Golf Memberships

GreeBo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Is that a record lads (what 9 posts ? )

Not helpful thanks

GreeBo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Greebo.

Have you any ideas how the game should be promoted ?

Who should do this ?

Or - do you think we should stick to the existing model ?

Are you happy the GUI are doing enough for the game ?

You clearly think the gui should be doing this, yet follow the link I posted earlier, it's not what they are trying to do.
Individual clubs provide the facilities for young people to play, that's the nature of entry to our game.

I think the GUI are very good at what they have set out to achieve, rating them against things that are not their targets is plain wrong.

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

The GUI part of the solution "few private clubs want a bunch of kids turning up with no connection to the club, it is not a field" is one of the attitudes that is perpetuating/accelerating the decline in playing numbers that is the root of this distance dilemma. I never said there was a problem coming to a sport through a connection but i coach in schoolboy football and at u 8's starting off most people have no connection with the club when they bring their kids down to start playing. Now i know it is not as simple as that in golf but their needs to be better access to the game for people with no natural connection to it. There are no play as you play courses near a good percentage of the population. As for it being unreasonable for me to expect the body that governs the game to promote the development of it in young people thats the same as me saying it is unreasonable for me to expect the FAI to promote schoolboy football.

indeed it's not as simple as that. A simple sweeping statement that glosses over the specific challenges golf faces.
wet spoke about Sweden earlier, do you think their success is anything to do with the huge success rate of their professionals?
the FAI and the GUI are not comparable at all.

GreeBo

cairny wrote: »

Why have so few clubs have closed? Even excluding the NAMA ones the hit rate has been pretty low as far as I can see, even those clubs with huge capital debts seem to be trundling along somehow.

I haven't really noticed a drop in course standards either ( again excluding Nama).

It does seem unsustainable long term but perhaps we underestimate the resilience of member owned and run clubs and the community spirit that goes with it?

II think not for profit clubs have cut way back, wages and positions have been cut heavily for example.
they will naturally be loathe to drop standards unless no other option.
also not as obvious cost cutting is being done, extended life of machinery that would ordinarily be replaced, condition of club house, even cutting the fairway or rough one time less saves achunk of change.
The championship courses have dropped standards sharply in my view.

golfwallah

cairny wrote: »

Why have so few clubs have closed? Even excluding the NAMA ones the hit rate has been pretty low as far as I can see, even those clubs with huge capital debts seem to be trundling along somehow.

I haven't really noticed a drop in course standards either ( again excluding Nama).

It does seem unsustainable long term but perhaps we underestimate the resilience of member owned and run clubs and the community spirit that goes with it?

There is no hard research on this but I would put it down to a number of factors (or combinations thereof), such as:

• Subsidised courses – NAMA, local authorities – don’t have to worry about repaying or servicing borrowings (which are a big part of cost in many clubs)
• Courses in receivership – receivers trying to maximise returns to creditors, where golf courses have limited short to medium term value for agricultural use (they are full of hills, ponds and chemicals).
• Insolvent courses supported by their banks – banks trying to maximise how much they can recover from substantial loans by taking a longer than “normal” view of situations.
• Financial support from individual members in the form of loans / bonds (that may never be repaid) or donations.
• Advance payment of subs early in year preceding membership year (helps cash flow) or for a number of years (definitely a short-term remedy)
• Cost reduction – there is plenty of scope for action and every area of the club needs to be looked at in detail, e.g. bar, restaurant, competitive tendering for supplier / service provider contracts, course staff, materials, etc.
• Use of reserves – must be drying up as time progresses
• Cash flow management – late payment of creditors – although supplies will eventually be cut off.
• Replacement of paid workers by volunteers – not really a viable long term solution for most clubs.

There's also renegotiation of bank loans - over a longer period or interest only for a few years. I imagine there are more that others can think of, but I agree there have been very few closures so far.

Derek Zoolander

golfwallah wrote: »

There is no hard research on this but I would put it down to a number of factors (or combinations thereof), such as:

• Subsidised courses – NAMA, local authorities – don’t have to worry about repaying or servicing borrowings (which are a big part of cost in many clubs)
• Courses in receivership – receivers trying to maximise returns to creditors, where golf courses have limited short to medium term value for agricultural use (they are full of hills, ponds and chemicals).
• Insolvent courses supported by their banks – banks trying to maximise how much they can recover from substantial loans by taking a longer than “normal” view of situations.
• Financial support from individual members in the form of loans / bonds (that may never be repaid) or donations.
• Advance payment of subs early in year preceding membership year (helps cash flow) or for a number of years (definitely a short-term remedy)
• Cost reduction – there is plenty of scope for action and every area of the club needs to be looked at in detail, e.g. bar, restaurant, competitive tendering for supplier / service provider contracts, course staff, materials, etc.
• Use of reserves – must be drying up as time progresses
• Cash flow management – late payment of creditors – although supplies will eventually be cut off.
• Replacement of paid workers by volunteers – not really a viable long term solution for most clubs.

There's also renegotiation of bank loans - over a longer period or interest only for a few years. I imagine there are more that others can think of, but I agree there have been very few closures so far.

This... It's no different than the housing market - banks even though they've been recapitalised are loathe to actually crystallise losses with they should already have on their balance sheet. (For whatever reason )

Banks will subsidise a false operating environment (exactly the same as with private property where they need to stop subsidising people who can no longer afford their homes)

They need to do the same with golf clubs and the market will at least normalise to the current climate.

golfwallah

Derek Zoolander wrote: »

This... It's no different than the housing market - banks even though they've been recapitalised are loathe to actually crystallise losses with they should already have on their balance sheet. (For whatever reason )

Banks will subsidise a false operating environment (exactly the same as with private property where they need to stop subsidising people who can no longer afford their homes)

They need to do the same with golf clubs and the market will at least normalise to the current climate.

Good point.

Meanwhile, Joe the taxpayer, foots the bill!

FixdePitchmark

But this is what they say.

"In addition there are many public pay-as-you pay courses throughout the country, and the Golfing Union of Ireland, as part of its aims to promote and develop the game has provided financial assistance to the building of many of these courses through means of grants and interest free loans"

Greebo - as a man who can take apart posts .

What do you think of above ?

To me, it is - wishy washy outsourcing. It is not the way all other sports are promoted. It is sort of, let them eat cake - in the "fields" they wish. We will do the odd shakedown.

The point people are making is, times have changed and the sport is in decline. They are not doing enough to promote the game.
If you are saying it is not their raison d'etre - then I'm asking you , who should promote the game ? Are they doing enough ?

Have a look at this statement

"More and more new golf courses opened throughout the country to meet the demand of the golf-hungry enthusiasts, and even today that trend is continuing at an ever growing pace.

For example, there were 248 golf clubs affiliated to the Golfing Union in 1986, catering for 123,000 golfers. Today there are 430 affiliated clubs, with over 150,000 members.. "

This to me this is an organisation living in the glorious past. To be honest out of touch. This is their current About Us - no direction of the future , no mention of the current situation.

but you can look up the past presidents on the About Us.
Any distance members in the past ?

If that is the About Us - I think they need a statment of vision - of the future.

Again - I play the game . It is not being promoted as all other sports I've seen. You can fool yourself - that things are fine because a few clubs can charge an entry fee.

But - that is missing the point.

golfwallah

Derek Zoolander wrote: »

This... It's no different than the housing market - banks even though they've been recapitalised are loathe to actually crystallise losses with they should already have on their balance sheet. (For whatever reason )

Banks will subsidise a false operating environment (exactly the same as with private property where they need to stop subsidising people who can no longer afford their homes)

They need to do the same with golf clubs and the market will at least normalise to the current climate.

There are quite a few courses (I'm sure many can remember) that have been sold by receivers for knock down prices and then leased back to their former clubs (i.e. change of ownership but continued club operation).

Others (I know of at least one), with large loans to overseas banks now pulling out of Ireland, have had massive debt write-downs.

The irony of it all is that clubs that failed have been rescued, whereas many that were and are balancing their books are placed in greater danger of failure. Darwinism in reverse, I guess!

redhead999

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

Really can you elaborate please. In another post you gave out about minor members being looked down on by full members yet in the same post you say they have ruined the club and that's why you are leaving. Forgive me i have just reached for a large pinch of salt. Money grabbers on the committee, dont remember that being brought up at the AGM.

Hardly seeing as no notification letters weren't sent out about the AGM as per stipulation in the constitution of the club, was rather poorly attended with a limited agenda. As they like it, quiet and under the mat.

FixdePitchmark

golfwallah wrote: »

There are quite a few courses (I'm sure many can remember) that have been sold by receivers for knock down prices and then leased back to their former clubs (i.e. change of ownership but continued club operation).

Others (I know of at least one), with large loans to overseas banks now pulling out of Ireland, have had massive debt write-downs.

The irony of it all is that clubs that failed have been rescued, whereas many that were and are balancing their books are placed in greater danger of failure. Darwinism in reverse, I guess!

I know we don't like radical ideas here.

Because - as Golfwallah says - you have to get them supported.

But can I ask -

Why should the GUI let these clubs by affiliated ?

Derek Zoolander

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I know we don't like radical ideas here.

Because - as Golfwallah says - you have to get them supported.

But can I ask -

Why should the GUI let these clubs by affiliated ?

This is the crux of the issue - as the governing body in my opinion they should be accountable for ensuring any affiliation that they give is to a club in good standing.

This to me means ensuring oversight of the operating feasibility of each member - debt, how they service the debt - below cost selling (distance membership) and if
that club is offering a sufficient service to warrant being part of the GUI franchise

golfwallah

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

But this is what they say.

"In addition there are many public pay-as-you pay courses throughout the country, and the Golfing Union of Ireland, as part of its aims to promote and develop the game has provided financial assistance to the building of many of these courses through means of grants and interest free loans"

Greebo - as a man who can take apart posts .

What do you think of above ?

To me, it is - wishy washy outsourcing. It is not the way all other sports are promoted. It is sort of, let them eat cake - in the "fields" they wish. We will do the odd shakedown.

The point people are making is, times have changed and the sport is in decline. They are not doing enough to promote the game.
If you are saying it is not their raison d'etre - then I'm asking you , who should promote the game ? Are they doing enough ?

Have a look at this statement

"More and more new golf courses opened throughout the country to meet the demand of the golf-hungry enthusiasts, and even today that trend is continuing at an ever growing pace.

For example, there were 248 golf clubs affiliated to the Golfing Union in 1986, catering for 123,000 golfers. Today there are 430 affiliated clubs, with over 150,000 members.. "

This to me this is an organisation living in the glorious past. To be honest out of touch. This is their current About Us - no direction of the future , no mention of the current situation.

but you can look up the past presidents on the About Us.
Any distance members in the past ?

If that is the About Us - I think they need a statment of vision - of the future.

Again - I play the game . It is not being promoted as all other sports I've seen. You can fool yourself - that things are fine because a few clubs can charge an entry fee.

But - that is missing the point.

Promotion of a sport needs skilled resources – either voluntary, professional or a combination of both. Limitations in resources also force the GUI to “outsource” activities they are unable to undertake themselves.

I’d agree that the GUI have performed poorly in the area of communications and promotion. Belatedly they are trying to do something about it by jointly (with ILGU & PGA) setting up another “not for profit” to promote the sport / club membership and also with their strategic plan “Roadmap 2017”.

I’d tend to agree that this is all just a tad too little and too late but then the GUI is largely a voluntary organisation and clubs / members also have a role to play. Also the GUI, like the GAA and other voluntary organisations, is “us” as much as it is “them”. There is a tendency for many people to take the easy option of expecting others to do all the work, while they simply avail of the “service”.

I hear it a lot in my own club .... “they (the committee) should do this, that or the other”. Remember it well when I coached football / hurling in my own local GAA Club for many years. Like, the mother who asked me “why is my little Johnny not getting a game”? That was years ago and 2/3 of us were up to our eyes trying to look after over 20 kids. I asked “where is your husband”? She replied “he has to play golf today”. Says it all really!

You need to remember also that the GAA have the advantage of large earning capacity for county matches and some of this, plus professional coaching camps, etc. eventually filters down to the clubs. There is also the local community aspect, passion, tradition and large numbers of kids involved (plus parents to support, even if never enough).

Contrast this to golf, where most people have just about enough time to play a round and relatively few even come in for a cup of coffee after – let alone help with a few operational day to day issues – never mind promotional or other activities for the national “good of the game”.

