South County GC Closed

oscar555

Ding Ding is accurate in his description of the simplicity of the committee's task.

The negotiation was completely straightforward and mutually beneficial, the members of SCGC had lost ownership of their course and needed somewhere to play, and the landowners were opening a new business that needs a core playing membership in order to survive. The only matter for debate surely was the fee payable by the members to use the new facility(however odd that might have felt), and given that the landowners had already given an indication of the fees they were looking for it is surprising to me that this deal was not concluded in under an hour.
Perhaps the committee forgot the most basic principle here - their club had folded and they were mandated by their membership to restore playing rights to the course at Lisheen. Did they over reach in their neotiations? Were they trying to achieve something outside of their brief? Were they influenced by any ex-Board members?

A lot of questions to ask at your meeting tonight.

Russman

Correct me if my understanding is incorrect, but surely if the landowners have decided to push ahead and open their own club, then the committee is a complete irrelevance ? They're essentially redundant as they're trying to be representative of either a) a club that doesn't exist, or b) a new club that may exist in the future.
All they bring to the table, that I can see, is that they may be able to bring a group of members to the new club. And if they're as unpopular or ineffective as posts on here would indicate, then they may not even have that ability.

The cleanest solution may well be for the old members that are still interested to join the new club and play their golf on their "old" course. Go through the affiliation process and have a new clean club set up with no historical baggage.

gboru

Ding Ding wrote: »

Club Seeker, I think you may have misunderstood me.
I have no interest in the politics whatsoever and your suggestion about looking for blood is way off the mark.

I'll try and be clearer here.

The committee were told by members to sign up to the deal offered by landowners. They didn't do this.

Instead of doing this which should have taken a 2-3 hour meeting followed by a brief document, they set about a different agenda. The committees only function should have been comps and handicaps.

They have wasted 5 weeks of members time and landowners time while members have scattered.

Hence the committee have mucked up to such an extent that I doubt the landowners will deal with them again which I fully understand. This is my only reason to suggest resignations for those of you who think the committee still have a function.

It's probably too late now but lets see what the committee have to say. No doubt we'll hear about the complications of the liquidation etc but remember that the men's and women's club have no income / expenditure or assets / liabilities of any significance so there are no complications.

The reason you and others have/are looking for somewhere else is down to the committee not doing the simple job that almost 100% at citywest asked them to do.

Ding Ding, signing up to the deal offered by the landlords is not my recollection of what was mandated at the City West meeting? My recollection was the mandate that was given was to negotiate a return to the course and to agree terms with the landlords for this return? I would have expected a number of things to be agreed e.g. fees (until the end of the year and 2013), standards for course and facilities maintenance, guarantees of insurance, agreed procedures for vetting new members i.e. all the usual stuff you would expect in a regular club. It seems these negotiations have been delayed/broken down for some reason and I would like to know why. However, I certainly was not expecting my committee who represent me and all the members of SCGC to sign up to an offer without some assurances and key issues dealt with. Also, judging by earlier posts it seems one of the sticking points was that the landlords wanted to determine who become members of the club and wanted to restrict certain current members from returning. If true, I can understand why the committee would have an issue with this as they certainly were not mandated to pick and choose what members would be allowed come back. Could you imagine a committee at tonights meeting stating 'we have an agreement with the landlords on a return however Joe, Fred, Mary and Joan are not allowed come back' - no committee worth their salt would do that. Maybe it is best that we all just move on and let individuals decide if they want to sign up to the landlords new club and let them make the best of it they can.

Gambino

oscar555 wrote: »

Ding Ding is accurate in his description of the simplicity of the committee's task.

The negotiation was completely straightforward and mutually beneficial, the members of SCGC had lost ownership of their course and needed somewhere to play, and the landowners were opening a new business that needs a core playing membership in order to survive. The only matter for debate surely was the fee payable by the members to use the new facility(however odd that might have felt), and given that the landowners had already given an indication of the fees they were looking for it is surprising to me that this deal was not concluded in under an hour.
Perhaps the committee forgot the most basic principle here - their club had folded and they were mandated by their membership to restore playing rights to the course at Lisheen. Did they over reach in their neotiations? Were they trying to achieve something outside of their brief? Were they influenced by any ex-Board members?

A lot of questions to ask at your meeting tonight.

In fairness to all concerned, wrapping this up in a few hours is not realistic. I fully understand the need to cover all the legal, financial and technical bases and I am sure both parties had to do a lot of homework - none of them being in this situation of their own accord. The liquidation process would also have complicated matters.

That said, it seems that the negotiations have hit an impasse. If the word on the street can be trusted, it seems to be about who has final say over membership. There is an assumption (maybe more?) that this is about one or more individuals but there may be a wider issue - i.e. can or should a landowner be entitled to decide who can visit and play on his land. There must be precedents and examples from other clubs that could inform this.

