New Rule for eligibility to Away Opens

bobwilliams · 25-08-2014 11:54pm

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

True statement that. Simply because most members are full members.

ok Mr.Pedantic.i'll change that to a larger percentile of full members are bandits compared to country members.

GreeBo · 26-08-2014 8:09am

bobwilliams wrote: »

ok Mr.Pedantic.i'll change that to a larger percentile of full members are bandits compared to country members.

Any facts at all to back up that statement?

Russman · 26-08-2014 9:10am

GreeBo wrote: »

Any facts at all to back up that statement?

Plus, what exactly is a bandit ? (that might even be worth a thread or poll on its own, feel free to move !) Is it someone who potentially can play to their handicap fairly handily or is it someone who can beat their handicap on demand ? Or something else ?

Either way, I don't think 3 rounds to be played in your home club is going to have any impact whatsoever on so-called bandits tbh, other than the inconvenience factor of having to actually travel to wherever to play.

slave1 · 26-08-2014 9:16am

Golf is suffering globally, organisations are trying to get more people into golf or back into golf, one of golf's negatives is snobbery (hopefully moreso in the past) and this thread is littered with Distance/Country members being labelled not true members etc thus fueling a class membership system and a snobbery tone.
This is a golf forum and should be promoting golf in all forms and not devaluing or degrading an individuals choice of membership.

No one here can know an individuals motives from moving from full to Distance/Country, it's not all about banditry and I don't ever hear of clubs asking what type of membership visitors have.
Junior/Couple/Distance/Mid Week/Full/Pavilion/Student/Country/Family/Senior etc., who cares, really who cares.

Get over it, better to have Distance/Country members keeping golfers in the game than none at all.

GreeBo · 26-08-2014 9:26am

slave1 wrote: »

Get over it, better to have Distance/Country members keeping golfers in the game than none at all.

Frankly the snobbery argument is a crock.
I can go play golf in multiple championship courses in my penny's gear and aldi clubs, that horse is dead, please stop beating him.

The argument is that no, actually it's not better it's damaging the game long term. It's not snobbery at all, it's unsustainable. Viable but not top quality local courses close because distance buy a handicap courses give it away. Seriously, how's that good for anything long term?

When the local clubs close due lack of numbers you think the local kids are going to become distance members and play in opens ?

slave1 · 26-08-2014 9:42am

GreeBo wrote: »

...If you dont ever plan on playing in your home course then you are not a real member. You are availing of a loop hole to be able to play in Open competitions...

It's hard to debate with posts as blinkered as this (bold highlights by me).

You state if you do not play your home course you are not a real member, this is very much wrong, you are a member and have a GUI card to prove it. This statement shows you are of the opinion these members are doing so with the motive to play in Opens, how do you know this? you regularly come back to posters looking for facts...

GreeBo wrote: »

Any facts at all to back up that statement?

Can you please show me the fact that Distance/Country members are not real members?
Then show me the fact that their motive is just to play in Opens?

Then you are welcome to the debate...until then...

GreeBo · 26-08-2014 9:59am

slave1 wrote: »

It's hard to debate with posts as blinkered as this (bold highlights by me).

You state if you do not play your home course you are not a real member, this is very much wrong, you are a member and have a GUI card to prove it. This statement shows you are of the opinion these members are doing so with the motive to play in Opens, how do you know this? you regularly come back to posters looking for facts...

Can you please show me the fact that Distance/Country members are not real members?
Then show me the fact that their motive is just to play in Opens?

Then you are welcome to the debate...until then...

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 couldnt support you if you did and in all likelihood you couldnt find the place on a map.

golfwallah · 26-08-2014 10:05am

GreeBo wrote: »

And thats why we need council subsidised courses as feeder courses for people who may decide to become real golfers.

I really cant fathom someone (not you) having a problem with council subsidized pay as you play courses that are enabling new golfers in this country. Thats grass roots stuff that happens in all sports.

To be honest, if you take North County Dublin, most people wouldn't regard Corballis (a county council links course) as a "feeder" course for people starting out in golf. It's a bit too tight and hard for that but they do have very competitive prices. Was a feeder course many years ago from which "real golfers" went on to form their own golf clubs - Donabate, Forrest Little and Balcarrick as far as I know - but those were different times when affordable courses were not available. No, I think Corballis has a lot more "real golfers" and the feeder courses for up and coming young prospective golfers to more upmarket places like the Island are more likely to be Beaverstown, Donabate, Forrest Little, Balcarrick, etc., that do have good professional set ups for young golfers.

Council courses like Corballis and Elm Green are attractive propositions pricewise to people who want to limit their spend on golf and get value for money. In my experience, very few "feed" into the member owned clubs, in fact, I've seen a lot more go the other way and that's fine too in my book - as long as it doesn't take truckloads of subsidies to do it, which is what is happening right now!