GreeBo

Derek Zoolander wrote: »

This is the crux of the issue - as the governing body in my opinion they should be accountable for ensuring any affiliation that they give is to a club in good standing.

This to me means ensuring oversight of the operating feasibility of each member - debt, how they service the debt - below cost selling (distance membership) and if
that club is offering a sufficient service to warrant being part of the GUI franchise

I Don't think they belong anywhere near the running of golf clubs tbh. Each club is different and will have adifferent financial model.
what they should control is affiliation and the rules governing it, let clubs look after themselves, according to affiliation rules.

Removing clubs affiliation will reduce the numbers playing, I don't see how that helps anyone?

golfwallah

Derek Zoolander wrote: »

This is the crux of the issue - as the governing body in my opinion they should be accountable for ensuring any affiliation that they give is to a club in good standing.

This to me means ensuring oversight of the operating feasibility of each member - debt, how they service the debt - below cost selling (distance membership) and if
that club is offering a sufficient service to warrant being part of the GUI franchise

Theorising is all well and good but you need to be realistic and bear in mind that the GUI is a "not for profit", voluntary, representative body run on largely democratic lines.

Moving armies or other wished for resources on paper is one thing - making it happen in real life is quite another.

The GUI have no mandate (or resources) from the clubs they were set up to represent to conduct the type of business / financial scrutiny of clubs that your are talking about. Just read their constitution or have a look through their website if you want a fuller understanding of their role.

What they are providing is access to business training that is badly needed in clubs - after that clubs are free to avail of such training and advice or ignore it altogether.

PARlance

I think the GUI can get the wrong end of the stick sometimes.

They've been very active over the last few years anyway. They mightn't shout about it, but actions like the setting up of the CGI was a great move.
http://www.gui.ie/munster/news/confederation-of-golf-in-ireland-formed
They (CGI) seem to be very active and take a hands on approach to promoting the game and offering assistance to clubs from what I've seen.

FixdePitchmark

It seems a great start. Well done.

Far more professional look http://www.cgigolf.org/

Don't want to be overly negative - but it is poorly named (IMO).
Get Into Golf - a more catchy number.

They somehow need a higher profile.

This is what I was looking for - a clear mission.

The leaders of the Golfing Union of Ireland (GUI), the Irish Ladies Golf Union (ILGU) and the Professional Golfers Association (Irish Region) have agreed on a new strategy for golf in Ireland that will ensure the three organisations are positioned to meet new opportunities and challenges facing the game in Ireland over the next 8 years. The process is supported by the Irish Sports Council (ISC) and Sport Northern Ireland (SNI).


I think it is something that they should shout about.

GreeBo

Shout to whom?

slave1

GreeBo wrote: »

Shout to whom?

TV and Radio Media, Facebook, Twitter, local and national newspapers and every golf club in Ireland for a start

PARlance

slave1 wrote: »

TV and Radio Media, Facebook, Twitter, local and national newspapers and every golf club in Ireland for a start

They are active on social media. Facebook page is great to follow, plenty of good ideas and you get a sense that they've connecting with clubs.

PARlance

Just reading over the last few pages. I don't know how Sweden was put forward as an example of how fees needed to be high????

GreeBo wrote: »

Exactly, as above plenty of Irish clubs operate in the exact same way.
Sweden has 460 golf courses with 460,000 members.
I picked a random club (Haverdals), greenfee is €50, entrance of €300 and then its €500 a year subs.
Not exactly rock bottom golf imo.


OK, so using your own numbers, 8 clubs have 4,000 distance members, so 500 distance members each.
Even if you are way off, lets say its half as many, thats still 250 members in each club. You dont think thats simply selling GUI handicap certs?
One wonders what they will do if all 500 turn up for a game some day...

What happens in Sweden when the 1,000 members of each club turn up? 460,000 members / 460 Clubs.

The example you've picked from Sweden is far more Slievenamon than Stackstown.... Far closer to the tiny % of "distance courses" talked about ad nauseum here than to the majority of middle tier/average clubs.

€500 a year in Sweden is nothing, once you factor the increased wages between the two countries, then relatively, it's about €380-390 for the full membership!!!!
With an average of 1,000 members per course it points much more towards the opposite side of your argument (Higher participation, lower costs)
Sure I pay twice that for a public course here.