I hope we get all the details tonight. if the committee wants us to back their stance, they need to tell us what they are proposing we do next in relation to the course at Lisheen or whatever. If this involves touting around the SC club (and its over-valued GUI "affiliation") looking for a new home, then I will be out the door pretty quick.

ArielAtom

What numbers are the committee expecting to the meeting tonight?

Gambino

ArielAtom wrote: »

What numbers are the committee expecting to the meeting tonight?

Good question. The patchy distribution of the notice won't help but have to assume it will be less than at the first one. Hope it's enough to be representative.

ArielAtom

Has there been notice sent out? I have only read it on here.

Gambino

ArielAtom wrote: »

Has there been notice sent out? I have only read it on here.

Me too but I believe some got an email or text

one ill cat

ArielAtom wrote: »

Has there been notice sent out? I have only read it on here.

With the official communication system (BRS) out of action, the committees emailed those they had email addresses for asking them to spread the word amongst the members they had contact details for.

Unfortunately it's unlikely to have reached everyone, but hopefully the majority.

flop shot

one ill cat wrote: »

ArielAtom wrote: »

Has there been notice sent out? I have only read it on here.

With the official communication system (BRS) out of action, the committees emailed those they had email addresses for asking them to spread the word amongst the members they had contact details for.

Unfortunately it's unlikely to have reached everyone, but hopefully the majority.

Could someone please tell me when and where this meeting is to be held as a member I feel I'm entitled to know

carman2011

club seeker wrote: »

Hi Ding Ding. I suggest you move carefully about looking for blood. Bear the objective in mind - everyone's interest going forward. Mistakes can be made. I'm over and out now. Will probably look for somewhere else unless I see something that makes me feel positive about a future - then I might suck it and see so to speak. Expect I will be making a decision in the next 24 hours

Citywest tonight 8pm, ie in15 mins, I'm just heading there now, get your skates on !

carman2011

Pat kavanaghs agrees to everything , comes across as white knight , committee made look bad, some resign, then its agreed 1 last try to save club, 1 week to sign agreement to move forward most in room appear to want to stayr, 15 mins after meeting ends johnny kavanagh arrives, confronts people in car park , says don't listen to pat , it's my club and I'm getting them all out !!!! Unreal scenes ....big debate going on in lobby between johnny, pat and Peter b as I speak.
Johnny appears determined to start new club come what may, confirmed this means all our handicaps would lapse before they get proper affiliation.

ArielAtom

Getting who out???

carman2011

ArielAtom wrote: »

Getting who out???

Certain members he doesn't want, won't say who, he wants full say on who he will allow in, I heard it was said in a meeting that if u had a row with kavanagh in the bar he can bar u on the spot.....
Under GUI rules if old club keeps going they must allow all current members in, hense his out of the blue "new club" email last week.
For any serious golfer this is non runner due to major handicap issues along with some ethical issues also IMO

ArielAtom

So now it's in fighting between the Kavanaghs. Funnier than any soap on TV!!!!

sodbuster77

Can't wait to hear Gambinos spin on this one

carman2011

In fighting between the kavanaghs has been an issue since day 1, unfortunately the committee didn't convey this to the members as well as they could of.
Pat k did admit in the meeting that Richard k doesn't represent him though, although Richard k told the board he did. Richard sent the new club email last week.

Gambino

sodbuster77 wrote: »

Can't wait to hear Gambinos spin on this one

No spin. Meeting eventually made progress. I left before the epilogue. Sad. We'll
see what happens. It is now up to the Kavanaghs to decide what they want. Club doesn't have a plan B either way.

Jacket111001

Its over.

The figures didn't work before.
The new figures also don't add up.

No point in waiting around anymore.

gboru

I wouldn't have believed it unless I saw and heard it for myself. It's obvious the Kavanaghs are on opposite sides. I heard someone say one of them was on holiday for the past couple of weeks and the brother attending the meeting stated he wanted the current club as constituted and affiliated to the GUI to remain and that he agreed to the key issues regarding all current members being allowed back in. And then the second brother shows up and essentially says the other brother is talking rubbish. How could any committee have dealt with this? Their communication was poor to the members but WOW what an eye opener. I can now understand why things were delayed. One landlord on holiday and the 2 of them can't even agree among themselves. I was positive when I was leaving the actual meeting but I too heard one of the landlords in the car park arguing and remonstrating about 'his club'. I won't be going back anywhere near this train wreck....

