Future of Club Membership

stockdam

More and more of my friends are contemplating leaving their clubs and paying green fees. I've also seen three people in a fourball leave and one of them stay as a member - he signs the other three in and they then get reduced green fees.

I have been playing golf for a long time and now can only play a handful of times per year so full membership would be prohibitive (I'm a country member).

Many people like to play in the competition on Sat/Sunday and they are the core members of a club. For the rest of the members who are infrequent players then I can see more and more leaving. Society golf may be attractive to them as they can still play competitive golf and have a good day out on different courses.

So do you see any changes occurring in the next 10 years or so and do you fell that some clubs will have to change their business models to retain members?

slave1

I left my local club this year because I only managed 15 rounds there last year, with considerable more rounds elsewhere, it's just not econmically sustainable.
This year I've opted for a cheap club down the country and will play green fees and opens everywhere, this suits me because I'm not a fan of playing the same course day in, day out, variety is the spice of life.
My aim is 52 rounds this year (5 so far, slow start) which will include 10 new courses, will probably play my old club as often as last year via green fees.

charlieIRL

I'm in the same boat as Slave1 - while i played a good bit last year, I'd say most of my rounds were in other courses and with the society here and not at my home course. I only got to play 4 open days in my home course too.
All this combined with only working part time for the last 15 months made me sit back and think about my membership this year and unfortunately I haven't renewed it in my home course. I will still play there on a green fee basis and play the society events here but thats it for me for the next while.
I can't bring myself to pay a distance membership somewhere.

BTW - I know its probably not viable, but it would be great to have a reduced type membership to your home club - say only for playing casual rounds and not eligible to play competitions / team events etc. at a greatly reduced mebership fee. Something like that would suit me perfectly. That way the club still gets some money instead of none from a memeber

Wichita Lineman

Club members are it's lifeblood and without them clubs will continue to close down and there will not be anywhere to play via societies and green fees - apart from the NAMA backed clubs maybe.

I appreciate that everyone - myself included - has financial considerations but I do believe the majority of clubs take that into account when setting fees and most have flexible payment arrangements.

We had a 'contributory membership' a few years ago where you paid €250 up front and €5 every time you used the course. You lost no playing rights and could win any competition but the scheme became unsustainable as quite frankly it was abused left right and centre by people not paying their €5's

charlieIRL

That was a great scheme Andy - but unless you have a ranger on duty it was always going to be tough to police. Having the same whith bag tag as full members didn't help, maybe having a red one or similar may have helped spot contributary members going out.

GreeBo

charlieIRL wrote: »

BTW - I know its probably not viable, but it would be great to have a reduced type membership to your home club - say only for playing casual rounds and not eligible to play competitions / team events etc. at a greatly reduced mebership fee. Something like that would suit me perfectly. That way the club still gets some money instead of none from a memeber

Isn't that what the 5-Day membership option really is though?

You don't get to play the weekends but can play casual golf during the week (so its probably more of a summer thing)
However, I think we all need to remember that the club *needs* people to be paying subs, so it needs to ensure that people paying reduced subs are receiving appropriately reduced playing rights, otherwise, if its too good an offer, everyone will take it up and the club folds.

I think its a tough time for clubs and members and no one really knows how its going to end. My own club has an older population (that they are really trying to address in the last few years) which is great for now, old people have all the cash, but in 10 years what happens...

I for one love being in a club, the freedom and friendship that it gives for me, is worth more than playing a different course frequently. In any case, between rounds with friends, societies and matches, I play a fair few other courses.

ForeRight

5 day membership isn't too cheap though greebo.

Unless you are out 2-3 times a week in those 5 days to justify the sub you may as well be paying the green fees in alot of places.

DeanAustin

Would hope that there isn't a mass move towards this to be honest. As someone said, clubs need members.

I splashed out on a good membership this year but I can't look at it in purely economic terms or I'd never do it again. To me, I've spent x amount of money on golf, I get to play on a great course and be a member or a good club. I gave up one of my regular lads' weekends away this year, don't go out as much as I did (kids will do that to you) and still drive my piece of crap car to justify the cost in my own head. If I could do that for eternity, I'd be a happy man.

That said, I do know people have different financial pressures and if my work situation changed for the worse, which it could at any stage, the membership would be the first thing to go.

ShriekingSheet

I think people new to the game have been victims of the fairly crappy and clichéd bits of advice we're all familiar with. For instance, the "get a handicap and just play opens".

Some people just want to play golf on different courses, and have less interest in the competitive or club end of things. I think a fair few of these were steered into membership, when they'd probably have been better off paying green fees, and joining a good society, which would also provide some competitive golf. While the "distance membership" options look relatively cheap to get a handicap, if you don't actually need a handicap or a club, it's a waste of a couple of hundred euro.

What I also don't like and disagree with is the sentiment that you scrimp on the course you join, but splash out on green fees at higher end courses. On the face of it, it sort of makes sense. But in reality, why don't you just forget the membership fee altogether? Or, save the green fees and add them to your membership fee, and join a club you actually want to play at! A lot of people fall between the two stools, I think anyway.

The reason I make these points is because I think a few people are members that don't need to be in order to enjoy golf. And a few people are paying small membership fees as a false economy.

On the positive side for memberships, you can see people getting smarter with their golfing spend, and we all know certain clubs are actually doing well and increasing memberships. These are clubs that are well priced, reasonably placed and of a good standard to cater for members playing week in, week out.

The future? I think some courses will lose members, but reinvent themselves as green fee / society destinations. Mid priced, well run courses of a good standard will go well. I think the really poor courses and pseudo 5 star courses that no longer have much business will fall victim to the over-supply.

Dublin City, which I was very sad to see go, provides an example. It's not the best course, and a number of members left over the years, seeing value in spending an extra bit to get a better track. For it's green fee and society business, the same better courses were becoing more and more competitive on price, so again, for the sake of a fiver or tenner a head, societies were going elsewhere. It couldn't survive.

Just my two cents.

For Paws

Good points well made there lads.

But I'm not sure that addresses everything Stockdam brought up.

Golf is changing, and the danger is that the game will return to what is was - fewer courses owned by Clubs happy enough to charge expensive fees to the few that can afford it. If the game is to retain it's popularity then it needs to provide for players. Clubs need to up the ante in terms of value. For some people the size of the Annual Sub is irrelevant, either they can afford it, or they would pay anything to be a member of a particular club. But they are the minority of club golfers.
When I started playing, my uncle, then a member of an 'old' Club, told me that you started out playing Society golf and applied for 5 Day Membership through someone who would propose you, and in time (years) you'd be offered Full Membership at your club and live happily ever after.

First Club I joined had loads of oul fellas playing off 23 who could afford the Sub (and loads of pints after the round), and a few lads who were 'handy' (and drank with the Handicap Sec.) and who filled the Club teams.
Club life consisted of lads recommending Plumbers, Bankers and the Garda Sgt who would 'square things'.

