[Bill Brightly]

Jon, you don't have to convince me! I am talking about how "sticks" view things... and they are almost always the most vocal people at a golf course. Their opinions get a disproportionate amount of attention because they "obviously" know the game and usually play all over.

[Ben Sims]

The problem is that there is no definition of quality.  Visual quality?  Verdure?  Clipping yield?  Quality of turf on any sports field should be primarily involved with how the ball reacts to the surface (or how easy it is to run on it) and not the visual quality of the field.  It's funny to me that a premier league soccer coach in Highbury London understands why his style of play is better suited to tightly mown, dense/firm turf, and yet the average American golfer talks about lushness and not playability. 

The closest anyone has come to making a popular qualitative measurement in regards to how a ball reacts to the ground in golf is the Stimpmeter.  It's original purpose was to more consistently match the rolling ability of greens around the golf course.  Now unfortunately, the stimpmeter has been bastardized into a misunderstood qualitative measurement of a golf green.   A shame really.

There has been some popular studies in the past that have had he legs to become benchmarks in the industry.  Until someone spends a good amount of time studying the relationships between green grass, green speed, and turf input relative to cost, then the standards we have come to expect in the US will continue.

This country has a lousy track record of caring about long term sustainability until it affects our bank accounts.  Remember how awesome solar panels on peoples roofs were going to be?! Once the tenets of sustainability (less construction disturbance, less turf inputs, less specially mowed areas, more natural playing surfaces) becomes the financially smart thing to do, then it will take hold. 

[Don_Mahaffey]

This country has a lousy track record of caring about long term sustainability until it affects our bank accounts.  Remember how awesome solar panels on peoples roofs were going to be?! Once the tenets of sustainability (less construction disturbance, less turf inputs, less specially mowed areas, more natural playing surfaces) becomes the financially smart thing to do, then it will take hold. 

It is already the financially smart thing to do.

[Ben Sims]

This country has a lousy track record of caring about long term sustainability until it affects our bank accounts.  Remember how awesome solar panels on peoples roofs were going to be?! Once the tenets of sustainability (less construction disturbance, less turf inputs, less specially mowed areas, more natural playing surfaces) becomes the financially smart thing to do, then it will take hold. 

It is already the financially smart thing to do.

Don,

I agree completely.  But until BASF or Toro hire someone to stand at the convention and preach the truth to the masses, then fringe lunatics like ourselves will always get the stink eye at the swanky dinners. 

Let me clarify, the financially smart thing to do combined with the easy thing to do, while still making customers happy.  I am sure a ton of cattle guys in Edna would drive hybrid trucks if they could pull the same as their diesels and cost the same as well.  And I bet that a ton of sups around the nation would love to take a utility tractor with some high flotation tires and an 11 gang and mow the place wall to wall with a lightweight unit doing the detail work behind.  But are how much job security does that afford them?  Especially when a dozen other folks will "consult" the club and tell them that their current sup is nuts.

I watched one of my professors on a DVD today talk bluntly about, "the guy they hire to replace you will overspend the budget you came in under and the club will be happier with him because his grass will look better."  Scary huh?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just concerned with reality versus ideology. 

[John Kirk]

America has plenty of water.  But a significant percentage of Americans believe we also have unlimited oil resources, or at a minimum, enough oil to fuel growth and expansion for decades.  Golf courses are highly dependent on oil to make them green, homogenous and groomed.

I may be more extreme in my assessment of the world energy situation, but I think golf courses should plan on a 0-100% increase in the cost of petroleum products over the next 5-10 years.

Question.  What percentage of a typical maintenance budget is used for gas, oil, seed and fertilizers?

I see an inflection point in golf maintenance coincident with peak oil.  Some lucky folks will still get to play dark green courses, since the national demographic is so stratified.

P.S.  I'll be looking at solar panels for my roof this year.
 

[Aaron McMaster]

You really think your gonna get firm and fast with tractor pulled gang mowers?  This is a topic that could be talked about on mulitple webinars and not come up with complete agreement on sustainable.  What I can say is rarely do we ever go backward in life and find success so I'd look at what tech is coming down the line that can make golf more sustainable in the future. Gangs mowers arn't it.

You can also argue that the Augusta syndrome or green syndrome grew the game for quite awhile and brought people in who may have never took it up had golf only been brown and down.  I'd like to see white bunker sand gone...talk about unsustainable $100 per ton bunker sand, give me break.

