Can we lower the cost of playing golf?

[Doug Siebert]

Patrick,

How can a club that is offering a pool, tennis, billiards, card room, etc. reasonably cut back?  Sure, you save some by closing the pool and tennis court and turning the lights off in the card and billiards rooms, but you still paid for building that stuff, you still pay property taxes on the value of the larger clubhouse with all of these ancillary rooms.

Those bad decisions are with those clubs like a ball and chain around the ankles, while those that concentrated on golf, while they didn't benefit from the growth in the full service country clubs that occurred over the past few decades, will be the ones more likely to succeed in the future.

I'm sure it was easy to get started down the road, as guys who wanted to join a club found it easier to sell to their wives if it had a pool for the kids and a nice restaurant for her to lunch with her friends.  Then when tennis started getting popular in the 70s it probably made sense to add tennis courts so that any decline in people golfing could be made up for by the growing tennis market.  As members get older and not enough younger people join expanding your lessons offerings seems like a reasonable idea.  If you want to increase year round business you need indoor activities for the winter, so you add the billiards and card rooms.  A few members have their kid's weddings or receptions at the club, and you decide there's money to be made by putting in a big banquet room and offering it to the public.  Maybe when smoking bans are instituted in the state you add a smoking room if there's an exemption for private clubs.  At some point during all this (maybe more than once) the clubhouse has to be replaced or at least added to.  It probably all makes sense at the time, but undoing it and going back to core golf is pretty much impossible, even if all the members were behind it.

[Mark Johnson]

Patrick,

How can a club that is offering a pool, tennis, billiards, card room, etc. reasonably cut back?  Sure, you save some by closing the pool and tennis court and turning the lights off in the card and billiards rooms, but you still paid for building that stuff, you still pay property taxes on the value of the larger clubhouse with all of these ancillary rooms.

Those bad decisions are with those clubs like a ball and chain around the ankles, while those that concentrated on golf, while they didn't benefit from the growth in the full service country clubs that occurred over the past few decades, will be the ones more likely to succeed in the future.

I'm sure it was easy to get started down the road, as guys who wanted to join a club found it easier to sell to their wives if it had a pool for the kids and a nice restaurant for her to lunch with her friends.  Then when tennis started getting popular in the 70s it probably made sense to add tennis courts so that any decline in people golfing could be made up for by the growing tennis market.  As members get older and not enough younger people join expanding your lessons offerings seems like a reasonable idea.  If you want to increase year round business you need indoor activities for the winter, so you add the billiards and card rooms.  A few members have their kid's weddings or receptions at the club, and you decide there's money to be made by putting in a big banquet room and offering it to the public.  Maybe when smoking bans are instituted in the state you add a smoking room if there's an exemption for private clubs.  At some point during all this (maybe more than once) the clubhouse has to be replaced or at least added to.  It probably all makes sense at the time, but undoing it and going back to core golf is pretty much impossible, even if all the members were behind it.

I think Doug was spot on there.

The big disconnect is that many of these auxilary facilities were built for a much younger membership some 20 or 30 years ago.  As clubs ago and more often than not dont develop a pipeline of young members these facilities dont get utilized.

Most clubs simple view a member as a member and dont realize that many younger member can be more valuable because of the extra revenue they will spend at the pool, tennis courts, etc.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How can a club that is offering a pool, tennis, billiards, card room, etc. reasonably cut back?  Sure, you save some by closing the pool and tennis court and turning the lights off in the card and billiards rooms, but you still paid for building that stuff, you still pay property taxes on the value of the larger clubhouse with all of these ancillary rooms.

Doug,

It's not the capital costs that are driving up dues, but the operating costs.

Property taxes, while a component, aren't the problem.

As to how you reasonably cut back, you shorten the season and limit the hours, for starters.
That reduces costs, fixed and variable.
Essentially, you work your way out the way you worked your way in, gradually, over time, unless the financial situation requires more drastic measures.

Those bad decisions are with those clubs like a ball and chain around the ankles, while those that concentrated on golf, while they didn't benefit from the growth in the full service country clubs that occurred over the past few decades, will be the ones more likely to succeed in the future.

