South County GC Closed

GreeBo

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?

Yes you are actually.
But anyway. If €100,000 forced the club to liquidate then it was screwed anyway and all these people did was speed up the process.

Gambino

Whyner wrote: »

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

You would have to ask them. It could also be asked why they agreed to giving people who could well afford it a few hundred off.

Gambino

GreeBo wrote: »

Yes you are actually.
But anyway. If €100,000 forced the club to liquidate then it was screwed anyway and all these people did was speed up the process.

The €100,000 weakened it but it was the shortfall in cash in May and not hitting membership numbers that casued the bank to pull out. The bank didn't think it was screwed anyway, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed a five year deal last year.

ArielAtom

Gambino wrote: »

Yes, those leaving were surveyed, although not in every case. I'd say if 50% were interviewed.

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 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 - shareholding 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.

Fixed that for you.

Gambino

Whyner wrote: »

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

You would have to ask them. It could also be asked why they agreed to giving people who could well afford it a few hundred off.

Gambino

ArielAtom wrote: »

Gambino wrote: »

Yes, those leaving were surveyed, although not in every case. I'd say if 50% were interviewed.

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 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 - shareholding 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.

Fixed that for you.

You forgot the bit about them breaking their contracts. And they hadn't left.They were griping up in the Eden the night the club closed.

matt-dublin

with insight to all these shortfalls Gambino the club should have taken action as a business to reduce costs, to include redundancies etc.

what where the salery costs again a couple of million as i recall????

there were places where they could have generated cash flow and reduced costs like every other business in the country.

IMO, the whole thing wreeks of bad management.

the shareholders that left and or refused to pay preobbaly did so because the board/management team and directors were acting inappropriatly to save the business.

ArielAtom

You forgot the bit about them breaking their contracts. And they hadn't left.They were griping up in the Eden the night the club closed.[/QUOTE]

What happened up in the Eden?

GreeBo

Gambino wrote: »

The €100,000 weakened it but it was the shortfall in cash in May and not hitting membership numbers that casued the bank to pull out. The bank didn't think it was screwed anyway, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed a five year deal last year.

Every golfclub has cash flow problems. Its the nature of a seasonal business. Thats why clubs have overdrafts and loans to cover it.
The bank would have agreed a deal based on the (clearly way-off) projections of the company. The bank also would have provided an overdraft facility if they believed that the club could have continued and was in any position to attract new members.

Clearly to me the problem is that the club cannot afford to run based on its available membership income.
At that stage you need to either reduce costs, increase revenue or both.
It seems neither of these options were possible.

vikingdub

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?

This was the figure given in the presentation by the Board in Citywest.

ArielAtom

vikingdub wrote: »

This was the figure given in the presentation by the Board in Citywest.

Cheers. I had heard of the 55. It was the breakdown of the others I was interested in.

Gambino

GreeBo wrote: »

Every golfclub has cash flow problems. Its the nature of a seasonal business. Thats why clubs have overdrafts and loans to cover it.
The bank would have agreed a deal based on the (clearly way-off) projections of the company. The bank also would have provided an overdraft facility if they believed that the club could have continued and was in any position to attract new members.

Clearly to me the problem is that the club cannot afford to run based on its available membership income.
At that stage you need to either reduce costs, increase revenue or both.
It seems neither of these options were possible.

The bank did provide an overdraft facility. This was due to clear in May when subs came in. You can say the Projections were way off, if you consider the club to have been wrong to expect it's shareholders to honour their commitments. (yes I know that bores you but it remains the core issue).
As for costs, they had been drastically reduced. Of course some of those who complained loudest about any drop in service quality were those who short changed the club -and bragged about it.

