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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
New Rule for eligibility to Away Opens
Comments
-
blackwhite wrote: »I can't understand why they didn't just make it a rule that you need to have 3 qualifying competitions at your home club in the last 12/24 months.
It's a crazy situation that someone could join a club on 1 January 2015, and play 30 qualifying competitions on that course between then and June (it'd need to be a links!), but still cannot enter an open competition for another 6 months after that.
3 in current calendar year or 5 in previous would be better, otherwise you would have people doing a weekend and then not seen again for 2 years.
Or even 3 in the last 12 months (rolling) but would be more difficult to track probably.0 -
3 in current calendar year or 5 in previous would be better, otherwise you would have people doing a weekend and then not seen again for 2 years.
Or even 3 in the last 12 months (rolling) but would be more difficult to track probably.
TBH, anything that factors in the current calendar year at all would be an improvement.
It's a very poor reflection on the people who drafted this rule (and on those who voted to approve it) that not one person thought of a tiny change that would bring current year scores into it as well.0 -
My only problems with the rule are.
1. They should call it what it is, to stop distance members (not to stop handicap abuse)
2. Should be made more public, only by chance I heard of this and only 2 good golfing months left in the year.
3. More detail on how it will be enforced.
1) Why do you care what they call it? If its a good thing, its a good thing. So no problem.
2) The move is against people who are already considered to be offside (either due to being loophole members of the handicapped golfing world, or by getting access to competitive golf on the cheap that was never intended). So no great effort to inform the 'outlaws' their wings are being clipped is hardly surprising.
3) Again, except for those who must operate it, as a simple player, why do you care ?0 -
Exactly, its got little to do with banditry other than paying lip service to it. I mean if that's the best they can come up with to combat bandits, then golf really is f--ked. I really do believe its mostly to stop the exodus of members from so called proper clubs to the "get a handicap and play opens" option that's becoming more and more common. There's probably a million and one arguments and factors in that debate though.
It is to do with both banditry, and, people accessing cut price competitive golf through a back door at others expense.
And its a good step in the right direction. However, having the courage of their conviction on the handicap front, they would have followed through fully and forbidden entry to home competitions as well unless a player has the 3 cards in in the previous year.0 -
FixdePitchmark wrote: »Interclub comps will have to be looked at - seriously looked at.
No motivation in the GUI for this one I would guess! They like the hoopla, the days out, the blazers, the photos, the free lunches, etc. Its part of the raison d'etre. The whole handicapped interclub scene has been crooked since the off and its a lie that has gone on too long and just become too big to admit to at this stage. Even though the 'praise' (pause for laughter) heaped on the 'winners' should really be a handicap card tearing ceremony where they are relieved of their GUI membership for unsportsmanlike conduct and given life bans.0 -
The OP's situation is a very common one. My take on it is of you only get to play 7 times a year then why do you need a handicap at all? It won't be a reflection of your true ability and you can't expect to be competitive in the opens with that level of practice.
Why not put the €120 towards green fees? Probably work out cheaper in long run what with golfnow type green fee discounts available and you won't be pouring money into the distance clubs that are just taking advantage of a loophole to line their own pockets.
Two good points. The point of GUI handicaps is that it is for committed golfers who have a home club and play there regularly enough for their handicap to be a reasonably true reflection of their playing ability. It was not intended for the occasional golfer - i.e. not really a member of Club GUI.
Greenfees are for the occasional casual golfer. Distance/Open is a loophole, and any action, even imperfect if fine if it tightens the noose.0 -
Whatever about any other arguments I think the fact that a new member cannot play opens until the following year is madness. Cannot see any reasoning behind that one.
It makes sense though from the perspective of a regular club member with a handicap history. So wait a year. Play your golf in the club you just joined - you cant be bored of it yet. And it discourages the flybynight merchants - the rule ensures that you must be a member of a club for two consecutive years to play opens.0 -
blackwhite wrote: »TBH, anything that factors in the current calendar year at all would be an improvement.
It's a very poor reflection on the people who drafted this rule (and on those who voted to approve it) that not one person thought of a tiny change that would bring current year scores into it as well.
In all fairness, the people who proposed this motion, the Leinster Provincial Council, are not stupid and, in my experience, not prone to making proposals that are impracticable to implement.
Any changes like this would have been properly researched, thought through by knowledgeable people at Council level as regards how to implement and explained to those voting on it, before being put to a vote.
So it's fair to assume that issues like those you are expressing, desirable and all as they are, would have come up in debating the motion.
I was not present at this particular meeting but have represented my club at Leinster Branch GUI AGMs, where similar issues and proposals were debated. Generally, I found that if motions made sense to the clubs and were implementable, they were passed. Motions not satisfying these criteria failed.
I expect all this will become clearer when the GUI provide guidance to Clubs on how this motion is to be implemented.0 -
Irrespective of the fact that there are too many clubs, this will reduce the number of golfers and take money out of the game. My club, a members club, run a successful weekly Friday open. If we get a fourball each week of these distance members playing, that's a hundred euro a week, five grand a year. We'll lose a lot of this money if people can't buy handicaps anymore.
All clubs have been using opens as a means of kidding themselves that they have not lowered greenfees as much as they think they have. The proliferation of opens is just a lowering of greenfees by another name while limiting those who can access them. And its fair game. It maximises the income by segmenting the market, attracting the member golfer who has already paid a sub somewhere else, and squeezing more from the non member.
So I dont thing it will take money out of the game in total. Just force those who arent members anywhere (and we count the Scark, Slievnamon folk as not really members of a golf club) to pay a more realistic green fee. So their spend on golf is shared out among the courses they actually play on, rather than syphoned off to clubs that they dont.0 -
Advertisement
-
It sounds to me as if the GUI are trying to make golf an elitist hobby again. Its a shame because the majority of golfers I know (including me) are OP.
Nonesense. They have no interest in making it elitist. Sounds like you have a chip. GUI and ILGU are desperate to include as many people as possible in the game. But it must be one equitably. They cannot stand idly by while some pay the true cost, while other get by on the cheap at their expense.0 -
superhooper wrote: »In relation to the banditry issue are these distance clubs not updating handicaps correctly for their members who play in various opens? If they are updating them where is the issue?
That assumes they enter singles competitions. Or enter a few single to collect 0.1s while saving their real game for fourballs, scrambles, etc.0 -
-On team events, I'd certainly accept a blanket 0.5 (or whatever) cut if I was part of a winning team despite how I played. This IMO is the best and easiest way to address an area that is wide open to abuse.
Noble. But thats not really the handicap way - getting cut is not part of the price you pay for winning a competition. And in a team event of 10 or 12 players then any objective judgement of an individual's play is impossible. Better would be to ensure the validity of the handicaps of those on a team in the first place.
Up the 4 cards in the previous year to say, 20, anyone ?0 -
Some will and some won't. Some people like that you can put your name down for an open and have people to play with, or they just like competitions or for whatever reason might not continue to play as much if they aren't able to keep their handicap.
At the end of the day, I just don't think that they are causing a problem. We have too many clubs or too few golfers. I think there's a practically untapped market of golfers who are not serious enough to pay full membership, but would still like to play a bit. The recent reduced green fees and distance membership options were starting to bring a few of these people out, but we seem to be closing the door on them and I think we'll all miss out as a result.
Even though clubs voted for this motion and it is likely to be implementable, I'm not convinced that it will work in reality - time will tell.
As you've said there are too many clubs and too few golfers. So motions designed to re-balance revenues in favour of traditional member clubs are a bit like King Canute ordering the tide to stop coming in.
I'd prefer to see clubs concentrate their efforts on making golf more appealing and more affordable to as many people as possible (e.g. through additional membership packages priced specifically to suit the people with less money and time to spend on golf), rather than trying to use rules to generate more revenue.
Golf needs to be enjoyable and affordable to attract a mass market. The alternative is for a lot more clubs to close and for the sport to revert to its former elitist model for a growing older membership.0 -
Golf is not a cheap hobby and thats nothing to do with elitism. Elitism may become a symptom in places but its not the cause.
Its quite costly to keep such a vast playing field up to standard and a golf club needs sustainable membership numbers paying full whack to finance that. People who are seeking away memberships as a loophole for getting full value of such expensive facilities while paying hardly anything towards them are abusing the system and will ultimately contribute to the demise of club golf in its current form and will ultimately shoot themselves in the foot that way. Its a form of 'I'm alright Jack' (for the moment).
There may be too many courses for the number of - for want of a better word - serious golfers, but that doesn't change the above fact. I don't think anyone can argue with that.
People who are saying thats not what they're doing and say ' hey better I give something and isn't it better than nothing' are only kiddin themselves. The truth is if €300 is all you can spend or justify or whatever you wanna call it then association regulated golf on top courses is simply something you cannot afford.0 -
Having read through this thread have a quick query which I think I already know the answer to but anyway!! I joined a club this year- first club as only really took golf up last summer. I have played quite a bit of golf this year but nearly all casual rounds as I'm still only learning. My best score is 104 off the front tees!! I have a handicap of 18.
I have only played in 3 opens during the year and only 1 was at my home club. I didn't really feel confident playing in opens til the last month as I believed I would be holding people up and scoring in low teens anyway. ( I have only scored over 20pts twice- 24 being my highest). I normally score 15-20pts in my casual rounds.
Basically now with this new rule I will have to play in the final 2 qualifying events at my club to ensure I can compete in opens in other courses next year, yes?? One of my favourite things about golf this year was playing different courses- I played in 11 different ones. Hopefully by next summer with a lot of work put in over the winter I would like to think I wouldnt embarass myself in an open at different courses. Just feel like I'm being forced into playing opens to prove I'm not a bandit. I have given loads of monetary support to my club through the pro shop and bar during the year. Also if this thread hadn't been started I doubt I would have heard anything about this new rule.0 -
Advertisement
-
Basically now with this new rule I will have to play in the final 2 qualifying events at my club to ensure I can compete in opens in other courses next year, yes??
Only two qualifying comps in your club left this year ??? Are there not at least a couple every week? For the next couple of months at least until weather spoils play ? What club only has two comps after August ?0 -
golfwallah wrote: »As you've said there are too many clubs and too few golfers. So motions designed to re-balance revenues in favour of traditional member clubs are a bit like King Canute ordering the tide to stop coming in.
I'd prefer to see clubs concentrate their efforts on making golf more appealing and more affordable to as many people as possible (e.g. through additional membership packages priced specifically to suit the people with less money and time to spend on golf), rather than trying to use rules to generate more revenue.
I think the idea that alternative packages will help is the King Canute attitude, with respect.
The same as distance fees for peanuts, 'new to golf', 6 month subs, etc, and the cheap greenfee specials, opens to beat the band (around me, you can have a choice of opens every day of the week within 30 minutes drive plus opens or classics at the weekends through the summer).
The traditional membership funding model fundamentally was correct : divide the cost of having the country's courses/clubs among those who play them (yes, with some modificatons for juniors, or those abroad, and yes, according to a 9 hole course where land is cheap being a lower sub than an old high class course where it is expensive around Dublin - but not much more variation than that).
As Boskowsi puts it well above, golf is just an expensive game.
For me, what the Irish golf world has not faced is that not as many people who could genuinely afford it can do so anymore. So the move on opens is a good one and deals with the reality - those who are not paying their due must be forced out, and either pay more, or get less golf for what they can pay (a handful of greenfee games a year, not a dozen open competitions as if they were full-rights members of the GUI/ILGU community).
Curtailing this distance/opens corruption of that model is a positive step.0 -
SaveOurLyric wrote: »Two good points. The point of GUI handicaps is that it is for committed golfers who have a home club and play there regularly enough for their handicap to be a reasonably true reflection of their playing ability. It was not intended for the occasional golfer - i.e. not really a member of Club GUI.
Greenfees are for the occasional casual golfer. Distance/Open is a loophole, and any action, even imperfect if fine if it tightens the noose.
Totally disagree, the point of your handicap is that you can play in competition with someone who is at much different standard to you and have a fair chance.
What you are basically saying is that handicap system should only be enjoyed by the people who can afford it, therefore making it an elite sport.
I am committed to my family, so that's where my money and time goes, so therefore I do not have the right to own a handicap.
There are plenty of members around the country who are joined their top local clubs and can afford to pay the sub without worrying if it's value or not, and then play once or twice a year. So you are saying that they deserve a handicap more than I do.
When playing in these open I enjoy trying to break 36, if I was told that away members could not win a prize, I wouldn't care. But I really enjoy the handicap system.
I could ask the question "why do you need to be a member of a club to have a GUI handicap - the handicap system should be good enough to catch bandits" but I think boards.ie would explode
From reading other threads, I agree that I am availing of a loop hole, but again I would say if I had a choice I would love to join a course closer to home. There are major benefits of joining a local club. There is no comparison. But it's all or nothing with them.
And agree that subs can be high due maintenance costs, but GUI should be doing more to get people into competition golf and not out of it. In the long run it would get more people into local clubs and hopefully bring down price of subs.
Glad to see full member on here seeing the benefit away golfers bring to there club when they else wouldn't, but most (not all) of the against comments do sound like "it's members only, you're not invited"0 -
Totally disagree, the point of your handicap is that you can play in competition with someone who is at much different standard to you and have a fair chance.
What you are basically saying is that handicap system should only be enjoyed by the people who can afford it, therefore making it an elite sport.
I am committed to my family, so that's where my money and time goes, so therefore I do not have the right to own a handicap.
There are plenty of members around the country who are joined their top local clubs and can afford to pay the sub without worrying if it's value or not, and then play once or twice a year. So you are saying that they deserve a handicap more than I do.
When playing in these open I enjoy trying to break 36, if I was told that away members could not win a prize, I wouldn't care. But I really enjoy the handicap system.
I could ask the question "why do you need to be a member of a club to have a GUI handicap - the handicap system should be good enough to catch bandits" but I think boards.ie would explode
From reading other threads, I agree that I am availing of a loop hole, but again I would say if I had a choice I would love to join a course closer to home. There are major benefits of joining a local club. There is no comparison. But it's all or nothing with them.
And agree that subs can be high due maintenance costs, but GUI should be doing more to get people into competition golf and not out of it. In the long run it would get more people into local clubs and hopefully bring down price of subs.
Glad to see full member on here seeing the benefit away golfers bring to there club when they else wouldn't, but most (not all) of the against comments do sound like "it's members only, you're not invited"
Would you agree how some read the above reasoning (not just from you, but others in a similar situation) to sound like " I want to be a member (of the GUI handicap community) even though I cannot afford the fee it wants to charge me - but it should let me in anyway"0 -
What you are basically saying is that handicap system should only be enjoyed by the people who can afford it, therefore making it an elite sport.
To an extent yes. 'Elite' can be an emotive word however. But there is no getting around that golf is expensive, and if that makes it elitist then so be it (though I dont think that word really applies to golf in Ireland).
It is not that you are excluded from golf in its entirety. Play society golf. Play greenfees. Many towns, pubs, workplaces, schools past pupils, other sports clubs have their golf societies. Valid in their own right and meeting a particular demand.
But not GUI handicap golf competitively without the basis of a'home' club for you to play regularly, and in conjunction with that, maintain a (reasonably accurate, open to abuse, but to a great extent, working system) handicap.
Golf is no different to many leisure pursuits in the follow respect that you site and should not be particularly criticised because it can be more expense than others - only open to those who can afford it. Summer holidays in the Bahamas are only available to those who can afford it.0 -
Advertisement
-
SaveOurLyric wrote: »Would you agree how some read the above reasoning (not just from you, but others in a similar situation) to sound like " I want to be a member (of the GUI handicap community) even though I cannot afford the fee it wants to charge me - but it should let me in anyway"
Hi, yeah I suppose I would agree that it sound a bit like that. But I would also agree that people, who think that my saying this is wrong/stupid, are people who think golf is only for the well off.
I am not looking for any free rides, just an affordable / valuable way to play handicap golf for the amount of golf that I play. And I don't know why people think that I have to play weekly to have a handicap.
