Golf Memberships

Russman

grip n rip wrote: »

who's they ? the gui ? aren't we all members of the gui ? making somebody play 10 comps in their own course annually will only kill some of the smaller clubs . the 3 comp rule is also flimsy at best , im not sure but id guess it would be very easy to get around .

In fairness, being expected to play rounds in your "home" club is hardly unreasonable, is it ? In theory, that's the idea of being in a club.

As for killing some of the smaller clubs, that's the whole issue IMO, one way or another, there are simply too many clubs in Ireland. Why should the clubs to close be the ones losing golfers to distance options ? Equally, why should a smaller club in the middle of nowhere be the one to close ? It's a mess. It could easily be argued that some of the smaller clubs are only surviving through an unfair competitive advantage of the distance option. The counter to that could be that dublin clubs are free to offer cheap memberships too, but they're not really free to, they have to cover their costs and if all their members took the cheap option were it available, that wouldn't be possible.

grip n rip

CENSORSHIP IN ANY NAME .
The point made was that your opinion is just that , an opinion ! if you feel the need to delete that then you are weighing down one side of the debate . how do i complain a mod ?

GreeBo

grip n rip wrote: »

CENSORSHIP IN ANY NAME .
The point made was that your opinion is just that , an opinion ! if you feel the need to delete that then you are weighing down one side of the debate . how do i complain a mod ?

Sigh, banned for 1 week.

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

So you wouldn't require X qualifying rounds to be played in Carton?
I think you are then just buying a handicap licence.

I dont like the idea of golfers playing without any home club or handicap secretary.

I thought that was the suggestion, that basically you bought a handicap from the gui ?
But, if x number of rounds were to be played in Carton, are they free ? If not, then membership wouldn't be the suggested €200, it'll effectively be €200 plus the cost of x number of games. Might put people off the idea altogether if it wasn't affordable or if it was more or less equivalent to a membership elsewhere (not that that would be a bad thing !)
Plus Carton mightn't like the idea at all anyway

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

The GUI need to figure out what they want to happen and which golfers are their priority.
Personally I think playing/full members of local clubs are the grass roots of the game. If you lose that I dont know what you have left tbh.
They are the ones keeping golf courses open, allowing inter club golf and bringing most of the young golfers into the game.
I'd be focussing my efforts on maintaining and growing that base and less on the nomadic open players.
Without a members club you dont have a course for the open to be played on.

Couldn't agree more.

GreeBo

Russman wrote: »

I thought that was the suggestion, that basically you bought a handicap from the gui ?
But, if x number of rounds were to be played in Carton, are they free ? If not, then membership wouldn't be the suggested €200, it'll effectively be €200 plus the cost of x number of games. Might put people off the idea altogether if it wasn't affordable or if it was more or less equivalent to a membership elsewhere (not that that would be a bad thing !)
Plus Carton mightn't like the idea at all anyway

I think though if you just flat out sell GUI membership you are giving up on membership golf and letting whatever happens to it happen.
I would guess within 5 years we'd lose a huge number of clubs, and they are the sort of clubs that you wont get back, small club dont really seem to start up anymore.

You could distinguish between a member handicap and a GUI one, restricting GUI one to opens only, but then you are giving them what they want, cheap, top quality golf, paid for by members.

I dont know the best way out of this, but as above, I think clubs need to be protected first and foremost, golfers who would be impacted (those looking to play 10+ opens a year) won't just abandon golf, they are golfers and will figure out a way to play, within the new rules...I hope!

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

I think though if you just flat out sell GUI membership you are giving up on membership golf and letting whatever happens to it happen.
I would guess within 5 years we'd lose a huge number of clubs, and they are the sort of clubs that you wont get back, small club dont really seem to start up anymore.

You could distinguish between a member handicap and a GUI one, restricting GUI one to opens only, but then you are giving them what they want, cheap, top quality golf, paid for by members.

I dont know the best way out of this, but as above, I think clubs need to be protected first and foremost, golfers who would be impacted (those looking to play 10+ opens a year) won't just abandon golf, they are golfers and will figure out a way to play, within the new rules...I hope!

That's it exactly, I think the gui giving out effective distance memberships of Carton idea wouldn't work tbh. Their argument to ban it and take it over themselves simply would stand up, "we don't like distance memberships, so we're going to offer exactly what you country clubs are offering, but we get the money ourselves...."
And it would do nothing for the rest of the clubs.
At some point they're going to have to grasp the nettle and deal with it. I think it was mentioned earlier that there's 164,000 GUI members (? Open to correction), I don't know how many distance members there are, but it must be a tiny percentage I would guess. It might be distasteful to say it, and I'm certainly no fan of the old elitist image golf had/has, but if securing the future of member clubs comes at a cost of x number of nomad open players leaving the game, it's probably worth it in the bigger scheme of things. And it's not even elitist by design, all any club wants to take in is basically enough to cover their operating costs. It's fairly simple, if you spend €500k running the place, you need to take in that much, if that works out at €500 or €5,000 per member it is what it is. The more people join clubs, the cheaper it is for everyone.

GreeBo

Russman wrote: »

That's it exactly, I think the gui giving out effective distance memberships of Carton idea wouldn't work tbh. Their argument to ban it and take it over themselves simply would stand up, "we don't like distance memberships, so we're going to offer exactly what you country clubs are offering, but we get the money ourselves...."
And it would do nothing for the rest of the clubs.
At some point they're going to have to grasp the nettle and deal with it. I think it was mentioned earlier that there's 164,000 GUI members (? Open to correction), I don't know how many distance members there are, but it must be a tiny percentage I would guess. It might be distasteful to say it, and I'm certainly no fan of the old elitist image golf had/has, but if securing the future of member clubs comes at a cost of x number of nomad open players leaving the game, it's probably worth it in the bigger scheme of things. And it's not even elitist by design, all any club wants to take in is basically enough to cover their operating costs. It's fairly simple, if you spend €500k running the place, you need to take in that much, if that works out at €500 or €5,000 per member it is what it is. The more people join clubs, the cheaper it is for everyone.

There are 2.5k members listed as "others", but god knows what they are!

cairny

Russman wrote: »

That's it exactly, I think the gui giving out effective distance memberships of Carton idea wouldn't work tbh. Their argument to ban it and take it over themselves simply would stand up, "we don't like distance memberships, so we're going to offer exactly what you country clubs are offering, but we get the money ourselves...."
And it would do nothing for the rest of the clubs.
At some point they're going to have to grasp the nettle and deal with it. I think it was mentioned earlier that there's 164,000 GUI members (? Open to correction), I don't know how many distance members there are, but it must be a tiny percentage I would guess. It might be distasteful to say it, and I'm certainly no fan of the old elitist image golf had/has, but if securing the future of member clubs comes at a cost of x number of nomad open players leaving the game, it's probably worth it in the bigger scheme of things. And it's not even elitist by design, all any club wants to take in is basically enough to cover their operating costs. It's fairly simple, if you spend €500k running the place, you need to take in that much, if that works out at €500 or €5,000 per member it is what it is. The more people join clubs, the cheaper it is for everyone.

My main motivation for the suggestion was that most of the fee would be sent back to clubs in general so that the specialist distance clubs would not benefit unfairly.

If we are going to allow distance membership then it needs to be reformed. I've no problem with an outright abolition either but leaving it as it is shouldn't be an option.

doublecross

Would it be possible to limit the number of distance members any club can take on (10%)? Say if a club has 500 full members then they're only allowed max 50 distance members. This would stop clubs basing the model on distance membership.

FixdePitchmark

Whilest I don’t like the way distance members are being talked about.

I think that people who are enjopying opens and distance membership. Have to aknowledge that , these two features of golf , are now being used for reasons besdies what they were designed for.
The lads have made very good arguments about the impact it is having on club membership. I think they have made a valid argument that you are bypassing the cost of the sport.

We have seen that this format of golf is bascially ½ price if your happy with an open a week – some opens are only 12 to 15 euro. This type of membership Offers great variety and enables you to control your costs and play better courses.

When you think , that 20 years ago – golf courses hardly had a website. The motorway system didn’t enable such mobility. Not everyone even had a car. Whilest only partially relevant – it is just so much easier now to get information ,join , and get to a distance club. If something is easy and cheap , regular clubs are up against it here.

In an ideal world – opens should be charged at a rate that would be reflective of the average cost per round of a member. It is not outside the realms of possibility that the GUI card could identify the type of member you are and charge on that basis at opens. There are golf alliance system in parts of the world (Canada for example). But- you are getting into dangerous ground here, as clubs would just say a distance guy is full, messy.

My own opinion is that opens are too cheap – Senior open are too cheap also.
Is this option improving the participation levels in golf – I actually doubt that a little , because it is the sort of thing a guy who plays a good bit of golf is going to look at. You’re not going to take up golf as a distance member.

For guys who say – they can’t afford membership , that is fine, they can play golf publicly or by green fees . It is perfectly reasonable in this world to expect to pay the full cost of what you are enjoying. Why should a golf club be different.
I do think golf should be cheap or subsidised for entry level or growth of the game. But, I don't think people should be able to bypass the cost by choice.

Whilst I’m the biggest critic of Golf Clubs and the GUI – I think people have to acknowledge that the points being made about funding the game into the future are very important ones, and serious consideration is needed by GUI.

With the GUI cards – is the information of membership type on it ? If not , it should be , because it is the only way golf is going to understand what way membership is going . Also are we over talking an issue that is not that big relative to the overall participation issues. I think the way the game is promoted is way bigger an issue for the future.

If the GUI are serious about taking this on – the 3 round rule is a joke. It would not put me off distance membership a bit. Sure I’ve friends in Cork , Monaghan , links to Laois. No big deal to get the rounds in – In fact, I’d look forward to it.

It needs to be 10 to 20. It would be the end of overnight. But where would these lads go. How many people would be lost from the game . I hope the GUI have full stats on this.

I guess I’m at a stage now, lucky in a way , that I want to give something back to the game. Ah , it happens with age and that. But, there are lads out there, that will find every way to get the most out of something without putting anything in . I would hope this is not a predominant feature of Distance Membership users.

Was talking to a full member of a course recently , he said of his 4 ball of freinds, he was the only guy a full member . His course runs a cheap Senior open (lovely Dublin course) – he said one day it dawned on him , that they were overly keen to play in his place every week. He realised they were getting more out of his membership than him, when he did the maths.

golfwallah

The debate about different forms of golf club membership and impact this has on the future of the game is divisive at many levels – in clubs amongst members, committees and AGMs, at GUI Council, Provincial ADMs and AGMs. It certainly sparks hot debate and divided opinions on this forum. There are no easy answers and even GUI responses to the problem are somewhat equivocal (in their 3 card rule on the one hand and actions to promote the game and recruit / retain members on the other) – a reflection of the debate at ADMs, AGMs, etc., I guess.

At the end of the day, the GUI is a representative body and works along democratic lines. From reading published material on GUI ADMs, AGMs, etc., the change requiring 3 cards at home clubs from 01/01/2015 was put forward by GUI Leinster Council. Results: Leinster – Carried, Ulster – Supported (by 1 vote), Connacht – Not supported, Munster – Supported. There is also a note on the GUI press release on the motion passed that: *The GUI will provide guidance to Clubs on how this motion is to be implemented.

This is not an indication of universal support or ease of implementation. GUI can’t simply issue diktats, club support is needed. Getting hard data, a shared understanding and the necessary level of club support to any proposed action takes a lot longer than many people imagine. Meanwhile, many clubs are struggling to survive, membership is dwindling and some will inevitably go under.

I also note that an amending motion to the “3 card rule”, proposed by Lisburn GC, was carried at a number of GUI Provincial ADMs this year. The rationale given was:

The above motion seeks to modify a similar motion approved at the Annual General Meeting of the Golfing Union of Ireland in February 2014 and scheduled to be implemented 2015. It is argued that the prior motion and accompanying guidance notes circulated in August 2014 may be counterproductive in that it puts new members at a disadvantage by restricting their option to enter Open competitions in their first year of membership.

Mushy

alxmorgan wrote: »

Your handicap will have lapsed and regardless you need 3 cards in your home club to qualify to play opens so i'm afraid you are out of luck.

That's what I feared!

cairny wrote: »

Is it worth or necessary joining a club though? I'm assuming you don't play a lot as In once a week? If I were in your shoes I think I'd put the money towards books of green fees for Mahon, I think it works out at about 15 a round and its a pretty good course. You'd miss out on comps but get to play more golf.

Yeah this is what I will do.

GreeBo

doublecross wrote: »

Would it be possible to limit the number of distance members any club can take on (10%)? Say if a club has 500 full members then they're only allowed max 50 distance members. This would stop clubs basing the model on distance membership.

I like that idea, also you should have to be a full member before you can switch to distance membership.

cairny wrote: »

My main motivation for the suggestion was that most of the fee would be sent back to clubs in general so that the specialist distance clubs would not benefit unfairly.

If we are going to allow distance membership then it needs to be reformed. I've no problem with an outright abolition either but leaving it as it is shouldn't be an option.

Banning it outright will mean that "real" distance members will have no where to play competition golf. Though maybe that's the price that has to be played.

Perhaps you can only be a distance member for 1 or 2 years and limit the number of opens you can play.
Unless you are taking the piss with the opens I don't think the above limits will impact anyone too much.

ShivasIrons

Having looked at most of the thread I find it interesting that the issue seems to be with Clubs offering distance memberships and the GUI not regulating them in some form.

Very few seem to have an issue with the clubs who have open days and are faciliting nomadic memberships and the drift of members from their own clubs.

These clubs have most to answer for. I notice one club in Cork has an open competition next week for €10, the member's fee is €5. Why would you be a member of this club? It's only €5 to play it, I'm not sure if you can play a pitch and putt course for this. They have completely devalued the membership and they wonder why members are leaving.

This scenario is being played out across the country and instead of charging a correct fee for the course, Clubs give out about distance memberships, losing members and the GUI doing nothing about it.

Clubs need to look inwardly first before giving out about others.

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

I like that idea, also you should have to be a full member before you can switch to distance membership.



Banning it outright will mean that "real" distance members will have no where to play competition golf. Though maybe that's the price that has to be played.

Perhaps you can only be a distance member for 1 or 2 years and limit the number of opens you can play.
Unless you are taking the piss with the opens I don't think the above limits will impact anyone too much.

I know I seem to move in more "snobbish" circles than some, but almost all the "distance" members I know are also full members of a club close to where they live. They use their distance membership for the reasons they were created - holiday home, family connection etc.

First Up

ShivasIrons wrote: »

Having looked at most of the thread I find it interesting that the issue seems to be with Clubs offering distance memberships and the GUI not regulating them in some form.

Very few seem to have an issue with the clubs who have open days and are faciliting nomadic memberships and the drift of members from their own clubs.

These clubs have most to answer for. I notice one club in Cork has an open competition next week for €10, the member's fee is €5. Why would you be a member of this club? It's only €5 to play it, I'm not sure if you can play a pitch and putt course for this. They have completely devalued the membership and they wonder why members are leaving.

This scenario is being played out across the country and instead of charging a correct fee for the course, Clubs give out about distance memberships, losing members and the GUI doing nothing about it.

Clubs need to look inwardly first before giving out about others.

I assume you would want to be a member of that club so you can play whenever you want, not just in opens. I don't mind clubs offering opens at attractive prices and it puts a hole in the claim by some here that revenue from opens is keeping clubs alive and we should give thanks to those kind nomads who bless them with their presence.

redhead999

I have been following this discussion with great interest and have never posted before but I feel strongly about this topic.

I am a full member and have been fir over 10 years in one of the golf clubs which us 'surviving' because of distance/minor/cheap memberships - call them whatever you want.

My club has been destroyed by this membership concept. Yes the club is still in existence but at a huge cost to the 'club' concept.

I absolutely agree with fix in his last post.

All the three round rule did this year was increase the income from opens as minir members who had never previously appeared at the club had to get their cards in. But for the most part they were a nomadic bunch who belonged nowhere and this was very evident in the atmosphere created to the club.

The worst part is that there is now a two tier ethos within the club, with full members feeling superior to the minor members, I continually here comments as "oh they're only minor members" , "they must only be minor membersif they are doing that" etc

I have come to the conclusion that even though the introduction of minor membership may have saved the club financially, they were the death knell to the club itself. There are now six minor members for every full member! !

I am in the process of looking for a new club as I feel mine is gone

cairny

First Up wrote: »

I know I seem to move in more "snobbish" circles than some, but almost all the "distance" members I know are also full members of a club close to where they live. They use their distance membership for the reasons they were created - holiday home, family connection etc.

I think that's Country membership, a very different animal, you have to be a member of another club before you can get it and your main club look after your handicap.

cairny

ShivasIrons wrote: »

Having looked at most of the thread I find it interesting that the issue seems to be with Clubs offering distance memberships and the GUI not regulating them in some form.

Very few seem to have an issue with the clubs who have open days and are faciliting nomadic memberships and the drift of members from their own clubs.

