Getting Trolleys/Push carts approved at a private US club

[Jud_T]

It makes no sense for those who advocate more walking to want carts not to be charged separately.  There are a lot of people who walk solely because they don't want to pay a cart fee.  Then some of these same guys complain about public courses where the greens fee includes the price of a cart and they want to walk.  Illogical.  High cart fees are like a large gas tax.  The higher the price, the less use they will get.  It's Econ 101.  Supply and demand curves.  Of course if you only allow people with a doctor's note to ride for free, then able bodied folks will go to their doctor complaining of knee and back pain.  Personally I like all-inclusive club pricing, but that's not always smart marketing when the price tag provides sticker shock.  My old club was an all-in price, but carts were still extra.  I agree that it makes no sense to allow carrying but not push carts.  

[BHoover]

Does anyone else hate the terms "trolley" and "buggy" when used to describe pushcarts and riding carts?

When I am in the UK playing golf, I love it and, for me, it is part of the charm of golfing there...

When I am in the USA or on GCA, at least to me, it is simply affectatious...

Agreed. I should have clarified that I don't hate the UK-based use of those terms. I just don't favor the US-based use of those terms. For the record, however, I prefer the term "cancellation" over the US-based "cancelation", so I'm not universally opposed to British spelling.

[John Kavanaugh]

The terms Trolley or Buggy helps break down the muni stereotypes when trying to convince your club to allow pushcarts. Visuals also matter, I can't tell you how disappointed I was to see Bandon allow people to bring their own pushcarts. Something about watching guys see how far their cart will roll down a hill without them took away from the sanctity of what initially was spiritual experience.

[Adam Lawrence]

The virtue of 'trolley' is that it applies whether you're intended to push or pull the thing! Plus, you have 'electric trolley' for the Powakaddy type machines. If everything's some form of 'cart' then you're asking one word to cover a lot of situations.

[Paul Gray]

Roger,

Don't mind Ben, he's just unclear as to what supply side economics actually is. He thinks it's something to do with lowering prices, and it is, but it's centred around the idea of reducing the cost to supply i.e the cost of production. It has nothing to do with just lowering your price and hoping your marginal increase in demand outstrips your reduction in marginal revenue. Ben's actually referring to demand elasticity but he doesn't know that. Well, he does now.     

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees.

[BCowan]

Roger,

Don't mind Ben, he's just unclear as to what supply side economics actually is. He thinks it's something to do with lowering prices, and it is, but it's centred around the idea of reducing the cost to supply i.e the cost of production. It has nothing to do with just lowering your price and hoping your marginal increase in demand outstrips your reduction in marginal revenue. Ben's actually referring to demand elasticity but he doesn't know that. Well, he does now.     

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees.

''He thinks it's something to do with lowering prices, and it is''

Bingo Paul.  Supply-side is aka Voodoo econ

''but it's centred around the idea of reducing the cost to supply i.e the cost of production''

I'm for that too.  Paul, It is real simple the analogy was comparing golf clubs absorbent fees and encouraging growth.  I'm very clear and it was a joke.     


Supply-Side Economics

Supply-side economics emphasizes economic growth achieved by tax and fiscal policy that creates incentives to produce goods and services.  In particular, supply-side economics has focused primarily on lowering marginal tax rates with the purpose of increasing the after-tax rate of return from work and investment, which result in increases in supply.
http://www.laffercenter.com/supply-side-economics/

[Mike Hendren]

Let me add this. Victoria also gives me one unaccompanied foursome to donate to the charity of my choice.  

I did not want this to be lost in the babble of this thread.   That is an awesome practice for any club.  VN rises a notch in my book.

Bogey

[Brian Finn]

Does anyone else hate the terms "trolley" and "buggy" when used to describe pushcarts and riding carts?

When I am in the UK playing golf, I love it and, for me, it is part of the charm of golfing there...

When I am in the USA or on GCA, at least to me, it is simply affectatious...

+1

[Brent Hutto]

It's hard for me to take seriously a complaint about another person's choice of words being "affectatious". I'm like you're just shittin' me, right?

[Bill Crane]

It's only affectatious if you use a British accent when you say it.

I occasionally call them as such, because they are so commonly accepted in the UK and I would like them to be here as well.

I guess I have the..........................

Affectatious blues.

Meanest blues of all.

{ A Little Feat way of Life }

Wm Flynnfan

[SB]

This has all the look and feel of a great day.

This could be the best post ever.

Come on Scott.  You can add to this post.  Tell us how riding carts are viewed in the industry and how much they add to the bottom line.  When I was looking at it in Texas many years ago, my recollection is that most courses do well over 80% of rounds on carts and profit margins were in the 60-70%.  Fully allocating barn, cart paths, and wear and tear, carts probably have a larger net profit margin than even soft goods.  Consider the revenue that would be lost after inclement weather (a purpose of the hated cart path) as well as the fixed cost nature of the fleet, and it is no wonder that club managers seek to maximize usage.

It behooves me how an entrepreneur like The Yank can't tell the difference between an item that commands incremental revenue at most courses and something that only adds costs.  Why pray tell would a manager mess with a cart fleet if it didn't add value?

A reason that some riders look down at walkers is because in relative terms they don't add as much to the  financial well-being of the club.  Scott may have some data on this, but a manager at a former club told me that the average monthly bill of his active riders dwarfed those of his active walkers, and by considerably more than could be accounted for by cart usage (F&B, balls and equipment, soft goods, etc.).   While I know that most of us are calling for flexibility as opposed to banning riding carts, perhaps a more correct attitude would be one of gratitude for those who spend generously at our clubs.

Hahaha, Lou, why would I want to get dragged into this mess by presenting actual facts.  Arguments are much more fun when you make broad generalizations based on a single example and without any actual data.  It is much more entertaining this way. 

That said, I'll confirm your facts:  Cart utilization varies by course but is generally between 60% and 90% for walkable courses. It obviously approaches 100% as it gets more difficult to walk.  All things being equal, it generally goes up with price, as you move farther south, and as it gets more public. Yes, many good quality walkable courses are north of 80%.  NOTE:  THESE ARE GENERALIZATIONS.  YOUR CLUB'S ACTUAL USE WILL VARY.

I think it would be pretty difficult to get any actual data on how much walkers vs riders spend (other than the cart fees, of course) because a lot of people do both.

[Brent Hutto]

During my decade of country-club membership I've been taken aside on a couple of occasions and pilloried for being a "free rider" and a "trunk slammer" who does not support my club properly. My shortcoming?

Well in the eyes of a few older members who live in the housing developments near the club members like myself who show up a couple times per week to play a round of golf, have a bite of lunch then depart are nor paying our fair share. It's because we never come out on Wednesday and Friday nights for dinner service in the clubhouse and I do not bring my wife to the various dances, pool parties, holiday banquets and what have you that constitute the "social life" of the club.

Seems everyone has ideas as to who does and doesn't contribute adequately to the club's bottom line. I guess if a club wants more of my money each month they'd do well to increase the dues. Offering riding carts, serving expensive meals (in a dining room 20 miles from my home) and hosting banquets and dances is a mighty indirect way to extract revenue in my opinion.

[Lou_Duran]

Your shortcoming, Brent, is that you don't have the same objectives as some of the members and because there are a lot of fixed costs involved in providing services, your choice not to avail yourself of them for additional fees means that those who value these things will have to pay more.  It seems that aligning interests, preferences, and the means to pay for them is at the root of the problem.  As Chris Johnston told me last year, one has to find a club where they "belong".  Perhaps it is those members who cornered you who might wish to find a more suitable place to enjoy a wide variety of services.  Here, Dallas CC has a very busy bar and dining room (or so I am told).  My club, sometimes me and my golf companion are the only ones there at 7:30/8:00.  (TEPaul's golf is a big world theory).

Roger's suggestion on carts make a lot of sense to heavy users and makes his life a lot easier, but it might (I am not that familiar with the Charlotte golf market) result in him losing some members.  Being that the costs of maintaining a golf course are also highly fixed in the relevant range I am talking about here, it becomes a question of whether the additional revenues from the higher cart-included dues are sufficient to offset the loss in membership.  I can report that at my club of over 20 years, when the management company imposed mandatory riding for premium times (mornings of weekends, holidays, and tournaments), they lost a bunch of members, quite a number who rode most of the time anyways.  That might not be the case in some markets and at the top tier clubs, but to the extent that golf for most folks is considered a discretionary expenditure if not a luxury, I suspect that any major dues increase would be met with some resistance and attrition.

The whole issue of push carts is best seen in this context.  For the most part, clubs which are financially sound and don't have silly affectations about looking like a muni probably don't pose a problem unless supporting a caddie program is an issue.  As Don Mahaffey cleverly notes in Part II of his interview, extolling the health benefits of walking is something that should be stressed more.  With so many upscale private clubs now offering extensive workout facilities, this might be the way to toehold push carts into being a viable choice for their members.  Unfortunately, I am not seeing many young people who want to walk these days.

