this was in the article, but let me post it in the comment section so you read it.
* About 60 members of the renamed Trump National Golf Club wanted to leave
*Trump wouldn’t return their $35,000 to $210,000 initiation fees as Ritz-Carlton had promised
* Meanwhile, they were barred from the club but still charged $6,000 annual dues and $1,800 annually for food and drink.
so he won’t return people’s dues, he refuses them entry to the course, and yet still charges them for dues, food & drink even though they aren’t let in the front door.
See John’s comment. This article shouldn’t even be on an IJ blog. Pretty much because it is Trump and it is all political and the courts need to decide whether it was right or not. I am much more concerned about Hilliary’s lies/scandals than what happens at a golf club between an owner and members.
I agree this is not an insurance based article and probably should not have been posted here.
So what?
That doesn’t change the fact that your comment is wrong and you would’ve known it had you actually read the article, or if you did read the article – had you taken the time to actually comprehend the claims being raised in the suit.
August 23, 2016 at 3:46 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“That doesn’t change the fact that your comment is wrong and you would’ve known it had you actually read the article, or if you did read the article – had you taken the time to actually comprehend the claims being raised in the suit.”
This article does not provide any major information, ergo why you admitted yourself you don’t even know if Trump admitted liability for the deposits, and or to what extent.
And he is a troll for saying that Trump protected his self interests, and you’re not for saying Trump cheated and lied to people?
Which of the two is more extreme?
I consider flaming and slashing more extreme than making a one line statement that Trump was protecting his business.
The sky is falling, yes? You make this assumption with Trump, do you for Hillary?
August 17, 2016 at 4:25 pm
mr opinion says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
confused – just ignore him. He doesn’t even try to make sense anymore. He’s just trying to start another “us vs. them debate” like he does on every comment section.
i have difficulty suffering fools and not feeding the trolls
August 23, 2016 at 3:42 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Suffering fools…
Not feeding the trolls…
How much better than Agent and the world do you think you are?
Agent makes sense but doesn’t convey his points very well.
It isn’t one sided. And you’re just as guilty of this as Agent.
August 23, 2016 at 4:34 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Really, how does one “suffer” fools?
Do I suffer around retarded people? Do I suffer around stupid people who say stupid things, specifically because it is “stupid”?
Here’s something interesting to note: We are all basically stupid. There are billions of us who have billions of different sections of knowledge, and all of us combined don’t have a level of knowledge that is anything at all without input, and even then, it isn’t anything at all.
Being upset that someone is “stupid” is like being upset that a rock doesn’t know it is red.
It doesn’t really matter.
August 23, 2016 at 3:40 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Very, very, very, bold assumptions.
See my other post.
Was that Ritz Carlton promise part of the sale? Was that promise something they added to an original contract simply because they were selling? Initiation fees are generally non refundable.
One side is claiming those annual dues charged who were not allowed to attend was due to contract, and that Trump offered deals to allow them to cancel anyway as soon as they had clients to replace them. In other words, it sounds like Trump could be refunding initiation fees that otherwise would not have been, he’s just having them wait for replacements. I think this is clever and fair if so. Also, if you’re behind on your dues it is clear you shouldn’t be allowed to attend. You will then say “well then they shouldn’t be charged anymore”
Not so. In my agreement as part of my gym, I will still be charged for months when I am delinquent at the same time as not being allowed to attend the gym.
Not sure I see the relationship for insurance to this article … these are allegations so far as I can see … the judicial system will sort this out ; we don’t know what the bylaws etc are …
I can only venture a guess, Kimb. Maybe when he bought the course, he explicitly agreed to honor any agreements set in place by the company from whom he bought it?
You are making a lot of assumptions due to a clear anti Trump bias.
I looked this up a bit, and I see multiple angles from all sides.
It is impossible you have looked this up to any large degree, as you made a comment about assumption of liability, and there are two arguments on that. One says he assumed liability for the deposits, and doesn’t show the extent of which (assuming liability for collecting dues for example is not the same as a statement that they would pay back all deposits, which to me seems rather unlikely. Think about it, in what scenario have you heard of a company refunding initiation fees at all, let alone as part of a selling agreement?)
Looking further into this, I see other links claiming those who were still charged dues were not allowed to cancel as part of their contract, and were behind in dues. Just because there is new management it does not void an old contract. The counter is that the lawyer says they stopped paying because they weren’t allowed to play to begin with, but again, they say that and will have to prove it in court as I find it very unlikely, and the side I found says Trump’s son provided the documents proving his case that they were behind to begin with before they were prevented from going.
When looking at this…To me it looks like the company Trump bought from may have put intentionally bad wording in there to screw Trump, and didn’t care about the clients as they were failing. I cannot find said wording online, so making assumptions that Trump blatantly cheated people is disgraceful on yours and everyone else’s part here.
It is not at all appropriate, and Agent’s response is merited while you are indeed mocking him.
You are not unique in knowledge, Agent is not a “troll”, you aren’t special.
Just The Donald being The Donald. It’s par for the course…so to speak.
