State of Irish Golf Membership

golfwallah

Russman wrote: »

Totally agree, especially with the bolded part.
Unfortunately its happening in a kind of drip, drip, death by a thousand cuts kind of way. All clubs cutting, cutting, cutting costs before yet another one goes bang. I think clubs can actually cut so much in an effort to survive, that it almost prevents survival as they can't do anything. Part of me would prefer to bring it all to a head but that's totally impractical, and how would you pick the 50 clubs that are needed to go ??

No need to pick the clubs that need to go - they will select themselves by doing the least in terms for giving customers good value for money now and planning how to continue doing so in the future.

Dealerz

golfwallah wrote: »

No need to pick the clubs that need to go - they will select themselves by doing the least in terms for giving customers good value for money now and planning how to continue doing so in the future.

Is location also a factor?

mike12

PARlance wrote: »

Historically it worked out ok, but if you you go back to historical figures for club & membership numbers then it's scary.

2013: 170,000 - 428 clubs
1997: 170,000 - 367 clubs
1987: 95,000 - 262 clubs

I don't think it's a crazy thought that membership (unless there's a massive change in focus on youth) could go back to 95,000 over the next 10 years or so.
That'd leave an oversupply of 166 clubs over today's levels.
I don't think it'll get that bad, but in terms of the state of Irish golf, I do think the last few years will be nothing compared to what's coming down the line.

Edit: here's the link for GUI stats for anyone interested: http://www.gui.ie/home/general-documents/membership-stats-2013.aspx

That would be an average of almost 400 members per club. I would have thought that 400 members would be enough to keep most clubs afloat. in the 170,000 remains the same then we would only need to loose 24/5 clubs to get to around 500 members per club. if a club cannot survive with that many members it must be very poorly run.

The courses that have closed already and that will close are ones that will not be missed.
Turvey is the only one to close in NCD so far and it was the worse course so no coincidence there.
it is simple enough maths our break even costs are x. We need x amount of members paying x plus x amount in green fees. It is either reduce costs or increase revenue most times reducing costs is the easy option.

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

There are some research results online re membership numbers and age profiles, etc., for example:

Leinster Golf Survey as reported 25/03/2014 in Irish Independent:



From "Promoting Golf Club Membership" (GUI / ILGU / PGA) in 2009:

These figures appear startling, but unless we have something to compare them to what do they actually mean?

I would guess that clubs *always* have most of their population in the late 40's early 50's range, thats when people have most disposable income and more free time (kids grown up etc)
I know when I was growing up that was the dominant age range at the club.

I think its totally unrealistic to think we will ever get to the point where the majority are mid 30's for example.

PARlance

Dealerz wrote: »

Is location also a factor?

100%, At home there's one club for an average sized town. I could never see that folding, in fact, I don't think membership fees have dropped any significant amount.
There isn't a club within 30mins and there's a nice population to keep it going.

golfwallah

Dealerz wrote: »

Is location also a factor?

Sure ... there are a lot of factors ..... as well as ideas for how to survive and prosper in the much more competitive new world facing golf clubs.

Exchange of quick, of-the-top-of-the-head quips on a forum like this does help stimulate debate and more considered gathering / analysis of relevant facts but the real solution is for clubs to empower a few experienced / qualified people (e.g. on a membership sub-committee) to tackle the issue and come up with possible ways forward.

If existing activity to stimulate more revenue for a club is not working - something needs to change for things to get better.

Here's a recent suggested approach from Facebook page for CGI (confederation of Golf in Ireland - the organisation set up by GUI / ILGI / PGA to help clubs deal with membership issues):
http://www.cgigolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Membership-Recruitment-and-Retainment-Examples1.pdf

Russman

mike12 wrote: »

That would be an average of almost 400 members per club. I would have thought that 400 members would be enough to keep most clubs afloat. in the 170,000 remains the same then we would only need to loose 24/5 clubs to get to around 500 members per club. if a club cannot survive with that many members it must be very poorly run.

The courses that have closed already and that will close are ones that will not be missed.
Turvey is the only one to close in NCD so far and it was the worse course so no coincidence there.
it is simple enough maths our break even costs are x. We need x amount of members paying x plus x amount in green fees. It is either reduce costs or increase revenue most times reducing costs is the easy option.

1) That's a little bit unfair IMO.
2) Sometimes its the only option. eg your run of the mill member owned course generally can't compete with NAMA subsidised "resort type" courses when it comes to offering cheap green fees. If you're a group of 10 or 12 guys looking for a game and you can choose between some high end course for €15 or €20 versus a normal member course for the same or more, its a no brainer.

thewobbler

golfwallah wrote: »

Sure ... there are a lot of factors ..... as well as ideas for how to survive and prosper in the much more competitive new world facing golf clubs.

Exchange of quick, of-the-top-of-the-head quips on a forum like this does help stimulate debate and more considered gathering / analysis of relevant facts but the real solution is for clubs to empower a few experienced / qualified people (e.g. on a membership sub-committee) to tackle the issue and come up with possible ways forward.

If existing activity to stimulate more revenue for a club is not working - something needs to change for things to get better.

Here's a recent suggested approach from Facebook page for CGI (confederation of Golf in Ireland - the organisation set up by GUI / ILGI / PGA to help clubs deal with membership issues):
http://www.cgigolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Membership-Recruitment-and-Retainment-Examples1.pdf

I'm not sure about this.

I would suggest that those people who are so physically and emotionally attached to golf that they give up their own time to drive their club forwards, are less likely to be able to communicate with or understand the needs of people who don't give golf importance in their life.

Being able to slip into the shoes of your target markets is one of the most important skills in marketing, and a dyed-in-the-wool club member who lives, eats and drinks golf, needs to make a major detachment from themselves in order to assume those shoes.

GreeBo

PARlance wrote: »

100%, At home there's one club for an average sized town. I could never see that folding, in fact, I don't think membership fees have dropped any significant amount.
There isn't a club within 30mins and there's a nice population to keep it going.

While that is certainly positive for your club, are there enough people within that 30 minutes who want to join a club?
Lack of golfers inthe vicinity will be the deciding factor in the quality of the club/course you are able to maintain and then it can become self-deating or self-fulfilling even; more people = more cash = better course = more people.

However it does mean that if you strike the balance you get a bunch of people happy to pay for the existing facilities and thus it can all continue, notimpacted by whats going on around (well 31 mins away!)

GreeBo

thewobbler wrote: »

I'm not sure about this.

I would suggest that those people who are so physically and emotionally attached to golf that they give up their own time to drive their club forwards, are less likely to be able to communicate with or understand the needs of people who don't give golf importance in their life.

Being able to slip into the shoes of your target markets is one of the most important skills in marketing, and a dyed-in-the-wool club member who lives, eats and drinks golf, needs to make a major detachment from themselves in order to assume those shoes.

Maybe, but not if they are looking for other dyed in the wool type people
Isnt that really what clubs need to keep going?
If everyone just turns up, puts their shoes on in the carpark, plays 18 and heads home then you dont have a club, you have a nice field.

wally79

GreeBo wrote: »

Taking in anyone who wants to get in means that you get all sorts.

Define all sorts for me

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

Sure ... there are a lot of factors ..... as well as ideas for how to survive and prosper in the much more competitive new world facing golf clubs.

Exchange of quick, of-the-top-of-the-head quips on a forum like this does help stimulate debate and more considered gathering / analysis of relevant facts but the real solution is for clubs to empower a few experienced / qualified people (e.g. on a membership sub-committee) to tackle the issue and come up with possible ways forward.

If existing activity to stimulate more revenue for a club is not working - something needs to change for things to get better.

Here's a recent suggested approach from Facebook page for CGI (confederation of Golf in Ireland - the organisation set up by GUI / ILGI / PGA to help clubs deal with membership issues):
http://www.cgigolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Membership-Recruitment-and-Retainment-Examples1.pdf

I think that "drive" ignores the fact of over-supply of courses and under-supply of golfers.
Frankly they arent likely to admit that some courses/clubs need to fold for the sake of the game, but thats the startk reality of the situation. The numbers alone prove that beyond all doubt.
The only thing that can help, other than the above, is a massive boom of golfers. Thats not likely, it hasnt really happened before, outside of an economic boom. Unless you get a natural population boom the numbers playing golf will stay the same.

Golf, by necessity is an expensive sport to run ?& thus to play.
You have a field, many times the size of any other sports pitch that has to be mancured every single day. Only X people can play on it per day/at a time.
Those people *have* to pay to keep it in the condition they want it. The cost of keeping it in condition hasnt dropped yet income has.

Its a no brainer, clubs need to close.

Wichita Lineman

Mike12 said - "The courses that have closed already and that will close are ones that will not be missed."

What rubbish. What you mean is the "casual ramblers" wont miss them but I can guarantee that the loyal members will miss any course that closes - at a minimum it means that they have to find somewhere else to play on a permanent basis.

GreeBo

wally79 wrote: »

Define all sorts for me

The types of people that you dont want in your club.

GreeBo

Andy Dunne11 wrote: »

Mike12 said - "The courses that have closed already and that will close are ones that will not be missed."

What rubbish. What you mean is the "casual ramblers" wont miss them but I can guarantee that the loyal members will miss any course that closes - at a minimum it means that they have to find somewhere else to play on a permanent basis.

Depends on how you define not be missed too.

