Golf Memberships

GreeBo

grip n rip wrote: »

capitalism will take care of it , its a free market . Thank to all the lads paying €1-2000 per annum for membership and upkeep of the clubs but i will pay the €20 once or twice a year to play and enjoy it. I see no problem with that .

Fact is visiting golfers open day money is an important income supply to clubs these days

Those lads will soon decide that they can do with you, and you can enjoy playing on public or open courses, that will be of a far lower quality.

Greenfess are important, but they are a fraction compared to subs from members.

grip n rip

GreeBo wrote: »

Those lads will soon decide that they can do with you, and you can enjoy playing on public or open courses, that will be of a far lower quality.

Greenfess are important, but they are a fraction compared to subs from members.

Sorry mate but u are wrong , the choice available with regards open days is growing all the time , if a club decides it not longer wants visitors playing open comps (which none will) then fair enough because theres always another down the road happy for the money .

Playing the same course over n over again holds no appeal to me & im sure im not alone in that.

cairny

GreeBo wrote: »

The main reason of a club, thats owned by its members is to make it the best club it can be, for its members.
Money does this, if you believe otherwise you dont understand the business of running a golf club.

In any case, I dont think anyone mentioned basing entry on ability to pay, other than yourself. Its a part of it of course, there is no point in allowing people into your club who cant pay to maintain and improve the club.

From a business point of view clubs should take a more compete view. Subs are analogous to insurance premium income in that they repeat annually.

Clubs missed this element in the 90s and 00s and were left with aging memberships. A well off club may struggle in 20 years if it doesn't take this into account.

For this reason there can be merit in discounts for younger members joining on much the same basis that Banks pay students to sign up.

GreeBo

grip n rip wrote: »

Sorry mate but u are wrong , the choice available with regards open days is growing all the time , if a club decides it not longer wants visitors playing open comps (which none will) then fair enough because theres always another down the road happy for the money .

Playing the same course over n over again holds no appeal to me & im sure im not alone in that.

Wandering nomadically around the country looking for somewhere to play with a couple of other mates holds no appeal for many.

Not being able to head out for a few holes or practice green/driving range holds no appeal for me.

As your open day options start to dwindle due to clubs closing (the ones that members have been keeping open) those members will join one of the remaining clubs, lessening that clubs need for open days.

Currently open days have been growing as some clubs scramble for money, its not a sustainable model in this country, there arent enough people to keep courses in the manner that people like you want to play in for fifteen quid a pop.

FixdePitchmark

GreeBo wrote: »

Wandering nomadically around the country looking for somewhere to play with a couple of other mates holds no appeal for many.

Not being able to head out for a few holes or practice green/driving range holds no appeal for me.

As your open day options start to dwindle due to clubs closing (the ones that members have been keeping open) those members will join one of the remaining clubs, lessening that clubs need for open days.

Currently open days have been growing as some clubs scramble for money, its not a sustainable model in this country, there arent enough people to keep courses in the manner that people like you want to play in for fifteen quid a pop.

In fairness, I admire your faith - but far more people have mates and are delighted to be nomadically inclined than you expect.

Your desires are miles off what the market wants.

Heading off for a few holes with the kids at home - is not realistic.

Sorry GreeBo - I think you are miles off the mark.

GreeBo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

In fairness, I admire your faith - but far more people have mates and are delighted to be nomadically inclined than you expect.

Your desires are miles off what the market wants.

Heading off for a few holes with the kids at home - is not realistic.

Sorry GreeBo - I think you are miles off the mark.

They are delighted because they are getting below cost golf at the moment, that wont last.

Heading off to a course an hours drive away for a 4.5-5 hour round is realistic though?
Playing a few holes in the summer evening when the kids are in bed is what golf is all about for a few years when the kids are a certain age.

I think your expectations are miles off reality.

FixdePitchmark

GreeBo wrote: »

They are delighted because they are getting below cost golf at the moment, that wont last.

Heading off to a course an hours drive away for a 4.5-5 hour round is realistic though?
Playing a few holes in the summer evening when the kids are in bed is what golf is all about for a few years when the kids are a certain age.

I think your expectations are miles off reality.

Well thanks for replying - please note new mod.

FixdePitchmark

Greebo - some of these courses are 15 mins from me. And have been doing this below cost selling for 3/4 years.

That will do for my mates.

Russman

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

In fairness, I admire your faith - but far more people have mates and are delighted to be nomadically inclined than you expect.

Your desires are miles off what the market wants.

Heading off for a few holes with the kids at home - is not realistic.

Sorry GreeBo - I think you are miles off the mark.

Of course it is. Obviously everyone's relationship is unique, but I know 4 people for sure (and a fifth that is rumoured to) who have left or are leaving my club in the last few weeks to join clubs closer to their homes for that very reason. All are in or around late 30s/early 40s with young kids, and are willing to pay a little more to have golf 5/10 minutes from home as opposed to 25/30 minutes away.

First Up

grip n rip wrote: »

capitalism will take care of it , its a free market . Thank to all the lads paying €1-2000 per annum for membership and upkeep of the clubs but i will pay the €20 once or twice a year to play and enjoy it. I see no problem with that .

Fact is visiting golfers open day money is an important income supply to clubs these days

Open day money is petty cash compared to revenue from members. Green fees are welcome almost everywhere but if you are enjoying your €20 golf based on a distance membership, get ready to do a bit of travelling.

slave1

grip n rip wrote: »

...
Playing the same course over n over again holds no appeal to me & im sure im not alone in that...

You are not my friend, you are not. Another example of where GC need to wise up to another generation of golfers and adapt accordingly...

Dayor Knight

First Up wrote: »

I'm reminded of the story of Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves. He had a great thing going - rob the rich folk coming through the forest and spread the proceeds. Result - popularity and strike a blow for the little man.
All went well until it hit a snag; the rich folk stopped coming through the forest.
Think about it.

Maybe the forest was better off.

Russman

slave1 wrote: »

You are not my friend, you are not. Another example of where GC need to wise up to another generation of golfers and adapt accordingly...

It depends on what someone wants from their golf. Someone who has ambitions of maybe playing inter-club golf at some point, or getting their handicap as low as possible would be likely to want/need to be playing their home course regularly.
For someone who just wants a 4 ball with their mates on a Saturday, the distance thing works fine, whether it continues with the new GUI stipulation remains to be seen.

First Up

Golf is contracting in Ireland for the same socio-economic reasons behind similar contraction in the US, UK and elsewhere.

Fiddling with prices isn't going to alter that - in fact it is more likely to weaken clubs than strengthen them. If that means fewer courses for fewer players, paying a bit more for the privilege, then so be it. That's what the game was like 60 -70 years ago and it may well be that again.

golfwallah

First Up wrote: »

You demonstrate a lack of understanding of how such clubs are constituted. They are member owned and the "hello" money is the price of your share. Once in, you are a part owner.
The more recent, commercial operations are/were doing it for revenue but characterising the traditional clubs as just being "elitist" is flat wrong.
And very few if any of those clubs have any worries about future members. Their location, quality, secure financial status and strong family tradition and linkage will see them around for a long time.
Drop the begrudgery and support your own club the way the members of the "elitist" clubs support theirs.

You keep going on about “elitist” clubs as if high fees and lavish expenditure is the only workable form of golf club model. You’re entitled to your opinion, but many more would disagree with you.

The reality is that there are about 430 golf clubs affiliated to the GUI. Of these, if you exclude commercially run resort type courses, only a minority are in the bracket you describe. This may be by dint of being located in a well populated area, being exceptional in terms of scenery / layout / international reputation, etc.

That leaves the vast bulk of clubs in any particular catchment area in a range that potential and existing members can evaluate according to their own criteria. And I don’t accept that any of these clubs are made up of members where the majority don’t support them or have pride in them. Certainly, these clubs will operate on different business model lines, have different ranges of competencies on committee and have different degrees of financial viability.

What really separates the “elitist” clubs from the rest is that they don’t have to deal with the reality of declining revenues and cost inefficiencies with the same degree of urgency as those on the cusp of financial viability. And there are a lot of clubs in that situation – some more so than others, some that will survive and others that won’t.

As for being a part owner – for all but a few clubs that is an illusion. Members are more invested socially than financially in their clubs. Moreover, tax law, charity status, how clubs are constituted will prevent most from direct financial benefit in the event of a wind up or sale of their course. In fact, Directors or Trustees are more at risk of personal financial loss in the event of financial failure, where liabilities exceed assets. This is why a good form of club governance is just as important as attracting and retaining members.

Nobody begrudges the well off, “elitist” clubs their success. Why would they when all clubs would love to be just as financially viable? But that doesn’t mean all clubs have to follow the same tired old business model of high fees and, possibly, avoidable excessive spending! It’s about survival and what works – not adherence to any particular form of business model.

First Up

golfwallah wrote: »

You keep going on about “elitist” clubs as if high fees and lavish expenditure is the only workable form of golf club model. You’re entitled to your opinion, but many more would disagree with you.

The reality is that there are about 430 golf clubs affiliated to the GUI. Of these, if you exclude commercially run resort type courses, only a minority are in the bracket you describe. This may be by dint of being located in a well populated area, being exceptional in terms of scenery / layout / international reputation, etc.

That leaves the vast bulk of clubs in any particular catchment area in a range that potential and existing members can evaluate according to their own criteria. And I don’t accept that any of these clubs are made up of members where the majority don’t support them or have pride in them. Certainly, these clubs will operate on different business model lines, have different ranges of competencies on committee and have different degrees of financial viability.

What really separates the “elitist” clubs from the rest is that they don’t have to deal with the reality of declining revenues and cost inefficiencies with the same degree of urgency as those on the cusp of financial viability. And there are a lot of clubs in that situation – some more so than others, some that will survive and others that won’t.

As for being a part owner – for all but a few clubs that is an illusion. Members are more invested socially than financially in their clubs. Moreover, tax law, charity status, how clubs are constituted will prevent most from direct financial benefit in the event of a wind up or sale of their course. In fact, Directors or Trustees are more at risk of personal financial loss in the event of financial failure, where liabilities exceed assets. This is why a good form of club governance is just as important as attracting and retaining members.

Nobody begrudges the well off, “elitist” clubs their success. Why would they when all clubs would love to be just as financially viable? But that doesn’t mean all clubs have to follow the same tired old business model of high fees and, possibly, avoidable excessive spending! It’s about survival and what works – not adherence to any particular form of business model.

The "elitist" term is not mine. It has been used by some begrudgers as a convenient way to describe any club which is out of their price bracket. The ownership/share issue came up in the context of what is inaccurately described as "hello" money.

Clubs can follow any business model they like, but the fundamental requirement is that income should cover outgoings. The easiest - and so far only proven viable - way to do that is through membership subscriptions - be they €2,500 for a top notch course or €500 for some glorified scrub land.

By all means offer "flexible" membership deals to lure the casual or half-interested golfer. But if anyone thinks that is the route to survival, they are in for a let down.

GreeBo

slave1 wrote: »

You are not my friend, you are not. Another example of where GC need to wise up to another generation of golfers and adapt accordingly...

Adapt how exactly?

I ran some numbers against the GUI 2013 membership/club stats.

Interesting reading.

The variables are:
- Number of people playing golf
- Number of courses
- Cost to run a club
- Blend

Didn't have numbers for non GUI golfers, but I guess that doesn't matter for opens.

If you get rid of members subsidising nomadic golf then get ready for a large change in your golfing landscape.

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

You keep going on about “elitist” clubs as if high fees and lavish expenditure is the only workable form of golf club model. You’re entitled to your opinion, but many more would disagree with you.

The reality is that there are about 430 golf clubs affiliated to the GUI. Of these, if you exclude commercially run resort type courses, only a minority are in the bracket you describe. This may be by dint of being located in a well populated area, being exceptional in terms of scenery / layout / international reputation, etc.

That leaves the vast bulk of clubs in any particular catchment area in a range that potential and existing members can evaluate according to their own criteria. And I don’t accept that any of these clubs are made up of members where the majority don’t support them or have pride in them. Certainly, these clubs will operate on different business model lines, have different ranges of competencies on committee and have different degrees of financial viability.

What really separates the “elitist” clubs from the rest is that they don’t have to deal with the reality of declining revenues and cost inefficiencies with the same degree of urgency as those on the cusp of financial viability. And there are a lot of clubs in that situation – some more so than others, some that will survive and others that won’t.

As for being a part owner – for all but a few clubs that is an illusion. Members are more invested socially than financially in their clubs. Moreover, tax law, charity status, how clubs are constituted will prevent most from direct financial benefit in the event of a wind up or sale of their course. In fact, Directors or Trustees are more at risk of personal financial loss in the event of financial failure, where liabilities exceed assets. This is why a good form of club governance is just as important as attracting and retaining members.

Nobody begrudges the well off, “elitist” clubs their success. Why would they when all clubs would love to be just as financially viable? But that doesn’t mean all clubs have to follow the same tired old business model of high fees and, possibly, avoidable excessive spending! It’s about survival and what works – not adherence to any particular form of business model.

What do you think these high fees are used for exactly?
People aren't lining their pockets, its being spent on the course, because thats what the members want.

doublecross

First Up wrote: »

The "elitist" term is not mine. It has been used by some begrudgers as a convenient way to describe any club which is out of their price bracket. The ownership/share issue came up in the context of what is inaccurately described as "hello" money.

Clubs can follow any business model they like, but the fundamental requirement is that income should cover outgoings. The easiest - and so far only proven viable - way to do that is through membership subscriptions - be they €2,500 for a top notch course or €500 for some glorified scrub land.

By all means offer "flexible" membership deals to lure the casual or half-interested golfer. But if anyone thinks that is the route to survival, they are in for a let down.

Portumna membership is 500 a year. One of the best courses around. Talked to a member earlier this year he said they're doing very well

GreeBo

doublecross wrote: »

Portumna membership is 500 a year. One of the best courses around. Talked to a member earlier this year he said they're doing very well

How many members do they have?
I'd be interested to see what their yearly costs are.

I played it once and wouldn't agree that it was in the best condition, mid summer too.

First Up

doublecross wrote: »

Portumna membership is 500 a year. One of the best courses around. Talked to a member earlier this year he said they're doing very well

And I'll bet they aren't depending on pay and play. Down the wesht and without debt, €500 could work. In Dublin....

doublecross

GreeBo wrote: »

How many members do they have?
I'd be interested to see what their yearly costs are.

I played it once and wouldn't agree that it was in the best condition, mid summer too.

I've no idea what the figures are.

I play it a few times every year and love. I played adare hotel coures this year mid summer and every fairway was water logged. Lost plugged ball on fairway. Sometimes it's just bad timing

Dayor Knight

First Up wrote: »

The "elitist" term is not mine. It has been used by some begrudgers as a convenient way to describe any club which is out of their price bracket. The ownership/share issue came up in the context of what is inaccurately described as "hello" money.

Clubs can follow any business model they like, but the fundamental requirement is that income should cover outgoings. The easiest - and so far only proven viable - way to do that is through membership subscriptions - be they €2,500 for a top notch course or €500 for some glorified scrub land.

By all means offer "flexible" membership deals to lure the casual or half-interested golfer. But if anyone thinks that is the route to survival, they are in for a let down.

I used the term "elitist" and I have to tell you that I neither begrudge you anything nor would your clubs be out of my price bracket if I wanted to waste a few €K lining your coffers. I'm a full member of a fine golf club outside Dublin and have been for many years (and I'm quite aware of the concept of club ownership by the members of which I am one in my own club - not quite the same as owning a "share" btw.)

I actually agree with your points in general about the concept of the club and funding the club through the level of membership fees required to maintain your club to a high standard. Hello money is another story.

My original point though, in support of Fixdepitchmark's thoughtful contributions, and based on what I've seen here in Dublin over the last thirty years, is that many Dublin Clubs in particular were a closed shop. As private clubs, they were and are entitled to look after their members' interests by charging whatever they liked to newcomers, and setting up barriers to restrict entry according to their preferences (interviews, who do you know, family members etc), but I can't shed any tears for those same clubs now if they're feeling the pinch and stuck with an ageing population of golfers. If I'm wrong about that, and you have a thriving population of young golfers in your club, I'd love to hear. It's just not what I'm seeing in any club I've visited. And if your club has no financial challenges, then that's great too, you don't need to worry about opens, distance memberships etc.

But if you want to talk about begrudgery you might have a look a lot closer to home and decide whether the griping that's going on here about distance memberships and golfers getting golf at a price they can afford might fit that bill.

GreeBo

Dayor Knight wrote: »

I used the term "elitist" and I have to tell you that I neither begrudge you anything nor would your clubs be out of my price bracket if I wanted to waste a few €K lining your coffers. I'm a full member of a fine golf club outside Dublin and have been for many years (and I'm quite aware of the concept of club ownership by the members of which I am one in my own club - not quite the same as owning a "share" btw.)

I actually agree with your points in general about the concept of the club and funding the club through the level of membership fees required to maintain your club to a high standard. Hello money is another story.

My original point though, in support of Fixdepitchmark's thoughtful contributions, and based on what I've seen here in Dublin over the last thirty years, is that many Dublin Clubs in particular were a closed shop. As private clubs, they were and are entitled to look after their members' interests by charging whatever they liked to newcomers, and setting up barriers to restrict entry according to their preferences (interviews, who do you know, family members etc), but I can't shed any tears for those same clubs now if they're feeling the pinch and stuck with an ageing population of golfers. If I'm wrong about that, and you have a thriving population of young golfers in your club, I'd love to hear. It's just not what I'm seeing in any club I've visited. And if your club has no financial challenges, then that's great too, you don't need to worry about opens, distance memberships etc.

But if you want to talk about begrudgery you might have a look a lot closer to home and decide whether the griping that's going on here about distance memberships and golfers getting golf at a price they can afford might fit that bill.

We've a thriving group of young people.

From 6 years old up to late 20's we have large groups of golfers.

The 30 somethings are the somewhat lost group, mostly due to financial hardships right when they were moving between junior and full member.

Having an issue with distance membership isnt begrudgry, it doesnt impact someone in a financially sound club much, if at all.
However that doesnt mean I and others cant have an opinion on it.
Mine is that its a short term, unsustainable model.

mike12

If Member clubs are so worried about bandits why don't the all have a cheap membership option.
GUI handicap and get to play 3 midweek opens €180 per year. Nothing else just that no cheap green fees or anything else.
It would kill the distance membership overnight and mean that people could join a club where they could actually play there 3 comps to keep a handicap without having to travel 100 miles.
Maybe the GUI could make it that a club can only have 100 of this type of members.

grip n rip

First Up wrote: »

Open day money is petty cash compared to revenue from members. Green fees are welcome almost everywhere but if you are enjoying your €20 golf based on a distance membership, get ready to do a bit of travelling.

Maybe it is , i honestly wouldnt know but as far as get ready to travel - i cant see it changing anytime soon , as is there's a great selection of courses to play within 30 mins of my home and as far as i know none are in trouble. Throw in various scratch cups and playing regular golf cheaply is the best option for a lot of people (myself included).

All credit to paying a large sum for full membership somewhere but its not for me , i like to play a different course every week.

grip n rip

Russman wrote: »

It depends on what someone wants from their golf. Someone who has ambitions of maybe playing inter-club golf at some point, or getting their handicap as low as possible would be likely to want/need to be playing their home course regularly.
For someone who just wants a 4 ball with their mates on a Saturday, the distance thing works fine, whether it continues with the new GUI stipulation remains to be seen.

Id imagine playing the same course over n over again would bring the handicap down alright but surely a different course weekly would give a more true handicap level ?

GreeBo

grip n rip wrote: »

Maybe it is , i honestly wouldnt know but as far as get ready to travel - i cant see it changing anytime soon , as is there's a great selection of courses to play within 30 mins of my home and as far as i know none are in trouble. Throw in various scratch cups and playing regular golf cheaply is the best option for a lot of people (myself included).

All credit to paying a large sum for full membership somewhere but its not for me , i like to play a different course every week.

Do you at least acknowledge that others are subsidising your "cheap" "different course every week" lifestyle?

First Up

grip n rip wrote: »

Maybe it is , i honestly wouldnt know but as far as get ready to travel - i cant see it changing anytime soon , as is there's a great selection of courses to play within 30 mins of my home and as far as i know none are in trouble. Throw in various scratch cups and playing regular golf cheaply is the best option for a lot of people (myself included).

All credit to paying a large sum for full membership somewhere but its not for me , i like to play a different course every week.

The travel reference was to having to visit your "distance" club in order to meet the new requirements for handicaps.

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

Adapt how exactly?

I ran some numbers against the GUI 2013 membership/club stats.

Interesting reading.

The variables are:
- Number of people playing golf
- Number of courses
- Cost to run a club
- Blend

Didn't have numbers for non GUI golfers, but I guess that doesn't matter for opens.

If you get rid of members subsidising nomadic golf then get ready for a large change in your golfing landscape.

It's interesting reading in the sense that it's completely flawed and selective to your side of the argument as it stands.
But I like the way you've looked at it. You have taken an extreme approach, if done correctly and with some balance it could give a nice overview and a greater understanding to all.

You have failed to look at the opposite side of things, selectively I guess but the other extreme is just as ridiculous and/or as damaging.

You've went for an "open only" approach and variations of same....obviously things don't stack up.
(From what I've read here, nobody is looking for a model remotely like that but anyway.)

Did it cross your mind at things from a "membership only" approach?

I'll use your assumptions for the time being even though they are materially wrong in certain areas, as per your figures:

Cash In needs to be €642,500,000 from 116,061* golfers to keep 428 Course going assuming they spend 1.5m** a year.


If you had no opens, and all golfers just paid and played on their home coures then the Annual Sub required from everyone is €5,536

€642,500,000 / 116,061 golfers = €5,536... Every golfer would have to pay that every year!!!!
That's just as destined to fail as the "open only" extreme you've shown.

To look at it another way, the figure of €2,500 has been thrown about here as some magic figure that should be and is needed to be paid buy members. So looking at that:

€2,500 * 116,061 = €290,152,500
Again, using you're 1.5M cost for consistancy
€290,152,500 / €1,500,000 = 193 Courses Funded, or a loss of 235 courses (428-193)

It's an interesting way to look at things but if you're going to argue the flaws in one extreme approach, you've left yourself wide open as it's just as unrealistic to look to the other extreme.


*The amount of GUI golfers in Ireland is 165,000 not 116,000.
** How are you getting the average cost of running a club to be €1.5m?

grip n rip

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you at least acknowledge that others are subsidising your "cheap" "different course every week" lifestyle?

I wouldnt say subsidising as they are getting the benefits they seem to want from full membership like playing the same course weekly , maybe a social scene , inter-pro golf as was mentioned earlier etc.

i and the others like me merely pay a bit for the pleasure of playing their course once in a while. I've never gotten a bad reaction or have never been made feel unwelcome at any open day i attend , indeed its quiet the opposite - all the staff i meet are always glad to see us and friendly us they appreciate the support.

GreeBo

PARlance wrote: »

It's interesting reading in the sense that it's completely flawed and selective to your side of the argument as it stands.
But I like the way you've looked at it. You have taken an extreme approach, if done correctly and with some balance it could give a nice overview and a greater understanding to all.

You have failed to look at the opposite side of things, selectively I guess but the other extreme is just as ridiculous and/or as damaging.
You've went for an "open only" approach and variations of same....obviously things don't stack up.
(From what I've read here, nobody is looking for a model remotely like that but anyway.)

Did it cross your mind at things from a "membership only" approach?

The whole point of the argument is people wanting to play quality courses without being members, Im not sure why I would look at the members option tbh?

PARlance wrote: »

I'll use your assumptions for the time being even though they are materially wrong in certain areas, as per your figures:

Cash In needs to be €642,500,000 from 116,061* golfers to keep 428 Course going assuming they spend 1.5m** a year.


If you had no opens, and all golfers just paid and played on their home coures then the Annual Sub required from everyone is €5,536

€642,500,000 / 116,061 golfers = €5,536... Every golfer would have to pay that every year!!!!

Thats if you want to have every course as a top quality 1.5M a year course. Obviously that wont happen, but if you want the nomadic, open playing option, those are the courses you are going to want to play in, not fields with flags.

PARlance wrote: »

That's just as destined to fail as the "open only" extreme you've shown.

To look at it another way, the figure of €2,500 has been thrown about here as some magic figure that should be and is needed to be paid buy members. So looking at that:

€2,500 * 116,061 = €290,152,500
Again, using you're 1.5M cost for consistancy
€290,152,500 / €1,500,000 = 193 Courses Funded, or a loss of 235 courses (428-193)

I dont think anyone has said thats an amount that "should" have to be paid? I know I certainly didnt.
"the open only extreme" is what people here are advocating, they want to be able to play quality courses without joining them. Its not in any way my model.

PARlance wrote: »

It's an interesting way to look at things but if you're going to argue the flaws in one extreme approach, you've left yourself wide open as it's just as unrealistic to look to the other extreme.


*The amount of GUI golfers in Ireland is 165,000 not 116,000.
** How are you getting the average cost of running a club to be €1.5m?

My numbers, as stated in my post, are from GUI for 2013.

Im picking 1.5M as a good average to run the type of club that people want to play in for opens.
Again, people dont pay €20 to play in a field.

GreeBo

grip n rip wrote: »

I wouldnt say subsidising as they are getting the benefits they seem to want from full membership like playing the same course weekly , maybe a social scene , inter-pro golf as was mentioned earlier etc.

i and the others like me merely pay a bit for the pleasure of playing their course once in a while. I've never gotten a bad reaction or have never been made feel unwelcome at any open day i attend , indeed its quiet the opposite - all the staff i meet are always glad to see us and friendly us they appreciate the support.

Well if you were paying the full sub you might feel differently.

Opens are supposed to be for other local members to play your course, not nomadic distance members.

grip n rip

GreeBo wrote: »

Well if you were paying the full sub you might feel differently.

Opens are supposed to be for other local members to play your course, not nomadic distance members.

Is that a rule or a reflection ? If its a rule then id assume its easily enforceable. The nomadic lifestyle suits a lot of golfers but does seem to get on the nerves of those who seem to think that only those who can pay high membership subs deserve to play the game.

GreeBo

grip n rip wrote: »

Is that a rule or a reflection ? If its a rule then id assume its easily enforceable. The nomadic lifestyle suits a lot of golfers but does seem to get on the nerves of those who seem to think that only those who can pay high membership subs deserve to play the game.

Its not a rule, its what they were invested for, to allow other visiting or local golfers to play local courses without having to pay a greenfee.

I'm sure it does suit lots of people, its just not great for golf clubs.