More likely "feeder" courses to the member owned clubs in North County Dublin are privately owned courses like Swords Open and Deerpark - both fine courses and neither of them need subsidies from the taxpayer.

Slicemeister · 26-08-2014 10:11am

Main reason I joined as a distance member this year was down to economics. Have played alongside members there who have scoffed when they realise so. They'd do well to remember their committee endorsed my application form and more than likely need my membership fee to remain an ongoing entity.To be labelled a bandit or not a real member is a joke and portrays a small minded attitude. Bandits come from all spectrums of memberships and should be weeded out by the handicap secretary as opposed to their membership status.

GreeBo · 26-08-2014 10:12am

golfwallah wrote: »

To be honest, if you take North County Dublin, most people wouldn't regard Corballis (a county council links course) as a "feeder" course for people starting out in golf. It's a bit too tight and hard for that but they do have very competitive prices. Was a feeder course many years ago from which "real golfers" went on to form their own golf clubs - Donabate, Forrest Little and Balcarrick as far as I know - but those were different times when affordable courses were not available. No, I think Corballis has a lot more "real golfers" and the feeder courses for up and coming young prospective golfers to more upmarket places like the Island are more likely to be Beaverstown, Donabate, Forrest Little, Balcarrick, etc., that do have good professional set ups for young golfers.

Council courses like Corballis and Elm Green are attractive propositions pricewise to people who want to limit their spend on golf and get value for money. In my experience, very few "feed" into the member owned clubs, in fact, I've seen a lot more go the other way and that's fine too in my book - as long as it doesn't take truckloads of subsidies to do it, which is what is happening right now!

More likely "feeder" courses to the member owned clubs in North County Dublin are privately owned courses like Swords Open and Deerpark - both fine courses and neither of them need subsidies from the taxpayer.

A course doenst have to be easy to be a feeder course. It just needs to be accessible and open for everyone. Thats how you get people into the game.

First Up · 26-08-2014 10:14am

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 couldnt support you if you did and in all likelihood you couldnt find the place on a map.

The "snobbery" argument is pathetic. Most members of my club - and other clubs I frequent - are honest to goodness lads and lassies who support their club because they recognise there is mutual dependence and mutual benefit in doing so.

The distance membership scam is a device to get golf for less than it costs to provide. Those engaging in it are getting a subsidised ride on the back of club members - it is that simple.

GreeBo · 26-08-2014 10:17am

Slicemeister wrote: »

Main reason I joined as a distance member this year was down to economics. Have played alongside members there who have scoffed when they realise so. They'd do well to remember their committee endorsed my application form and more than likely need my membership fee to remain an ongoing entity.To be labelled a bandit or not a real member is a joke and portrays a small minded attitude. Bandits come from all spectrums of memberships and should be weeded out by the handicap secretary as opposed to their membership status.

Forget about the bandit side of things, thats a problem in all walks of life, its not helped mind you, by players not having a home club that they play in with any regularity (or at all in most cases)

Its about sustainability, if everyone became a distance member and wandered around playing whatever opens they wanted on their choice of courses the game would cease to exist in this country. Thats the problem. Some, for whatever reason, are piggybacking on the wallets of others.

Russman · 26-08-2014 10:22am

First Up wrote: »

The "snobbery" argument is pathetic. Most members of my club - and other clubs I frequent - are honest to goodness lads and lassies who support their club because they recognise there is mutual dependence and mutual benefit in doing so.

The distance membership scam is a device to get golf for less than it costs to provide. Those engaging in it are getting a subsidised ride on the back of club members - it is that simple.

And that's the nub of it right there ^^

golfwallah · 26-08-2014 10:24am

GreeBo wrote: »

Income flows may be different but so are the outgoings, I'd guess we spend (and have to spend) far more than your club does. If we stopped that spending standards would fall and we wouldn't be able to charge the money we do for memberships.

With higher income flows come a lot more choices of what to spend your money on.

Many member clubs have had to severely prioritise their spend on the absolute essentials to keep within their income limits and repay their loans. This is in stark contrast to the subsidised NAMA and Council courses, which have buckets of money to spend on the likes of professional management support, marketing, etc., that are but a distant dream to many member clubs. The upside, I suppose, is that, without buckets of money to throw at problems, member clubs have to get smarter to compete with the subsidised places to survive.

When the dust settles and the economy gets back back to a better footing, I guess the course that will be left will be some of the smarter and wealthier member courses plus almost all the subsidised ones.

Golfers are golfers, we are all competing with each other tbh.

