Fingal Co Co Subsidies to Golf Courses

golfwallah

While golf clubs engage in a price war, Fingal County Council Public Golf Courses such as Corballis & Elm Green reported losses of €610,000 for 3 years up to 2010.
Fingal Co Co continues to subsidise these loss makers to the tune of an estimated €300,000 per annum each (when you take account of all hidden costs such as road signs, non-payment of rates, use of council staff to “help out”, etc.).
Council employees (and possibly other local authority staff) also avail of reduced charges to play golf at these establishments.
But Council Officials say they are not losing money - these are just “subsidies”. Thank you Mr. Taxpayer for theses subsidies by so many of you to so few golfers!
Will be interesting to see if Councillors make an issue of this extreme generosity with Taxpayers money when they debate Fingal Co Co’s budget for 2012 and in the light of the forthcoming new Household Charges.

GlennaMaddy

I'm not a Golfer but curious to know if the fees for playing on the subsidised courses are about the same as equivalent private courses. Do you have to be a member of a club, society etc to play on either course?

golfwallah

GlennaMaddy wrote: »

I'm not a Golfer but curious to know if the fees for playing on the subsidised courses are about the same as equivalent private courses. Do you have to be a member of a club, society etc to play on either course?

Subsidised courses are in a position to offer cheaper rates than private courses as the taxpayer picks up the shortfall between expenditure and income.
It’s difficult to compare like for like precisely, as member fee structures and benefits vary from course to course (even between Fingal Co Co courses).

Examples of some membership rates are:
Corballis (Fingal Co Co) 7Day: €700 or €350 (+€11 per round), 4Day €550
Elm Green (Fingal Co Co) 7Day: €850 or €475 (+€10.50 per round), 5Day €350
Donabate (member owned) 7Day €1,450, 5Day €1,030
Balcarrick (member owned) 7Day €1,100, 5Day €695
Corrstown (member owned) 7Day €1,229
Hollystown (private company) 7Day €1,090, Pay & Play Option A €390, B €790
Blackbush (member owned) 7Day €1,500, Associate €950

Other things to bear in mind are:
- Green Fee rates for non-members are more closely comparable between all these courses
- You don’t have to be a member of a club, society etc to play on either course (outside of competitions times, which are reserved for golf club members only)
- Limited member competition times in council & privately owned courses
- Generous member competition times in member owned clubs
- Rates in Fingal Co Co (FCC) courses include most weekend competition fees.
- Members in other courses have to pay a small fee to enter competitions – but the value of prizes may vary from club to club.
- Members in member owned clubs have a say in how it is run and also contribute with voluntary work, etc.
- FCC courses pay an external management company to manage their affairs at taxpayers’ expense
- Council Courses have limited dining & social facilities

davidrafferty

golfwallah wrote: »

Fingal Council employees (and possibly other local authority staff) also avail of reduced charges to play golf at these establishments.

Is this what we are being asked to pay Household Charges for?

Cardinal Richelieu

Do private members golf clubs claim any government or EU subsidies?

The Scientician

What a waste of money.

wow sierra

History is important here. At the time when these council clubs opened Golf was very expensive and most people couldn't afford to join clubs in Dublin. Open and Council clubs opened up Golf as an affordable and accessable pastime for everyone not just the wealthy.

With the recession and the NAMA control of many Golf clubs Golf has got much cheaper and Golf Clubs are in financial difficulty. The very clubs who a few years ago wouldn't accept the people who play in the likes of Elm Green are complaining now.

Provinding for recreation and amenity is a very important part of the functions of County Councils too - like parks, beaches, libraries, playing pitches etc. Maybe cheap Golf isn't a necessity today - but it definitely was important in the past.

golfwallah

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Do private members golf clubs claim any government or EU subsidies?

Not that I'm aware of. That said, there are a number of private (not member owned) golf course / hotel complexes in NAMA.

The NAMA controlled establishments also benefit from State help in competing with member owned clubs. Member owned clubs have to survive on their own commercial merits or go out of business altogether.

Not an altogether fair situation - Council and State subsidised clubs competing to put member clubs out of business!

The Scientician

wow sierra wrote: »

Provinding for recreation and amenity is a very important part of the functions of County Councils too - like parks, beaches, libraries, playing pitches etc. Maybe cheap Golf isn't a necessity today - but it definitely was important in the past.

That's a fair point but there's something that strikes me as quite exclusive, even about a public golf course. I suppose one could say the same for playing pitches. I mean that if you aren't into the sport it's not for you. But parks, beaches, and libraries are quite different in their universality to specific sports amenities.

davidrafferty

Like The Scientician says, because of their universality as amenities to the many, I’m all for the Council supporting parks, beaches and libraries – provided they spend taxpayers money wisely and effectively.

But golf courses are quite a different matter – golf being a minority sport. Whatever about history, the council should not be the conduit for support of the few (including their own staff) by the many by way of subsidies.

All golf courses, whether private or publicly owned, should stand the test of the market and survive or fall without subsidies.

golfwallah

Surely Fingal Co. Co. have better things to do than close off public amenity space to their citizens for the benefit of small numbers of golfers?

Not only that ........ they also subsidise these golfers at a huge expense of about €300,000 annually per course to local taxpayers.

As a Fingal taxpayer, I’d much prefer to see my money being used for the benefit of as many Fingal citizens as possible – not just a relatively small number of golfers.

In a time of financial crisis, the council would better serve the community by opening up these golf courses as public amenity spaces for the enjoyment of as many of its citizens as possible.

golfwallah

Looks like more council workers are interested in golf, where they enjoy reduced membership & green fee charges, than swimming – just look at the difference in level of support provided by Fingal Co. Co. in the following examples:

Annual Subsidies to Corballis & Elm Green Golf Courses = €600,000

New Golf Course being opened in St. Catherine’s Park, Lucan = €????

Malahide Demesne Par 3 & Pitch & Putt = €????

Portmarnock Sports & Leisure Swimming (PSLC) Pool = €12,000 (€10,000 still unpaid in Jan 2012)

Another big difference is that PSLC is run by people in the community (where they have had to cut cost, lay off staff, etc.) whereas the golf facilities are run by the council (where no such pressure exists, thanks to Household & other local charges).

Charity certainly begins at home, as far as FCC is concerned – but what about the taxpayers who are paying the price?

Cardinal Richelieu

golfwallah wrote: »

Not that I'm aware of. That said, there are a number of private (not member owned) golf course / hotel complexes in NAMA.

The NAMA controlled establishments also benefit from State help in competing with member owned clubs. Member owned clubs have to survive on their own commercial merits or go out of business altogether.

Not an altogether fair situation - Council and State subsidised clubs competing to put member clubs out of business!

You do know that there is one or two clubs in NCD that if you look on the old historical ordnance survey maps are now built on what was historical open land? Would you consider it fair that now locals have to pay for the privilege to walk on land that there ancestors could freely use for their own benefit?

golfwallah

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

You do know that there is one or two clubs in NCD that if you look on the old historical ordnance survey maps are now built on what was historical open land? Would you consider it fair that now locals have to pay for the privilege to walk on land that there ancestors could freely use for their own benefit?

To answer your question, no, I don’t consider it fair that now locals have to pay for the privilege to walk on land that their ancestors could freely use for their own benefit.

I do remember the controversy that arose some years ago, when the Portmarnock Links Course was being built on the Dunes that were then public lands.

The argument that eventually won the day was that loss of public access to these lands would be more than compensated by the financial benefits in terms of tourism, jobs and the Irish economy.

What eventually happened was Portmarnock ended up in NAMA – a double whammy to the taxpayer – not only does Joe & Mary Citizen lose access to the Dunes – they also pay for the privilege through Debt and Interest write-downs for the benefit of well-off golfers.

Not only that, but member owned golf clubs in the area now have to compete against this unfairly subsidized facility.

The other public “links” land in NCD that is also being subsidized by the Taxpayer is Corballis Golf Course – this time the subsidy comes via Fingal Co. Co. Council - why? - They say because they have already spent lots of your money on it (and maybe, just maybe, because their staff get to use it at reduced prices).

As far as I know, The Island Golf Club, is also leased from Fingal Co. Co. on lands once owned by the Cobbe family – but at least they are not being subsidized by you and me.

There could be more clubs built on historically open land – maybe other people could advise?

golfwallah

Fingal Co. Co. (FCC) should manage its golf courses at Corballis, Elm Green, Malahide and Lucan (opening in 2012) with a clear profit or break-even objective. Moreover, this clear financial objective and the council’s annual performance against it should be made known to Fingal citizens / taxpayers, through its published budget, accounts, website and press statements.

FCC employees are given a discount on playing fees and there is no substantial benefit to residents from subsidizing its loss making golf activities.

Not only are these golf courses generating direct operating losses but they have additional hidden subsidies in the form of non payment of rates, free road signage, use of council staff to “help out”, etc. However, the most significant subsidy is free debt load (share of FCC total debt on 31/12/2012 = €457.1m) to service accumulated losses, new course construction, redesign / reconstruction of Corballis (in 2009 by Nicklaus Design Services) and yearly spend on capital improvements.

The revenues and expenditures associated with FCC golf courses are almost impossible to isolate in the public record as they are buried in the FCC Recreation & Amenity spending budget, as published on its website. Information on the golf spend only filters out in response to very rare councillors’ questions, such as those raised by councillor Dennison in 2010 (http://www.kierandennison.com/2010_04_01_archive.html).

Instead of the existing policy of hiding the precise amount of these subsidies, Fingal residents deserve a press release with the “WHO”, “WHY”, “WHAT”, “WHERE” AND “HOW MUCH” details.

I would prefer to see the money used to subsidize the “elitist” golf facilities preferred by the County Manager going toward improving more generally used amenities such as parks, beaches, swimming pools, childrens’ playgrounds, GAA, Soccer and Rugby playing fields.

As a first step towards openness and transparency, FCC should clearly disaggregate the golf course activities from other leisure spending in their published budgets and accounts.

Next, they should set up a separate company as the financial mechanism for governing and accounting the golf courses’ costs and operations.

Why is FCC so afraid that citizens will find out how much they are spending on golf facilities?

GlennaMaddy

golfwallah wrote: »

As a first step towards openness and transparency, FCC should clearly disaggregate the golf course activities from other leisure spending in their published budgets and accounts?

This should be done for all sports and leisure activities

Cardinal Richelieu

Looks like NAMA or the banks thinks Fingal needs a new golf course that they are going ahead with CJ old place. Link

peteb2

That permission was granted a while back. They are only applying to extend the permission because the place is going to be put up for sale. And im sure it sells better with the permission for a golf course, 70 bed hotel and villas as was previously agreed!

ted1

This is a non issue. The council also provide free play grounds. Free parks ,, free football pitches, subsidied swimming pools, etc,etc. It's what councils do. They provide facilities for the people.

golfwallah

ted1 wrote: »

This is a non issue. The council also provide free play grounds. Free parks ,, free football pitches, subsidied swimming pools, etc,etc. It's what councils do. They provide facilities for the people.

Don’t agree that this is a non-issue – certainly, it is a hidden issue that most people don’t know about.

Yes FCC to provide free parks and playgrounds but, a small point, you’re misinformed on the “free” football fields – the clubs have to make a contribution, albeit, probably, below cost.

And don’t forget that the waste collection service used to be operated by FCC as well, until it became widely known FCC was losing shed-loads of money on it.

My concern is about lack of transparency and aggregating costs together in the FCC budgets and Accounts for Recreation & Amenity Services.

This makes it impossible to see if the council are spending money on the activities of most importance to voters.

With the country in the state it’s in, it's in all our interests to ensure the council spend our money wisely, control costs and distributes funding on activities that benefit the highest proportion of its citizens.

To my mind, golf, a minority elitist sport that should be self-financing, receives a disproportionate share of the cake (annually at €300,000 each for Corballis and Elm Green compared to a meagre €12,000 for the swimming pool in PSLC). And I'm not the only one, who thinks this golf spend is excessive, Councillor Kieran Dennison has said the same publicly.

LeinsterDub

ted1 wrote: »

This is a non issue. The council also provide free play grounds. Free parks ,, free football pitches, subsidied swimming pools, etc,etc. It's what councils do. They provide facilities for the people.

Pitches part of the parks. Most pitches are useable by the general public to walk, run and play on for a far greater time than is taken up with a game being played

Beasty

@golfwallah

You are clearly very passionate about this subject - perhaps a little too so. Your username suggests you have a personal "interest" - presumably as a member or official of one of the private clubs you consider are in competition here. I think it would be helpful if you would at least declare whether you do have such an "interest" (no names or clubs, just something that would allow other posters to see where you are coming from)

My personal take on such isues is that if you don't like how the council spends your money, express your dissatisfaction in the ballot box.

golfwallah

Beasty wrote: »

@golfwallah

You are clearly very passionate about this subject - perhaps a little too so. Your username suggests you have a personal "interest" - presumably as a member or official of one of the private clubs you consider are in competition here. I think it would be helpful if you would at least declare whether you do have such an "interest" (no names or clubs, just something that would allow other posters to see where you are coming from)

My personal take on such isues is that if you don't like how the council spends your money, express your dissatisfaction in the ballot box.

To answer your question, I’m coming at this issue as a Fingal taxpayer, a member of a members’ owned golf club and a member of a local sports & leisure club.

And, yes, I’m from one of the 1 in 8 households, that has paid the Household Charge of €100.

In the past, I have served significant periods on committee in our local school parents’ council, local GAA club and in my golf club, so I am coming from a position of having had:
• To reduce costs significantly to survive (unlike FCC, that justs throws money at the same types of problem)
• To make the effort to shift people’s perspectives, just a little bit, to help overcome badly understood but difficult local issues (e.g. need for price reductions in recession).
• To compete with other golf clubs that are subsidized by either the Council or NAMA.

The organisations, that are outside of NAMA / Council management, all depend on significant voluntary input to survive and grow – with very little in the form of subsidies.

I’m all for self-help and community involvement in resolving issues that affect peoples’ lives – and trying to get the best value for money for most of the citizens from council spending is an area that interests me.

What I have found, is that openness and information can inform peoples’ decisions – at voting time. But, let’s face it, you can’t vote out the council – only the councillors. And to inform peoples’ decisions, voters need to know enough detail about the amounts of money being spent on the various activities they are interested in. Without such specifics, local political debate becomes just an “us v them” argument on National Issues – so nothing changes.

Anyway, hope this helps clarify things.