Golf Memberships

Dayor Knight

First Up wrote: »

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

True.

golfwallah

Different posters have raised issues around distance clubs, NAMA clubs, membership decline, handicaps, slow play, elite image, problems with representation within GUI from Leinster through to National level, etc., etc.

We all have our own angles on these things but, to better inform the debate, I did a bit of research to see if GUI were doing anything about them. It’s a pity that more information isn’t more readily available for interested golfers but I did manage to find the following and have extracted some interesting bits below:

Leinster Golf (GUI): Roadmap 2017 (launched March 2014) goes somewhat along the way towards identifying and addressing these issues, for example:
Challenges facing Golf Clubs (P32):

• Membership - Loss of members – Inability to attract new ones
• Financial
– Revenue down: Entrance fees/annual subs/green fees/non-golf income
– Expenditure difficult to control without affecting quality
– Debt overhang (some clubs)
• Competition – Distance Clubs – NAMA Clubs
• Players dissatisfaction

Action Plan (P43 onwards) on:

Membership:
• Market golf in the same way as other sports do with a balance between encouraging Juniors and targeting adult members, who will make an immediate impact on the numbers playing golf.
• Provide advice to Clubs in terms of marketing, financial management and product development through seminars and education.
Product:
• Examine ways of making the game more enjoyable and advise clubs e.g. Tee It Forward.
• Handicap Compliance Reviews will be carried out on a regular basis.
• Initiatives in relation to eliminating slow play will be provided to Clubs and Leinster Golf will provide leadership in this regard in its own competitions.
Voice:
• Leinster Golf will work to ensure that the views of Clubs are fairly represented by the attendance of Club Representatives at the AGM of the Union.
Support to Clubs:
• Conduct regular seminars for Club Officers, i.e. Rules, Handicapping etc.
• Develop discussion forums on Leinster Golf Website.
• Offer specific features of the ‘Elite’ website to all golfers.

Link to Independent article on launch of Roadmap 2017 here.

Kingswood Rover

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.

No shows happen throughout all the different types of membership in clubs. What information have you got to support your opinion that journeymen (by this i presume distance members) have to wait more than anyone else for there partners to turn up. you could easily argue that full members turn up less because they can easily get a game later in the week, sure there is always a waiting list or sure the lads know if i am not there 5 minutes before the off i am not coming.As for "Billy no mates" and "wanting 4 hours of your life" back because you have had to play with journeymen well as you say pay a few bob extra and you won't have to put up with those journey person types. Another example of someone tarnishing a whole set of people. I despair of the human race sometimes.

First Up

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

No shows happen throughout all the different types of membership in clubs. What information have you got to support your opinion that journeymen (by this i presume distance members) have to wait more than anyone else for there partners to turn up. you could easily argue that full members turn up less because they can easily get a game later in the week, sure there is always a waiting list or sure the lads know if i am not there 5 minutes before the off i am not coming.As for "Billy no mates" and "wanting 4 hours of your life" back because you have had to play with journeymen well as you say pay a few bob extra and you won't have to put up with those journey person types. Another example of someone tarnishing a whole set of people. I despair of the human race sometimes.

Pretty good. Frost's post made four points and you managed to miss all of them.

Slicemeister

Pot kettle black

Kingswood Rover

Slicemeister wrote: »

Pot kettle black

I love all kettles black, white, yellow etc.

Slicemeister

Kingswood Rover wrote:

I love all kettles black, white, yellow etc.

Better than being called a parasite or a billy no mates.... Wasn't addressing you btw.

Keano

Careful now!

Eoinyh

Down with that sort of thing

GreeBo

Eoinyh wrote: »

Down with that sort of thing

Not helpful, thanks.

golfwallah

Folks opting for distance membership really need to do their sums very carefully - otherwise they could easily end up paying more for an inferior service package than what's on offer at local clubs.

You need to factor in all hidden extra costs involved in distance membership, such as Golfsure insurance (and we know from court cases this is an essential to avoid risk if you injure a 3rd party), plus additional travelling and green fee costs. And that's before taking account of the non-financial benefits of local club membership, such as reduced travelling time, convenience, availability of practice facilities and golf pro, easy timesheet access, opportunity to get to know a range and choice of playing partners, etc., etc.

I've done a few comparatives of the annual costs involved in such membership choices at an average type club - and depending on the number of rounds you play, most local golf club options would work out much better value for money than the distance option.

See spreadsheet attached.

Russman

golfwallah wrote: »

Folks opting for distance membership really need to do their sums very carefully - otherwise they could easily end up paying more for an inferior service package than what's on offer at local clubs.

You need to factor in all hidden extra costs involved in distance membership, such as Golfsure insurance (and we know from court cases this is an essential to avoid risk if you injure a 3rd party), plus additional travelling and green fee costs. And that's before taking account of the non-financial benefits of local club membership, such as reduced travelling time, convenience, availability of practice facilities and golf pro, easy timesheet access, opportunity to get to know a range and choice of playing partners, etc., etc.

I've done a few comparatives of the annual costs involved in such membership choices at an average type club - and depending on the number of rounds you play, most local golf club options would work out much better value for money than the distance option.

See spreadsheet attached.

I think also that, if the overall comparisons come out anywhere fairly close to each other over the course of a year, the previous benefit, from a cash flow perspective, of a distance option is somewhat negated by most clubs now offering monthly direct debit or standing order payment options.

Boskowski

golfwallah wrote: »

Folks opting for distance membership really need to do their sums very carefully - otherwise they could easily end up paying more for an inferior service package than what's on offer at local clubs.

You need to factor in all hidden extra costs involved in distance membership, such as Golfsure insurance (and we know from court cases this is an essential to avoid risk if you injure a 3rd party), plus additional travelling and green fee costs. And that's before taking account of the non-financial benefits of local club membership, such as reduced travelling time, convenience, availability of practice facilities and golf pro, easy timesheet access, opportunity to get to know a range and choice of playing partners, etc., etc.

I've done a few comparatives of the annual costs involved in such membership choices at an average type club - and depending on the number of rounds you play, most local golf club options would work out much better value for money than the distance option.

See spreadsheet attached.

While that's a nice effort I think its bit off the mark, sorry. So far the guys on this thread who think they're better off with the distance membership are saying there's is no way they're getting out 43 times per year. More like half that if they're lucky, probably less than that.

And I'm firmly in the full member support group myself. Only saying.

