If you were on a green committee...

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Each golf course is so unique, in so many ways, that it's an impossible question to answer on a global basis."

Patrick:

I realize that but I didn't ask for an answer on a global basis. Different people belong to different clubs and I'm interested in all their unique answers.

"One must understand each golf course's uniqueness, exercise due diligence, and then exercise good judgement."

Did anyone imply otherwise---other than you that is?

"If a golf course is underbudgeted to begin with, why ask them to come up with additional short falls?"

I didn't say anything about being underbudgeted to begin with, only you did.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Because it's prudent to assume that some green budgets are lacking in the necessary funds, some are just right and some may have surplus.

But, taking $ 50,000 away from a golf course where the budge is lacking, or just right, isn't prudent.

Therefore, one would have to assume that you were directing your comments to golf courses with surplus in their budgets.

Does GMCC have a history of Green Budgets with surpluses in them ?

Do many other courses ?

[herrstein]

Food and beverage.
Seriously, though- I am on a green committee or two. Everything that's not greens, tees, and fairways can be ignored without impacting the golf. Then the Super can cut staff, which is the most effective way to save money. Courses that spend a lot of money on peripheral areas must either have more money or compromise care on the course. There are all kinds of ways for a creative super to make peripheral areas sightly without having to spend a lot maintaining them.
In this day of super high expectations about green speed, it's hard to save much beyond that without accepting poorer greens.
I have always maintained that a course that spends its money on its main asset- the golf course- will do better financially than one that spends a lot maintaining landscaping around a clubhouse, or having fine dining for 10 people a night, or having a lot in pro shop inventory. Golf is why we're there, after all.
I wonder what Newport CC spends maintaining their lavish clubhouse landscaping? ;-)

[herrstein]

Now that I have read this entire thread (somewhat superficially), I should add this question:
what is the difference between an "unnecessary bunker" and a "necessary bunker?" Are there bunkers that are neither?
Bunkers don't cost any more to maintain than grass at our clubs. They could cost less if we weren't so sensitive to the "fairness" whiners. We could just leave 'em be. Maybe a shot of Roundup every now and then....

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

With our present super who's been there almost 25 years I'd say the history is that he comes in right on budget. He's an excellent budgeter. How do your clubs go about creating a budget for the coming year? And secondly, have the maintenance practices on your clubs remained the same or have they been intentionally altered at some point in some way?

"They could cost less if we weren't so sensitive to the "fairness" whiners. We could just leave 'em be. Maybe a shot of Roundup every now and then...."

Doug Stein:

That's precisely the point in our decision----eg penal areas perhaps do not need so much maintenance--ie cost!

[Andy Acker]

I was just appointed to my Club's Green Committee and thankfully I read this discussion threat prior to my meeting (last night) and I made a resolution. Instead of picking at every line item of the budget I kept my mouth shut and listened to our superintendent. What I found was the budget and the organization of his department is in line with the philosophy of the club. It was an education and I was impressed.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Budgets are estimates for future needs based on prior needs or experiences.

With changing weather patterns over several seasons, it's almost impossible to accurately predict chemical, fertilizer or agent use.

One also has to inventory equipment, review previous purchases and the expected shelf life of the existing equipment.  In some instances clubs have put off purchasing needed equipment and need to catch up, which means the budget takes a hit.

Irrigation systems installed in the late 60's and 70's might be in need of serious repair or replacement.  As systems break down, repairs escalate.

I don't know many clubs that undertake radical changes in their maintainance methods, unless:
A new superintendent is brought in and given carte blanche.
A new regime comes in and provides carte blanche
A new regime comes in and cuts, just on principle.
The golf course has undergone a radical change.
The maintainance philosophy is radically changed.

Each club is unique.
Each club usually goes through the process of rotation, meaning that new Chair and Committeemen must be educated.
Then, each committee/Board must go through the discovery process, the due diligence process, and then make prudent decisions that are dictated by the golf course or the leadership.  AND, those dictates are not always in harmony.

When a NEW President or Green Chairman, without any immediate, prior, experience on that particular green committee. comes in with both guns blazing and demands reductions, more often then not, he's doing a disservice to the golf course and the people charged with its care.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Thanks for that last post addressed to me but honestly, I think we're a bit past having to explain all that, don't you?  

[Jeff Fortson]

.....I'd rule with an iron fist.


Jeff F.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Patrick:

With our present super who's been there almost 25 years I'd say the history is that he comes in right on budget. He's an excellent budgeter.