I hate carts but in all reality they have grown the game....you could use grass that would handle low water, low food...etc if it didn't need to hold up to cart traffic but they arn't going anywhere so let's not pretend it's a solution.

I could go on but it's not like golf is lacking sustainablitity just because were missing the firm and fast boat.  Plus I'd like to see someone produce regular firm and fast in say seattle or chicago.  Location has a lot to do with it and don't even get me started on what the cost's of oversized clubhouses and fitness crap or water activities do to overall prices of operating a facility.

[Grant Saunders]

Are there examples of courses adopting sustainability and suffering from reduced conditions?
Are there any examples of the opposite, courses adopting sustainable principles and increasing the level of conditioning?

Don

I would like to think that over time, at my course, sustainable practices are in fact going to improve both the quality of the surface and conditioning.

We are in a region where browntop (agrostis cappillaris) grows naturally and is the perfect environment for it.

Several years ago, before my time, a previous greenkeeper convinced the club to embark an undersowing program of ryegrass on the fairways. The result has been a gradually thinning surface requiring more water and fert while growing at varying rates throughout the sward. I have been able to convince the club the error of its ways and I have now began a program of introducing more browntop back to the fairways and will be embarking on a spraying program to eradicate the rye. This coupled with less water, which the browntop has a low requirement for, is heading towards promoting a slower growing surface with greater drought tolerance and lower N requirements.

This is not only going to be easier to maintain but less expensive also. The golfers will have a better playing surface and I can spend my time doing things like handwatering by saving at least 1 cut per week on the fairways.

[Jon Wiggett]

You really think your gonna get firm and fast with tractor pulled gang mowers?  Zes, as proven in multipul cases. Firmness is not to do with the machine but rather the type of soil, amount of rainfall and the grass typeThis is a topic that could be talked about on mulitple webinars and not come up with complete agreement on sustainable.  What I can say is rarely do we ever go backward in life and find success so I'd look at what tech is coming down the line that can make golf more sustainable in the future. Gangs mowers arn't it.gang mowers are a low cost solution that give a high quality finish. They may not be the main thing for the future but they are a part. As for going back to past practices in the 70s and 80s few courses that could afford triplexes used anything else. Nowadays hand mowers are very widely used even by elite clubs

You can also argue that the Augusta syndrome or green syndrome grew the game for quite awhile and brought people in who may have never took it up had golf only been brown and down. I'd like to see white bunker sand gone...talk about unsustainable $100 per ton bunker sand, give me break.

I hate carts but in all reality they have grown the game....you could use grass that would handle low water, low food...etc if it didn't need to hold up to cart traffic but they arn't going anywhere so let's not pretend it's a solution.
again, on courses that have very little cart traffic (and there are very many) such grasses are very much part of the future

I could go on but it's not like golf is lacking sustainablitity just because were missing the firm and fast boat.  Plus I'd like to see someone produce regular firm and fast in say seattle or chicago.
Its a case of horses for courses Aaron. Sustainability in the area of maintenance is all about using grasses suited to the environment (naturally occurring) and appropriate care for these grasses. Golf is actually played outside the Seattle and Chicago areas so if this is what you are basing your point of view on then maybe looking further field, outside of the USA perhaps!

Location has a lot to do with it and don't even get me started on what the cost's of oversized clubhouses and fitness crap or water activities do to overall prices of operating a facility.

Agree on all points

[Tom_Doak]

You really think your gonna get firm and fast with tractor pulled gang mowers?  This is a topic that could be talked about on mulitple webinars and not come up with complete agreement on sustainable.  What I can say is rarely do we ever go backward in life and find success so I'd look at what tech is coming down the line that can make golf more sustainable in the future. Gangs mowers arn't it.

You can also argue that the Augusta syndrome or green syndrome grew the game for quite awhile and brought people in who may have never took it up had golf only been brown and down.  I'd like to see white bunker sand gone...talk about unsustainable $100 per ton bunker sand, give me break.

I hate carts but in all reality they have grown the game....you could use grass that would handle low water, low food...etc if it didn't need to hold up to cart traffic but they arn't going anywhere so let's not pretend it's a solution.

I could go on but it's not like golf is lacking sustainablitity just because were missing the firm and fast boat.  Plus I'd like to see someone produce regular firm and fast in say seattle or chicago.  Location has a lot to do with it and don't even get me started on what the cost's of oversized clubhouses and fitness crap or water activities do to overall prices of operating a facility.

