TrapperChamonix wrote: » Before people get thoroughly exercised over this, can anyone say how many distance memberships there are?
blue note wrote: » I'd argue it is helping the situation. They're putting money into clubs by paying distance membership, paying open fees, buying food and drink after, and whatever else they spend and whoever else they bring. If you take away their handicap, which is essentially what they are doing, the vast majority of these people won't pay full membership somewhere and will reduce their spend on golf. And the remaining club golfers will be the ones who will ultimately have to make up that lost revenue.
pete4pool wrote: » I was a full member of a local club a few years ago and joined this distance club, due to an injury that I knew would limit my play the following year, so did not want to lose my handicap, since my time has been taken up with other things so have continued the member ship. It is actually alot cheaper to play opens on a weekday then to play green fees at the weekend, slightly cheaper than playing green fee during the week. But it would also be cheaper for me to pay green fees at my nearest club and play every second week (which would be a very good year for me) then pay the sub for the year. but I am not going to do that either. But the main reasons I do it is, I find it hard to concentrate when the round is not important/competitive (sorry its my nature), most of my buddies are members of the local clubs and only play in competitions, so to get out with them its best/easier to do in the opens. I am not a bandit, played 10 opens in the last year and a half, broke 36 once. I agree that this will result in less GUI members, less people playing golf, less money going to clubs. And the only way they will get this back is to increase the subs. If I could play every second week, I would find the money, because I know I'd get value out of it. Then I could play during the weekend which makes it easier and I could join club teams, etc. Being a member of a local club is way better than what I am doing. But for many it is not an option. And with rules like this will make many give up the game. There might be a few people, join local clubs because of this rule, agreed. But then in 2016 they will realize that it was not worth it and then give up.
GreeBo wrote: » We know there are too many clubs and not enough golfers, spreading all the cash around them all isnt going to do anything other than prolong the slow starvation. Its great for NAMA clubs who attract lots of greenfees/opens but whats that doing the struggling clubs? How many of these "distance" clubs would be afloat today without their distance members? That money, imo, should be going to clubs that have playing members.
superhooper wrote: » In relation to the banditry issue are these distance clubs not updating handicaps correctly for their members who play in various opens? If the are updating them where is the issue?
blue note wrote: » Irrespective of the fact that there are too many clubs, this will reduce the number of golfers and take money out of the game. My club, a members club, run a successful weekly Friday open. If we get a fourball each week of these distance members playing, that's a hundred euro a week, five grand a year. We'll lose a lot of this money if people can't buy handicaps anymore.
fordy1208 wrote: » It sounds to me as if the GUI are trying to make golf an elitist hobby again. Its a shame because the majority of golfers I know (including me) are OP.
PARlance wrote: » -On team events, I'd certainly accept a blanket 0.5 (or whatever) cut if I was part of a winning team despite how I played. This IMO is the best and easiest way to address an area that is wide open to abuse.
alxmorgan wrote: » A uniform cut for team comp performances seems like a good one to me. Harsh on some team members perhaps but for the greater good.
fordy1208 wrote: » @Greebo by encouraging golfers to join clubs that may not suit their availability to play, this in turn would give an incentive to clubs to up their membership price thus making it more unaffordable.
SnowDrifts wrote: » Agreed, this would be a very good idea.
superhooper wrote: » Are these open team comps then the biggest issue in relation to bandits??
mike12 wrote: » If they can't play in the open they they will pay green fees and have that extra €120 a year to spend on more green fees. If you want regular comps and you wouldn't see yourself as a bandit then join a club. If not can't you just pay green fees and play with your mates for a €5. There are places like Bellewstown that are cheap €220 a year for a handicap and are pay and play after that that are within easy travel distance of Dublin. The €100 you would spend on petrol on the 3 hour trip would make up the difference.
blue note wrote: » Some will and some won't. Some people like that you can put your name down for an open and have people to play with, or they just like competitions or for whatever reason might not continue to play as much if they aren't able to keep their handicap. At the end of the day, I just don't think that they are causing a problem. We have too many clubs or too few golfers. I think there's a practically untapped market of golfers who are not serious enough to pay full membership, but would still like to play a bit. The recent reduced green fees and distance membership options were starting to bring a few of these people out, but we seem to be closing the door on them and I think we'll all miss out as a result.
cairny wrote: » Dunno but there's 7,000 in one club alone!
alxmorgan wrote: » Whatever about any other arguments I think the fact that a new member cannot play opens until the following year is madness. Cannot see any reasoning behind that one.
blackwhite wrote: » I can't understand why they didn't just make it a rule that you need to have 3 qualifying competitions at your home club in the last 12/24 months. It's a crazy situation that someone could join a club on 1 January 2015, and play 30 qualifying competitions on that course between then and June (it'd need to be a links!), but still cannot enter an open competition for another 6 months after that.
GreeBo wrote: » 3 in current calendar year or 5 in previous would be better, otherwise you would have people doing a weekend and then not seen again for 2 years. Or even 3 in the last 12 months (rolling) but would be more difficult to track probably.
pete4pool wrote: » My only problems with the rule are. 1. They should call it what it is, to stop distance members (not to stop handicap abuse) 2. Should be made more public, only by chance I heard of this and only 2 good golfing months left in the year. 3. More detail on how it will be enforced.
Russman wrote: » Exactly, its got little to do with banditry other than paying lip service to it. I mean if that's the best they can come up with to combat bandits, then golf really is f--ked. I really do believe its mostly to stop the exodus of members from so called proper clubs to the "get a handicap and play opens" option that's becoming more and more common. There's probably a million and one arguments and factors in that debate though.
FixdePitchmark wrote: » Interclub comps will have to be looked at - seriously looked at.
cairny wrote: » The OP's situation is a very common one. My take on it is of you only get to play 7 times a year then why do you need a handicap at all? It won't be a reflection of your true ability and you can't expect to be competitive in the opens with that level of practice. Why not put the €120 towards green fees? Probably work out cheaper in long run what with golfnow type green fee discounts available and you won't be pouring money into the distance clubs that are just taking advantage of a loophole to line their own pockets.
blackwhite wrote: » TBH, anything that factors in the current calendar year at all would be an improvement. It's a very poor reflection on the people who drafted this rule (and on those who voted to approve it) that not one person thought of a tiny change that would bring current year scores into it as well.
