The NAMA List: Golf Courses

Kevinmarkham

Just been reading the list of courses in NAMA:

Castlemartyr
Fota Island
The Heritage
Moyvalley
New Forest
Portmarnock Links
St. Patrick's (which was not open for play anyway)
Tulfarris

Add in Killeen Castle which, by most accounts, will be added to the list once the Solheim Cup is over, and it's a depressing list of some very good golf courses. That's not to say they won't survive, but their troubles are certainly affecting many other courses in their locality.

And there are 21 hotels (including golf-related ones) on that list too.

bustercherry

Kevinmarkham wrote: »

Just been reading the list of courses in NAMA:

Castlemartyr
Fota Island
The Heritage
Moyvalley
New Forest
Portmarnock Links
Rosapenna
Tulfarris

Add in Killeen Castle which, by most accounts, will be added to the list once the Solheim Cup is over, and it's a depressing list of some very good golf courses. That's not to say they won't survive, but their troubles are certainly affecting many other courses in their locality.

And there are 21 hotels (including golf-related ones) on that list too.

That surprised me it's jammed at the weekends, especially over winter. Hope the course does suffer as IMO it's very underrated. Anyone played it lately?

f22

bustercherry wrote: »

That surprised me it's jammed at the weekends, especially over winter. Hope the course does suffer as IMO it's very underrated. Anyone played it lately?

The course more than holds it's won financially, the hotel is a different story.

They have a small green staff who work wonders to be honest.

Corkblowin

f22 wrote: »

The course more than holds it's won financially, the hotel is a different story.

I think thats the case with most of them. In Fota I understand that both the course and the hotel pay for their ongoing running costs etc, but its the capital investment and interest thats dragging them down.

bailey99

some fantastic courses on that list alright. Are these courses maintained to good condition even though NAMA owns them? I played Fota a couple of weeks ago and it was in fantastic condition.

The same with Castlemartyr and The Heritage. Played both of them recently also. Fantastic condition. Sometimes you hear of a course in receivership and are worried about the condition of it and go elsewhere for a round of golf.

What sort of condition is Tulfarris/New Forest in these days? Are they being maintained to the standards previously, or is there a little less work being done on the places? I heard New Forest has a big membership base so suprised to hear the place is in receivership.

Zardoz

I played Castlemartyr lately .
Very swanky clubhouse but I was shocked to see that there were only 37 members on the membership list .
Course was like a ghost town on a Saturday afternoon and it screamed Nama to me.

patravers

Afaik the heritage is making a profit at the moment but it is the company and developers who owned the development who were struggling over all.

The course has not suffered at all and neither have any of the facilities. Its actually a lot busier now than before and i would imagine that that is down to reducing the cost of green fees and getting more business in that way.

I am originally from south donegal and am going home for the week next week and was going to play a few rounds... i cant understand lough erne charging 110 sterling for a round,,, i played castle hume last year and there was NOBODY on the lough erne course.

Have these othere hotels reduced their rates since nama>

The Ball boy

Your list is not correct, the courses in Carrigart, Co. Donegal referred to in the Nama list published today is not Rosapenna.

I think you should correct or omit same from your list as I suspect the proprietors of Rosapenna would not be pleased to have their business associated with Nama.

Kevinmarkham

The Ball boy wrote: »

Your list is not correct, the courses in Carrigart, Co. Donegal referred to in the Nama list published today is not Rosapenna.

I think you should correct or omit same from your list as I suspect the proprietors of Rosapenna would not be pleased to have their business associated with Nama.

Ah, so this refers to St. Patrick's does it?
Poor mistake on my behalf - I didn't get an answer this morning from the club and just charged in with that - I'd completely forgotten about the St Patrick's courses.

Many thanks
K

The Ball boy

Kevinmarkham wrote: »

Ah, so this refers to St. Patrick's does it?
Poor mistake on my behalf - I didn't get an answer this morning from the club and just charged in with that - I'd completely forgotten about the St Patrick's courses.

Many thanks
K

No problem. Yeah, St. Patrick's. I figured it was a mistake and felt it was best to point it out.

St Patrick's was acquired by a businessman with family links to the area, he had Jack Nicklaus and his designers over with a view to laying out a course there but the bubble burst!! Plans were quite far advanced at a stage, some of the new holes were marked out with stakes.

Kevinmarkham

The Ball boy wrote: »

St Patrick's was acquired by a businessman with family links to the area, he had Jack Nicklaus and his designers over with a view to laying out a course there but the bubble burst!! Plans were quite far advanced at a stage, some of the new holes were marked out with stakes.

I remember seeing some of the holes from Sandy Hills in 2008, and the course was still being maintained the last I heard. I also heard that Mr Nicklaus didn't get paid for the work he did... but who knows what to believe in such circumstances.

People say that it was the last great stretch of dunes ripe for a golf course.

DEVOTION

Tulfarris has been in great nick over the past couple of months.

thegen

The sooner these zombie clubs and hotels are wound up the better for the other clubs and hoteliers who are suffering due to money being pumped on to them by NAMA. Don't get me wrong there are some superb courses and hotels bit others are suffering as would these without NAMA help.

pauldoo

just played palmerstown house tonight

savage course and in great shape, should have played it sooner, only a 5 minute drive from my house. Not a bad hole on the course

was talkin to a guy in there who said it will be make or break for them in september, if the cant find a buyer it will close, only one offer is on the table, from former owner jim mansfield

beepimasheep

Has to be a joke right? Mansfield making a bid for Palmerstown House?

This country has to be a joke if that genius gets to run anything in this country again.

Put the course on the open market, no reserve, let the market dictate what it's worth, what the hell I might even put in a low ball offer, who knows, could have a golf course on my hands? how about a boards.ie syndicate GC?

golfwallah

The GUI reported that the number of registered golfers in Ireland declined last year. Even so, as a proportion of our population, this number is much higher than any in other European country (excluding Scotland) or in the USA.

