Can we lower the cost of playing golf?

[Jim_Kennedy]

grass-man,
Adam made no reference to type of facility, nevertheless why don't you sit down with your pro over lunch one day and ask him what he does. I'll bet you'll be surprised at the number of responsibilities he has.
Many Pros at Resort/Public facilities are being asked to take on more of the management duties by the owners. The career is in a state of flux right now. Just look at the requirements of the PGM programs. They are 5 yrs. w/ business degrees at their culmination.
Just as in your profession, times change. Some of the best supers in our area had no degrees in any form of agronomy.  They knew their courses, how to make the grass grow, what pests to expect, what fungi and diseases were going to appear,etc.., they were paid far less than the median in the discipline nowadays but were still asked to produce a favorable product.  
Now you need a degree in your profession and that has increased cost to owners also.
Some facts:  The average salary of a CGCS rose to $70,134 in 2000, up from $62,948 in 1998, and $56,994 in 1995, a 10.4 percent increase, or an average annual increase of 3.5 percent. In 2000, the average base salary for golf course superintendents rose to $57,057. The increase in base salary from 1998 to 2000 increased 7.2 percent, or 3.6 percent annually. The observed increase represents a 15.8 percent gain since 1995, or increase of $7,788 in 5 years.
Additionally, the average pay of ALL supers in 1994 was $44,500, in 2000 it was $57,057. These figures are from your associations website.
The cost of all employees has risen dramatically.

Tim,
No apology necessary. I didn't mean to suggest that equipment was not a part of the situation. The high cost of equipment, more like an explosion in price rather than a normal creep, limits participation in the game. Add that to the premise of your recent post and they now have two strikes

[Mike_Young]

Yes, we can lower the cost of playing golf.  Look to Scotland.  An old rule of thumb has been that you can make money if you spend no more than $1 million on construction for every $10 you can charge in green fee.  I think it still works but you have to accept the fact that golf is a mom and pop business in the public sector. Maintain in this order 1st-good greens..then 2nd ,tees and 3rd fwys and bunkers. Have top conditions on Sat and Sun....back off on Monday. You can forgive a lot with good greens.  ................. Triplex mowers on greens....less fertilizer......more PRIMO...weenie machines (or a grandmother making real hamburgers and egg salad) vs a "Daa" in a cart......cut fairways 3 times a week instead of 5....no clubhouse or swimming/tennis to subsidize...honor system on slow days or shop set up to where just one can run it when slow....    
INTERESTING FACT IMHO.....The NGCOA did a study a few years back and it said that Northern Golf made more money than Southern.  Reasons...summer season has longer days and more rounds...in South summer season is hot and people don't play as much during the day as in the fall and spring....When North closes in winter they are closed..in South you may be open and only have 10 players in Feb....in Fla. you cut grass all year.
During the late 70's and early 80's I called on courses in the south selling maintenance equipment.  It seemed that the ones that consistently made money you never saw advertise or promote themselves thru rankings etc.  I think this still holds true today.  There are a hellava lot of courses making money for a mom and pop that we have never heard of and they don't care.  They just take care of THEIR CUSTOMER and laugh at the 10 million CCFAD's that are "best in the world " until the next one comes along.
Mike Y

[A Clay Man]

While I didn't specify public or private because each course is a unique situation. Jim, I really like the idea that one person does both. It seems like a return to the old days when the pro was the MAN.  Grass man knows that Exsisting courses who have pros that basically sit on thier butts are probably municipal. If they're a newer course they could benefit by tightening thier bootstraps. Most older courses have thier costs sunk, so they probably aren't hurting. I have no suggestions for any new CCFAD who spent close to 15 mil for a piece of crap and now can't get thier money out. To them, the lesson is clear, they had no place investing in the first place. Or at least the formula they used was in error.
I know how I can lower the cost of golf to me. It basically stems from a satisfaction that comes from knowing whether I'm playin Cypress or waveland, appreciating where I am and what beauty the game and nature have to hold for me that day.
I certainly don't need a guy to teach me how to enjoy that, or sell me an over-priced piece of crap collared shirt made in the Arab Emeretes. I do need a guy to cut the grass, on occasion. I would do it myself If I had to.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Adam,
Golf can be done on the cheap, similar to what Mike Young spoke of and if we are going to see the game grow we need more facilities run on a low-key approach.

My point is this: when looking to cut costs, don't bite off your nose to spite your face. The super and crew, pro and staff, and how they do their jobs, are one of the biggest factors in player satisfaction and retention. More players mean better returns, better returns mean little or no increase in fees.

To have A pro at a course costs a little more than $1.00 a round. Deduct that from the tariff at any course you care think of and tell me, does it make a difference?  

