Sign of the Apocalypse - "Trail fee"

[cary lichtenstein]

Some clubs nickle and dime you to death and others are smarter and put everything in the dues. It seems that members like to complain, and adding any charge gets someone out of joint.

Add up the bills, divide by the number of members and be done with it.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Everyone is slightly but equally unhappy I suppose.

This to me is the antithesis of what a golf club or country club should be about.

[Jamey Bryan]

Garland:

I, too, am more familiar with the term "trail fee" being applied to cart usage, most usually a fee paid for use of a privately owned cart.

In the opening post of this thread, though, Bruce defined the topic as a fee, apart from dues, what was assessed on a per round basis when walking.  The practice at my club is to charge all players a nominal fee per round (we call it the service fee), then a separate cart fee is paid if one wishes to ride.

This works well for us as we have a large seasonal membership and did not wish to increase dues to a level that might discourage these "part-time" members.  Introduction of an "a la carte" usage fee seemed the most equitable (and best business model) method to increase income with the heavier course users bearing the largest burden.

Sorry if there was a misunderstanding, I was following Bruce's lead on the definition of the term.

Jamey

[Roger Wolfe]

...because carts do a huge amount of damage to the course. You guys can talk about the cost to the club to rent the carts all you want. But you are not talking about the true cost of carts.

The golfer's opinion of the importance/impact of carts also depends on where the golfer lives.

In the North you can walk comfortably year round and carts can do a number on bentgrass and other cool season grasses. 

In the South, walking in 95 degree heat and 95% humidity is pretty miserable.  Plus you can land an airplane on
most bermudagrass fairways and not leave a dent.

Truly an "argument for the ages."

[Brent Hutto]

Everyone is slightly but equally unhappy I suppose.

This to me is the antithesis of what a golf club or country club should be about.

There are people in my club who will be "slightly unhappy" unless they see me and my wife there for dinner a couple of Wednesday and Friday nights every month. That isn't going to happen and I don't lose any sleep over it.

I am "slightly unhappy" that each of my 50-60 rounds of golf this year will cost me $3 but it seems to make the non-golfing members feel better about my playing golf and not showing up to dances, banquets, holiday parties, etc. I don't lose any sleep over that either.

Sorry if our arrangement offends your sensibilities. I don't think our socially-oriented members would care to see me leave the club and I know for sure that I wouldn't want them to leave.

[Bill_McBride]

...because carts do a huge amount of damage to the course. You guys can talk about the cost to the club to rent the carts all you want. But you are not talking about the true cost of carts.

The golfer's opinion of the importance/impact of carts also depends on where the golfer lives.

In the North you can walk comfortably year round and carts can do a number on bentgrass and other cool season grasses. 

In the South, walking in 95 degree heat and 95% humidity is pretty miserable.  Plus you can land an airplane on
most bermudagrass fairways and not leave a dent.  Roger, when it's 95 -95 (as it often is down here in Pensacola, when I happily ride), it also rains almost every day, so the fairways are on the soft side.  Unless you have continuous cart paths - which thank heavens we don't, ours are just green to tee - you are going to get ruts where the knuckleheads can't or won't avoid wet spots.  Now you have cart damage that must be repaired.

I have not been saying on this thread that there shouldn't be cart fees, just that there's no reason for walkers to share in the cost of cart damage.

Truly an "argument for the ages."

Looking forward to seeing your place next fall.

[JMEvensky]

Everyone is slightly but equally unhappy I suppose.

This to me is the antithesis of what a golf club or country club should be about.

How could a club be any other way?

I think most clubs operate under the zero sum scale of happiness.Truly happy members can't exist without an equal number of truly unhappy members.Surprisingly,these 2 groups usually correspond exactly to those making the rules and those living under the rules the other guys imposed.

Everyone being a little unhappy is a seldom achieved,but laudable,goal.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Sorry if our arrangement offends your sensibilities. I don't think our socially-oriented members would care to see me leave the club and I know for sure that I wouldn't want them to leave.

Brent, your arrangement doesn't offend me in the least.  I just find it difficult to fathom how a country club (or any organization) can continue to prosper if everyone is "slightly unhappy" all the time or worse, as JMEvensky describes, a club that is run like the U.S. House of Representatives, with rulers and subjects trading places and bitterly imposing their will after every election--truly dysfunctional. 

In my golfing career, I have belonged to only one club (none currently), still I know there can be squabbles.  I assume nobody wants to belong to the Country Club of the Terminally Melancholy--the credo of every club should be "give the members what they want."  That requires, first, recruitment of members with similar sensibilities that are not easily offended, and then second, creativity to come up with solutions when problems do arise, then rinse and repeat--is that a club that exists only in a dream world?

"Half of the people can be part right all of the time,
Some of the people can be all right part of the time,
But all the people can't be all right all the time.
I think Abraham Lincoln said that.
I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours.
I said that."

