Golf Memberships

downthemiddle

GreeBo wrote: »

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?

Still not addressing the point

Would your club cope if the majority of members turned up tomorrow to play golf and don't forget you have more members than those in the full category?

GreeBo

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

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.

Clubs in trouble need money now, not in 20 years when these kids might join.

So on one hand golf is too expensive, but on another you again want members to subsidize yet more people?
that doesn't seem to add up.

downthemiddle wrote: »

Still not addressing the point

Would your club cope if the majority of members turned up tomorrow to play golf and don't forget you have more members than those in the full category?

Again, our numbers are strictly limited for this reason.
in the middle of summer the vast, vast majority would get out.
full members have priority, they are paying for it.

Kingswood Rover

GreeBo wrote: »

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

Sorry Greebo you are wrong according to Swedish Golf on Line Sweden has a population of 9.4 million with over 490000 registered players that beats the pants off us and with a worse climate. Rates similar to the Sweden is where we need to be aiming to ensure the future of the sport and all clubs.

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

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?

You introduced the example of the Swedish club. You tell me what point you were trying to make so.

While your at it you could give me some proof that the distance membership is on the rise each year.

I've played with all types of golfers and am happy to do so. I've played with millionaires in Ballybunion to lads on the scratcher in Elm Green. Enjoyed the company of both equally.
If Billy would have me, I'd happily play with him too. The problem is that some Billy's are happy in their own little bubble.

GreeBo

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

Sorry Greebo you are wrong according to Swedish Golf on Line Sweden has a population of 9.4 million with over 490000 registered players that beats the pants off us and with a worse climate. Rates similar to the Sweden is where we need to be aiming to ensure the future of the sport and all clubs.

My maths were a little off alright, but I hardly think ~5% is beating the pants of ~4%? Matching their rates would give us another 1650 players....hardly game changing?

The biggest impact to their playing numbers?
Clubs taking on juniors with no obligation to make them full members.

Revolutionary idea huh!

GreeBo

PARlance wrote: »

You introduced the example of the Swedish club. You tell me what point you were trying to make so.

While your at it you could give me some proof that the distance membership is on the rise each year.

I've played with all types of golfers and am happy to do so. I've played with millionaires in Ballybunion to lads on the scratcher in Elm Green. Enjoyed the company of both equally.
If Billy would have me, I'd happily play with him too. The problem is that some Billy's are happy in their own little bubble.

Actually Russman did in post #483.

Country membership is within a couple of its lowest ever, yet "other" is twice what it was in 1986. I think distance membership must make up a fair percentage of that, I think most other categories are covered?

Im not sure what your point about Billy is, I think its been categorically stated (several times) that no one has any problem with distance members themselves?

downthemiddle

GreeBo wrote: »

Clubs in trouble need money now, not in 20 years when these kids might join.

So on one hand golf is too expensive, but on another you again want members to subsidize yet more people?
that doesn't seem to add up.

Again, our numbers are strictly limited for this reason.
in the middle of summer the vast, vast majority would get out.
full members have priority, they are paying for it.

How many different membership categories do you have and how many members in each category so we can gauge the accuracy of your response?

FixdePitchmark

I would agree with GreeBo that the CGI is not exactly revolutionary - delighted to see that ILGU are involved. Ladies are far more inclusive with their game and far better organisers.

The requirement to set up a new group, is an acknowledgement that what people on here are saying about the game is correct. It is also an acknowledgement that the GUI and the game in Ireland was not doing enough for the game.

I'll be honest - I don't trust the lads who have come from the blazer background with the future of the game. At least the CGI is a dilution of this. You could say a blazer top, but tracksuit bottom.

I would genuinely read some of posts here and be very worried if that is the attitude towards ways to improve participation.

Have you any ideas yourself GreeBo ? . Or are you 100 % happy with the way things are going ? Or is it just your happy the way thing are going for you ?

By the way, golf can be introduced to kids without going to a course - going to a course can be the end point - you start them with cones, then pitch and putt, then par 3.

Then our blazer friends may invite them in for a day - I'd bring them in for a day - I'd pay for it.


Just to add.

It is amazing the difference , just one day can make to a young mind , they never forget it. Never .

GreeBo

downthemiddle wrote: »

How many different membership categories do you have and how many members in each category so we can gauge the accuracy of your response?

I guess you'll just have to trust that my club is (still) properly run, by its members.

GreeBo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I would agree with GreeBo that the CGI is not exactly revolutionary - delighted to see that ILGU are involved. Ladies are far more inclusive with their game and far better organisers.

The requirement to set up a new group, is an acknowledgement that what people on here are saying about the game is correct. It is also an acknowledgement that the GUI and the game in Ireland was not doing enough for the game.

I'll be honest - I don't trust the lads who have come from the blazer background with the future of the game. At least the CGI is a dilution of this. You could say a blazer top but tracksuit bottom.

I would genuinely read some of posts here and be verry worried if that is the attitude for ways to improve participation.

Have you any ideas yourself GreeBo ? . Or are you 100 % happy with the way things are going ? Or is it just your happy the way thing are going for you ?

By the way golf can be introduced to kids without going to a course - going to a course can be the end point - you start them with cones, then pitch and putt, then par 3.

Then our blazer friends may invite them in for a day - I'd bring them in for a day - I'd pay for it.


Just to add.

It is amazing the difference , just one day can make to a young mind , they never forget it. Never .

No matter how many organisations you come up with, golf will always be mostly grown by parents and their kids. Its inevitable.

Their best bet is to invest in the inter club and the top level amateur elite. The more successful professionals Ireland has, the more likely kids are going to want to take up the game. Unless people really think that golf is in the one sport that this doenst happen in?

Yeah golf can be played in a field. But who organises that? who rents the field? Who pays the insurance? Who sets up the playing area?

Thats been done, we call them golf courses!

There are plenty of public, par 3 and pitch and putt courses around the country. You never have to drive very far to see one. Do you really think the GUI is going to be able to run events for kids on the €15 you give them every year?

Swimming clubs, tennis clubs, badminton clubs, they all operate the same way as golf clubs. They grow their numbers while the governing body looks after the game at a high level and puts its energies into the elite players.


Dy the way, who are these "blazers" you so disparagingly refer to?
Do you mean the people who have selflessly kept most golf clubs in Ireland running over the last 100 years?

I've already given numerous examples on here how the so called blazers in my club give up the course and their own time to host the golf special olympics, to have regular outings and coaching for Cheeverstown house. But hey, that doesnt fit in with your "its the blazers fault" bigotry, so really, its a wonder they bother.

Perhaps they dont give a fiddlers what it is you think about them, they are just happy to give some kids a good day out.

downthemiddle

GreeBo wrote: »

I guess you'll just have to trust that my club is (still) properly run, by its members.

So this is what you call debating and arguing your point?

redhead999

downthemiddle wrote: »

How many different membership categories do you have and how many members in each category so we can gauge the accuracy of your response?

Having approx 100 full members and approx 500 'minor' members is really abusing the idea and sucking the system dry in offering subsidised golf. It makes a mockery of the whole 'golf club' notion.

To me its like fraudulent insurance claims - putting your hand in the pockets of others - no difference to me. Just my opinion mind you, pathetic and all as it might be to you dtm

GreeBo

downthemiddle wrote: »

So this is what you call debating and arguing your point?

No, this is what I call not rising.

In my club the numbers are controlled by the membership to ensure the course is not too crowded. Accept it and move on.

downthemiddle

redhead999 wrote: »

Having approx 100 full members and approx 500 'minor' members is really abusing the idea and sucking the system dry in offering subsidised golf. It makes a mockery of the whole 'golf club' notion.

To me its like fraudulent insurance claims - putting your hand in the pockets of others - no difference to me. Just my opinion mind you, pathetic and all as it might be to you dtm

You forgot the 30 lady members and 100 lady pay and play members. If you are going to quote figures it is important to be accurate
Making a comparison with fraud is interesting but inaccurate. When golfers sign up for pay and play membership they know exactly what they are entitled to say it's hardly fraudulent. We are all entitled to our opinion but it is easy to hide behind internet anonymity. You have had ample opportunity to express your displeasure in the club and have failed to do so. The pay and play option was passed unanimously at an AGM. You failed to say anything then. However who am I to question the bone fides of your conversion

downthemiddle

GreeBo wrote: »

No, this is what I call not rising.

In my club the numbers are controlled by the membership to ensure the course is not too crowded. Accept it and move on.

So we both have something in common. We are members of clubs in healthy financial positions and neither of us has any difficulty in getting a game of golf in our respective clubs.

FixdePitchmark

The only bigotry I have seen with my own eyes, we have seen in the Supreme court also, is by these guys. But we will put that to the side. We should understand the errors of the past, but agree we should all move on from that stuff.

You have been told the old model - of only taking people in from a golfing background is wrong. It is not going to work and is failing. Golf knows it is failing and has failed Irish golf in the past, as many of these types of clubs have no real entry process now. It is open doors for 95 % of clubs.

But after all this journey, golf does still does have an image problem - even the R&A have made that journey.

I genuinely think you are only interested in your own club. you love golf, but it doesn't seem to go past your own golf. This is not about your club. Your club has little relevance to 95 % of golfers out there.

It is embarrassing to me that Sweden has more golf participation than Ireland - I have experienced the reasons for that first hand, you don't seem to have had that experience. Yes things have changed very fast - the question is how do we embrace this new period ?

Again - it should not be about one poster versus another - or golfer versus another - or club versus another - it should be about golf. But, it does seem to be about all of that.

I congratulate the CGI on at least saying there is a problem , I'm delighted it is not solely a GUI initiative.

Saying there is a problem is a great start to solving one.

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

Actually Russman did in post #483.

Country membership is within a couple of its lowest ever, yet "other" is twice what it was in 1986. I think distance membership must make up a fair percentage of that, I think most other categories are covered?

Im not sure what your point about Billy is, I think its been categorically stated (several times) that no one has any problem with distance members themselves?

No, you introduced the example of the Swedish club.

In 1986 there were 258 course and 97,000 GUI golfers. "Other" golfers have doubled since then as you correctly state. However this is fairly proportionate to the increases in courses and golfers.

It has increased at a higher rate. But it still makes up less than 2% of total golfers.
Storm in a tea cup.

Lots of clubs are finally finding the pinch of an oversupply in the market and some are pointing to the relative non issue of distance membership as the cause.

Little Bubbles

any membership deals in Shannon or dromoland.

GreeBo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

The only bigotry I have seen with my own eyes, we have seen in the Supreme court also, is by these guys. But we will put that to the side. We should understand the errors of the past, but agree we should all move on from that stuff.

"Bigotry is a state of mind where a person strongly and unfairly dislikes other people"
I dont think I had seen bigotry based on blazers before here.

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

You have been told the old model - of only taking people in from a golfing background is wrong. It is not going to work and is failing. Golf knows it is failing and has failed Irish golf in the past, as many of these types of clubs have no real entry process now. It is open doors for 95 % of clubs.

lol, I've "been told"?
By whom exactly? My mom?
As a country we are just starting to come out the other side of a severe economic recession. Yunno, one of those things where discretionary spending plummets?
And suddenly its the GUI & successful clubs fault that business are closing?
Nonsense.

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

But after all this journey, golf does still does have an image problem - even the R&A have made that journey.

I genuinely think you are only interested in your own club. your love golf, but it doesn't seem to go past your own golf. This is not about your club. Your club has little relevance to 95 % of golfers out there.

So now Im not entitled to an opinion? Is my GUI card not valid anymore?

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

It is embarrassing to me that Sweden has more golf participation than Ireland - I have experienced the reasons for that first hand, you don't seem to have had that experience. Yes things have changed very fast - the question is how do we embrace this new period ?

"You've been told" the reasons for that several times on this thread.
So what reason have you been exposed to first hand exactly?

Why is it embarassing? Sweden has a wealth of golfing talent on both sexes, having the worlds best female golfer for years and also having one of the highest rates of female participation must be a coincidence, right?

Also their numbers have dropped over the last 10 years, just like ours.
Down 81,000 from its peak in 2004. Sound familiar?

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Again - it should not be about one poster versus another - or golfer versus another - or club versus another - it should be about golf. But, it does seem to be about all of that.

I congratulate the CGI on at least saying there is a problem , I'm delighted it is not solely a GUI initiative.

Saying there is a problem is a great start to solving one.

The GUI has been open and transparent about falling numbers, no one denies that there are too many clubs and not enough golfers to sustain them.
Some believe that magically, through some simple advertising and cost cutting we can turn golf into soccer.

Yet no facts to back that up.
The facts that back up the so called blazer method are the fact that the GUI, as run by these blazers is the longest running of all the unions in the world.
Te game has survived this long.
So lets see some figures and facts to back up these great ideas, before we dislodge the incumbents that got us this far.

GreeBo

PARlance wrote: »

No, you introduced the example of the Swedish club.

No, as stated Russman brought it up based on playing there, then FirstUp replied mentioning the fact that in Sweden juniors are not guaranteed full places.
all before I even mentioned Sweden.

PARlance wrote: »

It has increased at a higher rate. But it still makes up less than 2% of total golfers.

So to answer your question "While your at it you could give me some proof that the distance membership is on the rise each year. "
Can we agree to use your own reply above then?

PARlance wrote: »

Lots of clubs are finally finding the pinch of an oversupply in the market and some are pointing to the relative non issue of distance membership as the cause.

No, lots of people are pointing to them. Thats why it appears twice on the 2017 GUI roadmap.
Once as a challenge facing golf clubs (right alongside NAMA courses)
And again from the survey results from its members.

FixdePitchmark

GreeBo wrote: »

My maths were a little off alright, but I hardly think ~5% is beating the pants of ~4%? Matching their rates would give us another 1650 players....hardly game changing?

The biggest impact to their playing numbers?
Clubs taking on juniors with no obligation to make them full members.

Revolutionary idea huh!

Sorry - by my maths - We would have 89526 extra golfers. That is enough to keep 180 extra clubs going - and going well.

I hope my maths is right - but on the basis of an Irish population at 4594500.
Sweeden has a 5.21 % participation

5.21 % = 239526 Irish Swedish pants golfers.

The GUI say we are at 150,000 - so difference is 89526 extra golfers if we were doing as they do , with better golf conditions , history and courses.

But is late

FixdePitchmark

Greebo nobody is saying make golf the new soccer.

You were the one who went on about Sweden.

I'm saying we can do as well as Sweden. It is only 5 %.

I wonder why Sweden have great female golfers - must be the hair.

GreeBo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Sorry - by my maths - We would have 89526 extra golfers. That is enough to keep 180 extra clubs going - and going well.

I hope my maths is right - but on the basis of an Irish population at 4594500.
Sweeden has a 5.21 % participation

5.21 % = 239526 Irish Swedish pants golfers.

The GUI say we are at 150,000 - so difference is 89526 extra golfers if we were doing as they do , with better golf conditions , history and courses.

But is late

I was talking about a 1% increase in players rather than 1% of population.

Also, we are currently at 165086, some posters take issue to that number being misquoted.
So that would give us an extra 74k odd "golfers".

Looking at the numbers closer in Sweden, their under 21's playing has been decimated over the last 10 years, worse than 50% for boys, just under 50% for girls. However they have an extra 30K or so seniors playing over the same time. Maybe a good time to invest in Swedish Blazer futures?

Finally, I wouldnt be that embarassed Fix.
Their most popular club apparently has over 13k playing members.
With their top 35 clubs all having over 2,000 playing members.



Must be fun getting on the timesheet.

GreeBo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

You were the one who went on about Sweden.

Ok, for those too lazy to do their own research.

Russman wrote: »

Absolutely. I was lucky enough to play a bit of golf on a few courses in Sweden a few years ago, and the number of juniors playing was incredible. All wearing their multi coloured J Lindberg and Peak Performance gear too ! Interestingly enough the boys and girls all played and practiced together and there seemed to be a much more inclusive vibe about the whole thing. I know the GUI do a good job in a lot of areas, but I think they could look also at other unions who have maybe a more "modern" outlook on things.

First Up wrote: »

As I understand it, junior golf in Sweden operates on the basis that a junior membership is easy but it doesn't automatically translate into adult membership. I know a number of clubs here doing the same, with or without GUI involvement.
It is a good way to promote the game at junior level and seems to work in Sweden which also has a high level of family and female golf activity. I suspect the nature of society has something to do with it as well but golf in Sweden ain't cheap and nothing in their model suggests that popularity has anything to do with price.

GreeBo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I wonder why Sweden have great female golfers - must be the hair.