Is that what most players want from their club ?. Or are they looking for a community of like minded people who welcome the newbies, and have a regular series of events happening around their golf game.

As members who can't justify their Annual Sub. leave, the membership becomes solely those who can afford it, and their view of what Club life should be becomes the norm. The willingness to pay, and not the willingness to play sets the bar for anyone who wants to play.

GreeBo

ForeRight wrote: »

5 day membership isn't too cheap though greebo.

Unless you are out 2-3 times a week in those 5 days to justify the sub you may as well be paying the green fees in alot of places.

But you are getting 5/7th of the playing rights...it shouldnt be hugely cheaper.

Our club recently re-aligned subs with playing rights, you pay more for more playing rights, which makes sense to me.

The problem with making this approach super cheap is that then everyone gfoes for it and the club is not sustainable. If 5-day membership isnt worth it to you because you cant get out over those 5 days enough, then clearly you are not a candidate for that category.

I think a lot of people just wanted an ability to pay less without their playing times impacted.

For Paws

GreeBo wrote: »

But you are getting 5/7th of the playing rights...it shouldnt be hugely cheaper.

Our club recently re-aligned subs with playing rights, you pay more for more playing rights, which makes sense to me.

The problem with making this approach super cheap is that then everyone gfoes for it and the club is not sustainable. If 5-day membership isnt worth it to you because you cant get out over those 5 days enough, then clearly you are not a candidate for that category.

I think a lot of people just wanted an ability to pay less without their playing times impacted.

Head, nail, right on, hit the. Not necessarily in that order.

Clubs can only satisfy a limited number of players in terms of the course time available. Throw in bad weather and necessary maintenance, and you will come out with a formula which tells you how many rounds the course can provide. This will tell you what your max membership can be.
This in turn will lead to a number, Annual Sub req'd.

After that you're back to relying on members dying off at a reasonable rate in order to bring in new Full Members from the 5 Day nursery.

The obvious answer is to have enough courses. But courses are expensive to construct and new ones will want to get some of their investment back quickly. If you construct at the Dublin City level then you'll fail. If you construct it at the 'super course' level, you'll fail.

It's all about the few bob, same as it ever was.

(Btw I pay less than €600 a year, and play often enough to justify it, but I see lads leaving and I can understand why).

Dublin Spur

I took a years leave of absence from my club as there was just no value in the annual sub payment (€1,500)

I'm basing this on 2012 when I played roughly 20 times (€70 per round not to mention competition fees)

If there's no value in a big purchase then it shouldn't be made, there's no reason why this principle should not be applied to golf.

No regrets

ForeRight

GreeBo wrote: »

But you are getting 5/7th of the playing rights...it shouldnt be hugely cheaper.

Our club recently re-aligned subs with playing rights, you pay more for more playing rights, which makes sense to me.

The problem with making this approach super cheap is that then everyone gfoes for it and the club is not sustainable. If 5-day membership isnt worth it to you because you cant get out over those 5 days enough, then clearly you are not a candidate for that category.

I think a lot of people just wanted an ability to pay less without their playing times impacted.

It excludes you from club comps and medals though.

Those comps are worth more than 2/7ths of playing rights in a club.

With 5 day you are just playing casual golf and maybe an open midweek which you pay into anyway.

If 7 day membership is €1000 for example and 5 day is €700 it just seems excessive to me for the facility of a few casual rounds over a year.

ShriekingSheet

I think part of the "club" issue is the relatively new and prevalent system of having seperation between those who run the business, and those who run the golf club.

The business guys are paid employees or owners who control entry fees, green fees, course maintenance and costs, marketing and driving membership.

The club committee are unpaid volunteers who handle competitions, handicaps, social events, teams etc.

The problem I see, is that the real and traditional benefits of being a member of a good club hugely hinge on the running of that club by the voluntary committee. Yet the people in financial charge of the club are disconnected from this, and frankly need a bit of luck to build it up (ie: that members take it upon themselves to do a good job).

In short, you can buy a good course, and marketing for it, but you can't buy a good men's committee and club atmosphere.

blue note

There's definitely a bit of a change going on at the moment. I don't think people taking up membership just for a handicap was all that common even 5 years ago. It's obviously a big problem for clubs, as they're losing full members to this.

However, I don't think you can blame the golfers. The truth is that some people don't get to use their membership all that often. I'm moving this year because I can't afford the €1,250 subs when I'll only get to play about a dozen rounds there a year. Including competition fees, that's about €110 per round, while I'll also be paying green fees elsewhere. I split my weekends between Dublin, home and my girlfriends hometown, so there's no-where I'd get value from full membership. If my club offered a distance option I'd stay there, but they don't. It's quite a risk not to offer it these days, because they can lose a lot of money on them and potentially lose a future full member (if they ever manage to get a job back home).

alxmorgan

Very interesting thread.

I re-joined my club again this year because I felt I would play enough to justify it and because with two young kids I need to be able to play early on a Sunday and that's very hard to do unless you are a member.

As they get older or the family increases I may have to give up as I will no longer be able to justify the expense with the hope of coming back once they are old enough.

In the meantime I would probably join a club just to get a GUI so I could play opens (not many probably) as I find my handicap motivates me. This surprises me but I have found over the years that casual rounds are less interesting to me than rounds where its me versus course to see if I can get cut.

blue note

Actually, another factor is society moving on. Twenty years ago, husbands had no trouble going out on a Sunday morning for 4 hours to play golf. Now, it's less acceptable to leave the wife with the kids for that long.

John Divney

I think the obvious point being made here is never have kids.

Understood loud and clear.

SEORG

Last year I took distance membership to keep my handicap so that I could play open competitions when I got a chance.

I was a member of a club for 9 years before that but my circumstances changed. A few of my regular playing partners/mates joined a different club, little fella was born in February last year so I didn't know how much golf I was going to get to play. Also the club was a 90 minute round trip so it wasn't like I could go for a quick 5/6 holes on a summers evening. I couldn't justify paying the full annual sub & the distance membership served its purpose.

I got to play more than I actually thought I would. I played scratch cups mostly but I missed the Sunday morning club comps. I played as a guest of my mates at their new club plenty of times and realised how much I missed club membership. I found myself regretting not joining with them even though I wouldn't have got the value out it last year playing wise.

This year I have joined the club which is a 15 minute drive from home so it is a lot easier to get out. I can be home by midday on Sunday. I'm looking forward to the next few months ahead more than ever.

thewobbler

It's simple supply and demand really. I don't even think it's money related, well not much anyway.

We've built a huge number of courses, with a high percentage of them very good golf courses, in the past 30 years.

And while our population has increased, our free time has decreased. People have to work harder and longer to pay their way in the world. Women have to work, and men have to share the household duties.

Which means fewer dedicated golfers.

The social golfer has never had it better. Play once a month, or a handful of time a year, and unless you're in a remote part of Ireland, you're spoilt for choice... even on weekend tee times.

It's very easy to be a social golfer in Ireland.

The problem social golfers face is that as more and more of us member-golfers join their ranks, then courses will have no choice but to cut back, and eventually close. Golf courses need maintained 7 days a week, and can't survive on social golfers who only play Saturday afternoons.

At some point the better courses will be able to pick and choose again i.e. sway everything in favour of members. It probably won't reach equilibrium again for a decade or more, but it will happen.

PARlance

stockdam wrote: »

So do you see any changes occurring in the next 10 years or so and do you fell that some clubs will have to change their business models to retain members?

Good thread, here's my 2c.

Over the next 10 years I don't see major changes in the business model clubs use to retain members.
Membership fees may reduce further but I don't think there's scope for it to go much lower.
Suggestions of part time or alternative offers etc are great in principle, but if there was one that worked, I think we'd see it in action.
If you have a low cost option for someone that offers nearly all the rights then it's going to get used (not abused....as I think it's only natural to do so) by full members jumping down to that level...


Where I do see major change is in the amount of courses that will remain open. There's been a few closures of late but, unlike price, I don't think we've seen the bottom of that at all yet.

I wouldn't be surprised to see 10-20% of current courses closed in 10 years, and here are my 3 main reasons.
1. I think there's an oversupply at present
2. While clubs are "surviving" at present, I fear that quite a few are surviving on previous reserves (money in the bank for the good times, land sales etc)...they're getting by with the lower prices at present but I don't think it's sustainable.
3. The demographic of golfers in Ireland seems to be on the up and up, I know a few courses that have a very high age profile... sad to say but I think certain clubs will be really hit by this.

The only/best solution I can think of to avoid the above scenario isn't happening (from what I can see) at present.
It's not an off the wall idea, and I've some hope that it could be achieved.
Clubs, GUI, any other organisations involved really need to get smart and start to attract new golfers to the game.
I don't think it's being done with any great effect at present.

This isn't just in relation to getting young golfers into the game, there's a massive market of people out there, like myself, who can be targeted to the game after finishing up other sports in their late 20's, 30's...even 40's for any giggs-esque lads out there.

(Got called as a late minute reserve for 5 a side last night, first game in months, possibly last game...swollen ankle and twisted knee..... Golf is my game now )

I haven't put much thought into it, but first ones are:

GUI: Should be more active around the country attracting new golfers, organise walk in days at clubs with free lessons, talks etc to bring new blood into the game. In general, get out there and work to bring people to the game.
Build on recent success stories such as Rory... I don't see a lot of this happening.
Clubs: I think a lot of them need to open themselves up to the community more. I lived in Castlebar for 18 years and the golf club was like some forbidden, mystical place for me. Not that it was any different to any other club around, I don't think it was snobby or anything like that. It's just that it didn't seem like an open place, nor did I hear anything about it in the community really.
(I lived 10 mins away...how I wish I took up golf when I was younger)
Golfers: Need to encourage as many non golfers into the game as possible. I wouldn't have dreamed of picking up a club a few years ago until a work colleague and mate forced me to come out with them. I've since recruited a lot of my mates, none of which are club members yet but I would imagine quite a few will take that leap in a few years.


There's a oversupply of courses, it looks like the age profile is aging, I don't think clubs have much wriggle room on prices, the only option is to really get active and get more people playing the game.

GreeBo

ForeRight wrote: »

It excludes you from club comps and medals though.

Those comps are worth more than 2/7ths of playing rights in a club.

With 5 day you are just playing casual golf and maybe an open midweek which you pay into anyway.

If 7 day membership is €1000 for example and 5 day is €700 it just seems excessive to me for the facility of a few casual rounds over a year.

All the club has to make money on is the course, and the course doesnt care if you are playing the club championship or hacking around on your own; basically you are taking up a slot that could be a green fee.

So basically I dont think they are worth anything extra, the time you get on the course is the time you pay for (within reason, weekends are peak for most people so they command a premium)

I think some people just want the best of both worlds, pay half a sub and play kinda whenever you want...the only way that works is if the full sub members are covering and thats no longer a viable plan IMO.

slave1

GreeBo wrote: »

All the club has to make money on is the course

That needs to change, don't want to coin a phrase but that is old mentality and today you need to think "outside the box"!

Club draws, restaurant for communions/confirmations/birthdays/sundays, auction nights, car park hire, hire out rooms for meetings, fashion shows, charity nights, members providing maintenance duties to reducing running costs, kazien events etc. none reliant on the course per se.
Need to open minds to more than just golfers playing golf as the only source of income, not sustainable anymore.

Anatom

Excellent thread.

AJ, your points are very well made, although I'm sure the GUI would come back to you with all guns blazing to say they're doing exactly what you've suggested. Its just we haven't noticed it!!

In my own situation, I'm finding it harder and harder to justify the annual sub (which is €960) to myself, but mostly to my other half. With our household budget under pressure and with two small kids taking up more and more precious weekend time, its difficult to get out to play a weekend competition more than twice a month.

For example, I played last Sunday for the first time since the beginning of March. The round took absolutely ages and I didn't get home until 3.00pm which, as you can imagine, went down like a reggae band at a Klan wedding...

So why don't I take up a five-day membership, or just leave altogether and pay green fees now and again? Because I love being part of the club. I'm not the most active member, for sure, but I do love being able to rock up for a quick five or six holes in the summertime. I love having the craic in the clubhouse bar with other members and all that goes with that. My game is also bad enough without having to forgo that ability to practice whenever I want to and to have the option of taking part in competitions, or taking mates or family out to "my" course.

My club lost over 150 members since this time last year. This was to a combination of members leaving due to economic circumstances and to older ones leaving naturally. We now have to readjust our budgets to balance the books, while at the same time spending money on doing necessary upkeep to the course.

However, on the positive side, I noticed the other day we had a small(ish) influx of what must have been about twenty new junior members in the past month. If AJ's points about attracting new members is to have any chance of working elsewhere, my club and every other one interested in staying alive need to keep working on that.

Golf is under pressure in Ireland. It will always have a future, but it will be a changed one and we're not going to like it very much with less clubs (I know of one locally that is definitely going to be closed this year) and less money. Like it or not, there is still a small section of society who think its a snob's sport (we've had enough debate here in the past about dress codes to confirm that!). But if we're to attract more people to the game - and not just juniors - we're going to have to break down more of the social and financial images that go with the sport.

DeanAustin

Anatom wrote: »

Excellent thread.

