December 2021 AGM - Resolutions
Morning everyone. One of our Members has asked for assistance in setting up a thread for discussion of the Resolutions and I'm happy to assist. Please post your comments on thisn thread. Your Committee has taken the decision not to comment on Resolutions, unlike as happened in previous AGMs. Although we have our own thoughts on matters we believe that Members should put forward their own ideas. Hopefully see many of you either in person or virtually at the AGM on 4th December.
Hi all.
I refer to the resolution regarding the sale of Glenrannoch house, the use of the apartments for staff, and the formula for allowing members who own apartment/studios to either exit at no cost, or swap to another unit.
Since this is a decision which could have far reaching consequences, I would ask the management and committee to place some advice for members here, before they cast their vote.
1. If members are allowed to walk away from their timeshare, what will be the actual loss in revenue per annum to the club ?
2. Will the redesignation of purpose for said apartments/studios bring us into legal conflict with the planning authorities and/or the hotel ?
3. How long would the money from the sale of Glenrannoch last if balanced against the loss of revenue from the apartments/studios ?
4. Would the arrangement to relocate owners to a different unit bring them into conflict with other owners?
Before I vote, there are big questions here that need to be answered.
Regards to all
John Martin
Otter 3, 28/29
I refer to the resolution regarding the sale of Glenrannoch house, the use of the apartments for staff, and the formula for allowing members who own apartment/studios to either exit at no cost, or swap to another unit.
Since this is a decision which could have far reaching consequences, I would ask the management and committee to place some advice for members here, before they cast their vote.
1. If members are allowed to walk away from their timeshare, what will be the actual loss in revenue per annum to the club ?
2. Will the redesignation of purpose for said apartments/studios bring us into legal conflict with the planning authorities and/or the hotel ?
3. How long would the money from the sale of Glenrannoch last if balanced against the loss of revenue from the apartments/studios ?
4. Would the arrangement to relocate owners to a different unit bring them into conflict with other owners?
Before I vote, there are big questions here that need to be answered.
Regards to all
John Martin
Otter 3, 28/29
Hi John,
Good questions and this is my own personal opinion.
In order to answer question 1, we as owners would need to know how many of these particular units are owned by the Club, the revenue they bring in and how many owners are looking to get rid.
There are I reckon 816 units which is 51 weeks a year x 16 bringing potentially £350k a year of management fees if all are owned which they are not. I reckon there is probably 40% at least owned by club and a further 20- 25% who want rid.
Rentals have not brought in the loss of income from non ownership over past 5 years. They are costing money as is Glenrannoch because of the total failure of sales or lack of them no matter the whisperings from certain parties.
I still feel if there is more than 1200 club owned lodges and we don't sell at least 100 a year which we have not done in last 7 years looking at accounts, there is less than £100k a year in rental income which again has not occurred, then this becomes an option we cannot ignore.
To question 2- I think that problem would be overcome.
Question 3- I think is a question of can we afford not to sell Glenrannoch. I still think any valuation would be a loss to what it cost and what has been spent on it.
Question 4 and again my opinion only, it would not be an issue for me as I deem it necessary to progress and save the Club and the fees are still coming in. If it were me in this position I would still vote yes.
Good questions and this is my own personal opinion.
In order to answer question 1, we as owners would need to know how many of these particular units are owned by the Club, the revenue they bring in and how many owners are looking to get rid.
There are I reckon 816 units which is 51 weeks a year x 16 bringing potentially £350k a year of management fees if all are owned which they are not. I reckon there is probably 40% at least owned by club and a further 20- 25% who want rid.
Rentals have not brought in the loss of income from non ownership over past 5 years. They are costing money as is Glenrannoch because of the total failure of sales or lack of them no matter the whisperings from certain parties.
I still feel if there is more than 1200 club owned lodges and we don't sell at least 100 a year which we have not done in last 7 years looking at accounts, there is less than £100k a year in rental income which again has not occurred, then this becomes an option we cannot ignore.
To question 2- I think that problem would be overcome.
Question 3- I think is a question of can we afford not to sell Glenrannoch. I still think any valuation would be a loss to what it cost and what has been spent on it.
Question 4 and again my opinion only, it would not be an issue for me as I deem it necessary to progress and save the Club and the fees are still coming in. If it were me in this position I would still vote yes.
Firstly, isn't it refreshing to hear our Chairman, John Hirst say the Committee does not intend to Comment (thus influence owners) on Resolutions. How long have we waited on having just such a Committee at LRHC. Far too long I'd say!
Secondly, I want to first of all declare that I, as an owner, seconded the proposal to sell Glenrannoch House.
As far as I was led to believe at the time Glenrannoch was purchased, it was necessary for Housing EU migrant workers as there wasn't anything readily available at that point. Following Brexit we no longer have workers arriving from the EU to work at the Club, a great many of our staff are locals. Over the years we have had a mixed bag of Tenants with many allowing the House to deteriorate through lack of care, I also understand Club Funds, which should have been spent on our Refurbishment Programme, were in fact spent on Glenrannoch House! As a Club we are now in a precarious financial position, and owners having so recently bailed out the Club to save it from closure, have to think carefully about liquidating some of our assets. Glenrannoch House is basically now a White Elephant we can no longer afford to maintain, and with money released from the property, and if used astutely by the Committee, we could leap ahead with the Refurbishment Programme. This would bring the Club back to it's Gold Standard days and attract an increase in both Sales and Rentals. Great care would have to be made to ensure if it went up for sale it was widely advertised in the rest of the UK and countries out with the UK to ensure we reach as many as possible Buyers with large cheque books!
