[Michael Rossi]

To say that club X operates for 500k and club Y in the same area operates for 1 million is not a fair comparison.
The basics of the budget are set by the location and design of the course, area of greens, tees, fairways, turf types and bunkers; the quality of the playing surfaces dictates the final cost.

I do agree that maintenance budgets have been somewhat luxurious in the past. However due to the thousands of viewers of this site we should be careful throwing numbers out there as to what a budget total should be. The reality of a budget is what the line items are. Comparing %’s of budgets doesn’t work either due to what the line items and the number of them are from course to course Some courses pay for water and some don’t, some have leased equipment and some own the gear, some include the golf carts etc, etc, etc…..looking at individual budget line items is the only way to make a fair comparison, even if design and playing condition quality are similar.

What clubs and architects will do to make their course more attractive in the future… I hope tweak them and squeeze every bit of quality and fun possible out of them….

What would I do? If running a golf club, focus on golf, provide for the needs of the players and keep it simple. Simple affordable food and beverages probably no bevy cart but a food/bevy station on course, limited proshop and inventory, a few rental sets but no equipment sales leave that to retailers. Simple clubhouse with small lounge, washroom with change room, and at least one washroom on the course for those that need it, the fine dinning could be found at different establishment.  If the property would accommodate it, only a couple of carts for players that absolutely require it to play. Keep the maintenance pure for golf, lose the frilly items like gardens on course and keep the maintenance for the playing surfaces and necessary spots entering the club and the clubhouse surroundings, not the out of play areas or so it looks good along the fence line from the highways as you drive by at mach 1. Staff would be a big focus, hire less of them, train them thoroughly and pay them properly as they will make or break the operational success and keep the players happy. Be front and center as the leader and easily accessible  to staff and customers, keep the office door open and not hide out in it behind a receptionists followed by executive assistant and a closed door.

[Patrick_Mucci]

To say that club X operates for 500k and club Y in the same area operates for 1 million is not a fair comparison.
The basics of the budget are set by the location and design of the course, area of greens, tees, fairways, turf types and bunkers; the quality of the playing surfaces dictates the final cost.

I do agree that maintenance budgets have been somewhat luxurious in the past. However due to the thousands of viewers of this site we should be careful throwing numbers out there as to what a budget total should be. The reality of a budget is what the line items are. Comparing %’s of budgets doesn’t work either due to what the line items and the number of them are from course to course Some courses pay for water and some don’t, some have leased equipment and some own the gear, some include the golf carts etc, etc, etc…..looking at individual budget line items is the only way to make a fair comparison, even if design and playing condition quality are similar.

Michael, even comparing line item to line item is difficult because clubs don't always allocate expenses to the same line item/category.
Employee meals, gasoline, electicity, taxes, employee benefits, etc. aren't always allocated to the same ine item,

What clubs and architects will do to make their course more attractive in the future… I hope tweak them and squeeze every bit of quality and fun possible out of them….

What would I do? If running a golf club, focus on golf, provide for the needs of the players and keep it simple. Simple affordable food and beverages probably no bevy cart but a food/bevy station on course, limited proshop and inventory, a few rental sets but no equipment sales leave that to retailers.

So, you would eliminate an important source of revenue for your Head Professional ?

Simple clubhouse with small lounge, washroom with change room, and at least one washroom on the course for those that need it, the fine dinning could be found at different establishment. 


That's nice in the theoretical world, but, how do you alter the physical plant and operations of an existing club ?

If the property would accommodate it, only a couple of carts for players that absolutely require it to play.


What if cart revenue is a substantial portion of the club's revenue ?

Keep the maintenance pure for golf, lose the frilly items like gardens on course and keep the maintenance for the playing surfaces and necessary spots entering the club and the clubhouse surroundings, not the out of play areas or so it looks good along the fence line from the highways as you drive by at mach

Why wouldn't you buffer the course, visibly and acousticly, from eyesores ?

1. Staff would be a big focus, hire less of them, train them thoroughly and pay them properly as they will make or break the operational success and keep the players happy.


Wouldn't that necesitate increasing payroll for those people ?

