m r c wrote: » Here's my thoughts fwiw I think the problem is that it's about money at the end of the day. Flexible memberships are probably the way forward IMHO. The reason it's unfair is that if ones full sub becomes too much(**** happens in life) ATM there is an option to send a cheque for €100 or so and play away in your old clubs opens as if nothing changed. That's wrong on the ppl locally who still struggle but yet pay their sub.
First Up wrote: » You mean “flexible“ memberships in addition to five day, six day, junior, senior and pay and play? Just what other flexible categories might there be? Apart from the extra admin needed to keep track - not to mention the nightmare for the pro shops trying to manage it, do you really think the income that would be generated from such fickle, casual and mobile part-time golfers is going to transform club finances? I don't.
...must have competed in at least 3 singles qualifying competitions...
SaveOurLyric wrote: » + under 25, under 30, overseas, country, one year post student, two years post student, husband and wife, family, senior, retired, over 70s, summer member, winter member, corporate, intermediate, pavillion plus, returning former member, ...
First Up wrote: » Exactly. Clubs are bending over backwards but still there are those who insist golf is “too dear“. The solution for some is that the “real“ members bankroll the operation so that the much sought after casual golfer gets his game and handicap at a knockdown rate. Screw that. Nobody owes you a ferrari and nobody owes anyone a free pass to “affordble“ golf.
Jimdagym wrote: » The wording of the GUI document says What exactly is a qualifying competition?
Qualifying Competition A Qualifying Competition is any competition in which Competition Play Conditions prevail and for handicap adjustment and record purposes full handicap allowance is applied and a Competition Scratch Score is calculated, subject to restrictions and limitations contained in the UHS or imposed by a Union – see Clauses 4.1(g) and 17.2(f). When the conditions of a competition impose handicap limits to establish a result it will be a Qualifying Competition provided full handicap allowance is applied for handicap adjustment and record purposes. Note: A Competition Scratch Score is not calculated for a Nine-Hole Qualifying Competition.
SaveOurLyric wrote: » This problem has been opened by the race to the bottom in downward spiralling open entry fees. €15 is very common. As above : pay 100 for a GUI sub. Play 10 opens through the summer at €15ea. Take it €4 of that went to the prize fund. => €210 contribution per year to the upkeep of facilities for someone to enjoy Congu competition golf. Simply not enough. And not to act is to condone these freeloaders. So perfectly justified with this action. Add in the elements of an unfair distribution of their meagre contribution (their 'sub' contribution is not going to the courses they are actually playing), and the scope for banditry. And anything that squeezes them out is a good move. Yeh !!! Burn them at the stake I says !
golfwallah wrote: » "Race to the bottom" - when did I last hear that expression being commonly used. Aah, I remember, when Ryanair started to offer cheap airfares in the 1980s and 90s. Before Ryanair, we had the inflated fares of the established, fat cat "flag" carriers. All that was needed to shake up the industry and make air travel affordable to the masses was a new concept of air travel based on eliminating all the unnecessary costs, low load factors and inefficiencies that were endemic in the bloated incumbents. Ryanair's business model of value for money and a much more effective matching of supply and demand (through flexible pricing and use of technology) has now been adopted by most airlines. There are still more expensive options available for those willing to pay and, sure, some airlines went to the wall in the process - but that's market segmentation and the price paid for not adapting to market change. The same basic business principles apply to golf - race to the bottom indeed!
FixdePitchmark wrote: » Golfwallah. To use another comparison. Should the gui allow somebody to sell something at below cost ? Whilst I agree a shake up was needed. If that 7000 member figure is true. That is just not right. You don't need reports / jingoism to know that.
FixdePitchmark wrote: » Well the 5k could be wrong too. The golf gang are worse than Chinese Whispers.
golfwallah wrote: » You are entitled to your opinion but research undertaken by the GUI, Confederation of Golf in Ireland, English Golfing Union, Scottish Golfing Union, etc., etc., says otherwise. These bodies (excluding GUI which has passed responsibility to the CGI) also provide clubs with support services in areas such as: Sustainable business management practices and modern business methodology Marketing – Member recruitment & retention And managing flexible membership would not be a nightmare for pro shops as you describe it. There is proven software available to manage points based membership and quite a few clubs are already managing such flexible membership arrangements quite successfully. It would be impossible to describe all the ins and outs of this more businesslike approach in a short boards post but a quick look at the websites for the aforementioned organisations will quickly put anyone who is interested in the picture.
golfwallah wrote: » It's not really the GUI's role to tell clubs what prices to charge. That's pretty much left up to the clubs themselves. I'm an accountant myself, but how do you define below cost, when many clubs are running at a loss, propped up by their own or the bank's reserves (member clubs) or by NAMA or by a Local Authority (e.g. council courses in Dublin are running at massive losses subsidies thanks to the taxpayer - but don't get me started there).
