SC would have a higher proportion of 'can't pay' people than anywhere else in the country.
I would have to disagree with this. A club is dependent on its existing membership. The hardcore members are the lifeblood of the club.Once they feel they are getting a raw deal you have problems. The existing members, many of whom had invested serious money in South County, obviously felt they were subsidising the new members. This was bound to create animosity.
With all clubs looking to be more competitive some of the SC members obviously decided to avail of offers elsewhere feeling they were getting better value for money. In the current market value for money seems to be a key aspect in decisions made by members.While you had new members joining because of the deals being offered this strategy would only have worked if existing members felt there was an incentive for them too.
The incentive was to increase the number of members, secure long term of club and reduce subs for all, probably around the 1200 mark. This incentive was not explained to members and this was a significant miss.
Another massive miss by the board and GM was that members were leaving without finding out why via letter/email/phone call/meeting. No successful business loses customers without finding out why and trying to retain them.0 -
The incentive was to increase the number of members, secure long term of club and reduce subs for all, probably around the 1200 mark. This incentive was not explained to members and this was a significant miss.
Another massive miss by the board and GM was that members were leaving without finding out why via letter/email/phone call/meeting. No successful business loses customers without finding out why and trying to retain them.
Where ate you getting all this information? I assume you must be a shareholder and this is being shared with you. I was a member for the last couple of years and have not heard any of that. You might post the source for us newer members to see if we are being kept in the dark.0 -
I am not getting any privilged information, I just asked questions and got answers. Some of the above was alluded to in letters in general terms but as I have said before, there was an overall communications failure. This is a shame as people were putting in voluntary efforts with the right intentions but they didnt get their message across to bring the membership with them.
People saw adds offering cheaper deals and without the plan being explained, people jumped to the conclusion that they were subsidising new members whereas in reality these new members would ultimately have resulted in a reduction in subs for all.
I dont think there was a deliberate policy to 'keep people in the dark' as you say, I just think that updating people was overlooked with detrimental consequences. I am trying to remain optimistic but there is a danger of a communications failure again with people putting in massive efforts and overlooking the fact that members are scattering.0 -
I am not getting any privilged information, I just asked questions and got answers. Some of the above was alluded to in letters in general terms but as I have said before, there was an overall communications failure. This is a shame as people were putting in voluntary efforts with the right intentions but they didnt get their message across to bring the membership with them.
People saw adds offering cheaper deals and without the plan being explained, people jumped to the conclusion that they were subsidising new members whereas in reality these new members would ultimately have resulted in a reduction in subs for all.
I dont think there was a deliberate policy to 'keep people in the dark' as you say, I just think that updating people was overlooked with detrimental consequences. I am trying to remain optimistic but there is a danger of a communications failure again with people putting in massive efforts and overlooking the fact that members are scattering.
You are obviously at an advantage to me in knowing the right people to talk to. I am relying on communication from the captain and what is posted here!!!! It does not look good going forward if the committee are at loggerheads with the owners before we even set foot back in the club. Is there any indication what the new club might be called?0 -
Incorrect. They remain liable for the amounts due. The club was entitled to pursue them through debt collectors and the courts. I believe this was contemplated and may even have happened if not overtaken by events. The liquidator could have pursued them also but presumably decided it wasn't worth it.[/Quote]
Incorrect yourself, a liquidator is legally obliged to seek as much to money back for creditors as possible. Circa €30 in stamps and a letter from them is the very least they would do. A liquidator would not risk not sending this letter IF they felt these people were real debtors.
Shareholder doesn't pay sub -> share is taken away-> no longer a shareholder-> no longer liable for these life long debts that you claim
Could you clarify if, or how long, the agreement you talk of goes forward?[/QUOTE]
Would you like me to send you a copy of the Memo and Arts? It could not be simpler or clearer; If you were a shareholder you were obliged to pay your sub and liable for same. The liquidator can account for his own decisions.0 -
I understand they intend to keep the name as South County.You are obviously at an advantage to me in knowing the right people to talk to. I am relying on communication from the captain and what is posted here!!!! It does not look good going forward if the committee are at loggerheads with the owners before we even set foot back in the club. Is there any indication what the new club might be called?0 -
I don't think I'm any brighter than the next guy but with or without communication from the Board as to the strategy, I was never never in any doubt that new members were getting a cheaper deal than me because it was the only way we'd get them in given the competition for members from other clubs. Only if we got new members would the Club survive and as the numbers grew, my annual sub would come down.