AJ, your points are very well made, although I'm sure the GUI would come back to you with all guns blazing to say they're doing exactly what you've suggested. Its just we haven't noticed it!!

In my own situation, I'm finding it harder and harder to justify the annual sub (which is €960) to myself, but mostly to my other half. With our household budget under pressure and with two small kids taking up more and more precious weekend time, its difficult to get out to play a weekend competition more than twice a month.

For example, I played last Sunday for the first time since the beginning of March. The round took absolutely ages and I didn't get home until 3.00pm which, as you can imagine, went down like a reggae band at a Klan wedding...

So why don't I take up a five-day membership, or just leave altogether and pay green fees now and again? Because I love being part of the club. I'm not the most active member, for sure, but I do love being able to rock up for a quick five or six holes in the summertime. I love having the craic in the clubhouse bar with other members and all that goes with that. My game is also bad enough without having to forgo that ability to practice whenever I want to and to have the option of taking part in competitions, or taking mates or family out to "my" course.

My club lost over 150 members since this time last year. This was to a combination of members leaving due to economic circumstances and to older ones leaving naturally. We now have to readjust our budgets to balance the books, while at the same time spending money on doing necessary upkeep to the course.

However, on the positive side, I noticed the other day we had a small(ish) influx of what must have been about twenty new junior members in the past month. If AJ's points about attracting new members is to have any chance of working elsewhere, my club and every other one interested in staying alive need to keep working on that.

Golf is under pressure in Ireland. It will always have a future, but it will be a changed one and we're not going to like it very much with less clubs (I know of one locally that is definitely going to be closed this year) and less money. Like it or not, there is still a small section of society who think its a snob's sport (we've had enough debate here in the past about dress codes to confirm that!). But if we're to attract more people to the game - and not just juniors - we're going to have to break down more of the social and financial images that go with the sport.

:D:D

brick tamland

I think clubs are going to have to give more types of flexible membership option to keep afloat. Pay as you play membership or something like the credit options in castleknock are excellent ideas in my book.

GreeBo

brick tamland wrote: »

I think clubs are going to have to give more types of flexible membership option to keep afloat. Pay as you play membership or something like the credit options in castleknock are excellent ideas in my book.

I think thats a totally different model, to me thats a business that runs a golf course. Im a member of a members owned club, there is no business.
I could guarantee that you wouldnt get 5% of members voting for a pay as you play system. (In any of the members owned clubs that I know)

Anatom wrote: »

Like it or not, there is still a small section of society who think its a snob's sport (we've had enough debate here in the past about dress codes to confirm that!). But if we're to attract more people to the game - and not just juniors - we're going to have to break down more of the social and financial images that go with the sport.

I'd have a big issue with this. Its not snobbery to expect people who want to join your clubs to respect the club ethos and rules. You can get a pair of chinos and a polo shirt for €15 total in numerous shops throughout the country so its not snobbery or any financial barrier.
If people dont want to abide by the rules of a particular club, let them go elsewhere (you might come back and say "they are!" but I dont see that as an issue; there have always been different "levels" of golf clubs, entry level pay as you go up to massively expensive corporate clubs, I think the band will narrow but we will never have "equal" clubs, there will always be the entry level option as its cheaper to run and cheaper to play)

slave1 wrote: »

That needs to change, don't want to coin a phrase but that is old mentality and today you need to think "outside the box"!

Club draws, restaurant for communions/confirmations/birthdays/sundays, auction nights, car park hire, hire out rooms for meetings, fashion shows, charity nights, members providing maintenance duties to reducing running costs, kazien events etc. none reliant on the course per se.
Need to open minds to more than just golfers playing golf as the only source of income, not sustainable anymore.

90% of those suggestions effectively are the members paying more money into the club. Most members clubs already have lots of family functions at the weekends; from weddings to funerals, so I think thats already covered.

There are only so many quiz nights and raffle draws that the same people can sustain. Like it or not the Course is the main asset and money making part of a Golf Club, thats never going to change. All the fund raising in the world isnt going to match the income that a club needs from Green Fees/Outings.

In any case, fundraising is not sustainable, if you are continuously fundraising then clearly you have a funds problem and *something* drastic needs to change (how many clubs have cut back on general managers recently...)

I think its a pretty simple problem and has been brought up here numerous times; there are too many clubs vying for too little money.
My hope is that the number of clubs settles to a steady state before the face of Golf in Ireland changes and we are left with more nomadic players playing in Run for Profit courses than members owned clubs.
I think if we ever reach that day then golf is dead in Ireland.

m r c

I have a slightly different take on this. I know a club which is taking too little off people paying fees/opens imho. It leaves the place thronged out with people who throw in €20 and the members who are paying €700+ on membership can find it hard to get a time if there's an open on and they're giving €6 a time to get out. I could understand the members feeling a bit cheated that way. So if the guy paying weekly is giving 35*20 plus his membership elsewhere maybe €150 ish it owes him €850 for 35 competitive rounds and the member who plays 35 competitive rounds at home has spent €910. The guy playing the open had the very same access to the time sheet etc leaves a bad taste IMHO.

Russman

Its a very interesting debate and one that should occupy a lot of clubs' minds over the next while.

IMO I think there are a few issues within the question though,

Firstly, there will always be a price to be paid for the "club" thing. If almost anyone was to look at their golf in purely economic terms they'd likely get a country membership and pay green fees during the summer. That's a reality nowadays for many, many people unfortunately. There's bound to be a price associated with club atmosphere, meeting with your mates after the round, playing on club teams etc etc.

Slightly related to this, and I don't know what the reason for it is, is that a lot of golfers have no interest at all in competitions or inter-club. Speaking as someone in my late 30s who has always played golf, I see a lot of mates taking the game up in the last 5 or 6 years but for some reason they couldn't be ar$ed with competitions. They'd literally rather go out in a 4 ball and have the craic, paying a cheap green fee in a "top" course than play in, say, a medal in their home club - I just don't get that, its their choice obviously, but I can't get my head around it. Seems to be quite common in that age bracket though. Maybe clubs need to do something more for this demographic....?

I don't want this to sound like a gripe, its just my observation, but a result of this is that you get a whole group of transient members who go from course to course, year after year, chasing cheap memberships. From what I've seen it tends to be groups of 4 mates who want to play with each other each weekend. Clubs need to do something to attract and retain these members. Perhaps opening up club teams to newer players ? We've all seen the same old faces on teams year on year.

Newer members need to feel they have a stake in things and that they're not just another source of finance for the inner circle of established members IMO. Integration of new members is key, and members who paid big money 10 years ago need to realise that times are changed and the members joining now are both welcome and necessary.

The condition of the course is another issue, you can't afford to let it slip because members will go elsewhere - joining fees are largely gone and most subs are in or around the same, for any geographical area (broadly speaking).

