Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
New Rule for eligibility to Away Opens
Options
Comments
-
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.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.0 -
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.
+ 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, ...0 -
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.
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 !0 -
The wording of the GUI document says...must have competed in at least 3 singles qualifying competitions...
What exactly is a qualifying competition?0 -
Imo there shouldn't be a GUI handicap designated to distance membership only to full, family, senior, junior 5 day etc....0
-
Advertisement
-
Exactly. Clubs are bending over backwards but still there are those who insist golf is “too dear“. The solution forSaveOurLyric 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, ...
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.0 -
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.
I agree with this. **** it why should someone buy cheap access to my local club and live in the same housing estate as me. Whats wrong if its a little more eliteist who said poor people should be entitled to play it.
BUT THERE HAS TO BE VERY SOLID JUNIOR PROGRAMMES IN EVERY CLUB. Open and available to young people at very affordable rates if not free.0 -
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.
I think that's taking it a bit far. Surely plenty has changed. No more inter-club, no more Sunday morning comps, no more Captains Prize, no more few holes of a summers evening.
Full membership has a lot of benefits that these people do not get.0 -
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.
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.0 -
The wording of the GUI document says
What exactly is a qualifying competition?
If you look up CONGU rules on the GUI site you will find the definition as follows: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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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!0 -
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!
Golf club membership (mostly non profit orgs) do not operate on the same basis as airlines etc, the differences too great to be outlined on a forum but making this spurious comparison based on a phrase used by another poster weakens your overall argument.0 -
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.0 -
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.
Tried to check that today, we were told at the last agm, one of the lads thought it was 5,000 so I might have overstated it at 7k but still pretty huge number.0 -
Well the 5k could be wrong too.
The golf gang are worse than Chinese Whispers.0 -
FixdePitchmark wrote: »Well the 5k could be wrong too.
The golf gang are worse than Chinese Whispers.
True true but I did see the figure myself. The club gave a pretty comprehensive presentation on membership trends and numbers at various clubs around us and then gave the figure for Slievenamon. It was staggering.
I'll see the person that did the presentation later in the he week and I'll get the exact figure.0 -
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.0 -
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.
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.0 -
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?0 -
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?
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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!0 -
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.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.
It is also a disgrace that some clubs are abusing the system by whoring themselves for GUI/handicap access.0 -
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!
I just dont follow why you link the general business and financial strategies (or even, lack of) with this step. Why do you keep raising this worthwhile but not directly related issue.
The rule, if implemented, may or may not reduce the cases of some people accessing what others see as cut price golf. It may or may not clip the wings or reduce the numbers of some types of handicap bandits.
No, it wont put a strong financial management in place in every club with a club restructuring plan of future strategy. ITS NOT TRYING TO.
This is not a reason to knock it (or even, as you said earlier, just pointing out the pros and cons - it has no cons. No more than it will not contribute to finding a cure for cancer, but we dont hold that against it). It has a different and more limited aim. It may or may not succeed. But certainly to be tried.0 -
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.
Disgrace or not, the reality is that many clubs are struggling to survive because less money being spent on golf. I don't like the NAMA courses or "slievenamons" any more than you.
I've no problem with council run courses or with a measured level of subsidy, either. What I do object to is the massive subsidies reported a few years ago, when Councillor Kieran Dennison asked for this information from Fingal County Council - mind boggling!
I'd prefer to see a more level playing field when it comes to competition - whether from NAMA or Councils.
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!0 -
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!
Carr run a good service which does suit clubs that want to outsource managements and other parts of running a club. But not sure they have any magic wand either. I was past of a committee for my club that met them several times to explore options for their involvement with us. It was impossible to find a financial justification for changing from our current traditional members/staff run club to working with them. But all cases are different, and can see where they can be a very good option for Nama or council courses.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.
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.0 -
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?0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
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.0
Advertisement