Golf Memberships

dan_ep82

I was a three day member in Rathcore when I couldn't afford to pay the fee's for Headfort at the time. I was lucky enough the money free'd up and now I have a club 5mile away from me.In the time I was a member of Rathcore I didn't actually manage to play any opens but I did play other course for green fee's, mainly it was Rathcore I played.

When I was a three day member of Rathcore at least, I couldn't play in the Captains prize or play on a Wed,Thur,Fri,Sat or Sunday unless I paid green fees and I'm sure its something similar with distance membership and I could and still do see the reasoning behind it. So from that point of view I wouldn't have a problem paying an extra 5-10 for an open if I was a distance/3/5day member.

I don't have a problem with anyone who is on a tight budget or wants to keep costs down that uses distance membership in that way but some of the arguments against do seem valid. I don't think its any fault of the members or even the clubs, the members are just trying to play golf and the clubs are just trying to stay afloat. It's the same reason I don't get mad when Juniors pay a smaller sub than I do but have limitations as a member. Obviously it could do with a good long look by the GUI and see if they can come to a compromise but I don't think they can satisfy either side fully no matter what they do.

I was talking to two elderly members of Black Bush that are members since it was open and can remember when the fairways had goats running up them. We got talking about opens and how much I paid (€20) and neither was impressed. When they started doing it (BlackBush) ,it was with the intention that other members could play the course at a reduced rate and they could in turn play others for the same, a reduced rate but since it started prices have creeped up.I made the argument that times were tight but he thinks now is the time for more opens as it was explained to them in the beginning it was friendly thing in the beginning, your members can play here for less and we'll play yours for less etc. Few people have €50 to spend on a round of golf plus all the other associated costs so I can see where he's coming from. I joined Rathcore after a free round on an open day after all. I'm not sure how much if at any of the story is true but I'd like to think its how it started.

First Up

Russman wrote: »

Whilst I'm against the principle of distance memberships being used to facilitate cheap golf because of its impact on the game as a whole and on struggling clubs, I wonder could the charge of unprincipled opportunists be made against clubs charging, whatever, say €10k, joining fees, just because they can ?

My own club has struggled a lot in recent years with members leaving, a lot of whom have gone the "distance" route to get a handicap and play opens. We're certainly not an elite club with joining fees to match, so I can see the effect the distance thing can have on other clubs. I don't blame the clubs or the players though, Slievenamon or any other club have no obligation to ensure that my €1k club on the outskirts of Dublin, or a Grange or a Castle within the M50 ring, have the market we want/need. No more than I can blame some fella who has lost his job but wants to still have a few games of golf, from taking the best option for himself. I blame the gui for letting the situation get to where it is, and they're now playing catch up with the 3 card rule. But I'm sure they also have their eye on the €20 they get for each member also, so I don't think they'll push much further tbh. I fear they'd rather have people staying in the game, and if x number of clubs have to close, so be it from their point of view.

Nobody is forced to join anywhere with a joining fee - there's plenty of other options.
It isn't about clubs having the "market they need". Its about them having having the income they need to sustain the place. Somebody has to do it and the distance scam just makes it harder.
If someone can't afford to play golf in the manner they would like, they have my sympathy but that doesn't mean I owe them hobby.

cairny

Russman wrote: »

I was sort of leaning towards that earlier in the thread, there is a certain logic to it, but having thought it through a bit more, I don't think it would work. What if there was a club somewhere and their full membership cost less than distance membership elsewhere ? Would it be done by description of membership type or the annual sub paid ? I think it's dangerously close to someone somewhere deciding what is an acceptable amount of money for someone to pay to have full GUI rights, no matter where they play. Like, unless you pay X amount to the upkeep of a course somewhere, you can't be a full GUI member or can't play more than 5 opens a year.

My solution would be for the GUI to operate a distance membership out of Carton House, say 200 a year with 180 being distributed back to all clubs offering regular opens. At least then the clubs would get something (tiny but still). Then ban distance membership categories in regular clubs.