I think the real benefit of being a local full member are all those summer evenings when I nip out for a half round with a mate or two on short notice or even by myself. In a good summer's week that could be 2 or 3 times Mo-Fr plus whatever comp or full round may be happening at the weekend. I guess I'm lucky that way. No kids and the missus plays a bit too.

BenEadir

Boskowski wrote: »

While that's a nice effort I think its bit off the mark, sorry. So far the guys on this thread who think they're better off with the distance membership are saying there's is no way they're getting out 43 times per year. More like half that if they're lucky, probably less than that.

And I'm firmly in the full member support group myself. Only saying.

I think the real benefit of being a local full member are all those summer evenings when I nip out for a half round with a mate or two on short notice or even by myself. In a good summer's week that could be 2 or 3 times Mo-Fr plus whatever comp or full round may be happening at the weekend. I guess I'm lucky that way. No kids and the missus plays a bit too.

I'd have to agree with that critique of the spreadsheet. I'm a full 7 day member in my local club and try to play twice a week from May to Sept plus once a week in the winter league weather permitting and I'd say I don't get out 43 times a year due to summer holidays, family commitments etc etc.

Guys who are attracted to distance membership aren't going to be playing that # of rounds and even if they were they wouldn't have much more travel cost than anyone else other than for completing the 3 rounds at the distance club which would probably be achieved in one or max two trips. If I was a distance member somewhere playing the weekly opens at my actual club I'd incur exactly the same travel costs as I do now bar the 3 compulsory rounds at the distance club.

I currently pay €1,200 a year and play max 40 rounds of which 35 will be competitions with a €5 entry fee. That's €1,400 a year in total. If I was paying €159 for distance membership + 40 open comps (easily done in my club as there are open comps Wed afternoons, Fridays and Sunday afternoon's during the main season) I'd end up paying €159 + 40 X €15 = €759 + a trip to the distance club to play the required 3 rounds. If we call that €800 all in I'd still be €600 better off being a distance member and playing the same 40 rounds I play at my local club.

I personally won't do that and I doubt many people using the Distance membership loophole would play 40 opens a year. I'd say most are casual golfers playing 20 opens or so during the summer which means they are getting their years golf in for €459 / €500 which probably makes sense for someone who won't get the value out of being a full or even 5 day member somewhere.

golfwallah

Some good points have been made, but the objective of my post is to ask people to think a bit more closely about the extra hidden costs, risks and other factors of distance V local club membership.

As with any financial model, the spreadsheet uses assumptions, e.g. about the extra cost per round of green fees and travelling – it is just one average “for instance” covering distance members who travel more than the average local club member because they wanted “variety” – so it covers some but not all distance members.

But, the more I think about it, the single biggest “hidden” unknowable cost of most distance membership is the uninsured risk being taken of injuring a third party while playing – a relatively low risk, perhaps, but catastrophic if it happens.

I’m not an insurance expert but my experience is that most clubs would have public liability cover for their own risks in the event of being found liable in part or wholly. But what of the individual golfer who carries no insurance? In a court case in Scotland a number of years ago both the golfer and club were found jointly liable for costs. The club would have had insurance cover but what about the uninsured golfer, whose personal assets (including house) then come into play?

Food for thought – I’m not aware of any instance in Ireland where an individual was found liable without having insurance cover – but, as insurance cover is not compulsory, it is an issue to be considered by all stakeholders in golf, but more immediately by distance members themselves.

golfwallah

Boskowski wrote: »

While that's a nice effort I think its bit off the mark, sorry. So far the guys on this thread who think they're better off with the distance membership are saying there's is no way they're getting out 43 times per year. More like half that if they're lucky, probably less than that.

And I'm firmly in the full member support group myself. Only saying.

I think the real benefit of being a local full member are all those summer evenings when I nip out for a half round with a mate or two on short notice or even by myself. In a good summer's week that could be 2 or 3 times Mo-Fr plus whatever comp or full round may be happening at the weekend. I guess I'm lucky that way. No kids and the missus plays a bit too.

Maybe, but perhaps that's why more clubs should be a bit more nuanced in their competitive offerings v distance membership for this particular market segment, who only play golf 20 or less times per year?

There are some clubs offering "points" type membership, "intermediate" membership, "1, 2, 3, up to 6 day" membership, etc., but I think there is much more scope for clubs to compete in this space, even allowing for membership "churn", than people realise.

From reading material in the public domain, a lot more clubs in the UK seem to be going for these types of alternative membership than happens in Ireland. But then I don't hear much about the "distance member" phenomenon over there.

cairny

golfwallah wrote: »

Some good points have been made, but the objective of my post is to ask people to think a bit more closely about the extra hidden costs, risks and other factors of distance V local club membership.

As with any financial model, the spreadsheet uses assumptions, e.g. about the extra cost per round of green fees and travelling – it is just one average “for instance” covering distance members who travel more than the average local club member because they wanted “variety” – so it covers some but not all distance members.

But, the more I think about it, the single biggest “hidden” unknowable cost of most distance membership is the uninsured risk being taken of injuring a third party while playing – a relatively low risk, perhaps, but catastrophic if it happens.

I’m not an insurance expert but my experience is that most clubs would have public liability cover for their own risks in the event of being found liable in part or wholly. But what of the individual golfer who carries no insurance? In a court case in Scotland a number of years ago both the golfer and club were found jointly liable for costs. The club would have had insurance cover but what about the uninsured golfer, whose personal assets (including house) then come into play?

Food for thought – I’m not aware of any instance in Ireland where an individual was found liable without having insurance cover – but, as insurance cover is not compulsory, it is an issue to be considered by all stakeholders in golf, but more immediately by distance members themselves.

Most people's house insurance would cover it as happened in recent Irish case.

golfwallah

cairny wrote: »

Most people's house insurance would cover it as happened in recent Irish case.

So what advice would you give to people considering the distance option - read the small print, contact your insurance company or broker, or just hope you're covered?

The recent Irish case was based on an accident that happened about 4/5 years ago, AFAIK. Nowadays a lot of people change insurance provider, if rates increase year on year, and policy cover conditions change based on claims experience .... so maybe read the fine print?

Kingswood Rover

First Up wrote: »

Pretty good. Frost's post made four points and you managed to miss all of them.