As I mentioned earlier, this whole distance debate is a storm in a tea cup. It's irrelevant in the greater scheme of things.
For some reason those who fear it have read that the modern golfer wants a more flexible type of membership and think that we're all heading for the trip to Tipp.
How it's going to get worse in 2015 as opposed to 2008,2009,2010 is beyond me.

That's the type of fear and opinion that festers when Billy and his few mates have been taking to nobody but themselves, in their regular 4 ball, for the last few decades. They may never lose 4 hours of their lives by having to play with a stranger but they certainly lose touch with the reality of what's happening outside their little bubble.

GreeBo

slave1 wrote: »

TV and Radio Media, Facebook, Twitter, local and national newspapers and every golf club in Ireland for a start

Why would they do any of that?
have you read anything on their site?
they are aimed at golf clubs, go read their bit about taking up golf.
" ask your parents to bring you to the local golf club"
Ground breaking idea that no one would have known if it weren't for this new site.

They are there to help grow the game through clubs and also promoting the game via the professional ranks and getting more people to the elite levels.

leonards

Just seen on twitter golf digest - that one of the growing trends in US golf is courses offering the option for 6 hole, 9 hole, 12 hole green fees....

How about less opens needed if this type of green fee could replace weekly open revenue ?

Also Reduced playing costs for new golfers / juniors / nomads

GreeBo

PARlance wrote: »

Just reading over the last few pages. I don't know how Sweden was put forward as an example of how fees needed to be high????



What happens in Sweden when the 1,000 members of each club turn up? 460,000 members / 460 Clubs.

The example you've picked from Sweden is far more Slievenamon than Stackstown.... Far closer to the tiny % of "distance courses" talked about ad nauseum here than to the majority of middle tier/average clubs.

€500 a year in Sweden is nothing, once you factor the increased wages between the two countries, then relatively, it's about €380-390 for the full membership!!!!
With an average of 1,000 members per course it points much more towards the opposite side of your argument (Higher participation, lower costs)
Sure I pay twice that for a public course here.

As I mentioned earlier, this whole distance debate is a storm in a tea cup. It's irrelevant in the greater scheme of things.
For some reason those who fear it have read that the modern golfer wants a more flexible type of membership and think that we're all heading for the trip to Tipp.
How it's going to get worse in 2015 as opposed to 2008,2009,2010 is beyond me.

That's the type of fear and opinion that festers when Billy and his few mates have been taking to nobody but themselves, in their regular 4 ball, for the last few decades. They may never lose 4 hours of their lives by having to play with a stranger but they certainly lose touch with the reality of what's happening outside their little bubble.

I don't it was put forward add an example of that?

Do you honestly not see a difference between all clubs having low participation levels and a couple of clubs in Ireland, that happen to offer rock bottom distance membership, having impossible membership levels.

You don't think that things will get worse *because* it's gotten worse every year for the previous 6 years? That seems like flawed logic to me.

Perhaps you should try playing agame with Billy and break down some of those preconceived notions you have?

GreeBo

leonards wrote: »

Just seen on twitter golf digest - that one of the growing trends in US golf is courses offering the option for 6 hole, 9 hole, 12 hole green fees....

How about less opens needed if this type of green fee could replace weekly open revenue ?

Also Reduced playing costs for new golfers / juniors / nomads

9 or even 6 holes still blocks up the timesheet, unless you are going to start them somewhere other than the first, so it will still be the same 3 days of the week in demand I reckon.

leonards

GreeBo wrote: »

9 or even 6 holes still blocks up the timesheet, unless you are going to start them somewhere other than the first, so it will still be the same 3 days of the week in demand I reckon.

Kids are off the whole summer?
Adults could play 6 / 9 holes summer evenings. Or after last members tees off for the weekend 18 hole comp.

GreeBo

leonards wrote: »

Kids are off the whole summer?
Adults could play 6 / 9 holes summer evenings. Or after last members tees off for the weekend 18 hole comp.

Kids would typically have to be members though, you can't just let young kids roam on a golf course.

Ithink every course has reduced rates in the evening, but that's also exactly when working members want to play.

Filling your course to capacity at all viable times will result in your full members leaving, the whole benefit of being afull member would be gone.

leonards

GreeBo wrote: »

Kids would typically have to be members though, you can't just let young kids roam on a golf course.

