New Rule for eligibility to Away Opens

SaveOurLyric

Putt it there wrote: »

i believe the term "itinerant golfers" were used once also .

Possibly several time. Even several times by myself alone. It correctly describes two syndromes in golf in Ireland today.
- The buy a GUI handicap far away and never play that course, but go from open to open close to home. Itinerant rather than home club golf.
- The move membership of home club every year or two to take advantage of whatever special or introductory offer is there to induce him to move. Itinerant golf again.


I have no problem with the second guy though. He is simply shopping around and getting the best value that suits him. And serves the clubs offering those deals right for thinking there is something to be gained by offer these discounts in the first place.

Putt it there

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I would defend it without hesitation. See above. These golfers are not golfers in the manner that GUI golfers with official handicaps were conceived to be. And it is our right to make the rules as we wish. And I would take any action that is practical if it inhibits their 'buy a handicap' + play opens tendency. They are 'society' golfers eally, who just want the cache of having the semblance of having a real handicap. Which for me they dont.

This post above is unique as its the first 100% incorrect post i have seen .

Putt it there

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Possibly several time. Even several times by myself alone. It correctly describes two syndromes in golf in Ireland today.
- The buy a GUI handicap far away and never play that course, but go from open to open close to home. Itinerant rather than home club golf.
- The move membership of home club every year or two to take advantage of whatever special or introductory offer is there to induce him to move. Itinerant golf again.


I have no problem with the second guy though. He is simply shopping around and getting the best value that suits him. And serves the clubs offering those deals right for thinking there is something to be gained by offer these discounts in the first place.

An attitude remarkably akin to the "no to gay marriage" crowd there. Thankfully both you or your ideas on how golf should be run are neither interesting or relevant to how i choose to play my golf

golfwallah

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

This golfer is already catered for. He can pay greenfees. Or he can joint a society with its loose application of handicaps - which are fine for society golfer.

But if he can only play 10-14 times per year, then whatever about his ability to afford it, for me, he is simply not a handicap golfer and should not have one. A GUI handicap should reflect the current playing level of a player which is the basis of handicapped competition. So I see no problem excluding him from that status. It is not la-di-da superiority or class discrimination, or Dublin v country bias. Simply a golfing justification.
However, I dont blame exclusively the 'distance' clubs for this situation. The clubs running the opens are as much or more to blame. There are far too many opens, and a far too low prices. As in the scramble for members in a shrinking market, clubs have lowered their entry fees below a true market value to play their courses - therby tipping the equation of distance membership+opens = much better value than full membership locally for the less frequent golfer.

The whole point is that there is a sizeable contingent of people who want both a handicap and more affordable rates per round. And I agree that it's all about getting value for money as regards the membership proposition.

The distance clubs are meeting some of that demand, but they are not really a proper substitute for peoples' local clubs offering more choice as regards affordable membership packages (albeit, with restrictions that can be worked out to the mutual advantage of clubs, full members and new recruits alike).

The real problem is you can't satisfy everybody and committees are afraid of vocal opposition (such as we see, using emotive language like some on this forum). But, if there is a will there is a way. And when people have the options fully explained to them and understand their choices, I believe the majority will go along with the proposition that it is better to have as many as possible playing golf by removing these man made barriers to more participation.

So let's tip the equation towards a greater range of membership choices, whereby not all have to pay the same price, regardless of how many time they play. It's common sense to me. I don't expect all will agree but I think many will! Remember there is little to be gained by seeing the only option as heaping yet more expense on our sons and daughters who want golf with handicaps at a reasonable price per round. A few of these will take the distance option but the majority will simply quit the game altogether in the absence of a local alternative.

princess poppy

Putt it there wrote: »

This post above is unique as its the first 100% incorrect post i have seen .

Its a valid opinion which is well stated and 100% credible, held by many more than one I would imagine - just my opinion which you may also deem 100% incorrect

SaveOurLyric

Putt it there wrote: »

This post above is unique as its the first 100% incorrect post i have seen .

Putt it there wrote: »

An attitude remarkably akin to the "no to gay marriage" crowd there. Thankfully both you or your ideas on how golf should be run are neither interesting or relevant to how i choose to play my golf

Forums are much more interesting if you explain your view and where you disagree with another post rather than just a 'wrong!' or short dismissal of your interest in someone elses post.
They are pretty boring, and add nothing to the debate.
Expand on your objections if you wish to contribute constructively.

golfwallah

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Yes and no. Only a GUI handicap can only be acquired through a club. You can form any golf society you wish, or form your own of 1 and give yourself any handicap you like. There is no cartel. Only the rules of one particular union which is entitled to make any rules it likes. And to the majority of those who are members, we are perfectly happy with it that way. If you dont like it, dont join. But dont moan about how it isnt the way you want it to be.