Ultimately your club membership will never equate to the number of times you play multiplied by the green fee - it just can't work like that.

I dunno, its a can of worms, but as said earlier, there are simply too many courses in Ireland and particularly Dublin. Clubs are basically hoping the club down the road goes bust before they do and that they can pick up enough of the members to keep themselves afloat. Not ideal but ultimately everyone is selfish and the recession is bringing this out in spades.

For Paws

Clubs need to do something to attract and retain these members. Perhaps opening up club teams to newer players ? We've all seen the same old faces on teams year on year.

Newer members need to feel they have a stake in things and that they're not just another source of finance for the inner circle of established members IMO. Integration of new members is key, and members who paid big money 10 years ago need to realise that times are changed and the members joining now are both welcome and necessary.

Both of these problems are endemic to golf clubs.
Some people call it being clubby
'www.thefreedictionary.com/clubbyShareadj. club·bi·er, club·bi·est. 1. Typical of a club or club members. 2. Friendly; sociable. 3. Clannish; exclusive. club bi·ness n. clubby [ˈklʌbɪ]. adj -bier, -biest ...

Senecio

Russman wrote: »

Ultimately your club membership will never equate to the number of times you play multiplied by the green fee - it just can't work like that.

The problem is, in today's climate, it has to work like that. From reading other posts many people are leaving their current clubs because they can no longer justify the costs. What they are saying is that its cheaper in their circumstance to be a green fee player. When money is tight all the other advantages of being part of club become less important.

Take me as an example.

Before moving to Ireland 18 months ago I was a member of my home course in Australia for 10+ years. My Subs were 700EUR plus 7EUR comp fee. I played nearly every weekend so total cost of golf for the year was 1050EUR or approx. 21EUR per round. My home course charged 30EUR for green fees on weekends so it was cheaper for me to be a member.

I now live in the north of Dublin where the most affordable course within a reasonable radius of home is 1400EUR per year to join and I'd be lucky to play more than 20 rounds per year (work, weather & family reasons). We're now talking 70EUR per round as a member and the same course charges 35EUR in green fees.

Do I miss being part of a club and playing competitive golf? You bet I do, but there is no amount of added membership benefits that are going to change that equation above in favor of being a member.

While some people may not agree, if a club were to offer a membership category that changed the equation for me then I would jump at the chance to join.

The point I'm trying to make is, it will always come down to money for most people.

Option A versus Option B and what is cheaper for me is the question we all ask ourselves when it comes time to pay our subs.

Russman

Senecio wrote: »

The problem is, in today's climate, it has to work like that. From reading other posts many people are leaving their current clubs because they can no longer justify the costs. What they are saying is that its cheaper in their circumstance to be a green fee player. When money is tight all the other advantages of being part of club become less important.

Take me as an example.

Before moving to Ireland 18 months ago I was a member of my home course in Australia for 10+ years. My Subs were 700EUR plus 7EUR comp fee. I played nearly every weekend so total cost of golf for the year was 1050EUR or approx. 21EUR per round. My home course charged 30EUR for green fees on weekends so it was cheaper for me to be a member.

I now live in the north of Dublin where the most affordable course within a reasonable radius of home is 1400EUR per year to join and I'd be lucky to play more than 20 rounds per year (work, weather & family reasons). We're now talking 70EUR per round as a member and the same course charges 35EUR in green fees.

Do I miss being part of a club and playing competitive golf? You bet I do, but there is no amount of added membership benefits that are going to change that equation above in favor of being a member.

While some people may not agree, if a club were to offer a membership category that changed the equation for me then I would jump at the chance to join.

The point I'm trying to make is, it will always come down to money for most people.

Option A versus Option B and what is cheaper for me is the question we all ask ourselves when it comes time to pay our subs.

I think I both agree and disagree.

I agree that in these times the finances come first for pretty much everyone. That's why clubs are folding left, right and centre. There are too many clubs for the number of people who can afford to play golf. There was a survey in the papers a few months ago, and I can't remember the exact numbers, but basically they worked out that you need roughly 500 people for a club to be viable and when you divide the number of GUI subscriptions by 500 to see how many clubs there "should" be, there were way too many. Some will simply have to go unfortunately. If you look at how many thousands of people have emigrated in the last 5 years and even if 10% of them were golfers, how many clubs have effectively gone ? I'd say its huge.

I do think that club membership has to have some price though (whatever that price may be), otherwise why would anyone join a club ?
Its like being in a football club, you can't just rock up when you have a free Saturday and turn out for the first team. Obviously the subs for a football club are a lot lower than a golf club but I think the principle is the same.

I also think that when comparing your options A & B, that a lot of people will factor in some value (high or low) on being a member of a club and what goes with it. And I don't mean secret handshakes or old world stuffiness or anything like that !:), I just mean stuff like being able to play 6 holes on a summer evening if the mood takes you, potential to play competitively, a circle of friends built up over time, emotional attachment etc etc. That has to have a price, courses can't survive otherwise. If the only income a club had was based on actual rounds played there'd be very few clubs around IMO.

Apart from financial consideration, which is the biggest because all the other issues are irrelevant if you can't afford to play, I guess it depends on what golf means to an individual. Some people like a social round on a Saturday, some people want to improve and be competitive, some want to really, really improve and maybe get selected for various club, provincial teams etc. Each to their own, there's no right or wrong.

I do think that golf in Dublin is horrendously overpriced though and how that's resolved I don't know. Defenders of this will say its market forces and if you can get a high sub then you will. They tend to complain though when market forces drive members away to cheaper options.

Clubs are going to need to get very creative in trying to solve the problem because they're treading a fine line between coming up with options to attract new members without making their existing members want to also take up those options and lose a big chunk of subs money eg if everyone in a club reverted to 5 day, the club would probably close.

Anatom

GreeBo wrote: »

I'd have a big issue with this. Its not snobbery to expect people who want to join your clubs to respect the club ethos and rules. You can get a pair of chinos and a polo shirt for €15 total in numerous shops throughout the country so its not snobbery or any financial barrier.
If people dont want to abide by the rules of a particular club, let them go elsewhere (you might come back and say "they are!" but I dont see that as an issue; there have always been different "levels" of golf clubs, entry level pay as you go up to massively expensive corporate clubs, I think the band will narrow but we will never have "equal" clubs, there will always be the entry level option as its cheaper to run and cheaper to play).

GreeBo, I'm not totally disagreeing with you, but you're dragging it back into the "abide by our rules or don't join up" argument, which is kinda making my point for me.

What I was saying was that the image of the sport is something that a wide range of people do have an issue with. There's a perception there - despite evidence to the contrary - that the sport was elitist and still is.

Unfortunately, the tabloid, knock everything and describe it as a "luxury" if it costs more than a tenner a year, mentality is alive and well. (Ref this morning's Indo trying desperately to make the fake kidnap "victim" McGeever look like he's living in the lap of luxury by driving a two-year Tigra, living in an apartment and shopping in SuperValu...) Perceptions of golf are often no different.

