South County GC Closed

Gambino

frost53 wrote: »

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

Not the first conspiracy theory and no more accurate than the others. John is his own man and volatile and prickly with it. He needs to be treated in the way he feels entitled. According to someone who talked with him last night, he did not reject the "deal". He just objected to what he perceived as Pat speaking for him.
Let it work through. There's no good guys and bad guys in this. Just people with different needs and perspectives.

downthemiddle

link_2007 wrote: »

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.

It has been sad to see the demise of South County. I can only imagine how the members, who have contributed enormously to their club, are feeling. As an outsider I feel it is particularly unfortunate that the opportunity that was there to salvage the club looks to be gone because of a family dispute.

I'm sure you will have no difficulty in finding another club willing to offer you a deal. I'm quite sure my own club, Blessington Lakes, will offer you a better value deal than the DD that was available.

Russman

downthemiddle wrote: »

It has been sad to see the demise of South County. I can only imagine how the members, who have contributed enormously to their club, are feeling. As an outsider I feel it is particularly unfortunate that the opportunity that was there to salvage the club looks to been gone because of a family dispute.

I'm sure you will have no difficulty in finding another club willing to offer you a deal. I'm quite sure my own club, Blessington Lakes, will offer you a better value deal than the DD that was available.

Agreed, I genuinely feel sorry for the members. Terrible way for any club to go. Despite the differences on here, everyone wanted the best for the club, the arguing was more over blame apportionment than the new direction.

As DTM says, local clubs will be glad to cut deals with guys who want to join them mid-year. With my Slade Valley hat on, I'd say come up and have a look, I know there is a deal for SC members but don't know the exact details. I think its along the lines of pay the annual sub by DD pro rata'd monthly for the two or three months til Aug or Sept (so effectively 1000/12 x 3) and get the winter months for free til 31 Dec. Best to call the office for details though.

shamco

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.

The end game is approaching fast. IMO the only way forward is that the Kavanaghs agree to the existing club coming back to the course as outlined at the meeting last night. I have no interest in joining a new club and waiting six months for a handicap. I dont think the GUI would allow a new club called South County 2012 to be affiliated while South County Golf Club was still in existence.

Blue for Ever

shamco 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.

The end game is approaching fast. IMO the only way forward is that the Kavanaghs agree to the existing club coming back to the course as outlined at the meeting last night. I have no interest in joining a new club and waiting six months for a handicap. I dont think the GUI would allow a new club called South County 2012 to be affiliated while South County Golf Club was still in existence.

Why don't we take the club elsewhere for the rest of this year, secure our affiliation and continue to negotiate with the Kavanaghs for a return in 2013. At that stage they might be more willing to accept the committees plan after having run the place with little or no members for six months. Plus it will give the Kavanaghs time to sort their internal issues

Gambino

shamco wrote: »

The end game is approaching fast. IMO the only way forward is that the Kavanaghs agree to the existing club coming back to the course as outlined at the meeting last night. I have no interest in joining a new club and waiting six months for a handicap. I dont think the GUI would allow a new club called South County 2012 to be affiliated while South County Golf Club was still in existence.

Unless the old club plans to do a Kiltiernan or a Ballinascorney, then there is no point in keeping the club in existence. That option was not raised last night. If we are not going back to the Kavanaghs land as a club, then the club should and I think will be dissolved and the name becomes available-as South County 2012.

Gambino

Blue for Ever wrote: »

Why don't we take the club elsewhere for the rest of this year, secure our affiliation and continue to negotiate with the Kavanaghs for a return in 2013. At that stage they might be more willing to accept the committees plan after having run the place with little or no members for six months. Plus it will give the Kavanaghs time to sort their internal issues

Where do you suggest?

ArielAtom

If a deal between SC and the Kavanaghs is not reached the course will return to farmland within twelve months as Pay as you play will not keep it open. Sad to see this happening.

Gambino

ArielAtom wrote: »

If a deal between SC and the Kavanaghs is not reached the course will return to farmland within twelve months as Pay as you play will not keep it open. Sad to see this happening.