There are about 420 clubs in Ireland (200 new ones built in last 15 years), vying for declining home based and overseas visiting golfers. This clearly demonstrates that the Irish market is saturated.

With excess capacity and a declining golfer numbers, the last thing we need is continuing Nama support for so many lame duck loss-makers.

We have Irish civil servants pleading inability to service loans with their less well paid French & German counterparts, while we squander money on such things as loss making golf facilities.

No wonder we have lost credibility in Europe. The French & Germans have had enough.

When will the Irish taxpayer have enough? The problem is that the Government are using the soft options of borrowings and taxing the ordinary working man and woman to bail out loss making facilities that were originally targeted to attract the well off.

It’s up to us, the citizens of Ireland, to tell our public representatives now that enough is enough. Write or email your local TD, if you want the current situation to change.

Ireland is a democracy, after all, so it’s up to all of us to make sure our TDs know what their constituents want and stop all this waste of our money.

The point will eventually come when Government will decide that they can no longer bail out these loss makers – it’s up to us to help make this happen now rather than wait till more money is poured down the drain.

downthemiddle

golfwallah wrote: »

The GUI reported that the number of registered golfers in Ireland declined last year. Even so, as a proportion of our population, this number is much higher than any in other European country (excluding Scotland) or in the USA.

There are about 420 clubs in Ireland (200 new ones built in last 15 years), vying for declining home based and overseas visiting golfers. This clearly demonstrates that the Irish market is saturated.

With excess capacity and a declining golfer numbers, the last thing we need is continuing Nama support for so many lame duck loss-makers.

We have Irish civil servants pleading inability to service loans with their less well paid French & German counterparts, while we squander money on such things as loss making golf facilities.

No wonder we have lost credibility in Europe. The French & Germans have had enough.

When will the Irish taxpayer have enough? The problem is that the Government are using the soft options of borrowings and taxing the ordinary working man and woman to bail out loss making facilities that were originally targeted to attract the well off.

It’s up to us, the citizens of Ireland, to tell our public representatives now that enough is enough. Write or email your local TD, if you want the current situation to change.

Ireland is a democracy, after all, so it’s up to all of us to make sure our TDs know what their constituents want and stop all this waste of our money.

The point will eventually come when Government will decide that they can no longer bail out these loss makers – it’s up to us to help make this happen now rather than wait till more money is poured down the drain.

I would love to know how a NAMA resort can afford to sponsor a race at the Punchestown festival every year. Is this how our money is being spent?

MrTrebus

bustercherry wrote: »

That surprised me it's jammed at the weekends, especially over winter. Hope the course does suffer as IMO it's very underrated. Anyone played it lately?

played it last week, and there was a LARGE american company there playing.
the course was in great nick but it took over 5 1/4 hours for the round :eek::eek:

think it was the 7th green that the yanks in front of us asked where the 8th hole was !!

I replied "its right there on your course map on the back of your card OR if you care to look about 30 yards its just there !!

I mean it was ridiculous, these loons driving around in buggies with NO IDEA where they were going.
Needless to say, our society of 20 members were pretty pissed off by the end of it !

ANYWAYSSSSS, rant over....,course itself was in good nick and has a couple of decent changes made to it since i last played there, notably the first tee !!


sorry, just to clarify..it was Portmarnock Links I was referring too !

Mizuno Man

Portmarnock Links is a perfect example of how some individual places get tied up in NAMA. The course and hotel are both profitable after some hefty changes over the past year or two. However, the owners, fairly big developers, have been caught up in NAMA like so many others following the recent mayhem. As a result NAMA has seized control of the course and hotel as an asset of the developers.

The seizure is an incidental happening. In other words, the course itself was not a folly of the past decade built by a quick-buck business "entrepenuer" using ridiculous amounts of cash loaned to him by a reckless bank at unsustainable rates. Yet, it has been caught up in the mess by being bought a fairly long time ago by business men who later got burned by extending themselves too far in the recent past.

At the moment, the hotel and course run themselves as independent businesses and manage their own cashflow (within the bounds set by receivers) as well as there own marketing, development, future planning, etc, etc until such time as the receivers decide on the next move.

People need to realise that just because a place has been tied up in NAMA, it deosn't mean that it is NAMA's money running it. I would dearly hope, particularly for high quality courses like The Links, that people don't avoid the place thinking they are making some statement about the use of public funds and whatever feelings they have about NAMA and the sad mess this country finds itself in.

Just thought I'd make that point is all!

golfwallah

Mizuno Man wrote: »

Portmarnock Links is a perfect example of how some individual places get tied up in NAMA. The course and hotel are both profitable after some hefty changes over the past year or two. However, the owners, fairly big developers, have been caught up in NAMA like so many others following the recent mayhem. As a result NAMA has seized control of the course and hotel as an asset of the developers.

The seizure is an incidental happening. In other words, the course itself was not a folly of the past decade built by a quick-buck business "entrepenuer" using ridiculous amounts of cash loaned to him by a reckless bank at unsustainable rates. Yet, it has been caught up in the mess by being bought a fairly long time ago by business men who later got burned by extending themselves too far in the recent past.

At the moment, the hotel and course run themselves as independent businesses and manage their own cashflow (within the bounds set by receivers) as well as there own marketing, development, future planning, etc, etc until such time as the receivers decide on the next move.

People need to realise that just because a place has been tied up in NAMA, it deosn't mean that it is NAMA's money running it. I would dearly hope, particularly for high quality courses like The Links, that people don't avoid the place thinking they are making some statement about the use of public funds and whatever feelings they have about NAMA and the sad mess this country finds itself in.

Just thought I'd make that point is all!

