South County GC Closed

Alrite Chief

I should hope so. The Ladies committee have been brilliant in all things great about SCGC over the years.

Gambino

Fennetec, I don't especially care who calls meetings but the members cannot evaluate the situation without knowing the landlords position. The meeting on Wednesday can achieve little unless we know the situation with the course.

fennetec

Gambino wrote: »

Fennetec, I don't especially care who calls meetings but the members cannot evaluate the situation without knowing the landlords position. The meeting on Wednesday can achieve little unless we know the situation with the course.

Its about two months ago now sincefirst saw the new "forrestry fencing" going up around some of the open boundaries between the different landowners along the par 5 and 6 & 7th holes being fenced off with barbed wire.. I'd say the situation with the course was known at that time and the evaluation process you are talking about will be exactly that, an evaluation process - to see how stupid we all are. As far as I am concerned there is some chance for SDGC if all the members stick together, one bargaining group, one new club. A proposal is put to the landowner and he acceps it or rejects it - that is my evaluation.

Gambino

fennetec wrote: »

Gambino wrote: »

Fennetec, I don't especially care who calls meetings but the members cannot evaluate the situation without knowing the landlords position. The meeting on Wednesday can achieve little unless we know the situation with the course.

Its about two months ago now sincefirst saw the new "forrestry fencing" going up around some of the open boundaries between the different landowners along the par 5 and 6 & 7th holes being fenced off with barbed wire.. I'd say the situation with the course was known at that time and the evaluation process you are talking about will be exactly that, an evaluation process - to see how stupid we all are. As far as I am concerned there is some chance for SDGC if all the members stick together, one bargaining group, one new club. A proposal is put to the landowner and he acceps it or rejects it - that is my evaluation.

Such a confrontational attitude is not going to get us very far. The landlord didn't close the club and so far he is the one trying to keep the course viable. From what I have heard he is anxious to explore the options that will suit as many people as possible.
Rather than messing him around by offering and then withdrawing venues, or presenting him with "take it or leave it" demands, we need to engage in reasonable discussion. He has many more options than we do.

GreeBo

Guys some of you are leaving yourselves open to being done for defamation/libel. You are not anonymous on here, your details can and will be passed onto the relevant authorities. Dont post anything that you wouldnt say openly in public.
Mods are not here to keep you legal.

GreeBo

Several infractions handed out. The next piece of personal abuse gets a 2 week ban.
Also, this board does not exist so that people can accuse other members of things or try to "out" their public persona.
The next accusation, attempt at naming another boards member or making a derogatory remark against anyone related to SCGC gets a 1 month ban.

tonyka

GreeBo wrote: »

Several infractions handed out. The next piece of personal abuse gets a 2 week ban.
Also, this board does not exist so that people can accuse other members of things or try to "out" their public persona.
The next accusation, attempt at naming another boards member or making a derogatory remark against anyone related to SCGC gets a 1 month ban.

thought you would never act to keep this civil ..... thanks:)

Dtoffee

Reading this thread is a classic example of how so many golf clubs are in trouble these days ........ too many opinions and not enough listening or leadership.

Its astounding that its taken a week for the committees to issue a statement and call a meeting. I have been in a club that was in this position many years ago and the lack of contact from the Committees gave every rumour and innuendo creedence. No amount of bull**** about finding out details etc can negate the fact that the Committee should be issuing daily updates from day one (online or by email or just a notice outside the front gate) even if it was just let members know they are working on the situation.

I think some scgc posters on here are genuine about trying to make the best of a bad lot .... but there's far too many fractions coming out for anything other than one step forward, three steps back.

Personally, I'd find out what Gambino's doing ....... and run the other way :eek:

Gambino

Dtoffee wrote: »

Reading this thread is a classic example of how so many golf clubs are in trouble these days ........ too many opinions and not enough listening or leadership.

Its astounding that its taken a week for the committees to issue a statement and call a meeting. I have been in a club that was in this position many years ago and the lack of contact from the Committees gave every rumour and innuendo creedence. No amount of bull**** about finding out details etc can negate the fact that the Committee should be issuing daily updates from day one (online or by email or just a notice outside the front gate) even if it was just let members know they are working on the situation.

