Golf for Purists Only?

[JSPayne]

Reading the golf efficiencies thread really got me to start noticing something....

It's taken me some time because I'm in the same boat as most everyone on here....I play golf for the game, not much else. I lean toward the purist attitude, I love golf's origins, how it was so basic for so long, I believe in walking as opposed to riding (though it can be tough sometimes......my New's Year's resolution is to walk every round next year), I love courses like Ballyneal and Pine Valley and CPC....where it seems golf is in its purest form in all aspects, where the business operation circles around the course and the game, and not some tricked up building for social gathering.

BUT.....does this model need to be dictated to everyone and every course? I have to step back from my own personal perspective and look at the numbers, the statistics and the people that frequent my course. There are purists out here, but there are families, there are business men, there are the weekend hacks, there are the early morning seniors, there are the women, there are the juniors, there are people just looking for a diversion from the harshness of the working world and there are those just looking for a nice walk in the park.

My basic point is, there should be something for everyone. There should be courses like I mentioned above, where golf is the main and sometimes only focus. But there should also be courses that offer things other people look for, like a nice place to eat before or after a round, an obvious place to find the best golf equipment and attire, a place you only have to drive to once to get multiple things done like a workout in a gym, play a round of golf, swimming for the kids, a hot meal and a place to shower and clean up afterwards.

We can all strive to create purist golf locales across the board, but then we'd be in real trouble because the truth of the matter is, us purists statistically don't float the golf industry......it's that big fat chunk of the "average" golfing public, who holds an 18 handicap, has a family, like to bring his business buddies out the course and wants to have the all-inclusive treatment whenever and whereever possible. Without this majority paying what they pay, we wouldn't have half of the fine golf courses that you and I love, beyond the purist courses, because nobody but us purists would go to play them with any regularity, and then the cost would be all on us.

Let's make recommendations for improvement, but let's not forget that we're ALWAYS in need of growing the game, for our future and the future of golf, and to do that we have to create facilities that have the ability to cater to the masses, and not just a clique of elite-minded addicts (which I proudly declare to be a member of ).

Just as the government shouldn't forget who's paying their paychecks, we shouldn't forget all those others who make golf and the growth of golf and development of new and great courses affordable for us.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Fair and honest opinion and to a certain extent one I tend to share.

But I do not share or accept No Walking Courses, if groups can ban walking then we should be able to ban something in return. That I leave to each of you to decide or suggest, but one this is to hide the cart tracks completely. They should not be seen at all, they should not be allowed to come into play even from a wild shot and they should not be parked near a Green.

There are other items I don’t agree with but I do agree that the course should be for the Average Player and set more for the traditional with facilities for others.  It’s Christmas so I am showing some Christmas Cheer and Spirit to my fellows – this may not last into the New Year.

Happy New Year to All

Melvyn

[John Burzynski]

Reading the golf efficiencies thread really got me to start noticing something....

It's taken me some time because I'm in the same boat as most everyone on here....I play golf for the game, not much else. I lean toward the purist attitude, I love golf's origins, how it was so basic for so long, I believe in walking as opposed to riding (though it can be tough sometimes......my New's Year's resolution is to walk every round next year), I love courses like Ballyneal and Pine Valley and CPC....where it seems golf is in its purest form in all aspects, where the business operation circles around the course and the game, and not some tricked up building for social gathering.

BUT.....does this model need to be dictated to everyone and every course? I have to step back from my own personal perspective and look at the numbers, the statistics and the people that frequent my course. There are purists out here, but there are families, there are business men, there are the weekend hacks, there are the early morning seniors, there are the women, there are the juniors, there are people just looking for a diversion from the harshness of the working world and there are those just looking for a nice walk in the park.

My basic point is, there should be something for everyone. There should be courses like I mentioned above, where golf is the main and sometimes only focus. But there should also be courses that offer things other people look for, like a nice place to eat before or after a round, an obvious place to find the best golf equipment and attire, a place you only have to drive to once to get multiple things done like a workout in a gym, play a round of golf, swimming for the kids, a hot meal and a place to shower and clean up afterwards.

We can all strive to create purist golf locales across the board, but then we'd be in real trouble because the truth of the matter is, us purists statistically don't float the golf industry......it's that big fat chunk of the "average" golfing public, who holds an 18 handicap, has a family, like to bring his business buddies out the course and wants to have the all-inclusive treatment whenever and whereever possible. Without this majority paying what they pay, we wouldn't have half of the fine golf courses that you and I love, beyond the purist courses, because nobody but us purists would go to play them with any regularity, and then the cost would be all on us.

Let's make recommendations for improvement, but let's not forget that we're ALWAYS in need of growing the game, for our future and the future of golf, and to do that we have to create facilities that have the ability to cater to the masses, and not just a clique of elite-minded addicts (which I proudly declare to be a member of ).

Just as the government shouldn't forget who's paying their paychecks, we shouldn't forget all those others who make golf and the growth of golf and development of new and great courses affordable for us.

Well written!

I would suspect that the 'purists' as many of us call ourselves make up only a few percentage $$$$ of the players / rounds on most given courses, certainly less than 25% of the rounds totally played.   There are a lot of golfers who only play once or twice or three or six times a year and they make up the majority of rounds per year.   I know that there is a core of us that play 30-40-50 rounds or more a year, but not a large percentage.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I'm all for the right to choose.

Mike's point is that those other places don't support a business - or aren't good for the game.

[Tom_Doak]

JS Payne:

I don't think that all private clubs should go to the "golf only" model, and I'm sure that many won't.

I think what's happened over the last 20 years is the opposite -- nearly all clubs have gone over to the other end of the scale, where every whim of any potential member has been catered for.  And that's why golf is in such a mess.

It isn't even just the private clubs.  My course at Beechtree might have been closing now anyway, because it sits on a prime piece of real estate, but its fundamental loss leader was not the $3.5 million it cost to build the golf course or the $200,000 fee I got paid, but the $4 million clubhouse which was designed to host banquets and weddings.  (Why would a public course think they should host weddings?) 

[Mike_Young]

JS Payne,
As a professional fat guy I'm eating chocolate ice cream as I write....and t's all over the keys...I ride as much as I walk and I don't consider myself a purist by any means......no hickory shafts etc.....but I think carpet can last 20 years in a clubhouse. I think you can have a good cook in a kitchen instead of chef making blue snapper sandwiches smothered in underwear or some other mix.   I don't need oak raised panel dividers at $1500 each between the urinals in our locker room.... I think you should be able to get a golf lesson leisurely from the pro w/o having to be set up on a monitor in a separate section with a house for all of the fitting sets etc...and not that these things are not nice or needed at specific times.....ALL I ASK IS THAT EACH LINE ITEM BE ABLE TO JUSTFY ITS EXISTENCE.....but for most of us the golf has to subsidize such.....including weddings , banquets etc.....if more of the dues can go to golf then we are all better and more efficient......I resent my dues being increased because some guy on the board only knows golf from what he sees at a resort or at one of his buddies Real Estate development clubs and wants to come back and push it on a 100 year old club.....thats all....

[TEPaul]

"My basic point is, there should be something for everyone. There should be courses like I mentioned above, where golf is the main and sometimes only focus. But there should also be courses that offer things other people look for, like a nice place to eat before or after a round, an obvious place to find the best golf equipment and attire, a place you only have to drive to once to get multiple things done like a workout in a gym, play a round of golf, swimming for the kids, a hot meal and a place to shower and clean up afterwards."


JSPayne:

Have you ever heard of my "Big World" theory which I've been trying to ply on here for probably close to 7-8 years now?  

[Mike_Young]

[quote author=TEPaul link=topic=38007.msg785675#msg785675 date=1230324443


JSPayne:

Have you ever heard of my "Big World" theory which I've been trying to ply on here for probably close to 7-8 years now?  

[/quote]

BIG WORLD THEORY???   but you live in a barn......

[JMEvensky]

......I resent my dues being increased because some guy on the board only knows golf from what he sees at a resort or at one of his buddies Real Estate development clubs and wants to come back and push it on a 100 year old club.....thats all....

IMO,that's the whole problem in a nutshell.Perfect comment.

[TEPaul]

Fortunately or unfortunately I don't LIVE in the barn.

The barn/office is just the GCA War Room with an excellent vantage from which to view and analyze those who understand things and those who don't.

My conclusion, going way back, has been that not all golfers out there like the same things and apparently never will, hence----the "Big World" theory.

Unfortunately, the "Big World" theory only really applies in an "across the board" kind of way. If one is speaking only about a single club and course then the issue of which preference prevails get to be a  dyanamic that gets a bit more, aaah, how should I say?------complex and DYNAMIC! 

[TEPaul]

"I think you can have a good cook in a kitchen instead of chef making blue snapper sandwiches smothered in underwear or some other mix."


MikeY:

Blue snapper sandwiches smothered in underwear or some other mix???

DAMN! I always suspected you guys down there were some kinda sophisticated but not until today did I realize how sophisticated. Blue snapper sandwiches smothered in underwear mix!!!!

Hmmmm, YUMMMMY!

That kind of fare would definitely make me play in under two hours and thirty seven minutes!

[Mike_Young]

Fortunately or unfortunately I don't LIVE in the barn.

The barn/office is just the GCA War Room with an excellent vantage from which to view and analyze those who understand things and those who don't.

My conclusion, going way back, has been that not all golfers out there like the same things and apparently never will, hence----the "Big World" theory.

Unfortunately, the "Big World" theory only really applies in an "across the board" kind of way. If one is speaking only about a single club and course then the issue of which preference prevails get to be a  dyanamic that gets a bit more, aaah, how should I say?------complex and DYNAMIC! 

Tom,
I can understand that theory.....sort of like my basic theory re golf clubs.....say maintenance cost 800,000 for an 18 hole private club with a small clubhouse/proshop and you give it $500,000 overhead.....all debt paid....if you have 1000 members then golf cost you $1300 per year..add on fro there as much as you wish for other amenities.....

[Mike_Young]

"I think you can have a good cook in a kitchen instead of chef making blue snapper sandwiches smothered in underwear or some other mix."


MikeY:

Blue snapper sandwiches smothered in underwear or some other mix???

DAMN! I always suspected you guys down there were some kinda sophisticated but not until today did I realize how sophisticated. Blue snapper sandwiches smothered in underwear mix!!!!

Hmmmm, YUMMMMY!

That kind of fare would definitely make me play in under two hours and thirty seven minutes!

We did have an item for lunch last week called Hawaiian Blue snapper sandwich.....I added the underwear part   just to bait some of you yankees

[TEPaul]

Mike:

We had an item on our menu last week that was "Norwegian Albino Rodent topped with a reduction sauce of beer and pistachio nut ice cream."

To me it tasted sort of like chicken, but as for what the sauce reminded me of let me get back to you in a week or so.

I asked the waitress if I should put catsup on it and she actually became somewhat defensive and surly and said that was not part of her pay-grade!

[Joe Hancock]

"I think you can have a good cook in a kitchen instead of chef making blue snapper sandwiches smothered in underwear or some other mix."


MikeY:

Blue snapper sandwiches smothered in underwear or some other mix???

DAMN! I always suspected you guys down there were some kinda sophisticated but not until today did I realize how sophisticated. Blue snapper sandwiches smothered in underwear mix!!!!

Hmmmm, YUMMMMY!

That kind of fare would definitely make me play in under two hours and thirty seven minutes!

We did have an item for lunch last week called Hawaiian Blue snapper sandwich.....I added the underwear part   just to bait some of you yankees

Spoken like the true Southern Master of Baiting that you are......

 

[Mike_Young]

Mike:

We had an item on our menu last week that was "Norwegian Albino Rodent topped with a reduction sauce of beer and pistachio nut ice cream."

To me it tasted sort of like chicken, but as for what the sauce reminded me of let me get back to you in a week or so.

I asked the waitress if I should put catsup on it and she actually became somewhat defensive and surly and said that was not part of her pay-grade!

Sounds good but you will have to excuse me....since seeing that Philadelphia movie I have a hard time eating cream sauces in Philly.....just a southern thing

[Bill_McBride]

Pensacola CC is having a bit of a problem handling the $7M debt we have taken on since Hurricane Ivan.  Seems the economy is in the tank and we have lost 20+ members in the past few months instead of adding the many members confidently projected so that we could meet our budget.

Every time I see a P&L there is no mention of interest expense, which I figure is running $30-40K a month.

We just finished building the new tennis facility with fitness center, $1.8M.  There are two kitchens in the new clubhouse, one on top of the other, but the waiters have to carry the food to the men's grill through the upstairs dining room.

There is not a bar anywhere in the clubhouse where you can sit and have a drink.  I swear to god I am not making this up.

Monthly dues are $295 plus 7.5% tax plus $125/mo for "debt reduction" plus plus plus plus......young guys were told their monthly costs as "junior executive members" would be ~$350, reality is over $800 if they have a few drinks and ride a cart every now and then.

I see bankruptcy down the road as the board that came in a few years ago has boxed the club into a corner I'm not sure it can escape.  Too bad, the new golf course is terrific!  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/mhcpcc.html

Is this an unusual story?

[JSPayne]

JS Payne:

I don't think that all private clubs should go to the "golf only" model, and I'm sure that many won't.

I think what's happened over the last 20 years is the opposite -- nearly all clubs have gone over to the other end of the scale, where every whim of any potential member has been catered for.  And that's why golf is in such a mess.

It isn't even just the private clubs.  My course at Beechtree might have been closing now anyway, because it sits on a prime piece of real estate, but its fundamental loss leader was not the $3.5 million it cost to build the golf course or the $200,000 fee I got paid, but the $4 million clubhouse which was designed to host banquets and weddings.  (Why would a public course think they should host weddings?) 

Tom....excellent point, and one I will respond to further with the other quote below, but to answer the only question in your post....

I have actually seen some fairly successful public courses do very well in supplementing their golf income with big fancy events like weddings. The fact of the matter is even non-golfers often find golf courses and their locations very beautiful and this is exactly what many seek for a wedding-type event. The key to the success of the event while not deterring from the golf is to have a staff or at least a person dedicated to making the event happen working in conjunction with those on the course. As a golfer, I can never say that I've been bothered by a wedding or event occurring while I was golfing, but I would never choose to have a wedding on a golf course even though I love them for the exact opposite reason....I've always wondered how the event patrons would feel if I just happened to shank one into the middle of their vows......

JS Payne,
As a professional fat guy I'm eating chocolate ice cream as I write....and t's all over the keys...I ride as much as I walk and I don't consider myself a purist by any means......no hickory shafts etc.....but I think carpet can last 20 years in a clubhouse. I think you can have a good cook in a kitchen instead of chef making blue snapper sandwiches smothered in underwear or some other mix.   I don't need oak raised panel dividers at $1500 each between the urinals in our locker room.... I think you should be able to get a golf lesson leisurely from the pro w/o having to be set up on a monitor in a separate section with a house for all of the fitting sets etc...and not that these things are not nice or needed at specific times.....ALL I ASK IS THAT EACH LINE ITEM BE ABLE TO JUSTFY ITS EXISTENCE.....but for most of us the golf has to subsidize such.....including weddings , banquets etc.....if more of the dues can go to golf then we are all better and more efficient......I resent my dues being increased because some guy on the board only knows golf from what he sees at a resort or at one of his buddies Real Estate development clubs and wants to come back and push it on a 100 year old club.....thats all....

Mike.....and others......I think this is where the big distinguishing factor comes in to play. To me, there is a big difference in running and being a part of private courses versus public. And the difference lies in those exact names. Public courses should, and often do, cater to the PUBLIC, i.e. the masses and the "average" golfer I talk about. Public golf and any golf courses defined as such are what I mainly profess about being something for everyone, because it's public dollars that keep those courses alive. Same with resort courses.

Private courses are a different beef. Being now behind the scenes in public golf as opposed to being at private courses for the whole rest of my career, I'm definetely starting to believe in the saying, "If you ever want something to never get done, form a committee to discuss how it should be done." This is the real problem with privates: they lack solid, stated character. In my humble opinion, people should join private courses because of what the course offers. If you want something different, find a different club. Too many try to come in, or have been there forever, and want to bring their own agendas. It is near impossible to cater to everyone's  personal needs and this is where money can get lost. I think the private courses that struggle are the ones who forget who they are and try to be like everyone else. The most powerful and stable clubs seem to me to be the ones steeped in history, character, loyal dedicated members and stand firmly by what they claim to be....be it just a golf course, or a family facility, or a prime tournament venue. But each has it's own model.