Imagine if the GAA requested high membership fees to play in competition. (And I know the cost of maintaining the course etc) You'd wouldn't have any junior teams, less committed players wouldn't pay it.0 -
Golf is not a cheap hobby and thats nothing to do with elitism. Elitism may become a symptom in places but its not the cause.
Its quite costly to keep such a vast playing field up to standard and a golf club needs sustainable membership numbers paying full whack to finance that. People who are seeking away memberships as a loophole for getting full value of such expensive facilities while paying hardly anything towards them are abusing the system and will ultimately contribute to the demise of club golf in its current form and will ultimately shoot themselves in the foot that way. Its a form of 'I'm alright Jack' (for the moment).
There may be too many courses for the number of - for want of a better word - serious golfers, but that doesn't change the above fact. I don't think anyone can argue with that.
People who are saying thats not what they're doing and say ' hey better I give something and isn't it better than nothing' are only kiddin themselves. The truth is if €300 is all you can spend or justify or whatever you wanna call it then association regulated golf on top courses is simply something you cannot afford.
I don't think many people are saying that elitism is the cause of declining golf membership and higher membership prices. My point is it will be the effect. Membership numbers since the height of the boom are shrinking, with fewer new members and more older ones, who like things to stay "as is" - if that's not elitism, I don't know what is. Research shows that more will join if golf membership becomes more affordable
This is a controversial topic among a shrinking population of club members and a growing population of those aspiring to be club members but who cannot afford either the time or money required.
I agree that golf clubs are expensive to run and costs are relatively fixed in the short term. But it's cost per unit that counts and higher number playing reduce this figure.
My experience is that it's difficult and time consuming to reduce costs but it can be done. We did it in our club - the net effect - a better maintained course and better run facilities like pro-shop, bar and restaurant.
The hard bit is staunching the hemorrhage in revenue. In the Celtic Tiger boom, it was a lot easier to increase revenue - we did it in a variety of ways, either through special price promotions relying on word of mouth and through flier / poster campaigns. Both approaches worked before recession. At that time entrance fees brought in huge revenues for the numbers recruited.
Since recession, we had to drop entrance fees and become much more focussed with marketing. Fliers no longer work - there are too many at it. With little budget we have had to rely on the internet and word of mouth. But relying on the same old expensive membership types has resulted in only limited success.
A more rounded business approach, tailored to meet the needs of individual clubs, is required to bring in more revenue, IMO. This is the approach being promoted by the Confederation of Golf in Ireland. It's not a panacea for all clubs but will give more clubs a better chance of survival, if they put the work in.0 -
SaveOurLyric wrote: »I think the idea that alternative packages will help is the King Canute attitude, with respect.
The same as distance fees for peanuts, 'new to golf', 6 month subs, etc, and the cheap greenfee specials, opens to beat the band (around me, you can have a choice of opens every day of the week within 30 minutes drive plus opens or classics at the weekends through the summer).
The traditional membership funding model fundamentally was correct : divide the cost of having the country's courses/clubs among those who play them (yes, with some modificatons for juniors, or those abroad, and yes, according to a 9 hole course where land is cheap being a lower sub than an old high class course where it is expensive around Dublin - but not much more variation than that).
As Boskowsi puts it well above, golf is just an expensive game.
For me, what the Irish golf world has not faced is that not as many people who could genuinely afford it can do so anymore. So the move on opens is a good one and deals with the reality - those who are not paying their due must be forced out, and either pay more, or get less golf for what they can pay (a handful of greenfee games a year, not a dozen open competitions as if they were full-rights members of the GUI/ILGU community).
Curtailing this distance/opens corruption of that model is a positive step.
You're entitled to your views and they may be right for your club, but more broadly based research shows otherwise.
And research published by the GUI / ILGU / PGA has been around since 2009:
http://www.ilgu.ie/uploads/docs/2138_ClubMembership.pdf.
Later research and help with member recruitment and retention is now provided by the body set up by GUI / ILGU / PGA to help clubs with the business side of things, the Confederation of Golf in Ireland (CGI):
http://www.cgigolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Membership-Recruitment-and-Retainment-Examples1.pdf
I'm no lover of the distance member clubs myself, but feel that clubs would be better served if they adopted a more businesslike approach and competed with these outfits rather than relying on GUI competition rules.
But there's a long road ahead and the jury is out on which approach will work for your particular club. If your club has the resources to wait it out, good luck to you. Personally, I'd prefer the pro-active approach being put forward for consideration by the CGI.0 -
The top placings in every open singles or team event I play in no matter what course is dominated by slievenemon "members"
It's about time it got stamped out and if you can't afford membership or haven't the time commitment for club golf then you don't play it simple as that.
Plenty of society golf, teetimes.ie etc to get all the non commitment cheap golf you want but no way should it be accommodated that cheap non regulated memberships with GUI handicaps are allowed.0 -
The top placings in every open singles or team event I play in no matter what course is dominated by slievenemon "members"
It's about time it got stamped out and if you can't afford membership or haven't the time commitment for club golf then you don't play it simple as that.
Plenty of society golf, teetimes.ie etc to get all the non commitment cheap golf you want but no way should it be accommodated that cheap non regulated memberships with GUI handicaps are allowed.
I understand your feelings as a member, but from a purely business point of view, do you seriously think this new rule will work, when so many clubs are faced with falling revenues in a huge competitive battle for survival?
If the rule is not policed by the GUI, I can't see how it will produce the results that some people expect, even after the GUI issue their guidelines on implementation.
A controversial issue, I know - views are split among golf club members as well as the Golf's administrative bodies. On the one hand clubs are being advised to have realistic club specific business plans and on the other, new rules are emanating from GUI as regards open competitions.
I guess that's human nature - we want things to happen but aren't always realistic about making "solutions" work.0 -
golfwallah wrote: »I understand your feelings as a member, but from a purely business point of view, do you seriously think this new rule will work, when so many clubs are faced with falling revenues in a huge competitive battle for survival?
It may only be a small factor in the bigger financial scale things facing Irish golf. But because it is a small one, I wouldnt knock it for that. Every little helps.
And, while it will be an equally small factor in reducing handicap banditry, if it has any beneficial influence on that front also, then why not.
It may be a small win-win, but its still a win-win on two fronts.
Just because it is not completely eliminating hc crooks or financial difficulties from Irish golf, is no reason not to go ahead with it. I really dont understand the knocking of it.0 -
golfwallah wrote: »I guess that's human nature - we want things to happen but aren't always realistic about making "solutions" work.
Or unless it is the perfect solve-all solution with unanimous agreement that everyone agrees on, the tendency is to do nothing. Realpolitik is that its generally better to go ahead and implement the imperfect action rather than sit around criticising it but implementing nothing.0 -
I've said my thing. Golf is by nature not a cheap sport. Having said that its not that expensive either. Look its 20 quid a week. If it meant that much to you sure 20 quid could be found. Cigarettes? Cut down on the pints?
I'd love to be flying sailplanes or go yachting but I can't afford it. Should people running such sports owe me a cheaper way of accessing these sports? By way of me arguing their sport would benefit from it?
No I don't think so. Its mostly me who would benefit from it.0 -
SaveOurLyric wrote: »It may only be a small factor in the bigger financial scale things facing Irish golf. But because it is a small one, I wouldnt knock it for that. Every little helps.
And, while it will be an equally small factor in reducing handicap banditry, if it has any beneficial influence on that front also, then why not.
It may be a small win-win, but its still a win-win on two fronts.
Just because it is not completely eliminating hc crooks or financial difficulties from Irish golf, is no reason not to go ahead with it. I really dont understand the knocking of it.
You could be right, it might help a little.
I'm not knocking anything - just trying to point out the pros and cons.
It certainly will give the appearance of something being done about distance membership clubs providing a base for more affordable golf. This may provide a "feel good" factor to some club members, in the short run at least.
But will it help clubs financially and will it reduce "banditry"? I doubt it. The jury is still out on that one.
The statistics on club closures will demonstrate the need for clubs to act to help themselves to increase revenues, rather than rely on rule changes. Beating the "slievenamons" and surviving by providing better value for money makes more sense to me.
But I guess more clubs will close no matter what happens - the only question is, which ones?0 -
The clubs at most risk are those with big debts but the fundamental principle on which the game in this country is built is membership - clubs are mutual societies.golfwallah wrote: »You could be right, it might help a little.
I'm not knocking anything - just trying to point out the pros and cons.
It certainly will give the appearance of something being done about distance membership clubs providing a base for more affordable golf. This may provide a "feel good" factor to some club members, in the short run at least.
But will it help clubs financially and will it reduce "banditry"? I doubt it. The jury is still out on that one.
The statistics on club closures will demonstrate the need for clubs to act to help themselves to increase revenues, rather than rely on rule changes. Beating the "slievenamons" and surviving by providing better value for money makes more sense to me.
But I guess more clubs will close no matter what happens - the only question is, which ones?
Opens were conceived as a means for members of clubs to share each other's facilities and hospitality - not primarily as a source of income. That's why rates for Opens are lower than green fees.
The country memberships for handicaps and access to Opens is obviously an abuse of this system and the clubs who do it are exploiting their fellow GUI member clubs. The requirement for a minimum level of involvement in “your“ club should be enforced - on the clubs concerned at least as much as on their “members“.0 -
Advertisement
-
I've said my thing. Golf is by nature not a cheap sport. Having said that its not that expensive either. Look its 20 quid a week. If it meant that much to you sure 20 quid could be found. Cigarettes? Cut down on the pints?
I'd love to be flying sailplanes or go yachting but I can't afford it. Should people running such sports owe me a cheaper way of accessing these sports? By way of me arguing their sport would benefit from it?
No I don't think so. Its mostly me who would benefit from it.
Generalisations aside, neither golf nor yachting are cheap sports. I don't know anything about sailplanes but I do a bit of sailing with my brother. And I can safely say that I spend more on golf than he spends on sailing (and he has a well-maintained 10 meter ocean going ketch - not a new one but with room to sleep 4 people).
The point I'd like to make is there are many price points in sailing - the same sailing club can accommodate people with yachts costing €300,000 down to people with inexpensive dinghies.
Unfortunately, in golf, many clubs are mainly relying on adult category full and 5 day memberships and then reacting to the competitor down the road with cheap "rest of the year" or "intermediate" type membership offers. They have a very limited product range, thus opening market opportunities for the "slievenamons" of this world.
There is a gap in the market for people who only want to play about 20 times or less a year and can't justify paying around €1,000 for the privilege (i.e. €50 per round). Clubs need to think their position through a bit more clearly and develop well thought out and well communicated business plans. The good news is that assistance to broaden their membership base can be obtained from the organisation set up by GUI / ILGU / PGA, the CGI (click link).0 -
The clubs at most risk are those with big debts but the fundamental principle on which the game in this country is built is membership - clubs are mutual societies.
Opens were conceived as a means for members of clubs to share each other's facilities and hospitality - not primarily as a source of income. That's why rates for Opens are lower than green fees.
The country memberships for handicaps and access to Opens is obviously an abuse of this system and the clubs who do it are exploiting their fellow GUI member clubs. The requirement for a minimum level of involvement in “your“ club should be enforced - on the clubs concerned at least as much as on their “members“.
Sure, clubs with big debts are at high risk of closure. But all clubs need income. And, although opens have a purely golfing rationale, the business rationale is also very important - every cent counts, ask any golf club Treasurer.
I take your point but still say the best way to deal with competition from country membership is to provide more customer focussed, better value membership in your home club. I'm not saying slash all types of membership fees, just broaden the range of membership category along the lines successfully employed by privately owned outfits like Hollystown and Castleknock, council courses like Corballis and Elm Green and a small number of member owned clubs.
I'm all for keeping and encouraging as many people as possible into golf membership rather than watching continuing membesrhip decline and more club closures - the high volume / low cost model as opposed to the low volume / high cost one.0 -
golfwallah wrote: »can't justify paying around €1,000 for the privilege (i.e. €50 per round).
