New Rule for eligibility to Away Opens

bobster453

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Thats a red herring. And finger pointing achieves nothing

You sure do a lot of finger pointing at distance members for someone who believes it will achieve nothing

Boskowski

When its all said and done it's actually quite easy. You gotta ask yourself the question would a golf club be able to survive solely based on those cheaper membership options. If everybody paid €250 all in and the rest comes from open comps and green fees.

I think the answer to that is quite obvious, they wouldn't. So these members would basically not pull their weight as to the true cost of their membership. Which means we would have yet another faction who would be subsidised by the full members. We already have a few of those. Juniors, intermediates, the old guys who are on frozen subs. So the remaining full members start saying eventually f*** that I'm going on the cheap option myself, I hardly play Sundays anyway.

In my club we already have juniors who pay virtually nothing, We have family memberships, we have 2 intermediate categories up to the age of 29 who also pay a fraction of the true cost. If you start subsidising thirties and forties also - who one would expect to be settled in their careers and not exactly permanently student broke - then you make a mockery of it.

I'm like a broken record but golf is not a cheap sport. It might no be quite like yachting or hobby piloting but its not like GAA or soccer either. Iit is unrealistic to deduct from overall declining numbers that golf clubs 'owe' those guys who demand 'better value' something and argue that its for their own good, because it almost certainly isn't.

Kingswood Rover

Boskowski wrote: »

Thing is if you officially create that low cost option that allows for qualifying golf on the cheap then even more members will avail of that and even more clubs enter the race to the bottom and even more clubs will fold. Golf requires a very expensive playing facility and that's simply that. People 'demanding' cheap qualifying golf fail to see that this undermines the foundation of the game.

But that entitlement attitude displayed seems a sign of the times I guess.

What a load of tosh, no members club owned club has closed that i am aware of in the last 5 years or so. Affordable golf is keeping thousands of people in the game and that can be only a good thing. The game and as many people playing it with all the consequential benefits to ones health and well-being is what matters Golf does not require a very expensive facility to be enjoyed, 9 good holes can be kept in tip top condition for 100k. Some perspective on this for me is the football club that i am involved with only 2 pitches costs 50 k a year to run.

Boskowski

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

What a load of tosh, no members club owned club has closed that i am aware of in the last 5 years or so. Affordable golf is keeping thousands of people in the game and that can be only a good thing. The game and as many people playing it with all the consequential benefits to ones health and well-being is what matters Golf does not require a very expensive facility to be enjoyed, 9 good holes can be kept in tip top condition for 100k. Some perspective on this for me is the football club that i am involved with only 2 pitches costs 50 k a year to run.

You're accusing my post to be a load of tosh and then you come up with THAT?!?

Kingswood Rover

Boskowski wrote: »

Ye but its not that simple is it? Even if you don't build new facilities, the upkeep of a golf club is quite substantial. My club is non profit and must charge €1000 just to break even. You gotta have someone in the office, you gotta have staff manning the pro shop, the bar. Greenskeepers. Machinery. A cart path needs fixing now and then. It all adds up quickly.
Golf is not a cheap game. Its a vast playing facility and if not kept to a minimum standard you will lose players very quickly.

You don t need a pro shop or bar or even 18 holes lads this is the real crux of the issue because some people feel that a golf club has to have these and obviously there is a cost implication reflected in the annual subs. In the recent tough economic times less people can bear these costs but rather than give up the game they love the seek cheaper alternatives. So to all 18 holers in debt keep nine good holes, alternative tee's mind, sell the rest of the land, pay off any residual debt, have a few bob in the bank, reduce your subs and golf happily ever after.

Boskowski

So we're going to bulldoze the clubhouse and farm spuds on the back nine so that people can get cheaper golf? Seriously lads...

Kingswood Rover

Boskowski wrote: »

So we're going to bulldoze the clubhouse and farm spuds on the back nine so that people can get cheaper golf? Seriously lads...

Read the post, no mention of not having a club house, we have one ourselves. The previous post regarding maintenance costs is also accurate,more reasoned argument less indignation Bosko please. A good strong club crippled by a huge debt and loosing members because fee's had gone up relative to the local competition could take this option rather than close.