No first up, i asked for evidence, none forthcoming although it would be hard to find in fairness. Just because someone does not agree with some one else....... it is not getting the point....... it is called debate. There is a theme argued by some throughout this thread that distance members are bad for game of golf in Ireland. i argue they are not, simple and i also reason that when people tarnish whole sets of other people it pushes solutions to problems further down the road. I am a full member of a golf club we have distance/minor members which have enabled us to stay afloat this past 3 years. 7 fields away is Tulfarris golf club, a magnificent 18 hole NAMA run facility which would love us to close the gates and go quietly into the night which is the same point of view that has been expressed by posters on this thread well that's another point that i will gladly miss. This debate is really good and some of the posts have been evidenced really well.
There was a brilliant point made by someone saying that older established clubs were more likely to have people within their membership with the skillsets to steer the club through difficult times. That's what happens when you have charged entrance fee's, you keep the less educated and lower income groups out and they say golf is not elitist, maybe so but some of the clubs still have that air about them. Golf is a minority sport, it shouldn't be as it is a game that can be enjoyed till the twilight of our lives, i is healthy and provides us with valuable social capital.

Russman

golfwallah wrote: »

Some good points have been made, but the objective of my post is to ask people to think a bit more closely about the extra hidden costs, risks and other factors of distance V local club membership.

As with any financial model, the spreadsheet uses assumptions, e.g. about the extra cost per round of green fees and travelling – it is just one average “for instance” covering distance members who travel more than the average local club member because they wanted “variety” – so it covers some but not all distance members.

But, the more I think about it, the single biggest “hidden” unknowable cost of most distance membership is the uninsured risk being taken of injuring a third party while playing – a relatively low risk, perhaps, but catastrophic if it happens.

I’m not an insurance expert but my experience is that most clubs would have public liability cover for their own risks in the event of being found liable in part or wholly. But what of the individual golfer who carries no insurance? In a court case in Scotland a number of years ago both the golfer and club were found jointly liable for costs. The club would have had insurance cover but what about the uninsured golfer, whose personal assets (including house) then come into play?

Food for thought – I’m not aware of any instance in Ireland where an individual was found liable without having insurance cover – but, as insurance cover is not compulsory, it is an issue to be considered by all stakeholders in golf, but more immediately by distance members themselves.

Food for thought indeed. I'm no insurance expert and maybe I'm reading the post incorrectly, are you saying that someone being a visitor makes it different if they hit a 3rd party as opposed to a member hitting them (with a ball obviously !!) ? I would have thought that a % of their green fee went to insurance cover ?
Or are you saying that because full members mostly pay it as part of their subs, they only pay it once, whereas a distance member might play 20 different courses so, in theory, could need "an insurance cover" for each open they play ?

cairny

golfwallah wrote: »

So what advice would you give to people considering the distance option - read the small print, contact your insurance company or broker, or just hope you're covered?

The recent Irish case was based on an accident that happened about 4/5 years ago, AFAIK. Nowadays a lot of people change insurance provider, if rates increase year on year, and policy cover conditions change based on claims experience .... so maybe read the fine print?

Just read the policy, under the Personal Liabilty section. Any changes to policies have to be notified etc.

Distance or Club doesnt make any difference. Clubs only insure against their own Liabilty although some provide access to Golfsire. You still have to sign up yourself.

There was a lot of misinformation on the thread about that case and bizarre comments about insurance policies. Best not to go down that road with this thread. It's a bit of a red herring imho although I can appreciate why it occurred to you.

Russman

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

No first up, i asked for evidence, none forthcoming although it would be hard to find in fairness. Just because someone does not agree with some one else....... it is not getting the point....... it is called debate. There is a theme argued by some throughout this thread that distance members are bad for game of golf in Ireland. i argue they are not, simple and i also reason that when people tarnish whole sets of other people it pushes solutions to problems further down the road. I am a full member of a golf club we have distance/minor members which have enabled us to stay afloat this past 3 years. 7 fields away is Tulfarris golf club, a magnificent 18 hole NAMA run facility which would love us to close the gates and go quietly into the night which is the same point of view that has been expressed by posters on this thread well that's another point that i will gladly miss. This debate is really good and some of the posts have been evidenced really well.
There was a brilliant point made by someone saying that older established clubs were more likely to have people within their membership with the skillsets to steer the club through difficult times. Thats what happens when you have charged entrance fee's, you keep the less educated and lower income groups out and they say golf is not elitist, maybe so but some of the clubs still have that air about them

I'd fully agree there is an air of elitism about some clubs, sometimes more than just an air.
But, I think your point about distance memberships are not bad for golf is slightly off. They're not bad for your particular club, or for any club that has them. However, and I'm not having a go, that status quo only exists because distance memberships are essentially tolerated by the rest of the golf fraternity to an extent. Insofar as what would happen if all clubs dropped their fees to the distance membership level, or offered distance memberships ? I would argue that golf would implode pretty quickly. Someone living in Dublin would surely chose a Dublin club if they could get it for the same price as a country one. If even 50% of members of a club opted to pay distance member subs the club would fold within a few months. The knock on effect would then be that there wouldn't be any opens for the distance members to play in, if clubs start folding.

The fact is a number of clubs are surviving, and fair play to them, by using the competitive advantage of offering below cost golf. If all clubs could come down to those fees, they would, and those distance clubs would inevitably fold or come under pressure. But, clubs are folding now already, so what makes a distance offering club more precious than a city club in terms of saving it ? Or vice versa ? They'll both have a hard core of members who want it to stay open. All this faffing all comes back to the basic point that there are too many clubs in Ireland and Dublin particularly and nothing can change that.

I reckon, and it's just my opinion, that the GUI need to favour clubs in big catchment areas with regularly playing members over appeasing the nomad golfers. Golf needs a certain number of affordable options in or near the big population centres. It's hypothetical, but what if 20 clubs closed in Dublin ? You now have a few thousand golfers who likely can't afford to join the "elite" clubs that are left standing but have nowhere to go other than an option miles away where they may rarely get to play.

Oh, and the NAMA clubs should be let close anyway !

cairny

Russman wrote: »

Food for thought indeed. I'm no insurance expert and maybe I'm reading the post incorrectly, are you saying that someone being a visitor makes it different if they hit a 3rd party as opposed to a member hitting them (with a ball obviously !!) ? I would have thought that a % of their green fee went to insurance cover ?
Or are you saying that because full members mostly pay it as part of their subs, they only pay it once, whereas a distance member might play 20 different courses so, in theory, could need "an insurance cover" for each open they play ?

Makes no difference. Golfsure is for cover on all courses, similarly house policy providers don't care about your status in a club.

golfwallah

cairny wrote: »

Just read the policy, under the Personal Liabilty section. Any changes to policies have to be notified etc.

Distance or Club doesnt make any difference. Clubs only insure against their own Liabilty although some provide access to Golfsire. You still have to sign up yourself.