According to Irish Independent article of 19th April 2011, “Portmarnock falls to 25pc of its 2005 valuation after impairment” and “Operating losses at Portmarnock Hotel & Golf Links were more than halved in 2009 to just over €400,000”.
Last time I checked, “Operating Losses”, exclude interest – and interest charges on large loans can be very hefty indeed.
It now seems that operating losses (i.e. excluding interest), when halved, are being portrayed as profits in some quarters.
The reality is that if NAMA (i.e. the taxpayer) weren’t funding these very real losses and interest charges, nobody else would.
Nama support for such loss making golf courses constitutes a subsidy by the taxpayer.
Not only is this a huge burden on ordinary working men and women, it is also unfair competition to other golf clubs. It becomes a double whammy when clubs are member owned and depend on high levels of voluntary management and day to day maintenance work to keep them going.
Link to Irish Independent article: http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/portmarnock-falls-to-25pc-of-its-2005-valuation-after-impairment-2622855.html

Mizuno Man

golfwallah wrote: »

According to Irish Independent article of 19th April 2011, “Portmarnock falls to 25pc of its 2005 valuation after impairment” and “Operating losses at Portmarnock Hotel & Golf Links were more than halved in 2009 to just over €400,000”.
Last time I checked, “Operating Losses”, exclude interest – and interest charges on large loans can be very hefty indeed.
It now seems that operating losses (i.e. excluding interest), when halved, are being portrayed as profits in some quarters.
The reality is that if NAMA (i.e. the taxpayer) weren’t funding these very real losses and interest charges, nobody else would.
Nama support for such loss making golf courses constitutes a subsidy by the taxpayer.
Not only is this a huge burden on ordinary working men and women, it is also unfair competition to other golf clubs. It becomes a double whammy when clubs are member owned and depend on high levels of voluntary management and day to day maintenance work to keep them going.
Link to Irish Independent article: http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/portmarnock-falls-to-25pc-of-its-2005-valuation-after-impairment-2622855.html

I can only wish that people will eventually try to figure out the truth rather than interpret what a paper tells them.

Portmarnock currently is a profit making business. It turned to profit last year (2010) after suffering heavy losses previously. It has not had a cash injection from NAMA or anything like that. It has been seized by NAMA with the intent that it most likely be sold as a going concern and the money raised from that sale will be offset against the moneys that the previous (or current - depending on what way you look at it) owners owe NAMA.

It is entirely wrong to assume or imply that the Links is being funded by NAMA or that it is only operating because NAMA has injected cash or is allowing it to stay in business. It is an independent business which will be sold to generate funds to partly pay off the entirely seperate bills owed by developers.

This rubbish about the course or hotel running via a public subsidy is in the same category as those who believe that developers who owed money to banks got of scot free when NAMA took on the loans instead. NAMA are forcing the ownership of the hotel to change and therefore the value of that ownership to be released from the developers hands to in part pay back what they owe. That is all that is happening in Portmarnock. There are no subsidies. No investment. No artifical maintenance of an otherwise unviable business.

golfwallah

Mizuno Man wrote: »

I can only wish that people will eventually try to figure out the truth rather than interpret what a paper tells them.

Portmarnock currently is a profit making business. It turned to profit last year (2010) after suffering heavy losses previously. It has not had a cash injection from NAMA or anything like that. It has been seized by NAMA with the intent that it most likely be sold as a going concern and the money raised from that sale will be offset against the moneys that the previous (or current - depending on what way you look at it) owners owe NAMA.

It is entirely wrong to assume or imply that the Links is being funded by NAMA or that it is only operating because NAMA has injected cash or is allowing it to stay in business. It is an independent business which will be sold to generate funds to partly pay off the entirely seperate bills owed by developers.

This rubbish about the course or hotel running via a public subsidy is in the same category as those who believe that developers who owed money to banks got of scot free when NAMA took on the loans instead. NAMA are forcing the ownership of the hotel to change and therefore the value of that ownership to be released from the developers hands to in part pay back what they owe. That is all that is happening in Portmarnock. There are no subsidies. No investment. No artifical maintenance of an otherwise unviable business.

Golf clubs that are not in Nama have to pay interest on their loans and then repay them. As you say yourself, in Portmarnock the developers who owned Portmarnock have only "to in part pay back what they owe". If loans are taken over by the state and only repaid in part - that is a subsidy.

If all other golf course owners had the same option of not paying interest on their loans and then only part paying what they owe, they would all be profitable. Getting loans written down and not paying interest constitutes a subsidy by the taxpayer and unfair competition in my book.

Maybe you could tell us where you are getting your information about the accounts for 2010, as the article in Irish Independent on 20th April 2011, among other things states: "Capel Developments has been strike-off listed by the Companies Registration Office since April 10. It hasn't filed accounts since April 2009". http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/nama-swoops-to-appoint-receiver-over-ailing-capel-developments-2624398.html

Mizuno Man

golfwallah wrote: »

Golf clubs that are not in Nama have to pay interest on their loans and then repay them. As you say yourself, in Portmarnock the developers who owned Portmarnock have only "to in part pay back what they owe". If loans are taken over by the state and only repaid in part - that is a subsidy.

If all other golf course owners had the same option of not paying interest on their loans and then only part paying what they owe, they would all be profitable. Getting loans written down and not paying interest constitutes a subsidy by the taxpayer and unfair competition in my book.

Maybe you could tell us where you are getting your information about the accounts for 2010, as the article in Irish Independent on 20th April 2011, among other things states: "Capel Developments has been strike-off listed by the Companies Registration Office since April 10. It hasn't filed accounts since April 2009". http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/nama-swoops-to-appoint-receiver-over-ailing-capel-developments-2624398.html

(editing this so it doesn't look quite so offensive a diatribe)

Look, this is a golf thread so I won't go into detail here. You need to educate yourself about how NAMA works and not believe all the tripe that journalists write in the paper.

Various developers got large loans from banks. These loans fell into arrears when the poop hit the fan and the developers defaulted. NAMA has bought these loans from the banks to enable the banks to operate again. But it has bought them at a discount, so the bank takes a hit. The developers however get no discount at all so they continue to owe the original amount but now it is to NAMA and not the bank. Prior to NAMA, those in trouble had to face the insignificant threat of a paralysed, disorganised and badly run bank chasing them for moneys owed. Now the same people face the greater threat of a well and publicly funded establishment created solely for the purpose of chasing them. NAMA is not letting anyone off the hook. It is buying loans at a price which creates a large writedown for the bank to deal with and then chases those holding the loans for the original amount.