Then why ask him to cut another $ 50,000 ?[/color]

How do your clubs go about creating a budget for the coming year?

And secondly, have the maintenance practices on your clubs remained the same or have they been intentionally altered at some point in some way?

These are the questions you asked me.

I was just trying to answer them for you.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"And secondly, have the maintenance practices on your clubs remained the same or have they been intentionally altered at some point in some way?

These are the questions you asked me.

I was just trying to answer them for you.

Pat:

I'm well aware of HOW all those things can change. I was asking you what has been intentionally altered maintenance-wise in some way at some of your clubs and how those alterations may've impacted maintenance budgets.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

For basically the first time in his career with us we went over our super's budget last year. The reasons for that are pretty identifiable to us now, and clearly some of it probably had to do with the simultaneousness of our restoration project and on-going course maintenance. We expect that to be a one time occurence now that the project is basically done.

And secondly, no matter how many times I mention it to you I never said anything about being asked to cut $50,000. I never mentioned any number. The $50,000 was only what you said, and now, in your mind, it seems to have become the number we were asked to cut at GMGC!  

[Dave_Miller]

Dave Miller said;

"Don Mahaffey has it right.  If you cut something must go."

Dave:

How about perfectly maintained bunkers going? Would you go for that?  

Tommy:
Lame Duck or not only if the Membership would and you know how unlikely tht is.
Best,
Dave

[TEPaul]

DaveM:

Here's what you do. Take the perfectly maintained bunkers away from them and whoever bitches just tell them they can figure out how much to contribute each to get you about $50,000 more dollars and then you'll give them back their perfectly maintained bunkers. Where did I get that $50,000 amount? From Pat Mucci! Where did he come up with it? Who the hell knows? Actually giving them back their perfectly maintained bunkers will only cost about $10,000 more. The remaining $40,000 a year is for whiskey and wine money for you and me and Ed! These have heretofore been thankless jobs for you and me and Ed! Well, guess what, not anymore!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'm confused.
In a post that appears prior to the above you stated that this was the first time that the committee sat down with the superintendent and reviewed the budget, yet, your previous posts, as shown below, state quite the opposite.

One can only conclude that the club exercised no oversight in this area in previous years, which answers my questions[/color]

Who said somebody just walked into a meeting and decalred that $50,000 needed to be cut other than you?
The superintendent was consulted---we consult with him on everything we discuss about the course

"Then perhaps, the undertaking of a study of the last 5 annual budgets to see how the present budget evolved."[/color]

That's what we've done.

"And, what really puzzles me is that this club recently undertook an extensive restoration/rennovation project.
One would have thought that prudent minds would have examined the operating budget just a short while ago."[/color]

We did. Our projections were very accurate for our maintennce budget following the restoration (which has not been totally compeleted). Sometimes following a restoration there's a certain amount of remediating various things that don't need to be recurring.

"I thought that TEPaul indicated that this exercise was undertaken, but, perhaps my recollection is incorrect.
Mark Fine indicated that this is SOP at all of the clubs that he's involved with."[/color]

The excercise was undertaken and it worked out fine.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Pat:

For basically the first time in his career with us we went over our super's budget last year.

When I asked if the club had done this in previous years, you said you had, and now you state that you hadn't.

I can only conclude that the club, vis a vis the board, green chairman and green commitee, failed in the oversight department.[/color]

The reasons for that are pretty identifiable to us now, and clearly some of it probably had to do with the simultaneousness of our restoration project and on-going course maintenance. We expect that to be a one time occurence now that the project is basically done.
Why wouldn't you review every year's green budget, at the green committee level, finance committee level and Board level ?[/color]

And secondly, no matter how many times I mention it to you I never said anything about being asked to cut $50,000. I never mentioned any number. The $50,000 was only what you said, and now, in your mind, it seems to have become the number we were asked to cut at GMGC!  

I do have other sources, and I believe $ 50,000 is pretty close to, if not right on the number.

But, now that you've admitted that this is the first time that anyone ever sat down with the superintendent to review the green budget, I now understand the genesis of the directive, however, I still feel that the directive should only have been given if the committee's review indicated that the budget was excessive.[/color]

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Jeeesus man, you have a hard time following things, don't you? When I said we went over the budget for the first time in his career I meant we exceeded it not that we sat down and went over it with him for the first time.  

And I'll guarantee you don't have any source as to what we were asked to cut and it wasn't $50,000. Why don't I give you about 64 guesses and maybe you'll get warmer?  

[Tags:]

Tags: