GreeBo wrote: » Show me one single post where I said distance members were bandits? I specifically, several times, stated that this change is nothing to do with bandits.
GreeBo wrote: » Forget about the bandit side of things, thats a problem in all walks of life, its not helped mind you, by players not having a home club that they play in with any regularity (or at all in most cases)
alxmorgan wrote: » Do you mean initial handicap ? Or a query to the home club for handicap will return nothing unless 3 qual comps played ?
slave1 wrote: » That needs to be fleshed out, I play the odd round with some guys who just don't play weekends due to family/work committments (lots of regular employment occurs over Saturday and Sundays) and while they play maybe the odd open on their home course they're not sure whether this counts towards the 3 or not. Personally if I'm to play at weekends I prefer early starts, don't mind getting up at 5.30 or 6 in the Summer so I can be back home early but this is too early to sign in for competitions in a lot of clubs, even times as late as 8.30 I've been unable to play in comps because clubhouse closed and unable to sign in my intent to play the comp (despite being booked in on the timesheet).
slave1 wrote: » .
First Up wrote: » Surely the system is operating by the time you finish? Just sign in after the round instead of before.
slave1 wrote: » No allowed, in fairness you can see why because folk could have a stormer of a round and then decide afterwards to enter the comp and on the other end of the stick could have a buffer round and therefore decide not worth their while entering.
GreeBo wrote: » 90 minute delay between entering and submitting score in our place. There would be war if the comp wasnt open intime for the first players.
FixdePitchmark wrote: » golfwallah this truckloads seems a bit of an exageration. Every golf course in the country is supported by the tax payer in the form of a tax exemption. I feel you are seriously underestimating the impact these public facilities have had as "feeders". I know my own route to golf was unusual, but I was one. If you looked at a buisness case for any park facility , every single one would be closed in the morning. It is not the publics fault , that private courses built ivory towers and monstrosity club houses. During the boom years , these lads laughed and looked down on public facilities , yet half of them grew up on them. But - now suddenly these public facilities are the focal of their frustration. Give us a break, and shut the library door on the way out.
golfwallah wrote: » Why is FCC so afraid that citizens will find out how much they are spending on golf compared to other facilities?
FixdePitchmark wrote: » Sounds impressive stuff Golfwallah. But - I'm surprised how large the losses are - well it is 100,000 euro per year. The figures would need a bit more work - for example was there a once off payment in this year - course work - equipment purchased. (Yes the new design - fairly poor to look at that time over the life of the course ) The place does very well on green fees - yes is cheap , but golf all year. The course maintenance is very low - and the clubhouse has little or no cost. Very low staff levels. I've a personal belief that certain public services should be subsidised - for example you have certain Bus routes - train routes, parks, public amenities, libraries. Are not there to make money , you could also make the case that many hospital treatments are not justified. But - I agree that the value to society of a specific sport like golf - is very difficult to quantify. In fact it would be a hard case to make. But, I honestly believe the greatest benefactors of public golf are private golf clubs - if you did a survey and looked at the way people entered into golf - this route would be an important one. So - I believe certain public facilitates should be losing money and we should have an attitude that this is ok once it is managed well and run efficiently. But of all the ills that have happened in golf - public golf has made a positive impact over the last 30 years in Dublin. If we really want to put the costs in perspective - how much was lost say in The Heritage alone - what/, about 30 million. Yes we have had a tumultuous couple of years - there were many errors made in Private golf clubs. Public sector spending was rightly scrutinised. But you can't take out the ills of Private golf clubs on the provision of public services. If you are looking at that , you are really scrapping the barrel - in a rather selfish way in my opinion. It was never an issue before - but is now , since 2 or 3 million was spent on daft clubhouses.
SaveOurLyric wrote: » Maybe they have read your posts here, and know you have your knife in them even without you having the information. Have you a vested interest in the golf industry ?
golfwallah wrote: » Subsidies to competitor golf clubs (NAMA or Council) are just one threat to member clubs. The only NAMA one around North County Dublin up to recently was Portmarnock Links – not a direct threat to most clubs as it operates in the higher end of the market. NAMA clubs are probably more of a threat to clubs in South County Dublin, Kildare and Wicklow. Corballis & Elm Green are competing in the same market segment as some clubs, but are not a major threat – I believe the smarter clubs don’t have a major problem competing right now but would like to see a more even playing pitch (e.g. through more transparent financial reporting, as applies to clubs set up as limited companies).
golfwallah wrote: » I would prefer to see the money used to subsidize the golf facilities preferred by the County Manager going toward improving more generally used amenities such as parks, beaches, swimming pools, playgrounds, GAA, Soccer and Rugby playing fields. As a first step towards openness and transparency, FCC should clearly identify how much is being spent on each major sporting activity in their published budgets and accounts. All the above prompts the question: Why is FCC so afraid that citizens will find out how much they are spending on golf compared to other facilities?