I hope that the rest of his family are making that point to John.

ArielAtom

Gambino wrote: »

I hope that the rest of his family are making that point to John.

Gambino, we agree on something at last!!!!

moycullen14

Gambino wrote: »

I hope that the rest of his family are making that point to John.

Anyone crunch the numbers? I have a feeling that it might be more profitable as agricultural land. Sad, but they're you are.

one ill cat

moycullen14 wrote: »

Anyone crunch the numbers? I have a feeling that it might be more profitable as agricultural land. Sad, but they're you are.

Tbh I've no idea of the numbers. One thing I've heard from several of the founding members is that due to the chemicals used to treat the course, the land can't be used for agricultural purposes for 10+ years. This was a common feeling amongst several of them, albeit I only have their word for it & I assume they're not experts, just repeating what they were told back when the course was built.

Another thing though, before this makes it look like the landlords have a rough deal in this respect - before the course was built, the land was supposedly a bog, so whilst it may not be viable to just return it to agricultural land, they do have a multi-million € facility where there once was a bog.

not bothered

ArielAtom wrote: »

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

As i said in my first quote that the dream was over for me as soon as the landlords starting to run the place. I wouldnt want to be in a situation where your memebership depended on whether the Kavanagh's like you or if you say anything you are out.
It is a pity for all the memebers who hung around hoping that something would happen and maybe it will still be sorted but reading the posts doesnt fill anyone with confidence..
I would hate to see the course closing as I still love it. I wont miss the fighting.

Gambino

not bothered wrote: »

As i said in my first quote that the dream was over for me as soon as the landlords starting to run the place. I wouldnt want to be in a situation where your memebership depended on whether the Kavanagh's like you or if you say anything you are out.
It is a pity for all the memebers who hung around hoping that something would happen and maybe it will still be sorted but reading the posts doesnt fill anyone with confidence..
I would hate to see the course closing as I still love it. I wont miss the fighting.

The overwhelming sentiment last night was that people wanted a deal to be done so that they could go back. The committee got some flack and little sympathy for giving up on it. When we got into the nitty gritty, a good part of their problem was having their noses put out of joint by the Kavanagh's playing a bit of hardball and by-passing them with the email last week. That may not have been very polite, but it was nothing that any hard-nosed businessman wouldn't do. Nobody was too impressed with the committee's intention to burst the ball and go home and them having to be cajoled down from the ledge.

The Johnny Kavanagh performance afterwards was an unwelcome sideshow - and I'll bet the committee wasn't unhappy that the members saw some of what they have been putting up with. Still, if you strip away the bruised egos and hurt feelings, the obstacles are not that large.

Whether you want to be in a club with such a volatile owner is a longer term question. However if sense prevails, we should get the rest of this year out of it at good value terms. After that we'll see. Even if sense doesn't prevail, the course is likely to be operational while the Kavanaghs work on their " new" club. We can see how that goes too. If Pat and Richard were running the show (and Johnny works on his social graces), it is definitely doable.

The valid handicap issue may be critical for some. There are conflicting messages on that - the view from the top table last night (and echoed here) is that it would be slow. The Kavanaghs say they got a different message from the GUI. If no deal is done then SC can and should be wound up immediately and the GUI informed so that the way is clear for a new club. Then we'll see.

one ill cat

Gambino wrote: »

The overwhelming sentiment last night was that people wanted a deal to be done so that they could go back. The committee got some flack and little sympathy for giving up on it. When we got into the nitty gritty, a good part of their problem was having their noses put out of joint by the Kavanagh's playing a bit of hardball and by-passing them with the email last week. That may not have been very polite, but it was nothing that any hard-nosed businessman wouldn't do. Nobody was too impressed with the committee's intention to burst the ball and go home and them having to be cajoled down from the ledge.

The Johnny Kavanagh performance afterwards was an unwelcome sideshow - and I'll bet the committee wasn't unhappy that the members saw some of what they have been putting up with. Still, if you strip away the bruised egos and hurt feelings, the obstacles are not that large.

Whether you want to be in a club with such a volatile owner is a longer term question. However if sense prevails, we should get the rest of this year out of it at good value terms. After that we'll see. Even if sense doesn't prevail, the course is likely to be operational while the Kavanaghs work on their " new" club. We can see how that goes too. If Pat and Richard were running the show (and Johnny works on his social graces), it is definitely doable.

The valid handicap issue may be critical for some. There are conflicting messages on that - the view from the top table last night (and echoed here) is that it would be slow. The Kavanaghs say they got a different message from the GUI. If no deal is done then SC can and should be wound up immediately and the GUI informed so that the way is clear for a new club. Then we'll see.

Personally I don't see how spending substantial time over a 7 week period dealing with 2 brothers who can't even agree amongst themselves is an any way, a shabby attempt to make the thing work.

The committee's main issue yes was that they were overlooked but not because 'noses were put out of joint'. Simply, by sending out that email, it was declared that the 'landlords' wanted to create their own club from scratch, rather than the old SCGC going back in. Not only was it referred to in that email from Richard Kavanagh, but the LC herself spoke to Richard to clarify their position after receiving the email herself and he confirmed that yes their plans no longer involved SCGC, they were starting their own club.

Obviously the email was advertising the fact they are looking for members, and obviously as there are a lot of members now without a golf course that mailing list was 'hot leads'. But make no mistake about it, it was for their new club and new club only.

So Gambino, saying the committee simply were giving up on it paints a very untrue reflection of the efforts made and the point things were at last night. It wasn't a case of giving up, moreso a case of John/Richard Kavanagh deciding to go it alone. I know what Pat said at that meeting last night & Pat deffo wants to try and make it work, but ultimately we can't wave a magic wand and make his brother fall into line. That's his and his family's place to do.

Also, make no mistake about the fact that the points that were 'negotiated' with the Kavanagh family were golf concerning matters. I love how there were a few that 'just want to get back to playing golf'. Some people can be so ignorant and blind to what's involved in running a club. The details that were being discussed with the landlords included things like how much members time there would be on the time sheet, 2013 sub rates, have an agreement to not have societies out on the days of medals/major comps, maintain a facility for the mens' & Ladies' club computers (including internet access), details required to keep us eligible for interclub competitions, purchasing the annual licence for software that runs the handicapping system, BRS software etc. All things that were discussed during that 7 week period were 'golf' related and not business related. At no point were the committee wanting to take over any functions of the business end, everyone is well aware it's their business.

Personally, when a group of people, as volunteers, have put a lot of effort and time into trying to make something work & overcome the obstacles of 2 brothers who clearly don't agree with each other much, I think it's wrong to berate them for wanting to call it a day when, as they see it, things are taken out of their control, which is effectively what that email of last Friday was. Pat was out of the country for 2 weeks, he was at that meeting & even he couldn't commit to what was needed, 7 weeks later.

I get people are still very saddened by what has gone on at SC & this is deffo the wrong time of the year to be without a golf course, but people need to take the blinkers off and see this how it really is.

Gambino

one ill cat wrote: »

Personally I don't see how spending substantial time over a 7 week period dealing with 2 brothers who can't even agree amongst themselves is an any way, a shabby attempt to make the thing work.

The committee's main issue yes was that they were overlooked but not because 'noses were put out of joint'. Simply, by sending out that email, it was declared that the 'landlords' wanted to create their own club from scratch, rather than the old SCGC going back in. Not only was it referred to in that email from Richard Kavanagh, but the LC herself spoke to Richard to clarify their position after receiving the email herself and he confirmed that yes their plans no longer involved SCGC, they were starting their own club.

Obviously the email was advertising the fact they are looking for members, and obviously as there are a lot of members now without a golf course that mailing list was 'hot leads'. But make no mistake about it, it was for their new club and new club only.

