Castleknock in receivership now

GreeBo wrote: »

I think it's a successful model of a particular type of club.
I don't think it suits everyone, wouldn't work for a members club for example.

Agreed but it will only be shown to be a successful model if and when it is shown to be sustainable. I'm not arguing against it, but I am tired of claims that the solution for golf clubs in difficulty is to be more "affordable".

Fact is you need a certain level of income to maintain and sustain a golf club. I'm all for innovative deals - as long as they add up.

First Up wrote: »

Yes, but fact is the golf club and only the golf club went into receivership and only the golf club is for sale. I'm aware that group accounts can be hard to dissect but it was and is effectively operating as a stand alone business.

Where are you getting that from?
The group went into receivership.

From the article:
"Declan McDonald and Ken Tyrrell of PwC were appointed joint receivers to the club, as well as associated companies under the umbrella of Monarch Properties"

Another interesting aspect of Castleknock's relative success imo is the fact that there is a superior course right next door (Luttrellstown) that gets a fraction of Castleknock's footfall because its membership rate remains in the ~2k bracket. Wonder if both will exist as golf courses in 10 years time.

First Up wrote: »

Correct - the golf club and "associated companies" went into receivership.
However the results for each of the eight companies in the group were reported as separate profit centers.

There is nothing to suggest that Castlenock GC was subsidising any of the other companies in the group and the accounts clearly show a drop in revenue, resulting in a loss at the golf club.

Extracts from May 2012 article in the Examiner ;
"Accounts just filed by the group’s companies show the Dublin-based Castlenock Golf Club plc recorded a loss of €355,957 in the 12 months to the end of April last year.
The figures show that Castlenock Golf Club plc recorded the loss of €355,957 — a negative swing of €1.975m. The loss follows the golf club firm’s revenues dipping from €2.1m to €1.7m.
Separate accounts filed by Monarch Properties Holdings Ltd outline losses at the group’s firms. They show Monarch Properties Ltd recorded a loss of €755,762; Monarch Business Park Services Ltd recorded a loss of €384,597; Blackrock Business Park Ltd recorded a loss of €384,597; M50 Motors Ltd recorded a loss of €103,382; Ampezzano Ltd recorded a loss of €63,366; Lagonda Ltd recorded a loss of €39,076 with Ringford Company Ltd recording a loss of €12,960.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at?
You stated it was the golf club and golf club only, that's completely wrong.

The group went into receivership. The golf course is only a part of the group.

You say there is nothing to suggest that it was "subsidising" other companies. I never said subsidising, I mentionned drawings. A subtle difference. But something like directors fees(wages) or directors pension payments could easily have been drawn (perfectly legally) from the golf club and not others.

But that examiner article does state something that I would suggest is quite an anomaly.

The loss of 2011 was 355k.
As the article says, a swing 1.975M.
Therefore, the profit for 2010 was 1.62M.

However, Revenue only dropped 0.4M in that period. (2.1m to 1.7m).
Therefore their expenditure went up 1.525M in one year.

That's quite odd. And I can't see how they would have incurred costs of over 2million alone purely on the core activities.
Revenue 1.7m - Expenditure 2.055m = 355k loss.

PARlance wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at?
You stated it was the golf club and golf club only, that's completely wrong.

The group went into receivership. The golf course is only a part of the group.

You say there is nothing to suggest that it was "subsidising" other companies. I never said subsidising, I mentionned drawings. A subtle difference. But something like directors fees(wages) or directors pension payments could easily have been drawn (perfectly legally) from the golf club and not others.

But that examiner article does state something that I would suggest is quite an anomaly.

The loss of 2011 was 355k.
As the article says, a swing 1.975M.
Therefore, the profit for 2010 was 1.62M.

However, Revenue only dropped 0.4M in that period. (2.1m to 1.7m).
Therefore their expenditure went up 1.525M in one year.

That's quite odd. And I can't see how they would have incurred costs of over 2million alone purely on the core activities.
Revenue 1.7m - Expenditure 2.055m = 355k loss.

Without having the full data to study, it is speculation on our part so plenty of scope for theories and hunches.
On the group thing, I'm happy to agree. The point I was trying to make was that the claim that the golf club is inherently profitable but has been dragged down with the ship is not supported by the evidence.
Look I've nothing against Castlenock. I like the course and hope it does well. But I don't agree with a club in receivership being held up as the template for how clubs survive in recessionary times or in a crowded market.

First Up wrote: »

It is owned by JP McManus. He was going to close it in 2009 but presumably thought again when the market crashed. It seems to be operating on a year to year basis ever since. Certainly not operating as a "club"in the usual sense.

In all fairness, it is not the only club operating on a year to year basis at the moment.

Member clubs faced with revenues that fall below costs are in the same boat.

The difference, I guess, judging from posts on this thread, is down to stuff like location, quality of course / facilities, cost control and success in attracting revenues from many different sources in an increasingly segmenting market.

Castleknock is a privately owned resort type facility, that attracts a higher proportion of its revenues from non-members than most member clubs (i.e. excluding the like of high end links courses, such as The Island, Portmarnock, Baltray, etc., that target golf tours, etc.).

It has also shown the way with attractive, affordable membership packages. I'm not saying every member club is in a position to copy everything Castleknock does, but there are lessons to be learnt. IMHO, clubs would benefit by being a bit more open minded to additional membership offerings to complement the bog standard full and five day offerings. Not everyone can afford to pay €1,000 - €1,500 in annual subs, particularly when they can only get out golfing a few times a year. This is one large market segment that Castleknock has managed to target successfully.

But as many poster have said, the jury is still out on the winning formula by which more clubs will manage to survive and clubs would benefit from more open, informed discussion and debate on the best way forward.

First Up wrote: »

The situation at Lutterelstown is a bit different to most. The owner can subsidise it a much as he wants. He is sitting on the asset until such time as he has a better use for it.

Quite - every situation is different.

Private club owners have the benefit of being able to inform themselves thoroughly, using professional advice before making decisions.

Unfortunately, many member clubs being run part time by committees with very limited budgets do not have this business advantage. As a result, the rumour mill, uninformed / inadequately prepared debate, resistance to change and whoever shouts loudest at AGMs can hold undue sway!

John Divney wrote: »

Luttrellstown has downhill compared to it's former maintenance.

Why did JP want to close that by the way, for an exclusive resort? Them day are never coming back now, but what would be the point on closing the course anyway even in the good days?

was going to build houses on it and a stud farm

golfwallah wrote: »

Quite - every situation is different.

Private club owners have the benefit of being able to inform themselves thoroughly, using professional advice before making decisions.

Unfortunately, many member clubs being run part time by committees with very limited budgets do not have this business advantage. As a result, the rumour mill, uninformed / inadequately prepared debate, resistance to change and whoever shouts loudest at AGMs can hold undue sway!

Again with this old line?

GreeBo wrote: »

Again with this old line?

You're proving my point!

Just an update for anyone interested. I received an email from the club confirming that the sale of the club has been agreed and will close once some technical difficulties are resolved. Until then the identity of the new owner shall remain undisclosed.
The email also confirmed that the club shall continue as it has done in the past with similar membership and pricing structures being kept in place.
There will also be further investment, both in the course and the clubhouse and restaurant.
Good news I think for all members

pcasso wrote: »

Just an update for anyone interested. I received an email from the club confirming that the sale of the club has been agreed and will close once some technical difficulties are resolved. Until then the identity of the new owner shall remain undisclosed.
The email also confirmed that the club shall continue as it has done in the past with similar membership and pricing structures being kept in place.
There will also be further investment, both in the course and the clubhouse and restaurant.
Good news I think for all members

Lutterelstown or Castlenock? (This is supposed to be a Castlenock thread)