[Bill_McBride]

John, as you know, people here in the Florida panhandle are uneasy with $50 green fees not including cart.  And we have a pretty much tourist enhanced population.  Do you really think Lafayette will support $50 plus cart?  I think that is the critical part of the equation.  The revenue has to be attainable to make the operating statement work.

Have we discussed my idea of a great golf experience?  Solid golf course in fast firm condition, no waterfalls, with a little bitty clubhouse serving nothing more serious for lunch than a steak sandwich and no dinners at all.  Marcus Point here is a pretty good example.

Happy New Year!  When are we going back to Bandon?

[jim__janosik]

John  B.  On what basis do you see construction costs going down  by  30%.  Labor will be flat,  fuel will be flat,  greens
mix,  sand  will  be flat.  Let  if know if any contractors  are
30%  below last  years  numbers,  I could use them  in CA.

[Mike_Young]

Jim,
I just had a job that was bid in Atlanta by several GCBAA builders and I had bid a similar job last year that came in around $2.7 million with similar quantities.  This one came in at $1.625 million and the next closest was $1.66 million.  It was bonded.  I think what we are seeing at this time is a period where the builders that own their equipment are having to absorb it into the bids in order to get the work,  Plus their labor cost are down due to an employer market.  He could be close at 30%.
Mike

[Mike_Young]

Jim,
I just had a job that was bid in Atlanta by several GCBAA builders and I had bid a similar job last year that came in around $2.7 million with similar quantities.  This one came in at $1.625 million and the next closest was $1.66 million.  It was bonded.  I think what we are seeing at this time is a period where the builders that own their equipment are having to absorb it into the bids in order to get the work,  Plus their labor cost are down due to an employer market.  He could be close at 30%.
Mike

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Jim, Mike and Bill, Yes for the reasons noted above and those companies which have been around more than 10 years have equipement at lower costs. The rapid escalation in costsduring the 90's were more a reflection of increased T&E,profits and salaries to keep key people more than materials and equipment. These things are going down in a hurry. Also, companies have to keep people busy or let them go. they will work on lower margins and still by the way good margins. the costs still have a ways to go down to make sense. Heck I had a builder come to see me in a private jet. and it was not the President of the comapny. they are a quality company that I would love to use, but obviously there is still belttightning to do. Bill M. I feel our market is differnet than Pensacola. The military impact keeps things way too poor and there is enought golf to keep prices down. We do not have a Marcus Point here now much less a Moors or tiger Pointe or Hiddden Creek. All of my market studies indicate 45 to 50 in the base not the top. Now all that plus plus talk is maybe alittle marketing on my part. 60 plus merch is a better number. I think Marcus Point is a winner and Pelican Point near  Baton Rouge plays to the same market and did 60,000 rounds last year at 45 per average round. We have discussed how the corp guys have let maintenance go to keep their margins up in your market. The DOG at the University club in BR used to run Perdido whatever that good course out there was for 5 years. He went over how that market is influenced by the military and retired people, with the bottom line being lower maintenace makes for better profits. IE you do not lose play with deteriating conditions and increased green fees do decrese play. When you run the lines it makes sense to cut costs.

[Tony Ristola]

Bumping this... as it is an interesting and pertinent topic 11-years after it was originally posted.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tony,

Thanks for bumping this. I forgot all about it!

Geoff Shackelford was kind enough to include my quote - "golfers want to play more, not pay more" - in his book on the future of golf.  I have seen nothing since this thread was originally posted that alters my view. Indeed, it is a basic truth that won't change in the decades ahead, if ever.

That being the case, we need to find a way to convince the powers that be - I guess that means the two ruling bodies, the R&A and the USGA - that the practice of encouraging clubs and golf courses to spend money modifying golf courses to accommodate a very small minority of elite class golfers makes no economic sense and no sense period.

Very few people who play the game need a courses longer than 6,200 yards. A smaller group can handle 6,600 yards. There is no reason championship level courses should be over 7,000.

All you need is what we had years ago: a golf ball the best players hit 250 to 275 yards max.

The golf technology arms race is really silly and accomplishes nothing but undermining what golfers really want, to play more, not pay more.

P.S. I live in Houston today, hardly a good place for golf architecture (no land). So, an oil industry friend from the Czech Republic who is about 35 years old asked me to help in learn the game. It is interesting. On Saturday morning we play this really short course (5,700 yards). Every time we come to a par 4 that plays about 360 yards he always says "wow, this is really long".

That is what it is like to take up the game as an adult.

[Jud_T]

I play a classic Langford course all day for $18 on the weekend.  How much cheaper do you think it should be?