Of course, the elitist tag is unfair and (mostly) untrue, but its still there...

My point is that, in order for the sport to reduce the effect on it of our changed times, it has to do something. One part of that something needs to include tackling the perception that it is elitist.

GreeBo

Russman wrote: »

Ultimately your club membership will never equate to the number of times you play multiplied by the green fee - it just can't work like that.

Senecio wrote: »

The problem is, in today's climate, it has to work like that.

Well thats a problem.
If it can't yet it must then the game is done.

I dont think either are strictly true.
A lot of it comes down to location and quality.
There is a huge premium on both but, thankfully, there are also golfers and golf courses who are willing and happy to cater for both ends of the spectrum.

The problem started when we got a whole influx of new Championship business led golf courses who, while having a small enough membership were mainly catering for society and greenfee golfers who wanted "the experience".

Quite often these guys were members of cheaper/lower quality courses but often not members anywhere at all.

A lot of these casual golfers have moved away from the game and there was always the seasonal drop off anyway, but back then, when so many were paying €50+ a round it didnt matter.

Now we are left with a multitude of theses championship courses within 1hr of the city centre, all pretty much free for you to walk onto and play for €30 a peak times. There are a few of the "Top" courses around but a high number of above average ones...all competing for the same dwindling casual golfers.

This competition has meant the prices drop which in turn is attracting more and more of the club golfers who can no longer justify the financial outlay of being a member. This puts those clubs into financial problems and as we see, some of them start to close.

Honestly I dont see where this balances out. I think there is always a place for members clubs and *some* business clubs, but I dont think the model of mainly pay as you go courses is sustainable, isnt that just a race to the bottom? Already we see these courses cutting back on maintenance and greens keeping sooner or later you reach a tipping point where becoming a member is "better value" that being nomadic. I would also suspect that the GUI wants to keep the majority of golfers as club members, but as to how they can do that...

GreeBo

Anatom wrote: »

GreeBo, I'm not totally disagreeing with you, but you're dragging it back into the "abide by our rules or don't join up" argument, which is kinda making my point for me.

What I was saying was that the image of the sport is something that a wide range of people do have an issue with. There's a perception there - despite evidence to the contrary - that the sport was elitist and still is.

Unfortunately, the tabloid, knock everything and describe it as a "luxury" if it costs more than a tenner a year, mentality is alive and well. (Ref this morning's Indo trying desperately to make the fake kidnap "victim" McGeever look like he's living in the lap of luxury by driving a two-year Tigra, living in an apartment and shopping in SuperValu...) Perceptions of golf are often no different.

Of course, the elitist tag is unfair and (mostly) untrue, but its still there...

My point is that, in order for the sport to reduce the effect on it of our changed times, it has to do something. One part of that something needs to include tackling the perception that it is elitist.

And I have no problem with that but I would say:
1) Some clubs will always remain elitist, due to financial or accessibility reasons and thats their perogative.
2) I believe dropping what I would consider to be part of the standards of the game dont make it any less elitist.

Its the people in a club that make it what it is, a mid range club might look elitist to someone in a lower end club, but correspondingly looks positively welcoming compared to say the K-Club during the boom years.

Is Cafe En Seine elitist or does it just cater for a specific type of clientele? Golf clubs are no different.

Im sure my own club is considered elitist by many outsiders...but can you really comment on a club as an outsider?
Its expensive to join...so what? People pay it.
You need to be voted in...so what? The club is a collection of like minded individuals and "the club" wants to ensure that the people who join are the right fit for the club, considering where it came from, where it is today and where it wants to go.

None of this is elitist, no one should (or does) consider themselves better than anyone else, its just a question of fit.


/edit to say that I 100% agree that the perception needs to be tackled, but I think thats at a club by club level.
I really dont think the sport itself can be considered elitist anymore, at least not in Ireland.

Rippeditup

GreeBo wrote: »

And I have no problem with that but I would say:
1) Some clubs will always remain elitist, due to financial or accessibility reasons and thats their perogative.
2) I believe dropping what I would consider to be part of the standards of the game dont make it any less elitist.

Its the people in a club that make it what it is, a mid range club might look elitist to someone in a lower end club, but correspondingly looks positively welcoming compared to say the K-Club during the boom years.

Is Cafe En Seine elitist or does it just cater for a specific type of clientele? Golf clubs are no different.

Im sure my own club is considered elitist by many outsiders...but can you really comment on a club as an outsider?
Its expensive to join...so what? People pay it.
You need to be voted in...so what? The club is a collection of like minded individuals and "the club" wants to ensure that the people who join are the right fit for the club, considering where it came from, where it is today and where it wants to go.

None of this is elitist, no one should (or does) consider themselves better than anyone else, its just a question of fit.


/edit to say that I 100% agree that the perception needs to be tackled, but I think thats at a club by club level.
I really dont think the sport itself can be considered elitist anymore, at least not in Ireland.

I feel it really comes down to basic economics and the supply and demand affect.

Your course can stay high as A) It has a strong existing membership so is not pushing recruitment It is in a relatively well off part of town in a very residential area C) Has the history to ensure that it continues to be an aspirational club (For example I want to join it but will not pay the fee as to me I need to prioritise where my expenses go while I have a new house and family but in the future yeah I could see the value in paying the high fee for the simple ease of being 5 mins from the front gate)

Courses like Carton House are building a great facility by investing in their setup while also eliminating the hello money. They have made being a member of an amazing club with (IMO) the best facilities around both affordable while also ensuring they don't overload their course (benefits of 2 good courses)

Unless the rest can improve on their appeal to pull in members which means an investment in quality (course maintenance/facilities) they will struggle and a perfect example of this is St.Margrets which when I was a junior was on the way to being a top tier course and now it looks run down and not as well kept which is a massive pity.

slave1

Senecio wrote: »

I now live in the north of Dublin where the most affordable course within a reasonable radius of home is 1400EUR per year to join and I'd be lucky to play more than 20 rounds per year (work, weather & family reasons). We're now talking 70EUR per round as a member and the same course charges 35EUR in green fees.

Snap, paid €35 a round through membership last year when green fees are an average of €12.50 with a member

ShriekingSheet

On the elitist thing, it's such a ridiculous argument. Half the people in the particularly "elitist" and "exclusive" clubs, sought membership there because they were seen as such! Lots of people even took up golf because they saw it as elitist!

There's an all-too-true myth about a new nightclub in London that had it's opening weekend with a queue around the corner, a bouncer and red rope on the door turning everyone away. Inside, a DJ played loud music to an empty room still under construction, with no furniture, lights or staff. The following weekend, when the club was actually ready, the queue was even bigger.

