[Niall C]

....becoming functionally obsolete ?

Let me first give the broad parameters for what I consider to be the "average" members course in this country. Contrary to what some visitors might imagine, most courses in this country aren't links, they are by a large percentage inland courses, the majority of which I would guess are of a clay/heavy soil. And most will have been built pre-war.

Modern golfers play a lot more therefore the courses take more of a beating, particularly in winter. Compaction and soil being churned into mud have consequences for the rest of the year. Even on links courses that I know of, there has been serious drainage problems that have resulted.

Courses that were once on the edge of town with countryside all around are now hemmed in by housing resulting in holes on the perimeter needing to be rerouted or curtailed. Internal holes are usually too close together and don't conform to safety standards. What was a good test of golf 20 or 30 years ago no longer cuts the mustard due to improved technology, and often these courses don't have the room to stretch out holes.

The question then is it not time to up sticks and relocate ?

Niall 

[Bill_McBride]

Niall, I suggest you go home and take a nap.   

[Adrian_Stiff]

Nial heres my take - The economics of golf is a fine line. I don't think there will be many new golf courses built in the UK for 20 years. We have an over supply. We have agricultural land that has tripled in cost in a short time. We have a difficult financial situtaion where you can  buy a money derivitave at 4% for 20 years. Any of those points are basically poo, we got all three.

Anyone wanting a golf course gets value by buying an existing one, he gets stiffed doing it his self.

Many average members clubs will die over the next 20 years, they wont move to a new site unless they get big ££££ for their existing site,for housing.

They will die because they do not harness the new breed of young golfers that drink beer, use carts and play  infrequently and want flexible membership schemes that reflect vaue.The new golfer does not want to be trapped to one course, he likes to roam,he likes to play different courses, he expects value and with the 'go compare syndrone' he will refuse a high price green fee. It will make it difficult for courses with flaws and courses with ageing memberships will see their membership numbers drop by 25 - 30 per year as they fail to replace their holes. Some will realise they are entering death spiral as they offer great deals to "come and play with a bacon roll,a two course meal and a round for £15" some wont understand.

[Scott Warren]

Adrian, I agree on the "pay as you go" or limited rounds per year memberships.

Many blokes my age who I met in the UK were nomads because most clubs didn't have a membership that made sense for them, playing 20 or so rounds a year.

To me, this and monthly direct debit of fees is something many clubs will have to introduce if they want to survive.

[Mark Chaplin]

Scott - most clubs will allow direct debit payments usually at around 5% premium.

Adrian - you subscribe to modern methods are your clubs flying? I imagine one of the tough sells will be the 20% VAT premium for proprietary clubs.

The straight forward local members club has survived two world wars, the great recession and some mini ones as well as degentrification of the game, I have no doubt they will continue to survive.

[Duncan Cheslett]

I have only just joined a club (Reddish Vale) after years of being a very occasional and nomadic player. On my visits to pay and play courses and driving ranges I have met countless other blokes who enjoy a round of golf every other week or so but are unwilling (or unable) to make the commitment to club membership and all that it entails. It would have been politically impossible for me to justify golf club membership to my wife while the kids were small and the mortgage was large - for many if not most people membership of a golf club is thus put off until middle age - or delayed permanently. This leaves a huge potential market of younger, more occasional players.

The 'social' aspect of belonging to a local golf club does not seem as important to newer golfers as it was when clubs were first established. It is the golf which matters. I suspect that there are as many nomadic golfers as there are club golfers - someone presumably has figures...

One thing that my search for a local club revealed is how many of them are clearly in financial difficulties. Rumours abound that at least two in South Manchester face bankruptcy and that another two long established neighbouring clubs are poised to merge. Of course, once rumours like this start about any business they tend to become a self-fulfulling prophecy as customers (members) jump ship.

I agree with Adrian; traditional clubs need to up their game to attract custom from this large pool of nomadic players in a more imaginative way than most do at present. They also need to offer membership packages which are more attractive and flexible - maybe in conjunction with other local clubs allowing reciprocal playing rights at no extra charge.