Did I like it? No. But I sucked it up and got on with it because there was no way I could see that we'd plug the income gap. In the long term the hope was that the arrival of the 7 and 5 day members at a lower cost would preserve the value of my share. However, others couldn't accept it - and that's their right, albeit I think Gambino is right about their obligations - so the strategy failed. Maybe lowering the cost for everyone would have worked better but we'd have needed a massive influx of new members to balance the books and presumably the Board thought that wouldn't happen.
As a side issue, one reason some received more information than others is because they were shareholders.
Im not defending the Board, incidentally. I'm as disappointed and annoyed with some of their actions and behaviours as the next ex-member but I just think any shareholders who needed told why there was a different pricing strategy were walking about with their eyes shut.0 -
You are completely right of course but I have been getting abuse for weeks for making exactly the same point so don't be surprised or disappointed if it happens to you too.I don't think I'm any brighter than the next guy but with or without communication from the Board as to the strategy, I was never never in any doubt that new members were getting a cheaper deal than me because it was the only way we'd get them in given the competition for members from other clubs. Only if we got new members would the Club survive and as the numbers grew, my annual sub would come down.
Did I like it? No. But I sucked it up and got on with it because there was no way I could see that we'd plug the income gap. In the long term the hope was that the arrival of the 7 and 5 day members at a lower cost would preserve the value of my share. However, others couldn't accept it - and that's their right, albeit I think Gambino is right about their obligations - so the strategy failed. Maybe lowering the cost for everyone would have worked better but we'd have needed a massive influx of new members to balance the books and presumably the Board thought that wouldn't happen.
As a side issue, one reason some received more information than others is because they were shareholders.
Im not defending the Board, incidentally. I'm as disappointed and annoyed with some of their actions and behaviours as the next ex-member but I just think any shareholders who needed told why there was a different pricing strategy were walking about with their eyes shut.
There is obviously no talking to some people.0 -
Advertisement
-
I am not getting any privilged information, I just asked questions and got answers. Some of the above was alluded to in letters in general terms but as I have said before, there was an overall communications failure. This is a shame as people were putting in voluntary efforts with the right intentions but they didnt get their message across to bring the membership with them.
People saw adds offering cheaper deals and without the plan being explained, people jumped to the conclusion that they were subsidising new members whereas in reality these new members would ultimately have resulted in a reduction in subs for all.
I dont think there was a deliberate policy to 'keep people in the dark' as you say, I just think that updating people was overlooked with detrimental consequences. I am trying to remain optimistic but there is a danger of a communications failure again with people putting in massive efforts and overlooking the fact that members are scattering.
You are obviously at an advantage to me in knowing the right people to talk to. I am relying on communication from the captain and what is posted here!!!! It does not look good going forward if the committee are at loggerheads with the owners before we even set foot back in the club. Is there any indication what the new club might be called?
I have tried to speak to as many people as possible to get the full picture. This thread has also been very useful. The committee and captain need to get things sorted ASAP, trying to do the perfect deal and taking ages is not an option. All financial aspects are for the landlords so it should be fairly simple as all the new committee will be doing is running golf affairs.
We are losing people as time goes by. The offer from the landlords is fantastic value for direct debit people as they will get 2012 golf for half price! For upfront payers, it's not so attractive. We've lost May golf and now it looks like June too so the committee and landlords need to just get 'opening day' scheduled within days. The 'holding emails' with no info are getting a bit repetitive.
I appreciate they are working on a voluntary basis but time is of the essence as people try out new courses and make decisions.
As regards the name I suggested to landlords that they rebrand as Lisheen Golf Club as the SC name is a bit damaged from all this stuff but they didn't agree.0 -
On balance I think they are right to hold on the SC brand. The delay is frustrating. Pat Kavanagh being away is probably not helping; I think he is the more reasonabl;e and flexible of them. However I can easily believe that there are complex issues to be sorted, even with the best of attitudes.
