[Ronald Montesano]

David Fay has a bit of a piece in Golf Digest Online: http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/2011-07/david-fay-private-clubs

His suggestions are well-known by many in the golfing community and well-debated, too.

Do European clubs limit the number of visits a visitor might make, to keep traffic down? I imagine that a guest who asks to play ten rounds over a week-long period at Muirfield will be dismissed, whereas the one who requests a solitary go-round will most likely be accommodated.

Do European clubs extend the same access to locals? I imagine that this is where the challenge would arise in the USA. How do you draw up regulations to accept some guests while banning others?

Although it's not specifically a gCa question, it is an intriguing one.

[don_bartlett]

Rich Harvest Farms has a nice membership package - Member pays X amount a year, and can bring the same guests as many times as they want - on top of that - guest fees are included in the yearly dues...  If you want to play as a 5some, the 5th pays the guest fee... 

[Jud_T]

Great in theory,  but it's kind of tough to justify a $50,000 downstroke and $10,000 a year when anyone can walk up and pay $200 and be a member for a day...of course maybe the problem is the former rather than the latter,,,

[Chris DeNigris]

Start with Mondays, work out the bugs and go from there.

[Mike Viscusi]

As a relatively poor, young American who is not a member at a private club (and has very little access to elite Private Clubs), I don't like this concept at all.   It's not as if private clubs make up 98% of the US courses and access to the game is being blocked.  Private clubs have invested an incredible amount of time and money to make their courses great and it's up to them to stipulate policy on course access.

I think Fay greatly oversimplifies his argument without backing up his claims and he weakens his point with goofy comparisons between great private golf clubs and surfing ("Surfers aren't banned from the best waves...").

Fays says: "Concerns/excuses such as overcrowded course conditions, shaky golf etiquette, required golf skill and tax implications for a private club can all be resolved."  That's fine and well but Faye makes no mention of how those issues can be resolved.

He finishes the article with: "If we care about the game's future and growth in America, we need to look at some of the barriers we've purposely put in place and start to knock them down."  It's absolutely silly to think that private clubs are a barrier to the growth of golf.  I can probably play 50 public-access golf courses within an hour's drive of me.  To think new golfers aren't taking up the game or existing golfers are quitting the game because they can't access elite private clubs is ridiculous.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Remember how Pine Valley did it with their post 9/11 events? They just made it a charity event with all payments direct to the fund.

Playing here has little to do with who you are or how much money you have in your 401(k), but rather who you know. Each week, Raudenbush said he fields five to 10 phone calls from golf nuts asking what it would take for them to play Pine Valley.

The answer is always the same: Nothing. It isn't going to happen. The only way a guest steps foot on Pine Valley is to be invited, and accompanied, by a member.

A month after the 9/11 attacks, the course changed its policy for two days, opening its doors to the first 100 people who delivered a $1,000 check, per player, per round, with all proceeds going to the Twin Towers Fund. The response was overwhelming, with Pine Valley eventually raising close to $500,000 for the fund.  And nearly crashing its phone system. "Every single line coming in and out of the place was tied up," Raudenbush said. "I had one lady who called and said, 'I'm sending a driver with the check right now.' And then she kept calling just about every half hour, 'Is he there yet? Is he there yet? Do you have it yet?' It was just nuts."[/i]


http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/pgachampionship05/news/story?id=2129862

[Doug Braunsdorf]

It's just interesting this is said now, rather than before while he was head of the USGA.  A bit like Corzine and his populist stance while Senator and Governor of NJ-he is not affected by these comments and positions now.  If it's off-putting, so what?  I wonder if he felt the same way when he was at GS, or earlier in his life when he was building his career and his wealth.  He's made his money, and I'm pretty sure it's basically all sheltered through various vehicles.  He's not as affected by higher taxes, increased spending, or redistribution of wealth programs.  

Private clubs are private-they don't owe it to anyone to provide access, be it to play the golf course or access the research library.  If you are a member, it's your decision to make.  I'm not a member of a club, but if I was, I would likely feel the same way towards the general populace, although personally, I would want to share it with my friends, family and those who have a legitimate interest, not anyone who is just looking to notch their belt and use me to play the golf course.  I don't expect people to take me into a private club just because [I think] I am a nice guy, have interest in golf, I'm on GCA, or I know who Charles Banks is.  

I believe there are tax and financial concerns in the United States related to opening private clubs for member play, which I am not fully versed in, tax-exempt status, forfeiture of tax-exempt status by being open for public play, and such.  I believe, and may be mistaken, that the policies in the UK and overseas are not as onerous. 

From a net-net point, money is still green, and in difficult economic times, I wonder if it would provide any benefit to the club's bottom line in a real sense to allow for some unaccompanied guest play, versus having an empty tee sheet and having to carry staff and facilities.  In other words, I wonder if the benefit would outweight the cost.  At some clubs, they don't need the money-plain and simple.  For some clubs, I concur, exclusivity is all they offer. 

