NAMA and the GUI/ILGU

First Up

There was an item on RTE radio this morning about the over supply of golf courses. I was glad to hear the 20 NAMA run courses mentioned. I gather the owners association took it to the Competition Authority but they declined to get involved. Over to The GUI & ILGU I say. Let Palmerstown House, Citywest, Tulfarris etc operate as pay and play businesses if they must but affiliation should be only for clubs that are not subsidised.

Dr_Colossus

First Up wrote: »

There was an item on RTE radio this morning about the over supply of golf courses. I was glad to hear the 20 NAMA run courses mentioned. I gather the owners association took it to the Competition Authority but they declined to get involved. Over to The GUI & ILGU I say. Let Palmerstown House, Citywest, Tulfarris etc operate as pay and play businesses if they must but affiliation should be only for clubs that are not subsidised.

In that case you'd have to remove affiliation from all bankrupt and reopened clubs such as Lisheen Springs also. Fundamentally there's no real difference between Nama clubs and reopened bankrupt clubs since they're operating on fresh balance sheets without the need to service the masses of debt they accumulated over the years either through bad management or excessive spending.
Effectively in Ireland there's no incentive to being prudent either on a personal or business level. The motto is to borrow all around you and if things work out you'd deemed a genius with great foresight and if not well the gullible tax payer is always at hand to pick up the bill and bail you out and let you start again.

Also, Palmerstown doesn't have GUI affiliation at present since they don't have any members, as such they can't hold qualifying open days and rely on green fees and societies as a source of income.

Maxi Mac

Have to agree with First Up it depends on what you are looking for .
different courses cope better than others at this time of year.
dun Laoire is a fine course but too pricy for me . slade and glen of the downs too hilly . did not know lisheen was in the same category as the nama clubs.
citywest just does not do it for me , does not have any club atomoshere and by its very nature never will , so I guess you get what you pay for.
I can only listen to the friends that I know from DC and what we have been told at meetings. at the end of the day w all make up our minds on what we see and hear ourselves. we are fortunate to have a few choices.

First Up

Maxi Mac wrote: »

Have to agree with First Up it depends on what you are looking for .
different courses cope better than others at this time of year.
dun Laoire is a fine course but too pricy for me . slade and glen of the downs too hilly . did not know lisheen was in the same category as the nama clubs.
citywest just does not do it for me , does not have any club atomoshere and by its very nature never will , so I guess you get what you pay for.
I can only listen to the friends that I know from DC and what we have been told at meetings. at the end of the day w all make up our minds on what we see and hear ourselves. we are fortunate to have a few choices.

Lisheen is not in the same category as nama clubs. It is a private business operating to the same commercial rules as any other. The nama clubs are under no obligation to operate on a commercial basis and their operating losses are covered by the taxpayer.

Maxi Mac

I think what I was responding to was Dr Colossus comment on bankrupt clubs that reopen and lisheen is in that category. the whole GUI/ILGU affilation argument. Clubs opening , closing and reopening. as stated in the RTE report these NAMA clubs are causing serious problems for all the members owned clubs. hard to argue against the Dr. his point is valid. Its about time GUI stopped giving these clubs oxygen.

ernieprice

First Up wrote: »

There was an item on RTE radio this morning about the over supply of golf courses. I was glad to hear the 20 NAMA run courses mentioned. I gather the owners association took it to the Competition Authority but they declined to get involved. Over to The GUI & ILGU I say. Let Palmerstown House, Citywest, Tulfarris etc operate as pay and play businesses if they must but affiliation should be only for clubs that are not subsidised.

The GUI and/or ILGU will not get involved for 2 reasons , (a) All the members of these NAMA courses are members of GUI & ILGU and (b) all new members pay €19 to the GUI or €28 to ILGU. Neither organizations want to loose income.

First Up

Maxi Mac wrote: »

I think what I was responding to was Dr Colossus comment on bankrupt clubs that reopen and lisheen is in that category. the whole GUI/ILGU affilation argument. Clubs opening , closing and reopening. as stated in the RTE report these NAMA clubs are causing serious problems for all the members owned clubs. hard to argue against the Dr. his point is valid. Its about time GUI stopped giving these clubs oxygen.

NAMA clubs yes but Lisheen's situation is different. The owners were major creditors (they own the land they leased to South County.) They bought the other assets and are reinvesting in them in order to develop the business.
South County would have stayed in business if it could. It was not an accounting trick.
NAMA would liquidate the clubs they own in a heartbeat if they could get anything for them. Meanwhile they are selling green fees and memberships at uneconomic rates.
20 clubs on NAMA; how many do you know that are like Lisheen?

Maxi Mac

I have nothing against south county . its a fine course . the new name does not change that . whats wrong is the opening and closing people just have a trust problem . so many people have been caught out not once but twice .
my pals are now looking for a bit of stability if thats possible. the NAMA clubs have made golfers nervous. if all you want to do is play golf you can go anywhere and pay greenfees at very competitive rates. but if you want the club camaraderie and atomosphere you have to go to a members owned club. lisheen is still owned by landlords same as before. same as DC . very few will buy into that again. fool me once and all that. dont think we will be fooled again. nobody I know is buying into a NAMA club.

First Up

Maxi Mac wrote: »

I have nothing against south county . its a fine course . the new name does not change that . whats wrong is the opening and closing people just have a trust problem . so many people have been caught out not once but twice .
my pals are now looking for a bit of stability if thats possible. the NAMA clubs have made golfers nervous. if all you want to do is play golf you can go anywhere and pay greenfees at very competitive rates. but if you want the club camaraderie and atomosphere you have to go to a members owned club. lisheen is still owned by landlords same as before. same as DC . very few will buy into that again. fool me once and all that. dont think we will be fooled again. nobody I know is buying into a NAMA club.

I understand where you are coming from but you need to get your facts straight. South County was a members owned club and it was the members who messed it up. Many who went through that are happy to now leave the running of the place to the owners. There are dozens of privately owned clubs that are doing just fine and in tight economic times, not having a big outlay on rent is a distinct advantage.
By all means get as much stability as you can but I advise you to look at the books, rather than assume that a members "owned" club is necessarily on a better footing than one that is privately owned.
I understood a good few DC members have gone to Citywest. They are buying into a NAMA club.

Maxi Mac

I think we should really be making the point that it is the member owned clubs that keep the industry alive. golfers who only pay greenfees are making a small contribution to the survival of clubs. its the members in clubs that pay the day to day running of any club. if the GUI/ILGU dont get this eventually there will be no gravy train for them either.
If all the clubs with debts like south county got debt forgiveness and start again there would be no future for golf. some clubs are working their way through their financial problems.
I am sure some DC members have joined citywest but I dont know them.

Peterdalkey

The market will ultimately decide as to which golf clubs and courses survive. The suggestion that the GUI might have a role in culling the number is not a runner, they would immediately find themselves facing legal issues in relation to restrictive practices and competition law. To be frank they are responsible for governing the sport and have no role in the management the assets of clubs, either member or commercially owned, property rights are also protected by the constitution.
Anyone thinking of joining any club should seek detailed financial information as to the actual operational financial position of the club and as to the assets actually owned by it. SC was a hybrid in that the members ( and the bank) actually owned everything except the land. Once the lease was breached, the member owned assets were only worth buttons, despite the amount of money invested by members over the years.
Most of the commercial golf courses in effect only facilitate a separate members club with restricted rights and in many cases quite tight members competition tee times. They are commercial entities and have quite separate objectives to a sporting club, profit.
Fully member owned clubs are not in any way immune to huge debt burdens as a legacy from course/clubhouse upgrades, land purchases etc. However, they do have the most pertinent of all advantages, they have real fixed assets in land and buildings etc. The likes of SC and Macreddin clubs found to their cost that a land lease on a golf course has no value and is thus not an asset in reality.

The bottom line in deciding which type to join in my opinion is not just commercial versus member owned, but how sustainable is the financial model? Other major considerations other than the obvious of course quality/condition, location, cost etc is the availability of tee times to you at times that suit you. A more expensive headline sub may well represent much better value than an apparently low annual sub. In general, traditional member owned clubs tend to win out in the overall beauty contest when all factors are taken into account and the more you play the better the value. Cost and value are not at all the same thing.
One other thing worth considering is the fuel costs of joining a club that is far from your home, an extra grand a year on a sub may well actually be a big saving when fuel costs are factored in.

Cheers

Peter

First Up

Of course there are policy - and maybe legal - complications involved but the GUI can't ignore the issue of clubs that are able to operate without any need for financial discipline and thereby undermine the member and privately owned clubs that have to survive in the real world.
By the way, there was no "debt forgiveness" in South County. It was a standard liquidation. Most of the money lost was by members/shareholders. The bank walked away and Revenue was unable to collect a VAT bill that had in any case been imposed retrospectively. The landlords invoked a clause in the contract to re-possess their land in the event of payment default. They then bought the remaining assets.
It is their decision how to continue to use the assets, the most important of which is the land they already owned.

Peterdalkey

First Up wrote: »

Of course there are policy - and maybe legal - complications involved but the GUI can't ignore the issue of clubs that are able to operate without any need for financial discipline and thereby undermine the member and privately owned clubs that have to survive in the real world.


I beg to differ, the GUI has no contractual or commercial role in the operation of golf clubs or commercial golf operations. It would be an unmitigated disaster for an amateur organisation to have any role in this. Nor do they have any legal standing with regard to the running of any club, other than in respect of the rules of golf and the running of competitions etc.

The Nama argument has been well rehearsed in the zombie hotel industry in relation to alleged unfair competition. This is the brutality of a free market and it is up to the market to archive sustainable balance. The well run quality golf club/course offerings will ultimately prevail and the zombie operations will fail when the bankers/Nama lose hope of recovering their money.

One could argue that golfers joining zombie clubs are in fact exacerbating the situation by supporting this unnatural situation by funding them! The future lies in the hands of golfers themselves, not the GUI.

Cheers

Peter

First Up

And I would echo peterdalkey's advice to carefully examine the financial situation of any club on your list. Some are just hanging on and the thicker the red carpet they put out, the more careful you should be.

First Up

Peterdalkey wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Of course there are policy - and maybe legal - complications involved but the GUI can't ignore the issue of clubs that are able to operate without any need for financial discipline and thereby undermine the member and privately owned clubs that have to survive in the real world.


I beg to differ, the GUI has no contractual or commercial role in the operation of golf clubs or commercial golf operations. It would be an unmitigated disaster for an amateur organisation to have any role in this. Nor do they have any legal standing with regard to the running of any club, other than in respect of the rules of golf and the running of competitions etc.

The Nama argument has been well rehearsed in the zombie hotel industry in relation to alleged unfair competition. This is the brutality of a free market and it is up to the market to archive sustainable balance. The well run quality golf club/course offerings will ultimately prevail and the zombie operations will fail when the bankers/Nama lose hope of recovering their money.

One could argue that golfers joining zombie clubs are in fact exacerbating the situation by supporting this unnatural situation by funding them! The future lies in the hands of golfers themselves, not the GUI.

Cheers

Peter

I'm not saying they should play a commercial role; simply that they review their criteria for affiliation in the light of circumstances that could not have been envisaged when they were drawn up.
You are right that the zombie operations will ultimately fail. The question is what damage they will do in the meantime.
The GUI and ILGU have a wider remit than ticking boxes and collecting subs.

Peterdalkey

Firstup, I am not trying to pick an argument on this and I share your frustration on this subject. Sadly perhaps but our world is made up of unfairnesses. Were the GUI to take any such steps, they would be in grave danger of not just litigation but also of losing their own accreditation with the R&A, in my view. They actually operate under licence from the R&A and must comply with their rules and charter.

Cheers

Peter

First Up

Peterdalkey wrote: »

Firstup, I am not trying to pick an argument on this and I share your frustration on this subject. Sadly perhaps but our world is made up of unfairnesses. Were the GUI to take any such steps, they would be in grave danger of not just litigation but also of losing their own accreditation with the R&A, in my view. They actually operate under licence from the R&A and must comply with their rules and charter.

Cheers

Peter

It would at least be reassuring to know that they have looked at it.

Maxi Mac

All interesting stuff from Peter Dalkey and First Up, certainly is worthwhile debating the predicament the golf industry finds itself in now.
I would have thought that supply & demand determines the market.
An oversupply of cheap golf from NAMA clubs totally distorts that market.
Until such time as there is a cull of bank supported clubs the market continues to fragment and the GUI / ILGU are turning a blind eye because they get revenue from these clubs. Surely they have an interest in the future sustainability of clubs. If they dont wake up and find a way to deal with NAMA type clubs the future for all of us will go the way of the Hotel Industry. The R&A have a role in this because the Irish situation is unque. They cant legislate for a situation that does not exist in UK.
The original business model of clubs depending on entrance fees and subscriptions is long gone. The next ten years will dramatically change the industry and we will probably end up with half the amount of clubs that are here today. This in turn will start growing demand again.
Time for the GUI/ ILGU to look after clubs and members now before its too late.

First Up

Maxi Mac wrote: »

All interesting stuff from Peter Dalkey and First Up, certainly is worthwhile debating the predicament the golf industry finds itself in now.
I would have thought that supply & demand determines the market.
An oversupply of cheap golf from NAMA clubs totally distorts that market.
Until such time as there is a cull of bank supported clubs the market continues to fragment and the GUI / ILGU are turning a blind eye because they get revenue from these clubs. Surely they have an interest in the future sustainability of clubs. If they dont wake up and find a way to deal with NAMA type clubs the future for all of us will go the way of the Hotel Industry. The R&A have a role in this because the Irish situation is unque. They cant legislate for a situation that does not exist in UK.
The original business model of clubs depending on entrance fees and subscriptions is long gone. The next ten years will dramatically change the industry and we will probably end up with half the amount of clubs that are here today. This in turn will start growing demand again.
Time for the GUI/ ILGU to look after clubs and members now before its too late.

Amen

Peterdalkey

Maxi Mac wrote: »

All interesting stuff from Peter Dalkey and First Up, certainly is worthwhile debating the predicament the golf industry finds itself in now.
I would have thought that supply & demand determines the market.
An oversupply of cheap golf from NAMA clubs totally distorts that market.
Until such time as there is a cull of bank supported clubs the market continues to fragment and the GUI / ILGU are turning a blind eye because they get revenue from these clubs. Surely they have an interest in the future sustainability of clubs. If they dont wake up and find a way to deal with NAMA type clubs the future for all of us will go the way of the Hotel Industry. The R&A have a role in this because the Irish situation is unque. They cant legislate for a situation that does not exist in UK.
The original business model of clubs depending on entrance fees and subscriptions is long gone. The next ten years will dramatically change the industry and we will probably end up with half the amount of clubs that are here today. This in turn will start growing demand again.
Time for the GUI/ ILGU to look after clubs and members now before its too late.

At the risk of being the naysayer yet again, exactly the same thing happened in UK golf clubs while we were fully occupied being the Celtic Tiger generation. UK golf club joining fees disappeared for all but the most exclusive clubs, general sub levels fell like a stone, many courses reverted to agricultural use, even fabulous tracks like Loch Lomond went under. The R&A, like the GUI, did nothing, because they could not and it was not their role. They are a sporting body. They let market forces deal with the supply/demand imbalance, they had no other choice and nor do we.

Cheers

Peter

Maxi Mac

Peter

I am sure what you are saying is true. It does not mean it is right.
Surely the R&A will have learned a lesson from that time.
The Irish Golf market needs correction and if left to adjust itself by a race to the bottom then the many members who invested in clubs and the GUI/ ILGU will all be the losers. It would be right for the GUI/ILGU to intervene in the market. They are not regulators. They are golfing unions. They have a vested interest in keeping the level of members at a sustainable level to keep them in their well paid jobs.

First Up

Peterdalkey wrote: »

At the risk of being the naysayer yet again, exactly the same thing happened in UK golf clubs while we were fully occupied being the Celtic Tiger generation. UK golf club joining fees disappeared for all but the most exclusive clubs, general sub levels fell like a stone, many courses reverted to agricultural use, even fabulous tracks like Loch Lomond went under. The R&A, like the GUI, did nothing, because they could not and it was not their role. They are a sporting body. They let market forces deal with the supply/demand imbalance, they had no other choice and nor do we.

Cheers

Peter

There is no NAMA in the UK. NAMA is preventing the market correction you speak of.

matt-dublin

Maxi Mac wrote: »

Peter

I am sure what you are saying is true. It does not mean it is right.
Surely the R&A will have learned a lesson from that time.
The Irish Golf market needs correction and if left to adjust itself by a race to the bottom then the many members who invested in clubs and the GUI/ ILGU will all be the losers. It would be right for the GUI/ILGU to intervene in the market. They are not regulators. They are golfing unions. They have a vested interest in keeping the level of members at a sustainable level to keep them in their well paid jobs.

The GUI can't and won't intervene. That would be Like other bodies saying you can only have so many members in rugby/tennis/football/gaa clubs!

They don't have the power anyway, they can only oversee how the sport is ruled.

Plus if they were to get involved it would likely be a breach of European competition law.

Peterdalkey

Maxi Mac

Right and fair are often not afforded the priority they deserve in many aspects of life and I dont disagree with your sentiments. So lets look at it from a slghtly different perspective. I suggested in a earlier post that golfers who joined zombie clubs were actually supporting the survival of thse operations which are undermining the viability of proper well run clubs. Well the GUI is an organisation of golfing members not golf clubs, it is the golfers who make up the membership. I dont think it would go down well if the GUI were to say, hey we will throw you out of the GUI if you join a zombie club and you will have no official handicap, but we are doing this in the best interests of golf!!

As I understand it, the GUI does not allow afiiliation of golf courses, it restricts access to clubs ( groups of their members) irrespective of the course ownership. There is a requirement to have a certain minimum number of GUI members in a club to gain afilliation, I think 112 but dont hold me to it. The courses need a club on site to be able to host competitions and get ranked, have teams in GUI competitions etc etc.
The bottom line is that it is golfers will detremine which courses/clubs will survive and which will fail, people power voting with their feet is the only way forward to a sustainable overall supply.


cheers

Peter

Maxi Mac

Peter , Matt and First Up

I must be naive , there was I thinking the GUI/ILGU were the controlling bodies of golf in Ireland.
I thought they were there to look after the interests of golfers who incidently play the game on golf courses.
The very same golf courses you say they cannot get involved in the future of their members.
As the GUI/ILGU award affiliation to their unions , they should set a criteria that protects its members from rogue clubs.
Having said all that the interest they show in the Slievenamon debacle probably sums up their intentions on this issue.

Its about time the Members owned Golf clubs started their own Federation to look after the interests their clubs.

I agree NAMA are part of the problem preventing the correction in the Irish Market
I have some experience of NAMA in the UK. The NAMA portfolio stretches all over the world including the UK .
The R&A fully understand the Irish problem because there are UK golf clubs in NAMA.
Just because NAMA is not set up in the UK does not mean they do not have a presence there.

First Up

Maxi Mac wrote: »

Peter , Matt and First Up

I must be naive , there was I thinking the GUI/ILGU were the controlling bodies of golf in Ireland.
I thought they were there to look after the interests of golfers who incidently play the game on golf courses.
The very same golf courses you say they cannot get involved in the future of their members.
As the GUI/ILGU award affiliation to their unions , they should set a criteria that protects its members from rogue clubs.
Having said all that the interest they show in the Slievenamon debacle probably sums up their intentions on this issue.

Its about time the Members owned Golf clubs started their own Federation to look after the interests their clubs.

I agree NAMA are part of the problem preventing the correction in the Irish Market
I have some experience of NAMA in the UK. The NAMA portfolio stretches all over the world including the UK .
The R&A fully understand the Irish problem because there are UK golf clubs in NAMA.
Just because NAMA is not set up in the UK does not mean they do not have a presence there.

Fair enough; what I meant was that there is no equivalent to NAMA in the UK - i.e. the U.K government is not subsidising failed clubs to enable them compete with clubs that don't have that safety net.

According to the RTE item on Saturday, the golf course owners association took it to the Competition Authority but didn't get anywhere. I think they were told that would have to take it up at EU level.

Peterdalkey

Maxi Mac wrote: »

Peter , Matt and First Up

I must be naive , there was I thinking the GUI/ILGU were the controlling bodies of golf in Ireland.
I thought they were there to look after the interests of golfers who incidently play the game on golf courses.
The very same golf courses you say they cannot get involved in the future of their members.
As the GUI/ILGU award affiliation to their unions , they should set a criteria that protects its members from rogue clubs.
Having said all that the interest they show in the Slievenamon debacle probably sums up their intentions on this issue.

Its about time the Members owned Golf clubs started their own Federation to look after the interests their clubs.

I agree NAMA are part of the problem preventing the correction in the Irish Market
I have some experience of NAMA in the UK. The NAMA portfolio stretches all over the world including the UK .
The R&A fully understand the Irish problem because there are UK golf clubs in NAMA.
Just because NAMA is not set up in the UK does not mean they do not have a presence there.

KBC, Ulster Bank, BOSI and other non-Irish financial institutions were heavily involved in both hotel and golf developments in Ireland and Nama have no role whatsoever in their loans, good bad or indifferent. The lenders and NAMA are not a homogenous group

I think you are far from naive, in my view you are just affording a status and sphere of influence to the GUI/ILGU that they simply do not possess. They govern ONLY the sporting rules, not the commercial operation of golf in Ireland. They have quite enough power in the game as it is, I would not favour any further Big Brother empowerment of them or any other body in this area. It is the GUI/ILGU individual members who hold they key to resolution.

First Up

Peterdalkey wrote: »

KBC, Ulster Bank, BOSI and other non-Irish financial institutions were heavily involved in both hotel and golf developments in Ireland and Nama have no role whatsoever in their loans, good bad or indifferent. The lenders and NAMA are not a homogenous group

I think you are far from naive, in my view you are just affording a status and sphere of influence to the GUI/ILGU that they simply do not possess. They govern ONLY the sporting rules, not the commercial operation of golf in Ireland. They have quite enough power in the game as it is, I would not favour any further Big Brother empowerment of them or any other body in this area. It is the GUI/ILGU individual members who hold they key to resolution.

They decide which clubs - and by extension which courses - are affiliated and which are not. The criteria for that could conceivably and legitimately include proper governance as a requirement for affiliation.
I have no problem with operations like the non-affiliated Palmerstown House operating as a golf course. If people want to go and play a casual game there, they are welcome (I've done it myself). However when places like City West or Tulfarris or others can offer bucket shop membership rates just to bring in a few bob, it is distorting the market.

Peterdalkey

First Up wrote: »

They decide which clubs - and by extension which courses - are affiliated and which are not. The criteria for that could conceivably and legitimately include proper governance as a requirement for affiliation.

I have no problem with operations like the non-affiliated Palmerstown House operating as a golf course. If people want to go and play a casual game there, they are welcome (I've done it myself). However when places like City West or Tulfarris or others can offer bucket shop membership rates just to bring in a few bob, it is distorting the market.

You make my point far more articulately than I. There is no "club" of GUI/ILGU members in Palmerstown House but there are in the two clubs you mention. It is the members who are the problem, not the courses, their owners or lenders!

We do have freedom of association and fraternisation as a right in our constitution and making a balls of it is the right of every person or group too! The alternative dictatorship or communism models have not proven that sucessful either.



This debate is worthy of a thread of it's own, as it is a very real concern to all who love this game and care about it's future.


cheers


Peter

Peterdalkey

Mods perhaps you might change it again to include NAMA and other lenders as KBC, Ulster Bank, BOSI and other non-Irish financial institutions were heavily involved in golf developments in Ireland and Nama have no role whatsoever in their loans, good bad or indifferent. The lenders and NAMA are not a homogenous group.

cheers

Peter

First Up

You can't lay it at the door of members. Some will have joined before the clubs/courses were taken into NAMA and those who joined since can't be blamed for taking advantage of a cheap deal that affords them the same GUI status as those in non-NAMA clubs.

NAMA has a job to do, including maximising the assets under it's control. They have no responsibility to the golf community, but the GUI does. The issue is what standards GUI/ILGU should apply to those they accept as members. GUI membership is only given to members of affiliated clubs. Applying stricter standards to that does not conflict with rights of association or anything else.

First Up

Peterdalkey wrote: »

Mods perhaps you might change it again to include NAMA and other lenders as KBC, Ulster Bank, BOSI and other non-Irish financial institutions were heavily involved in golf developments in Ireland and Nama have no role whatsoever in their loans, good bad or indifferent. The lenders and NAMA are not a homogenous group.

cheers

Peter

KBC and Ulster Bank are not subsidising their debtors on an ongoing basis.

Peterdalkey

First Up wrote: »

KBC and Ulster Bank are not subsidising their debtors on an ongoing basis.

Nor are they getting any repayments from many of them either, so net effect is the same!

cheers

Peter

First Up

Peterdalkey wrote: »

Nor are they getting any repayments from many of them either, so net effect is the same!

cheers

Peter

It is far from being the same. Any loans they provided to clubs are subject to terms and conditions and it is up to the clubs and banks to negotiate those terms. South County decided to go into liquidation when AIB would not increase or extend its overdraft facilities. Failure to comply with banking terms has consequences for those outside NAMA but NAMA clubs have no such worries. NAMA pays the bills.

Peterdalkey

First Up wrote: »

It is far from being the same. Any loans they provided to clubs are subject to terms and conditions and it is up to the clubs and banks to negotiate those terms. South County decided to go into liquidation when AIB would not increase or extend its overdraft facilities. Failure to comply with banking terms has consequences for those outside NAMA but NAMA clubs have no such worries. NAMA pays the bills.

You may well be right in the case of SC, but the other banks have appointed recievers in many cases and liquidators have been appointed in others. Your broad brush of NAMA versus other bank debt handling is simply incorrect and each case usually has distinct unique characteristics with many different outcomes. In the case of Macreddin, as I understand it, the bank and their appointed receiver simply walked away, for example.


cheers

Peter

slave1

First Up wrote: »

...affiliation should be only for clubs that are not subsidised...

And what about the members of these 20 NAMA courses, folk who paid their welcome money and fees and want to continue to golf on these courses, do they not deserve a GUI affiliated handicap to allow them to golf elsewhere?

First Up

Peterdalkey wrote: »

You may well be right in the case of SC, but the other banks have appointed recievers in many cases and liquidators have been appointed in others. Your broad brush of NAMA versus other bank debt handling is simply incorrect and each case usually has distinct unique characteristics with many different outcomes. In the case of Macreddin, as I understand it, the bank and their appointed receiver simply walked away, for example.


cheers

Peter

Receivership and liquidation are standard mechanisms; perpetual funding from the state is not.
Clubs in receivership could also be subject to GUI review but such clubs are unlikely to attract many new members if there is uncertainty over their survival. NAMA clubs are seen differently; they have the security of state backing.

mike12

Just off the top of my head Moyvalley at 800 a year to join and Portmarnock at 2300 are 2 NAMA clubs both apparently are being run at a profit and are contribution towards there debts. Think that we will see very few courses that are good quality close there will always be a market for a good course. The courses that will struggle are the member courses that are average the type of course you play once and you would never be bothered going back.
I think we would have seen Green fees come down to an affordable rate regardless of NAMA courses, once the recession started the courses looking for 35 to 50 quid for green fees were in trouble.
Realistic prices for golf should be €100 for the top of table down to around €15 for you average public courses.

The members clubs that relied on the entrance fees are the ones suffering most and a lot of them are in trouble.
Around NCD the likes of Hollywood Lakes, Corrstown and Donabate all spent lots of money on huge club houses and they are now struggling.
The likes of Forrest little which seems like a well run club still lost money last year.
There are no NAMA courses in the area so i don't see how they can really blame anyone bar there own poor management.

GreeBo

Peterdalkey wrote: »

You may well be right in the case of SC, but the other banks have appointed recievers in many cases and liquidators have been appointed in others. Your broad brush of NAMA versus other bank debt handling is simply incorrect and each case usually has distinct unique characteristics with many different outcomes. In the case of Macreddin, as I understand it, the bank and their appointed receiver simply walked away, for example.


cheers

Peter

Right, but in the case of receivers the bank is still the one footing the bills, with NAMA its the tax payer.

The difference between NAMA courses and other courses that are "in trouble" is that NAMA can fund them forever and outlast all the others. This gives them an unfair advantage and makes it an unlevel playing field.

I believe clubs should be punished for being in financial diffilculties, a-la the Premier League, you go into administration and there is an impact to your club beyond the financial.
I believe GUI/ILGU affiliation should be suspended in the same scenario for golf clubs.

First Up

slave1 wrote: »

And what about the members of these 20 NAMA courses, folk who paid their welcome money and fees and want to continue to golf on these courses, do they not deserve a GUI affiliated handicap to allow them to golf elsewhere?

The country is littered with hard luck stories of failed investments - mine included. I lost my hello money and my GUI handicap lapsed when South County closed. The handicap was re-instated when Lisheen was affiliated after normal financial procedures were followed. That's the way it goes.

Maxi Mac

I agree this debate is being well ventillated now and is crystalising into the real issues , it does deserve a thread of its own.
While there is a great varience in views they are nonetheless valid.
I would suggest this thread should be compulsive reading for both Members owned and Privately owned clubs. GUI/ILGU should also take note member power will dictate what happens in the market.
I think a Federation made up of Member owned clubs would facilitate this process.
The RTE programme stated the Privately owned clubs Alliance have already made representation to EU and failed so now try a new approach.

Peterdalkey

GreeBo wrote: »

Right, but in the case of receivers the bank is still the one footing the bills, with NAMA its the tax payer.

The difference between NAMA courses and other courses that are "in trouble" is that NAMA can fund them forever and outlast all the others. This gives them an unfair advantage and makes it an unlevel playing field.

I believe clubs should be punished for being in financial diffilculties, a-la the Premier League, you go into administration and there is an impact to your club beyond the financial.
I believe GUI/ILGU affiliation should be suspended in the same scenario for golf clubs.

I love a good robust debate but prefer when the facts and realities are allowed to get in the way of emotive thoughts and feelings. The GUI/ILGU would open itself to massive litigation were it to attempt to go down this route. To use the UK soccer premiership as an example is simply wacko, how many clubs in that luny league make any money?

cheers

Peter

I am off to a nice boozy christmas lunch now in my member owned golf club, have to support one's own club in these troubled times

GreeBo

slave1 wrote: »

And what about the members of these 20 NAMA courses, folk who paid their welcome money and fees and want to continue to golf on these courses, do they not deserve a GUI affiliated handicap to allow them to golf elsewhere?

You cant have both though. Your club has "failed" or is failing, if you want to play golf elsewhere then join somewhere else.

If the club suffers then the members, who, by definition are the club, will also suffer somehow.

If the members dont suffer then neither does the club and you are where we are today, nowhere.

GreeBo

Peterdalkey wrote: »

I love a good robust debate but prefer when the facts and realities are allowed to get in the way of emotive thoughts and feelings. The GUI/ILGU would open itself to massive litigation were it to attempt to go down this route. To use the UK soccer premiership as an example is simply wacko, how many clubs in that luny league make any money?

cheers

Peter

I am off to a nice boozy christmas lunch now in my member owned golf club, have to support one's own club in these troubled times

Thanks for your cogent points. "wacko" really is a compelling counter-argument.

Identifying that NAMA is disrupting natural economic/market forces is not an emotive reaction, its pointing out reality to those unable or unwilling to accept it, perhaps because it affects them personally.

Peterdalkey wrote: »

To use the UK soccer premiership as an example is simply wacko, how many clubs in that luny league make any money?

Err did that lunch start early?
This is exactly the point. How many NAMA supported golf clubs are actually making money?

First Up

mike12 wrote: »

Just off the top of my head Moyvalley at 800 a year to join and Portmarnock at 2300 are 2 NAMA clubs both apparently are being run at a profit and are contribution towards there debts. Think that we will see very few courses that are good quality close there will always be a market for a good course. The courses that will struggle are the member courses that are average the type of course you play once and you would never be bothered going back.
I think we would have seen Green fees come down to an affordable rate regardless of NAMA courses, once the recession started the courses looking for 35 to 50 quid for green fees were in trouble.
Realistic prices for golf should be €100 for the top of table down to around €15 for you average public courses.

The members clubs that relied on the entrance fees are the ones suffering most and a lot of them are in trouble.
Around NCD the likes of Hollywood Lakes, Corrstown and Donabate all spent lots of money on huge club houses and they are now struggling.
The likes of Forrest little which seems like a well run club still lost money last year.
There are no NAMA courses in the area so i don't see how they can really blame anyone bar there own poor management.

"Being run at a profit" - you mean they are covering day to day costs or are they also servicing their loans in a serious way, factoring in depreciation etc. like any normal business? I doubt it.

Clubs can lose money for plenty of reasons other than poor management - one-off expenditure etc. However none can sustain a long term gap between income and expenditure - unless they are in NAMA of course.

I don't really mind about green fees - they are a marginal source of income. Its the GUI membership that matters.

mike12

All these resort courses were built to survive on green fees. Thats why Portmarnock only have 100 members and are still charging 2300 a year. if they were not making money i'm sure NAMA would be telling them to drop the price to 1200 and fill the place up with members. But seen as though it is a good course they can survive on green fees.
Mike

GreeBo

mike12 wrote: »

All these resort courses were built to survive on green fees. Thats why Portmarnock only have 100 members and are still charging 2300 a year. if they were not making money i'm sure NAMA would be telling them to drop the price to 1200 and fill the place up with members. But seen as though it is a good course they can survive on green fees.
Mike

If greefees were enough, why are they in NAMA?

Mister Sifter

GreeBo wrote: »

If green fees were enough, why are they in NAMA?

Because the golf side of the business was/is not the problem.

Addictedtogolf

GreeBo wrote: »

If greefees were enough, why are they in NAMA?

Which Portmarnock are we taking about.? the one with the hotel?

onlyfinewine

GreeBo wrote: »

Right, but in the case of receivers the bank is still the one footing the bills, with NAMA its the tax payer.

The difference between NAMA courses and other courses that are "in trouble" is that NAMA can fund them forever and outlast all the others. This gives them an unfair advantage and makes it an unlevel playing field.

I believe clubs should be punished for being in financial diffilculties, a-la the Premier League, you go into administration and there is an impact to your club beyond the financial.
I believe GUI/ILGU affiliation should be suspended in the same scenario for golf clubs.

The thread is about Golf not soccer, and it's complicated enough already without bringing in more tangents.

How do you propose to measure being in financial difficulties and what criteria are you proposing? When are you saying affiliation should be suspended?

First Up

onlyfinewine wrote: »

The thread is about Golf not soccer, and it's complicated enough already without bringing in more tangents.

How do you propose to measure being in financial difficulties and what criteria are you proposing? When are you saying affiliation should be suspended?

The Premier League analogy has its merits. The issue here is about how an organisation sets the standards for membership - an entitlement of any private organisation, sporting or otherwise.

I would say the right time to look at a club is when it loses control of its own finances - receivership or NAMA ownership would qualify. Some discretion could apply - e.g. a club that was operating in a "normal" way for a period beforehand could be given time to sort itself out. Any club could argue its case.