These clubs have most to answer for. I notice one club in Cork has an open competition next week for €10, the member's fee is €5. Why would you be a member of this club? It's only €5 to play it, I'm not sure if you can play a pitch and putt course for this. They have completely devalued the membership and they wonder why members are leaving.

This scenario is being played out across the country and instead of charging a correct fee for the course, Clubs give out about distance memberships, losing members and the GUI doing nothing about it.

Clubs need to look inwardly first before giving out about others.

Well it's winter, reduced holes and clubs want to let guys try the course with a view to joining, €10 rounds not a bad idea in this context.

FixdePitchmark

Golfwallah. Good info.

And very close results across the country.

Is there any value in adding a poll to this thread. As it has been shown opinion on this is split here too.

It is interesting that this has to be voted on. Because the people voting on it may be benefactors to the demise of other clubs. If your club has a model that is very reliant on the Distant Membership model, what way would you vote. If you are a player using this , what way would you vote , by the way , who has a vote ?

I'm reminded at this time of year of turkeys and Christmas. So a vote on something like this may have a result that meets your current need as opposed to what golf needs in the long run. The problem with democracy and all that.

So is there any value in adding our own poll here - of course a poll is as good as the options ?

You could ask should distance membership - something along these lines
or perhaps somebody can form a question to get the threads feelings on this.

a) Stay as was - no additional requirements to play 3 rounds
b) The changes to play 3 rounds is a good one I support
c) More than 3 rounds required.
d) More than 10 rounds required.

golfwallah

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Whilest I don’t like the way distance members are being talked about.

I think that people who are enjopying opens and distance membership. Have to aknowledge that , these two features of golf , are now being used for reasons besdies what they were designed for.
The lads have made very good arguments about the impact it is having on club membership. I think they have made a valid argument that you are bypassing the cost of the sport.

We have seen that this format of golf is bascially ½ price if your happy with an open a week – some opens are only 12 to 15 euro. This type of membership Offers great variety and enables you to control your costs and play better courses.

When you think , that 20 years ago – golf courses hardly had a website. The motorway system didn’t enable such mobility. Not everyone even had a car. Whilest only partially relevant – it is just so much easier now to get information ,join , and get to a distance club. If something is easy and cheap , regular clubs are up against it here.

In an ideal world – opens should be charged at a rate that would be reflective of the average cost per round of a member. It is not outside the realms of possibility that the GUI card could identify the type of member you are and charge on that basis at opens. There are golf alliance system in parts of the world (Canada for example). But- you are getting into dangerous ground here, as clubs would just say a distance guy is full, messy.

My own opinion is that opens are too cheap – Senior open are too cheap also.
Is this option improving the participation levels in golf – I actually doubt that a little , because it is the sort of thing a guy who plays a good bit of golf is going to look at. You’re not going to take up golf as a distance member.

For guys who say – they can’t afford membership , that is fine, they can play golf publicly or by green fees . It is perfectly reasonable in this world to expect to pay the full cost of what you are enjoying. Why should a golf club be different.
I do think golf should be cheap or subsidised for entry level or growth of the game. But, I don't think people should be able to bypass the cost by choice.

Whilst I’m the biggest critic of Golf Clubs and the GUI – I think people have to acknowledge that the points being made about funding the game into the future are very important ones, and serious consideration is needed by GUI.

With the GUI cards – is the information of membership type on it ? If not , it should be , because it is the only way golf is going to understand what way membership is going . Also are we over talking an issue that is not that big relative to the overall participation issues. I think the way the game is promoted is way bigger an issue for the future.

If the GUI are serious about taking this on – the 3 round rule is a joke. It would not put me off distance membership a bit. Sure I’ve friends in Cork , Monaghan , links to Laois. No big deal to get the rounds in – In fact, I’d look forward to it.

It needs to be 10 to 20. It would be the end of overnight. But where would these lads go. How many people would be lost from the game . I hope the GUI have full stats on this.

I guess I’m at a stage now, lucky in a way , that I want to give something back to the game. Ah , it happens with age and that. But, there are lads out there, that will find every way to get the most out of something without putting anything in . I would hope this is not a predominant feature of Distance Membership users.

Was talking to a full member of a course recently , he said of his 4 ball of freinds, he was the only guy a full member . His course runs a cheap Senior open (lovely Dublin course) – he said one day it dawned on him , that they were overly keen to play in his place every week. He realised they were getting more out of his membership than him, when he did the maths.

I agree with most of your post, but where do you draw the line on “subsidies” or bypassing your chosen version of cost (indeed, what is the optimal club running cost or the cost of a round of golf)?

Are clubs getting debt write-offs to be considered “subsidised” (e.g. because their banks calculate it’s the least worse option for them - courses and clubhouses having doubtful market other than for housing development near built up areas)? What of the NAMA resorts? What about very prosperous member clubs, whose courses are on land, leased at very favourable (subsidised) rent from the council (at least 2 I can think of in Dublin)? And then what about council courses – are their losses not subsidised (council have publicly stated that they are)?

And that’s before you even begin to consider the impact of “distance membership” as a membership choice to avail of “cheap golf”. I don’t like any of these subsidies. Nor do I like losing members to “distance clubs”. They are certainly unfair to the ordinary member owned club that is trying to pay its way in the world “as it is”, without the benefit of such “unfair” advantage. But I also want my club to survive in the short to medium term and go on to better things in the long run.

The other reality, if you think about it, is that the GUI represents what the majority of affiliated clubs want and are prepared to support. The whole system of golf administration is based on a democratic process whereby GUI officials are elected from candidates putting themselves forward from clubs. Clubs can put motions forward to Annual Delegate Meetings (ADMs), are free to canvass support for motions and send delegates to the ADMs. There is also a pretty active feedback process between club officers and the GUI. And out of all this, the only proposals to come forward so far regarding away competitions are for the 3 card rule!

