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 they are updating them where is the issue?
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.
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.
clouter wrote: » Basically now with this new rule I will have to play in the final 2 qualifying events at my club to ensure I can compete in opens in other courses next year, yes??
golfwallah wrote: » As you've said there are too many clubs and too few golfers. So motions designed to re-balance revenues in favour of traditional member clubs are a bit like King Canute ordering the tide to stop coming in. I'd prefer to see clubs concentrate their efforts on making golf more appealing and more affordable to as many people as possible (e.g. through additional membership packages priced specifically to suit the people with less money and time to spend on golf), rather than trying to use rules to generate more revenue.
SaveOurLyric wrote: » Two good points. The point of GUI handicaps is that it is for committed golfers who have a home club and play there regularly enough for their handicap to be a reasonably true reflection of their playing ability. It was not intended for the occasional golfer - i.e. not really a member of Club GUI. Greenfees are for the occasional casual golfer. Distance/Open is a loophole, and any action, even imperfect if fine if it tightens the noose.
pete4pool wrote: » Totally disagree, the point of your handicap is that you can play in competition with someone who is at much different standard to you and have a fair chance. What you are basically saying is that handicap system should only be enjoyed by the people who can afford it, therefore making it an elite sport. I am committed to my family, so that's where my money and time goes, so therefore I do not have the right to own a handicap. There are plenty of members around the country who are joined their top local clubs and can afford to pay the sub without worrying if it's value or not, and then play once or twice a year. So you are saying that they deserve a handicap more than I do. When playing in these open I enjoy trying to break 36, if I was told that away members could not win a prize, I wouldn't care. But I really enjoy the handicap system. I could ask the question "why do you need to be a member of a club to have a GUI handicap - the handicap system should be good enough to catch bandits" but I think boards.ie would explode From reading other threads, I agree that I am availing of a loop hole, but again I would say if I had a choice I would love to join a course closer to home. There are major benefits of joining a local club. There is no comparison. But it's all or nothing with them. And agree that subs can be high due maintenance costs, but GUI should be doing more to get people into competition golf and not out of it. In the long run it would get more people into local clubs and hopefully bring down price of subs. Glad to see full member on here seeing the benefit away golfers bring to there club when they else wouldn't, but most (not all) of the against comments do sound like "it's members only, you're not invited"
pete4pool wrote: » What you are basically saying is that handicap system should only be enjoyed by the people who can afford it, therefore making it an elite sport.
SaveOurLyric wrote: » Would you agree how some read the above reasoning (not just from you, but others in a similar situation) to sound like " I want to be a member (of the GUI handicap community) even though I cannot afford the fee it wants to charge me - but it should let me in anyway"
Boskowski wrote: » Golf is not a cheap hobby and thats nothing to do with elitism. Elitism may become a symptom in places but its not the cause. Its quite costly to keep such a vast playing field up to standard and a golf club needs sustainable membership numbers paying full whack to finance that. People who are seeking away memberships as a loophole for getting full value of such expensive facilities while paying hardly anything towards them are abusing the system and will ultimately contribute to the demise of club golf in its current form and will ultimately shoot themselves in the foot that way. Its a form of 'I'm alright Jack' (for the moment). There may be too many courses for the number of - for want of a better word - serious golfers, but that doesn't change the above fact. I don't think anyone can argue with that. People who are saying thats not what they're doing and say ' hey better I give something and isn't it better than nothing' are only kiddin themselves. The truth is if €300 is all you can spend or justify or whatever you wanna call it then association regulated golf on top courses is simply something you cannot afford.
SaveOurLyric wrote: » I think the idea that alternative packages will help is the King Canute attitude, with respect. The same as distance fees for peanuts, 'new to golf', 6 month subs, etc, and the cheap greenfee specials, opens to beat the band (around me, you can have a choice of opens every day of the week within 30 minutes drive plus opens or classics at the weekends through the summer). The traditional membership funding model fundamentally was correct : divide the cost of having the country's courses/clubs among those who play them (yes, with some modificatons for juniors, or those abroad, and yes, according to a 9 hole course where land is cheap being a lower sub than an old high class course where it is expensive around Dublin - but not much more variation than that). As Boskowsi puts it well above, golf is just an expensive game. For me, what the Irish golf world has not faced is that not as many people who could genuinely afford it can do so anymore. So the move on opens is a good one and deals with the reality - those who are not paying their due must be forced out, and either pay more, or get less golf for what they can pay (a handful of greenfee games a year, not a dozen open competitions as if they were full-rights members of the GUI/ILGU community). Curtailing this distance/opens corruption of that model is a positive step.
