SaveOurLyric wrote: » True statement that. Simply because most members are full members.
bobwilliams wrote: » ok Mr.Pedantic.i'll change that to a larger percentile of full members are bandits compared to country members.
GreeBo wrote: » Any facts at all to back up that statement?
slave1 wrote: » Get over it, better to have Distance/Country members keeping golfers in the game than none at all.
GreeBo wrote: » ...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...
slave1 wrote: » It's hard to debate with posts as blinkered as this (bold highlights by me). You state if you do not play your home course you are not a real member, this is very much wrong, you are a member and have a GUI card to prove it. This statement shows you are of the opinion these members are doing so with the motive to play in Opens, how do you know this? you regularly come back to posters looking for facts... Can you please show me the fact that Distance/Country members are not real members? Then show me the fact that their motive is just to play in Opens? Then you are welcome to the debate...until then...
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.
golfwallah wrote: » To be honest, if you take North County Dublin, most people wouldn't regard Corballis (a county council links course) as a "feeder" course for people starting out in golf. It's a bit too tight and hard for that but they do have very competitive prices. Was a feeder course many years ago from which "real golfers" went on to form their own golf clubs - Donabate, Forrest Little and Balcarrick as far as I know - but those were different times when affordable courses were not available. No, I think Corballis has a lot more "real golfers" and the feeder courses for up and coming young prospective golfers to more upmarket places like the Island are more likely to be Beaverstown, Donabate, Forrest Little, Balcarrick, etc., that do have good professional set ups for young golfers. Council courses like Corballis and Elm Green are attractive propositions pricewise to people who want to limit their spend on golf and get value for money. In my experience, very few "feed" into the member owned clubs, in fact, I've seen a lot more go the other way and that's fine too in my book - as long as it doesn't take truckloads of subsidies to do it, which is what is happening right now! More likely "feeder" courses to the member owned clubs in North County Dublin are privately owned courses like Swords Open and Deerpark - both fine courses and neither of them need subsidies from the taxpayer.
GreeBo wrote: » Thanks all the same but I'll continue to debate the point without your approval. Why else would you join as a distance member and not a regular member? Why would distance members be having such a problem with a requirement to play your home course...yunno that course that you joined as a member...Im sure you remember stamping that envelope, once you looked up the address of your soon to be home course. Yes you are a member, I don't disagree with that, you have a GUI handicap and a home club. You are not a real member however because you have no intention of ever darkening the door, the place couldnt support you if you did and in all likelihood you couldnt find the place on a map.
Slicemeister wrote: » Main reason I joined as a distance member this year was down to economics. Have played alongside members there who have scoffed when they realise so. They'd do well to remember their committee endorsed my application form and more than likely need my membership fee to remain an ongoing entity.To be labelled a bandit or not a real member is a joke and portrays a small minded attitude. Bandits come from all spectrums of memberships and should be weeded out by the handicap secretary as opposed to their membership status.
First Up wrote: » The "snobbery" argument is pathetic. Most members of my club - and other clubs I frequent - are honest to goodness lads and lassies who support their club because they recognise there is mutual dependence and mutual benefit in doing so.The distance membership scam is a device to get golf for less than it costs to provide. Those engaging in it are getting a subsidised ride on the back of club members - it is that simple.
GreeBo wrote: » 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.
Golfers are golfers, we are all competing with each other tbh.
golfwallah wrote: » With higher income flows come a lot more choices of what to spend your money on. Many member clubs have had to severely prioritise their spend on the absolute essentials to keep within their income limits and repay their loans. This is in stark contrast to the subsidised NAMA and Council courses, which have buckets of money to spend on the likes of professional management support, marketing, etc., that are but a distant dream to many member clubs. The upside, I suppose, is that, without buckets of money to throw at problems, member clubs have to get smarter to compete with the subsidised places to survive. When the dust settles and the economy gets back back to a better footing, I guess the course that will be left will be some of the smarter and wealthier member courses plus almost all the subsidised ones. Sure - But competing against subsidised courses - NAMA or Council is unfair competition against voluntary set ups that are finding it harder and harder to keep up their standards in a shrinking market.
Slicemeister wrote: » If it's a scam why is this option available? It's not as if these distance members are doing anything wrong? (honest ones anyway)
GreeBo wrote: » You are not a real member however because you have no intention of ever darkening the door.
GreeBo wrote: » A course doenst have to be easy to be a feeder course. It just needs to be accessible and open for everyone. Thats how you get people into the game.
golfwallah wrote: » Why do you just pick on one point in a post to disagree with? I guess like Cardinal Richelieu, it's a case of: "give me 6 lines from the most honest man and I'll find something to hang him". Your simplistic opinions about "feeder courses" are widely off the mark too and my earlier post demonstrates just that. I wonder just what experience you have of getting people into the game - you seem to have a closed mind that brooks no views other than your own. I'd prefer to promote debate and consideration of alternatives, when what is being tried is not working successfully. This applies to golf at the moment. And golf is not just for the die-hards in comfortable wealthy clubs, who do not want any change and want to go on with the status quo forever. The real feeder courses around my area are privately owned and do not need subsidies, thank you very much.
slave1 wrote: » I'm [shock] a distance member due to personal circumstances and I'll leave it at that. I have played the course, this Sunday past in fact was the most recent time, don't need a map to find it thanks. You obviously know everything about distance members, they're not real members, they're out to play the bandits in opens, end of, no other reason possible or justifiable :rolleyes:. Think I'll just observe this thread going forward as there's little point in debating with such a presumptuous tone and one that's so opinionated with no facts to support despite request for same. PS The GUI are currently circulating a survey for Golf in Ireland, let them know your thoughts...
GreeBo wrote: » Wow, you really do seem to have a chip on your shoulder about "wealthy" clubs, yet you seem to have totally bypassed my point about much, much higher expenditure in those clubs. Its not a choice, you cant just decide to stop spending money on the course and not see any impact.
NAMA courses are not the same as state subsidized courses.
Thats why there is a new rule!
golfwallah wrote: » No - the chip is just as much on your shoulders. With choice, there is no such word as "can't" and I don't accept that there is always a negative impact - my experience shows otherwise.
golfwallah wrote: » There are no pictures on a score card - it's not how, it's how many (euros in this case). As I've said I've no problem with reasonable levels of subsidies but do with the truckloads of taxpayers cash being thrown at council courses.
golfwallah wrote: » It's a matter of opinion really and matters more if your members course is in direct competition with these subsidised places, which would not, of course, apply to your own club.
golfwallah wrote: » Don't worry about it. I'm optimistic that our club will survive. It's just that I'm skeptical that the new GUI rule will cut out either banditry or distance memberships.
GreeBo wrote: » Champagne, caviar and port wine are flowing and the members point and laugh at all other clubs.
The CONGU UHS requires each player to return three cards at their Home Club to be allocated a handicap. In addition to this initial requirement a further fundamental basis of the UHS is that every player will return a sufficient number of Qualifying Scores to provide reasonable evidence of current ability. Thus, by returning a minimum of three Qualifying Scores at his Home Club, annually, the player's Handicap Committee and peer information will better contribute to keeping the player's handicap under review leading to a more equitable handicapping system. If passed, this motion may result in increased participation by players in Qualifying Competitions at the Home Club as players will have to compete in at least three such competitions to ensure that they are eligible to compete in Open Qualifying Competitions at Away Clubs.
SnowDrifts wrote: » So just curious... most posters on here consider this rule change to be more about supporting more established clubs rather than actually being a method for a more consistent handicap review? Just to quote the GUI's motive.... But this also begs the question... if a club like Slievenamon is over flowing with distance members, how much of an accurate annual review will take place? Surely they'd need a team of handicap secretaries!
alxmorgan wrote: » Anything yet on how they are going to enforce this ?
First Up wrote: » Its a computerised system so it should take only a minor tweak. I.e. a handicap can only be issued by a club after that club has processed three cards from its own qualifying competitions.