I think some scgc posters on here are genuine about trying to make the best of a bad lot .... but there's far too many fractions coming out for anything other than oe step forward, three steps back.

Personally, I'd find out what Gambino's doing ....... and run the other way :eek:

I'll take that as a compliment.
And by the way, its factions not fractions, although we probably have fractions of factions at each others throats.

fennetec

Dtoffee wrote: »

Reading this thread is a classic example of how so many golf clubs are in trouble these days ........ too many opinions and not enough listening or leadership.

Its astounding that its taken a week for the committees to issue a statement and call a meeting. I have been in a club that was in this position many years ago and the lack of contact from the Committees gave every rumour and innuendo creedence. No amount of bull**** about finding out details etc can negate the fact that the Committee should be issuing daily updates from day one (online or by email or just a notice outside the front gate) even if it was just let members know they are working on the situation.

I think some scgc posters on here are genuine about trying to make the best of a bad lot .... but there's far too many fractions coming out for anything other than one step forward, three steps back.

Personally, I'd find out what Gambino's doing ....... and run the other way :eek:

I couldn't agree more, it took too long and to compound the awful way in which the news broke the course was closed and members locked out of the clubhouse. Apart from the 6am text, as far as I was concerned anyway, the members had lost all contact with each other, we had been divided. The Raymie Burns issue is deplorable. I met Pat Kavanagh, he is a nice man but I strongly resented the fact that he was calling all the shots and the members were going to take it in the neck whatever was coming down the line. It is quite possible that the Captains had no access to the database but whatever happens at least we are meeting now. At least people won't be working so hard after Wednesday moving machinery around at three o'clock in the morning all on their own, we can all help when we reach a decision. A lot of hard work has gone into SDGC and only recently about two miles of boundary was fenced off I presume at night time with barbed wire without any golfer seeing one of the workmen so between machinery movers and fencers we have no problem labour wise anyway.

vikingdub

Gambino wrote: »

Fennetec, I don't especially care who calls meetings but the members cannot evaluate the situation without knowing the landlords position. The meeting on Wednesday can achieve little unless we know the situation with the course.

The meeting on Wednesday will enable the members to decide a strategy and arrange to seek legal advice on a number of questionable aspects of closure of the club and the repossession of the land by the Kavanaghs.

We know what the Kavanaghs' position is what is needed is to agree a clear and well formulated strategy for the members.

Gambino

vikingdub wrote: »

Gambino wrote: »

Fennetec, I don't especially care who calls meetings but the members cannot evaluate the situation without knowing the landlords position. The meeting on Wednesday can achieve little unless we know the situation with the course.

The meeting on Wednesday will enable the members to decide a strategy and arrange to seek legal advice on a number of questionable aspects of closure of the club and the repossession of the land by the Kavanaghs.

We know what the Kavanaghs' position is what is needed is to agree a clear and well formulated strategy for the members.

It still wouldn't have hurt to hear what the landlord is proposing but maybe it is better to have those discussions conducted by (I hope a sensible and reasonable) team from the club, rather than him be confronted by a baying mob, which would have been a risk on Tuesday.
Whether people like it or not, the Kavanaghs are part of the solution more than the problem. Anger isn't an argument -or a strategy.

Golfingfanatic

fennetec wrote: »

A lot of hard work has gone into SDGC and only recently about two miles of boundary was fenced off I presume at night time with barbed wire without any golfer seeing one of the workmen so between machinery movers and fencers we have no problem labour wise anyway.

There is enough wild innuendo and accusation on here with out adding to it. The fence was installed over a period of a week in full daylight and when I asked the greenkeeper what was going on he said that it was to prevent the adjoining farmer's cows from getting onto the course again and causing damage as they had last year. The trees on the land just outside the fence belong to Coillte.