Like it or not, it's human nature to percieve the word "exclusive" as a positive more often than a negative, even though it means excluding people! People, whether they admit it or not, are attracted to the sentiment of "you're ok, but others aren't".

Golf has a challenege, because the aspects of the game that so many newcomers to the sport would like to change, are actually the things that long-term golfers value most. I myself initially fought against the traditions, dress codes and quirky ettiquettes as a teenager starting out. But it doesn't take long to realise that they're part of what makes it a good game, both competitively and socially. The fundamentals can't be changed because newcomers or rare players think they should be.

Take music for example. There was a time where people were dedicated to bands or type of music, fully invested in artists that were both innovative and challenging, and the most popular in the world. Not long ago, the "market" shifted completely to accomodate those who didn't understand this. They were the masses, with the least amount of interest in music, who just wanted something catchy and upbeat, perfomred by a good looking person. So now every single song on the radio is immediately accessible, no longer than 3 minutes, "hurry up and get to the chorus" nonsense, whinged out by some piece of eye-candy who can't play an instrument, let alone write a song. Meanwhile, any act trying anything different, new or challenging is banished to a handful of "alternative" radio shows, blogs and festivals.

Similarities with the golf situation? (1) The whole thing changed to suit the newcomers to music, who happened to be teenage girls. (2) It became about business first, and music second. Bums in seats and records sold is all that matters, quality and traditions do not. Sound familiar?

stooge

M2C

Joined my local course last year as they had a great introductory offer. Despite the great offer I still didnt make enough use of it due to family comittments.

This year there is a second year offer which is slightly more expensive but I just cannot justify paying it as I know it makes financial sense to pay and play with a member.

Possibly if there was some sort of option to buy a reduced number of rounds as a packge I would go for that. e.g.

Full membership: 500
Cost to play with a member: 10e m-f 15e s/s
Buy 10rounds: 125E
Buy 20 rounds: 200e

To me it seems there are certain groups of people to target memberships at:

- Casual players (not really interested in competitions/handicaps)
- Regular serious players
- Weekend serious players

The first group is not really covered by any memberships I've seen recently and it could possibly be a big earner for clubs if it were priced accordingly.

GreeBo

stooge wrote: »

To me it seems there are certain groups of people to target memberships at:

- Casual players (not really interested in competitions/handicaps)
- Regular serious players
- Weekend serious players

The first group is not really covered by any memberships I've seen recently and it could possibly be a big earner for clubs if it were priced accordingly.

I think the issue with targeting casual players is that to make it attractive you need to make it cheap but also give them good enough playing rights.

If you get this right then it becomes attractive for many existing members and so the club fails.
also, even if you give them good playing rights at a not too discounted rate, they are "blocking" up the course during the times that full members want to be able to turn up for a casual few holes in the evening.

We were having an issue a few years ago where, due to extended amounts of societies (especially playing shotgun starts) the course was rarely free when members wanted to play a casual round, without having to book a timesheet (e.g. "its a nice evening, anyone one fancy meeting on the tee at 6?")

As full paying members, I believe they deserve the right to be able to play pretty much anytime they want. If this isnt the case then why would anyone pay/justify the fees involved.

ShriekingSheet

stooge wrote: »

M2C

Joined my local course last year as they had a great introductory offer. Despite the great offer I still didnt make enough use of it due to family comittments.

This year there is a second year offer which is slightly more expensive but I just cannot justify paying it as I know it makes financial sense to pay and play with a member.

Possibly if there was some sort of option to buy a reduced number of rounds as a packge I would go for that. e.g.

Full membership: 500
Cost to play with a member: 10e m-f 15e s/s
Buy 10rounds: 125E
Buy 20 rounds: 200e

To me it seems there are certain groups of people to target memberships at:

- Casual players (not really interested in competitions/handicaps)
- Regular serious players
- Weekend serious players

The first group is not really covered by any memberships I've seen recently and it could possibly be a big earner for clubs if it were priced accordingly.

GreeBo wrote: »

I think the issue with targeting casual players is that to make it attractive you need to make it cheap but also give them good enough playing rights.

If you get this right then it becomes attractive for many existing members and so the club fails.
also, even if you give them good playing rights at a not too discounted rate, they are "blocking" up the course during the times that full members want to be able to turn up for a casual few holes in the evening.

We were having an issue a few years ago where, due to extended amounts of societies (especially playing shotgun starts) the course was rarely free when members wanted to play a casual round, without having to book a timesheet (e.g. "its a nice evening, anyone one fancy meeting on the tee at 6?")

As full paying members, I believe they deserve the right to be able to play pretty much anytime they want. If this isnt the case then why would anyone pay/justify the fees involved.

Why can't casual players not interested in handicaps/competitions pay green fees, rather than membership?

As I see it, a good part of the reason membership is dropping is because too many of these people took up membership when they didn't need to, so it was an artificial inflation of the membership market.

PARlance

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Golf has a challenege, because the aspects of the game that so many newcomers to the sport would like to change, are actually the things that long-term golfers value most. I myself initially fought against the traditions, dress codes and quirky ettiquettes as a teenager starting out. But it doesn't take long to realise that they're part of what makes it a good game, both competitively and socially. The fundamentals can't be changed because newcomers or rare players think they should be.

Take music for example. There was a time where people were dedicated to bands or type of music, fully invested in artists that were both innovative and challenging, and the most popular in the world. Not long ago, the "market" shifted completely to accomodate those who didn't understand this. They were the masses, with the least amount of interest in music, who just wanted something catchy and upbeat, perfomred by a good looking person. So now every single song on the radio is immediately accessible, no longer than 3 minutes, "hurry up and get to the chorus" nonsense, whinged out by some piece of eye-candy who can't play an instrument, let alone write a song. Meanwhile, any act trying anything different, new or challenging is banished to a handful of "alternative" radio shows, blogs and festivals.

Similarities with the golf situation? (1) The whole thing changed to suit the newcomers to music, who happened to be teenage girls. (2) It became about business first, and music second. Bums in seats and records sold is all that matters, quality and traditions do not. Sound familiar?

The world changed man, everything changed, peace out

If golfs main challenge was young whipper snappers coming up trying to disrupt the establishment....then golf would be in a very healthy state.

plus ça change, plus c'est pareil
The more things change, the more it's the same

Wichita Lineman

Maybe if ALL clubs made it more expensive for casual rounds it would encourage people to actually join clubs as the 'value for money' argument would swing back towards the club and the members who pay year in year out to subsidise casual golf for all. Also casual players 'using' members who pay full whack annually to get cheaper rounds could be stopped.

Just some thoughts.

