New Rule for eligibility to Away Opens

First Up

bobster453 wrote: »

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

Interesting point that could be explored. It could be argued as a rule transgression, the same as not signing a card or some other offence that merits a d/q.

The booking sheet (online) for Opens at our club now features prominent notices saying "Visitors must have current GUI cards for entry & have played 4 qualifying comps last year." So the intention is to only allow entry if this condition is met.

Russman

bobster453 wrote: »

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

Interesting indeed. Puts it back on the club accepting the entry, if correct. I'm sure somewhere there is a GUI stipulation the lines of "by using a gui handicap you are accepting the rules of the gui, bla, bla......"


If contract law is where golf is heading though I think we're all wasting our time.

alxmorgan

First Up wrote: »

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

Is this also part of the new rule or is it an existing scenario ?

First Up

alxmorgan wrote: »

Is this also part of the new rule or is it an existing scenario ?

The rule exists but to date has not been enforced by the GUI. Logic would say that it will now come into effect - along the lines of how it is practiced in England/Wales or Scotland. See below:

Clause 25.1 of the CONGU Unified Handicapping System 2008-2011 gives a Union the right to ‘direct that the handicap of any player, in whatever Category, who fails to return a stipulated minimum number of Qualifying Scores in a period between Annual Reviews shall lapse.’

The English, Welsh and Scottish Golf Authorities have introduced different schemes to administer this rule. At the moment the Irish do not use this clause.

England & Wales
The start of 2010 saw the English and Welsh Golfing Unions introducing a systems of Active and Inactive Handicaps for both Gents and Ladies. In short, at the beginning of every year each club will check the number of qualifying rounds all players have returned in the previous year. If that number is less than three, the player's handicap is marked with an 'i' to show that it is 'Inactive'. The club may then choose to limit entry (or the award or prizes) to golfers who's handicaps display that mark.

To remove this 'i' Inactive status, a player must return three qualifing scores in the current playing year.

Points to remember;
This process is run at the start of a calendar year.
Players' handicaps are marked 'i' Inactive, not Lapsed as in Scotland.
Players' handicaps are still adjusted up and down as usual.
To remove the 'i' Inactive status you must return three qualifying scores in the current year.
It is at the competition organising committee's discretion whether 'i' Inactive handicaps may either participate or win prizes in a competition.
If you wish to read the detailed specifications issued by the EGU/EWGA please click here to visit the Club Systems CLUB2000 website.

Scotland
The Scottish Golf Union requires that at each Annual Review, following the close of the playing season, players who have not returned three Qualifying Scores since the previous review shall have their handicap ‘starred’.

Players with handicaps ‘starred’ in this manner shall not be entitled to enter a competition (Home or Away) for which a CONGU handicap is required. ‘Starred’ handicaps may, however, be used for social golf and the like.

A 'starred' CONGU Handicap may be certified by a player's home golf club, allowing the member to use their handicap certificate for access to play golf courses where handicap restrictions apply, holiday golf etc.

To remove this '*' Lapsed status, a player must submit cards to the handicapping committee.

Points to remember;
This process is often run at the start of a calendar year, although it is stipulated that the relevant period is the period 'between Annual Reviews'.
Players' handicaps are marked '*' Lapsed not Inactive as in England & Wales.
Player's handicaps are not valid for entry to qualifying competitions.
To remove the '*' Lapsed status, you must re apply to the handicap committee for a handicap.

bobster453

Any idea why England and Scotland adopted the above?

In a scenario where clubs are struggling to survive putting handicaps..so to speak..in the way of prispective customers seems shortsighted imo

I know quite a few people who are membets of clubs but rarely play in competitions.Does this preclude them from playing in comps if they wished..seems so

First Up

bobster453 wrote: »

Any idea why England and Scotland adopted the above?

In a scenario where clubs are struggling to survive putting handicaps..so to speak..in the way of prispective customers seems shortsighted imo

I know quite a few people who are membets of clubs but rarely play in competitions.Does this preclude them from playing in comps if they wished..seems so

What obstacles are being put in peoples' way?

thelostboys23

Genuine question here but what happens if you were injured for a year and didn't play three qualifying events?

First Up

thelostboys23 wrote: »

Genuine question here but what happens if you were injured for a year and didn't play three qualifying events?

I imagine you could make a case for a medical exemption or something along those lines.

blackwhite

First Up wrote: »

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

There's no additional provisions for lapsed handicaps in the new rules.
The CONGU systems allows the GUI to bring something in, but to date they haven't.

The new rules do nothing to address the problem of bandits in team events.

First Up

blackwhite wrote: »

There's no additional provisions for lapsed handicaps in the new rules.
The CONGU systems allows the GUI to bring something in, but to date they haven't.

The new rules do nothing to address the problem of bandits in team events.

