Hi all, and a happy new year to you all. I presume you have all received the latest newsletter, and wondered what your thoughts were on the leisure facilities issue. I know the letter is from our committee, but i get the impression that everything being suggested, and everything that has been implemented over the term of the agreement, has been dictated by LHRE. I keep doing the maths, and it keeps telling me that the new proposed charge for the leisure facilities is a 92% increase on the original charge, 3 years ago. 92% over 3 years!!!! Surely that can't be right? And then THEY go and cancel the leisure agreement from 1st Dec 2023. How can they just do this?
The other thing that i am wondering, is why the cancellation of the Leisure Agreement, again dictated by LHRE, was not relayed to members before the AGM, or even disclosed at the AGM. I just wonder if that decision by LHRE would have had any bearing on the vote on the £60pa levy, if members had prior knowledge.
John
January Newsletter
Dear John,
Thanks for your post, the cancellation of the leisure agreement was indeed communicated to the members at the AGM since it was triggered only a day before the event.
Please see the footage or minutes for your reference.
Best,
Richard
Thanks for your post, the cancellation of the leisure agreement was indeed communicated to the members at the AGM since it was triggered only a day before the event.
Please see the footage or minutes for your reference.
Best,
Richard
How many owners actually voted on the levy in the first place is something that was missing at the Agm.
A percentage was given, but no numbers. Why not?
Personally, i think when owners were asked to pay £25, 3 years ago, it could be suggested this was almost akin to an introductory fee, which is what a lot of sports clubs/gyms, tv channels etc offer and then increase prices.
I recently was asked to pay an additional 72% extra whilst on a 2 year contract with BT sports- only 1 year into contract.
If we are been asked to pay £120,000 per annum, this only takes account of 2500 lodges. Over the club year there is 4335.
Could this be the issue?
If more lodges were owned would this fee not be greatly reduced?
I also understand why renters are not included in contract due to some of their lack of respect to the properties which the club has experienced too.
A percentage was given, but no numbers. Why not?
Personally, i think when owners were asked to pay £25, 3 years ago, it could be suggested this was almost akin to an introductory fee, which is what a lot of sports clubs/gyms, tv channels etc offer and then increase prices.
I recently was asked to pay an additional 72% extra whilst on a 2 year contract with BT sports- only 1 year into contract.
If we are been asked to pay £120,000 per annum, this only takes account of 2500 lodges. Over the club year there is 4335.
Could this be the issue?
If more lodges were owned would this fee not be greatly reduced?
I also understand why renters are not included in contract due to some of their lack of respect to the properties which the club has experienced too.
There’s significant questionable issues relating to the AGM and just wondering if I was the only one who noticed?
Was the AGM even quorate considering the Chair counted 30 present at the AGM and yet the transcript of the AGM refers to 35 present which is the required number of eligible owners to be present to be quorate ?
Out of the 30 persons counted at the AGM how many there actually fulfilled the necessary criteria as “ eligible “. Eg fully paid up owners. In the 30 counted were there partners of eligible owners, an accountant who is not eligible and was there a Commitee member and spouse who is on a sub committee which helped to make up the numbers ? .
Its easy to say that those who participated by the Zoom link (49 participants) made up the numbers to make the AGM quorate but I see nothing in the Articles of Association which makes this valid.
Interestingly, at tbe interval which was well into the AGM a lady who was present at the AGM was asked to leave as she wasn’t an eligible person ! This makes the general conduct of the meeting questionable and begs the question how many eligible persons were actually present at the AGM. If there were other ineligible persons present then why were they too not ejected from the meeting?
Was the AGM even quorate and if not why did it proceed contrary to the articles of association?
Just saying
Was the AGM even quorate considering the Chair counted 30 present at the AGM and yet the transcript of the AGM refers to 35 present which is the required number of eligible owners to be present to be quorate ?
Out of the 30 persons counted at the AGM how many there actually fulfilled the necessary criteria as “ eligible “. Eg fully paid up owners. In the 30 counted were there partners of eligible owners, an accountant who is not eligible and was there a Commitee member and spouse who is on a sub committee which helped to make up the numbers ? .
Its easy to say that those who participated by the Zoom link (49 participants) made up the numbers to make the AGM quorate but I see nothing in the Articles of Association which makes this valid.
Interestingly, at tbe interval which was well into the AGM a lady who was present at the AGM was asked to leave as she wasn’t an eligible person ! This makes the general conduct of the meeting questionable and begs the question how many eligible persons were actually present at the AGM. If there were other ineligible persons present then why were they too not ejected from the meeting?
Was the AGM even quorate and if not why did it proceed contrary to the articles of association?
Just saying
Last edited by THOM042 on Mon Jan 22, 2024 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dear Ray,
Zoom participation does count towards the AGM quorum. Our Articles, especially Article 10.11, include electronic participation. So, those joining via Zoom are part of the quorum count.
Best,
Richard
Zoom participation does count towards the AGM quorum. Our Articles, especially Article 10.11, include electronic participation. So, those joining via Zoom are part of the quorum count.
Best,
Richard
THOM042 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2024 6:00 pm There’s significant questionable issues relating to the AGM and just wondering if I was the only one who noticed?
Was the AGM even quorate considering the Chair counted 30 present at the AGM and yet the transcript of the AGM refers to 35 present which is the required number of eligible owners to be present to be quorate ?
Out of the 30 persons counted at the AGM how many there actually fulfilled the necessary criteria as “ eligible “. Eg fully paid up owners. In the 30 counted were there partners of eligible owners, an accountant who is not eligible and was there a Commitee member and spouse who is on a sub committee which helped to make up the numbers ? .
Its easy to say that those who participated by the Zoom link (49 participants) made up the numbers to make the AGM quorate but I see nothing in the Articles of Association which makes this valid.
Interestingly, at tbe interval which was well into the AGM a lady who was present at the AGM was asked to leave as she wasn’t an eligible person ! This makes the general conduct of the meeting questionable and begs the question how many eligible persons were actually present at the AGM. If there were other ineligible persons present then why were they too not ejected from the meeting?
Was the AGM even quorate and if not why did it proceed contrary to the articles of association?
Its a joke
Just saying
Dear Stuart,
The £25 fee was an all-encompassing rate for all guests, including renters - not just an initial offer.
However, the situation evolved when the hotel recognized our success in rentals. They subsequently revised their stance and terminated the original contract.
The hotel then proposed a new, more expensive agreement, specifically tailored to members’ weeks, which led to a different fee structure.
Currently, the hotel is moving towards a fixed income model. This change aims to stabilise the hotel’s income regardless of membership fluctuations.
The point about renters is unfounded and could be said across all types of guests, rather than singling out any group and wasn’t a factor in the hotel’s decision making.
Best,
Richard
The £25 fee was an all-encompassing rate for all guests, including renters - not just an initial offer.
However, the situation evolved when the hotel recognized our success in rentals. They subsequently revised their stance and terminated the original contract.
The hotel then proposed a new, more expensive agreement, specifically tailored to members’ weeks, which led to a different fee structure.
Currently, the hotel is moving towards a fixed income model. This change aims to stabilise the hotel’s income regardless of membership fluctuations.
The point about renters is unfounded and could be said across all types of guests, rather than singling out any group and wasn’t a factor in the hotel’s decision making.
Best,
Richard
LAMO003 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2024 12:27 am How many owners actually voted on the levy in the first place is something that was missing at the Agm.
A percentage was given, but no numbers. Why not?
Personally, i think when owners were asked to pay £25, 3 years ago, it could be suggested this was almost akin to an introductory fee, which is what a lot of sports clubs/gyms, tv channels etc offer and then increase prices.
I recently was asked to pay an additional 72% extra whilst on a 2 year contract with BT sports- only 1 year into contract.
If we are been asked to pay £120,000 per annum, this only takes account of 2500 lodges. Over the club year there is 4335.
Could this be the issue?
If more lodges were owned would this fee not be greatly reduced?
I also understand why renters are not included in contract due to some of their lack of respect to the properties which the club has experienced too.
Dear Richard,
You are correct in saying it is a fixed income fee of £120,000 which if I am correct is reviewable after 16 months.
So if there are more owners this would reduce what existing owners would have to pay? Its simple arithmetic and if more owners are paying £48 eg 250 new owners in addition to existing 2500 it would mean that the Club would benefit by £12000 if the information in newsletter is correct.
Out of interest how many owners or owner weeks now exist at Club?
I also would like to add that the comments about some renters is not unfounded as you very well know, but I do take your point that other types of guests can create same issues.
And more importantly it would be appreciated if you gave a number of how many owners voted on levy.
You are correct in saying it is a fixed income fee of £120,000 which if I am correct is reviewable after 16 months.
So if there are more owners this would reduce what existing owners would have to pay? Its simple arithmetic and if more owners are paying £48 eg 250 new owners in addition to existing 2500 it would mean that the Club would benefit by £12000 if the information in newsletter is correct.
Out of interest how many owners or owner weeks now exist at Club?
I also would like to add that the comments about some renters is not unfounded as you very well know, but I do take your point that other types of guests can create same issues.
And more importantly it would be appreciated if you gave a number of how many owners voted on levy.
Last edited by LAMO003 on Mon Jan 22, 2024 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thats fair enough as it answers the quorate question.
Of the 30 persons counted who were physically present at the AGM, how many were actually eligible to be there ?
I ask this because one lady who was identified as being ineligible at the interval was quite properly required to leave the meeting . How many non eligible people were then allowed to remain and if any why was this so ?
Why does the transcript of the AGM state that 35 persons were present at the AGM when the head count at 4.00 minutes into the video recording clearly is 30 persons physically present, including the lady who was later asked to leave ?
This may seem insignificant to many but it’s important to have accurate records and ensure fairness to all.
Of the 30 persons counted who were physically present at the AGM, how many were actually eligible to be there ?
I ask this because one lady who was identified as being ineligible at the interval was quite properly required to leave the meeting . How many non eligible people were then allowed to remain and if any why was this so ?
Why does the transcript of the AGM state that 35 persons were present at the AGM when the head count at 4.00 minutes into the video recording clearly is 30 persons physically present, including the lady who was later asked to leave ?
This may seem insignificant to many but it’s important to have accurate records and ensure fairness to all.
Dear Stuart,
The recent levy resolution was to align our direction with what the majority of our members want. The committee could have implemented it without a vote, but member involvement is key to us. We had 173 members voting this year. The lower turnout at the AGM likely indicates contentment with our current path, as bigger turnouts usually happen when members have concerns.
You’re right about the fixed leisure fee and its distribution. More members would mean a lighter individual financial load. We’re focused on attracting new owners to benefit everyone.
As for your query on the number of owners, we’re updating our records and will keep members informed.
I understand your concerns about renters. We’re committed to maintaining high standards for all guests to ensure a great experience at the club.
Thanks,
Richard
The recent levy resolution was to align our direction with what the majority of our members want. The committee could have implemented it without a vote, but member involvement is key to us. We had 173 members voting this year. The lower turnout at the AGM likely indicates contentment with our current path, as bigger turnouts usually happen when members have concerns.
You’re right about the fixed leisure fee and its distribution. More members would mean a lighter individual financial load. We’re focused on attracting new owners to benefit everyone.
As for your query on the number of owners, we’re updating our records and will keep members informed.
I understand your concerns about renters. We’re committed to maintaining high standards for all guests to ensure a great experience at the club.
Thanks,
Richard
LAMO003 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 8:50 am Dear Richard,
You are correct in saying it is a fixed income fee of £120,000 which if I am correct is reviewable after 16 months.
So if there are more owners this would reduce what existing owners would have to pay? Its simple arithmetic and if more owners are paying £48 eg 250 new owners in addition to existing 2500 it would mean that the Club would benefit by £12000 if the information in newsletter is correct.
Out of interest how many owners or owner weeks now exist at Club?
I also would like to add that the comments about some renters is not unfounded as you very well know, but I do take your point that other types of guests can create same issues.
And more importantly it would be appreciated if you gave a number of how many owners voted on levy.
Dear Ray,
To address your query, I am not aware of any individuals who were present at the AGM who were not eligible to be there. The situation you mentioned regarding the lady who was asked to leave was handled appropriately, as per our protocols. As for the discrepancy in the numbers reported in the transcript versus those visible in the video recording, this does seem to be an oversight.
I will request our company secretary to investigate this matter and ensure the accuracy of our AGM records.
Best,
Richard
To address your query, I am not aware of any individuals who were present at the AGM who were not eligible to be there. The situation you mentioned regarding the lady who was asked to leave was handled appropriately, as per our protocols. As for the discrepancy in the numbers reported in the transcript versus those visible in the video recording, this does seem to be an oversight.
I will request our company secretary to investigate this matter and ensure the accuracy of our AGM records.
Best,
Richard
THOM042 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 8:59 am Thats fair enough as it answers the quorate question.
Of the 30 persons counted who were physically present at the AGM, how many were actually eligible to be there ?
I ask this because one lady who was identified as being ineligible at the interval was quite properly required to leave the meeting . How many non eligible people were then allowed to remain and if any why was this so ?
Why does the transcript of the AGM state that 35 persons were present at the AGM when the head count at 4.00 minutes into the video recording clearly is 30 persons physically present, including the lady who was later asked to leave ?
This may seem insignificant to many but it’s important to have accurate records and ensure fairness to all.
Hi
I think there may have been different outcome on the additional annual levy vote if the Committee had been much more open with Owners about the preliminary discussion on an opening offer of £500,000 for the Apt Block being informally made (the apts would have been bought; demolished and rebuilt), LRHC owners should have been presented with a cost analysis of the full internal/external refurbishment of apt block versus possible Offer we could expect, and number of Club Owned weeks instantly sold which presently are hanging around club's neck like a lead weight, but we were never given that opportunity to consider.
Was it a case of 'Rental Units' within apt block urgently needed refurbishment as their Reviews on Trip Advisor are dire and an owners 'Refurbishment ' Levy would be a fast efficient way to do that Refurbishment. BUT who is gaining most? Renters I'd say! This is a no win situation for Owners as most of the Levy will be required to fully Fund the Refurbishment of the Apts.
I think there may have been different outcome on the additional annual levy vote if the Committee had been much more open with Owners about the preliminary discussion on an opening offer of £500,000 for the Apt Block being informally made (the apts would have been bought; demolished and rebuilt), LRHC owners should have been presented with a cost analysis of the full internal/external refurbishment of apt block versus possible Offer we could expect, and number of Club Owned weeks instantly sold which presently are hanging around club's neck like a lead weight, but we were never given that opportunity to consider.
Was it a case of 'Rental Units' within apt block urgently needed refurbishment as their Reviews on Trip Advisor are dire and an owners 'Refurbishment ' Levy would be a fast efficient way to do that Refurbishment. BUT who is gaining most? Renters I'd say! This is a no win situation for Owners as most of the Levy will be required to fully Fund the Refurbishment of the Apts.
Dear Richard,
In your response you have stated 173 owners voted at the Agm.
Let's assume this is based on ownership and not weeks as there are owners with multiple weeks, this would mean that only 120 owners out of at least 2500 voted in favour of this levy.
This is only 4.8% of total ownership using this example.
I would suggest further investigation into this levy as I would be very concerned come June.
From previous experience with AGMs and contentment/discontentment, your assumption that owners are happy is one that could come back potentially to haunt the club.
We are presently living in a world where finances are tight and in a situation where silence does not always mean satisfaction or success.
In 2014 it was assumed that Scotland would become independent, but the silent majority said differently.
I would have thought with the amount of cash spent on IT the number of owners would be readily available as would the figure for new owners since the start of the Financial year on 1st July. These are figures requested many times, but never disclosed.
In your response you have stated 173 owners voted at the Agm.
Let's assume this is based on ownership and not weeks as there are owners with multiple weeks, this would mean that only 120 owners out of at least 2500 voted in favour of this levy.
This is only 4.8% of total ownership using this example.
I would suggest further investigation into this levy as I would be very concerned come June.
From previous experience with AGMs and contentment/discontentment, your assumption that owners are happy is one that could come back potentially to haunt the club.
We are presently living in a world where finances are tight and in a situation where silence does not always mean satisfaction or success.
In 2014 it was assumed that Scotland would become independent, but the silent majority said differently.
I would have thought with the amount of cash spent on IT the number of owners would be readily available as would the figure for new owners since the start of the Financial year on 1st July. These are figures requested many times, but never disclosed.
Since the Refurbishment and reopening of the Rannoch Hotel the ambiance of the LRH Club and surrounding area has felt reinvigorated. Being able to sit outside Hotel having Lunch or a pre Dinner Drink has been a bonus and being able to have a meal without cooking it is perfect at times! However most of the Hospitality Trade is still teetering on closure and if individually we want to support the convenience of having the restaurants/bar on our doorstep we should tread carefully less without our relatively small annual contribution to the Hotel's Leisure Facilities the Hotel as a whole is pushed over the edge and closes!
As a Club we MUST attract new younger owners to remain viable, but younger couples nowadays are used to Gym facilities at home and expect them on holiday to, plus families want access to not only a Gym but a Pool for the children; bikes; paddle boards; squash Courts and Climbing Wall and a Spa facility for a Facial; Massages etc. I personally being somewhat long in the tooth for using the Gym, still like a relaxing Swim and I'm astute enough to realise it is these facilities that will attract the type of new owners that will bring new blood and MONEY into the Club, as without it the Club will itself become unviable and therefore we must prepare for the not too distant future when that older original generation of owners passes on.
Ronnie
As a Club we MUST attract new younger owners to remain viable, but younger couples nowadays are used to Gym facilities at home and expect them on holiday to, plus families want access to not only a Gym but a Pool for the children; bikes; paddle boards; squash Courts and Climbing Wall and a Spa facility for a Facial; Massages etc. I personally being somewhat long in the tooth for using the Gym, still like a relaxing Swim and I'm astute enough to realise it is these facilities that will attract the type of new owners that will bring new blood and MONEY into the Club, as without it the Club will itself become unviable and therefore we must prepare for the not too distant future when that older original generation of owners passes on.
Ronnie
Dear Stuart,
Our voting process operates strictly within the guidelines of our club's constitution. The essence here is not the quantity but the legitimacy of the process. We had 173 casting their votes - this might seem like a drop in the ocean, but it's a drop that followed the rules, making it as valid as an ocean.
Drawing parallels to Scotland's 2014 referendum is an interesting perspective, but the scenarios differ in context. The key point is, whether in a historic national decision or our club's matters, it's the voices that show up that paint the canvas of the outcome.
As for the financial details and ownership data, I'm on the same page with you about transparency. We're steering this ship with a keen eye on clearer communication and an open deck policy, especially in these financially choppy waters.
Best,
Richard
Our voting process operates strictly within the guidelines of our club's constitution. The essence here is not the quantity but the legitimacy of the process. We had 173 casting their votes - this might seem like a drop in the ocean, but it's a drop that followed the rules, making it as valid as an ocean.
Drawing parallels to Scotland's 2014 referendum is an interesting perspective, but the scenarios differ in context. The key point is, whether in a historic national decision or our club's matters, it's the voices that show up that paint the canvas of the outcome.
As for the financial details and ownership data, I'm on the same page with you about transparency. We're steering this ship with a keen eye on clearer communication and an open deck policy, especially in these financially choppy waters.
Best,
Richard
LAMO003 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 11:27 pm Dear Richard,
In your response you have stated 173 owners voted at the Agm.
Let's assume this is based on ownership and not weeks as there are owners with multiple weeks, this would mean that only 120 owners out of at least 2500 voted in favour of this levy.
This is only 4.8% of total ownership using this example.
I would suggest further investigation into this levy as I would be very concerned come June.
From previous experience with AGMs and contentment/discontentment, your assumption that owners are happy is one that could come back potentially to haunt the club.
We are presently living in a world where finances are tight and in a situation where silence does not always mean satisfaction or success.
In 2014 it was assumed that Scotland would become independent, but the silent majority said differently.
I would have thought with the amount of cash spent on IT the number of owners would be readily available as would the figure for new owners since the start of the Financial year on 1st July. These are figures requested many times, but never disclosed.
Good evening Richard
Can you clarify, in regards to the votes for the Weeks the Club owns, what actually happens to them or are they used as one proxy or a great deal more than one vote? Similarly the Proxy Votes passed to the Committee by the Owners unable to attend, are they advised they can post their vote on to Rannoch and therefore no longer require a Proxy?
Ronnie
Can you clarify, in regards to the votes for the Weeks the Club owns, what actually happens to them or are they used as one proxy or a great deal more than one vote? Similarly the Proxy Votes passed to the Committee by the Owners unable to attend, are they advised they can post their vote on to Rannoch and therefore no longer require a Proxy?
Ronnie
Hi Richard and Ai,
I wasn't too sure if a seafarer, Eric Cantona or Picasso was responsible for this reply.
Glad there was no mention of seagulls or sardines!
But it still does not answer simple questions.
Was it 173 owners or 173 weeks?
There are certain members who have multiple weeks who may have more than 1 vote.
With regards to a legitimate process, in my opinion this is a stretch of one's imagination.
A legitimate process puts all the information on the table ie facts and figures.
This was definitely not the case prior to the AGM as the potential sale of units was not disclosed till then nor the bid offered.
If transparency is important and there has been more than sufficient time and money spent, this information should be readily available before we all have to clear the decks.
I wasn't too sure if a seafarer, Eric Cantona or Picasso was responsible for this reply.
Glad there was no mention of seagulls or sardines!
But it still does not answer simple questions.
Was it 173 owners or 173 weeks?
There are certain members who have multiple weeks who may have more than 1 vote.
With regards to a legitimate process, in my opinion this is a stretch of one's imagination.
A legitimate process puts all the information on the table ie facts and figures.
This was definitely not the case prior to the AGM as the potential sale of units was not disclosed till then nor the bid offered.
If transparency is important and there has been more than sufficient time and money spent, this information should be readily available before we all have to clear the decks.
Last edited by LAMO003 on Sat Jan 27, 2024 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Maybe this should have gone to a survey amongst owners for a more accurate measure of what is actually wanted ?
Other issues are readily put to the owners in a survey and are regarded by LRHC as fair, but on this occasion it was sprung on owners very shortly before the AGM.
And just as has already been stated by the GM , that the Committee could have just made a decision to impose a levy without consulting the owners.
It’s the manner in which this happened which is the concern.
Kiddy on democracy isn’t fooling anyone
No wonder it’s hard to get people to buy into LRHC.
How’s the sales figures anyway ?
Other issues are readily put to the owners in a survey and are regarded by LRHC as fair, but on this occasion it was sprung on owners very shortly before the AGM.
And just as has already been stated by the GM , that the Committee could have just made a decision to impose a levy without consulting the owners.
It’s the manner in which this happened which is the concern.
Kiddy on democracy isn’t fooling anyone
No wonder it’s hard to get people to buy into LRHC.
How’s the sales figures anyway ?
Dear Ronnie,
We do not use the club weeks for votes.
With regards to proxy votes. The guidance was clear in the voting papers, the members can choose who they wish to hand their vote to, doesn’t have to be a member of the committee and the voting papers were to be sent to Morris & Young and not the Rannoch office.
Online voting was also possible of course.
Best,
Richard
We do not use the club weeks for votes.
With regards to proxy votes. The guidance was clear in the voting papers, the members can choose who they wish to hand their vote to, doesn’t have to be a member of the committee and the voting papers were to be sent to Morris & Young and not the Rannoch office.
Online voting was also possible of course.
Best,
Richard
ROBE007 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 11:17 pm Good evening Richard
Can you clarify, in regards to the votes for the Weeks the Club owns, what actually happens to them or are they used as one proxy or a great deal more than one vote? Similarly the Proxy Votes passed to the Committee by the Owners unable to attend, are they advised they can post their vote on to Rannoch and therefore no longer require a Proxy?
Ronnie
Perhaps Richard has caught a bug and has been too ill to reply; perhaps he has mislaid his notes on the numbers of Proxy Votes and how they were used; perhaps he has been on holiday; or too busy; snowed in; there's been a Flood and the office washed away with all the relevant info inside, perhaps; perhaps; perhaps; perhaps!
OR like so very many others in the past Richard feels that OWNERS have no right to know ANYTHING about the Proxy Votes and how they are used.
Anyone got any other suggestions as to what may be preventing Richard answer a simple question
"How many Proxy Votes in total were passed directly to the Committee from Owners and how many out of that total were used by the Committee to vote in favour of the introduction of FIVE YEARS of One Off payments to boost the Refurbishment Budgement"
It would also be of interest to know the voting Rights of Club Owned weeks, how many votes are at the Committee's use to vote as they seem correct.
If owners knew these figs ie Total number of both Proxy Votes and Club Owned weeks votes which were cast directly by the Committee and compared them to
Owners' own votes cast in favour/not in favour.
OR like so very many others in the past Richard feels that OWNERS have no right to know ANYTHING about the Proxy Votes and how they are used.
Anyone got any other suggestions as to what may be preventing Richard answer a simple question
"How many Proxy Votes in total were passed directly to the Committee from Owners and how many out of that total were used by the Committee to vote in favour of the introduction of FIVE YEARS of One Off payments to boost the Refurbishment Budgement"
It would also be of interest to know the voting Rights of Club Owned weeks, how many votes are at the Committee's use to vote as they seem correct.
If owners knew these figs ie Total number of both Proxy Votes and Club Owned weeks votes which were cast directly by the Committee and compared them to
Owners' own votes cast in favour/not in favour.
There is a total lack of human understanding and empathy in so many of the answers and the lack of proper replies to straightforward questions only highlights a lack of transparency that is so required in order to achieve more than 173 votes at future AGMs.
Can’t say I disagree with the recent comments.
Transparency is everything to me and my opinion that LRHC falls short in this respect despite reason to be hopeful in recent times.
All I can say is , like many others, I’ll be glad when my tenure is over, and I’ll be gone
Transparency is everything to me and my opinion that LRHC falls short in this respect despite reason to be hopeful in recent times.
All I can say is , like many others, I’ll be glad when my tenure is over, and I’ll be gone
Dear Ronnie,
I have replied on the 27th of January so not sure if you are perhaps not able to see my response?
Best,
Richard
I have replied on the 27th of January so not sure if you are perhaps not able to see my response?
Best,
Richard
ROBE007 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:11 am Perhaps Richard has caught a bug and has been too ill to reply; perhaps he has mislaid his notes on the numbers of Proxy Votes and how they were used; perhaps he has been on holiday; or too busy; snowed in; there's been a Flood and the office washed away with all the relevant info inside, perhaps; perhaps; perhaps; perhaps!
OR like so very many others in the past Richard feels that OWNERS have no right to know ANYTHING about the Proxy Votes and how they are used.
Anyone got any other suggestions as to what may be preventing Richard answer a simple question
"How many Proxy Votes in total were passed directly to the Committee from Owners and how many out of that total were used by the Committee to vote in favour of the introduction of FIVE YEARS of One Off payments to boost the Refurbishment Budgement"
It would also be of interest to know the voting Rights of Club Owned weeks, how many votes are at the Committee's use to vote as they seem correct.
If owners knew these figs ie Total number of both Proxy Votes and Club Owned weeks votes which were cast directly by the Committee and compared them to
Owners' own votes cast in favour/not in favour.
Hi all
Let me just confirm what Richard has said about proxy votes and Club votes.
Proxy voting is mentioned briefly in the AGM pack because our Articles require us to offer that facility. A proxy vote is a vote which one person lodges on behalf of another. There are two types, firstly a discretionary proxy whereby a Member gives his authority to the person presenting his vote to vote how the vote presenter votes on various matters. The orginal Member therefore has no further say in the matter. The other sort is where a Member DOES say how his votes are to be cast. In this case the person presenting is simply acting as a sort of postman. In days long gone it was one way of sending in your votes but nowadays it is totally unnecesary although still a valid method. Nowadays you can vote electronically from your home or if you prefer post then send it to the Accountant who will include it. As there are far less Members attending the AGM in person - far more attend remotely by Zoom - the chances of finding a Member attending to present your vote are slim.
The proxy votes which have always caused controversy are the discretionary proxies. Traditionally the AGM wording has been "I appoint the Chairman or other named person to use my vote as seen fit". The form was written to encourage Members to appoint the Chairman to exercise the vote. The rationale behind this was that an individual Member might not know the best way forward for the Club whereas the Chairman ought to. Personally I've never been confortable wjth that scenario although it is in use in a large number of organisations. But in the latest Committee I persuaded colleagues that we should drop the idea, which we did three years ago. If a Member sent me a discretionary proxy I would refuse to vote it and politely return it with reasons given. So far nobody has ever sent me such a proxy. I am not aware of any colleagues being sent one and I think we can safely consider that subject to be dead.
Let me move on to voting the Club / Unsold weeks. This was indeed the situation decades ago and was usd in the Multi-Ownership and Hotels days. It may have carried on through the Macdonald era, I don't know. It goes back to a period when there were more Unsold weeks than sold. In practice it meant that the Management company could practiclly guarantee to get adopted anything or anybody by sheer force of numbers. This ceased certainly after Macdonald was replaced by TMSL and possibly earlier. It simply does not happen now.
Hope this clarifies, John
Let me just confirm what Richard has said about proxy votes and Club votes.
Proxy voting is mentioned briefly in the AGM pack because our Articles require us to offer that facility. A proxy vote is a vote which one person lodges on behalf of another. There are two types, firstly a discretionary proxy whereby a Member gives his authority to the person presenting his vote to vote how the vote presenter votes on various matters. The orginal Member therefore has no further say in the matter. The other sort is where a Member DOES say how his votes are to be cast. In this case the person presenting is simply acting as a sort of postman. In days long gone it was one way of sending in your votes but nowadays it is totally unnecesary although still a valid method. Nowadays you can vote electronically from your home or if you prefer post then send it to the Accountant who will include it. As there are far less Members attending the AGM in person - far more attend remotely by Zoom - the chances of finding a Member attending to present your vote are slim.
The proxy votes which have always caused controversy are the discretionary proxies. Traditionally the AGM wording has been "I appoint the Chairman or other named person to use my vote as seen fit". The form was written to encourage Members to appoint the Chairman to exercise the vote. The rationale behind this was that an individual Member might not know the best way forward for the Club whereas the Chairman ought to. Personally I've never been confortable wjth that scenario although it is in use in a large number of organisations. But in the latest Committee I persuaded colleagues that we should drop the idea, which we did three years ago. If a Member sent me a discretionary proxy I would refuse to vote it and politely return it with reasons given. So far nobody has ever sent me such a proxy. I am not aware of any colleagues being sent one and I think we can safely consider that subject to be dead.
Let me move on to voting the Club / Unsold weeks. This was indeed the situation decades ago and was usd in the Multi-Ownership and Hotels days. It may have carried on through the Macdonald era, I don't know. It goes back to a period when there were more Unsold weeks than sold. In practice it meant that the Management company could practiclly guarantee to get adopted anything or anybody by sheer force of numbers. This ceased certainly after Macdonald was replaced by TMSL and possibly earlier. It simply does not happen now.
Hope this clarifies, John
Hi John,
Your reply will be much appreciated by many.
However the simple questions I had asked about number of sales and whether the magic number of 173 was owners or Units remains a mystery.
As we are fully aware some owners, including some on committee have more than 1 lodge and if we were to recalculate on owners alone and not units what would the end result have been.
The other concerning point mentioned in a reply would suggest that our IT information systems are not fully up and running which considering the amount of money that has been spent is surprising unless the output has been skewed due to the input?
Your reply will be much appreciated by many.
However the simple questions I had asked about number of sales and whether the magic number of 173 was owners or Units remains a mystery.
As we are fully aware some owners, including some on committee have more than 1 lodge and if we were to recalculate on owners alone and not units what would the end result have been.
The other concerning point mentioned in a reply would suggest that our IT information systems are not fully up and running which considering the amount of money that has been spent is surprising unless the output has been skewed due to the input?
Thanks John, it does indeed clarify things .
Its an interesting question asked by Stuart re the breakdown of votes.
On a similar theme, some issues are put to the owners by means of a survey, such as the current Leisure contract/ fees the result of which should be known soon.
Do owners of multiple weeks have the corresponding number of votes in LRHC surveys?
Its an interesting question asked by Stuart re the breakdown of votes.
On a similar theme, some issues are put to the owners by means of a survey, such as the current Leisure contract/ fees the result of which should be known soon.
Do owners of multiple weeks have the corresponding number of votes in LRHC surveys?
Now almost one month since a simple question was asked in regards to the number of owners we now have at the club and on number of sales with no reply whatsoever.
It's such a struggle to answer questions and be transparent despite earlier AI suggestions it would.
I'll make it easier now and ask another question which should show how the sales strategy is progressing.
How many lodges have been returned to club and how many lodges have been sold?
It's such a struggle to answer questions and be transparent despite earlier AI suggestions it would.
I'll make it easier now and ask another question which should show how the sales strategy is progressing.
How many lodges have been returned to club and how many lodges have been sold?
In the September 2023 Newsletter which is available to owners on this website, there was reference to Graham , the sales expert having turned over a number of sales. Graham had concluded that it was easier to sell refurbished units than units in need of upgrading. This is something which I think we all knew and also the reality that selling perpetuity timeshare in this day and age must be very difficult for anyone.
I wasn’t aware of any actual sales figures being made available in September or since then unless perhaps these were provided at the AGM and I may have missed that
I wasn’t aware of any actual sales figures being made available in September or since then unless perhaps these were provided at the AGM and I may have missed that
I suppose its the old story. Selective good news announcements. That being the case, it wouldn’t be unreasonable for anyone to think that the sales figures aren’t that good, otherwise we would be hearing about it.
All we know is that some units were sold in September last year and that we have a dedicated sales professional who’s on to it.
Maybe the March newsletter will reveal all
All we know is that some units were sold in September last year and that we have a dedicated sales professional who’s on to it.
Maybe the March newsletter will reveal all
Thomas, don't hold your breath waiting on the good news on Sales! I have said for the past few years that November until Easter is a 'Dead' period for Sales.
Why pay for a Sales Team during these 'barren' months? Makes absolutely no sense.
The Manager or Committee should be thinking along the lines of hiring semi retired Sales personnel from say the Easter weekend until the end of the Autumn School hols.
Why pay for a Sales Team during these 'barren' months? Makes absolutely no sense.
The Manager or Committee should be thinking along the lines of hiring semi retired Sales personnel from say the Easter weekend until the end of the Autumn School hols.
Clarification needed. My name isn’t Thomas. No offence taken 
No realistic person holds out any hope of a good LRHC sales result now or in the future. My dry sense of humour isn’t appreciated by everyone. I don’t think any sales “ expert “ will take on timeshare sales on commission alone, therefore a wage has to be paid. The question is whether a sales expert’s wage can be justified in relation to the amount of sales actually made.
To date , we don’t have the sales statistics and so all owners ( other than those on Commitee) are uninformed in relation to this subject
No realistic person holds out any hope of a good LRHC sales result now or in the future. My dry sense of humour isn’t appreciated by everyone. I don’t think any sales “ expert “ will take on timeshare sales on commission alone, therefore a wage has to be paid. The question is whether a sales expert’s wage can be justified in relation to the amount of sales actually made.To date , we don’t have the sales statistics and so all owners ( other than those on Commitee) are uninformed in relation to this subject
29 lodges sold in 5 months was the proud boast at Agm.
There was further comments made that if things continued along same lines it could reach 100.
What wasn't said was how many lodges have been returned.
I wonder what the real figure is?
Another noticeable comment was on rental income and it would appear there were excuses here, which didn't surprise me.
There was further comments made that if things continued along same lines it could reach 100.
What wasn't said was how many lodges have been returned.
I wonder what the real figure is?
Another noticeable comment was on rental income and it would appear there were excuses here, which didn't surprise me.
Not good news, and it all adds to the reasons why the Apartment Block should have been sold, to cut the Club's unsustainable losses and add some much needed money into the Refurbishment Programme's coffers.
Heard anything about the House going on the Market? Prior to that, a Building Survey should be carried out to see if it would be feasible to change the House into two dwellings and sell each separately. An attractive price might offer two reasonably priced starter Flats for Locals and if not, then a Second Homes or Holiday Lets.
Heard anything about the House going on the Market? Prior to that, a Building Survey should be carried out to see if it would be feasible to change the House into two dwellings and sell each separately. An attractive price might offer two reasonably priced starter Flats for Locals and if not, then a Second Homes or Holiday Lets.
If my memory serves me right there was a hint that the sale of Glenrannoch House could be on the agenda again which in my opinion is the admittance of a past mistake.
Also in the absence of the sales information requested for the benefit of all owners giving a fully transparent breakdown this would definitely appear to be another admittance of another type unless facts and figures are provided.
Up until the Agm we were apparently selling 5 lodges a month.
I wonder what it is now?
Also in the absence of the sales information requested for the benefit of all owners giving a fully transparent breakdown this would definitely appear to be another admittance of another type unless facts and figures are provided.
Up until the Agm we were apparently selling 5 lodges a month.
I wonder what it is now?
Not too sure about Glenrannoch house being a viable sales prospect for now, in my opinion Stuart . Property sales in general aren’t great at the moment and the probability that Glenrannoch needs substantial money spent on it to bring it up to standard would no doubt affect the selling price. The horrific cost of LBTT on properties in Scotland over identifiable thresholds is prohibitive. I’ve recently bought and sold properties and the legal and associated costs are jaw dropping these days.
In short it’s unlikely that anyone will shell out serious money for a wreck and all that goes with it.
Getting back to lodge sales, it would be helpful for owners to be given an accurate and honest update on sales and hopefully this will happen sometime soon.
In short it’s unlikely that anyone will shell out serious money for a wreck and all that goes with it.
Getting back to lodge sales, it would be helpful for owners to be given an accurate and honest update on sales and hopefully this will happen sometime soon.
I agree with you Ray.
If Glenrannoch had been sold at the right time when first suggested, it would undoubtedly have made a dent in the refurbishment cost, but real costs and figures were sadly lacking which has become a common theme.
The longer there is a delay in sales figures, the bigger the concern.
There is also a bigger concern for refurbs if rentals don't deliver which I expect to happen due to the various expenses that, in my opinion, have been manipulated.
Unfortunately there have been some decisions made and expenses incurred and agreed by whomever that are not owner centric.
The fact that only 173 weeks voted at AGM highlights this abd not that they are happy according to some.
As a club we need to be inclusive and the first stage of inclusiveness is to be informative and this starts with the real figures for sales and the real profit in rentals.
If Glenrannoch had been sold at the right time when first suggested, it would undoubtedly have made a dent in the refurbishment cost, but real costs and figures were sadly lacking which has become a common theme.
The longer there is a delay in sales figures, the bigger the concern.
There is also a bigger concern for refurbs if rentals don't deliver which I expect to happen due to the various expenses that, in my opinion, have been manipulated.
Unfortunately there have been some decisions made and expenses incurred and agreed by whomever that are not owner centric.
The fact that only 173 weeks voted at AGM highlights this abd not that they are happy according to some.
As a club we need to be inclusive and the first stage of inclusiveness is to be informative and this starts with the real figures for sales and the real profit in rentals.
Indeed Stuart. The March newsletter informs us that our paid LRHC sales professional understands the needs of buyers however despite my earlier anticipation that figures might be made available to owners in the March newsletter it didn’t materialise.
Maybe April’s newsletter will reveal all
Maybe April’s newsletter will reveal all
What troubles me Stuart is that all owners contribute to the financial well being of LRHC and this obviously includes all committee members, however it appears to be that only committee members, the GM and probably a few other employees have a clear knowledge of the true financial position/ current state of sales at LRHC.
Is this acceptable to owners in general ?
I think not
Is this acceptable to owners in general ?
I think not
Unfortunately due to the lack of up to date, truthful and transparent information, owners do not have any idea as to how their hard earned money has been used or abused over the years.
We are now 9 months into the financial year and all we know is that owners are to pay a 5 year levy to upgrade certain units and is dependent on the strength of rentals, for which the total profit is a massive unknown and we continue to have a massive wage bill.
The newsletter in the last few months has not given the facts and figures on sales which is a measure of success and future planning.
We are now 9 months into the financial year and all we know is that owners are to pay a 5 year levy to upgrade certain units and is dependent on the strength of rentals, for which the total profit is a massive unknown and we continue to have a massive wage bill.
The newsletter in the last few months has not given the facts and figures on sales which is a measure of success and future planning.
I get your drift, Stuart.
There may be something of an element of a reluctance to publish poor sales figures as it may be of interest to “a competitor” but I still regard that accurate figures should be made available to all owners, after all, without any paying owners the club will be nothing.
I’m a great believer in due respect for all but when lack of due respect degenerates to contempt then all trust and confidence vanishes, and unlikely to be retrievable
There may be something of an element of a reluctance to publish poor sales figures as it may be of interest to “a competitor” but I still regard that accurate figures should be made available to all owners, after all, without any paying owners the club will be nothing.
I’m a great believer in due respect for all but when lack of due respect degenerates to contempt then all trust and confidence vanishes, and unlikely to be retrievable
You have hit the nail on the head.
Some as I have said previously " are legends in their own minds" and don't realise the power of sharing information and when the time is right to share that information.
There has been more than sufficient time to share and now there will always be an element of mistrust which leads to a lack of respect.
It's happened before at the Club and look what happened?
Owners should be advised of important facts such as sales figures and income generated as what must not be forgotten is they are the cornerstone of how this club has evolved and with an ever increasing wage bill on management I wait patiently to see the success stories.
Some as I have said previously " are legends in their own minds" and don't realise the power of sharing information and when the time is right to share that information.
There has been more than sufficient time to share and now there will always be an element of mistrust which leads to a lack of respect.
It's happened before at the Club and look what happened?
Owners should be advised of important facts such as sales figures and income generated as what must not be forgotten is they are the cornerstone of how this club has evolved and with an ever increasing wage bill on management I wait patiently to see the success stories.
Indeed Stuart. Whilst everyone employed at LRHC obviously needs to be paid accordingly for their labour and the total cost of wages is indeed published in the accounts, it also begs the question who actually earns what at LRHC ? ……,, and if in fact in all cases their wages are proportionate to what they are employed to do and the extent of their responsibility etc etc ?
To my knowledge a breakdown of employee’s wages has never been made known to LRHC owners, nor have owners ever been consulted re this despite being the source of all income with perhaps the exception of rental income.
Is this the sort of conditions which prospective new owners at LRHC are likely to be comfortable with ?
On that very subject, has anyone recently heard how many new perpetuity/ term weeks have been sold, given that a wage for doing so is paid to a dedicated sales professional?
Asking for a friend
To my knowledge a breakdown of employee’s wages has never been made known to LRHC owners, nor have owners ever been consulted re this despite being the source of all income with perhaps the exception of rental income.
Is this the sort of conditions which prospective new owners at LRHC are likely to be comfortable with ?
On that very subject, has anyone recently heard how many new perpetuity/ term weeks have been sold, given that a wage for doing so is paid to a dedicated sales professional?
Asking for a friend
I pointed out in an email to Club accountant prior to AGM that our wage bill was dangerously high in relation to the overall income we have. It was on a par with having bar/ restaurant facilities and in my opinion,unsustainable.
I also discussed this with accountants who specialise in hospitality beforehand.
I did get a reply that was pretty evasive, answering nothing and tried to contact him as agreed. I am still awaiting a return call
After the introduction of levy and no doubt a further increase in fees it will be once again down to the owners to subsidise the wages and other fantasy projects and all because, and I am hoping I am wrong, a lack of any real profit in sales and rentals.
I also discussed this with accountants who specialise in hospitality beforehand.
I did get a reply that was pretty evasive, answering nothing and tried to contact him as agreed. I am still awaiting a return call
After the introduction of levy and no doubt a further increase in fees it will be once again down to the owners to subsidise the wages and other fantasy projects and all because, and I am hoping I am wrong, a lack of any real profit in sales and rentals.
Last edited by LAMO003 on Sun Apr 14, 2024 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
These are pretty much my concerns, Stuart.
Whilst accepting that I’m not likely to be the flavour of the month for some of my observations, I’ll concede that it won’t always be easy to get the balance right at LRHC given the timeshare nature of the organisation .
That doesn’t mean to say that improvement in some areas can’t be achieved and one of those areas is a more informative dialogue with owners particularly about financial isses. Its noticeable that there’s regular updates on most other things LRHC related, including community issues, LRE etc but few detailed updates on financial matters.
In this day and age of email and internet access there’s no realistic reason why there shouldn’t be
The owners are the main financial source to sustain the club and deserve to be kept informed, good news or bad, in my opinion
Whilst accepting that I’m not likely to be the flavour of the month for some of my observations, I’ll concede that it won’t always be easy to get the balance right at LRHC given the timeshare nature of the organisation .
That doesn’t mean to say that improvement in some areas can’t be achieved and one of those areas is a more informative dialogue with owners particularly about financial isses. Its noticeable that there’s regular updates on most other things LRHC related, including community issues, LRE etc but few detailed updates on financial matters.
In this day and age of email and internet access there’s no realistic reason why there shouldn’t be
The owners are the main financial source to sustain the club and deserve to be kept informed, good news or bad, in my opinion
I was advised that the number of lodges NOW under club ownership would be made available to ALL owners.
I had also enquired as to how many lodges had been returned to club since 01/07/23 as this was the start of the club financial year , and once you factor this into calculations, it will give a truer picture as to the success of sales. Eg if 40 lodges returned and only 40 lodges sold this is neutral and we are standing still.
Re rentals- I am still waiting to see the mystical and magical £500,000 and a net profit that would give, not just me, but all the owners, belief we are on the right track.
The accounts of last year do not lie and it remains a massive concern for this year.
I had also enquired as to how many lodges had been returned to club since 01/07/23 as this was the start of the club financial year , and once you factor this into calculations, it will give a truer picture as to the success of sales. Eg if 40 lodges returned and only 40 lodges sold this is neutral and we are standing still.
Re rentals- I am still waiting to see the mystical and magical £500,000 and a net profit that would give, not just me, but all the owners, belief we are on the right track.
The accounts of last year do not lie and it remains a massive concern for this year.