New Rule for eligibility to Away Opens

Kingswood Rover

Uncle Ben wrote: »

Sorry I didn't mean to sound so smart. There are clubs such as Blessington, Scarke, Slievenamon mentioned and portrayed as having memberships of 800 to 8000!

Just to clarify Blessington Lakes have about 450 minor members.

bobster453

Just to clarify Slievenamon have total membership a lot lot closer to the 800 than the 8000 quoted despite what people may believe

SaveOurLyric

I guess that those clubs in favour of the restriction were not too concerned about the practicalities of implementing it, have themselves the resources to do so, and assumed other clubs would be equally favourable to its application.
But those clubs who dont have the resources of manpower are the same ones who are happy to take any euros waved in their direction, so in practice the move is academic.
Clubs can run all-comers open if they wish - whats the GUI going to do about it ?

First Up

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I guess that those clubs in favour of the restriction were not too concerned about the practicalities of implementing it, have themselves the resources to do so, and assumed other clubs would be equally favourable to its application.
But those clubs who dont have the resources of manpower are the same ones who are happy to take any euros waved in their direction, so in practice the move is academic.
Clubs can run all-comers open if they wish - whats the GUI going to do about it ?

All comers opens would be bad news for the "distance" membership floggers.
The GUI's only interest would be protecting the integrity of the handicap system. What clubs charge for membership or for opens is their own business.

bobster453

All comers opens would be bad news for golf as a whole.The next step would logically be opens where everyone is given a local handicap regulated by the club running the open outside any regulation of the GUI.Make the prizes attractive enough charge a few euro extra and its a sure recipe for success..or disaster depending on your perspective.
But wait these are already in operation and getting bigger each year.

Thats where you see the real golf bandits.With artificially high handicaps golf bag in one hand and passport in the other all ready for yet another free holiday to Spain.

FixdePitchmark

Lads - could some post a link of these competitions that have a trip to Spain in them

I could have a new target.

SaveOurLyric

I was not clear, but meant come-all competitions as those that disregard the new rule, rather than allowing people without a handicap at all. Which I guess in practice is what is happening. Clubs are asking for a GUI handicap, but not whether you have qualifying scores entered the previous year. They want your cash......so best not to ask.

Putt it there

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Lads - could some post a link of these competitions that have a trip to Spain in them

I could have a new target.

Ditto

First Up

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I was not clear, but meant come-all competitions as those that disregard the new rule, rather than allowing people without a handicap at all. Which I guess in practice is what is happening. Clubs are asking for a GUI handicap, but not whether you have qualifying scores entered the previous year. They want your cash......so best not to ask.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the Swipe Card software is updated to include the 3 qualifying rounds. Will clubs still let people play - but tell them they are ineligible for prizes?

SaveOurLyric

First Up wrote: »

It will be interesting to see what happens when the Swipe Card software is updated to include the 3 qualifying rounds. Will clubs still let people play - but tell them they are ineligible for prizes?

This is my question. What is to stop them doing nothing ? Just let people pay, play, win a prize maybe. Can those clubs who wish to, not continue doing that. Which will attract them even more open visitors.....

First Up

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

This is my question. What is to stop them doing nothing ? Just let people pay, play, win a prize maybe. Can those clubs who wish to, not continue doing that. Which will attract them even more open visitors.....

If clubs are turning a blind eye to blatant banditry, it will become known quickly enough. Today if your 41 is beaten out of sight by a 25 handicapper from somewhere you never heard of, you just have to suck it up. But if there is recourse to a simple check through the computer, it will be hard for clubs to ignore it and stay on the right side of the GUI - not to mention pissed off golfers with genuine handicaps.

Why would you enter such an open if you know there is a history of skulduggery being tolerated and if you have the option of a properly run open elsewhere?

If people just want to play cheap golf and hack around for 26 points, it is a matter for each club if they just want to take in the €15 or whatever. Slippery slope though.

Kingswood Rover

First Up wrote: »

It will be interesting to see what happens when the Swipe Card software is updated to include the 3 qualifying rounds. Will clubs still let people play - but tell them they are ineligible for prizes?

This very scenario needs some clarification from the GUI. We as a club Blessington Lakes recognize that we must be seen administer our Minor membership handicaps in the correct manner and if someone is not eligible to play in an away comp i would have concerns that they are not eligible to get .1 back. On another note if any of our members (full or minor) are competing in an away Open anyone can log on to our Master score board and check that they have in fact the 3 qualifying rounds required. if all clubs enabled their results similarly it would make the rule easier to implement.