[Paul Gray]

Brent,

Shame on you. Your apparent desire to use your course for the purposes of golf, rather than as a gated retirement complex, forces others to pay for the services they're actually using. Surely you recognise that it's your responsibility as a good consumer to throw money at the club. 

[BCowan]

During my decade of country-club membership I've been taken aside on a couple of occasions and pilloried for being a "free rider" and a "trunk slammer" who does not support my club properly. My shortcoming?

Well in the eyes of a few older members who live in the housing developments near the club members like myself who show up a couple times per week to play a round of golf, have a bite of lunch then depart are nor paying our fair share. It's because we never come out on Wednesday and Friday nights for dinner service in the clubhouse and I do not bring my wife to the various dances, pool parties, holiday banquets and what have you that constitute the "social life" of the club.

Seems everyone has ideas as to who does and doesn't contribute adequately to the club's bottom line. I guess if a club wants more of my money each month they'd do well to increase the dues. Offering riding carts, serving expensive meals (in a dining room 20 miles from my home) and hosting banquets and dances is a mighty indirect way to extract revenue in my opinion.

Brent,

     The question I have for you is your club healthy enough (financially) that it could afford to run off members that weren't attending social functions?  I could see a club that was 90+% full getting an attitude and reminding you where you are, but in this day and age many clubs are hurting.  Do they forget that you pay monthly dues and that you could take your business elsewhere?

[mike_beene]

When times are good and membership is full, it is financially healthy to have some turnover. The new initiation fees keep the capital calls from occurring. Seems to be our philosophy but to me a waiting list can vanish quickly in a financial downturn.

[Brent Hutto]

To answer the questions posed by Mr. Cowan and Mr. Duran...

In my area there aren't many of the full-on country club golf plus dining plus social type clubs still extant. Actually there is at least one in town but it's somewhat of a special case in terms of cost and what that club considers exclusivity (which others probably consider more like an unenlightened view of certain demographic issues).

So at my club there are now more "trunk slammers" than "real members", a trend over the past 10-15 years that some of the older members find unacceptable. But they have no real alternative, alas.

P.S. And no, our numbers are not healthy enough to run off any member who is willing to stay current on his dues. We need all kinds of members even if they don't totally share the same expectations of what the club should be.

[John Kavanaugh]

Brent is a perfect co-member at any club. I wish I had a hundred just like him. The simple fact is sadly I would never tell him in person. I'm sorry that the guys in the shadows who get the bills paid don't get more recognition. Hey, we all know it...people suck.

[Roger Wolfe]

Looking at Roger's figures, I get a total cost of £71,000 per year for carts with no allowance for staff, maintenance of the path, damage to the course, storage building, pension, insurance etc.  

£71,000 divided by 10,000 cart rounds = $7 a round, again without including serious extras which likely pushes that price up.  Roger budgets $25 a member per month which comes out to $150,000 per year for the club.  But he says the carts only cost $71,000 a year to operate.  Why is the membership being charged an extra $79,000 a year ($158 per member) in the name of carts?  One could just as easily charge the members $12 a month and say the cart system does not subsidize the walkers.  Hell, going on Roger's figures, why not just charge the members who use carts $7 a round (Rogers claim of the true cost per round) for the service rather than adding $25 a month per member?  Anybody can claim carts as a revenue source if the members are charged twice what they cost. To me, this is just shuffling figures in budget columns then claiming riders subsidize walkers - it isn't accurate.  Sure, then dues need to go up by presumably by amount lost in carts, but at least one gets a true reflection of what things cost so when it comes time to cut the budget there are real figures to work with.  All that said, I am a firm believer that clubs have a core operation(s) and the add-ons are services. If the members want the services they figure out how to pay for them.  Some clubs like the all-in approach and some prefer the extra services be charged on a user basis.  Roger obviously knows his membership and believes they don't care if they are over-charged for carts because the breakdown per month isn't much anyway. As a member of a club, I would much rather know the true operational figures.  


Ciao

Sean,

I am note sure if you agree with me or not.  Our cart lease (72) is $5k per month.  That is $60k per year.  We charge them... call that $10k.  We pay a $400 per month maintenance contract to the local dealer.  I am not going to add the rest.  So let's call it $80k per year.  My cart revenue is approximately $140k per year and my cart fees are $13.99 plus tax.  80/140 = 57%.  So to break even, assuming my riding rounds stay the same, I would drop my cart fee from $13.99 to $7.99.  The entire membership's dues would be raised 60k ($12 per month) to make up for the lost cart revenue.  Rider subsidization of walkers would be over.