There was a lot of misinformation on the thread about that case and bizarre comments about insurance policies. Best not to go down that road with this thread. It's a bit of a red herring imho although I can appreciate why it occurred to you.

Quite right - golfers should just read the policy (that is if you have one and are sure you understand it). And notified changes aren't always read.

Agreed that the club you are playing in is irrelevant - all that matters is that you cover the risk of causing injury to a 3rd party.

Granted, many people may already have cover either household, Golfsure or both - but the point I am making is that many clubs insist on members having Golfsure insurance, but not necessarily for their distance offering.

So the risk remains - call it a red herring if you want!

cairny

golfwallah wrote: »

Quite right - golfers should just read the policy (that is if you have one and are sure you understand it). And notified changes aren't always read.

Agreed that the club you are playing in is irrelevant - all that matters is that you cover the risk of causing injury to a 3rd party.

Granted, many people may already have cover either household, Golfsure or both - but the point I am making is that many clubs insist on members having Golfsure insurance, but not necessarily for their distance offering.

So the risk remains - call it a red herring if you want!

Insurers haven't been excluding golf (in the way that winter sports etc often are for eg) they could in the future of course but it's unlikely.

My club doesn't insist on Golfsure, loads don't. I just don't think this is a relevant factor in relation to distance membership.

golfwallah

Russman wrote: »

I'd fully agree there is an air of elitism about some clubs, sometimes more than just an air.
But, I think your point about distance memberships are not bad for golf is slightly off. They're not bad for your particular club, or for any club that has them. However, and I'm not having a go, that status quo only exists because distance memberships are essentially tolerated by the rest of the golf fraternity to an extent. Insofar as what would happen if all clubs dropped their fees to the distance membership level, or offered distance memberships ? I would argue that golf would implode pretty quickly. Someone living in Dublin would surely chose a Dublin club if they could get it for the same price as a country one. If even 50% of members of a club opted to pay distance member subs the club would fold within a few months. The knock on effect would then be that there wouldn't be any opens for the distance members to play in, if clubs start folding.

The fact is a number of clubs are surviving, and fair play to them, by using the competitive advantage of offering below cost golf. If all clubs could come down to those fees, they would, and those distance clubs would inevitably fold or come under pressure. But, clubs are folding now already, so what makes a distance offering club more precious than a city club in terms of saving it ? Or vice versa ? They'll both have a hard core of members who want it to stay open. All this faffing all comes back to the basic point that there are too many clubs in Ireland and Dublin particularly and nothing can change that.

I reckon, and it's just my opinion, that the GUI need to favour clubs in big catchment areas with regularly playing members over appeasing the nomad golfers. Golf needs a certain number of affordable options in or near the big population centres. It's hypothetical, but what if 20 clubs closed in Dublin ? You now have a few thousand golfers who likely can't afford to join the "elite" clubs that are left standing but have nowhere to go other than an option miles away where they may rarely get to play.

Oh, and the NAMA clubs should be let close anyway !

You're making some good points, but do you seriously think golf as we know it would collapse if there is a bit more active competition and service package differentiation?

I don't think the disaster you mention would actually happen. More likely, the shake out of the inefficient clubs, that everyone seems to think is needed, would happen quicker. The end result will be fewer clubs that are better suited to meet market need both in terms of quality and price.

As for the NAMA clubs, it may not be fair, and it's wishful thinking that they should be let close. The reality, I'm afraid, is they have a better than average chance of surviving, with professional management teams and debt write-offs. Any club could ride out the storm with such subsidised competitive advantage.

Boskowski

What we're seeing now in Irelands golfing landscape is similar to what has affected all corners of society after the 2008 crash - downscaling to sustainable levels. That means that some people can no longer afford full time competitive golf, reduced membership pool, and consequently it means that some clubs may have to close down.
But for a few exceptions all clubs are forced to trim the fat and for some even that won't be enough. The competition over the remaining member pool is getting tougher.

In the Dublin area this process is probably a little sharper than in the rest of the country. The higher density market means the economy driven swings around the Dublin area are that little bit more extreme. The highs are higher and the lows are lower.
On top of it all NAMA distorts this process as well as the overall market conditions as it does in other areas of the economy. Terrible idea all around (possibly) but a reality all the same.

It is only natural that clubs in their struggle to survive turn to all possible means to get more money into the books. The distance membership scheme is one of those means as it allows them to tap into that group of golfers that can no longer afford golf and get a little something out of them.

If that's all there is to it then one may argue no damage has been done. These guys would fall out of the pool anyway, might as well get some money out of them and let them continue to play 'some' golf.

The damage is done when the distance membership becomes the better product and golfers who can and would continue to afford full memberships start swinging that way too.
I don't think we would lose all club golfers to this, but I think the potential is there for a large enough number of nomads to inflict serious damage to Irish golf.

In the interest of all golfers and golf in Ireland long term I think this must be prevented. If we let this continue it would start a race to the bottom that very few clubs could survive.

Imagine if we were all distant members somewhere. The country wide pool of money available to clubs would be halved or worse and within a few years the club landscape would be shredded to bits and we all lose out. Golf has a certain price and that price has to be paid or there'll be no golf.

But there is no point in appealing to the nomads and there's even less of a point alienating them. Its a reality of what people do.

In my opinion the challenge is

to find the right set of levers to prevent further market distortion and also prevent the race to the bottom

to overcome structural and organisational inertia between governing bodies and clubs to effectively implement those levers

Edit: Probably stating the obvious but wanted to summarise my thoughts on this

mike12

Russman wrote: »

I'd fully agree there is an air of elitism about some clubs, sometimes more than just an air.
But, I think your point about distance memberships are not bad for golf is slightly off. They're not bad for your particular club, or for any club that has them. However, and I'm not having a go, that status quo only exists because distance memberships are essentially tolerated by the rest of the golf fraternity to an extent. Insofar as what would happen if all clubs dropped their fees to the distance membership level, or offered distance memberships ? I would argue that golf would implode pretty quickly. Someone living in Dublin would surely chose a Dublin club if they could get it for the same price as a country one. If even 50% of members of a club opted to pay distance member subs the club would fold within a few months. The knock on effect would then be that there wouldn't be any opens for the distance members to play in, if clubs start folding.

The fact is a number of clubs are surviving, and fair play to them, by using the competitive advantage of offering below cost golf. If all clubs could come down to those fees, they would, and those distance clubs would inevitably fold or come under pressure. But, clubs are folding now already, so what makes a distance offering club more precious than a city club in terms of saving it ? Or vice versa ? They'll both have a hard core of members who want it to stay open. All this faffing all comes back to the basic point that there are too many clubs in Ireland and Dublin particularly and nothing can change that.