Sure - But competing against subsidised courses - NAMA or Council is unfair competition against voluntary set ups that are finding it harder and harder to keep up their standards in a shrinking market.

Slicemeister · 26-08-2014 10:27am

If it's a scam why is this option available? It's not as if these distance members are doing anything wrong? (honest ones anyway)

FixdePitchmark · 26-08-2014 10:33am

golfwallah this truckloads seems a bit of an exageration.

Every golf course in the country is supported by the tax payer in the form of a tax exemption.

I feel you are seriously underestimating the impact these public facilities have had as "feeders". I know my own route to golf was unusual, but I was one.

If you looked at a buisness case for any park facility , every single one would be closed in the morning. It is not the publics fault , that private courses built ivory towers and monstrosity club houses. During the boom years , these lads laughed and looked down on public facilities , yet half of them grew up on them.

But - now suddenly these public facilities are the focal of their frustration. Give us a break, and shut the library door on the way out.

GreeBo · 26-08-2014 10:34am

golfwallah wrote: »

With higher income flows come a lot more choices of what to spend your money on.

Many member clubs have had to severely prioritise their spend on the absolute essentials to keep within their income limits and repay their loans. This is in stark contrast to the subsidised NAMA and Council courses, which have buckets of money to spend on the likes of professional management support, marketing, etc., that are but a distant dream to many member clubs. The upside, I suppose, is that, without buckets of money to throw at problems, member clubs have to get smarter to compete with the subsidised places to survive.

When the dust settles and the economy gets back back to a better footing, I guess the course that will be left will be some of the smarter and wealthier member courses plus almost all the subsidised ones.

Sure - But competing against subsidised courses - NAMA or Council is unfair competition against voluntary set ups that are finding it harder and harder to keep up their standards in a shrinking market.

Wow, you really do seem to have a chip on your shoulder about "wealthy" clubs, yet you seem to have totally bypassed my point about much, much higher expenditure in those clubs.

Its not a choice, you cant just decide to stop spending money on the course and not see any impact.

NAMA courses are not the same as state subsidized courses.

Slicemeister wrote: »

If it's a scam why is this option available? It's not as if these distance members are doing anything wrong? (honest ones anyway)

Thats why there is a new rule!

slave1 · 26-08-2014 10:37am

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 couldnt support you if you did and in all likelihood you couldnt find the place on a map.

I'm [shock] a distance member due to personal circumstances and I'll leave it at that.

GreeBo wrote: »

You are not a real member however because you have no intention of ever darkening the door.

I have played the course, this Sunday past in fact was the most recent time, don't need a map to find it thanks.
You obviously know everything about distance members, they're not real members, they're out to play the bandits in opens, end of, no other reason possible or justifiable :rolleyes:.
Think I'll just observe this thread going forward as there's little point in debating with such a presumptuous tone and one that's so opinionated with no facts to support despite request for same.

PS The GUI are currently circulating a survey for Golf in Ireland, let them know your thoughts...

golfwallah · 26-08-2014 10:42am

GreeBo wrote: »

A course doenst have to be easy to be a feeder course. It just needs to be accessible and open for everyone. Thats how you get people into the game.

Why do you just pick on one point in a post to disagree with?

I guess like Cardinal Richelieu, it's a case of: "give me 6 lines from the most honest man and I'll find something to hang him".

Your simplistic opinions about "feeder courses" are widely off the mark too and my earlier post demonstrates just that.

I wonder just what experience you have of getting people into the game - you seem to have a closed mind that brooks no views other than your own. I'd prefer to promote debate and consideration of alternatives, when what is being tried is not working successfully. This applies to golf at the moment. And golf is not just for the die-hards in comfortable wealthy clubs, who do not want any change and want to go on with the status quo forever.

The real feeder courses around my area are privately owned and do not need subsidies, thank you very much.

GreeBo · 26-08-2014 10:46am

golfwallah wrote: »

Why do you just pick on one point in a post to disagree with?

I guess like Cardinal Richelieu, it's a case of: "give me 6 lines from the most honest man and I'll find something to hang him".

Your simplistic opinions about "feeder courses" are widely off the mark too and my earlier post demonstrates just that.

I wonder just what experience you have of getting people into the game - you seem to have a closed mind that brooks no views other than your own. I'd prefer to promote debate and consideration of alternatives, when what is being tried is not working successfully. This applies to golf at the moment. And golf is not just for the die-hards in comfortable wealthy clubs, who do not want any change and want to go on with the status quo forever.

The real feeder courses around my area are privately owned and do not need subsidies, thank you very much.

So now we have "real" feeder courses...but not "real" members?
Hilarious.