What I'd like to hear is confirmation from the Board that all directors paid their subs this year and also that the loans from them to the club have not been repaid to them. I'd also like an explanation as to why they removed the equipment, thus ensuring that there would be great difficulty in maintaining the course. Surely if the Board had their shareholders interests at heart they would have not done this.

tonyka

Golfingfanatic wrote: »

There is enough wild innuendo and accusation on here with out adding to it. The fence was installed over a period of a week in full daylight and when I asked the greenkeeper what was going on he said that it was to prevent the adjoining farmer's cows from getting onto the course again and causing damage as they had last year. The trees on the land just outside the fence belong to Coillte.

What I'd like to hear is confirmation from the Board that all directors paid their subs this year and also that the loans from them to the club have not been repaid to them. I'd also like an explanation as to why they removed the equipment, thus ensuring that there would be great difficulty in maintaining the course. Surely if the Board had their shareholders interests at heart they would have not done this.

well said

Almaviva

Golfingfanatic wrote: »

What I'd like to hear is confirmation from the Board that all directors paid their subs this year and also that the loans from them to the club have not been repaid to them.

+1

Gambino

Almaviva wrote: »

Golfingfanatic wrote: »

What I'd like to hear is confirmation from the Board that all directors paid their subs this year and also that the loans from them to the club have not been repaid to them.

+1

Me too, but why confine it to the Board? Lets get the full story on the entire membership for the last few years. That way we will know where everyone is coming from - and whose opinion to take seriously.

alitoast

Did any members play up there this weekend?

Gambino

alitoast wrote: »

Did any members play up there this weekend?

Yes

Golf156

Very interesting reading on http://cashiq.net/. It's free to read up to 3 company accounts.
almost 1 million SC wages bill for 2010 and 2011, seems a bit high.

uberwolf

Golf156 wrote: »

Very interesting reading on http://cashiq.net/. It's free to read up to 3 company accounts.
almost 1 million SC wages bill for 2010 and 2011, seems a bit high.

25 staff @ 40k each. Not impossible to imagine a course, bar, restaurant, etc employing that many people/

sodbuster77

uberwolf wrote: »

Golf156 wrote: »

Very interesting reading on http://cashiq.net/. It's free to read up to 3 company accounts.
almost 1 million SC wages bill for 2010 and 2011, seems a bit high.

25 staff @ 40k each. Not impossible to imagine a course, bar, restaurant, etc employing that many people/

Yes it is. Do you know many waitresses and barmen earning 40k a year

uberwolf

sodbuster77 wrote: »

Yes it is. Do you know many waitresses and barmen earning 40k a year

ok then, its 30 people at 33k, 40 people at 25k, etc. I've never been to SCD, no idea how many people work there.

1M sounds like a huge figure, could include pension entitlements, employers PRSI, etc, etc, but if you do a tot of the number of staff (and in fact the accounts will tell you how many work there, which will render this little aside moot).
I'm not registering for that site to find out.

FixdePitchmark

uberwolf wrote: »

ok then, its 30 people at 33k, 40 people at 25k, etc. I've never been to SCD, no idea how many people work there.

1M sounds like a huge figure, could include pension entitlements, employers PRSI, etc, etc, but if you do a tot of the number of staff (and in fact the accounts will tell you how many work there, which will render this little aside moot).
I'm not registering for that site to find out.

Look it is 1000 people paying 1000 euro for wages alone. It makes the number look like trouble if your wage bill is that high.

matt-dublin

Ye highest earner there should have been the head greenskeeper and depending On how good he was you're talking 50-100k and sets say 10 staff for fis team at avg 35k

Plus 5 paid staff in the clubhouse averaging 35k

Already there you're talking the guts of 700k including prsi etc etc.

It's no wonder the club was in trouble. How much were the membership fees??

1600?

How much was rent??