As mentioned above, the rule (clause 25.1) already exists, so all that is needed is for the GUI to follow their English, Welsh and Scottish counterparts in implementing it and that would be a logical next step after the recent new rule.

All of these issues revolve around individual handicaps. Teams comprise individuals; solve one and you also solve the other.

alxmorgan

First Up wrote: »

As mentioned above, the rule (clause 25.1) already exists, so all that is needed is for the GUI to follow their English, Welsh and Scottish counterparts in implementing it and that would be a logical next step after the recent new rule.

All of these issues revolve around individual handicaps. Teams comprise individuals; solve one and you also solve the other.

Be interesting to see if they follow through with this. Hopefully.

ForeRight

PARlance

First Up wrote: »

All of these issues revolve around individual handicaps. Teams comprise individuals; solve one and you also solve the other.

How do you envisage this rule solving anything to do with banditry?
Very eager to know as I can't see it improving things in any way but you seem fairly certain.

First Up

PARlance wrote: »

How do you envisage this rule solving anything to do with banditry?
Very eager to know as I can't see it improving things in any way but you seem fairly certain.

Just that a better system to capture and record every round at whatever course will make it harder to maintain an inflated handicap. Not all bandits are distance members who just play lucrative team events. They won't get cut for their team scores but if someone is so obsessed with prizes that they are willing to play below their ability every time they have to turn in a singles score, I feel more pity for them than anything else.

PARlance

First Up wrote: »

Just that a better system to capture and record every round at whatever course will make it harder to maintain an inflated handicap. Not all bandits are distance members .

Agree with the rest.

But re above and going back to my question. The current system captures and records every round. All that has changed is that someone now has to play 3 rounds.

Now, a bandit isnt going to slip up and have a good round in one of these and there's nothing to force the club to analyse these three rounds... not that there's much that they could deduce from them imo.

First Up

PARlance wrote: »

Agree with the rest.

But re above and going back to my question. The current system captures and records every round. All that has changed is that someone now has to play 3 rounds.

Now, a bandit isnt going to slip up and have a good round in one of these and there's nothing to force the club to analyse these three rounds... not that there's much that they could deduce from them imo.

I agree that it is easier for distance members because they are under much less scrutiny - no risk of being cut on observation. But I'm not sure the current system is managed as tightly as it could be - are all "away" scores returned and do the distance membership flogging clubs always adjust handicaps as a result?

A fully automated system will reduce the scope for taking a soft line with banditry but, yes the true bandit is hard to catch.

But none of that makes it wrong for the GUI to fully implement the rules as has been done elsewhere.

Slicemeister

First Up wrote: »

I agree that it is easier for distance members because they are under much less scrutiny - no risk of being cut on observation. But I'm not sure the current system is managed as tightly as it could be - are all "away" scores returned and do the distance membership flogging clubs always adjust handicaps as a result?

A fully automated system will reduce the scope for taking a soft line with banditry but, yes the true bandit is hard to catch.

But none of that makes it wrong for the GUI to fully implement the rules as has been done elsewhere.

As a former distance member of Slievnamon in 2013 EVERY away score was accounted for and handicap adjustment applied. In praise of the handicap Secretary(or systems operator not sure), she was well up to speed on her job, play today, handicap adjusted within hours of score returned.
Just only Tuesday gone I played with a competitor who was still waiting for his .6 cut to be applied from a month ago. That after informing his club handicap Secretary and ringing Golfnet themselves to absolutely no avail. He's a full member of a well run club in Munster.

This notion that observational cuts are applied only to home members is also a load of pie in the sky. ONCE is all I've heard of an observational cut in over 5 years playing the game. Now observational adjustments, don't start.

jamesbondings

But even normal members can be bandits....got my first real experience of a "bandit" last week.

Played a "friendly" game of golf with a lady off 22 me off 24 my dad off 4 and another guy off "22".....this guy got two eagles 5 birdies and only one double bogey....

It ruined the whole day out for me, i was delighted to get a par on a par 5 but it was overshadowed by his 3. He gloated quite a bit about how it "wasnt bad for a 22 handicapper"....

I will never play a comp in his home club now as he mentioned he wins most comps ...how do people like him get away with it? Honestly.

I was always brought up to believe golf was an honorable game, played by gentlemen (and ladies of course) and i have never wrote the wrong score on a card intentionally! Nor have i intentionally duffed shots etc....

When I came back i will be looking at distance memberships in either boyne or skarc with a mate or two.

Anything that can help to hinder bandits in my eyes is a great thing.

blackwhite

First Up wrote: »

As mentioned above, the rule (clause 25.1) already exists, so all that is needed is for the GUI to follow their English, Welsh and Scottish counterparts in implementing it and that would be a logical next step after the recent new rule.

All of these issues revolve around individual handicaps. Teams comprise individuals; solve one and you also solve the other.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

I'm making the point that the new rules about eligibility for opens have nothing to do with tackling banditry.