Thats a very Dublin based figured. Most of the rest of the country has €500-700 membership as the norm.
€30 for 4 hours use of a well maintained piece of land cannot be seen as bad value. It it does, then unfortunately you do not have the money to pay golf.0 -
golfwallah wrote: »There is a gap in the market for people who only want to play about 20 times or less a year.
= Society and/or Greenfee golf.
They are catered for.0 -
golfwallah wrote: »I'm all for keeping and encouraging as many people as possible into golf membership rather than watching continuing membesrhip decline and more club closures - the high volume / low cost model as opposed to the low volume / high cost one.
Everyone is for encouraging more people to play golf (the elitism jibe (not from you golfwallah) is just a red herring).
But where we disagree is on the number of clubs I guess. More closing is exactly what the sport needs. So that the number of playing members and income to run clubs reaches a sustainable level.
As a proportion of income golf has never before been as cheap in Ireland. No further reduction is possible to attract more players. If anything it is artificially and unsustainably low and will rise. Cost of playing golf is not a deterrant than can be overcome. Business plans and well run proactive clubs are all very well - but only on a survivial of the fitters, which specific clubs will survive. It does not affect the overall picture : more clubs need to go under.0 -
SaveOurLyric wrote: »Everyone is for encouraging more people to play golf (the elitism jibe (not from you golfwallah) is just a red herring).
But where we disagree is on the number of clubs I guess. More closing is exactly what the sport needs. So that the number of playing members and income to run clubs reaches a sustainable level.
As a proportion of income golf has never before been as cheap in Ireland. No further reduction is possible to attract more players. If anything it is artificially and unsustainably low and will rise. Cost of playing golf is not a deterrant than can be overcome. Business plans and well run proactive clubs are all very well - but only on a survivial of the fitters, which specific clubs will survive. It does not affect the overall picture : more clubs need to go under.
Agreed, more clubs will close and need to at that. Unfortunately, that is how the market sorts out excess capacity, which is what we now have.
Where I'm coming from is from the position of an individual captain or club chairman, who wants to make sure it's not his club that goes under. This was the position I found myself in 4 years ago and can assure you that nobody wants to preside over their own club's closure. Fortunately, I proposed changes and got the ok from the AGM to do what it takes to survive. We are in a reasonable good location, implemented a lot of tough cost and marketing decisions and came through successfully.
I'm all for survival of the fittest (or more likely survival of the most adaptable) and this is where help in developing and implementing a realistic business plan comes in. This kind of help (e.g. from the CGI) wasn't around 4 years ago - it now is, for those smart enough to avail of it.0 -
SaveOurLyric wrote: »= Society and/or Greenfee golf.
They are catered for.
That's a bit dismissive, don't you think? These folk also want GUI handicaps and don't want what you are proposing.
I've already given examples of Dublin based private and council owned clubs (there's also Kilcock and Hollywood Lakes after sorting their debt problems), that are offering more flexible / affordable types of membership. CGI also give examples of similar success stories from the UK. Seems to be working for them - so why the closed mind?
Don't see why these concepts can't work more generally and keep more people in golf membership locally, without having to resort to the "slievenamons".0 -
SaveOurLyric wrote: »Thats a very Dublin based figured. Most of the rest of the country has €500-700 membership as the norm.
€30 for 4 hours use of a well maintained piece of land cannot be seen as bad value. It it does, then unfortunately you do not have the money to pay golf.
I've come across quite a few people who are not short of money and have chosen to take out flexible membership in either Castleknock or Hollystown - it simply makes economic sense to them.
There are a lot of people out there with different views of the world than yourself and research shows that more people will join clubs if there are product offerings to meet their needs.
Not everyone wants to play society golf or on a green fee basis or fork out for full membership for a few games per year. That's like saying you can have any car you like as long as it's black.0 -
I like the idea of more flexible membership schemes. I do get that not everyone can afford full whack and not everyone can make the time commitment at all stages of life (kids, long commutes etc). I don't like loopholes and taking advantage on the expense of others.0
-
Advertisement
-
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.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
Advertisement