[Tim_Weiman]

Jud,

I don't think it needs to be lower than that, but I will repeat one story I am sure I told on here before.

One day about 7-8 years ago I was playing a public course in Cleveland, Big Met which is part of the Metrparks system and gets a lot of play.

I got fixed up with a guy from Dallas who told me he might not be able to play his home course anymore.

When I asked why he explained the price was going up - from $27 to $35 dollars.

Doesn't sound like much, but he was a postal worker with a few kids. Loved the game and fun to play with, but he just couldn't afford it anymore he said.

[John Kavanaugh]

I am still a member of the course where I learned the game.  It is a private nine hole course with dues of $480 per year.  For $200 more per year you can own your own cart that they store and charge for you.  It is worth exactly that much.  Golf can be as cheap as you want it.

In Evansville, Indiana you can play an unlimited amount on four different public courses for $500 a year.

Cheap golf is cheap.  You can get quality golf for $1 per hole all day long.  What exactly is the problem?

What is never going to be cheap, and some are willing to pay for, is a tournament ready course where there are no other golfers two holes ahead or behind of your group.  They used to call that fruits of your labor.  Boo hoo.

[Jason Thurman]

Truth

[John Kavanaugh]

It's 60 deg right now in New York City.  The most expense town I know.  Look at these tee times available right now from Golfnow.com. That little cart symbol means cart included.  The golf is practically free.

http://www.golfnow.com/newyork/tee-times/golf-courses/ny---ny-metro/search?FDT=12/4/2012&TDT=12/7/2012

Funny thing about this thread.  Golf is cheaper now than it was in 2001.  We have lowered the cost of golf.

[Sean_A]

I agree with JakaB.  With the acceptance that golf has to cost something, golf is really as cheap or expensive as folks want it to be.  Strangely, I am finding golf at my club becoming more expensive while golf at many other less than 1st tier courses is becoming cheaper.  I am always stumped when I go back to Michigan and find the prices for cheap yet not without interest golf has not gone up.  $20-$30 will buy very good value golf in Michigan.  Heck, we paid $25 to play UofM in October.  Plenty of affordable golf is out there.  I think where the problem lies is two-fold.  Folks in the business want to stay in the business and for most of them that means it will be easier to stay in the business if prices are lower.  Second, many folks round here are spoiled.  They play good to great courses all the time and that must get to be very expensive.  

Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

If you are a guy like me who enjoys taking a cart, golf is suddenly free at most public courses around the country.  A cart, where I sit with my buddies and drink, is like your favorite bar with a virtual golf game console...cept it's real.  Who wouldn't pay $25 for that?

[Sven Nilsen]

Tim and Tony:

Copied below is a link to a dissertation by David Hueber on the changing nature of the game:

http://www.clemson.edu/centers-institutes/pennell/PDFs-2012/David-Hueber-Dissertation-7-17-12.pdf

Although I don't agree with certain of Mr. Hueber's assertions, I do think there's a wealth of knowledge contained in the piece.

In short, Mr. Hueber identifies the three barriers to playing golf as Cost, Difficulty and Time.

He presents a number of studies (mostly from the NGF) which point out some very pertinent trends:

1.  Since 1986, the number of participants in the game has grown from 19.7 m (13.5 core) to a high of 30.6 m (18.6 core) in 2003 before dropping over the next 8 years to 25.7 m (14.4) in 2011.

2.  The number of rounds played has gone through a similar decrease over the last few years:

2005 - 500 m
2006 - 501 m
2007 - 498 m
2008 - 489 m
2009 - 486 m
2010 - 475 m
2011 - 463 m

3.  Interestingly enough, the course opening numbers since 1985 follow almost the same curve as the number of golfers (in five year intervals):

1985 - 102
1990 - 224
1995 - 336
2000 - 399
2005 - 125
2010 - 46 (with only 19 new courses noted for 2011)

4.  Golf golf closures, on the other hand are going in the other direction over the last ten years:

2001 - 32
2003 - 68
2005 - 93
2007 - 121
2009 - 139
2011 - 157

5.  The net change in number of courses has gone from a net positive of 252 in 2001 to a net negative of 138 in 2011.

6.  Even with fewer courses, the number of rounds per course is still declining:

2000 - 36,333
2002 - 34,119
2004 - 33,340
2006 - 33,491
2008 - 33,243
2010 - 31,870 (with only 31,299 in 2011)

7.  Meanwhile, construction costs over the years have increased at an amazing pace (much of this I would guess due to the cost of real estate):

1960's - $10 - 20k per hole / $190 - 380k per course
1970's - $30 - 60k per hole / $540-1,080k per course
1980's - $70 - 200k per hole / $2 - 4m per course
1990's - $200 - 400k per hole / $3.8 - 7.6m per course

8.  As have annual maintenance costs:

1960's - $50 - 100k per course
1970's - $150 - 300k per course
1980's - $300 - 850k per course
1990's - $750 - 1,200k per course

If you accept the premises that (A) golf these days costs too much, is too difficult for the entry level player and takes too long to play and (B) the growth of the game is an important goal, than these numbers (and the trends they represent) are fairly troubling.    