According to Stuart's calculations, approx. 40% of Apartment weeks are already owned by the Club with at least a further 25% of Apartment week owners keen to sell, so a combination of owners being offered a replacement week in a Lodge (which is obviously of greater value than an Apartment week) OR in view of Health/Age a free 'Get Out of LRHC' pass.
The Committee could also approach Nick Pattie to see if he wishes to purchase/Lease a few apartments as overspill accommodation for Hotel guests or as staff accommodation. The remaining Apartments could be rented out to our own staff or made available for renting to owners who would occasionally like to add a couple of days to their Rannoch Holiday week. We may even consider combining two Apartments into one large Club owned Social Area for Cheese & Wine Evenings; Whisky Tasting; Guest Speakers; etc.
Ronnie Robertson
Secondly, I want to first of all declare that I, as an owner, seconded the proposal to sell Glenrannoch House.
As far as I was led to believe at the time Glenrannoch was purchased, it was necessary for Housing EU migrant workers as there wasn't anything readily available at that point. Following Brexit we no longer have workers arriving from the EU to work at the Club, a great many of our staff are locals. Over the years we have had a mixed bag of Tenants with many allowing the House to deteriorate through lack of care, I also understand Club Funds, which should have been spent on our Refurbishment Programme, were in fact spent on Glenrannoch House! As a Club we are now in a precarious financial position, and owners having so recently bailed out the Club to save it from closure, have to think carefully about liquidating some of our assets. Glenrannoch House is basically now a White Elephant we can no longer afford to maintain, and with money released from the property, and if used astutely by the Committee, we could leap ahead with the Refurbishment Programme. This would bring the Club back to it's Gold Standard days and attract an increase in both Sales and Rentals. Great care would have to be made to ensure if it went up for sale it was widely advertised in the rest of the UK and countries out with the UK to ensure we reach as many as possible Buyers with large cheque books!
According to Stuart's calculations, approx. 40% of Apartment weeks are already owned by the Club with at least a further 25% of Apartment week owners keen to sell, so a combination of owners being offered a replacement week in a Lodge (which is obviously of greater value than an Apartment week) OR in view of Health/Age a free 'Get Out of LRHC' pass.
The Committee could also approach Nick Pattie to see if he wishes to purchase/Lease a few apartments as overspill accommodation for Hotel guests or as staff accommodation. The remaining Apartments could be rented out to our own staff or made available for renting to owners who would occasionally like to add a couple of days to their Rannoch Holiday week. We may even consider combining two Apartments into one large Club owned Social Area for Cheese & Wine Evenings; Whisky Tasting; Guest Speakers; etc.
Ronnie Robertson
Hi all.
I understand the desire to sell Glenrannoch house for a quick financial ‘fix’. I have no real quarrel with that proposal, but I do have reservations about the effect on the club’s finances with regard to the change in use of the studios/apartments. Incidentally, I also am concerned about the apparent failure to differentiate between the studios and apartments. Does this mean that the studios would not be a part of this change in use ? That wouldn’t make much sense to me!
The idea of the apartment owners being offered a simple ‘out’ if they so desired risks driving a coach and horse through the basic business model of our timeshare resort. Be assured that if the club goes down that route, many other owners will claim a precedence has been set, and demand equal treatment.
As has so often been the case, good intentions and ideas at our club have been often failed because the project was never thought through and properly planned and executed.
Therefore I respectfully repeat my doubts here - until I hear much more detail and see projections regarding the effect of this proposal on our club, I cannot support the motions as they are currently presented, especially for the second and third parts.
Regards to all,
John Martin
Otter3, 28/29
I understand the desire to sell Glenrannoch house for a quick financial ‘fix’. I have no real quarrel with that proposal, but I do have reservations about the effect on the club’s finances with regard to the change in use of the studios/apartments. Incidentally, I also am concerned about the apparent failure to differentiate between the studios and apartments. Does this mean that the studios would not be a part of this change in use ? That wouldn’t make much sense to me!
The idea of the apartment owners being offered a simple ‘out’ if they so desired risks driving a coach and horse through the basic business model of our timeshare resort. Be assured that if the club goes down that route, many other owners will claim a precedence has been set, and demand equal treatment.
As has so often been the case, good intentions and ideas at our club have been often failed because the project was never thought through and properly planned and executed.
Therefore I respectfully repeat my doubts here - until I hear much more detail and see projections regarding the effect of this proposal on our club, I cannot support the motions as they are currently presented, especially for the second and third parts.
Regards to all,
John Martin
Otter3, 28/29
Good morning,
With respect to those who have presented the Resolution, surely it should have been offered as two separate Motions? We personally are now in a quandary as we believe others will be too: like others, we may wish to vote for selling Glenrannoch House, but not the Apartments, or vice versa. As already referred to by other Members does 'Apartments' mean the Studios too? Many Owners will not wish to give up their much loved Apartment/Studio and will feel bulldozed? Of course their feelings and opinions matter! We stayed in a Studio when we first bought into LRHC and loved it, so we're sure many current Owners will do too. Is it really feasible for the Club to support compensating all of these 'Lodgeless' Owners, as Stuart refers to in his calculations? Would we make a significant profit on selling Glenrannoch and would any money generated be worth it? We may need it again in the future? We think Ronnie's idea of approaching Nick Pattie to ascertain his possible interest is a sound one and worth pursuing by the Committee, subject to the voting outcome of course. Also the ideas he has for utilising unoccupied Apartments have merit and should be explored too.
However, isn't it great to be able to decide for ourselves and discuss in Forum, rather than be 'guided' as previously by Committees? Well done to our current Committee for allowing Owners to decide for themselves. We are sorry however, that you didn't receive any nominations for other Owners to join the Committee and relieve some of the burden on your shoulders. On the positive side, at least you will now be used to working together and as the LRHC moves into a more positive future, perhaps you will pick up more recruits.
We are very much looking forward to the AGM and hearing about a positive future, rather than negatives from the past. We hope to see you there.
With respect to those who have presented the Resolution, surely it should have been offered as two separate Motions? We personally are now in a quandary as we believe others will be too: like others, we may wish to vote for selling Glenrannoch House, but not the Apartments, or vice versa. As already referred to by other Members does 'Apartments' mean the Studios too? Many Owners will not wish to give up their much loved Apartment/Studio and will feel bulldozed? Of course their feelings and opinions matter! We stayed in a Studio when we first bought into LRHC and loved it, so we're sure many current Owners will do too. Is it really feasible for the Club to support compensating all of these 'Lodgeless' Owners, as Stuart refers to in his calculations? Would we make a significant profit on selling Glenrannoch and would any money generated be worth it? We may need it again in the future? We think Ronnie's idea of approaching Nick Pattie to ascertain his possible interest is a sound one and worth pursuing by the Committee, subject to the voting outcome of course. Also the ideas he has for utilising unoccupied Apartments have merit and should be explored too.
However, isn't it great to be able to decide for ourselves and discuss in Forum, rather than be 'guided' as previously by Committees? Well done to our current Committee for allowing Owners to decide for themselves. We are sorry however, that you didn't receive any nominations for other Owners to join the Committee and relieve some of the burden on your shoulders. On the positive side, at least you will now be used to working together and as the LRHC moves into a more positive future, perhaps you will pick up more recruits.
We are very much looking forward to the AGM and hearing about a positive future, rather than negatives from the past. We hope to see you there.
We have been members of LRHC since 1993. I know, New kids on the block!! We have voted at every AGM since then and been able to attend 2. Since the ousting of MacDonald's we have been increasingly at odds with most of the resolutions which have been passed, especially the Empire Building ones, and which have been voted in by a majority of members. Hardly any of the committee applicants which we voted for made it past the post. We have watched the club go down the pan and almost disappear around the u-bend. In our opinion, this has been down to lack of sound, professional, advice, not least from our solicitors and the accountants appointed by OUR committees. We shall not be voting at any AGM until such time as a professional management company is installed.
Our message to all voters is:-
Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.
Our message to all voters is:-
Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.
Dear All,
First, I would like to apologise for my genuine error in my submission, I accept age is not an excuse, nor is ignorance of procedure but I can't offer any alternative reason. I would also like to thank our Committee for accepting my resolution as submitted.
I proposed the sale of Glenrannoch House and the use of the apartment/studio blocks to be used as staff accommodation with the genuine thought that it will benefit the Club as a whole.
I have no ulterior motives in proposing the sale and the change of use of the apartments and studios. Having been a member since the Barrett days I have never 'raised my head above the parapet' feeling that the business goings on were too involved and complicated for the average owner, however we are led to believe the Club is in dire straits and therefore dire measures are required to bring us back from the brink of bankruptcy.
I certainly have no desire to hurt or upset any member but the fact remains if we don't do something we won't have a Club to go to. Surely an alternative unit, as good or better, in order to secure the future of our Club must be preferable to bankruptcy and no unit and no Club.
I would urge any member to please consider voting for my resolutions. Let's get our Club out of debt; get onto a sound financial footing; use our maintenance fees to upgrade our units giving priority to the units that have had nothing done to them. Add that to everything positive we have access to from the Hotel and we could have a bright future to look forward to.
BUT
I think a good first step is to sell Glenrannoch House. Please vote these submissions through.
First, I would like to apologise for my genuine error in my submission, I accept age is not an excuse, nor is ignorance of procedure but I can't offer any alternative reason. I would also like to thank our Committee for accepting my resolution as submitted.
I proposed the sale of Glenrannoch House and the use of the apartment/studio blocks to be used as staff accommodation with the genuine thought that it will benefit the Club as a whole.
I have no ulterior motives in proposing the sale and the change of use of the apartments and studios. Having been a member since the Barrett days I have never 'raised my head above the parapet' feeling that the business goings on were too involved and complicated for the average owner, however we are led to believe the Club is in dire straits and therefore dire measures are required to bring us back from the brink of bankruptcy.
I certainly have no desire to hurt or upset any member but the fact remains if we don't do something we won't have a Club to go to. Surely an alternative unit, as good or better, in order to secure the future of our Club must be preferable to bankruptcy and no unit and no Club.
I would urge any member to please consider voting for my resolutions. Let's get our Club out of debt; get onto a sound financial footing; use our maintenance fees to upgrade our units giving priority to the units that have had nothing done to them. Add that to everything positive we have access to from the Hotel and we could have a bright future to look forward to.
BUT
I think a good first step is to sell Glenrannoch House. Please vote these submissions through.
Comments on Resolution 1
(Sale of Glenrannoch House AND conversion of apartment/studio block into staff accommodation)
I urge the proposers to withdraw the resolution as it stands. There are two completely different issues tied together in its current format. This doesn’t seem right. If the promoters are confident of their arguments then why not separate the issues? I wonder whether the motion might actually not be legal - the club may need to seek advice as to whether there could be legal challenges (a) if this resolution were put before the members in its current form and (b) if it were put into action. Specific lodge weeks have been bought ‘in perpetuity’ -a problem for some, but not for all - where would this go in the Scottish courts if people were moved against their will on the basis of a resolution that didn’t have sound legal construction?
