Joining Fees for member's clubs.

onlyfinewine

I know there has been a number of posts about the question of joining fees and people have taken various positions either in favour or opposed to them.

I would concede that it is equitable to charge levies that have been paid by the present members in order to have an equality of subscription.

The imposition of particularly large entrance fees in what are supposed to be member's clubs whose purpose is not to make a profit, but to serve their member's needs, does cause me concern.

On the other hand shares in a development complex are a gamble and reflect the profit that is expected to be made so are in another category altogether. (mostly NAMA these days!)

L.O.F.T

onlyfinewine wrote: »

I know there has been a number of posts about the question of joining fees and people have taken various positions either in favour or opposed to them.

I would concede that it is equitable to charge levies that have been paid by the present members in order to have an equality of subscription.

The imposition of particularly large entrance fees in what are supposed to be member's clubs whose purpose is not to make a profit, but to serve their member's needs, does cause me concern.

On the other hand shares in a development complex are a gamble and reflect the profit that is expected to be made so are in another category altogether. (mostly NAMA these days!)

Do you have a specific question or are you using up your big words for the day?

GreeBo

onlyfinewine wrote: »

I know there has been a number of posts about the question of joining fees and people have taken various positions either in favour or opposed to them.

I would concede that it is equitable to charge levies that have been paid by the present members in order to have an equality of subscription.

The imposition of particularly large entrance fees in what are supposed to be member's clubs whose purpose is not to make a profit, but to serve their member's needs, does cause me concern.

On the other hand shares in a development complex are a gamble and reflect the profit that is expected to be made so are in another category altogether. (mostly NAMA these days!)

Typically joining fees are used to fund capital expenditure.
"Club's" dont make a profit, the money doesnt go anywhere, its not a business.

rafared

Or they use the money to pay off the massive debts they have from when they borrowed cheap money during the boom under the misguided belief that Golfers would continue to pay 20K joining fees and 80E green fees.

onlyfinewine

L.O.F.T wrote: »

Do you have a specific question or are you using up your big words for the day?

Thank you for your post, I should have put a question and it is,


Do you feel that member's clubs should charge excessive entrance fees because they are not supposed to be run for profit.






p.s. If you send me a pm with the words you have problems with, I will help.

onlyfinewine

GreeBo wrote: »

Typically joining fees are used to fund capital expenditure.

That's another way of saying they put it in the bank until they figure out how to spend it. Why else would you charge that size of fee?

Club's" dont make a profit, the money doesnt go anywhere, its not a business.

That's not what I posted. I said that they were not supposed to make a profit, but to serve their member's needs!

Mind you, that doesn't mean they don't make a loss.

link_2007

onlyfinewine wrote: »

Thank you for your post, I should have put a question and it is,


Do you feel that member's clubs should charge excessive entrance fees because they are not supposed to be run for profit.

I admittedly know very little about the running of a golf club but I would assume that any surplus cash left in a club at the yearend would be put aside for future capital expenditure e.g. purchase of machinery, adding/removing bunkers etc.

I think profit is the wrong term to use personally, it's not as if the committee can remove the money by way of a bonus or dividend.


Edit: I see Greebo made the exact same point

Peterdalkey

onlyfinewine wrote: »

Thank you for your post, I should have put a question and it is,


Do you feel that member's clubs should charge excessive entrance fees because they are not supposed to be run for profit.






p.s. If you send me a pm with the words you have problems with, I will help.

At the risk of raising the ire of the vocabulary police, I think the use of the word "excessive" is in itself pejorative in this debate. Members clubs are normally structured as not for profit companies, typically limited by guarantee with the objective of providing sporting enjoyment for the members.

Many members golf clubs have been built up, improved and extended etc over the years by the membership on a community/collective effort basis with levies, green fee/bar income used to fund these improvements and repay loans incurred in doing this. I know of many clubs where the members themselves have given of their own time and manually toiled to repair or improve their course.
A new member coming along will reap the benefit of all these endeavours and it seems perfectly reasonable that they pay towards the past and/or future costs of the club facilities.

The commercial reality of today is that some clubs can no longer attract any form of joining fee and are even compelled to reduce the annual subscription fee to attract new members, this is generally predicated by the law of supply and demand and the competition faced from the commercial golf course sector. It is interesting to note that the older Dublin city member clubs like, Milltown Castle Grange, Elm Park etc etc can still command a hefty entrance fee, but only because they have more demand than available places. If that demand falls, you will see the joining fees reduce or disappear, look at Woodbrook and Dun Laoghaire to see that trend emerging in clubs quite close to the Dublin postal areas! The bottom line is, if you want a well maintained course and decent facilities, the members have to pay for it by fees and any other income that can be generated. The alternative is that overall facilities will deteriorate and more members will leave, exacerbating the financial position for those staying on with an inferior golf course to play! It is striking that magic balance of income and operating costs that will sustain the well managed clubs into the future.

Any golfer considering joining a club should educate themselves with regard to the financial situation of the club, and then weigh up the quality of the course, facilities on offer and location versus the financial cost and what they can afford, to arrive at an informed decision. Following a measured qualitative and quantitative analysis, it is in my opinion, unlikely that the cheapest offering will represent the best value. With so many members clubs now actually open to new members, it is a great time to join a club and at much more affordable cost than in the boom years.




Cheers


Peter

GreeBo

onlyfinewine wrote: »

That's another way of saying they put it in the bank until they figure out how to spend it. Why else would you charge that size of fee?

No its not. Are you honestly saying that you dont think clubs have a laundry list of capital items that they need funding for?

Subs pay the running costs, bank loans and joining fees/levies pay for capital projects.

onlyfinewine wrote: »

That's not what I posted. I said that they were not supposed to make a profit, but to serve their member's needs!

Mind you, that doesn't mean they don't make a loss.

Thats incorrect. By definition a "club" doesnt make a profit or a loss; they have Working Capital which indicates either a surplus income or excess expenditure.

The_Architect

Peterdalkey wrote: »

At the risk of raising the ire of the vocabulary police, I think the use of the word "excessive" is in itself pejorative in this debate. Members clubs are normally structured as not for profit companies, typically limited by guarantee with the objective of providing sporting enjoyment for the members.

Many members golf clubs have been built up, improved and extended etc over the years by the membership on a community/collective effort basis with levies, green fee/bar income used to fund these improvements and repay loans incurred in doing this. I know of many clubs where the members themselves have given of their own time and manually toiled to repair or improve their course.
A new member coming along will reap the benefit of all these endeavours and it seems perfectly reasonable that they pay towards the past and/or future costs of the club facilities.

The commercial reality of today is that some clubs can no longer attract any form of joining fee and are even compelled to reduce the annual subscription fee to attract new members, this is generally predicated by the law of supply and demand and the competition faced from the commercial golf course sector. It is interesting to note that the older Dublin city member clubs like, Milltown Castle Grange, Elm Park etc etc can still command a hefty entrance fee, but only because they have more demand than available places. If that demand falls, you will see the joining fees reduce or disappear, look at Woodbrook and Dun Laoghaire to see that trend emerging in clubs quite close to the Dublin postal areas! The bottom line is, if you want a well maintained course and decent facilities, the members have to pay for it by fees and any other income that can be generated. The alternative is that overall facilities will deteriorate and more members will leave, exacerbating the financial position for those staying on with an inferior golf course to play! It is striking that magic balance of income and operating costs that will sustain the well managed clubs into the future.

Any golfer considering joining a club should educate themselves with regard to the financial situation of the club, and then weigh up the quality of the course, facilities on offer and location versus the financial cost and what they can afford, to arrive at an informed decision. Following a measured qualitative and quantitative analysis, it is in my opinion, unlikely that the cheapest offering will represent the best value. With so many members clubs now actually open to new members, it is a great time to join a club and at much more affordable cost than in the boom years.




Cheers


Peter

+1

Almaviva

GreeBo wrote: »

Subs pay the running costs, bank loans and joining fees/levies pay for capital projects.

That may be so in some clubs, but is not necessarily universal. In fact, I would guess it the rarer case.

Many clubs have had minimal or no joining fees even in the boom years. The cost of capital projects such as course improvements and replacement of machinery and infrastructure is factored in to the sub calculation that is necessary to sustain the club. I have been treasurer of one club who ran it that way. No joining fees or levies. Yes, loans and levies built it the first day. But no longer parts of the picture for members today.

Almaviva

Peterdalkey wrote: »

At the risk of raising the ire of the vocabulary police, I think the use of the word "excessive" is in itself pejorative in this debate. Members clubs are normally structured as not for profit companies, typically limited by guarantee with the objective of providing sporting enjoyment for the members.

Many members golf clubs have been built up, improved and extended etc over the years by the membership on a community/collective effort basis with levies, green fee/bar income used to fund these improvements and repay loans incurred in doing this. I know of many clubs where the members themselves have given of their own time and manually toiled to repair or improve their course.
A new member coming along will reap the benefit of all these endeavours and it seems perfectly reasonable that they pay towards the past and/or future costs of the club facilities.

The commercial reality of today is that some clubs can no longer attract any form of joining fee and are even compelled to reduce the annual subscription fee to attract new members, this is generally predicated by the law of supply and demand and the competition faced from the commercial golf course sector. It is interesting to note that the older Dublin city member clubs like, Milltown Castle Grange, Elm Park etc etc can still command a hefty entrance fee, but only because they have more demand than available places. If that demand falls, you will see the joining fees reduce or disappear, look at Woodbrook and Dun Laoghaire to see that trend emerging in clubs quite close to the Dublin postal areas! The bottom line is, if you want a well maintained course and decent facilities, the members have to pay for it by fees and any other income that can be generated. The alternative is that overall facilities will deteriorate and more members will leave, exacerbating the financial position for those staying on with an inferior golf course to play! It is striking that magic balance of income and operating costs that will sustain the well managed clubs into the future.

Any golfer considering joining a club should educate themselves with regard to the financial situation of the club, and then weigh up the quality of the course, facilities on offer and location versus the financial cost and what they can afford, to arrive at an informed decision. Following a measured qualitative and quantitative analysis, it is in my opinion, unlikely that the cheapest offering will represent the best value. With so many members clubs now actually open to new members, it is a great time to join a club and at much more affordable cost than in the boom years.

Cheers
Peter

Sums the situation well.

The bottom line as I see it, is that the total money in Irish golf is decreasing. Standards will drop and some clubs will go to the wall. Dropping levies, or subs is correcting a supply and demand situation that now exists. It will not affect the Elm Parks or Portmarnocks. But income in 99% of Irish clubs has dropped and will not recover anytime soon, whatever membership drives, incentives, fundraisers, special deals etc are attempted. Reducing or eliminating levies is simply one part of that correction.

Golfers of Ireland (or 99% of us) - get used to cheaper and less flashy golf facilities.

onlyfinewine

GreeBo wrote: »

No its not. Are you honestly saying that you dont think clubs have a laundry list of capital items that they need funding for?

Subs pay the running costs, bank loans and joining fees/levies pay for capital projects.


Thats incorrect. By definition a "club" doesnt make a profit or a loss; they have Working Capital which indicates either a surplus income or excess expenditure.

I'm not surprised that you are confused

Initially you said the money would typically be used to fund capital expenditure, but my understanding is that the money is not ring fenced for any purpose and can be used at the discretion of the committee. You have certainly widened your definition after Peterdalkey posted his reply.

Well I know of a club that made an excess expenditure of 50,000 last year and they all seemed to think it was a loss, or at least that was what it was called at the AGM. I will advise them to contact you and they can mend the error of their ways.

GreeBo

onlyfinewine wrote: »

I'm not surprised that you are confused

Thanks for continuing to add to the confusion.

onlyfinewine wrote: »

Initially you said the money would typically be used to fund capital expenditure, but my understanding is that the money is not ring fenced for any purpose and can be used at the discretion of the committee.

I have always said the money would be used for capital expenditure, no one is funding their day to day running expenses from joining fees.
Perhaps if you are talking about a specific club/case you could enlighten us?

onlyfinewine wrote: »

You have certainly widened your definition after Peterdalkey posted his reply.

What definition have I widened?
/edit
Perhaps the "," is confusing you?
Subs pay the running costs; bank loans and joining fees/levies pay for capital projects.

onlyfinewine wrote: »

Well I know of a club that made an excess expenditure of 50,000 last year and they all seemed to think it was a loss, or at least that was what it was called at the AGM. I will advise them to contact you and they can mend the error of their ways.

There is an important accounting distinction between Club Accounts and a P&L statement. Perhaps you should mention this to your Treasurer if he is not already aware.

Ok, so you seem to think that these clubs are making a profit.
Please explain where this money is going? Is it leaving the club? Is someone taking home a big bang of money?

No, its being invested in the club.

onlyfinewine

GreeBo wrote: »

Thanks for continuing to add to the confusion.


I have always said the money would be used for capital expenditure, no one is funding their day to day running expenses from joining fees.
Perhaps if you are talking about a specific club/case you could enlighten us?


What definition have I widened?
/edit
Perhaps the "," is confusing you?
Subs pay the running costs; bank loans and joining fees/levies pay for capital projects.



There is an important accounting distinction between Club Accounts and a P&L statement. Perhaps you should mention this to your Treasurer if he is not already aware.

Ok, so you seem to think that these clubs are making a profit.
Please explain where this money is going? Is it leaving the club? Is someone taking home a big bang of money?

No, its being invested in the club.

Oh Dear, do you know that they are offering a special two for one deal at Specsavers at the moment?

I have never said that clubs were making a profit, even though this is your second post advising me of same. Please re-read my posts and take the appropriate action.

Jazzzman

onlyfinewine is taking GreeBo to school here...

GreeBo

Peterdalkey

Jazzzman wrote: »

onlyfinewine is taking GreeBo to school here...

Now you are being childish...too!!

onlyfinewine

Peterdalkey wrote: »

Many members golf clubs have been built up, improved and extended etc over the years by the membership on a community/collective effort basis with levies, green fee/bar income used to fund these improvements and repay loans incurred in doing this. I know of many clubs where the members themselves have given of their own time and manually toiled to repair or improve their course.
A new member coming along will reap the benefit of all these endeavours and it seems perfectly reasonable that they pay towards the past and/or future costs of the club facilities.


Cheers


Peter

Because of the difficulties that have been experienced post Celtic Pussycat a number of courses have closed. Bearing in mind that they have already paid the levies, done the volunteer work and used the bar and dining facilities is it fair that they should now pay a second round of charges? This would also apply to people who had to move a distance because of their job situation.

Almaviva

onlyfinewine wrote: »

Because of the difficulties that have been experienced post Celtic Pussycat a number of courses have closed. Bearing in mind that they have already paid the levies, done the volunteer work and used the bar and dining facilities is it fair that they should now pay a second round of charges? This would also apply to people who had to move a distance because of their job situation.

Fairness doenst come into it. The market decides. If a club decides it can command an entry levy then it can choose to do so. Why would they have any interest in whether he paid one elsewhere already?

onlyfinewine

Almaviva wrote: »

Fairness doenst come into it. The market decides. If a club decides it can command an entry levy then it can choose to do so. Why would they have any interest in whether he paid one elsewhere already?

That is a point of view that would make me ask again, Should fairness come into it? Member's Golf Clubs are not constrained only by market forces, so why do you think the market should decide? A decision to charge a levy or to drop one will be made by each club individually, and the decision will reflect the consensus of the committee, after consideration of all the facts, to ensure the ongoing future of the club.

Banks (bad word) come to mind in this regard and I seem to remember that some clubs allowed for a more flexible approach because of the normal re-assignment of the officials around the country.