I certainly agree with that, but, golf only clubs benefited from growth over the years as the popularity of the game increased.
They had a backlog of members that easily replaced departing members.

I'm sure it was easy to get started down the road, as guys who wanted to join a club found it easier to sell to their wives if it had a pool for the kids and a nice restaurant for her to lunch with her friends.  Then when tennis started getting popular in the 70s it probably made sense to add tennis courts so that any decline in people golfing could be made up for by the growing tennis market.  As members get older and not enough younger people join expanding your lessons offerings seems like a reasonable idea.  If you want to increase year round business you need indoor activities for the winter, so you add the billiards and card rooms.

We found that the more we increased those activities, the more money we lost.

The "work out" or exercise room was probably the worst idea. 

A few members have their kid's weddings or receptions at the club, and you decide there's money to be made by putting in a big banquet room and offering it to the public. 

No question that clubs actively seek outside events, member sponsored or related.
Some clubs have objected to these activities since they tend to displace the membership on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, the busiest days of the year in the summer.  To a degree, those outside activities have subsidized the money losing activities for the membership.
But, rather than cut out those money losing activities, they've found a way to pay for them through non-related member events.
The battle between, "are we a catering hall or a golf/country club ?" continues to be waged at most clubs.

Maybe when smoking bans are instituted in the state you add a smoking room if there's an exemption for private clubs.  At some point during all this (maybe more than once) the clubhouse has to be replaced or at least added to. 

Other than one, I don't know of any clubs in Northern NJ that replaced their clubhouse.
Remodeled, redecorated, expanded, yes, but, replaced, only one and they financed that by selling off adjacent land for 13 million (it wasn't enough)

It probably all makes sense at the time, but undoing it and going back to core golf is pretty much impossible, even if all the members were behind it.

That's where I disagree.
It's the operating costs that drive up the dues.

The problem with most clubs is that everyone has elements/activities that they want to preserve.

The challenge I presented to a board was:

If you bought this club today, as the new owner, what would you change to make it run more efficiently ?

In every case, each board member had their own pet area/service that they wanted to preserve.
Few if any were capable of taking a global view and altering the "culture" of the club.

As an example, this club serves food out of six locations.
That's right, six locations.
Men's grille, Lady's grille, Mixed grille, pool/tennis pavilion, bather's porch and golf course shack.
In addition, some food service is provided in the men's and lady's card room and in the 19th hole.
The more meals we served, the more money we lost.  That's true.

Surprisingly, the hours of operation are concurrent.
And, all the areas are staffed with the pool/tennis pavillion having it's own kitchen.

The tennis courts are "lighted" despite daylight savings time in the summer.

Cancelled dinner reservations are not charged to the member, thus determining staff is difficult.

30-20 years ago I advised against mowing/maintaining areas out of play.
I advised against introducing plantings at every tee and green (the feminization of golf in America)
And, lastly, I suggested that they adopt an irrigation program that greatly reduced the volume of water.
All to reduce maintainance costs and the resultant dues.

And, I always advocated a "pay as you go" philosophy with NO DEBT.
One only has to look at Shackamaxon and other clubs to see the damage/destruction brought about by debt.

Reduced operating costs can be achieved, but, it represents a sacrifice borne of operational and financial efficiency.

In 2013 and beyond, things will get worse, not better.

Healthcare costs will continue to climb as will wages, taxes, etc., etc..

Clubs that don't address these issues will find themselves in a death spiral unless they have very deep pockets.

Failure to operate efficiently and failure to pay off debt will cause clubs to close.

In order to lower the cost of playing golf you have to first alter the culture of the golf/country club.

It's not easy, but it is necessary.