Our membership appreciates the $13.99 since they know what the other clubs charge for carts.  The average is over $20... the closest to us is $17.

This isn't brain surgery... it's just math.

PS.  We allow members to use push carts and walk for free.  We also offer storage for them.  $60 a year for a bag.  $60 for a push cart.  $60 for an electric push cart (and we charge them).  Also... Mr. Hutto... a double Grey Goose is $8.    Dues are $367.  Golf course maintenance budget is $1.2 million.  We have 500 members but only do 22,000 rounds per year.

The major barrier I always run into is, "If it ain't broke... don't fix it."  Cheers everyone and please come visit any time!

[Sean_A]

Roger

Sure, if it ain't broke don't fix it.  It doesn't much matter to me how anybody shuffles numbers around budget columns.  My argument all along has been carts don't subsidize walkers.  All you did was charge double what carts cost to each member (whether they use them or not) and then state that the revenue "subsidizes" walkers.  If you charge members what carts actually cost and raise the dues to cover the actual costs of other items for which you are using the cart "revenue", then carts don't "subsidize"walkers.  Its just pushing numbers and budget headings around, capiche?  Its not like you are generating revenue from the carts because you don't charge based on cart usage.  Plus, we don't know the real costs of the carts even if you did charge by cart usage. 

Clubs generally don't set up their budgets in a full disclosure manner.  Its the same with food.  Members don't actually know what it costs to run the kitchen/restaurant (like a true business would) because the facilities are tied into overall club management.  I always think its better to have as close to the real numbers as possible, but I understand thats inherently difficult to do at golf clubs.  The problem is its difficult to properly analyse the "business" side of the club without accurate operating costs.  This is why I think of food, carts etc as services offered by the club rather than "revenue streams".  If the members want them, they have to figure out whats its worth and how to pay for it - by usage, everybody pays the same in monthly dues or a combo of the two.


Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

The whole issue of push carts is best seen in this context.  For the most part, clubs which are financially sound and don't have silly affectations about looking like a muni probably don't pose a problem unless supporting a caddie program is an issue.  As Don Mahaffey cleverly notes in Part II of his interview, extolling the health benefits of walking is something that should be stressed more.  With so many upscale private clubs now offering extensive workout facilities, this might be the way to toehold push carts into being a viable choice for their members.  Unfortunately, I am not seeing many young people who want to walk these days.

Lou, you know, that's one of the bizarre things I don't get about younger golfers who like to ride. Hot weather aside, where's the logic in going to the gym for an hour, then playing golf in a cart?!

[Bill_McBride]

The whole issue of push carts is best seen in this context.  For the most part, clubs which are financially sound and don't have silly affectations about looking like a muni probably don't pose a problem unless supporting a caddie program is an issue.  As Don Mahaffey cleverly notes in Part II of his interview, extolling the health benefits of walking is something that should be stressed more.  With so many upscale private clubs now offering extensive workout facilities, this might be the way to toehold push carts into being a viable choice for their members.  Unfortunately, I am not seeing many young people who want to walk these days.

Lou, you know, that's one of the bizarre things I don't get about younger golfers who like to ride. Hot weather aside, where's the logic in going to the gym for an hour, then playing golf in a cart?!

I was playing the Wigwam Gold with my brother and our sons, both in their '30's.  GCA Forrest Richardson came out to see us finish.  "I knew it was you guys.  The old guys were walking, the young guys were riding."

[Jud_T]

Sean,

I agree with you about simplicity in accounting etc.  The problem, at least on this side of the pond, is that if you cut cart fees in half then more people will ride (if you see that as a problem).  Also from the skewed perspective of many clubs they will then no longer see the carts as a profit center and maintenance, replacement etc. may suffer as a result.

[jeffwarne]

Looking at Roger's figures, I get a total cost of £71,000 per year for carts with no allowance for staff, maintenance of the path, damage to the course, storage building, pension, insurance etc.  