I cant seem to get any points past the chip on your shoulder so I'm not going to bother.
As you seem to know, everything is perfectly hunky dory in the massively wealthy clubs. Champagne, caviar and port wine are flowing and the members point and laugh at all other clubs.

GreeBo · 26-08-2014 10:50am

slave1 wrote: »

I'm [shock] a distance member due to personal circumstances and I'll leave it at that.

I have played the course, this Sunday past in fact was the most recent time, don't need a map to find it thanks.
You obviously know everything about distance members, they're not real members, they're out to play the bandits in opens, end of, no other reason possible or justifiable :rolleyes:.
Think I'll just observe this thread going forward as there's little point in debating with such a presumptuous tone and one that's so opinionated with no facts to support despite request for same.

PS The GUI are currently circulating a survey for Golf in Ireland, let them know your thoughts...

Frankly it doesnt matter why you are a distance member, Im sure there are lots of personal circumstances for lost of people. Due to personal circumstances I can't afford to sail yachts.

Show me one single post where I said distance members were bandits? I specifically, several times, stated that this change is nothing to do with bandits.
Its about sustainability of the game. Distance members and them being bandits or not has zero bearing on me as I dont play in opens. None.

I cant give you facts about something that is my opinion. It is my OPINION that golfers and clubs are taking advantage of distance membership to play subsidized golf to the detriment of the game.

golfwallah · 26-08-2014 10:56am

GreeBo wrote: »

Wow, you really do seem to have a chip on your shoulder about "wealthy" clubs, yet you seem to have totally bypassed my point about much, much higher expenditure in those clubs.

Its not a choice, you cant just decide to stop spending money on the course and not see any impact.

No - the chip is just as much on your shoulders. With choice, there is no such word as "can't" and I don't accept that there is always a negative impact - my experience shows otherwise.

NAMA courses are not the same as state subsidized courses.

There are no pictures on a score card - it's not how, it's how many (euros in this case). As I've said I've no problem with reasonable levels of subsidies but do with the truckloads of taxpayers cash being thrown at council courses.

It's a matter of opinion really and matters more if your members course is in direct competition with these subsidised places, which would not, of course, apply to your own club.

Thats why there is a new rule!

Don't worry about it. I'm optimistic that our club will survive. It's just that I'm skeptical that the new GUI rule will cut out either banditry or distance memberships.

GreeBo · 26-08-2014 11:03am

golfwallah wrote: »

No - the chip is just as much on your shoulders. With choice, there is no such word as "can't" and I don't accept that there is always a negative impact - my experience shows otherwise.

Oh please...

golfwallah wrote: »

There are no pictures on a score card - it's not how, it's how many (euros in this case). As I've said I've no problem with reasonable levels of subsidies but do with the truckloads of taxpayers cash being thrown at council courses.

Im sorry what? How many euros what? This may make great type but it reads like nonsense in a debate tbh.
I assume you have the same negative disposition towards, hmm lets see, public pitches, swimming pools, playgrounds, hospitals, housing?

golfwallah wrote: »

It's a matter of opinion really and matters more if your members course is in direct competition with these subsidised places, which would not, of course, apply to your own club.

How is my course not in competition for all other Dublin clubs?

golfwallah wrote: »

Don't worry about it. I'm optimistic that our club will survive. It's just that I'm skeptical that the new GUI rule will cut out either banditry or distance memberships.

The new rule will cut distance memberships as not everyone will bother to lookup where their club actually is and go play there.

First Up · 26-08-2014 11:05am

Slicemeister wrote: »

If it's a scam why is this option available? It's not as if these distance members are doing anything wrong? (honest ones anyway)

It is exploiting a system designed for something else. Distance membership (as already said by others) is intended for people to maintain a link with a club with whom they have some connection but are no longer close to. Opens (as already said by me) were intended to be a mechanism through which "real" golfers (members of clubs) could enjoy each others' facilities, on the basis that all are paid up GUI members and thus supporting the game.

The distance/open scam exploits both of these and it is good to see it is finally being addressed, although not as rigorously as I would like - yet.

Russman · 26-08-2014 11:10am

GreeBo wrote: »

Champagne, caviar and port wine are flowing and the members point and laugh at all other clubs.

Caviar is soooo 1980s........:)

SnowDrifts · 26-08-2014 11:12am

So just curious... most posters on here consider this rule change to be more about supporting more established clubs rather than actually being a method for a more consistent handicap review? Just to quote the GUI's motive....

The CONGU UHS requires each player to return three cards at their Home Club to be allocated a handicap. In addition to this initial requirement a further fundamental basis of the UHS is that every player will return a sufficient number of Qualifying Scores to provide reasonable evidence of current ability. 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.

