Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Golf Memberships
Comments
-
That's a real possibility alright.
You're right, the sensible thing would be for one to close in order to save both. However, like I said in my post, the line between business and leisure is very thin (or very thick depending on your view) and the people involved can sometimes find looking at their club objectively too difficult.
Very true, but each set of members will likely want their course to be saved. Or the members of the lesser course might see it as an opportunity to move to the better layout. It'd be tricky negotiations. Interesting times ahead for quite a few courses come April/May when they realise how many members rejoin or not.0 -
Very true, but each set of members will likely want their course to be saved. Or the members of the lesser course might see it as an opportunity to move to the better layout. It'd be tricky negotiations. Interesting times ahead for quite a few courses come April/May when they realise how many members rejoin or not.
And therein lies the problem. No matter what happens in the end, the process cannot be good for any club and there will be the potential for splits, thereby damaging its future further.0 -
And therein lies the problem. No matter what happens in the end, the process cannot be good for any club and there will be the potential for splits, thereby damaging its future further.
Absolutely. Its amazing how powerful the feeling of "club" can be, or the identity guys will have (and understandably/rightly so). Last year or the year before we had a bunch of guys from another club approach us with a view to joining, but they wanted to keep their own club within our club, and basically just use the facilities or something.0 -
Absolutely. Its amazing how powerful the feeling of "club" can be, or the identity guys will have (and understandably/rightly so). Last year or the year before we had a bunch of guys from another club approach us with a view to joining, but they wanted to keep their own club within our club, and basically just use the facilities or something.
That can't work for long, on any level. It would take years for their club to subsume completely into yours and even then there could still be a "them and us" mentality among the more trenchant...0 -
moycullen14 wrote: »The only common prediction in all this is that clubs, it seems, will have to close. I'm not sure that this will happen and if it does, it will be messy and protracted - especially for member-owned clubs with little or no debt.
Our scenario is we have two clubs in the locality where there is only demand for one. One is in debt and the other isn't, both are member clubs. The sensible thing would be for one to close and the other to inherit the members and resources, ensuring its future. I don't think this will happen because the members of each club would sooner struggle on than admit defeat.
The fear is that as both struggle on, they destroy each other.
The main problem causing this type of scenario is Government interference in the market, through underwriting banks, unwilling to crystallise losses on loans.
The devil is in the detail in these situations and I believe there is more to it than members unwilling to admit defeat, which is always a given.
However, if the deal is "right" and provides a "win win" for a majority in each club, there is a good chance of getting agreement in principle on some kind of merger. Can't see one club's members agreeing to take on the debts of another, TBH.
And then agreement would be subject to being able to sort out legalities, e.g. if one club has a covenant to prevent members benefiting personally from a sale and the other club does not.0 -
-
Thats a load of wodscallop we all know the what you meant.Scam has numerous definitions. One is "a stratagem for gain". The definition of stratagem is "a scheme or maneuver designed to achieve an objective".
You may not like the word scam, but according to those definitions, it applies to the matter under discussion.0 -
why would a club with no debt be struggling and in danger of closing if the other competition is a club heavily in debt?
I know where my money would be going.
Again it comes back to how committed people are.
Both clubs, I'd say, are losing money. Debt - if it isn't being paid back - is of no consequence to the current account and that's all that concerns members now.
If the debt-ridden club has cut costs back further than the debt-free one - and to hell with the consequences - they are, paradoxically, in a stronger position in the short run. Extreme debt can lead to reckless or short-term trading which can damage other clubs in the vicinity. You know, we're going down and we don't care who we take with us.0 -
Very true, but each set of members will likely want their course to be saved. Or the members of the lesser course might see it as an opportunity to move to the better layout. It'd be tricky negotiations. Interesting times ahead for quite a few courses come April/May when they realise how many members rejoin or not.
That's for sure. I get the sense that 7 or 8 years into this mess and we haven't seen the worst of it yet.0 -
Advertisement
-
moycullen14 wrote: »Our scenario is we have two clubs in the locality where there is only demand for one. One is in debt and the other isn't, both are member clubs. The sensible thing would be for one to close and the other to inherit the members and resources, ensuring its future. I don't think this will happen because the members of each club would sooner struggle on than admit defeat.
The fear is that as both struggle on, they destroy each other.
How far apart are those clubs.0 -
It's not a viable market if you can only attract them with below cost selling though.
The same few quid can be paid in green fees or public courses, this is likely to entice people to join a club for all the benefits we already know about.
It still costs X to run a club. Members pay for this.
We are still around peak levels of clubs but nowhere near peak levels of members.
If your franchise had too many coffee shops for the current demand the solution isn't to bend over backwards cutting prices and selling all manner of things to entice prior in. The solution is to cut back on the number of stores you have and boost the ones that are viable.
It's even easier in golf you can't have the same level of competition.
More negative, “my way or the high way” opinions, not backed up in any way by research or positive examples of how golf clubs are coping with and surviving recession.
Ever heard of Insomnia Coffee Company? They have found ways to bundle coffee with sandwiches, pastries at bundled prices that are far less than the price of two separate purchases. I’ve listened to Bobby Kerr, one of the joint owners at business seminars and on radio – a shining example of “can do” – despite the difficulties. Insomnia has reduced prices to retain customers – they are a real life example of how a positive outlook and affordable prices can work in the real world.
Your offering – to close more and more coffee shops, golf clubs, etc. – “I’m all right Jack”, our club in Dublin’s leafy suburbs is O.K., with waiting lists, etc., we don’t have to change our ways of doing things – the same applies to the rest of you!
No, not all clubs can survive, but those that put the customer first have a much better chance than those who continue to rely solely on traditional membership packages. There’s lots of research backed guidance on websites – GUI, England Golf, Scottish, etc., to help those interested in exploring other ways of attracting and retaining customers.
And again – more, short-sighted, limited references to “below cost selling”. Precisely what does that mean? Average cost is pretty meaningless when the marginal cost of an extra round in most clubs, midweek or after 1pm at weekend = zero! There’s been differential pricing for “senior members” (with age qualification) for years in many clubs. That’s because clubs took a “lifetime value of a customer” view – after 20 / 25 years of continuous membership – “senior members” were given a reduced membership rate. This is now being abolished in many clubs – unwisely in my view (this was and is a good added feature for those that go for full membership every year).
But not only senior members should benefit from the “lifetime value of a customer” concept – so should students, families, people who can only play a limited amount of golf, etc., etc., for various market segments. Treat these folk “right” and they will remain loyal to your club over the long term.0 -
Why don't these people pay greenfees or public courses?
Why should they get to play competitive golf?
I can't justify letting them have handicaps for almost free.
There seems to be a view of bending over backwards to facilitate these part time golfers at any cost ( or in fact minimal cost to them) , turning your back on the people who actually keep the courses open.
Totally agree and if you only can play 8/9 rounds a year and want to play in a comp join a society sounds perfect for this group.0 -
golfwallah wrote: »We may be returning to “normal” market levels but it is far more relevant to compare where we were, say, just before the height of the boom to where we are now, based on latest available figures:
GDP $223b in 2006 V €218b in 2013, a fall of 2%
Golf Clubs 417 in 2006 V 428 in 2013, an increase of 3%
Reg. Golfers 207K in 2006 V 165K in 2013, a fall of 20%
Capacity (no. of golf clubs) has increased, earnings (GDP) is still down slightly but the number of registered golfers has fallen by a massive 20%. It’s not simply, as you put it, people trying to hold on to things they can’t afford – they are leaving golf in droves! This is resulting in a downward spiral that can only be arrested by clubs closing / merging and / or by encouraging more people to come into and stay in the game (through product differentiation and appropriate pricing).
Your analogy of the shoemaker is inappropriate because only a small part of income for golf clubs is derived from sale of single rounds of golf. Most golf club revenue comes from membership, which in reality consists of bundles of service benefits for different prices. For regular golfers like me, It makes sense to pay a full annual sub because when I work out the price per round, it comes out at around €14, whereas less frequent golfers end up paying anything from €60 - €130 a round (depending on the number of rounds they play in the year). This high cost is simply not affordable to a large chunk of the market – hence the fall in membership, which can only continue until clubs do something to address the issue.
Certainly, those who play less should pay more per round – but the imbalance is much to high at the moment!
The main message from the Golfing Unions on this front is that is indeed possible to offer more nuanced bundles of service benefits that will result in a “win win” for both golfers and clubs.
Examples are (can be labelled Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze, etc.) – won’t suit the “top” clubs but would work for the many of the less well off ones:
• Level 1 or Full Membership where you can play 7 days a week whenever you wish. This is the highest annual sub.
• Level 2 Membership where you can play Monday to Friday whenever you wish, and at weekends after 1:00 pm. To play before 1:00pm at the weekends you pay a fee. Reduced annual sub applies.
• Level 3 Membership allows you to play any day of the week. Having paid your subscription, you pay a fee every time you play. Further reduction in annual subscription applies.
• Level 4 Membership allows you to play any day of the week. Having paid your subscription, you pay a fee per round during the week and double that at weekends. Further reduction in annual subscription applies.
I would see the problem with this model being a lot of full members would do the maths and see that that they would be cheaper with level 2,3,4 and you may not get the new members to make up the drop off from full membership.0 -
I would see the problem with this model being a lot of full members would do the maths and see that that they would be cheaper with level 2,3,4 and you may not get the new members to make up the drop off from full membership.
Sure there will be problems with "churn" - people moving between packages and between clubs. But the objective is that with a net increase in memberships of all types, there will be more gains than losses for all who have the courage to try!
But that's the nature of business these days. Happens in the telecoms business, braodband . TV, in insurance, in pubs, coffee shops (dare I say it!), etc. - but businesses adapt and get with the new way very quickly. Golf clubs are no different - they are businesses (not for profit, granted) and not exempt from competition.
With little competition and inertia, there was little change. Those days no longer apply and getting more people into golf requires coming up with packages of benefits that a lot more people can afford.
As I said in an earlier post, based on research conducted on behalf of England Golf, there is latent demand in Ireland for club membership of about 96,000 people!0 -
The situation is negative, numbers are dropping and clubs are unsustainable.golfwallah wrote: »More negative, “my way or the high way” opinions, not backed up in any way by research or positive examples of how golf clubs are coping with and surviving recession.
Head in the sand isn't going to solve that.
Why would I use positive examples to prove my point that clubs are going to close? I could start listing the clubs that have closed if you'd like?
The only research you need is to look at the number of clubs vs number of golfers. The reality is stark and cannot, reasonably, be ignored.
You probably feel that Frankfield just needed to advertise themselves better, lazy buggers.
I'm entitled to an opinion by the way. You have been preaching about marketing being the solution to everything for months. Is that "your way or the highway"?
Yeah I have.golfwallah wrote: »Ever heard of Insomnia Coffee Company? They have found ways to bundle coffee with sandwiches, pastries at bundled prices that are far less than the price of two separate purchases. I’ve listened to Bobby Kerr, one of the joint owners at business seminars and on radio – a shining example of “can do” – despite the difficulties. Insomnia has reduced prices to retain customers – they are a real life example of how a positive outlook and affordable prices can work in the real world.
The "ways" they found were to merge with a the Bendini & Shaw sandwich company. That sandwich company is no more, they didn't just magic their problem away without losses as you are implying.
His "can do attitude" kept HIS business running. I'm not so sure all his franchisees can all same the same thing.
Yeah, thats exactly what I'm saying.golfwallah wrote: »Your offering – to close more and more coffee shops, golf clubs, etc. – “I’m all right Jack”, our club in Dublin’s leafy suburbs is O.K., with waiting lists, etc., we don’t have to change our ways of doing things – the same applies to the rest of you!
Nowhere have I said that all clubs that are unsustainable need to close and/or merge.
Nowhere have I said that all clubs need to look at costs.
Nowhere have I said that all clubs need to delay capital expenditure
Nowhere have I said that all clubs need to cut back on staff or course condition.
Its hard to read your post over the oozing bitterness; frankly it does little more than dilute any point you might feel you were making.
Finally an honest view on the situation rather than the usual "we love the leader" and "if we all just try really hard it will all be ok" posts.golfwallah wrote: »
No, not all clubs can survive,
Clubs in danger are in danger because they cant afford to run their business.golfwallah wrote: »
And again – more, short-sighted, limited references to “below cost selling”. Precisely what does that mean? Average cost is pretty meaningless when the marginal cost of an extra round in most clubs, midweek or after 1pm at weekend = zero!
That means their income is less than their expenditure.
That means they are selling their product, golf, below the price it costs them to supply it.
Below.
Cost.
Selling.
What would it cost Insomnia to give me a free cup of coffee at 3pm?
One extra cup of coffee wouldn't be a blip on their books, but Im pretty sure they wont do it. Care to guess why?
And what is the criteria for achieving this qualification?golfwallah wrote: »
There’s been differential pricing for “senior members” (with age qualification) for years in many clubs. That’s because clubs took a “lifetime value of a customer” view – after 20 / 25 years of continuous membership – “senior members” were given a reduced membership rate. This is now being abolished in many clubs – unwisely in my view (this was and is a good added feature for those that go for full membership every year).
Its not just age, its typically after a number of years of service also.
Loyal members are rewarded for years of support, shock horror.
Those same members were part of the vote to remove/reduce the discount, because, you guessed it, they still want to support their club.
Treat them right? How are they being treated wrongly?golfwallah wrote: »
But not only senior members should benefit from the “lifetime value of a customer” concept – so should students, families, people who can only play a limited amount of golf, etc., etc., for various market segments. Treat these folk “right” and they will remain loyal to your club over the long term.
Expecting someone to pay for what the use isn't being cheated wrongly, golf courses aren't social welfare outlets. They exist to provide golf to like minded individuals. If you cant afford what they are charging, go somewhere else, they don't owe you a cheap round of golf, just because their course is quiet at a certain time doesn't mean they should fill it with a random assortment of membership categories, thereby diluting the full membership option.
Maybe clubs struggling should give everyone a discount to thank them for their loyalty. That will make everyone happier "customers" and might even entice a few more in. Yeah the "business" will of course fail, but at least the "customers" will feel loved!
These people are *members*, not customers, at least thats how we treat them in my leafy part of the world.
Survival at any cost will simply result in a a place that the original members have no desire to remain in. You may save the business but you will lose the club.0 -
Advertisement
-
golfwallah wrote: »Sure there will be problems with "churn" - people moving between packages and between clubs. But the objective is that with a net increase in memberships of all types, there will be more gains than losses for all who have the courage to try!
But that's the nature of business these days. Happens in the telecoms business, braodband . TV, in insurance, in pubs, coffee shops (dare I say it!), etc. - but businesses adapt and get with the new way very quickly. Golf clubs are no different - they are businesses (not for profit, granted) and not exempt from competition.
With little competition and inertia, there was little change. Those days no longer apply and getting more people into golf requires coming up with packages of benefits that a lot more people can afford.
As I said in an earlier post, based on research conducted on behalf of England Golf, there is latent demand in Ireland for club membership of about 96,000 people!
yes just label it as "churn" and its no longer an issue!
One would want to be pretty sure they will get in enough people to cover the loss before they allow their members to play the same amount of golf for half the price.
How exactly was their "little competition" when the number of clubs doubled?
There are potentially 96,000 people who would like to play golf, yes potentially.
Can you provide figures for who much these people would be willing to pay to play?
I did a quick survey of the office and 85% of people have latent demand to drive a BMW (15% already do, leafy suburbs you see), can you let BMW know that if they just drop their prices they can sell more cars for me please? Note that I dont know how low they need to drop them, but just keep dropping them and we will see what happens.0 -
golfwallah wrote: »We may be returning to “normal” market levels but it is far more relevant to compare where we were, say, just before the height of the boom to where we are now, based on latest available figures:
GDP $223b in 2006 V €218b in 2013, a fall of 2%
Golf Clubs 417 in 2006 V 428 in 2013, an increase of 3%
Reg. Golfers 207K in 2006 V 165K in 2013, a fall of 20%
Capacity (no. of golf clubs) has increased, earnings (GDP) is still down slightly but the number of registered golfers has fallen by a massive 20%. It’s not simply, as you put it, people trying to hold on to things they can’t afford – they are leaving golf in droves! This is resulting in a downward spiral that can only be arrested by clubs closing / merging and / or by encouraging more people to come into and stay in the game (through product differentiation and appropriate pricing).
The main message from the Golfing Unions on this front is that is indeed possible to offer more nuanced bundles of service benefits that will result in a “win win” for both golfers and clubs.
Examples are (can be labelled Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze, etc.) – won’t suit the “top” clubs but would work for the many of the less well off ones:
• Level 1 or Full Membership where you can play 7 days a week whenever you wish. This is the highest annual sub.
• Level 2 Membership where you can play Monday to Friday whenever you wish, and at weekends after 1:00 pm. To play before 1:00pm at the weekends you pay a fee. Reduced annual sub applies.
• Level 3 Membership allows you to play any day of the week. Having paid your subscription, you pay a fee every time you play. Further reduction in annual subscription applies.
• Level 4 Membership allows you to play any day of the week. Having paid your subscription, you pay a fee per round during the week and double that at weekends. Further reduction in annual subscription applies.
On paper this sounds like a good idea but like all macro strategies it won't work across the board, and that is the nub of the issue.
There are no hard and fast solutions for struggling clubs but the basic point is that the product (golf club membership) needs to be made attractive to more customers (potential or current members).
I have a problem with your 4-Level solution and its simply that I, as a fully paid-up member of a club, don't want to have to compete with part-time members who can only turn up on Saturdays and Sundays after 1.00pm. A lot of the time, they are the only times I can get out on the course. I have other commitments which mean I can't play more than about two competitions a month, which means that a few holes on a Sunday afternoon on my own or with a mate is why I pay my sub. I know for a fact that I'm not on my own. Just look at the frequent comments here about playing on your own or practicing or, or, or...
I'm not sure either about the attractiveness of 5-day golf for most people. Fair enough if you're retired and only want to play on a Tuesday morning but I don't think there's enough traction to make a substantial difference to a club's bottom line.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking your solution completely. For some clubs it may be an option but for my club, where it can be difficult to get on the timesheet at the prime times, I'm not sure it would work.
Using your solution as a basis though, I think individual clubs could possibly tailor it, or something similar, to suit themselves and make themselves attractive to the prospective customer.
The Insomnia example isn't comparable either in my view. Golf clubs aren't franchisees (yet, thank God!) and if they were I think we'd have lost more than we have.0 -
Nail, meet head.I have a problem with your 4-Level solution and its simply that I, as a fully paid-up member of a club, don't want to have to compete with part-time members who can only turn up on Saturdays and Sundays after 1.00pm. A lot of the time, they are the only times I can get out on the course. I have other commitments which mean I can't play more than about two competitions a month, which means that a few holes on a Sunday afternoon on my own or with a mate is why I pay my sub.
Its this availability on a whim that makes full membership so attractive.
It drives my batty when I turn up when I happen to be on a day off and there is a bloody outing on. People here now want to fill all possible time slots on the course with every possible price point.
No thanks.
It mostly suits people who work weekends, though it typically means they cant play competitions. This is the largest demographic that you risk losing from full member, they dont play weekends anyway, so you dont gain on the course side, just lose money.
I'm not sure either about the attractiveness of 5-day golf for most people.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a club (in trouble) that hasn't done exactly this sometime over the last 5 years.
Using your solution as a basis though, I think individual clubs could possibly tailor it, or something similar, to suit themselves and make themselves attractive to the prospective customer.0 -
Nail, meet head.
Its this availability on a whim that makes full membership so attractive.
It drives my batty when I turn up when I happen to be on a day off and there is a bloody outing on. People here now want to fill all possible time slots on the course with every possible price point.
No thanks.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a club (in trouble) that hasn't done exactly this sometime over the last 5 years.
Funnily enough, I have no problem with outings being allowed on the course. Its a valuable source of income and its great to see the place being used. On the odd day that'd I'd want to go out and play I'd almost always look up the sheet and see what's available so I don't run into that issue. Look up the BRS before you go out.
I agree that clubs have tried different membership options but its patently not working - at least not for some - so I go back to my original point. Make the product attractive or go home. No business can survive if it can't get customers in the door to cover its basic costs. Why should clubs be any different? What's attractive to you may not be attractive to me which is why there's no catch-all solution beyond that...0 -
Nail, meet head.
Its this availability on a whim that makes full membership so attractive.
It drives my batty when I turn up when I happen to be on a day off and there is a bloody outing on.
Real world, meet Greebo.
You've every right to be going batty, If I paid ~€15,000 entrance fee and was paying ~€2,500 a year sub like you, then I would too.
That's not the real world for the vast majority of golf club members though.0 -
Advertisement
-
I dont have a problem with it (assuming they dont leave a mess which is often common), its just annoying not to be able to get on the main course.Funnily enough, I have no problem with outings being allowed on the course. Its a valuable source of income and its great to see the place being used. On the odd day that'd I'd want to go out and play I'd almost always look up the sheet and see what's available so I don't run into that issue. Look up the BRS before you go out.I agree that clubs have tried different membership options but its patently not working - at least not for some - so I go back to my original point. Make the product attractive or go home. No business can survive if it can't get customers in the door to cover its basic costs. Why should clubs be any different? What's attractive to you may not be attractive to me which is why there's no catch-all solution beyond that...
I don't think it has been given a chance to work as not enough clubs have closed yet.0 -
I dont have a problem with it (assuming they dont leave a mess which is often common), its just annoying not to be able to get on the main course.
I don't think it has been given a chance to work as not enough clubs have closed yet.
Oh ho! Now that's dangerous talk! Not that I disagree with you necessarily, but just that its impossible to say what the mean number of clubs should be. Its like trying to dictate how many pubs a town should have, based solely on population figures and demographic habits for example. You just can't do it.
I have tried to think of new clubs which have opened up in the past ten years around me and although there are a few (my own Palmerstown House being one, Millicent another, Dunmurray another perhaps) and unless you go waaaay back into the distant past of my parents heyday, there's no way you could say they are surplus to requirements. In other words, we haven't been inundated with new product. Funnily enough, the one club that has closed around here recently (Bodenstown) was a family-owned club (as far as I know) and wasn't of the highest quality anyway. They sold rounds of golf for €18 in boom times and bad but they still decided to get out. That's a long-winded way of saying that I'm not sure where the bottom line in terms of club number is...0 -
Oh ho! Now that's dangerous talk! Not that I disagree with you necessarily, but just that its impossible to say what the mean number of clubs should be. Its like trying to dictate how many pubs a town should have, based solely on population figures and demographic habits for example. You just can't do it.
I have tried to think of new clubs which have opened up in the past ten years around me and although there are a few (my own Palmerstown House being one, Millicent another, Dunmurray another perhaps) and unless you go waaaay back into the distant past of my parents heyday, there's no way you could say they are surplus to requirements. In other words, we haven't been inundated with new product. Funnily enough, the one club that has closed around here recently (Bodenstown) was a family-owned club (as far as I know) and wasn't of the highest quality anyway. They sold rounds of golf for €18 in boom times and bad but they still decided to get out. That's a long-winded way of saying that I'm not sure where the bottom line in terms of club number is...
The bottom/correct number is when all the remaining clubs are sustainable, there is no way of knowing what that number is I reckon.
Assuming an equal and fair market, the clubs that remain will be the clubs that should remain.0 -
I would see the problem with this model being a lot of full members would do the maths and see that that they would be cheaper with level 2,3,4 and you may not get the new members to make up the drop off from full membership.
How can you have a problem with the model if you can't see the model.
What maths is there to do there?
They are only rough guidelines.
Option 1 is always going to be the most attractive offer for the standard/traditional golfer. Standard being someone who get outs to play most weekends and who plays quite a bit.
If a club was crazy enough to create a model that meant Option 1 wasn't the best option for this golfer then they should shut the gates.0 -
In reality how many clubs are in real financial trouble?
I don't think we have any idea, since the start of the crash maybe 4/5 clubs have dissapeared and to be honest none are ones most of us would cry over.
All over the country most decent sized town have one golf course and i think most of those will survive as you don't have the options you have in Dublin so i can't see where the over supply is outside the cities. Membership in most of these clubs seems to be around the €500 mark so seems afforadable to me.
Galway with 2 courses around the city would seem under supplied in golf. Don't really know about the other big cities.
North side of Dublin seems to be over supplied but you hear rumours of clubs being in trouble but none have gone and not been brough back by the members bar Turvey. Maybe in NCD if Forrest Little movey to St. Mags and some of the members went to other clubs they all would be safe.
Golf is expensive and even distance members are spending what €500 plus if you give €150 for the membership and then play 20 opens at around €20 each. Some people will never want to play the same course every week so maybe this is their best option and something the rest of us have to accept as we pay our full membership.
Most Opens have just become a reduced green fee day anyhow it doesn't really make a difference. Maybe clubs should have a different green fee for club members within 20 miles and a higher one for club members outside that radius for their weekly open.
The big links course will never struggle for money as they have X amount of tourists willing to pay 100 plus to play them.0 -
How can you have a problem with the model if you can't see the model.
What maths is there to do there?
They are only rough guidelines.
Option 1 is always going to be the most attractive offer for the standard/traditional golfer. Standard being someone who get outs to play most weekends and who plays quite a bit.
If a club was crazy enough to create a model that meant Option 1 wasn't the best option for this golfer then they should shut the gates.
Think it would be simple enough. If i expect to play 30 rounds every year and my annual fee is €1500 which i'm happy to pay, lots of guys playing that many rounds who don't play winter golf. But i can take another option for €800 or €1000 and drop the number of rounds i play down to 20 i save 400/500 a year. it is very hard to make up that couple of hundred.
You may stop a couple of guys leaving the club but i reckon you will loose revenue in the long run.0 -
Think it would be simple enough. If i expect to play 30 rounds every year and my annual fee is €1500 which i'm happy to pay, lots of guys playing that many rounds who don't play winter golf. But i can take another option for €800 or €1000 and drop the number of rounds i play down to 20 i save 400/500 a year. it is very hard to make up that couple of hundred.
You may stop a couple of guys leaving the club but i reckon you will loose revenue in the long run.
I wouldn't play 30 rounds a year at all. That's more than twice a month. Maybe during the summer, perhaps, and I'd get three or four winter rounds in a year, but most of my golf would be out of hours stuff.
So, I'm a difficult one who won't fit into your demographic. I want to play every other week in the competitions from April to October and maybe three or four times over the winter. Everything else is nine holes here or six holes there (winter and summer) whether during the week or on a Sunday evening, with a good bit of time on the range or chipping green.
Am I that unusual for my age group, family situation etc.? If you listen to the experts I'm supposed to be the prime target market - 35-55 age group, high handicapper (20, and moving in the wrong direction!!) etc.
So what's the ideal situation for a club with a sizeable percentage of members like me?
I don't think there is one specific one. That's the issue.0 -
Think it would be simple enough. If i expect to play 30 rounds every year and my annual fee is €1500 which i'm happy to pay, lots of guys playing that many rounds who don't play winter golf. But i can take another option for €800 or €1000 and drop the number of rounds i play down to 20 i save 400/500 a year. it is very hard to make up that couple of hundred.
You may stop a couple of guys leaving the club but i reckon you will loose revenue in the long run.
Are you just making up some figures there? What does the €800-€1000 option entail?
If it's some sort of "pay and play" model that you're talking about, then generally those models work on the "break even" (for want of a better word) point being 20-25 rounds.
So if the other option was say €900 then green fees would be charged at €30 per round.
So someone that takes up this pay & play option that only plays 20 times would have to pay €900 + €600 = What they would have paid for Full Membership.
Any more rounds than that and they're paying more than a full member.
That's the way the pay & play model works in general. I'm just using your figures and assuming a green fee charge.
I've actual examples of these pay & play offers to back up the 20-25 round "turning/break-even point"0 -
I wouldn't play 30 rounds a year at all. That's more than twice a month. Maybe during the summer, perhaps, and I'd get three or four winter rounds in a year, but most of my golf would be out of hours stuff.
So, I'm a difficult one who won't fit into your demographic. I want to play every other week in the competitions from April to October and maybe three or four times over the winter. Everything else is nine holes here or six holes there (winter and summer) whether during the week or on a Sunday evening, with a good bit of time on the range or chipping green.
Am I that unusual for my age group, family situation etc.? If you listen to the experts I'm supposed to be the prime target market - 35-55 age group, high handicapper (20, and moving in the wrong direction!!) etc.
So what's the ideal situation for a club with a sizeable percentage of members like me?
I don't think there is one specific one. That's the issue.
Id say you are common enough, though you didnt mention casual golf stats?
I play about 25 qualifying comps a year, effectively once a week
However I would have at least this again in winter and probably at least again during summer in casual golf.
Its hard to know the answer, but I suspect its not tailoring a package that results in you paying less and only having rights to play during the times you want to play anyway.0 -
On paper this sounds like a good idea but like all macro strategies it won't work across the board, and that is the nub of the issue.
There are no hard and fast solutions for struggling clubs but the basic point is that the product (golf club membership) needs to be made attractive to more customers (potential or current members).
I have a problem with your 4-Level solution and its simply that I, as a fully paid-up member of a club, don't want to have to compete with part-time members who can only turn up on Saturdays and Sundays after 1.00pm. A lot of the time, they are the only times I can get out on the course. I have other commitments which mean I can't play more than about two competitions a month, which means that a few holes on a Sunday afternoon on my own or with a mate is why I pay my sub. I know for a fact that I'm not on my own. Just look at the frequent comments here about playing on your own or practicing or, or, or...
I'm not sure either about the attractiveness of 5-day golf for most people. Fair enough if you're retired and only want to play on a Tuesday morning but I don't think there's enough traction to make a substantial difference to a club's bottom line.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking your solution completely. For some clubs it may be an option but for my club, where it can be difficult to get on the timesheet at the prime times, I'm not sure it would work.
Using your solution as a basis though, I think individual clubs could possibly tailor it, or something similar, to suit themselves and make themselves attractive to the prospective customer.
The Insomnia example isn't comparable either in my view. Golf clubs aren't franchisees (yet, thank God!) and if they were I think we'd have lost more than we have.
You are making some fair points here, but to be honest, I don't think there is any such thing as a solution that will work perfectly across the board for everybody.
All I'm trying to do is to ask people to start thinking about alternatives to the limited range of membership offerings available in most clubs - particularly when these are demonstrably resulting in lower membership numbers and lots of clubs struggling financially.
There has to be a better way!
And by the way, these 4 options are not mine - they are straight from the England Golf paper on "Alternative Membership Categories" from their website (attached again below). This document is well worth a quick read - you will see that it puts forward the arguments for and against, some of which have been mentioned by other posters as well.
Look - situations vary from club to club. Maybe your club is packed to the gills on Saturday and Sunday afternoons - mine isn't and I expect the same applies in many clubs. We also have quite a few 5 day members. Info on timeslot usage is readily available from your club's BRS system - only takes a small amount of time to extract it (I've done it quite often myself - quite simple to do).
In situations of difficulty, we all look at ways to achieve better solutions - all it takes is a bit of effort. The hard bit is to rid ourselves of our own pre-conceived ideas, our likes, dislikes, etc. That said, I remain optimistic about the future of golf in Ireland.
To quote Churchill, who overcame many difficulties, far greater than we are facing in golf:
“The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”
“Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference.”
“I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else.”
“I never worry about action, but only about inaction.”0 -
Advertisement
-
Athlone offering membership to new joiners at €450 this year once again. A steal if you're asking me
0 -
-
I seen quite a few of these offers around, will be interesting to see if people use it for a year and then move club to a similar offer else where.Athlone offering membership to new joiners at €450 this year once again. A steal if you're asking me
Also will they offer it to people who left for a year and are now comming back.0 -
golfwallah wrote: »All I'm trying to do is to ask people to start thinking about alternatives to the limited range of membership offerings available in most clubs - particularly when these are demonstrably resulting in lower membership numbers and lots of clubs struggling financially.
Do you have any facts to show that clubs have a limited range of membership offerings?
Also, anything to show that the lack of membership options are whats causing lower membership numbers, rather than another facet, say a recent global recession?0 -
I seen quite a few of these offers around, will be interesting to see if people use it for a year and then move club to a similar offer else where.
Also will they offer it to people who left for a year and are now comming back.
I've seen a few of these, IMHO if the people in question are moving in the first place then they are more likely to move again, regarding the left and back again I've seen restrictions on this e.g. can join in 2015 at reduced rate but cannot have been a member in 2013/2014 etc.
I think it's a great way of playing a course for a year and deciding if it and the culture is for you.0 -
Moate have increased their yearly fee to by €50 to €550 (plus GUI), and there are other alternatives for people joining together with an existing member if the 2 'friends' haven't been a member in the last couple of years. I am by no means rich but I sacrifice on other things to pay it and for me this is still excellent value for money - as long as you are able to make time for regular competitive golf.
It's not madness, it's simple economics.
We have a small but vibrant membership and we are doing everything we can to maintain the course and clubhouse so we can make it an enjoyable place to play good golf. We went down the cheaper route and got some members in but a lot of them fecked off at the first opportunity showing zero loyalty for our generous reduced rates to them. That's a no win situation for any golf CLUB.0 -
Wichita Lineman wrote: »Moate have increased their yearly fee to by €50 to €550 (plus GUI), and there are other alternatives for people joining together with an existing member if the 2 'friends' haven't been a member in the last couple of years. I am by no means rich but I sacrifice on other things to pay it and for me this is still excellent value for money - as long as you are able to make time for regular competitive golf.
It's not madness, it's simple economics.
We have a small but vibrant membership and we are doing everything we can to maintain the course and clubhouse so we can make it an enjoyable place to play good golf. We went down the cheaper route and got some members in but a lot of them fecked off at the first opportunity showing zero loyalty for our generous reduced rates to them. That's a no win situation for any golf CLUB.
Here is the difficulty we're talking about. Its not simply about price (and by that I mean low entry prices plus different options). Its about the product and making it attractive.
Maybe it is a supply and demand thing. Maybe some people are right and there are too many clubs and we need to lose some more. I'm not sure. I think the answer lies somewhere in the need to get people back into playing golf, or into playing golf for the first time. That's the issue. If we increase the playing numbers then everything else will follow more or less smoothly afterwards.0 -
I seen quite a few of these offers around, will be interesting to see if people use it for a year and then move club to a similar offer else where.
Also will they offer it to people who left for a year and are now coming back.
That has happened on occasion for us alright, but tis better to get the one-time hit than to not get anything at all.
In Athlone we do a 3-step type of thing.
1st year incentive - €450.
2nd year incentive - €599 ( for those who want to stay on after their first year, but still don't want to pay full price ).
3rd year and each subsequent year, the full price, which is currently €725.
It's a method that has worked well for encouraging new members to stay but as you said, there are mercenaries out there who use it for the one time hit also before moving on!0 -
I think the answer lies somewhere in the need to get people back into playing golf, or into playing golf for the first time. That's the issue. If we increase the playing numbers then everything else will follow more or less smoothly afterwards.
I dont see why people think we can massively increase the numbers of people playing though?
Looking at the GUI stats we had pretty solid, steady growth for 40+ years, playing numbers and number of clubs were well matched.
We then had an explosion of both.
Since then the numbers have dropped back down to 1997 levels, but we still have more than 60 clubs more than we had back then.
Why have so many people left golf? For me its because they either cannot afford it or dont see it as value for money.
Making it cheaper and cheaper in a valiant effort to make it value for money for people who are most likely new enough to the game and not that invested to me isnt a valid answer.
It will result in a club limping along unable to make any long term plans because at any moment they are likely to face a mass exodus of their transient partial members to the club down the road who has dropped their price a little more.
I dont think that one time hit does anything more than prolong the inevitable and further advantage the NAMA courses.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
...Its not simply about price (and by that I mean low entry prices plus different options). Its about the product and making it attractive...
Good point, apart from the direct economics it's about value which goes to quality of the tee boxes, fairways, rough, green, transitions, course playability, ease of getting out for a game, use of temporary greens or mats on tee boxes, online booking, competition days, clubhouse amenities etc etc and ultimately how one course compares to its neighbours.0 -
Possible solution: GUI ceases recognising clubs in NAMA programmes for longer than, lets say, 2 years.
NAMA either sells them on or will have to close as no one will remain a member of a club not recognised by the GUI.
It puts all clubs in the same boat then in that they have to maintain a balanced budget, not in bailout status where they can undercut any nearby clubs by large margins.0 -
I dont see why people think we can massively increase the numbers of people playing though?
