What is a fair suspension ?

[sunshine]

This is correct as once President you are unchallenged and can do what you want.
That’s not right.
The higher the office the more the scrutiny.

The President is here to make golf great again

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Its not retribution, he's asking a valid question and getting short shrift for his efforts.

And so be it.

 

[sunshine]

This is one side of joining a club I am not looking forward to, the politics and drama

You have to realise that some members have a lot of time on their hands and need to find something to occupy it.

My club has recently purchased new white flagsticks. I was chatting to the captain recently and he told me some members have complained that they preferred the old yellow flagsticks. They are the same design just a different colour.

You can get involved in this stuff if you want, but you really don't have to!

 

[sunshine]

Then presidents and committee’s should ensure they are whiter than white

Sadly this is very true at some golf clubs. Casual racism is still rife.

 

[Jacko_G]

It certainly seems that the majority on here have decided that the OP's version of events is the unalloyed truth. Personally I prefer to hear both sides of the story before condemning the Committee.

What is clear is that many think it OK to criticise Committee members in quite colourful terms whilst happily posting on a forum where open criticism of Moderators and their rulings is rightly prohibited.

Is that not clear double standards?

Double standards by mods also! Doesn't make it right....

Just saying

 

[KenL]

Double standards by mods also! Doesn't make it right....

Just saying

3 month suspension coming your way. ?

 

[Red scorpion]

If other people are not happy with what they are doing,get names and call an egm.

 

[TigerTime]

This is exceptional. Join a club, play golf, make friends, socialise after a round, go home. It is what happens 99.9% of the time.

The politics of a club, on the whole, only tend to affect you if you go looking for them.

Oh I know,

It was a bit tongue in cheek.

 

[Foxholer]

Like the honesty involved in allegedly keeping the legal advice from the membership...

That's quite likely entirely appropriate! AFAIK, legal advice (whether at a cost or not) is entirely the 'property' of the requestor/recipient! They may choose to release it, describe it, or keep it to themselves, but that's THEIR choice!

If you are questioning anyone's 'honesty' about itholding legal advice, then there's far greater targets that you have likely had 'intimate' knowledge of imo!

 

[slowhand]

That's quite likely entirely appropriate! AFAIK, legal advice (whether at a cost or not) is entirely the 'property' of the requestor/recipient! They may choose to release it, describe it, or keep it to themselves, but that's THEIR choice!

If you are questioning anyone's 'honesty' about itholding legal advice, then there's far greater targets that you have likely had 'intimate' knowledge of imo!

I’m no lawyer, but surely the argument could thus be made that since the advice was given to a members club, it’s the property of all them members, and so the OP was entitled to see it

 

[Foxholer]

...Why would a request to view the legal advice given to the comittee that they claim gives them the right to demand the fees for the time they were unable to provide the services the members had paid for?

I'm not saying they didn't have the legal standing, I'm just wondering why they went for the nuclear option so quickly (according to the OP)

FWIW. My understanding is that (generally) membership fees are a fixed amount, but may be paid in instalments. That's certainly the case at my club and is how I pay. It is stressed, in the agreement, that the 'instalment' method is purely for 'customer convenience' and the total cost is due - even when no play is permitted! My club was particularly generous (imo) and gave 2 month's worth of 'reduction' for this year's subs - something that cost them almost 15% of their sub income, but was a great gesture - typical of their 'business' approach to running a golf course!

 

[Ethan]

That's quite likely entirely appropriate! AFAIK, legal advice (whether at a cost or not) is entirely the 'property' of the requestor/recipient! They may choose to release it, describe it, or keep it to themselves, but that's THEIR choice!

If you are questioning anyone's 'honesty' about itholding legal advice, then there's far greater targets that you have likely had 'intimate' knowledge of imo!

If you defend an action by saying that you got legal advice, you kinda have to show what it said. And if that advice was obtained on behalf of, and paid by, a members club, surely the members have a right to see.

 

[Foxholer]

...surely the argument could thus be made that since the advice was given to a members club, it’s the property of all them members, and so the OP was entitled to see it

But was it?
You'd have to see Rules/Regs of Committee and determine how that advice was commissioned/received to determine whose 'property' it was! Personally, I'd believe it's likely to be 'priviledged' info - only available to certain areas of the club. However, it seems the gist of it has been made available to the OP - even if not accepted by him!

 

[Foxholer]

If you defend an action by saying that you got legal advice, you kinda have to show what it said. And if that advice was obtained on behalf of, and paid by, a members club, surely the members have a right to see.

Depends on what Club Rules/Constitution say! And may not have been (specifically) paid for by 'The Club' either.
From what I percieve has happened (and I may be wrong), it seems to me that the OP reacted badly to being told he had to pay for the 'missed' period and his objections escalated out of control. I'm obviously not privy to the conversation, but swearing at the President of the club does not seem a smart thing to do! While it seems rather harsh, I believe accepting the 3 months suspension would be a far simpler/cheaper 'result' than getting lawyers involved! I'm pretty certain that the admissions on here would mean he'd lose a case for 'excess punishment' and, as i've previously stated, the obligation to continue paying subs, even though the coursed was closed by Covid restrictions, is fundamental to every 'deferred payment plan' that I know of!

So to the OP...Suck it up; pay the money; take the punishment! It doesn't seem, to me, that you are the sort to get involved with Club administration, but you are quite entitled to garner support for a 'member revolution' at the next AGM!

 

[Blue in Munich]

That's quite likely entirely appropriate! AFAIK, legal advice (whether at a cost or not) is entirely the 'property' of the requestor/recipient! They may choose to release it, describe it, or keep it to themselves, but that's THEIR choice!

If you are questioning anyone's 'honesty' about itholding legal advice, then there's far greater targets that you have likely had 'intimate' knowledge of imo!

I’m no lawyer, but surely the argument could thus be made that since the advice was given to a members club, it’s the property of all them members, and so the OP was entitled to see it

If you defend an action by saying that you got legal advice, you kinda have to show what it said. And if that advice was obtained on behalf of, and paid by, a members club, surely the members have a right to see.

The second & third quotes are where I'm coming from.

The other point I'd make is that I'd have a couple of bob on the fact that any club in the country had some members who were not happy about paying fees for a service they weren't currently getting. If there is legal advice available to the club that proves the members are liable for subs despite the lack of service, why not simply pin it to the notice board, or email it to the members, and put the mutiny down before it starts; would that not be acting in the club's best interest by dispelling any misunderstanding?

 

[Deleted member 18588]

The second & third quotes are where I'm coming from.

The other point I'd make is that I'd have a couple of bob on the fact that any club in the country had some members who were not happy about paying fees for a service they weren't currently getting. If there is legal advice available to the club that proves the members are liable for subs despite the lack of service, why not simply pin it to the notice board, or email it to the members, and put the mutiny down before it starts; would that not be acting in the club's best interest by dispelling any misunderstanding?

And do we know that the Committee didn't do any of that?

So far we have heard only one very limited version of events.

 

[Foxholer]

The second & third quotes are where I'm coming from.
...

See Post 182

 

[3offTheTee]

Have you considered contacting The President and saying we both may have done/ said things in haste which we both have later regret.

Explain you were out of order for what you said but in the heat of the moment and apologise. Explain what you want from the situation and want an amicable resolution.


Also you do not want to leave the Club, if this is the case, and try and offer an olive branch, perhaps through gritted teeth.

Somebody has to make the first move and if there is no movement/ attempt to meet halfway you have done your best and then consider your options after you have explained your position

 

[KenL]

The club have already suspended him, what's the point of any of that?
They'll just say thanks, see you when your suspension ends.

Probably true but it might be that what they really want is an apology.

 

[clubchamp98]

Golf Is all about integrity and honesty, it’s what the game is built on...

So let’s question the presidents integrity and honesty by calling him a liar in colourful terms and see what happens.

Yes I see your point.
But the President should quieten him by proving he wasn’t lying instead of using his mates on the comittiee to get rid of his accuser.
That’s what Dictators do.