Seve OB wrote: » I fear for a lot of clubs. Turn of the year would be the busiest time for renewals and there will be a lot questioning whether or not renewals will be worthwhile, especially for those who live a bit further or out of county. I will be seriously considering my own membership, not something I thought I would ever do, now 31 years a member and no wish to live... but whats the point if I can't play golf there!
tbayers wrote: » . Open club up as a park, .
tbayers wrote: » So we can go walk in a park with dozens others but we can't go play golf which is basically a giant park, not even on our own? Memebership has to be questioned now, mine was due for renewal but why would some people join back up knowing if we go to L5 again we won't be able to play. This is madness!
eoghan104 wrote: » Jesus mate it's only golf!
Jordy Fancy Relaxation wrote: » Outside of any financial pressures which may arise for people as a result of this decision, I don't quite agree that an external decision to close courses is a great reason not to renew your membership. Obviously it depends on how much value you place in club membership but I personally have no problem continuing to pay. If people take the attitude of not renewing as a result of this then many clubs might not reopen. This is a decision that has been taken out of a clubs' hands so hard to punish them for it.
A Shaved Duck? wrote: » The only reason golf will not be available is for some window dressing by the gubberment to appear in touch after the eejits in galway during the summer. Even though the golf was not the issue it was a feckin dinner. No scientific or logical reason people should not be allowed to play golf in 150 acres outside.
Blud wrote: » It depends on if you view yourself as a member of a club or a consumer. Those in the second category might struggle to justify renewal. That is not to judge either category - there are legitimate reasons for both.
tbayers wrote: » So people are paying money to golf clubs for love of the club?? I find that hard to believe. People are paying money to clubs for value for money. Hence people move around so much. Giving new members a year and half (sometimes two years) membership for the price of one also makes it hard for existing members to continue. If they keep on new members they won't have an issue.
CowboyTed wrote: » I find this one hard to justify... There was no confirmed cases from people actually playing golf as I have heard. Construction was a disaster...
Jordy Fancy Relaxation wrote: » Absolutely. As I said, it depends on your vantage point. Do you view it a community you wish to be a part of for years beyond this or is membership to the club effectively a regular green fee. I'm not judging either but for me-as a 1st year member of a club- it's not a reason to stall my renewal. I never said people are paying out of love of the club as you put it. Paying for albeit no utility in the short term may be advantageous because you can get utility from the club in the future. If all took your view which I think is myopic then they may suffer long term as a result of closures, falling standards etc It's not "love of the club" per se, loyalty is a factor but there are also tangible long term benefits.
Hoboo wrote: » One golf society in Tullamore. Ministers pissup just sullied golf for every future lockdown.
tbayers wrote: » Thats fair enough and see where you are coming from. But I could go for a walk on my local beach and meet as many people as I would after playing 10 rounds of golf. If systems are put in place on a golf course it is actually safer than going for a walk. Going for a walk during last lockdown was manic as the radius is quite small and everyone pounded the same route. Just can't see justification that if golf club is within 5km that you cant go play golf. I dunno, this one just hurts. And its pretty raw atm
blue note wrote: » If it is banned (and unfortunately it looks like it is) I think it's more collateral damage than banned because the actual golf is dangerous. When you start making exceptions, people will take it on themselves to make their own exceptions. Stuff like, I know golfers area going more than 5k to play golf, so I will too. I know golfers are mixing with people from more than one other house so I will too. I know golfers are still allowed to play so I'll be fine to cycle, run with my running club, do circuit training in small groups, etc. If you're only looking at golf, you're missing the point of why it's not allowed. People see one exception and try to use that to justify why they should be allowed to continue with their sport.
DeanAustin wrote: » I get the frustration. I don’t really agree with it either. But to say there is no sense in closing courses isn’t right. You have people from different households playing together and congregating albeit in an outdoor environment. They government are also trying to restrict people’s movements. We all know that people travelled more than 5k to play the last time. Most of us would probably have done the same. I’ve played with people who crossed county borders recently to play. Taking golf away stops that happening. The risk of that sort of movement isn’t just going to and from the course. What if you stop along the way for petrol or stop at the shop? I’d chance travelling more than 5k if courses were open and my course was further away. So would most people I know and timesheets would have been rammed with like minded people because there is f**k all else to do. Personally, I think the cons outweigh the pros here but there are pros to this decision if the aim is to limit people’s movements. I don’t like it but I’m not an epidemiologist or an expert so I’m prepared to trust their advice and go with it.
ronnie3585 wrote: » Almost 4pm, new measures coming into force at midnight and still no word from the GUI. Shocking.
A Shaved Duck? wrote: » In fairness the argument you are making is that people cant be trusted to be responsible and to stay within the 5k restriction. That has no relation to the science behind people playing a game outside while socially distancing. If its the rule brought in then so be it, but imo its a reactionary decision based on their own ministers flagrant disregard for all advice during the summer.
DeanAustin wrote: » I'm assuming that the government and NPHET have implemented the travel restriction because people travelling increases the chances of Covid spreading. That presumably holds true whether they are going to play golf or heading to an orgy. While the latter activity may represent a higher risk than playing golf, presumably both present a level of risk that government have deemed not worth it.
sheroman01 wrote: » Unbelievably disappointed with this decision. Just don't see the logic in closing all courses. An already socially distanced sport. If Level 5 is really that severe and wants to attempt a drastic drop in covid cases then ban ALL sport. They say the GAA is going to boost the morale of thousands, however only a couple of a hundred are actually gonna play the sport. Golf on the other hand will boost the morale of thousands of people who will actually be playing the sport. 100 times better for mental health; being outside, getting exercise, being with a friend (if playing with others was allowed). This is not anti-gaa, just pro-golf, and how I don't understand the logic in allowing one and not the other, and how a small win for some people will go a long way in making them happier and healthier.
DeanAustin wrote: » Ah come on, there is logic. Probably a million people will watch GAA and enjoy it. It's a huge morale booster for anyone who follows GAA. So a million people or whatever enjoy it and you only have a few hundred/thousand moving around. The pay off is not the same for golf. I don't like the decision, I don't agree with it but I see the logic.
A Shaved Duck? wrote: » Not arguing against the travel restriction, if you can point to one piece of evidence that cases have been transmitted on the golf course regardless of the distance travelled I welcome it. I think blindly following this governments logic is a road to the madhouse to be honest. Sure they cant even agree with NPHET and information is being leaked by all sides, its a farce and they are making it up as they go along.
tbayers wrote: » I think the point he is trying to make is two teams consisting of 30 players will be able to not only travel but actually come in close contact with each other. Yet we can't go for a game of golf! A total shambles!!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5c014a6ccfbcc766be7a1899ed0f9420.svg)
