Shareholders, leasers and annual members...

ShriekingSheet

I don't think there's an answer to this. In brief, many golf clubs are now made up of guys who became members in vastly different ways. Shareholders, who forked out tens of thousands, and leasers or annual members, who paid nothing other than the annual sub, which is the same as the Shareholders' one.

By and large, both sets of guys get the same rights and benefits. You might see a vote at the AGM, a few green fees or some other little perk in favour of the shareholders, but in reality, it's pretty negligable - especially in golf terms.

I must say, other than one or two exceptions I've heard, the vast majority of shareholders have no issue with newer leasers/annual members. They don't gripe or look down on them as lesser members. In the main, I think guys are quite pragmatic, and appreciate that while they may have made a poor investment, they most likely made a good move in joining the club they enjoy being part of.

I think there is certainly more made of this. Rumour and myth does hype up a fictional friction between the two groups.

That said, I know that while many shareholders don't have an issue with annual guys, they do feel their investment should reap better benefits than those who made none. But what shape should these benefits take? How can you honour one group of the Men's Club, without belittling another. This is especially sensative, given that in the current market, new annual members are where all the business is. The club needs to attract these guys, and any move to favour shareholders over them wouldn't be appealing.

So I'm generally interested in people's thoughts.

Personally, while the big money shares were flying, I was a teenager or early twenties, so was never going to be a share buyer. Luckily for me, annual membership was established by the time I became a full member. Other members of my family have spent big bucks on club shares, my parents included. So I think I can see both sides.

If I was to make a call, I'd say that harmony in the golf club is the most important thing, and holding shareholders above the station of annual guys could be a threat to that. It does no good for the shareholders to have X, Y and Z benefits above everyone else, but have the reast of the club pee'd off. So I'd treat everyone equally, and who knows, maybe shares will increase in value in time.

death1234567

I can't really see why someone would spend thousands on shares to join a golf club. For me you would never get a return on or get value for that money, just pay green fees & wait for annual membership to be available. Like you said once annual membership is available they have the same rights as shareholders.

BraveDonut

My situation is somewhere in the middle ground - I joined a local club in 2009 where I did not pay the "tens of thousands" but paid some "Hello Money" along with my first year's sub.

Even though there may have been better value out there - this was what I wanted. The course is practically on my doorstep and I have a number of friends in the club.

I have never had any sense of being made feel like a lesser member since I did not pay the same premium to join as others. Only some good natured banter about being a "yellow-pack" member

I also feel that in the near future the "hello money" will be dropped altogether as the club evolves to meet the changes in the market.

I, for one, would never accept having any less rights than any other ordinary member of the club nor would I expect to have more than others. I think that the club would be foolish to even consider this as members have plenty of other options and can vote with their feet.

Johnny_Fontane

I paid €12,500 to join a well known course in 2006. I got the option of buying another share for €1 in 2009, which I did.

People may not realise that to get into a decent club during these times was very tough and very very expensive.

I got offered the Island at €20k at the time, but it was dead money, there was no option to sell the share on. Obviously with hindsight the share isnt really worth anything, but I didnt know that in 2006.

I only recently heard that lease members cannot win the captains prize, which I think is a disgrace. If someone is entitled to play in a competition, they are entitled to win it. I'm on the record that if I do win the captains prize one day but finish second to a lease member, I will give that person the prize.

davo10

I bought a share in a club 5 years ago, the benefit was that shareholders paid half the yearly sub charged to nonshareholder members so in theory after 7 years I would have saved the price of the share on yearly sub and would make a substantial saving from then on. The recession hit and the club needed new members, owner asked shareholders if we were ok allowing new members in at the same rate we were paying thus we no longer got a benefit from being shareholders over ordinary members, we voted overwhelmingly to accept this, better to have a share in something than nothing. If the resort is sold in the future, the new owner must buy out shareholders to have control of GC so we have some hope of recouping our investment.

I should also say that I knew exactly what I was doing including the risks and accept that now it looks like a bad investment and my share is probably worthless. But the club is doing ok and I enjoy the golf.