[Jeff_Brauer]

Thought some might be interested in this.  To be honest, the line about a 1.5% dip in the middle of the article should probably have been the headline from a golf oriented press release, no?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NGF 2010 Openings/Closures Summary - Market Correction of Supply/Demand Imbalance Continue

NGF tracked 46 18-hole equivalent golf course openings in 2010 vs. 107 closures, for a net negative of 61, the fifth consecutive year that closures have outpaced openings. The total net loss of 220 18-hole courses from 2006-2010 represent roughly 1.5% of the total supply. The 2010 net loss of 61 courses in 2010 represents less than one half of one percent of total supply. Considering the severity of the recession, one could argue that golf has held its ground reasonably well.

These are some of the details emerging from NGF's Golf Facilities in the U.S. report, 2011 edition, which will be released in early February:
•   There were openings in 29 states.
•   Of the 46 openings, more than 60% were daily fee
•   There are currently more than 80 U.S. golf course projects under construction (excluding renovations)
•   States with the most openings in 2010 were Pennsylvania, Illinois, Florida, North Carolina and Texas
•   The region with the most courses currently under construction is the South Atlantic with 16.5 courses.
•   The total facility count at the end of 2010 stood at 15,890, 167 less than the all-time high of 16,057 in 2004. And the current number of 18-hole equivalents is 14,904.5, which is less than the number of facilities due to the large number of stand-alone 9-holers (4,382).

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

NGF has failed in its mission to be a real observer of the golf scene.

Let's not forget their true booster push in having one new facility per day not that many years ago.
I don't see them offering a mea culpa on that bold assertion which flopped on its face.

The golf industry often times sips its own kool-aid.

A number of facilities are hanging on for dear life. The suggestion that the golf industry has weathered the storm comes from the same propaganda mill that having one course open per day for the foreseeable future was a must.

In my mind, if 10% of the courses went under -- as bad as that would be for many people -- the net result would likely be a stronger overall industry to support the less than saintly number of players that the NGF keeps on spouting about.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Matt
Surviving a war doesn't make one stronger - it weakens all the participants.
I'd like to see the list of 46.

I do disagree with the "hold the ground" statement.
They track closures, not change of ownerships and bankruptcies.

That would be far more telling.
$20MM Courses don't go away, they get sold for $5MM + one barkruptsy.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Beg to differ partner.

When you have too few players chasing too many courses -- the people on the course side of things -- lose.

Lessening the number of courses - will only sure up those remaining in business.

NGF wants people to believe all is well with the industry and that business as usual is the way to go.

That's the same theory those who built the Titanic believed -- nothing could sink that boat.

When NGF takes ownership of the build / build / build boosterism I'll then view their press releases with a bit more
credibility.

[Brian Marion]

As someone who has had to write some of these press releases, I can tell you this is complete cherry picked crap.

Not reporting BK's? That makes it even worse and is a sign that the association is just reporting what they think everyone wants to hear because if they hear the truth, there will be real worry and action.

[BCrosby]

An honest question, because I don't know much about the NGF.

What motive does the NGF have to cherry pick data?

Bob

[Matt_Ward]

Bob:

Some groups / organizations view the slightest bit of negative info as a pox of epic proportions.

NGF shot itself in the foot with its build a course a day propaganda. It set in motion -- although I am not going to
excuse others -- the thought that golf had no end game in terms of supply / demand.

These folks don't want to admit some serious issues -- the game is too expensive -- takes to long to play -- is hard for beginners to get a handle on -- etc, etc, etc.

They also live in a kool-aid world in not admitting what is so obvious when one looks at the housing industry today -- a massive cleansing is needed and it goes far beyon the meager numbers and relationships that NGF is providing.

Frankly, the NGF is not an honest broker seeking to provide a real understanding -- but one intent to slant its spin to fit its own agenda.

[Brian Marion]

An honest question, because I don't know much about the NGF.

What motive does the NGF have to cherry pick data?

Bob

Seems to happen all the time with associations and "councils". For some reason, they feel that reporting an everything is rosy picture at all times is the best way to make better things really happen. They drink their own bath water of constantly selling the given industry to outsiders that they sell insiders the same message, when what  the industry really needs is an honest approach and conversation.

It think it's called enabling in certain circles....  ;-)

[Tim Nugent]

Mike:

Beg to differ partner.
When you have too few players chasing too many courses -- the people on the course side of things -- lose.
Lessening the number of courses - will only sure up those remaining in business....

Matt, doesn't that all depend on where the courses that close are? If one closes in a rural town, does that mean that the displaced golfers will automatically travel to the next available course? And play/spend money at the same rate?  Sure, in higher density areas you are probably correct but I don't think it is a Zero Sum game.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

The NGF is an industry funded organization, but you are globalizing all possible potential problems with that.  I mean, if I pay my dues, why do I want an organization to not tell me the truth about what we face?

I agree with the poster than says they aren't tracking owneship changes (at least in this report) profits, etc. here.  And it was my comment, not theirs, which did call it for what it was - a contraction.

As to my take, I am glad to note that golf is strong enough to have ONLY contracted 1.5% in facilities.  I know many of the remaining have contracted 35% in revenues, and some more, and are surely surviving but barely in this economy.  Its interpretation, but honest one.  I am sure we will continue to see minor contraction for at least five years, maybe ten.  At these rates, it would still total less than 5% total facility contraction. I don't know how that compares to movie houses, bowlng alleys, fancy restaurants, et. al, but it seems pretty strong overall.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

Credibility needs to count for something.

How about accountability for past glaring errors -- the one course per day forecast was absolutely a miss of epic proportions.

No doubt a number of players made various moves in regards to what they professed would happen. I've not seen a mea culpa
that said NGF was dead wrong.

A major contraction within the industry is needed -- plus intervention thinking that squares the fact that most people today -- especially the Gen X & Y types don't see golf as being anything other than a major drain on their limited $$ and that it takes way too long to play.

You're right - NGF is an industry funded organization -- if I was funding it I would hope for some really candid and sobering awareness on what is happening.

Frankly, the folks spinning the show don't want to "alarm" those within the industry that what they took as gospel a number of years ago is no longer prevalent today. I am aware some people don't want to hear it in straight no-holds-barred terns. Like I said credibility is the key and what the NGF says has even less credibility than the USGA talking about equipment matters.

Tim:

Without hard data on all closures you are right it's hard to make a definitive conclusion. I just see NGF as being unable to come to terms that its cheerleader role with the one course per day approach is part of the problem golf got into during the go-go-go days.

[Kris Shreiner]

There's little doubt NGF puts the industry spin on things and skews reports postive to their "stakeholders." No real surprise there, and I think we can finally take them down from the cross on the "new course a minute mantra" they clearly blew bigtime.

Golf has some unhealthy habits, just like our society and economy in general. As this correction process continues, there will be more fall-out. Those that are astute and liquid are in a wonderful position to strike and pick up some real sweet deals. Hitch yourself to those wagons gang, cause there still plenty of red to be seen in the days ahead.

[Matt_Ward]

Kris:

My point is for NGF to see itself as a viable leader -- how bout a quick mea culpa / ownership on what they said previously ?

I have no issue in taking them down from the cross.

Unfortunately ...

NGF neither sees past errors nor desires to be accountable for what they did say.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

I have seen them discuss their mistakes in the course a day mantra in their documents.  Before and after that era, I have seen them address basic flaws in their feasibility analysis studies, in explaining how they use more and more scientfic data than the old days.  A lot of that was in reaction to how many studies came up positive.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

I have an issue with large "think tank" groups that try to come off as being really concerned about the overall state of their respective industry -- when the reality is that the inner voices and self serving agendas are at work.

The NGF build a course for each day statement was a colossal blunder of epic proportions. It showed little real sense -- even when it was first announced given how the total # of players was not growing -- and had not been growing for quite some. The NGF simply keeps on churning its Pravda statements about this and that.

Frankly, they need to really examine their methodology and if need be do some internal housekeeping to really sort out matters so that their credibility can be restored.

[Rob_Waldron]

Matt

I agree that the NGF "Course a Day" concept may not have worked out as planned. Do you think if each new course built in the past 10 years was positioned properly in the market that the Golf Industry would be in the shape it is in now? Yes we needed more courses. However instead of building minimalist designs with affordable fees we saw too many courses in the $75 - $100 range chasing a shinking number of players willing to pay that price. Borrowing a stock market term, the Golf Industry is experience a "Market Correction". Similar to many other real estate deals it is the second or third owner that can make it work. That is because they have a realistic capital basis which can provide a justifiable return on investment by charging lower rates. Just my 2 cents!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

Apparently you don't read posts before answering.

They have examined their methodology in many areas and changed it.

That said, I always wondered about the course a day, and it was true for a few years, but continued on for about ten.  If you want to continue to beat them up, go ahead.  They sure aren't perfect.

Your position is human nature. Hey, I don't buy Tylenol because that tainted scare about 1980 was in the store my family always shopped in.  Many others probably don't either.  No doubt its hard to recover good perceptions from big mistakes.

