Hello to other owners,
Were you as dispirited as I was to hear that the Committee wanted to apply yet another Levy on us? Having read over other owners thoughts on this matter and they came to much the same conclusion as I had that this Levy as presented by the Committee as a Motion was undemocratic offering Owners no alternative Motions to Vote on, when there are patently obvious other choices that could and should be voted on. Therefore the Committee should remove this Motion and have a complete rethink as it is based on flawed assumptions by the Accountant.
At a very basic level one has to remind the Committee that at no time since I, and a great many other owners, bought into Time Share at Rannoch have I ever been asked as an Owner to vote on the LRHC changing it`s Business Model from Time Share only to T/M + short Turnover Rentals on a permanent basis. Whilst I appreciated that as the result of Covid Closures the Club was desperate for Funds and thought that this new short term business might add to our coffers, and perhaps result in increased Sales levels, unfortunately it has become glaringly obvious, particularly when one looks at the July Accounts, that Rentals have NOT generated the necessary profits to make this a viable proposition. Particularly when one considers the Club has had to engage additional Employees at a 50% increase in salaries to cope with the necessary quick turnovers not to mention the Wear & Tear, resulting in additional costs for Bedding; Towels and Furnishings of each Unit. LRHC is a Time Share Club and NOT a B&B or Hotel! It seems now to be modelled on the Dunalistair Hotel/Self Catering Suites, but at Rannoch it is the OWNERS who are subsidising the impact of `short stays/weekend breaks` by being asked yet again by the Committee to pay a LEVY to have THEIR OWN LONG AWAITED UNITS REFURBISHED as our Maintenance Fees and the many `Additional Refurbishment Levies` have apparently had to be used on `other Projects`.
ALTERNATIVES TO AN OWNERS LEVY
I am astonished that the Club`s Accountant`s `Comprehensive Analysis of Financing Alternatives` did not apparently draw the Committee`s attention to the SIGNIFICANT ELEPHANT missing from his own analysis ie the StudioApartments Block. It has been noted for some considerable years by Owners of these Units and also by the significant numbers of negative Rental Reviews, that the whole Building is in need of extensive repair to the Roof; Exterior Cladding; Common Stairways; Internal Parking Bays; Rewiring; not to mention the Total Internal Refurbishment all of which is not in the least financially realistic given that the costs would use up most, if not all, of the Committee`s 5 year Financial Plan and to state otherwise would be disingenuous! The Accountant should also have taken into account the number of weeks actually owned by the Club within this Block and the realistic concept that as a Club we should be dispensing with the HIGH NUMBER of Units we presently own which will vastly increase over the coming decade as original owners number reduce due to age/death. Therefore it is IMPERATIVE if we get a good offer from the LR Hotel to purchase this block, (which they will likely demolish and rebuild) we should grab it with both hands, as this would help reduce this `lead weight` (ie number of Club owned Weeks) from around the Club/Owner`s necks, and at the exact same time the monies received would help us take a massive leap forward in our Refurbishment Programme of the more viable Units.
I think it is UNREASONABLE for the Committee to assume that the Owners will YET AGAIN dig deep into their pockets for a further 5 years to pay a Refurbishment Levy when the obvious compromise to sell off the Studio Apartments Block is an obvious no brainer to any Business minded person.
The Third compromise as some other owners suggest is a reduction of employee numbers at ALL levels which would of course require the Short Term Rentals to be fully reviewed plus Rentals of ALL but the most necessary Vehicles; Staff Promotional Days Out for `HOTEL?` Awards etc dispensed with. Monies then saved would result in the Levy not having to be applied at a time when Owners themselves are having to tighten their belts and may feel on being asked for yet another Levy NO! Enough is enough!
PLEASE ADD YOUR COMMENTS LEST THE COMMITTEE ASSUMES THEY HAVE OWNERS AGREEMENT ON THIS LEVY BEING PUT FORWARD AS THE ONE AND ONLY MOTION IN RESPECT OF REFURBISHMENT COSTS. WE NEED CHOICES SO THEY SHOULD GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD PRIOR TO THE AGM EVEN IF IT MEANS FURTHER TIME IS REQUIRED BY THEM.
Ronnie R.
Top
ALTERNATIVES TO YET ANOTHER OWNERS` LEVY
Hi Ronnie,
Your post is an empassioned plea for this levy to be reconsidered and postponed highlighting many of major mistakes made, not just by the accountant, but by the committee and the GM.
Unfortunately this club, in particular, the owners over many years have suffered and had to endure many bad decisions and futile spending. It is still happening.
We have had " legends in their own minds" and selfish individuals treating owners with contempt for far too long and this levy will be the end for many, myself included.
Those people have taken advantage of owner goodwill many times and I, for one would welcome an opportunity to view the minutes of committee meetings albeit redacted on this forum if there is nothing to hide.
It is an autocratic motion, something I thought would never happen again which is deliberately intended to mislead and hide the true picture of the finances.
It is a proven fact that rentals are not delivering anywhere near the revenue promoted and there is an even bigger issue to come in the next 18- 24 months, not even considered, in my opinion.
At moment we know the club have a min of 1600 weeks. This will increase once the short term ownership deals finish and I reckon this will be anything from 150- 250 weeks added to this number. I have already mentioned this to some and to be honest, the answer was nonsensical.
The studios and apartments are a disaster waiting to happen in my opinion and if we are to receive an offer of £500,000 and don't need to spend another £250,000 ish on refurbs, the owners and the club would be in a better position and a levy would not be required.
Yes and I would love to know the accountants opinion on cost savings, there would have to be savings on staffing levels, but the other establishments, I think would be only too happy to assist.
You mention Dunalastair and in the past few years, I am amazed it has taken till now for them to be so heavily promoted.
That is a concern.
Too much money has been wasted on poor decisions, over inflated salaries, needless expenses and services for other avenues not to be considered.
I implore other owners to make their feelings known for the sake of the many.
Your post is an empassioned plea for this levy to be reconsidered and postponed highlighting many of major mistakes made, not just by the accountant, but by the committee and the GM.
Unfortunately this club, in particular, the owners over many years have suffered and had to endure many bad decisions and futile spending. It is still happening.
We have had " legends in their own minds" and selfish individuals treating owners with contempt for far too long and this levy will be the end for many, myself included.
Those people have taken advantage of owner goodwill many times and I, for one would welcome an opportunity to view the minutes of committee meetings albeit redacted on this forum if there is nothing to hide.
It is an autocratic motion, something I thought would never happen again which is deliberately intended to mislead and hide the true picture of the finances.
It is a proven fact that rentals are not delivering anywhere near the revenue promoted and there is an even bigger issue to come in the next 18- 24 months, not even considered, in my opinion.
At moment we know the club have a min of 1600 weeks. This will increase once the short term ownership deals finish and I reckon this will be anything from 150- 250 weeks added to this number. I have already mentioned this to some and to be honest, the answer was nonsensical.
The studios and apartments are a disaster waiting to happen in my opinion and if we are to receive an offer of £500,000 and don't need to spend another £250,000 ish on refurbs, the owners and the club would be in a better position and a levy would not be required.
Yes and I would love to know the accountants opinion on cost savings, there would have to be savings on staffing levels, but the other establishments, I think would be only too happy to assist.
You mention Dunalastair and in the past few years, I am amazed it has taken till now for them to be so heavily promoted.
That is a concern.
Too much money has been wasted on poor decisions, over inflated salaries, needless expenses and services for other avenues not to be considered.
I implore other owners to make their feelings known for the sake of the many.
I have not the slightest doubt that the committee is acting in our best interests, but a simple clarification of the cost / benefit of retaining the studios etc would be helpful.
Of the rental income of £200k how much is attributable to the studios?
What are the costs associated with the studios? Rental expenses, maintenance, cleaning etc
Therefore what is the net profit of the rental business?
Would the rental income “lost” by a disposal be offset by renting other surplus units?
What would be the cost of having studio owners transfer to other units?
Looking ahead what is the annual cost / benefit of having sold the studios?
Of the rental income of £200k how much is attributable to the studios?
What are the costs associated with the studios? Rental expenses, maintenance, cleaning etc
Therefore what is the net profit of the rental business?
Would the rental income “lost” by a disposal be offset by renting other surplus units?
What would be the cost of having studio owners transfer to other units?
Looking ahead what is the annual cost / benefit of having sold the studios?
Now that we have what is classed as the " detailed accounts" which is another word for creative accounting, it is becoming obvious that rentals is not producing the profit expected.
The accounts do not make sense and with depreciation increasing by £130,426 for last year and capitalisation increasing by £185,015 we appear to be walking into a disaster in years to come as,in my opinion this is unsustainable.
The so called " strict £90,000 on refurbishments" has on the surface been capitalised and over the next 5 years would add another £450,000 which as stated above is creating a worthless asset.
At one time we were told club rentals would bring on £500,000.
The budget for 30/06/23 was £305,000.
The actual was £208,794.
Then you have expenses- booking.com £82,960.
Then you have additional cleaning approx £25,000
Then you have electricity( renter cost is inc) £30,000
This would mean rental net profit is around £70,000 and I feel this is generous.
The actual difference in electricity cost from 2022 is £54,762.
I have also not included the repairs and extra cleaning after some renters have stayed and left lodges in a mess.
Also important in the " accounts" is the voluntary surrenders.
The budgeted figures were £36,000.
The real figure £170,799.
So arguably rentals make no real profit to the club.
Oh and by the way, Glenrannoch House is not covering its cost again for the umpteenth time, and no doubt requires more upgrades, which again costs the owners.
If only we had sold a few years ago when markets were better?
Without the proper facts and costings this motion should be voted against.
The accounts do not make sense and with depreciation increasing by £130,426 for last year and capitalisation increasing by £185,015 we appear to be walking into a disaster in years to come as,in my opinion this is unsustainable.
The so called " strict £90,000 on refurbishments" has on the surface been capitalised and over the next 5 years would add another £450,000 which as stated above is creating a worthless asset.
At one time we were told club rentals would bring on £500,000.
The budget for 30/06/23 was £305,000.
The actual was £208,794.
Then you have expenses- booking.com £82,960.
Then you have additional cleaning approx £25,000
Then you have electricity( renter cost is inc) £30,000
This would mean rental net profit is around £70,000 and I feel this is generous.
The actual difference in electricity cost from 2022 is £54,762.
I have also not included the repairs and extra cleaning after some renters have stayed and left lodges in a mess.
Also important in the " accounts" is the voluntary surrenders.
The budgeted figures were £36,000.
The real figure £170,799.
So arguably rentals make no real profit to the club.
Oh and by the way, Glenrannoch House is not covering its cost again for the umpteenth time, and no doubt requires more upgrades, which again costs the owners.
If only we had sold a few years ago when markets were better?
Without the proper facts and costings this motion should be voted against.
I agree with the above and remain unconvinced and so it would have to be a no from me.
An aspect of the proposed levy Im not comfortable with is the short notice before the AGM in which it was sprungon owners. Could this not have been made known months ago ?
I phoned the office to have a voting form sent out as I haven’t got a printer, I left a message on the answering machine to this effect but to date no form has been received in the post.
As I probably won’t get to the AGM in person, this leaves the option to vote online. Does anyone have experience of how this works ??
An aspect of the proposed levy Im not comfortable with is the short notice before the AGM in which it was sprungon owners. Could this not have been made known months ago ?
I phoned the office to have a voting form sent out as I haven’t got a printer, I left a message on the answering machine to this effect but to date no form has been received in the post.
As I probably won’t get to the AGM in person, this leaves the option to vote online. Does anyone have experience of how this works ??
Dear Stuart,
I appreciate your candid feedback and concerns. It's crucial to address each point you've raised, especially regarding our recent decisions and the proposed levy.
Dunalastair Usage: The decision to utilize Dunalastair facilities was a necessary response to the winter closure of the Loch Rannoch Hotel. As detailed in our festive newsletter, this closure left a significant gap in dining options for our members on Sundays, Mondays, and Tuesdays. We believe our members appreciate having a dining option during these days, and Dunalastair was the most viable alternative. Similarly, the welcome meeting location change was prompted by the same reason. These decisions were made with the best interest of our members in mind, ensuring continuity of services despite external challenges.
Club's Financial and Operational Decisions: The concerns about past decisions, financial management, and the potential impact of additional weeks from short-term ownership deals are duly noted. I assure you, each decision is made after thorough deliberation, considering the club's long-term viability and member satisfaction.
Rentals and Future Strategies: The assertion that rentals aren't delivering expected revenue requires a nuanced understanding. While it's true that rentals have not met some initial projections, they remain a crucial revenue stream, offsetting operational costs and benefiting members who choose to rent their weeks. Our strategy involves balancing rentals with lodge sales, ensuring the club's financial stability. As for the studios and apartments, we are constantly evaluating their performance and potential refurbishments to make informed decisions that align with the club’s and members' best interests.
Staffing and Cost Savings: We continuously assess our operational costs, including staffing and expenses, to identify possible savings. Collaborating with other establishments, as you suggested, is an option we remain open to, always aiming to optimize our resources for the club’s benefit.
Your insights are valuable, and we encourage open dialogue. Our goal is to make decisions that are in the best interest of our members and the club's future, and we welcome constructive suggestions from all our members.
I appreciate your candid feedback and concerns. It's crucial to address each point you've raised, especially regarding our recent decisions and the proposed levy.
Dunalastair Usage: The decision to utilize Dunalastair facilities was a necessary response to the winter closure of the Loch Rannoch Hotel. As detailed in our festive newsletter, this closure left a significant gap in dining options for our members on Sundays, Mondays, and Tuesdays. We believe our members appreciate having a dining option during these days, and Dunalastair was the most viable alternative. Similarly, the welcome meeting location change was prompted by the same reason. These decisions were made with the best interest of our members in mind, ensuring continuity of services despite external challenges.
Club's Financial and Operational Decisions: The concerns about past decisions, financial management, and the potential impact of additional weeks from short-term ownership deals are duly noted. I assure you, each decision is made after thorough deliberation, considering the club's long-term viability and member satisfaction.
Rentals and Future Strategies: The assertion that rentals aren't delivering expected revenue requires a nuanced understanding. While it's true that rentals have not met some initial projections, they remain a crucial revenue stream, offsetting operational costs and benefiting members who choose to rent their weeks. Our strategy involves balancing rentals with lodge sales, ensuring the club's financial stability. As for the studios and apartments, we are constantly evaluating their performance and potential refurbishments to make informed decisions that align with the club’s and members' best interests.
Staffing and Cost Savings: We continuously assess our operational costs, including staffing and expenses, to identify possible savings. Collaborating with other establishments, as you suggested, is an option we remain open to, always aiming to optimize our resources for the club’s benefit.
Your insights are valuable, and we encourage open dialogue. Our goal is to make decisions that are in the best interest of our members and the club's future, and we welcome constructive suggestions from all our members.
LAMO003 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 10:49 pm Hi Ronnie,
Your post is an empassioned plea for this levy to be reconsidered and postponed highlighting many of major mistakes made, not just by the accountant, but by the committee and the GM.
Unfortunately this club, in particular, the owners over many years have suffered and had to endure many bad decisions and futile spending. It is still happening.
We have had " legends in their own minds" and selfish individuals treating owners with contempt for far too long and this levy will be the end for many, myself included.
Those people have taken advantage of owner goodwill many times and I, for one would welcome an opportunity to view the minutes of committee meetings albeit redacted on this forum if there is nothing to hide.
It is an autocratic motion, something I thought would never happen again which is deliberately intended to mislead and hide the true picture of the finances.
It is a proven fact that rentals are not delivering anywhere near the revenue promoted and there is an even bigger issue to come in the next 18- 24 months, not even considered, in my opinion.
At moment we know the club have a min of 1600 weeks. This will increase once the short term ownership deals finish and I reckon this will be anything from 150- 250 weeks added to this number. I have already mentioned this to some and to be honest, the answer was nonsensical.
The studios and apartments are a disaster waiting to happen in my opinion and if we are to receive an offer of £500,000 and don't need to spend another £250,000 ish on refurbs, the owners and the club would be in a better position and a levy would not be required.
Yes and I would love to know the accountants opinion on cost savings, there would have to be savings on staffing levels, but the other establishments, I think would be only too happy to assist.
You mention Dunalastair and in the past few years, I am amazed it has taken till now for them to be so heavily promoted.
That is a concern.
Too much money has been wasted on poor decisions, over inflated salaries, needless expenses and services for other avenues not to be considered.
I implore other owners to make their feelings known for the sake of the many.
Dear Stuart,
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding our financial management. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify some points from our detailed accounts.
Capitalisation of Refurbishment Costs: The £90k refurbishment costs for the Red Deer Lodges were indeed capitalised, as per our existing company policy. This policy mandates capitalisation of all fixed assets. Other capitalised items this year included new signage, fibre broadband installations, and window replacements in some lodges. These capital expenditures are not ad hoc decisions but follow our preset policy. We are considering a policy change in our 5-year plan, which, if approved post-AGM, will allow us to pay for such refurbishments outright using the levy, rather than capitalising them.
Rental Income and Profits: Our rental activities brought in a net of £455k last financial year. This figure represents a combination of rental incomes from member and club-owned weeks. While it's true that member income isn't directly shown in the accounts, the commission from member rentals, amounting to over £73.93k, is visible. This offsets the online booking fees of £83.96k. After accounting for the channel manager costs of £27.26k, the effective cost of generating £455k in rental income was around £36.29k.
The increased electricity costs, rising from 19p to 32p per unit, and the well-managed cleaning costs, considering the additional room nights, should also be noted. The net additional income for members was £246.44k, a significant figure that supports the viability and demand for our rental service. Without rental activities, the club (members) would have faced an additional £455k in expenses this year, even after adjusting for associated costs, leaving a shortfall of approximately £300k. Rentals are a necessity for the benefit of our members, and we aim to reduce this dependency by selling more lodges in the future.
Voluntary Surrenders and Glenrannoch House: Regarding voluntary surrenders, the budget was indeed achieved at £36k. However, this income is recognised over three years, hence previous years' voluntary surrenders are included in the reported sum. You can find the details on deferred income in our accounts. As for Glenrannoch House, we achieved a profit of £2.03k this year, contrary to the loss mentioned.
At the Loch Rannoch Highland Club, our rental services extend beyond just generating revenue; they represent a vital service to our members. This service is not obligatory, but a choice we make to support and provide value to our members.
The substantial income from rentals, which amounted to a net of £455,000 last financial year, is a testament to the service's success and necessity. A significant portion of this, totalling £246.44k net, directly benefits members who choose to rent out their lodges. This opportunity for additional income is particularly valuable for those not regularly using their allocated weeks.
Furthermore, the rental service helps offset operational and maintenance costs, reducing the financial burden on all members. Without this income, members could face increased fees, impacting overall satisfaction and possibly leading to a decline in membership.
It's also important to consider the strategic role of rentals in our long-term viability. By attracting temporary guests, we maintain the club’s visibility and attractiveness, crucial for attracting new members. As we work towards reducing dependency on rentals by increasing lodge sales, this service remains a critical component of our strategy.
In conclusion, the rental service at Loch Rannoch Highland Club is not just a revenue stream; it is a well-utilized and valuable service that supports our members and contributes significantly to the club's financial health and strategic goals.
I hope this response provides a clearer understanding of our financial decisions and their impact.
Best wishes,
Richard
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding our financial management. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify some points from our detailed accounts.
Capitalisation of Refurbishment Costs: The £90k refurbishment costs for the Red Deer Lodges were indeed capitalised, as per our existing company policy. This policy mandates capitalisation of all fixed assets. Other capitalised items this year included new signage, fibre broadband installations, and window replacements in some lodges. These capital expenditures are not ad hoc decisions but follow our preset policy. We are considering a policy change in our 5-year plan, which, if approved post-AGM, will allow us to pay for such refurbishments outright using the levy, rather than capitalising them.
Rental Income and Profits: Our rental activities brought in a net of £455k last financial year. This figure represents a combination of rental incomes from member and club-owned weeks. While it's true that member income isn't directly shown in the accounts, the commission from member rentals, amounting to over £73.93k, is visible. This offsets the online booking fees of £83.96k. After accounting for the channel manager costs of £27.26k, the effective cost of generating £455k in rental income was around £36.29k.
The increased electricity costs, rising from 19p to 32p per unit, and the well-managed cleaning costs, considering the additional room nights, should also be noted. The net additional income for members was £246.44k, a significant figure that supports the viability and demand for our rental service. Without rental activities, the club (members) would have faced an additional £455k in expenses this year, even after adjusting for associated costs, leaving a shortfall of approximately £300k. Rentals are a necessity for the benefit of our members, and we aim to reduce this dependency by selling more lodges in the future.
Voluntary Surrenders and Glenrannoch House: Regarding voluntary surrenders, the budget was indeed achieved at £36k. However, this income is recognised over three years, hence previous years' voluntary surrenders are included in the reported sum. You can find the details on deferred income in our accounts. As for Glenrannoch House, we achieved a profit of £2.03k this year, contrary to the loss mentioned.
At the Loch Rannoch Highland Club, our rental services extend beyond just generating revenue; they represent a vital service to our members. This service is not obligatory, but a choice we make to support and provide value to our members.
The substantial income from rentals, which amounted to a net of £455,000 last financial year, is a testament to the service's success and necessity. A significant portion of this, totalling £246.44k net, directly benefits members who choose to rent out their lodges. This opportunity for additional income is particularly valuable for those not regularly using their allocated weeks.
Furthermore, the rental service helps offset operational and maintenance costs, reducing the financial burden on all members. Without this income, members could face increased fees, impacting overall satisfaction and possibly leading to a decline in membership.
It's also important to consider the strategic role of rentals in our long-term viability. By attracting temporary guests, we maintain the club’s visibility and attractiveness, crucial for attracting new members. As we work towards reducing dependency on rentals by increasing lodge sales, this service remains a critical component of our strategy.
In conclusion, the rental service at Loch Rannoch Highland Club is not just a revenue stream; it is a well-utilized and valuable service that supports our members and contributes significantly to the club's financial health and strategic goals.
I hope this response provides a clearer understanding of our financial decisions and their impact.
Best wishes,
Richard
LAMO003 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 12:40 pm Now that we have what is classed as the " detailed accounts" which is another word for creative accounting, it is becoming obvious that rentals is not producing the profit expected.
The accounts do not make sense and with depreciation increasing by £130,426 for last year and capitalisation increasing by £185,015 we appear to be walking into a disaster in years to come as,in my opinion this is unsustainable.
The so called " strict £90,000 on refurbishments" has on the surface been capitalised and over the next 5 years would add another £450,000 which as stated above is creating a worthless asset.
At one time we were told club rentals would bring on £500,000.
The budget for 30/06/23 was £305,000.
The actual was £208,794.
Then you have expenses- booking.com £82,960.
Then you have additional cleaning approx £25,000
Then you have electricity( renter cost is inc) £30,000
This would mean rental net profit is around £70,000 and I feel this is generous.
The actual difference in electricity cost from 2022 is £54,762.
I have also not included the repairs and extra cleaning after some renters have stayed and left lodges in a mess.
Also important in the " accounts" is the voluntary surrenders.
The budgeted figures were £36,000.
The real figure £170,799.
So arguably rentals make no real profit to the club.
Oh and by the way, Glenrannoch House is not covering its cost again for the umpteenth time, and no doubt requires more upgrades, which again costs the owners.
If only we had sold a few years ago when markets were better?
Without the proper facts and costings this motion should be voted against.
Last edited by Richard on Tue Nov 14, 2023 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dear Ray,
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the proposed levy and the notice period before the AGM.
Regarding the voting form, I apologize for any inconvenience you have experienced. I can confirm that the form was sent out to you via post as requested. If you have not yet received it, please let us know, and we will arrange for another copy to be sent immediately. We want to ensure every member has the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.
For online voting, it's a straightforward process. You will receive an email with instructions and a unique link to cast your vote just before the AGM. If you need assistance with the online voting process, please contact our office directly, and we will be more than happy to guide you through the steps.
We value your participation in the club's affairs and are here to assist you in any way we can. Please do not hesitate to reach out for any further clarification or help.
Best wishes,
Richard
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the proposed levy and the notice period before the AGM.
Regarding the voting form, I apologize for any inconvenience you have experienced. I can confirm that the form was sent out to you via post as requested. If you have not yet received it, please let us know, and we will arrange for another copy to be sent immediately. We want to ensure every member has the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.
For online voting, it's a straightforward process. You will receive an email with instructions and a unique link to cast your vote just before the AGM. If you need assistance with the online voting process, please contact our office directly, and we will be more than happy to guide you through the steps.
We value your participation in the club's affairs and are here to assist you in any way we can. Please do not hesitate to reach out for any further clarification or help.
Best wishes,
Richard
THOM042 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2023 8:41 am I agree with the above and remain unconvinced and so it would have to be a no from me.
An aspect of the proposed levy Im not comfortable with is the short notice before the AGM in which it was sprungon owners. Could this not have been made known months ago ?
I phoned the office to have a voting form sent out as I haven’t got a printer, I left a message on the answering machine to this effect but to date no form has been received in the post.
As I probably won’t get to the AGM in person, this leaves the option to vote online. Does anyone have experience of how this works ??
Just to confirm that the voting paper did arrive in today’s post. Clearly the delay was due to the poor service from Royal Mail and not LRHC. I often think that they hold back mail for 3 days or more to reduce the number of posties visits to each address
Thank you Ray, for confirming and apologies again for the delay experienced.
Best wishes
Richard
Best wishes
Richard