Russman wrote: » Why should a private club publish their results ? Its nobody's business but their own how they are doing. IMHO council run clubs are not a significant threat to member clubs, and never have been. NAMA clubs are clearly a different matter and are arguably one of the biggest factors in the current difficulties facing member owned clubs (that, and mortgages for clubhouses). A small member owned club simply cannot compete with a subsidised NAMA facility on pretty much any measurable level, the course will be bigger and more modern, green fees will be equivalent or cheaper, there will likely be a practice ground, guaranteed restaurant/bar facilities etc. Its a massive distorting factor and all the goodwill and professionalism in the world will not get rid of that. Ultimately people are more selfish now than ever before, and Joe Bloggs wants to be playing a New Forest, Tulfarris, Rathsallagh etc for €15 much more than he wants a Beech Park, Slade Valley, Castlewarden etc for €20. One of the things that I think needs to happen is that golfers who came to the game, say in their 30s need to be convinced or persuaded of the benefits of being a member of a club, in terms of stuff like inter-club, friendships, trying to get cut, lots of intangibles. One thing I've noticed in the last 10 years or so, is that lots of guys (not all, obviously) who took up golf in their late 20s / 30s, for whatever reason have no interest in any of these things, broadly speaking they just want a game of golf on a Saturday with their 3 mates on as good a course as possible. Nothing wrong with this, they're perfectly entitled to that, but if they opened up to the other benefits of being an active club member I feel they'd be more likely to stay in a club rather than chase deals each season going from club to club.
mike12 wrote: » Maybe the best thing for these clubs to do is buy the NAMA course and close their own. As you say the paying public know what they want. In NCD the talk of Forrest Little closing and them moving to St.Mags sounds like a great idea. Make a strong club with a bit of cash behind them on a much stronger course.
Russman wrote: » Ultimately people are more selfish now than ever before, and Joe Bloggs wants to be playing a New Forest, Tulfarris, Rathsallagh etc for €15 much more than he wants a Beech Park, Slade Valley, Castlewarden etc for €20. One of the things that I think needs to happen is that golfers who came to the game, say in their 30s need to be convinced or persuaded of the benefits of being a member of a club, in terms of stuff like inter-club, friendships, trying to get cut, lots of intangibles. One thing I've noticed in the last 10 years or so, is that lots of guys (not all, obviously) who took up golf in their late 20s / 30s, for whatever reason have no interest in any of these things, broadly speaking they just want a game of golf on a Saturday with their 3 mates on as good a course as possible. Nothing wrong with this, they're perfectly entitled to that, but if they opened up to the other benefits of being an active club member I feel they'd be more likely to stay in a club rather than chase deals each season going from club to club.
golfwallah wrote: » Fingal County Council Public Golf Courses such as Corballis & Elm Green reported losses of €610,000 for 3 years up to 2010. Not only are these golf courses generating direct operating losses but they have additional hidden subsidies in the form of non payment of rates, free road signage, use of council staff to “help out”, etc. However, the most significant subsidy is free debt load (share of FCC total debt on 31/12/2012 = €457.1m) to service accumulated losses, new course construction, redesign / reconstruction of Corballis (in 2009 by Nicklaus Design Services) and yearly spend on capital improvements. I have estimated that Fingal Co. Co. continues to subsidise these loss makers to the tune of an estimated €300,000 per annum each when you take account of all hidden costs. Council employees can avail of reduced charges to play golf at these establishments. The revenues and expenditures associated with FCC golf courses are almost impossible to isolate in the public record as they are buried in the FCC Recreation & Amenity spending budget, as published on its website. Information on the golf spend only filters out in response to very rare councillors’ questions, such as those raised by councillor Dennison in 2010 (http://www.kierandennison.com/2010/04/council-golf-courses-deep-in-red.html). I would prefer to see the money used to subsidize the golf facilities preferred by the County Manager going toward improving more generally used amenities such as parks, beaches, swimming pools, playgrounds, GAA, Soccer and Rugby playing fields. As a first step towards openness and transparency, FCC should clearly identify how much is being spent on each major sporting activity in their published budgets and accounts. All the above prompts the question: Why is FCC so afraid that citizens will find out how much they are spending on golf compared to other facilities?
Russman wrote: » But how could they afford it ? And fund it going forward ? The point is that these NAMA courses would not be viable if they weren't being subsidised. Joe Bloggs would get his game for €15 but it would be on a very different course, fairways not cut, poor bunkers etc. Most "average" type member courses couldn't afford the size of green keeping team required. IMO Joe has unrealistic expectations.
Russman wrote: » Why should a private club publish their results ? Its nobody's business but their own how they are doing.
IMHO council run clubs are not a significant threat to member clubs, and never have been. NAMA clubs are clearly a different matter and are arguably one of the biggest factors in the current difficulties facing member owned clubs (that, and mortgages for clubhouses). A small member owned club simply cannot compete with a subsidised NAMA facility on pretty much any measurable level, the course will be bigger and more modern, green fees will be equivalent or cheaper, there will likely be a practice ground, guaranteed restaurant/bar facilities etc. Its a massive distorting factor and all the goodwill and professionalism in the world will not get rid of that.
Ultimately people are more selfish now than ever before, and Joe Bloggs wants to be playing a New Forest, Tulfarris, Rathsallagh etc for €15 much more than he wants a Beech Park, Slade Valley, Castlewarden etc for €20.
One of the things that I think needs to happen is that golfers who came to the game, say in their 30s need to be convinced or persuaded of the benefits of being a member of a club, in terms of stuff like inter-club, friendships, trying to get cut, lots of intangibles. One thing I've noticed in the last 10 years or so, is that lots of guys (not all, obviously) who took up golf in their late 20s / 30s, for whatever reason have no interest in any of these things, broadly speaking they just want a game of golf on a Saturday with their 3 mates on as good a course as possible.
Nothing wrong with this, they're perfectly entitled to that, but if they opened up to the other benefits of being an active club member I feel they'd be more likely to stay in a club rather than chase deals each season going from club to club.
golfwallah wrote: » All limited companies are required to submit their audited accounts to the Companies Registration Office (CRO) - It's the law of the land. So golf clubs that are formed as limited companies (usually by guarantee) have to do this, although, to my knowledge, clubs formed as trusts do not (as their liability is unlimited). Anyone can obtain a copy of the audited accounts online from the CRO for a fee of around €2.50.Didn't think Rathsallagh was in NAMA, but as I said these courses are more in competition with clubs in South Dublin, Kildare and Wicklow rather than North Co. Dublin. I don't see that people are more selfish than before - they are just prioritising their spending as always but in recession have less to spend, particularly on discretionary stuff like golf. .
PARlance wrote: » And if you want to look at funding for Golf... The amount golf clubs get is disgracefully small. 40million was given by the government this year to local sports org's. The list of them and amounts received is linked in this article.http://m.independent.ie/sport/government-announces-405m-in-funding-for-900-sports-clubs-nationwide-30404690.htmlThe only golf club I spotted receiving a grant was the hometown golf club of the minister... It must be also noted that Mayo didn't get any disproportionate levels of funding though Why aren't golf clubs getting a piece of this pie? The onus is on them. The sports council grants are just as bad, with Basketball and Cricket taking in more than golf. The soccer team I played for as a kid has a cracking clubhouse, two superb pitches, astro turf pitches, a 200-300 seater stand for the main pitch... And there are barely 300 people in the village!!! They are proactive and fought hard for funding. Very little I see about golf is proactive. Golfers and golf clubs will concern themselves with 1,700 members availing of cheap membership when around 50,000 golfers have disappeared in the last 7 years. Golf in Ireland needs to get out of the golfing mantra of focusing on the next shot... There's a bigger picture that is barely being looked at.
PARlance wrote: » I'd love to know where the €300,000 comes from. Maybe it's like the 7,000 members in a 1,700 member club... Exaggerated.
Afaik, the likes of Corballis & Elm Green are rented from the CC for a fee from Carr Golf, and Carr take ownership/risk for the income and expedite re with the Council getting a rent in return. Open to correction on that one but I know this is the case with Grange Castle, the course is rented from the council by Target Golf and the council no longer provide green keepers etc.
They may have been a "drain" on the public coffers previously, but I think Greebo put it better by saying they were investing in an asset. (As with everything public, I'm sure there was plenty of wastage... Not a golf issue ).
blackwhite wrote: » Naas and Longford also got funding.
Russman wrote: » I know about filing requirements, maybe I should have said, why should a golf club be a limited company ? But it's not even that, it was more in reference to your point on transparency, a private club that is not a company has no need to be transparent about anything, other than to its members. Rathsallagh may well not be in NAMA, I meant that type/style of golf course, big, relatively modern, almost "resort type" setups that are currently offering cheap as chips green fees.
PARlance wrote: » Indeed they are, I missed Naas and I usually bypass Longford anyway Still a very poor showing and only represents about 0.25% of the funding pot for golf.... With about 4 or 5% of people here playing golf, that's without factoring in the importance of golf to tourism or without factoring in that the GAA have another big internal pot that gets distributed as well. Slightly off topic question, but is there any club in the country that has indoor practice facilities? Looking through all those grants, I can't see why there aren't any such facilities. Shed/Hall with a large artificial (obviously ) putting green, a little chipping area if possible, a few nets or even a golf simulator or two (about 10grand a pop) could be easily squeezed into a high % of courses. Funding for such capital projects could be easily attained. If a facility like that was on offer, I'd guess that clubs would see the number of juniors rocket. To have areas like that were young kids could go for an hour or two each weekend (especially over the winter) an participate in skill challenges etc. would change the face of golf imo.
