South County GC Closed

vikingdub

ArielAtom wrote: »

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?

Yes.

vikingdub

Ding Ding wrote: »

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?

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][/QUOTE]

Lads, Sorry, I think my posts were the cause of this mix up on the quotes I have edited them to correctly reflect which quotes should be attributed to which poster.

Gambino

vikingdub wrote: »

Yes.

Not sure if a straightforward offset would apply. As creditors we get whatever is there to be divvied up after the secured creditors are paid. That, I suspect, will be nil.

However debtors are liable for the full amount owed and would normally be pursued for same. Of course a creditor/debtor could try to negotiate - how that goes would be up to the liquidator.

Gambino

vikingdub wrote: »

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.




The tone of your posts could have fooled me.

I was referring to Captain's dinners in general. Over the years each and every one has been boycotted by someone.

The dinner that was cancelled this year was the President's Dinner and yes, I'm sure some people boycotted that too. In my case - it was the rugby.

Fooled you? Never.

vikingdub

Gambino wrote: »

Not sure if a straightforward offset would apply. As creditors we get whatever is there to be divvied up after the secured creditors are paid. That, I suspect, will be nil.

However debtors are liable for the full amount owed and would normally be pursued for same. Of course a creditor/debtor could try to negotiate - how that goes would be up to the liquidator.

Indeed, the point I am making is that many of those that you accuse of sabotaging the club have made a substantial financial investment in the club and who have been UNABLE to continue to pay their subs due to changes in their financial situation. These individuals are not in a position to pay and the liquidator will have to a judgement call as to whether or not chasing them is worthwhile.

There are very few people in a position to walk away from that type of investment in a fit of pique or as part of a conspiracy, which would result in the loss of their investment, yet you continue to accuse them of "bringing down the club".

Those whom I know for a fact are unable to pay would have liked nothing more than to be able to continue to pay but the reality is that mortgage payments and gas and electricity bills take priority.

Unless you have access to content of the discussions that were held with some of these individuals, not all, to establish why they had not paid, I suggest that you cease making allegations and accusations.

vikingdub

Gambino wrote: »

I was referring to Captain's dinners in general. Over the years each and every one has been boycotted by someone.

The dinner that was cancelled this year was the President's Dinner and yes, I'm sure some people boycotted that too. In my case - it was the rugby.

Fooled you? Never.

What an extraordinary use of the word boycott, were I unable to attend a function due to a prior commitment I would not describe my non attendance as a "boycott".

Gambino

vikingdub wrote: »

Indeed, the point I am making is that many of those that you accuse of sabotaging the club have made a substantial financial investment in the club and who have been UNABLE to continue to pay their subs due to changes in their financial situation. These individuals are not in a position to pay and the liquidator will have to a judgement call as to whether or not chasing them is worthwhile.

There are very few people in a position to walk away from that type of investment in a fit of pique or as part of a conspiracy, which would result in the loss of their investment, yet you continue to accuse them of "bringing down the club".

Those whom I know for a fact are unable to pay would have liked nothing more than to be able to continue to pay but the reality is that mortgage payments and gas and electricity bills take priority.

Unless you have access to content of the discussions that were held with some of these individuals, not all, to establish why they had not paid, I suggest that you cease making allegations and accusations.

As I have strict orders from Greebo not to cross his (rather low) boredom threshold, I am unable to reply.

Gambino

vikingdub wrote: »

What an extraordinary use of the word boycott, were I unable to attend a function due to a prior commitment I would not describe my non attendance as a "boycott".

Nor would I.

Ding Ding

SC golf club could not have had 3-4 times the national average of 'can't pay' people. So it is a fact that there was a large number of 'wont pay' people in the 120 non renewals.

Based on experience, I estimate about 80-90 were in the 'won't pay' category and they have cynically piggy backed on about 30-40 genuine cases of people who 'couldn't pay'.
So this segment of 80-90 from the 120 collapsed their own club. Many were already planning their exit prior to the text that started this thread.

If you don't believe this, then ask yourself why SC would have such a higher % than the national average of 'can't pay' people. Did we have such a diverse range of people that we had about 300% of the average number of 'can't pay' people in the country. If you believe this, then we're still in Euro 2012.

Benny Cake

I just googled: "going around in circles", and it led me to this thread...

cherryman

Does anyone know if the bar in SC has reopened? This would signal that an agreement has been reached between the land lords, the liqudator and banks.

Gambino

cherryman wrote: »

Does anyone know if the bar in SC has reopened? This would signal that an agreement has been reached between the land lords, the liqudator and banks.

It hasn't reopened and as far as I know it is a low priority for the owners as the bar and restaurant were losing money. I think the intention is to make it available for hire but not use it otherwise. The licence may also be an issue.
My understanding of the plan is to continue and expand the current Spike Bar facility for the foreseeable future.

ArielAtom

Gambino wrote: »

It hasn't reopened and as far as I know it is a low priority for the owners as the bar and restaurant were losing money. I think the intention is to make it available for hire but not use it otherwise. The licence may also be an issue.
My understanding of the plan is to continue and expand the current Spike Bar facility for the foreseeable future.

When you say an issue with the licence what does that mean? Was there one in place or was the club operating without one?

Gambino

ArielAtom wrote: »

Gambino wrote: »

It hasn't reopened and as far as I know it is a low priority for the owners as the bar and restaurant were losing money. I think the intention is to make it available for hire but not use it otherwise. The licence may also be an issue.
My understanding of the plan is to continue and expand the current Spike Bar facility for the foreseeable future.

When you say an issue with the licence what does that mean? Was there one in place or was the club operating without one?

The licence was issued to a business that no longer exists. It will have to be re-applied for.

Gambino

ArielAtom wrote: »

Gambino wrote: »

It hasn't reopened and as far as I know it is a low priority for the owners as the bar and restaurant were losing money. I think the intention is to make it available for hire but not use it otherwise. The licence may also be an issue.
My understanding of the plan is to continue and expand the current Spike Bar facility for the foreseeable future.

When you say an issue with the licence what does that mean? Was there one in place or was the club operating without one?

The licence was issued to a business that no longer exists. It will have to be re-applied for.

matt-dublin

surely the licence would have been on the premises not the business?

Russman

Not 100% sure but I think its with the business. Wasn't there that big row a few years ago when Ballinascorney members left / were kicked out, and the members were able to take the bar licence with them to their new location ?

matt-dublin

checked here: http://www.barkeeper.ie/page.asp?menu=0&page=796

looks like the premises is licensed not the business.

Application for new publican’s licence:
The Intoxicating Liquor Acts define the circumstances under which a new licence may be applied for, such as the following (permitted time spans within which to act should be checked with a solicitor):

A new licence for premises where there was never a full licence before. This involves extinguishing, with the consent of its holder, an existing full licence (which can be located anywhere in the country).
Transfer a licence from an old licensed premises to a more suitable one in the immediate vicinity of the licence being extinguished (but only in a rural area), where an existing premises has burnt down or has been destroyed or demolished, provided the new premises are to be in the immediate vicinity of the licence being extinguished
If licenced premises are to be demolished by the local authority, or disposed of under a compulsory purchase order, then the local authority will certify a suitable new site for the transfer of the existing licence
If premises had been licensed within the previous five years but the licence was let lapse (perhaps due to lack of tax clearance or the publican may not have been trading), application can be made to revive that licence
If there are premises adjoining or attached (e.g. an extension) to the licensed premises, a new licence can be sought to cover the adjoining/attached premises.
Documents required in Circuit Court:

Evidence of compliance with Planning laws and Safety, Health, Welfare at Work laws,
if you are intending serving Food ,then you will have to ensure that your premises meet the requirements of the HSE (www.fsai.ie),
Fire Certificate (premises compliance with Fire Regulations)
Tax Clearance Certificate (www.revenue.ie)
Certificate of Incorporation or Certificate of Registration of Business Name, if required.

Russman

Ahh right, maybe I'm thinking of who actually owned the licence and it was the members as opposed to the landlord (can't really remember its that long ago TBH).

vikingdub

Ding Ding wrote: »

SC golf club could not have had 3-4 times the national average of 'can't pay' people. So it is a fact that there was a large number of 'wont pay' people in the 120 non renewals.

Based on experience, I estimate about 80-90 were in the 'won't pay' category and they have cynically piggy backed on about 30-40 genuine cases of people who 'couldn't pay'.
So this segment of 80-90 from the 120 collapsed their own club. Many were already planning their exit prior to the text that started this thread.

If you don't believe this, then ask yourself why SC would have such a higher % than the national average of 'can't pay' people. Did we have such a diverse range of people that we had about 300% of the average number of 'can't pay' people in the country. If you believe this, then we're still in Euro 2012.

Of that 120 figure only about 50 (cannot remember if it was 50 or 55) were shareholder members. The others were people who had joined at the "special offer" price and were not prepared to pay the full price.

Of the 50 shareholders many could not pay, some were allowed "lodge" their membership and those who just walked away must had a very good reason to walk away from their investment. As it was the majority of those who walked away were "special price" members it could equally, if not more strongly, be argued that the cut price offer was what brought the club down.

Gambino

Russman wrote: »

Ahh right, maybe I'm thinking of who actually owned the licence and it was the members as opposed to the landlord (can't really remember its that long ago TBH).

At a minimum, the name of the publican will have to change. There may be "vetting" procedures involved - I presume not just anyone gets a pub licence.

It is sort of academic anyway as the Kavanaghs seem to have no interest in getting into that end of it, at least for the moment.

Gambino

vikingdub wrote: »

Of that 120 figure only about 50 (cannot remember if it was 50 or 55) were shareholder members. The others were people who had joined at the "special offer" price and were not prepared to pay the full price.

Of the 50 shareholders many could not pay, some were allowed "lodge" their membership and those who just walked away must had a very good reason to walk away from their investment. As it was the majority of those who walked away were "special price" members it could equally, if not more strongly, be argued that the cut price offer was what brought the club down.

I don't think any of them knew they were "walking away". They thought they were negotiating a better deal. The closure came as quite a shock to them - as this board demonstrates.

Ding Ding

vikingdub wrote: »

Ding Ding wrote: »

SC golf club could not have had 3-4 times the national average of 'can't pay' people. So it is a fact that there was a large number of 'wont pay' people in the 120 non renewals.

Based on experience, I estimate about 80-90 were in the 'won't pay' category and they have cynically piggy backed on about 30-40 genuine cases of people who 'couldn't pay'.
So this segment of 80-90 from the 120 collapsed their own club. Many were already planning their exit prior to the text that started this thread.

If you don't believe this, then ask yourself why SC would have such a higher % than the national average of 'can't pay' people. Did we have such a diverse range of people that we had about 300% of the average number of 'can't pay' people in the country. If you believe this, then we're still in Euro 2012.

Of that 120 figure only about 50 (cannot remember if it was 50 or 55) were shareholder members. The others were people who had joined at the "special offer" price and were not prepared to pay the full price.

Of the 50 shareholders many could not pay, some were allowed "lodge" their membership and those who just walked away must had a very good reason to walk away from their investment. As it was the majority of those who walked away were "special price" members it could equally, if not more strongly, be argued that the cut price offer was what brought the club down.

Of the 120, 55 were shareholders. The value of their shares was fairly worthless prior to the collapse so there was no big investment left behind. Many of these were disgruntled members or 'board bashers'.

It is worth noting that every time we went up to the club, it was to play a round of golf, have a bit of grub, practice etc. However often when the board went up, it was to review management reports, pour over spreadsheets, prepare bank submissions etc, in other words not very exciting stuff. They got the communications strategy wrong, but it is worth remembering they were unpaid voluntary directors as well as being members.

As regards the other 70 non renewals, only 16 of these were those on offers, so it is factually incorrect to state that the majority who walked away were on deals, only a little over 10% in reality.

The offers were essential and we would have hit the wall sooner without them, if all members had acted as sales people for their own club, we would have been full and refusing members.

Anyway that's all historical now, but important to have the numbers and facts clear. It is simply wrong for people to wear the 'can't pay' mantle when the truth is they are in the 'won't pay' group.

What's important now is that a smaller bunch of loyal members can get back playing together. Hopefully that is imminent and we can get going with a happy group, no bitching from the sidelines or hurling on the ditch, just a simple golf club with somebody else worrying about the numbers, our only worry being the number on the card!

ArielAtom

Ding Ding, you seem to be well up on the figures. I have not seen these before, only the 55 shareholders who left. Where are the other figures available to view?

Ding Ding

ArielAtom wrote: »

Ding Ding, you seem to be well up on the figures. I have not seen these before, only the 55 shareholders who left. Where are the other figures available to view?

Fair question, I talked to prople and asked questions, absolutely nothing sinister and no favoritism in getting answers, anybody who asked would have got the info.

That's why I probably sound like a broken record on communication, the information was there but just not communicated via member updates, website, meetings, notice board etc. and has had dire consequences. Other clubs in worse or similar financial situations have survived by engaging and communicating with members.

In the absence on factual info, other stuff filled the void. I have no link to any group but I do admire volunteerism and think its a pity when volunteers don't do themselves any favours by ignoring communicatiom and get bashed as a result.

Gambino

Ding Ding wrote: »

Fair question, I talked to prople and asked questions, absolutely nothing sinister and no favoritism in getting answers, anybody who asked would have got the info.

That's why I probably sound like a broken record on communication, the information was there but just not communicated via member updates, website, meetings, notice board etc. and has had dire consequences. Other clubs in worse or similar financial situations have survived by engaging and communicating with members.

In the absence on factual info, other stuff filled the void. I have no link to any group but I do admire volunteerism and think its a pity when volunteers don't do themselves any favours by ignoring communicatiom and get bashed as a result.

It might be worth mentioning that the 2012 sub was reduced by €250 from the previous two years (€1,689 from €1,939). Back in 2006 it was €2,434.

The deal on offer to new entrants in 2012 was €1,289 - a €400 introductory discount. For those paying by monthly standing order, the difference was €33 a month.

Can't pay - won't pay???

ArielAtom

Gambino wrote: »

It might be worth mentioning that the 2012 sub was reduced by €250 from the previous two years (€1,689 from €1,939). Back in 2006 it was €2,434.

The deal on offer to new entrants in 2012 was €1,289 - a €400 introductory discount. For those paying by monthly standing order, the difference was €33 a month.

Can't pay - won't pay???

Wow, didnt know it was that expensive back in 2006. Saying the fee was reduced is pushing it. They just lowered the F&B levy. No reduction in golf fee's. I would have spent the levy anyway so no reduction for me.

Russman

In fairness, and I'm not being flippant, can't pay or won't pay both fall into "didn't pay", hence the situation SC finds itself in.

The reasons for the "can't pay" are obvious, while the reasons for the "won't pay" may well be worth taking on board going forward. If such a fairly large number of people are in the "won't pay" category, then its reasonable to assume they had a pretty big objection to something, whatever that may be.

I can't remember if there was anything said about this in earlier pages of the thread, but has the club even done something as simple as calling the leavers and getting their reasons for not rejoining ? Might be a worthwhile exercise. Or is it possible the Board might not have liked the answers they'd get ?

For whatever reason, the numbers didn't stack up for SC. While club loyalty has a price and a premium and is a great thing, if any members were maybe not fully on board with the "club" its pretty unrealistic to expect them to continue paying an expensive sub of c€1,200 or c€1,600 when a lot of other courses had managed to get their rates down to around the €1k mark and possibly not had as much faction fighting going on (it goes on pretty much everywhere anyway). For a guy with, say, a young family, it might be pretty hard for him to say to his other half that he's dropping €1,600 on a golf sub in the months after Christmas. He might be able to afford it, but cannot justify it..... ? Speculation on my part but it's not uncommon.

I know in my own club we've lost the guts of 200 members over the last 3 years and obviously this has had an impact, but I genuinely haven't heard a word said calling them collapsers or apportioning blame on them. Of course the overall reason for financial difficulties can be described as members not rejoining but thats about it, no point in being bitter about the individuals or claiming they're happy they collapsed a club, thats horse$h1t talk IMHO. Find out why they left and see if they can be brought back is the best you can do.

Gambino

Russman wrote: »

In fairness, and I'm not being flippant, can't pay or won't pay both fall into "didn't pay", hence the situation SC finds itself in.

The reasons for the "can't pay" are obvious, while the reasons for the "won't pay" may well be worth taking on board going forward. If such a fairly large number of people are in the "won't pay" category, then its reasonable to assume they had a pretty big objection to something, whatever that may be.

I can't remember if there was anything said about this in earlier pages of the thread, but has the club even done something as simple as calling the leavers and getting their reasons for not rejoining ? Might be a worthwhile exercise. Or is it possible the Board might not have liked the answers they'd get ?

For whatever reason, the numbers didn't stack up for SC. While club loyalty has a price and a premium and is a great thing, if any members were maybe not fully on board with the "club" its pretty unrealistic to expect them to continue paying an expensive sub of c€1,200 or c€1,600 when a lot of other courses had managed to get their rates down to around the €1k mark and possibly not had as much faction fighting going on (it goes on pretty much everywhere anyway). For a guy with, say, a young family, it might be pretty hard for him to say to his other half that he's dropping €1,600 on a golf sub in the months after Christmas. He might be able to afford it, but cannot justify it..... ? Speculation on my part but it's not uncommon.

I know in my own club we've lost the guts of 200 members over the last 3 years and obviously this has had an impact, but I genuinely haven't heard a word said calling them collapsers or apportioning blame on them. Of course the overall reason for financial difficulties can be described as members not rejoining but thats about it, no point in being bitter about the individuals or claiming they're happy they collapsed a club, thats horse$h1t talk IMHO. Find out why they left and see if they can be brought back is the best you can do.

Yes, those leaving were surveyed, although not in every case.
In effect there are three categories of "didn't pay" (or as some prefer "didn't renew".)

16 of those who joined last year on the introductory deal. These gave their reasons as mostly to do with location, other courses that suited them better and the like. I did talk to one guy who told me the course was too hard for him. Very few (like 2 or 3) gave cost as the reason. The claim that the introductory offer was being cynically abused and was just causing the club to lose income is baloney.

The second group were non shareholder members who moved for a variety of reasons - giving up golf because of financial reasons, courses that suited them better coming available, illness, moving abroad etc. This group would be similar in profile to those leaving other clubs. Its part of the churn phenomenon since joining fees more or less disappeared.

The third - and contentious - group were the 55 shareholders who I didn't honour their contracts. Some were genuine "can't pays" but the large rump were those campaigning for a reduction. Some of them had negotiated reductions in previous years - to the cumulative cost to the club of €100,000.

When you put that figure beside the reduction in income from the "introductory" offer, you can see exactly what caused the problem.

Sorry GreeBo - am I boring you?

Whyner

Gambino wrote: »

Yes, those leaving were surveyed, although not in every case.
In effect there are three categories of "didn't pay" (or as some prefer "didn't renew".)

16 of those who joined last year on the introductory deal. These gave their reasons as mostly to do with location, other courses that suited them better and the like. I did talk to one guy who told me the course was too hard for him. Very few (like 2 or 3) gave cost as the reason. The claim that the introductory offer was being cynically abused and was just causing the club to lose income is baloney.

The second group were non shareholder members who moved for a variety of reasons - giving up golf because of financial reasons, courses that suited them better coming available, illness, moving abroad etc. This group would be similar in profile to those leaving other clubs. Its part of the churn phenomenon since joining fees more or less disappeared.

The third - and contentious - group were the 55 shareholders who I didn't honour their contracts. Some were genuine "can't pays" but the large rump were those campaigning for a reduction. Some of them had negotiated reductions in previous years - to the cumulative cost to the club of €100,000.

When you put that figure beside the reduction in income from the "introductory" offer, you can see exactly what caused the problem.

Sorry GreeBo - am I boring you?

Why did the board allow some to pay their sub with their loan and refused others?