Sandwlch

Soap opera is right - really gone off the rails.
Beats me why any members are still hanging around the fringes of this one any more. Would run a mile (or however many it is to a new club) from it. Surely far to dodgy to stick with whatever reincarnation may evolve.

clickhere

Does this mean the competitions wont go ahead this weekend, Ding Ding.

ArielAtom

gboru wrote: »

I wouldn't have believed it unless I saw and heard it for myself. It's obvious the Kavanaghs are on opposite sides. I heard someone say one of them was on holiday for the past couple of weeks and the brother attending the meeting stated he wanted the current club as constituted and affiliated to the GUI to remain and that he agreed to the key issues regarding all current members being allowed back in. And then the second brother shows up and essentially says the other brother is talking rubbish. How could any committee have dealt with this? Their communication was poor to the members but WOW what an eye opener. I can now understand why things were delayed. One landlord on holiday and the 2 of them can't even agree among themselves. I was positive when I was leaving the actual meeting but I too heard one of the landlords in the car park arguing and remonstrating about 'his club'. I won't be going back anywhere near this train wreck....

I think the Kavanaghs will find its their golf course and not their golf club. Southcounty as a club is dead.

Ding Ding

clickhere wrote: »

Does this mean the competions wont go ahead this weekend, Ding Ding.

Nice one, not looking great for the comp this weekend! I don't always pick winners at the races either but this is like the Grand National at this stage, with jockeys getting unseated and then remounting to have another go!

Maybe Sky News should cover this like they do with court cases and the like.

link_2007

Sandwlch wrote: »

Soap opera is right - really gone off the rails.
Beats me why any members are still hanging around the fringes of this one any more. Would run a mile (or however many it is to a new club) from it. Surely far to dodgy to stick with whatever reincarnation may evolve.

I was waiting because to be honest, I cant afford to pay a sub to another club. The DD option would have suited me until the end of the year and I would re-evaluate then.

Now I don't know what to do.

cherryman

Ding. Are you still convinced that the committees were incompetent? You played a blinder this evening? They should have taken your advice and gone. I was disappointed you did not go forward and join them.Anyone thinking of going back there is crazy, there are too many well run member's clubs open for membership at very reasonable rates.I am off to join Beech Park. Sadly the soap opera is over.

Gambino

Ding Ding wrote: »

Nice one, not looking great for the comp this weekend! I don't always pick winners at the races either but this is like the Grand National at this stage, with jockeys getting unseated and then remounting to have another go!

Maybe Sky News should cover this like they do with court cases and the like.

Johnny Kavanagh certainly makes life more complicated than necessary. We'll see if the rest of the family can talk some sense into him -or at least explain why this is probably not the best time to start a golf club from scratch, even on a debt free and well established course. If he can be persuaded to leave it to Pat -and maybe Richard-it can still be done.
Otherwise it's a new club, with all that that entails and down to individual decisions. Still a good value option for the rest of 2012 but the GUI thing will be a disincentive to many.
The next few days will be instructive.

frost53

Gambino wrote: »

Johnny Kavanagh certainly makes life more complicated than necessary. We'll see if the rest of the family can talk some sense into him -or at least explain why this is probably not the best time to start a golf club from scratch, even on a debt free and well established course. If he can be persuaded to leave it to Pat -and maybe Richard-it can still be done.
Otherwise it's a new club, with all that that entails and down to individual decisions. Still a good value option for the rest of 2012 but the GUI thing will be a disincentive to many.
The next few days will be instructive.

Are we expected to believe for one minute that the entire Kavanagh clan did not work out exactly what their agreed strategy is . This is good cop/ bad cop stuff. Next announcement we'll get is that the bad cop , John Boy, has been persuaded to come on board . Big sigh of relief all round.
Who do they think they're dealing with

carman2011

frost53 wrote: »

Gambino wrote: »

Johnny Kavanagh certainly makes life more complicated than necessary. We'll see if the rest of the family can talk some sense into him -or at least explain why this is probably not the best time to start a golf club from scratch, even on a debt free and well established course. If he can be persuaded to leave it to Pat -and maybe Richard-it can still be done.
Otherwise it's a new club, with all that that entails and down to individual decisions. Still a good value option for the rest of 2012 but the GUI thing will be a disincentive to many.
The next few days will be instructive.

Are we expected to believe for one minute that the entire Kavanagh clan did not work out exactly what their agreed strategy is . This is good cop/ bad cop stuff. Next announcement we'll get is that the bad cop , John Boy, has been persuaded to come on board . Big sigh of relief all round.
Who do they think they're dealing with

If this is the case, it's one hell of an act.
Johnny knows nothing about running a club , timesheet operation, GUI, importance of committtees etc, thinks he's sitting on a massive asset and can do whatever he likes.

ArielAtom

It's a pity it has ended like this. Its like to two old geezers from the muppet show trying to run a club.