We'll see how many have "really" left - i.e. paid up elsewhere. I suspect there is a bit of shadow boxing going on in that regard, for all the bluster. When people calm down and start using their heads instead of their guts for thinking, they may decide that SC isn't such a bad option after all. For sure some have gone but from what I've heard about it, they include some who won't be missed.0 -
0 -
On balance I think they are right to hold on the SC brand. The delay is frustrating. Pat Kavanagh being away is probably not helping; I think he is the more reasonabl;e and flexible of them. However I can easily believe that there are complex issues to be sorted, even with the best of attitudes.
We'll see how many have "really" left - i.e. paid up elsewhere. I suspect there is a bit of shadow boxing going on in that regard, for all the bluster. When people calm down and start using their heads instead of their guts for thinking, they may decide that SC isn't such a bad option after all. For sure some have gone but from what I've heard about it, they include some who won't be missed.
I was luck enough to meet a shareholder while out last night. He said we have lost very good club men to both Beech Park and Newlands. He does not know where the rest have gone to.
I think SC will be no more if the negotiations between the committee and the land owners does not progress quickly.
He also said that the problem with the negotiations stalling is due to an ex board member pulling the strings in the background.
I think at this point I will look for another club.0 -
As I recall, you have made a number of posts in which you relay opinions gathered from others - e.g. the EGM being a "non event". Now you tell us that a shareholder has told you that an ex board member is "pulling strings", the inference being it is with malicious intent. You not only accept this but feel obliged to put it into a public forum. Given the seriousness of this allegation (which I would treat with scepticism) I think you should ask your source for some details that would help us decide if there is any basis or if it is just a case of he - and you - showing some malicious intent of your own.On balance I think they are right to hold on the SC brand. The delay is frustrating. Pat Kavanagh being away is probably not helping; I think he is the more reasonabl;e and flexible of them. However I can easily believe that there are complex issues to be sorted, even with the best of attitudes.
We'll see how many have "really" left - i.e. paid up elsewhere. I suspect there is a bit of shadow boxing going on in that regard, for all the bluster. When people calm down and start using their heads instead of their guts for thinking, they may decide that SC isn't such a bad option after all. For sure some have gone but from what I've heard about it, they include some who won't be missed.
I was luck enough to meet a shareholder while out last night. He said we have lost very good club men to both Beech Park and Newlands. He does not know where the rest have gone to.
I think SC will be no more if the negotiations between the committee and the land owners does not progress quickly.
He also said that the problem with the negotiations stalling is due to an ex board member pulling the strings in the background.
I think at this point I will look for another club.
I would hope that the captains and committee also become aware of it and deal with it. We have enough on our plate.0 -
Gambino, it appears it is just you who is allowed to post updates from keeping your ear to the ground. The source is a long standing shareholder who wants to get back playing golf in SC. so no as you put it malicious intent in post. I love the high moral ground you take in your posts and the fact that all your sources are reliable yet when someone else posts something you don't like it's malicious and not reliable. To funny.0
-
Then lets get some substance to back up the allegation. I am happy to do that for anything I have contributed. Are you?Gambino, it appears it is just you who is allowed to post updates from keeping your ear to the ground. The source is a long standing shareholder who wants to get back playing golf in SC. so no as you put it malicious intent in post. I love the high moral ground you take in your posts and the fact that all your sources are reliable yet when someone else posts something you don't like it's malicious and not reliable. To funny.0 -
-
Not in the least. Tell me what I have said that you would like me to substantiate. Meanwhile I await something to support the very serious allegation you have so casually passed on.I am happy to do so. Your obviously rattled if willing to shop you sources.
I am also reminded of some interventions by moderators earlier in the thread, to the effect that rumours are worthless information and we should stick to facts. I trust they are monitoring this.0 -
Advertisement
-
Gambino,Not in the least. Tell me what I have said that you would like me to substantiate. Meanwhile I await something to support the very serious allegation you have so casually passed on.
I am also reminded of some interventions by moderators earlier in the thread, to the effect that rumours are worthless information and we should stick to facts. I trust they are monitoring this.
Your attitude is of a superior being, reminds me of certain people up in SC who hopefully will not be back. I wish the club all the best but I can't see it surviving.
If your intent was reverse psychology and you really want the club to fail you are going the right way. As I said i am now looking at alternative
I am available via PM to discuss what I have posted. I will not post names on a public forum. I think the mods do an excellent job here and have managed this difficult thread brilliantly. Let them at it!!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement