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
Cheapest golf club membership with gui for 2020
Options
Comments
-
Absolutely.
It'll take a few harsh winter's before the word change is permitted in our clubhouse.
a cull is required if supply outstrips demand.
None of the cheaper options on this thread bring more money into the game. Sure they might marginally increase numbers, but numbers aren't important, it's the money that keeps a club open.
Turning 1 guy paying 1000 a year intro 3 guys *maybe* paying 400 a year is not sustainable.
We have already seen what nomadic, fickle golfers do, just constantly move to the cheapest club...it's an obvious race to the bottom that will result in more clubs closing.0 -
a cull is required if supply outstrips demand.
None of the cheaper options on this thread bring more money into the game. Sure they might marginally increase numbers, but numbers aren't important, it's the money that keeps a club open.
Turning 1 guy paying 1000 a year intro 3 guys *maybe* paying 400 a year is not sustainable.
We have already seen what nomadic, fickle golfers do, just constantly move to the cheapest club...it's an obvious race to the bottom that will result in more clubs closing.
This is very true.
members behavior is one of the issues, look at Dunmurry lately, small membership that drove the price down to the point of closure.
Now that its closed they tried everything to keep it open, but way too late.
A club has a number it needs every year to survive, and members need to understand that the money needs to come from somewhere, Member fees/Green fees/Society etc. If the green fees and societies dry up then the renewals need to go up.
its pretty simple really, but unfortunately members can be very ignorant when it comes to simple business numbers.0 -
I think you're probably more stuck in on a particular membership model and seem to think everyone either should agree with you or go away.You are stuck on this cost per round model.
How do you expect a club to balance the books when they have no idea how much money they are going to get in every year?
At the moment they have guaranteed income thats paid for the year in January.
If that changes to the majority moving to P2P then how do they afford to pay the lads to cut the grass in winter?
Every enterprise has to make projections based on their customers and market conditions so nothing different for golf clubs to anything else.
Golf clubs don't have any guaranteed income, every year of full membership could be the last, which isn't that much more stable than going the pay and play membership route. The only guarantee some clubs have is that interest in full membership is dropping.
For high demand or high quality courses this might not be an issue, for the rest it is.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I think you're probably more stuck in on a particular membership model and seem to think everyone either should agree with you or go away.
Every enterprise has to make projections based on their customers and market conditions so nothing different for golf clubs to anything else.
Golf clubs don't have any guaranteed income, every year of full membership could be the last, which isn't that much more stable than going the pay and play membership route. The only guarantee some clubs have is that interest in full membership is dropping.
For high demand or high quality courses this might not be an issue, for the rest it is.
Its guaranteed income for the year, at the start of the year.
Another thing that is guaranteed for the year are the costs required to run the club.
I don't know many other clubs (other than golf) that operate a pay as you go approach, can you provide any?
If your subs are dropping then making cheaper options available that are not guaranteed is a far riskier model.
The same grass needs to be cut irrespective on whether you have 1 guy playing fo 5,000 guys playing.
In a high demand scenario you can of course move to P2P and be confident that you will at worst break even, but when the issue is lack of demand it just seems to be a crazy idea to both lower your income AND make it not guaranteed.0 -
I mentioned cost per round a couple of times because some people seem to regard pay and play as cheap golf.
If clubs are full they probably don't have money concerns at the moment, so are fine to keep the traditional membership model for the moment.
If they are not full they have spare capacity. And to be sustainable, they need to work out what the best way of getting some revenue for that is. If they can't increase full membership, they can target green fees, societies, open days, early bird /night owl rates, alternative membership options.
In the last category, we've seen lots of intermediate memberships extended to as late as 35 in some cases, cheap introductory offers, pay and play, 5 day, distance.
If you have spare capacity on weekends, you really need to be looking at how to fill that. They're the most valuable slots and if you can't fill them you really should be concerned about sustainability. And if you're introducing a new membership option, or more opens, or changing anything really you have to consider what effect it will have on your current membership base. And you need to price them appropriately.
I don't see how any of this is contentious.0 -
Advertisement
-
If you have spare capacity on weekends, you really need to be looking at how to fill that. They're the most valuable slots and if you can't fill them you really should be concerned about sustainability. And if you're introducing a new membership option, or more opens, or changing anything really you have to consider what effect it will have on your current membership base. And you need to price them appropriately.
I don't see how any of this is contentious.
Your plan is to fill weekend slots with people paying less than the full members playing alongside them.
How does that not just move everyone into the "alternate" membership option and leave the club with a big hole in their budget.
It thats not your plan, then how is it more attractive than just paying full membership?0 -
As you say greebo, the costs for a golf club are largely fixed. There's basically no additional cost to letting someone else out on the course. It's very similar to a hotel this way.
This caused a huge problem during the recession when clubs and hotels were in nama and didn't have to be sustainable. So they were just getting whatever income they could and it didn't matter that they weren't sustainable businesses. Nowadays those clubs would go out of business.
But since your costs are mainly fixed, you're attention should turn to revenue. If it's falling short or just breaking even and you're only offering traditional membership, you need to act now. Because traditional membership has been falling and I haven't seen any argument worth listening to to say that that trend won't continue.0 -
It's probably because the costs are fixed that people are stuck on the idea of a fixed (ie membership) funding model.
You pretty much know at the start of the year how much a golf club is going to cost and you really need to get the majority of that money from membership. I'm talking about your typical club here - not the prestige links course that can expect million+ green fee income.
So what to do? The goal is to capture revenue from those who will not pay a full membership and to do it without jeopardising existing membership.
There may be very little marginal cost in a round of golf but what there is is a capacity issue - especially at peak times (sat/sun morning).
If there is excess supply then you would expect that some clubs will fail, reducing supply and a new equilibrium will be reached. The problem with that is that it's just as likely that all clubs will fail. I think that's what we are moment.
Is there any merit in changing the split between membership and competition fees? My club the sub is about 3 times what 40 competitions would cost. If you were to change that to a 50-50 split, the membership would decrease but the competition income would (hopefully) increase. Sort of a back-door pay per play mechanism. Or would people just stop playing competitions?0 -
Your plan is to fill weekend slots with people paying less than the full members playing alongside them.
How does that not just move everyone into the "alternate" membership option and leave the club with a big hole in their budget.
It thats not your plan, then how is it more attractive than just paying full membership?
If you price it so that it's not in their interest to they won't. If they're playing a dozen times a year and move you'll lose on that member. But they were probably likely to leave completely and this way you might just be losing 25% of their membership fee rather than 100%. And you'll attract new members each year this way or retain people from junior /intermediate, so over a few years your revenue should be increasing.
As I say, if you're already operating at capacity, this isn't an issue. But most clubs aren't nowadays.0 -
moycullen14 wrote: »If there is excess supply then you would expect that some clubs will fail, reducing supply and a new equilibrium will be reached. The problem with that is that it's just as likely that all clubs will fail. I think that's what we are moment.
It's just as likely that all clubs will fail as some clubs will fail???????
I'm sorry but this is definitely the biggest load of hogwash that's ever been said here.
There are many clubs that will never fail and let's just use Portmarnock as an example, it is never failing.
Can you explain why all clubs are just as likely to fail a some?0 -
Advertisement
-
a cull is required if supply outstrips demand.
.....
Turning 1 guy paying 1000 a year intro 3 guys *maybe* paying 400 a year is not sustainable.
I think what people suggesting alternative models to your preferred approach would hope for is turning 1 guy paying 1000 a year into 1 guy paying 1000 a year and two guys paying 300-400+ a year.
Again, as I have said before, this model isn't for every club. It's most likely for those looking for additional revenue sources to keep afloat - why is that so wrong?
You seem to be suggesting they should instead drop the standards and lower the sub to 700 a year and try to attract more members that way. Is that not equally "unfair" to the full member who maybe doesn't want a drop in standards and doesn't care about saving 300 a year? I would think if you said to the current (full) members of a club: we are in a bit of financial bother, your two choices are to (a) drop the standards to make the running cheaper, subs cheaper and attract more members or (b) add in a few intermediate/P&P/other members to generate a bit of additional revenue and keep the standards the same - why would they not go for (b)? We're not talking about adding a thousand P&P members. 20 @ €500 is ten grand - plus potentially a bit more in green fees/other revenue. That could plug a big gap in some smaller golf clubs' finances.
