I have just noticed a committee member has now set up in business in Kinloch Rannoch with an Airbnb.
The business even has its own website.
Having been an avid reader of the club constitution over the years and based on my understanding of Section 175 of the companies act is this possible and can it be construed as a conflict of interest?
This committee member also, I would assume has access to confidential club information.
If this business is considered to be in competition to the club can this committee member remain as it could potentially lose the club much needed and valued income?
IS THIS POSSIBLE?
Must have money to burn since if this was a recent purchase then it attracts Additional dwelling Supplement at 8% of the purchase price and even more if the value of the property is greater than the specified threshold.
Not really a good business prospect for most people.
If however the property which is being referred to is a rented or timeshare property then I would imagine that the “landlord/ landlady” is treading on very shaky ground.
Also position on Commitee would appear ro be comprised.
Hopefully the full members of LRHC will ask relevant questions re this because every single Term owner has been stripped of all rights other than the right to occupy their own lodge and are now banned from attending AGM’s , submitting resolutions or voting at LRHC
Yes this is fact and no satisfactory reason for this course of action has been provided by the Committee.
Not really a good business prospect for most people.
If however the property which is being referred to is a rented or timeshare property then I would imagine that the “landlord/ landlady” is treading on very shaky ground.
Also position on Commitee would appear ro be comprised.
Hopefully the full members of LRHC will ask relevant questions re this because every single Term owner has been stripped of all rights other than the right to occupy their own lodge and are now banned from attending AGM’s , submitting resolutions or voting at LRHC
Yes this is fact and no satisfactory reason for this course of action has been provided by the Committee.
Position on committee is in my opinion on extremely shaky ground as you have stated and totally compromised under the Club constitution.
What makes it potentially even more a conflict of interest is that the named day to day manager is/was an employee of the club and is the spouse of another employee of the club.
What makes it potentially even more a conflict of interest is that the named day to day manager is/was an employee of the club and is the spouse of another employee of the club.
For me and I would think a majority of people would say the same, this transaction should have been declared as soon as it became a possibility.
The reason for that as I have said already, is the Club constitution.
If this has happened, then I would suspect it has been discussed and whatever the outcome, it would be classed as personal club business and dealt with according to club rules.
Looking at the information available I would expect this to have been declared in August as the company set up date was in September and no doubt various conversations were taking place and sale agreed prior to this.
If it were not declared at this time, I would then in my opinion, be asking the said committee to resign position immediately which should be a foregone conclusion anyway with the constitution and in same way,if seller has not been transparent, questions would have to be raised.
The reason for that as I have said already, is the Club constitution.
If this has happened, then I would suspect it has been discussed and whatever the outcome, it would be classed as personal club business and dealt with according to club rules.
Looking at the information available I would expect this to have been declared in August as the company set up date was in September and no doubt various conversations were taking place and sale agreed prior to this.
If it were not declared at this time, I would then in my opinion, be asking the said committee to resign position immediately which should be a foregone conclusion anyway with the constitution and in same way,if seller has not been transparent, questions would have to be raised.
Following a review of this thread, we have made a minor edit to one post to ensure compliance with our forum rules and to protect the club from potential legal issues.
The edit involved removing two words that could be construed as defamatory accusations. The substantive discussion about potential conflicts of interest under the Companies Act Section 175, and references to publicly available information (websites, P&K council records) remain unchanged as these constitute legitimate discussion points based on factual, public information.
We encourage continued civil discussion about club governance matters. Please remember to:
Focus on the merits of ideas and legitimate concerns
Avoid personal attacks or unsubstantiated accusations against committee members or staff
Reference facts and public information when raising concerns
The discussion about potential conflicts of interest is an important governance topic that members have every right to explore, provided it's done respectfully and factually.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in maintaining a constructive forum environment.
Having read the redacted post and in defence of what had been said, my personal opinion is that this particular transaction could be construed as unhealthy for the club.
If it's unhealthy for the club and is a potential breach of the constitution, then the potential impact on owners can have a lasting effect.
For those parties involved please take a good long hard look at their actions and try to understand why such vocabulary was used.
It potentially opens up a can of worms on various levels which when you consider past issues, I thought we had left behind.
If this was not considered by the various parties at the time of any potential transaction at the beginning of any discussions, then the bigger question remains?
If it's unhealthy for the club and is a potential breach of the constitution, then the potential impact on owners can have a lasting effect.
For those parties involved please take a good long hard look at their actions and try to understand why such vocabulary was used.
It potentially opens up a can of worms on various levels which when you consider past issues, I thought we had left behind.
If this was not considered by the various parties at the time of any potential transaction at the beginning of any discussions, then the bigger question remains?