First Up

Russman wrote: »

I was sort of leaning towards that earlier in the thread, there is a certain logic to it, but having thought it through a bit more, I don't think it would work. What if there was a club somewhere and their full membership cost less than distance membership elsewhere ? Would it be done by description of membership type or the annual sub paid ? I think it's dangerously close to someone somewhere deciding what is an acceptable amount of money for someone to pay to have full GUI rights, no matter where they play. Like, unless you pay X amount to the upkeep of a course somewhere, you can't be a full GUI member or can't play more than 5 opens a year.

What clubs charge for full, five day or distance membership is their own business. The problem is that any category brings exactly the same GUI status and other clubs are obliged to honour them equally. That would not be a problem either, if you didn't have clubs exploiting what is essentially a system based on goodwill but now being used as a loophole.

Russman

cairny wrote: »

My solution would be for the GUI to operate a distance membership out of Carton House, say 200 a year with 180 being distributed back to all clubs offering regular opens. At least then the clubs would get something (tiny but still). Then ban distance membership categories in regular clubs.

The danger with that is that nobody knows how many regular full members of clubs would decide that is a now good option and take it up. It would potentially be the death of club golf for all but a few clubs. Plus where would all these new members play their opens if half the clubs have closed as a result of a lot of their members taking up the gui offer ?

GreeBo

cairny wrote: »

My solution would be for the GUI to operate a distance membership out of Carton House, say 200 a year with 180 being distributed back to all clubs offering regular opens. At least then the clubs would get something (tiny but still). Then ban distance membership categories in regular clubs.

That could work, but as above, would you then not have clubs doing the same thing with a 3-day member option or similar?

You could avoid that, maybe, by enforcing more cards required in your home club before you are eligilble for opens.

If you are not a distance member then you should, by definition really, be playing 5-10 games in the previous year in your home club.

If you are not but are still trying to play multiple opens, then it seems you might be just trying the old distance trick.

cairny

Russman wrote: »

The danger with that is that nobody knows how many regular full members of clubs would decide that is a now good option and take it up. It would potentially be the death of club golf for all but a few clubs. Plus where would all these new members play their opens if half the clubs have closed as a result of a lot of their members taking up the gui offer ?

Do you think so? Dont people already know about the Distance option? It would regularise the situation, demand could be controlled by the fee level.

First Up

grip n rip wrote: »

All gui membership is the same

Watch this space.

grip n rip

First Up wrote: »

Watch this space.

not more space watching !!!

you think you know more than everybody else or just like pretending you do ?
its not changing lads , gui cant stop it because we are all equal members . €140 membership and play different course every week for €15-€20 ? no incentive to play €800+ for full membership elsewhere.

GreeBo

grip n rip wrote: »

not more space watching !!!

you think you know more than everybody else or just like pretending you do ?
its not changing lads , gui cant stop it because we are all equal members . €140 membership and play different course every week for €15-€20 ? no incentive to play €800+ for full membership elsewhere.

They can easily stop it by increasing the 3 round requirement to 10.

GreeBo

Actually the best way to handle it would be enforcing a ratio of opens to rounds played in home club.

If you want to play 10 opens then you have to play at least 5 at home.

This would stop the abuse of distance membership, but I think it would also effectively prevent the casual golfer playing in opens....maybe this is a good thing though.
Playing in opens isn't supposed to be casual golf imo.

Russman

cairny wrote: »

Do you think so? Dont people already know about the Distance option? It would regularise the situation, demand could be controlled by the fee level.

I think that there would be a certain number of members of clubs, who are currently maybe sticking with their memberships but neither use it enough to really justify it, but at the same time couldn't be bothered joining a club down the country or don't want to, and they might be very attracted to the idea of basically buying a handicap directly off the GUI. It wouldn't take all that many people doing that, in the greater scheme of things, to push many clubs over the edge IMO.

grip n rip

GreeBo wrote: »

They can easily stop it by increasing the 3 round requirement to 10.

who's they ? the gui ? aren't we all members of the gui ? making somebody play 10 comps in their own course annually will only kill some of the smaller clubs . the 3 comp rule is also flimsy at best , im not sure but id guess it would be very easy to get around .