[Jud_T]

  I don't expect people to take me into a private club just because I have interest, I'm on GCA, or I know who Charles Banks is. 

I'd venture a guess that if the sole criteria for unaccompanied guest play was whether one knew who Charles Banks was that 99.9% of the undesirable riff raff would be kept at bay...

[Tim Pitner]

I'm sympathetic to the view that it's unfortunate that so many of our classic courses are closed to visitor play.  But, I also recognize these clubs are private and aren't obligated to adopt any visitor-friendly policies.  My question is "What is the incentive for private clubs to do so?" 

As in the UK, it could be a way to generate revenue and hold down membership rates, but it seems to me that the really elite clubs--the equivalents to the Open rota courses (Pine Valley, Shinnecock, Merion, etc.)--probably aren't looking to change their revenue models.  I could be wrong. 

Then again, the upper echelon clubs might have the confidence to allow some outside play.  It may be your average country club (where exclusivity is about all it has going for it) that is most resistant to opening its gates.

[Sean_A]

I'm sympathetic to the view that it's unfortunate that so many of our classic courses are closed to visitor play.  But, I also recognize these clubs are private and aren't obligated to adopt any visitor-friendly policies.  My question is "What is the incentive for private clubs to do so?" 

Three things:  First, future members.  Nearly all clubs are averaging older memberships.  Moving into the future few can afford not to open their doors to potential members that are not in the least "connected".  Two, money - it doesn't grow on trees.  Three, pride in knowing that you are sharing your history, the history of golf, with the "unconnected".

Ciao

[JMEvensky]

I'm sympathetic to the view that it's unfortunate that so many of our classic courses are closed to visitor play.  But, I also recognize these clubs are private and aren't obligated to adopt any visitor-friendly policies.  My question is "What is the incentive for private clubs to do so?" 

The only incentive is revenue--period,paragraph.Boards make the decision on whether or not the membership is willing to trade some exclusivity for some annual dues subsidy.If the club is comfortable with their revenues being ~100% member generated,there isn't much incentive to allow non-member rounds.

Can anyone explain why the UK clubs evolved as they did?Nobody does snobbish better than the English.

What set of circumstances caused their private clubs to accept non-member play?

[CJ Carder]

Great in theory,  but it's kind of tough to justify a $50,000 downstroke and $10,000 a year when anyone can walk up and pay $200 and be a member for a day...of course maybe the problem is the former rather than the latter,,,

Jud,

How much of that $50k / $10k is actually attributable to the quality of the golf course?  Especially when you're talking about the upper echelon of clubs?  Case in point, we have a club here in town that has a $35k initiation, $2500/month dues, and a food minimum on top of it.  I've played the course a couple of times and while it's good, it's not my favorite by any stretch.  So why join?  Because of the rest of the membership.  The one person I know belongs there because it helps him get connected with the other members.  In addition to the business relationships that he's forged as a result, he's also scored a couple of nice trips to Pine Valley, Aronimink, and Merion, amonth others. 

So if the $200/day (and my guess is it'd be more than that) only gets you access to the course itself, then maybe it's not such a big deal for the membership?

CJ

[Jud_T]

CJ,

you bring up an interesting point.  Yes there are great private courses in less expensive areas that have a modest clubhouse, no pool, no tennis court etc., which are more in keeping with the UK model and where the semi-private thing works better.

[Mark Johnson]

let me ask a few questions since I am not as knowledgeable as i should be about UK golf?

1) What level of member play do these courses usually get?

2) Is there concern over course maintainence (replacing divots, raking bunkers, etc) from non-members

3) Do these same clubs often have outings on Mondays for non-members?

4) Is the greens fee for an unaccompanied guest the same as for a member guest?

While I love the concept, i would argue that these 3 questions could prevent it from being a reality at many courses.


The biggest issue would be number 1.   Not sure how it is in the UK, the majority of clubs in the US (especially ones with a downstroke of under $50k)  simply have too many members.   I can name at least ten clubs in Minneapolis (plus many where i have been a member in other states) where the tee sheet is generally filled for 80% of the week and near 100% for prime times (weekends, Wed/Fri afternoons)

How do these courses in UK ensure that non-members maintain the course as well as members would?   If the golfing culture just that much evolved.

finally, and i think another posted mentioned it.   Most clubs rent their courses out on their off day for outings, either to a private company or often a charity.   This give non-members access and dramatically reduces monthly dues.   I think this would be the most likely way to encourage non-member play without causing a membership mutiny.

[Michael George]

One possible answer would be for clubs to be more open to reciprocity - so long as it does not interfere with the Members use of the course.  Also, it does not have to equate to a "member for a day" experience.  I know of some clubs that allow reciprocity or guest play, but don't allow the use of the clubhouse and facilities (ie. you show up, check in with the pro shop and play - that is it).

I don't foresee top private clubs (like Pine Valley, Cypress, Merion, Oakmont, Country Club, Peachtree, etc...) ever opening themselves up for public play, but there are ways to allow people to play a golf course other than these means and without the membership being burdened by it.  