The problem with letting them fail organically is that you will loose some strong ones along with some weak ones, purely through timing.

If it was a supermarket chain thenmanagement would close the weak ones to protect the strong, we dont get that lucury and so there is a touch of randomness.
SouthCounty anyone?

thewobbler

GreeBo wrote: »

Maybe, but not if they are looking for other dyed in the wool type people
Isnt that really what clubs need to keep going?
If everyone just turns up, puts their shoes on in the carpark, plays 18 and heads home then you dont have a club, you have a nice field.

Yep Greebo, agreed. If your club believes (or even better, has proof) that it can sustain itself with dyed-in-wool golfers alone, then this is the ideal scenario. Your committee's responsibility to its members is then to ensure that the right level of people (the physical numbers, and without try to sound curt "real golfers" only) are interested, so that retirees are replaced in a likeminded way. Many golf clubs have prospered on this model for many years, and for those clubs, long may it continue.

But if a club has had to take actual steps to artificially drum up membership, then this decision has ultimately got to be related to a lack of sustainability in their current model. So it needs to evolve, and look at different sorts of member and different types of membership. And I don't personally believe that a golfing die-hard is the right person to lead this sort of drive. As golf is a cornerstone of their happiness, they just won't be able to relate to people who think differently. What clubs need in this scenario is someone to convince their die-hard membership that they can and will co-exist on the same club grounds with less-focused golfers. Then empower someone else to attract those players.

wally79

GreeBo wrote: »

The types of people that you dont want in your club.

And how do you decide that?

GreeBo

thewobbler wrote: »

Yep Greebo, agreed. If your club believes (or even better, has proof) that it can sustain itself with dyed-in-wool golfers alone, then this is the ideal scenario. Your committee's responsibility to its members is then to ensure that the right level of people (the physical numbers, and without try to sound curt "real golfers" only) are interested, so that retirees are replaced in a likeminded way. Many golf clubs have prospered on this model for many years, and for those clubs, long may it continue.

But if a club has had to take actual steps to artificially drum up membership, then this decision has ultimately got to be related to a lack of sustainability in their current model. So it needs to evolve, and look at different sorts of member and different types of membership. And I don't personally believe that a golfing die-hard is the right person to lead this sort of drive. As golf is a cornerstone of their happiness, they just won't be able to relate to people who think differently. What clubs need in this scenario is someone to convince their die-hard membership that they can and will co-exist on the same club grounds with less-focused golfers. Then empower someone else to attract those players.

Agreed, in the second situation you need PR, Marketing etc
though you also need to be prepared for the fact that, for the sake of survival, the thing you are trying to save may not survive the journey.
e.g. private members club ends up resembling pay as you play course.

wally79 wrote: »

And how do you decide that?

You only let people in that are known to existing members as being the sort of people you want. (proposers, seconders etc)

alxmorgan

GreeBo wrote: »

Agreed, in the second situation you need PR, Marketing etc
though you also need to be prepared for the fact that, for the sake of survival, the thing you are trying to save may not survive the journey.
e.g. private members club ends up resembling pay as you play course.



You only let people in that are known to existing members as being the sort of people you want. (proposers, seconders etc)

What about children of members who turn out to be the sort you don't want in your club ?

GreeBo

alxmorgan wrote: »

What about children of members who turn out to be the sort you don't want in your club ?

That typically doesnt happen if the parents are the type you do want.
If it did arise they would be asked to leave, membership not renewed I guess.

wally79

GreeBo wrote: »

You only let people in that are known to existing members as being the sort of people you want. (proposers, seconders etc)

But when your existing members are an aging group as we are discussing here what will be the age profile of anyone they recommend? I'd suggest that the people they would know well enough to recommend will be from a similar age group.

I don't see how that helps to secure the future of the club.

I'm not saying throw the doors open but there are people out there who aren't "all sorts" who don't have connections in golf clubs. Particularly people like myself who have moved to the area.

In Dublin especially there must be quite a number of people who wouldn't have these connections.

wally79

GreeBo wrote: »

That typically doesnt happen if the parents are the type you do want.
If it did arise they would be asked to leave, membership not renewed I guess.

So why restrict entry to children of members. surely if not renewing membership is an option you can use this to weed out the "all sorts". They can hardly wreck the club in a year

GreeBo

wally79 wrote: »

But when your existing members are an aging group as we are discussing here what will be the age profile of anyone they recommend? I'd suggest that the people they would know well enough to recommend will be from a similar age group.

I don't see how that helps to secure the future of the club.

I'm not saying throw the doors open but there are people out there who aren't "all sorts" who don't have connections in golf clubs. Particularly people like myself who have moved to the area.

In Dublin especially there must be quite a number of people who wouldn't have these connections.

Usually its children or friends or childrens friends, nieces/nephews cousins etc.

Its all very close nit
Id say everyone in the club is related to at least 1 other person somehow.

It can be tough if you dont know anyone alright, but if you are a good golfer that can also be another way in to lots of clubs.

Also important to note that the clubs have no responsiblity take people in, its a private club, can do what it wants really (within the law of course!) So while it may mean that makes it impossible for you to join...its kinda just tough luck Im afraid.

alxmorgan

GreeBo wrote: »

Usually its children or friends or childrens friends, nieces/nephews cousins etc.

Its all very close nit
Id say everyone in the club is related to at least 1 other person somehow.

It can be tough if you dont know anyone alright, but if you are a good golfer that can also be another way in to lots of clubs.

Also important to note that the clubs have no responsiblity take people in, its a private club, can do what it wants really (within the law of course!) So while it may mean that makes it impossible for you to join...its kinda just tough luck Im afraid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzae_SqbmDE

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

While that is certainly positive for your club, are there enough people within that 30 minutes who want to join a club?
Lack of golfers inthe vicinity will be the deciding factor in the quality of the club/course you are able to maintain and then it can become self-deating or self-fulfilling even; more people = more cash = better course = more people.

However it does mean that if you strike the balance you get a bunch of people happy to pay for the existing facilities and thus it can all continue, notimpacted by whats going on around (well 31 mins away!)

Not my club, rather the club in my hometown.
Ya, they've got a nice situation, a substantial enough town to provide the supply of golfers and 30mins drive down west is a long drive (they're not used to 1 hour commutes every morning. 5-10 mins for most. It's all relative).

wally79

GreeBo wrote: »

Usually its children or friends or childrens friends, nieces/nephews cousins etc.

Its all very close nit
Id say everyone in the club is related to at least 1 other person somehow.

It can be tough if you dont know anyone alright, but if you are a good golfer that can also be another way in to lots of clubs.

Also important to note that the clubs have no responsiblity take people in, its a private club, can do what it wants really (within the law of course!) So while it may mean that makes it impossible for you to join...its kinda just tough luck Im afraid.

Tough luck. That's it then. It seems empathy is something missing in certain circles. I'm alright so that's alright

wally79

GreeBo wrote: »

Usually its children or friends or childrens friends, nieces/nephews cousins etc.

Its all very close nit
Id say everyone in the club is related to at least 1 other person somehow.

It can be tough if you dont know anyone alright, but if you are a good golfer that can also be another way in to lots of clubs.

Also important to note that the clubs have no responsiblity take people in, its a private club, can do what it wants really (within the law of course!) So while it may mean that makes it impossible for you to join...its kinda just tough luck Im afraid.

Tough luck. That's it then. It seems empathy is something missing in certain circles. I'm alright so that's alright

GreeBo

wally79 wrote: »

Tough luck. That's it then. It seems empathy is something missing in certain circles. I'm alright so that's alright

Its a private club...not a charity or government run play area...I'm honestly not sure what you expect?

If you cant afford to or dont know a member in The Residence do you expect them to just let you in anyway? Why would they have any special empathy towards you versus the guy standing next to you? Why not just let everyone in so?

PARlance

wally79 wrote: »

Tough luck. That's it then. It seems empathy is something missing in certain circles. I'm alright so that's alright

Yip, and I wouldn't blame them at all.
As I mentioned earlier, I would guess that The Greebo's club is one of the most financially sound around and has almost nothing to worry about in future.

They've paid a premium to be members and they expect higher standards than most as a result.

It's not just an elite thing, there are ordinary joe's all around the country objecting to social housing going into their ordinary joe road as an eg.

PARlance

golfwallah wrote: »

There are some research results online re membership numbers and age profiles, etc., for example:

Leinster Golf Survey as reported 25/03/2014 in Irish Independent:

Thanks for that Golfwallah.
That's quite staggering. While it has never been a young mans game, I would doubt if the imbalance has ever been so high.

It'll take a hell of a lot of people returning to the game to make up for the guys that'll be leaving in 20 or so years.... I don't think there'll be the numbers out there to match that drop off at all.

wally79

GreeBo wrote: »

Its a private club...not a charity or government run play area...I'm honestly not sure what you expect?

If you cant afford to or dont know a member in The Residence do you expect them to just let you in anyway? Why would they have any special empathy towards you versus the guy standing next to you? Why not just let everyone in so?

It's ok to be confused. The empathy wasn't related to the club but rather to the discussion. The tough luck point of view is what I was referring to

GreeBo

PARlance wrote: »

Thanks for that Golfwallah.
That's quite staggering. While it has never been a young mans game, I would doubt if the imbalance has ever been so high.

It'll take a hell of a lot of people returning to the game to make up for the guys that'll be leaving in 20 or so years.... I don't think there'll be the numbers out there to match that drop off at all.

Ah but in 20 or so years all those 20-30 somethings will now be 40-50 somethings and the cycle continues...

wally79

PARlance wrote: »

Yip, and I wouldn't blame them at all.
As I mentioned earlier, I would guess that The Greebo's club is one of the most financially sound around and has almost nothing to worry about in future.

They've paid a premium to be members and they expect higher standards than most as a result.

It's not just an elite thing, there are ordinary joe's all around the country objecting to social housing going into their ordinary joe road as an eg.

Yes but finances aside there is an assumption that these higher standards can only come from within their direct social circle.

John Divney

The solution is as obvious as it is logical, don't have kids if you like golf.

wally79

John Divney wrote: »

The solution is as obvious as it is logical, don't have kids if you like golf.

This

blue note

GreeBo wrote: »

You only let people in that are known to existing members as being the sort of people you want. (proposers, seconders etc)

I must say I'm glad that this sort of thing is dying out. In all honesty, I'd much rather get a few people in that are not the sort you want than close the club off to people based on who and where they come from which is what it boils down to basically. I've seen a bit of the above in my own club and the complete lack of it in my hurling club and without doubt I prefer the all inclusive nature of the hurling club.

And on the figures quoted regarding membership age profiles, there are more members over 65 than under 40. Whatever context you put on this, it's a massive problem in the near future. Lots of people take up golf in their 40s, but without doubt not enough to replace those dying off.

golfwallah

GreeBo wrote: »

I think that "drive" ignores the fact of over-supply of courses and under-supply of golfers.
Frankly they arent likely to admit that some courses/clubs need to fold for the sake of the game, but thats the startk reality of the situation. The numbers alone prove that beyond all doubt.
The only thing that can help, other than the above, is a massive boom of golfers. Thats not likely, it hasnt really happened before, outside of an economic boom. Unless you get a natural population boom the numbers playing golf will stay the same.

Golf, by necessity is an expensive sport to run ?& thus to play.
You have a field, many times the size of any other sports pitch that has to be mancured every single day. Only X people can play on it per day/at a time.
Those people *have* to pay to keep it in the condition they want it. The cost of keeping it in condition hasnt dropped yet income has.

Its a no brainer, clubs need to close.

Agreed there are too many clubs and some need to close. That’s all very well – if your particular club is well established, near to centres of population, is perhaps a links, and/or well off financially (such as Castle, Grange, Royal Dublin, The Island, etc.). These clubs don’t have to compete very hard for members from the general pool of people interested in golf (aside from low handicappers or younger championship winning golfers). Marketing to them is as easy as falling off a log – just pay someone to do it for you – budget is not a big problem.

But just how many clubs out of the 400 or so in Ireland fit that category. Not too many, I venture to say, and even if these clubs represent 15% – 20% and the resorts another 5%, that still leaves about 300 clubs in a competitive scramble for existing / potential members and green fees.

And of that 300 – some will inevitably have to close (and I accept that this will be hard for their members to take).

The real question is which ones will survive – and I put it to you that those who adopt a pro-active management approach to marketing, value for money, quality, cost control, etc., and are not too far from centres of population, have a much better chance of survival than those who say they can do nothing but wait for things to get better.

One size does not fit all in today’s segmented golf market!

golfwallah

moycullen14 wrote: »

It's like the newspaper business. The dynamics have changed because people will no longer pay - at least they'll no longer pay the provider - for content that is available on line for 'free'.

Shouting at the providers to 'change with the times' is not going to work. The new business model when it comes will almost certainly not suit anyone not willing to pay.

We'll be sorry when they're gone.

It's like any business, newspapers, airlines, retail, whatever, really. Those that do what it takes to adapt to changes in the environment will survive.

It's not just the survival of the fittest but survival of the most adaptable. So if your club is stuck in its ways and bleeding revenues ...... watch out, if nothing is being done about it other than "cut, cut, cut".

And, by the way, I don't think too many people will be sorry when the clubs that don't adapt are gone! The sooner the better this happens, IMO, as it will remove excess inefficient capacity from the field and make it somewhat easier for the better run clubs to survive (and, hopefully, prosper - as a result of giving the market what it wants).

Bruno26

GreeBo wrote: »

You only let people in that are known to existing members as being the sort of people you want. (proposers, seconders etc)

So you could be missing out on fantastic golfers or great people who would add to a club just because they don't know a member. It's a bad attitude.

I've been playing a number of clubs in Dublin, Wicklow, Kildare over last couple of years to see which one I'd join in hopefully the next few years. I haven't played (the) Grange yet.

You've confirmed why I was reluctant to play there. If your attitude is the prevailing one (which I doubt it is) in the club I think I'll continue to look elsewhere.

wally79

Bruno26 wrote: »

So you could be missing out on fantastic golfers or great people who would add to a club just because they don't know a member. It's a bad attitude.

I've been playing a number of clubs in Dublin, Wicklow, Kildare over last couple of years to see which one I'd join in hopefully the next few years. I haven't played (the) Grange yet.

You've confirmed why I was reluctant to play there. If your attitude is the prevailing one (which I doubt it is) in the club I think I'll continue to look elsewhere.

I agree with your point but I don't think we should be naming clubs

GreeBo

blue note wrote: »

I must say I'm glad that this sort of thing is dying out. In all honesty, I'd much rather get a few people in that are not the sort you want than close the club off to people based on who and where they come from which is what it boils down to basically. I've seen a bit of the above in my own club and the complete lack of it in my hurling club and without doubt I prefer the all inclusive nature of the hurling club.

And on the figures quoted regarding membership age profiles, there are more members over 65 than under 40. Whatever context you put on this, it's a massive problem in the near future. Lots of people take up golf in their 40s, but without doubt not enough to replace those dying off.

and Im equally glad that my club uses some discretion on who it lets in, for the enjoyment and good of all concerned.

I dont think your point makes sense.
Youd rather let in people you dont want, than keep the club to people you do want? Surely thats illogical?

Its not to do with who or where they come from, its about knowing that they are people of a similar ilk to the current members.
There are all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds in my club.

On the age profile, unless and until someone can show me that the numbers have *ever* been distributed any other way Im not going to panic just yet. The golf club that I have grown up in over the last 20 odd years was always mainly older people. I'm getting to the stage now where I am one of these older people and there are plenty in and around my age.

If anything Id say there are far more young people playing.

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

Agreed there are too many clubs and some need to close. That’s all very well – if your particular club is well established, near to centres of population, is perhaps a links, and/or well off financially (such as Castle, Grange, Royal Dublin, The Island, etc.). These clubs don’t have to compete very hard for members from the general pool of people interested in golf (aside from low handicappers or younger championship winning golfers). Marketing to them is as easy as falling off a log – just pay someone to do it for you – budget is not a big problem.

But just how many clubs out of the 400 or so in Ireland fit that category. Not too many, I venture to say, and even if these clubs represent 15% – 20% and the resorts another 5%, that still leaves about 300 clubs in a competitive scramble for existing / potential members and green fees.

And of that 300 – some will inevitably have to close (and I accept that this will be hard for their members to take).

The real question is which ones will survive – and I put it to you that those who adopt a pro-active management approach to marketing, value for money, quality, cost control, etc., and are not too far from centres of population, have a much better chance of survival than those who say they can do nothing but wait for things to get better.

One size does not fit all in today’s segmented golf market!

100% agree, I just think that some of the clubs who do "whatever" to survive may end up surviving all right, but not as the same club that they members were trying to save.

Anywhere decent could probably survive by starting pay as you play tomorrow...but I wouldnt fancy my club turning into that, would you?

GreeBo

Bruno26 wrote: »

So you could be missing out on fantastic golfers or great people who would add to a club just because they don't know a member. It's a bad attitude.

I've been playing a number of clubs in Dublin, Wicklow, Kildare over last couple of years to see which one I'd join in hopefully the next few years. I haven't played (the) Grange yet.

You've confirmed why I was reluctant to play there. If your attitude is the prevailing one (which I doubt it is) in the club I think I'll continue to look elsewhere.

What attitude?
Its a fact, you need to be proposed and seconded to join my club as any category of member, including pavilion.
My club is in the lucky position of being able to choose who to accept and who not to accept, other than feeling hard done by that you didnt get in, what possible issue can you have with that fact?

I'm sure we do have fantastic golfer or people who woulnt get a chance to join, but to be frank...so what? There are thousands of peasant farmers who are probably naturally gifted pole-vaulters or FX traders...the world keeps turning all the same.

Why were you reluctant to play in Grange, exactly?
I'd be very interested to know.

blue note

GreeBo wrote: »

and Im equally glad that my club uses some discretion on who it lets in, for the enjoyment and good of all concerned.

I dont think your point makes sense.
Youd rather let in people you dont want, than keep the club to people you do want? Surely thats illogical?

Its not to do with who or where they come from, its about knowing that they are people of a similar ilk to the current members.
There are all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds in my club.

On the age profile, unless and until someone can show me that the numbers have *ever* been distributed any other way Im not going to panic just yet. The golf club that I have grown up in over the last 20 odd years was always mainly older people. I'm getting to the stage now where I am one of these older people and there are plenty in and around my age.

If anything Id say there are far more young people playing.

My point is that I would rather that my club is open to the community and to people that want to play than be a closed shop. If the result of that is that we get some members who I don't like I'm comfortable with that.

If you're looking for juniors who are sons and daughters of current members, or maybe friends of their children, it is exactly who they are and where they come from. If a teenager watched the British Open last week and was inspired to played because of Rory McIlroy's heroics, I'd be very disappointed if my club refused him because he didn't know anyone to propose him / second him. Similarly, I'd like someone moving into the area to be able to join my club and I'd hope it would be a good for for him to get to know people, as opposed to having to get to know people before joining the club.

And on the age profile, I don't have the figures for the age profiles 20 years ago. But looking at the older people in my club, the majority of them took up the game when they were in their 20s and 30s. It's often cited as a major problem for clubs in the near future when reading articles about clubs in newspapers / golf magazines. The consensus is that it is a huge problem down the road and I haven't read anything convincing to suggest that it's not. I'd say the onus is on you to produce figures that contradict the common consensus, rather than guessing that it's always been this way.

GreeBo

blue note wrote: »

My point is that I would rather that my club is open to the community and to people that want to play than be a closed shop. If the result of that is that we get some members who I don't like I'm comfortable with that.

If you're looking for juniors who are sons and daughters of current members, or maybe friends of their children, it is exactly who they are and where they come from. If a teenager watched the British Open last week and was inspired to played because of Rory McIlroy's heroics, I'd be very disappointed if my club refused him because he didn't know anyone to propose him / second him. Similarly, I'd like someone moving into the area to be able to join my club and I'd hope it would be a good for for him to get to know people, as opposed to having to get to know people before joining the club.

And on the age profile, I don't have the figures for the age profiles 20 years ago. But looking at the older people in my club, the majority of them took up the game when they were in their 20s and 30s. It's often cited as a major problem for clubs in the near future when reading articles about clubs in newspapers / golf magazines. The consensus is that it is a huge problem down the road and I haven't read anything convincing to suggest that it's not. I'd say the onus is on you to produce figures that contradict the common consensus, rather than guessing that it's always been this way.

But if you dont have any criteria for entry how do you decide who to let in and who not to?
With a GAA club anyone who wants to can play or at least train. You dont get that with a golf club, there are only so many slots available per day.

Clubs like mine are often way over subscribed for the few open places.
70 people apply for 3 places a year was the norm not long ago and thats 70 people proposed and seconded.

If we opened the doors to anyone and everyone (albeit with €13k!) then how do you decide?


On the age profiles, I've never seen any stats of what it used to be like. All the world can say its a problem brewing but without stats its just theory with 0 proof. Just like mine.

golfwallah

GreeBo wrote: »

100% agree, I just think that some of the clubs who do "whatever" to survive may end up surviving all right, but not as the same club that they members were trying to save.

Anywhere decent could probably survive by starting pay as you play tomorrow...but I wouldnt fancy my club turning into that, would you?

It depends on what you mean by “whatever” and what you mean by “pay as you play”. It’s very easy to pick labels and make them sound as if they spell the end of the world as members know it. Thus ends all discussion and consideration of alternatives – until a club goes bust (in which case hope for a massive debt write-down or member buy back at knock-down price and go from there – if you’re lucky). It’s a fear based approach – “for God’s sake, don’t try anything different – we’ll be ruined if we do”. Real problem is ruin resulting from following a status quo that isn’t working - Einstein’s definition of insanity (doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results)!

No – I’d prefer a more planned, thought through approach, whereby alternatives can be considered for rational debate by members. This is the approach calmly recommended by organisations such as the English Golfing Union, Confederation of Golf in Ireland, etc. It’s not a gut reaction, reckless approach that will ruin a club, but a managed risk approach. And what is wrong with that – when we have case studies proving this approach really works?

What’s more important for that vast majority of clubs trying to deal with declining membership revenue (as opposed to the privileged few with an almost guaranteed revenue base and possibly waiting lists) is to look more closely at what existing and potential new members want.

If that includes doing what it takes to make “non-core” business lines more revenue neutral for the club (e.g. pro-shop, bar, restaurant) or trying out new classes of membership (Intermediate, points based, etc.), even on a limited basis – then so be it. You don’t really know what will work until you try - and the “do nothing” alternative is always the easy option, until your club goes belly up.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained, I say – for the vast majority of member clubs – except for the privileged few that have the luxury of letting things stay as they are!

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by “whatever” and what you mean by “pay as you play”. It’s very easy to pick labels and make them sound as if they spell the end of the world as members know it. Thus ends all discussion and consideration of alternatives – until a club goes bust (in which case hope for a massive debt write-down or member buy back at knock-down price and go from there – if you’re lucky). It’s a fear based approach – “for God’s sake, don’t try anything different – we’ll be ruined if we do”. Real problem is ruin resulting from following a status quo that isn’t working - Einstein’s definition of insanity (doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results)!

No – I’d prefer a more planned, thought through approach, whereby alternatives can be considered for rational debate by members. This is the approach calmly recommended by organisations such as the English Golfing Union, Confederation of Golf in Ireland, etc. It’s not a gut reaction, reckless approach that will ruin a club, but a managed risk approach. And what is wrong with that – when we have case studies proving this approach really works?

What’s more important for that vast majority of clubs trying to deal with declining membership revenue (as opposed to the privileged few with an almost guaranteed revenue base and possibly waiting lists) is to look more closely at what existing and potential new members want.

If that includes doing what it takes to make “non-core” business lines more revenue neutral for the club (e.g. pro-shop, bar, restaurant) or trying out new classes of membership (Intermediate, points based, etc.), even on a limited basis – then so be it. You don’t really know what will work until you try - and the “do nothing” alternative is always the easy option, until your club goes belly up.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained, I say – for the vast majority of member clubs – except for the privileged few that have the luxury of letting things stay as they are!

Im not just picking labels to end a conversation, I'm saying that if all clubs do whatever it takes to get money in then the club is likely not to closely resemble the club as it is today. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with it, just that I wouldnt like to see my club change towards a more open, non-members club.
You say to "do what the new members want" but what if thats exactly the opposite of what the current membership wants?


I still maintain that "your" approach is just not going to work for all clubs. Even if they all did exactly the same thing, there just arent enough people to keep them all open. Its a big race to the bottom to try to outsurvive each other through a recession and hopefully come out the other end when the surplus clubs have folded.

golfwallah

GreeBo wrote: »

Im not just picking labels to end a conversation, I'm saying that if all clubs do whatever it takes to get money in then the club is likely not to closely resemble the club as it is today. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with it, just that I wouldnt like to see my club change towards a more open, non-members club.
You say to "do what the new members want" but what if thats exactly the opposite of what the current membership wants?


I still maintain that "your" approach is just not going to work for all clubs. Even if they all did exactly the same thing, there just arent enough people to keep them all open. Its a big race to the bottom to try to outsurvive each other through a recession and hopefully come out the other end when the surplus clubs have folded.

Doing nothing will indeed result in quite a few clubs not closely resembling the clubs they are today - these are precisely the ones that will go out of business. And deservedly so, in my view.

And nobody is saying change to a more open, non-member club. I can understand peoples' gut-reaction to change, but if they read the case studies and market research conducted by the likes of CGI, English Golfing Union and others, some, at least, will come to different conclusions. Facts and figures alone don't persuade everyone, as we all see the world differently (glass half full or half empty, etc.).

It's not my approach, as you describe it, nor does it apply to the well heeled clubs and sure, there aren't enough people to keep all clubs open - nobody is saying that as far as I know. Neither is it a "race to the bottom", just look at what happened in the airline industry - no it's no longer the domain of the privileged few but a lot more people are travelling and airlines that changed are making profits. Same applies in all businesses, and a golf club is primarily a business, as without sufficient revenues, everything else goes to the wall.

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

Doing nothing will indeed result in quite a few clubs not closely resembling the clubs they are today - these are precisely the ones that will go out of business. And deservedly so, in my view.

And nobody is saying change to a more open, non-member club. I can understand peoples' gut-reaction to change, but if they read the case studies and market research conducted by the likes of CGI, English Golfing Union and others, some, at least, will come to different conclusions. Facts and figures alone don't persuade everyone, as we all see the world differently (glass half full or half empty, etc.).

It's not my approach, as you describe it, nor does it apply to the well heeled clubs and sure, there aren't enough people to keep all clubs open - nobody is saying that as far as I know. Neither is it a "race to the bottom", just look at what happened in the airline industry - no it's no longer the domain of the privileged few but a lot more people are travelling and airlines that changed are making profits. Same applies in all businesses, and a golf club is primarily a business, as without sufficient revenues, everything else goes to the wall.

A members club is specifically not a business though. Its a club. Its doesnt make a profit or loss it has income and expenditure.

Flying got a lot cheaper, making it cheaper and more accessible to all, you can buy more capacity in the airline business when you need it.

Maintaining a golf course hasnt gotten any cheaper in real terms and you have a fixed capacity for the numbers of people you can support.

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

Ah but in 20 or so years all those 20-30 somethings will now be 40-50 somethings and the cycle continues...

Yes but 20-30 somethings represent ~2.8% of total membership today. That's about 5,100 of the 170,000 members.

Whereas over 40's account for ~126,000

That leaves a big gap for "returning golfers" to fill.
I don't think the cycle will continue.