[Jud_T]

Can you really generalize about this? Isn't each club and each location it's own micro-economy with it's own unique supply/demand function?  I reckon there are clubs that could double their fees and still have a wait list and there are others where cutting costs will only lessen the bleeding and not treat the wound.  Are you a golf club or a country club?  Are you located in a tony suburb near a major metropolitan area with no significant available land nearby or are you in the middle of nowhere?  What kind of debt structure do you have?
What type of ownership model?  Seems to me that it's one equation with several variables.  There are plenty of golf only clubs run on a shoestring that are barely getting by and there are plenty of full service clubs that are doing swimmingly.  There are plenty of real-estate courses that are part and parcel of the bubble bursting and are probably in need of an entirely different set of analysis.  There are old-line clubs that have good bones but have a big nut to carry with an older membership and changing demographics and there are clubs with a bunch of blogging, bespeckled hickory toting nerds walking 54+ a day.  There are clubs that cater to the $1 a hole set and those that cater to the $50 a hole set.  It's like doing a single consulting case on Mom's corner grocery, Walmart, Nieman Marcus, Anan's Falafel Cart on 51st & 6th, Mc'Donalds and Per Se all in one fruit salad report...

[Carl Johnson]

For those with experience, e.g., Pat M., how do you try to influence the Board/Committee that seems to feel that if they aren't adding something, they aren't doing anything, and who wants to be a "do nothing"?  I like the old saw, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."  But for some folks, it seems, that's easier said than done.

[JMEvensky]

For those with experience, e.g., Pat M., how do you try to influence the Board/Committee that seems to feel that if they aren't adding something, they aren't doing anything, and who wants to be a "do nothing"?  I like the old saw, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."  But for some folks, it seems, that's easier said than done.

Not Pat,but I'll take a stab.

The short answer is that,frequently,Board members are they themselves invested in the money draining aspects.Their wives play tennis,they dine at the club frequently,etc.--Board members get their money's worth.

Boards sometimes can't see the forest for the trees.

However,most of them are reasonably bright business men.If you showed them their own club's financials,with the club's name blacked out,I'd bet they'd see the same problems and make the same suggestions that Pat did.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think Doug was spot on there.

The big disconnect is that many of these auxilary facilities were built for a much younger membership some 20 or 30 years ago. 
As clubs ago and more often than not dont develop a pipeline of young members these facilities dont get utilized.

Mark,

It's far beyond that.  The utilization patterns have changed drastically from 30 years ago.
30 years ago, guys came to the club, had breakfast, played golf, had lunch and either played more golf or cards.
Now, guys come at 6:30-7:00, play their golf and go home by 11:00.

The dual income and shared responsibilities of families today, differs from earlier generations.

It's difficult for clubs to adapt to reduced utilization.

Most clubs simple view a member as a member and dont realize that many younger member can be more valuable because of the extra revenue they will spend at the pool, tennis courts, etc.

There's very little in addtional revenue that's garnered from those who use the pool and tennis courts.

The utilization pattern of prior generations, where the member was there for most of the weekend, playing golf, dinning and attending social functions at night, has all but disappeared with the younger generation.

Part of the problem is that the older generation wants to preserve the services tied to their utilization patterns despite the younger generations lack of utilization for these services.  It's difficult being all things to all factions of a membership

[Patrick_Mucci]

For those with experience, e.g., Pat M., how do you try to influence the Board/Committee that seems to feel that if they aren't adding something, they aren't doing anything, and who wants to be a "do nothing"? 

I like the old saw, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." 
But for some folks, it seems, that's easier said than done.

Carl,

It's a delicate balance.

And one of the problems is perception.
It may not be "broke" today, but, if left unattended to, it might well be "broke" next year or shortly thereafter.
So, "vision" is an important asset for a board member to possess.
Without it, you're doomed.

Certainly clubs have to be sensitive to "the market" and what other clubs are doing.
Clubs have an obligation to upgrade their facility to offset wear and tear that occurs over the years.

So there's a balance between providing a reasonably modernized facility and catering to the needs of the broad spectrum of members.

How do you convince the board ?

First you have to identify the problem.
Second, you have to be able to communicate that problem to the board such that recognition by the board is irrefutable to a prudent person.
Third, you have to be lucky and hope that the board is populated by intelligent members who aren't selfish.

One of the things I'm proudest of during my service on boards is that I never voted my own agenda, I always voted for what I felt was in the best interest of the club, even if it didn't favor me.

