New Rule for eligibility to Away Opens

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 !

"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!

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.

Well the 5k could be wrong too.

The golf gang are worse than Chinese Whispers.

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.

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).

Going from memory, the GUI's main focus is on the sport rather than the business side of golf. Tried the link to Leinster Branch's constitution but it isn't working right now.

I know, from talking to GUI council members at Club AGMs (I was last on committee in 2011), that they did provide a little business guidance but essentially left that responsibility to the clubs themselves. They also organised occasional sessions for club committee members on governance issues (e.g. I attended one run by Peninsula Business Services for the GUI on risk management around health & safety, employee law, etc.).

I have also attended a number of AGMs of the Leinster Branch and been in contact with them by phone on various issues whilst serving on club committee. I have always found them to be very knowledgeable, professional and helpful in my dealings with them.

You need to remember that the GUI is organised on a provincial basis with each province having a council with overall strategic governance responsibility being undertaken by volunteers. I'm not exactly sure how it all works but for day to day operations, each province seems to have a small number of employees and volunteers as well. For example, you might find an employee handling the switchboard, who then passes you call onto a volunteer if your query relates to Golf or CONGU Rules.

It's a question of focus on their own area of expertise (i.e. the game of golf itself) and getting the most effective use of scarce volunteer resources.

That's why the GUI, in conjunction with the ILGU and the PGA set up the Confederation of Golf in Ireland (CGI) - i.e. to promote club membership and help clubs with the business side of the game - not only business planning, market planning but areas like employee law, health & safety, etc.

It may all sound boringly trivial to you as a golfer but you would be surprised at how many club committees are completely ignorant on these business areas - just waiting for some low risk, high cost court case to put them out of business (at further cost to their directors or trustees, if club resources prove insufficient). I don't mean to be scary but the legislative issues around running a business (voluntary or otherwise) are quite onerous and risks are sometimes being taken (e.g. when did you last check that your franchised restaurant had employer / public liability insurance). Unfortunately, ignorance of the law is no defence.

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).

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.

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!

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.

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.

You keep trotting out this line and similar as if you are directing it at someone. No one on here as ever used that as a business plan, are you just engaging in a strawman argument for points scoring?

First Up wrote: »

The "tired old membership formats" - i.e where people join a club and support it - are the basis on which clubs can properly plan and manage their income and expenditure. "Real" golfers - and I make no apology for using the term - understand that you can only build and sustain an expensive asset like a golf course through this model or by raising cash through borrowings or shares. These last two models have been tried, with some successes and a lot of failures.

Pay and play and a few other membership "tweaks" are grand as an additional income stream and might help some clubs through the "bad times" - assuming those bad times are temporary. However I doubt very much if it is sustainable or will generate the income needed to pay off debts or fund capital costs. I know of clubs that have gone down the bargain basement route and now find they have to levy members (the "real" ones) for extra cash to pay the bills.

Debt write downs covers a lot - including cases where clubs failed and members lost their investments. In some cases the asset has been sustained and in others there are sheep grazing on it.

We'll see how it all washes out but it would be a fairer situation if the handicap whoring clubs and the NAMA subsidised operations stopped distorting the market.

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.

When does a "real" golfer stop being a real golfer ?. I have been a member of my club for 6 years i.e. since I started playing. But I can see a day when family means I cannot justify the membership cost. It's hard enough as it is.

When that day comes I would like to be able to continue to play competitive golf as I am so used to it now. I cannot play society golf as I play early due to family (home by 12 most days). So for me the distance membership was an idea I would pursue if the day ever came. I may not be able to do so now due to this change and that's life I guess. But please don't call me a "fake" golfer as I do understand what it takes to run a club and I would prefer to be a "real" member but this change effectively takes away my income from any golf. I may be a market segment that is irrelevant in all this and again - that's life.

GreeBo wrote: »

And thats why we need council subsidised courses as feeder courses for people who may decide to become real golfers.

I really cant fathom someone (not you) having a problem with council subsidized pay as you play courses that are enabling new golfers in this country. Thats grass roots stuff that happens in all sports.

In the US - that bastion of private enterprise - there are almost 2,500 golf courses owned and operated by towns, municipalities etc. We all know of the famous public courses open to the public (for a fee) - Bethpage, Pebble Beach etc. as well as the top private venues but the great majority of golfers in the US play on modest, subsidised public courses.

Nothing at all wrong with that and its a far better route than trying to turn privately owned and member funded operations into access for all venues.

golfwallah wrote: »

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.

Income flows may be different but so are the outgoings, I'd guess we spend (and have to spend) far more than your club does. If we stopped that spending standards would fall and we wouldn't be able to charge the money we do for memberships.

golfwallah wrote: »

You are not competing with subsidised County Council courses either.

Golfers are golfers, we are all competing with each other tbh.

GreeBo wrote: »

Fair point!
But is there no other clubs, maybe a feeder/development type club nearby that you could join?

Fraid not. Not that I know of anyway. All clubs I know of within a decent distance are all roughly same as my own club. C'est la vie. Anyway hasn't happened yet

Russman wrote: »

But is that not an ever so slightly different argument ? I mean, if a club is reasonably priced and someone can afford it, then its down to a "value" issue rather than an affordability one.
I doubt very many golfers, if they worked out the cost per round based on their annual sub, would actually be getting good value (whatever that is). Even someone playing once a week in an €1k sub club, is probably paying €25 per game when the competition entry fee is taken into account.
There's a lot more to club membership than simply the price per round of golf IMHO.

You're right but if I can't play the odd few holes on a summer evening, can't make it out to use practice facilities, can't join club teams and only play 1 or 2 games a month that I'd be rather foolish to join surely ? (assuming money is an issue which it is for me unfortunately barring a lotto win !!)

alxmorgan wrote: »

You're right but if I can't play the odd few holes on a summer evening, can't make it out to use practice facilities, can't join club teams and only play 1 or 2 games a month that I'd be rather foolish to join surely ? (assuming money is an issue which it is for me unfortunately barring a lotto win !!)

Then you are making a choice and fair dues - you have consistently said that you do not expect clubs to offer unrealistic deals.

For me, the fundamental problem is the people who want to play golf for less than it costs to provide and the handicap flogging clubs and outside agencies (i.e NAMA) that facilitate them.

downthemiddle wrote: »

You could also argue that it is why you need clubs such as the one I'm a member of. We offer a grass roots introduction to golf at an affordable price but the difference is we are not subsidised by the taxpayer in the guise of NAMA or a local council. We have to have a model of business that makes us viable and pay and play membership is part of that model.

BTW I regard myself as a real golfer. I have been a member of my club since it opened, I have served on committee in a number of offices, I have represented my club at inter club level and I have a real sense of loyalty to my club. Does that make me a "real golfer"?

In my book - yes. You are committed to your club and that is what differentiates us from the golfing opportunists.

There are a lot of options around Dublin. Hollystown, Corballis, Elmgreen, Stilogue, Bellewstown for those on the Northside, think Deerpark may have some sort of membership as well that are under 800 for full membership. If you take the cost of distance membership plus the open/green fees you spend plus the benefit you would have of playing a few holes in the evening add in the cost of traveling to your away club for 3 rounds it now has to make sense to join some place like one of the above.
Not a lot of stuff you can do for 4 hours that will cost you €20 or less. €800 is around 3 pints per week so it's not really an expensive pass time.

golfwallah wrote: »

There's also Castleknock, Hollywood Lakes and Kilcock offering flexible type membership as part of their product range.

All of these places are competing effectively with the distance membership clubs. Other clubs are offering special deals such as membership from now till end 2015 for one year's membership fees. Their members are "real" golfers too.

The point I'm making is that the distance clubs are targeting a segment of the market that is not being fully tapped by enough clubs The attractiveness of the distance clubs will be much less as more and more clubs offer flexible membership.

My guess is that in 5 years time there will be 40 - 50 fewer clubs about and a lot more "traditional" clubs (excluding the wealthiest ones) will have flexible membership offerings targeted at the missing generation of 30 - 50 year olds with less time and money to spend on golf.

Dropping prices is not offering "flexible" membership. Every club has to do its own sums but some of the deals on offer look a lot like desperation to me and some clubs have already found that their "flexible" deals are not making ends meet.

Yes we have more clubs and courses than is merited by demand. That will sort itself eventually but I'm willing to bet that not many of the survivors will be the ones offering rock bottom deals to compete with the handicap whores.

GreeBo wrote: »

Exactly, when choosing a flight to Majorca you really dont care about too much other than ending up in Majorca.
When comparing golf courses you want to play on, nevermind join price isn't the only deciding factor.

The idea that clubs are just doing nothing and that all they really need to do is be more flexible (cheap) and cut costs to get at this vast market of willing golfers who just dont happen to actually play golf at the moment is ludicrous.

Playing golf can be as expensive as you want it, in most cases you get what you pay for, if not you only have yourself to blame.
But there is a real lower limit on price thats determined by the quality of the course. There is no point in adding in gyms and cinemas if your course is basically kinda crappy. There are lots of better options that will take your greenfee and you will play a better course.

The benefit in membership is only a benefit if you get more than the guy paying a greenfee. If you dont ever plan on playing in your home course then you are not a real member. You are availing of a loop hole to be able to play in Open competitions. You are a golfing nomad, getting the best of both worlds. Playing on your choice of top quality courses while the rest of the members actually subsidise you.
Failing to recognise this is failing to see the grass for the fairway.

Finally, even if every club does all they can possible do, we still have too many clubs and some will inevitable close down. The idea that clubs can work their way out of it is ignoring reality.

Too few golfers + too many clubs = not enough money to go around.

Cutting down on distance membership might very well prompt some of those people to join local clubs, be it feeder clubs or not.
Thats better for golf, not clubs giving it away for cheap.

100%

First Up wrote: »

Dropping prices is not offering "flexible" membership. Every club has to do its own sums but some of the deals on offer look a lot like desperation to me and some clubs have already found that their "flexible" deals are not making ends meet.

Yes we have more clubs and courses than is merited by demand. That will sort itself eventually but I'm willing to bet that not many of the survivors will be the ones offering rock bottom deals to compete with the handicap whores.

I'd agree that every club needs to do its own sums - but better do this in the context of an overall business plan that will get them from where they are now to a much more sustainable business model.

I'd also agree that gut reaction, desperation and price slashing is not the way to go.

What is needed is a considered, well thought out business planning approach along the lines being supported by the Confederation of Golf in Ireland, which has been mandated by GUI / ILGU / PGA to increase golf club membership.

This offers a much better value for money proposition, targeted to meet changing market needs (not just price), than can possibly be matched by the "slievenamons". It offers clubs support and a way to beat the distance clubs by becoming an altogether more attractive service proposition and maximising what they are good at in terms of location, accessibility, facilities, family friendliness and affordability.

In any sport, I'd always prefer to beat the opposition fairly and squarely on the field of play rather than relying too much on rules. In many ways these are exciting times in which customer focus, innovation and pre-planned action will win out over the cheap solutions offered by "distance" clubs.

This link to the CGI's Development Plan 2014 - 2020 explains their role, the role of the GUI, etc., plus some ideas and actions to increase numbers (of which flexible pricing can be just one constituent part):
http://www.cgigolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Confed-Brochure.pdf