Russman

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

You don t need a pro shop or bar or even 18 holes lads this is the real crux of the issue because some people feel that a golf club has to have these and obviously there is a cost implication reflected in the annual subs. In the recent tough economic times less people can bear these costs but rather than give up the game they love the seek cheaper alternatives. So to all 18 holers in debt keep nine good holes, alternative tee's mind, sell the rest of the land, pay off any residual debt, have a few bob in the bank, reduce your subs and golf happily ever after.

And just who is going to buy half a golf course ? Not many people who need/want to buy 50 acres of land bordering a golf course.

I'd also argue that a golf course doesn't necessarily need a pro shop, bar or 18 holes, but a golf club probably does (maybe not the pro shop in fairness). Otherwise its basically a pay and play facility IMO.

Boskowski

Ah you do need a pro shop. You need all these things. It's a club of leisure where people are trying to have a good time. It's not supposed to be a bare bones operation.
Fair enough if a place is with their back against the wall and it's about survive or go down. Then such desperate measures are possible.
But as a general measure to get headline figures down at all costs to include people who demand cheaper golf not only would I hate to see it happening but I think it would be counter productive.

Boskowski

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

Read the post, no mention of not having a club house, we have one ourselves. The previous post regarding maintenance costs is also accurate,more reasoned argument less indignation Bosko please. A good strong club crippled by a huge debt and loosing members because fee's had gone up relative to the local competition could take this option rather than close.

I'm all for it but thats what you get when you start your own post with 'what a load of tosh'. In fairness now...

Lets all be classy from here on. Including myself obviously.

Keano

This thread has gone very OT - either it gets back on OT or it gets closed

Kingswood Rover

Boskowski wrote: »

I'm all for it but thats what you get when you start your own post with 'what a load of tosh'. In fairness now...

Lets all be classy from here on. Including myself obviously.

agreed pal...but seriously anecdotally you hear "oh there in big sh1t after building that massive white elephant" quite a bit when talking to other golfers. I can think of 3 clubs that this has been said about, again hearsay and no proof but if push came to shove and i was looking at a proposal by my club to be debt free, have money in the bank and have substantially reduced costs going forward but at the cost of nine holes. i reckon i would be in favour... now that would be some EGM.

golfwallah

Boskowski wrote: »

Thing is if you officially create that low cost option that allows for qualifying golf on the cheap then even more members will avail of that and even more clubs enter the race to the bottom and even more clubs will fold. Golf requires a very expensive playing facility and that's simply that. People 'demanding' cheap qualifying golf fail to see that this undermines the foundation of the game.

But that entitlement attitude displayed seems a sign of the times I guess.

I appreciate your concerns, but what is needed in the "cost of golf" debate is better researched facts and reasoned argument, without going "over the top" on the various issues and points for and against. Use of extremes like "very expensive facilities", "race to the bottom", "undermine the foundations", "entitlement attitude" may be colourful or forceful in making a point. But do they really help people consider alternatives on how to solve golf's problems? I don't really think so.

These are the same extreme terms used by supporters of our incumbent national airline when Ryanair appeared on the scene. They are protestations driven from fear of change to the status quo. And did all these prognostications of doom and gloom actually turn out in reality? Well we all know the answer to that - what we now have is a lot more people travelling at more affordable fare levels!

The same applies to golf. And course facilities in Ireland are relatively expensive, but not hugely so. I've been involved in running a GAA club and a golf club within 14 miles of Dublin City Centre. The costs are not as prohibitive as you are making out - otherwise there would not be so many golf facilities in Ireland - about the same as in Spain, where the population is around 47m. Effective usage of the facilities is what keeps unit costs down - less throughput = higher cost per unit. Golf is more expensive in Spain because supply of timeslots is more closely aligned to demand and they have higher costs for stuff, like water, that we can access much more cheaply.

The "entitlement" argument should more appropriately be levelled at the clubs themselves, who are not coming up with enough membership options to bring more people into the game.