NAMA attempts to make money by selling assets, collecting repayments, collecting interest and penalties exactly how a bank would have done. There is no subsidy to the developer whatsoever.

Many of the assets to be sold are entirely independent. They have their own bank accounts, management, cashflow, loan book - everything. They are simply owned by Developer A. Developer A may have used a loan to buy the business but the business did not receive a loan which remained unpaid and ended up managed by NAMA. Yet the business is controlled by NAMA anyway since it is an asset of the developer and has value which can be recovered to offset what the developer owes. This is the scenario with Portmarnock and many other businesses.

There is no subsidy for the asset in most cases as with these courses. They are not in NAMA because they left debts unpaid. They are not receiving payments from NAMA. They are not receiving payments from the public. They run themselves and deal with their own finances like any other business. Yet in NAMA they now be.

The really enraging thing is that all those out their who bleat like sheep - uneducated about the reality and believing what some non-expert journalist assumes to be the case writes - who then say we should let these places go down the swany and stop wasting public money, can't even see that it is entirely in the publics best possible interest that exactly these places do very well and make a lot of profit and therefore become more saleable and achieve a better price at auction so that NAMA and the public get a better return on the money they have already put in. If you had any sense you would be telling people to go play golf in these places and stay in these hotels exactly so that public money is not wasted.

Newspapers prey on the fact that golf clubs are seen as high end follies of the rich by a large number of people. To portray reality as being that public money is allowing the rich to continue to play with their toys while the single mother looks out her window to see the repo man take away her car sells papers plain and simple. You are reading a biased opinion of one person in an article, not a fact, just like on this forum.

Finally, there is no competition issues with golf clubs like these. They are in no better position than anywhere else. They do not get relief from loans or interest that the club itself holds. They get no money to help them through tough times. They are at the mercy of the market and their own individual ability to find a way through the meltdown. The only advantage they have is an increased incentive to cut back and become more efficient to facilitate a successful sale to potential new owner.

Of course, not every asset or business is this way, but a very large number of them are. Innocent enterpises with entirely innocent staff who find themselves wrapped up in NAMA because they are associated with a group or individual who has a bad loan. That simply does not mean the business saw any benefit from that loan at all.

patwicklow

Well at least NAMA has loads of choices for there summer golf outings, lets hope they dont have golf balls or umbrellas in there name:D

golfwallah

I recognise that Mizuno Man feels strongly about this issue and is quite entitled to feel that way. I also very much sympathise with the staff of golf clubs in Nama, as this situation was not of their making.

There is nothing personal in this. But the other side to this story is about those hard working and loyal staff in clubs that are not receiving Nama support. These entirely innocent people’s jobs are equally at risk from unfair competition by outfits that would not have survived without Nama support.

Mizuno Man says that: “NAMA has bought these loans from the banks to enable the banks to operate again. But it has bought them at a discount, so the bank takes a hit”.

Let’s face it ... the banks “taking these hits” have been bailed out by the Irish Taxpayer ... to me, this is a subsidy and I’m sure the majority of my fellow taxpayers would see it that way. We only have to look at our pay-packets and the coming public service cutbacks / local charges to see that reality.

Not only that, but Nama (i.e. the taxpayer) is left with the risk of attempting, as you say, “to make money by selling assets, collecting repayments, collecting interest and penalties exactly how a bank would have done” – another potential taxpayer subsidy waiting in the wings.

It’s not a question of begrudgery. We all know that if Nama were not there, the companies that “got caught up in the whole Nama thing” would have been wound up and sold off. That’s what is happening to Turvey Golf Club and again, I sympathise with the staff, who worked there and unfortunately have been laid off.

Nama’s support for businesses like this is subsidization by the taxpayer and unfair competition to member clubs and private businesses that have been playing the game by normally accepted economic rules but now find themselves, “through no fault of their own”, also struggling to survive.

bailey99

golfwallah wrote: »

But the other side to this story is about those hard working and loyal staff in clubs that are not receiving Nama support.

Golfwallah, what support do you believe Nama is giving these profit making businesses??????

I dont think you understand the subject. I'll give you an example. Say I own a house, and I see another house that I consider a good investment property for €200,000. I don't have the cash to buy this other property so I get a loan off the bank using my own house as collateral. I then lose my job, cant find any tenants and fall behind on my loan repayments. The bank will foreclose on my property but in a depressed market, sell it off for €125,000.

I still owe the bank an additional €75,000 (€200-000 minus €125,000).

Now multiply this many times over for a developer! Developer has various business interests, he own two blocks of apartments, a golf course and a hotel. He sees an investment opportunity (say, a land block) and borrows €250million from a bank. The market slumps and he's goosed!

The developer falls behind with his repayments. The banks sells his loan of €250million to Nama for say €100million. Here are the key points:

1) The bank receives €100million from Nama and they are finished with the developer. Thats them done and dusted.
2) The developer now owes NAMA €250million.
3) Nama looks at the developers assets (ie. Two blocks of apartments, a golf course and a hotel. They value these assets at €150million.
4) Nama takes all of the above assets to repay the developers loans.
5) The developer still owes Nama an additional €100million.
6) Nama sells or trys to sell off the two blocks of apartments, the golf course and the hotel to generate cash instead of having assets on its books.
7) Any rent from the apartment blocks is paid to the landlord/owner (who happens to be NAMA)
8) Any profit from the golf course is paid to the landlord/owner (who happens to be NAMA)
9) Any profit from the hotel is paid to the landlord/owner (who happens to be NAMA)

NAMA has stated that they expect to make a profit of €1billion from establishing NAMA. If they are losing money everyday on a golf course owned by them, then they aint gonna keep it open. Receivers/liquidators do a due diligience examination of businesses to see if they are better off being shut down immediately, or they can be run as a going concern and sold off. They can only be sold off if they are profit making otherwise why the hell would an investor want to buy it!!!