GreeBo

grip n rip wrote: »

who's they ? the gui ? aren't we all members of the gui ? making somebody play 10 comps in their own course annually will only kill some of the smaller clubs . the 3 comp rule is also flimsy at best , im not sure but id guess it would be very easy to get around .

Yes the GUI.
Yes, those of us with GUI handicaps are members.

Why would it kill smaller clubs, unless of course these clubs are only surviving by selling GUI handicaps to "members".

I don't understand how 3 qualifying rounds is flimsy and why its easy to get around but 10 comps wouldnt be and would kill clubs?

cairny

Russman wrote: »

I think that there would be a certain number of members of clubs, who are currently maybe sticking with their memberships but neither use it enough to really justify it, but at the same time couldn't be bothered joining a club down the country or don't want to, and they might be very attracted to the idea of basically buying a handicap directly off the GUI. It wouldn't take all that many people doing that, in the greater scheme of things, to push many clubs over the edge IMO.

It's a real risk alright I accept. Experience in my own club is that those a type of members are already gone, really it the loss of these light use members that has been toughest on clubs. Thoses that are left are playing at least a few times a month.

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

They can easily stop it by increasing the 3 round requirement to 10.

Would they do that though ? They have to figure that they'll lose a certain percentage of golfers who won't comply and the resulting reduction in the GUI's income. Realpolitik and all that.

It's an absolute minefield though, and everyone's expectations will not be met, someone is going to feel hard done by, be it the clubs offering distance options, the established clubs, golfers paying full fees somewhere or golfers paying reduced distance fees.

GreeBo

Russman wrote: »

I think that there would be a certain number of members of clubs, who are currently maybe sticking with their memberships but neither use it enough to really justify it, but at the same time couldn't be bothered joining a club down the country or don't want to, and they might be very attracted to the idea of basically buying a handicap directly off the GUI. It wouldn't take all that many people doing that, in the greater scheme of things, to push many clubs over the edge IMO.

So you wouldn't require X qualifying rounds to be played in Carton?
I think you are then just buying a handicap licence.

I dont like the idea of golfers playing without any home club or handicap secretary.

grip n rip

GreeBo wrote: »

Actually the best way to handle it would be enforcing a ratio of opens to rounds played in home club.

If you want to play 10 opens then you have to play at least 5 at home.

This would stop the abuse of distance membership, but I think it would also effectively prevent the casual golfer playing in opens....maybe this is a good thing though.
Playing in opens isn't supposed to be casual golf imo.

why yo keep deleting my points grebo ? the power of moderation doesn't extend to censorship of opposing points in an open debate surely ?

GreeBo

cairny wrote: »

It's a real risk alright I accept. Experience in my own club is that those a type of members are already gone, really it the loss of these light use members that has been toughest on clubs. Thoses that are left are playing at least a few times a month.

I think the days of the non playing member are long gone, the numbers would be minimal.

Russman wrote: »

Would they do that though ? They have to figure that they'll lose a certain percentage of golfers who won't comply and the resulting reduction in the GUI's income. Realpolitik and all that.

It's an absolute minefield though, and everyone's expectations will not be met, someone is going to feel hard done by, be it the clubs offering distance options, the established clubs, golfers paying full fees somewhere or golfers paying reduced distance fees.

Yeah its a mess alright, I dont think they would do 10, but I think I like the percentage idea, more logistics required though.

The GUI need to figure out what they want to happen and which golfers are their priority.
Personally I think playing/full members of local clubs are the grass roots of the game. If you lose that I dont know what you have left tbh.
They are the ones keeping golf courses open, allowing inter club golf and bringing most of the young golfers into the game.
I'd be focussing my efforts on maintaining and growing that base and less on the nomadic open players.
Without a members club you dont have a course for the open to be played on.

GreeBo

grip n rip wrote: »

why yo keep deleting my points grebo ? the power of moderation doesn't extend to censorship of opposing points in an open debate surely ?

and we all know your opinion seems to be the only one that you think matters !

1) Thats not a debate, its a personal attack. Read the warning message you received.
2) As per the charter on every form and the my signature, dont reply to moderator actions on thread.
3) Replying to this on thread will result in a ban.

Russman

grip n rip wrote: »

who's they ? the gui ? aren't we all members of the gui ? making somebody play 10 comps in their own course annually will only kill some of the smaller clubs . the 3 comp rule is also flimsy at best , im not sure but id guess it would be very easy to get around .

In fairness, being expected to play rounds in your "home" club is hardly unreasonable, is it ? In theory, that's the idea of being in a club.

As for killing some of the smaller clubs, that's the whole issue IMO, one way or another, there are simply too many clubs in Ireland. Why should the clubs to close be the ones losing golfers to distance options ? Equally, why should a smaller club in the middle of nowhere be the one to close ? It's a mess. It could easily be argued that some of the smaller clubs are only surviving through an unfair competitive advantage of the distance option. The counter to that could be that dublin clubs are free to offer cheap memberships too, but they're not really free to, they have to cover their costs and if all their members took the cheap option were it available, that wouldn't be possible.

grip n rip

CENSORSHIP IN ANY NAME .
The point made was that your opinion is just that , an opinion ! if you feel the need to delete that then you are weighing down one side of the debate . how do i complain a mod ?

GreeBo

grip n rip wrote: »

CENSORSHIP IN ANY NAME .
The point made was that your opinion is just that , an opinion ! if you feel the need to delete that then you are weighing down one side of the debate . how do i complain a mod ?

Sigh, banned for 1 week.

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

So you wouldn't require X qualifying rounds to be played in Carton?
I think you are then just buying a handicap licence.

I dont like the idea of golfers playing without any home club or handicap secretary.

I thought that was the suggestion, that basically you bought a handicap from the gui ?
But, if x number of rounds were to be played in Carton, are they free ? If not, then membership wouldn't be the suggested €200, it'll effectively be €200 plus the cost of x number of games. Might put people off the idea altogether if it wasn't affordable or if it was more or less equivalent to a membership elsewhere (not that that would be a bad thing !)
Plus Carton mightn't like the idea at all anyway

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

The GUI need to figure out what they want to happen and which golfers are their priority.
Personally I think playing/full members of local clubs are the grass roots of the game. If you lose that I dont know what you have left tbh.
They are the ones keeping golf courses open, allowing inter club golf and bringing most of the young golfers into the game.
I'd be focussing my efforts on maintaining and growing that base and less on the nomadic open players.
Without a members club you dont have a course for the open to be played on.

Couldn't agree more.

GreeBo

Russman wrote: »

I thought that was the suggestion, that basically you bought a handicap from the gui ?
But, if x number of rounds were to be played in Carton, are they free ? If not, then membership wouldn't be the suggested €200, it'll effectively be €200 plus the cost of x number of games. Might put people off the idea altogether if it wasn't affordable or if it was more or less equivalent to a membership elsewhere (not that that would be a bad thing !)
Plus Carton mightn't like the idea at all anyway

I think though if you just flat out sell GUI membership you are giving up on membership golf and letting whatever happens to it happen.
I would guess within 5 years we'd lose a huge number of clubs, and they are the sort of clubs that you wont get back, small club dont really seem to start up anymore.

You could distinguish between a member handicap and a GUI one, restricting GUI one to opens only, but then you are giving them what they want, cheap, top quality golf, paid for by members.

I dont know the best way out of this, but as above, I think clubs need to be protected first and foremost, golfers who would be impacted (those looking to play 10+ opens a year) won't just abandon golf, they are golfers and will figure out a way to play, within the new rules...I hope!

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

I think though if you just flat out sell GUI membership you are giving up on membership golf and letting whatever happens to it happen.
I would guess within 5 years we'd lose a huge number of clubs, and they are the sort of clubs that you wont get back, small club dont really seem to start up anymore.