Ithink every course has reduced rates in the evening, but that's also exactly when working members want to play.

Filling your course to capacity at all viable times will result in your full members leaving, the whole benefit of being afull member would be gone.

The point is we need kids playing who are NOT already members. To get the number of future full members (not distance members) up. We needs more kids in golf who are not the sons/daughters of the current members. IMHO.

GreeBo

leonards wrote: »

The point is we need kids playing who are NOT already members. To get the number of future full members (not distance members) up. We needs more kids in golf who are not the sons/daughters of the current members. IMHO.

And i just think that's unrealistic for any more than very small numbers.

If your club can't fill it's juvenile slots from children of members then perhaps there is another issue at the club?
These should be pretty low hanging fruit.

GreeBo

Looking at playing rates compared to population sizes I don't think Ireland is doing too badly.
I think perhaps expectations are too high on here.

Logistics alone well mean golf will never be like rugby or divert.

leonards

GreeBo wrote: »

And i just think that's unrealistic for any more than very small numbers.

If your club can't fill it's juvenile slots from children of members then perhaps there is another issue at the club?
These should be pretty low hanging fruit.

Not that interested in more juvenile members - not my point. The point is more kids playing golf who's parents don't already play golf. Increase the gene pool

So down the line they join clubs, pay full members fees. instead of cheap distance member route. Or even worse - start wearing lycra and joining one if these new cycling gangs that i see all over the roads on sat and Sunday mornings...

GreeBo

leonards wrote: »

Not that interested in more juvenile members - not my point. The point is more kids playing golf who's parents don't already play golf. Increase the gene pool

So down the line they join clubs, pay full members fees. instead of cheap distance member route. Or even worse - start wearing lycra and joining one if these new cycling gangs that i see all over the roads on sat and Sunday mornings...

But they need courses to play on, courses that already have kids on them during the appropriate times...

Most parents have more than one child, the pool is growing organically. It was growing at asustainable rate, then like everything else it got ahead of itself and its now contracting.

You do raise agood point, if clubs don't have agood junior programme they are petty much fecked, it takes along time for those kids to pay full fees and you will lose some along the way. But kids of golfing parents are by far the best bet for the future.

downthemiddle

GreeBo wrote: »

One wonders what they will do if all 500 turn up for a game some day...

There would be chaos just like there would be in your club if the majority of members all turned up to play on the one day. For that reason we operate a time sheet which I didn't realise was such an innovative idea. Perhaps , as you don't appear to be familiar with the concept, you should suggest it to your committees. I'm sure , like the majority of posters on this forum, they would appreciate your input and revolutionary thoughts.

Kingswood Rover

redhead999 wrote: »

Hardly seeing as no notification letters weren't sent out about the AGM as per stipulation in the constitution of the club, was rather poorly attended with a limited agenda. As they like it, quiet and under the mat.

Totally agree and thats why 5 people stepped up to the plate in the last couple of weeks and joined the committee because they have been so under resourced and short of manpower. The website has been pants this year and this also needs to be addressed so stay stop bitching and make 6 new people on the committee send me a private message if you want to discuss further

GreeBo

downthemiddle wrote: »

There would be chaos just like there would be in your club if the majority of members all turned up to play on the one day. For that reason we operate a time sheet which I didn't realise was such an innovative idea. Perhaps , as you don't appear to be familiar with the concept, you should suggest it to your committees. I'm sure , like the majority of posters on this forum, they would appreciate your input and revolutionary thoughts.

Our clearly groundbreaking club has a constitution that limits the number of members based on over 100 years of statistics about timesheet pressure. It's carefully monitored and increased or decreased each year as required, by a members vote.

Wanna try again?

Kingswood Rover

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

It seems a great start. Well done.

Far more professional look http://www.cgigolf.org/

Don't want to be overly negative - but it is poorly named (IMO).
Get Into Golf - a more catchy number.

They somehow need a higher profile.

This is what I was looking for - a clear mission.

The leaders of the Golfing Union of Ireland (GUI), the Irish Ladies Golf Union (ILGU) and the Professional Golfers Association (Irish Region) have agreed on a new strategy for golf in Ireland that will ensure the three organisations are positioned to meet new opportunities and challenges facing the game in Ireland over the next 8 years. The process is supported by the Irish Sports Council (ISC) and Sport Northern Ireland (SNI).