The golf society system needs to be developed. If I could have joined a society of other local golfers which gave me a proper handicap and unlimited access to a number of local courses at a nominal green fee I would have done it years ago, and the golf industry would have relieved me of a lot more of my disposable income than it has managed to do thus far!

Ultimately though, the market will decide. Poorly run clubs with dull courses will close; well run clubs with something to offer will thrive.

[Adam Lawrence]

I think the sell up for housing and build a new course somewhere cheaper model could work for a number of clubs, but it is wholly dependent on location. Southfield in Oxford is one course that will probably be turned into housing eventually, but that's because the club doesn't own the freehold of the land, it's in one of the most expensive cities in the UK and absolutely a prime location. Oxford is growing and will continue to grow, and there is a lot of pressure to build within the existing city limits, rather than expanding into surrounding countryside. There has already been a lot of discussion about this - the site was identified in the last city strategy as a potential site for housing. The city council decided not to zone it thusly a couple of years ago, but it will go eventually I think.

But there aren't that many courses in a similar position. I can think of lots of very ordinary old courses that would jump at the chance to up sticks and build anew, but in the short to medium term it's hard to see residential property markets in much of the UK being strong enough to support too many developments of this kind, except for suburban courses in towns and cities with a lot of pent up demand for housing.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Scott - most clubs will allow direct debit payments usually at around 5% premium.

Adrian - you subscribe to modern methods are your clubs flying? I imagine one of the tough sells will be the 20% VAT premium for proprietary clubs.

The straight forward local members club has survived two world wars, the great recession and some mini ones as well as degentrification of the game, I have no doubt they will continue to survive.

Mark - Few UK clubs are flying, its survival time, but mine are generally the ones that are still attracting members, socities and most still charge a joining fee. The problem is the rats rally, as clubs vie for buisness and try to edge another club by discounting their product sometimes blindly into death spiral, it is hard but some clubs cant seem to grasp that they are advertising their golf product to the general public on much more favourable terms than their own members. What happens is some members jump back into the nomad category and play cheaper. The clubs nett result has been financially negative.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Vat at 20% on golf clubs is bordering criminal. I am fairly confident that properiatary clubs will fall back into the same category as member clubs and that monies taken will have to be returned. This could be £1,000,000 to some golf clubs. I think the fact its gone up to 20% could be blessing in disguise and hurry the situation. At one stage I thought the goverment had agreed they were not even going to defend it. I certainly saw one letter that read that way.

Adam- I think almost any UK that can sale its land for housing would jump at it. Land prices are still 50 times higher for housing, in the Bristol area we are building again, Oxford must be similar. The problem is obtaining the permissions, golf courses are great natural breaks in the cities and cities do need green areas. Getting permission is like winning the giant lottery.

I have no doubt that the bi-weekly or 20 times a year golfer Duncan and Scott mention is very real and popular situation. These golfers probably want to be a flexi-member and are willing to part with £500... say £300 and then £10 per round. The problem is that when you announce a flexi-system a portion of your membership fall back into it and it can create a dip in the coffers... Nothing is easy.

[Sean_A]

I know Princes used to have playing packages depending on how many games someone wanted a year.  They seem to have dropped that idea and expanded the country and younger folk membership cataegories.

http://www.princesgolfclub.co.uk/membership-packages.php

Here is an interesting approach.  The club has long had teh Gold, Silver and Bronze memberships, but the additional incentives are quite novel.  I especially am impressed with the £100 bar certificate.  Mind you, the course is terrible.  I was initially attracted to the colour scheme membership until playing the course. 

http://www.ombersleygolfclub.co.uk/?pg=membership_options

To me, this is the problem with the play and play clubs with a membership.  They tend to either be poor courses or actually quite expensive and expensive to hang around.  I would also add that at least in the flush times, these courses were crowded with golfers who couldn't really play.  Its a catch 22 trying to real in the money of club golfers with a setup like this.  The one aspect Ombersley did well was societies.  They used to crank these groups through - to the point where a second dining area was added.  In any case, lets face it, these sorts of clubs have long been the waiting rooms for golfers looking to get into private clubs and so the club has to be constantly aggressive in keeping their numbers up.  THis is not an ideal situation for many people.