PARlance

First Up wrote: »

If clubs are turning a blind eye to blatant banditry, it will become known quickly enough. Today if your 41 is beaten out of sight by a 25 handicapper from somewhere you never heard of, you just have to suck it up. But if there is recourse to a simple check through the computer, it will be hard for clubs to ignore it and stay on the right side of the GUI - not to mention pissed off golfers with genuine handicaps.

Why would you enter such an open if you know there is a history of skulduggery being tolerated and if you have the option of a properly run open elsewhere?

If people just want to play cheap golf and hack around for 26 points, it is a matter for each club if they just want to take in the €15 or whatever. Slippery slope though.

I really think that (winning) banditry is close to an non issue in these events, single opens. Why on earth would a bandit off 25 shot 42+ in a run of the mill open (where prizes are generally poor) and lose 2-3 shots..... I think I played close to 40 opens last year and I've never once suspected skulduggery.... And I'm fairly cynical about banditry. I've seen some crazy scores from high hc'ers but high hc'ers have crazy scores. And bandits come in all forms, there are plenty of single figure guys out there and you might see one or two in the Pierce Purcell (and similar comps) range.

This new rule is like throwing a twig in the river expecting the water to stop flowing (we haven't had any silly metaphors in a while).
Team comps are wide open to banditry, yet it wasn't suggested that this rule apply. Why not?

This is all about clubs feeling the pinch, looking at distance membership as a threat and trying to stamp it out imo. It's strange that this was never an issue when the everything was rosey financially. Making this about banditry is a nice deflectionary tactic imo. Some clubs might not want to admit they're struggling so it's a nice way around it.

bobster453

ParLance your post is very similar to one I posted ages ago.Certain clubs..ours included..have been used as an example of whats wrong with golf whereas imo whats wrong is that the facility is already there for all clubs to report through Golfnet away scores recorded in their competitions.Now given the high profile of distance members in our club you would expect that we would be swamped with these reports yet last year if memory serves me right we received in the region of 20 reports where our members featured..and this included team events..and all these were actioned by the club.Imagine...all the hullabaloo about distance members winning left right and centre and yet only 20 reported by clubs to us..Begs the question why..either it is blown out of all proportion or clubs preferto keep the money coming in thro entries.As for team events not being part of this ruling i stated it before and i will state it again.. this is where the big money is in prizes and entry fees and obviously nobody wants to kill that particular golden goose.

First Up

pete4pool wrote: »

Hi All,

As a golfer who is not able to get out every week and can not afford to waste money on big membership fee that I would not get value for, I joined Scarke GC in Wexford as a Distance member (€120) last year and this year. I then play open singles in nearby clubs when I can, maybe 7-8 a year, along with a few society rounds (which perfer when members have gui handicaps). So I am happy enough with what I have for now, until I get more free time or bigger wage to join one of my local clubs.

So my problem now is that I have found out that there is a new rule coming in at the start of 2015, that I have to play 3 competitions in my home course (Scarke - 3 hours away) before end of the year, so that I can be eligible to play in these away opens in 2015.

IMO, I can understand why the GUI has brought it in, but I do not think it is for the reason they are saying (so home club handicap sec can review your handicap once a year). I think the golfnet system works fine, but thats another matter.

Just wondering if anyone else is in the same position?
If so, what is your plan?
Does anyone know of a way around this?
what do people think of this rule? Will it be enforced?
If I do not play the 3 rounds at home, how will it stop me playing at away opens?

Obviously, playing 3 rounds in Scarke before the end of the year is the easiest answer, so if it comes to it, I'll likely make the trip up, but I could do without it. TBH

Thanks

Pete

PARlance wrote: »

I really think that (winning) banditry is close to an non issue in these events, single opens. Why on earth would a bandit off 25 shot 42+ in a run of the mill open (where prizes are generally poor) and lose 2-3 shots..... I think I played close to 40 opens last year and I've never once suspected skulduggery.... And I'm fairly cynical about banditry. I've seen some crazy scores from high hc'ers but high hc'ers have crazy scores. And bandits come in all forms, there are plenty of single figure guys out there and you might see one or two in the Pierce Purcell (and similar comps) range.

This new rule is like throwing a twig in the river expecting the water to stop flowing (we haven't had any silly metaphors in a while).
Team comps are wide open to banditry, yet it wasn't suggested that this rule apply. Why not?