£71,000 divided by 10,000 cart rounds = $7 a round, again without including serious extras which likely pushes that price up.  Roger budgets $25 a member per month which comes out to $150,000 per year for the club.  But he says the carts only cost $71,000 a year to operate.  Why is the membership being charged an extra $79,000 a year ($158 per member) in the name of carts?  One could just as easily charge the members $12 a month and say the cart system does not subsidize the walkers.  Hell, going on Roger's figures, why not just charge the members who use carts $7 a round (Rogers claim of the true cost per round) for the service rather than adding $25 a month per member?  Anybody can claim carts as a revenue source if the members are charged twice what they cost. To me, this is just shuffling figures in budget columns then claiming riders subsidize walkers - it isn't accurate.  Sure, then dues need to go up by presumably by amount lost in carts, but at least one gets a true reflection of what things cost so when it comes time to cut the budget there are real figures to work with.  All that said, I am a firm believer that clubs have a core operation(s) and the add-ons are services. If the members want the services they figure out how to pay for them.  Some clubs like the all-in approach and some prefer the extra services be charged on a user basis.  Roger obviously knows his membership and believes they don't care if they are over-charged for carts because the breakdown per month isn't much anyway. As a member of a club, I would much rather know the true operational figures.  


Ciao

Sean,

I am note sure if you agree with me or not.  Our cart lease (72) is $5k per month.  That is $60k per year.  We charge them... call that $10k.  We pay a $400 per month maintenance contract to the local dealer.  I am not going to add the rest.  So let's call it $80k per year.  My cart revenue is approximately $140k per year and my cart fees are $13.99 plus tax.  80/140 = 57%.  So to break even, assuming my riding rounds stay the same, I would drop my cart fee from $13.99 to $7.99.  The entire membership's dues would be raised 60k ($12 per month) to make up for the lost cart revenue.  Rider subsidization of walkers would be over.

Our membership appreciates the $13.99 since they know what the other clubs charge for carts.  The average is over $20... the closest to us is $17.

This isn't brain surgery... it's just math.

PS.  We allow members to use push carts and walk for free.  We also offer storage for them.  $60 a year for a bag.  $60 for a push cart.  $60 for an electric push cart (and we charge them).  Also... Mr. Hutto... a double Grey Goose is $8.    Dues are $367.  Golf course maintenance budget is $1.2 million.  We have 500 members but only do 22,000 rounds per year.

The major barrier I always run into is, "If it ain't broke... don't fix it."  Cheers everyone and please come visit any time!

Roger,
What about the additional costs to maintenance brought on by cart usage, as well as the maintenance of paths?
and the capital costs associated with building cart paths
Don't the fees charged for carts have to allow for that?
Not sure who is subsidizing who, but all costs have to accounted for, and I can't help but think free carts drives the cost up for all members, esp. walkers (due to increased usage causing wear and tear to carts, vehicles, and course)

[Brent Hutto]

The whole issue of push carts is best seen in this context.  For the most part, clubs which are financially sound and don't have silly affectations about looking like a muni probably don't pose a problem unless supporting a caddie program is an issue.  As Don Mahaffey cleverly notes in Part II of his interview, extolling the health benefits of walking is something that should be stressed more.  With so many upscale private clubs now offering extensive workout facilities, this might be the way to toehold push carts into being a viable choice for their members.  Unfortunately, I am not seeing many young people who want to walk these days.

Lou, you know, that's one of the bizarre things I don't get about younger golfers who like to ride. Hot weather aside, where's the logic in going to the gym for an hour, then playing golf in a cart?!

I work at a University. Every day there are healthy, vigorous young men who drive their cars the six to eight blocks from the main part of campus (where most of the classes and dorms are located) to the edge of campus where the gym is located. Then they go do their strength and/or aerobic training or play basketball for a couple hours after which they drive their cars back to the garages near the dorms.

Even 20-year-olds who religiously work out daily and/or play active, running sports will not walk more than a few hundred yards if an automobile (or golf cart) can be used instead. It's just a cultural thing I guess. My idea is, they were driven everywhere (even very short distances) by their parents from infancy. In the suburbs it not uncommon to see parents who live with four or five blocks of the elementary school drive their kids to school, including waiting in line for five or six minutes to drop them off in front of the school. Then going to fetch them in the car at the end of the day.

By the way, at the university gym near my office this "drive to your workout" thing applies only to young men. The young women (who are just as into working out as the men, if not moreso) mostly seem to walk to the gym. For women walking to get somewhere seems to be seen as a valid activity. For men, it's a waste of time and energy. I think among younger golfers it's a similar attitude. The purpose of being on a golf course is to hit shots. Spending time and energy walking from shot to shot is seen as a waste and a distraction from the real purpose, just as making that 15-minute walk each way to gym and back takes time and energy that could be spent doing weight-lifting reps or playing an extra game of pickup basketball.