From what I can see (a) would result in dropped standards and more members (ie, competition for slots, wear and tear etc), (b) would result in only more members.
Also the point about how can they assess their projected revenue in January etc is a bit dramatic. They will assess their revenue in January when the full members and [other] members pay their subs - its not like they are getting rid of subs altogether and becoming a public course. Any additional P&P green fees should really only be a very small (but welcome) portion of their income throughout the year (the same as normal green fees which they also can't predict at the start of the year, but obviously forecast some amount of them).0 -
If you price it so that it's not in their interest to they won't. If they're playing a dozen times a year and move you'll lose on that member. But they were probably likely to leave completely and this way you might just be losing 25% of their membership fee rather than 100%. And you'll attract new members each year this way or retain people from junior /intermediate, so over a few years your revenue should be increasing.
What about the large percentage of members who pay the full whack but still only play a dozen or so times per year?
Of course they will move to a cheaper option that still allows them to play the same 12 times.
I think you are underestimating the number of people who are in this position, they are not calculating their cost per round as you are, but if a cheaper option for the same thing becomes available, of course they would switch.
BTW, what you should be calculating is your cost per opportunity to play, thats what being a full member means vs a 5 day, pavillion etc.0 -
Sure, that's the dream, but you need to somehow figure out how you offer the 2 new guys essentially the same product at a lower price, without losing the 1 guy paying 1000 for the same thing.paulanthony wrote: »I think what people suggesting alternative models to your preferred approach would hope for is turning 1 guy paying 1000 a year into 1 guy paying 1000 a year and two guys paying 300-400+ a year.
Nothing wrong with looking for more revenue, but if it was this simple, why isnt every club doing it?paulanthony wrote: »Again, as I have said before, this model isn't for every club. It's most likely for those looking for additional revenue sources to keep afloat - why is that so wrong?
(b) might result in more members, it might also result in less money into the club.paulanthony wrote: »You seem to be suggesting they should instead drop the standards and lower the sub to 700 a year and try to attract more members that way. Is that not equally "unfair" to the full member who maybe doesn't want a drop in standards and doesn't care about saving 300 a year? I would think if you said to the current (full) members of a club: we are in a bit of financial bother, your two choices are to (a) drop the standards to make the running cheaper, subs cheaper and attract more members or (b) add in a few intermediate/P&P/other members to generate a bit of additional revenue and keep the standards the same - why would they not go for (b)? We're not talking about adding a thousand P&P members. 20 @ €500 is ten grand - plus potentially a bit more in green fees/other revenue. That could plug a big gap in some smaller golf clubs' finances.
From what I can see (a) would result in dropped standards and more members (ie, competition for slots, wear and tear etc), (b) would result in only more members.
Then what do you do?
Say sorry to everyone next year and put the prices back up?
Hmm now, everyone is pissed off and leaves.paulanthony wrote: »Also the point about how can they assess their projected revenue in January etc is a bit dramatic. They will assess their revenue in January when the full members and [other] members pay their subs - its not like they are getting rid of subs altogether and becoming a public course. Any additional P&P green fees should really only be a very small (but welcome) portion of their income throughout the year (the same as normal green fees which they also can't predict at the start of the year, but obviously forecast some amount of them).
Its not at all dramatic.
Every club does their budget by looking at what subs will be coming in come January. They make projections on grreenfees, societies etc, but the op-ex is paid for my subs. CapEx is paid for by either saving some reserves or using joining fees if you still have them.
You plan is wholly dependent on somehow offering popular timeslots for cheaper than it costs a full member *without* losing any full members.
Its a very dangerous game, compared to meeting with your members and discussing some combination of lowers costs/standards and/or increasing the subs.0 -
ShivasIrons wrote: »It's just as likely that all clubs will fail as some clubs will fail???????
I'm sorry but this is definitely the biggest load of hogwash that's ever been said here.
There are many clubs that will never fail and let's just use Portmarnock as an example, it is never failing.
Can you explain why all clubs are just as likely to fail a some?
Badly put, I'll agree :-), but don't you think the 'biggest load of hogwash' is a bit strong - especially for this forum :rolleyes:
If the supply/capacity of golf clubs is too high then thinking a few will fail/disappear, allowing equilibrium to be reached, is wrong.
It's more likely that ALL clubs will be damaged - perhaps fatally - by the over-supply.
The analogy is having two lions in hunting in an area that can only support one. What happens is that both die - not just the weak one.
Of course, I'm talking about the average club - the prestige links might as well be on a different planet for all they have in common with your 'normal' golf club.0 -
Its guaranteed income for the year, at the start of the year.
Another thing that is guaranteed for the year are the costs required to run the club.
I don't know many other clubs (other than golf) that operate a pay as you go approach, can you provide any?
If your subs are dropping then making cheaper options available that are not guaranteed is a far riskier model.
The same grass needs to be cut irrespective on whether you have 1 guy playing fo 5,000 guys playing.
In a high demand scenario you can of course move to P2P and be confident that you will at worst break even, but when the issue is lack of demand it just seems to be a crazy idea to both lower your income AND make it not guaranteed.
Look nothing you've said is a reply to me, so I'll return the favour and ask you to provide a list of enterprises that refuse additional revenue for minimal extra cost, while not impacting on existing customers.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Look nothing you've said is a reply to me, so I'll return the favour and ask you to provide a list of enterprises that refuse additional revenue for minimal extra cost, while not impacting on existing customers.
I'm pretty sure I replied to everything you said.
I don't believe I said any such thing, what I did do was ask how you do it without impacting on existing customers.0 -
moycullen14 wrote: »
The analogy is having two lions in hunting in an area that can only support one. What happens is that both die - not just the weak one.
Now thats the biggest load of hogwash!
What happens is the weaker one dies.0 -
So those in favour of the cheaper pay and play option would you be happy playing after 12 on a Saturday and Sunday out side of the prime slots.
What is stopping a club selling their spare capacity at the weekend as green fees or to societies.
I have been listening to too much capacity and courses closing for the past 15 years a couple have closed for different reasons.
I hear u cant get out at the weekend on some of the courses in NCD.
There are pay and play options available, Castleknock have a lifestyle membership we have distance memberships and most price points cover form 1000 thru 2500 in Dublin so something for everyone.
The I cant join the course I want because they don't offer something that suits me at this point in my life is just life find some where or something that suits.0 -
So those in favour of the cheaper pay and play option would you be happy playing after 12 on a Saturday and Sunday out side of the prime slots.
What is stopping a club selling their spare capacity at the weekend as green fees or to societies.
I have been listening to too much capacity and courses closing for the past 15 years a couple have closed for different reasons.
I hear u cant get out at the weekend on some of the courses in NCD.
There are pay and play options available, Castleknock have a lifestyle membership we have distance memberships and most price points cover form 1000 thru 2500 in Dublin so something for everyone.
The I cant join the course I want because they don't offer something that suits me at this point in my life is just life find some where or something that suits.0 -
There are pay and play options available, Castleknock have a lifestyle membership we have distance memberships and most price points cover form 1000 thru 2500 in Dublin so something for everyone.
The I cant join the course I want because they don't offer something that suits me at this point in my life is just life find some where or something that suits.
Castleknock though is exactly what greebo is saying a golf club isn’t or at least shouldn’t emulate (as far as I understand the argument).
I’m a member there and it’s essentially a very good golf gym. It suits players under a certain age but it’s not a members owned club and it doesn’t feel like one. It’s a transactional environment.
There’s an almost philosophical difference in opinion on that point regarding golf clubs.0 -
Advertisement
-
Castleknock though is exactly what greebo is saying a golf club isn’t or at least shouldn’t emulate (as far as I understand the argument).
I’m a member there and it’s essentially a very good golf gym. It suits players under a certain age but it’s not a members owned club and it doesn’t feel like one. It’s a transactional environment.
There’s an almost philosophical difference in opinion on that point regarding golf clubs.
I think he is saying that traditional membership clubs cannot move to that model.
Every members club in the country has golfers who pay and don't play or play very little. I'd bet some of the bigger harder to get into could have hundreds, this is why if u started offering them a cheaper option you would most likely loose money.
I think Ireland is probably one of the best countries in the world to be a golfer, we can play any of the courses, membership is financially in reach for most(maybe not on the course u want).
We can go and play competitions on other courses for cheap green fees it's great.
The reality is maybe that it has become too cheap to play.
If u look at the US and UK most can't afford to be members here if there were another 100000 golfers trying to get membership then prices would rise to a level where it would be expensive to join a club again.0 -
Castleknock though is exactly what greebo is saying a golf club isn’t or at least shouldn’t emulate (as far as I understand the argument).
I’m a member there and it’s essentially a very good golf gym. It suits players under a certain age but it’s not a members owned club and it doesn’t feel like one. It’s a transactional environment.
There’s an almost philosophical difference in opinion on that point regarding golf clubs.I think he is saying that traditional membership clubs cannot move to that model.
Every members club in the country has golfers who pay and don't play or play very little. I'd bet some of the bigger harder to get into could have hundreds, this is why if u started offering them a cheaper option you would most likely loose money.
I think Ireland is probably one of the best countries in the world to be a golfer, we can play any of the courses, membership is financially in reach for most(maybe not on the course u want).
We can go and play competitions on other courses for cheap green fees it's great.
The reality is maybe that it has become too cheap to play.
If u look at the US and UK most can't afford to be members here if there were another 100000 golfers trying to get membership then prices would rise to a level where it would be expensive to join a club again.
What I'm saying is that you can have *some* course that follow the Castleknock model, but you cant turn every club into that model or even a large percentage of clubs into that model as they just wont have the numbers that Castleknock has.
It Luttrelstown copied the same model then what would happen to Castleknock? You would for sure have people dividing their time between the two.
Are there enough golfers will to travel to both to sustain them both?
Now Hermitage start to lose members to both these options and they follow suit...are there enough people actually playing every week to cover the expenses of these 3 clubs? I seriously doubt it.
(Then add in Westmanstown, Newlands, Lucan, Grange Castle, Elm Green, Sillogue...its almost like there are too many clubs for the demand in the area)...)
Playing in Castleknock is equivalent to green fees in my opinion. Note that I have *zero* issues with this model, you get what you pay for but equally you dont get what you dont pay for. Each to their own.
Historically in members clubs there were huge percentages of people who paid up every year and never set foot in the place. For years we had the same. Then we had a recessions and people because more aware and stop paying if they werent playing. Anyone who was paying was certainly playing and the timesheet pressure increased significantly without any net increase in member numbers.
You cant magic up more slots on the timesheet so you need to really closely manage your numbers to ensure people are still able to get out to play.
Its a balancing act and then couple that with balancing the finances it aint easy.0 -
What I'm saying is that you can have *some* course that follow the Castleknock model, but you cant turn every club into that model or even a large percentage of clubs into that model as they just wont have the numbers that Castleknock has.
It Luttrelstown copied the same model then what would happen to Castleknock? You would for sure have people dividing their time between the two.
Are there enough golfers will to travel to both to sustain them both?
Now Hermitage start to lose members to both these options and they follow suit...are there enough people actually playing every week to cover the expenses of these 3 clubs? I seriously doubt it.
(Then add in Westmanstown, Newlands, Lucan, Grange Castle, Elm Green, Sillogue...its almost like there are too many clubs for the demand in the area)...)
Playing in Castleknock is equivalent to green fees in my opinion. Note that I have *zero* issues with this model, you get what you pay for but equally you dont get what you dont pay for. Each to their own.
Historically in members clubs there were huge percentages of people who paid up every year and never set foot in the place. For years we had the same. Then we had a recessions and people because more aware and stop paying if they werent playing. Anyone who was paying was certainly playing and the timesheet pressure increased significantly without any net increase in member numbers.
You cant magic up more slots on the timesheet so you need to really closely manage your numbers to ensure people are still able to get out to play.
Its a balancing act and then couple that with balancing the finances it aint easy.
