New Rule for eligibility to Away Opens

bobwilliams

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

True statement that. Simply because most members are full members.

ok Mr.Pedantic.i'll change that to a larger percentile of full members are bandits compared to country members.

GreeBo

bobwilliams wrote: »

ok Mr.Pedantic.i'll change that to a larger percentile of full members are bandits compared to country members.

Any facts at all to back up that statement?

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

Any facts at all to back up that statement?

Plus, what exactly is a bandit ? (that might even be worth a thread or poll on its own, feel free to move !) Is it someone who potentially can play to their handicap fairly handily or is it someone who can beat their handicap on demand ? Or something else ?

Either way, I don't think 3 rounds to be played in your home club is going to have any impact whatsoever on so-called bandits tbh, other than the inconvenience factor of having to actually travel to wherever to play.

slave1

Golf is suffering globally, organisations are trying to get more people into golf or back into golf, one of golf's negatives is snobbery (hopefully moreso in the past) and this thread is littered with Distance/Country members being labelled not true members etc thus fueling a class membership system and a snobbery tone.
This is a golf forum and should be promoting golf in all forms and not devaluing or degrading an individuals choice of membership.

No one here can know an individuals motives from moving from full to Distance/Country, it's not all about banditry and I don't ever hear of clubs asking what type of membership visitors have.
Junior/Couple/Distance/Mid Week/Full/Pavilion/Student/Country/Family/Senior etc., who cares, really who cares.

Get over it, better to have Distance/Country members keeping golfers in the game than none at all.

GreeBo

slave1 wrote: »

Get over it, better to have Distance/Country members keeping golfers in the game than none at all.

Frankly the snobbery argument is a crock.
I can go play golf in multiple championship courses in my penny's gear and aldi clubs, that horse is dead, please stop beating him.

The argument is that no, actually it's not better it's damaging the game long term. It's not snobbery at all, it's unsustainable. Viable but not top quality local courses close because distance buy a handicap courses give it away. Seriously, how's that good for anything long term?

When the local clubs close due lack of numbers you think the local kids are going to become distance members and play in opens ?

slave1

GreeBo wrote: »

...If you dont ever plan on playing in your home course then you are not a real member. You are availing of a loop hole to be able to play in Open competitions...

It's hard to debate with posts as blinkered as this (bold highlights by me).

You state if you do not play your home course you are not a real member, this is very much wrong, you are a member and have a GUI card to prove it. This statement shows you are of the opinion these members are doing so with the motive to play in Opens, how do you know this? you regularly come back to posters looking for facts...

GreeBo wrote: »

Any facts at all to back up that statement?

Can you please show me the fact that Distance/Country members are not real members?
Then show me the fact that their motive is just to play in Opens?

Then you are welcome to the debate...until then...

GreeBo

slave1 wrote: »

It's hard to debate with posts as blinkered as this (bold highlights by me).

You state if you do not play your home course you are not a real member, this is very much wrong, you are a member and have a GUI card to prove it. This statement shows you are of the opinion these members are doing so with the motive to play in Opens, how do you know this? you regularly come back to posters looking for facts...


Can you please show me the fact that Distance/Country members are not real members?
Then show me the fact that their motive is just to play in Opens?

Then you are welcome to the debate...until then...

Thanks all the same but I'll continue to debate the point without your approval.

Why else would you join as a distance member and not a regular member? Why would distance members be having such a problem with a requirement to play your home course...yunno that course that you joined as a member...Im sure you remember stamping that envelope, once you looked up the address of your soon to be home course.

Yes you are a member, I don't disagree with that, you have a GUI handicap and a home club. You are not a real member however because you have no intention of ever darkening the door, the place couldnt support you if you did and in all likelihood you couldnt find the place on a map.

golfwallah

GreeBo wrote: »

And thats why we need council subsidised courses as feeder courses for people who may decide to become real golfers.

I really cant fathom someone (not you) having a problem with council subsidized pay as you play courses that are enabling new golfers in this country. Thats grass roots stuff that happens in all sports.

