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
-
You clearly don't but - sure. Would you like updates on how the liquidator is getting on?
Yes please
Has he killed all the deer and searched all the hazards for pro v's?
Gambino - The more you go on the less people will listen. Nice friendly updates will do, no need to be a Roy Keane. This thread has clearly been your little baby for the past month and you enjoy putting people in their place for whatever reasons but why go on and on. It's just annoying now0 -
Well if I've succeeded in annoying the hell out of the poople who deserved to have the hell annoyed out of them - I'll call that a result. Pity about any collateral damage but war - and liquidation - ain't nice.
More importantly - and without wishing to be a Roy Keane - I reckon in all modesty that I've helped move the agenda away from a bunch of whiners (stet) blaming everyone but themselves for the mess they created and onto something closer to reality. You may not agree of course but a look at the opening and most recent pages of the thread will make my point.
I'll be happy to offer updates but whether or not they are friendly will depend on what they are about. Can't do fairer than that.0 -
IMO The lads on here who are members would be delighted in updates .... instead of repeats.0
-
Gambino, I actually agreed with a lot of what you've said and indeed suggested that people stop 'Gambino bashing'!
I only posted facts and have spoken to all parties but when I raised the issue of vice captaincy you started on about insinuations and agendas. I have none whatsoever, I just want to get back playing competitive golf with a good bunch of loyal members. There is a legitimate fear that having an old board member on the new committee may deter some from rejoining, it might not be nice but it's true.
I'm not a board basher or committee basher, I admire anybody who does voluntary work like that but both have failed miserably in the communication stakes and that is what got us here (along with the 120 non payers) and is blocking progress.
The 'our people' and 'your people' are stepping up their efforts but the silly update of last week did not help matters. Hopefully progress this week and reopening day on sat week, if not the scattering will intensify and might as well just start up Lisheen GC and take green fees and societies in the meantime.
The landowners will be on probation this year so the sooner the messing stops the better so we can see their performance and decide on 2013. So let's hope the thread moves to how the greens, rough, fairways are when things are up and running. The landowner has to get these right along with 2013 sub unless he wants to go back to the agricultural business!0 -
I don't know which if any of the last board intends to even stay in the club, not to mention seek another position of office. My understanding was that they had all had more than enough and couldn't wait to get it over with. I don't know if the VC hopes or expects to proceed to the next stage - i.e. captain in 2013 - he was after all properly appointed and if the club had not closed, he would have done so. Every captain to date has had his friends and opponents - some more than others. Has anyone ever left in protest over it? I doubt it; a boycott of the dinner is about as bad as it got.Gambino, I actually agreed with a lot of what you've said and indeed suggested that people stop 'Gambino bashing'!
I only posted facts and have spoken to all parties but when I raised the issue of vice captaincy you started on about insinuations and agendas. I have none whatsoever, I just want to get back playing competitive golf with a good bunch of loyal members. There is a legitimate fear that having an old board member on the new committee may deter some from rejoining, it might not be nice but it's true.
I'm not a board basher or committee basher, I admire anybody who does voluntary work like that but both have failed miserably in the communication stakes and that is what got us here (along with the 120 non payers) and is blocking progress.
The 'our people' and 'your people' are stepping up their efforts but the silly update of last week did not help matters. Hopefully progress this week and reopening day on sat week, if not the scattering will intensify and might as well just start up Lisheen GC and take green fees and societies in the meantime.
The landowners will be on probation this year so the sooner the messing stops the better so we can see their performance and decide on 2013. So let's hope the thread moves to how the greens, rough, fairways are when things are up and running. The landowner has to get these right along with 2013 sub unless he wants to go back to the agricultural business!
However in the current complex and tense situation, the allegation now reported (but carefully not authored) by Ariel is that an ex board member is "pulling strings". I have asked him to say how (not who) this is being done. He has declined. We are left with an impression that the "new" club will somehow be the same as the old one - with the same figures running the show from the shadows.
In my opinion this is conspiratorial nonsense and runs contrary to common sense and to everything I have heard from board, committee members and owners. If the height of the allegation is that the VC still feels entitled to be captain next year, then lets deal with that. After all the committee got its legitimacy from the old club; this can and should be revisited and I am sure a big part of the "delay" involves exactly how the golf/owners relationship is structured.
If the allegation involves more than the VC - C issue, then I think fariness demands that this be substantiated. Until it is, I will continue to suspect that we are just suffering another example of the petty and destructive crap that brought us to here in the first place.
