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.
SALE OF GLENRANNOCH HOUSE
I totally concur with all that Duncan Anderson has said and would urge ALL owners, particularly those who have been waiting for decades to have their Lodges Refurbished to seriously consider his proposals and vote for the sale of Glenrannoch House to release cash to complete the Refurbishment Programme making the Club more attractive to Buyers and Renters with the added attraction of access to the newly refurbished Hotel Spa and Activities in an attempt to secure the future of LRHC. Ronnie
Ronnie Robertson
Hi,
First, I would like to apologise for not being able to get to the AGM in person.
When I sent my submissions to Mr Deak on 18th November I asked him to check and confirm I had done it correctly, it appears my submissions should have been sent separately for which I apologised.
I find myself asking why I was not told they needed to be separate? I still had time to resend them correctly using email. It now appears part of my submission is going to be rejected because of problems with the second part.
This, I suspect, is the reason the majority of owners don't get involved.
Surely the AGM is about making suggestions to go forward in the Club. If part of a submission is good and worth following up on then it makes sense that part should be carried forward, looked at, discussed by committee and management and followed through. We, ( the majority of the owners), keep our head under the parapet and don't get involved because it's too complicated and political.
I suggested using the studio/apartment blocks because it seemed like a solution BUT I don't know the technicalities. Perhaps only some are needed. Perhaps there is a solution to be found somewhere in the middle. Surely the AGM should be used for ideas to be taken forward (if they are agreed by the majority) if they are good ones.
Incidentally I don't think the Club should buy people out... if owners in the studio/apartment blocks are happy to hand their units back to the Club with no cost to themselves they should be happy with that. The rest of us have to pay to get rid of our lodges, alternatively an exchange should be the way forward.
First, I would like to apologise for not being able to get to the AGM in person.
When I sent my submissions to Mr Deak on 18th November I asked him to check and confirm I had done it correctly, it appears my submissions should have been sent separately for which I apologised.
I find myself asking why I was not told they needed to be separate? I still had time to resend them correctly using email. It now appears part of my submission is going to be rejected because of problems with the second part.
This, I suspect, is the reason the majority of owners don't get involved.
Surely the AGM is about making suggestions to go forward in the Club. If part of a submission is good and worth following up on then it makes sense that part should be carried forward, looked at, discussed by committee and management and followed through. We, ( the majority of the owners), keep our head under the parapet and don't get involved because it's too complicated and political.
I suggested using the studio/apartment blocks because it seemed like a solution BUT I don't know the technicalities. Perhaps only some are needed. Perhaps there is a solution to be found somewhere in the middle. Surely the AGM should be used for ideas to be taken forward (if they are agreed by the majority) if they are good ones.
Incidentally I don't think the Club should buy people out... if owners in the studio/apartment blocks are happy to hand their units back to the Club with no cost to themselves they should be happy with that. The rest of us have to pay to get rid of our lodges, alternatively an exchange should be the way forward.
No need to apologise, I think if the Office Staff were trained properly they could look over the submissions as soon as they arrived and return any that would be rejected on an administration error, in order that they can be corrected. It is ludicrous to expect all Owners to know exactly what is and what isn't acceptable. Mr Deak isn't that long in post and is possibly still learning the ropes as this will be his first AGM but some of the Admin Staff have been in post long enough one would have thought to have some understanding of the procedures.
In respect of Staff Accommodation, given their are relatively few members of staff permitted to reside within Glenrannoch House, only a limited number of Apartments/studios would be required to accommodate them.
The inconvenience of the limited number of owners being moved to Lodges isn't surely that great when contrasted with the loss of ALL OWNERS' WEEKS at Rannoch should the Club have to close due to lack of Funds, Glenrannoch House being the only equity the Club can easily access.
Ronnie Robertson
In respect of Staff Accommodation, given their are relatively few members of staff permitted to reside within Glenrannoch House, only a limited number of Apartments/studios would be required to accommodate them.
The inconvenience of the limited number of owners being moved to Lodges isn't surely that great when contrasted with the loss of ALL OWNERS' WEEKS at Rannoch should the Club have to close due to lack of Funds, Glenrannoch House being the only equity the Club can easily access.
Ronnie Robertson
I’m sorry that John and I can’t make it to the AGM - we Zoomed in last year and found it interesting but we have other commitments tomorrow. Here are a few thoughts, though.
My opposition to the proposal is not sentimental. I did list out some of the reasons why lodges up the hill are not, as others seem to have assumed, better than the one we have and why the motion is not offering us a big favour. But really, apartment/studio owners are not obliged to give a reason why they shouldn’t be moved out so that Glenrannoch House proceeds can spent refurbishing - well, what? Obviously not the lodges they’ve been “invited” to vacate. Readers may be sure that if John and I are “invited” to move we shall decline.
I’ve tried to put calm postings on the forums but actually I was furious that people should propose ditching other people’s weeks - I wonder whether the idea of emptying a couple of highland lodges for staff could be on the table, too, if club members see that approach as acceptable. (I don’t, to be clear.)
I think it’s a great shame that the proposal to sell the current staff house has been linked with just one idea for accommodating them, because the latter is the problem that needs solving. Maybe the maintenance building at the top of the site could be replaced/enlarged with a staff block. Maybe the Loch Rannoch Conservation Association (LRCA) could be asked if they know of barely-used accommodation around the loch for which the owners would value the income. Maybe the Rannoch Community Trust could be asked whether their newly-acquired community building could have some rental rooms added to it. Maybe both could be asked to offer any other solutions they might think of. Maybe an advert could be put out via these groups and elsewhere (including the shop) for local people to offer digs to staff - some might be glad of income from a lodger or two. If it’s true, as we hear, that The Dunalastair is bussing staff up from Perth, maybe we could share the bus. Maybe there are endless other ideas - these are just a few that came to mind quickly. As in any problem-solving exercise, the pros and cons (to whom), short and long-term, a full set of factors, a range of perspectives, relating to each of the choices we can think of, all need to be thought through, with relevant information gathered. (Credit to Edward de Bono, by the way, for these aspects of a problem solving strategy.)
As to the apartments/studios, with the facilities on the site starting to look up considerably, it’s time to get this ideally-located block up to scratch and marketed properly, whether for sale or rental. We’ve been told that items have been taken from them to replenish bigger lodges - let’s treat them with more respect from now on. Perhaps the proposed lodge-by-lodge analysis of maintenance and refurbishment spend would be revealing. As electricity prices go up, a unit with no stairwell to waste heat on could be attractive to many folk.
We know people whose friendships have been wrecked by trying to get two pairs of adults into an apartment, but they might be ideal for a couple with one or two youngsters, and certainly for couples who don’t have families in tow. Maybe there are long-standing owners of weeks in the three-bedroomed lodges whose families have moved on who would like to swap them in for an apartment?
What happened to the idea of putting secure cycle storage in the undercroft of the block? With that facility the studios could be marketed to the many serious cyclists who enjoy the area (and those who would, given adverts in the right magazines). There are many active retired people in U3A to whom the apartments might appeal, if only they saw them advertised in the organisation’s magazine. How about striking a deal on rentals with LRCA for people who apply to them for Rannoch fishing permits?
How about we offer a free week to the architects of McCarthy Stone, Cognatum, et al in return for a few thoughts about how to improve their suitability for less mobile folk? Nice walk-in showers in some of them, maybe? If there’s structural work to do on the apartment/studio block, wouldn’t this also be the case if it were used for staff? And if the structure is being worked on, maybe this is the time to consider putting in the lift that would make these lodges the absolute best for people who struggle on steps (of which there are plenty to some of the lodges on the hill) . Expensive, no doubt, but let’s remember that if we turn the apartment/studio block over to staff we’re giving up potential income not just now but for years to come, if not “in perpetuity”. We haven’t been given any proper data but up to 50 x 8 x studio price plus up to 50 x 8 x apartment price, even if only partly full, is a massive amount of income to reject for the foreseeable future, so perhaps worth getting some up-to-date quotes. Or how about about an access-compliant path on the rising ground to the right of the block (which used to be the start of a trim trail, after all)?
The past need not be the future. This block has fantastic potential for bringing in new people, given some thought and the will. I don’t say I have the answer, but I don’t believe that sacrificing the apartment block is it.
Fern
My opposition to the proposal is not sentimental. I did list out some of the reasons why lodges up the hill are not, as others seem to have assumed, better than the one we have and why the motion is not offering us a big favour. But really, apartment/studio owners are not obliged to give a reason why they shouldn’t be moved out so that Glenrannoch House proceeds can spent refurbishing - well, what? Obviously not the lodges they’ve been “invited” to vacate. Readers may be sure that if John and I are “invited” to move we shall decline.
I’ve tried to put calm postings on the forums but actually I was furious that people should propose ditching other people’s weeks - I wonder whether the idea of emptying a couple of highland lodges for staff could be on the table, too, if club members see that approach as acceptable. (I don’t, to be clear.)
I think it’s a great shame that the proposal to sell the current staff house has been linked with just one idea for accommodating them, because the latter is the problem that needs solving. Maybe the maintenance building at the top of the site could be replaced/enlarged with a staff block. Maybe the Loch Rannoch Conservation Association (LRCA) could be asked if they know of barely-used accommodation around the loch for which the owners would value the income. Maybe the Rannoch Community Trust could be asked whether their newly-acquired community building could have some rental rooms added to it. Maybe both could be asked to offer any other solutions they might think of. Maybe an advert could be put out via these groups and elsewhere (including the shop) for local people to offer digs to staff - some might be glad of income from a lodger or two. If it’s true, as we hear, that The Dunalastair is bussing staff up from Perth, maybe we could share the bus. Maybe there are endless other ideas - these are just a few that came to mind quickly. As in any problem-solving exercise, the pros and cons (to whom), short and long-term, a full set of factors, a range of perspectives, relating to each of the choices we can think of, all need to be thought through, with relevant information gathered. (Credit to Edward de Bono, by the way, for these aspects of a problem solving strategy.)
As to the apartments/studios, with the facilities on the site starting to look up considerably, it’s time to get this ideally-located block up to scratch and marketed properly, whether for sale or rental. We’ve been told that items have been taken from them to replenish bigger lodges - let’s treat them with more respect from now on. Perhaps the proposed lodge-by-lodge analysis of maintenance and refurbishment spend would be revealing. As electricity prices go up, a unit with no stairwell to waste heat on could be attractive to many folk.
We know people whose friendships have been wrecked by trying to get two pairs of adults into an apartment, but they might be ideal for a couple with one or two youngsters, and certainly for couples who don’t have families in tow. Maybe there are long-standing owners of weeks in the three-bedroomed lodges whose families have moved on who would like to swap them in for an apartment?
What happened to the idea of putting secure cycle storage in the undercroft of the block? With that facility the studios could be marketed to the many serious cyclists who enjoy the area (and those who would, given adverts in the right magazines). There are many active retired people in U3A to whom the apartments might appeal, if only they saw them advertised in the organisation’s magazine. How about striking a deal on rentals with LRCA for people who apply to them for Rannoch fishing permits?
How about we offer a free week to the architects of McCarthy Stone, Cognatum, et al in return for a few thoughts about how to improve their suitability for less mobile folk? Nice walk-in showers in some of them, maybe? If there’s structural work to do on the apartment/studio block, wouldn’t this also be the case if it were used for staff? And if the structure is being worked on, maybe this is the time to consider putting in the lift that would make these lodges the absolute best for people who struggle on steps (of which there are plenty to some of the lodges on the hill) . Expensive, no doubt, but let’s remember that if we turn the apartment/studio block over to staff we’re giving up potential income not just now but for years to come, if not “in perpetuity”. We haven’t been given any proper data but up to 50 x 8 x studio price plus up to 50 x 8 x apartment price, even if only partly full, is a massive amount of income to reject for the foreseeable future, so perhaps worth getting some up-to-date quotes. Or how about about an access-compliant path on the rising ground to the right of the block (which used to be the start of a trim trail, after all)?
The past need not be the future. This block has fantastic potential for bringing in new people, given some thought and the will. I don’t say I have the answer, but I don’t believe that sacrificing the apartment block is it.
Fern
Unfortunately Fern, your valuable suggestions for accommodating staff would have been useful years ago, prior to the purchase of Glenrannoch House when other owners like myself were urging the Committee and Owners to reconsider investing all of our money into this White Elephant. We actually proposed many of the suggestions you made but received very little interest or support from other owners. Meanwhile over the years since, Glenrannoch has continued to devalue, which is unusual in most residential properties, but unfortunately Glenrannoch House was neither loved not properly cared for by most of its transient tenants and continues to drain money from our meagre Funds. So let's finally get rid of this White Elephant and release the equity within to help save us ALL from losing our Rannoch week(s) if the Club has to close due to lack of Funds OR are we ALL prepared to dig even deeper into our pockets to bail out the Club yet again to keep the doors from closing?
Use your vote wisely tomorrow, as it may cost us all dearly to ignore the warnings!
Ronnie Robertson
Use your vote wisely tomorrow, as it may cost us all dearly to ignore the warnings!
Ronnie Robertson
i tried 3 times yesterday to log onto zoom, unfortunately I was unsuccessful. From what I understand from this forum there was major disagreement from the Chair and committee about how Submission 1 had been written and submitted. On posting the submission I asked for clarification that I had done it correctly and was given no help at all. Why?
As far as I can see the average owner, who simply wants a peaceful holiday in Scotland do well to keep their head down.
My last thoughts are:-
Why are the Committee so desperate to keep Glenrannoch House? Does any owner agree to their maintenance fees being spent on Glenrannoch House when their lodges are below par.
Lastly, thank you Ronnie, Stuart and Lankylad for your support, I am only sorry I made a mess of my submission.
As far as I can see the average owner, who simply wants a peaceful holiday in Scotland do well to keep their head down.
My last thoughts are:-
Why are the Committee so desperate to keep Glenrannoch House? Does any owner agree to their maintenance fees being spent on Glenrannoch House when their lodges are below par.
Lastly, thank you Ronnie, Stuart and Lankylad for your support, I am only sorry I made a mess of my submission.
WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION 1 a) and b) AT AGM
For Owners wondering about the withdrawal of Motion 1 at the AGM in the apparent absence of the Proposer let me explain. Firstly it was unclear whether the Proposer was on Zoom, I was waiting on the Chairman to invite him to add any comment given that his Motion was setting a precedent. The Proposer having originally asked for assistance in completing the wording of this Motion received none and given this Motion had two parts a) The sale of Glenrannoch House requiring a 70% vote and b) some Apts/Studios being used to accommodate staff requiring 50% vote, it quickly became apparent that if Motion 1 a) was not approved and Motion 1 b) was approved it would result in chaos. The Chairman by this point was tying himself in knots attempting to sort out this dilemma then a somewhat over excited owner stood up choosing to ignore all usual Meeting etiquette and demand the Seconder, whom she had searched out amongst the many profiles on Zoom, speak/withdraw his Motion, I
It
Ronnie Robertson
For Owners wondering about the withdrawal of Motion 1 at the AGM in the apparent absence of the Proposer let me explain. Firstly it was unclear whether the Proposer was on Zoom, I was waiting on the Chairman to invite him to add any comment given that his Motion was setting a precedent. The Proposer having originally asked for assistance in completing the wording of this Motion received none and given this Motion had two parts a) The sale of Glenrannoch House requiring a 70% vote and b) some Apts/Studios being used to accommodate staff requiring 50% vote, it quickly became apparent that if Motion 1 a) was not approved and Motion 1 b) was approved it would result in chaos. The Chairman by this point was tying himself in knots attempting to sort out this dilemma then a somewhat over excited owner stood up choosing to ignore all usual Meeting etiquette and demand the Seconder, whom she had searched out amongst the many profiles on Zoom, speak/withdraw his Motion, I
m not sure which other than the fact she had obviously jumped the procedural gun, rather than allow the Chairman to extend the invitation. With the AGM now in disarray and in the apparent absence of the Proposer, who actually couldnt gain access to the Zoom AGM, I, as Seconder, withdrew the Motion having accepted the Chairmans reassurance that the Committee would do a costing of Glenrannoch House and revisit the whole question at a later date. King Solomon himself couldnt at that point have reached a better compromise.It
s worth noting that at times only 5 Staff Members actually reside in Glenrannoch, therefore very few Apts/Studios would have been required as Staff Units and given the Club actually owns more than 50% of the total Ownership in these Units, added to the number of Owners who would have loved an upgrade to a larger Club owned Unit or to be able to walk away free of charge from their Unit, all owners must take a salutary lesson from this, ie attend the AGM whether in person or on Zoom and have your say. Meanwhile the vocal few who didnt want change may have shot themselves in the foot, as we may ALL lose our Unit Weeks if the Clubs finances don`t considerably increase, particularly if the equity within Glenrannoch House is not released to help pay off our debts. We seem to be reliant on Rentals which may reduce rapidly if access to the Leisure facilities at the Hotel were possibly withdrawn, as couples/families want a lot more than a nice view and Hill walking during their holidays now and owners want their long overdue refurbishment of their Lodges. Ronnie Robertson
OMGosh! Once again I have to apologise for my postings coming up in red script - only on this site does this happen!!!! I have literally spent hours typing and retyping the above post and on each and every occasion the updated Edit just does not appear and it remains in red script. This has been happening for such a long time. When is the Webmaster going to sort out this forum and enable Owners to actually punctuate their posts without the system deciding to change it accordingly and type it in a red script! One owner did come up with the solution, but the Webmaster appeared to ignore it and now it is lost in the ether of posts! I just hope you can decipher my post`s contents.
Ronnie Robertson
Ronnie Robertson
It is interesting that none of the owners who were against this motion have acknowledged or thanked anyone ie the proposer, seconder or chair, for what was a decision for all concerned in allowing further discussion to take place.
It would also still be interesting to know how the vote stood prior to this decision?
It would also still be interesting to know how the vote stood prior to this decision?