I think it is something that they should shout about.

2nd line of the section "getting into golf" and i quote "At first you may need to play golf with your parents or older members of the golf club" says it all for me. What it should say is " ring your local GUI junior coordinator who will arrange entry into your nearest participating GOLF A SPORT FOR LIFE programme"

downthemiddle

GreeBo wrote: »

Our clearly groundbreaking club has a constitution that limits the number of members based on over 100 years of statistics about timesheet pressure. It's carefully monitored and increased or decreased each year as required, by a members vote.

Wanna try again?

So my post was as relevant as yours?

GreeBo

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

2nd line of the section "getting into golf" and i quote "At first you may need to play golf with your parents or older members of the club" says it all for me

Like i said, who exactly would you "shout" this revolutionary idea to?

leonards

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

2nd line of the section "getting into golf" and i quote "At first you may need to play golf with your parents or older members of the club" says it all for me

Why can't schools bring a PE class to local course... Like back in the day when we went to local pool for swimming lessons....

GreeBo

downthemiddle wrote: »

So my post was as relevant as yours?

I'm sorry, i don't understand your post at all.
my post responded directly to the point (scoring) you made.

downthemiddle

leonards wrote: »

Why can't schools bring a PE class to local course... Like back in the day when we went to local pool for swimming lessons....

Swimming is on the PE curriculum. Despite the efforts of the GUI golf isn't.

downthemiddle

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm sorry, i don't understand your post at all.
my post responded directly to the point (scoring) you made.

Point scoring??? I was only pointing out the nonsensical point you had made.

GreeBo

leonards wrote: »

Why can't schools bring a PE class to local course... Like back in the day when we went to local pool for swimming lessons....

I'm Sure they could, if they arranged it with the club.

Again, without acourse to play on the rest is just talk.
and why would acourse give up valuable time for cheap if they could get an outing out instead?
Unless you want gui to give inscribed to clubs for this...which they could raise by increasing the levy...oh.

GreeBo

downthemiddle wrote: »

Point scoring??? I was only pointing out the nonsensical point you had made.

So then reply to my response perhaps?

maybe, I dunno, argue your point?

downthemiddle

GreeBo wrote: »

So then reply to my response perhaps?

maybe, I dunno, argue your point?

I did and pointed out that most clubs have safeguards to ensure they can cope with a quota of golfers on any given day. What would happen in your club if the majority of members all decided to turn up on the one day ?

Kingswood Rover

GreeBo wrote: »

Looking at playing rates compared to population sizes I don't think Ireland is doing too badly.
I think perhaps expectations are too high on here.

Logistics alone well mean golf will never be like rugby or divert.

Ireland is doing crap should be aiming at participation rates comparable to Sweden.

Kingswood Rover

GreeBo wrote: »

Like i said, who exactly would you "shout" this revolutionary idea to?

People who have no natural connection to the game

GreeBo

downthemiddle wrote: »

I did and pointed out that most clubs have safeguards to ensure they can cope with a quota of golfers on any given day. What would happen in your club if the majority of members all decided to turn up on the one day ?

So every day is controlled by timesheet and there is no casual golf? Sounds very stuffy to me.

Again, the membership is restricted to make this not an issue.

We have around 400 full members, based on the stats here some clubs have more than that with just distance members. But you think that's normal and not in any way exploiting a category?

GreeBo

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

People who have no natural connection to the game

How likely are they to take up golf randomly with no one in their lives already connected to the game?
would their natural first step not be to approach a golf club anyway?
what new ideas is the CGI bringing to the table exactly?

GreeBo

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

Ireland is doing crap should be aiming at participation rates comparable to Sweden.

Sweden has over 5 times our population yet under 3 times our golfing population?
we have better participation than they do!

Kingswood Rover

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm Sure they could, if they arranged it with the club.

Again, without acourse to play on the rest is just talk.
and why would acourse give up valuable time for cheap if they could get an outing out instead?
Unless you want gui to give inscribed to clubs for this...which they could raise by increasing the levy...oh.

Because it is to the benefit of the clubs in the long term, as for increasing the levy to promote golf to sections of the population that have not had a chance to try it out, yes i would welcome this.