I know a member in a family owned club down the country which is in serious trouble at the moment and has asked members if they’d like to take over the whole thing. I doubt they’ll take up the offer. I don’t think most people would have a clue where to start in trying to run a club.
Id say there are not many non links clubs in rural Ireland (by that I mean out in the countryside away from the cities and larger towns) which are successful being member owned and run.0 -
Sure, that's the dream, but you need to somehow figure out how you offer the 2 new guys essentially the same product at a lower price, without losing the 1 guy paying 1000 for the same thing.
it's not essentially the same product. It's a different product.Nothing wrong with looking for more revenue, but if it was this simple, why isnt every club doing it?
Because, as you and others have been at pains to stress on this thread, golf clubs aren't looking necessarily to make a profit and some are more than happy with their revenue, demand, numbers etc(b) might result in more members, it might also result in less money into the club.
Then what do you do?
Say sorry to everyone next year and put the prices back up?
Hmm now, everyone is pissed off and leaves.
Everywhere that has alternative membership options generally has a limit on them and can stop taking in more if it doesn't work. They also generally just offer these options to new members / limit the amount of time you can stay on this option / limit by age.Its not at all dramatic.
Every club does their budget by looking at what subs will be coming in come January. They make projections on grreenfees, societies etc, but the op-ex is paid for my subs. CapEx is paid for by either saving some reserves or using joining fees if you still have them.
Yes I agree but this doesn't invalidate my point. The sub will be paid up front and then any extras during the year. The bulk of income from non-full members should be from their subs paid in January. Just like full members who pay their sub up front but don't buy vouchers for 52 bottles of lucozade in January or pay all their competition fees in January.You plan is wholly dependent on somehow offering popular timeslots for cheaper than it costs a full member *without* losing any full members.
Its a very dangerous game, compared to meeting with your members and discussing some combination of lowers costs/standards and/or increasing the subs.
As you will have noted I suggested excluding the popular time slots. Along with club majors etc.0 -
Users will be clicking into this thread to see about cheapest golf club membership with GUI for 2020 so while the OT chat is okay to a point it's rerailing at this stage.
If you want to keep discussing then feel free to start a separate thread or discuss via PM.
Back on topic pleaseMy stuff for sale on Adverts inc. outdoor furniture, roof box and EDDI
0 -
Users will be clicking into this thread to see about cheapest golf club membership with GUI for 2020 so while the OT chat is okay to a point it's rerailing at this stage.
If you want to keep discussing then feel free to start a separate thread or discuss via PM.
Back on topic please
Very well said, Blessington Lakes, just outside Dublin 15 mins past Lisheen Springs and beside Tulfarris is 550 all in..now that's value and before you all start shouting only a 9 hole course ! So what, I hear people on here talking about time constraints etc etc ..well you have best of both worlds0 -
I know a member in a family owned club down the country which is in serious trouble at the moment and has asked members if they’d like to take over the whole thing. I doubt they’ll take up the offer. I don’t think most people would have a clue where to start in trying to run a club.
Id say there are not many non links clubs in rural Ireland (by that I mean out in the countryside away from the cities and larger towns) which are successful being member owned and run.
What is success for a course like that though? I was a country member in one paid 150 a year so I could play when I went home for the odd weekend.
They are not trying to make a profit they are just happy staying in the black having money to pay the staff and maintain the course.
Not many people who play in courses like that will be passing the gate of one course to get to another so it's very much a community atmosphere.
I can't think of a course in connaught that has closed and it's the area most affected by the recession.0 -
Success is relative for clubs. Take the likes Hermitage, Naas, Galway etc i would imagine the continuous upgrading of facilities and some interclub success for others like for instance Belturbet with about 110 members at 400 euro a pop success is surviving and contributing positively to their community.0
-
Would be interested to know from Dublin based posters for 2021 . What are the cheapest courses to join up around the Dublin area?0
-
Advertisement
-
Here's a decent website that gives (relatively) up to date info on clubs around the country. Gives details on subs, green fees and number of members. Also, importantly whether they are open to new members - I say relatively because I think it's up to clubs to provide the information.Gary Gurney wrote: »Would be interested to know from Dublin based posters for 2021 . What are the cheapest courses to join up around the Dublin area?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement