and they have to have a mandate to sanction an option or otherwise
Margaret Hussey added that perhaps a signed lease may only be considered following a land sale. David added he still thought the motion was premature.
Brenda Waring suggested the motion was actually in two parts – ‘negotiate’ was one thing, and ‘enter an agreement’ another – the Club may need more information before they can make a decision.
Ian Caird again asked that full discussion was desired to talk about all the options. He stated that some of the information presented to our Club about Te Mata was incorrect. He described the present situation of ongoing leases assuring the Club to 2022, with rights of renewal after that, and for rights to consider additional portions of land. If the Reylands should sell, the purchaser would not be bound by these leases. He said he did not necessarily want to present another Motion. On the financial side – Ian said there was no fundraising required – their annual surplus was $1100 and their fees were moderate. The same conditions applied to Option 4. He stated that the Te Mata Club was definitely not interested its single Hawkes Bay Croquet Centre.
Joyce Barry replied that our financial knowledge of Te Mata was only what was told from meeting Don Reyland.
The Chair asked for any further discussion on the options.
Jessie Hunter said that the present discussion was really about whether we wished to purchase Te Mata or not.
With no further discussion from the floor Chair asked that the Motion be re-read.
John van de Water said he was worried about the one lawn. Chair asked Secretary Joyce Barry to relay the outcomes of the meetings with the Bowling Club so the conditions were known. A summary of the background and the possibilities there were outlined, including the playing and joint playing opportunities and the advantages of the paid care covered by the lease.
Treasurer Margaret Hussey said the pressures here, now included increased rates.
Dulcie asked whether the Club identity would be lost. Margaret Hussey replied that the Club remains fully autonomous and the name and constitution remains.
David Curtis requested that the presumed second Motion was at least shadowed; so as to guide the voting on the first.
Chair asked Ken Wyley to read the second MOTION: ‘THAT THE CLUB DIRECTS THE COMMITTEE TO SELL OUR EXISTING ASSET IN ENTIRETY FOR THE HIGHEST PRICE POSSIBLE’ – as was intended to follow the first Motion.
President asked for any discussion and there being none, asked for the first Motion to be read again. Chairperson requested a vote to be taken.
All in favour 21
Against 1/ Carried.
Ken Wyley was asked to re-read the second Motion as noted above.
Chair asked for comments on this – there being no immediate, Ken outlined the present portions of land specified in the Shanley and Co. report, and added that the whole property would be included in the sale description if the Motion was passed.
Margaret Hussey said that in the first instant, if passed, both Clubs had tentatively agreed to a 3 year lease; so as not to predetermine future trends.
David Curtis disagreed with the ‘entirety’ aspect of the Motion; especially since it implied all our balls and hoops and equipment. He thought that the land was the relevant asset. Joyce Barry suggested that if it was a problem, the word ’appropriate’ could be prefixed to the sale. Ru Davis added that the wording should remain as it is – it implied a totality about it without being caught with fine detail.