Aaron,

It's that whole notion of "going backward" that's the problem.  We have been taken "forward" by a bunch of salesmen who were selling something that ultimately doesn't cost out.  If you can't give up their "advances", then you are doomed to paying so much for golf that most people will not be able to afford it.  Like most other people in business now, they don't care about the long term effect, as long as they get their commission from you today.

Also, they've covered up the secret -- golf was just as much fun 30-40 years ago as it is now.  The turf may not have been as perfect -- but is that why you play the game?

[Tim Nugent]

This country has a lousy track record of caring about long term sustainability until it affects our bank accounts.  Remember how awesome solar panels on peoples roofs were going to be?! Once the tenets of sustainability (less construction disturbance, less turf inputs, less specially mowed areas, more natural playing surfaces) becomes the financially smart thing to do, then it will take hold. 

It is already the financially smart thing to do.

Don, unfortunately we don't do the Smart thing until a gun is placed at our head.  Just look at Washington.

All this talk about fairway gang mowers is causing me to wonder if some aren't channeling Robert Bruce Harris

[Aaron McMaster]

You really think your gonna get firm and fast with tractor pulled gang mowers?  This is a topic that could be talked about on mulitple webinars and not come up with complete agreement on sustainable.  What I can say is rarely do we ever go backward in life and find success so I'd look at what tech is coming down the line that can make golf more sustainable in the future. Gangs mowers arn't it.

You can also argue that the Augusta syndrome or green syndrome grew the game for quite awhile and brought people in who may have never took it up had golf only been brown and down.  I'd like to see white bunker sand gone...talk about unsustainable $100 per ton bunker sand, give me break.

I hate carts but in all reality they have grown the game....you could use grass that would handle low water, low food...etc if it didn't need to hold up to cart traffic but they arn't going anywhere so let's not pretend it's a solution.

I could go on but it's not like golf is lacking sustainablitity just because were missing the firm and fast boat.  Plus I'd like to see someone produce regular firm and fast in say seattle or chicago.  Location has a lot to do with it and don't even get me started on what the cost's of oversized clubhouses and fitness crap or water activities do to overall prices of operating a facility.

Aaron,

It's that whole notion of "going backward" that's the problem.  We have been taken "forward" by a bunch of salesmen who were selling something that ultimately doesn't cost out.  If you can't give up their "advances", then you are doomed to paying so much for golf that most people will not be able to afford it.  Like most other people in business now, they don't care about the long term effect, as long as they get their commission from you today.

Also, they've covered up the secret -- golf was just as much fun 30-40 years ago as it is now.  The turf may not have been as perfect -- but is that why you play the game?

Tom and Tim

I'll try to condense since mother nature is killing me and I actually have to work right now.  We are breading turfs now that can basically use minimal water and very and I stress very little pesticides and yet still give you all the qualities that your looking to play golf on.  A big problem with this though is convincing members/owners that shutting down for a short period of time to transfer over to some things that can make your operation both more sustainable and still look good and be healthy.  When I say going backward I'm trying to convey that maybe we've been focusing on the wrong things in golf and that's really what has made it to expensive.

Ultimately Tom this would be a great person to person conversation cause it's just too big for a message board about making golf both affordable yet still give a quaility product and obviously quality means differents things to everyone.

I'd still argue gang mowers are slow as heck and trying to mow among golfers is wasting money.  Tractors are a dying bread as a multi purpose machine.  They used to be solid for loaders, blowers and pulling mowers....they are expensive and simple to slow for all practices they used to be good for.  Turf type and how it's managed has a huge effect on firm and fast btw, yes along with soil type, rainfall or mother nature is always a huge factor, which was the only reason I was joking about how hard it is to give firm and fast no matter what you've done with your in areas such as Chicago and Seattle.  I say that since F and F get thrown around like everyone can do it equally no matter where your course is located.

I agree golf has been fun for along time and I still think it is fun but another secret is that at most courses...in particular private, maintenance cost's are 18-20% of an overall budget.  I don't consider that to be a serious number since it occupies the largest area and drives these places.

Also are we talking sustainable from a natural resourse point of view or just plain what's affordable?

[JMEvensky]

Also are we talking sustainable from a natural resourse point of view or just plain what's affordable?

Why can't it be both?

Each has appeal to different segments.The trick is getting the members who want to do well (affordability) agree with the members who want to do good (natural resources).

[Aaron McMaster]

Also are we talking sustainable from a natural resourse point of view or just plain what's affordable?

Why can't it be both?

Each has appeal to different segments.The trick is getting the members who want to do well (affordability) agree with the members who want to do good (natural resources).

I think it can be both...I was just asking since this discussing seemed centered more around money than natural resourses.  At our club we are begining a renovation that is moving in both directions...more affordable to maintain plus using less natural resources.

[Jon Wiggett]

I'd still argue gang mowers are slow as heck and trying to mow among golfers is wasting money.  Tractors are a dying bread as a multi purpose machine.  They used to be solid for loaders, blowers and pulling mowers....they are expensive and simple to slow for all practices they used to be good for.  Turf type and how it's managed has a huge effect on firm and fast btw, yes along with soil type, rainfall or mother nature is always a huge factor, which was the only reason I was joking about how hard it is to give firm and fast no matter what you've done with your in areas such as Chicago and Seattle.  I say that since F and F get thrown around like everyone can do it equally no matter where your course is located.

Also are we talking sustainable from a natural resourse point of view or just plain what's affordable?

Aaron,

you are so sure about gangs and tractors that this is clearly stopping you from seeing the reality. I used to take 9 man hours to mow the fairways with a 5 unit dedicated mower but now only take 5 to do the same. The quality of cut is as good and the gangs will do both fairway and semi rough with a quick adjustment to the mowing height. Yes, you do have to look at the mowing pattern and it is not practical to diamond cut. The tractor is not only no more expensive than a dedicated mower but is useful for many different things. To avoid the golfers I usually find starting early morning does the trick. Failing that then you need a maintenance window building into the tee times.

For your last question I would suggest that sustainability from a natural resources point of view should be achieved by all golf facilities and from a cost point of view this really depends on the club and its budget.

Jon

[JC Jones]

America has plenty of water. 

This is absolutely not true.  Just take a look at the Colorado river, or what is left of it, after years of people moving to the desert and wanting golf courses, yards, agriculture, houses, etc.  There is a short list of things that have, perhaps irrevocably, ruined significant parts of the US's ecology and people living in the desert is high on that list.  We could do a lot for our environment if people didn't try to make Phoenix look like the Ohio valley.

[Mike Benham]

Whenever we have a discussion about sustainable golf, we always seem to talk about a lower level of course conditions.

The same argument for organic foods, such as fruits and vegetables, that are sold in their natural state.  They may not look as pretty on the outside, yet the quality is, at least perceived to be, better on the inside.

However, the food industry has yet to prove (or doesn't want to prove) that organic is cheaper but the masses continue to pay premium prices.

[Tom_Doak]

I agree golf has been fun for along time and I still think it is fun but another secret is that at most courses...in particular private, maintenance cost's are 18-20% of an overall budget.  I don't consider that to be a serious number since it occupies the largest area and drives these places.

Also are we talking sustainable from a natural resourse point of view or just plain what's affordable?

Aaron:

You are right that most people don't appreciate how small a % of the overall budget goes to golf course maintenance -- although, if your club is really at 18-20%, they must be wasting a hell of a lot of money somewhere else.

But I'm sure all of the other departments rationalize all their expenses the same way you just did.

Regarding your last question -- my experience is that if you were going to try to cut your budget, or try to maintain your course better from the standpoint of natural resources, no matter which it was you would make most of the same adjustments.

[JC Jones]

Whenever we have a discussion about sustainable golf, we always seem to talk about a lower level of course conditions.

The same argument for organic foods, such as fruits and vegetables, that are sold in their natural state.  They may not look as pretty on the outside, yet the quality is, at least perceived to be, better on the inside.

However, the food industry has yet to prove (or doesn't want to prove) that organic is cheaper but the masses continue to pay premium prices.

Organic foods aren't subsidized by your tax dollars.  Take away the subsidies for corn, soy, etc. and you'd see the real price of the "food" that you eat.

Moreover, 70 years ago we spent 17% of our budgets on food and 8% on healthcare, today those numbers are reversed.  Cheap food has ramifications beyond the cash register that make it, actually, not very cheap. 

If your only consideration on food is the price you pay at the store, organic will never win.  Take into account the tax subsidies for the food you buy at the store, the cost on your health and the cost on the environment with the petroleum needed to produce the food and organic will come out drastically ahead.

