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
-
No need for names. Just tell us how the ex board member is "pulling strings".
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 -
The committee need to up the pace dramatically as there is no point in searching for the perfect deal. We've already lost almost 6 weeks, heading for 2 months.
The deal is great for direct debit payers but much less so for upfront payers, even less so for them as time drags on. Their annual sub is going to be 1839 for 7 months golf whereas DD payers with renewal of 1st April will get their 7 months for approx for 720. This is a massive differential in the deal done by committee.
The committee have no concern on course maintenance or any operational issues, their only role is running competitions so there is no real excuse for inordinate delays as there are no complex issues, maybe a bit of haggling over landlord contribution to interclub comp fund.
There is merit in a lot of the contributions here and I was being optimistic after talking to all parties involved. However the passage of time and a series of fairly uninformative emails from the committee is dampening my optimism.
To try and settle some disputes above, it is a fact that a good number have left for newlands and beech park, along with smaller numbers to a number of other courses. Some of these are part of the 120 non payers who collapsed the club but there are now others moving on.
On the other dispute about pulling strings, who is / was the captain and who is / was the vice captain? Surely this answers that dispute.
The committee need to quit the useless holding emails as there is very little of consequence involved when all the core issues are now the landlords reponsibility.
The 'scattering' is well underway and gaining momentum, this is a fact and not an opinion. The landlord might be of a mind to proceed without the committee based on their recent couple of emails.0 -
I know who the ex board members are. I am looking for information about how they are supposed to be pulling strings.The committee need to up the pace dramatically as there is no point in searching for the perfect deal. We've already lost almost 6 weeks, heading for 2 months.
The deal is great for direct debit payers but much less so for upfront payers, even less so for them as time drags on. Their annual sub is going to be 1839 for 7 months golf whereas DD payers with renewal of 1st April will get their 7 months for approx for 720. This is a massive differential in the deal done by committee.
The committee have no concern on course maintenance or any operational issues, their only role is running competitions so there is no real excuse for inordinate delays as there are no complex issues, maybe a bit of haggling over landlord contribution to interclub comp fund.
There is merit in a lot of the contributions here and I was being optimistic after talking to all parties involved. However the passage of time and a series of fairly uninformative emails from the committee is dampening my optimism.
To try and settle some disputes above, it is a fact that a good number have left for newlands and beech park, along with smaller numbers to a number of other courses. Some of these are part of the 120 non payers who collapsed the club but there are now others moving on.
On the other dispute about pulling strings, who is / was the captain and who is / was the vice captain? Surely this answers that dispute.
The committee need to quit the useless holding emails as there is very little of consequence involved when all the core issues are now the landlords reponsibility.
The 'scattering' is well underway and gaining momentum, this is a fact and not an opinion. The landlord might be of a mind to proceed without the committee based on their recent couple of emails.
I am aware that people are playing at Beech Park and Newlands.. That does not mean they have joined and the ( admittedly anecdotal) reports I heard are that a tiny fraction of them have paid subs in Beech Park. I know that some have joined Newland and Craddockstown but I do not have what I would consider reliable numbers.0 -
I know who the ex board members are. I am looking for information about how they are supposed to be pulling strings.The committee need to up the pace dramatically as there is no point in searching for the perfect deal. We've already lost almost 6 weeks, heading for 2 months.
The deal is great for direct debit payers but much less so for upfront payers, even less so for them as time drags on. Their annual sub is going to be 1839 for 7 months golf whereas DD payers with renewal of 1st April will get their 7 months for approx for 720. This is a massive differential in the deal done by committee.
The committee have no concern on course maintenance or any operational issues, their only role is running competitions so there is no real excuse for inordinate delays as there are no complex issues, maybe a bit of haggling over landlord contribution to interclub comp fund.
There is merit in a lot of the contributions here and I was being optimistic after talking to all parties involved. However the passage of time and a series of fairly uninformative emails from the committee is dampening my optimism.
To try and settle some disputes above, it is a fact that a good number have left for newlands and beech park, along with smaller numbers to a number of other courses. Some of these are part of the 120 non payers who collapsed the club but there are now others moving on.
On the other dispute about pulling strings, who is / was the captain and who is / was the vice captain? Surely this answers that dispute.
The committee need to quit the useless holding emails as there is very little of consequence involved when all the core issues are now the landlords reponsibility.
The 'scattering' is well underway and gaining momentum, this is a fact and not an opinion. The landlord might be of a mind to proceed without the committee based on their recent couple of emails.
