Bearsted Golf Club

[Canary_Yellow]

I’m not a fan of people going to the media over issues, but this does seem mean of Bearsted Golf Club to me (noting of course this article only gives one side of the story):


https://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidst...clubs-treatment-of-terminally-ill-dad-237381/

Thoughts from a golfer / committee member perspective?

 

[jim8flog]

This has been our club policy in the past but I do not know what the current one is.

On a personal note I once had 10 months off playing due to injury but it not not even occur to me to ask for a refund.

 

[chrisd]

I know Keith Osbourne the manager pretty well from his days as Secretary at my place and, to me, he's not the sort to refuse a refund in a case like this, I'm pretty sure the decision is a Committee one and perhaps he's the one who has to pass on their decision.

However, any club who refuses a refund in such circumstances wants to seriously look at themselves ??

 

[Billysboots]

It’s difficult to reply rationally to this one, primarily because I cannot abide James Jordan. He has always come across as an arrogant man.

Now I’ve got that out of the way, I’m afraid I’m with the club on this one. Whilst it would perhaps be nice, as a gesture of goodwill, if they refunded part of the subscription, there should not be an expectation that they will. Golf clubs struggle at the best of times, more so at the moment, and cannot hope to have a financial plan if they are constantly having to refund fees when members are unable to play or have to terminate memberships, for various medical reasons. I am mindful of the large senior memberships at most clubs, and the impact regular cash refunds would have.

So, sorry, but no. I’m quite sure Mr Jordan is in a better position than most to be able to afford to support his parents. Maybe he should charge the club fees in future for his “special appearances”. ?

 

[Canary_Yellow]

It’s difficult to reply rationally to this one, primarily because I cannot abide James Jordan. He has always come across as an arrogant man.

Now I’ve got that out of the way, I’m afraid I’m with the club on this one. Whilst it would perhaps be nice, as a gesture of goodwill, if they refunded part of the subscription, there should not be an expectation that they will. Golf clubs struggle at the best of times, more so at the moment, and cannot hope to have a financial plan if they are constantly having to refund fees when members are unable to play or have to terminate memberships, for various medical reasons. I am mindful of the large senior memberships at most clubs, and the impact regular cash refunds would have.

So, sorry, but no. I’m quite sure Mr Jordan can afford to support his parents. Maybe he should charge the club fees in future for his “special appearances”. ?

I can’t understand why they wouldn’t refund say 6 months, at least, of Allan’s membership. Maybe they did offer, but it doesn’t sound like it from what has been said in the article.

I agree the club shouldn’t be expected to refund memberships for any old reason, but I think i would want any club I was a member of to do so in the event of a terminal illness diagnosis that meant a member was no longer able to play. I’d have no problem with that even if it meant a few pounds more on my membership as an effective insurance policy.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Every golf club surely should have processes in place for these sort of situations

We do - a holding membership where you pay a small fee to stay within the membership at the start of the year but you can also go on hold during the year for injuries , illnesses etc

The request is made , goes to the committee who agree and then if the person paid full up front can either get a refund on time left for the year or what some do is leave it for reduce subs the next year - but it is for a minimum of 4 months I think. We normally get them from people who have had operations etc

 

[Billysboots]

I can’t understand why they wouldn’t refund say 6 months, at least, of Allan’s membership. Maybe they did offer, but it doesn’t sound like it from what has been said in the article.

I agree the club shouldn’t be expected to refund memberships for any old reason, but I think i would want any club I was a member of to do so in the event of a terminal illness diagnosis that meant a member was no longer able to play. I’d have no problem with that even if it meant a few pounds more on my membership as an effective insurance policy.

It’s quite an emotive issue, to be fair.

I know at our club we can suspend membership if injury/illness prevent us playing - some take up the option, but not all. But there’s no expectation on my part, and I don’t think there should be. I’m just lucky that’s how my club chooses to do business.

A similar issue has arisen this year with the pandemic and closure of courses. Whilst ours suspended monthly direct debits, a good number of us approached the club and said we would happily continue to pay. The bottom line is that my golf club is such a huge part of my life that I am entirely satisfied that the money I pay doesn’t come close to covering the enjoyment I get from being a member, so if I can continue to support them in the short term to help them stay afloat in the long term, it’s a small price to pay.

A similar principle applies here, although not the same, granted. For the sake of a couple of grand, if you then start replicating that across the broader membership, clubs will start to go out of business.

 

[chrisd]

Every golf club surely should have processes in place for these sort of situations

We do - a holding membership where you pay a small fee to stay within the membership at the start of the year but you can also go on hold during the year for injuries , illnesses etc

The request is made , goes to the committee who agree and then if the person paid full up front can either get a refund on time left for the year or what some do is leave it for reduce subs the next year - but it is for a minimum of 4 months I think. We normally get them from people who have had operations etc

I think all clubs should do this, and change their rules to allow refunds in exceptional circumstances. I have had time of during various hip and knee surgery and wouldn't dream of asking for a refund for a few weeks here and there but someone dying !!

Also, those who pay monthly are likely just to cancel their direct debit and will be in a better financial position than the people who pay up front (as I do)

 

[Canary_Yellow]

It’s quite an emotive issue, to be fair.

I know at our club we can suspend membership if injury/illness prevent us playing - some take up the option, but not all.

A similar issue has arisen this year with the pandemic and closure of courses. Whilst ours suspended monthly direct debits, a good number of us approached the club and said we would happily continue to pay. The bottom line is that my golf club is such a huge part of my life that I am entirely satisfied that the money I pay doesn’t come close to covering the enjoyment I get from being a member, so if I can continue to support them in the short term to help them stay afloat in the long term, it’s a small price to pay.

A similar principle applies here, although not the same, granted. For the sake of a couple of grand, if you then start replicating that across the broader membership, clubs will start to go out of business.

Yes, I can absolutely see the difficulty for the golf club in terms of a precedent, but I like to think showing a bit of compassion pays for itself in the long run.

 

[YandaB]

Also, those who pay monthly are likely just to cancel their direct debit and will be in a better financial position than the people who pay up front (as I do)

To me this is where it shows the true policy, if he had been paying via dd and stopped, the committee could initiate proceedings to get this money back as that is generally defaulting on a loan (rather than monthly membership). I wonder if they would have done that in a case like this and if not then the only fair treatment would be to return a portion of the subs.

 

[chrisd]

To me this is where it shows the true policy, if he had been paying via dd and stopped, the committee could initiate proceedings to get this money back as that is generally defaulting on a loan (rather than monthly membership). I wonder if they would have done that in a case like this and if not then the only fair treatment would be to return a portion of the subs.

My understanding is that the Club have been given the money by the credit company and it is they who would chase the debt, but would they?

 

[Billysboots]

Whatever the situation here, you can almost guarantee there will be more to it than has met the eye.

As someone who was once on the wrong side of an outrageous piece of local “journalism”, without ever having the opportunity to fill in the gaps, I have first hand experience of the thirst of the press for a good article, even though that story may not be remotely accurate.

 

[chrisd]

Yes, I can absolutely see the difficulty for the golf club in terms of a precedent, but I like to think showing a bit of compassion pays for itself in the long run.

Indeed, how many golfers wouldn't look to join Bearsted having read the story ?

 

[Billysboots]

Yes, I can absolutely see the difficulty for the golf club in terms of a precedent, but I like to think showing a bit of compassion pays for itself in the long run.

I don’t disagree, but without wishing to sound blasé compassion doesn’t pay the bills.

 

[Billysboots]

Indeed, how many golfers wouldn't look to join Bearsted having read the story ?

That depends on how much people believe what they read in the papers.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

Indeed, how many golfers wouldn't look to join Bearsted having read the story ?

If the answer is more than 1, it’s already a bad business decision

 

[Canary_Yellow]

That depends on how much people believe what they read in the papers.

That suggests you disagree with the facts that have been presented. As in your suggesting it’s not true that the club have refused a refund.

It’s not a case of whether people believe what’s written, but rather whether the committee’s decision is objectively reasonable. That’s what the club will be judged on.

 

[Billysboots]

If the answer is more than 1, it’s already a bad business decision

“The club has been contacted for a comment.”

Typically one sided journalism. Why not get both sides first for a balanced article? You can absolutely guarantee that any club reply will not be reported unless it fits the narrative.

Anyone who decides not to join somewhere based on unsubstantiated reporting is naive in the extreme.

 

[Del_Boy]

What’s the score if you snuff it when paid up front? Must admit I don’t know what happens at my club

 

[Billysboots]

That suggests you disagree with the facts that have been presented. As in your suggesting it’s not true that the club have refused a refund.

I’m suggesting we don’t know the full story.

Are you a member at this place?