Looking at the GUI stats we had pretty solid, steady growth for 40+ years, playing numbers and number of clubs were well matched.
We then had an explosion of both.
Since then the numbers have dropped back down to 1997 levels, but we still have more than 60 clubs more than we had back then.
Why have so many people left golf? For me its because they either cannot afford it or dont see it as value for money.
Making it cheaper and cheaper in a valiant effort to make it value for money for people who are most likely new enough to the game and not that invested to me isnt a valid answer.
It will result in a club limping along unable to make any long term plans because at any moment they are likely to face a mass exodus of their transient partial members to the club down the road who has dropped their price a little more.
I dont think that one time hit does anything more than prolong the inevitable and further advantage the NAMA courses.
You do have a point alright. Just making things cheaper won't fix them in the long run because, as you say, the "new to golf" people may not stay as members (of whatever type) in sufficient numbers in the longer term to make a tangible difference. In addition, there are more leisure options for people nowadays which aren't as time consuming as golf, and people in my age bracket probably have more demands on their time with kids etc. which maybe weren't there in previous years.
By the way, I dislike the "NAMA courses are ruining things" though because (a) I don't like putting things into boxes like that and (b) it suggests that all of them were newbies responsible for mucking up the established courses and that's simply not true across the board. Some were established courses who simply got into trouble and NAMA took the loans from the bank (Not always the call of the banks by the way - many loans were forced into NAMA unwillingly). My own course (PH) was a NAMA course and is relatively new (less than 15 yrs old). But I think Knockanally was one too (and I was a member there as a junior back in the 80's.) and that can hardly be called a new course. They just made a mistake in investing in property speculation and then their numbers died off.
Anyway, the solution is to make the product better (I keep harping on about this I know!) and to let the market decide after that. For example, why do you use a certain Chinese restaurant / take-away? Is it purely for the price? Maybe in the first instance, but I'll bet that most people use the same Chinese on a Friday night because its the best one in their area, not just because of the price. People get fed up of crap Sweet & Sour Chicken pretty quickly, even though it might be two quid cheaper than a better takeaway elsewhere in the town. Pretty soon people go to the better one and the crap takeaway will either (a) get a better chef or (b) close up altogether. Why should golf be any different?0 -
Possible solution: GUI ceases recognising clubs in NAMA programmes for longer than, lets say, 2 years.
NAMA either sells them on or will have to close as no one will remain a member of a club not recognised by the GUI.
It puts all clubs in the same boat then in that they have to maintain a balanced budget, not in bailout status where they can undercut any nearby clubs by large margins.
No, you can't do that. Just because a business is in NAMA doesn't mean its not a good business or that its dead in the water. In any case, NAMA is there to maximise value for the taxpayer whether we like it or not and selling courses off prematurely won't necessarily do those clubs any good at all. As property values recover to more normal levels there may be more opportunities here but for the moment I don't think doing anything with "NAMA courses" will fix the industry issue.0 -
No, you can't do that. Just because a business is in NAMA doesn't mean its not a good business or that its dead in the water. In any case, NAMA is there to maximise value for the taxpayer whether we like it or not and selling courses off prematurely won't necessarily do those clubs any good at all. As property values recover to more normal levels there may be more opportunities here but for the moment I don't think doing anything with "NAMA courses" will fix the industry issue.
Well they should be instructed to try and run the club like it would be run under normal circumstances. Not just get in whatever you can sure it'll be something etc. etc.
Pre crash, membership = 1000 euro, all local clubs plus/minus a couple of hundred. Fair playing field.
Post crash, club in NAMA, set membership to under 500, get what they can, probably a good few at that price. All the local clubs who continued to trade through the recession forced to drastically drop prices to compete with the club that defaulted.
I don't see how that's fair. If a club couldn't manage its finances to stay in business then why is it being allowed to drag down the businesses that did??
Leaving the argument of national economics out of it where NAMA is supposed to recover value for the taxpayer it places a large drag on other businesses. Same in the hotel industry0 -
Advertisement
-
How many NAMA courses are there? Can only think of 3 or 4. Think Portmarnock was for a while but they never droped their prices.
Is moyvalley re opened as a private course.
New Forrest is another i think.0 -
Palmerstown was for a period. No club operated out of it at the time though, just green fees.0
-
It maybe better for that individual club, but it doesnt do anything to resolve the underlying problem.
Well thats the worst case scenario, that they only stay the year.... but we have had people come to us for the 450.... stay for the 2nd year.... and then decide they like either a.) the club or b.) the course or c.) the game or d.) all of the above, to continue playing on beyond the 1st or 2nd year and with Athlone .....
So it does somewhat go towards helping solve underlying problems0 -
-
Exactly. I'm really not sure a NAMA course has had a significant effect on established local ones. Palmerstown was in NAMA as you say but wasn't a club per se. It took green fees and gradually fell into disrepair due to the lack of investment but it wasn't a club. It literally backs onto Naas GC and there have been no issues in Naas. Its become only slightly easier to get into nowadays, but that's it. You can also see Killeen GC from the 7th tee box in Naas and that's still going fairly strong - despite the fact that its a relatively new club which initially started down the share option route like South County did (In fact, they were competitors at that time - around 2002/2003 if I remember rightly.). So, I'd discount the NAMA factor as a contributory factor.0
-
Advertisement
Advertisement