Mizuno Man

Dunno golfwallah, I tried I suppose but maybe I'm just plain wrong or maybe I'm preaching to the deaf.

Your feeling that the banks have been bailed out is quite accurate and the debate will go on for ever I expect about whether there was any other option. But how you decide that a bank bail out equals a subsidy to golf clubs and unfair competition is beyond me.

Your assumption that clubs and other businesses would have been wound down and closed without NAMA is just plain incorrect. Again, many of these places are profitable, viable businesses and would have continued operating quite happily if they were not involved in the mess. The appointment of a NAMA selected receiver in many cases can actually make it very difficult for the business to compete in the market, through frozen accounts, unpaid suppliers and the resulting destruction of long established business relationships. That is very far from being unfair competition to other similar businesses.

Turvey golf club was heavily loss making for a long period of time. The club was closed because it itself ran out of raw cash and could no longer operate while the banks were also unwilling or perhaps even incapable of providing any further credit. A Receiver was appointed by the bank to try to recover whatever value they could.

What I am trying to make you undertsand is that The Links and many other places (again, not every one but many of them) are in an entirely different situation. They do not have cash flow problems, do not owe money and do not have unpaid loans. They are not part of the problem if you like, but still find themselves with an uncertain future.

As you can tell no doubt, I react badly to seeing people simply believing what they read in a paper. I can't fathom that adults can't see that the guy writing an article is often trying to keep his job and sell his paper and particularly these days, the jucier or more shocking or controversial the content the more papers will sell. You don't buy a truthful, objective analysis in your local shop for 1.60 euro, you buy the product of a profit making business.

Mizuno Man

bailey99, thank you for giving me some hope for the greater world! Someone else has bothered to make an effort ot understand how this whole thing actually works!! Thank you!

bailey99 makes a very good point more clearly than have done. If NAMA takes over a golf club and finds it to be unprofitable with no hope of selling it as a going concern even with massive restructuring then it will actually close it down. NAMA then has a few options. It can retain the asset awaiting an inprovement in the market in the hope that it will fetch a better price over the medium term, or it can sell the asset for whatever it can get. That might mean the local farmer puts in an offer for the hotel and golf course of 2 million euro (dramatisation of course!!) and NAMA takes the cash. Either way, the developer will be hurting badly because his asset has fetched next to nothing and therefore he still owes NAMA almost all of the original debt.

That scenario would be lose-lose for the developer, the hotel & club and for NAMA.

golfwallah

Mizuno Man wrote: »

bailey99, thank you for giving me some hope for the greater world! Someone else has bothered to make an effort ot understand how this whole thing actually works!! Thank you!

bailey99 makes a very good point more clearly than have done. If NAMA takes over a golf club and finds it to be unprofitable with no hope of selling it as a going concern even with massive restructuring then it will actually close it down. NAMA then has a few options. It can retain the asset awaiting an inprovement in the market in the hope that it will fetch a better price over the medium term, or it can sell the asset for whatever it can get. That might mean the local farmer puts in an offer for the hotel and golf course of 2 million euro (dramatisation of course!!) and NAMA takes the cash. Either way, the developer will be hurting badly because his asset has fetched next to nothing and therefore he still owes NAMA almost all of the original debt.

That scenario would be lose-lose for the developer, the hotel & club and for NAMA.

Mizuno Man and Baily 99's argument is understandably being made from the point of view of a person working in or with an interest in a Nama golf course.
All I'm saying, is there are other sides to the argument (that you guys choose to ignore)- namely from the point of view of:
-Member clubs that are not in Nama and who cannot get working capital or asset based financing from the banks. These clubs are also finding it hard to survive, also have staff, find it hard to pay their bills and have to compete with courses that got into trouble but are being rescued by Nama.
- The taxpayer, who has to stump up more tax to fund bad bank loans and carry a real risk, that banks can't carry, i.e. that Nama assets will eventually be sold at a profit (there is no guarantee that this will happen).
- The fact is that there are too many golf courses for a declining golfer base ..... they can't all survive .... the question is which ones will go to the wall and which ones will get through to better times.
My interest is the survival of my own members owned club, whereas your interests are the survival of your own Nama protected club (and I do accept that this is a hard job to do) - two different points of view on the same subject.
Let's just agree to disagree on this issue!

The_Architect

Although there are unfortunate exceptions such as Portmarnock Links and Fota Island, there are many more cases where these golf courses should be returned to fields.

We need to rebalance the number of high end courses and start again by building high quality (but low cost) sustainable ones if and when they are required.

Mizuno Man

golfwallah wrote: »

-Member clubs that are not in Nama and who cannot get working capital or asset based financing from the banks. These clubs are also finding it hard to survive, also have staff, find it hard to pay their bills and have to compete with courses that got into trouble but are being rescued by Nama.

I don't understand why you don't get this. Many of these ccourses never got into trouble. There is no rescue.

golfwallah wrote:

The taxpayer, who has to stump up more tax to fund bad bank loans and carry a real risk, that banks can't carry, i.e. that Nama assets will eventually be sold at a profit (there is no guarantee that this will happen).

That's completely accurate and true. But the fact you use it as an argument is exactly my point. You clearly and undertsandably don't like NAMA and the cost of it that has been placed on the taxpayers shoulders. But I fear you therefore unconsciously extend that dislike to anyone and any business that is found to be under the umbrella of NAMA operations. You would rather see a course close simply because it is involved in NAMA whether it is actually a real threat to your club or not because you don't like what NAMA stands for. That's what I fear many people think. NAMA will never work if the public continue to think and react in that way. NAMA assets will not reach their potential value if they continue to be seen as dirty residue from a greedy era gone by.

golfwallah wrote:

The fact is that there are too many golf courses for a declining golfer base ..... they can't all survive .... the question is which ones will go to the wall and which ones will get through to better times.
My interest is the survival of my own members owned club, whereas your interests are the survival of your own Nama protected club (and I do accept that this is a hard job to do) - two different points of view on the same subject.
Let's just agree to disagree on this issue!