ArielAtom

Gambino, I had not seen any drop in standards. I would have had something to eat in the bar after most rounds and did not hear any griping. The overall loss of membership was the cause not the loss of 55 shareholders. Let it go!!!!

neckedit

Gambino wrote: »

The bank did provide an overdraft facility. This was due to clear in May when subs came in. You can say the Projections were way off, if you consider the club to have been wrong to expect it's shareholders to honour their commitments. (yes I know that bores you but it remains the core issue).
As for costs, they had been drastically reduced. Of course some of those who complained loudest about any drop in service quality were those who short changed the club -and bragged about it.

Sorry to ask this question, what are the share holders commitments?

matt-dublin

i would have thought that if the shareholders chose to leave the club they would be entitled to the cash share back no?

neckedit

matt-dublin wrote: »

i would have thought that if the shareholders chose to leave the club they would be entitled to the cash share back no?

It was my belief that the "Share Holder" had to give first refusal to the club at a certain rate, if not they are free to sell it, I really am struggling to understand this Commitment thing!

matt-dublin

I totally agree, i would have though there was no commitments, i also would have thought that the shareholder would be able to sell their share back to the club and the club would have to hold the funds so the share can be reimbursed, if it didn't hold the funds would it not be deemed insolvent?

Golfingfanatic

Gambino,

The shareholders who met in the Eden were not griping and they were not plotting a coup. They met to devise a reasoned approach to the Board to discuss their concerns about the club's situation and the apparent dismissive and arrogant attitude of some of the board members.

You claim that shareholders did not honour their commitments. Perhaps you'd like to comment on the fact that the wife of one board member was allowed to sell/surrender her share, thus relieving her of any future commitments?

Perhaps you might also like to comment on whether or not a particularly unpopular board member "adopted" a random membership enquiry in order to disadvantage his fellow shareholders and have his loan repaid om the basis that he introduced the applicant?

Perhaps you might also like to comment on the unacceptable behaviour of one board member in remonstrating with a member over his subscription renewal (before the payment deadline) in front of other members?

Perhaps you might like to comment on the aggressively negative stance taken by the president when a well-intentioned and helpful suggestion was made to him by an up to that point loyal member?

vikingdub

Whyner wrote: »

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

That is the question, as far as I am concerned any member was entitled to request the repayment of his/her loan at any time. The other questions are why were some members allowed to "lodge" their membership, 2) why were some members allowed to lease their membership and assisted in doing so by the board.

vikingdub

Gambino wrote: »

The €100,000 weakened it but it was the shortfall in cash in May and not hitting membership numbers that casued the bank to pull out. The bank didn't think it was screwed anyway, otherwise they wouldn't have agreed a five year deal last year.

The staff were not paid at the end of April, if the money was not available to meet payroll, then they were trading while insolvent during May. Not paying the staff, many on very low pay, is reprehensible and completely inexcusable. The fact remains that they should have called an EGM as soon as it became obvious that there were major financial difficulties.

ArielAtom

vikingdub wrote: »

That is the question, as far as I am concerned any member was entitled to request the repayment of his/her loan at any time. The other questions are why were some members allowed to "lodge" their membership, 2) why were some members allowed to lease their membership and assisted in doing so by the board.

What do you mean by lodge the membership?

vikingdub

Gambino wrote: »

You would have to ask them. It could also be asked why they agreed to giving people who could well afford it a few hundred off.

And you know this for a fact - how? Were you there? Did you hear the conversation?

Edit: there seems to be a problem with the quotes, I am asking Gambino to explain his allegations about a meeting in the Eden.

vikingdub

Golfingfanatic wrote: »

Gambino,

The shareholders who met in the Eden were not griping and they were not plotting a coup. They met to devise a reasoned approach to the Board to discuss their concerns about the club's situation and the apparent dismissive and arrogant attitude of some of the board members.

You claim that shareholders did not honour their commitments. Perhaps you'd like to comment on the fact that the wife of one board member was allowed to sell/surrender her share, thus relieving her of any future commitments?

Perhaps you might also like to comment on whether or not a particularly unpopular board member "adopted" a random membership enquiry in order to disadvantage his fellow shareholders and have his loan repaid om the basis that he introduced the applicant?