I reckon, and it's just my opinion, that the GUI need to favour clubs in big catchment areas with regularly playing members over appeasing the nomad golfers. Golf needs a certain number of affordable options in or near the big population centres. It's hypothetical, but what if 20 clubs closed in Dublin ? You now have a few thousand golfers who likely can't afford to join the "elite" clubs that are left standing but have nowhere to go other than an option miles away where they may rarely get to play.

Oh, and the NAMA clubs should be let close anyway !

My problem with someone in Dublin having Distance membership is there are 7/8 options that are in or around the same price, Corballis, Swords Open, Bellewstown, Hollystown, Silouge, Elm park? and i'm sure there are a few south side that offer a pay and play membership. The added advantage of these courses is you have somewhere to do a bit of putting or chipping in the evening time or a cheap 18 holes for €10 if there are no opens on.

Most opens you have to be playing by 4 in the summer plus there are weekends when there is nothing on open wise where you can play a club comp. It has so many advantages over Distance membership.

A course that is local to you saves you so much time in travel and money saved on fuel you have to take it into account.
It is the route i would take if i decided to give up my full membership.

ShivasIrons

Boskowski wrote: »

In the interest of all golfers and golf in Ireland long term I think this must be prevented. If we let this continue it would start a race to the bottom that very few clubs could survive.

The race to the bottom has started, in fact it started a few years ago. Too many clubs are being run badly and are blaming everyone else except themselves.

The big losers will be the loyal members of these clubs unfortunately.

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

You're making some good points, but do you seriously think golf as we know it would collapse if there is a bit more active competition and service package differentiation?

I don't think the disaster you mention would actually happen. More likely, the shake out of the inefficient clubs, that everyone seems to think is needed, would happen quicker. The end result will be fewer clubs that are better suited to meet market need both in terms of quality and price.

As for the NAMA clubs, it may not be fair, and it's wishful thinking that they should be let close. The reality, I'm afraid, is they have a better than average chance of surviving, with professional management teams and debt write-offs. Any club could ride out the storm with such subsidised competitive advantage.

it's not just more options, if distance membership becomes a cheap means to play the same level of golf full members are playing today then who is going to pay the subs to keep the course open?
Token distance subs with open green fees isn't going to keep anywhere of top quality open.

GreeBo

ShivasIrons wrote: »

The race to the bottom has started, in fact it started a few years ago. Too many clubs are being run badly and are blaming everyone else except themselves.

The big losers will be the loyal members of these clubs unfortunately.

Do you really think there are still too many clubs being run badly? I seriously doubt it.

PARlance

mike12 wrote: »

My problem with someone in Dublin having Distance membership is there are 7/8 options that are in or around the same price, Corballis, Swords Open, Bellewstown, Hollystown, Silouge, Elm park? and i'm sure there are a few south side that offer a pay and play membership. The added advantage of these courses is you have somewhere to do a bit of putting or chipping in the evening time or a cheap 18 holes for €10 if there are no opens on.

Most opens you have to be playing by 4 in the summer plus there are weekends when there is nothing on open wise where you can play a club comp. It has so many advantages over Distance membership.

A course that is local to you saves you so much time in travel and money saved on fuel you have to take it into account.
It is the route i would take if i decided to give up my full membership.

Do you know of any/many people living in Dublin that are members of a club in Tipp?
I've never met any golfer on my travels that is based in Dublin but is spending €150 to become a member down there.... And that's mainly because of the options you've mentioned above.

I think it's mainly people from rural areas who might only have a couple of local courses... And if these local courses are looking at 800-1000+ then a Slievenamon becomes an option, maybe the only option, for someone to play GUI golf.

It's (this distance problem) all a storm in a tea cup if you ask me.

First Up

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

No first up, i asked for evidence, none forthcoming although it would be hard to find in fairness. Just because someone does not agree with some one else....... it is not getting the point....... it is called debate. There is a theme argued by some throughout this thread that distance members are bad for game of golf in Ireland. i argue they are not, simple and i also reason that when people tarnish whole sets of other people it pushes solutions to problems further down the road. I am a full member of a golf club we have distance/minor members which have enabled us to stay afloat this past 3 years. 7 fields away is Tulfarris golf club, a magnificent 18 hole NAMA run facility which would love us to close the gates and go quietly into the night which is the same point of view that has been expressed by posters on this thread well that's another point that i will gladly miss. This debate is really good and some of the posts have been evidenced really well.
There was a brilliant point made by someone saying that older established clubs were more likely to have people within their membership with the skillsets to steer the club through difficult times. That's what happens when you have charged entrance fee's, you keep the less educated and lower income groups out and they say golf is not elitist, maybe so but some of the clubs still have that air about them. Golf is a minority sport, it shouldn't be as it is a game that can be enjoyed till the twilight of our lives, i is healthy and provides us with valuable social capital.

Yours is not the only club facing unfair competition from NAMA run operations. That doesn't make it any more legitimate for yours to flog cheap GUI cards and undermine others.

It was me who made the "brilliant" point (thanks) about older clubs having the skill sets to cope. It has nothing to do with elitism; clubs that require new members to buy a share (and with it a share of all the years of work and investment that made the place what it is) are simply reflecting the real cost of maintaining a good quality course and club. Golf is expensive to provide and not everyone can afford it. It isn't an entitlement as you seem to think.

slave1

You don't need to be a member of a club to get your golf insurance, they do it for societies also (same policy) as I checked up on it last year with Golfsure, think minimum of 21 need to sign up

Letree

Russman wrote: »

I reckon, and it's just my opinion, that the GUI need to favour clubs in big catchment areas with regularly playing members over appeasing the nomad golfers. Golf needs a certain number of affordable options in or near the big population centres. It's hypothetical, but what if 20 clubs closed in Dublin ? You now have a few thousand golfers who likely can't afford to join the "elite" clubs that are left standing but have nowhere to go other than an option miles away where they may rarely get to play.

Oh, and the NAMA clubs should be let close anyway !

I'm with you on that. The GUI need to prioritise golfers who are full members and regular players at their particular club. I think it is the healthiest way for golf as a whole.

I spend a bit of time up in Donegal too. A lot of good courses up there. This is an interesting invitation for new members in Portnoo Golf Club. They want people who live within a 20 mile radius of the club. http://www.narinportnoogolfclub.ie/members-section/membership-fees/

golfwallah

GreeBo wrote: »

it's not just more options, if distance membership becomes a cheap means to play the same level of golf full members are playing today then who is going to pay the subs to keep the course open?
Token distance subs with open green fees isn't going to keep anywhere of top quality open.

Nobody, apart from yourself, perhaps, thinks the extreme future scenario you are portraying (of distance membership replacing full membership) is likely to happen.

However about the future, most people will agree that there is over-capacity in the Irish golf market – has been for the past few years. Research undertaken in 2010 by FGS and Carr Golf Services, in conjunction with the GUI and the ILGU based on an on-line survey to Ireland’s 433 golf courses, calculated the level of excess capacity or under-utilisation at 42%. Things have not been getting any better since 2010.
Amongst other things, this research showed that:

• The estimated average cost of operating a golf club in 2009 was €990,000.
• The equivalent figure in 1999 was €266,000 (in 2009 prices) which indicates that costs have risen by 270% in just over a decade.

This looks to me like room for improvement in both capacity utilisation and operating costs.

This research also concluded that there was a need for better business planning – that was 4½ years ago.

In March 2014 Leinster Golf (GUI) launched their Roadmap 2017, which goes somewhat further along the way towards identifying and addressing these issues.

Despite this valuable research and well grounded planning by the GUI, you constantly go on about distance membership and justifying high costs as if committing resources to these two issues alone would place Irish golf in the position that most people desired.

There is a huge variation in the types of people who play golf – they are not all in well resourced clubs charging €2,000 or more in annual subs (after entrance fees) with waiting lists and growing senior membership – nor can they afford to be. For example, people who have postponed house purchase over the last 7/8 years, about to take on big mortgages, will not have much left in the kitty to join the top quality courses you are talking about.

Market forces will eventually solve the over-capacity situation – even if it is taking a very long time. But addressing GUI identified pressing problems of attracting / retaining members, controlling costs and giving people the service they want at prices they are willing to pay, will play a big part in which clubs survive.

At this stage we are going around in circles about this argument – so let’s just agree to differ!

Boden08

Interesting thread and recent comments about oversupply is at the heart of the issue. Unfortunately the reality is that some clubs will have to go to the wall, and it seems like there is always going to be a gulf between Dublin and other clubs in terms of going rate for members. I would suggest that there is a reality check required for those requiring 10 competition cards to maintain a handicap. Many club members do not play that actively due to other family and work commitments personal health etc and you will risk alienating and losing their valuable funds by declaring them ineligible.
In my own case, I suspect I played three or four 18 hole competitions this year ..think one was cancelled after I returned my' 'score'
The club have obviously benefitted from my 1.3k fee and the zealots would have proposed that such a member would then have their handicap suspended...perhaps they might consider how that might cause some members to reasonably withdraw their funds/ club support.
Not having time to play more than occasional golf, those rounds I do play are currently subsidising the club and many regular golfers on here who would seek to undermine that commitment. I haven't played more than one or two opens in the past four years, and my performance to the handicap which has only gone out .5 wouldn't threaten any prize hunters so I would recommend that you be careful what you wish for...your own club may have significant numbers of members of my ilk.
It is a complex scenario and maybe the clubs offering a flexible membership rate to locals who don't have five hours free most weekends might actually retain and/or attract funds rather than drive current members away.
Suburbs of South Dublin are densely populated with potential members of golf, but it is a catch 22 if the local club membership fees are comparatively expensive and an occasional round thereby costs you so much. The plentiful options mentioned in Nth County Dublin are not so convenient for the very odd spare 30 min practice after work if you consider the traffic conditions at that time... Many here, who seem somewhat preoccupied with those using distance memberships, might do well not to throw the baby out with the bathwater...

cairny

Boden08 wrote: »

Interesting thread and recent comments about oversupply is at the heart of the issue. Unfortunately the reality is that some clubs will have to go to the wall, and it seems like there is always going to be a gulf between Dublin and other clubs in terms of going rate for members. I would suggest that there is a reality check required for those requiring 10 competition cards to maintain a handicap. Many club members do not play that actively due to other family and work commitments personal health etc and you will risk alienating and losing their valuable funds by declaring them ineligible.
In my own case, I suspect I played three or four 18 hole competitions this year ..think one was cancelled after I returned my' 'score'
The club have obviously benefitted from my 1.3k fee and the zealots would have proposed that such a member would then have their handicap suspended...perhaps they might consider how that might cause some members to reasonably withdraw their funds/ club support.
Not having time to play more than occasional golf, those rounds I do play are currently subsidising the club and many regular golfers on here who would seek to undermine that commitment. I haven't played more than one or two opens in the past four years, and my performance to the handicap which has only gone out .5 wouldn't threaten any prize hunters so I would recommend that you be careful what you wish for...your own club may have significant numbers of members of my ilk.
It is a complex scenario and maybe the clubs offering a flexible membership rate to locals who don't have five hours free most weekends might actually retain and/or attract funds rather than drive current members away.
Suburbs of South Dublin are densely populated with potential members of golf, but it is a catch 22 if the local club membership fees are comparatively expensive and an occasional round thereby costs you so much. The plentiful options mentioned in Nth County Dublin are not so convenient for the very odd spare 30 min practice after work if you consider the traffic conditions at that time... Many here, who seem somewhat preoccupied with those using distance memberships, might do well not to throw the baby out with the bathwater...

You've got the wrong end of the stick re the proposal, doesn't impinge on your handicap. It's just a requirement when playing in open comps away from your club.

Kingswood Rover

GreeBo wrote: »

it's not just more options, if distance membership becomes a cheap means to play the same level of golf full members are playing today then who is going to pay the subs to keep the course open?
Token distance subs with open green fees isn't going to keep anywhere of top quality open.

Distance members are not able to play the same level of golf as full members, they can't nip down for an hour and play a few holes. They play in opens if they can and the host club gets some income.

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

Nobody, apart from yourself, perhaps, thinks the extreme future scenario you are portraying (of distance membership replacing full membership) is likely to happen.

However about the future, most people will agree that there is over-capacity in the Irish golf market – has been for the past few years. Research undertaken in 2010 by FGS and Carr Golf Services, in conjunction with the GUI and the ILGU based on an on-line survey to Ireland’s 433 golf courses, calculated the level of excess capacity or under-utilisation at 42%. Things have not been getting any better since 2010.
Amongst other things, this research showed that:
This looks to me like room for improvement in both capacity utilisation and operating costs.

This research also concluded that there was a need for better business planning – that was 4½ years ago.

In March 2014 Leinster Golf (GUI) launched their Roadmap 2017, which goes somewhat further along the way towards identifying and addressing these issues.

Despite this valuable research and well grounded planning by the GUI, you constantly go on about distance membership and justifying high costs as if committing resources to these two issues alone would place Irish golf in the position that most people desired.

There is a huge variation in the types of people who play golf – they are not all in well resourced clubs charging €2,000 or more in annual subs (after entrance fees) with waiting lists and growing senior membership – nor can they afford to be. For example, people who have postponed house purchase over the last 7/8 years, about to take on big mortgages, will not have much left in the kitty to join the top quality courses you are talking about.

Market forces will eventually solve the over-capacity situation – even if it is taking a very long time. But addressing GUI identified pressing problems of attracting / retaining members, controlling costs and giving people the service they want at prices they are willing to pay, will play a big part in which clubs survive.

At this stage we are going around in circles about this argument – so let’s just agree to differ!

If distance membership cheap golf and it's ilk becomes more widespread, as you seem to want, why would anybody pay full membership anywhere?
sure it has benefits over nomadic golf, but at a third the price, for example, the maths don't stack up.
full members already have to ignore the cost per round ratio.

2009 was 5 years ago now. Do you really think clubs haven't cut back on spending? What's the capital breakdown for that expenditure also? Which clubs is it from, I very much doubt they all replied.
also Average is useless in this case as they are not directly comparable. Carton vs slievenamon, same course condition?
The under utilization figures also look great on paper, do you know many clubs that are not under utilized? Do you know many golfers who are going to pay to play on Monday mornings? Is the nature of the world, they're aren't that many golfing shift workers in afraid.
even if there were, if you give up all the free course time for bargain prices you are going to have aapretty unhappy membership who can't get out for a mid week round of golf when they want. That's what members expect, not an assembly line running at 99% capacity.


So the landscape is changing, moving away from the old golfers joining clubs towards young nomadic golfers. How do you think clubs will survive? Why won't the scenario that I, amongst others here, fear?


People who have postponed buying houses have the most disposable income in the market.
Finally, I'm not sure why you think they have to join " the top quality courses I'm talking about" ?
They should Jon whatever club they are planning in playing in.

You seem to have a gripe about certain clubs, constantly referring to 2k subs and "growing senior membership".
Yet in the same breath you mention "well resourced"
well which is it? Where do you think these resources come from? Ican tell you it's not from magical innovative offerings that suddenly has societies playing at 8am on a Monday morning. It's from members paying for the quality they want.

Kingswood Rover

Russman wrote: »

I'd fully agree there is an air of elitism about some clubs, sometimes more than just an air.
But, I think your point about distance memberships are not bad for golf is slightly off. They're not bad for your particular club, or for any club that has them. However, and I'm not having a go, that status quo only exists because distance memberships are essentially tolerated by the rest of the golf fraternity to an extent. Insofar as what would happen if all clubs dropped their fees to the distance membership level, or offered distance memberships ? I would argue that golf would implode pretty quickly. Someone living in Dublin would surely chose a Dublin club if they could get it for the same price as a country one. If even 50% of members of a club opted to pay distance member subs the club would fold within a few months. The knock on effect would then be that there wouldn't be any opens for the distance members to play in, if clubs start folding.

The fact is a number of clubs are surviving, and fair play to them, by using the competitive advantage of offering below cost golf. If all clubs could come down to those fees, they would, and those distance clubs would inevitably fold or come under pressure. But, clubs are folding now already, so what makes a distance offering club more precious than a city club in terms of saving it ? Or vice versa ? They'll both have a hard core of members who want it to stay open. All this faffing all comes back to the basic point that there are too many clubs in Ireland and Dublin particularly and nothing can change that.

I reckon, and it's just my opinion, that the GUI need to favour clubs in big catchment areas with regularly playing members over appeasing the nomad golfers. Golf needs a certain number of affordable options in or near the big population centres. It's hypothetical, but what if 20 clubs closed in Dublin ? You now have a few thousand golfers who likely can't afford to join the "elite" clubs that are left standing but have nowhere to go other than an option miles away where they may rarely get to play.

Oh, and the NAMA clubs should be let close anyway !

What if all clubs were to offer subs at distance membership rates is a red herring and never going to happen because of market forces All clubs have different strata of membership fee's and one of these (not particularly in the greater Dublin area) is distance membership. Don't some of the older Dublin Clubs still have artisans sections. 20 clubs in Dublin are not going to close in the even in the next 10 years. Dublin has the population that other parts of the country do not.

golfwallah

GreeBo wrote: »

If distance membership cheap golf and it's ilk becomes more widespread, as you seem to want, why would anybody pay full membership anywhere?
sure it has benefits over nomadic golf, but at a third the price, for example, the maths don't stack up.
full members already have to ignore the cost per round ratio.

2009 was 5 years ago now. Do you really think clubs haven't cut back on spending? What's the capital breakdown for that expenditure also? Which clubs is it from, I very much doubt they all replied.
also Average is useless in this case as they are not directly comparable. Carton vs slievenamon, same course condition?
The under utilization figures also look great on paper, do you know many clubs that are not under utilized? Do you know many golfers who are going to pay to play on Monday mornings? Is the nature of the world, they're aren't that many golfing shift workers in afraid.
even if there were, if you give up all the free course time for bargain prices you are going to have aapretty unhappy membership who can't get out for a mid week round of golf when they want. That's what members expect, not an assembly line running at 99% capacity.


So the landscape is changing, moving away from the old golfers joining clubs towards young nomadic golfers. How do you think clubs will survive? Why won't the scenario that I, amongst others here, fear?


People who have postponed buying houses have the most disposable income in the market.
Finally, I'm not sure why you think they have to join " the top quality courses I'm talking about" ?
They should Jon whatever club they are planning in playing in.

You seem to have a gripe about certain clubs, constantly referring to 2k subs and "growing senior membership".
Yet in the same breath you mention "well resourced"
well which is it? Where do you think these resources come from? Ican tell you it's not from magical innovative offerings that suddenly has societies playing at 8am on a Monday morning. It's from members paying for the quality they want.

When capacity utilization moves from present levels of around 58% (and falling prices) more towards around 85% (and more stable or slightly rising prices), things will begin to look better for Irish Golf.

Most well researched sources would agree on this type of reasonable economic scenario – not the one you are painting of prices dropping to the floor and golf courses running at 99% capacity – really, where do you get all this extreme stuff – you must be making it up?

For the change to take place requires either of 2 things to happen – either fewer golf courses or more people playing golf – or, better still a combination of both.

You say this can’t work because we need high cost, top quality courses where everyone pays the same average price. Certainly, if Irish golf adopts this approach there will be far fewer golfers and courses around in a few years time.

Whereas I don’t think we are going to get back to the peak of Celtic Tiger days, I’d prefer to see golf moving towards a noticeable increase in the numbers playing, with as many in membership as possible and the survival of those golf clubs that are prepared to put in the work to make this happen. The GUI (a not for profit organisation with limited resources at its disposal) and others are pointing the way and helping clubs get there, if they chose this path. In my view, this will make the industry more prosperous, provide more employment and give enjoyment to more golfers.

It also means change from the old stuffy golfing model of high costs and high prices. Nobody wants cheap, but there are many informed sources that see quality golf at affordable prices and a much brighter future for the game than you are proposing.

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

When capacity utilization moves from present levels of around 58% (and falling prices) more towards around 85% (and more stable or slightly rising prices), things will begin to look better for Irish Golf.

Most well researched sources would agree on this type of reasonable economic scenario – not the one you are painting of prices dropping to the floor and golf courses running at 99% capacity – really, where do you get all this extreme stuff – you must be making it up?

For the change to take place requires either of 2 things to happen – either fewer golf courses or more people playing golf – or, better still a combination of both.

You say this can’t work because we need high cost, top quality courses where everyone pays the same average price. Certainly, if Irish golf adopts this approach there will be far fewer golfers and courses around in a few years time.

Whereas I don’t think we are going to get back to the peak of Celtic Tiger days, I’d prefer to see golf moving towards a noticeable increase in the numbers playing, with as many in membership as possible and the survival of those golf clubs that are prepared to put in the work to make this happen. The GUI (a not for profit organisation with limited resources at its disposal) and others are pointing the way and helping clubs get there, if they chose this path. In my view, this will make the industry more prosperous, provide more employment and give enjoyment to more golfers.

It also means change from the old stuffy golfing model of high costs and high prices. Nobody wants cheap, but there are many informed sources that see quality golf at affordable prices and a much brighter future for the game than you are proposing.

85% capacity?
that's a pipe dream and never going to happen.
where are all these new golfers going to come from exactly?

We do need top quality courses available, they cost top money, unless you know some other way of maintaining them?
no everyone doesn't pay the same, you pay for your access and voting rights, as you do today.

Where do you think the game will be long-term if we don't have top quality courses?

how is charging enough to cover your costs the " old stuffy model"?
It's business 101; if more clubs tried to balance their books we wouldn't have such a problem.

To be honest it very much feels like you are blinded by some chip on your shoulder against clubs that have money. Your denigrating comments are relentless.

redhead999

First Up wrote: »

Yours is not the only club facing unfair competition from NAMA run operations. That doesn't make it any more legitimate for yours to flog cheap GUI cards and undermine others.

I absolutely agree with this. Im in the same club as kingswood and its the one I am sickened by, thats why I'm leaving.

I feel they have totally abused the minor member idea and are providing a cheap skate route which enables people to enjoy the use of fabulous courses which other people are paying for, I dont wamt to be part of that[/quote]

Kingswood Rover

redhead999 wrote: »

Sorry, fist paragraph from first up, the rest was my reply - not very good at this

Happy new year Red head, i played with loads of the minor members during the midweek opens in the past 2 years and have always suggested to them to think about becoming full members. some of them have but most say that they don't have the time or money at this point in their lives to justify the 650 per year sub. Some posters have likened distance members to parasites which is totally flawed. Minor members enabled you and me as full members to have a golf club the past 3 years and people to play competitive golf who might not have done so for reasons mentioned previously. that is a symbiotic relationship where both parties benefit. I have never heard any derogatory comments about minor members in the club in fact the opposite where the full members have played with and welcomed the minor members with open arms. So please dont go, stay and bring your concerns to a committee member and see what they say.

redhead999

Its the committee that is at the root of the problem, a pack of money grabbers

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

85% capacity?
that's a pipe dream and never going to happen.
where are all these new golfers going to come from exactly?

We do need top quality courses available, they cost top money, unless you know some other way of maintaining them?
no everyone doesn't pay the same, you pay for your access and voting rights, as you do today.

Where do you think the game will be long-term if we don't have top quality courses?

how is charging enough to cover your costs the " old stuffy model"?
It's business 101; if more clubs tried to balance their books we wouldn't have such a problem.

To be honest it very much feels like you are blinded by some chip on your shoulder against clubs that have money. Your denigrating comments are relentless.

If golf was FREE you wouldn't get 85% capacity utilisation. The "flexible" membership argument is based on a flawed understanding of elasticity of demand.

First Up

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

Happy new year Red head, i played with loads of the minor members during the midweek opens in the past 2 years and have always suggested to them to think about becoming full members. some of them have but most say that they don't have the time or money at this point in their lives to justify the 650 per year sub. Some posters have likened distance members to parasites which is totally flawed. Minor members enabled you and me as full members to have a golf club the past 3 years and people to play competitive golf who might not have done so for reasons mentioned previously. that is a symbiotic relationship where both parties benefit. I have never heard any derogatory comments about minor members in the club in fact the opposite where the full members have played with and welcomed the minor members with open arms. So please dont go, stay and bring your concerns to a committee member and see what they say.

They are not parasites in relation to their "own" club. The term applies to them freeloading with their discounted GUI card at other courses, the upkeep of which is funded by those paying full membership rates.
What you charge within your own club is your business. It is the requirement on other clubs to honour it that is the problem.

GreeBo

First Up wrote: »

If golf was FREE you wouldn't get 85% capacity utilisation. The "flexible" membership argument is based on a flawed understanding of elasticity of demand.

Preaching to the choir there.
Golf has never had high levels of utilization; as I have been saying for days on here, you are never going to get full courses at 8am on a Monday.

Even if you doubled the numbers of golfers currently playing, the vast majority wants to play golf on the same 3 days, Friday, Saturday & Sunday.

All the Wile E Coyote marketing tactics in the world aren't going to change that.

Slicemeister

First Up wrote: »

They are not parasites in relation to their "own" club. The term applies to them freeloading with their discounted GUI card at other courses, the upkeep of which is funded by those paying full membership rates.

Those courses shouldn't be running Open Competitions if they don't need the revenue on that logic. Let their club members stump up more next year in membership fees, that'll keep em happy.