-Bob Dylan
 

[Roger Wolfe]

I just find it difficult to fathom how a country club (or any organization) can continue to prosper if everyone is "slightly unhappy" all the time or worse, as JMEvensky describes, a club that is run like the U.S. House of Representatives, with rulers and subjects trading places and bitterly imposing their will after every election--truly dysfunctional. 

"Slightly unhappy" might not be the right way to describe these folks.  How about "consistently irritated but basically happy?"  There are few clubs where the entire membership is on board with everything that goes on.  The walkers don't like the riders because they damage the course.  The riders don't like the riders because they do not contribute enough to the club and they are slow (when carts are allowed on the fairways - don't jump on me for this).  The folks who appreciate the dining room don't understand why the hardcore golfers only eat hot dogs in the men's grill.   The folks who only want to play golf don't understand why the club spends so many resources on F&B.

The most successful clubs have a membership committee who can ferret out potential miscreants and not allow them to join.  Other clubs do not have that luxury.  The most difficult situation is a club that has gone through tremendous change such as a course renovation, demographic shift, or general upgrade of the amenities and the facility.  In that situation you are faced with trying to placate the "old membership" and the "new membership."  In that situation you will find members who are happy with 80% of what the club offers and pissed off that they have to support the other 20%. 

After writing this post, I realize that Brent's "slightly unhappy," might be exactly the right term to describe club members... assuming "slightly unhappy" is the same as being "considerably happy."

[Brent Hutto]

After writing this post, I realize that Brent's "slightly unhappy," might be exactly the right term to describe club members... assuming "slightly unhappy" is the same as being "considerably happy."

That's the sense in which I intended it. Better off with lots of people annoyed at this or that minor thing they wish were different (but basically happy) than having some people totally getting their way and a few others massively unhappy. Because the massively unhappy ones will leave and the "annoyed at minor things" people will bellyache but get over it.

That's a basic principle of economics, marketing, etc. and used to be a core idea of American politics. Of course now the politicians and media have inverted that to deliberately try and foster grievances among various sub-groups. Not sure why they want it that way but it's what we're stuck with at the moment.

Sorry for the OT socio-political commentary.

[Bill_McBride]

  The riders don't like the riders walkers because they do not contribute enough to the club and they are slow (when carts are allowed on the fairways - don't jump on me for this). 

Roger, not 'jumping' on you for this, but some education of riders - those who always ride and complain that walkers are 'slow' - is in order.

On a golf course reasonably full of golfers, a foursome of walkers and a foursome of riders will take the same amount of time to play.

It just seems longer to riders behind walkers because of the rhythm - or lack thereof.

The walkers hit their tee shots and walk down the fairway.  When they get to their tee shots, the green has cleared and they play their approach shots and walk on.

The riders hit their tee shots and speed down the fairway in their carts.  They sit there and fume that the walkers are 'too slow.'

Both groups play their round in the same time.

Now a group in carts with no one ahead of them?  That's a different story, but still not that much difference.

When I'm walking I really can get irritated looking back at those riders sitting there with their arms crossed.  It's two different games. 

[Roger Wolfe]

  The riders don't like the riders walkers because they do not contribute enough to the club and they are slow (when carts are allowed on the fairways - don't jump on me for this). 

Roger, not 'jumping' on you for this, but some education of riders - those who always ride and complain that walkers are 'slow' - is in order.

On a golf course reasonably full of golfers, a foursome of walkers and a foursome of riders will take the same amount of time to play.

It just seems longer to riders behind walkers because of the rhythm - or lack thereof.

The walkers hit their tee shots and walk down the fairway.  When they get to their tee shots, the green has cleared and they play their approach shots and walk on.

The riders hit their tee shots and speed down the fairway in their carts.  They sit there and fume that the walkers are 'too slow.'

Both groups play their round in the same time.

Now a group in carts with no one ahead of them?  That's a different story, but still not that much difference.

When I'm walking I really can get irritated looking back at those riders sitting there with their arms crossed.  It's two different games. 

Very good points Bill!  The "lack of rythm" point is one I had not thought of.

[Carl Nichols]

Bill:

I agree with most of your points, given a "golf course reasonably full of golfers."  There are slow riders and slow walkers, and fast riders and fast walkers, and on a reasonably full course, the fast players (walking or riding) are going to wait for the slow players (walking or riding).

But there's no doubt in my mind that if you take the typical fast walker and put him in a cart, he'll finish considerably faster than he would if walking (assuming it's not paths only).  There's just too much time saved on 250 yard walks for that not to be the case. 

[JMEvensky]

Roger Wolfe,your "consistently irritated but basically happy" is a much better way to put it.

