Falling Subs : Is it really good news?

f22

In all fairness to the K-Club, in the past they have been more than accomodating, a courteous call on a weekday resulted in very discounted greenfees.

If you're rich/stupid enough to pay e350 to play there you deserve everything you get.

Mister Sifter

GreeBo wrote: »

Yeah but the product was more than just the quality of the golf course.(Its certainly not 6 times better than Headford for example) It was the atmosphere, the exclusivity of it. Thats what a lot of corporate golf outings want and they cant charge them vastly different prices then the guy who just turns up to play so everyone pays the high rate.

I would argue that the K club had no interest in having a gang of 20 lads on a stag weekend, a lot of whom dont really play golf, on their course. €300+ excludes most if not all of these groups, wouldnt you agree? Lots of courses have no issue with this and so charge appropriately.
In the past these course would rather be empty on a Friday than have a bunch of lads on it as the corporate event over the weekend would more than make up for the lost greenfees.

Today thats not the case so we are seeing changes.

Exactly, unlike other courses, they didn't need a full course 7 days a week. However, if those 20 guys on a stag did want to play the course i'm sure they would have been allowed, just as long as they were prepared to pay the going rate, which at that time was crazy money, but enough people were willing to pay it to justify them charging such prices.

soundsham

GreeBo wrote: »

The easiest way for any entity to exclude people they dont want is to price them out of it. Typically the sort of people you do not want are the same people who could not afford/are unwilling to pay your higher prices.

While I understand what your trying to get at I have to disagree with how you associate golf clubs desirability with wealth,the fact that some blow hole with plenty money may want to flash it around at a golf club wouldn't always be desirable either imo.
My point is an a55hole is an a55hole and this isn't dictated by wealth,
the difference in previous years is only the a55hole with €350 could play at the K-club.

Off the subject but...Personally I'd be more comfortable in a clubhouse where people were more down to earth rather than listening to the types who are more interested in namedropping all the expensive courses the have been playing in the last few months than being informed on any other golf related topic,
Are these guys still supporting those clubs..?
me thinks not,thats why such clubs are now open to the general public,a case of places getting to big for their boots.

While I understand these clubs want to make as much money as possible they may have been too greedy,
there would be no reason why say every 2nd tues or wed in summer that they would make the course available to locals at a reduced rate say €80, Lahinch does something along these lines at the end of summer
I think they might find it might be mutually benefitial

GreeBo

soundsham wrote: »

While I understand what your trying to get at I have to disagree with how you associate golf clubs desirability with wealth,the fact that some blow hole with plenty money may want to flash it around at a golf club wouldn't always be desirable either imo.
My point is an a55hole is an a55hole and this isn't dictated by wealth,
the difference in previous years is only the a55hole with €350 could play at the K-club.

I dont really follow our first point. Ae you saying that the clubs dont desire people with wealth or that people dont desire clubs that are wealthy? (Or something else!)

I totally agree that an idiot is an idiot irrespective of his wealth.
But these same idiots have similar minded friends who also have the €350 to spend and any club that can attract them all is going to do well out of it. These types of people typically wouldnt want you or I there "in their way" as we are not "their" kind of people.

But to be honest, at that time, if I was running a non members club I'd be trying to attract the same type of people.:o

soundsham

I think you it may have been better to use a term like "joe-soaps" than undesirables thats all,

don't want to get in trouble for modding:p but to me "undesirable" is more a term to be related with scoundrels or lowlife's,
you introduced that term
I see it as a bit inflammatory or something somebody might throw in to wind someone up,

so maybe I took you up wrong

stumpypeeps

soundsham wrote: »

I think you it may have been better to use a term like "joe-soaps" than undesirables thats all,

don't want to get in trouble for modding:p but to me "undesirable" is more a term to be related with scoundrels or lowlife's,
you introduced that term
I see it as a bit inflammatory or something somebody might throw in to wind someone up,

so maybe I took you up wrong

Look guys, roight, forget this undesirable tag, we prefer to refer to all of you as dangleberrys.

GreeBo

soundsham wrote: »

I think you it may have been better to use a term like "joe-soaps" than undesirables thats all,

don't want to get in trouble for modding:p but to me "undesirable" is more a term to be related with scoundrels or lowlife's,
you introduced that term
I see it as a bit inflammatory or something somebody might throw in to wind someone up,

so maybe I took you up wrong

BANNED for 1 week for making polite sense on an internet forum!

kevodaly

soundsham wrote: »

As a lot of A.G.M.'s are on around now, would it be and idea to post here(or start a new thread mods if ye like) what your club has proposed or agreed to do as regards yearly subs.....

It might be helpful to know what other clubs are doing......
personally I believe somewhere around 10-15% cuts are in order

My club has proposed a 3% increase in the annual subs for 2010. Last year the increase was 5%.

scout353

kevodaly wrote: »

My club has proposed a 3% increase in the annual subs for 2010. Last year the increase was 5%.

Likewise at my club - 3% increase being requested. Green Fee income way down and I expect a bit of opposition at the AGM. Weather this year has also impacted on revenues so I am not surprised by the move but at last year's AGM, they looked for 7% and eventually settled on 5% with a guarantee that increases would only reflect inflation! Hence a potential conflict scenario.

Personally I feel 3% is acceptable!

Sandwich

Ours was last week. Subs to stay unchanged from 2009.

A few argued they should be reduced to reflect deflation and people struggling to stay in the club. But no-change passed by a comfortable majority on the recommendation of the committee.