ForeRight wrote: » The top placings in every open singles or team event I play in no matter what course is dominated by slievenemon "members" It's about time it got stamped out and if you can't afford membership or haven't the time commitment for club golf then you don't play it simple as that. Plenty of society golf, teetimes.ie etc to get all the non commitment cheap golf you want but no way should it be accommodated that cheap non regulated memberships with GUI handicaps are allowed.
golfwallah wrote: » I understand your feelings as a member, but from a purely business point of view, do you seriously think this new rule will work, when so many clubs are faced with falling revenues in a huge competitive battle for survival?
golfwallah wrote: » I guess that's human nature - we want things to happen but aren't always realistic about making "solutions" work.
SaveOurLyric wrote: » It may only be a small factor in the bigger financial scale things facing Irish golf. But because it is a small one, I wouldnt knock it for that. Every little helps. And, while it will be an equally small factor in reducing handicap banditry, if it has any beneficial influence on that front also, then why not. It may be a small win-win, but its still a win-win on two fronts. Just because it is not completely eliminating hc crooks or financial difficulties from Irish golf, is no reason not to go ahead with it. I really dont understand the knocking of it.
golfwallah wrote: » You could be right, it might help a little. I'm not knocking anything - just trying to point out the pros and cons. It certainly will give the appearance of something being done about distance membership clubs providing a base for more affordable golf. This may provide a "feel good" factor to some club members, in the short run at least. But will it help clubs financially and will it reduce "banditry"? I doubt it. The jury is still out on that one. The statistics on club closures will demonstrate the need for clubs to act to help themselves to increase revenues, rather than rely on rule changes. Beating the "slievenamons" and surviving by providing better value for money makes more sense to me. But I guess more clubs will close no matter what happens - the only question is, which ones?
Boskowski wrote: » I've said my thing. Golf is by nature not a cheap sport. Having said that its not that expensive either. Look its 20 quid a week. If it meant that much to you sure 20 quid could be found. Cigarettes? Cut down on the pints? I'd love to be flying sailplanes or go yachting but I can't afford it. Should people running such sports owe me a cheaper way of accessing these sports? By way of me arguing their sport would benefit from it? No I don't think so. Its mostly me who would benefit from it.
First Up wrote: » The clubs at most risk are those with big debts but the fundamental principle on which the game in this country is built is membership - clubs are mutual societies. Opens were conceived as a means for members of clubs to share each other's facilities and hospitality - not primarily as a source of income. That's why rates for Opens are lower than green fees. The country memberships for handicaps and access to Opens is obviously an abuse of this system and the clubs who do it are exploiting their fellow GUI member clubs. The requirement for a minimum level of involvement in “your“ club should be enforced - on the clubs concerned at least as much as on their “members“.
golfwallah wrote: » can't justify paying around €1,000 for the privilege (i.e. €50 per round).
golfwallah wrote: » There is a gap in the market for people who only want to play about 20 times or less a year.
golfwallah wrote: » I'm all for keeping and encouraging as many people as possible into golf membership rather than watching continuing membesrhip decline and more club closures - the high volume / low cost model as opposed to the low volume / high cost one.
SaveOurLyric wrote: » Everyone is for encouraging more people to play golf (the elitism jibe (not from you golfwallah) is just a red herring). But where we disagree is on the number of clubs I guess. More closing is exactly what the sport needs. So that the number of playing members and income to run clubs reaches a sustainable level. As a proportion of income golf has never before been as cheap in Ireland. No further reduction is possible to attract more players. If anything it is artificially and unsustainably low and will rise. Cost of playing golf is not a deterrant than can be overcome. Business plans and well run proactive clubs are all very well - but only on a survivial of the fitters, which specific clubs will survive. It does not affect the overall picture : more clubs need to go under.
SaveOurLyric wrote: » = Society and/or Greenfee golf. They are catered for.
SaveOurLyric wrote: » Thats a very Dublin based figured. Most of the rest of the country has €500-700 membership as the norm. €30 for 4 hours use of a well maintained piece of land cannot be seen as bad value. It it does, then unfortunately you do not have the money to pay golf.
