State of Irish Golf Membership

GreeBo wrote: »

You only let people in that are known to existing members as being the sort of people you want. (proposers, seconders etc)

wally79 wrote: »

But when your existing members are an aging group as we are discussing here what will be the age profile of anyone they recommend? I'd suggest that the people they would know well enough to recommend will be from a similar age group.

I don't see how that helps to secure the future of the club.

I'm not saying throw the doors open but there are people out there who aren't "all sorts" who don't have connections in golf clubs. Particularly people like myself who have moved to the area.

In Dublin especially there must be quite a number of people who wouldn't have these connections.

GreeBo wrote: »

While that is certainly positive for your club, are there enough people within that 30 minutes who want to join a club?
Lack of golfers inthe vicinity will be the deciding factor in the quality of the club/course you are able to maintain and then it can become self-deating or self-fulfilling even; more people = more cash = better course = more people.

However it does mean that if you strike the balance you get a bunch of people happy to pay for the existing facilities and thus it can all continue, notimpacted by whats going on around (well 31 mins away!)

GreeBo wrote: »

Usually its children or friends or childrens friends, nieces/nephews cousins etc.

Its all very close nit
Id say everyone in the club is related to at least 1 other person somehow.

It can be tough if you dont know anyone alright, but if you are a good golfer that can also be another way in to lots of clubs.

Also important to note that the clubs have no responsiblity take people in, its a private club, can do what it wants really (within the law of course!) So while it may mean that makes it impossible for you to join...its kinda just tough luck Im afraid.

wally79 wrote: »

Tough luck. That's it then. It seems empathy is something missing in certain circles. I'm alright so that's alright

GreeBo wrote: »

Its a private club...not a charity or government run play area...I'm honestly not sure what you expect?

If you cant afford to or dont know a member in The Residence do you expect them to just let you in anyway? Why would they have any special empathy towards you versus the guy standing next to you? Why not just let everyone in so?

PARlance wrote: »

Yip, and I wouldn't blame them at all.
As I mentioned earlier, I would guess that The Greebo's club is one of the most financially sound around and has almost nothing to worry about in future.

They've paid a premium to be members and they expect higher standards than most as a result.

It's not just an elite thing, there are ordinary joe's all around the country objecting to social housing going into their ordinary joe road as an eg.

John Divney wrote: »

The solution is as obvious as it is logical, don't have kids if you like golf.

GreeBo wrote: »

I think that "drive" ignores the fact of over-supply of courses and under-supply of golfers.
Frankly they arent likely to admit that some courses/clubs need to fold for the sake of the game, but thats the startk reality of the situation. The numbers alone prove that beyond all doubt.
The only thing that can help, other than the above, is a massive boom of golfers. Thats not likely, it hasnt really happened before, outside of an economic boom. Unless you get a natural population boom the numbers playing golf will stay the same.

Golf, by necessity is an expensive sport to run ?& thus to play.
You have a field, many times the size of any other sports pitch that has to be mancured every single day. Only X people can play on it per day/at a time.
Those people *have* to pay to keep it in the condition they want it. The cost of keeping it in condition hasnt dropped yet income has.

Its a no brainer, clubs need to close.

GreeBo wrote: »

You only let people in that are known to existing members as being the sort of people you want. (proposers, seconders etc)

blue note wrote: »

I must say I'm glad that this sort of thing is dying out. In all honesty, I'd much rather get a few people in that are not the sort you want than close the club off to people based on who and where they come from which is what it boils down to basically. I've seen a bit of the above in my own club and the complete lack of it in my hurling club and without doubt I prefer the all inclusive nature of the hurling club.

And on the figures quoted regarding membership age profiles, there are more members over 65 than under 40. Whatever context you put on this, it's a massive problem in the near future. Lots of people take up golf in their 40s, but without doubt not enough to replace those dying off.

Bruno26 wrote: »

So you could be missing out on fantastic golfers or great people who would add to a club just because they don't know a member. It's a bad attitude.

I've been playing a number of clubs in Dublin, Wicklow, Kildare over last couple of years to see which one I'd join in hopefully the next few years. I haven't played (the) Grange yet.

You've confirmed why I was reluctant to play there. If your attitude is the prevailing one (which I doubt it is) in the club I think I'll continue to look elsewhere.

blue note wrote: »

My point is that I would rather that my club is open to the community and to people that want to play than be a closed shop. If the result of that is that we get some members who I don't like I'm comfortable with that.

If you're looking for juniors who are sons and daughters of current members, or maybe friends of their children, it is exactly who they are and where they come from. If a teenager watched the British Open last week and was inspired to played because of Rory McIlroy's heroics, I'd be very disappointed if my club refused him because he didn't know anyone to propose him / second him. Similarly, I'd like someone moving into the area to be able to join my club and I'd hope it would be a good for for him to get to know people, as opposed to having to get to know people before joining the club.

And on the age profile, I don't have the figures for the age profiles 20 years ago. But looking at the older people in my club, the majority of them took up the game when they were in their 20s and 30s. It's often cited as a major problem for clubs in the near future when reading articles about clubs in newspapers / golf magazines. The consensus is that it is a huge problem down the road and I haven't read anything convincing to suggest that it's not. I'd say the onus is on you to produce figures that contradict the common consensus, rather than guessing that it's always been this way.

golfwallah wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by “whatever” and what you mean by “pay as you play”. It’s very easy to pick labels and make them sound as if they spell the end of the world as members know it. Thus ends all discussion and consideration of alternatives – until a club goes bust (in which case hope for a massive debt write-down or member buy back at knock-down price and go from there – if you’re lucky). It’s a fear based approach – “for God’s sake, don’t try anything different – we’ll be ruined if we do”. Real problem is ruin resulting from following a status quo that isn’t working - Einstein’s definition of insanity (doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results)!

No – I’d prefer a more planned, thought through approach, whereby alternatives can be considered for rational debate by members. This is the approach calmly recommended by organisations such as the English Golfing Union, Confederation of Golf in Ireland, etc. It’s not a gut reaction, reckless approach that will ruin a club, but a managed risk approach. And what is wrong with that – when we have case studies proving this approach really works?

What’s more important for that vast majority of clubs trying to deal with declining membership revenue (as opposed to the privileged few with an almost guaranteed revenue base and possibly waiting lists) is to look more closely at what existing and potential new members want.

If that includes doing what it takes to make “non-core” business lines more revenue neutral for the club (e.g. pro-shop, bar, restaurant) or trying out new classes of membership (Intermediate, points based, etc.), even on a limited basis – then so be it. You don’t really know what will work until you try - and the “do nothing” alternative is always the easy option, until your club goes belly up.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained, I say – for the vast majority of member clubs – except for the privileged few that have the luxury of letting things stay as they are!

golfwallah wrote: »

Doing nothing will indeed result in quite a few clubs not closely resembling the clubs they are today - these are precisely the ones that will go out of business. And deservedly so, in my view.

And nobody is saying change to a more open, non-member club. I can understand peoples' gut-reaction to change, but if they read the case studies and market research conducted by the likes of CGI, English Golfing Union and others, some, at least, will come to different conclusions. Facts and figures alone don't persuade everyone, as we all see the world differently (glass half full or half empty, etc.).

It's not my approach, as you describe it, nor does it apply to the well heeled clubs and sure, there aren't enough people to keep all clubs open - nobody is saying that as far as I know. Neither is it a "race to the bottom", just look at what happened in the airline industry - no it's no longer the domain of the privileged few but a lot more people are travelling and airlines that changed are making profits. Same applies in all businesses, and a golf club is primarily a business, as without sufficient revenues, everything else goes to the wall.