So Gambino, saying the committee simply were giving up on it paints a very untrue reflection of the efforts made and the point things were at last night. It wasn't a case of giving up, moreso a case of John/Richard Kavanagh deciding to go it alone. I know what Pat said at that meeting last night & Pat deffo wants to try and make it work, but ultimately we can't wave a magic wand and make his brother fall into line. That's his and his family's place to do.

Also, make no mistake about the fact that the points that were 'negotiated' with the Kavanagh family were golf concerning matters. I love how there were a few that 'just want to get back to playing golf'. Some people can be so ignorant and blind to what's involved in running a club. The details that were being discussed with the landlords included things like how much members time there would be on the time sheet, 2013 sub rates, have an agreement to not have societies out on the days of medals/major comps, maintain a facility for the mens' & Ladies' club computers (including internet access), details required to keep us eligible for interclub competitions, purchasing the annual licence for software that runs the handicapping system, BRS software etc. All things that were discussed during that 7 week period were 'golf' related and not business related. At no point were the committee wanting to take over any functions of the business end, everyone is well aware it's their business.

Personally, when a group of people, as volunteers, have put a lot of effort and time into trying to make something work & overcome the obstacles of 2 brothers who clearly don't agree with each other much, I think it's wrong to berate them for wanting to call it a day when, as they see it, things are taken out of their control, which is effectively what that email of last Friday was. Pat was out of the country for 2 weeks, he was at that meeting & even he couldn't commit to what was needed, 7 weeks later.

I get people are still very saddened by what has gone on at SC & this is deffo the wrong time of the year to be without a golf course, but people need to take the blinkers off and see this how it really is.

Hey, I'm one of the few in here who has been defending the committee over the lengthy negotiations. Some think it could/should have been done in a few hours! I have enormous respect and gratitude for what they have been doing.

However getting into detail like how the time sheet would be divided and buying software - while not addressing the most critical issues (i.e. the deal breakers) first - was not the best way to spend the time.

As I read it, the Kavanaghs decided to "go it alone" (or maybe threatened to) when they hit an impasse over the membership thing. When we pared it all away last night, that was what we were left with. It took a lot of heat from the floor and some interventions to get past the "he said, we said" stuff and to focus on finding a way forward. I absolutely agree that the committee worked hard and negotiated in good faith but maybe they were missing some of the soft skills and experience needed for that sort of thing.

As for the "outstanding" issue - JK's wish to have a veto over some current members - we will just have to hope that BOTH sides assess the cost/benefit of the situation and come up with the right answer. For a club to be brought down over something that can be sorted by a change of mind by one or a couple of people would be tragic and a shame. Ideally JK could change his, but so could whoever is at the heart of it.

Incidentally, there seems to be some debate over who the central character(s) are in this. There has been a common assumption about one individual but I've heard emphatic denials on that.

carman2011

Gambino , items such as access to the timesheet are very important with regard to the future running of the club !

The only person being awkward and unreasonable in this is jk , enough of the conspiracies against the board !

I agree with everything o'neillcat has said above and I know for a fact how hard the committee tried to make it work , for the right golfing reasons.

The landlords may have taken exception to the removal of the machinery by the board on the night of the closure. This could be where their gripe sprouts from.
The board received legal advise to do this , they would be liable if this machinery went missing . There was no money and this machinery had to be sold ( some was owned, some was leased) to pay the liquidator and more importantly pay the staff what they were owed. The board was under the impression that the machinery was not secure, and for this situation had to be addressed by the board, perhaps this upset the landlord.
You may find the above to be the crux if the whole thing .

Gambino

carman2011 wrote: »

Gambino , items such as access to the timesheet are very important with regard to the future running of the club !

The only person being awkward and unreasonable in this is jk , enough of the conspiracies against the board !

I agree with everything o'neillcat has said above and I know for a fact how hard the committee tried to make it work , for the right golfing reasons.

