South County GC Closed

Gambino · 26-06-2012 9:10pm

Russman wrote: »

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"

I have to assume he/she - or they - do know.

The scenario you paint of a future situation is possible, but that is why an agreement on the precise procedure would be needed. What would stop him breaking it would be the loss of affiliation.

one ill cat · 26-06-2012 9:12pm

Gambino wrote: »

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.

The idea that it is only one individual didn't come from the top table tbh. In fact the Captain openly said that Richard Kavanagh wouldn't name the person(s) when he spoke to the committees last week.

I was at that committee meeting and can confirm that is the case. It happened just as it was told.

Russman · 26-06-2012 9:23pm

Seems to be at an impasse then, if the owners won't name the person(s) they won't let in. How is anyone to resolve it if they don't know who the issue is with ?

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if this person actually exists or is a ruse by the owners to ensure they get a new club of their own with a semi plausible justification for not using the existing SCGC vehicle.

Or maybe, like every club, there's one or two committee members who are absolute d--kheads and everybody knows who they are.

Wonder if all those types could be persuaded to join the one club far, far away...........

one ill cat · 26-06-2012 9:24pm

Also, for the record, as Peter said last night, the procedure for 'vetting' new members is a different matter altogether. All golf clubs have this process & there have been no objections to this that I've heard. There's no reason why there couldn't be a representative of the Kavanagh family on such a panel going forward.

The sole issue is picking & choosing who from the existing membership who can remain as members. Don't forget that the club (SCGC) still exists & those who were members of this club the day the course closed remain as members today until/unless they instruct their committees to transfer their handicap to a new 'home' club. To 'ban' a person/people would mean expulsion from a club they're currently a member of purely because the landlord doesn't want them which is not allowed by the GUI.

Gambino · 26-06-2012 10:12pm

one ill cat wrote: »

Also, for the record, as Peter said last night, the procedure for 'vetting' new members is a different matter altogether. All golf clubs have this process & there have been no objections to this that I've heard. There's no reason why there couldn't be a representative of the Kavanagh family on such a panel going forward.

The sole issue is picking & choosing who from the existing membership who can remain as members. Don't forget that the club (SCGC) still exists & those who were members of this club the day the course closed remain as members today until/unless they instruct their committees to transfer their handicap to a new 'home' club. To 'ban' a person/people would mean expulsion from a club they're currently a member of purely because the landlord doesn't want them which is not allowed by the GUI.

I understand all that which is why I said the departure would have to be voluntary. Of course it would help if the person or persons concerned knew they were in that situation. Giving JK blanket jurisdiction over existing members wood be against both GUI and basic fairness. If we misunderstood that last night then apologies but I was listening as intently as I could but it want always that easy to hear, or to follow.
But I find it hard to believe that the "unwanted"members are unaware of who they are.

Ding Ding · 26-06-2012 10:30pm

I heard about a group of lads who went to spain on a golfing trip earlier in the year. The lad who was driving the bus crashed it into a wall. They dusted themselves down and hired another bus after paying the insurance excess. Then they had a discussion about whether to let the same guy have another go in the driving seat.
They decided against it and went with a new driver and had a great trip.

Now in SC, does anybody think it's wise to let the guys or their co-drivers who crashed the bus have another go. No, this would not be sensible and it would be best not to let them anywhere near the keys.

So a clean sheet would seem to be a better option. Affiliation might take a little while but does this really matter so much. It might be possible that people's old handicap would stay valid until the new club is established. Even if not, sure members could still play comps in their own club and miss opens for a while. At the moment they are missing all golf in their old course.

I think it's well beyond time to rid ourselves of the ghosts of the past, after all this has been given as the reason why many have already left in various ways.

People need to realise they don't own the golf course. How would Ben Dunne react if people went to his gyms and presented him with a list of preconditions on how he was to run the place. 'and Ben, we'll also decide who's allowed into your gym'

The scattering is well underway based on the significantly smaller turnout last night, hopefully some of this down to notice. Others might join it based on behaviour of captain.

cherryman · 26-06-2012 10:43pm

Russman, You are the only one who sees the real picture and how it is likely to play out. Why would anyone join a course where at a whim a member could be told to ".F*** off my land and my course". Some of the contributors here are dreamers who think that once they get back there everything will be fine. If that is how they feel then they should go back and join the new club and maybe they can make it work , however I personally would not take such a risk.

one ill cat · 26-06-2012 10:44pm

Ding Ding wrote: »

I heard about a group of lads who went to spain on a golfing trip earlier in the year. The lad who was driving the bus crashed it into a wall. They dusted themselves down and hired another bus after paying the insurance excess. Then they had a discussion about whether to let the same guy have another go in the driving seat.
They decided against it and went with a new driver and had a great trip.

Now in SC, does anybody think it's wise to let the guys or their co-drivers who crashed the bus have another go. No, this would not be sensible and it would be best not to let them anywhere near the keys.

So a clean sheet would seem to be a better option. Affiliation might take a little while but does this really matter so much. It might be possible that people's old handicap would stay valid until the new club is established. Even if not, sure members could still play comps in their own club and miss opens for a while. At the moment they are missing all golf in their old course.

I think it's well beyond time to rid ourselves of the ghosts of the past, after all this has been given as the reason why many have already left in various ways.

People need to realise they don't own the golf course. How would Ben Dunne react if people went to his gyms and presented him with a list of preconditions on how he was to run the place. 'and Ben, we'll also decide who's allowed into your gym'

The scattering is well underway based on the significantly smaller turnout last night, hopefully some of this down to notice. Others might join it based on behaviour of captain.

Is your stupidly long story getting at the board or the committee?

And for the record, not one person has stated that if they open their own club, they can't let in who they want. Perhaps, being the die hard SC fan that you claim to be, you could actually pay attention & stop going off on a tangent.

carman2011 · 26-06-2012 10:46pm

As before we do not have the BRS system so please forward this email to as many SC members that you might have in your contact list.

Yours in Golf
Peter Burke
Hon. Sec. Men's Committee

email is here.....

Dear member
I have been contacted twice today by Mr Pat Kavanagh once this morning and again this evening. Mr Kavanagh told me that he and his Brother John do not want The South county golf club or it's committees to be organised at their facility.
He also informed me that they have selected a committee for their new golf club. As you will be aware this runs contrary to everything promised or alluded to at last nights meeting. At this stage there is no option to return as a club to the facility and the Kavanagh brothers have terminated the discussion.
The joint committee will call a meeting of members in the near future to decide on our options.
Best regards
Captain Michael Moore

Just got the above 2 mins ago......

one ill cat · 26-06-2012 10:47pm

cherryman wrote: »

Russman, You are the only one who sees the real picture and how it is likely to play out. Why would anyone join a course where at a whim a member could be told to ".F*** off my land and my course". Some of the contributors here are dreamers who think that once they get back there everything will be fine. If that is how they feel then they should go back and join the new club and maybe they can make it work , however I personally would not take such a risk.

Agree completely. I really haven't seen anything in the last few days that would suggest there is any hope of this working going forward.

carman2011 · 26-06-2012 10:49pm

Given what was said by pk last night, and the email that has now just come out, I'm sure people can now start the see the sh1t the committee have had to put up with the last few weeks.

Ding Ding · 26-06-2012 10:51pm

cherryman wrote: »

Russman, You are the only one who sees the real picture and how it is likely to play out. Why would anyone join a course where at a whim a member could be told to ".F*** off my land and my course". Some of the contributors here are dreamers who think that once they get back there everything will be fine. If that is how they feel then they should go back and join the new club and maybe they can make it work , however I personally would not take such a risk.

Valid point, I think there's more risk with continuation of old setup, less with new. Kavanaghs are biz people, they realise that there are marketing issues around kerping ghosts of the past. They won't be going around turfing people out, that not what biz people do.

My fear is that scattering has been so widespread since 1st citywest meeting that the remaining cohort is

Ding Ding · 26-06-2012 10:58pm

one ill cat wrote: »

Ding Ding wrote: »

I heard about a group of lads who went to spain on a golfing trip earlier in the year. The lad who was driving the bus crashed it into a wall. They dusted themselves down and hired another bus after paying the insurance excess. Then they had a discussion about whether to let the same guy have another go in the driving seat.
They decided against it and went with a new driver and had a great trip.

Now in SC, does anybody think it's wise to let the guys or their co-drivers who crashed the bus have another go. No, this would not be sensible and it would be best not to let them anywhere near the keys.

So a clean sheet would seem to be a better option. Affiliation might take a little while but does this really matter so much. It might be possible that people's old handicap would stay valid until the new club is established. Even if not, sure members could still play comps in their own club and miss opens for a while. At the moment they are missing all golf in their old course.

I think it's well beyond time to rid ourselves of the ghosts of the past, after all this has been given as the reason why many have already left in various ways.

People need to realise they don't own the golf course. How would Ben Dunne react if people went to his gyms and presented him with a list of preconditions on how he was to run the place. 'and Ben, we'll also decide who's allowed into your gym'

The scattering is well underway based on the significantly smaller turnout last night, hopefully some of this down to notice. Others might join it based on behaviour of captain.

Is your stupidly long story getting at the board or the committee?

And for the record, not one person has stated that if they open their own club, they can't let in who they want. Perhaps, being the die hard SC fan that you claim to be, you could actually pay attention & stop going off on a tangent.

Committee a continuation of the board, don't you think captain was being directed by someone sitting close by. Sorry for length of story. Here's a shorter one - only a fool makes the same mistake twice!

lw3 · 26-06-2012 10:58pm

There are only 2 options re Captains email. Try and move club on mass to another course or disband the club.

ArielAtom · 26-06-2012 11:01pm

Game over. I hope the kavanaghs are happy pumping money into their be pay and play facility. Can't see it being open this time next year. It will cost them €500,000 plus to get it there and €10.00 green fees won't pay the bills. I hope the have lots of money in the mattress

cherryman · 26-06-2012 11:02pm

From what happened last night and today we can now start to understand what the committee and the board have had to put up with over the past few years. I just do not understand how a group of volunteers could have put up with such behaviour for so long. I just hope the newly selected committee appreciate what they are facing.

ArielAtom · 26-06-2012 11:08pm

I'd love to know who is on the newly selected committee!!!!

ArielAtom · 26-06-2012 11:11pm

sodbuster77 wrote: »

If there is one!

Well the mail says they have selected one. Note selected not elected. A new dictatorship beckons.

sodbuster77 · 26-06-2012 11:16pm

ArielAtom wrote: »

sodbuster77 wrote: »

If there is one!

Well the mail says they have selected one. Note selected not elected. A new dictatorship beckons.

Pat and John must be the new committee.

ArielAtom · 26-06-2012 11:17pm

sodbuster77 wrote: »

Pat and John must be the new committee.

And Jimmy.

sodbuster77 · 26-06-2012 11:18pm

ArielAtom wrote: »

sodbuster77 wrote: »

Pat and John must be the new committee.

And Jimmy.

Ah yes The Troika

chuckieamc · 26-06-2012 11:29pm

This is a great shame. I left the meeting early last night as I just decided I wasn't all that interested in continuing membership amid so much turmoil. But I did believe that something would probably be sorted out eventually. Would now seem like a lost cause after that email. Feel genuinely sorry for all involved and hope the members find new homes soon.
Happy golfing, wherever everyone ends up...

one ill cat · 26-06-2012 11:48pm

Ding Ding wrote: »

Committee a continuation of the board, don't you think captain was being directed by someone sitting close by. Sorry for length of story. Here's a shorter one - only a fool makes the same mistake twice!

Given your speech last night, I think it's fair to say you're happy to see the committee go. However, fwiw the person you're referring to above couldn't actually make it to the committee meetings of the last few weeks. And they weren't at the meeting with Richard Kavanagh.

EDIT: fwiw = for what it's worth
As your account was only created to influence this thread, you may not be aware of normal 'forum abbreviations'.

ArielAtom · 26-06-2012 11:59pm

Does anyone know who the newly hand picked committee will be? Serious question?

one ill cat · 27-06-2012 12:02am

ArielAtom wrote: »

Does anyone know who the newly hand picked committee will be? Serious question?

I don't know yet, although golf club committees aren't secret committees so I imagine we'll soon know. Tbh, I'm not hugely interested either way but I'd imagine such details would be known soon enough.

Blue for Ever · 27-06-2012 12:02am

lw3 wrote: »

There are only 2 options re Captains email. Try and move club on mass to another course or disband the club.

I believe there a at least two good offers on the table from tier 1 clubs to move on mass. However a lot to be looked at here regarding available teetimes, retaining affiliation, cost, etc.

Tin_Cup · 27-06-2012 1:03am

Just a quick query guys but as I was aware you couldn't have two clubs affiliated to the GUi playing from the same course. Just wondering if someone could confirm or deny ?

ArielAtom · 27-06-2012 6:53am

Tin_Cup wrote: »

Just a quick query guys but as I was aware you couldn't have two clubs affiliated to the GUi playing from the same course. Just wondering if someone could confirm or deny ?

You can afaik have two clubs out of one course. Hibernian operate out of K club.

oscar555 · 27-06-2012 7:19am

ArielAtom wrote: »

You can afaik have two clubs out of one course. Hibernian operate out of K club.

Isn't the arrangement at the KClub based on the fact that there are two courses at the KClub? One club, one course is the rule but there are exceptions allowed under certain circumstances - Kilternan at South County GC for example. In response to the recent post meeting submissions, the Kavanagh's will struggle to operate the club as a pay & play facility in the current climate. There are too many courses out there offering inexpensive golf so the attraction of 'cheaper' golf is not what it was 10 years ago. There is still a deal to be done here but there will need to be concessions on both sides.

Russman · 27-06-2012 8:07am

oscar555 wrote: »

There is still a deal to be done here but there will need to be concessions on both sides.

Quite possibly there is.
But from an outsider's perspective, and with all due respect, I don't want to insult anyone, but realistically, who would touch SCGC with a barge pole now, given the history ? It seems IMO the existing membership pool (that haven't taken flight) would be the only market.

If you're a non member thinking to join a club in the c€1k to €1.3k range, why would you go somewhere with a contrary landlord when you can pick from a myriad of member owned clubs within a 5 or 6 mile radius ?

Even if a deal is reached, that whole situation is only waiting to blow up again when one of the landlords takes it into his head or has someone putting ideas into his head for him.

cherryman · 27-06-2012 8:13am

one ill cat wrote: »

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.

Agree with above. I attended the creditors meeting and from the Chairmans statement it was clear that at least €10m was spent developing the course and other facilities.This was paid for by the sharholders and bank. My understanding is that there is no issue re chemicals as all fertilisers, herbicides and fungicdes are approved by the Dept of Agr. The major cost of returning this land to farming use would be internal fencing, the need to reseed the lot and remove hazards such as the 1000's of golf balls lost in the rough which may choke an animal swallowing one. I believe this could be very costly. Either the landlords must feel like they have won the Euro millions.

one ill cat · 27-06-2012 8:21am

Tin_Cup wrote: »

Just a quick query guys but as I was aware you couldn't have two clubs affiliated to the GUi playing from the same course. Just wondering if someone could confirm or deny ?

I don't believe this is the case. The ILGU were asked this hypothetically, back at the beginning & they informed us that access to the time sheet was required, not that the facility we were using had 2 courses. I imagine the GUI would have a similar stand on the matter.

one ill cat · 27-06-2012 8:25am

oscar555 wrote: »

Isn't the arrangement at the KClub based on the fact that there are two courses at the KClub? One club, one course is the rule but there are exceptions allowed under certain circumstances - Kilternan at South County GC for example. In response to the recent post meeting submissions, the Kavanagh's will struggle to operate the club as a pay & play facility in the current climate. There are too many courses out there offering inexpensive golf so the attraction of 'cheaper' golf is not what it was 10 years ago. There is still a deal to be done here but there will need to be concessions on both sides.

Oscar, do you mind me asking if you were at that meeting the other night? & what concessions do you think need to be made?

As much as it pains me to say it, I honestly don't see how this could ever work going forward, even if someone were to be struck by lightning & have a dramatic change of heart overnight, as I golfer this time next month my priority will be getting my handicap lower, not wondering if lightning has struck twice & the goal posts have moved again.

shamco · 27-06-2012 8:29am

No sign of Gombino this morning. He must be in hiding or perhaps he is preparing himself for committee duties.

ArielAtom · 27-06-2012 8:31am

Having been a member for the past two seasons I can't see myself going back with another dictatorship. I did mention the pulling of strings before. Passing of notes at meeting re enforced that.

Gambino · 27-06-2012 8:48am

shamco wrote: »

No sign of Gombino this morning. He must be in hiding or perhaps he is preparing himself for committee duties.

Oh I'm here pal, just doing my homework (and I do have a life other than golf and SC).

A pity it has come to this. Kavanagh's want to run the show and that is their right as owners and sole financiers of the facility. If the only way they can exercise that right is by starting a new club - then so be it. Its not the ideal time to launch a golf club but hey; great course, no debt and you never know what other clubs might be in bother....

As things stand I plan to avail of the €150 offer to play out the year. The handicap business is the only drawback so we'll hope that can be sorted soon. We'll see what SC committee proposes but I don't see moving as a club as realistic - only a club in some trouble would take us on that basis and the idea of having our own (limited) slot on timesheets etc is not appealing. Besides, as Ding has mentioned, SC doesn't have the sort of track record that would suggest other clubs are seeking our advice on how to do it.

The only sensible next step for the "old" SC is to dissapear and leave the Kavanaghs get on with it. People either give that a chance or move to another club.

If the "new" SC doesn't work, there will be choices next year and I doubt they will be any worse than those now available.

oscar555 · 27-06-2012 8:49am

one ill cat wrote: »

Oscar, do you mind me asking if you were at that meeting the other night? & what concessions do you think need to be made?

As much as it pains me to say it, I honestly don't see how this could ever work going forward, even if someone were to be struck by lightning & have a dramatic change of heart overnight, as I golfer this time next month my priority will be getting my handicap lower, not wondering if lightning has struck twice & the goal posts have moved again.

No as a non member I wasn't at the meeting, but as an interested follower of the thread it strikes me that there is possibly more common ground here than not.

The SCGC 2004 need a course to play on - their old course is available albeit under new ownership - the new owners business plan depends entirely on fees(green fee or subscriptions) brought in by golfers.

Having said that I accept completely the level of distrust that any member might feel towards any new arrangement but it would seem a tragedy if the club either folds completely or moves to a new location. I just wonder if the negotiations were hampered in any way by a lack of understanding by each side of what needed to be achieved, and what was possible?

Each day that passes will surely see the membership break away and move to other courses as they like yourself want to get on with their golf and reduce their handicaps.

Gambino · 27-06-2012 8:56am

ArielAtom wrote: »

Having been a member for the past two seasons I can't see myself going back with another dictatorship. I did mention the pulling of strings before. Passing of notes at meeting re enforced that.

Sounds like you don't go to many meetings. People shouldn't communicate with each other? You prefer people to talk out loud while others are speaking?
Hope your new club has a place where the paranoid go to chat - they could call it the South County Room.

shamco · 27-06-2012 8:59am

Gambino wrote: »

Oh I'm here pal, just doing my homework (and I do have a life other than golf and SC).
A pity it has come to this. Kavanagh's want to run the show and that is their right as owners and sole financiers of the facility. If the only way they can exercise that right is by starting a new club - then so be it. Its not the ideal time to launch a golf club but hey; great course, no debt and you never know what other clubs might be in bother....

As things stand I plan to avail of the €150 offer to play out the year. The handicap business is the only drawback so we'll hope that can be sorted soon. We'll see what SC committee proposes but I don't see moving as a club as realistic - only a club in some trouble would take us on that basis and the idea of having our own (limited) slot on timesheets etc is not appealing. Besides, as Ding has mentioned, SC doesn't have the sort of track record that would suggest other clubs are seeking our advice on how to do it.

The only sensible next step for the "old" SC is to dissapear and leave the Kavanaghs get on with it. People either give that a chance or move to another club.

If the "new" SC doesn't work, there will be choices next year and I doubt they will be any worse than those now available.

269 posts on the one subject seems to indicate that you are more obsessed with this subject than anyone else or maybe you could be related to the Kavanaghs.

gboru · 27-06-2012 9:16am

just ran some quick numbers for the new club:

Income for 2012
70 members x €70 x 6 months = €29,400
average of 4 societies per week x 30 people x €30 x 16 weeks = €57,600

Total = €87,000

Expenditure for 2012 – based on Landlords email
3 green keeping staff x €600 per week x 6 months = €43,200
€4,000 per month for utilities, fuel etc. x 6 months = €24,000
€10,000 retainer for pro for 6 months = €10,000

Total = €87,200

Already they are losing money and this does not take into consideration all the other costs – machinery depreciation, fertilizers, consulting fees to keep the greens in good shape, cost of staff to run a bar/restaurant, bunker repairs, sand, maintenance. They have, according to themselves, spent €100k already? The other big one is that it does not even take into account the cost of their time for running the place. A long way from the €150k they were clearing between them for sitting at home?

A gold mine alright....

one ill cat · 27-06-2012 9:16am

oscar555 wrote: »

No as a non member I wasn't at the meeting, but as an interested follower of the thread it strikes me that there is possibly more common ground here than not.

The SCGC 2004 need a course to play on - their old course is available albeit under new ownership - the new owners business plan depends entirely on fees(green fee or subscriptions) brought in by golfers.

Having said that I accept completely the level of distrust that any member might feel towards any new arrangement but it would seem a tragedy if the club either folds completely or moves to a new location. I just wonder if the negotiations were hampered in any way by a lack of understanding by each side of what needed to be achieved, and what was possible?

Each day that passes will surely see the membership break away and move to other courses as they like yourself want to get on with their golf and reduce their handicaps.

Tbh Oscar, the level of distrust only really got to a notable level last Friday when the email was sent out to say they would be creating their own golf club with a new affiliation. The committees were well aware that the owners of the land, now own the facility. The was no overplaying cards or holding to ransom. As I've stated before, unless you have experience at committee level (or above) in a golf club, you won't really have an idea of what goes on behind the scenes to make a golf club successful.

It's fair to say the committees presented the landlords with a detailed enough list. Some of these items were extremely important whilst others were assumed to be taken for granted, but in the interests of giving this the best chance to make it work, it was felt that an open & honest policy was best. And to help them understand those little details that make such a big difference to the experience of the member, we did our best to educate them.

Make no mistake about it, the golf industry is very much reputation driven. At a competitive price next year, assuming that things were operating smoothly by the end of this year, new members would have been flocking to SC. People like to play golf with their friends, it simply takes too long to play a round of golf, for the company you play with not to be a factor. If members are happy, they'll encourage their friends to come join them, especially if the price is right.

This latest communication, being that even after what was said at the meeting on Monday night their plans remain to create a new golf course will have done the most damage imo. The conclusion of Monday was very much one last ditch effort to realise some sense, imo that ship has now sailed.

I'm currently researching new club options myself & will make my mind up within a week or so. July will be a month of playing golf, life's too short for 'repeat & rinse' cycles of childish tantrums.

Gambino · 27-06-2012 9:19am

shamco wrote: »

269 posts on the one subject seems to indicate that you are more obsessed with this subject than anyone else or maybe you could be related to the Kavanaghs.

Didn't you know? I'm John Kavanagh's love child, the person the Board went to for instructions (in my mansion) and a secret member of the committee?

I'm every paranoid nutter's manifestation of what they don't want to hear.

And I'm good at it.

Russman · 27-06-2012 9:25am

gboru wrote: »

Income for 2012
70 members x €70 x 6 months = €29,400
average of 4 societies per week x 30 people x €30 x 16 weeks = €57,600

Total = €87,000

I'd even suggest that 4 societies per week of 30 people for the summer months might be stretching it a bit in the current climate....?

Plus a lot of societies will try to negotiate a better rate than €30, or try to get a meal included.

ArielAtom · 27-06-2012 9:27am

Gambino wrote: »

Sounds like you don't go to many meetings. People shouldn't communicate with each other? You prefer people to talk out loud while others are speaking?
Hope your new club has a place where the paranoid go to chat - they could call it the South County Room.

Gambino, it was obvious to the man and his dog that all he was short of doing was sticking his hand up the others arse. If you can't see that then your new club is welcome to you.

It was good while it lasted. If the Kavanaghs plan is not to have any old board members I commend them for that. If they don't do a deal with existing club it will fail due to lack of numbers.

ArielAtom · 27-06-2012 9:30am

Gambino wrote: »

Didn't you know? I'm John Kavanagh's love child, the person the Board went to for instructions (in my mansion) and a secret member of the committee?

I'm every paranoid nutter's manifestation of what they don't want to hear.

And I'm good at it.

Gambino,

Is that an admission at trolling. Well I never!!!!

Gambino · 27-06-2012 9:31am

one ill cat wrote: »

Tbh Oscar, the level of distrust only really got to a notable level last Friday when the email was sent out to say they would be creating their own golf club with a new affiliation. The committees were well aware that the owners of the land, now own the facility. The was no overplaying cards or holding to ransom. As I've stated before, unless you have experience at committee level (or above) in a golf club, you won't really have an idea of what goes on behind the scenes to make a golf club successful.

It's fair to say the committees presented the landlords with a detailed enough list. Some of these items were extremely important whilst others were assumed to be taken for granted, but in the interests of giving this the best chance to make it work, it was felt that an open & honest policy was best. And to help them understand those little details that make such a big difference to the experience of the member, we did our best to educate them.

Make no mistake about it, the golf industry is very much reputation driven. At a competitive price next year, assuming that things were operating smoothly by the end of this year, new members would have been flocking to SC. People like to play golf with their friends, it simply takes too long to play a round of golf, for the company you play with not to be a factor. If members are happy, they'll encourage their friends to come join them, especially if the price is right.

This latest communication, being that even after what was said at the meeting on Monday night their plans remain to create a new golf course will have done the most damage imo. The conclusion of Monday was very much one last ditch effort to realise some sense, imo that ship has now sailed.

I'm currently researching new club options myself & will make my mind up within a week or so. July will be a month of playing golf, life's too short for 'repeat & rinse' cycles of childish tantrums.

From what I've been gathering, the "confusion" since Monday may have been more Pat K's doing than anyone else. I'm hearing that last Sunday st the club, Richard was telling people that it would be a new club, that a new committee was ready to roll and that he expected the member's meeting on Monday to effectively wind up the old club. That makes it sound as if the die was well cast before Pat got back from his holidays.
By raising hopes of a deal, Pat was acting without (it would seem) having properly consulted John and Richard. Hence John's annoyance at what happened at the meeting.

I know that doesn't address the committee feeling let down by the pre-emptive and unheralded email on Friday, but it does explain what happened.

By the way, Pat would be well in his rights to sue the eejit who accused the Kavanaghs of stealing his money on Monday night. As I recall, this is the same eejit who wanted to bulldoze the clubhouse at the liquidation meeting. I sure won't miss his like in the "new" SC.

Gambino · 27-06-2012 9:32am

ArielAtom wrote: »

Gambino,

Is that an admission at trolling. Well I never!!!!

What's trolling?

ArielAtom · 27-06-2012 9:36am

Gambino wrote: »

From what I've been gathering, the "confusion" since Monday may have been more Pat K's doing than anyone else. I'm hearing that last Sunday st the club, Richard was telling people that it would be a new club, that a new committee was ready to roll and that he expected the member's meeting on Monday to effectively wind up the old club. That makes it sound as if the die was well cast before Pat got back from his holidays.
By raising hopes of a deal, Pat was acting without (it would seem) having properly consulted John and Richard. Hence John's annoyance at what happened at the meeting.

I know that doesn't address the committee feeling let down by the pre-emptive and unheralded email on Friday, but it does explain what happened.

By the way, Pat would be well in his rights to sue the eejit who accused the Kavanaghs of stealing his money on Monday night. As I recall, this is the same eejit who wanted to bulldoze the clubhouse at the liquidation meeting. I sure won't miss his like in the "new" SC.

Gambino,

Will they be let use the name Southcounty or more to the point will they want the name with all that has happened???

Gambino · 27-06-2012 9:45am

ArielAtom wrote: »

Gambino,

Will they be let use the name Southcounty or more to the point will they want the name with all that has happened???

I understand they want to keep the name. I don't know the ins and outs of being "let". I presume it would be simpler and easier if the old club was no more.

one ill cat · 27-06-2012 9:56am

Gambino wrote: »

From what I've been gathering, the "confusion" since Monday may have been more Pat K's doing than anyone else. I'm hearing that last Sunday st the club, Richard was telling people that it would be a new club, that a new committee was ready to roll and that he expected the member's meeting on Monday to effectively wind up the old club. That makes it sound as if the die was well cast before Pat got back from his holidays.
By raising hopes of a deal, Pat was acting without (it would seem) having properly consulted John and Richard. Hence John's annoyance at what happened at the meeting.

I know that doesn't address the committee feeling let down by the pre-emptive and unheralded email on Friday, but it does explain what happened.

By the way, Pat would be well in his rights to sue the eejit who accused the Kavanaghs of stealing his money on Monday night. As I recall, this is the same eejit who wanted to bulldoze the clubhouse at the liquidation meeting. I sure won't miss his like in the "new" SC.

Perhaps it could be viewed that PK caused the confusion but saying what he said. The flip side of that is JK is also causing confusion by telling people his version of how he wants things to progress without agreeing it with his brother. Either way, that as a system is doomed to failure.

South County GC Closed

Comments