Most members figure that their dues entitles them to a quarterly "bitch minimum".They're usually just venting.If they were truly unhappy,they'd join someplace else.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bill,
I don't know how many times I've explained this same thing to riders, that if they don't want it to feel slow, they must slow down and try to achieve the same pace (as long as there aren't openings) as the rest of the golfers out there. It's a real pain in the behind   to have riders sitting in the fairway, arms crossed, waiting for the play to end on the hole ahead.

On the other hand, a person walks at 2-5 mph, a golf cart travels at 12-15 mph. There are variables in how people play, how they use carts, etc., but, just the walking part of playing a 6 mile long course at 3mph takes 2 hours. The riding part of a 6 mile long course at 12 mph takes 30 minutes.  

Again, there are variables, but if I played the same 6 mile long course as a walker once and then a rider, I'd finish at least an hour and a half ahead of myself.  

[Jason Connor]

For $1.50, I think I'd throw down $150 say "I can guarantee I won't be playing 100 rounds this year" and stop thinking about it for another 12 months.

[Brent Hutto]

For $1.50, I think I'd throw down $150 say "I can guarantee I won't be playing 100 rounds this year" and stop thinking about it for another 12 months.

Or do as I do, just pay the bill when it arrives every month and never think twice. Our club's "usage fee" is $3/round. I don't draw much distinction between writing a check for $316.42 in a month I play twice and $328.42 in a month I played six times (or whatever the numbers work out to plus or minus a few lunches and a dozen balls from the pro shop).

[Bill_McBride]

Bill:

I agree with most of your points, given a "golf course reasonably full of golfers."  There are slow riders and slow walkers, and fast riders and fast walkers, and on a reasonably full course, the fast players (walking or riding) are going to wait for the slow players (walking or riding).

But there's no doubt in my mind that if you take the typical fast walker and put him in a cart, he'll finish considerably faster than he would if walking (assuming it's not paths only).  There's just too much time saved on 250 yard walks for that not to be the case. 

No argument, as long as there is not a group or groups directly in front of him.

[BCowan]

A private club in NC now charges a "trail fee" for members to WALK on weekend mornings.

THIS MUST STOP.

Amen Bruce!!!

[BHoover]

A private club in NC now charges a "trail fee" for members to WALK on weekend mornings.

THIS MUST STOP.

Amen Bruce!!!

Vote with your wallet and don't join such a club. Problem solved.

[BCowan]

A private club in NC now charges a "trail fee" for members to WALK on weekend mornings.

THIS MUST STOP.

Amen Bruce!!!

Vote with your wallet and don't join such a club. Problem solved.

I don't.  As i believe in creative destruction in the business world, Golf is slightly different.  I have a connection to it having gotten my hands dirty in the ground.  Losing great courses to the modern day ''Me Generation'' pisses me off!  I understand if you can't understand what I am saying.  Problem not solved

[BHoover]

Vote with your wallet and don't join such a club. Problem solved.

I don't.  As i believe in creative destruction in the business world, Golf is slightly different.  I have a connection to it having gotten my hands dirty in the ground.  Losing great courses to the modern day ''Me Generation'' pisses me off!  I understand if you can't understand what I am saying.  Problem not solved

Lots of us in the discussion board have been involved in the golf business. For example, I caddied and worked in the bag room at a country club in my hometown. I think we all hate to see classic courses go under, but if we aren't members of particular clubs, what can you do about the way those clubs are operated? Beyond not joining clubs with which we disagree (whether about admission policies, availability of tee times, charging extra fees, maintenance practices, etc.), there are too many more pressing things to deal with in life for most of us.

[BCowan]

Vote with your wallet and don't join such a club. Problem solved.

I don't.  As i believe in creative destruction in the business world, Golf is slightly different.  I have a connection to it having gotten my hands dirty in the ground.  Losing great courses to the modern day ''Me Generation'' pisses me off!  I understand if you can't understand what I am saying.  Problem not solved

Lots of us in the discussion board have been involved in the golf business. For example, I caddied and worked in the bag room at a country club in my hometown. I think we all hate to see classic courses go under, but if we aren't members of particular clubs, what can you do about the way those clubs are operated? Beyond not joining clubs with which we disagree (whether about admission policies, availability of tee times, charging extra fees, maintenance practices, etc.), there are too many more pressing things to deal with in life for most of us.

When the Old course get altered the alarms sound on this sight.  As it should.  When people on this sight, who are into golf course architecture and are supposed to LOVE Golden age courses don't get it with User fees and counting on cart fees to balance the books, we have a problem.  More pressing things to deal with, what posting our last 10 courses played??  Bruce is just sounding the alarm.  I'm troubled by the people on this sight that don't GET it and tank what their fore fathers created with hard work and great risk. 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Apocalypse translated literally from the Greek simply means to uncover or disclose something previously hidden or unknown. I doubt that's the intended use but nevertheless it is an excellent use.

[John Kavanaugh]

This thread was started in 2009. This is one small example of why Ran needs to delete threads. Nothing is going to change until he starts to delete members.