Almaviva

matt-dublin wrote: »

Ye highest earner there should have been the head greenskeeper and depending On how good he was you're talking 50-100k and sets say 10 staff for fis team at avg 35k

50-100k. If it wasnt closer to the 50k or even below it then the someone wasnt doing their job correctly.
10 staff !?!?! If that is true then no wonder they couldnt stay affloat. Try 5. It is plenty for the typical course. I dont think even K Club, Mount Juliet grade courses would have 10 full time greenstaff plus a head greenkeeper these days. Back in the boom they did. But everyone has trimmed over the last few years.

sodbuster77

matt-dublin wrote: »

Ye highest earner there should have been the head greenskeeper and depending On how good he was you're talking 50-100k and sets say 10 staff for fis team at avg 35k

Plus 5 paid staff in the clubhouse averaging 35k

Already there you're talking the guts of 700k including prsi etc etc.

It's no wonder the club was in trouble. How much were the membership fees??

1600?

How much was rent??

The sub for existing members was €1650 incl €100 bar levy. I believe the rent was around the €110k mark.

GreeBo

tonyka wrote: »

thought you would never act to keep this civil ..... thanks:)

Thanks so much for your generous approval.
Mods don't live to serve these threads, the hope is that people are adult enough to govern themselves, you'll learn that when you are here a bit longer.

sodbuster77

A big thank you to Killeen GC for their very generous gesture in giving us the use of their course today.

link_2007

sodbuster77 wrote: »

A big thank you to Killeen GC for their very generous gesture in giving us the use of their course today.

Is it nice?

sodbuster77

link_2007 wrote: »

sodbuster77 wrote: »

A big thank you to Killeen GC for their very generous gesture in giving us the use of their course today.

Is it nice?

It is. It's in excellent condition. I have played it a few times in the past and always enjoyed it.

scubapro

All

An article in todays Indo you will find interesting.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/landlords-of-insolvent-golf-club-vow-to-keep-course-open-3106018.html

green123

why is that interesting ?

nothing new in that.
nothing in that article that we haven't already read in this thread

goodgolfer64

rumour on the street is that the books looked just ok......not as severe as close the gates...though i realise this has happened!!!!
something fishy going on.mate reckons.... dont know the ins n outs but il put my hat on it been open in few months time......
rumours from an accoutant to golfer to mate

charlieIRL

goodgolfer64 wrote: »

rumour on the street is that the books looked just ok......not as severe as close the gates...though i realise this has happened!!!!
something fishy going on.mate reckons.... dont know the ins n outs but il put my hat on it been open in few months time......
rumours from an accoutant to golfer to mate

RUMOURS ARE WORTHLESS INFORMATION, PLEASE KEEP TO FACTS.

Whyner

sodbuster77 wrote: »

It is. It's in excellent condition. I have played it a few times in the past and always enjoyed it.

Do they honestly expect us to join after some of those pin positions ???

Gambino

Good advice Charlie. The facts are that the club ran out of cash.

Incidentally I see that my suggestion of transparency on the part of members has received an underwhelming response.

Funny that.

bustercherry

Gambino wrote: »

Good advice Charlie. The facts are that the club ran out of cash.

Incidentally I see that my suggestion of transparency on the part of members has received an underwhelming response.

Funny that.

You really are a puke :rolleyes:

Gambino

Thanks for making my point for me. Its a shame when the facts are a bit awkward isn't it?

bustercherry

Gambino wrote: »

Thanks for making my point for me. Its a shame when the facts are a bit awkward isn't it?

What point? What facts?

Gambino

bustercherry wrote: »

What point? What facts?

See #567 (as if you didn't know)

vikingdub

Gambino wrote: »

It still wouldn't have hurt to hear what the landlord is proposing but maybe it is better to have those discussions conducted by (I hope a sensible and reasonable) team from the club, rather than him be confronted by a baying mob, which would have been a risk on Tuesday.
Whether people like it or not, the Kavanaghs are part of the solution more than the problem. Anger isn't an argument -or a strategy.

Your concern for the Kavanaghs is touching, it is a pity you are unable to show the same degree of concern for the members.

GreeBo

bustercherry wrote: »

You really are a puke :rolleyes:

Congratulations.

Gambino

GreeBo wrote: »

Congratulations.

I hope you are not kicking him out before he answers my question. That would be letting him off the hook.