If my pro could get me a tee time at Pine Valley next August on a Tuesday afternoon, that would be perfectly fine with me - I will wait.  

[Sean Leary]

I'm sympathetic to the view that it's unfortunate that so many of our classic courses are closed to visitor play.  But, I also recognize these clubs are private and aren't obligated to adopt any visitor-friendly policies.  My question is "What is the incentive for private clubs to do so?" 

Three things:  First, future members.  Nearly all clubs are averaging older memberships.  Moving into the future few can afford not to open their doors to potential members that are not in the least "connected".  Two, money - it doesn't grow on trees.  Three, pride in knowing that you are sharing your history, the history of golf, with the "unconnected".

Ciao

Sean,
For top courses, only number 3 comes into play realistically.

I think for the most part, if one wants to REALLY play somewhere bad enough, they will at some point. There are exceptions of course, but generally it can happen.

[George Pazin]

I think for the most part, if one wants to REALLY play somewhere bad enough, they will at some point. There are exceptions of course, but generally it can happen.

This. Just because most can't pick up the phone and book tee times at Augusta doesn't mean the system is broken. If someone like me can garner as many invites as I have been fortunate enough to have, anyone can.

I tire of people telling other people what they should do.

[Jud_T]

I've notched enough bedposts in my day to not care to play any club that isn't welcoming of my gregarious personality, impeccable etiquette and tour-worthy game, even if my pro can get me on...

[Sean Leary]

I think for the most part, if one wants to REALLY play somewhere bad enough, they will at some point. There are exceptions of course, but generally it can happen.

. If someone like me can garner as many invites as I have been fortunate enough to have, anyone can.

Not fair George. You are the tee-shirt king of Pittsburgh......

[Sean_A]

I'm sympathetic to the view that it's unfortunate that so many of our classic courses are closed to visitor play.  But, I also recognize these clubs are private and aren't obligated to adopt any visitor-friendly policies.  My question is "What is the incentive for private clubs to do so?" 

Three things:  First, future members.  Nearly all clubs are averaging older memberships.  Moving into the future few can afford not to open their doors to potential members that are not in the least "connected".  Two, money - it doesn't grow on trees.  Three, pride in knowing that you are sharing your history, the history of golf, with the "unconnected".

Ciao

Sean,
For top courses, only number 3 comes into play realistically.

I think for the most part, if one wants to REALLY play somewhere bad enough, they will at some point. There are exceptions of course, but generally it can happen.

Sean, sure, but the vast majority of privates are not THE top courses.  Most are middle class clubs who are or likely will feel the pinch. 

I don't have any clue about the oft asserted notion that for those who want to play a club, can - if they are patient.  I have never actually tested the theory out as I tend to wait to be invited rather than go in search of other means of access.  When I have ventured off the ivite trail my success rate without a connection is about 50%, but of a very small sample.

George

I don't think anybody is telling anybody else what to do.  Questions were asked and so responses were given.  Don't worry, the great American ideal of a man's home and club are his castle is not under threat.

Mark

There is always concern in UK clubs about visitors' behaviour both on and of the course.  Societies (outings) are generally limited to certain days because they are often at the club for two meals and two rounds.  Visitors generally pay far more than guests of members and at the famous clubs that gap is growing ever more.

Ciao

Ciao   

[George Pazin]

George

I don't think anybody is telling anybody else what to do.  Questions were asked and so responses were given.  Don't worry, the great American ideal of a man's home and club are his castle is not under threat.

I was referring to Mr. Fay, not anyone on here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ron,

The judge in the Haverhill case ruled that unaccompanied guests essentially formed a class of members and as such, their number, when combined with the regular membership, thrust them over the strictly private threshold, subjecting them to the State's non-discrimination statutes.

I don't think there's a private club in the U.S. That wants to risk that consequence.

David Fay should be keenly aware of that situation, therefore I don't understand his advocacy.

[Ronald Montesano]

Patrick...I knew that someone would eventually bring that point up. The hidden aspect of "too much revenue changing the status of the club" is one of the roadblocks to greater access to many of the elite clubs in the USA, but it didn't get ANY play from Mr. Fay. One knows that someone who ran the USGA for years would be aware of this consideration.

I like the realistic outlook of many on this site...while we would love to play all the greats in this lifetime, we are aware that it isn't going to happen. That we have access to the experiences of others, and can live vicariously through them, is enough for me. NGLA, ANGC, Oakmont, Cypress Point, Seminole, Morefar, Merion (enough yet?) have been made more real by your'all comments and photos than a single playing could ever do.

Any additional input on this thread that seems to have run its course?

[Dan Herrmann]

I'd just love to be able to see some of these masterpieces in person.  Heck - I don't need to play them.

Let me on without golf clubs on a Monday when they're closed and I'd be in heaven.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

The traditional method in the US, without having an in at a private club, is to play with a charity outing. Many top clubs are available if you want to pay for the privilege.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()