This is all about clubs feeling the pinch, looking at distance membership as a threat and trying to stamp it out imo. It's strange that this was never an issue when the everything was rosey financially. Making this about banditry is a nice deflectionary tactic imo. Some clubs might not want to admit they're struggling so it's a nice way around it.

Stamping out the abuse of distance memberships would be good for the game but I reckon the GUI has decided to start with the handicap stuff for singles and it will move on from there as the technology kicks in and club administrators (and members) get familiar with it.

As for those who think they are entitled to cheap golf on courses maintained at the expense of others, I have zero sympathy.

Unglika Norse

This rule had as I have said before nothing to do with handicaps or trying to catch bandits. It is to try and stem the loss of mainly Dublin clubs memberships to clubs generally down the country or over the west. The handicap bit is only a blind by the GUI.

The only way that so called banditry, and I might say in up on 40 years of golf I only ever can say that I came across 1 bandit, is for each club to actually do what it is supposed to do and implement properly the standard scratch score and handicap system, In other words Handicap Committees need to grow some balls and if they are aware of a situation act on it.

bobster453

First Up wrote: »

Stamping out the abuse of distance memberships would be good for the game but I reckon the GUI has decided to start with the handicap stuff for singles and it will move on from there as the technology kicks in and club administrators (and members) get familiar with it.

As for those who think they are entitled to cheap golf on courses maintained at the
expense of others, I have zero sympathy.

Dont know anybody looking for your sympathy but heres an idea.
Get rid of opens altogether and see how long clubs survive
Then everybody can bemoan the fact that maybe all those distance members putting money in the coffers of both the GUI and clubs all over the country wasnt such a bad thing when the surviving few clubs revert to being status clubs outside the reach of everyone except the jet set and golf reverts back to being the minority spirt it was for years instead of reaching out to the masses

Kingswood Rover

First Up wrote: »

Stamping out the abuse of distance memberships would be good for the game but I reckon the GUI has decided to start with the handicap stuff for singles and it will move on from there as the technology kicks in and club administrators (and members) get familiar with it.

As for those who think they are entitled to cheap golf on courses maintained at the expense of others, I have zero sympathy.

What are you on about abuse of distance memberships, you make it sound like a crime. Distance memberships have kept thousands of people active in the game that might have been otherwise lost due to the economic downturn consequently spending money in entry fees in clubs all across the country. As for others feeling that they entitled to cheap golf on courses maintained by others, i have never met such a people but fair play to them for making golf so much cheaper than it use to be. How did they do it?

PARlance

Some clubs might be well advised to buy their committees distance membership and send them on their ways

They are probably in a very small minority though. Most clubs seem to be changing with the times (if they need to) rather than sitting there dreaming of times gone by.

First Up

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

What are you on about abuse of distance memberships, you make it sound like a crime. Distance memberships have kept thousands of people active in the game that might have been otherwise lost due to the economic downturn consequently spending money in entry fees in clubs all across the country. As for others feeling that they entitled to cheap golf on courses maintained by others, i have never met such a people but fair play to them for making golf so much cheaper than it use to be. How did they do it?

Thats easy. They do it by taking advantage of the people who do pay the entry (and membership) fees and those who put in the hard work that keeps those nice courses open and in good condition for their occasional "distance" patrons to play at rates they consider good value.

downthemiddle

First Up wrote: »

Thats easy. They do it by taking advantage of the people who do pay the entry (and membership) fees and those who put in the hard work that keeps those nice courses open and in good condition for their occasional "distance" patrons to play at rates they consider good value.

What a delusional post.
Most courses are now working hard to stay open.
The number of clubs that are now in a position to charge entry fees is tiny. Those that are will not be too worried by "distance" members playing in their opens as the already have a guaranteed revenue stream from their entrance fees.
As for the condition of the course, take a trip to Blessington Lakes some day and see how a course can be presented in good condition without breaking the bank.
The nature of golf membership in Ireland has changed.

First Up

downthemiddle wrote: »

What a delusional post.
Most courses are now working hard to stay open.
The number of clubs that are now in a position to charge entry fees is tiny. Those that are will not be too worried by "distance" members playing in their opens as the already have a guaranteed revenue stream from their entrance fees.
As for the condition of the course, take a trip to Blessington Lakes some day and see how a course can be presented in good condition without breaking the bank.
The nature of golf membership in Ireland has changed.