GreeBo wrote: » So you are ok with private clubs taking money for GUI handicaps as you think it allows people into the game, but you have a problem with government subsidised courses that make the game possible for thousands?
First Up wrote: » I'm greatly in favour of membership rather than relying on visitors but it isn't a good business model to have a category for every guy who can only play on alternate tuesdays or on saturdays when there is an r in the month. You are either a golfer or you are not and real golfers join and support their club.
golfwallah wrote: » No - I never said that. Those are your words - not mine. I'm not in favour of the "slievenamons" or subsidies of any golf courses (NAMA or County Council). But they are a reality and whether I'm in favour or not doesn't change that reality. It's also a reality that GUI do not control prices. But if you are involved with running a members club and money is a problem, you have choices to make as regards how and where to focus time and effort in order to boost revenues. Do you put your faith in GUI, Government or County Council and wait for them to solve your problems or do you develop your own business & marketing plans and work on solving the problem yourself. Personally, I'd favour depending on yourself, availing of the advice available from the likes of the Confederation of Golf in Ireland and using your own unique selling features to compete with the "slievenamons", and subsidised NAMA and Council facilities. You guys in the wealthy clubs with almost guaranteed income flows are in a different market segment to the majority of golf clubs. You don't have to deal with those realities. You are not competing with subsidised County Council courses either. As I said before (like many other posters), there are too many clubs, too few golfers and quite a few will have to close to get back to some normality between supply and demand. The only question is, which clubs will survive and I believe that's up to the clubs themselves.
golfwallah wrote: » MMhh - A 3 line business plan of what not to do based on exactly what research? I hope you never have to adopt a lead role in a golf club that currently finds its expenditure exceeding its income and the looming prospect of closure. What exactly would you do (as opposed to what you wouldn't do)? Waiting for the GUI or "real golfers" to fix it for you doesn't sound like much of a plan to me!
First Up wrote: » I have no problem with the public (council run) courses. They provide affordable golf without pretending to be anything more. I do however have a big problem with NAMA distorting the market by bailing out failed clubs. It would be a disgrace to see private clubs (member owned or not) put out of business because taxpayers money is subsidising some people's unrealistic aspirations. It is also a disgrace that some clubs are abusing the system by whoring themselves for GUI/handicap access.
golfwallah wrote: » But I will say this about council courses, which separates them from a lot of member owned clubs - they have a very professional management set up. It's contracted out to Carr Golf Services. They know all about business planning, marketing and flexible pricing!
downthemiddle wrote: » I am a member of a club that offers a pay and play option. I was a member of the committee when the decision was made to offer this form of membership and I was strongly in favour of this option. We are in close proximity to four clubs that have had their debts wiped for various reasons and we have lost members to all four clubs. We were in a situation where we needed to take action before we found ourselves in difficulty. Our pay and play membership has proven to be very successful for our club. It has been well marketed and through the hard work of committee members our club is now in a strong position. We convert a number of these memberships annually to full members and this helps counteract any wastage that occurs in full membership. The golf market in Ireland has changed dramatically and one size no longer fits all. There are many clubs who will have no difficulty riding out the storm as they are long established with a strong financial base. However, other clubs have to find other ways and be creative and innovative in what they have to offer or they will struggle. I welcome the motion that was passed by the GUI. It will ensure that all clubs will have to monitor handicaps properly. It will mean that golfers will have to build stronger links with the clubs they have joined. I do, however, worry about the implementation of this decision. We have had situations where we have removed people from golfnet because their membership has lapsed yet they have still been able to use their cards to enter open competitions. We have made the GUI aware of this issue and I'm sure they will take the appropriate steps to close this loophole.
golfwallah wrote: » Good to hear of the actions your club are taking and that they are successful - well done! It isn't easy to compete with debt write-downs and / or subsidised courses. But you're right about clubs needing to be innovative - one size no longer fits all. And I agree that the GUI decision is good in principle - the problem will be implementation and helping the argument in some clubs that there is no need to change. But I guess the variety of views expressed on this forum are reflective of the debate in member clubs as well. The commercial courses don't have to worry about such debate and indecision, they just do what it takes to get the job done. Good luck to the clubs that innovate to survive - at least they are doing something, other than hoping that somehow or other the same tired old membership formats, "real golfers", the GUI, the economy or rants against the "slievenamons" will bring them safely through the bad times.
golfwallah wrote: » Good luck to the clubs that innovate to survive - at least they are doing something, other than hoping that somehow or other the same tired old membership formats, "real golfers", the GUI, the economy or rants against the "slievenamons" will bring them safely through the bad times.
First Up wrote: » I'm willing to bet that apart from a handful of top end corporate style venues, the demand/supply equilibrium that eventually emerges will have member funded clubs in the vast majority of cases. That might mean fewer courses and less golfers but there is a reason why only some people drive ferraris too.