Again there is no protection!!! But still the most sensible thing said by either of us! I guess these issues are the reason why NAMA has caused so much consternation across the country. Best of luck and I hope your club gets through the tough times.

mr.mickels

Mizuno Man wrote: »

(editing this so it doesn't look quite so offensive a diatribe)

There is no subsidy for the asset in most cases as with these courses. They are not in NAMA because they left debts unpaid. They are not receiving payments from NAMA. They are not receiving payments from the public. They run themselves and deal with their own finances like any other business. Yet in NAMA they now be.

The really enraging thing is that all those out their who bleat like sheep - uneducated about the reality and believing what some non-expert journalist assumes to be the case writes - who then say we should let these places go down the swany and stop wasting public money, can't even see that it is entirely in the publics best possible interest that exactly these places do very well and make a lot of profit and therefore become more saleable and achieve a better price at auction so that NAMA and the public get a better return on the money they have already put in.

On one hand you say NAMA didn't give any support to Portmarnock, and then you encourage us to support Portmarnock so NAMA can get a better return for the money they put in!!! So did they put money in or not? And I personally have no interest in supporting any of NAMA's interests, golf or otherwie as I view the entire lot and the government/civil/public service/banking institutions to be little more than legalised racketeers and us the taxpayers are getting screwed anyway. And it is clear to me that contrary to what you said earlier that many of those courses were follies, they saturated the market slump or no slump. It should have been obvious that longterm most of those ventures would struggle to ever make a profit.

LostPassword

mr.mickels wrote: »

On one hand you say NAMA didn't give any support to Portmarnock, and then you encourage us to support Portmarnock so NAMA can get a better return for the money they put in!!! So did they put money in or not? And I personally have no interest in supporting any of NAMA's interests, golf or otherwie as I view the entire lot and the government/civil/public service/banking institutions to be little more than legalised racketeers and us the taxpayers are getting screwed anyway. And it is clear to me that contrary to what you said earlier that many of those courses were follies, they saturated the market slump or no slump. It should have been obvious that longterm most of those ventures would struggle to ever make a profit.

It's really pretty simple - when a developer goes bust, he is often left with a bunch of assets, some of them profitable, some of them not. Nama takes over all of his assets, even (especially!) the profitable ones and tries to use the income from the profitable one to recoup the losses on the bad ones. So when it comes to profitable golf courses, Nama will try to use their profitability to offset the bad loans of the developer by selling the business as a going concern. Shutting down profitable businesses because they were once owned by a shady gambler developer would be crazy insane and would just cost the taxpayer more.

FixdePitchmark

LostPassword wrote: »

It's really pretty simple - when a developer goes bust, he is often left with a bunch of assets, some of them profitable, some of them not. Nama takes over all of his assets, even (especially!) the profitable ones and tries to use the income from the profitable one to recoup the losses on the bad ones. So when it comes to profitable golf courses, Nama will try to use their profitability to offset the bad loans of the developer by selling the business as a going concern. Shutting down profitable businesses because they were once owned by a shady gambler developer would be crazy insane and would just cost the taxpayer more.

Ok, I think I get it now, but are these profitable courses???? repaying the full cost of the loan relating to course ?

If not this is enabling them to provide a course at cheap green fee rates, without covering the full cost of the develpement.

The world is not fair, as we have learnt , but it would be imposible for other courses to compete with a course not paying developmental costs.

mr.mickels

LostPassword wrote: »

It's really pretty simple - when a developer goes bust, he is often left with a bunch of assets, some of them profitable, some of them not. Nama takes over all of his assets, even (especially!) the profitable ones and tries to use the income from the profitable one to recoup the losses on the bad ones. So when it comes to profitable golf courses, Nama will try to use their profitability to offset the bad loans of the developer by selling the business as a going concern. Shutting down profitable businesses because they were once owned by a shady gambler developer would be crazy insane and would just cost the taxpayer more.

He is also left with a bunch of debts, and you haven't answered the question. Did NAMA put money into Portmarnock, previous poster said No and also said NAMA needs to get a return on the money they put in, which means Yes they put money in.

I know about developer assets, supposed functions of NAMA etc.
but where have NAMA shut down a truly profitable business? And like other posters have said the repayments on loans to build a complex must be taken into account when talking about real world profits, lets not cloud the issue with other unrelated developments that may have the same owners. If some of these NAMA hotels/golf courses had ZERO startup costs or perhaps they could make a profit, in the real world how often does that happen. It is clear most of those clubs and hotels should be shut down as they are running at a loss. I am not refering to Portmarnock specifically as I know little of it but some of the others I am familiar with.

Mizuno Man

mr.mickels wrote: »

He is also left with a bunch of debts, and you haven't answered the question. Did NAMA put money into Portmarnock, previous poster said No and also said NAMA needs to get a return on the money they put in, which means Yes they put money in.

Sorry you're barking up the wrong tree here. I meant that the public need to get a return on the money they put in to NAMA, not that NAMA needs to get a return on the money it put in to Portmarnock. Reread my post and you'll see the context that my comment was made in.

mr.mickels wrote:

I know about developer assets, supposed functions of NAMA etc.
but where have NAMA shut down a truly profitable business?

What? Where did anyone say that had happened? Why would NAMA do such a thing? That would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Except of course that some people seem to hate anything to do with NAMA and would be happy to see anything related to them closed down and out of business. An opinion I think you have voiced yourself here.

mr.mickels wrote:

It is clear most of those clubs and hotels should be shut down as they are running at a loss.

If you know anything about business then you will know that a loss making business can still have a substantial value. So it will never be a simple case of shut down a place that is loss making for that reason alone. That would be an idiotic thing to do from the perspective of the return on public finances invested in NAMA and it's operations unless it is determined that the business can not be sold as a going concern and cannot be made to be profitable.