[Ian Andrew]

I love the Australian model.

Maintain where you supposed to be (tees, greens and fairways) and don’t maintain where you’re not (rough and vegetation). Think about the irrigation and fertilizer that goes into long thick rough (which also slows play).

The other end is accepting seasonality. They go brown in the heat of the summer, but we spend 10% or more to avoid something that has no impact on the “play” of the game – just the color.

[Tim_Weiman]

Sven,

Thanks very much for posting that information. I like how how have boiled things down to  cost, difficulty and time.

So far as I can tell all the equipment changes haven't made the game any easier. The hand eye coordination and touch and feel one needs to play the game pretty much means you have to start young to be able to play decently. So that gets to cost. The game has to be affordable not for the six figure income guy; it has to work for eight year olds.

That is why I am such a fan of what Tom Doak did in Denver with Common Ground. It really is a model of what golf projects in America should focus on.

The time bit is somewhat of a lost cause. In America there are no more grumpy old men yelling at kids, teaching them the game and how to move along. I don't blame the USGA for that one, but things that add to the time it takes to play are bad, IMO.

[Bill_McBride]

I love the Australian model.

Maintain where you supposed to be (tees, greens and fairways) and don’t maintain where you’re not (rough and vegetation). Think about the irrigation and fertilizer that goes into long thick rough (which also slows play).

The other end is accepting seasonality. They go brown in the heat of the summer, but we spend 10% or more to avoid something that has no impact on the “play” of the game – just the color.

That would be a good model anywhere, Ian.  I love the way even the high end courses in England always look a bit genteelly shabby.  Just the opposite of our obsession here with "Augusta green."

[Tony Ristola]

Thanks Sven. It'll find a permanent home on my Kindle.

I love the Australian model.

Maintain where you supposed to be (tees, greens and fairways) and don’t maintain where you’re not (rough and vegetation). Think about the irrigation and fertilizer that goes into long thick rough (which also slows play).

The other end is accepting seasonality. They go brown in the heat of the summer, but we spend 10% or more to avoid something that has no impact on the “play” of the game – just the color.

Northern Europe is similar. Partially because it's forced upon them, but many would really like to go the US route.

[Tim Gavrich]

Which is cheaper to maintain and by how much: an acre of traditional grass rough or an acre of sandy waste area? Isn't a tee box surrounded by sand or pine straw more striking than one surrounded by grass? I've always thought so, anyway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The financial dilemma clubs face has nothing to do with which grass you cut.

And, the models cited are mostly useless as you're not dealing with a blank slate, but established facilities.

Over the years clubs tried to expand to the degree that they waned to be all things to all members.

Golf
Learning center
Expanded Practice facility
Short game area
Tennis
Pool
Dinning
Cards
Workout/spa
Billiards

Budgets/dues were crafted to pay for all of these services even though their usage was limited to a fraction of the membership.

The factions within the membership that use the non-golf facilities/services don't want o give them up.

But, if clubs don't "contract" they risk extinction unless they're the only game in town or one of the icons.

A club I'm familiar with had an operating loss of about 250K this year and increased dues by 6 % for 2013.
I know that all involved at the club diligently reviewed the finances in an attempt to keep costs down.

But several things have happened.

1. Play is down ergo revenue for golf, carts, dining, beverage and pro shop are down.
2. Dining is down
3. Guests are down, see # 1

But, clubs continue to want to provide the broad range of services for all factions of the membership.

Fixed costs continue to rise as do non-fixed costs because the "culture" of the clubs hasn't changed.

And that's the key to costs, the "culture" of the clubs and the difficulty in changing it.

Clubs have to work their way out the way they worked their way in.

They have to pare activity and service based on actual, not hoped for, utilization.

Like trees, which grow imperceptibly each year, but are noticeable when removed,, thus causing objections to their removal,
Facilities and services have to be pruned or removed.

Clubs should adopt a "core" operation, one that's sustainable in any financial environment, and then determine which "add-on" services are affordable in current environments.

Financial flexibility is critical.

Clubs have to be able to expand and contract based upon financial wherewithal.

End of rant