David Fay on Opening of Masterpieces to Non-Members

[Pete Lavallee]

The great unwashed ?
At $ 4,000 to $ 10,000 to $ 25,000 per foursome ?

Pat,  

Unfortunately this is where your argument falls apart, UK Clubs allow anyone, without a background check, to play for less than $200 (we'll exclude Wentworth for the sake of a good argument); thankfully I've never seen a UK Club which has a swiming pool, so they don't have to fret over borish behavior from US pedophiles. When the entry fee during a charity event at an Icon course is a minimum of $1000 we have definetly excluded a worthy class of people from enjoying the course; this is far from nobless obligege. Many of these people would fall  into the category of those you generously invite to your GCA Golf events, golfers not affliated with private clubs, who wish to experience great golf architecture; have any of them acted irresponsibly?

[Chris Kane]

But, specific to the "sex offender" reference, what most of the morons responding  don't understand is that most clubs have swimming pools and children in the pool area.

Why would a club want to expose themselves to the risk and liability associated with effectively inviting a children's sexual predator to a target rich environment ?

Patrick, don't these clubs with pools have adult supervision?

If not, I'd argue that children are at far greater risk from the pool than the odds that a member of the general public (or a guest who paid over $1000 to play, which means they can't possibly be a peodophile) playing a charity day just happens to be a peodophile, and just happens to be targeting children that day, rather than focusing on the golf.

I suppose I'm a moron!

[Mark_F]

Horseshit.

That's just more horseshit.

Not at all, I'm just categorizing your absurd, uninformed remarks in terms commensurate with their content and substance.

No you aren't.  I hadn't made any comment before you brought the vulgarity of the gutter to this topic.

You're obviously ignorant with respect to Meghan's law.

No, I am commensurate with Megan's law, we aren't all hicks in Australia.  It was on 60 minutes.

But, specific to the "sex offender" reference, what most of the morons responding  don't understand is that most clubs have swimming pools and children in the pool area.

I imagine that paedophiles deep down are no different to any other golfer.  If they have the chance to play Pine Valley, they are going to play golf.  If they are in the mood for a little kiddie fiddling after the game, they no doubt will head for the smorgasbord at the nearest McDonalds. 

Maybe you should introduce Patrick's Law - no fast food establishments within 10km of an icon golf club.  That way there is no chance of the perverts mistakenly finding their way onto the course, members and guests would more likely eat at the club, and children would be under the supervision of their parents.

Since there is NO "quality control" when admitting the general public, you risk having undesirables, from thieves to sexual predators.

So now you don't want poor old thieves at a golf club too?  Presumably no one on Wall Street plays golf then? What other class of felon are you going to discriminate against next?  I thought the USA was the land of opportunity.  Clearly, if you are a thieving paedophile with a good breastroke, it isn't. 

In general, highly educated, successful people conduct themselves properly at clubs, but there are exceptions.

Nonsense.  I used to work at Capital, where you have to be worth hundreds of millions to play, but that didn't stop them defecating on the fairways, in the showers or having a wizz on the 9th green. 

[Joe Sponcia]

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.

Mr. Mucci,

I wholeheartedly agree and wonder aloud why Mr. Fay doesn't drive around the local muni's and invite a few fellow lovers of the game (per week) to his club(s) on a regular basis?  I'm sure there are plenty of high quality public/semi's in his area as well, so why does he involve himself in such an exclusionary entities in the first place?

[Patrick_Mucci]

That is my very point convicted sex offenders have controls on them, it's the unknowns that are the worry.

My point about wealth was in reply to your assumption that those who paid a tidy sum to play a charity day were automatically of class.
That was never my point, I don't know how you could infer that.
My point was that people forking over $ 4,000, 10,000 or 25,000 per foursome couldn't be considered a cross section of the "general public" as was infered by another poster.

Of course iconic clubs the world over tend to be reasonably priced to join. They tend to own their land and have little in the way of debt. The likes of Sebonac with $ millions paid for the land and development will always be more expensive to service the investment.

Is "Sebonac an "iconic" club ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

The great unwashed ?
At $ 4,000 to $ 10,000 to $ 25,000 per foursome ?

Pat,  

Unfortunately this is where your argument falls apart, UK Clubs allow anyone, without a background check, to play for less than $200 (we'll exclude Wentworth for the sake of a good argument); thankfully I've never seen a UK Club which has a swiming pool, so they don't have to fret over borish behavior from US pedophiles. When the entry fee during a charity event at an Icon course is a minimum of $1000 we have definetly excluded a worthy class of people from enjoying the course; this is far from nobless obligege. Many of these people would fall  into the category of those you generously invite to your GCA Golf events, golfers not affliated with private clubs, who wish to experience great golf architecture; have any of them acted irresponsibly?

YES.

On more than one occassion and more than one person.

What you also miss is the legal liability issues.

Just take a look at the note on the dashboard of a cart in the U.S.
Statements like:
"Warning: Operation of this cart may result in injury or death."
Or, :"Warning: the plexiglass partition will not prevent a golf ball from causing injury"

Inviting total strangers into a club is like opening up the litigation lottery.

This perceived, "right of entitlement" to encroach upon and use private property to fulfill the individual's self appointed needs is just another element of class warfare.

Not once has anyone championing an open door policy responded that they keep their doors to their homes unlocked and welcome complete strangers at the strangers convenience.

Let me guess who you'd be voting for.

[Patrick_Mucci]

But, specific to the "sex offender" reference, what most of the morons responding don't understand is that most clubs have swimming pools and children in the pool area.

Why would a club want to expose themselves to the risk and liability associated with effectively inviting a children's sexual predator to a target rich environment ?

Patrick, don't these clubs with pools have adult supervision?

Sure, just like malls, stores and every other location where children are beset upon.

Now, let's take it a step further.
A guest and her children are invited to the club for a swim and one of your members of the general public, who's allowed access under your open door policy, is a sex offender, and an incident occurs with that guest's child.
Do you think the club is going to get sued for failing to protect the guest's child from the offender ?

If not, I'd argue that children are at far greater risk from the pool than the odds that a member of the general public

Then you'd lose that argument.

(or a guest who paid over $1000 to play, which means they can't possibly be a peodophile) playing a charity day just happens to be a peodophile, and just happens to be targeting children that day, rather than focusing on the golf.

Oh, so now you're equating people who would pay $ 1,000 per round as the "general public"
Please, that's the dumbest analogy I've heard in a few hours.

I suppose I'm a moron!

I'll let your posts determine how you're categorized  .

[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.

Mr. Mucci,

I wholeheartedly agree and wonder aloud why Mr. Fay doesn't drive around the local muni's and invite a few fellow lovers of the game (per week) to his club(s) on a regular basis?  I'm sure there are plenty of high quality public/semi's in his area as well, so why does he involve himself in such an exclusionary entities in the first place?

Joe,

Agreed,

I didn't hear him espousing this line of reasoning when he was a member of Baltusrol, Pine Valley and Newport.

Let him start changing the policy at his own clubs before he starts admonishing others.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Horseshit.

That's just more horseshit.

Not at all, I'm just categorizing your absurd, uninformed remarks in terms commensurate with their content and substance.

No you aren't.  I hadn't made any comment before you brought the vulgarity of the gutter to this topic.

So I just used those words, absent any context ?
Go back and reread your own posts, it's apparent that you don't know what you're talking about with reference to this topic and the U.S.
I thought you were so wildly off base that emphasis was needed.
You're full of crap/horseshit and I thought that needed to be emphasized.

You're obviously ignorant with respect to Meghan's law.

No, I am commensurate with Megan's law, we aren't all hicks in Australia. 
It was on 60 minutes.

My appologies, I didn't know how well educated you were on the subject.

But, specific to the "sex offender" reference, what most of the morons responding  don't understand is that most clubs have swimming pools and children in the pool area.

I imagine that paedophiles deep down are no different to any other golfer. 

I'll have to defer to your familiarity with pedophiles.

If they have the chance to play Pine Valley, they are going to play golf.  If they are in the mood for a little kiddie fiddling after the game, they no doubt will head for the smorgasbord at the nearest McDonalds.

Based on your experience, is that where they hang out ? 

Maybe you should introduce Patrick's Law - no fast food establishments within 10km of an icon golf club.  That way there is no chance of the perverts mistakenly finding their way onto the course, members and guests would more likely eat at the club, and children would be under the supervision of their parents.

Since there is NO "quality control" when admitting the general public, you risk having undesirables, from thieves to sexual predators.

So now you don't want poor old thieves at a golf club too?  Presumably no one on Wall Street plays golf then? What other class of felon are you going to discriminate against next?  I thought the USA was the land of opportunity.  Clearly, if you are a thieving paedophile with a good breastroke, it isn't. 

Yes, I want to keep out the "undesirables", those that I can't vet/screen prior to their entry onto the property..

In general, highly educated, successful people conduct themselves properly at clubs, but there are exceptions.

Nonsense.  I used to work at Capital, where you have to be worth hundreds of millions to play, but that didn't stop them defecating on the fairways, in the showers or having a wizz on the 9th green. 

As I stated previously, our cultures are different.
You've described what goes on at your clubs, but, in 55+ years at U.S. clubs, I've never seen or heard of any of those incidents occuring at the "icon" clubs or any other private clubs in the U.S.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pasatiempo allows visitors play the course whilst also having a membership - that place looks in great shape, isn't overrun with undesirables and generally is a great place to be with a lovely relaxed vibe in the clubhouse - hey, I'm not there day in, day out, but I'm pretty sure they make it work.

Brian,

Pasatiempo is a SEMI-Private club, NOT a private club.

I don't think the question is: can it work? Of course it can work. The question is: will it ever happen? The answer is: no. If you were a member of a private club and had serious amounts of money to sustain the club in an uncrowded state and in pristine condition, why would you ever want to change that? It's unfortunate that this culture of exclusivity developed from day one at US clubs - but I don't see where the will would come from to change that now...

[JR Potts]

This is such a worthless conversation.  I know what my bill is each month and I know what I paid for my membership....and there is no way I, and others, will ever consent to opening up e  gates to randoms for play.  No way.

This whole discussion fails from the start..never going to happen and not worth discussing.

[Chris Kane]

JR Potts, I agree with you. You describe the American private golf club culture very well. Personally I prefer the Australian/British model, but that isn't to say that I'd want American private clubs to be forced to do something they don't want to do.

I do find Patrick's xenophobic view of the 'general public' to be quite amusing though.

[Scott Warren]

Chris,

I absolutely agree. a) Never going to happen, b) shouldn't be forced to happen, c) Aussie/UK system is preferable in my view, d) Pat...

[Sean_A]

Of course we all know these posh clubs aren't going to suddenly get a case of middle class guilt - they aren't middle class.  But this site is largely predicated on dreaming (at least for a significant percentage of us) so I reckon we may as well dream big.

Ciao

[Mark_F]

So I just used those words, absent any context ?

Given that this isn't Barnyard Atlas.com, yes.

You're full of crap/horseshit and I thought that needed to be emphasized.

You know who you remind me of, Patrick?  Otto, from A Fish Called Wanda.

Go back and reread your own posts, it's apparent that you don't know what you're talking about with reference to this topic and the U.S.

Actually, I do.  It's about the former Executive Director of the USGA saying that private golf clubs in the USA should operate more akin to that of the British model, even though he himself is a member at two such clubs and didn't do anything whilst in his position, and even knowing that the US tax code doesn't allow it, not to mention the fact that prominent club members such as yourself get their Elle Macpherson Intimates G-bangers in a twist at the thought of the great unwashed setting foot on their property, even though you yourself display all the deportment of a drunken wharfie who's just had a vasectomy without anesthetic.

And go back and reread the posts yourself you blustering bully.  My first comment was after you screamed horseshit, not before.

I'll have to defer to your familiarity with pedophiles.
Based on your experience, is that where they hang out ?

A ridiculous inference.

Yes, I want to keep out the "undesirables", those that I can't vet/screen prior to their entry onto the property.

A simple way to do that would be to have a huge sign out the front of the golf club - Patrick Mucci is Playing Here Today.  I think you would be amazed at the number of people who would make a rapid detour.

[Dean Stokes]

This is such a worthless conversation.  I know what my bill is each month and I know what I paid for my membership....and there is no way I, and others, will ever consent to opening up e  gates to randoms for play.  No way.

This whole discussion fails from the start..never going to happen and not worth discussing.

And there lies one difference in culture/social thinking between the US and UK/Australia.....I also know what i paid to be a member of a good private club in England and I had zero problem with visitors and visiting parties playing at our club. Serious golfers with handicap certificates were able to see our course, admire the architecture and have a nice pint of beer in the clubhouse after - there were never any issues. I was also able to visit many other private clubs and pay a daily fee so that I could enjoy courses where people had paid good money to be private members - they too had no issue with this concept. I am now a member at a private club in the US and would still have no issue with that kind of system. Make sure visitors have hanicap certificates and know the game, charge them a reasonable fee and let them go at unpopular tee times.
Why on earth golfers are so proud of their clubs that they dont want other golfers to see them and admire them is beyond me. These courses are made of grass, not gold leaf! They are there to be played......so many of them put out very few rounds a day anyway. It seems a shame that many very good courses will never be played by serious golf architecture fans purely because of a money issue. We sit on this site and talk about so many courses that many of us will never get to see....seems kind of counter productive doesn't it??