Earlier I cited a statistic whereby a club had noticed a 9 % decline in golf rounds
If that was accompanied by a similar decline in food service, well, I think I'd review my hours of operation and staff requirements.

The problem with many boards is that the older members say to themselves, "hey, I kind of like things just they way they are, and, in another five or ten years I'm going to retire and move to Florida/Arizona, so, I want to keep the status quo a little longer.  Well, I understand their position and I can't say it's the wrong position for them, but, it may not be the right position for the club. 

There are other factions that don't want to spend a dime because they either have financial issues or don't see themselves at the club that much longer and therefore don't think they'll be there to enjoy the benefits from the expenditures.

Then you have the younger members who want to play early and get home without using the dinning facilities.
They may attend specialty nights, like BarBQ's, but, their week to week utilization for non-golf, non-revenue producing activities is minimal.
Clearly the club can't survive solely from their activity level.

For most clubs, when you join the club, you join the entire club.
There's no add on for the pool or tennis, so the users don't necessarily pay for the facility open to the general membership.
Each facility is paid for by the entire membership.

If I was going to approach a board today, I'd come armed with the utiilization statistics.
How many breakfasts were served on a daily basis,  ditto for lunch and dinner.
How many golf rounds were played each day, guest fees.
Pool attendance.
Tennis use.

I'd study the patterns and after careful analysis make decisions based on actual utilization, tempered by the need to attract and retain members.

As to expenses, clubs have proven time and time again that it's almost impossible to reduce expenses due to special interests within the membership, thus, I might hire an outside vender to study expenses and make a report and recommendations with an eye toward reducing expenses.  But, will the board vote to implement the recommendations.

It's not easy

[Patrick_Mucci]

JME,

When I was first an associate junior member at about age 22, my club passed a rule that flabbergasted me.

I approached a friend of my dad's who was a board member and asked him how such a group of successful professional and business men could pass such a rule.

He told me:  Pat, I don't care how smart they are, how successful they are or how hard working they are, the moment the front wheels of their cars pass through the front gates, they lose their fucking minds."

Fifty years later I marvel at the wisdom of his words.

And, even though they may be successful businessmen, they don't look at or run the club as a business, but, as a luxury.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Can you really generalize about this?

Yes, you can since most clubs are facing the same dilemmas.

Isn't each club and each location it's own micro-economy with it's own unique supply/demand function? 

No, most clubs aren't operating in a vacuum. 
They usually have nearby competitors in the local community and regional competitors a little further removed.

I reckon there are clubs that could double their fees and still have a wait list and there are others where cutting costs will only lessen the bleeding and not treat the wound. 

I don't know of any clubs that could double their dues and not suffer for it.

If you don't start cutting costs, the problem will only get worse.
The first lesson for first responders is to locate the wound and stop the bleeding.


Are you a golf club or a country club? 

Financially, there's no distinction, just additional line items.

Are you located in a tony suburb near a major metropolitan area with no significant available land nearby or are you in the middle of nowhere? 
That's irrelevant in terms of operations.
The only impact is the size of the potential pool of members

What kind of debt structure do you have?

That's also irrelevant.
Debt is debt and it's structure is immaterial.
It's an obligation of the club and it's surviving members.
And, it doesn't impact operations.

What type of ownership model? 

Irrelevant.
It's either a member owned club or an investor owned club.
If it's an investor owned club, the members don't have the same financial stake.
Most private clubs are member owned and that's what I'm focused on.

Seems to me that it's one equation with several variables. 

There are plenty of golf only clubs run on a shoestring that are barely getting by and there are plenty of full service clubs that are doing swimmingly.

Would you identify ten (10) of each for us.

There are plenty of real-estate courses that are part and parcel of the bubble bursting and are probably in need of an entirely different set of analysis. 

Seperate issue.
Residential communities with golf courses are a different breed altogether.
Let's stick to member owned courses.


There are old-line clubs that have good bones but have a big nut to carry with an older membership and changing demographics and there are clubs with a bunch of blogging, bespeckled hickory toting nerds walking 54+ a day.

Why would they have a "big nut to carry" ?
Their acquisition and construction costs were amortized decades ago.
What costs are you refering to ? 

There are clubs that cater to the $1 a hole set and those that cater to the $50 a hole set. 

Could you list ten (10) examples of each ?

It's like doing a single consulting case on Mom's corner grocery, Walmart, Nieman Marcus, Anan's Falafel Cart on 51st & 6th, Mc'Donalds and Per Se all in one fruit salad report...

You're analogy is flawed because you're mixing public and private companies and public companies operate under an entirely different set of reporting rules.

It's far simpler than what you present.
If you look at the monthly statements/financials you'll see similar, if not congruent reports.
There's an overwhelming similarity amongst the operations of private clubs.

[JMEvensky]

And, even though they may be successful businessmen, they don't look at or run the club as a business, but, as a luxury.

Usually because they have their luxury subsidized by the other members.

As we've discussed before,there's a very fine line in running a club as a business or not.The trick,IMO,is knowing when to veer away from the cold hearted business decision.

In today's environment,cold hearted business decisions should be the default position.

[Patrick_Mucci]

And, even though they may be successful businessmen, they don't look at or run the club as a business, but, as a luxury.

Usually because they have their luxury subsidized by the other members.

It"s not "subsidized", it's a shared expense, but, as members leave due to expenses rising, the increased burden falls on the shoulders of those who remain.  As that process continues, the club enters a death spiral as fewer and fewer members are responsible for increased obligations.
Never a good pattern.

As we've discussed before,there's a very fine line in running a club as a business or not.
The trick, IMO,is knowing when to veer away from the cold hearted business decision.

And I'd say that the trick is to know when to veer TOWARD the cold hearted business decisions

In today's environment,cold hearted business decisions should be the default position.

Clubs can't afford that philosophy, they're literally fighting for their financial lives.
They have to take hard line measures now, not when the sheriff nails the notice on the door.

[JMEvensky]

And, even though they may be successful businessmen, they don't look at or run the club as a business, but, as a luxury.

Usually because they have their luxury subsidized by the other members.

It"s not "subsidized", it's a shared expense, but, as members leave due to expenses rising, the increased burden falls on the shoulders of those who remain.  As that process continues, the club enters a death spiral as fewer and fewer members are responsible for increased obligations.
Never a good pattern.

As we've discussed before,there's a very fine line in running a club as a business or not.
The trick, IMO,is knowing when to veer away from the cold hearted business decision.

And I'd say that the trick is to know when to veer TOWARD the cold hearted business decisions

In today's environment,cold hearted business decisions should be the default position.

Clubs can't afford that philosophy, they're literally fighting for their financial lives.
They have to take hard line measures now, not when the sheriff nails the notice on the door.

We're saying the same thing--default position means "cold hearted business decision" unless some really compelling reason not to.

[Jud_T]

Isn't each club and each location it's own micro-economy with it's own unique supply/demand function?  

No, most clubs aren't operating in a vacuum.  
They usually have nearby competitors in the local community and regional competitors a little further removed.

So Dismal, NGLA and West Bend are interchangeable?

I reckon there are clubs that could double their fees and still have a wait list and there are others where cutting costs will only lessen the bleeding and not treat the wound.  

I don't know of any clubs that could double their dues and not suffer for it.


How exactly would Augusta National suffer?

Are you a golf club or a country club?

Financially, there's no distinction, just additional line items.

Completely different clientele, financial demands and cyclicality

Are you located in a tony suburb near a major metropolitan area with no significant available land nearby or are you in the middle of nowhere?  
That's irrelevant in terms of operations.
The only impact is the size of the potential pool of members

Uh, I believe the cost of the real estate and it's impact on initiation AND dues may be somewhat different

Seems to me that it's one equation with several variables.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Isn't each club and each location it's own micro-economy with it's own unique supply/demand function?  

No, most clubs aren't operating in a vacuum.  
They usually have nearby competitors in the local community and regional competitors a little further removed.

So Dismal, NGLA and West Bend are interchangeable?

Jud, so NGLA competes with Dismal River and West Bend for memberships ?
I thought Dismal was owned by Dick and Chris Johnson, not the members.
You just got finished telling us how each club is in it's own location.
NGLA competes with Shinnecock and Sebonack, two clubs that are so adjacent that they share the same property lines.

I reckon there are clubs that could double their fees and still have a wait list and there are others where cutting costs will only lessen the bleeding and not treat the wound.  

I don't know of any clubs that could double their dues and not suffer for it.


How exactly would Augusta National suffer?

As with any club, there are marginal members and members who evaluate their cost per round.
And when members only play there occasionally, a doubling of the dues will cause them to reconsider.

Are you a golf club or a country club?

Financially, there's no distinction, just additional line items.

Completely different clientele, financial demands and cyclicality

They aren't different clientele, they don't have different demands and different cyclicality, whatever that is.
I'm a member of country clubs and a golf club and familiar with other golf clubs and country clubs and I study their  financials and the only difference is a few line items.

What's your personal experience with golf clubs and country clubs ?  ?  ?

Are you located in a tony suburb near a major metropolitan area with no significant available land nearby or are you in the middle of nowhere?  
That's irrelevant in terms of operations.
The only impact is the size of the potential pool of members

Uh, I believe the cost of the real estate and it's impact on initiation AND dues may be somewhat different
The cost of real estate ?
Would you name us five (5) courses where the land was recently acquired and the golf course recently built in a Tony suburb where the property wasn't already owned by the developer ?

You keep on throwing out phantom or hypothetical situations.
Let's deal with real world facts

[Doug Siebert]

And, even though they may be successful businessmen, they don't look at or run the club as a business, but, as a luxury.

Usually because they have their luxury subsidized by the other members.

Or in some cases subsidized by their employer.  The people who reach into their own pockets to pay for their dues and don't have jobs that benefit from "taking clients to the club" probably have a very different outlook on cutting services versus raising dues than the guys who have their employer pay their dues and are in sales and consider their club membership one of their more important tools for closing deals.

[Doug Siebert]

As an example, this club serves food out of six locations.
That's right, six locations.
Men's grille, Lady's grille, Mixed grille, pool/tennis pavilion, bather's porch and golf course shack.
In addition, some food service is provided in the men's and lady's card room and in the 19th hole.
The more meals we served, the more money we lost.  That's true.

Surprisingly, the hours of operation are concurrent.
And, all the areas are staffed with the pool/tennis pavillion having it's own kitchen.

I can't even imagine how you end up with a men's and lady's AND mixed grille.  Sure, two out of three I can see at some old club with a bunch of male members stuck in the 19th century, but why do you need both a lady's and a mixed grille?  I can see why you were losing money on every meal you served, you'd have to charge $20 for a hamburger to cover all the labor costs with so many service locations.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug,

It's worse than that, can you imagine a kitchen with food service at the tennis/pool pavilion and full food service on the bather's porch only 50 yards away ?

YIKES

It doesn't get more wasteful than that, but, a prominent board member wanted to have lunch with his grandchildren.

While each club has their uniqueness, they also have common strains.

I think that one of the hardest things to do is to try to be a member, trying to enjoy themselves at the club, while at the same time taking on administrative and fiduciary responsibilities.

And, no one wants to fire anyone on their watch, it's too distasteful given the reason people belong to clubs

[Jud_T]

Are you a golf club or a country club?

Financially, there's no distinction, just additional line items.

Completely different clientele, financial demands and cyclicality

They aren't different clientele, they don't have different demands and different cyclicality, whatever that is.
I'm a member of country clubs and a golf club and familiar with other golf clubs and country clubs and I study their  financials and the only difference is a few line items.

What's your personal experience with golf clubs and country clubs ?  ?  ?

I am, or have been, a member of several golf clubs.  They couldn't be more different than foie gras and pork rinds.  You're basically saying that ANY business has to watch it's costs.  Way to generalize.  Remind me to hire you as an attorney cause you'll just browbeat and nit pick any opponent into submission, boredom, death or all of the above...