Members in the more established and better off clubs can afford to philosophize about the long term good of the game. GUI supports business training but there are a lot of clubs that don’t have the luxury of waiting for new GUI rules to fix the golf market. They have to act now if they want their clubs to be around over the next weeks, months and year ahead. Doing nothing is an option, but I wouldn’t bet on it!

Will be interesting to watch how the whole things eventually pans out!

ShivasIrons

cairny wrote: »

Well it's winter, reduced holes and clubs want to let guys try the course with a view to joining, €10 rounds not a bad idea in this context.

The have an open three ball on Fridays throughout the year for €10.

cairny

doublecross wrote: »

Would it be possible to limit the number of distance members any club can take on (10%)? Say if a club has 500 full members then they're only allowed max 50 distance members. This would stop clubs basing the model on distance membership.

This is perfect. Simple and effective.

ShivasIrons

First Up wrote: »

I assume you would want to be a member of that club so you can play whenever you want, not just in opens. I don't mind clubs offering opens at attractive prices and it puts a hole in the claim by some here that revenue from opens is keeping clubs alive and we should give thanks to those kind nomads who bless them with their presence.

How many members or perspective members look at clubs and figure out that they play 20-30 rounds in a year, do the sums and come to the conclusion it's not worthwhile becoming/staying a member?

Underselling a club with cheap green fees doesn't work.

golfwallah

doublecross wrote: »

Would it be possible to limit the number of distance members any club can take on (10%)? Say if a club has 500 full members then they're only allowed max 50 distance members. This would stop clubs basing the model on distance membership.

Sounds like a good idea.

Why not take the next step and put it to your own club committee as a proposed motion from your club for the next available GUI Provincial Annual Delegate Meeting? Would probably have to be debated by your own committee and then at your next AGM, so would also help if you could get some of your fellow members to support you as well.

That's how the system is designed to work.

FixdePitchmark

ShivasIrons wrote: »

The have an open three ball on Fridays throughout the year for €10.

So there you go.

That is what you are up against.
Not only that , you can skip a few weeks without any expense exposure. (except your low fixed annual cost for handicap )

Then go to another club following week for 15 quid.
Two weeks golf - Ok course - great course , 12,50 euro/week. Comp fees included. You can pick your days and weather , change course as required.

Great great product.

golfwallah

ShivasIrons wrote: »

How many members or perspective members look at clubs and figure out that they play 20-30 rounds in a year, do the sums and come to the conclusion it's not worthwhile becoming/staying a member?

Underselling a club with cheap green fees doesn't work.

I would guess most members do these sums but the value of membership doesn't depend on prices alone. People in clubs for a few years have an investment in social capital - friends, familiar playing companions, nearness to home, etc.

Certainly the market is becoming more segmented and there is a growing segment of people who are willing to switch clubs from year to year. But there is also a large segment who will not move.

To my mind it's a question of balance rather than of extremes. Clubs need to move from the Celtic Tiger days of waiting lists, order taking and cost inefficiency to the new more competitive age in the golf market. It's shape up, compete or die for a lot of clubs right now.

As for cheap green fees, promotion membership offers, etc., these are symptoms of an oversupplied market. Too much capacity for too few members / casual golfers = cheaper prices for some or price differentiation for different bundles of member benefits to attract different market segments. It has also brought about much needed attention to greater efficiency, cost reduction and attention to what new and existing members really want.

And who is to say this won't work, it is only now being tried and "we shall see" - just like Ryanair, Discount Retailers and manufacturers of better and better computer equipment for cheaper and cheaper prices. Whatever happens, things won't be the same on the golf club scene in a few years time!

Moreover, what does an individual club do when it's nearest competitors are offering attractive new member packages and/or green fees? Object on principle (to whom ...... the GUI, the Government, boards.ie) or rise to the challenge and do what it takes to compete and survive?

People need to get realistic and inform themselves about the changes that are happening around them on a daily basis (e.g. published sources supported by England Golf put the percentage of golfers who are not members of clubs at 72%).

Dayor Knight

golfwallah wrote: »

I would guess most members do these sums but the value of membership doesn't depend on prices alone. People in clubs for a few years have an investment in social capital - friends, familiar playing companions, nearness to home, etc.

Certainly the market is becoming more segmented and there is a growing segment of people who are willing to switch clubs from year to year. But there is also a large segment who will not move.

To my mind it's a question of balance rather than of extremes. Clubs need to move from the Celtic Tiger days of waiting lists, order taking and cost inefficiency to the new more competitive age in the golf market. It's shape up, compete or die for a lot of clubs right now.

As for cheap green fees, promotion membership offers, etc., these are symptoms of an oversupplied market. Too much capacity for too few members / casual golfers = cheaper prices for some or price differentiation for different bundles of member benefits to attract different market segments. It has also brought about much needed attention to greater efficiency, cost reduction and attention to what new and existing members really want.

And who is to say this won't work, it is only now being tried and "we shall see" - just like Ryanair, Discount Retailers and manufacturers of better and better computer equipment for cheaper and cheaper prices. Whatever happens, things won't be the same on the golf club scene in a few years time!

Moreover, what does an individual club do when it's nearest competitors are offering attractive new member packages and/or green fees? Object on principle (to whom ...... the GUI, the Government, boards.ie) or rise to the challenge and do what it takes to compete and survive?

People need to get realistic and inform themselves about the changes that are happening around them on a daily basis (e.g. published sources supported by England Golf put the percentage of golfers who are not members of clubs at 72%).

Great post, Wallah.

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

I would guess most members do these sums but the value of membership doesn't depend on prices alone. People in clubs for a few years have an investment in social capital - friends, familiar playing companions, nearness to home, etc.

Certainly the market is becoming more segmented and there is a growing segment of people who are willing to switch clubs from year to year. But there is also a large segment who will not move.

To my mind it's a question of balance rather than of extremes. Clubs need to move from the Celtic Tiger days of waiting lists, order taking and cost inefficiency to the new more competitive age in the golf market. It's shape up, compete or die for a lot of clubs right now.

As for cheap green fees, promotion membership offers, etc., these are symptoms of an oversupplied market. Too much capacity for too few members / casual golfers = cheaper prices for some or price differentiation for different bundles of member benefits to attract different market segments. It has also brought about much needed attention to greater efficiency, cost reduction and attention to what new and existing members really want.

And who is to say this won't work, it is only now being tried and "we shall see" - just like Ryanair, Discount Retailers and manufacturers of better and better computer equipment for cheaper and cheaper prices. Whatever happens, things won't be the same on the golf club scene in a few years time!

Moreover, what does an individual club do when it's nearest competitors are offering attractive new member packages and/or green fees? Object on principle (to whom ...... the GUI, the Government, boards.ie) or rise to the challenge and do what it takes to compete and survive?

People need to get realistic and inform themselves about the changes that are happening around them on a daily basis (e.g. published sources supported by England Golf put the percentage of golfers who are not members of clubs at 72%).

all of which is why the gui need to step in for the good of the game.
individuals will do whatever they can to survive, to hell with anyone else.

golfwallah

GreeBo wrote: »

all of which is why the gui need to step in for the good of the game.
individuals will do whatever they can to survive, to hell with anyone else.

I’m not sure what you are suggesting here – step in and do what?

The GUI has and is doing quite a lot – particularly in the area of member recruitment / retention. They have shown leadership in their support for the provision of training in modern business techniques such as club governance, finance, strategic planning, marketing, course management, etc.

They have also responded to demands from clubs to do something about people playing opens with the new 3 card rule. But they are not a dictatorship – they are a representative body run on democratic lines. Certainly, they have the power to govern as regards implementation of the rules of golf as determined by the R&A and the rules of the handicapping system, laid down by CONGU. But, as regards the business side of how golf clubs are run, they respond to proposals that find general acceptance among the clubs they represent.

Democracy has many advantages but also has the downside of being ponderously slow at times. My observation is that it works more along the lines of reaction to events than to centralised planning by “experts”. The trick of the successful political leader seems to be to help bring about an awareness of change, sense when people are ready for change and to come up with solutions that will “run” with the mood of the times.

At this stage in the Irish golfing scene, more and more people are gradually coming to terms with the fact that the old ways of running golf clubs aren’t working any more. They are defunct, for the majority of clubs at least, and this is becoming more obvious day by day. But hankering after the old ways still persists.

For many people, I guess, it’s not unlike the stages in a grieving process (i.e. for the old ways that have disappeared): Denial, Anger, Bargaining (if only, etc.), Depression, Reconstruction & Working Through and then Acceptance. The GUI has been around for a long time (the longest established golfing union in the world, according to their website) and they know this. It’s a democratic organisation. Change takes time (people being at various stages of coming to terms with the huge socio-economic change that has been happening over the last 7 years) and you need to bring the majority along with you.

At the end of the day, the GUI is not “them” – it’s “us”, the members of golf clubs. And, if we want change, the democratic process requires that you gather relevant facts to inform the debate (as opposed to the unchallenged view of your four-ball), draft proposed solutions, garner support, get formal club and then GUI support. Boring, time consuming and long winded, isn’t it? Hey, but that’s democracy!

First Up

golfwallah wrote: »

I’m not sure what you are suggesting here – step in and do what?

The GUI has and is doing quite a lot – particularly in the area of member recruitment / retention. They have shown leadership in their support for the provision of training in modern business techniques such as club governance, finance, strategic planning, marketing, course management, etc.

They have also responded to demands from clubs to do something about people playing opens with the new 3 card rule. But they are not a dictatorship – they are a representative body run on democratic lines. Certainly, they have the power to govern as regards implementation of the rules of golf as determined by the R&A and the rules of the handicapping system, laid down by CONGU. But, as regards the business side of how golf clubs are run, they respond to proposals that find general acceptance among the clubs they represent.

Democracy has many advantages but also has the downside of being ponderously slow at times. My observation is that it works more along the lines of reaction to events than to centralised planning by “experts”. The trick of the successful political leader seems to be to help bring about an awareness of change, sense when people are ready for change and to come up with solutions that will “run” with the mood of the times.

At this stage in the Irish golfing scene, more and more people are gradually coming to terms with the fact that the old ways of running golf clubs aren’t working any more. They are defunct, for the majority of clubs at least, and this is becoming more obvious day by day. But hankering after the old ways still persists.

For many people, I guess, it’s not unlike the stages in a grieving process (i.e. for the old ways that have disappeared): Denial, Anger, Bargaining (if only, etc.), Depression, Reconstruction & Working Through and then Acceptance. The GUI has been around for a long time (the longest established golfing union in the world, according to their website) and they know this. It’s a democratic organisation. Change takes time (people being at various stages of coming to terms with the huge socio-economic change that has been happening over the last 7 years) and you need to bring the majority along with you.

At the end of the day, the GUI is not “them” – it’s “us”, the members of golf clubs. And, if we want change, the democratic process requires that you gather relevant facts to inform the debate (as opposed to the unchallenged view of your four-ball), draft proposed solutions, garner support, get formal club and then GUI support. Boring, time consuming and long winded, isn’t it? Hey, but that’s democracy!

I don't think it is about "hankering after the old ways". It is just about finding ways to generate enough income to cover costs. Any ideas to achieve that are welcome but we are still waiting for a model that improves on membership subscriptions as the primary income source for clubs.

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

I’m not sure what you are suggesting here – step in and do what?

The GUI has and is doing quite a lot – particularly in the area of member recruitment / retention. They have shown leadership in their support for the provision of training in modern business techniques such as club governance, finance, strategic planning, marketing, course management, etc.

They have also responded to demands from clubs to do something about people playing opens with the new 3 card rule. But they are not a dictatorship – they are a representative body run on democratic lines. Certainly, they have the power to govern as regards implementation of the rules of golf as determined by the R&A and the rules of the handicapping system, laid down by CONGU. But, as regards the business side of how golf clubs are run, they respond to proposals that find general acceptance among the clubs they represent.

Democracy has many advantages but also has the downside of being ponderously slow at times. My observation is that it works more along the lines of reaction to events than to centralised planning by “experts”. The trick of the successful political leader seems to be to help bring about an awareness of change, sense when people are ready for change and to come up with solutions that will “run” with the mood of the times.

At this stage in the Irish golfing scene, more and more people are gradually coming to terms with the fact that the old ways of running golf clubs aren’t working any more. They are defunct, for the majority of clubs at least, and this is becoming more obvious day by day. But hankering after the old ways still persists.

For many people, I guess, it’s not unlike the stages in a grieving process (i.e. for the old ways that have disappeared): Denial, Anger, Bargaining (if only, etc.), Depression, Reconstruction & Working Through and then Acceptance. The GUI has been around for a long time (the longest established golfing union in the world, according to their website) and they know this. It’s a democratic organisation. Change takes time (people being at various stages of coming to terms with the huge socio-economic change that has been happening over the last 7 years) and you need to bring the majority along with you.

At the end of the day, the GUI is not “them” – it’s “us”, the members of golf clubs. And, if we want change, the democratic process requires that you gather relevant facts to inform the debate (as opposed to the unchallenged view of your four-ball), draft proposed solutions, garner support, get formal club and then GUI support. Boring, time consuming and long winded, isn’t it? Hey, but that’s democracy!

Step in and address exploitation of distance membership, as they are with the 3 card rule.

You dont just blindly accept whats happening and adjust, if you are the governing body you have a responsibility to ensure that what happens is in the best interest of the game.

Its back to the freemarket idea, you cant just import goods from china for half price without paying tax, this is to prevent the collapse of the irish economy. I see this as similar to the collapse of the members club in place of the nomadic open player.

Unglika Norse

I wouldn't consider the GUI to be a totally democratic organisation. There have been occasions where motions passed by the ADMs that have been dismissed by the GUI at their AGMs. They are like the current government. We elect them to carry out the wishes of it's members (the affiliated members) yet the GUI determines at their AGM what they suppose is right and often ignore the delegates decisions. At the leinster ADM meeting this year for example the Leinster Branch (which consists of the highest number of golfers in the country) this year changed their rules (although it was passed at the ADM) which allowed the Leinster branch to become a closed shop as regards the election of the officers of the branch, in that they will now elect the chairman from within themselves, For any one who has run for a position on the leinster branch in the past they will know that the branch will close ranks on who gets elected to that board.

golfwallah

First Up wrote: »

I don't think it is about "hankering after the old ways". It is just about finding ways to generate enough income to cover costs. Any ideas to achieve that are welcome but we are still waiting for a model that improves on membership subscriptions as the primary income source for clubs.

I don't disagree that membership subs are and will be the primary source of revenue for most clubs.

But Mr Micawber's famous, and oft-quoted, recipe for happiness still applies:
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

The trick is to find ways to make the whole thing work through better cost effectiveness (getting more for less) and better ways to attract and retain members. The latter requires clear understanding what existing and potential new members want and then responding to that need.

Customers / members will always look for value for money and it's up to clubs to finds ways to deliver.

Simple economics really!

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

I don't disagree that membership subs are and will be the primary source of revenue for most clubs.

But Mr Micawber's famous, and oft-quoted, recipe for happiness still applies:
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

The trick is to find ways to make the whole thing work through better cost effectiveness (getting more for less) and better ways to attract and retain members. The latter requires clear understanding what existing and potential new members want and then responding to that need.

Customers / members will always look for value for money and it's up to clubs to finds ways to deliver.

Simple economics really!

Again your posts seem to fall back on the idea that golf clubs are to blame for leaking money.

Enticing distance members into your club isnt being more effective, its exploiting a membership category designed for something else.

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

Again your posts seem to fall back on the idea that golf clubs are to blame for leaking money.

Enticing distance members into your club isnt being more effective, its exploiting a membership category designed for something else.

I am reminded of the phrase about people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Russman

golfwallah wrote: »

I don't disagree that membership subs are and will be the primary source of revenue for most clubs.

But Mr Micawber's famous, and oft-quoted, recipe for happiness still applies:
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

The trick is to find ways to make the whole thing work through better cost effectiveness (getting more for less) and better ways to attract and retain members. The latter requires clear understanding what existing and potential new members want and then responding to that need.

Customers / members will always look for value for money and it's up to clubs to finds ways to deliver.

Simple economics really!

I'd say though that most clubs that are feeling the pinch have already trimmed costs to the absolute bone by now. Indeed many have gone so far that the inevitable lowering of their standards (clubhouse, greens, tees etc) has become more than a slight irritation for golfers/members and is becoming an actual issue rather than something to be easily overlooked in the interests of the club surviving. You can only cut so much.

From what I've seen, existing members pretty much want their course to be at a reasonable standard and to be an active part of their club, they don't really want a whole lot tbh. Potential new members are the "problem" for want of a better phrase. They're unfortunately the solution also, but their expectations are becoming harder and harder for normal members type courses to provide at a justifiable cost in their eyes. I don't know whether it's a societal thing, ie people want and they want it now, on their terms (the convenience society), or simply that people are more discerning in what they spend their hard earned cash on.