To be honest, if you take North County Dublin, most people wouldn't regard Corballis (a county council links course) as a "feeder" course for people starting out in golf. It's a bit too tight and hard for that but they do have very competitive prices. Was a feeder course many years ago from which "real golfers" went on to form their own golf clubs - Donabate, Forrest Little and Balcarrick as far as I know - but those were different times when affordable courses were not available. No, I think Corballis has a lot more "real golfers" and the feeder courses for up and coming young prospective golfers to more upmarket places like the Island are more likely to be Beaverstown, Donabate, Forrest Little, Balcarrick, etc., that do have good professional set ups for young golfers.

Council courses like Corballis and Elm Green are attractive propositions pricewise to people who want to limit their spend on golf and get value for money. In my experience, very few "feed" into the member owned clubs, in fact, I've seen a lot more go the other way and that's fine too in my book - as long as it doesn't take truckloads of subsidies to do it, which is what is happening right now!

More likely "feeder" courses to the member owned clubs in North County Dublin are privately owned courses like Swords Open and Deerpark - both fine courses and neither of them need subsidies from the taxpayer.

Slicemeister

Main reason I joined as a distance member this year was down to economics. Have played alongside members there who have scoffed when they realise so. They'd do well to remember their committee endorsed my application form and more than likely need my membership fee to remain an ongoing entity.To be labelled a bandit or not a real member is a joke and portrays a small minded attitude. Bandits come from all spectrums of memberships and should be weeded out by the handicap secretary as opposed to their membership status.

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

To be honest, if you take North County Dublin, most people wouldn't regard Corballis (a county council links course) as a "feeder" course for people starting out in golf. It's a bit too tight and hard for that but they do have very competitive prices. Was a feeder course many years ago from which "real golfers" went on to form their own golf clubs - Donabate, Forrest Little and Balcarrick as far as I know - but those were different times when affordable courses were not available. No, I think Corballis has a lot more "real golfers" and the feeder courses for up and coming young prospective golfers to more upmarket places like the Island are more likely to be Beaverstown, Donabate, Forrest Little, Balcarrick, etc., that do have good professional set ups for young golfers.

Council courses like Corballis and Elm Green are attractive propositions pricewise to people who want to limit their spend on golf and get value for money. In my experience, very few "feed" into the member owned clubs, in fact, I've seen a lot more go the other way and that's fine too in my book - as long as it doesn't take truckloads of subsidies to do it, which is what is happening right now!

More likely "feeder" courses to the member owned clubs in North County Dublin are privately owned courses like Swords Open and Deerpark - both fine courses and neither of them need subsidies from the taxpayer.

A course doenst have to be easy to be a feeder course. It just needs to be accessible and open for everyone. Thats how you get people into the game.

First Up

GreeBo wrote: »

Thanks all the same but I'll continue to debate the point without your approval.

Why else would you join as a distance member and not a regular member? Why would distance members be having such a problem with a requirement to play your home course...yunno that course that you joined as a member...Im sure you remember stamping that envelope, once you looked up the address of your soon to be home course.

Yes you are a member, I don't disagree with that, you have a GUI handicap and a home club. You are not a real member however because you have no intention of ever darkening the door, the place couldnt support you if you did and in all likelihood you couldnt find the place on a map.

The "snobbery" argument is pathetic. Most members of my club - and other clubs I frequent - are honest to goodness lads and lassies who support their club because they recognise there is mutual dependence and mutual benefit in doing so.

The distance membership scam is a device to get golf for less than it costs to provide. Those engaging in it are getting a subsidised ride on the back of club members - it is that simple.

GreeBo

Slicemeister wrote: »

Main reason I joined as a distance member this year was down to economics. Have played alongside members there who have scoffed when they realise so. They'd do well to remember their committee endorsed my application form and more than likely need my membership fee to remain an ongoing entity.To be labelled a bandit or not a real member is a joke and portrays a small minded attitude. Bandits come from all spectrums of memberships and should be weeded out by the handicap secretary as opposed to their membership status.

Forget about the bandit side of things, thats a problem in all walks of life, its not helped mind you, by players not having a home club that they play in with any regularity (or at all in most cases)

Its about sustainability, if everyone became a distance member and wandered around playing whatever opens they wanted on their choice of courses the game would cease to exist in this country. Thats the problem. Some, for whatever reason, are piggybacking on the wallets of others.