Perhaps you might also like to comment on the unacceptable behaviour of one board member in remonstrating with a member over his subscription renewal (before the payment deadline) in front of other members?

Perhaps you might like to comment on the aggressively negative stance taken by the president when a well-intentioned and helpful suggestion was made to him by an up to that point loyal member?

You might add to that the threats to send debt collectors after shareholder members who had not paid, people in the "can't pay" category were extremely upset and at least one experienced verbal abuse.

vikingdub

ArielAtom wrote: »

What do you mean by lodge the membership?

Certain individuals who were not planning to play were allowed to temporarily "suspend" their membership and exempted from paying their subs. One or two had genuine medical reasons others had the right connections.

Ding Ding

ArielAtom wrote: »

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.

The sub was reduced by 50 and the bar levy by 200, this was mispresented as a 250 sub reduction. People liked the cash reduction but the presentation of it treated people as fools which was annoying - communication...... Again

Ding Ding

Gambino wrote: »

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?

A massive miss by GM and board was that people who were leaving were not interviewed, phoned, written to, emailed, spoken to. Gambino you are incorrect here, there was business walking out the door without anything being asked about why?

The 'why' might have been a good early warning signal and some people could have been persuaded to stay.

This was an amazing discovery to me as no successful business lets business disappear without finding out why!

Normal attrition of members is fine and these are not 'collapsers' but when you have 3-4 time the norm, then there are collapsers included. I have great sympathy for the tiny minority of 'can't pay' people. Giving up your hobby due to financial pressure is not nice especially when people most need a release valve of some sort to leave their problems behind for a while.

Ding Ding

matt-dublin wrote: »

I totally agree, i would have though there was no commitments, i also would have thought that the shareholder would be able to sell their share back to the club and the club would have to hold the funds so the share can be reimbursed, if it didn't hold the funds would it not be deemed insolvent?

The shareholding in SC seems to be regularly misinterpreted, in fairness the 'negative dividend' is a bit unusual.

Example;

1. I buy a share in CRH. I can expect an annual dividend and/or hope for increase in value. There is no annual payment required of me.

2. I own a share in SC. There is no annual dividend! But unusually for a share there is a obligation to pay the annual sub.

So the SC share is an asset but also carries a liability. Hence the reason people leased them out if not using their share or indeed if they had a bunch of them. By leasing out, they avoided the 'liabilty' or annual payment.

So if I held 5 shares my annual liability was almost 10k. So a share was not something you could just cancel or walk away from.

This is a key difference from a 7 day member who could just stop paying and cease to be a member. Hope this helps.

Sandwlch

Ding Ding wrote: »

A massive miss by GM and board was that people who were leaving we're not interviewed, phoned, written to, emailed, spoken to.

How about a quiz interlude from this heavy going:

Take a guess (no cheating!) how many time the above point, which turned into a droning moan, has been made in this thread:
1) 15
2) 21
3) 634
4) Atari Jaguar

A years membership in Beach Park may or may not be on offer to the first to post the correct answer.

Ding Ding

Sandwlch wrote: »

Ding Ding wrote: »

A massive miss by GM and board was that people who were leaving we're not interviewed, phoned, written to, emailed, spoken to.

How about a quiz interlude from this heavy going:

Take a guess (no cheating!) how many time the above point, which turned into a droning moan, has been made in this thread:
1) 15
2) 21
3) 634
4) Atari Jaguar

A years membership in Beach Park may or may not be on offer to the first to post the correct answer.

I know some people adopt the attitude 'don't confuse me with the facts' but I think the facts help. It was stated earlier today that leavers were surveyed. Well I know factually that this was not the case.

Bitching and blaming is more fun when you avoid the facts as you can generally make any argument you want that way!

Sandwlch

Take a guess (no cheating!) how many time the above point, which turned into a droning moan, has been made in this thread:
1) 15
2) 22
3) 634
4) Atari Jaguar


Sorry to those of you working on the answer but question needed updating (hope this correction doesnt give the game away).