Still, around me there isn't a single propietary club I would play let alone join.  The best of the lot is The Warwickshire, but its too expensive and the golf isn't particularly compelling - especially in the winter when the muck seems to rise from hell. 

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44299.msg964771/#msg964771 

I think the good private inland clubs that aren't quite riding with the big boys will start developing country/junior membership schemes in a similar manner to Princes ( I think Deal does this to some degree).  Adrian is right, its a battle out there for the golfers between the camps of private clubs and proprietary clubs.  This is a sizable market that the privates should do well in getting if they are a bit imaginative. 

Ciao

[Simon Holt]

Really interesting thread for me this one.

I think I agree with Mark that the old members clubs have survived worse situations than this but at the same time Adrian makes some very good points about the whole attitude of golfers changing.  My club is trying to get me on the council (at 29 years old) but as a relative youngster at a very old, established club I think most of my ideas would fall flat.  I have seen it happen with other younger members that have tried.

Many established clubs have a 'black hole' in membership when lads/girls head off to Uni until they rejoin clubs at 40+.  How we fill that demographic and retain these golfers is my issue.  Getting the average age down surely has to help- more people actively supporting the club both on and off the course.

Any good ideas on how to approach an ageing committee with good ideas and actually get buy in from them?

[Scott Warren]

Given Chappers proudly boasts that in two years he has played a grand total of one course not in the GB&I or USA Top 100, I imagine he and Adrian are referencing two very different ends of the market.

The old school clubs will always survive, I believe, as will any with a cracking course (though The Add is looking like maybe proving me wrong!) but most clubs in any country do not fall into those brackets.

[Adam Lawrence]

Sean hits on the fundamental problem, from a GCA perspective, of the points/flexi membership schemes that are designed to attract the 10-20 rounds a year players, which is that they are not really available anywhere you'd really want to play.

Simon's question about attracting twenty and thirtysomethings is a real one, and it extends into the forties for many as well. The issue is social mobility. With people moving around more, the great club atmosphere where you can mooch up on spec and just pick up a game is really hard to come by. I've told this story before, but my at Dad's club in Yorkshire there are a bunch of guys in their 50s and 60s who have known each other for thirty or more years, and you really don't need to ring round to arrange a game - you know there'll be four or five minimum gathering at the club at half eight on a Saturday morning, and increasingly during the week too, as more of them retire.

That doesn't happen so much nowadays. Don't cry for me, Argentina, because I have plenty of other sources of games, but I have no real golfing social circle locally, and thus it is hard, verging on impossible, for me to get value from a club membership at home. I've been toying with country memberships in a couple of locations, because I reckon I could get the ten or fifteen rounds out of them that would make them worthwhile (one would be Burnham as my cousin lives only a couple of miles from the club and is on the verge of retiring from cricket).

[Sean_A]

Adam

I did do research before dropping my local membership in favour of a country membership and nomad golf.  I was surprised at how unattractive so many of the packages were considering the quality of golf.  Mind you, I placed dry golf in winter very high on my list of criteria and this eliminated all the proprietary clubs I was even half considering.  Essentially, I was left with links choices plus a few other outlier options that were likely going to require me asking favours of people - which I wasn't prepared to do.  I think I fell into Burnham because I had applied a few years previously and the offer came up just when I was getting fed up with my local club.  Prices kept rising and I was terribly unhappy with a lack of a proper overall plan for the course.  While I admit I am probably not the typical 20 game a year proprietary clubs are targeting, still it takes all sorts and the myriad of reasons for a guy wanting 20 games a year is too endless to categorize. 

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean hits on the fundamental problem, from a GCA perspective, of the points/flexi membership schemes that are designed to attract the 10-20 rounds a year players, which is that they are not really available anywhere you'd really want to play.

I think that these courses are places golfers want to play,afterall many are successfull using this pattern, but the courses that adopt this principle generally are the newer ones. I dont think Sean will like my courses particularly although I think he will find bits he likes, but to 99% golfers do like island greens, fountains, striped up fairways etc.
Heres a question to Sean and perhaps everyone:  Lets say Burnham & Berrow introduced a membership for £150 per year, you are a member, you can play in competitions, have a handicap, play in knock outs, you simply pay £20 every round you play....Would you buy a membership like this?

[Adam Lawrence]

I did say from a GCA perspective Adrian, I know this site is a very small proportion of the golfing world as a whole.

[Paul_Turner]

Scott
The straight forward local members club has survived two world wars, the great recession and some mini ones as well as degentrification of the game, I have no doubt they will continue to survive.

I agree with Mark, decent clubs should survive.  

One thing I would hate to see, would be good courses closing in urban areas for the land $ and then building a new course in the countryside.  The urban areas need the green space, the countryside has enough pressure on it already and the typical course built on farmland just isn't good.

[Simon Holt]

Adrian- I think if you are used to paying a price then it is hard to bring in a new model but using my home club of North Berwick as an example I would happily pay £200 for the house fee, then £10 (the guest fee) for every round I played.  

My annuals work out about £520 (outstanding value, so no complaints) I think so if I played 60 rounds a year (over that this year) on the new model that would work out at £800 which considering how much more I am playing it than other members I would see as fair.  A guy that just comes down once a year only pays £210?  I can deal with that- I am getting more use out if it.  If this added price keeps some people away then more times for visitors at the price of £95 that we charge on a weekend now.  

No skin off my nose....but is it?  Do I have more of a right to input about conditioning etc considering I am paying so much more towards upkeep?

In ref to the young people.  Our club charges a fee when you convert from junior to adult....ridiculous.  They are already a member- why drive them away with a 4 figure fee that they want to be spending on booze and chasing girls?  Seriously- its the time of your life when you have the least money and if you are heading to higher education are staring down the barrel at debt anyway.  Shambles!

All a balance I suppose.  I am selfish and want the place all to myself!  God I want to play golf now  I can see the snow slowly melting in the first green!  Come on East Lothian micro-climate- you can do it!!

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adam, yes I know you meant that, sorry if the post read wrong.

Paul - I agree that the decent well run members courses will ride the storm. I said courses with flaws will be the strugglers. This forum might not agree but courses under 6000 yards could go into the courses with flaws category. We are getting to the stage where its not easy for 4 golfers to play together anymore off the same tees if they have different driving abilities. My friends are mainly good players, for them fun is from the back, they dont enjoy MY forward tees, for me fun is from the front. What can happen is that the shorter courses lose their membership to the longer courses.
Courses with H & S issues, that might have to realign holes due to incidents might get in trouble as they are forced to make changes to their course that are not for the golfing better. Courses with wet winter greens that have not modernised them could also fall. In a difficult market the consumer becomes stronger and gets a better pick.....the weak fall away.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Simon £200 and £10 does not work..... its £150 sub  and £20 green fee or £300  sub and £10 green fee. The balance is important relative to the annual full subscription or you create a CBD  <<< cheaper back door>>> At many clubs only 100 golfers play more than 40 times per year. At many clubs 50 members will play 100 times per year. With say 500 members, you are getting 100 getting superb value, but 70% are not getting full value. This 70% is the vulnerable area from where your membership numbers could suffer.

I agree that its unfair for juniors to have that upgrade fee. We have a sliding scale right up to 29. You are right that quite often a 28 year old has a young family and £££ are scarce, time is the other inhibitor for this type as well.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Adam- I think almost any UK that can sale its land for housing would jump at it. Land prices are still 50 times higher for housing, in the Bristol area we are building again, Oxford must be similar. The problem is obtaining the permissions, golf courses are great natural breaks in the cities and cities do need green areas. Getting permission is like winning the giant lottery.

I know of two examples locally where obtaining planning permission on plots of land quite clearly suitable for much needed housing has proved impossible. Mirrlees Golf Club in Stockport closed 30 years ago when the landlord sold an option on the land to a developer. It remains overgrown and abandoned to this day as repeated applications for planning permission are denied.

A sports club (not golf) in South Manchester owns 20 acres of prime land in the commuter belt with excellent access. Selling the land to a developer and moving elsewhere would solve completely their major financial problems - but it has been made quite clear that permission will never be granted.

The planning laws in this country have a lot to answer for - not least the ridiculous and unsustainable price of houses.

[Sean_A]

Sean hits on the fundamental problem, from a GCA perspective, of the points/flexi membership schemes that are designed to attract the 10-20 rounds a year players, which is that they are not really available anywhere you'd really want to play.

I think that these courses are places golfers want to play,afterall many are successfull using this pattern, but the courses that adopt this principle generally are the newer ones. I dont think Sean will like my courses particularly although I think he will find bits he likes, but to 99% golfers do like island greens, fountains, striped up fairways etc.
Heres a question to Sean and perhaps everyone:  Lets say Burnham & Berrow introduced a membership for £150 per year, you are a member, you can play in competitions, have a handicap, play in knock outs, you simply pay £20 every round you play....Would you buy a membership like this?

Adrian

No, for my main course such as Burnham that I play 20ish times a year I wouldn't consider £150 + £20 per game simply because I get it cheaper than that now.  I would need to move to under 15 games a year for your model to pay off.  However, for a course further afield but not a days drive away, I would certainly consider your scheme because I wouldn't play that often, but it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to just pop in.  I am thinking of places 2.5 to 3 hours drive.  Mind you Pennard is in taht range for me and I wouldn't consider your scheme because its far cheaper than that now.  This is what I meant by more inland traditional clubs becoming more creative in grabbing the grey area golfer.  For some reason, it seems to be in the main links clubs which chase the country members - why not the inland clubs?    

You would be surprised what I like if the price is right.  Everything in my world of throw away money is value balanced consideration.  I am very happy to play a course much inferior to the greats, but still entertaning if the price is right.  Look at my favourite courses, not that many are among the big guns ad that is usually down to cost.  Just as I lose interest in paying £25 for a bottle of Bordeaux pretty quickly I too lose interest in paying £100 for a game of golf.  At that price its gotta be pretty damn special for me to be willing go back.  Believe me, I have turned down games at lovely places because it was too dear.  Besides, I keep forgetting the name of the 9 holer you built, but I thought it looked really good in the pix.  

Ciao

[Simon Holt]

Thanks Adrian- food for thought. 

I would pay the £300/£10 option you highlighted without many grumbles even though it would be over £300 more for me.  I would still see it as value- £10 a round and £300 for clubhouse/medals/member perks is the way I would justify it to myself.  I assume most clubs would want to poo poo this as they love the revenue from the guy who rarely plays?  Get his money but he doesn't damage the course?

[Mark Pearce]

The problem with Adrian's model for me is that, currently, I'll often just pop up to the club, maybe with one or more of my sons, and just play a few holes on a summer evening or Sunday afternoon.  If I had to pay per play, I wouldn't do this and it is one of the real benefits I think I get from a private membership.  The other main benefit is being part of a club and playing in competitions.  I pay around £1000 to be a member and would gues (and it is a guess, I don't keep stats) that I play 30-40 rounds a year there.  So £300 + £10 a round would work out cheaper but wouldn't work for me.  I know that sounds odd, but there you go.

[Adrian_Stiff]

The problem with Adrian's model for me is that, currently, I'll often just pop up to the club, maybe with one or more of my sons, and just play a few holes on a summer evening or Sunday afternoon.  If I had to pay per play, I wouldn't do this and it is one of the real benefits I think I get from a private membership.  The other main benefit is being part of a club and playing in competitions.  I pay around £1000 to be a member and would gues (and it is a guess, I don't keep stats) that I play 30-40 rounds a year there.  So £300 + £10 a round would work out cheaper but wouldn't work for me.  I know that sounds odd, but there you go.

Mark-It might sound odd but I do understand what you are saying and you are not alone. Think about this though, no one is taking that £1000 per year option away from you if thats good for you, do it. Another member who might only play 20 times and be financially less able might have to dump his membership on his perceived value, so a member is lost. The flexi-membership can worki n tandum with the traditional all in one fee membership, by having both you can satisfy more people. All my clubs embraced this method very early from say 1992,not one has ever gone bust in a climate where two out of three end up in some form of administration. Many more clubs are understanding the benifits and I think it could be pretty widespread over the next few years. As a golf course membership touches £1000 not all can afford.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()