FixdePitchmark

I think the elitist thing is an entirely valid argument. This is something that needs to be removed. Even if this is perceived, this perception is problematic. Society has changed and has flattened out to a degree. To use a Thatcherism , people have social mobility.The idea of people spending years and licking up to people to become a member of a golf club are gone. A very rare breed these days - but very few clubs like that now anyway. Mainly old school Dublin.

I genuinely can't see the old golf club membership model lasting. The products on offer in societies and casual golf are far too good. These maybe not as competitive, but most lads are not that into golf at that level. They play golf in a casual, friendly, minor competitive level. lads on here, are out and out golfers, into playing for the club and all that entails. That is a massive commitment that most people don't have the time or inclination to pursue.

Lee Westwood was on Sky last night, he was talking about how slow golf has become – others have spoken about it here. Life has changed , The idea of going off to a golf club on a Saturday or a Sundayfor 6 hours is not an option for a good few lads. I know this is for a certain age (30 to 40) but it is a time when is key in getting somebody into a golf club for life. They have just finished their competitive life in sport. They have the money due to career at that point.

I’ve gone the whole circle of the golf options and am getting into club golf now. The advantages of club golf are difficult to understand until you are in it. If it is hard to understand them as a golfer – I can’t see how a non golfer or beginner are going to see them. It is not like anybody ever approached me and said – would you join a golf club. I’ve had offers to join 3 or 4 other types of clubs and societies in my area.

Looking at the lads in my club – the average age is over 50. They are set in their ways and I can see how it can come across as austere. It is just that cold look of “who are you?”. It is grand if you are the type of person who can mix and break barriers, but that is like going to work for some.

The old model of golf clubs had reasons, created an atmosphere, generally for the good. But I just don’t see it lasting. A new model is being formed , this model up to now has derived from the old. But I feel, a far more radical total new approach will come around the corner –a sort of Ryanair V Old Aer Lingus.

John Divney

As an adult clubs still have that aura in Dublin, not to single any clubs out but the likes of Malahide, which has a reputation that exceeds it's course, had that vibe, I'd never have wanted to join that club.

I know loads who were members and lovely people, and my perception may be wrong, but it's just that group mentallity, the status part of it that made me hate golf for years and stop playing.

Wichita Lineman

Playing in a small rural club elitism is the absolute least of our problems. I thought that auld balls was more or less long dead and gone apart from the very few places where snobbery will remain alive and well long after I've gone.

FixdePitchmark

John Divney wrote: »

As an adult clubs still have that aura in Dublin, not to single any clubs out but the likes of Malahide, which has a reputation that exceeds it's course, had that vibe, I'd never have wanted to join that club.

I know loads who were members and lovely people, and my perception may be wrong, but it's just that group mentallity, the status part of it that made me hate golf for years and stop playing.

I would have been like that in my 20s. But you do change when you get older. It can be your own hang ups. But, I still would not join one that was real bad.

I have a good story about the named place, turned me off that golf club for years, even now

GreeBo

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

Why can't casual players not interested in handicaps/competitions pay green fees, rather than membership?

As I see it, a good part of the reason membership is dropping is because too many of these people took up membership when they didn't need to, so it was an artificial inflation of the membership market.

An excellent point. Unfortunately people spent millions on the back of this...did we just have a golfing bubble?

Andy Dunne11 wrote: »

Maybe if ALL clubs made it more expensive for casual rounds it would encourage people to actually join clubs as the 'value for money' argument would swing back towards the club and the members who pay year in year out to subsidise casual golf for all. Also casual players 'using' members who pay full whack annually to get cheaper rounds could be stopped.

Just some thoughts.

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I genuinely can't see the old golf club membership model lasting. The products on offer in societies and casual golf are far too good. These maybe not as competitive, but most lads are not that into golf at that level. They play golf in a casual, friendly, minor competitive level. lads on here, are out and out golfers, into playing for the club and all that entails. That is a massive commitment that most people don't have the time or inclination to pursue.

And there is the crux. The casual golfer is being actively sought out by lowering green fees. The offers are *currently* far too good but its not sustainable. You cant have a club with 1 member who invites all his mates every week for reduced greenfees.

Back to a race to the bottom and the NAMA arguement: Who can last the longest by eating deficits year over year.

Maybe the GUI need to get together, start rating clubs and the minimum greenfees that can be charged..ala the CAP and the price of milk.

Senecio

GreeBo wrote: »

Well thats a problem.
If it can't yet it must then the game is done.

I dont think either are strictly true.
A lot of it comes down to location and quality.
There is a huge premium on both but, thankfully, there are also golfers and golf courses who are willing and happy to cater for both ends of the spectrum.

I don't disagree. I don't begrudge any golfer that values the benefits of membership and has the means to join the club of their choice. And I don't begrudge any club that provides that service as they are meeting the needs of their clientelle. There will always be a place for these clubs and their members.

I would, however question the point you made regarding clubs catering to both ends of the spectrum. I don't yet see any clubs offering a membership plan that caters to a person who percieves value the way I do and I believe I'm fairly representative of a large potential membership base. I also don't agree that its a race to the bottom. As has already been conceded, there will always be a place for a traditional members course.

Here's my 2 cents for what its worth on what I believe needs to occur.

1. NAMA needs to back out of clubs and allow them to fail. Others will follow, harsh but necessary.

2. Only then will we see a competitive market where some clubs will need to entice new members with creative membership plans that cater to groups with different perception of value than is currently targeted by existing membership plans.

To put it another way.

I don't expect to eat at a Michelin star restaurant and drink Dom Perignon on my budget. I'm happy with a burger, chips and a pint at the local. There is room in this city for both types of restaurant and both can happily coexist along side each other. That's not currently the case with golf membership.

For Paws

A lot of really good points being made here.

Yes, there is a surplus of Courses available to the casual golfer through NAMA and this has to change.
It is adversely affecting Member owned Courses. A similar effect is visible in the hotel industry and many of the courses concerned are sited alongside these NAMA hotels. Whereas the Irish Hotel Federation is actively working to protect it's non NAMA members, is the GUI active in opposing the support given by the tax payer to NAMA courses ?.

At some point these courses will either close or become viable through new ownership, but 'til then ?

Elitism will probably attract as many people to join clubs as it will put others off joining.
I'm still not comfortable with the attitude, as I believe that leads to cliques within the Club, and I think that only seniority (years as a Member) should be the only distinction between Members.
But as a member of a rural Club, it's less of a problem for me. Still there all right, just not as bad as some.

Imo we'll see a return to pre boom days where there are fewer Clubs with market pressures allowing some to raise their subs, and others where Subs remain at current levels, mainly depending on location.

It will be some time before paying the Annual Sub moves from being the next casualty of recession.
This period of adversity will define the will of the GUI Clubs in terms of where it wants the game to go.
If, as I suspect, they simply sit on their hands & hope for the best, then the game will shrink.

Is that what we as Members want, or are we alright (Jack) ?