[JR Potts]

JR Potts, I agree with you. You describe the American private golf club culture very well. Personally I prefer the Australian/British model, but that isn't to say that I'd want American private clubs to be forced to do something they don't want to do.

I do find Patrick's xenophobic view of the 'general public' to be quite amusing though.

Of course the Australian/British model is preferred.  That model would benefit everyone and would certainly benefit the checkbook of every member of every private club in America.  But, there would be a dramatic change in service levels, course conditions and availability of play and playing options....all to the detriment of most American's taste.

There's a lot wrong with our model just as theres a lot wrong with a lot of things....but, it is what it is....and like most things, they aren't going to change.

Despite people's wishes for change, they're most comfortable with what they know.

EDIT - Dean, unlike the UK, most courses in the US only have 5 months of ideal playing time.  I don't know what you paid but new members at my place pay in excess of 80,000.00.  And, during those 5 months, the course is full.  It's not that people wish to exclude (although I don't care that we do), it's just that I want to pay when I want to play.  I don't want my experience, that I pay for, to be inhibited in any manner by those who don't pay.  It's as simple as that. 

[Dean Stokes]

80k for 5 months golf a year.....God bless this depression/recession .I paid considerably less than that to play 12 months a year on two fine golf courses in great condition. I can see in your case why you may feel the way you do.....I am also still baffled that people will pay so much just to play golf......perhaps that is why the 99% hate the 1% so much.....lol

[Scott Warren]

Ryan,

But, there would be a dramatic change in service levels, course conditions and availability of play and playing options.

Course conditions? Doesn't seem to affect the likes of Kingston Heath, Royal St George's, Walton Heath, The Old Course etc etc, which maintain as perfect playing surfaces as I have seen at any US club I've visited.

Your point about short peak seasons is a mighty fine one. It's not something we deal with in Aus or in the UK save perhaps for the Highlands. What would be the issue with limited outside play from Sep-Oct before the winter, giving the course all winter and spring to recover from the "visitors" before prime season rolls around again?

My exposure to US golf has been exclusively in Sep and Oct and by and large I have found the courses on the east coast to be largely empty.

Again, I completely support a club's right to remain closed to outsiders, I just baulk at some of the reasons that are put forward for that being so. It's easy enough to just say "we want our privacy and don't care for outsiders coming in". Most of the other factors that are put forward could be overcome if there were a desire to overcome them.

[JR Potts]

The 99 percent forget that 400k in a large metropolitan area where people pay 80k to join a club is the equivalent to 80k in most other places where they can join a club for 5k.

That seems to often get lost in the discussion.  Perspective is everything.

[jeffwarne]

The 99 percent forget that 400k in a large metropolitan area where people pay 80k to join a club is the equivalent to 80k in most other places where they can join a club for 5k.

That seems to often get lost in the discussion.  Perspective is everything.

Good luck with that line of reasoning when confronted by a 99%er with a pitchfork  

[JLahrman]

I do find Patrick's xenophobic view of the 'general public' to be quite amusing though.

It's always good for a chuckle, and chuckling is about all one can do.  It's as if Judge Smails and Archie Bunker had a love child.

[JR Potts]

Good luck with that line of reasoning when confronted by a 99%er with a pitchfork  

A pitchfork?  That would assume that said 99% protestor would be working and not camped out on LaSalle Street.

[Mark Johnson]

this thread has actually gotten me thinking alot.   

The model could work in the US,  however, generally only for NEW clubs.  (which arent being built by the way).

The economics would be radicially different-- lowering initiation fees and dues and fewer members.

The problem is trying to retrofit this on existing clubs where members have already paid alot of $$ and have trouble getting on their course when they want.

[Ronald Montesano]

Here's a point that has yet to be considered...the golfing population of the UK versus the golfing population of the USA...given that the a few more people inhabit the colonies, it stands to reason that demand would be higher in the USA.

Here's another point...disposable income...is the USA middle class wealthier than that of the UK?

Neither of these points is raised for any reason other than to determine why so many tangas are in a twist and what the resolution is. When someone like Potts says not worth discussing, we need to discuss even more until we figure out why the functional model from UK won't work in USA. Would it work in Canada?