Rob,

Intersting perspective and perhaps it was hard to analyze the golf market when it was being added to so quickly.  I am sure the Billy Casper Golf and Kempers of the world were all chasing the bigger dollars, as opposed to the days when the muni's were purposely buiding the money losing affordable golf courses. For that matter, the nine holers stopped being built, too.  When I was a kid in Chicago, Rob Roy, Old Orchard and a few others built 9 hole courses of lesser quality just so kids like me could play and be future customers.  I don't see much invested in that these days, even though NGF and nearly everybody talks about bringing new players in the game, no one does lots about it.

[Matt_Ward]

Rob:

I have an issue with any group that tries to come off as being "the speaker" for the broadest of groups - when in reality its reach and its internal agenda is skewed by other considerations.

NGF blundered on a epic level with the one course per day edict.

I have to ask myself just on the board of NGF really questioned staff methodology ? Did any of the staff people really understand what golf was already facing EVEN BEFORE that announcement ?

When you have a so-called expert type association / foundation, call it what one will, make such Moses-like pronouncements and then for the bottom to fall out -- you have a major credibility issue. You begin to heal the credibility issue when you take seriious accountability for it and then make the needed staff changes so that you are a leader to be reckoned with. It seems to me NGF believes the past will simply be forgotten. Just ask all the casualities who took their advice and suffered for it.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

Help me out with something -- why is it you almost always take the apologist role for main line groups within golf ?

Is it a force of habit or what ?

Please stop with the "no one's perfect excuse book" story. I never asked for perfection from NGF or anyone else for that matter.

Just a bit of 100% ownership on epic a mistake their last pronouncement was.

Jeff,, you begin the road back by doing what all smart companies do when facing crisis communications -- admit the faults and take 100% ownership - no back pedaling -- no running away from it. Just head-on.

Jeff, one final thing -- the saturation of the CCFAD model could easily have been years before the bubble burst. Too many players within NGF must have been sniffing some serious glue if they really believed that Joe Sixpack was going to shell out each year another $300 for the driver that would add even more distance and make them play on par with Tiger and the boys.

The NGF never has really seen how to view the broader universe of things -- simply concentrating on the elite core. I'll say this again -- golf has big problems -- Gen X & Y types have helped in being clear about what recreational opportunities they are seeking and it's not expensive golf with 5 1/2 hour rounds on places that cost a serious chunk of $$.

NGF wants to be seen as the guru group for all of golf -- when mainly it's a grouping of people who see things only from their bottom line side of things. I have no issue in turning the page -- but NGF needs to show it understands the deep feelings of those who were burned and how they played a role in advocating such a flawed position. Once they take ownership - they can begin to move forward with a more sensible and comprhensive attack on what really ails golf.

[Mike_Young]

Mike N,
I don't see the buying of 20million dollar courses for 5 million happening...more like 1.5 million
______
I remember when none of the signatures wanted to build public courses...they were actually promoting the high$$$ projects as superior..then those projects dried up and the sigs came into the public course side and jacked them up....

Matt and Jeff,
NGF.....what they say doesn't matter....the problem is there is really no need for an NGF....it's another cost that the golf industry doesn't need to bear....they have brought nothing to the table...

[Kris Shreiner]

We need to look no further than NGF's heading to see how off target their whole approach is. It also reflects the mentality of many of golf's administrative bodies and industry"stakeholders" as well.

"Keeping Golf Businesses ahead of the Game."

While they view it as a catchy play on words, the reality is clear...it's ALL about what you can extract from and profit (survive) from golf MORE than anything else. The overall health of the game, especially long-term, is really not a concern for these folks, beyond quarterly profit of course!

The issues here having nothing to do with folks earning a good living from their efforts. I'm all for that. It's the mindset that the business of the game is placed BEFORE every other aspect of it. That's just flat out wrong and very damaging, especially to the perception of a sport that's often held itself out as ethically different from the rest. Who are we kidding? Why does the game continue to suffer from bad publicity? While there are multiple factors at play on this score, no question the greed and excess often exhibited by those in the golf industry has reinforced this view.

I'm hopeful that those of us in the game, that care about it's overall, long-term health, will continue to encourage a more balanced approach to how we present the game, both to our fellow golfers, industry constituents and certainly to potential and non-golfers as well.

Cheers.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike Young:

If there's no NGF that doesn't bother me - that's up to their members to determine that.

My point was that if an NGF is going to exist and if they are truly concerned about the game they say they love (not just the $$ that come from it) they will be a bit more aware of what they say and how it impacts others.

Nothing more ... nothing less.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()