Gambino

vikingdub wrote: »

Your concern for the Kavanaghs is touching, it is a pity you are unable to show the same degree of concern for the members.

In what way am I not showing concern for the members? I am one of the few people in here who is looking at how we can rescue the club, in one form or another. Most of you seem more interested in a lynching.

The only members I don't care about are the ones who let the club down in its time of need.

Russman

Gambino wrote: »

The only members I don't care about are the ones who let the club down in its time of need.

With respect, I think thats the point that people are taking issue with.

You seem to include everyone who didn't pay in that cover all description, (which to an outsider seems a little condescending and arrogant IMO) with no consideration for the fact that they may not have been able to pay or had a legitimate enough gripe for them not to pay, or they simply decided to go elsewhere.
You really can't equate being unable to afford golf with letting the club down.

You can't seriously expect members to just grin and bear it and go along with a board or committee no matter what, just because you in particular want the club to survive. With the choice of clubs out there looking for new members, a board needs to tread carefully or its very easy to drive members away.

Dr_Colossus

As Russman said above.
Also can you confirm what privileges existing members who were expected to pay annual subs of in excess of €1,650 had over new members who were given memberships for in the region of €1,289?

There should have been more of an incentive to reward existing members for their support of the club and ensure their future subscriptions rather than undercutting them in the hopes of temporarily increasing the number of new members. With the barriers to entry such as expensive entry fees gradually going by the way side golfers are now more mobile changing clubs as finances dictate and therefore more likely to take advantage of the cheaper introductory memberships and then move on the following year.

If I was a member of SCGC and paying full membership while a new member was receiving the same playing rights but paying in the region of €400 less I too would be looking to move to a more equitable club.

It's not the departing members who are to blame for the demise of SCGC.

Gambino

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

As Russman said above.
Also can you confirm what privileges existing members who were expected to pay annual subs of in excess of €1,650 had over new members who were given memberships for in the region of €1,289?

There should have been more of an incentive to reward existing members for their support of the club and ensure their future subscriptions rather than undercutting them in the hopes of temporarily increasing the number of new members. With the barriers to entry such as expensive entry fees gradually going by the way side golfers are now more mobile changing clubs as finances dictate and therefore more likely to take advantage of the cheaper introductory memberships and then move on the following year.

If I was a member of SCGC and paying full membership while a new member was receiving the same playing rights but paying in the region of €400 less I too would be looking to move to a more equitable club.

It's not the departing members who are to blame for the demise of SCGC.

Anyone leaving for a better deal has my blessing. Anyone who can't afford to keep playing in a club has my sympathy.That's not who I'm talking about.

The incentive to current members was to still have a golf club. The introductory offer was trying to match what is on offer elsewhere.

The ones who let the club down were those negotiating deals simply because they could, or who REFUSED to pay because they disagreed with the marketing strategy, in complete denial of reality.

BigChap1759

Gambino wrote: »

I hope you are not kicking him out before he answers my question. That would be letting him off the hook.

Christ on a bike :rolleyes:

Alrite Chief

Whyner wrote: »

Do they honestly expect us to join after some of those pin positions ???

:D
I know! But the holes do seem a bit larger than regulation to make up for it.

I would also like to extend my thanks to Kileen GC for the use of their course. Very well kept track with some very unforgiving challenging holes. The 18th par 3 is a lovely one to finish before heading to the clubhouse. Really sincere and warm welcome in the club shop from the pro after whats happened to our club. I would definitely consider membership. I would urge any SC members to take a look.

/mod edit
No phone numbers in posts please

thegen

Gambino wrote: »

Anyone leaving for a better deal has my blessing. Anyone who can't afford to keep playing in a club has my sympathy.That's not who I'm talking about.

The incentive to current members was to still have a golf club. The introductory offer was trying to match what is on offer elsewhere.

The ones who let the club down were those negotiating deals simply because they could, or who REFUSED to pay because they disagreed with the marketing strategy, in complete denial of reality.

But how do you know who refused to or tried negotiating because they disagreed with marketing strategies?

Did the board send out a list of names who did this? If you are in possession of such a list you might share it with us.