Golf clubs in receivership

shamco

Why is the taxpayer paying to keep non viable golf clubs open. I know of one golf complex in Wicklow being subsided to the tune of 1.2 million per annum. These places are offering cheap memeberships and green fees and will force properly run courses out of business. You will then see a large increase in prices

bustercherry

shamco wrote: »

Why is the taxpayer paying to keep non viable golf clubs open. I know of one golf complex in Wicklow being subsided to the tune of 1.2 million per annum. These places are offering cheap memeberships and green fees and will force properly run courses out of business. You will then see a large increase in prices

Ah yes we haven't heard this bitching match in a while.

FixdePitchmark

shamco wrote: »

Why is the taxpayer paying to keep non viable golf clubs open. I know of one golf complex in Wicklow being subsided to the tune of 1.2 million per annum. These places are offering cheap memeberships and green fees and will force properly run courses out of business. You will then see a large increase in prices

Where is it, is it in NAMA ?

matt-dublin

name and shame please.

link_2007

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Where is it, is it in NAMA ?

Didn't he just tell you it was in Wicklow?

FixdePitchmark

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Where is it, is it in NAMA ?

And the budget today could help them too, NAMA are to review rents with the option of a downward rent review.

FixdePitchmark

link_2007 wrote: »

Didn't he just tell you it was in Wicklow?

??????????

Stand up in HaPenny Bridge on a Monday.

ernieprice

I think it is totally wrong for taxpayers money to be given to ANY of these clubs. If they are unable to support themselves then close.

Dtoffee

Come on .... tell us which club in Wicklow ?

slave1

Just read through the .pdf from the NAMA website, you can pick out the golf courses from the list

Gophur

It doesn't take much to understand why such businesses are being kept alive. They're worth something when they are running, they are only worth farmland prices if they are closed down.

Golfgraffix

ernieprice wrote: »

I think it is totally wrong for taxpayers money to be given to ANY of these clubs. If they are unable to support themselves then close.

Not sure about that logic, like or not NAMA was set up and has taken on a huge loan book, the only way to reduce this loan book and in turn the Taxpayers (us) exposure is to sell them off.

If they close, NAMA has still got the loan, if they support the course in its operation and sell it at a future date then the sale may well out weigh the cost of supporting

Say;

Toxic loan value = €10m
Current sale price = €1m
Cost to support = €300k per year
Sales value in 2 years = €4.25m
Sales value in 4 years = €6m

In this you can see the value in keeping it open. Its a tough pill to swallow for other local clubs surviving on their own, i guess the real argument is whether NAMA shuld have ever been set up at all.

J

trad

I'm more shocked at NAMA use Londonderry instead of Derry

charlieIRL

Gophur wrote: »

It doesn't take much to understand why such businesses are being kept alive. They're worth something when they are running, they are only worth farmland prices if they are closed down.

and presumably keeping a few people in a job at the same time.

And i wouldn't name and shame here either - the information is available elsewhere if you want to have a look for it.

downthemiddle

Gophur wrote: »

It doesn't take much to understand why such businesses are being kept alive. They're worth something when they are running, they are only worth farmland prices if they are closed down.

There is a difference between keeping a business alive and sponsoring a race at the Punchestown festival or spending 80,000 euro of our money on drainage work on this golf course.

dnjoyce

downthemiddle wrote: »

There is a difference between keeping a business alive and sponsoring a race at the Punchestown festival or spending 80,000 euro of our money on drainage work on this golf course.

The whole NAMA situation is a difficult pill to swallow whatever way one looks at it, but if spending 80k now means you can sell the asset for a price increase of larger than 80k in a few years, then it probably makes sense. I'm not saying I support it (although I do like the course in question!) but there is a certain sense to it.

scubapro

As a matter of interest are there any golfers out there that will not play said course or for that matter play any other course because they are in Nama?

Dr_Colossus

shamco wrote: »

I know of one golf complex in Wicklow being subsided to the tune of 1.2 million per annum.

Source?
The golf complex in Wicklow is not the only golf complex in Nama so are the other complexes in Cork, Donegal, Dublin, Kildare, Laois and Westmeath receiving a similar subsidy and how is this allocated? Is there a distinction made between complexes that have running hotels and spas as well as a golf course in determining the amount of subsidy they receive?

Unglika Norse

scubapro wrote: »

As a matter of interest are there any golfers out there that will not play said course or for that matter play any other course because they are in Nama?

Yep

frost53

the golf complex in this thread is Tulfarris... big hotel there offering packages for half nothing.as well as cheap green fees, all at the taxpayers expense. How can any golf club or hotel standing on their own two feet compete with this, These zombie courses should be culled. Mercy killings are sometimes the only answer.

ernieprice

frost53 wrote: »

the golf complex in this thread is Tulfarris... big hotel there offering packages for half nothing.as well as cheap green fees, all at the taxpayers expense. How can any golf club or hotel standing on their own two feet compete with this, These zombie courses should be culled. Mercy killings are sometimes the only answer.

Totally agree

moycullen14

You can assume that any of the NAMA courses are making at least a current account profit - i.e. the day to day revenues are covering expenses. What they are not doing is making capital repayments on huge debts. In some cases (maybe Fota?), the golf side of the business was and is still profitable, it has been sunk by other, perhaps unrelated, ventures.

NAMA will sell these courses as going concerns. There is probably some price level at which they will make a profit and a return for purchasers and that's the price at which they'll sell. It is very unlikely they will be returned to agricultural value or closed if there is a level at which they can operate profitably.

If they are trading at a loss or indulging in predatory pricing then that should be stopped.

It really is no different from the members club that has been in existence for 100 years and has no property debt being able to compete with a new club that has major financing obligations. It happens all the time in the business world.

Very little thought seems to have been given to the effect NAMA is going to have on existing, ostensibly profitable, businesses - be they golf clubs, shoe shops or residential property rental. It's fairly obvious that if you have a business with a certain level of debt you will not be able to compete with one that that has significantly lower or no debt. I guess that's business, though.

bailey99

Tulfarris is a fantastic golf course and it would be a shame to see it closed. If the course is able to cover its day to day costs then why should it be forced to close???

The course is probably providing employment for 50 people? 100 people??? I don't know how many. Ok, the loans are not being repayed but there are two options here.

They can close the complex immediately, sacking all the staff, leaving an eyesore on the landscape with a hotel complex that no one will use and the loans outstanding will never be paid......oh wait, they will be paid in that the taxpayers will be forced to cover the banks losses.

Ot else, they can continue to operate, provide employment, further employment to other enterprises that supply Tulfarris and the employees spending their earnings in the locality. In a year or two for now, the complex might find a buyer hopefully, who will pay a million or two to NAMA and take over the loans, thus preventing the taxpayer footing the bill.

Oh ya, and a lot of golfers will get to play a few rounds of golf for a modest fee in the meantime!!!

If golf clubs are struggling, start cutting their annual subscription and get another 200 or 300 members in the door.

FixdePitchmark

bailey99 wrote: »

Tulfarris is a fantastic golf course and it would be a shame to see it closed. If the course is able to cover its day to day costs then why should it be forced to close???

The course is probably providing employment for 50 people? 100 people??? I don't know how many. Ok, the loans are not being repayed but there are two options here.

They can close the complex immediately, sacking all the staff, leaving an eyesore on the landscape with a hotel complex that no one will use and the loans outstanding will never be paid......oh wait, they will be paid in that the taxpayers will be forced to cover the banks losses.

Ot else, they can continue to operate, provide employment, further employment to other enterprises that supply Tulfarris and the employees spending their earnings in the locality. In a year or two for now, the complex might find a buyer hopefully, who will pay a million or two to NAMA and take over the loans, thus preventing the taxpayer footing the bill.

Oh ya, and a lot of golfers will get to play a few rounds of golf for a modest fee in the meantime!!!

If golf clubs are struggling, start cutting their annual subscription and get another 200 or 300 members in the door.

But why should the staff of a NAMA hotel have an unfair advantage over a course not in NAMA ?

I'll put the moral dilemma to you, if a NAMA course or a non NAMA course should close next to each other which should close ?

dnjoyce

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

But why should the staff of a NAMA hotel have an unfair advantage over a course not in NAMA ?

I'll put the moral dilemma to you, if a NAMA course or a non NAMA course should close next to each other which should close ?

Just bacause a course is in NAMA doesn't mean it is losing money. It could also mean that a developer who lost his hole elsewhere was (amongst other things) also the owner of an otherwise profitable business, but with NAMA confiscating all of his/her assets to try and recoup the loses, the golf course (in this example) was caught up in it. I'm not saying Tulfarris fits this bracket, but your "moral dilemma" above is not quite as straight-forward as it seems.

Russman

bailey99 wrote: »

If golf clubs are struggling, start cutting their annual subscription and get another 200 or 300 members in the door.

Mostly fair points but,
I don't think the numbers are there for an extra 200-300 members to come in any club's door. People don't have the cash in these times IMO.

FixdePitchmark

dnjoyce wrote: »

Just bacause a course is in NAMA doesn't mean it is losing money. It could also mean that a developer who lost his hole elsewhere was (amongst other things) also the owner of an otherwise profitable business, but with NAMA confiscating all of his/her assets to try and recoup the loses, the golf course (in this example) was caught up in it. I'm not saying Tulfarris fits this bracket, but your "moral dilemma" above is not quite as straight-forward as it seems.

And considering all of that, which would you close (NAMA or Non NAMA). Which is the real situation we are facing.


I'd imagine some of the developers you talk about are still members of golf clubs and playing on their own state run play things.

Actually it is not inconceivable that some are being payed to run them (As we have discovered).

dnjoyce

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

And considering all of that, which would you close (NAMA or Non NAMA). Which is the real situation we are facing.


I'd imagine some of the developers you talk about are still members of golf clubs and playing on their own state run play things.

Actually it is not inconceivable that some are being payed to run them (As we have discovered).

It's lose/lose really - if the Nama course closes then "x" amount of people lose their job, stop becoming tax payers and start becoming welfare recipients. The value of the Nama (i.e our) asset plummets and the taxpayer takes an additional hit there.
If the other course closes, "x" amount of people lose their job as above. Maybe the Nama asset appreciates in value eventually, lessening the loss on the taxpayer as a whole, maybe not.

Without a magic crystal ball that tells how the economy will pan 5-10 years from now it's a very difficult call to make with any sort of certainty. Undoubtedly in some cases, Nama are thowing good money after bad in an attempt to keep some business running as going concerns in order to realise more money on sales that will probably never happen, but I wouldn't even pretend to be qualified to say which ones!!

moycullen14

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

But why should the staff of a NAMA hotel have an unfair advantage over a course not in NAMA ?

I'll put the moral dilemma to you, if a NAMA course or a non NAMA course should close next to each other which should close ?

Morals have nothing to do with it.

Why should someone who bought at the peak be disadvantaged compared to someone who bought now?

Every business strives for some sort of competitive advantage. If I can pick up a golf club for €2million today - that cost, say, €10million to develop and run it profitably against other golf courses, why shouldn't I do it and be allowed to do it? It is unfair, maybe, but that's how business works. No receiver is going to close down a golf course just to save the course up the road. I must say in all this the course HAS to be able to trade profitably. Predatory activity is and should be illegal.

moycullen14

The problem is one of over supply. There are 400+ courses in the country and a market for only about 300. There will be casualties but it is by no means certain which ones they will be. In fact, just because a golf course is in NAMA and riddled with debt is no guarantee that it will fail. Restructure the debt, clean the slate and start again and it could be profitable. What is more likely is that some badly run, poor quality, older courses (even member owned courses) will fail. In the long run the only thing that will matter is the quality and location of the course and how well it is run. Given that newer courses should be of higher quality and have been designed to ease maintenance and have better facilities, it is quite likely that they wil survive and that older courses will fail.
Look at the courses in you area and think 'From a standing start, which one is the best, has the best facilities?' - They're the ones that will survive.

FixdePitchmark

moycullen14 wrote: »

Morals have nothing to do with it.

Why should someone who bought at the peak be disadvantaged compared to someone who bought now?

Every business strives for some sort of competitive advantage. If I can pick up a golf club for €2million today - that cost, say, €10million to develop and run it profitably against other golf courses, why shouldn't I do it and be allowed to do it? It is unfair, maybe, but that's how business works. No receiver is going to close down a golf course just to save the course up the road. I must say in all this the course HAS to be able to trade profitably. Predatory activity is and should be illegal.

Morals have no place in business, says it all.

TheGrump

The problem with NAMA courses is that as a golfer I hate to see non-Nama courses suffering at the hands of NAMA courses with unfair advantages.

However as a tax payer, if the government has an assest worth, say €10m, I expect them to maximise the return for the taxpayer. So if that means spending €80,000 on drainage or losing €1m a year for 5 years and then selling for €10m then that is what I expect them to do. The alternative of closing the course, writing off the €10m and putting a number of people on the dole is ridiculous.

Richard

trad wrote: »

I'm more shocked at NAMA use Londonderry instead of Derry

I'm more shocked that Europe in general, and Ireland in particular is in such a mess that organisations like NAMA need to exist TBH...

davidrafferty

New version of Mr. Micawber’s quote (from Dickens, David Copperfield):
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery relief (if you can get into NAMA)."

chud1234

meant to be playing tulfarris tomorrow ,anyone play it lately ?
any tips for some of the holes? thanks

ForeRight

chud1234 wrote: »

meant to be playing tulfarris tomorrow ,anyone play it lately ?
any tips for some of the holes? thanks

Played it the other day and it was in great nick bar the bunkers which are suffering everywhere.

Nice course and the index 1 wouldn't be out of place at a major championship.

chud1234

thanks looking forward to it, but i heard its snowing heavy down that direction
at the moment