Let's put it on hold and discuss at the next Town Hall.
M
Marvin Hasting
9 years ago
With so many members against this I think the Board should take another look at how they are spending our money
M
MARK HEHNEN
9 years ago
I am persuaded by the 100 or so comments below that the downside of this project far outweighs the upside. Take a deep breath and put it on hold.
R
Richard Metz
9 years ago
Purchase this large should have went out to vote of all members.
R
Robert Cheney
9 years ago
none
J
John Porter
9 years ago
When I joined MVCC 8 years ago, I was told that there were no assessments scheduled... There hasn't been a year that we haven't been assessed since I joined. I was able to serve on the finance committee for four years with fiscal conservative members. I believe that the club would be better served to have saved six months of operating expenses than to take on anymore debt.
D
Dorothy J Wyse
9 years ago
I am against this proposal!
O
Offie Gallevo
9 years ago
Featured
I am not in favor of the simulator, prefers to use our fund to add payment to the Club mortgage. I know a number of folks who are thinking of leaving MVCC ! We are concerned of unknown assessments to come!
M
Mike Solberg
9 years ago
After meeting with Greg Manley I am against the installation of a simulator.
D
David Foster
9 years ago
Featured
As a new member but in on discussions with my "old" member friends I'm concerned as how this purchase seems to have evolved with little member input. At our club in the desert, Thunderbird, folks worry about Boards who discover unspent funds, and spend them on things that are not well-thought out. My concern is that this may be an example of that.
M
Michael Robinson
9 years ago
Featured
Now that the club is at 350 FTE, we should concentrate on course improvement priorities for at least a year. Also, I have looked online at golf simulators, and the high end ones are $90,000. It seems $150 is a sweetheart deal for someone, but not the club. Did we shop around?
R
Rod Boyer
9 years ago
MV is not in traffic flow to realize this kind of revenue for simulator.
S
Sheri Fonnesbeck
9 years ago
I concur with many of the comments already offered in the petition. Specifically, building a reserve and spending capital dollars on the core assets to keep MVCC a place to attract and retain members. I have doubts a simulator will pay for itself, resulting in additional assessments and potential increases in monthly dues. I appreciate the work the board does but hope they will take the concerns raised in this petition and hold a general meeting to discuss.
R
Rich Seims
9 years ago
I just don't think it will used enough to pay for itself
Therefore, would rather see other matters accomplished
Rich
B
BEVERLIE STRAIN
9 years ago
Featured
Ace and I agree that there are other things that are a priority. At one point there was conversation about covering part of the driving range. This would provide more all-weather access for members and teaching pros.
D
Dennis Wallick
9 years ago
I have to agree that the timing of this venture is off, let's focus on our core business, pay down the debt, and ELIMINATE assessments! It seems to me on the surface that the projected usage is optimistic, summer hours used would certainly fall behind which would then have to be made up in the winter months? Also, If we are one of the largest "green grass" buyers of Taylormade why isn't TM kicking in to help market/sell their clubs to help ease this financial gamble? We elected our board in good faith and do believe they have our best interests in mind, however there was not enough transparency and open discussion from our members on such a large outlay of funds on a venture that is somewhat of a gamble. I have to personally disagree with this decision as I feel it is not in the best interests of our beloved club....
G
Gerald Lee
· petition starter
9 years ago
I added a spreadsheet image using the same format that was published on Monday. I'm assuming this machine is complicated enough and has sufficient value that we wouldn't leave it unattended. Just adding one employee for only the hours it is being used pushes this into being a money loser at 4 hrs per day, every day, for 5 years. For added context, even under the optimistic scenario originally presented, the room generates $3200 profit per year. That is less than the dues revenue generated by one FTE member! Wouldn't our efforts be better served by finding that one extra member?
P
Pete Wallingford
9 years ago
Without seeing a comprehensive business plan, I too am having difficulty rationalizing this purchase at this time.
M
Mark Burley
9 years ago
Bad timing and not something we really need given current debt situation.
M
Mike Barrett
9 years ago
I have read most of the comments and I can't say I disagree with any of them. All valid points of concern. Where is this "extra" money coming from? Why are the members being assessed if we can afford such an expense?
Let's put it on hold and discuss at the next Town Hall.
With so many members against this I think the Board should take another look at how they are spending our money
I am persuaded by the 100 or so comments below that the downside of this project far outweighs the upside. Take a deep breath and put it on hold.
Purchase this large should have went out to vote of all members.
none
When I joined MVCC 8 years ago, I was told that there were no assessments scheduled... There hasn't been a year that we haven't been assessed since I joined. I was able to serve on the finance committee for four years with fiscal conservative members. I believe that the club would be better served to have saved six months of operating expenses than to take on anymore debt.
I am against this proposal!
I am not in favor of the simulator, prefers to use our fund to add payment to the Club mortgage. I know a number of folks who are thinking of leaving MVCC ! We are concerned of unknown assessments to come!
After meeting with Greg Manley I am against the installation of a simulator.
As a new member but in on discussions with my "old" member friends I'm concerned as how this purchase seems to have evolved with little member input. At our club in the desert, Thunderbird, folks worry about Boards who discover unspent funds, and spend them on things that are not well-thought out. My concern is that this may be an example of that.
Now that the club is at 350 FTE, we should concentrate on course improvement priorities for at least a year. Also, I have looked online at golf simulators, and the high end ones are $90,000. It seems $150 is a sweetheart deal for someone, but not the club. Did we shop around?
MV is not in traffic flow to realize this kind of revenue for simulator.
I concur with many of the comments already offered in the petition. Specifically, building a reserve and spending capital dollars on the core assets to keep MVCC a place to attract and retain members. I have doubts a simulator will pay for itself, resulting in additional assessments and potential increases in monthly dues. I appreciate the work the board does but hope they will take the concerns raised in this petition and hold a general meeting to discuss.
I just don't think it will used enough to pay for itself Therefore, would rather see other matters accomplished Rich
Ace and I agree that there are other things that are a priority. At one point there was conversation about covering part of the driving range. This would provide more all-weather access for members and teaching pros.
I have to agree that the timing of this venture is off, let's focus on our core business, pay down the debt, and ELIMINATE assessments! It seems to me on the surface that the projected usage is optimistic, summer hours used would certainly fall behind which would then have to be made up in the winter months? Also, If we are one of the largest "green grass" buyers of Taylormade why isn't TM kicking in to help market/sell their clubs to help ease this financial gamble? We elected our board in good faith and do believe they have our best interests in mind, however there was not enough transparency and open discussion from our members on such a large outlay of funds on a venture that is somewhat of a gamble. I have to personally disagree with this decision as I feel it is not in the best interests of our beloved club....
I added a spreadsheet image using the same format that was published on Monday. I'm assuming this machine is complicated enough and has sufficient value that we wouldn't leave it unattended. Just adding one employee for only the hours it is being used pushes this into being a money loser at 4 hrs per day, every day, for 5 years. For added context, even under the optimistic scenario originally presented, the room generates $3200 profit per year. That is less than the dues revenue generated by one FTE member! Wouldn't our efforts be better served by finding that one extra member?
Without seeing a comprehensive business plan, I too am having difficulty rationalizing this purchase at this time.
Bad timing and not something we really need given current debt situation.
I have read most of the comments and I can't say I disagree with any of them. All valid points of concern. Where is this "extra" money coming from? Why are the members being assessed if we can afford such an expense?