Re: Turtle Lake sold....again! (was Re: Haulover Beach

NF...you are either very naive or very, very dense.....but thanks for taking
up Jonzee's slack....I'm sure glad that the profit motive is unimportant to
you......hmmmmm...but then again, you don't have an "investment"....(other
than selfish bigotry)

You need a different lifestyle--nudism is most definitely NOT for you.....



"nudistfamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Rick & Chris Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Thus spake "nudistfamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> >
> > >You mean you get a check (in the amount of your share of the proceeds)?
> > >Or you mean the profits go to the owner(s), who then decide how much,
if any,
> > >they will plow back into the club?
> >
> > I mean the money goes to the resort, where, among other
> > things, it is spent to:
> >
> > 1. Pay operating expenses.
> > 2. Pay salaries.
> > 3. Compensate the investors for they investment.
>
> Pay back loans, or pay dividends to the individual members?
>
> Are all members "investors"??
> That is, do the members have any voting/ownership rights?
> I assume not.  I assume one or two owners, and members
> have no voting or ownership rights.
>
> > 4. Add to existing facilities or renovate those that need it.
> > 5. Invest in new facilities to attract/serve more people.
> >
>
> That's fine.  But in such a case (i.e. no voting/ownership rights),
> "membership" is irrelevant to the legal status of the club, right??
>
>
> > I totally fail to see why you would expect ANY club or resort
> > to operate at a break-even level.
>
> A non-profit club can MAKE a profit, as long as the profits don't
> go to the individual members.   Of course ANY club would strive
> to do better than break even, if it can.
>
>
> >Of course Turtle Lake is a profit
> > making organization--don't you think that people who invest in a
> > business have a right to a profit on their investment?
>
> ABSOLUTELY!!!
> But I don't see the IMPORTANCE of "membership"....other than
> for visitors to save money on admission fees, maybe get preference
> on lots, etc.  Membership there, if I understand you correctly,
> conveys no rights.  The owners can do as they please.  They can
> sell the place to whomever they please, and to hell with the members?
> Right?  Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
>
> >On the other
> > hand, being RUN like a business means that Turtle Lake is concerned
> > with such issues as customer (read MEMBER) satisfaction, increasing
> > the value of the facilities (which contributes not only to an increase
> > in the shareholder's equity but to member satisfaction as well),
>
> Okay.  Now you have brought in "shareholders".
> How many current MEMBERS are "shareholders"??
>
> The problem I see is that IF the management were (and I am NOT
> saying they ARE) looking for the highest profits possible, perhaps
> they would start serving alcohol, relaxing their membership standards (if
any),
> and doing all sorts of things that would drive away many "traditional
family nudists" in
> favor of a more profitable market niche.
>
>
> >and
> > insuring that operations are smooth, efficient, and fair to everyone.
> >
> > Maybe you would rather attend a club that was operating in the
> > red or at which no profit was to be made. Personally, I would FAR
> > rather attend one where sound business practices were in place.
>
> Many strip clubs have "sound business practices", but I wouldn't
> want a "family nudist club" to turn into a strip club simply because
> it was more profitable.
>
>
> >Not
> > only would I know that the facility was likely to remain in business,
> > but I would know that I would be treated with the respect due a
> > customer in any business, instead of as a free source of labor or on a
> > basis of how much the owner liked or disliked me as a friend--the
> > basis for FAR too many nudist facilities.
>
> True!  And that's why SOME for-profit clubs are great.  (and others are
sleazy)
>
> >
> > >Tell me:  what's the ratio of single males attending that event, vs.
single females??
> > >Unless it's equal.....WHICH I DOUBT.....then the event is simply
creating
> > >an even greater imbalance for the future.   Perhaps *you* don't mind
such an
> > >imbalance, but many nudists, esp. females,  do.
> >
> > No, nudistfamily. YOU do. Most nudists are only concerned with
> > the BEHAVIOR of the visitors (which is required to adhere to the
> > posted rules of the club), not with their sex.
>
> Then WHY do so many clubs post about their quotas for singles???
> WHY WHY WHY???
>
>
> >
> > Simply because you are personally fixated on singles doesn't
> > mean that others share your prejudices.
>
> You are sooooooooooooo clueless.
>
> >
> > For the record, btw, we DO attract a fairly sizable number of
> > single women to such events--probably a considerably higher percentage
> > than we (or other clubs) see on a more typical weekend. And, like most
> > clubs, we attract large numbers of families both with and without
> > children--many of whom are visiting a nudist facility for the first
> > time and who later become a part of our growing membership.
>
> Good.  I'm NOT knocking TL (other than the multiple changes of ownership).
>
> >
> > If a nudist is so uptight about the fact that a single male
> > may be admitted without a corresponding single female arriving, then
> > Turtle Lake isn't the place for him or her--because we don't believe
> > in discriminating against people based on their marital status or sex.
> > So long as a person behaves appropriately and doesn't violate the
> > rules of the club (which are VERY child and family friendly), we
> > accept that person as a fellow nudist and welcome them to the club.
> > I'm sorry you feel that is inappropriate--personally I think that kind
> > of prejudice has no effect other than to reduce a nudist club from a
> > welcoming and friendly social environment to a cliquish enclave filled
> > with prejudice and distrust.
>
> What kind of screening does TL do of visitors and members?
>
> >
> > >> And I never denied that a non-profit organization of that
> > >> nature existed--I argued that the kinds of claims you made about most
> > >> clubs being such because they were "membership organizations" were
> > >> inaccurate--and that if a non-profit DID exist it was required to
> > >> adhere to certain laws and standards you claimed didn't apply.
> > >
> > >Again, in many/most states, a private membership club (that behaves as
such), need
> not
> > >abide by civil rights laws.
> >
> > You find it remarkably easy to ignore reality in favor of your
> > pet beliefs, don't you?
> >
> > PROVE YOUR STATEMENT with accurate and accessible LEGAL
> > citations or stop posting such nonsense. I--and I'm sure others--am
> > rather tired of reading claims that are totally inaccurate from
> > someone totally unwilling to even ATTEMPT to prove them. Put up  or
> > shut up!
>
> Hey, until someone takes a private membership nudist club to COURT,
NEITHER
> of us can say for sure!   Has it ever happened?  I dunno.  Anybody here
know:
> has a club ever been sued for discrimination????
>
>
> >
> > >> Why--afraid they'll laugh at the concept that your neighbor's
> > >> garage is a nudist venue, or that they'll question your judgement in
> > >> the choice of places to visit?
> > >
> > >
> > >No.  I simply won't engage in a pissing contest. (even though I'd
probably win)
> >
> > You probably would. You seem so full of it that it's bound to
> > travel a long way.
> >
> > >Hopefully, but that's certainly no guarantee.
> > >If it's a money pit (and I'm not saying it is....I don't know), it
won't
> > >matter---unless that same corporation owns a lot of other more
> > >profitable properties.
> >
> > TLR has the potential to be a strongly profitable operation.
>
> That's what ALL the "business for sale" ads say.
>
> > While previous owners (the last owner, in fact) managed to lose money,
>
> Gee, I'm shocked!
>
> > it was clearly through mismanagement of funds and lack of good
> > business practices (FACT, not supposition).
>
> I will be interested to hear how things will be done differently.
> I really DO hope the place succeeds while maintaining a truly
> family friendly atmosphere.  I sure wouldn't bet on it, though.
>
> >
> > The current ownership is a limited corporation made up of
> > investors who are interested in a long range return on their
> > investments. That means they are willing to spend the necessary money
> > to increase income and to operate the business in a way that will
> > insure customer loyalty, appreciation in property and investment
> > value, and sound management. Those are all factors that contribute to
> > the success of a business, as is the fact that the investors are
> > experienced business persons not individuals with no business
> > experience who decide to found a nudist club--the formula for a
> > substantial percentage of the facilities in the U.S.
>
> I would bet that they will not be able to be profitable as a
family-oriented club.
> Not in rural Michigan, anyway.
> I can't WAIT for them to prove me wrong!  Really and truly.
> We enjoyed our visit there about 10 years ago (except for the smoke).
>
> >
> > >TL reminds me of another for-profit "resort" in the mid-Atlantic
states.
> > >Very, very remote.  But able to serve a particular niche of mainly
> > >couples and singles from the Wash/Balt area.   I suppose it is
> > >profitable...I don't know.  But I seem to recall that one or more
> > >"members" left the place a large sum of money when they died.
> >
> > How nice for them.
>
> True!  If only more clubs had such great members.
>
> Gotta run again.  More later.
>
>
>