Dear Members, Before you ask a consequential question make sure you already know the likely answer. The EGM on 7 December asked Members how they felt about our non-golf sporting facilities. We asked if they wanted additional Pickleball and new Padel Courts. We asked about the refurbishment of our swimming pool underpinnings now stretched beyond “end of life”. We asked if they were keen for a more logical and convenient gym location with upgraded amenities, a larger floor area and captivating views. We asked about a new pool pavilion for the younger set and families. We asked if Members desired more than just mediocrity and a ride in a time machine back to the 1990s when the pool side last received material attention.
We explained the need to look 10 years forward on what we and the next generation will need and desire. We informed Members that only 12 years ago, we had 3435 subscription paying Ordinary Members to 763 non-paying Seniors; a ratio of 4.5 young to each Senior. Today its just 2888 vs 1256, only 2.3 younger guns to offset each Senior. How is that sustainable? We clearly need more young Members and the facilities to attract them
We surveyed not just those who frequent the current facilities but those who don’t on why they don’t. Regardless, a hundred members will have a hundred different views. Trying to please everyone will end up pleasing no one. The defining question we put to members is whether the club after the renovations will be an improvement over what we had before.
Why the hurry? The obvious answer is the proverbial high rate of cost escalations. It is now very possibly more cost efficient to start a less than perfectly planned project immediately and pay variation orders for changes than to wait for all the stars to align and to start 18 months late. If we continue to execute without considering this very high time value of money, we will get the same results of blown budgets and truncated projects.
But its more than that. The Committee cycle is just 2 years. If the “sponsor” of a project obtains the requisite approvals in his or her first 6 months, there will be the continued ownership and accountability over a large part of the project life. Conversely a project started late in the “sponsors” term will become orphaned prematurely when the next Convenor takes over becoming someone else’s project, executed on a “have to” rather than a “want to” basis. That passion and urgency to perform is gone.
Dec 7 may have also been the last small window to appreciably improve our non-golfing facilities. When Members vote for the golf course renovation in the new year with a spend likely in the 70+m range, there could be little appetite for any more spending elsewhere. The train may not pass this way again for a long while.
Happily, when we asked our consequential question on 7 Dec, we already knew what Members wanted from our earlier interactions and indications. As ever, the very vocal minority kept The Committee on our toes turning our EGMs into an entertaining spectator sport. However, it was the silent majority who were overwhelmingly vocal with their votes to trade in mediocrity for facilities matching the club we have in our mind’s eye which we can all be so very proud to be members of.
Raymond Yeoh
Captain