Be front and center as the leader and easily accessible  to staff and customers, keep the office door open and not hide out in it behind a receptionists followed by executive assistant and a closed door.

If you made those changes, I'd recommend having a secret door for quick escape purposes since you'll have no one to warn you
Change doesn't come easy to members who have enjoyed the culture of the club for decades.

I agree with you in general in that clubs have to review the way they've been doing things with an eye toward modifying them and becoming more efficient while still offering a quality core product.

But, it's not so easy to do.

If you alienate the members who expect a quality product, they'll go elsewhere and if you make it too expensive, other members will jump ship.

It's a dilema

[Bradley Anderson]

Slash the maintenance budget by 40%, for starters, and inform the superintendent [if he stays] that he needs to be spending his money on greens and fairways first, and tees and bunkers second ... and not much else.

As for architecture, I think most clubs would be crazy to spend a lot of $$ on architecture right now.  If they've got the bones of a great course, and a decent location, that'll be enough to get them through the troubles.  If they don't, an architect is probably not going to save the day.

Mr. Doak,

What % of the overall American club budget do think goes to "maintenance"? I mean if American clubs spend less than 20% of their budgets on "maintenance" of the golf course, how will that help the club sustain itself in the long run if that budget is cut by 40%? And if the superintendent [doesn't stay] who will maintain quality conditions?

[Michael Rossi]

Patrick

I agree it wouldn't be easy, or a quick fix. Hey you asked.

You are correct not all the line items are equal even with the same heading. Which is what I was trying to say about comparing budgets form one club to the other the over all number is useless.

Most clubs carry the overhead with the retail sales and get the profits not taking anything away from the pro's pocket.

Changing an existing club physical plant without all specifics and lots of investigation tough to say, speaking theoretically earlier

Cart revenue offset by cart lease or purchase price, maintenance, cart boys, power or gas, wear and tear on the property. Don't need them to play golf they are luxuries and to some it would be a celebration if there were no carts.

Buffering the course to make it look pretty from the highway at 60+ mph or save dollars for a struggling business Acoustically the longer grass will dampen the sound from the highway.

Staffing would not increase because we would have less overall number of employees accomplishing the same tasks, with happier members, spending more time and money at the club. 2 $9/hr staff members or one $14/hr staff member accomplishing the same tasks as the 2, it is possible.

Members needs would be met not alienated, but some change is necessary to reduce the costs. Keep the playing surfaces with the quality but take it away from the areas that don't need it.

No need for the secret door, I can run really fast, plus I said we would keep a couple carts around for getting around the property

These are tough times but in the theoretical world everything is easy.

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrick:

The funny thing is, I'm learning that just around Detroit, there are some clubs spending $1 million on their courses, and others spending $600,000, and you can't even tell the difference between the two.  And obviously the members at the former clubs have yet to discover that their neighbors are doing more with less.

Lets not loose sight of the fact that those clubs that you are refering to are circling the wagons. And those wagons were paid for when their budgets were much higher. How long can a maintenance operation continue like that depends on how well they were invested by capital before they hunkered down. What are you are going to do when the equipment wears out?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bradley,

One of the first things I did upon becoming a green chairman was to request a list of all the equipment, it's date of purchase, expected shelf life and replacement cost as of current date.  Then I created a long range plan/replacement schedule for the capital budget.

At the time, not much was leased.

Some, if not many clubs may have gotten themselves in an awkward position by defering replacement equipment when times were good.  In some instances, runaway or misdirected spending compromised the Superintendent's abilty to have the equipment he needed, and now, the dollars are really scarce.

I think Tom Doak was refering to the operating budget and not the capital budget, but, I'll let Tom speak for himself.

One of the difficulties in suddenly reducing the budget is the horrendous appearance of the product in the near to mid future.
With time, that appearance could be mollified, but, in one fell swoop, it's a bitter pill for most members and ardent TV viewers to swallow

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Rossi,

Clubs face some difficult choices.

If you can't get 100 Senators to agree on something, think how difficult it is to get 400 members and their spouses to agree on anything.