Russman

First Up wrote: »

The "snobbery" argument is pathetic. Most members of my club - and other clubs I frequent - are honest to goodness lads and lassies who support their club because they recognise there is mutual dependence and mutual benefit in doing so.

The distance membership scam is a device to get golf for less than it costs to provide. Those engaging in it are getting a subsidised ride on the back of club members - it is that simple.

And that's the nub of it right there ^^

golfwallah

GreeBo wrote: »

Income flows may be different but so are the outgoings, I'd guess we spend (and have to spend) far more than your club does. If we stopped that spending standards would fall and we wouldn't be able to charge the money we do for memberships.

With higher income flows come a lot more choices of what to spend your money on.

Many member clubs have had to severely prioritise their spend on the absolute essentials to keep within their income limits and repay their loans. This is in stark contrast to the subsidised NAMA and Council courses, which have buckets of money to spend on the likes of professional management support, marketing, etc., that are but a distant dream to many member clubs. The upside, I suppose, is that, without buckets of money to throw at problems, member clubs have to get smarter to compete with the subsidised places to survive.

When the dust settles and the economy gets back back to a better footing, I guess the course that will be left will be some of the smarter and wealthier member courses plus almost all the subsidised ones.

Golfers are golfers, we are all competing with each other tbh.

Sure - But competing against subsidised courses - NAMA or Council is unfair competition against voluntary set ups that are finding it harder and harder to keep up their standards in a shrinking market.

Slicemeister

If it's a scam why is this option available? It's not as if these distance members are doing anything wrong? (honest ones anyway)

FixdePitchmark

golfwallah this truckloads seems a bit of an exageration.

Every golf course in the country is supported by the tax payer in the form of a tax exemption.

I feel you are seriously underestimating the impact these public facilities have had as "feeders". I know my own route to golf was unusual, but I was one.

If you looked at a buisness case for any park facility , every single one would be closed in the morning. It is not the publics fault , that private courses built ivory towers and monstrosity club houses. During the boom years , these lads laughed and looked down on public facilities , yet half of them grew up on them.

But - now suddenly these public facilities are the focal of their frustration. Give us a break, and shut the library door on the way out.

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

With higher income flows come a lot more choices of what to spend your money on.

Many member clubs have had to severely prioritise their spend on the absolute essentials to keep within their income limits and repay their loans. This is in stark contrast to the subsidised NAMA and Council courses, which have buckets of money to spend on the likes of professional management support, marketing, etc., that are but a distant dream to many member clubs. The upside, I suppose, is that, without buckets of money to throw at problems, member clubs have to get smarter to compete with the subsidised places to survive.

When the dust settles and the economy gets back back to a better footing, I guess the course that will be left will be some of the smarter and wealthier member courses plus almost all the subsidised ones.



Sure - But competing against subsidised courses - NAMA or Council is unfair competition against voluntary set ups that are finding it harder and harder to keep up their standards in a shrinking market.

Wow, you really do seem to have a chip on your shoulder about "wealthy" clubs, yet you seem to have totally bypassed my point about much, much higher expenditure in those clubs.

Its not a choice, you cant just decide to stop spending money on the course and not see any impact.

NAMA courses are not the same as state subsidized courses.

Slicemeister wrote: »

If it's a scam why is this option available? It's not as if these distance members are doing anything wrong? (honest ones anyway)

Thats why there is a new rule!

slave1

GreeBo wrote: »

Thanks all the same but I'll continue to debate the point without your approval.

Why else would you join as a distance member and not a regular member? Why would distance members be having such a problem with a requirement to play your home course...yunno that course that you joined as a member...Im sure you remember stamping that envelope, once you looked up the address of your soon to be home course.

Yes you are a member, I don't disagree with that, you have a GUI handicap and a home club. You are not a real member however because you have no intention of ever darkening the door, the place couldnt support you if you did and in all likelihood you couldnt find the place on a map.

I'm [shock] a distance member due to personal circumstances and I'll leave it at that.

GreeBo wrote: »

You are not a real member however because you have no intention of ever darkening the door.

I have played the course, this Sunday past in fact was the most recent time, don't need a map to find it thanks.
You obviously know everything about distance members, they're not real members, they're out to play the bandits in opens, end of, no other reason possible or justifiable :rolleyes:.
Think I'll just observe this thread going forward as there's little point in debating with such a presumptuous tone and one that's so opinionated with no facts to support despite request for same.

PS The GUI are currently circulating a survey for Golf in Ireland, let them know your thoughts...

golfwallah

GreeBo wrote: »

A course doenst have to be easy to be a feeder course. It just needs to be accessible and open for everyone. Thats how you get people into the game.

Why do you just pick on one point in a post to disagree with?

I guess like Cardinal Richelieu, it's a case of: "give me 6 lines from the most honest man and I'll find something to hang him".

Your simplistic opinions about "feeder courses" are widely off the mark too and my earlier post demonstrates just that.

I wonder just what experience you have of getting people into the game - you seem to have a closed mind that brooks no views other than your own. I'd prefer to promote debate and consideration of alternatives, when what is being tried is not working successfully. This applies to golf at the moment. And golf is not just for the die-hards in comfortable wealthy clubs, who do not want any change and want to go on with the status quo forever.

The real feeder courses around my area are privately owned and do not need subsidies, thank you very much.

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

Why do you just pick on one point in a post to disagree with?

I guess like Cardinal Richelieu, it's a case of: "give me 6 lines from the most honest man and I'll find something to hang him".

Your simplistic opinions about "feeder courses" are widely off the mark too and my earlier post demonstrates just that.

I wonder just what experience you have of getting people into the game - you seem to have a closed mind that brooks no views other than your own. I'd prefer to promote debate and consideration of alternatives, when what is being tried is not working successfully. This applies to golf at the moment. And golf is not just for the die-hards in comfortable wealthy clubs, who do not want any change and want to go on with the status quo forever.

The real feeder courses around my area are privately owned and do not need subsidies, thank you very much.

So now we have "real" feeder courses...but not "real" members?
Hilarious.

I cant seem to get any points past the chip on your shoulder so I'm not going to bother.
As you seem to know, everything is perfectly hunky dory in the massively wealthy clubs. Champagne, caviar and port wine are flowing and the members point and laugh at all other clubs.

GreeBo

slave1 wrote: »

I'm [shock] a distance member due to personal circumstances and I'll leave it at that.



I have played the course, this Sunday past in fact was the most recent time, don't need a map to find it thanks.
You obviously know everything about distance members, they're not real members, they're out to play the bandits in opens, end of, no other reason possible or justifiable :rolleyes:.
Think I'll just observe this thread going forward as there's little point in debating with such a presumptuous tone and one that's so opinionated with no facts to support despite request for same.

PS The GUI are currently circulating a survey for Golf in Ireland, let them know your thoughts...

Frankly it doesnt matter why you are a distance member, Im sure there are lots of personal circumstances for lost of people. Due to personal circumstances I can't afford to sail yachts.

Show me one single post where I said distance members were bandits? I specifically, several times, stated that this change is nothing to do with bandits.
Its about sustainability of the game. Distance members and them being bandits or not has zero bearing on me as I dont play in opens. None.


I cant give you facts about something that is my opinion. It is my OPINION that golfers and clubs are taking advantage of distance membership to play subsidized golf to the detriment of the game.

golfwallah

GreeBo wrote: »

Wow, you really do seem to have a chip on your shoulder about "wealthy" clubs, yet you seem to have totally bypassed my point about much, much higher expenditure in those clubs.

Its not a choice, you cant just decide to stop spending money on the course and not see any impact.

No - the chip is just as much on your shoulders. With choice, there is no such word as "can't" and I don't accept that there is always a negative impact - my experience shows otherwise.

NAMA courses are not the same as state subsidized courses.

There are no pictures on a score card - it's not how, it's how many (euros in this case). As I've said I've no problem with reasonable levels of subsidies but do with the truckloads of taxpayers cash being thrown at council courses.

It's a matter of opinion really and matters more if your members course is in direct competition with these subsidised places, which would not, of course, apply to your own club.

Thats why there is a new rule!

Don't worry about it. I'm optimistic that our club will survive. It's just that I'm skeptical that the new GUI rule will cut out either banditry or distance memberships.

GreeBo

golfwallah wrote: »

No - the chip is just as much on your shoulders. With choice, there is no such word as "can't" and I don't accept that there is always a negative impact - my experience shows otherwise.

Oh please...

golfwallah wrote: »

There are no pictures on a score card - it's not how, it's how many (euros in this case). As I've said I've no problem with reasonable levels of subsidies but do with the truckloads of taxpayers cash being thrown at council courses.

Im sorry what? How many euros what? This may make great type but it reads like nonsense in a debate tbh.
I assume you have the same negative disposition towards, hmm lets see, public pitches, swimming pools, playgrounds, hospitals, housing?

golfwallah wrote: »

It's a matter of opinion really and matters more if your members course is in direct competition with these subsidised places, which would not, of course, apply to your own club.

How is my course not in competition for all other Dublin clubs?

golfwallah wrote: »

Don't worry about it. I'm optimistic that our club will survive. It's just that I'm skeptical that the new GUI rule will cut out either banditry or distance memberships.

The new rule will cut distance memberships as not everyone will bother to lookup where their club actually is and go play there.

First Up

Slicemeister wrote: »

If it's a scam why is this option available? It's not as if these distance members are doing anything wrong? (honest ones anyway)

It is exploiting a system designed for something else. Distance membership (as already said by others) is intended for people to maintain a link with a club with whom they have some connection but are no longer close to. Opens (as already said by me) were intended to be a mechanism through which "real" golfers (members of clubs) could enjoy each others' facilities, on the basis that all are paid up GUI members and thus supporting the game.

The distance/open scam exploits both of these and it is good to see it is finally being addressed, although not as rigorously as I would like - yet.

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

Champagne, caviar and port wine are flowing and the members point and laugh at all other clubs.

Caviar is soooo 1980s........:)

SnowDrifts

So just curious... most posters on here consider this rule change to be more about supporting more established clubs rather than actually being a method for a more consistent handicap review? Just to quote the GUI's motive....

The CONGU UHS requires each player to return three cards at their Home Club to be allocated a handicap. In addition to this initial requirement a further fundamental basis of the UHS is that every player will return a sufficient number of Qualifying Scores to provide reasonable evidence of current ability. Thus, by returning a minimum of three Qualifying Scores at his Home Club, annually, the player's Handicap Committee and peer information will better contribute to keeping the player's handicap under review leading to a more equitable handicapping system.

If passed, this motion may result in increased participation by players in Qualifying Competitions at the Home Club as players will have to compete in at least three such competitions to ensure that they are eligible to compete in Open Qualifying Competitions at Away Clubs.

But this also begs the question... if a club like Slievenamon is over flowing with distance members, how much of an accurate annual review will take place? Surely they'd need a team of handicap secretaries!

First Up

SnowDrifts wrote: »

So just curious... most posters on here consider this rule change to be more about supporting more established clubs rather than actually being a method for a more consistent handicap review? Just to quote the GUI's motive....



But this also begs the question... if a club like Slievenamon is over flowing with distance members, how much of an accurate annual review will take place? Surely they'd need a team of handicap secretaries!

It could be that the real purpose is to put a leash on the handicap flogging clubs and that the handicap monitoring angle is the most convenient way of doing it. That way they can stop short of accusing these clubs of exploiting the rest of the GUI but still get the desired result.

alxmorgan

Anything yet on how they are going to enforce this ?

First Up

alxmorgan wrote: »

Anything yet on how they are going to enforce this ?

Its a computerised system so it should take only a minor tweak. I.e. a handicap can only be issued by a club after that club has processed three cards from its own qualifying competitions.

alxmorgan

First Up wrote: »

Its a computerised system so it should take only a minor tweak. I.e. a handicap can only be issued by a club after that club has processed three cards from its own qualifying competitions.

Do you mean initial handicap ? Or a query to the home club for handicap will return nothing unless 3 qual comps played ?