A healthy debate is about flushing out all sides of the argument so that people can make more informed decisions, as opposed to just sticking with the comfortable status quo - even when this is demonstrably not working!

My interest is the survival and prosperity of my own club and likewise for as many clubs as possible. I believe this can be best achieved by having as many people as possible playing the game and keeping them in the game over the long haul. The lifetime value of the customer is what interests me, i.e. their financial contribution and participation over many years - not just squeezing as much as possible from them, particularly during the years when many have family commitments. If these people are driven out of the sport now because of short-term "fairness" in having the same annual prices regardless of how often they play, they won't come back. They will simply find other interests - IMO, we need to move from the one year transaction view to the more long term concept of lifetime value of a member.

Putt it there

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Forums are much more interesting if you explain your view and where you disagree with another post rather than just a 'wrong!' or short dismissal of your interest in someone elses post.
They are pretty boring, and add nothing to the debate.
Expand on your objections if you wish to contribute constructively.

Interacting with bigotry and ignorance is not how i like to spend my time .

This debate will go round and round in circles but not one opinion on here will affect the status quo.

So glad in this knowledge i shall move on from this repetitive tit for tat and go make a list of open comps i must enter

Kingswood Rover

golfwallah wrote: »

A healthy debate is about flushing out all sides of the argument so that people can make more informed decisions, as opposed to just sticking with the comfortable status quo - even when this is demonstrably not working!

My interest is the survival and prosperity of my own club and likewise for as many clubs as possible. I believe this can be best achieved by having as many people as possible playing the game and keeping them in the game over the long haul. The lifetime value of the customer is what interests me, i.e. their financial contribution and participation over many years - not just squeezing as much as possible from them, particularly during the years when many have family commitments. If these people are driven out of the sport now because of short-term "fairness" in having the same annual prices regardless of how often they play, they won't come back. They will simply find other interests - IMO, we need to move from the one year transaction view to the more long term concept of lifetime value of a member.

A well balanced and rational response to the lack of evidence opinion that distance memberships are a major contributing factor the the closing of golf clubs. I cannot think of one members owned (clubhouse and course) golf club that has closed in the last 6 years. All of the clubs that have closed recently have been private facilities with a GUI affiliated club playing out of them...am open to correction on this.

bobster453

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I would defend it without hesitation. See above. These golfers are not golfers in the manner that GUI golfers with official handicaps were conceived to be. And it is our right to make the rules as we wish. And I would take any action that is practical if it inhibits their 'buy a handicap' + play opens tendency. They are 'society' golfers eally, who just want the cache of having the semblance of
having a real handicap. Which for me they dont.

Eh actually it is not your right to make the rules as you wish if you want your club to remain affiliated to the GUI which has its constirution as the rules all affiliated clubs must adhere to.To lump all distance members into one pot and claim they somehow are lesser beings is to simply ignore the reality of golf in modern Ireland and is akin to sticking your head in the sand and hope they will all go away which is naive in the extreme

SaveOurLyric

golfwallah wrote: »

The whole point is that there is a sizeable contingent of people who want both a handicap and more affordable rates per round. And I agree that it's all about getting value for money as regards the membership proposition.

The distance clubs are meeting some of that demand, but they are not really a proper substitute for peoples' local clubs offering more choice as regards affordable membership packages (albeit, with restrictions that can be worked out to the mutual advantage of clubs, full members and new recruits alike).

The real problem is you can't satisfy everybody and committees are afraid of vocal opposition (such as we see, using emotive language like some on this forum). But, if there is a will there is a way. And when people have the options fully explained to them and understand their choices, I believe the majority will go along with the proposition that it is better to have as many as possible playing golf by removing these man made barriers to more participation.

So let's tip the equation towards a greater range of membership choices, whereby not all have to pay the same price, regardless of how many time they play. It's common sense to me. I don't expect all will agree but I think many will! Remember there is little to be gained by seeing the only option as heaping yet more expense on our sons and daughters who want golf with handicaps at a reasonable price per round. A few of these will take the distance option but the majority will simply quit the game altogether in the absence of a local alternative.

I think they are wish to have something that they cannot have - like saying I would like to buy a brand new car but can only afford €1000, so the manufacturers should have an option at that price. Its just not possible. Yet you seem to be proposing it should be an option and is possible. There is no such think as a free lunch. Again, cant buy full membership in a club you can play regularly to maintain a GUI handicap - then pay occasional green fees to play you casual game without one, or join a society and play with a restrained handicap sanctioned for play in that society. Plenty of options. And no need to ask those choosing the full-membership-play-my-home-club-for-the-majority-of-my-competitive-golf to subsidise your golf for you.

SaveOurLyric

bobster453 wrote: »

Eh actually it is not your right to make the rules as you wish if you want your club to remain affiliated to the GUI which has its constirution as the rules all affiliated clubs must adhere to.To lump all distance members into one pot and claim they somehow are lesser beings is to simply ignore the reality of golf in modern Ireland and is akin to sticking your head in the sand and hope they will all go away which is naive in the extreme

Eh actually it is my right to make the rules as I wish if that is the democratic majority view through the GUI. I am not speaking about the rules of my home club.
Nobody, other than your own mention above, has suggested that they are lesser beings. Only that they are an anomaly in the structure of the economics and handicapping of golf in Ireland, and that taking corrective actions to inhibit the tendency is good, just, and fully within our rights if we choose to do so.

And, just to knock the strawman arguments on the head that the distance membership numbers are small and insignificant, golf has far bigger issues, and it will not cut out bandits, so shouldnt be implement : these are all true. But it is no reason not to implement the action that has been decided - what ever benefit it brings, however small, is a step in the right direction.

Uncle Ben

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I havent check all points in all posts, but Firstup is not a minoruty of 1. I would be pretty much in agreement.

CLubs are closing because enough of the golfers playing are not paying enough for the golf they get. If they were paying a sustainable fee, then courses wouldnt be closing !


Bit of a chip there on the little-man, la-di-da, elite, attitude btw. That does not exist in golf in Ireland.

I'd say more clubs are closing because they remortgaged themselves to the hilt in their bid to build homes, hotels and club houses during the boom. Now it's chickens coming home to roost with the banks calling in the loans. Far easier however to blame distance members for the losses however rather than point the fingers at committees who signed the loan agreements.

SaveOurLyric

Uncle Ben wrote: »

I'd say more clubs are closing because they remortgaged themselves to the hilt in their bid to build homes, hotels and club houses during the boom. Now it's chickens coming home to roost with the banks calling in the loans. Far easier however to blame distance members for the losses however rather than point the fingers at committees who signed the loan agreements.

Thats a red herring. And finger pointing achieves nothing.
Agree that many clubs are in financial difficulty due to over extension during the boom. But the reality remains that that have costs to cover. And so must charge accordingly, or fold.

Boskowski

Thing is if you officially create that low cost option that allows for qualifying golf on the cheap then even more members will avail of that and even more clubs enter the race to the bottom and even more clubs will fold. Golf requires a very expensive playing facility and that's simply that. People 'demanding' cheap qualifying golf fail to see that this undermines the foundation of the game.

But that entitlement attitude displayed seems a sign of the times I guess.

golfwallah

Boskowski wrote: »

Thing is if you officially create that low cost option that allows for qualifying golf on the cheap then even more members will avail of that and even more clubs enter the race to the bottom and even more clubs will fold. Golf requires a very expensive playing facility and that's simply that. People 'demanding' cheap qualifying golf fail to see that this undermines the foundation of the game.

But that entitlement attitude displayed seems a sign of the times I guess.

I agree that it makes absolutely no sense to look at this issue simplistically and create low cost options for golf on the cheap.

But what we have right now is a commonly accepted “status quo” in far too many clubs of a fixed annual cost of a very limited range of membership options (predominantly, full & 5 or 6 day, aside from junior and the dreaded “distance”) – regardless of how often you play.

This may have worked reasonably well is the good times, when the economy and numbers of registered golfers were growing, but those days are behind us – the economy may be recovering a bit but golfer numbers are shrinking and many clubs are severely stretched financially.

If you think about it, most services we buy are based on usage charges plus a fixed charge component in many cases, together with lots of payment options. There’s your electricity, gas, telephone, TV, health insurance, etc., etc. With shrinking demand, excess timesheet space, less disposable income, why not the same for golf?

I just don’t get it - what is needed is a range of cost options for membership, whereby you still have the full, 5/6 day options (high fixed charge aimed at frequent users resulting in lowest cost per time played) but also options for a much lower fixed charge but higher cost per time played for less frequent users. This would enable clubs to compete, attract and retain a lot more people to the game – result = more revenue for clubs! There are also options, e.g. for more family friendly rates as well – just needs a bit of imagination and the courage to try new things – a positive “can do” approach as opposed to one of “hang on to the status quo, even if it kills us”.