I entirely accept that there are many businesses out there that are tied up in NAMA and which may well be finding themselves kept afloat by NAMA when they otherwise might have been unable to do so alone. I fully understand that people will see that as unfair competition and destructive to other viable businesses. My points are twofold:

Firstly, not every NAMA acquired business is in trouble and it is wrong to assume that they are despite what the papers may try to have you believe. Boycotting or wishing ill health to a business simply because it is a NAMA asset and you don't like NAMA is idiotic. Not least because the very soul of the argument that people who think this way have is based on the apparent waste of public money that they feel NAMA represents. Boycotting businesses or wishing them to fail and close will more or less guarantee that public funds invested in NAMA are entirely wasted.

Secondly, for longer than we are all alive, banks have been stepping in to a failing business that they have an significant interest in, appointing receivers and finding a way to keep the business afloat, sell it or even to turn it back to profit where it otherwise, without intervention, would have simply washed up and failed. Where were you all crying "unfair competition!" and "shut it down" on those thousands and thousands of occasions?

k.p.h

Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb :cool:

Boskowski

Lads it's not that hard to understand. It's been explained over and over again in the end even by a step by step example you might find in a schoolbook. Some courses are surely am unsound development themselves but a lot of courses labeled 'NAMA' are not, they got caught in this being collateral. Simply reiterating a hunch concerning some unfair subsidy due to lack of understanding does not actually make that subsidy real as there is none in those cases.
The only real pressure I can see is that of declining memberships and green fees, however, in this climate that would have always been the case.
Some embership owned courses may have got carried away themselves a bit with green fees only expected to ever go up.

LostPassword

mr.mickels wrote: »

It is clear most of those clubs and hotels should be shut down as they are running at a loss. I am not refering to Portmarnock specifically as I know little of it but some of the others I am familiar with.

From a business point of view, this isn't clear at all. NAMA's terms of reference are pretty clear - to maximise the return on their assets - they have no broader social goals (such as, for example, allowing non-NAMA golf-clubs to survive). Where they acquire a loss-making golf-development, it almost never makes sense to actually close it down because, in the current economic climate that would mean writing down the value of the asset to zero (there is currently no market for things like golf courses).

As an example, consider a golf development that NAMA acquires for €100million and is currently losing €5million a year.

Let's imagine a relatively pessimistic projection that it will be 10 years before the market recovers to a stage where there is a functioning market for golf developments.

If NAMA was to close the course now, then they swallow a loss of the entire amount - after 10 years of lying fallow, the course and developments will have decayed to a stage where it is no longer a golf-course, it is a tract of wild land encumbered by a bunch of decaying structures and probably has less value than a virgin tract of agricultural land.

If NAMA cuts costs radically to such a point where they are merely paying the minimum to prevent irreversible decay and, let's say, losing €2 million a year, and after 10 years, when the market recovers, they are able to sell the course for even €50 million, then that is a much better outcome vis a vis their terms of reference (net recovery of maybe €20 million after interest, etc) than closing it down now. They do also have the advantage that they have deeper pockets than most of the competition and will be able to finance the 10 years of loss making, which competitors won't meaning that the competitive landscape will tend to improve over the 10 years. This is obviously probelmatic from the point of view of their competitors but that's capitalism - banks do this sort of thing all the time with property and other businesses, run them at a loss for many years so that they can take advantage of a recovery.

FixdePitchmark

Meanwhile , the guys in NAMA swan about playing golf with not a worry in the world. Total Bast*66s. Charging 500,000 for half built apartments in Dublin, putting the cat and the dog in the wives name, not paying tax, still houses abroad, fancy cars, trophy houses, holidays abroad.

It is true that they were drinking champagne and toasting NAMA on one of their junkets abroad.

These people are still allowed to run a business, the mind boggles.

It is morally and ethically repulsive.

Tarquin1970

Jebus, the people on here giving out about NAMA courses are probably snapping up the City Deals such as a round of golf plus lunch for €49 in these very same courses.....just saying!!

mags1962

I think Mizuno is trying to win an argument with some rocks in this case. Why would anyone close down a business if it was producing a decent cash flow and maybe even a break even situation. Even if the business was producing a loss, closing it down is still not an option as this would certainly de-value he business and minimise their return. The banks cocked up by giving greedy developers loans greater than the value of the security placed on it. Nama has bought these loans from the banks and is trying to recoup as much as possible to pay back the Country.
Any business that is making a profit would have no problems getting money or loans using their profits as security as well as the value of the business/cash on hand etc. Lots and lots of golf clubs are in dificulty as they are not making a profit and have no cash reserves and can not get loans to develop or survive. No one will loan and investor money to buy a loss making business, why buy it in the first place. All businesses have to look at their cost model in order to survive, operating costs vs income, and if the operating costs exceed the income then more than likely bye bye.
Does Corballiss operate for a profit or does it receive help?

Mizuno Man

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Meanwhile , the guys in NAMA swan about playing golf with not a worry in the world. Total Bast*66s. Charging 500,000 for half built apartments in Dublin, putting the cat and the dog in the wives name, not paying tax, still houses abroad, fancy cars, trophy houses, holidays abroad.

It is true that they were drinking champagne and toasting NAMA on one of their junkets abroad.

These people are still allowed to run a business, the mind boggles.

It is morally and ethically repulsive.

The only reason they were charging those crazy prices is because idiots like you and me were willing to pay it. We all fell in to the trap and should be individually taking some responsibility for it. The bank crisis which caused most of this mess was caused primarily by mortgage debt, which was created by the public. Of course you can blame the banks for lending the money in the first place, but that is quite like blaming BMW for a hit-and-run accident or blaming Smith & Wesson for a gun massacre.

As for the toasting NAMA thing. I assume you are going on more than what you read in the papers? Can you explain to me why a developer in heavy debt would be happy at the creation of NAMA?

The_Architect

Tarquin1970 wrote: »

Jebus, the people on here giving out about NAMA courses are probably snapping up the City Deals such as a round of golf plus lunch for €49 in these very same courses.....just saying!!

This is a pretty valid point.

My problem is not with NAMA as such. It is more with the expensive high-end golf courses we've been building over the last 20 years, many of which find themselves in NAMA hands because of the nature of those who built them.