With regards to the first part of the resolution, as a club member for 38 years I am against the idea of trying to move out current apartment/studio owners into other accommodation for a number of reasons, including the following.
1.Why turn an asset into an overhead? The block of apartments/studios is a revenue earning part of the resort. Income is gained through sales of lodges, management fees, rentals of the club’s own apartments/studios and resale fees. They may not have performed as well as they might have done in recent years but that’s not to say they can’t in the future. They do need some TLC and money spent on them, but think of the potential they have. As the Loch Rannoch Hotel re-establishes itself and increases the leisure activities it is offering. The potential for the whole resort, including the very well placed apartments/studios, is much improved and I have already noticed an uplift in “the atmosphere” of the resort.
Rannoch appears to be becoming more of a ‘cool’ place to visit. Younger folk who are more likely to be interested in activity-based holidays may well be very interested in renting apartments and studios (or buying, if they are bitten by the Rannoch bug – no pun intended) – and what a great way to introduce them to the whole resort. Perhaps this could be a step towards reducing the age profile of the club!
2.The financial costs of forcing these changes through could be high. There would be loss of revenue from sales/rent and management fees of the “replacement” lodges that would be handed over (for no fee!) to those who currently own apartments/lodges and pay annual fees for those. There are no figures accompanying the resolution and it seems foolhardy to vote on it without detailed information on a range of issues. For example, I have no data on the number of apartment/studio owners who would have to be moved. To use a low estimate of 200 owners (i.e. under 25% of the 816 weeks available) - does the club have the capacity to move these owners to other properties on the estate at the times of year they would want? The potential cost to LRHC of lost sales, rentals and management fees for the replacement lodges must also sizeable - before voting, club members should have this information. We need to consider not only the “forever” loss to the club of rentals and sales of properties turned into accommodation for employees (whose weekly rent would be far lower than the management fees, I guess, but again have no actual data) but also this loss of the income to be made on lodges to which apartment/studio owners would be moved. This includes the extra income which four-berth lodges generate over two-berth lodges. Would studio owners be asked to pay the higher management fees for the latter if they were moved, or would they be offered four-berth lodges for the lower fee applicable to studios? Again, this information should be available to inform members’ voting decisions.
Furthermore, there could be extra financial issues for owners of all lodges at the estate if the apartments/studios are turned over to staff accommodation. The overheads of running the club would be spread over a smaller number of units. We need to know whether this would mean the annual management fees would have to be increased for everyone, as seems likely, and by how much. For example, taking the LRHC budget estimates for 2022, they show the club’s overheads as totalling £440,560 (excluding any figures referring to Glenrannoch House). It is normal business practice to spread the cost of overheads over the total number of earning units in a business, so I have made an estimate. From memory, so I may be wrong, there are 85 units at LRHC. Of these 16 units are apartments/studios. Working on the basis of the 85 units having the potential for a maximum of 51 weeks per year (1 week maintenance) there are a total of 4335 weeks available at the resort. Of these weeks, 816 weeks would be lost if the apartments/studios were decommissioned to become staff accommodation. The upshot of this scenario could be that the £440,560 overheads would be distributed over 3,519 unit weeks, instead of the 4335. My rough estimate is that this would increase management fees to all owners by £24.00 for each week they own - nearly £30.00with VAT on top. Please note, this increase is purely for the realignment of overheads. My figures cannot be precise because I don’t know the principle used for allocating overheads or how many weeks per annum are likely to be able to be sold or rented out – I suppose that it wouldn’t be 51 out of 52. However, the principle is the same. Overheads have to be accounted for whether it is out of 51 weeks or 35 weeks and ultimately they need to be recouped from the owners of all the lodges.
3.I expect that there would be a cost of renovating apartments/studios to provide suitable accommodation for club workers. Presumably the employees can’t just walk into an unaltered holiday apartment to live on a long term basis. What about costs incurred as a result of becoming landlords to tenants in this block – would they be more onerous than Glenrannoch House (for example, safety measures, insurance etc)?. Costing figures are also required for this aspect of the proposed changeover.
In conclusion, it would be better to revisit Resolution 1 and drop either all of it or at least the first part from the AGM until a full financial analysis has been carried out with regards to both parts and the legality of trying to oust owners from their property has been explored.
John Robson - Apt 14 week 26
(Sale of Glenrannoch House AND conversion of apartment/studio block into staff accommodation)
I urge the proposers to withdraw the resolution as it stands. There are two completely different issues tied together in its current format. This doesn’t seem right. If the promoters are confident of their arguments then why not separate the issues? I wonder whether the motion might actually not be legal - the club may need to seek advice as to whether there could be legal challenges (a) if this resolution were put before the members in its current form and (b) if it were put into action. Specific lodge weeks have been bought ‘in perpetuity’ -a problem for some, but not for all - where would this go in the Scottish courts if people were moved against their will on the basis of a resolution that didn’t have sound legal construction?
With regards to the first part of the resolution, as a club member for 38 years I am against the idea of trying to move out current apartment/studio owners into other accommodation for a number of reasons, including the following.
1.Why turn an asset into an overhead? The block of apartments/studios is a revenue earning part of the resort. Income is gained through sales of lodges, management fees, rentals of the club’s own apartments/studios and resale fees. They may not have performed as well as they might have done in recent years but that’s not to say they can’t in the future. They do need some TLC and money spent on them, but think of the potential they have. As the Loch Rannoch Hotel re-establishes itself and increases the leisure activities it is offering. The potential for the whole resort, including the very well placed apartments/studios, is much improved and I have already noticed an uplift in “the atmosphere” of the resort.
Rannoch appears to be becoming more of a ‘cool’ place to visit. Younger folk who are more likely to be interested in activity-based holidays may well be very interested in renting apartments and studios (or buying, if they are bitten by the Rannoch bug – no pun intended) – and what a great way to introduce them to the whole resort. Perhaps this could be a step towards reducing the age profile of the club!
2.The financial costs of forcing these changes through could be high. There would be loss of revenue from sales/rent and management fees of the “replacement” lodges that would be handed over (for no fee!) to those who currently own apartments/lodges and pay annual fees for those. There are no figures accompanying the resolution and it seems foolhardy to vote on it without detailed information on a range of issues. For example, I have no data on the number of apartment/studio owners who would have to be moved. To use a low estimate of 200 owners (i.e. under 25% of the 816 weeks available) - does the club have the capacity to move these owners to other properties on the estate at the times of year they would want? The potential cost to LRHC of lost sales, rentals and management fees for the replacement lodges must also sizeable - before voting, club members should have this information. We need to consider not only the “forever” loss to the club of rentals and sales of properties turned into accommodation for employees (whose weekly rent would be far lower than the management fees, I guess, but again have no actual data) but also this loss of the income to be made on lodges to which apartment/studio owners would be moved. This includes the extra income which four-berth lodges generate over two-berth lodges. Would studio owners be asked to pay the higher management fees for the latter if they were moved, or would they be offered four-berth lodges for the lower fee applicable to studios? Again, this information should be available to inform members’ voting decisions.
Furthermore, there could be extra financial issues for owners of all lodges at the estate if the apartments/studios are turned over to staff accommodation. The overheads of running the club would be spread over a smaller number of units. We need to know whether this would mean the annual management fees would have to be increased for everyone, as seems likely, and by how much. For example, taking the LRHC budget estimates for 2022, they show the club’s overheads as totalling £440,560 (excluding any figures referring to Glenrannoch House). It is normal business practice to spread the cost of overheads over the total number of earning units in a business, so I have made an estimate. From memory, so I may be wrong, there are 85 units at LRHC. Of these 16 units are apartments/studios. Working on the basis of the 85 units having the potential for a maximum of 51 weeks per year (1 week maintenance) there are a total of 4335 weeks available at the resort. Of these weeks, 816 weeks would be lost if the apartments/studios were decommissioned to become staff accommodation. The upshot of this scenario could be that the £440,560 overheads would be distributed over 3,519 unit weeks, instead of the 4335. My rough estimate is that this would increase management fees to all owners by £24.00 for each week they own - nearly £30.00with VAT on top. Please note, this increase is purely for the realignment of overheads. My figures cannot be precise because I don’t know the principle used for allocating overheads or how many weeks per annum are likely to be able to be sold or rented out – I suppose that it wouldn’t be 51 out of 52. However, the principle is the same. Overheads have to be accounted for whether it is out of 51 weeks or 35 weeks and ultimately they need to be recouped from the owners of all the lodges.
3.I expect that there would be a cost of renovating apartments/studios to provide suitable accommodation for club workers. Presumably the employees can’t just walk into an unaltered holiday apartment to live on a long term basis. What about costs incurred as a result of becoming landlords to tenants in this block – would they be more onerous than Glenrannoch House (for example, safety measures, insurance etc)?. Costing figures are also required for this aspect of the proposed changeover.
In conclusion, it would be better to revisit Resolution 1 and drop either all of it or at least the first part from the AGM until a full financial analysis has been carried out with regards to both parts and the legality of trying to oust owners from their property has been explored.
John Robson - Apt 14 week 26
Hi all.
Many thanks to John Robson for the above reply. He has articulated many of the concerns I have most concisely.
I appreciate the proposer of the motion may well be correct in the need to dispose of Glenrannoch, but sadly the change of use proposed for the apartments/studios has not been properly addressed and examined.
I cannot attend the AGM, therefore today I sent in my postal vote, which rejects the proposal regarding Glenrannoch and the apartments. In a way I am sad to have done that, but felt I had no other option due to the ‘all or nothing’ nature of the proposal.
Regards
John Martin
Otter 3, 28/29
Many thanks to John Robson for the above reply. He has articulated many of the concerns I have most concisely.
I appreciate the proposer of the motion may well be correct in the need to dispose of Glenrannoch, but sadly the change of use proposed for the apartments/studios has not been properly addressed and examined.
I cannot attend the AGM, therefore today I sent in my postal vote, which rejects the proposal regarding Glenrannoch and the apartments. In a way I am sad to have done that, but felt I had no other option due to the ‘all or nothing’ nature of the proposal.
Regards
John Martin
Otter 3, 28/29
Thank you Mr Robson for your interesting analysis, I'm not clear if it take into account that the Club apparently owns 40% of the apartments/studios with an additional 25% of Apartment/studio Owners having already stated their wishes to sell their week, making a total potential of 65%, Studios/apartments, thus leaving the remaining 35% of Owners some of whom, like yourself, may wish for the status quo to continue, whilst others may fancy the prospect of moving to a larger bedded unit and others still undecided.
The point of the Motion being that, without further Finances, how can the Refurbishment Programme progress? Is it fair on owners of weeks in Units that have to date not even been partially refurbished and have had to pay the full Management Fees? Such Units can neither be rented out; exchanged or sold, losing the Club money.
Selling Glenrannoch House appears to be a reasonable thing to do in order to release the equity within it and use it to resume the Refurbishment Programme, but the stumbling block then is, what of the Staff who reside within Glenrannoch House? Is it reasonable to suggest the Club gives the Staff three months notice to find alternative accommodation? The Club never provided Staff with accommodation until EU staff started being employed at the Club and Glenrannoch House was purchased. Or does the Club own enough weeks within the studios/Apartments to accommodate staff without asking owners to move to larger units? Which is the better option? And if 75% of owners do NOT vote in support of the sale of Glenrannoch House, and we have no other means of raising further Finances, do we just liquidate the Club and we ALL lose our weeks holiday at Rannoch?
These are just a few of the dilemmas we as owners must face up to and come up with answers for, as the Committee, at the end of the day, are mere Owners like ourselves and not Magicians who can conjour up cash for the Club.
The Club is in this dire financial position because for decades far too many owners chose to either look the other way or worse, shout down as 'Trouble Makers' any Owner who raised their concerns over the way earlier Committees were running the Club and their lack of accountability in respect of the Club's Finances at AGMs. It is therefore refreshing to see Owners debate Motions on the Forum, as previous Committees would not have permitted such debates to take place, yet another point of thanks due to our excellent present Committee chaired by John Hirst.
Ronnie Robertson
I do appreciate that Mr Robertson is acting with the best interests of the club in mind. I just think that we need to approach things in a different way. In my view the key issues to resolve are:
(i) withdrawing Resolution 1, as there are two completely different issues tied together in its current format (please note, this is not a ploy to to put off dealing with the financial issues concerning the club as it would be possible to call an Extraordinary General Meeting [EGM] to deal with these which, I guess, could be could be called fairly quickly);
(ii) to collect information for circulation to club members about the financial, operational and legal issues concerning the ownership of Glenrannoch House, and about how these issues are affecting the viability of LRHC in general.
Once the research into the current situation has been completed, then an EGM could be called. Perhaps a new resolution could be proposed to replace the current AGM Resolution 1. Something along the lines of the following might be appropriate:
Resolution 1 (for suggested EGM)
The LRHC should engage independent consultants to assess the financial, operational and legal issues concerning the club’s ownership of Glenrannoch House with a view to making recommendations on varying options for action for the club to consider, in order to stabilise the financial situation of the undertaking.
The problem of accommodation for staff could be then looked at separately, with the advantages and disadvantages of a range of options all given thorough consideration.
I accept that such a step would have cost implications for LRHC. However, I cannot see the benefit of making wide-ranging changes, which fundamentally affect the club and its members, without having full access to relevant information.
John Robson
(i) withdrawing Resolution 1, as there are two completely different issues tied together in its current format (please note, this is not a ploy to to put off dealing with the financial issues concerning the club as it would be possible to call an Extraordinary General Meeting [EGM] to deal with these which, I guess, could be could be called fairly quickly);
(ii) to collect information for circulation to club members about the financial, operational and legal issues concerning the ownership of Glenrannoch House, and about how these issues are affecting the viability of LRHC in general.
Once the research into the current situation has been completed, then an EGM could be called. Perhaps a new resolution could be proposed to replace the current AGM Resolution 1. Something along the lines of the following might be appropriate:
Resolution 1 (for suggested EGM)
The LRHC should engage independent consultants to assess the financial, operational and legal issues concerning the club’s ownership of Glenrannoch House with a view to making recommendations on varying options for action for the club to consider, in order to stabilise the financial situation of the undertaking.
The problem of accommodation for staff could be then looked at separately, with the advantages and disadvantages of a range of options all given thorough consideration.
I accept that such a step would have cost implications for LRHC. However, I cannot see the benefit of making wide-ranging changes, which fundamentally affect the club and its members, without having full access to relevant information.
John Robson
To change a motion at this stage or any stage would in my opinion be unconstitutional.
For years there have been votes on motions which were allowed, but comments made by committees to sway owners which we have unfortunately discovered affected the Club, despite pleas by owners.
It's a bit like Brexit. Lol.
I am not personally against discussing this motion in detail again after the AGM at an EGM, if required however it must be on either a yes vote or a no vote.
Stuart
For years there have been votes on motions which were allowed, but comments made by committees to sway owners which we have unfortunately discovered affected the Club, despite pleas by owners.
It's a bit like Brexit. Lol.
I am not personally against discussing this motion in detail again after the AGM at an EGM, if required however it must be on either a yes vote or a no vote.
Stuart
It seems to me that the last 6 posts here confirm my opinion that we are a rudderless ship. We are all, mostly anyway, individual little islands without external communications. A knowledgeable figurehead is required to provide a steady hand on the tiller. Eventually even a juggernaut will change course without any external influence. I think I will not live to see that day. We have approximately 4000 members and I don't know the opinions of more than a dozen.
Mr Waddingham, your thoughts have been similar to the ones I and others have expressed at AGMs for decades! LRHC was a rudderless ship heading for the rocks whilst the various Captains and Crew (Chairpersons and Committee) relaxed on the deck enjoying the seascape. Fortunately we now have Captain John Hirst and his Crew on board but they have had to spend the best part of the past year quite literally bailing out our 'ship' to prevent it from sinking out of sight. They have asked, nay pleaded for assistance from other owners to help carry the load, but very few have stepped forward whilst a great many others merely poured derision on their sterling efforts to save the Club and their week's holiday. That is a huge part of the problem, a large portion of owners merely want to enjoy a 'stress free week at Rannoch' pay their Management fees and have no other interest in the Club, they don't even vote! This may be fine if we had a professional Management Company overseeing the Club, but unfortunately we dont, since owners voted to run it ourselves, but this resulted in it being run by volunteer owners with very little business acumen and gigantic EGOS! Result ..... The mess we are still trying to clear up and recover from. We have a great Captain and crew on board, but we are still in stormy waters and need many more hands on board!
Have the Committee managed to secure the 'Forensic search of the Accounts' we hoped for in order to find out what happened to all OUR Management Fees over the past decade or even past few years?
Will ANYONE be held accountable if Fraud or even gross betrayal of Trust is discovered? .........
So many questions have gone unanswered for years, with one excuse or another, including the one most often used by large Corporate bodies, ie 'The Confidentiality Clause'. I am hopeful, that clarity on at least a few of the so far unanswered questions will be given at the AGM whilst others given in the forth coming months/year.
The owners posting on this forum may have different perspectives and opinions resulting in interesting debates, but the one thing that unites us all is our concern for the Club and our love of Rannoch!
Ronnie Robertson
Have the Committee managed to secure the 'Forensic search of the Accounts' we hoped for in order to find out what happened to all OUR Management Fees over the past decade or even past few years?
Will ANYONE be held accountable if Fraud or even gross betrayal of Trust is discovered? .........
So many questions have gone unanswered for years, with one excuse or another, including the one most often used by large Corporate bodies, ie 'The Confidentiality Clause'. I am hopeful, that clarity on at least a few of the so far unanswered questions will be given at the AGM whilst others given in the forth coming months/year.
The owners posting on this forum may have different perspectives and opinions resulting in interesting debates, but the one thing that unites us all is our concern for the Club and our love of Rannoch!
Ronnie Robertson
Hi Ronnie. I do not, and cannot, disagree with much of what you say but I, like many other members, have no business experience/qualifications, and live a day's travel from Kinloch Rannoch. The only ways we can get information is from “The Committee” newsletters and from an occasional dive into social media and this club website. My previous comment was meant to convey the fact that “A FEW” members here are deeply divided on this 1 topic. As a guesstimate, I would say 20 members are active online. How on earth are the rest of us supposed to do due diligence before voting? In my opinion, the committee MUST give us guidance as no-one else can. I applaud those who volunteer for the committee but history as shown that they don't all do it for the best reasons.
Hi Fred,
There lies the issue.
We are in this position because committees of the past gave bad guidance and owners believed them unfortunately.
But that creates a different debate on a management company and despite reservations for many years myself, it could be the way forward.
There lies the issue.
We are in this position because committees of the past gave bad guidance and owners believed them unfortunately.
But that creates a different debate on a management company and despite reservations for many years myself, it could be the way forward.
"We're doomed Mr Mannering" ....... So do we just throw the towel in and shut up shop? Or do we think out of the box? As a number of owners visiting Rannoch this year have been impressed by Nick Pattie's refurbishment of the Rannoch Hotel and the ambiance this has brought to the 'Resort', one idea a few Owners have mentioned is for owners to consider Nick Pattie taking over the Management side of our Club with our Committee liaising between Owners and Management. When one thinks about the possible savings to the Club as various aspects could be shared between Club and Hotel including Reception; Cleaning Staff; Laundry and Maintenance, monies saved would then help pay for the Management Contract. It might be worth considering, or at least approaching Nick Pattie to see if he would be interested as he managed the Club when it was being run by Barrett's during its halcyon days, which Nick is attempting to bring back to Rannoch, and is succeeding thus far, even though we are still in the midst of the Covid Pandemic.
Surely worth a debate?
Ronnie Robertson
Surely worth a debate?
Ronnie Robertson
Good Morning Mr. Robertson ( et al), once again I don't disagree with your suggestions but I think, possibly unintentionally and unwittingly, you have reinforced my previous argument. You say that “ a few members have mentioned...” I would have to say that ONLY a few members COULD suggest Mr. Pattie as most of us, including me,( in excess of 90%?) have never met the gentleman, know nothing about him or his organisation and couldn't possibly consider him without the select few bringing him to our attention. Given the fact that very few members seem to visit this site, your suggestion can only be read by the inner sanctum. Those in the know!!! The sighted advising the unsighted.
I do not have access to an up-to-date Constitution so I am talking off the top but, very shortly, we will have an AGM. Normally some of our committee would step down and the same should happen again next year. That means the only constant in the management is the General Manager, Mr. Deak. I know he is more than competent in his position but so were others and if he chose to leave, or we had another Margaret Noble episode, we would be instantly several steps backwards.
This needs to be sorted yesterday and there are no indications that it is on most people's agendas.
Do we have any evidence that any committee members visit this site? I hold my hands up. I don't know any of them by name except the chairman who sends me a love letter every now and then. Again, in the best of intentions, Fred
I do not have access to an up-to-date Constitution so I am talking off the top but, very shortly, we will have an AGM. Normally some of our committee would step down and the same should happen again next year. That means the only constant in the management is the General Manager, Mr. Deak. I know he is more than competent in his position but so were others and if he chose to leave, or we had another Margaret Noble episode, we would be instantly several steps backwards.
This needs to be sorted yesterday and there are no indications that it is on most people's agendas.
Do we have any evidence that any committee members visit this site? I hold my hands up. I don't know any of them by name except the chairman who sends me a love letter every now and then. Again, in the best of intentions, Fred
Hi Fred,
You are correct with what you say regards limited information, but as concerned owners, I would suggest there would be no distortion of fact from them and they are indeed the constant.
Nick Pattie did a presentation at last AGM and will be at this one which can be joined in person or by zoom.
It would surprise you maybe that a larger proportion of owners do remember him from better times at hotel as he was an excellent manager and fantastic with customer service, and even though a minority may post, a lot more read.
The Unofficial Forum also has a large proportion of owners who read.
I would ask the office to send you an up to date constitution.
Stuart
You are correct with what you say regards limited information, but as concerned owners, I would suggest there would be no distortion of fact from them and they are indeed the constant.
Nick Pattie did a presentation at last AGM and will be at this one which can be joined in person or by zoom.
It would surprise you maybe that a larger proportion of owners do remember him from better times at hotel as he was an excellent manager and fantastic with customer service, and even though a minority may post, a lot more read.
The Unofficial Forum also has a large proportion of owners who read.
I would ask the office to send you an up to date constitution.
Stuart
Good afternoon Fred,
I was having a read over of your post and found it interesting to note that you appeared to think that Mr Deak (?) was the 'only constant in management' I personally couldn't comment since he is so recent an arrival at the Club that I'm unfamiliar with him. We have had at least three, possibly four, General Managers in the past 18months (if one counts the former Chairperson who appointed herself into various paid appointment roles prior to getting asked to leave!).
Whilst I don't mean to be rude, I have heard excuses time and again from a great many owners, that "I don't live near Rannoch so am unfamiliar with what goes on at the Club" or "Only those in the know are aware of what's going on" . In this age of technology anyone, if they really want to, could and should acquaint themselves as to who is taking care of their 'Investment' and that's what owning a Timeshare is, an Investment in LRHC. I don't live near Rannoch and I have never been on the Committee, nor have I met many Committee members in person apart from John Hirst whom I've met at various AGMs, but I ALWAYS ensure I know who and what is going on with any and every Investment I make. It has astonished me over a great many years that so many apparently intelligent owners have swallowed hook; line and sinker most of the absolute guff that has been fed to them by various past Committees without saying "This is not making any sense!" One look at the Accounts should raise the hackles as this is Owners' Management Fees some Committee members threw at their own personal 'vanity projects' to boost their own egos, all the while knowing Owners can't be bothered to raise their heads over the parapet and ask salient questions, they merely agree to whatever tale is being spun to them.
If owners logged into the Alternative Forum (the details of which have been posted on this site over a great many years) they would have been enlightened by local Club owners and LRHC staff as to the high jinx happening at our Club in OUR name during Covid! It even drew comments from Politicians at the Scottish Parliament. There was also the Data Breach which had its own implications! But all that is now water under the bridge, as the present Committee took over control following the zoom AGM leading us towards calmer waters, but we are not quite there yet.
As for Nick Pattie, much has been written of him in the Alternative Forum, whilst founding owners like myself remember the Golden Age of the Club and Hotel when both were being run by Nick Pattie on behalf of Barrett, you can also read about him in Hospitality Business websites. So let's hope and pray the 'Constant' at the Club is the present Chairman and most, if not all, of the present Committee. otherwise we are really doomed. Have a good weekend!
Ronnie
I was having a read over of your post and found it interesting to note that you appeared to think that Mr Deak (?) was the 'only constant in management' I personally couldn't comment since he is so recent an arrival at the Club that I'm unfamiliar with him. We have had at least three, possibly four, General Managers in the past 18months (if one counts the former Chairperson who appointed herself into various paid appointment roles prior to getting asked to leave!).
Whilst I don't mean to be rude, I have heard excuses time and again from a great many owners, that "I don't live near Rannoch so am unfamiliar with what goes on at the Club" or "Only those in the know are aware of what's going on" . In this age of technology anyone, if they really want to, could and should acquaint themselves as to who is taking care of their 'Investment' and that's what owning a Timeshare is, an Investment in LRHC. I don't live near Rannoch and I have never been on the Committee, nor have I met many Committee members in person apart from John Hirst whom I've met at various AGMs, but I ALWAYS ensure I know who and what is going on with any and every Investment I make. It has astonished me over a great many years that so many apparently intelligent owners have swallowed hook; line and sinker most of the absolute guff that has been fed to them by various past Committees without saying "This is not making any sense!" One look at the Accounts should raise the hackles as this is Owners' Management Fees some Committee members threw at their own personal 'vanity projects' to boost their own egos, all the while knowing Owners can't be bothered to raise their heads over the parapet and ask salient questions, they merely agree to whatever tale is being spun to them.
If owners logged into the Alternative Forum (the details of which have been posted on this site over a great many years) they would have been enlightened by local Club owners and LRHC staff as to the high jinx happening at our Club in OUR name during Covid! It even drew comments from Politicians at the Scottish Parliament. There was also the Data Breach which had its own implications! But all that is now water under the bridge, as the present Committee took over control following the zoom AGM leading us towards calmer waters, but we are not quite there yet.
As for Nick Pattie, much has been written of him in the Alternative Forum, whilst founding owners like myself remember the Golden Age of the Club and Hotel when both were being run by Nick Pattie on behalf of Barrett, you can also read about him in Hospitality Business websites. So let's hope and pray the 'Constant' at the Club is the present Chairman and most, if not all, of the present Committee. otherwise we are really doomed. Have a good weekend!
Ronnie