Me parking on double yellow lines suits me when I want to run into the shop for 5 mins, it doesnt suit the rest of the traffic that gets stuck trying to pass my car.

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

The whole point of the argument is people wanting to play quality courses without being members, Im not sure why I would look at the members option tbh?

For balance

GreeBo wrote: »

Thats if you want to have every course as a top quality 1.5M a year course. Obviously that wont happen, but if you want the nomadic, open playing option, those are the courses you are going to want to play in, not fields with flags.

Ridiculous, Portumna (a course referenced earlier offering cheap membership) ranks 30+ places above your club, Grange, in the recent Golf Digest rankings and it doesn't spend anywhere near 1.5M a year.

GreeBo wrote: »

I dont think anyone has said thats an amount that "should" have to be paid? I know I certainly didnt.
"the open only extreme" is what people here are advocating, they want to be able to play quality courses without joining them. Its not in any way my model.

Nobody said that there would ever be more than 1 million golfers in Ireland but you've still included it in your model

GreeBo wrote: »

My numbers, as stated in my post, are from GUI for 2013.

165,086 is the correct number for total GUI golfers in 2013.
I am aware of where you got the 116,061 from, I'm just informing you that you're wrong to use it.

https://www.gui.ie/home/general-documents/membership-stats-2013.aspx

GreeBo wrote: »

Im picking 1.5M as a good average to run the type of club that people want to play in for opens.
Again, people dont pay €20 to play in a field.

You can play about 15, possibly more, of the top 100 courses as per the Golf Digest Top 100 for €20.
Most of them seem to make their model work, having a full membership base and offering opens at €20.
Outside of the top 100 there are excellent courses that are maintained an extremely high level that offer opens for €20 or less. Naas & Castlewarden being good examples. Both strong clubs financially afaik, both in fantastic condition as often as any other course in the country imo.

First Up

PARlance wrote: »

For balance



Ridiculous, Portumna (a course referenced earlier offering cheap membership) ranks 30+ places above your club, Grange, in the recent Golf Digest rankings and it doesn't spend anywhere near 1.5M a year.



Nobody said that there would ever be more than 1 million golfers in Ireland but you've still included it in your model



165,086 is the correct number for total GUI golfers in 2013.
I am aware of where you got the 116,061 from, I'm just informing you that you're wrong to use it.

https://www.gui.ie/home/general-documents/membership-stats-2013.aspx



You can play about 15, possibly more, of the top 100 courses as per the Golf Digest Top 100 for €20.
Most of them seem to make their model work, having a full membership base and offering opens at €20.
Outside of the top 100 there are excellent courses that are maintained an extremely high level that offer opens for €20 or less. Naas & Castlewarden being good examples. Both strong clubs financially afaik, both in fantastic condition as often as any other course in the country imo.

The "commercial" rate for playing those courses is the full green fee, not the subsidised "open" fee.
I am happy to see nomadic golfers play anywhere they want, as long as they pay for it.

Russman

grip n rip wrote: »

Id imagine playing the same course over n over again would bring the handicap down alright but surely a different course weekly would give a more true handicap level ?

I wouldn't disagree with you there at all, there are huge benefits as a golfer from playing different courses regularly, no doubt about that.

GreeBo

PARlance wrote: »

For balance

Balance of what though?
The argument is about moving away from membership towards distance membership.

PARlance wrote: »

Ridiculous, Portumna (a course referenced earlier offering cheap membership) ranks 30+ places above your club, Grange, in the recent Golf Digest rankings and it doesn't spend anywhere near 1.5M a year.

How much do they spend?

PARlance wrote: »

Nobody said that there would ever be more than 1 million golfers in Ireland but you've still included it in your model

Huh?
You specifically said people are advocating a sub of 2.5K.
My 1M golfers is an example of what would be needed to maintain the current number of clubs.

PARlance wrote: »

165,086 is the correct number for total GUI golfers in 2013.
I am aware of where you got the 116,061 from, I'm just informing you that you're wrong to use it.

https://www.gui.ie/home/general-documents/membership-stats-2013.aspx

No, Im using the number of full members, the ones that would be leaving to become distance members.

PARlance wrote: »

You can play about 15, possibly more, of the top 100 courses as per the Golf Digest Top 100 for €20.
Most of them seem to make their model work, having a full membership base and offering opens at €20.
Outside of the top 100 there are excellent courses that are maintained an extremely high level that offer opens for €20 or less. Naas & Castlewarden being good examples. Both strong clubs financially afaik, both in fantastic condition as often as any other course in the country imo.

Exactly because they are being subsidized by the members of those courses.

Thats the entire point of the argument, which you seem to be avoiding for unknown reasons.

GreeBo

Russman wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree with you there at all, there are huge benefits as a golfer from playing different courses regularly, no doubt about that.

Yep, through playing inter club and open comps in your local clubs

grip n rip

This is getting very repetitive now lads , the distance membership isn't going anywhere so will have to be accepted . If full members dislike it so much then i suggest you all bring it up at committee level with your clubs and try get it stopped .

PARlance

First Up wrote: »

The "commercial" rate for playing those courses is the full green fee, not the subsidised "open" fee.
I am happy to see nomadic golfers play anywhere they want, as long as they pay for it.

Agree to a certain extent, but Greebo is taking about open rates.

I would say commercial rate is changing, offer sites such as golfnow, teetimes etc are growing and I think you could put an argument forward that these discounted rates are the new standard commercial rate for clubs.
That's just from personal experience, the majority of my golfing mates will feel "robbed" paying the rack rate.

GreeBo

PARlance wrote: »

Agree to a certain extent, but Greebo is taking about open rates.

I would say commercial rate is changing, offer sites such as golfnow, teetimes etc are growing and I think you could put an argument forward that these discounted rates are the new standard commercial rate for clubs.
That's just from personal experience, the majority of my golfing mates will feel "robbed" paying the rack rate.

I'm using open rates to show that they cant sustain golf clubs.

If more and more people move to the open mentality, golf courses will close OR open rates will increase to match green fee rates, if not beyond them.

Sure you will still get deals, but I wouldnt expect to be still getting out for 20 quid on a saturday afternoon in a local club, in a populated area.

GreeBo

grip n rip wrote: »

This is getting very repetitive now lads , the distance membership isn't going anywhere so will have to be accepted . If full members dislike it so much then i suggest you all bring it up at committee level with your clubs and try get it stopped .

Please dont backseat mod threads.

First Up

grip n rip wrote: »

This is getting very repetitive now lads , the distance membership isn't going anywhere so will have to be accepted . If full members dislike it so much then i suggest you all bring it up at committee level with your clubs and try get it stopped .

Watch this space.

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm using open rates to show that they cant sustain golf clubs.

If more and more people move to the open mentality, golf courses will close OR open rates will increase to match green fee rates, if not beyond them.

Sure you will still get deals, but I wouldnt expect to be still getting out for 20 quid on a saturday afternoon in a local club, in a populated area.

Ok.. You've lost me, I can't argue that people will get out in Portmarnock for 20 quid on a Saturday afternoon but then again, but I can't see anyone calling for that.

If everyone stopped playing opens, Golf clubs would close and by your very own figures, everyone would have to pay an annual sub of over €5,500.

Anyway, time to exit the thread for me.

Milkers

GreeBo wrote: »

Its not a rule, its what they were invested for, to allow other visiting or local golfers to play local courses without having to pay a greenfee.

I'm sure it does suit lots of people, its just not great for golf clubs.

Me parking on double yellow lines suits me when I want to run into the shop for 5 mins, it doesnt suit the rest of the traffic that gets stuck trying to pass my car.

Kingswood Rover

GreeBo wrote: »

Well if you were paying the full sub you might feel differently.

Opens are supposed to be for other local members to play your course, not nomadic distance members.

Opens are for anyone with a GUI handicap, i will say it again Distance members are an important source of income for a lot of established clubs. i have never heard of an open competition for other local members. it could be argued that the huge amount of opens on the GUI provincial websites are actually encouraging distance memberships. Cracking debate by the way.

GreeBo

PARlance wrote: »

Ok.. You've lost me, I can't argue that people will get out in Portmarnock for 20 quid on a Saturday afternoon but then again, but I can't see anyone calling for that.

If everyone stopped playing opens, Golf clubs would close and by your very own figures, everyone would have to pay an annual sub of over €5,500.

Anyway, time to exit the thread for me.

Only if every club wants to spend 1.5m on running the club.

Milkers wrote: »

It's a simple analogy about suiting yourself and to he'll with the bigger picture.

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

Opens are for anyone with a GUI handicap, i will say it again Distance members are an important source of income for a lot of established clubs. i have never heard of an open competition for other local members. it could be argued that the huge amount of opens on the GUI provincial websites are actually encouraging distance memberships. Cracking debate by the way.

It could equally be argued that the gui want to bring it back by stipulating 3 rounds in your home club. Maybe they think distance membership is not in the best interests of the game in Ireland.

grip n rip

GreeBo wrote: »

Please dont backseat mod threads.

Ok , havent a clue what this means