Club time sheet full

Russman wrote: »

So, do the members not have "first call" as it were, on all weekend tee times ? There's blocks of time allocated for green fees ? Apologies if I've taken it up wrong.

In my own club the only time a sheet for a weekend comp would have any time blocked out would be if we had a society looking for, say, an hour or two, which wouldn't happen that often tbh. Members would go ballistic if there were lines closed for green fees, especially on a Sat.

Not certain but the competition bookings on Saturday for Men went from 08:28 to 10:20 and then Ladies from 10:28 to 11:00. After that there are bookings from 11:08 till 12:20 which I guessing are available to anyone.

Bottom line not enough slots for members comp

Sunday was Mens competition from 08:20 to 11:32 and then Ladies from 11:40 to 13:00.

This is probably because I would say that Macker is a member of a club that is not members owned and controlled, so the proprietors or people that run the course decide what tee times are available to members and what they wish to reserve for society's and green fees. Members of such a "club" tend to have very little say if any in what tee times are made to members. Sunday obviously appears to be reserved totally for members use given that there is limited daylight hours, and obviously they don't want ladies out in the middle of men's competitions, or vice versa.

golfwallah wrote: »

I guess this is the biggest downside of joining a golf club based on a private or local authority owned golf course.

Upside is usually cheaper membership fees but downside is restricted member times, particularly at weekends, as the business model for non-member owned courses depends on a much higher proportion of green fees.

That being said, there can also be problems with time availability in member-owned clubs but not to the same extent as I've heard former members of private / L.A. courses talking about. And, as above poster says, member owned clubs have more control over their own time-sheets. This enables them to take action either manually to mitigate against abuse or automatically by implementing a purse system (such as that available on BRS), particularly, when new members play weekend golf more frequently than the less active ones, who have been leaving clubs in numbers over the last few years.

I've plugged Grange Castle before in the past on here, so I'll mention it in name again so any potential members are aware of it. I don't want to be all positives when there are negatives out there too.

You're right, it's run by a private company and their model depends to a certain extent on green fees/societies. This causes a conflict and is not ideal tbh.
As the days have shortened, the timesheet has become a hard place to get onto.
However, I actually think the "golf club" is at fault for this.
They introduced 2 comps over the weekend and this has increased competition for spaces, I don't know the exact numbers but there are quite a few double bookings on both days. Increase competition is not needed.
They didn't operate this 2 comp weekend during the summer, nor did they do this last winter I believe.
I don't know why or who thought it would be a good idea, it's not, and it could force people to leave like Macker1.
From what I can see, there is no advantage to the "business" side of things from this.
The "golf club" could also look to do something like a 9 hole comp or 12 hole comp to free up slots during these short days but they don't.
A 9 hole comp should/could free up another 14*3 = 42 slots each day and are common place elsewhere.

To be fair to the "business" running the place, the have only taken 6*3 = 18 slots over the entire weekend (On Sat only).
For what I pay, I am quite happy to have a society or green fee slot each Saturday.

The one annoying thing about this is during the summer, a society will get an early booking, right in the middle of a comp.
Again, I would hold the club at blame for allowing this, they should be putting pressure on the business side of things to ensure the societies are going out an hour or two later when the comp is out on the course.

golfwallah wrote: »

And good sales people highlight the strengths and don't talk about the weaknesses (unless queried, and then they'll tell you about other strengths that mitigate their weaknesses).

And that's exactly why I mentioned the weakness. I don't want to be seen as a "salesman" for the club
It's everyone's responsibility to check things out for themselves, but I'd like the views I express to be as balanced as possible.

GreeBo wrote: »

I'd disagree with that. A club run by its members is the best system for getting the best deal for members.

I'm in a member owned and run club. I might have agreed with you when times were good in the country financially and keeping up membership numbers required little or no effort. But during the last few years, when money has become tighter, my experience has been that amateurs running a club is not necessarily in the best interest of members. Voluntary committees are fine if they are comprised of people with the right skill sets (finance, marketing, planning, etc.) to tackle the important issues at hand. Unfortunately, club committees are often lacking these skill sets.

From what I've seen in Dublin North, clubs that are run by professionals have been growing their member numbers significantly (e.g. Corballis, Elm Green, Hollystown, Swords Open, Castleknock), whereas those run by volunteers have been losing them.

It may be different in prosperous south Dublin clubs like Grange, Castle, Edmondstown, Milltown, Newlands, Hermitage but the reality for most other clubs is quite different. Many are in entirely different market segments to the top end prosperous clubs and have to tailor their approach to the customer segments they are competing for.

GreeBo wrote: »

If you have issues with how elected officials run the club then thats an implementation problem, not the model imo.

The reality is that business models do not run themselves, they are dependent upon people with the time availability and skills to implement them.

golfwallah wrote: »

From what I've seen in Dublin North, clubs that are run by professionals have been growing their member numbers significantly (e.g. Corballis, Elm Green, Hollystown, Swords Open, Castleknock), whereas those run by volunteers have been losing them.

I would say this is more likely due to other circumstances than the abilities, or lack of, of committees, such as the economic situation.

golfwallah wrote: »

Really?

There are always excuses for failure to sell and fill available capacity.

On the other hand, that there are always customers for more affordable packages of benefits has been demonstrated by Ryanair and Easyjet for air travel, which until they came along, was subject to high prices and half empty planes.

And just look at the competition for business in communications, energy, insurance, retail, cinema seats, etc.

Same applies to golf - as demonstrated in North Dublin by Corballis, Elm Green, Hollystown, Swords Open, Castleknock, etc. These clubs are offering packages that people can afford and are filling their unused capacity - as outlined in the GUI / PGA booklet "Promoting. Golf Club. Membership".

You are comparing different things.

As you have outlined there are different operating models for golf courses just like other businesses. The fact the a certain operating model is currently providing to be more popular does not mean that those running the other models are doing so ineffectively. Is it up to the owner/members to decide what model they want their club to subscript to and the committee to implement that policy.

golfwallah wrote: »

Oh, I see. I was thinking long term about the best chances for clubs to hold or increase their member numbers and, hence, to generate enough cash to stay in business.

Of course, I agree, that member clubs work on democratic principles and are free to run their clubs as they see fit, even if it does result in year on year member attrition. And, the better off clubs can hold on to their high rates and entrance fees a lot longer than those at the middle and lower ends of the scale.

But in the final analysis, most clubs want to stay in business for the long term and need to change with the times. As they say, "you can't buck the market".

Having recently got last years financial result, our club lost money again last year. This is solely due to low membership.

I agree that in the medium to long term losing money each year is not substainable however going to the other extreme of 'pay as you play' or greatly reduced subs for a greatly reduced standard of course is not options I would like to see the course take.

I don't have an easy solution as it's not an easy problem!

golfwallah wrote: »

Agreed, it's not easy!

Funny enough, it is possible to reduce costs and get better standards ..... but it requires a lot of work, patience, examination of every single item of spending, a bit of "know how" (to avoid litigation, etc.), courage and, preferably, time (if you have it).

Luckily, in our club we have been reducing costs for every heading and minimising the impact on standards - in fact, standards have improved.

But the problem of shrinking member numbers just won't go away - at least not without trying new things (that many members might not like). Hence the need for clear communication about the issues to the members. Committees need to bring forward options and facts to promote informed debate on the issues and choices available.

The reality is that if the old ways aren't working, you have to try new things (especially on the product development and marketing side) and not every initiative will succeed.

But "you pays your money and you takes your choice".

Reading my previous post again I should really have said we lost money because our expenditure exceeded our income. While this is mainly due to lower membership the club does have other income streams.

I completely agree that clubs have to adept to changing market conditions or risk going under. Like many other parts of our society I think the speed of economic decline (directly related to people's ability to afford luxury items) has been so swift the a lot of clubs have not been able to adept quickly enough.

Unfortunately my area of expertise does not lead itself to the needs of my club, reducing costs and increasing revenue. My committee tells me that every stone has been turned to reduce cost and increase members so I will have to take them at face value.

In trying to take the positives I have found that the reduced number of members has meant it is easier to get on the time sheet and the course is quieter when I want to get out for a few holes in the summer.

PARlance wrote: »

I've plugged Grange Castle before in the past on here, so I'll mention it in name again so any potential members are aware of it. I don't want to be all positives when there are negatives out there too.

You're right, it's run by a private company and their model depends to a certain extent on green fees/societies. This causes a conflict and is not ideal tbh.
As the days have shortened, the timesheet has become a hard place to get onto.
However, I actually think the "golf club" is at fault for this.
They introduced 2 comps over the weekend and this has increased competition for spaces, I don't know the exact numbers but there are quite a few double bookings on both days. Increase competition is not needed.
They didn't operate this 2 comp weekend during the summer, nor did they do this last winter I believe.
I don't know why or who thought it would be a good idea, it's not, and it could force people to leave like Macker1.
From what I can see, there is no advantage to the "business" side of things from this.
The "golf club" could also look to do something like a 9 hole comp or 12 hole comp to free up slots during these short days but they don't.
A 9 hole comp should/could free up another 14*3 = 42 slots each day and are common place elsewhere.

To be fair to the "business" running the place, the have only taken 6*3 = 18 slots over the entire weekend (On Sat only).
For what I pay, I am quite happy to have a society or green fee slot each Saturday.

The one annoying thing about this is during the summer, a society will get an early booking, right in the middle of a comp.
Again, I would hold the club at blame for allowing this, they should be putting pressure on the business side of things to ensure the societies are going out an hour or two later when the comp is out on the course.

I said I'd keep a close eye on this over the week once I posted that (Tues Morn)
When posting that, the 42 slots were fully booked for Sat.
At lunchtime, 3 had popped up free. I took one.
I hope it not a reflection on me but since then, the second spot in our group has been vacated and filled on 3 different occasions.
Other spots remained free during the week and the comp is now closed and 2 slots have went unfilled.

If you're willing to join a group you'll get a spot.
The main problem I see is the regular 3 ball getting on early and securing their spot.

Maxi Mac wrote: »

Refreshing page at start of booking time.
/QUOTE]

Not sure what the issue is here. If you want a page to be updated / refreshed, I'm not sure what else you would do except manually refresh it. I'm not sure how BRS will implement a way to stop people refreshing their web browsers?

When you get onto the system, and you click on "Book Now", you get 5 mins (or maybe less) to complete your booking or the slot is returned and made available to anyone else, so I dont see how people can hold onto them for too long either.

I did not say any of the points I made were hacking.
It was suggested to me that some member problems having difficulty getting a weekly slot were based around those areas.
Specifically I dont know what the issues are but I am told BRS are making changes next January . Wait and see.
Many years ago another service provider of booking timesheets Webgolf were the target of hacking and many clubs changed over to BRS.
I am sure they are only trying to protect integrity of there system.

GreeBo wrote: »

That bloody brs has gone to the dogs.

I get the " hit refresh too many times in 5s" everytime now.

Hitting the book button and getting the dreaded red message seems to count towards hitting refresh, so they want you to sit there for 5s abd just let the times fill up.
A poor implementation.

Maybe you could tell your club competition secretary about this problem, so he can contact BRS about getting it fixed?