Jump to content


 

Photo

Heritage Golf Club - receiver appointed!


  • Please log in to reply
256 replies to this topic

#16 Golfer239

Golfer239

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 06 March 2010 - 10:22 AM

The contractual rights mean nothing under Administration, join the queue as unsecured creditors. You assume that members will be trusting enough to hang around to possibly get burned again by a possible new operator. History shows with these types of operations that many won't and any new operator will have a harder time than the original. Have you got a copy of the Annual Report or at the very least the Balance Sheet? If not you have no idea about how the operation has really traded. Given your 102 Sebel playing rights @ your $3,700- plus 100 of your original 1200 rights now worth a $100K less than your full rights suddenly means your $4.5 million is now down by about $500K. I know of two other real estate based course operations that turnover more than the figure you suggest and are losing millions. Take away the developer support and they are history. Given this operation was also controlled under a unregistered managed investment scheme could also mean that other aspects of the business are not as they appear. Why do you suggest they cannot build more residential? If the operation is not making money out of golf then the business is only worth the possible land value to a developer. Given that the playing rights for this operation have been sold on market for a hell of a lot less than what they were originally its not hard to guess that its not a bed of roses. Interested to watch wait and see how this pans out but given the unviable nature of so many real estate courses it would be unlikely that this operation would be doing any better overall than any of the others.

#17 Pherst

Pherst

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 06 March 2010 - 10:42 AM

Can't build more residential out there as I believe most of the course is built on flood plain.

#18 ellimb

ellimb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1622 posts

Posted 06 March 2010 - 07:12 PM

golf 239 Which two other real estate golf course development cannot operate with $4mill pa.? I'm sure you will not tell us 'cos you just want to support your arguement with no facts. Cannot build more residential 'cos has have been knock back by council and state govt. We talk facts not speculation. The main asset are the courses and blding and the members. Gosh ! $500,000 down ? from 102 Sebel memberships ? plus easy 100 secondary memberships. Why are you predicting loses for the members? Obviously you are not a member. All golf membership in Victoria value has devalued. Balance sheet and P and L statement ? I'll have a look this Thursday. Cheers

#19 Golfer239

Golfer239

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 07 March 2010 - 03:33 AM

The flood plain issue may very well limit what can be done in the future and is quite a valid comment. I seriously doubt that planning issues will ultimately stop redevelopment if a determined, deep pocketed developer really has other ideas. ellimb its easy to see you are pretty wound up about this situation and I guess you are a member, so its quite understandable that you are concerned about your investment. I don't for an instance wish misfortune on the members of any golf club let alone Heritage. I simply offer a different perspective based on the reality of the golf business and the finances involved today, you can take it or leave it. ellimb happy to list the two courses to support my comments. The Sanctuary Lakes and Sandhurst operations turn over substantial amounts of money in there respective operations and both are losing millions. Without developer support they are gone. Hell even Sunshine GC whilst not a real estate course turned over $2.233 Million dollars and did a wonderful job of losing $644,096- Do you think a course that does twice this figure $4.5 Million(using your assumptions) can't lose money?? My comments about the Sebel playing rights are offered as nothing more than a perspective that the guesses you listed are not as clean as they appear. Thats why I asked what does the Annual Report say and more so the Balance sheet. The comment about all golf membership devaluing is I assume directed at again the real estate based courses who sold memberships at massive prices and those who bought them have now watched there value diminish in some cases like St Andrews Beach to nothing? As I say I watch with interest. Cheers

#20 ShoeIn

ShoeIn

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 92 posts

Posted 07 March 2010 - 05:47 AM

Im pretty sure Ellimb is a member as he recommended The Heritage to me when In a previous thread I mosted re: club memberships. I can certainly understand Ellimb being 'defensive' about his club and investment and I hope the figures and admininstrators are able to come to some sort of arrangement to keep the golfing operation going in whatever form , public or private. I would be very interesting to get a look at an annual report to see how they sit. BUT I guess as Golfer 239 pointed the figures presented may not be as they actually are. 'As I say I watch with interest' - Ditto.

#21 Golfer239

Golfer239

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 07 March 2010 - 12:02 PM

Further to my comments above. I didn't have the figures for SL & SHC at hand when I replied to fully support my "argument" Sandhurst pulled total income of $7.094 Million including a Developer Subsidy of $950k and posted a Net Loss of $414,441-. Extract the developer subsidy the true operating loss was $1.364 Million dollars. Sanctuary Lakes Pulled $8.795 Million including a Developer Subsidy of $403k and a forgiveness of debt of $576k and posted a profit of $147,690- Extract the Developer Subsidy of $403k and the forgiveness of debt $576k or $979k in total leaves a loss of $831,310- Of bigger issue with these businesses is the negative cash burn thats going on and how its being funded, but that another story. I would be interested in seeing the financial's of Heritage to get a true perspective of how it really shapes up.

#22 ellimb

ellimb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1622 posts

Posted 07 March 2010 - 08:13 PM

The cost of operating 2 courses would be similar, right. Compare RM and The Heritage the subs are almost the same. (ie. $3700.00 pa.) The income for the YVG is more and a profit distribution to the investor too. If you want to know YVG contribution (with is capital cost over the initial years) yes it is heaps. Maybe more than 40 million. Regarding Sanc L. and Sandhurst. Are you saying that the operating cost is $7 mill. a year ? What are the subs ? If that is the case the developers and hence the clubs will be in serious financial trouble after all the developement of the residential is over. To cover the operating cost, the subs will be $$7400 pa. As said earlier, the case is because of breaches of ASIC. Tips: Mirvac will buy it for 3 songs. lol

#23 Golfer239

Golfer239

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 07 March 2010 - 09:47 PM

They like many other clubs they are in serious financial trouble now. There operating costs are in excess of there operating income and have always required developer support. RM has no debt, and no reliance on land sales. RM also has more than 100 years to learn how to operate its business. To compare Heritage and RM is a bit difficult as they are Two different beasts. The issue will be with Heritage is how much subsidy the developer is putting in to float the operation and its dependence on land sales. Given the current circumstances if the the developer was putting in then that will stop, the Administrators will asses the viability of the business and with no support things will change. You assume Mirvac etc can also raise the money in the current market place, so many developers are struggling to finance new construction let alone buy possible assets that are more mature and not performing. I wish you luck.

#24 HotPies

HotPies

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1712 posts

Posted 08 March 2010 - 09:28 AM

From reading Saturdays Melbourne Age, they might be a some trouble. Ellimb, can you keep us up to date please

#25 Golfer239

Golfer239

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 08 March 2010 - 01:11 PM

This article? http://www.theage.co...00305-pozc.html Sounds a bit ominous??

#26 HotPies

HotPies

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1712 posts

Posted 08 March 2010 - 09:17 PM

yeah thats it

#27 hackers12

hackers12

    Suspect

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 09 March 2010 - 05:22 AM

Memo to all clubs.Expensive green fees is the reason 100 of my mates and I refuse to play your golf courses.We don't care how high you rate your particular course,the facts are that anything over $27 is a blatant rip-off.We play brilliant courses over and over again for all lower than $28.Yes,we have a budget even though we are mostly multi's. Drop your prices and the people come. Not 100s but tens of thousands.Hullo

#28 nikestix

nikestix

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts

Posted 09 March 2010 - 09:46 PM

apparently members don't get annual reports as they have no equity in the club/ownership and are thus not entitled to know how the owner is trading. The 'trust me' scenario - Elimb have you ever received an annual report since being a member? The large $ paid upfront has no value unless someone is prepared to pay you for it. if it is like other similar resort/developer projects, the developer protects this value by closing membership and forcing re-sales as usually they get a cut of the pie when sold %. can't believe fees are $3700!! seems unsustainable, is it true members have no say on fee increases, that the owner just keeps jacking them up? I thought 5 years ago they were alot less.

#29 Golfer239

Golfer239

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 09 March 2010 - 10:46 PM

nikestix I think your correct about the Annual Reports. I have done a search for them and can come up with nothing. The operation appears to be completely owned by the Developer and the so called members buy nothing more than a playing right at a once grossly inflated price. The so called members have no ability to input or largely influence the way in which the operation is (or was) being run. This is also pretty typical of the real estate based courses, the pair I mentioned earlier on are operated this way. Agree $3,700- is unsustainable in this market.

#30 dle19706

dle19706

    Suspect

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 10 March 2010 - 01:52 AM

I played a corporate day there couple of weeks ago, wonderful course, one of my favourites in Melbourne…Id certainly join up if they were tossing out bargain basement $500 12mth memberships

There’s nothing more tigerish than a wounded TIGER






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users