Russman

If there's a broad-ish consensus (is there ?) that the rule for Opens is in reality nothing at all to do with handicaps and is pretty much the GUI playing lip service to the concerns about distance memberships, to me it seems like they've stumbled on a middle ground that suits no one and they need to decide what direction they want to take with it.

What that direction should be, I haven't a clue. Personally I'm not in a fancy a$$ club at all and we're, like a lot of others, right on a knife edge, but I sometimes think that one of the biggest mistakes clubs made was getting rid of joining fees. At least when you paid a fee to join, there was an element of committing to a club, rather than the situation now where golfers are jumping from deal to deal each year. Just IMO.

I definitely think the GUI don't want to lose the €20 (or whatever it is) they get from the distance guys, hence IMO the 3 round stipulation was probably thought of as being "well, a bit of an inconvenience but not enough to really deter people, but it'll keep the others happy".

IMHO the current number of golf clubs just isn't sustainable when the only solutions to problems are marketing speak versions of "reduce prices" - there's only so low you can go.

alxmorgan

Russman wrote: »

If there's a broad-ish consensus (is there ?) that the rule for Opens is in reality nothing at all to do with handicaps and is pretty much the GUI playing lip service to the concerns about distance memberships, to me it seems like they've stumbled on a middle ground that suits no one and they need to decide what direction they want to take with it.

What that direction should be, I haven't a clue. Personally I'm not in a fancy a$$ club at all and we're, like a lot of others, right on a knife edge, but I sometimes think that one of the biggest mistakes clubs made was getting rid of joining fees. At least when you paid a fee to join, there was an element of committing to a club, rather than the situation now where golfers are jumping from deal to deal each year. Just IMO.

I definitely think the GUI don't want to lose the €20 (or whatever it is) they get from the distance guys, hence IMO the 3 round stipulation was probably thought of as being "well, a bit of an inconvenience but not enough to really deter people, but it'll keep the others happy".

IMHO the current number of golf clubs just isn't sustainable when the only solutions to problems are marketing speak versions of "reduce prices" - there's only so low you can go.

If they had kept this they would have lost me anyway. It took me a while to fall in love with the game and a few grand up front would have meant I would have moved onto something else with less risk (in terms of not taking to it)

Too high a barrier to entry IMO...but I get what you are saying re club jumpers...just don't think this is the way to do it.

golfwallah

Russman wrote: »

If there's a broad-ish consensus (is there ?) that the rule for Opens is in reality nothing at all to do with handicaps and is pretty much the GUI playing lip service to the concerns about distance memberships, to me it seems like they've stumbled on a middle ground that suits no one and they need to decide what direction they want to take with it.

What that direction should be, I haven't a clue. Personally I'm not in a fancy a$$ club at all and we're, like a lot of others, right on a knife edge, but I sometimes think that one of the biggest mistakes clubs made was getting rid of joining fees. At least when you paid a fee to join, there was an element of committing to a club, rather than the situation now where golfers are jumping from deal to deal each year. Just IMO.

I definitely think the GUI don't want to lose the €20 (or whatever it is) they get from the distance guys, hence IMO the 3 round stipulation was probably thought of as being "well, a bit of an inconvenience but not enough to really deter people, but it'll keep the others happy".

IMHO the current number of golf clubs just isn't sustainable when the only solutions to problems are marketing speak versions of "reduce prices" - there's only so low you can go.

I’d agree that the new qualifying rule for opens is more a sop by the GUI than any kind of realistic control mechanism and also that there are too many golf clubs for the current level of demand.

But it’s over-simplistic to suggest that varying from the predominant fixed pricing model for membership is simply price reduction.

For a moment, let’s consider the key issues involved:
1. Excess supply and falling demand, leading to knee-jerk, “quick fix” price reduction inefficiencies.
2. Market distortions caused by financial support from NAMA, local authorities and, to avoid crystallising losses, even banks.
3. Losses on non-core activities being heaped on members.
4. Marginal cost of additional members is very close to zero.
5. Inefficiencies in fixed annual price for membership – caused because the same price applies regardless of the number of rounds played.
6. Impact of marketing – clubs have been very poor in this area.

I agree that simple price reductions on annual subs to attract additional new members can work in the short-term, but, long-term this is not sustainable. This is, perhaps, the “race to the bottom” approach much feared to by some posters.

There’s not much an ordinary local members club can do about no. 2.

As regards 3, considerable savings can be achieved through outsourcing activities such as catering, bar, pro shop but care is needed around areas of employment law. Some clubs have even extended this approach to course maintenance and club management.

4 & 5 above offer most scope for taking action that will benefit both clubs and potential members, IMHO. Why should everyone pay the same price regardless of how often they use the facilities? There are many options for “lifestyle” membership (with lower fixed cost elements combined with variable usage fees for weekday and weekend) that can be developed and tried. There is also empirical evidence of successfully implementation by some clubs right now.

See link to KPMG report to the effect that clubs have been very poor on the marketing front.

moycullen14

Russman wrote: »

If there's a broad-ish consensus (is there ?) that the rule for Opens is in reality nothing at all to do with handicaps and is pretty much the GUI playing lip service to the concerns about distance memberships, to me it seems like they've stumbled on a middle ground that suits no one and they need to decide what direction they want to take with it.

What that direction should be, I haven't a clue. Personally I'm not in a fancy a$$ club at all and we're, like a lot of others, right on a knife edge, but I sometimes think that one of the biggest mistakes clubs made was getting rid of joining fees. At least when you paid a fee to join, there was an element of committing to a club, rather than the situation now where golfers are jumping from deal to deal each year. Just IMO.

I definitely think the GUI don't want to lose the €20 (or whatever it is) they get from the distance guys, hence IMO the 3 round stipulation was probably thought of as being "well, a bit of an inconvenience but not enough to really deter people, but it'll keep the others happy".

IMHO the current number of golf clubs just isn't sustainable when the only solutions to problems are marketing speak versions of "reduce prices" - there's only so low you can go.

I think you are absolutely right about the effect of no joining fees. No doubt most clubs would have held onto more members had they remained in place. However, they would have attracted far fewer, if any, new members.

Loyalty is gone. That, IMHO, is the main change in the last few years.

SaveOurLyric

golfwallah wrote: »

For a moment, let’s consider the key issues involved:
1. Excess supply and falling demand, leading to knee-jerk, “quick fix” price reduction inefficiencies.
2. Market distortions caused by financial support from NAMA, local authorities and, to avoid crystallising losses, even banks.
3. Losses on non-core activities being heaped on members.
4. Marginal cost of additional members is very close to zero.
5. Inefficiencies in fixed annual price for membership – caused because the same price applies regardless of the number of rounds played.
6. Impact of marketing – clubs have been very poor in this area.

I agree that simple price reductions on annual subs to attract additional new members can work in the short-term, but, long-term this is not sustainable. This is, perhaps, the “race to the bottom” approach much feared to by some posters.

There’s not much an ordinary local members club can do about no. 2.

As regards 3, considerable savings can be achieved through outsourcing activities such as catering, bar, pro shop but care is needed around areas of employment law. Some clubs have even extended this approach to course maintenance and club management.

4 & 5 above offer most scope for taking action that will benefit both clubs and potential members, IMHO. Why should everyone pay the same price regardless of how often they use the facilities? There are many options for “lifestyle” membership (with lower fixed cost elements combined with variable usage fees for weekday and weekend) that can be developed and tried. There is also empirical evidence of successfully implementation by some clubs right now.

Without debating for the moment whether you are indeed citing the 6 key issues involved:

1) Agree with you. Although that is what is happening. But its not simple knee jerk or misguided. It is market forces of supply exceeding demand.

2) Agree with. And it is outside any golfer or clubs control. But it is saving the bacon in many clubs. Many clubs could be, but havent been closed by their banks as they try to extract anything better than nothing from them over the longer term.

3) Who else should pay the bill? It doesnt matter whether they are core or not. Members must pay, or dispense with the service.

4) True. But a lot of clubs run a tight line on pissing off their members on higher fees.