If passed, this motion may result in increased participation by players in Qualifying Competitions at the Home Club as players will have to compete in at least three such competitions to ensure that they are eligible to compete in Open Qualifying Competitions at Away Clubs.

But this also begs the question... if a club like Slievenamon is over flowing with distance members, how much of an accurate annual review will take place? Surely they'd need a team of handicap secretaries!

First Up · 26-08-2014 11:17am

SnowDrifts wrote: »

So just curious... most posters on here consider this rule change to be more about supporting more established clubs rather than actually being a method for a more consistent handicap review? Just to quote the GUI's motive....

But this also begs the question... if a club like Slievenamon is over flowing with distance members, how much of an accurate annual review will take place? Surely they'd need a team of handicap secretaries!

It could be that the real purpose is to put a leash on the handicap flogging clubs and that the handicap monitoring angle is the most convenient way of doing it. That way they can stop short of accusing these clubs of exploiting the rest of the GUI but still get the desired result.

alxmorgan · 26-08-2014 11:21am

Anything yet on how they are going to enforce this ?

First Up · 26-08-2014 11:28am

alxmorgan wrote: »

Anything yet on how they are going to enforce this ?

Its a computerised system so it should take only a minor tweak. I.e. a handicap can only be issued by a club after that club has processed three cards from its own qualifying competitions.

alxmorgan · 26-08-2014 11:31am

First Up wrote: »

Its a computerised system so it should take only a minor tweak. I.e. a handicap can only be issued by a club after that club has processed three cards from its own qualifying competitions.

Do you mean initial handicap ? Or a query to the home club for handicap will return nothing unless 3 qual comps played ?

slave1 · 26-08-2014 11:34am

GreeBo wrote: »

Show me one single post where I said distance members were bandits? I specifically, several times, stated that this change is nothing to do with bandits.

GreeBo wrote: »

Forget about the bandit side of things, thats a problem in all walks of life, its not helped mind you, by players not having a home club that they play in with any regularity (or at all in most cases)

.

slave1 · 26-08-2014 11:39am

alxmorgan wrote: »

Do you mean initial handicap ? Or a query to the home club for handicap will return nothing unless 3 qual comps played ?

That needs to be fleshed out, I play the odd round with some guys who just don't play weekends due to family/work committments (lots of regular employment occurs over Saturday and Sundays) and while they play maybe the odd open on their home course they're not sure whether this counts towards the 3 or not.
Personally if I'm to play at weekends I prefer early starts, don't mind getting up at 5.30 or 6 in the Summer so I can be back home early but this is too early to sign in for competitions in a lot of clubs, even times as late as 8.30 I've been unable to play in comps because clubhouse closed and unable to sign in my intent to play the comp (despite being booked in on the timesheet).

First Up · 26-08-2014 11:41am

alxmorgan wrote: »

Do you mean initial handicap ? Or a query to the home club for handicap will return nothing unless 3 qual comps played ?

The latter I would assume (and hope).

First Up · 26-08-2014 11:43am

slave1 wrote: »

That needs to be fleshed out, I play the odd round with some guys who just don't play weekends due to family/work committments (lots of regular employment occurs over Saturday and Sundays) and while they play maybe the odd open on their home course they're not sure whether this counts towards the 3 or not.
Personally if I'm to play at weekends I prefer early starts, don't mind getting up at 5.30 or 6 in the Summer so I can be back home early but this is too early to sign in for competitions in a lot of clubs, even times as late as 8.30 I've been unable to play in comps because clubhouse closed and unable to sign in my intent to play the comp (despite being booked in on the timesheet).

Surely the system is operating by the time you finish? Just sign in after the round instead of before.

GreeBo · 26-08-2014 11:45am

slave1 wrote: »

.

"its not helped"
In no way is that me saying distance members are bandits. Not even close.
You also miss out on the "thats a problem in all walks of life"

slave1 · 26-08-2014 12:46pm

First Up wrote: »

Surely the system is operating by the time you finish? Just sign in after the round instead of before.

No allowed, in fairness you can see why because folk could have a stormer of a round and then decide afterwards to enter the comp and on the other end of the stick could have a buffer round and therefore decide not worth their while entering.

First Up · 26-08-2014 12:51pm

slave1 wrote: »

No allowed, in fairness you can see why because folk could have a stormer of a round and then decide afterwards to enter the comp and on the other end of the stick could have a buffer round and therefore decide not worth their while entering.

I'm sure if you explained the situation to the competition secretary and/or the pro shop you could come to an arrangement.

GreeBo · 26-08-2014 12:51pm

slave1 wrote: »

No allowed, in fairness you can see why because folk could have a stormer of a round and then decide afterwards to enter the comp and on the other end of the stick could have a buffer round and therefore decide not worth their while entering.

90 minute delay between entering and submitting score in our place.

There would be war if the comp wasnt open intime for the first players.

First Up · 26-08-2014 12:52pm

GreeBo wrote: »

90 minute delay between entering and submitting score in our place.

There would be war if the comp wasnt open intime for the first players.

And rightly so, if no other arrangement was available.

nomunnnofun · 26-08-2014 1:20pm

slave1 wrote: »

No allowed, in fairness you can see why because folk could have a stormer of a round and then decide afterwards to enter the comp and on the other end of the stick could have a buffer round and therefore decide not worth their while entering.

Any chance you could pop into proshop after 9 holes to sign in. It will probably take more than 90 mins to play back nine and you can put in the score then. In fairness though, it is ridiculous not being able to sign in from 15 minutes prior to the first slot on timesheet.

Jus waiting for comments on slow play !!!

golfwallah · 26-08-2014 10:24pm

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

golfwallah this truckloads seems a bit of an exageration.

Every golf course in the country is supported by the tax payer in the form of a tax exemption.

I feel you are seriously underestimating the impact these public facilities have had as "feeders". I know my own route to golf was unusual, but I was one.

If you looked at a buisness case for any park facility , every single one would be closed in the morning. It is not the publics fault , that private courses built ivory towers and monstrosity club houses. During the boom years , these lads laughed and looked down on public facilities , yet half of them grew up on them.

But - now suddenly these public facilities are the focal of their frustration. Give us a break, and shut the library door on the way out.

Fingal County Council Public Golf Courses such as Corballis & Elm Green reported losses of €610,000 for 3 years up to 2010.

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

I have estimated that Fingal Co. Co. continues to subsidise these loss makers to the tune of an estimated €300,000 per annum each when you take account of all hidden costs.

Council employees can avail of reduced charges to play golf at these establishments.

The revenues and expenditures associated with FCC golf courses are almost impossible to isolate in the public record as they are buried in the FCC Recreation & Amenity spending budget, as published on its website. Information on the golf spend only filters out in response to very rare councillors’ questions, such as those raised by councillor Dennison in 2010 (http://www.kierandennison.com/2010/04/council-golf-courses-deep-in-red.html).

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

As a first step towards openness and transparency, FCC should clearly identify how much is being spent on each major sporting activity in their published budgets and accounts.

All the above prompts the question: Why is FCC so afraid that citizens will find out how much they are spending on golf compared to other facilities?

SaveOurLyric · 26-08-2014 10:49pm

golfwallah wrote: »

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

Maybe they have read your posts here, and know you have your knife in them even without you having the information.

Have you a vested interest in the golf industry ?

Eoinyh · 26-08-2014 10:54pm

A now come on Corballis is worth it

FixdePitchmark · 26-08-2014 10:59pm

Sounds impressive stuff Golfwallah.

But - I'm surprised how large the losses are - well it is 100,000 euro per year. The figures would need a bit more work - for example was there a once off payment in this year - course work - equipment purchased. (Yes the new design - fairly poor to look at that time over the life of the course )

The place does very well on green fees - yes is cheap , but golf all year.

The course maintenance is very low - and the clubhouse has little or no cost. Very low staff levels.

I've a personal belief that certain public services should be subsidised - for example you have certain Bus routes - train routes, parks, public amenities, libraries. Are not there to make money , you could also make the case that many hospital treatments are not justified.

But - I agree that the value to society of a specific sport like golf - is very difficult to quantify. In fact it would be a hard case to make.

But, I honestly believe the greatest benefactors of public golf are private golf clubs - if you did a survey and looked at the way people entered into golf - this route would be an important one.

So - I believe certain public facilitates should be losing money and we should have an attitude that this is ok once it is managed well and run efficiently.

But of all the ills that have happened in golf - public golf has made a positive impact over the last 30 years in Dublin.
If we really want to put the costs in perspective - how much was lost say in The Heritage alone - what/, about 30 million.

Yes we have had a tumultuous couple of years - there were many errors made in Private golf clubs. Public sector spending was rightly scrutinised.

But you can't take out the ills of Private golf clubs on the provision of public services. If you are looking at that , you are really scrapping the barrel - in a rather selfish way in my opinion. It was never an issue before - but is now , since 2 or 3 million was spent on daft clubhouses.

golfwallah · 27-08-2014 8:20am

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Sounds impressive stuff Golfwallah.

But - I'm surprised how large the losses are - well it is 100,000 euro per year. The figures would need a bit more work - for example was there a once off payment in this year - course work - equipment purchased. (Yes the new design - fairly poor to look at that time over the life of the course )

The place does very well on green fees - yes is cheap , but golf all year.

The course maintenance is very low - and the clubhouse has little or no cost. Very low staff levels.

I've a personal belief that certain public services should be subsidised - for example you have certain Bus routes - train routes, parks, public amenities, libraries. Are not there to make money , you could also make the case that many hospital treatments are not justified.

But - I agree that the value to society of a specific sport like golf - is very difficult to quantify. In fact it would be a hard case to make.

But, I honestly believe the greatest benefactors of public golf are private golf clubs - if you did a survey and looked at the way people entered into golf - this route would be an important one.

So - I believe certain public facilitates should be losing money and we should have an attitude that this is ok once it is managed well and run efficiently.

But of all the ills that have happened in golf - public golf has made a positive impact over the last 30 years in Dublin.
If we really want to put the costs in perspective - how much was lost say in The Heritage alone - what/, about 30 million.

Yes we have had a tumultuous couple of years - there were many errors made in Private golf clubs. Public sector spending was rightly scrutinised.

But you can't take out the ills of Private golf clubs on the provision of public services. If you are looking at that , you are really scrapping the barrel - in a rather selfish way in my opinion. It was never an issue before - but is now , since 2 or 3 million was spent on daft clubhouses.

Like most things in life, there’s usually a combination of factors contributing to any situation. It’s no different with the problems faced by the golf industry. To borrow from business parlance, there are strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing all golf clubs and there are differences from club to club as to which ones are more relevant at any particular point in time.

Subsidies to competitor golf clubs (NAMA or Council) are just one threat to member clubs. The only NAMA one around North County Dublin up to recently was Portmarnock Links – not a direct threat to most clubs as it operates in the higher end of the market. NAMA clubs are probably more of a threat to clubs in South County Dublin, Kildare and Wicklow. Corballis & Elm Green are competing in the same market segment as some clubs, but are not a major threat – I believe the smarter clubs don’t have a major problem competing right now but would like to see a more even playing pitch (e.g. through more transparent financial reporting, as applies to clubs set up as limited companies).

The biggest single threat facing member clubs are the economy, high house prices, etc., that restrict the cash available to spend on golf, particularly amongst people with young families, mortgages, etc.

Weaknesses are deficiencies in the approaches by clubs to maintaining / increasing golf club membership – this is improving and help is available from official golf sources such as the CGI – but there is still a long way to go to make golf more attractive and affordable to more people. Another weakness for some clubs is debt overhang form Celtic Boom trophy clubhouses, etc.

On the positive side member clubs have a lot more strengths (e.g. facilities, friendliness, practice facilities, coaching / lessons, bar, restaurant, etc.) than they sometime realise.

The same applies to opportunities – there are still relatively untapped areas of the market (e.g. the missing golf generation of 30 – 45 year olds, with less cash to spend on golf). This market segment is being aggressively exploited by the “distance clubs”. The recent move by GUI on eligibility for opens will help to some degree but I still believe that more clubs need to come up with more innovative solutions to bring a lot more of these people into golf membership.

golfwallah · 27-08-2014 8:45am

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Maybe they have read your posts here, and know you have your knife in them even without you having the information.

Have you a vested interest in the golf industry ?

Like most people on this forum my vested interest is that I am a regular golfer and golf club member (in my case, of a member owned club).

My vested interest is the continued survival of my club.

A few years ago, I served on committee and was also captain and chairman of the joint club committee which is responsible for the business end of things.

What prompted my interest in council courses was some of our members transferring to them and the fact that the local council course had a plethora of road direction and advertising signage. The council were demanding large fees for our club to have even vaguely similar road signage.

I became even more aware of the competitive threat, when the council brought in Carr Golf Services to manage their courses about 3 years ago. This professional management resource gives them considerable advantage over voluntary run clubs, that do not have the same expertise in marketing, internet, websites, etc.

But look, subsidised courses is just one issue among many that member clubs have to deal with. Some are facing up to and dealing with the challenges they face more professionally than others. I believe these are the ones that will survive and that a lot more change will take place in the club golfing scene over the next few years.

Russman · 27-08-2014 9:18am

golfwallah wrote: »

Subsidies to competitor golf clubs (NAMA or Council) are just one threat to member clubs. The only NAMA one around North County Dublin up to recently was Portmarnock Links – not a direct threat to most clubs as it operates in the higher end of the market. NAMA clubs are probably more of a threat to clubs in South County Dublin, Kildare and Wicklow. Corballis & Elm Green are competing in the same market segment as some clubs, but are not a major threat – I believe the smarter clubs don’t have a major problem competing right now but would like to see a more even playing pitch (e.g. through more transparent financial reporting, as applies to clubs set up as limited companies).

Why should a private club publish their results ? Its nobody's business but their own how they are doing.