You could distinguish between a member handicap and a GUI one, restricting GUI one to opens only, but then you are giving them what they want, cheap, top quality golf, paid for by members.

I dont know the best way out of this, but as above, I think clubs need to be protected first and foremost, golfers who would be impacted (those looking to play 10+ opens a year) won't just abandon golf, they are golfers and will figure out a way to play, within the new rules...I hope!

That's it exactly, I think the gui giving out effective distance memberships of Carton idea wouldn't work tbh. Their argument to ban it and take it over themselves simply would stand up, "we don't like distance memberships, so we're going to offer exactly what you country clubs are offering, but we get the money ourselves...."
And it would do nothing for the rest of the clubs.
At some point they're going to have to grasp the nettle and deal with it. I think it was mentioned earlier that there's 164,000 GUI members (? Open to correction), I don't know how many distance members there are, but it must be a tiny percentage I would guess. It might be distasteful to say it, and I'm certainly no fan of the old elitist image golf had/has, but if securing the future of member clubs comes at a cost of x number of nomad open players leaving the game, it's probably worth it in the bigger scheme of things. And it's not even elitist by design, all any club wants to take in is basically enough to cover their operating costs. It's fairly simple, if you spend €500k running the place, you need to take in that much, if that works out at €500 or €5,000 per member it is what it is. The more people join clubs, the cheaper it is for everyone.

GreeBo

Russman wrote: »

That's it exactly, I think the gui giving out effective distance memberships of Carton idea wouldn't work tbh. Their argument to ban it and take it over themselves simply would stand up, "we don't like distance memberships, so we're going to offer exactly what you country clubs are offering, but we get the money ourselves...."
And it would do nothing for the rest of the clubs.
At some point they're going to have to grasp the nettle and deal with it. I think it was mentioned earlier that there's 164,000 GUI members (? Open to correction), I don't know how many distance members there are, but it must be a tiny percentage I would guess. It might be distasteful to say it, and I'm certainly no fan of the old elitist image golf had/has, but if securing the future of member clubs comes at a cost of x number of nomad open players leaving the game, it's probably worth it in the bigger scheme of things. And it's not even elitist by design, all any club wants to take in is basically enough to cover their operating costs. It's fairly simple, if you spend €500k running the place, you need to take in that much, if that works out at €500 or €5,000 per member it is what it is. The more people join clubs, the cheaper it is for everyone.

There are 2.5k members listed as "others", but god knows what they are!

cairny

Russman wrote: »

That's it exactly, I think the gui giving out effective distance memberships of Carton idea wouldn't work tbh. Their argument to ban it and take it over themselves simply would stand up, "we don't like distance memberships, so we're going to offer exactly what you country clubs are offering, but we get the money ourselves...."
And it would do nothing for the rest of the clubs.
At some point they're going to have to grasp the nettle and deal with it. I think it was mentioned earlier that there's 164,000 GUI members (? Open to correction), I don't know how many distance members there are, but it must be a tiny percentage I would guess. It might be distasteful to say it, and I'm certainly no fan of the old elitist image golf had/has, but if securing the future of member clubs comes at a cost of x number of nomad open players leaving the game, it's probably worth it in the bigger scheme of things. And it's not even elitist by design, all any club wants to take in is basically enough to cover their operating costs. It's fairly simple, if you spend €500k running the place, you need to take in that much, if that works out at €500 or €5,000 per member it is what it is. The more people join clubs, the cheaper it is for everyone.

My main motivation for the suggestion was that most of the fee would be sent back to clubs in general so that the specialist distance clubs would not benefit unfairly.

If we are going to allow distance membership then it needs to be reformed. I've no problem with an outright abolition either but leaving it as it is shouldn't be an option.

doublecross

Would it be possible to limit the number of distance members any club can take on (10%)? Say if a club has 500 full members then they're only allowed max 50 distance members. This would stop clubs basing the model on distance membership.