Forums

Disappearing owner

• borntobesting 9,709 Posts

  Mon, Jan 16 2023 10:11 AM

  alosso:

  WGT's reluctance may come from the fact that the term "owner" is true in a legal manner:

  This guy/gal payed to open the CC (originally, we payed more for a bigger member capacity!), so they OWN the CC, at least they own a WGT license!

  Technically, by their T&Cs, WGT may revoke any license, but they won't do it on the whim of a third party stating "I want this CC".

   

  OTOH, I'm interested in that "successor" subject - how would that  work?

   

  You are probably right but the missing owner was not the one who paid to open the CC. If I read the OP's post correctly it was the OP who paid to open the CC. 

• alosso 21,072 Posts

  Mon, Jan 16 2023 2:48 PM

  borntobesting:

  alosso:

  This guy/gal payed to open the CC (originally, we payed more for a bigger member capacity!), so they OWN the CC, at least they own a WGT license!

  You are probably right but the missing owner was not the one who paid to open the CC. If I read the OP's post correctly it was the OP who paid to open the CC.

  I love to be "right" ;),

  and "This guy/gal" was meant as any owner, not directly pointing at the OP.

• alosso 21,072 Posts

  Mon, Jan 16 2023 3:00 PM

  WGTShamWow:

  jacktrade51:

  As to phipster comment, I understand the point.  But the WGT answer is they cannot be sure the person has quit.  [...]

  That would be one of the main reasons, we don't know if they quit or are taking a long break. More so, it would be their club as they paid the 50 credits to open it or it was transferred to them. They could choose to want to stay the owner and not transfer it to anyone and stop playing.

  Experience shows that players (and owners) simply quit, most of the time.

  WGT always has the option to point to the T&Cs and declare the ownership void, after a suitable amount of months of inactivity.

  Alas, understandably, this may be more involvement than the company aspires.

• WGTShamWow 924 Posts

  Mon, Jan 16 2023 5:08 PM

  pdb1:

  WGTShamWow:

  That would be one of the main reasons, we don't know if they quit or are taking a long break. More so, it would be their club as they paid the 50 credits to open it.

  What do you mean you don't know if they quit or are taking a long break ? There are literally thousands of these ownerless CC's . 95 % of them have been gone more than a year . Some up to 10 years and more . Many of them still have barely active members that have no clue . With an even much smaller % of members who claim to know their status .

  Not to mention the fact that the automated " place a member in a CC ". Continues to place new members with no clue into ownerless dead CC's . I have happened to notice this several times . I'm not even kidding right now .

  50 credits should have no bearing on decisions that mean to move the CC forward with improvement . 100% of the time owner is 100% ghost forever .

  I do not understand why you would think otherwise . Surely I am not the only one who has seen this .

  I'm sorry but the statistcs show your stance to be a hinderance to improvement .

  All efforts should be in favor of assisting anyone who inquires about stepping up to run a CC in need .

  IMSO .

  If you are wondering how I know this information . There are many reasons . Two of which are .

  1) When I was an CC owner there was no where specifically to go to find recruits . One of the places I chose to look was the many dozens ( that I found at the time ) of ownerless CC's with thousands of clueless active members . Which at the time allowed me the opportunity to engage or at least try to . I learned a lot .As I invited thousands of these players .

  2) Another occasion was many years later when searching for still active players with start dates of 2007 , 2008 , 2009 . I searched thousands of profiles to come up with 500 TRAILBLAZERS .

  Stunning , the things I saw . On one profile , the guy had 1500 friends . All of them Tour Pro's . All of them quit in 2009 . I can show you this .

   

  I understand the point you are trying to make but in the end, it is that specific players Country Club. They would be the owner of that club and can do what they want with it, which would include not transfer it to someone else if they decide to stop playing. Im sure you remember The Georgian and their owner. They decided they wanted to stop playing and didn't want to transfer the club to another player. They could have also closed the club if they wanted to but it was their decision to not transfer it.

  I do agree that how clubs are shown to new players should prioritize active clubs over inactive ones. 

• WGTShamWow 924 Posts

  Mon, Jan 16 2023 5:11 PM

  alosso:

  WGTShamWow:

  jacktrade51:

  As to phipster comment, I understand the point.  But the WGT answer is they cannot be sure the person has quit.  [...]

  That would be one of the main reasons, we don't know if they quit or are taking a long break. More so, it would be their club as they paid the 50 credits to open it or it was transferred to them. They could choose to want to stay the owner and not transfer it to anyone and stop playing.

  Experience shows that players (and owners) simply quit, most of the time.

  WGT always has the option to point to the T&Cs and declare the ownership void, after a suitable amount of months of inactivity.

  Alas, understandably, this may be more involvement than the company aspires.

  It would be akin to how equipment is handled on your account in reference to the T&C. You can buy your equipment, it can be gifted to you, but its on your account and its yours. Same would be for Country Clubs.

• alosso 21,072 Posts

  Tue, Jan 17 2023 8:54 AM

  WGTShamWow:

  It would be akin to how equipment is handled on your account in reference to the T&C. [...] Same would be for Country Clubs.

  Agreed.

  WGTShamWow:

  You can buy your equipment, it can be gifted to you, but its on your account and its yours.

  Pardon me, I disagree to "buy" and "its yours". In my understanding, all we get is software licenses, from credits to equipment to CCs.

  Your T&Cs state (bolded by me, irrelevant parts deleted):

   

  2. License Grant; General Use Restrictions
  
  The Application is licensed to you, not sold. WGT grants you a personal, limited [...] license to use the Application on compatible devices you own or control for your non-commercial, entertainment use, subject to your compliance with these Terms. [...]  This license does not grant you any title or ownership in the Application.

  I'd understand if WGT wouldn't want to engage here, but IMHO they are entitled to revoke ownership of CCs and install a new owner.

• craigswan 31,839 Posts

  Tue, Jan 17 2023 12:05 PM

  If your looking to find out the real law on this i think one lady here might be very helpful .