Just the Donald protecting his interests for his multi-million investment is par for the course.
this was in the article, but let me post it in the comment section so you read it.
* About 60 members of the renamed Trump National Golf Club wanted to leave
*Trump wouldn’t return their $35,000 to $210,000 initiation fees as Ritz-Carlton had promised
* Meanwhile, they were barred from the club but still charged $6,000 annual dues and $1,800 annually for food and drink.
so he won’t return people’s dues, he refuses them entry to the course, and yet still charges them for dues, food & drink even though they aren’t let in the front door.
that is NOT “donald protecting his interest”
that’s some illegal shadiness right there
See John’s comment. This article shouldn’t even be on an IJ blog. Pretty much because it is Trump and it is all political and the courts need to decide whether it was right or not. I am much more concerned about Hilliary’s lies/scandals than what happens at a golf club between an owner and members.
I agree this is not an insurance based article and probably should not have been posted here.
So what?
That doesn’t change the fact that your comment is wrong and you would’ve known it had you actually read the article, or if you did read the article – had you taken the time to actually comprehend the claims being raised in the suit.
“That doesn’t change the fact that your comment is wrong and you would’ve known it had you actually read the article, or if you did read the article – had you taken the time to actually comprehend the claims being raised in the suit.”
This article does not provide any major information, ergo why you admitted yourself you don’t even know if Trump admitted liability for the deposits, and or to what extent.
And he is a troll for saying that Trump protected his self interests, and you’re not for saying Trump cheated and lied to people?
Which of the two is more extreme?
I consider flaming and slashing more extreme than making a one line statement that Trump was protecting his business.
The sky is falling, yes? You make this assumption with Trump, do you for Hillary?
confused – just ignore him. He doesn’t even try to make sense anymore. He’s just trying to start another “us vs. them debate” like he does on every comment section.
i have difficulty suffering fools and not feeding the trolls
Suffering fools…
Not feeding the trolls…
How much better than Agent and the world do you think you are?
Agent makes sense but doesn’t convey his points very well.
It isn’t one sided. And you’re just as guilty of this as Agent.
Really, how does one “suffer” fools?
Do I suffer around retarded people? Do I suffer around stupid people who say stupid things, specifically because it is “stupid”?
Here’s something interesting to note: We are all basically stupid. There are billions of us who have billions of different sections of knowledge, and all of us combined don’t have a level of knowledge that is anything at all without input, and even then, it isn’t anything at all.
Being upset that someone is “stupid” is like being upset that a rock doesn’t know it is red.
It doesn’t really matter.
Very, very, very, bold assumptions.
See my other post.
Was that Ritz Carlton promise part of the sale? Was that promise something they added to an original contract simply because they were selling? Initiation fees are generally non refundable.
One side is claiming those annual dues charged who were not allowed to attend was due to contract, and that Trump offered deals to allow them to cancel anyway as soon as they had clients to replace them. In other words, it sounds like Trump could be refunding initiation fees that otherwise would not have been, he’s just having them wait for replacements. I think this is clever and fair if so. Also, if you’re behind on your dues it is clear you shouldn’t be allowed to attend. You will then say “well then they shouldn’t be charged anymore”
Not so. In my agreement as part of my gym, I will still be charged for months when I am delinquent at the same time as not being allowed to attend the gym.
Not sure I see the relationship for insurance to this article … these are allegations so far as I can see … the judicial system will sort this out ; we don’t know what the bylaws etc are …
I’m confused. Why would he be required to return dues that were paid to Ritz-Carlton? Shouldn’t they be returning them?
I can only venture a guess, Kimb. Maybe when he bought the course, he explicitly agreed to honor any agreements set in place by the company from whom he bought it?
You are making a lot of assumptions due to a clear anti Trump bias.
I looked this up a bit, and I see multiple angles from all sides.
It is impossible you have looked this up to any large degree, as you made a comment about assumption of liability, and there are two arguments on that. One says he assumed liability for the deposits, and doesn’t show the extent of which (assuming liability for collecting dues for example is not the same as a statement that they would pay back all deposits, which to me seems rather unlikely. Think about it, in what scenario have you heard of a company refunding initiation fees at all, let alone as part of a selling agreement?)
Looking further into this, I see other links claiming those who were still charged dues were not allowed to cancel as part of their contract, and were behind in dues. Just because there is new management it does not void an old contract. The counter is that the lawyer says they stopped paying because they weren’t allowed to play to begin with, but again, they say that and will have to prove it in court as I find it very unlikely, and the side I found says Trump’s son provided the documents proving his case that they were behind to begin with before they were prevented from going.
When looking at this…To me it looks like the company Trump bought from may have put intentionally bad wording in there to screw Trump, and didn’t care about the clients as they were failing. I cannot find said wording online, so making assumptions that Trump blatantly cheated people is disgraceful on yours and everyone else’s part here.
It is not at all appropriate, and Agent’s response is merited while you are indeed mocking him.
You are not unique in knowledge, Agent is not a “troll”, you aren’t special.
These are things you need to learn confused.
Which one of you is Confused?