And I repeat, I carry no torch for the individual concerned.0 -
Advertisement
-
Gambino, it is obvious from your posts that you indeed carry a torch for someone on the board. At no point have I indicated who the ex board member is that is pulling the strings. It has been assumed to be one individual. This will come out in the wash when the land owners refuse him entry into the new club. At this stage I have hit the ignore button because you bore me now. Your attempts to mod the forum have amused me. As I have stated I'm looking elsewhere now. His help the good members of SC. I hope it works out for them.0
-
So yesterday our mystery board member was "pulling strings"and today he is getting barred. Sounds like he's not much of a string puller. At least the rest of the prospective membership can make their decision in the knowledge that neither he nor you will be around.Gambino, it is obvious from your posts that you indeed carry a torch for someone on the board. At no point have I indicated who the ex board member is that is pulling the strings. It has been assumed to be one individual. This will come out in the wash when the land owners refuse him entry into the new club. At this stage I have hit the ignore button because you bore me now. Your attempts to mod the forum have amused me. As I have stated I'm looking elsewhere now. His help the good members of SC. I hope it works out for them.0 -
Gambino, it is obvious from your posts that you indeed carry a torch for someone on the board. At no point have I indicated who the ex board member is that is pulling the strings. It has been assumed to be one individual. This will come out in the wash when the land owners refuse him entry into the new club. At this stage I have hit the ignore button because you bore me now. Your attempts to mod the forum have amused me. As I have stated I'm looking elsewhere now. His help the good members of SC. I hope it works out for them.
Maybe give it until Sat week to see if things are up and running before signing up elsewhere. If comps don't start up in June then the exodus will be so large that they should setup Lisheen GC or else let the sheep back out.
Gambino has been on about the complex issues, in fact it could not be simpler, the landlords have the complex issues which is tbe beauty of the new setup, the committee should have sorted themselves out a day or two after the citywest meeting.0 -
That is a simplistic view of it. There are many issues to be sorted when agreeing the precise roles, responsibilities and liabilities between those who own the premises and those who use it. As someone who talks more sense than most in here, I am surprised that you don't appreciate that. Loopholes and loose ends not sorted now will come back to haunt.Gambino, it is obvious from your posts that you indeed carry a torch for someone on the board. At no point have I indicated who the ex board member is that is pulling the strings. It has been assumed to be one individual. This will come out in the wash when the land owners refuse him entry into the new club. At this stage I have hit the ignore button because you bore me now. Your attempts to mod the forum have amused me. As I have stated I'm looking elsewhere now. His help the good members of SC. I hope it works out for them.
Maybe give it until Sat week to see if things are up and running before signing up elsewhere. If comps don't start up in June then the exodus will be so large that they should setup Lisheen GC or else let the sheep back out.
Gambino has been on about the complex issues, in fact it could not be simpler, the landlords have the complex issues which is tbe beauty of the new setup, the committee should have sorted themselves out a day or two after the citywest meeting.
That is why it is so annoying to see phrases like "string pulling" bandied about. If I hadn't challenged Ariel on it, you can see the very false picture that would have been created.0 -
That is a simplistic view of it. There are many issues to be sorted when agreeing the precise roles, responsibilities and liabilities between those who own the premises and those who use it. As someone who talks more sense than most in here, I am surprised that you don't appreciate that. Loopholes and loose ends not sorted now will come back to haunt.Gambino, it is obvious from your posts that you indeed carry a torch for someone on the board. At no point have I indicated who the ex board member is that is pulling the strings. It has been assumed to be one individual. This will come out in the wash when the land owners refuse him entry into the new club. At this stage I have hit the ignore button because you bore me now. Your attempts to mod the forum have amused me. As I have stated I'm looking elsewhere now. His help the good members of SC. I hope it works out for them.
Maybe give it until Sat week to see if things are up and running before signing up elsewhere. If comps don't start up in June then the exodus will be so large that they should setup Lisheen GC or else let the sheep back out.
Gambino has been on about the complex issues, in fact it could not be simpler, the landlords have the complex issues which is tbe beauty of the new setup, the committee should have sorted themselves out a day or two after the citywest meeting.
That is why it is so annoying to see phrases like "string pulling" bandied about. If I hadn't challenged Ariel on it, you can see the very false picture that would have been created.
Ok it's not really complex and it's not really simple either but there's no excuse for dragging it out this length.
In summary:
Kavanaghs job is to manage the men, material, machines and money.
Committees job is to manage competitions, handicaps, inter club activities, non financial member affairs.
I would think that the committee could have summarized their role and responsibilities in less than 3 hours. This could then have been sent to Kavanaghs.
A meeting of a couple of hours with Kavanaghs to fine tune it. I would have avoided solicitors and just done a cut'n'paste from a club with similar structure. Solicitors make money by creating problems and then appearing to solve them.
My point is that by removing the more onerous stuff away from the committee in this structure that it is a lot more simple for the committee than having to manage buildings, machinery, people, money etc. The risk is also gone from members so there is a lot of merit in the new structure.
I think things are a bit closer now but that rant email was plain stupid. Lack of proper factual updates to members is not helping to retain people0 -
Advertisement
-
Except that Kavanaghs have no interest or expertise in any of that and will be looking to the golfers to do more than competitions and handicaps if they want to keep a golf club on their land. The devil is always in the detail. A back of an envelope deal now could create nightmares down the road.
That is a simplistic view of it. There are many issues to be sorted when agreeing the precise roles, responsibilities and liabilities between those who own the premises and those who use it. As someone who talks more sense than most in here, I am surprised that you don't appreciate that. Loopholes and loose ends not sorted now will come back to haunt.Gambino, it is obvious from your posts that you indeed carry a torch for someone on the board. At no point have I indicated who the ex board member is that is pulling the strings. It has been assumed to be one individual. This will come out in the wash when the land owners refuse him entry into the new club. At this stage I have hit the ignore button because you bore me now. Your attempts to mod the forum have amused me. As I have stated I'm looking elsewhere now. His help the good members of SC. I hope it works out for them.
Maybe give it until Sat week to see if things are up and running before signing up elsewhere. If comps don't start up in June then the exodus will be so large that they should setup Lisheen GC or else let the sheep back out.
Gambino has been on about the complex issues, in fact it could not be simpler, the landlords have the complex issues which is tbe beauty of the new setup, the committee should have sorted themselves out a day or two after the citywest meeting.
That is why it is so annoying to see phrases like "string pulling" bandied about. If I hadn't challenged Ariel on it, you can see the very false picture that would have been created.
Ok it's not really complex and it's not really simple either but there's no excuse for dragging it out this length.
In summary:
Kavanaghs job is to manage the men, material, machines and money.
Committees job is to manage competitions, handicaps, inter club activities, non financial member affairs.
I would think that the committee could have summarized their role and responsibilities in less than 3 hours. This could then have been sent to Kavanaghs.
A meeting of a couple of hours with Kavanaghs to fine tune it. I would have avoided solicitors and just done a cut'n'paste from a club with similar structure. Solicitors make money by creating problems and then appearing to solve them.
My point is that by removing the more onerous stuff away from the committee in this structure that it is a lot more simple for the committee than having to manage buildings, machinery, people, money etc. The risk is also gone from members so there is a lot of merit in the new structure.
I think things are a bit closer now but that rant email was plain stupid. Lack of proper factual updates to members is not helping to retain people0 -
Gambino, still will not accept that there is still a smell off what has happened and continues to with an ex board member attempting to influence the direction the committee are taking in their negotiations with the land owners. I will keep saying it so challenging it will not hide the fact that it's happening0
-
Except that Kavanaghs have no interest or expertise in any of that and will be looking to the golfers to do more than competitions and handicaps if they want to keep a golf club on their land. The devil is always in the detail. A back of an envelope deal now could create nightmares down the road.
That is a simplistic view of it. There are many issues to be sorted when agreeing the precise roles, responsibilities and liabilities between those who own the premises and those who use it. As someone who talks more sense than most in here, I am surprised that you don't appreciate that. Loopholes and loose ends not sorted now will come back to haunt.Gambino, it is obvious from your posts that you indeed carry a torch for someone on the board. At no point have I indicated who the ex board member is that is pulling the strings. It has been assumed to be one individual. This will come out in the wash when the land owners refuse him entry into the new club. At this stage I have hit the ignore button because you bore me now. Your attempts to mod the forum have amused me. As I have stated I'm looking elsewhere now. His help the good members of SC. I hope it works out for them.
Maybe give it until Sat week to see if things are up and running before signing up elsewhere. If comps don't start up in June then the exodus will be so large that they should setup Lisheen GC or else let the sheep back out.
Gambino has been on about the complex issues, in fact it could not be simpler, the landlords have the complex issues which is tbe beauty of the new setup, the committee should have sorted themselves out a day or two after the citywest meeting.
That is why it is so annoying to see phrases like "string pulling" bandied about. If I hadn't challenged Ariel on it, you can see the very false picture that would have been created.
Ok it's not really complex and it's not really simple either but there's no excuse for dragging it out this length.
In summary:
Kavanaghs job is to manage the men, material, machines and money.
Committees job is to manage competitions, handicaps, inter club activities, non financial member affairs.
I would think that the committee could have summarized their role and responsibilities in less than 3 hours. This could then have been sent to Kavanaghs.
A meeting of a couple of hours with Kavanaghs to fine tune it. I would have avoided solicitors and just done a cut'n'paste from a club with similar structure. Solicitors make money by creating problems and then appearing to solve them.
My point is that by removing the more onerous stuff away from the committee in this structure that it is a lot more simple for the committee than having to manage buildings, machinery, people, money etc. The risk is also gone from members so there is a lot of merit in the new structure.
I think things are a bit closer now but that rant email was plain stupid. Lack of proper factual updates to members is not helping to retain people
I know Kavanaghs don't have it but they either need to learn fast or buy it in via a General Manager.
They would be mad to ask the committee who have no experience either of such matters and the committee would be mad to do 'board' type work!
I was not suggesting the back of an envelope, a proper service agreement but why reinvent the wheel when there are loads of clubs operating successfully this way.
The Kavanaghs are the new board with all the headaches, the committee should just stick with the fun part. It's now the Kavanagh's business and the Committee and members hobby.0 -
A smell is not a substance and attempting to influence is not quite the same as pulling strings, especially if the ex board member is also on the committee. I suggest you be a bit more careful with your language, especially if you are just passing on information you are gathering from people you bump into in the pub.Gambino, still will not accept that there is still a smell off what has happened and continues to with an ex board member attempting to influence the direction the committee are taking in their negotiations with the land owners. I will keep saying it so challenging it will not hide the fact that it's happening0 -
It's now the Kavanagh's business and the Committee and members hobby.
That has a nice ring to it but remember that in other proprieter owned clubs, they started out with the proprieters deciding to build a golf course and start a golf club. They didn't wake up one morning and find they had inherited one left on their doorstep.
This is a different and unusual model, for which there are no exact precedents. All parties are in unfamiliar territory and I wish they were being shown the understanding - and support - they all deserve.0 -
I have read all of the posts with interest but would offer that the situation here is actually quite clear cut.
There is no doubt that the ex members of South County GC will in the future be given the opportunity to play golf on what was previously their golf course by the landowners and the management set up that is designated to run the new business.
The reason? The new business will require a strong core group of players to supplement the green fee business that it hopes to generate and the ex-members of South County GC are the easiest group for the new business to recruit from. It would seem that the difficulty with this situation is that some ex-members may be stuggling to come to terms with the difficult fact that the club they joined finished some weeks ago. It is true that some past golfing friendships may well be able to continue within any new arrangement, but this scenario should not be confused with the notion that some clever negotiation by their ex committee members will lead to the continuation of the South County GC.
The landowners would surely be better served by recruiting a professional golf management team to run their fledgling new business, and perhaps limiting the input or advice from the previous Board members, whose experience in running a golf facility was proved to be lacking. The ex-committee members certainly could assist the new club as voluntary contribution from members is a vital part of running competitions, and inter club matches etc, but I'm not really sure what 'advice or expertise' the ex- board members might offer the landowners.
Before the posts flood in pointing out that the club still exists as far as the governing bodies are concerned, I understand that, but the reality is you need a course to play on and unless you all invest in a new course somewhere, the club as you knew it has now sadly gone.0 -
You are correct, the GUI affiliation for SCGC is owned by the committee of SCGC.There are many options open to the committee in terms of where the club can play it's golf. I understand there are many courses which would take in the SCGC and allow them use their facility pending a decisin by SC members on their future.0
-
Dreamland stuff cherry. The committee is exploring and working to get us back to the Kavanaghs land and nothing else. If people join other clubs they will do so as individuals. Affiliation applies to a course, with supporting institutional arrangements. No course, no GUI.You are correct, the GUI affiliation for SCGC is owned by the committee of SCGC.There are many options open to the committee in terms of where the club can play it's golf. I understand there are many courses which would take in the SCGC and allow them use their facility pending a decisin by SC members on their future.0 -
At the risk of upsetting Gambino - affiliation is actually linked entirely to a group of golfers who have ownership, or access to a golf course. The course itself is not affiliated to the governing bodies, it is the people who play there. If what I have said is inaccurate then the course at South County remains affiliated and the landlords would not need to negotiate with anyone, they could merely open the membership to anyone.
Therefore I think you will discover the course is not affiliated, which I respectfully suggest gives your 'committee' it's only negotiating strength as in theory they speak for a group of golfers. If the landowners set up a new club on their own they will have to go through the affiliation process which will take time (up to 12 months) which risks SC members moving elsewhere, which they don't need from a business perspective.0 -
I'm someone who initially intended to continue to play in SC under the new structure I'm now having doubts. If the Kavanaghs don't get their finger out very soon I will be moving onDreamland stuff cherry. The committee is exploring and working to get us back to the Kavanaghs land and nothing else. If people join other clubs they will do so as individuals. Affiliation applies to a course, with supporting institutional arrangements. No course, no GUI.0 -
Advertisement
-
The continuation of SC at the current location is obviously the easiest and quickets solution. However Cherry seems to believe that an alternative strategy is for the members of the former SCGC to move en bloc to another course and set up a new operation there. Exactly how the "other course" is supposed to agree to this is not explained. For sure plenty would be glad to have us, but as members of their club, not as a seperate entity using their facility. You could try to replicate the arrangement at Grange whereby the Artisans have use of the course but with such limited access as to be of no interest. A similar arrangement for Kiltiernan at Powerscourt failed.At the risk of upsetting Gambino - affiliation is actually linked entirely to a group of golfers who have ownership, or access to a golf course. The course itself is not affiliated to the governing bodies, it is the people who play there. If what I have said is inaccurate then the course at South County remains affiliated and the landlords would not need to negotiate with anyone, they could merely open the membership to anyone.
Therefore I think you will discover the course is not affiliated, which I respectfully suggest gives your 'committee' it's only negotiating strength as in theory they speak for a group of golfers. If the landowners set up a new club on their own they will have to go through the affiliation process which will take time (up to 12 months) which risks SC members moving elsewhere, which they don't need from a business perspective.
So if Cherry has a club in mind that (a) offers a decent course and (b) is willing to allow SC move in with - but not among - them, then he is welcome to lead the negotiation. I think he will find that the committee will be glad to leave him at it.
As for GUI, you need both an approved course and an approved club structure to qualify. Currently SCGC has neither. As GUI members, our individual handicaps are valid for a few months regardless. We can adjust them by playing in competitions elsewhere but not at SC. The promise of continuation of handicaps at SC is a gesture by the GUI, pending resolution of matters with the Kavanaghs, the re-formation of a club and re-activation of competitions. There is no "blanket" approval of SC affiliation; it is not an asset that the club can pack up and take somewhere else.0 -
All that is needed for affiliation is a course, an official course measurement and a constitution, they could have it in a week if needed.At the risk of upsetting Gambino - affiliation is actually linked entirely to a group of golfers who have ownership, or access to a golf course. The course itself is not affiliated to the governing bodies, it is the people who play there. If what I have said is inaccurate then the course at South County remains affiliated and the landlords would not need to negotiate with anyone, they could merely open the membership to anyone.
Therefore I think you will discover the course is not affiliated, which I respectfully suggest gives your 'committee' it's only negotiating strength as in theory they speak for a group of golfers. If the landowners set up a new club on their own they will have to go through the affiliation process which will take time (up to 12 months) which risks SC members moving elsewhere, which they don't need from a business perspective.
The auction of machinery took place last Friday does anyone know what was sold or who bought what?0 -
I'm someone who initially intended to continue to play in SC under the new structure I'm now having doubts. If the Kavanaghs don't get their finger out very soon I will be moving onDreamland stuff cherry. The committee is exploring and working to get us back to the Kavanaghs land and nothing else. If people join other clubs they will do so as individuals. Affiliation applies to a course, with supporting institutional arrangements. No course, no GUI.
There are a lot of people in this category. The Kavanaghs and Committee need to get things up and running by Sat week, they've been given lots of time and the 'understanding and support' that Gambino refers to.
The committee were overwhelmed with the almost 100% support they got at the citywest meeting. They've been very slow and poor at updating members since then and using the strong mandate they were given.
The landlords were upbeat a month ago and had seemed to be close to agreement but the involvement of solicitors has ground the process to a halt.
An old bargaining chip in these situations was the bar license which was often in the name of the club but don't think it would be as important to the Kavanaghs now.
The committee need to send a factual update, not another of the useless holding emails. The scattering is underway and gathering momentum.0 -
Once the deal is done - yes. But you do need a course.Blue for Ever wrote: »All that is needed for affiliation is a course, an official course measurement and a constitution, they could have it in a week if needed.
The auction of machinery took place last Friday does anyone know what was sold or who bought what?
Heard nothing about the machinery auction. Last comment I got (over a week ago) was that they thought their initial offer was not accepted but they had bought stuff elsewhere. Probably some cat and mouse stuff with the liquidator on that.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.[/QUOTE]
The majority of shareholders who have not paid, in most cases could not pay, their subs are also creditors based on their initial investment and as the loans they gave to the club have not been repaid. Some of these people, who on your own admission you do not know but have made judgements on their ability to pay or otherwise, paid €20k+ for membership, paid the €3000+K loan and prior to having their incomes decimated by the crash spent their bar levy and more in the club. These were not the people who were queuing up at the end of March to collect bottles of wine from the bar.
Your posts betray a deeply unpleasant nature, I have an idea who you are and hope that you take yourself and your bile off to another club should South County reopen.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.
The majority of shareholders who have not paid, in most cases could not pay, their subs are also creditors based on their initial investment and as the loans they gave to the club have not been repaid. Some of these people, who on your own admission you do not know but have made judgements on their ability to pay or otherwise, paid €20k+ for membership, paid the €3000+K loan and prior to having their incomes decimated by the crash spent their bar levy and more in the club. These were not the people who were queuing up at the end of March to collect bottles of wine from the bar.[/Quote]
The 'could not pay' category only applies to a very small minority of people, the majority are in the 'would not pay' category.
Why would SC happen to a have the highest % of people who 'could not pay' in the country. People mis-classifying themselves as 'could not pay' from 'would not pay' is a convenient way to try and ignore their responsibilities.0 -
a boycott of the dinner is about as bad as it got.
Are you now admitting that there was a boycott? In an earlier post you claimed that the dinner was cancelled as it clashed with a rugby international.
And I repeat, I carry no torch for the individual concerned.
The tone of your posts could have fooled me.0 -
The 'could not pay' category only applies to a very small minority of people, the majority are in the 'would not pay' category.
Why would SC happen to a have the highest % of people who 'could not pay' in the country. People mis-classifying themselves as 'could not pay' from 'would not pay' is a convenient way to try and ignore their responsibilities.
I can only speak for those whom I know personally who found themselves unable to pay, not unwilling but unable to do so. I am not in a position to comment on the ability or otherwise of people that I do not know. There were others, who were "in the know" who were permitted to lease or "lodge" their membership and exempted from paying.0 -
The majority of shareholders who have not paid, in most cases could not pay, their subs are also creditors based on their initial investment and as the loans they gave to the club have not been repaid. Some of these people, who on your own admission you do not know but have made judgements on their ability to pay or otherwise, paid €20k+ for membership, paid the €3000+K loan and prior to having their incomes decimated by the crash spent their bar levy and more in the club. These were not the people who were queuing up at the end of March to collect bottles of wine from the bar.
Going by what you have said above would I be right in assuming that the liquidator in going after unpaid subs could have counter claims on the loss of a share and the loan that shareholders gave to the club?0 -
Advertisement
-
The majority of shareholders who have not paid, in most cases could not pay, their subs are also creditors based on their initial investment and as the loans they gave to the club have not been repaid. Some of these people, who on your own admission you do not know but have made judgements on their ability to pay or otherwise, paid €20k+ for membership, paid the €3000+K loan and prior to having their incomes decimated by the crash spent their bar levy and more in the club. These were not the people who were queuing up at the end of March to collect bottles of wine from the bar.
The 'could not pay' category only applies to a very small minority of people, the majority are in the 'would not pay' category.
Why would SC happen to a have the highest % of people who 'could not pay' in the country. People mis-classifying themselves as 'could not pay' from 'would not pay' is a convenient way to try and ignore their responsibilities.
Going by what you have said above would I be right in assuming that the liquidator in going after unpaid subs could have counter claims on the loss of a share and the loan that shareholders gave to the club?[/Quote]
Some technical glitch above or I hit wrong button, the piece attributed to me above was written by Viking I think. My contribution was only as follows;
The 'could not pay' category only applies to a very small minority of people, the majority are in the 'would not pay' category.
Why would SC happen to a have the highest % of people who 'could not pay' in the country. People mis-classifying themselves as 'could not pay' from 'would not pay' is a convenient way to try and ignore their responsibilities.[/QUOTE]0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement