Bearsted Golf Club

[Billysboots]

Because she appears to be claiming her subs back because she says she can't play. Either get the subs refund & leave or remain a member & play, but not both.

Part of me wonders whether this whole saga arose in the first place perhaps because the club may have agreed to refund Jordan’s father’s subs, but not his mum’s, and he was after both.

I’m speculating, of course I am, but it would seem to make sense.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Because she appears to be claiming her subs back because she says she can't play. Either get the subs refund & leave or remain a member & play, but not both.

Well if the club had said you can't have the refund I'd suggest she'd decided to have a game anyway. Now that the club has refunded I assume she's no longer viewed as a member and so won't be playing there and assuming will be looking after her husband instead if he's at home

 

[PJ87]

Well if the club had said you can't have the refund I'd suggest she'd decided to have a game anyway. Now that the club has refunded I assume she's no longer viewed as a member and so won't be playing there and assuming will be looking after her husband instead if he's at home

Or might go along with her friends when he is in hospital and pay the guest fee .. as she needed the lump sum for his meds and can afford the odd round now and again

Then again some on here will jump on how she shouldn't ever play golf again having asked for her money back and how dare she.

 

[Billysboots]

Then again some on here will jump on how she shouldn't ever play golf again having asked for her money back and how dare she.

I’m not sure anyone has actually said that, have they? What has actually been suggested is that she either claimed a refund because she was nursing her sick husband and as such no longer required her membership, or she continued to play golf and pay for the privilege.

 

[clubchamp98]

It does prove one thing though.
If you make a fuss on social media and in the press ,you get your own way.
Right or wrong it works.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Or might go along with her friends when he is in hospital and pay the guest fee .. as she needed the lump sum for his meds and can afford the odd round now and again

Why would she pay a guest fee when she's a fully paid up member?

Then again some on here will jump on how she shouldn't ever play golf again having asked for her money back and how dare she

.

Or some might be wondering about the inconsistencies in the story...

"On a subsequent visit to the club, to have a round with her friends while her husband was still in hospital..."

"His mother had asked for the return of the fees as her husband is not well enough to use the club and she spends all her time caring for him."

Either she can't play because she's spending all her time caring for him, or she has time to play, in which case she has no entitlement to a refund.

How she deals with her husband's illness is entirely up to her, and I haven't seen anyone on here comment about that, but the contradiction in the two statements above from the article, with which it is reasonable to assume they have cooperated, appears to be a glaring case of having your cake & eating it.

We are in November now. Bearsted's fees are apparently due in April, and are advertised at £1,290 per year. So for a £2,500 refund, this must have happened at almost the same time as the fees were paid if the request is for the refund of the unused part of the subs? I think there's a bit more to this than James Jordan is sharing with us.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

I wonder if the outcome would have been different if a normal Joe had asked.
I can see both sides, but I dont agree with telling tales to the press.

 

[Fish]

We are in November now.

Bearsted's fees are apparently due in April, and are advertised at £1,290 per year.

So for a £2,500 refund, this must have happened at almost the same time as the fees were paid if the request is for the refund of the unused part of the subs?

I think there's a bit more to this than James Jordan is sharing with us.

I’d guess they paid their annual fees early/on time whilst in the first lockdown, as they were supporters of the club.

He then became ill and went into hospital, possibly never playing in this term, but as stated, his wife did, possibly early on in the year and asked about a refund.

He became terminally ill and another lockdown loomed, so another request was made for them both, and refused.

Hence its not coming or being put forward to the club as just a refund for himself, due to the terminally ill situation, the request has been for a refund for the couple, and I’d guess, that both lockdowns have been mentioned within that request along with the lack of opportunity for the wife to play whilst caring for her husband and no doubt citing the restrictions, like all golf clubs have had to implement and all members endure.

Obviously this is all guesswork as we can only read one side, but the way it has been written, it’s designed to show the club in poor light.

If the wife has played, and possibly visited the club to meet with friends, I’d have refunded the husbands membership as a gesture of goodwill in full and refunded the wife’s in part, but only down to a social members fee so she could still meet with friends at the club.

There’s definitely more to this imo, I remember when everyone was up in arms about the young truck driver being accused and charged with multiple murders when bodies were found in his trailer, there were petitions and outrage, but, it emerged he was right at it, and for ages, and lived almost 2 lives unbeknown to so many, and we all, me included, fell for the innocent picture painted by the media and character references given by friends, which were wholly proved incorrect!

 

[Canary_Yellow]

Why would she pay a guest fee when she's a fully paid up member?



Or some might be wondering about the inconsistencies in the story...

"On a subsequent visit to the club, to have a round with her friends while her husband was still in hospital..."

"His mother had asked for the return of the fees as her husband is not well enough to use the club and she spends all her time caring for him."

Either she can't play because she's spending all her time caring for him, or she has time to play, in which case she has no entitlement to a refund.

How she deals with her husband's illness is entirely up to her, and I haven't seen anyone on here comment about that, but the contradiction in the two statements above from the article, with which it is reasonable to assume they have cooperated, appears to be a glaring case of having your cake & eating it.

We are in November now. Bearsted's fees are apparently due in April, and are advertised at £1,290 per year. So for a £2,500 refund, this must have happened at almost the same time as the fees were paid if the request is for the refund of the unused part of the subs? I think there's a bit more to this than James Jordan is sharing with us.

Re-read the article:

James said: "Now he can't play, my mum politely asked for part of their unused subscriptions to be returned.”

It doesn’t say anywhere the amount of the refund asked for.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Re-read the article:

James said: "Now he can't play, my mum politely asked for part of their unused subscriptions to be returned.”

It doesn’t say anywhere the amount of the refund asked for.

It won't because at the top of the article it says updated, and prior to that update, it had quote from James Jordan in which the sum, which was £2,500, was mentioned.

It has been mentioned by other posters as well.

So the amount was mentioned, but has consequently been removed.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Re-read the article:

James said: "Now he can't play, my mum politely asked for part of their unused subscriptions to be returned.”

It doesn’t say anywhere the amount of the refund asked for.

I’m on the side of the club here, where do you draw the line in refunding subs? You do it for one in a situation like this and we all know there will be a queue of people asking for refunds for every illness/injury that causes some time missed from playing golf.

On another note, it’s quoted in the article that the money was to be used for alternative treatment not available on the NHS. It also mentions the fees at £2500.

According to google and the relevant websites James Jordan is worth approximately £1.5 million so why on earth is he making a fuss over £2.5k when we are talking about his fathers health and well-being?

Maybe take a look in the mirror Mr Jordan and ask yourself is this really about your father or is it more about you getting a bit of media attention?

Full membership at this club is a shade under £1300 a year, senior rates doubtless rather less, so where has James Jordan plucked the figure of £2500 from?

If Jordan is really quibbling over less than £1300 there has got to be more to this story. We’re all commenting, myself included, without knowing all the facts.

I agree 100%. But the suggestion to me was that the £2500 refund covered the subs of husband and wife because neither were going to be using the club’s facilities.

We've all got that figure from somewhere, and it was the originally linked article prior to being updated.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

We've all got that figure from somewhere, and it was the originally linked article prior to being updated.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ke...clubs-treatment-of-terminally-ill-dad-237381/

Where? The only mention of £2500 is by KentOnline to provide context for the cost of two memberships at Bearsted.

James Jordan is never quoted as mentioning the amount of the refund requested.

 

[fenwayrich]

I find it quite shocking that people side with the club (if the article is factual). A man is terminally ill and can't play. Only golf has this problem. In all other sports and hobbies I've been involved in the outcome would be very different. God forbid they offer help and assistance to a valued member who's about to die!!!!!! "Nah, let's keep his money he won't be needing it where he's going. We'll spend his money on some more blazers for past captains"

I agree with you. Regardless of the rules, if a club can't show a bit of compassion for a loyal member with a diagnosis of terminal illness, it's a poor do.

 

[Tashyboy]

Not read the four pages, but for me there is a fundamental problem that should folk not be able to play for a Majority of the season, partial refund of a yearly subscription should be refunded on an individual basis.
This year most folk have not been able to play golf due to Covid, our course has said that will be taken into account when setting next years green fee costs. So we kinda get a refund due to Covid, but nowt if it’s a medical/ physical condition. To compound the situation has Covid been an issue in this where the club is desperate for money. There’s talk of the celebrity being a millionaire but can the club afford it.

 

[Fish]

I agree with you. Regardless of the rules, if a club can't show a bit of compassion for a loyal member with a diagnosis of terminal illness, it's a poor do.

Whilst I do get this, our flag is at half mast almost indefinitely, there’s not a week that I don’t receive an email announcing the death of a member, so if you are a club that doesn’t have a waiting list, or a steady stream of new members, and if you were constantly refunding fees based on serious illnesses, you wouldn’t have a club that could invest in itself or possibly even survive taking into account the average high age of members!

I think the rule is ok, but cases can and should be looked at on an individual basis, as they were by the committee there, who have now done a u-turn, rightly or wrongly.

 

[Billysboots]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ke...clubs-treatment-of-terminally-ill-dad-237381/

Where? The only mention of £2500 is by KentOnline to provide context for the cost of two memberships at Bearsted.

James Jordan is never quoted as mentioning the amount of the refund requested.

I asked much earlier in the thread, and remain curious, given your very strong views on this issue.

Are you a member at Bearsted GC?

 

[Canary_Yellow]

I asked much earlier in the thread, and remain curious, given your very strong views on this issue.

Are you a member at Bearsted GC?

Sorry, I don’t engage with trolls and sea lions.

 

[Blue in Munich]

I asked much earlier in the thread, and remain curious, given your very strong views on this issue.

Are you a member at Bearsted GC?

Maybe you should ask if he is James Jordan

 

[Billysboots]

Sorry, I don’t engage with trolls and sea lions.

I take it that’s a “yes”, then. Either that or you’re actually James Jordan.

Trolling? Hardly. You started the thread, and have very firm and fixed views on what is a very emotive subject. I’m merely trying to put your comments into context by establishing how close you are to the subject matter.

Top tip. If you don’t like people holding an alternative view to yours, don’t start a thread which is likely to generate opinions which are polar opposites. And if you do start such threads, don’t then start throwing petty insults into the mix when it’s not going your way.

 

[Billysboots]

Maybe you should ask if he is James Jordan

You beat me to it ??