"Guaranteed revenue stream"? What planet are you on?

downthemiddle

First Up wrote: »

"Guaranteed revenue stream"? What planet are you on?

If clubs have an entrance fee, they normally have a waiting list in this day and age. I know of one club that took in 350,000 euro in entrance fees last year and still have a waiting list. Would you not call that a guaranteed revenue stream?

First Up

downthemiddle wrote: »

If clubs have an entrance fee, they normally have a waiting list in this day and age. I know of one club that took in 350,000 euro in entrance fees last year and still have a waiting list. Would you not call that a guaranteed revenue stream?

How many of those are there, and do you play in tneir opens regularly?

downthemiddle

First Up wrote: »

How many of those are there, and do you play in tneir opens regularly?

I play very few opens. I'm quite happy to play on my own course.

Kingswood Rover

First Up wrote: »

Thats easy. They do it by taking advantage of the people who do pay the entry (and membership) fees and those who put in the hard work that keeps those nice courses open and in good condition for their occasional "distance" patrons to play at rates they consider good value.

I think i will decline to buy the cheap Brocolli in Aldi this week as it would be taking advantage of those poor German supermarket owners who have to sell cheap fresh produce to attract customers into their premises and all that after the expensive of building a nice shiny new shop.

Norfolk Enchants_

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

I think i will decline to buy the cheap Brocolli in Aldi this week as it would be taking advantage of those poor German supermarket owners who have to sell cheap fresh produce to attract customers into their premises and all that after the expensive of building a nice shiny new shop.

Did you not hear?, the government have brought in a rule where you're not allowed buy any fruit and veg in any of the big mulitples until you have made 3 purchases in your small local store first.

charlieIRL

Arguments are getting silly now lads

golfwallah

I'd agree that there is very little evidence of "banditry" by distance members in away competitions. My experience is that unexpectedly high scoring compared to handicap is more likely to be seen in society and inter-club golf.

But that's not the real issue. I see the new eligibility rule as a token concession towards clubs complaining about distance membership, as opposed to tackling the real problem of golf membership remaining unaffordable to growing market segments of existing and potential new golfers.

Added to this is member club committee fear of and inability to handle a small amount of adverse criticism of changes needed in membership options and pricing, to bring more people into the game.

"It's the economy,stupid"! Clubs need to wise up to the long overdue changes needed to make golf more affordable to many more people. More people playing = lower costs per unit. The German discount model has shown the way in retail, just as Ryanair is doing in the airline industry.

The alternatives are fewer clubs and golfers at high prices or a higher number of surviving clubs at more affordable prices (worked out on a cost per round basis).

Trying to "buck the market", with a high cost, high pricing business model may work for a few well established clubs in desirable built up areas. But for the majority - they need to do something about bringing more people into the game and stop wasting their time on saving nickels and dimes with unworkable token rules around away competitions.

Russman

golfwallah wrote: »

I'd agree that there is very little evidence of "banditry" by distance members in away competitions. My experience is that unexpectedly high scoring compared to handicap is more likely to be seen in society and inter-club golf.

But that's not the real issue. I see the new eligibility rule as a token concession towards clubs complaining about distance membership, as opposed to tackling the real problem of golf membership remaining unaffordable to growing market segments of existing and potential new golfers.

Added to this is member club committee fear of and inability to handle a small amount of adverse criticism of changes needed in membership options and pricing, to bring more people into the game.

"It's the economy,stupid"! Clubs need to wise up to the long overdue changes needed to make golf more affordable to many more people. More people playing = lower costs per unit. The German discount model has shown the way in retail, just as Ryanair is doing in the airline industry.

The alternatives are fewer clubs and golfers at high prices or a higher number of surviving clubs at more affordable prices (worked out on a cost per round basis).

Trying to "buck the market", with a high cost, high pricing business model may work for a few well established clubs in desirable built up areas. But for the majority - they need to do something about bringing more people into the game and stop wasting their time on saving nickels and dimes with unworkable token rules around away competitions.

Totally agree its not about banditry at all and is only a token effort at tackling the problem of distance membership.

But, like it or not, golf is an inherently expensive sport when compared to others, in terms of providing a venue for the sport to take place on. I'm no fan of the so-called elitist clubs and all the stereotypes that go with them, but ultimately its not sustainable for x number of golfers in the greater golfing population to have access relatively cheaply to golf on courses that are being kept/maintained etc by y number of golfers paying way more.
As long as the x number was historically pretty small and insignificant, the situation was fine and clubs weren't really losing out, but when large numbers of golfers take the option to give up their membership in Dublin and take a distance option it becomes a real issue.

I don't know what the solution is, maybe limiting the number opens anyone can play to, I dunno, 8 per year or something. But as long as most golfers want clubs rather than something like a gym where you pay a subscription and use the facilities, its an argument that will go on.

Its hardly unreasonable to ask members of clubs to actually play 3 rounds in their home club though, is it ? Even if it is only a token gesture as the GUI will never do anything that could lose their few euro they get from each member.

First Up

golfwallah wrote: »

I'd agree that there is very little evidence of "banditry" by distance members in away competitions. My experience is that unexpectedly high scoring compared to handicap is more likely to be seen in society and inter-club golf.

But that's not the real issue. I see the new eligibility rule as a token concession towards clubs complaining about distance membership, as opposed to tackling the real problem of golf membership remaining unaffordable to growing market segments of existing and potential new golfers.

Added to this is member club committee fear of and inability to handle a small amount of adverse criticism of changes needed in membership options and pricing, to bring more people into the game.

"It's the economy,stupid"! Clubs need to wise up to the long overdue changes needed to make golf more affordable to many more people. More people playing = lower costs per unit. The German discount model has shown the way in retail, just as Ryanair is doing in the airline industry.

The alternatives are fewer clubs and golfers at high prices or a higher number of surviving clubs at more affordable prices (worked out on a cost per round basis).

Trying to "buck the market", with a high cost, high pricing business model may work for a few well established clubs in desirable built up areas. But for the majority - they need to do something about bringing more people into the game and stop wasting their time on saving nickels and dimes with unworkable token rules around away competitions.

I take it you have never been involved in running a golf club.

What do you suggest clubs do to bring more people into the game? If you have operating costs and debts to service, how does a typical member owned club make the game "more affordable"?

Many clubs have cut costs to the bone (often to the detriment of course conditions) and some have reduced subs to unsustainable levels in efforts to pinch members from neighbouring clubs, while they try to outlast them. Some clubs have closed, others are on the brink and are being sustained by bank loans or even levies on members.

Golf is expensive to provide and is not for everyone for reasons more socio than economic. The only way to provide "affordable" golf for the masses would be through heavily subsidised "public" courses and I don't sense that this would be a popular use of taxpayers' money.

Otherwise, in Ireland as everywhere else, golf remains a relatively minor activity and clubs will succeed or fail depending on the support of their members. Expecting the same members to also provide cheap golf for "distance" members is a bit of an ask in these circumstances.

FixdePitchmark

First Up wrote: »

I take it you have never been involved in running a golf club.


Golf is expensive to provide and is not for everyone for reasons more socio than economic. The only way to provide "affordable" golf for the masses would be through heavily subsidised "public" courses and I don't sense that this would be a popular use of taxpayers' money.

.

Not sure it wouldn't be popular - subsides and tax exemptions for every other sport have proved very popular.

GAA - Athletics - Soccer.

Golf should be supported as has been in the past.

First Up

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Not sure it wouldn't be popular - subsides and tax exemptions for every other sport have proved very popular.

GAA - Athletics - Soccer.

Golf should be supported as has been in the past.

Mmmm, so which public service should be trimmed to pay for this? Schools?, Hospitals? Maybe a reduction in dole? Or maybe a tax increase?

I wouldn't fancy the doorstep reaction to a politician canvassing on any of those.

FixdePitchmark

First Up wrote: »

Mmmm, so which public service should be trimmed to pay for this? Schools?, Hospitals? Maybe a reduction in dole? Or maybe a tax increase?

I wouldn't fancy the doorstep reaction to a politician canvassing on any of those.

Society has to continue.

This rubbish about hospitals and schools is a bit glib.

The most socially deprived areas of Ireland have benefited hugely from the parks services provided by the state.

We can't define our existence by a temporary recession

Anyway - investment in this manner is popular and is socially and economically justified.

Private golf courses seem to be obsessed with this, when it didn't bother them an iota prior to 2007 (enjoying their tax exemption)

Many of the ills of private golf courses are self inflicted - boom time ideas and unrealistic notions.

First Up

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Society has to continue.

This rubbish about hospitals and schools is a bit glib.

The most socially deprived areas of Ireland have benefited hugely from the parks services provided by the state.

We can't define our existence by a temporary recession

Anyway - investment in this manner is popular and is socially and economically justified.

Private golf courses seem to be obsessed with this, when it didn't bother them an iota prior to 2007 (enjoying their tax exemption)

Many of the ills of private golf courses are self inflicted - boom time ideas and unrealistic notions.

I don't disagree that clubs caused some of their own problems and personally I have no problem with courses like Stepaside, Grange Castle or Corballis. They do a good job and provide a good service.
I just don't see asking the State to step in to adress market failure in golf as being economically justified or politically acceptable.

golfwallah

First Up wrote: »

I take it you have never been involved in running a golf club.

What do you suggest clubs do to bring more people into the game? If you have operating costs and debts to service, how does a typical member owned club make the game "more affordable"?

Many clubs have cut costs to the bone (often to the detriment of course conditions) and some have reduced subs to unsustainable levels in efforts to pinch members from neighbouring clubs, while they try to outlast them. Some clubs have closed, others are on the brink and are being sustained by bank loans or even levies on members.

Golf is expensive to provide and is not for everyone for reasons more socio than economic. The only way to provide "affordable" golf for the masses would be through heavily subsidised "public" courses and I don't sense that this would be a popular use of taxpayers' money.

Otherwise, in Ireland as everywhere else, golf remains a relatively minor activity and clubs will succeed or fail depending on the support of their members. Expecting the same members to also provide cheap golf for "distance" members is a bit of an ask in these circumstances.

You’re very mistaken in making that assumption. I have, indeed, been involved in running a golf club. I was on committee for years and as captain acted as general manager in running our club.

That was just a few years ago, well into the current economic downturn. I’m an accountant by profession with a 3rd level qualification in marketing. My background is in finance, marketing, product development and project management in the services industry. This enabled me to take the leading role in marketing and driving membership, while in the captain / GM role in our club. In this capacity, I led a membership recruitment campaign resulting in club records of 100 in my captain’s year and 75 in the following year. In the 2 years prior to my year, we only recruited 9 per year and were losing about 100 per year. Since then, our club has reverted to the normal membership loss rate (per England Golf) of about 10% per year and failed to make up those losses in new recruits.

There are always reasons for not doing something, not challenging the accepted ways of doing things, even of avoiding calculated risks. Many people don’t want to move out of their comfort zones. I experienced a certain degree of member resistance in our, what turned out to be a very successful, recruitment campaign. But that all gets forgotten very quickly, as people lapse back into the comfortable old “certainties”.

You have to be prepared to try new approaches when the economic climate changes and the old ways are no longer working.

Ronald Reagan: “We're a can-do nation, with little patience for the voices of resignation and the status quo.”

Albert Einstein: “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

And there’s plenty of help out there for those willing to spend the time analysing their situation, developing professionally based alternatives that have a reasonable chance of working and bringing their members along with them.

I don’t understand the obsession with distance membership. It’s only a small part of the problem – it’s moaning about competition. To survive, clubs need to get their act together, openly discuss the issues, develop membership options that more people are prepared to pay for and compete with the “distance clubs”. Most local member clubs have huge advantages over their “distance member” competitors. Look at the can-do attitudes of Ryanair, Lidl, Insomnia Coffee, to name but a few!

Nobody said it was going to be easy – but I’ve demonstrated in my own club that it can be done.

Uncle Ben

Could all those clubs in Ireland who perhaps are against this proposal put forward motions to either reverse or amend this ruling?

SaveOurLyric

golfwallah wrote: »

In this capacity, I led a membership recruitment campaign resulting in club records of 100 in my captain’s year and 75 in the following year. In the 2 years prior to my year, we only recruited 9 per year and were losing about 100 per year. Since then, our club has reverted to the normal membership loss rate (per England Golf) of about 10% per year and failed to make up those losses in new recruits.

So you implemented some incentives that provided a short term bubble to membership but no sustained change to the overall picture.

Member poaching is good for one club but really just scavengers fighting over an ever small carcass.

I have yet to see any real leadership to solve this problem from any club affected (the handful of Belvoir Parks and Portmarnocks being unaffected) - close your club. For many clubs, and its members, its the best thing they could do. But the above "can-do" attitude has far to many deludeds stumbling along thinking the right committee/initiative/offer/promotion/costreduction will change the equation.

The change to open comp entries isnt even a drop in the ocean in the greater scheme of golf funding in Ireland. But shows how many people are still rearranging the deckchairs (more like the angle of one deckchair in this case) on the Titanic.

First Up

golfwallah wrote: »

You’re very mistaken in making that assumption. I have, indeed, been involved in running a golf club. I was on committee for years and as captain acted as general manager in running our club.

That was just a few years ago, well into the current economic downturn. I’m an accountant by profession with a 3rd level qualification in marketing. My background is in finance, marketing, product development and project management in the services industry. This enabled me to take the leading role in marketing and driving membership, while in the captain / GM role in our club. In this capacity, I led a membership recruitment campaign resulting in club records of 100 in my captain’s year and 75 in the following year. In the 2 years prior to my year, we only recruited 9 per year and were losing about 100 per year. Since then, our club has reverted to the normal membership loss rate (per England Golf) of about 10% per year and failed to make up those losses in new recruits.

There are always reasons for not doing something, not challenging the accepted ways of doing things, even of avoiding calculated risks. Many people don’t want to move out of their comfort zones. I experienced a certain degree of member resistance in our, what turned out to be a very successful, recruitment campaign. But that all gets forgotten very quickly, as people lapse back into the comfortable old “certainties”.

You have to be prepared to try new approaches when the economic climate changes and the old ways are no longer working.

Ronald Reagan: “We're a can-do nation, with little patience for the voices of resignation and the status quo.”

Albert Einstein: “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

And there’s plenty of help out there for those willing to spend the time analysing their situation, developing professionally based alternatives that have a reasonable chance of working and bringing their members along with them.

I don’t understand the obsession with distance membership. It’s only a small part of the problem – it’s moaning about competition. To survive, clubs need to get their act together, openly discuss the issues, develop membership options that more people are prepared to pay for and compete with the “distance clubs”. Most local member clubs have huge advantages over their “distance member” competitors. Look at the can-do attitudes of Ryanair, Lidl, Insomnia Coffee, to name but a few!

Nobody said it was going to be easy – but I’ve demonstrated in my own club that it can be done.

Then you don't need me to tell you about price elasticity of demand or fixed versus variable costs. Yet I see no suggestions or examples of how to make golf "more affordable".

Nor did you say to what extent making golf "more affordable" played a part in your successful membership drive, or why the "affordable" strategy didn't stem the loss of members.

golfwallah

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

So you implemented some incentives that provided a short term bubble to membership but no sustained change to the overall picture.

Member poaching is good for one club but really just scavengers fighting over an ever small carcass.

I have yet to see any real leadership to solve this problem from any club affected (the handful of Belvoir Parks and Portmarnocks being unaffected) - close your club. For many clubs, and its members, its the best thing they could do. But the above "can-do" attitude has far to many deludeds stumbling along thinking the right committee/initiative/offer/promotion/costreduction will change the equation.

The change to open comp entries isnt even a drop in the ocean in the greater scheme of golf funding in Ireland. But shows how many people are still rearranging the deckchairs (more like the angle of one deckchair in this case) on the Titanic.

No, I did not - again assumptions about short-term solutions ... just shows how closed peoples' minds can be.

I brought in long term sustainable solutions. It's very simple really .... but it does require a modicum of know how, quite a bit of time input over many months and a lot of hard work.

It involves, for example, communicating the need for change to the members, informed debate within the club, developing new product offerings that people are willing to buy and communicating your message to potential customers via various channels (electronic and otherwise) to market. Put very simply, to retain and increase membership revenue, you need service offerings that customers are willing to buy and those potential customers have to know about it (particularly when they are considering if they want to join a club or change clubs).

As for leadership - yes this is a vital ingredient. Needless to say, there will always be a vocal contingent opposing any change. But such contingents, although they may see themselves as influencers at AGMs, etc., will never outnumber the general body of members, who don't agree with them on everything. So, it's also important to keep them informed of the issues, seek their support and get the vote out at the AGM - simple old fashioned Irish style politics. Remember, ultimately member clubs are run on democratic lines and you don't need 100% support, just enough to carry a vote in accordance with the club's constitution.

You can call it poaching, if you like. From a macro economic position, it will involve some degree of "poaching" from other clubs but also retention of existing members and recruitment of people, who aren't in clubs. When there are too many clubs, some will inevitably have to close - just make sure it isn't your club and that your solutions are sustainable over the long run.

First Up wrote: »

Then you don't need me to yell you about price elasticity of demand or fixed costs. Yet I see no suggestions or examples of how to make golf "more affordable".

Nor did you say to what extent making golf "more affordable" played a part in your successful membership drive, or why the "affordable" strategy didn't stem the loss of members.

There is plenty of material available on-line to help those willing to put in the work. You could also look to your own membership for people with the necessary marketing / product development, communications and IT skills to see if they are willing to help (I did and got a professional marketer, who was between jobs, to work with me full time for 2 weeks). There are also courses and professional help on offer. But you have to look for it and find a way of getting it.

As for losses of members - an average expected attrition rate of 10% is the norm, according to England Golf and would closely match my observation of what has happened in our club. People die, become unable to play, move home, experience changed economic circumstances, etc. - it's an unavoidable fact of life. But you don't have to wait until you know the "leavers" by name (around March every year) before planning a recruitment campaign (should be ready months before the year end).

I'm not in the business of providing specific consultancy or business coaching on an internet boards site but if you do want to explore possibilities and options in greater detail, feel free to PM me.

Uncle Ben

This thread appears to have drifted into the topic of the price of full and distance memberships and the loss of said members also.

And there was I being led to believe that this ruling was about preventing banditry in the game. Nah, I never believed that in the first place.

Norfolk Enchants_

Uncle Ben wrote: »

Could all those clubs in Ireland who perhaps are against this proposal put forward motions to either reverse or amend this ruling?

Yes they could, but it won't be carried because of the way the GUI is set up, i.e. the "big boys" in their ivory towers in Leinster call the shots.
More importantly though it still wouldn't address the real issues facing all golf clubs.

charlieIRL

Alright enough, back on topic now lads thanks

Putt it there

I have what seems to be called by some here a "distance" membership . I Didn't play 3 opens in my home course last year and has never been an issue in any open i've played in "away" courses so far this year. Pay the money , sign in , play away , no problem.

Just sayin

alxmorgan

For me this new rule lost any pretense of being about banditry when they excluded team comps from it. It seems to be about clubs "selling" handicaps.

And if that is the case why not just come out and say it.

First Up

Putt it there wrote: »

I have what seems to be called by some here a "distance" membership . I Didn't play 3 opens in my home course last year and has never been an issue in any open i've played in "away" courses so far this year. Pay the money , sign in , play away , no problem.

Just sayin

Early days.

And it isn't three opens in your "home" course. It is three qualifying competitions.

First Up

alxmorgan wrote: »

For me this new rule lost any pretense of being about banditry when they excluded team comps from it. It seems to be about clubs "selling" handicaps.

And if that is the case why not just come out and say it.

Softly softly catchee monkey. Teams consist of players with handicaps. Tackle the individual handicap issue and the team handicap problem takes care of itself. It isn't an overnight thing.

I don't think anyone doubts that it is also about clubs selling handicaps.

alxmorgan

First Up wrote: »

Softly softly catchee monkey. Teams consist of players with handicaps. Tackle the individual handicap issue and the team handicap problem takes care of itself. It isn't an overnight thing.

I don't think anyone doubts that it is also about clubs selling handicaps.

I don't see how. I can buy my handicap off a club selling it and still play in a team comp despite this new rule. If anything it is almost saying do whatever ye like when it comes to team comps lads as we know it is the wild west anyway but we need the cash.

First Up

alxmorgan wrote: »

I don't see how. I can buy my handicap off a club selling it and still play in a team comp despite this new rule. If anything it is almost saying do whatever ye like when it comes to team comps lads as we know it is the wild west anyway but we need the cash.

Unless members play the required number of competitions in their "home" club, those handicaps will eventually lapse.

bobster453

On the same point but from another angle.
What constitutes a contract?
Offer Consideration and Acceptance
So...a club offers to allow a golfer to play in an open competition
The golfer accepts the offer
The consideration is the entry fee paid and the right to play in the competition and maybe win a prize.
Happens every time you play an open.
Under this rule even tho the golfer has accepted the offer and paid the consideration the club could refuse to award him/her their prize if they won one.
Is this a breach of contract??
Yes unless the offer specifically states you need to have complied with this rule to enter the open comp and also ONCE THE CLUB DOES NOT ACCEPT THE ENTRY FEE
If the club accepts the entry fer without first confirming the golfet was eligible it could well be argued that the club willingly altered the consideration therefore would be in breach of contract if it refused to award a prize...a point 1 unfortunately for too many people could also be construed as a prize.
While case law in other sports determined that when you join a club or organisation you were duty bound to accept its rules and regulations this would not necessarily be a defence in contract law.
Sorry for the long post but just wanted to put that one out there.
Dont know too many clubs that stipulate the above...maybe they should