The factions within a club are many and quite diverse.

However, I've always found a common strain amongst the membership.

M       O       N        E        Y

Clubs have to get themselves out of their particular predicament one of two ways, either retrace and retract their expenditures the way they built them up, or take the accounting clever to each and every line item in a single process.

Well positioned clubs with NO debt and ample reserves can take their time, while the other clubs must almost always take the latter path.

The danger is, diminishing your product to the degree that it's not attractive to prospective or current members.

If someone pays $ 10,000 a year in dues, will $ 500 more make them leave ?

One of the things I'd examine is forced utilization (read food minimums)

If the kitchen is unprofitable, why force members to use it more ?

Valet parking and other frills on and off the golf course have to be evaluated.

These are NOT easy times and I don't see them getting better in the forseeable future.

Conversion from a Country Club to a Golf Club may be the ONLY way for some courses to survive

[Michael Rossi]

Patrick

I feel we are both saying the same thing.

No frilly extras
focus on the golf club and the course
lose the unprofitable dinning experience
not easy times with tough decisions

I dont think that one addresss to the membership or an email with the intentions would make everyone jump on board with blind faith. However with good communication, well trained on side staff, good club atmosphere, a course with good playing conditions I do not think many would jump ship and but do think that new members would sign up. The overall operation would definitely be stream lined and less expensive to operate which is what I think we are both saying needs to happen.

As for the architects input perhaps they could make some recommendations to improve the course from a design perspective, and take payment along the lines that TD spoke of in another thread, a royalty when the club is successful. 

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Rossi,

I think the biggest impediment in terms of altering the appearance of the golf course, vis a vis, changing maintainance practices, is the weekly telecasts of PGA Tour events.

Members have become indoctrinated to accept or strive for those conditions, irrespective of how unrealistic they age, agronomically and financially.

When grass isn't dyed to hide the yellowish/brownish look and the announcers compliment courses with the brownish/yellowish/greenish look, for the playing qualities of those surfaces, then perhaps, clubs will allow the superintendent to alter previous practices in order to achieve F&F with different coloration.

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
I think another issue is brought on by TV showing all of thse tour conditions....
And it is probably a very natural reaction..but I don't think the industry was always this way.
A few years ago an architect who I now realize was a pompous ass told me that I should be striving towards obtaining larger and larger budgets ..we see where that has gotten us....
Well let's take that same thought process and apply it to our club positions....(not excluding architects so don't shoot me)
In most cases the employees are striving for better and better jobs and so often the club budget is set by guys that want to create conditions that will allow them to be "seen" and sought out by other more prominent clubs....whether it be a chef with his dishes, a club manager with his wine lockers or a supt with course conditions.
And it is so easy for these things to be pushed on committees that have no clue and feel they are necessary.  So often now I see employees allowing the club to fund the budgets they need to get them to the next job....and again architects are not an exception....

[Michael Rossi]

Televisions impact with regards to colour has been "lying" to the viewer for a long time. I remember visiting a PGA tour event with a GM, at this time we were growing in a new course. The GM and I went and sat behind the 18th green to watch play come in on Saturday afternoon, the first comment he made to me was "why is the green so brown?". We talked about the why and I asked him to watch Sunday on TV and tell me what it looked like, on Monday he said it was all greened up and how did they do that, I was at the event on Sunday it was far from the green that was on TV.

Magazines, the web, calanders and marketing materials aren't help the cause either. How many times do we see the textures and colours we know that are associated with good playing conditions in the publications. Do a google image search using golf course, the are filled with lush green playing fields.

When we market our facilities or sell a membership on a master plan or architects do presentations for a new build, perhaps showing the course in its true colours would be better, for the ownership, players, the game and might even help move TV broadcasts to show the real world. I bet the HD experience would be even better.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Televisions impact with regards to colour has been "lying" to the viewer for a long time. I remember visiting a PGA tour event with a GM, at this time we were growing in a new course. The GM and I went and sat behind the 18th green to watch play come in on Saturday afternoon, the first comment he made to me was "why is the green so brown?". We talked about the why and I asked him to watch Sunday on TV and tell me what it looked like, on Monday he said it was all greened up and how did they do that, I was at the event on Sunday it was far from the green that was on TV.

Do you think they used filters on the cameras ?

You were there and it was brown.
He viewed it on TV and it was green.

That can only happen by applying filters

Magazines, the web, calanders and marketing materials aren't help the cause either. How many times do we see the textures and colours we know that are associated with good playing conditions in the publications. Do a google image search using golf course, the are filled with lush green playing fields.

When we market our facilities or sell a membership on a master plan or architects do presentations for a new build, perhaps showing the course in its true colours would be better, for the ownership, players, the game and might even help move TV broadcasts to show the real world. I bet the HD experience would be even better.

Unfortunately, the golfing public has been indoctrinated to believe that color NOT conditions are what's important on a golf course.

How do you overcome that ?  Especially with the PGA Tour on TV every week ?

[Michael Rossi]

The putting surface wasn't completely brown but when you look down on the turf from a grandstand and look through a camera at an angle the visual is very different. Polarizing filters are pretty common for outdoor shooting whether it is for still or moving. Polarizing filters make the sky bluer and grass greener and cut the glare. I don't know for sure what the cameras have for lenses and filters and the operators are pretty good at getting the "good" shot, green out of focus background in focus on the player.

How do we overcome? Tough to do but there are some pretty prominent and influential people on this website that could take the lead with their own websites and publications. 

We all talk the talk about wanting F&F with texture how many websites can we jump to that display it.

[Michael Rossi]

Melvyn just posted one in another thread  http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,43138.0/ that looks firm and fast to me. (post #10)

Not the high end photography we are accustomed to looking at or would associate with marketing material but it tells the truth and doesn't miss lead the viewer or give them unrealistic expectations .

[JMEvensky]

We all talk the talk about wanting F&F with texture how many websites can we jump to that display it.

IMO,this is something on which the USGA should take the lead.They have the financial resources,they have the turfgrass knowledge,and several times a year they have the television platform from which to preach the message.

We would all benefit by the USGA making more affordable maintenance a high priority.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Michael

It is a small private club with limited resources on the Northumberland coast of England. Simple and honest photos of their course.
A great stop over on the way north.

Melvyn

[Michael Rossi]

We all talk the talk about wanting F&F with texture how many websites can we jump to that display it.

IMO,this is something on which the USGA should take the lead.They have the financial resources,they have the turfgrass knowledge,and several times a year they have the television platform from which to preach the message.

We would all benefit by the USGA making more affordable maintenance a high priority.

JMEvensky

Good point. Other industry associations like superintendents, could step up as well.

 

[JMEvensky]

We all talk the talk about wanting F&F with texture how many websites can we jump to that display it.

IMO,this is something on which the USGA should take the lead.They have the financial resources,they have the turfgrass knowledge,and several times a year they have the television platform from which to preach the message.

We would all benefit by the USGA making more affordable maintenance a high priority.

JMEvensky

Good point. Other industry associations like superintendents, could step up as well.

 

The USGA has to lead in a highly visible way.They're the only organization which can provide political cover for Supers,Pro's,et al.

I think most club members would be more inclined to lower expectations if the USGA told them why it's important.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JME,

I think that's a very valid point.

The USGA has to be the motivating force with respect to placing quality playing conditions above "the look"

[JMEvensky]

JME,

I think that's a very valid point.

The USGA has to be the motivating force with respect to placing quality playing conditions above "the look"

A serious question then- why do you think they haven't?

They have access to any agronomic research and can make it available to all.They,more than anyone,must be aware of the budgetary pressures that manicuring imposes.They have a responsibility to act "for the good of the game".They can't be worried about a lawsuit from Ping over educating the public about turf issues.

Who would argue against them if they used their bully pulpit to explain why golfers' expectations should be lowered?

[Tim Nugent]

History repeats itself. Go back to the 70's  if you want to see what will be. 

As for the original question, I think architects that can operate a dozer will do better than those who can.  Golf courses are not static.  They will continue to need work.  However, if that work can be done mostly in-house with an Architect that can also do the skilled operating and assisted by the super and his staff/equip (and renting what else may be needed, a lot can be done for not a lot of money.

Clubs should look to streamlining overhead. They should look to daiily fee courses to see what they can do without.  If restraunts don't have F&B managers, why do clubs?  I have seen clubs with an on-staff accountant (whose office was next to the GM's).  Banquete Directors?  and on the maint side, irrigation techs, spray techs, assit mechanics,  multiple assits.  Preventative spraying, watering by program,  members not raking their own bunkers,  Buying new equipt when you can get good used stuff for 1/3 the price and only a few years old.

Tom's not far off when he extoll cutting a good chunk out of budgets.

I think clubs will start looking down the street, not to compare conditions, but rather to compare budgets.  And the staff members (and Archies) who can perform with less will be the ones sought after, standing Mike Young's status quo on it's head.

The problem with expecting the USGA to come ito the rescue is they are more results orientated, not cost control experts.  They will tell you what's wrong and how to fix it but (like college professors) don't concern themselves with the cost/benefit analysis end of things.

[Tom_Doak]

The problem with expecting the USGA to come ito the rescue is they are more results orientated, not cost control experts.  They will tell you what's wrong and how to fix it but (like college professors) don't concern themselves with the cost/benefit analysis end of things.

Tim:  Well said.

One of the ways the USGA sets a bad example, they picked up from Augusta -- having all sorts of head superintendents from other clubs volunteering to work the grounds crew for the U.S. Open.  All those guys love to put that on their resumes, and are excited to see the Super Bowl of Turf up close and in person.  But, it allows them to do crazy stuff like mow fairways by hand at Congressional, and the takeaway is a totally unrealistic expectation of what turf should be like.  And then a bunch of charged-up superintendents go back to their home clubs and wish they could do the same sort of stuff.

[JMEvensky]

The problem with expecting the USGA to come ito the rescue is they are more results orientated, not cost control experts.  They will tell you what's wrong and how to fix it but (like college professors) don't concern themselves with the cost/benefit analysis end of things.

Tim:  Well said.

One of the ways the USGA sets a bad example, they picked up from Augusta -- having all sorts of head superintendents from other clubs volunteering to work the grounds crew for the U.S. Open.  All those guys love to put that on their resumes, and are excited to see the Super Bowl of Turf up close and in person.  But, it allows them to do crazy stuff like mow fairways by hand at Congressional, and the takeaway is a totally unrealistic expectation of what turf should be like.  And then a bunch of charged-up superintendents go back to their home clubs and wish they could do the same sort of stuff.

I'll defer to your having had more experience,but my single experience is the opposite.

Our Super has worked the Masters and visited several times.He'll tell you that being inside the ropes has led him to believe that ANGC should post a sign above the maintenance shed--Dante's "abandon all hope ye who enter...".

He considers it the Las Vegas of golf courses and believes what happens in Augusta should stay.He's a pretty smart guy.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JME,

I think that's a very valid point.

The USGA has to be the motivating force with respect to placing quality playing conditions above "the look"

A serious question then- why do you think they haven't?

To be both candid and diplomatic, I don't think they have addressed it because I don't believe that the issue has made its way beyond their agronomic service to the Executive Director, Officers and Executive Committee for consideration and the establishment of an official position

They have access to any agronomic research and can make it available to all.  They,more than anyone,must be aware of the budgetary pressures that manicuring imposes.They have a responsibility to act "for the good of the game".

They can't be worried about a lawsuit from Ping over educating the public about turf issues.

Who would argue against them if they used their bully pulpit to explain why golfers' expectations should be lowered?

I just don't think the issue has made its way up on the totem pole of important or pressing topics

Right now, I don't think it's on their radar screen, but, I could be wrong

[JMEvensky]

The problem with expecting the USGA to come ito the rescue is they are more results orientated, not cost control experts.  They will tell you what's wrong and how to fix it but (like college professors) don't concern themselves with the cost/benefit analysis end of things.

The USGA doesn't have to come to the rescue--they just need to start the conversation.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()