Expanding the range of options to meet changed market needs, will not result in a “race to the bottom” or ruin the foundations of the game. It will do the exact opposite – just look at Ryanair – lots more people flying at affordable prices (where every bit of avoidable cost is removed). Ryanair is not for everyone but it does enjoy a huge market share – the same applies to golf.

In reality, the only real sense of entitlement around is in clubs who insist on “take or leave it” fixed charge options for membership. The result = potential and existing members are currently voting with their feet and exiting the game. So will a lot more clubs until they wake up to meet vastly changed market needs.

Norfolk Enchants_

Boskowski wrote: »

Thing is if you officially create that low cost option that allows for qualifying golf on the cheap then it becomes the norm and clubs who insist on paying over the odds for everything, i.e. land, new club houses, employees etcetera etcetera, will essentially stagnate and largely contribute to the continued decline of the game. Not a popular opinion, but that's the stark reality.

FYP

Boskowski

I get what you're saying and I'd be all for it if it really increased the golfing base and revenue for the clubs. What I'd be worried about is that it will effectively decrease revenue.
I can't speak for all golf clubs but in my club there is quite a substantial faction of (mostly older) members who are not full time golfers. They still play a bit but they only play maybe a dozen Sunday comps. They are members for various other reasons - mostly the social aspect - like regular card or snooker nights, the annual club trip to England, stuff like that. Of course you also have younger guys who don't play twice weekly and are strictly speaking not get maximum value for money. But they bite the bullet cos they want to be a full member and a GUI golfer on those occasions where they can play.
I'd be worried that these groups of golfer might jump on such cheaper options in larger numbers than you would regain people in their twenties and thirties and you would achieve the exact opposite. You might increase the membership base but generate actually less money. Now that would be a disaster.

Boskowski

Norfolk Enchants_ wrote: »

FYP

Ye but its not that simple is it? Even if you don't build new facilities, the upkeep of a golf club is quite substantial. My club is non profit and must charge €1000 just to break even. You gotta have someone in the office, you gotta have staff manning the pro shop, the bar. Greenskeepers. Machinery. A cart path needs fixing now and then. It all adds up quickly.
Golf is not a cheap game. Its a vast playing facility and if not kept to a minimum standard you will lose players very quickly.

bobster453

Boskowski wrote: »

I get what you're saying and I'd be all for it if it really increased the golfing base and revenue for the clubs. What I'd be worried about is that it will effectively decrease revenue.
I can't speak for all golf clubs but in my club there is quite a substantial faction of (mostly older) members who are not full time golfers. They still play a bit but they only play maybe a dozen Sunday comps. They are members for various other reasons - mostly the social aspect - like regular card or snooker nights, the annual club trip to England, stuff like that. Of course you also have younger guys who don't play twice weekly and are strictly speaking not get maximum value for money. But they bite the bullet cos they want to be a full member and a GUI golfer on those occasions where they can play.
I'd be worried that these groups of golfer might jump on such cheaper options in larger numbers than you would regain people in their twenties and thirties and you would achieve the exact opposite. You might increase the membership base but generate actually less money. Now that would be a disaster.

And the above will happen if you go primarily down the route of bums on seats.A more tailored approach is needed imo
A report commissionned bu the GUI some years ago looking at the then demographics of the game points the way.
This showed a disproportionate number of golfers in middle age to old age range and a distinct lack of those in their thirties to mid 40s
Some clubs have already recognised this and tailored fees accordingly by reducing the cost to those in the age group they want to attract
While initially there might be some opposition by those not eligible to receive the lower fees it stands to reason that once the need and benefits to the club are explained with clarity the majority would support it

bobster453

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Thats a red herring. And finger pointing achieves nothing

You sure do a lot of finger pointing at distance members for someone who believes it will achieve nothing

Boskowski

When its all said and done it's actually quite easy. You gotta ask yourself the question would a golf club be able to survive solely based on those cheaper membership options. If everybody paid €250 all in and the rest comes from open comps and green fees.

I think the answer to that is quite obvious, they wouldn't. So these members would basically not pull their weight as to the true cost of their membership. Which means we would have yet another faction who would be subsidised by the full members. We already have a few of those. Juniors, intermediates, the old guys who are on frozen subs. So the remaining full members start saying eventually f*** that I'm going on the cheap option myself, I hardly play Sundays anyway.

In my club we already have juniors who pay virtually nothing, We have family memberships, we have 2 intermediate categories up to the age of 29 who also pay a fraction of the true cost. If you start subsidising thirties and forties also - who one would expect to be settled in their careers and not exactly permanently student broke - then you make a mockery of it.

I'm like a broken record but golf is not a cheap sport. It might no be quite like yachting or hobby piloting but its not like GAA or soccer either. Iit is unrealistic to deduct from overall declining numbers that golf clubs 'owe' those guys who demand 'better value' something and argue that its for their own good, because it almost certainly isn't.

Kingswood Rover

Boskowski wrote: »

Thing is if you officially create that low cost option that allows for qualifying golf on the cheap then even more members will avail of that and even more clubs enter the race to the bottom and even more clubs will fold. Golf requires a very expensive playing facility and that's simply that. People 'demanding' cheap qualifying golf fail to see that this undermines the foundation of the game.

But that entitlement attitude displayed seems a sign of the times I guess.

What a load of tosh, no members club owned club has closed that i am aware of in the last 5 years or so. Affordable golf is keeping thousands of people in the game and that can be only a good thing. The game and as many people playing it with all the consequential benefits to ones health and well-being is what matters Golf does not require a very expensive facility to be enjoyed, 9 good holes can be kept in tip top condition for 100k. Some perspective on this for me is the football club that i am involved with only 2 pitches costs 50 k a year to run.

Boskowski

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

What a load of tosh, no members club owned club has closed that i am aware of in the last 5 years or so. Affordable golf is keeping thousands of people in the game and that can be only a good thing. The game and as many people playing it with all the consequential benefits to ones health and well-being is what matters Golf does not require a very expensive facility to be enjoyed, 9 good holes can be kept in tip top condition for 100k. Some perspective on this for me is the football club that i am involved with only 2 pitches costs 50 k a year to run.

You're accusing my post to be a load of tosh and then you come up with THAT?!?

Kingswood Rover

Boskowski wrote: »

Ye but its not that simple is it? Even if you don't build new facilities, the upkeep of a golf club is quite substantial. My club is non profit and must charge €1000 just to break even. You gotta have someone in the office, you gotta have staff manning the pro shop, the bar. Greenskeepers. Machinery. A cart path needs fixing now and then. It all adds up quickly.
Golf is not a cheap game. Its a vast playing facility and if not kept to a minimum standard you will lose players very quickly.

You don t need a pro shop or bar or even 18 holes lads this is the real crux of the issue because some people feel that a golf club has to have these and obviously there is a cost implication reflected in the annual subs. In the recent tough economic times less people can bear these costs but rather than give up the game they love the seek cheaper alternatives. So to all 18 holers in debt keep nine good holes, alternative tee's mind, sell the rest of the land, pay off any residual debt, have a few bob in the bank, reduce your subs and golf happily ever after.

Boskowski

So we're going to bulldoze the clubhouse and farm spuds on the back nine so that people can get cheaper golf? Seriously lads...

Kingswood Rover

Boskowski wrote: »

So we're going to bulldoze the clubhouse and farm spuds on the back nine so that people can get cheaper golf? Seriously lads...

Read the post, no mention of not having a club house, we have one ourselves. The previous post regarding maintenance costs is also accurate,more reasoned argument less indignation Bosko please. A good strong club crippled by a huge debt and loosing members because fee's had gone up relative to the local competition could take this option rather than close.

Russman

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

You don t need a pro shop or bar or even 18 holes lads this is the real crux of the issue because some people feel that a golf club has to have these and obviously there is a cost implication reflected in the annual subs. In the recent tough economic times less people can bear these costs but rather than give up the game they love the seek cheaper alternatives. So to all 18 holers in debt keep nine good holes, alternative tee's mind, sell the rest of the land, pay off any residual debt, have a few bob in the bank, reduce your subs and golf happily ever after.

And just who is going to buy half a golf course ? Not many people who need/want to buy 50 acres of land bordering a golf course.

I'd also argue that a golf course doesn't necessarily need a pro shop, bar or 18 holes, but a golf club probably does (maybe not the pro shop in fairness). Otherwise its basically a pay and play facility IMO.

Boskowski

Ah you do need a pro shop. You need all these things. It's a club of leisure where people are trying to have a good time. It's not supposed to be a bare bones operation.
Fair enough if a place is with their back against the wall and it's about survive or go down. Then such desperate measures are possible.
But as a general measure to get headline figures down at all costs to include people who demand cheaper golf not only would I hate to see it happening but I think it would be counter productive.

Boskowski

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

Read the post, no mention of not having a club house, we have one ourselves. The previous post regarding maintenance costs is also accurate,more reasoned argument less indignation Bosko please. A good strong club crippled by a huge debt and loosing members because fee's had gone up relative to the local competition could take this option rather than close.

I'm all for it but thats what you get when you start your own post with 'what a load of tosh'. In fairness now...

Lets all be classy from here on. Including myself obviously.