[Patrick_Mucci]

I am, or have been, a member of several golf clubs.  They couldn't be more different than foie gras and pork rinds.  

Jud,

I think, if you'll look at their financial statements, that though they may be different culturally, they're not that different financially.

You're basically saying that ANY business has to watch it's costs.  Way to generalize.  

No, I'm explaining how to attempt to go about reducing costs, which obviously have gotten out of hand at almost every club.

Remind me to hire you as an attorney cause you'll just browbeat and nit pick any opponent into submission, boredom, death or all of the above...
Well, you just can't make wild statements and then fail to substantiate them when challenged.

First you told us that clubs were localized, in micro environments, then you cite, for comparison's sake, a club on the East end of Long Island, one in Wisconsin and one in Nebraska, with the one in Nebraska not being member owned.

I've been a member of a "strictly" golf club and a "country" club and about the only difference in the financials are the line items for the pool and tennis courts.  The golf course, clubhouse, staffing, tournament dinning and fixed costs are all the same, the only differences are the missing line items for the operations budgets for the tennis and pool which are negligible in comparison to the golf course and clubhouse budgets.

So, when you say that every club is drastically different from every other club, that's not true when evaluating financials.
There are accounting firms that specialize in golf/country club accounting and they provide operational templates and comparisons.
Are there nuanced differences, sure.  Some clubs charge payroll, benfits and meals, departmentally, others keep it seperate as a general expense.
Ditto electricity, taxes, fuel, etc., etc..
But, the overall issue remains.
How do you lower the cost of golf ?

It's my opinion, formed by my limited experience with clubs, that it's a cultural issue before it's a line item issue.
And that changing the culture is the key to significant savings.
Not that you can't achieve savings on a line item by line item basis, but, I believe there's a cap or max on how much you can save vis a vis line items.

[Jud_T]

It's my opinion, formed by my limited experience with clubs, that it's a cultural issue before it's a line item issue.
And that changing the culture is the key to significant savings.
Not that you can't achieve savings on a line item by line item basis, but, I believe there's a cap or max on how much you can save vis a vis line items. [/b][/size][/color]

[/quote]

This I think we can agree on.

[Sean_A]

You lot are arguing around the thin end of the stick.  Private US clubs is not anything near the first place to look for saving money in golf.  Why would you target the richest and smallest percentage of golfers?  If that is what this thread is about, its a waste of time.  The way for clubs to save money is entirely a club by club decision based on their culture and set of problems. 

Ciao

[Ivan Morris]

How is that well over 1000 GCAers are interested in commenting on college football but only 71 (so far) seem bothered about how to make golf cheaper? That's the most important issue in the game worldwide today. It's a great question but the answers are disappointing. My way of making golf cheaper is to get more people playing by introducing a sliding scale for juniors converting to full membership. A huge number of 'trained' golfers fall through the cracks at the conversion stage due to lack of time, money and the sudden onslaught of life's 'complications.' I'd balance the scales by restricting concessions to seniors (like me!) who play the most golf because we have the most time................

[Patrick_Mucci]

You lot are arguing around the thin end of the stick.  Private US clubs is not anything near the first place to look for saving money in golf.  Why would you target the richest and smallest percentage of golfers?  If that is what this thread is about, its a waste of time.  The way for clubs to save money is entirely a club by club decision based on their culture and set of problems. 

Sean,

I'm not so sure about your categorization of members of private clubs being the smallest percentage of golfers.
I don't consider someone who plays golf once or twice or four times a year a "golfer"

If it's not a "private" club in the U.S. it's either a municipal course or a course open to the public that's owned by private interests.

If it's the latter, why would the owner's of a course that's open to the public want to cut their revenue and profits ?

If it's a municipal course, please tell us how to go about reducing costs where no ancillary activities/services exist

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ivan,

I think you have to drill down further.

Are we talking about the cost of golf or the cost of what often comes with golf ?

At the municipal level, how can the cost of golf be reduced ?

As to the "equipment" costs, I don't see the manufacturers cutting costs/profits