The landlords may have taken exception to the removal of the machinery by the board on the night of the closure. This could be where their gripe sprouts from.
The board received legal advise to do this , they would be liable if this machinery went missing . There was no money and this machinery had to be sold ( some was owned, some was leased) to pay the liquidator and more importantly pay the staff what they were owed. The board was under the impression that the machinery was not secure, and for this situation had to be addressed by the board, perhaps this upset the landlord.
You may find the above to be the crux if the whole thing .

The timesheet is a bit irrelevant if you don't have a club. It's a question of priorities.
I don't know the rights and wrongs of what happened to machines and if you say that is the crux, I'm happy to believe you. However if (as seems to be the case) there are no legal issues arising, then we are back to people just not liking or trusting each other.

carman2011

There's 1 person scuppering this at present , and he's not on the board or the committee.

Gambino

carman2011 wrote: »

There's 1 person scuppering this at present , and he's not on the board or the committee.

Intriguing. Or are you referring to PK??

carman2011

Gambino wrote: »

carman2011 wrote: »

There's 1 person scuppering this at present , and he's not on the board or the committee.

Intriguing. Or are you referring to PK??

The one and only stumbling block for the old club to return to south county is that jk will not let ALL existing members back in.
It is a GUI and ILGU rule that u cannot exclude current members in this way. The committees hands are tied, they cannot come back under jk,s terms , it's just not possible.
Jk will not state who he won't allow back, nor will he budge on this stance.
Now tell me who is scuppering the whole thing !

Jk is insisting on having a new club , so he can exclude these people, this new club will have to start its affiliation from scratch. The next GUI meeting to even consider an application is September and I can take between 2 and 9 months from this date !

I've no idea why he is doing this , but believe my recent post about the machinery may be something to do with it.

Gambino

carman2011 wrote: »

The one and only stumbling block for the old club to return to south county is that jk will not let ALL existing members back in.
It is a GUI and ILGU rule that u cannot exclude current members in this way. The committees hands are tied, they cannot come back under jk,s terms , it's just not possible.
Jk will not state who he won't allow back, nor will he budge on this stance.
Now tell me who is scuppering the whole thing !

Jk is insisting on having a new club , so he can exclude these people, this new club will have to start its affiliation from scratch. The next GUI meeting to even consider an application is September and I can take between 2 and 9 months from this date !

I've no idea why he is doing this , but believe my recent post about the machinery may be something to do with it.

Sorry, I meant JK.
Yes, that was all well explained last night. As I said,.lets hope he does some sums and sees the benefit of a quick and substantial injection of people onto his course. As a businessman, it should not be too hard for him to work out the cost of his lingering grudge, whatever it's basis.
On the other side and whatever the rights and wrongs, it seems there is a current memberwho in effect holds the clubs future in his (?) hands. Quite a responsibility.

carman2011

What?

one ill cat

As Peter said last night, the GUI have rules governing how members are to be treated by golf clubs so either this will work for the landlords or it won't, in which case they'll simply start up their own club as already indicated via email last Friday.

Pat said a day would be enough to get such agreement from his brother, however to be reasonable he was given a week. We'll know where we stand one way or the other in a weeks time.

Tbh Gambino, it's not like this issue was left until the end. All issues where focused on simultaneously & compromises/gestures were agreed by both sides throughout the 7 week period. At the end of the day, all I want as a member of a golf course, is to have the same club facility/experience as other members in other golf clubs. Agreeing to the sub cost, albeit and important part of the golf package, is only one of many factors regarding my membership with a golf club. I think it's also fair to say that those at SC were already paying a bit more than others in neighbouring clubs, however those that chose to pay it did so for the course/club experience they gained in return. As far as I'm concerned, those course/club experience aspirations don't change because the landlord replaces the board. Additionally I think diving in then trying to come to agreements regarding the standard of the course, interclub facilitation, time sheets etc later is a recipe for disaster. What's wrong with hitting the ground running & starting as you mean to go on? Surely if both sides want this to work & do it properly, this is the right approach?

Gambino

carman2011 wrote: »

What?

As I understand it (and I am open to correction) JK has a problem with one current member - and only one. He does not want this person to be a member of "his" club. If that person decided to join another club, that problem would not arise.

Of course there is a wider principle about an owner seeking the right to accept or reject new members but as someone said last night, all clubs have procedures to agree or refuse applications. The owners could be represented on such a panel or interview board, which would have to operate within the criteria set out in the club constitution - which in turn, would have to meet GUI/ILGU standards. I don't know how transparent the process is elsewhere but knowing the reputations of some clubs, I suspect it is not very.

If JK's issue is a singular case, rather than a general principle about he alone having the final say on everyone, then a mechanism for future members could be designed. If JK wants the club to have affiliation, this will have to be the case anyway.

There are two possible solutions to the immediate problem - either JK relents, or the person in question leaves. Within the strict conditions that apply under GUI, these are the only two parties who can settle it by making individual decisions.

I am not advocating one over the other, just pointing them out, along with the consequences.

lw3

Redgarding the GUI issue, if there is a new club, I know for FACT that the GUI will not meet again 'till September regarding new clubs etc etc.So if anyone thinks there is a quick fix regarding the handicap issue of the new club, sadly there isn't.

one ill cat

Gambino, which one member are we talking about here?
And how exactly do you know this?
If you're not able to put this info up on a public forum, at least PM me these answers.

With all due respect, in it's current form, the info you have posted isn't worth much.

one ill cat

lw3 wrote: »

Redgarding the GUI issue, if there is a new club, I know for FACT that the GUI will not meet again 'till September regarding new clubs etc etc.So if anyone thinks there is a quick fix regarding the handicap issue of the new club, sadly there isn't.

I don't think anyone here is in disagreement, everyone seems to be aware of this. The only people who have indicated anything other than what you have said are the landlords.

Russman

Gambino wrote: »

As I understand it (and I am open to correction) JK has a problem with one current member - and only one. He does not want this person to be a member of "his" club. If that person decided to join another club, that problem would not arise.

Of course there is a wider principle about an owner seeking the right to accept or reject new members but as someone said last night, all clubs have procedures to agree or refuse applications. The owners could be represented on such a panel or interview board, which would have to operate within the criteria set out in the club constitution - which in turn, would have to meet GUI/ILGU standards. I don't know how transparent the process is elsewhere but knowing the reputations of some clubs, I suspect it is not very.

If JK's issue is a singular case, rather than a general principle about he alone having the final say on everyone, then a mechanism for future members could be designed. If JK wants the club to have affiliation, this will have to be the case anyway.

There are two possible solutions to the immediate problem - either JK relents, or the person in question leaves. Within the strict conditions that apply under GUI, these are the only two parties who can settle it by making individual decisions.

I am not advocating one over the other, just pointing them out, along with the consequences.

Does this person know they are the problem ?

Anyway, lets say they get around the problem of this one person, which in fairness should be easy enough to do - I know I wouldn't want to be in a club where I knew the owner didn't want me there.
I can't see how the owner can be stopped from doing it again. If he is on a committee that looks at applications and lets say he's outvoted, whats to stop him throwing the rattle out of the pram and saying "its my land and my club, I'll do what I f--king like" anyway, regardless of any "agreement" that might be in place ?

I've a mental image of Richard Harris in The Field "Its my field"

Gambino

one ill cat wrote: »

Gambino, which one member are we talking about here?
And how exactly do you know this?
If you're not able to put this info up on a public forum, at least PM me these answers.

With all due respect, in it's current form, the info you have posted isn't worth much.

I don't know who it is and I don't know if it is just one. However that seems to be the general whiff of what is doing the rounds and this was also said from the top table last night. There was an assumption that it centred on one prominent individual but I have also heard that being denied.

However the presence of one, two or "some" current members seems to be the reason whay JK wasnt to start from scratch. Someone hinted earlier that there is some connection to the removal of the machinery the night the club closed. I know nothing about that.