Can't help but feel one of the motions raised by committee for AGM is an attempt to silence concerned owners and totally goes against what LRHC stands for.
We have committee members that would appear to be making a mockery of the articles of association already and others who no doubt have much to gain by this.
With this type of AGM as we have seen already they can pick and choose whom they speak to and silence at the click of a button.
To push for virtual AGM only is something I did not think I would ever see at this Club.
There will be certain individuals over the moon about this motion which will encourage more wasteful spending rather than saving and for those committee members who backed this, cowardly and weak.
It in my opinion allows committee and management to take the club down a slippery slope unchallenged which unfortunately has started with this motion.
How to silence the owners?
Why does this not surprise me. We were already half way there after the resolution at last year’s AGM whereby Term owners were effectively stripped of their previous rights to vote or even attend an AGM or indeed the right to submit a resolution.
There a distinct autocratic atmosphere about the club these days, although assurances will continue that it’s completely democratic.
No wonder that there’s a distinct lack of interest in buying into a LRHC ownership contract
There a distinct autocratic atmosphere about the club these days, although assurances will continue that it’s completely democratic.
No wonder that there’s a distinct lack of interest in buying into a LRHC ownership contract
Owners should if not by now realise they, because of this motion are in my opinion secondary to anything that happens at this club.
I could quote chapter and verse, the wasteful spending and payouts over the last 4 years, the untruths which were potentially dangerous for owners over same period and before and more recently the " house sale deal" which benefited one person at club in particular and created a conflict of interest for a committee member, but remains to me a massive concern.
If my assumption is correct and after inadvertently asking this question to previous accountant and the answer i received, it was a committee member who was also the " third party loan" at the time of the levy been imposed. Was it the same person?
It was rightly discounted by the accountant and I believe committee.
If this was the case, then the purchase of said house becomes a bigger issue.
BUT as an owner and unfortunately for owners who were talked into term deals, I will be able to voice my opinion and back it up with facts at the AGM.
I could quote chapter and verse, the wasteful spending and payouts over the last 4 years, the untruths which were potentially dangerous for owners over same period and before and more recently the " house sale deal" which benefited one person at club in particular and created a conflict of interest for a committee member, but remains to me a massive concern.
If my assumption is correct and after inadvertently asking this question to previous accountant and the answer i received, it was a committee member who was also the " third party loan" at the time of the levy been imposed. Was it the same person?
It was rightly discounted by the accountant and I believe committee.
If this was the case, then the purchase of said house becomes a bigger issue.
BUT as an owner and unfortunately for owners who were talked into term deals, I will be able to voice my opinion and back it up with facts at the AGM.
Term ownership deals are / were fine and were considered to be fine by Committee in the past however last year there was a sudden change of direction resulting in the Committee inspired resolution at the AGM which effectively strips Term owners of all rights except the right to occupy the weeks which they pay for just the same as in perpetuity owners. The reason suggested for this was that Term owners did not allegedly have the long term interests of the club in mind but not one shred of evidence has been produced to justify this discrimination. The majority of owners who did vote in favour of the Committee decision did so no doubt in good faith in the belief that the Committee would always act in the interests of all owners at LRHC !
Clearly not the case
Clearly not the case
So now Term owners have no voting rights, cannot submit a resolution at the AGM and in fact cannot even attend an AGM. In contrast non owners can and do attend AGM’s usually accompanying a spouse, partner or a close family member. On occasions non owners have been allowed to speak and ask questions at AGM’s and so there is clearly a division which has been created for no obvious reason.
In fact until the AGM in 2024 Term owners were eligible to be on Committee and accordingly be Directors of the club and this was actively encouraged not so long ago.
Quite frankly it’s all just an insult to anyone’s intelligence
In fact until the AGM in 2024 Term owners were eligible to be on Committee and accordingly be Directors of the club and this was actively encouraged not so long ago.
Quite frankly it’s all just an insult to anyone’s intelligence
I can't quite understand why at a time when there is very little sales, and I take on board there is a 3 day meeting this week, that we as a club via committee do everything possible to reduce/stop ALL timeshare owners whether term or in perpetuity from having an active interest in the club they have loved for years.
As I have said before and I stand by what I have said for years, rentals at the club are short sighted and not the solution long term.
If we don't even know the net profit from sales,there lies the issue and yet again if I have read the accounts properly on my phone, another deficit.
The perceived lack of commitment,despite challenges has created this issue which may be too late to improve and allows some to take advantage who have deep pockets and others who are delusional about what they can be or are.
We have wasted money at least £60k plus on 2 salespeople who sold next to nothing.
We waste more than this each year on staff who have, in my opinion, ignored the issue until it's become too late despite numerous red flags.
As we already know owners were talked into in cases to change from in perpetuity to term, not thinking would be barred from involvement and now as already admitted, we have an aging ownership who do not participate online via zoom.
I think at last AGM 40 were virtual zoomers if I am correct and 23 owners albeit more than that in room as others were present and voting as well as asking relevant questions which were either answered or met with blank expressions from those who should know the answer.
It is my opinion and past AGMs have highlighted this, those questions up until now have never been asked on Zoom and I know of owners who said had tried to ask questions in the past, were ignored on zoom.
If the concerned owners had not attended the AGM and there were many, the club would be in a much worse situation than it is now.
And in light of the other motion,to me this is down to a previous committee member and another who resigned, not wanting to show what actually took place under their watch.
I'll hazard a guess and say this practice will continue, to potentially not be transparent which would be totally out of order and unethical.
I also would be very surprised if we now have more than 50% of owners under in perpetuity which if we only have 63 attending overall which again I feel suits those on committee and in management to hide.
Which then asks the question, is LRHC still an owners club and is this an owners committee or just a private company riding roughshod over owners?
It is in my opinion akin to deliberate sabotage at LRHC and given that we have some very, and again, in my opinion some very "funny personal deals" at moment, how this benefits the overall welfare of the Club is a mystery?
As I have said before and I stand by what I have said for years, rentals at the club are short sighted and not the solution long term.
If we don't even know the net profit from sales,there lies the issue and yet again if I have read the accounts properly on my phone, another deficit.
The perceived lack of commitment,despite challenges has created this issue which may be too late to improve and allows some to take advantage who have deep pockets and others who are delusional about what they can be or are.
We have wasted money at least £60k plus on 2 salespeople who sold next to nothing.
We waste more than this each year on staff who have, in my opinion, ignored the issue until it's become too late despite numerous red flags.
As we already know owners were talked into in cases to change from in perpetuity to term, not thinking would be barred from involvement and now as already admitted, we have an aging ownership who do not participate online via zoom.
I think at last AGM 40 were virtual zoomers if I am correct and 23 owners albeit more than that in room as others were present and voting as well as asking relevant questions which were either answered or met with blank expressions from those who should know the answer.
It is my opinion and past AGMs have highlighted this, those questions up until now have never been asked on Zoom and I know of owners who said had tried to ask questions in the past, were ignored on zoom.
If the concerned owners had not attended the AGM and there were many, the club would be in a much worse situation than it is now.
And in light of the other motion,to me this is down to a previous committee member and another who resigned, not wanting to show what actually took place under their watch.
I'll hazard a guess and say this practice will continue, to potentially not be transparent which would be totally out of order and unethical.
I also would be very surprised if we now have more than 50% of owners under in perpetuity which if we only have 63 attending overall which again I feel suits those on committee and in management to hide.
Which then asks the question, is LRHC still an owners club and is this an owners committee or just a private company riding roughshod over owners?
It is in my opinion akin to deliberate sabotage at LRHC and given that we have some very, and again, in my opinion some very "funny personal deals" at moment, how this benefits the overall welfare of the Club is a mystery?
Call me a cynic if you like but I suspect that the net profit from sales is in fact known to the inner circle but probably for reasons of poor performance there is a reluctance or refusal to publish the true figures.
I can only speak for myself and personally , as an owner , I would prefer to be told the reality and the true figures opposed to being fobbed off with a perpetual fudged update
I can only speak for myself and personally , as an owner , I would prefer to be told the reality and the true figures opposed to being fobbed off with a perpetual fudged update