comment on underlying problem with lack of analysis by Tennis Task Force

submitted by an avid tennis player and contributor to the resident study of Tennis Center

I normally don’t respond to dialogues such as this, but I believe that the comments are a good assessment of the situation, except that it doesn’t address the major underlying problem.

The Tennis Study Group has no authority and has no access to information….financial or administrative. The intent of the Group’s report was clearly defined, and clearly outlined a path to the best solution for Pelican Landing. The Tennis Study Group would have willingly made the financial analysis, if the numbers were made available to the Group.

Members of the Tennis Task Force and PL Board of directors can disagree, and have the authority to continue business as usual. However, there was not enough effort given by the Tennis Task Force and their resulting report to analyze the administrative and revenue solutions proposed by the Tennis Study Group. Only they have the numbers, and therefore only they can make the necessary financial and administrative analysis. When the task force submitted their report and subsequently proposed their three motions to the board, there was no supporting evidence of such an analysis, and they therefore subjectively dismissed the Tennis Study Group’s recommendation to change the revenue cycle and management scenario.

The Tennis Task Force did not step outside of the closed world of WCI to investigate other scenarios used in operating a well-run tennis center. WCI stamps out the same solution with all of their properties and hires the Association Manager who eventually becomes the resident’s association manager. Their tennis facility management solution is an easy way for them to set-up a structure in which they will have little direct management involvement in the tennis center. It appears that present administration wishes to continue with this scenario in lieu of a structure which would provide a better value proposition to all owners.

WCI although often very supportive, is a corporation with their own interests in mind. They often make value decisions and value engineering decisions which puts WCI ahead of the interests of the residents of the communities that they build.

It appears that we will continue with that type of thinking, and business as usual.

One thought on “comment on underlying problem with lack of analysis by Tennis Task Force

  1. The following is a letter I recieved in response to one of my e-mails. The auther of the e-mail is not named, it is not necessary as the common sense of its content is obvious,

    Not being a tennis player because of physical limitations, it is difficult to appreciate
    fully your comments and the resident study of the tennis facility. I know a lot of people
    in PL play tennis but you have to wonder if the ” who cares” factor you have previously
    cited is not relevant here.
    Nonetheless, I was shocked by the report as it reveals management deficiencies and what I would characterize as conflict of interest that are so obvious, that if true, really challenge the operation and oversight of what is arguably the most important amenity PL has. But, what are the financial consequences for the community at large that obviously contains many people not interested in tennis? That may be the source of “who cares”. I think one important factor missing from the report is the money connected with the maintenance and operation of this
    amenity and how those costs are supported by every resident…player or not. If those numbers are not reasonable there need to be explanations and accountability needs to be established. I see that as a counter to the “who cares” factor because for many residents I would think money trumps arcane tennis operational matters…I know it does with me. So if there really are substantive problems with the tennis amenity…how it is run, who runs it, and what it costs…
    complaints and recommendations for reforms need to have a “bottom line.” Without that component, “business as usual” is a likely outcome, responsibility and accountability never gets defined, and the community never gets outraged to the extent that changes are supported.
    A Resident

Comments are closed.