It's because they have a high female player rate.

SaveOurLyric

There is no problem with playing numbers in Ireland.
There is no problem with the GUI.

There are simply too many courses/clubs.

The solution is to shutdown about 50 of them.

But clubs are resisting folding their tents as if it would be the end of the world. Its the same as people who cannot pay their mortgages but cannot countenance leaving the 'family home' - as if they really owned it and the sky would fall on their heads if they had to move to a cheaper one. But thats the Celtic Tiger delusion for you. No one in Ireland wants to accept that they were living beyond their means and go back to what they could truly afford.

Merge. Sell up. Pool resources. Have clubs full of members and not scrambling to poach members from neighboring clubs with ever decreasing subs and leave them with the problem of paying their bills instead. Still plenty of courses for everyone to play that will be active, well maintained and not living week to week.



Edit: Sorry. Or move to Sweden.

golfwallah

GreeBo wrote: »

My maths were a little off alright, but I hardly think ~5% is beating the pants of ~4%? Matching their rates would give us another 1650 players....hardly game changing?

The biggest impact to their playing numbers?
Clubs taking on juniors with no obligation to make them full members.

Revolutionary idea huh!

The following comparative statics from GUI and Swedish Golf sources show (AFAIK, GUI represents the island of Ireland, both Republic & Northern Ireland):

Sweden Versus Ireland & N.I.
Population: Sweden 9.7m V Ireland & N.I. 6.2m

Golf Clubs: Sweden 482 V Ireland & N.I. 428

Registered Golfers: Sweden 491,000 V Ireland & N.I. 165,000

Reg. Golfers as % Population: Sweden 5.1% V Ireland & N.I. 2.7%

1 club for every: 20,100 people in Sweden V 14,500 people in Ireland & N.I.

Registered Golfers per club: Sweden 1,019 V Ireland & N.I. 386



We all entitled to have different views on the issues and there are merits and demerits with the arguments on both sides. What we all have in common is a love for the game and a desire to see it develop and prosper into the future.

Perhaps, there is room for a bit more concentration on real facts to try to help us all find positive "win win" ways forward.

FixdePitchmark

GreeBo wrote: »

I was talking about a 1% increase in players rather than 1% of population.

Also, we are currently at 165086, some posters take issue to that number being misquoted.
So that would give us an extra 74k odd "golfers".

Looking at the numbers closer in Sweden, their under 21's playing has been decimated over the last 10 years, worse than 50% for boys, just under 50% for girls. However they have an extra 30K or so seniors playing over the same time. Maybe a good time to invest in Swedish Blazer futures?

Finally, I wouldnt be that embarassed Fix.
Their most popular club apparently has over 13k playing members.
With their top 35 clubs all having over 2,000 playing members.



Must be fun getting on the timesheet.

Ok - so you wanted facts.

Are you happy the swedes are kicking the tight pants of us ?
How do you think they got the great pros ?

Had a lucky time of great Swedish genes (as they do) - that the sons of the lads coming into clubs at that exact time were just all coincidently gifted ?
A miracle ?

Yes it was 20 years - yes it worked - yes it created great pros - yes it created great female golfers , end game, amazing popular participation.

It is simple
Has worked in GAA
Has worked in Rugby
Has worked in Boxing
Has worked in Hurling

Meanwhile we are fighting over not being able to pay for the carpet in the snooker room (we have one) - because of Slievenamon.

Anyway - I hope we change here. Forget about bleeding jeans and all the mobile phone rubbish. Get on with getting people in love with the great game.

SaveOurLyric

golfwallah wrote: »

We all entitled to have different views on the issues and there are merits and demerits with the arguments on both sides. What we all have in common is a love for the game and a desire to see it develop and prosper into the future.

Perhaps, there is room for a bit more concentration on real facts to try to help us all find positive "win win" ways forward.

Does Swedish Golf represent men and ladies. GUI does represent the 32 counties. But men only.

Also. Sweden is fricking huge, with a much lower population density than Ireland. Miles and miles and miles and miles and miles and miles of forest.