I am aware that people are playing at Beech Park and Newlands.. That does not mean they have joined and the ( admittedly anecdotal) reports I heard are that a tiny fraction of them have paid subs in Beech Park. I know that some have joined Newland and Craddockstown but I do not have what I would consider reliable numbers.
It is correct that people have been offered flexible and deferred payment arrangements in clubs they have moved to. Surely this might drive the message home to those who complained about the reduced subs in year 1/2 that SC was offering, this was just smart business and every other club is offering us incentives to join which are better than what members of those clubs pay.
I am not concerned about any of the 120 'collapsers' joining other clubs and agree its a good thing to lose disloyal people who got some sort of satisfaction from collapsing their own club. My concern is the other loyal members who are now drifting due to inexcusable delay. There are legal representatives involved for both the landlord and committee so as anybody who uses Irish solicitors knows, they have a great ability to grind a process to a halt!0 -
I think it is harsh to call the delay inexcusable without knowing the facts of the situation.It is correct that people have been offered flexible and deferred payment arrangements in clubs they have moved to. Surely this might drive the message home to those who complained about the reduced subs in year 1/2 that SC was offering, this was just smart business and every other club is offering us incentives to join which are better than what members of those clubs pay.
I am not concerned about any of the 120 'collapsers' joining other clubs and agree its a good thing to lose disloyal people who got some sort of satisfaction from collapsing their own club. My concern is the other loyal members who are now drifting due to inexcusable delay. There are legal representatives involved for both the landlord and committee so as anybody who uses Irish solicitors knows, they have a great ability to grind a process to a halt!
We know that many other clubs are keen to have us and I've availed of a few "freebies" myself. We also know that any deals that are out there now will also be available next year so no need to rush. That is why I do not consider people now playing elsewhere as necessarily lost to SC, although some clearly are and in some cases, with my enthusiastic blessing.
The irony of people joing other clubs on terms more favourable than their current members is not lost on me.
Meanwhile, I still await Ariel's validation of his claim.0 -
Advertisement
-
Gambino,
I will not as said name names on a public forum. That is the only way of validating my info. If you choose not to accept it that is not a problem. It will all come out in the coming weeks when people are not accepted back by the land owners.0 -
Gambino,
I will not as said name names on a public forum. That is the only way of validating my info. If you choose not to accept it that is not a problem. It will all come out in the coming weeks when people are not accepted back by the land owners.
I certainly hope the inexcusable delay is not down to the committees insisting that the vice captaincy will not be changed or similar.0 -
I think it is harsh to call the delay inexcusable without knowing the facts of the situation.It is correct that people have been offered flexible and deferred payment arrangements in clubs they have moved to. Surely this might drive the message home to those who complained about the reduced subs in year 1/2 that SC was offering, this was just smart business and every other club is offering us incentives to join which are better than what members of those clubs pay.
I am not concerned about any of the 120 'collapsers' joining other clubs and agree its a good thing to lose disloyal people who got some sort of satisfaction from collapsing their own club. My concern is the other loyal members who are now drifting due to inexcusable delay. There are legal representatives involved for both the landlord and committee so as anybody who uses Irish solicitors knows, they have a great ability to grind a process to a halt!
We know that many other clubs are keen to have us and I've availed of a few "freebies" myself. We also know that any deals that are out there now will also be available next year so no need to rush. That is why I do not consider people now playing elsewhere as necessarily lost to SC, although some clearly are and in some cases, with my enthusiastic blessing.
The irony of people joing other clubs on terms more favourable than their current members is not lost on me.
Meanwhile, I still await Ariel's validation of his claim.
The reason I state that the delay is inexcusable is that the landowners are now responsible for all operational matters.
The committee only need to run comps and handicaps so the delay makes no sense.
The emails they have been sending are fairly useless and you say we don't know the facts, I think this verifies that the committee are doing a similar to job as the board in communicating with the membership.0 -
I feel confident in saying that the landlord could give a tuppeny fart who is vice captain. That level of conspiracy theory and paranoia is exactly what got us here.Gambino,
I will not as said name names on a public forum. That is the only way of validating my info. If you choose not to accept it that is not a problem. It will all come out in the coming weeks when people are not accepted back by the land owners.[/
I certainly hope the inexcusable delay is not down to the committees insisting that the vice captaincy will not be changed or similar.0 -
You would be right if the vice captain wasn't also one of the board members and one of the most unpopular characters in the club. Given the fact that the board and the landowner have both blamed each other in part for the collapse of the club, you now expect them to work together?
I feel confident in saying that the landlord could give a tuppeny fart who is vice captain. That level of conspiracy theory and paranoia is exactly what got us here.Gambino,
I will not as said name names on a public forum. That is the only way of validating my info. If you choose not to accept it that is not a problem. It will all come out in the coming weeks when people are not accepted back by the land owners.[/
I certainly hope the inexcusable delay is not down to the committees insisting that the vice captaincy will not be changed or similar.0 -
Advertisement
-
I feel confident in saying that the landlord could give a tuppeny fart who is vice captain. That level of conspiracy theory and paranoia is exactly what got us here.Gambino,
I will not as said name names on a public forum. That is the only way of validating my info. If you choose not to accept it that is not a problem. It will all come out in the coming weeks when people are not accepted back by the land owners.[/
I certainly hope the inexcusable delay is not down to the committees insisting that the vice captaincy will not be changed or similar.
As I have said before, I have spoken to all parties involved including the landlord. Surely you must understand that his sole objective is to get maximum revenue from his asset.
If having previous board members as an incoming captain impedes this objective then he most certainly is interested. No conspiracy theory here, I only deal in facts.
If the committee don't get moving fast, he will press ahead without them. They have nothing to offer him, only to deliver what remains of the membership, but they are failing at keeping those members informed and the landlord gives a lot of tuppennies about that!0 -
So do I take it from this that your information is that the issue of the incoming captain is mostly what stands between us and the re activation of the club? You think that if that obstacle was removed we would be in business?
I feel confident in saying that the landlord could give a tuppeny fart who is vice captain. That level of conspiracy theory and paranoia is exactly what got us here.Gambino,
I will not as said name names on a public forum. That is the only way of validating my info. If you choose not to accept it that is not a problem. It will all come out in the coming weeks when people are not accepted back by the land owners.[/
I certainly hope the inexcusable delay is not down to the committees insisting that the vice captaincy will not be changed or similar.
As I have said before, I have spoken to all parties involved including the landlord. Surely you must understand that his sole objective is to get maximum revenue from his asset.
If having previous board members as an incoming captain impedes this objective then he most certainly is interested. No conspiracy theory here, I only deal in facts.
If the committee don't get moving fast, he will press ahead without them. They have nothing to offer him, only to deliver what remains of the membership, but they are failing at keeping those members informed and the landlord gives a lot of tuppennies about that!0 -
So do I take it from this that your information is that the issue of the incoming captain is mostly what stands between us and the re activation of the club? You think that if that obstacle was removed we would be in business?
I feel confident in saying that the landlord could give a tuppeny fart who is vice captain. That level of conspiracy theory and paranoia is exactly what got us here.Gambino,
I will not as said name names on a public forum. That is the only way of validating my info. If you choose not to accept it that is not a problem. It will all come out in the coming weeks when people are not accepted back by the land owners.[/
I certainly hope the inexcusable delay is not down to the committees insisting that the vice captaincy will not be changed or similar.
As I have said before, I have spoken to all parties involved including the landlord. Surely you must understand that his sole objective is to get maximum revenue from his asset.
If having previous board members as an incoming captain impedes this objective then he most certainly is interested. No conspiracy theory here, I only deal in facts.
If the committee don't get moving fast, he will press ahead without them. They have nothing to offer him, only to deliver what remains of the membership, but they are failing at keeping those members informed and the landlord gives a lot of tuppennies about that!
There are a number of issues and there is a bit of 'your people' talking to 'our people' now with the involvement of solicitors - nothing like a meeting to sit down and deal with the issues rather than expensive letters. The rant type update we got during the week has not helped matters. Hopefully competitions weekend after next if common sense prevails.0 -
Is there anything stopping the landowner from essentially starting the whole thing up from scratch without any involvement from ex Board/Committee or even SCGC itself ? I know thats sort of what he's doing anyway but, say he lost patience and just invited new members to a new club and let them elect a committee to look after the golf side of things ? If ex-members of SCGC want to join then let them.
If there's no obstacle to this then I can't see why he'd want to get involved in the faction fighting and bitterness that still seems to be there IMO. It'd be much easier to cut them out of the loop altogether.0 -
Yes, he can do this, he just needs to apply for GUI affliation, call it Lisheen GC or Brittas GC and off he goes. Thats why I say the committee need to get the lead out, they have no aces to play. In theory it should be faster to continue with SC and avoid the affiliation process but I would go for it if I were him and start with a clean sheet and put himself on the committee to safeguard his business.
Dublin City GC did this a few years back when Ballinsacorney fell apart, the funny thing there was that Ballinascorney also still exists but plays miles away from Ballinascorney.0 -
Legal and technical issues are understandable. We have an insinuation running that the owners have a problem with an individual from the "golf"side - either because they don't like him or because they think his in involvement will deter others from rejoining.
So do I take it from this that your information is that the issue of the incoming captain is mostly what stands between us and the re activation of the club? You think that if that obstacle was removed we would be in business?
I feel confident in saying that the landlord could give a tuppeny fart who is vice captain. That level of conspiracy theory and paranoia is exactly what got us here.Gambino,
I will not as said name names on a public forum. That is the only way of validating my info. If you choose not to accept it that is not a problem. It will all come out in the coming weeks when people are not accepted back by the land owners.[/
I certainly hope the inexcusable delay is not down to the committees insisting that the vice captaincy will not be changed or similar.
As I have said before, I have spoken to all parties involved including the landlord. Surely you must understand that his sole objective is to get maximum revenue from his asset.
If having previous board members as an incoming captain impedes this objective then he most certainly is interested. No conspiracy theory here, I only deal in facts.
If the committee don't get moving fast, he will press ahead without them. They have nothing to offer him, only to deliver what remains of the membership, but they are failing at keeping those members informed and the landlord gives a lot of tuppennies about that!
There are a number of issues and there is a bit of 'your people' talking to 'our people' now with the involvement of solicitors - nothing like a meeting to sit down and deal with the issues rather than expensive letters. The rant type update we got during the week has not helped matters. Hopefully competitions weekend after next if common sense prevails.
I have no information on this, nor has any conversation I had with the owner ever suggested it had even occurred to him.
Without getting into personalities, I would just say that any office holder from SC 2004 held a legitimate position. However the current committee has no legitimacy since the dissolution of that body and is operating simply in a holding capacity.
If this "personality" issue is real, then it should and can be easily resolved.
Pending evidence to the contrary, my inclination is to see this as a contrived problem that suits some peoples agenda.
And let me say that I carry no torch for the individual concerned.0 -
Yes, he can do this, he just needs to apply for GUI affliation, call it Lisheen GC or Brittas GC and off he goes. Thats why I say the committee need to get the lead out, they have no aces to play. In theory it should be faster to continue with SC and avoid the affiliation process but I would go for it if I were him and start with a clean sheet and put himself on the committee to safeguard his business..
If thats the case, then I can't see why he's even bothering to deal with the outgoing board/committee. Surely he's after the easiest solution from his own point of view. Any delaying from the committee should really be cut off at the neck. They really have no position to work with and are pretty irrelevant..
Gambino, I wouldn't get too worked up with any insinuation, real or imagined tbh. It wouldn't be the first time in any club (or business) that a headstrong or unpopular person was an obstacle to progress. If the future of SCGC depends on what's said or, in this case, isn't said, on Boards, then I fear for them.
I can't imagine how anyone's agenda is furthered by an internet discussion forum or by saying that someone is pulling strings behind the scenes. From posts on this thread I'd be surprised if someone wasn't trying to pull strings.
Rural Irish landowners are notoriously fickle and if you send the wrong person to deal with them, they can easily be rubbed up the wrong way and scupper any deal.0 -
The landlord has no expertise or interest in the running of a golf club. He has found himself in this situation and is looking to preserve the asset. His easiest route by far is as much continuity as possible and this is why he is working with the"old"club.Yes, he can do this, he just needs to apply for GUI affliation, call it Lisheen GC or Brittas GC and off he goes. Thats why I say the committee need to get the lead out, they have no aces to play. In theory it should be faster to continue with SC and avoid the affiliation process but I would go for it if I were him and start with a clean sheet and put himself on the committee to safeguard his business..
If thats the case, then I can't see why he's even bothering to deal with the outgoing board/committee. Surely he's after the easiest solution from his own point of view. Any delaying from the committee should really be cut off at the neck. They really have no position to work with and are pretty irrelevant..
Gambino, I wouldn't get too worked up with any insinuation, real or imagined tbh. It wouldn't be the first time in any club (or business) that a headstrong or unpopular person was an obstacle to progress. If the future of SCGC depends on what's said or, in this case, isn't said, on Boards, then I fear for them.
I can't imagine how anyone's agenda is furthered by an internet discussion forum or by saying that someone is pulling strings behind the scenes. From posts on this thread I'd be surprised if someone wasn't trying to pull strings.
Rural Irish landowners are notoriously fickle and if you send the wrong person to deal with them, they can easily be rubbed up the wrong way and scupper any deal.
If SC is unable to make it happen, I doubt the landlord would bother starting from scratch.
The cause of this mess is rooted in faction fighting and power plays between elements in the club. My sense is that the insinuation of string pulling is no more than a continuation of some of that. I am still waiting for Ariel to back it up.0 -
Played SC yesterday
Its sad to see the direction of this lovely course - bunkers have been poorly maintained, the fairways are a little hairy and greens are in poor shape. Hopefully things happen quickly0 -
The landlord has no expertise or interest in the running of a golf club. He has found himself in this situation and is looking to preserve the asset. His easiest route by far is as much continuity as possible and this is why he is working with the"old"club.
If SC is unable to make it happen, I doubt the landlord would bother starting from scratch.
The cause of this mess is rooted in faction fighting and power plays between elements in the club. My sense is that the insinuation of string pulling is no more than a continuation of some of that. I am still waiting for Ariel to back it up.
The string pulling is happening. I have said I will not name anyone on a public forum. Gambino, the land owner is not the bad guy in this. He is looking to keep what he see's as an asset going. I have no vested interest as I do not know any board members. I am going by a shareholder who is still hoping to play golf in Southcounty.
I think the holding mails as they have been called are not doing any favours. The membership continues to scatter.0 -
Advertisement
-
Repeating the statement without supporting it adds nothing.The string pulling is happening. I have said I will not name anyone on a public forum. Gambino, the land owner is not the bad guy in this. He is looking to keep what he see's as an asset going. I have no vested interest as I do not know any board members. I am going by a shareholder who is still hoping to play golf in Southcounty.
I think the holding mails as they have been called are not doing any favours. The membership continues to scatter.
I agree that some of the "holding" emails have been unfortunate.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]
The liquidator has now written to shareholders seeking "an up to date statement of account". He may well plan to pursue the outstanding subs. I hope he does.0 -
The liquidator has now written to shareholders seeking "an up to date statement of account". He may well plan to pursue the outstanding subs. I hope he does.
I would think he is obliged to chase all debts, I don't think any outstanding creditor of the club would be happy with the response of "it would be too much hassle" if they asked why the shareholders hadn't been approached for subs that remain payable.0 -
Agreed. There may be cases where he decides a debt is simply uncollectable but he is dead right to go as hard as he can after those who reneged on their commitments.The liquidator has now written to shareholders seeking "an up to date statement of account". He may well plan to pursue the outstanding subs. I hope he does.
I would think he is obliged to chase all debts, I don't think any outstanding creditor of the club would be happy with the response of "it would be too much hassle" if they asked why the shareholders hadn't been approached for subs that remain payable.0 -
Agreed. There may be cases where he decides a debt is simply uncollectable but he is dead right to go as hard as he can after those who reneged on their commitments.
Dude, we all get how you feel at this stage. There is no need to keep going on and on about it. Unless you have something to update please dont just use every opportunity to keep bashing the members who have already left.0 -
You are the boss here but I would just point out that a reference to bad debts in a post about a liquidator is hardly inappropriate. Furthermore, my comment is based on a matter of verifiable fact, unlike what Ariel has been dropping in since yesterday.Agreed. There may be cases where he decides a debt is simply uncollectable but he is dead right to go as hard as he can after those who reneged on their commitments.
Dude, we all get how you feel at this stage. There is no need to keep going on and on about it. Unless you have something to update please dont just use every opportunity to keep bashing the members who have already left.0 -
You are the boss here but I would just point out that a reference to bad debts in a post about a liquidator is hardly inappropriate. Furthermore, my comment is based on a matter of verifiable fact, unlike what Ariel has been dropping in since yesterday.
This is mod speak I'm posting as a boards.ie member here.
Its not the reference to bad debts, its that you go out of your way in nearly every post to have a dig at the people that left. Its boring and just leads me to classify all of your posts as drivel, even though you make in fact be making some valid point elsewhere in the post.0 -
At the risk of boring you further, if you read my posts more carefully you might have noticed the distinction between "people who left" and shareholders who had entered into a contract with THEIR club. The former are free to do as they see fit; the latter made a deal and broke it.This is mod speak I'm posting as a boards.ie member here.
Its not the reference to bad debts, its that you go out of your way in nearly every post to have a dig at the people that left. Its boring and just leads me to classify all of your posts as drivel, even though you make in fact be making some valid point elsewhere in the post.0 -
At the risk of boring you further, if you read my posts more carefully you might have noticed the distinction between "people who left" and shareholders who had entered into a contract with THEIR club. The former are free to do as they see fit; the latter made a deal and broke it.
You see, it happened again. Despite what you might be typing all I am seeing is drivel.
Let me try again.
WE GET IT
Can you let it go now?0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement