While watching the 2023 AGM on Zoom I became distracted by other things happening at home, however I’m fairly sure I heard some reference to Glenrannoch but didn’t quite catch the theme . So unsure if the potential sale of the property is back on the agenda or not. I did seem to pick up that “ a different type” of occupant now inhabits Glenrannoch although I don’t really understand what was meant. I’m left wondering in what way the residents are different from before and how does this affect LRHC ?
I’m sure someone on here must know and can clarify
Glenrannoch house
The number of tenants at Glenrannoch House was always a bit cloak and dagger similar to a lot of the other information or misinformation disclosed to owners in the past few years.
Someone thought they could make a profit out of a building which has cost us- the owners a fortune over the years and will continue to do so.
The very fact that this may be under reconsideration tells you that not to sell a few years ago was folly.
I would expect this year there will be further large sums of money spent here, but I don't know if we will ever get the full story..
Someone thought they could make a profit out of a building which has cost us- the owners a fortune over the years and will continue to do so.
The very fact that this may be under reconsideration tells you that not to sell a few years ago was folly.
I would expect this year there will be further large sums of money spent here, but I don't know if we will ever get the full story..
I seem to recall that the reason cited for not selling Glenrannoch previously was that it was needed for staff accommodation which is credible enough.
There seems to be a mood change about the place though.
The outstanding location is a selling point but if the building needs substantial money thrown at it in order to upgrade it then the selling price will be affected.
For the same reason selling/ offloading the studio blocks makes financial sense to me. £500k and no ongoing maintenance/ refurbishment cost.
The assertion that owners could be “ emotionally attached” to their studio apartments may be true in some cases, but the Committee who are the club’s Directors must surely have the power to be decisive about this issue if they wanted to be, just as they have been with other unconnected issues and any decision taken will always be unpopular with someone.
So for now its keep the studios and Glenrannoch, and keep the ongoing maintenance/ refurbishment costs, and raise no equity from their sale either but burden the owners with the 5 year levy
There seems to be a mood change about the place though.
The outstanding location is a selling point but if the building needs substantial money thrown at it in order to upgrade it then the selling price will be affected.
For the same reason selling/ offloading the studio blocks makes financial sense to me. £500k and no ongoing maintenance/ refurbishment cost.
The assertion that owners could be “ emotionally attached” to their studio apartments may be true in some cases, but the Committee who are the club’s Directors must surely have the power to be decisive about this issue if they wanted to be, just as they have been with other unconnected issues and any decision taken will always be unpopular with someone.
So for now its keep the studios and Glenrannoch, and keep the ongoing maintenance/ refurbishment costs, and raise no equity from their sale either but burden the owners with the 5 year levy
You are absolutely correct! The most galling thing is that no other options were offered to Owners to vote on, it was either vote in favour of the Levy in order to continue with the Refurbishment Programme OR vote against and Refurbishment is delayed indefinitely!
I am not at all familiar with the Accountant, but unless all the salient facts were withheld from him, I cannot fathom how ANY Accountant worth his salt could possibly say the Levy was the best way forward! Anyone who was presented with the full facts and with access to the Accounts could have seen that was nonsense!
Ronnie
I am not at all familiar with the Accountant, but unless all the salient facts were withheld from him, I cannot fathom how ANY Accountant worth his salt could possibly say the Levy was the best way forward! Anyone who was presented with the full facts and with access to the Accounts could have seen that was nonsense!
Ronnie
This vote is not unlike Brexit.
If it was run again and provided the proper background information it would more than likely fail.
I was speaking to an owner yesterday who did not participate in the AGM or the voting, but was aware of the levy, which was a failure on their part, and when I said to them about continuing annual increases and payments for leisure facilities which vould add a further increase of £60, meaning they have to pay an extra £120 in 2024, their face changed colour.
I was then asked what I thought their lodge would cost in 5 years and when I said £1000 plus, the language was unrepeatable and colourful.
Some people have been economical with the truth and this is becoming a habit.
I would defo rethink this motion for the sake of the club and leave egos where they belong.
If it was run again and provided the proper background information it would more than likely fail.
I was speaking to an owner yesterday who did not participate in the AGM or the voting, but was aware of the levy, which was a failure on their part, and when I said to them about continuing annual increases and payments for leisure facilities which vould add a further increase of £60, meaning they have to pay an extra £120 in 2024, their face changed colour.
I was then asked what I thought their lodge would cost in 5 years and when I said £1000 plus, the language was unrepeatable and colourful.
Some people have been economical with the truth and this is becoming a habit.
I would defo rethink this motion for the sake of the club and leave egos where they belong.
It has always been the case that many owners 'swerve' any responsibility to the Club/Committee in respect of keeping up to date with what's happening at the Club; how are the Committee responding to it; and are so irresponsible they don't even bother to vote on Motions being put forward at the AGM! Basically such owner just turn up for their Week(s) holiday return home and never give Rannoch another thought for 12 months and then are surprised when faced with a huge annual increase!
That is exactly what some past and less scrupulous Committee Members relied on in order to turn LRHC into their own little fiefdom and fritter our Funds away on their own Vanity Projects! Such owners can hardly now moan or protest that they've been landed with a huge annual increase or complain when it turns out that 100% of the Funds raised by the Levy plus even more future Refurbishment Funds will most likely be require to be ploughed into the refurbishment of both the exterior and interior of the Studio Apartments to bring them up to acceptable standards! However, even more galling is the fact most of the Studio Weeks will, in all likelihood, be used as 'Self Catering' short stay accommodation with OUR Refurbishment Levy actually benefiting more of these short term guests than actual Owners in the Lodges awaiting Refurishment who actually funded the Levy! The alternative scenario which the Committee chose NOT to offer as a voting option ie the Sale of the Studio block could have increased Clubs Funds with an amount in excess of £500,000 plus resulting in NO Levy being required! This would also have immediately reducing the amount of Club Owned weeks within this Block of Apts, offering a huge savings to the Club in weeks it owns and is desperate to offload!
Absolutely none of this from a 'Good business Practice' basis make any sense! YET many owners just couldn't be bothered to query matters or even vote at the AGM!
Ronnie
That is exactly what some past and less scrupulous Committee Members relied on in order to turn LRHC into their own little fiefdom and fritter our Funds away on their own Vanity Projects! Such owners can hardly now moan or protest that they've been landed with a huge annual increase or complain when it turns out that 100% of the Funds raised by the Levy plus even more future Refurbishment Funds will most likely be require to be ploughed into the refurbishment of both the exterior and interior of the Studio Apartments to bring them up to acceptable standards! However, even more galling is the fact most of the Studio Weeks will, in all likelihood, be used as 'Self Catering' short stay accommodation with OUR Refurbishment Levy actually benefiting more of these short term guests than actual Owners in the Lodges awaiting Refurishment who actually funded the Levy! The alternative scenario which the Committee chose NOT to offer as a voting option ie the Sale of the Studio block could have increased Clubs Funds with an amount in excess of £500,000 plus resulting in NO Levy being required! This would also have immediately reducing the amount of Club Owned weeks within this Block of Apts, offering a huge savings to the Club in weeks it owns and is desperate to offload!
Absolutely none of this from a 'Good business Practice' basis make any sense! YET many owners just couldn't be bothered to query matters or even vote at the AGM!
Ronnie
One man's truth is another man's ( the club in this instance) folly.
In the same way there is a very thin line between arrogance and confidence and this motion is verging on arrogance taking advantage of loyal owners who are not party to the true cost of how their money has been spent/misspent.
It is my opinion when invoices are issued in 6 months, this will be a time of reflection for many owners.
And with what I have seen, read and witnessed I have every reason to doubt the validity of this motion.
In the same way there is a very thin line between arrogance and confidence and this motion is verging on arrogance taking advantage of loyal owners who are not party to the true cost of how their money has been spent/misspent.
It is my opinion when invoices are issued in 6 months, this will be a time of reflection for many owners.
And with what I have seen, read and witnessed I have every reason to doubt the validity of this motion.
There was talk about disclosing the number of proxy votes and how they were administered a few years ago in a fair manner, but I honestly don't know if this has been addressed.
If you look at results of AGM there is a lack of true transparency.
In the past the minutes provided both percentages and numbers, but the only voting where numbers are given is on the applications for committee and I believe John Hirst had 150 votes and if I read the minutes properly, he had the most.
It begs the question of how many people actually voted on the motions and if it was less than 25% of the membership, does this leave the club open to any legal challenges to the motions as it definitely not an overall membership concensus?
If you look at results of AGM there is a lack of true transparency.
In the past the minutes provided both percentages and numbers, but the only voting where numbers are given is on the applications for committee and I believe John Hirst had 150 votes and if I read the minutes properly, he had the most.
It begs the question of how many people actually voted on the motions and if it was less than 25% of the membership, does this leave the club open to any legal challenges to the motions as it definitely not an overall membership concensus?
John Hurst getting 150 votes and the consensus being that was the top number of votes received makes absolutely no sense! What happened to the vast majority of Owners who didn't cast their votes?
This is very concerning and suggests to me that a business, albeit a Time Share Business, which is of so little interest to its owners/share holders that they can't be bothered to vote, is most certainly on its way out!
I don't think original Owners have the appetite, or dare I say it, the energy to face yet another uphill struggle to save the Club from the apathy of owners, and so it may very well close down in the next year or so particularly if John Hurst left the Committee, as I can't see another safe pair of hands able to step into his role of Chairman, as much as some on the Committee may want to!
This is very concerning and suggests to me that a business, albeit a Time Share Business, which is of so little interest to its owners/share holders that they can't be bothered to vote, is most certainly on its way out!
I don't think original Owners have the appetite, or dare I say it, the energy to face yet another uphill struggle to save the Club from the apathy of owners, and so it may very well close down in the next year or so particularly if John Hurst left the Committee, as I can't see another safe pair of hands able to step into his role of Chairman, as much as some on the Committee may want to!
On your last point I cannot disagree.
John, in my opinion has been a safe pair of hands in what has been a pretty faceless committee in the past few years.
Again and I repeat for very good reasons, some should not be there and from what I seen and have been told about AGM, my opinion has not changed.
This does not include the new member of committee.
I am still attempting to understand one of the options discounted during the motion for a levy and that was the third party loan as this must have been suggested by someone or some organisation to even be considered and should have been disclosed to owners for transparency reasons which is what certain members now on committee wanted a few years ago, but appear to have suffered from losses of memory.
John, in my opinion has been a safe pair of hands in what has been a pretty faceless committee in the past few years.
Again and I repeat for very good reasons, some should not be there and from what I seen and have been told about AGM, my opinion has not changed.
This does not include the new member of committee.
I am still attempting to understand one of the options discounted during the motion for a levy and that was the third party loan as this must have been suggested by someone or some organisation to even be considered and should have been disclosed to owners for transparency reasons which is what certain members now on committee wanted a few years ago, but appear to have suffered from losses of memory.