South County GC Closed

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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!!!!

ArielAtom wrote: »

Gambino,

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

What's trolling?

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 wrote: »

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.

In this instance, his brother was away but I know there is a history of poor (or lack of) communication between them. Not ideal and a factor to be considered in evaluating the new set up.

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.

Not qiute a lovechild but still related through marriage

one ill cat wrote: »

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'.

Sorry Cat, didnt realise you were a moderator. Guess I am not permitted to join the forum and is there also a ban on new people contributing for a certain period? This really is Soviet era stuff, dont like your view so dont want to hear it!

There were a lot of silent people on the committee at the meeting and wonder did they agree with the aggressive confrontational approach of the captain? I guess not and have great sympathy for some on committee who put in voluntary efforts with the right intentions, so No, not happy to see ALL gone.

Are you honestly telling me that because somebody wasnt at the meeting that they werent still controlling things?

Ding Ding wrote: »

Sorry Cat, didnt realise you were a moderator. Guess I am not permitted to join the forum and is there also a ban on new people contributing for a certain period? This really is Soviet era stuff, dont like your view so dont want to hear it!

There were a lot of silent people on the committee at the meeting and wonder did they agree with the aggressive confrontational approach of the captain? I guess not and have great sympathy for some on committee who put in voluntary efforts with the right intentions, so No, not happy to see ALL gone.

Are you honestly telling me that because somebody wasnt at the meeting that they werent still controlling things?

Are you honestly taking exception to the fact I clarified what fwiw meant? Apologies if I come across as patronising to your internet savvy persona but from your post history it's clear that you're new here. Again, as you're new you may not appreciate that forums are places of debate, although debating & trolling are 2 very different things. Healthy debate is the reason I regularly read many forums on boards.ie as well as other forums on other sites.
From dictionary.com:
Troll: an internet user who sends inflammatory or provocative messages designed to elicit negative responses or start a flame-war.
I think it's fair to say that your posts could have been worded less inflammatory or provocative. You also may have found this would have had your point of view better received by people on here.

Also, ftr, it wasn't clear from what you said that you weren't happy to see the whole committee go. The main message I heard from you was that you'd only be too delighted for the committee's resignation to be submitted there & then. If that's not what you meant to say, then perhaps your tone overshadowed your message.

Fwiw, those meetings involved a substantial amount of input from all committee members, male & female. Regardless, it's very much out in the open now why an agreement couldn't be reached with makes a lot of other theories redundant imo.

gboru wrote: »

I just talked to someone who had an interesting perspective. The landlords have always been looking at the longer term picture. They need a golf course operating on the land to ensure it is worth something when the govt. finally funds the blessington bypass. The road will probably go through their land. It's worth more if there is a thriving golf course operation in the way rather than a load of sheep??? Does anyone know anything about this proposed road?

An interesting point. That has been in the works for a while and if the route favoured by the Council goes ahead, it would cut across the 14th and 15th. Don't know the chances in the current financial climate but it could produce a nice windfall and solve all financial problems - just like the Grange. Right GreeBo?