As the management of the American Club has apparently managed the TAC to the brink of financial failure, a group of 4 TAC members teamed up with 4 TAC board of governors. This group was named ‘The Working Group 2” or TWG2.
This TWG2 presented their recommendations for how to fix the problems of the TAC. They were very candid about what needed to be done. Following their presentation, when asked if they “were confident that their recommended changes would be implemented?”. the group unanimously responded “No”. They responded on how getting information was slow and painful at TAC.
It was apparent to all present that there was a split between TWG2’s recommendations and some members on the board. Although the positions of all the BoG (board of governors) was unclear, one board member made clear that he was against their recommendations in several instances. In one case, he responded that the loan could not be renegotiated. When asked by another member, he revealed that he was the one who negotiated the loan at 4 plus % interest for the club but did not clarify why he was unwilling to renegotiate and his position varied from that of the 4 TWG2 members.
The overall conclusion was that the problem of the club is not just an inept general manager playing the committee and board system, but also some individuals on the board of governors. There are definitely some good people there, but there are also some people that need to move on.
A recommendation was made, and accepted by the President, to have a further meeting for the Board of Governor candidates to debate or state their positions as being for change or of the group that would continue the status quo and continue to block change and not make the changes necessary.
An American Chamber of Commerce (ACCJ) board member asked the General Manager if he paid for the development of yet another new TAC site that was described earlier in the meeting. With a bit of stumbling around saying something about a ‘backend’ the GM confirmed that he did use budget to develop a new website. The member went on to explain that the TAC must shift their thinking. “The paradigm must change” he stated. He illustrated his points by explaining how at ACCJ he paid nothing for web development, the chamber magazine, the upkeep of the website or virtually anything else. This comment was a brilliant illustration that TAC needs people with fresh minds.
Although we have not covered all the questions and comments of the membership in this summary, the conclusion we made from all that we need to rid the club of blockers on the board of governors and elect people who are willing to implement the changes. One BoG member (mentioned above) seemed to indict himself at the meeting as being against change later on multiple points. Later arguing with the TWG2 members about providing information that the 4 clearly stated they had not received. The positions of the other BOG members and BOG candidates for the upcoming election remains unclear at this point.
The great work of the 4 board of governors and the TWG2 made it known that their work must be implemented otherwise we will have to continue “these
If you have any comments or would like to add any further points, please feel free to do so in the comment section below. We will edit this summary accordingly to incorporate your comments.
Stay tuned!
I see that Dan does not wish to debate me on the financials surrounding the loan and the kenrikin in a public forum that he certainly reads, so we rest our case.
I have just received notification of the 3% “handling charge” for monthly bills paid in cash and other means other than direct debit, effective 1/11.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I have never been charged a handling fee for paying by cash. On the contrary, cash is free, credit cards sometimes x% plus.
I wonder if this is related to the President’s pre-TH meeting email to members telling us basically that there was nothing to worry about, all was well and good, and we could all relax because our Board had found ingenious ways to solve all financial problems?
What else is coming down the pike to squeeze us by the proverbials? 100 yen for butter we have already had, next perhaps a cover charge in Traders?
I wonder why this decision was not raised by those responsible for it at the meeting last week. This secretive, dictatorial approach is repeated time and again by the so-called leaders of the Club.
I recommend that this topic – both the surcharge itself and the manner in which it has been introduced – be on the list of questions for candidates at the upcoming TH meeting with BOG candidates (as promised by the President last week).
It was once said on a leadership assessment in the Air Force…people would only follow him out of curiosity.
Having listened intently to the recording of the TH, I was gobsmacked that after all this time…no-one, I repeat no-one seems to have a handle on the numbers. Not only that but no-one in the leadership group gives the impression that it is important…afterall we are ahead of budget!!
From the last set of accounts published for the May TH the club posted an operating loss of Yen 357million and total loss of Yen 603 million for the 8 months since close in 2009.
Unless someone can prove to me otherwise the EBITDA of Yen 141 million is fictitious. The reason being that the kenrikin is being drip fed into the P&L over the 52 year tenure of the Mitsubishi lease on the land under their development. The kenrikin has been received and spent. The reason stated for the drip feed is that it provides an advantageous tax position.
Thus each year some Yen 200 million is transferred out of liabilities into land and improvements on the balance sheet. It is therefore not strictly income in a cash sense. Surely the lender MetLife is aware of this.
Dan Thomas was being quite disingenuous on his commentary about the loan. The original loan terms stated to membership indicated it was a 25 year loan. ( now 27 years which I must presume is related to the one year delay plus one year of interest only upon occupation).
It is now therefore presented as a 27 year loan with 1% amortisation.
The lender would no doubt be happy (assuming they believe the club can repay) but the reality is that we now have a mismatch and a potential killer bullet payment after 27 years.
Basically 1% amortisation means it is now a 100 year loan which will have to be re-financed after 27 years.
In layman’s terms this means the club can not afford the loan and that we have borrowed well beyond our capability to repay, consigning later generations of members to pay for our hubris and fiscal irresponsibility.
The true measure of the ‘crisis’ is free cash flow.
Not one question on this and certainly no insight from the leadership of the club.
As of May 2010, total current assets were yen 1.3 billion.
Total current liabilities were Yen 2.4 billion.
Whilst there exists nearly Yen 6 billion of investments, these are totally encumbered by the lender and that is quite likely the reason they remain at least semi-comfortable with the situation.
The devil is in the detail and all I can say is that no-one seems to have any understanding of the details that really matter.
I continue to follow out of curiosity.