Distance members are not the full cause of clubs struggling, but it's part of it, just the same as the NAMA clubs are not to full cause, they're a part of, it's all the factors added together that are causing a perfect storm for struggling clubs.

slave1

GreeBo wrote: »

...Enticing distance members into your club isnt being more effective, its exploiting a membership category designed for something else..

That's just an opinion, if it was fact then the practice would be no more.
I think your posts demonstrate a serious hang up on this issue.

IMHO there are correlations being made the whole time that distance members are bandits running up and down the country winning prizes and that distance membership itself is killing clubs with distance members 'exploiting' to play opens.
Bandits are in every club and there are plenty of full members playing opens all over the place. I don't lose too much sleep over this.

Post the data to support your opinion.

GreeBo

slave1 wrote: »

That's just an opinion, if it was fact then the practice would be no more.
I think your posts demonstrate a serious hang up on this issue.

IMHO there are correlations being made the whole time that distance members are bandits running up and down the country winning prizes and that distance membership itself is killing clubs with distance members 'exploiting' to play opens.
Bandits are in every club and there are plenty of full members playing opens all over the place. I don't lose too much sleep over this.

Post the data to support your opinion.

Of course it's a opinion...without them i don't think forums work.

Define hang up? Seems like a very pejorative description of having an opinion.

I Haven't mentioned bandits or accused distance members of winning loads, you brought that into the equation.
i don't believe distance membership was designed to be used as it is today, the gui survey results would seem to agree.

I Could equally ask you to post some data to backup your opinion that the category isn't being exploited.

ShivasIrons

GreeBo wrote: »

Again your posts seem to fall back on the idea that golf clubs are to blame for leaking money.

Enticing distance members into your club isnt being more effective, its exploiting a membership category designed for something else.

Golf Clubs are completely to blame for leaking money. Do we need to go into examples of clubs building Taj Mahals of clubhouses and ignoring the golf course?

First Up

ShivasIrons wrote: »

Golf Clubs are completely to blame for leaking money. Do we need to go into examples of clubs building Taj Mahals of clubhouses and ignoring the golf course?

There are examples of that but they are in the minority.

leonards

ShivasIrons wrote: »

Golf Clubs are completely to blame for leaking money. Do we need to go into examples of clubs building Taj Mahals of clubhouses and ignoring the golf course?

Yes please

FixdePitchmark

leonards wrote: »

Yes please

I know the world and the economic collapse was a strange.

But of the clubs mentioned earlier in North Dublin. Donabate has the biggest clubhouse and one of the cheapest memberships.

SaveOurLyric

ShivasIrons wrote: »

How many members or perspective members look at clubs and figure out that they play 20-30 rounds in a year, do the sums and come to the conclusion it's not worthwhile becoming/staying a member?

Underselling a club with cheap green fees doesn't work.

Quite a few I would say.

It doesnt work. But so many clubs are run by part time amateurs, in office for the short term. So you get poorly thought out, quick fix, short term solutions. Which lead to ruination in the not too distant future. The dilettante running of many clubs is fine in the good times. But cannot cope with the stress of being under pressure and poor decisions (or non-decisions) just end up digging the hole deeper. Its just the nature of amateur clubs. Some will go bust in a Darwinian struggle for survival, others will make it through and be strengthened by the death of the weak. Its painful, but nothing really to be done about it rather than cranking through the process.

First Up

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Quite a few I would say.

It doesnt work. But so many clubs are run by part time amateurs, in office for the short term. So you get poorly though out, quick fix, short term solutions. Which lead to ruination in the not to distant future. The dilettante running of many clubs is fine in the good times. But cannot cope with the stress of being under pressure and poor decisions (or non-decisions) just end up digging the hole deeper. Its just the nature of amateur clubs. So will go bust in a Darwinian struggle for survival, other will make it through and be strengthened by the death of the weak. Its painful, but nothing really to be done about it rather than cranking through the process.

Yep, there is an element of natural selection about golf, as with everything else. Clubs are to some extent at the mercy of the committees they appoint. It is just a fact of life that the"better" clubs are more likely to have members with the requisite skills (and connections).

frost53

ShivasIrons wrote: »

How many members or perspective members look at clubs and figure out that they play 20-30 rounds in a year, do the sums and come to the conclusion it's not worthwhile becoming/staying a member?

Underselling a club with cheap green fees doesn't work.

There's a bit more to it that that. If you're a journeyman golfer looking for the cheapest rate, be prepared to be waiting in the clubhouse hoping all your playing partners turn up.
Knowing the people you are playing with is the best way to avoid no-shows,
As a billy-no-mates , expect to be put out with someone who'll take 4 hours of your life and do your head in...they are out there you know.
The day will come when you'll want those 4 hours back...but alas.
Pay the few extra bob and sleep easy at night knowing you'll have an enjoyable day on the course.

First Up

frost53 wrote: »

There's a bit more to it that that. If you're a journeyman golfer looking for the cheapest rate, be prepared to be waiting in the clubhouse hoping all your playing partners turn up.
Knowing the people you are playing with is the best way to avoid no-shows,
As a billy-no-mates , expect to be put out with someone who'll take 4 hours of your life and do your head in...they are out there you know.
The day will come when you'll want those 4 hours back...but alas.
Pay the few extra bob and sleep easy at night knowing you'll have an enjoyable day on the course.

And knowing that you are helping ensure the course will be there tomorrow.

Dayor Knight

First Up wrote: »

Yep, there is an element of natural selection about golf, as with everything else. Clubs are to some extent at the mercy of the committees they appoint. It is just a fact of life that the"better" clubs are more likely to have members with the requisite skills (and connections).

Good point. Like bankers, for example. They would have ensured the club didn't overstretch itself in the good times.

First Up

Dayor Knight wrote: »

Good point. Like bankers, for example. They would have ensured the club didn't overstretch itself in the good times.

Delusions of grandeur are not restricted to any one profession. Nor is incompetence.