What I think most on this board seem to complain about is either (1) their home/favorite course is either being driven away from what it originally was by a small group of influential members and they're desperate to hold onto the club's character or (2) they're one of those ones who joined a club because it was either convenient or was in their price range, and then want to come in and make it into what they want, for selfish reasons.

In either case, public or private, the key is still the same simple reasoning I orginally stated: let's not be selfish. There's nothing wrong with wanting what we want, and sometimes it may be hard to make the decision to get up and leave and have to go somewhere else to find it, but take a long hard look at who really makes up the majority at your course.....who keeps the club financially afloat......and cater to them. Because even if you get your wish of a smaller clubhouse, that doesn't host big events anymore and instead of a chef a cook who's expertise is only to make "one killer hot dog", you may very well find yourself asking why all of a sudden the condition of your beloved course has gone down the crapper when all the outside tournaments you hate take their business elsewhere and all the men with families get pressured by their wives to join the club down the street because they have a gym for her and a pool for the kids and all of a sudden your super has half the budget, half the staff and can't afford fertilizer for anything but the greens anymore.

[Mike Nuzzo]

the $4 million clubhouse which was designed to host banquets and weddings.  (Why would a public course think they should host weddings?) 

Maybe it will get more wedding use as the center of a development - assuming they are keeping the clubhouse.  (maybe they'll keep the putting green too!)

JSP - I wouldn't have a wedding there, it looks nice from the 8th hole but not inside.
I drove to Bulle Rock for lunch inbetween rounds at Beechtree....
Because I would prefer a Hawaiian Blue snapper sandwich - hold the undies please.

Cheers

[Jeff Goldman]

Many clubs have longstanding issues that require careful planning in these times.  Mine did not recently decide to spend a bundle on a big clubhouse etc; we built it in in 1925, all 110,000 sq ft of it (course, we had 4 golf courses, a hospital, bowling alley etc. etc. and 1200 regular members then, not including families).    In 1970 we rejected a plan to tear it down for a smaller more efficient one, amid much controversy and dissension.  Now, we live with it.  Would cost a fortune to knock down, a fortune to build another one, and it costs a fortune to operate now, though a lesser fortune.  We do a large banquet, wedding, business meetings etc. operation to earn some bucks and upkeep money.  Obviously, in this economy, we expect that to fall off next year.

The decision in 1925 has a lot to say about how we operate the club, as does our 36 holes, members with families and location.  Essentially, we have 2 clubs -- the men's club that plays weekend mornings, brings business guests during the week, and never uses the clubhouse except for the locker room and 73rd hole (our grill room).  We also have a family club, with ladies 9 and 18 hole groups (about 130 in all, who play tuesday and thursday mornings), a 150 kid junior golf, tennis and swim programs.  A few years ago we decided that the decision to join a club now rests with both spouses, so we had to make the club inviting for both spouses.  We could have been a men's club, closed half the clubhouse, eliminated the pool, tennis, kid's stuff etc. etc., and just had a select group of golfers paying $18,000 per to play.  Given our location, the board at the time didn't think that was the right way to go.

This year we are expecting that we may get a lot of use, but lower revenue, because families will come out rather than going on vacations, but we will have less guest revenue.  We think that with the club being a "home away from home", families will be less likely to quit than if the club was only used by one spouse.  We'll see.

I guess the point of this is that each club has different issues, and it's hard to make broad statements about what's best for them.

Bill, that's a pretty decent debt load for one course and what I guess is a relatively small membership.  Must be around $5-600K P/I.  We have less than that, and a large membership, but I'm still keeping basically a sinking fund of revenue from this year to ensure we won't have any issues about meeting our debt service, no matter how lousy next year is.

[Bill_McBride]

Jeff, I fear it's unsustainable.  Might do better going under and then becoming a solid daily fee operation.  The cadre in charge of things now has the attitude that if members can't afford the costs and annual operational assessments, they should play somewhere else.  I don't think that's going to last long.......

[Tom_Doak]

JSP:  Yes, weddings might generate some extra income ... but do they net an extra $150,000 or $200,000 a year to the club, to pay for the cost of building the space and hiring the person you need?  Or are you just assuming that the golf course can absorb those costs?