5) This model is necessary and the pay according to play idea you promote will not work. The costs are largely fixed whatever the membership. Society and greenfees cater to the marginal/occasional golfer. Membership caters to the more frequent golfer. Take for sake of argument a club with a €1000 sub and enough members to cover its costs. Leaving complete outliers out of it, a low intensity player who we could say is not really getting value per round plays 10 times per year. I know many such. Take a highish intensity golfer playng 100 times per year. I know many such - regular game every week year round more or less, and evening golf, classics, for other comps for 2-3 games per week in the height of the season. For 4 hours entertainment €30 somthing is a reasonable value to pay on a maintained golf course. So his annual cost devides by 3. The high intensity man however, triples his sub. Is he going to pay that and stay in the game ? Or just cut back the amount of golf he plays ? Reducing the overall income of the club.

6) On a micro scale, yes they are poor, and could do better. But on the macro scale, it makes no difference at all to the picture of golf participation or golf club numbers and health in the country. They are all fishing in the same pool.


All golf needs in this country is about 50 clubs to close. Everyone would be much better off, with a better standard of course, clubhouse, and general ancillary activities. The fight to save individual clubs is the real mistake that is being made by golf in general at the moment.

hurleronditch

Can I just drag this on topic for a second lads, I'm sure the answer is here but there's a lot of waffle and I'm not sure of the answer.

I'm a member in Corballis, I played well over 3 comps last year so can play opens in 2015. I will soon have played 3 home rounds too in 2015. If I move to a new club next January am I ineligible from all opens in 2016, even though I would have played the requisite rounds in my former home club? I'm not a distance member or anything, I live in the city centre, I'm just thinking of making a long term commitment to a more convenient club for me.

Thanks

PARlance

hurleronditch wrote: »

Can I just drag this on topic for a second lads, I'm sure the answer is here but there's a lot of waffle and I'm not sure of the answer.

I'm a member in Corballis, I played well over 3 comps last year so can play opens in 2015. I will soon have played 3 home rounds too in 2015. If I move to a new club next January am I ineligible from all opens in 2016, even though I would have played the requisite rounds in my former home club? I'm not a distance member or anything, I live in the city centre, I'm just thinking of making a long term commitment to a more convenient club for me.

Thanks

You'll be fine. The three rounds from your previous club count.

hurleronditch

PARlance wrote: »

You'll be fine. The three rounds from your previous club count.

Merci

PARlance

hurleronditch wrote: »

Merci

And even if someone wasn't playing the previous year, once they play 3 home singles comps in the current year then they are eligible after doing so.

bobster453

PARlance wrote: »

And even if someone wasn't playing the previous year, once they play 3 home singles comps in the current year then they are eligible after doing so.

Not too sure about this, the GUI email sent to clubs specifically states this is not the case, either that or I am reading it completely wrong.

bobster453

bobster453 wrote: »

Not too sure about this, the GUI email sent to clubs specifically states this is not the case, either that or I am reading it completely wrong.

Unless of course you mean play 3 in 2015 and be eligible for 2016, which you probably did mean, in which case apologies

PARlance

paulos53 wrote: »

As far as I know this motion was passed earlier this year

"“That, with effect from 1st March 2015, in order to be eligible to compete in a Singles Qualifying Competition at an Away Club, with the exception of all events listed in No. 6 of the Union Bye Laws, a Member of a GUI Affiliated Golf Club must have returned at least three scores in Singles Qualifying Competitions at his Home Club, at any time on or after the corresponding date one year before the Singles Qualifying Competition at the Away Club.”

This allows you to play 3 home comps and then enter away comps for the rest of the year.

Quoting this again Bobster from when the discussion kicked off again.
They seemed to have amended or clarified the original rule

golfwallah

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Without debating for the moment whether you are indeed citing the 6 key issues involved:

1) Agree with you. Although that is what is happening. But its not simple knee jerk or misguided. It is market forces of supply exceeding demand.

2) Agree with. And it is outside any golfer or clubs control. But it is saving the bacon in many clubs. Many clubs could be, but havent been closed by their banks as they try to extract anything better than nothing from them over the longer term.

3) Who else should pay the bill? It doesnt matter whether they are core or not. Members must pay, or dispense with the service.

4) True. But a lot of clubs run a tight line on pissing off their members on higher fees.

5) This model is necessary and the pay according to play idea you promote will not work. The costs are largely fixed whatever the membership. Society and greenfees cater to the marginal/occasional golfer. Membership caters to the more frequent golfer. Take for sake of argument a club with a €1000 sub and enough members to cover its costs. Leaving complete outliers out of it, a low intensity player who we could say is not really getting value per round plays 10 times per year. I know many such. Take a highish intensity golfer playng 100 times per year. I know many such - regular game every week year round more or less, and evening golf, classics, for other comps for 2-3 games per week in the height of the season. For 4 hours entertainment €30 somthing is a reasonable value to pay on a maintained golf course. So his annual cost devides by 3. The high intensity man however, triples his sub. Is he going to pay that and stay in the game ? Or just cut back the amount of golf he plays ? Reducing the overall income of the club.

6) On a micro scale, yes they are poor, and could do better. But on the macro scale, it makes no difference at all to the picture of golf participation or golf club numbers and health in the country. They are all fishing in the same pool.


All golf needs in this country is about 50 clubs to close. Everyone would be much better off, with a better standard of course, clubhouse, and general ancillary activities. The fight to save individual clubs is the real mistake that is being made by golf in general at the moment.

Who knows if it’s 50 or 100 clubs that need to close – there is nothing individual clubs can do about this – except wait and see if and when it will happen. And that could be a very long time as only a very small number have closed over the last 5 years or so.

While waiting for this to happen, balancing the books to survive requires clubs to take real practical steps to cut costs and increase / retain income in a manner that the majority of members will support.

Of course, some members will not be happy with whatever choices are made. That is why it is important to have an open debate among members on the issues and choices involved. Cutting costs and increasing income requires no debate if the actions taken don’t affect the level of service or perceived value of membership. But if the actions do impact on members, then it follows that they need to be in on the debate in an informed manner. It’s nigh on impossible to do this at AGMs as the time is not available. And you can imagine the shock when people are faced with such options from a starting position of thinking everything in the club is “fine”.

That’s the challenge, IMO, communicating with members on the issues over the long term and then preparing for a meeting at which to make vital decisions on the options.

And by the way, it is possible to provide the ancillary services at far lower cost. Many clubs have done this through outsourcing, etc. It takes a bit of time and effort on the part of the committee, though. It is not quick fix and can’t be done overnight.

I guess, there are no easy options for clubs when it comes to doing what it takes to balance the books. But you're not in the business of saving the industry - just your own club - after that, the market will take care of those who survive and otherwise!

Kingswood Rover

paulos53 wrote: »

As far as I know this motion was passed earlier this year

"“That, with effect from 1st March 2015, in order to be eligible to compete in a Singles Qualifying Competition at an Away Club, with the exception of all events listed in No. 6 of the Union Bye Laws, a Member of a GUI Affiliated Golf Club must have returned at least three scores in Singles Qualifying Competitions at his Home Club, at any time on or after the corresponding date one year before the Singles Qualifying Competition at the Away Club.”

This allows you to play 3 home comps and then enter away comps for the rest of the year.

This came in discussion yesterday. Our club has a lot of minor members and my take on the above rule is that in general Minor members tend to get their 3 qualifiers in over a couple of months, so bearing in mind the requirement of having had to play in 3 home singles within one year on or before the date of the away open the person is competing in next year minor and distance members will have to very careful in making sure that they are always within this rolling 12 month time frame. This could actually be beneficial to a club such as ours as the best way to do that would be to play in one of our open singles every month thus keeping within the 12 month requirement. Hope i am making sense or have i got this arse ways?

bobster453

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

This came in discussion yesterday. Our club has a lot of minor members and my take on the above rule is that in general Minor members tend to get their 3 qualifiers in over a couple of months, so bearing in mind the requirement of having had to play in 3 home singles within one year on or before the date of the away open the person is competing in next year minor and distance members will have to very careful in making sure that they are always within this rolling 12 month time frame. This could actually be beneficial to a club such as ours as the best way to do that would be to play in one of our open singles every month thus keeping within the 12 month requirement. Hope i am making sense or have i got this arse ways?

Nearly right imo..if you want to play an open singles on say 1st April, then the 3 qualifying comps must have been played before the 1st of April the previous year, no need to have rolling entries as it states on or before, therefore once you have the 3 played in the year previous to you playing your first open that will suffice for the year. The ideal of course is to have 3 played each year before you play an open the following year.

Kingswood Rover

bobster453 wrote: »

Nearly right imo..if you want to play an open singles on say 1st April, then the 3 qualifying comps must have been played before the 1st of April the previous year, no need to have rolling entries as it states on or before, therefore once you have the 3 played in the year previous to you playing your first open that will suffice for the year. The ideal of course is to have 3 played each year before you play an open the following year.

MMM, this is confusing, if you have played your 3 qualifiers before the 1st of April the previous year then go to play on the 1st of April the following year then you are outside the 1 year time frame.

bobster453

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

MMM, this is confusing, if you have played your 3 qualifiers before the 1st of April the previous year then go to play on the 1st of April the following year then you are outside the 1 year time frame.

Not really.See Parlances earlier post.It states on or after not on or before thence the difference in what you think and what i think.Mind you we could both be wrong

recycled

GreeBo wrote: »

Thanks all the same but I'll continue to debate the point without your approval.

Why else would you join as a distance member and not a regular member? Why would distance members be having such a problem with a requirement to play your home course...yunno that course that you joined as a member...Im sure you remember stamping that envelope, once you looked up the address of your soon to be home course.

Yes you are a member, I don't disagree with that, you have a GUI handicap and a home club. You are not a real member however because you have no intention of ever darkening the door, the place couldn't support you if you did and in all likelihood you couldn't find the place on a map.

I'm a distance member, the course where I was a member was privately owned and was sold during the crazy period to be developed as a nine hole course and hotel. I had paid a joining fee ( quite small when compared to what followed) and supported both, bar and restaurant. Now that all changed for me in circumstance beyond my control and you can appreciate my reluctance to join another priority owned course. However, they are some nice local courses very close to me, but they have a waiting list and €10,00 plus. I'm only back playing in recent years and of late I get to play a round every week (weather permitting). In time I will fork out and join one of these courses, but not right now. In my time I knew member's who never supported the club's bar or restaurant or pro shop, that was their choice. It take all types to play golf and to make the world. I believe in live and let live, and allow people to make their own choices. I don't subscribe to the labeling mentally, ( I know I have a bad short game , so there).

Norfolk Enchants_

Well it's been 6 months or so since the introduction of this "rule", I think it's about time someone asked, has anyone had any personal experience of this "rule", i.e. have you been asked anything directly by a host club relating to this "rule"?.

mike12

Norfolk Enchants_ wrote: »

Well it's been 6 months or so since the introduction of this "rule", I think it's about time someone asked, has anyone had any personal experience of this "rule", i.e. have you been asked anything directly by a host club relating to this "rule"?.

Not me played a lot of opens has never come up.

alxmorgan

mike12 wrote: »

Not me played a lot of opens has never come up.

and do you not fulfill the 3 comp rule in home club ?

Norfolk Enchants_

mike12 wrote: »

Not me played a lot of opens has never come up.

Me neither, I must have played about 30+ opens this year in about 10 different clubs and there has never been any mention of this "rule".

Kingswood Rover

We had a golf club refuse one of our minor members a prize in an open as they said that they had not played 3 qualifiers at our club, put them right when we asked them to look at our Masterscoreboard which showed clearly that the guy had indeed fulfilled the criteria. Other than that have not heard a dickie bird.

Dr_Colossus

Norfolk Enchants_ wrote: »

Well it's been 6 months or so since the introduction of this "rule", I think it's about time someone asked, has anyone had any personal experience of this "rule", i.e. have you been asked anything directly by a host club relating to this "rule"?.

Personally no but I have played more than 3 qualifying competitions in my home club last year so I wasn't expecting to hear or be asked anything. I have played a good few open competitions and scratch cups and this year in the Beaverstown SSC & JSC my playing partner was apprached after his first round to advise that his GUI card was showing an eligibility error. The committee member from Beaverstown had a print out of a handful of players that he was following up with so looks like the computer system does flag players upon entry that haven't met the criteria.

Norfolk Enchants_

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

Personally no but I have played more than 3 qualifying competitions in my home club last year so I wasn't expecting to hear or be asked anything. I have played a good few open competitions and scratch cups and this year in the Beaverstown SSC & JSC my playing partner was apprached after his first round to advise that his GUI card was showing an eligibility error. The committee member from Beaverstown had a print out of a handful of players that he was following up with so looks like the computer system does flag players upon entry that haven't met the criteria.

Yeah, I'm not so sure that those issues you experienced in Beaverstown relate to this "rule", I've had numerous occasions this year when there has being problems signing in on the computer in away clubs, but I'd be fairly certain that has to do with the golfnet change over and bugs/glitches relating to golfnet.

Dr_Colossus

Norfolk Enchants_ wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not so sure that those issues you experienced in Beaverstown relate to this "rule", I've had numerous occasions this year when there has being problems signing in on the computer in away clubs, but I'd be fairly certain that has to do with the golfnet change over and bugs/glitches relating to golfnet.

Ah yea the GUI software change was a disaster with signing in, have had plenty of those myself in some clubs where you had to confirm your details first on the system and thereafter sign in. It was like a double enrollement. Some clubs early on it wouldn't even work so they had to do all the processing manually afterwards.
The situation in Beaverstown was different, no problems signing in and my playing partner was oblivious to any issue at the time. The committee member at the interval approached him and said there was a validity issue with his GUI number based on his previous entries. As it transpired he had moved club two years prior but had played a sufficient number of competitions in the preceeding year so golfnet was incorrectly flagging his entry.
To add, I was very impressed with Beaverstown's running of their scratch cups, everything was very well organised so not surprising they were double checking golfnet. I had previously wondering if or how this new rule would be policed.

Norfolk Enchants_

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

Ah yea the GUI software change was a disaster with signing in, have had plenty of those myself in some clubs where you had to confirm your details first on the system and thereafter sign in. It was like a double enrollement. Some clubs early on it wouldn't even work so they had to do all the processing manually afterwards.
The situation in Beaverstown was different, no problems signing in and my playing partner was oblivious to any issue at the time. The committee member at the interval approached him and said there was a validity issue with his GUI number based on his previous entries. As it transpired he had moved club two years prior but had played a sufficient number of competitions in the preceeding year so golfnet was incorrectly flagging his entry.
To add, I was very impressed with Beaverstown's running of their scratch cups, everything was very well organised so not surprising they were double checking golfnet. I had previously wondering if or how this new rule would be policed.

Interesting, I'd say Beaverstown must be in the minority of clubs who are privy to the guidelines outlining how this "rule" is to be implemented.
I'm very much involved in our clubs competition and handicapping and we have had zero information relating to how this "rule" is to be implemented, bar a letter (from the GUI) at the start of the year stating the guidelines will follow.

Kingswood Rover

Norfolk Enchants_ wrote: »

Interesting, I'd say Beaverstown must be in the minority of clubs who are privy to the guidelines outlining how this "rule" is to be implemented.
I'm very much involved in our clubs competition and handicapping and we have had zero information relating to how this "rule" is to be implemented, bar a letter (from the GUI) at the start of the year stating the guidelines will follow.

We are in the same boat, still waiting for the GUI to get back to us and with us having a lot of minor members we would really like clarity on the issue, we have a notice on out website around the need to have competed in 3 home qualifiers on or before the date of the away open you are competing in next year but to be honest i am not sure that our wording on this issue in our notice is even correct.

Redzah

This rule was always going to be a mess. It was driven by some of the more established clubs who were pissed off about a fall in revenue due to the rise of distance membership in difficult financial times, this rule was brought into address that but it was window dressed as a way of providing a more equitable handicap system which is nonsense. I for one am glad that is has not being implemented as the whole thing as been a mess from the start.

P.S. I have previously been a distance member but I am currently a full club member and enjoying regular club golf and this ruling does not effect me, hence I have no personal bias.