I want to see the back of many of these because until they close down and we start again along a more sensible path, we have no way of growing the game in this country.

Golf needs to be affordable. That does not equate with low quality.

None of these developments will ever be affordable and break even. Portmarnock Links possibly.

Fota Island is worth keeping also as it fills a void very near Cork City where there are actually few developments of the same level and class.

FixdePitchmark

Mizuno Man wrote: »

The only reason they were charging those crazy prices is because idiots like you and me were willing to pay it. We all fell in to the trap and should be individually taking some responsibility for it. The bank crisis which caused most of this mess was caused primarily by mortgage debt, which was created by the public. Of course you can blame the banks for lending the money in the first place, but that is quite like blaming BMW for a hit-and-run accident or blaming Smith & Wesson for a gun massacre.


As for the toasting NAMA thing. I assume you are going on more than what you read in the papers? Can you explain to me why a developer in heavy debt would be happy at the creation of NAMA?

Wrong, it is like blaming BMW for not putting seat belts in. They would not do it. Because it is wrong.

Not me , I did a basic calculation of 2.5 times my income, purchased a house based on that, I borrowed what I could comfotably afford.

And I didn't join or buy shares in a golf club, because it was obvious to somebody with common sense it was not value.

I don't hang around with developers , they were toasting nama knowing it was going to bail them out, hard to believe that was a made up story, you seem to know a good bit about them, what was the story ?


http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/mountcharles-developers-toasted-nama-rescue-in-spain-101459.html

Bandana boy

The_Architect wrote: »

This is a pretty valid point.


Golf needs to be affordable. That does not equate with low quality.

I would suggest ,that good quality golf is available cheaper ,and more conveniently to the average punter in 2011 than at any other time in its history on this Island

Mizuno Man

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Wrong, it is like blaming BMW for not putting seat belts in. They would not do it. Because it is wrong.

Not me , I did a basic calculation of 2.5 times my income, purchased a house based on that, I borrowed what I could comfotably afford.

And I didn't join or buy shares in a golf club, because it was obvious to somebody with common sense it was not value.

I don't hang around with developers , they were toasting nama knowing it was going to bail them out, hard to believe that was a made up story, you seem to know a good bit about them, what was the story ?


http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/mountcharles-developers-toasted-nama-rescue-in-spain-101459.html

I would absolutely guarantee that if BMW could get away with no seatbelts and it would provide a dramatic change in profits as a result, they absolutely would leave them out. Don't confuse regulation with social responsibility!!

It's not just about being careful with your finances. Fair play to you for being careful with what you borrow. I did the same, but I still payed a ridiculous price for what I got. I have a mortgage I can manage, but I effectively have dog box for a house as a result. It can be argued that I played my part in continuing the cycle of overpriced housing and further pushing others into personal finance that they didn't bother to fully understand.

I will never forget hearing a woman on the radio a few years ago saying if she knew that interest rates could go up so quickly she would never have taken the mortgage out in the first place. You can blame the bank for letting her have the mortgage all you like. But it is probably fair to say that if this same woman was signing a finance agreement for a telly worth 500 quid she would probably have paid more attention to the finer details than she did with her 300,000 euro mortgage. She is not blameless. Neither are the majority of the rest of us. We got knowingly trapped in a cycle of only seeing relative value rather than absolute value.

I can't go into it again since this is a golf forum at at the end of the day. But there is simply no bail out for developers. Plain and simple. The creation of NAMA means that that many of these developers will see everything they own taken from them where before they had a crippled bank trying to pester them for funds. Unless they are into personal pain and tragedy for their families, then they were not toasting NAMA.

That article is classic journalism - A journalists mostly paraphrasing a story which is based on the opinion of a man who was told by a friend of his that he overhead some people he thinks are developers apparently toasting NAMA. It's utterly laughable that anyone would read this and come to any conclusion whatsoever! By the time you read it it is already fifth hand information! Lord Whatshisface shows his character by using the word "lynched" - a deeply offensive term referring to the struggle for black liberation in the states many moons ago. So the papers really know how to pick their sources.

Can't you see that the journalist and paper saw a story which they could publish which would appear to be highly controversial and enrage their readers and as a result sell papers? There is no attempt in that article at all to tell the truth or investigate the incident or even to explain why these paraphrased, overhead, assumed-to-be developers would be doing such a thing!

The_Architect

Bandana boy wrote: »

I would suggest ,that good quality golf is available cheaper ,and more conveniently to the average punter in 2011 than at any other time in its history on this Island

That's because rounds are being sold at a loss on courses that cost too much to maintain.

Solution: Build courses that cost less to maintain.

mags1962

That's Capalitism for you and I doubt that anyone in their right mind would build a course that costs more to maintain than it brings in in income. The reason so many high cost courses were built was that the owners thought that there would be a never ending supply of gobsh1tes to shell out for them.

mags1962

In fact I also know of members of clubs that have a stake of 20k or more in clubs but can not find an eejit to take it over as the club will not allow it to be sold for less than 20k, all in the hope of keeping out the ordinary Joe. These are the guys that deserve to go to the wall along with their high green fees.

mr.mickels

The_Architect wrote: »

None of these developments will ever be affordable and break even. Portmarnock Links possibly.

Fota Island is worth keeping also as it fills a void very near Cork City where there are actually few developments of the same level and class.

If it is worth keeping to someone then it should be possible to find a buyer, but any course that is not a sound business shouldn't be kept open despite what some others here are suggesting, they should be sold off for whatever they can get, and let the new owners worry about future viability.
Harbour Point Golf Club was one example of a privately owned course with about 400 members that wasn't making decent profit, so the wealthy owner closed it down, nothing to do with NAMA, it simply wasn't a profitable business mostly due to all the newer courses that were competing with it, and many of them in financial trouble. Some of the other loss-making course should go the same way or be auctioned off. Keeping some of these running at a loss isn't always the best answer for the taxpayer, or the competition which should all be on a level playing field.