IMHO council run clubs are not a significant threat to member clubs, and never have been. NAMA clubs are clearly a different matter and are arguably one of the biggest factors in the current difficulties facing member owned clubs (that, and mortgages for clubhouses). A small member owned club simply cannot compete with a subsidised NAMA facility on pretty much any measurable level, the course will be bigger and more modern, green fees will be equivalent or cheaper, there will likely be a practice ground, guaranteed restaurant/bar facilities etc. Its a massive distorting factor and all the goodwill and professionalism in the world will not get rid of that.

Ultimately people are more selfish now than ever before, and Joe Bloggs wants to be playing a New Forest, Tulfarris, Rathsallagh etc for €15 much more than he wants a Beech Park, Slade Valley, Castlewarden etc for €20.

One of the things that I think needs to happen is that golfers who came to the game, say in their 30s need to be convinced or persuaded of the benefits of being a member of a club, in terms of stuff like inter-club, friendships, trying to get cut, lots of intangibles. One thing I've noticed in the last 10 years or so, is that lots of guys (not all, obviously) who took up golf in their late 20s / 30s, for whatever reason have no interest in any of these things, broadly speaking they just want a game of golf on a Saturday with their 3 mates on as good a course as possible.
Nothing wrong with this, they're perfectly entitled to that, but if they opened up to the other benefits of being an active club member I feel they'd be more likely to stay in a club rather than chase deals each season going from club to club.

Russman · 27-08-2014 9:29am

golfwallah wrote: »

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

As a first step towards openness and transparency, FCC should clearly identify how much is being spent on each major sporting activity in their published budgets and accounts.

All the above prompts the question: Why is FCC so afraid that citizens will find out how much they are spending on golf compared to other facilities?

Do more people play rugby or golf ? I don't think that's a very good argument, that essentially you want sports other than your own to get subsidies but not golf because that distorts your target market. Its not like the county manager can give funding to different clubs, the only ones he can help are the local authority courses, hardly "preferred" ones.

Why should FCC split out the spend into the different sports ? Perhaps its part of their remit (I have no idea) to promote sport/health/lifestyle etc. etc.

Who says they are afraid ? Just because their accounting policy doesn't suit golf's agenda doesn't mean they are afraid.

mike12 · 27-08-2014 9:46am

Russman wrote: »

Why should a private club publish their results ? Its nobody's business but their own how they are doing.

IMHO council run clubs are not a significant threat to member clubs, and never have been. NAMA clubs are clearly a different matter and are arguably one of the biggest factors in the current difficulties facing member owned clubs (that, and mortgages for clubhouses). A small member owned club simply cannot compete with a subsidised NAMA facility on pretty much any measurable level, the course will be bigger and more modern, green fees will be equivalent or cheaper, there will likely be a practice ground, guaranteed restaurant/bar facilities etc. Its a massive distorting factor and all the goodwill and professionalism in the world will not get rid of that.

Ultimately people are more selfish now than ever before, and Joe Bloggs wants to be playing a New Forest, Tulfarris, Rathsallagh etc for €15 much more than he wants a Beech Park, Slade Valley, Castlewarden etc for €20.

One of the things that I think needs to happen is that golfers who came to the game, say in their 30s need to be convinced or persuaded of the benefits of being a member of a club, in terms of stuff like inter-club, friendships, trying to get cut, lots of intangibles. One thing I've noticed in the last 10 years or so, is that lots of guys (not all, obviously) who took up golf in their late 20s / 30s, for whatever reason have no interest in any of these things, broadly speaking they just want a game of golf on a Saturday with their 3 mates on as good a course as possible.
Nothing wrong with this, they're perfectly entitled to that, but if they opened up to the other benefits of being an active club member I feel they'd be more likely to stay in a club rather than chase deals each season going from club to club.

Maybe the best thing for these clubs to do is buy the NAMA course and close their own. As you say the paying public know what they want. In NCD the talk of Forrest Little closing and them moving to St.Mags sounds like a great idea. Make a strong club with a bit of cash behind them on a much stronger course.

Russman · 27-08-2014 10:02am

mike12 wrote: »

Maybe the best thing for these clubs to do is buy the NAMA course and close their own. As you say the paying public know what they want. In NCD the talk of Forrest Little closing and them moving to St.Mags sounds like a great idea. Make a strong club with a bit of cash behind them on a much stronger course.

But how could they afford it ?
And fund it going forward ? The point is that these NAMA courses would not be viable if they weren't being subsidised. Joe Bloggs would get his game for €15 but it would be on a very different course, fairways not cut, poor bunkers etc. Most "average" type member courses couldn't afford the size of green keeping team required. IMO Joe has unrealistic expectations.

New Rule for eligibility to Away Opens

Comments