A similar item which hasn't got too much mention on this thread so far are mega practice ranges.  They've been the rage of late because members are supposedly attracted to a club with a great practice facility -- and maybe that is true.  But their principal proponents are the teaching professionals who are going to get paid to give lessons there, and who don't have to pay a nickel for the facility.  So OF COURSE they see the value in having a huge tee and target greens and a heated building with video equipment.  (Just like I'd love to have a nice corner office in Manhattan with a great view, if you want to pay for it.)  But if you charged them RENT on 15 acres of prime ground and the construction costs of a great facility, they might sing a different tune.

[JSPayne]

Tom,

The good operations I've seen, though I have to admit I haven't seen the actual numbers, seem to do pretty nice business through outside events to the extent that I've even heard managers say that during slow times of golf, it is often these events that help them float the business, not the other way around. These facilities are also ones who delve into this alternative revenue source because they have built the facilities either from the start, so it has always been part of the business model, or they are now doing it because the facility they thought would get used enough by normal golf traffic and events is often empty and just taking up space. Thus, this new revenue helps offset costs that golfers would otherwise be absorbing. Also, many courses use outside only facilities on a seasonal basis. Not hard to find 1/2-1 acre of decent ground near the clubhouse to set up an arbor and some chairs and later a dozen tables for dinner. So infastructure costs aren't that much.....event coordinator fees are obviously usually built in to the event as part of the total package cost. It can work....but like I said, it has to be well thought out and not shoved onto the normal "golf staff" to take care of.

Also, our teaching pros DO pay rent.....but this has a bit of a backlash to it because since they DO pay rent, just like golfers paying a private country club's fees, they expect to be able to have some say in the maintenance, additions and improvements of the practice facilities. And while I don't quite think you need a MEGA practice facility, I'm fairly certain from what I'm seeing that there does seem to be a growing trend toward golfers wanting a nice area to practice and improve their game. It's two fold: (1) they often don't have much time for a full round as they are having to work twice as much to make ends meet but want a nice place to go hit it around a bit and/or (2) I've seen quite a few folk putting a bit of investment into lessons and practice with the thought that "Hey, if I'm gonna keep spending money on this game, I better start to actually PLAY better at it so I can ENJOY it better" and this leads toward creating more and better facilities to facilitate this. Personally, I think it's great......I'd rather see your hack of a teenager just trying to kill time hacking up the DR tee than getting his licks in out on the course doing the same damage. And the extra "non-critical" turf areas are great for harvesting sod for projects and repairs and doing research and testing products before putting them out on the course en masse.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I've had the numbers on the  banquet business explained to me, and they aren't pretty.  If you presume a 10,000 SF room at $200 per SF, that's a $2,000,000 investment, probably costing $14K per month on the debt.  If the rubber chicken costs $54 per plate, at serving cost of $36 per plate, leaving even $20 per plate gross profit, you need to sell 7000 banquet seats a month to break even after debt.  

That is almost 1800 per week and most weddings average 300 people or less, so that is a wedding or banquet per day.  They have a chance if tradition ever dictates that divorces need a banquet!

That just doesn't happen at any course I know.  If bankers were asleep at the wheel approving golf or home loans, I really wonder how they managed to not see through any business plan that included banquets.

I worked at one muni where the most profitable food service was the vending machines.  The ones with limited menus - who really eats anything other than a burger or turkey sandwhich after golf anyway? - are the only ones that break even or make a little money......

Tennis complexes are real money losers, since no one pays for tennis and only have a "salad and water" if anything after the game.  

The dynamics of clubs haven't really changed in forever.  Its just that in good times, golf covers the losers better.

[Mark Pearce]

I read these figures for membership costs in the States and wonder any club can survive.  I pay £1048 pa for my membership at The Northumberland GC.  On top of that there's a £75 pa levy for 10 years for work recently done to the clubhouse.  Add my wife and three kids as junior playing members and it works out at around £2200 pa.  And that's at a club considered clearly the most expensive in its locality.  Of course we don't have a pool or tennis courts, very few people would choose to have a wedding there and the catering if decent is very geared to golf.  At Crail I play something just over £300 pa.  My eldest son's subscription at Elie is £192 for junior membership (I'm not a member and the waiting list is closed).   I think the "purist" model this thread discusses is the UK model, only a handful of clubs like Wentworth do anything like the US CC model.