They are simply an attack on the growth of distance memberships which is, on balance, probably a good thing for the long term sustainability of golf in Ireland.

I'd just prefer if they were honest about their motives for it

bobster453

As i have already stated we received in the region of 20 away scores via Golfnet last year so obviously a lot of clubs eitherdont know how to use Golfnet properly or dont care..imo the latter rather than the former
As regards observation be interested to hear other posters experience of how many if any members they know that were cut on that alone..a very slippery slope again imo
And btw what evidence is there to show bandits are distance members apart from hearsay??..imo thats another cop out fallacy used by certain clubs to beat other clubs with
Biggest banditry i have ever seen apart from holiday prize team events was in the Pierce Purcell a few years ago that won a regional final and the same players the following year had higher handicaps afterbeing told to mind them...and this from a well established club in Munster

First Up

jamesbondings wrote: »

But even normal members can be bandits....got my first real experience of a "bandit" last week.

Played a "friendly" game of golf with a lady off 22 me off 24 my dad off 4 and another guy off "22".....this guy got two eagles 5 birdies and only one double bogey....

It ruined the whole day out for me, i was delighted to get a par on a par 5 but it was overshadowed by his 3. He gloated quite a bit about how it "wasnt bad for a 22 handicapper"....

I will never play a comp in his home club now as he mentioned he wins most comps ...how do people like him get away with it? Honestly.

I was always brought up to believe golf was an honorable game, played by gentlemen (and ladies of course) and i have never wrote the wrong score on a card intentionally! Nor have i intentionally duffed shots etc....

When I came back i will be looking at distance memberships in either boyne or skarc with a mate or two.

Anything that can help to hinder bandits in my eyes is a great thing.

If he wins most competitions and doesn't get cut, there is something amiss somewhere.

jamesbondings

First Up wrote: »

If he wins most competitions and doesn't get cut, there is something amiss somewhere.

i should have said wins a prize not wins wins....and he may only play certain comps

Norfolk Enchants_

First Up wrote: »

But I'm not sure the current system is managed as tightly as it could be - are all "away" scores returned and do the distance membership flogging clubs always adjust handicaps as a result?

You don't know how the current system works, yet you put yourself forward as some kind of authority on the subject, hmmm how does that work exactly?.

First Up

bobster453 wrote: »

As i have already stated we received in the region of 20 away scores via Golfnet last year so obviously a lot of clubs eitherdont know how to use Golfnet properly or dont care..imo the latter rather than the former
As regards observation be interested to hear other posters experience of how many if any members they know that were cut on that alone..a very slippery slope again imo
And btw what evidence is there to show bandits are distance members apart from hearsay??..imo thats another cop out fallacy used by certain clubs to beat other clubs with
Biggest banditry i have ever seen apart from holiday prize team events was in the Pierce Purcell a few years ago that won a regional final and the same players the following year had higher handicaps afterbeing told to mind them...and this from a well established club in Munster

I agree it is more indifference than incompetence - either way, roll on the new software. Cutting on observation is relatively rare but rarer still if the player never plays his "home" course.
Not all bandits are distance members and not all distance members are bandits. But they do complement each other. But most distance members just want cheap golf at someone else's expense.

First Up

Norfolk Enchants_ wrote: »

You don't know how the current system works, yet you put yourself forward as some kind of authority on the subject, hmmm how does that work exactly?.

Which system would that be? I have played a number of opens where my scores - good or bad - were not returned to my club. Bobster's post above supports the same point. As long as it is left to individual clubs, there is scope for abuse.

Norfolk Enchants_

First Up wrote: »

Which system would that be? I have played a number of opens where my scores - good or bad - were not returned to my club. Bobster's post above supports the same point. As long as it is left to individual clubs, there is scope for abuse.

Are you serious?, you're just taking the pi;s now right?.

First Up

Norfolk Enchants_ wrote: »

Are you serious?, you're just taking the pi;s now right?.

Which point is giving you such discomfort?

Norfolk Enchants_

First Up wrote: »

Which point is giving you such discomfort?

Honestly, don't get me started, but for starters look up CDH and the CONGU UHS manual and educate yourself.

First Up

Norfolk Enchants_ wrote: »

Honestly, don't get me started, but for starters look up CDH and the CONGU UHS manual and educate yourself.

Be a good chap and point it out to everyone.

Norfolk Enchants_

First Up wrote: »

Be a good chap and point it out to everyone.

I thought you'd be the first man to tell everyone, seen as you're the one putting yourself out there as the authority on the subject yet you don't even know how the CDH works? is it all hot air, waffle and noise, I wonder?.

bobster453

First Up wrote: »

I agree it is more indifference than incompetence - either way, roll on the new software. Cutting on observation is relatively rare but rarer still if the player never plays his "home" course.
Not all bandits are distance members and not all distance members are bandits. But they do complement each other. But most distance members just want cheap golf at someone else's expense.

But yet the actual wording of the motion specifically mentions observation as in

"Thus, by returning a minimum of three Qualifying Scores at his Home Club, annually, the player's
Handicap Committee and peer information will better contribute to keeping the player's handicap under
review leading to a more equitable handicapping system."
Yet you state it is a rarity, therefore the truth will out-this has absolutely nothing to do with observation and is used as a pretext in a vain attempt to keep members at clubs with inflated fees.

Please explain, with facts and figures, not hearsay, how "Not all bandits are distance members and not all distance members are bandits. But they do complement each other. "To me that is a scandalous accusation to levy against anybody unless you have definitive proof that I am not aware of.

" But most distance members just want cheap golf at someone else's expense"
Again, this is a generality, granted there are nowadays golf tourists who travel from club to club each year looking for the cheapest fees, but when, as is widely accepted,and has been shown in previous posts on Boards(if I find it I will repost) distance members make up in the region of 2% of all golfers in Ireland, how can you make out that all the ills of clubs are caused by distance members?

The above could just as easily apply to any member of any club who pays and plays in open comps in a course of a higher standard than theirs.
By that reasoning, nobody should be allowed play in open comps in a marquee course except members of another marquee course.

Your arguments lack substance and only lend credence to the supposition that your knowledge of the issue has been gained by listening to other people moaning rather than on the basis of hard evidence.

I am probably totally wrong in that supposition but until your arguments are backed by concrete facts and figures there is no other possible conclusion.

I finish now with one of favourite quotes by Albert Einstein that could easily be applied to a certain number of clubs "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time"

bobster453

First Up wrote: »

Bobster's post above supports the same point. As long as it is left to individual clubs, there is scope for abuse.

I do not agree that it is abuse, just not every club is as well run as ours and has a Secretary who rigidly and routinely, daily if necessary, applies any required cuts as they arrive from CDH. I too have been in the position where a cut was due from another club and had to chase them for 3 weeks before it finally arrived via CDH, and had cut myself until it did.

ParLances earlier post hits the nail on the head, bandits want .1's, not cuts unless it is for something really worth getting cut for, and the absence of Team events in the motion that was passed does absolutely nothing to stamp out banditry as it is Team events where they gather.
That has absolutely nothing to do with distance members, if it did it would not be an issue if the figures are correct and 2% of all golfers are distance members.

First Up

bobster453 wrote: »

But yet the actual wording of the motion specifically mentions observation as in

"Thus, by returning a minimum of three Qualifying Scores at his Home Club, annually, the player's
Handicap Committee and peer information will better contribute to keeping the player's handicap under
review leading to a more equitable handicapping system."
Yet you state it is a rarity, therefore the truth will out-this has absolutely nothing to do with observation and is used as a pretext in a vain attempt to keep members at clubs with inflated fees.

Please explain, with facts and figures, not hearsay, how "Not all bandits are distance members and not all distance members are bandits. But they do complement each other. "To me that is a scandalous accusation to levy against anybody unless you have definitive proof that I am not aware of.

" But most distance members just want cheap golf at someone else's expense"
Again, this is a generality, granted there are nowadays golf tourists who travel from club to club each year looking for the cheapest fees, but when, as is widely accepted,and has been shown in previous posts on Boards(if I find it I will repost) distance members make up in the region of 2% of all golfers in Ireland, how can you make out that all the ills of clubs are caused by distance members?

The above could just as easily apply to any member of any club who pays and plays in open comps in a course of a higher standard than theirs.
By that reasoning, nobody should be allowed play in open comps in a marquee course except members of another marquee course.

Your arguments lack substance and only lend credence to the supposition that your knowledge of the issue has been gained by listening to other people moaning rather than on the basis of hard evidence.

I am probably totally wrong in that supposition but until your arguments are backed by concrete facts and figures there is no other possible conclusion.

I finish now with one of favourite quotes by Albert Einstein that could easily be applied to a certain number of clubs "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time"

What a strange post. You seem determined to be confused about what I am saying and it looks like you aren't too sure of what you are saying yourself.

What exactly are you disagreeing with me about? If it is "observation", please read the earlier posts (mine and others) more carefully.

We are agreed (I think) that the current practice on returning away scores is inconsistent, whether by intention or incompetence doesn't really matter. All I am saying is that the new software in development will make the system easier to implement (or harder to dodge), resulting in more accurate handicaps. Are you disagreeing with this, and/or do you think this would be a bad thing?

As for the "complementing each other" part, this is simply saying that it is easier for distance members to maintain inflated handicaps than those who play their "home" club every week. I didn't make an accusation (scandalous or otherwise against anyone.

Can you show me where I said "distance members are the cause of all the ills"? I think this and some other of your remarks show that what you are really engaged in here is a proxy argument in defence of "distance" memberships and your incoherence on that subject only reveals that I have touched a raw nerve.

bobster453

First Up wrote: »

What a strange post. You seem determined to be confused about what I am saying and it looks like you aren't too sure of what you are saying yourself.

What exactly are you disagreeing with me about? If it is "observation", please read the earlier posts (mine and others) more carefully.

We are agreed (I think) that the current practice on returning away scores is inconsistent, whether by intention or incompetence doesn't really matter. All I am saying is that the new software in development will make the system easier to implement (or harder to dodge), resulting in more accurate handicaps. Are you disagreeing with this, and/or do you think this would be a bad thing?

As for the "complementing each other" part, this is simply saying that it is easier for distance members to maintain inflated handicaps than those who play their "home" club every week. I didn't make an accusation (scandalous or otherwise against anyone.

Can you show me where I said "distance members are the cause of all the ills"? I think this and some other of your remarks show that what you are really engaged in here is a proxy argument in defence of "distance" memberships and your incoherence on that subject only reveals that I have touched a raw nerve.

What a strange incoherent response.I was merely responding to your earlier posts that were full of hearsay and short on substance and respond by attempting to deflect attention from this.

Anything that reduces or makes banditry harder is of course to be welcomed but when you insist on attaking a segment of golfers without any facts to back up your arguments it does beg the question..what is your real agenda??

First Up

bobster453 wrote: »

What a strange incoherent response.I was merely responding to your earlier posts that were full of hearsay and short on substance and respond by attempting to deflect attention from this.

Anything that reduces or makes banditry harder is of course to be welcomed but when you insist on attaking a segment of golfers without any facts to back up your arguments it does beg the question..what is your real agenda??

Thank you for confirming that.

I have never made any secret of my "agenda" - i.e the well being of golf.

Redzah

First Up wrote: »

But most distance members just want cheap golf at someone else's expense.

Golf has a market like everything else. The price is market driven with examples as follows;

1. Distance memberships are generally in remote clubs who have limited demands for full/local memberships. In order to generate revenue and keep the club afloat they are priced accordingly to attract individuals who want to keep a handicap. Basic economics.

2. Open competitions are more often midweek and are priced to attract the highest possible revenue for the day without devaluing the brand of the course, a difficult balancing act. Again though this is market driven.

3. Full memberships in attractive, well run courses and highly populated areas are priced much higher. Again due to the price been set where supply and demand are at equilibrium. Or in the case of some, where the supply has reached its roof (max number of members) and this is when joining fees come into the equation. The golfer at this club gets a much superior product; course, member comps, practice facilities, close proximity, club atmosphere and has to pay for this.

The reason I point out the above is that your point about distance members getting cheap golf at someone elses expense is completely misguided. The are both paying the market rate for different products, one is inferior to the other and priced accordingly.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about distance members and a belief that you are subsidising them playing golf when in reality the higher price you are paying is for a higher quality product, if you have an issue with this and you still feel that you are subsidising distance members then why would you be so foolish to continue being a frustrated man for the next few years? why not join them and have somebody else subsidise your golf as you believe?

It seems foolish to me that you have the belief that the distance membership option represents better value than the full membership option but you continue to take the option with lesser value and instead go online to just moan about it instead of taking action.

mike12

Imagine if clubs in Dublin advertised, membership 150 euros 3free rounds and a Gui handicap. We never expect to see u again after that.
The Gui would have the club suppended in a minute.
I have no problem with distance membership but have a problem with handicaps that are basically bought. Join a distance club where u can go play 3 rounds a year. If u don't want to do that just go play in a society or pay green fees

First Up

Redzah wrote: »

Golf has a market like everything else. The price is market driven with examples as follows;

1. Distance memberships are generally in remote clubs who have limited demands for full/local memberships. In order to generate revenue and keep the club afloat they are priced accordingly to attract individuals who want to keep a handicap. Basic economics.

2. Open competitions are more often midweek and are priced to attract the highest possible revenue for the day without devaluing the brand of the course, a difficult balancing act. Again though this is market driven.

3. Full memberships in attractive, well run courses and highly populated areas are priced much higher. Again due to the price been set where supply and demand are at equilibrium. Or in the case of some, where the supply has reached its roof (max number of members) and this is when joining fees come into the equation. The golfer at this club gets a much superior product; course, member comps, practice facilities, close proximity, club atmosphere and has to pay for this.

The reason I point out the above is that your point about distance members getting cheap golf at someone elses expense is completely misguided. The are both paying the market rate for different products, one is inferior to the other and priced accordingly.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about distance members and a belief that you are subsidising them playing golf when in reality the higher price you are paying is for a higher quality product, if you have an issue with this and you still feel that you are subsidising distance members then why would you be so foolish to continue being a frustrated man for the next few years? why not join them and have somebody else subsidise your golf as you believe?

It seems foolish to me that you have the belief that the distance membership option represents better value than the full membership option but you continue to take the option with lesser value and instead go online to just moan about it instead of taking action.

No problem with any of that other than the "distance member" getting an extra discount for pretending to be a member of a club. The "market" rate for visitors is the green fee. Pay that and they are welcome. Opens were conceived as a means for clubs to offer reciprocal hospitality to other golfers who are supporting their own clubs. That concept is being exploited by the distance crew and being abused by the clubs facilitating them for their own gain.
The reasons I don't join them are because (a) it is wrong and (b) because I understand the physiology of the Golden Goose.

Russman

mike12 wrote: »

Imagine if clubs in Dublin advertised, membership 150 euros 3free rounds and a Gui handicap. We never expect to see u again after that.
The Gui would have the club suppended in a minute.
I have no problem with distance membership but have a problem with handicaps that are basically bought. Join a distance club where u can go play 3 rounds a year. If u don't want to do that just go play in a society or pay green fees

Genuine question, what grounds would the GUI have for suspending them ?
I assume there must be some, as surely at some point a struggling Dublin club would have thought of that and tried it to get cash in........?

Redzah

mike12 wrote: »

Imagine if clubs in Dublin advertised, membership 150 euros 3free rounds and a Gui handicap. We never expect to see u again after that.
The Gui would have the club suppended in a minute.
I have no problem with distance membership but have a problem with handicaps that are basically bought. Join a distance club where u can go play 3 rounds a year. If u don't want to do that just go play in a society or pay green fees

Your example would never come to fruition as it would be an terrible idea economically for any Dublin club that has any sort of demand/existing membership. By offering this scenario, it would motivate some existing members to transfer to this option and thus significantly reduce existing revenue for which any additional revenue from new members would struggle to prop up.

Why do you have a problem with a handicap that is bought this way? Anybody who wants to manipulate the system will do so whether its via a club or distance membership. Every club has bandits who go out and don't try and get .1's back in the lead up to more prestigious competitions, it is cheating and they are scum but it happens.

I think its obvious to see that this whole rule was brought in for more sinister reasons than maintaining a fair handicap system, to stay PC the gui had to come up with something to say that doesn't completely rock the boat. However, in reality this was brought in as the GUI is generally made up of people who have been in the game a long time and who are members of more established and member clubs. These clubs have lost many members through the economic decline and some of the individuals that left joined clubs as distance members to stay active in the game as it was their only option based on their own personal finances. Being bitter that their clubs were losing members and revenue, the GUI committee decided to attempt to hinder those of leave the established clubs from staying active in the game by bringing in this rule.

PARlance

mike12 wrote: »

Imagine if clubs in Dublin advertised, membership 150 euros 3free rounds and a Gui handicap. We never expect to see u again after that.
The Gui would have the club suppended in a minute.
I have no problem with distance membership but have a problem with handicaps that are basically bought. Join a distance club where u can go play 3 rounds a year. If u don't want to do that just go play in a society or pay green fees

You can get a 5 day pay & play (GUI card in your pocket) in Grange Castle for €225. A little bit more expensive but still extremely cheap and the slight increase is understandable for obvious reasons.
A member could join and do exactly as they do with the "distance" clubs. There are a few more clubs in Dublin and its surrounds that offer extremely cheap means of attaining a GUI. They don't force people to play and I don't think the GUI have any intentions of shutting them down.

This motion wasn't the brainchild of the GUI, they implemented a proposal made by clubs.

Redzah

First Up wrote: »

No problem with any of that other than the "distance member" getting an extra discount for pretending to be a member of a club. The "market" rate for visitors is the green fee. Pay that and they are welcome. Opens were conceived as a means for clubs to offer reciprocal hospitality to other golfers who are supporting their own clubs. That concept is being exploited by the distance crew and being abused by the clubs facilitating them for their own gain.
The reasons I don't join them are because (a) it is wrong and (b) because I understand the physiology of the Golden Goose.

See this is where again you are only looking at one side of the coin, you say that opens were conceived as a means for clubs to offer reciprocal hospitality to other golfers who are supporting their clubs and note that distance members are exploiting them. However, what you completely ignore is.........The clubs who run these open competitions are purely thinking of revenue when they run them, it has nothing to do with reciprocal hospitality in this day and age, it is all to balance the books. Look around, courses who you never thought would have open competitions now have weekly ones, other clubs have extended their weekly open period to run 6 months of the year when it previously ran for 3 months. Times have changed due to the economics and the clubs running the open competitions are exploiting the current scenario to generate revenue, it is completely one sided to say that distance members are exploiting opens.

bobster453

Redzah wrote: »

Golf has a market like everything else. The price is market driven with examples as follows;

1. Distance memberships are generally in remote clubs who have limited demands for full/local memberships. In order to generate revenue and keep the club afloat they are priced accordingly to attract individuals who want to keep a handicap. Basic economics.

2. Open competitions are more often midweek and are priced to attract the highest possible revenue for the day without devaluing the brand of the course, a difficult balancing act. Again though this is market driven.

3. Full memberships in attractive, well run courses and highly populated areas are priced much higher. Again due to the price been set where supply and demand are at equilibrium. Or in the case of some, where the supply has reached its roof (max number of members) and this is when joining fees come into the equation. The golfer at this club gets a much superior product; course, member comps, practice facilities, close proximity, club atmosphere and has to pay for this.

The reason I point out the above is that your point about distance members getting cheap golf at someone elses expense is completely misguided. The are both paying the market rate for different products, one is inferior to the other and priced accordingly.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about distance members and a belief that you are subsidising them playing golf when in reality the higher price you are paying is for a higher quality product, if you have an issue with this and you still feel that you are subsidising distance members then why would you be so foolish to continue being a frustrated man for the next few years? why not join them and have somebody else subsidise your golf as you believe?

It seems foolish to me that you have the belief that the distance membership option represents better value than the full membership option but you continue to take the option with lesser value and instead go online to just moan about it instead of taking action.

Quite simply one of the best thought out and constituted posts i have ever seen
Fair Play

Tommo 76

Is it also worth mentioning the financial help these distance members bring to various courses? Yes they get their distance membership, and have no affiliation to any club, apart from the distance club, but these members do the this membership type, to presumably play more local open competitions. This in turn gives their local clubs more revenue, due to open competitions always paying more than members. Take for example an open fourball weekend, members pay 6/7 each, open players pay 15. thats approximately double the entrance fee of a member. This means that for every 100 club members, 50 open players makes up the same revenue for the club.

Over the course of an open fourball weekend for example, there may be say 150 fourballs out, (75 groups of 4, at say 7 groups an hour, 10 hours of tee times, realistic enough, may even be more). Say 1/5 of these are non club members, thats 30 fourballs, 60 x €15 is 900 euro (May not seem much, but say there is 10 open weekends a year, between open weekends and open week, thats 9000 a year for a club), thats the same as approx 125 current club members playing. Sorry gone off on a rant here, but just wanted to highlight that these distance members can contribute to other clubs, and these local clubs may not have budgeted for this extra income so it can help them.

I know these distance members can have a certain status as bandits etc, but thats the same for all clubs, distance or not in my opinion. In saying that the above is probably waffle!!

Dossy

To me it seems like they are using the excuse of handicap abuse to bring it in but really its due to the loss of members in the like of Dublin etc where membership of even half decent places is very high....IMO

First Up

Tommo 76 wrote: »

Is it also worth mentioning the financial help these distance members bring to various courses? Yes they get their distance membership, and have no affiliation to any club, apart from the distance club, but these members do the this membership type, to presumably play more local open competitions. This in turn gives their local clubs more revenue, due to open competitions always paying more than members. Take for example an open fourball weekend, members pay 6/7 each, open players pay 15. thats approximately double the entrance fee of a member. This means that for every 100 club members, 50 open players makes up the same revenue for the club.

Over the course of an open fourball weekend for example, there may be say 150 fourballs out, (75 groups of 4, at say 7 groups an hour, 10 hours of tee times, realistic enough, may even be more). Say 1/5 of these are non club members, thats 30 fourballs, 60 x €15 is 900 euro (May not seem much, but say there is 10 open weekends a year, between open weekends and open week, thats 9000 a year for a club), thats the same as approx 125 current club members playing. Sorry gone off on a rant here, but just wanted to highlight that these distance members can contribute to other clubs, and these local clubs may not have budgeted for this extra income so it can help them.

I know these distance members can have a certain status as bandits etc, but thats the same for all clubs, distance or not in my opinion. In saying that the above is probably waffle!!

Marginal income - based on marginal costing - is a well understood and well used business principle. The same way as an airline is better off selling an otherwise empty seat for anything, on the basis that once the doors close, the seat is worthless. In golfing terms, an empty course brings in no revenue, so why not get something?

The problem is the way it distorts the market. If an airline sells all its seats at below cost, before too long the plane won't fly. For a golf club, marginal costing through cheap opens is grand - as long as it constitutes extra income. You see that in action all the time with discounting websites like Golf Now, Tee Times.ie and a host of others. Clubs use these sites by looking at their bookings and deciding on a day by day basis what to offer the casual, or last minute "shopper". Many clubs get green fee business like this. Hotels adopt a similar approach through the various discounting websites.

However the airline, hotel or golf club still has to pay its way to survive and most clubs derive the vast majority of their income from members subscriptions. Clubs are mutual societies, with members contributing to costs as well as giving some business to the pro shop, catering facilities etc. The distance open specialists are essentially availing of the commitment and cash of others to provide them with nice places to play and the clubs flogging distance memberships are knowingly and cynically exploiting this.

We have had numerous examples here of people who are happy to admit that they take the distance route as an alternative to supporting a club. That's grand, as long as the clubs they like to play can afford to stay open to accommodate them and they won't do that if they are reduced to taking discounted green fees from people who are only interested in getting the cheapest deal they can.

We also have people here defending the practice of flogging distance memberships as a source of income, in the full knowledge they are exploiting other clubs. Personally I don't think requiring these "members" to play just three competitions is enough. Ten would be a more realistic definition of a "member" and such a stipulation would sharply dis-incentivise the "have card will travel" brigade. Gosh, some of them might even be persuaded to really join a club.

First Up

Dossy wrote: »

To me it seems like they are using the excuse of handicap abuse to bring it in but really its due to the loss of members in the like of Dublin etc where membership of even half decent places is very high....IMO

Depends on what you mean by high. You think many clubs are banking large profits?

Redzah

First Up wrote: »

Marginal income - based on marginal costing - is a well understood and well used business principle. The same way as an airline is better off selling an otherwise empty seat for anything, on the basis that once the doors close, the seat is worthless. In golfing terms, an empty course brings in no revenue, so why not get something?

The problem is the way it distorts the market. If an airline sells all its seats at below cost, before too long the plane won't fly. For a golf club, marginal costing through cheap opens is grand - as long as it constitutes extra income. You see that in action all the time with discounting websites like Golf Now, Tee Times.ie and a host of others. Clubs use these sites by looking at their bookings and deciding on a day by day basis what to offer the casual, or last minute "shopper". Many clubs get green fee business like this. Hotels adopt a similar approach through the various discounting websites.

However the airline, hotel or golf club still has to pay its way to survive and most clubs derive the vast majority of their income from members subscriptions. Clubs are mutual societies, with members contributing to costs as well as giving some business to the pro shop, catering facilities etc. The distance open specialists are essentially availing of the commitment and cash of others to provide them with nice places to play and the clubs flogging distance memberships are knowingly and cynically exploiting this.

We have had numerous examples here of people who are happy to admit that they take the distance route as an alternative to supporting a club. That's grand, as long as the clubs they like to play can afford to stay open to accommodate them and they won't do that if they are reduced to taking discounted green fees from people who are only interested in getting the cheapest deal they can.

We also have people here defending the practice of flogging distance memberships as a source of income, in the full knowledge they are exploiting other clubs. Personally I don't think requiring these "members" to play just three competitions is enough. Ten would be a more realistic definition of a "member" and such a stipulation would sharply dis-incentivise the "have card will travel" brigade. Gosh, some of them might even be persuaded to really join a club.

The commitment to cash of others as you say is one way of saying that these are full paying members who are enjoying the benefits of full membership in their local course. This is a premium product with a premium price, you pay more or commit cash as you say and you get back more benefits!!!!

You then talk about distance members exploiting playing opens in their courses but you don't talk at all about any exploitation of the club hosting the open of its own members (or cash cows ). For the record, I don't think there is much exploitation on either side, it is merely just the general business of using your product (the course and facilities) to generate multiple revenue steams (e.g. membership income and visitor income).

While your marginal income model above works for the courses that use golfnow and other such sites by selling last minute teetimes at a discounted rate for an otherwise unused slot, it is not as relevant to Opens which is the topic of this discussion. These opens are planned months in advance when the yearly scheduling is done. The only thought process that goes into them is that there are held on a less desireable day to not piss off the members too much, after that its all about income generation. This income generation also extends to visitors eating and drinking in the bar and making purchases in the pro shop (as members also do) which in turn means more cash to utilise to maintain the standards of the course of which is used by its members 90% of the time, the members win too!!!!

Without the open income, some clubs would not be able to keep up the facilities to a high standard for its members or would have to increase membership income to account for the lost open income, both are a negative.

Redzah

First Up wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by high. You think many clubs are banking large profits?

The reason why clubs don't necessary bank profits is because they are CLUBS. As you may notice in most club financial statements Income and Costs are extremely closely aligned. Adding to profits to reserves on a yearly basis is not in the ethos of the club model. The Club finance committees focus is on ensuring they have enough income to meet their costs. Any excess income is utilised either by opening up the purse strings for club teams or through capital projects over the coming years (which results in a depreciation charge to the P&L and thus minimises book profit).

Shareholder value is created in clubs by utilising excess income and spending this excess income to augment the product given to its members. This is very different to a business who's shareholder value lies in the fact that a shareholder now has a share of an increased shareholder funds balance or is paid a dividend out of excess profits at the year end.

No club will consistently show huge profits year on year as it is not what the club is set out to do.

Kingswood Rover

As a matter of interest how many members owned clubs have closed in the last 5 years. I know Rathsallagh, Glencullen and Dublin City golf clubs have all closed recently but they were not members owned.