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

The following comparative statics from GUI and Swedish Golf sources show (AFAIK, GUI represents the island of Ireland, both Republic & Northern Ireland):

Sweden Versus Ireland & N.I.
Population: Sweden 9.7m V Ireland & N.I. 6.2m

Golf Clubs: Sweden 482 V Ireland & N.I. 428

Registered Golfers: Sweden 491,000 V Ireland & N.I. 165,000

Reg. Golfers as % Population: Sweden 5.1% V Ireland & N.I. 2.7%

1 club for every: 20,100 people in Sweden V 14,500 people in Ireland & N.I.

Registered Golfers per club: Sweden 1,019 V Ireland & N.I. 386



We all entitled to have different views on the issues and there are merits and demerits with the arguments on both sides. What we all have in common is a love for the game and a desire to see it develop and prosper into the future.

Perhaps, there is room for a bit more concentration on real facts to try to help us all find positive "win win" ways forward.

Looks like your Swedish numbers are from 2011.
www.golf.se is their federation home page with the current stats.

As above, their numbers per club are, skewed to say the least.
Bryttsätters YC 13439
Söderköpings GK 8760
Sundsta Golf 4692
Bråvikens GK 4256
Capital Golf Club 4193
The capital GK 4155

GreeBo

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Does Swedish Golf represent men and ladies. GUI does represent the 32 counties. But men only.

Also. Sweden is fricking huge, with a much lower population than Ireland. Miles and miles and miles and miles and miles and miles of forest.

Tthe Swedish numbers I have been quoting represent everyone.

The GUI numbers are for all members also, from what I can see.
(Nowhere do they mention sexes in their stats, but its hard to know to be honest)
ILGU lists 41K members inc "girls"

FixdePitchmark

GreeBo wrote: »

Looks like your Swedish numbers are from 2011.
www.golf.se is their federation home page with the current stats.

As above, their numbers per club are, skewed to say the least.
Bryttsätters YC 13439
Söderköpings GK 8760
Sundsta Golf 4692
Bråvikens GK 4256
Capital Golf Club 4193
The capital GK 4155

But they are know as the distant member clubs in Sweden
Swedish lads are know to call them parasitic $%£$£^&*


Sorry lads , couldn't resist the comedic interlude.

SaveOurLyric

GreeBo wrote: »

Tthe Swedish numbers I have been quoting represent everyone.

The GUI numbers are for all members also, from what I can see.
(Nowhere do they mention sexes in their stats, but its hard to know to be honest)

Do they not mention sexes because the GUI only exists for male golfers. Seeing anything to do with lady golfers as a matter for the ILGU.
I dont know. You may be correct.

GreeBo

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Do they not mention sexes because the GUI only exists for male golfers. Seeing anything to do with lady golfers as a matter for the ILGU.
I dont know. You may be correct.

Yeah its hard to be sure, I've updated my original post with numbers from ILGU.

I guess they are just men from GUI so.

So then the current total in Ireland is ~201K, or 4.4%.

Pah...Swedes!

cairny

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Do they not mention sexes because the GUI only exists for male golfers. Seeing anything to do with lady golfers as a matter for the ILGU.
I dont know. You may be correct.

That was my understanding as well, something like 50-60,000 ilgu members.

Increasing female participation in golf is a good potential market. There was a free lessons for girls scheme run last year by gui or ilgu but we found it impossible to get much participation and we have a very good juvenile set up.

I think Greebo's earlier point about the role of gui being at the elite end is a good one, I'd say Stephanie Meadow will have more effect on female participation rates than the scheme run last year.

SaveOurLyric

cairny wrote: »

I think Greebo's earlier point about the role of gui being at the elite end is a good one, I'd say Stephanie Meadow will have more effect on female participation rates than the scheme run last year.

Not sure. My bad, but I had to google her to see what you meant.
But more pertinently, the 'down turn' in golf participation numbers we are discussing here has taken place in the very same period when Irish male golfer have hit levels of performance, profile, and success that leaves their predecessors in the dust. So there doesnt seem to be a great correlation there.

FixdePitchmark

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

There is no problem with playing numbers in Ireland.
There is no problem with the GUI.

There are simply too many courses/clubs.

The solution is to shutdown about 50 of them.

But clubs are resisting folding their tents as if it would be the end of the world. Its the same as people who cannot pay their mortgages but cannot countenance leaving the 'family home' - as if they really owned it and the sky would fall on their heads if they had to move to a cheaper one. But thats the Celtic Tiger delusion for you. No one in Ireland wants to accept that they were living beyond their means and go back to what they could truly afford.

Merge. Sell up. Pool resources. Have clubs full of members and not scrambling to poach members from neighboring clubs with ever decreasing subs and leave them with the problem of paying their bills instead. Still plenty of courses for everyone to play that will be active, well maintained and not living week to week.



Edit: Sorry. Or move to Sweden.

In the real world this is what will happen - nail on the head.

I would just love if someone had a longer term vision for the sport - we just don't seem to have that sort of thinking in our make up here. When we do , do it , it is far too complex and too late.

Good debate lads - goodnight to all and the Swedish.

GreeBo

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Not sure. My bad, but I had to google her to see what you meant.
But more pertinently, the 'down turn' in golf participation numbers we are discussing here has taken place in the very same period when Irish male golfer have hit levels of performance, profile, and success that leaves their predecessors in the dust. So there doesnt seem to be a great correlation there.

Only if you discount the recession impact.
also typically there would be a delay as youngsters spurred on by Rory may not be at gui level yet.

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

No, as stated Russman brought it up based on playing there, then FirstUp replied mentioning the fact that in Sweden juniors are not guaranteed full places.
all before I even mentioned Sweden.

Let's spell this out to you very slowly.
I said you brought in the example of the Swedish club. I didn't say you brought in the topic of Sweden.
The example of the Swedish club.
You brought that in.
Swedish club, membership fee. You.

Let's move on.

GreeBo wrote: »

So to answer your question "While your at it you could give me some proof that the distance membership is on the rise each year. "
Can we agree to use your own reply above then?

No, that would be taking a snippet of a debate and taking it out of context.
A tactic you enjoy greatly.

The level of distance membership has not increased in any material way since 1986 relative to courses and total golfers. It has risen less than 1%.

To argue otherwise would be contrarian.

GreeBo wrote: »

No, lots of people are pointing to them. Thats why it appears twice on the 2017 GUI roadmap.
Once as a challenge facing golf clubs (right alongside NAMA courses)
And again from the survey results from its members.

There are lots of challenges facing golf. If distance members increased ten fold then it still wouldn't be as big of a challenge as the oversupply of courses or the increasing age profile of the Irish golfer. And as we know from historical trends, it's increasing by fractions.

Not that you would guess from reading this thread.

golfwallah

golfwallah wrote: »

The following comparative statics from GUI and Swedish Golf sources show (AFAIK, GUI represents the island of Ireland, both Republic & Northern Ireland):

Sweden Versus Ireland & N.I.
Population: Sweden 9.7m V Ireland & N.I. 6.2m

Golf Clubs: Sweden 482 V Ireland & N.I. 428

Registered Golfers: Sweden 491,000 V Ireland & N.I. 165,000

Reg. Golfers as % Population: Sweden 5.1% V Ireland & N.I. 2.7%

1 club for every: 20,100 people in Sweden V 14,500 people in Ireland & N.I.

Registered Golfers per club: Sweden 1,019 V Ireland & N.I. 386



We all entitled to have different views on the issues and there are merits and demerits with the arguments on both sides. What we all have in common is a love for the game and a desire to see it develop and prosper into the future.

Perhaps, there is room for a bit more concentration on real facts to try to help us all find positive "win win" ways forward.

Minor corrections as per latest stats from Swedish Golfing Union site (couldn't find them previously and luckily Greebo spent the time to show they are available there) are:
Sweden Versus Ireland & N.I.
Population: Sweden 9.7m V Ireland & N.I. 6.2m

Golf Clubs: Sweden 482 470 V Ireland & N.I. 428

Registered Golfers: Sweden 491,000 475,000 V Ireland & N.I. 165,000

Reg. Golfers as % Population: Sweden 5.1% 4.9% V Ireland & N.I. 2.7%

1 club for every: 20,100 20,600 people in Sweden V 14,500 people in Ireland & N.I.

Registered Golfers per club: Sweden 1,019 1,011 V Ireland & N.I. 386



You can dismiss this stuff, if you like, but even after these minor corrections, it still looks to me that there is plenty of scope for improvement in golf membership numbers here in Ireland.

I also believe it is possible to achieve better numbers without ruining golf as we know it! The choice is ours - less golf at higher prices or more golf at affordable prices.

GreeBo

PARlance wrote: »

The level of distance membership has not increased in any material way since 1986 relative to courses and total golfers. It has risen less than 1%.

To argue otherwise would be contrarian.

Sorry but it has doubled to get to 1% of the total.
Double isn't a material change now?

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

Minor corrections as per latest stats from Swedish Golfing Union site (couldn't find them previously and luckily Greebo spent the time to show they are available there) are:
Sweden Versus Ireland & N.I.
Population: Sweden 9.7m V Ireland & N.I. 6.2m

Golf Clubs: Sweden 482 470 V Ireland & N.I. 428

Registered Golfers: Sweden 491,000 475,000 V Ireland & N.I. 165,000

Reg. Golfers as % Population: Sweden 5.1% 4.9% V Ireland & N.I. 2.7%

1 club for every: 20,100 20,600 people in Sweden V 14,500 people in Ireland & N.I.

Registered Golfers per club: Sweden 1,019 1,011 V Ireland & N.I. 386



You can dismiss this stuff, if you like, but even after these minor corrections, it still looks to me that there is plenty of scope for improvement in golf membership numbers here in Ireland.

I also believe it is possible to achieve better numbers without ruining golf as we know it! The choice is ours - less golf at higher prices or more golf at affordable prices.

Don't forget the ladies or the numbers in Nire who are in the English union. Your numbers are not apples to apples yet.

Why only those two options?
the easiest option is less clubs meaning cheaper golf for everyone surely?
less or more golf is still a personal thing.

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

Sorry but it has doubled to get to 1% of the total.
Double isn't a material change now?

1986: 1,268 / 97,769 = 1.3% of GUI golfers being "other" or Distance as assumed.

2013: 2,616 / 165,056 = 1.6%

A rise of 0.3% over 28 years.
One hundredth of one percent a year.

Yip. I think that would be classed as not being a material rise.

No?

neckedit

GreeBo wrote:

Don't forget the ladies or the numbers in Nire who are in the English union. Your numbers are not apples to apples yet.

There are clubs in the North affiliated with the English Golfing Union.......Really?

GreeBo

PARlance wrote: »

1986: 1,268 / 97,769 = 1.3% of GUI golfers being "other" or Distance as assumed.

2013: 2,616 / 165,056 = 1.6%

A rise of 0.3% over 28 years.
One hundredth of one percent a year.

Yip. I think that would be classed as not being a material rise.

No?

This is just getting silly now.

1,268 increasing to 2,616.
The number of distance members has more then doubled while the overall number of golfers has not increased nearly that much.

Thus, the numbers are increasing out of proportion.
you asked for proof, there you go.
I'm done proving it to you now.

GreeBo

neckedit wrote: »

There are clubs in the North affiliated with the English Golfing Union.......Really?

II had assumed it was an option but it seems like maybe not since ican't find any evidence!

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

This is just getting silly now.

1,268 increasing to 2,616.
The number of distance members has more then doubled while the overall number of golfers has not increased nearly that much.

Thus, the numbers are increasing out of proportion.
you asked for proof, there you go.
I'm done proving it to you now.

Is that your way of debating a point.
By throwing your toys out of the pram in saying that it's getting silly.

Distance membership rising from 1.3% to 1.6% of the total GUI golfers over 3 decades, sorry 28 years to be exact, is hardly worthy of all your huff and puff.

It's a storm in a tea cup but I'll let you keep stirring your tea.

downthemiddle

GreeBo wrote: »

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

Greebo, my old flower, it appears that you have been a little economical with the truth here. There are a number of other categories of membership in your club other than full. You have ordinary, junior, juvenile and of course artisan, the original low price restricted membership


To check the validity of your argument perhaps you would tell us how many of the lower priced ordinary members there are in your club.

downthemiddle

GreeBo wrote: »

II had assumed it was an option but it seems like maybe not since ican't find any evidence!

Perhaps that's why so many on this thread have difficulty with your line of argument. You make a lot of assumptions

FixdePitchmark

GreeBo wrote: »

II had assumed it was an option but it seems like maybe not since ican't find any evidence!

A bit of a bigoted assumption to take in any argument ?