[Mike_Young]

At the risk of pissing a few off....
IMHO....
Business schools teach guys how to go out and try to operate a business for a profit.
But golf seems to be a little different.
You have two main business models in my opinion.
The private club model is where the supt presents a budget and the pro presents a budget and the Club manager presents a budget and the unknowing board reviews them and adjust budgets and dues to make it work.
The "for profit" owner operated, public,private or semi private course tells the staff.  Heres what we can charge and here what you need to run the place for.  Do it.
Don't get me wrong, I am 100% behind good golf supts and know that they are the most critical part of the equation in golf growing but the schools don't teach profit.  So often I have heard a conversation that goes like this:  Supt says:  " This is my reputation on the line so I need this much budget in order to give you these conditions and I can't risk doing less for my reputation.  If I don't produce a good product here then I may not get a better job."   What???  How many courses realize they are often stepping stones for guys seeking better jobs and the main goal is to convince a membership they need more budget so that they can produce a product that will make the "better" course down the street want to hire them?  There's too much bullshit being slung in the schools and the market.  And in many cases today the supts have never even mowed with a ground driven gang mower so it's hard to convince.  And the suppliers will certainly not convince you because the mower last too long and requires much less maintenance and parts.  Same for irrigation and chemicals.
PLEASE DON'T HIT ME

[Aaron McMaster]

At the risk of pissing a few off....
IMHO....
Business schools teach guys how to go out and try to operate a business for a profit.
But golf seems to be a little different.
You have two main business models in my opinion.
The private club model is where the supt presents a budget and the pro presents a budget and the Club manager presents a budget and the unknowing board reviews them and adjust budgets and dues to make it work.
The "for profit" owner operated, public,private or semi private course tells the staff.  Heres what we can charge and here what you need to run the place for.  Do it.
Don't get me wrong, I am 100% behind good golf supts and know that they are the most critical part of the equation in golf growing but the schools don't teach profit.  So often I have heard a conversation that goes like this:  Supt says:  " This is my reputation on the line so I need this much budget in order to give you these conditions and I can't risk doing less for my reputation.  If I don't produce a good product here then I may not get a better job."   What???  How many courses realize they are often stepping stones for guys seeking better jobs and the main goal is to convince a membership they need more budget so that they can produce a product that will make the "better" course down the street want to hire them?  There's too much bullshit being slung in the schools and the market.  And in many cases today the supts have never even mowed with a ground driven gang mower so it's hard to convince.  And the suppliers will certainly not convince you because the mower last too long and requires much less maintenance and parts.  Same for irrigation and chemicals.
PLEASE DON'T HIT ME

Mike

I'm not sure what sup's you hang around but it's not any I know and certainly since 2008 every sup I know has been asked to give the same conditions with much less.  Most sup's I know are extremely inovative and creative at getting things done or fabricating to solve problems so to make a blanket statement that were all trying to spend more or add to our budget to get a better job is alittle over the top.

I'm not going to reveal what my budget is but what I will tell you that might help you understand something about maintenance is this and we are a high end club.

Labor/insurance/taxes  68%
Equiment maint and irrig  4.5%
Chemicals/fertilizer 12%
Fuel 5%
Bunker sand, topsoil, sod 2%
supplies and such add to the last 8.5%

Man power is what drives every golf budget period.  Thank god for the flow of generic chemicals into the market that has driven cost down considerable and will continue to do so and if you add in new turfs hitting the market or gps driven sprayers you can see reductions of 50-60% of that chemical number.

Last...I'm going on a limb here to say you didn't attend school for turf and with having a BS in it I can tell you that I had plenty to tell me how to handle the business side.  I have to deal with CEO's, Lawyers, Doctors and the like so to say I can just BS them is off the mark.

If your at course that has two heights of cut...Greens and everything else I would say a gang mower is useful.  If your trying to cut bentgrass or bermuda grass fairways with them and you want quality not so much.

Btw, none of your comments tick me off...I love discussion.  Cheers  

[Aaron McMaster]

I agree golf has been fun for along time and I still think it is fun but another secret is that at most courses...in particular private, maintenance cost's are 18-20% of an overall budget.  I don't consider that to be a serious number since it occupies the largest area and drives these places.

Also are we talking sustainable from a natural resourse point of view or just plain what's affordable?

Aaron:

You are right that most people don't appreciate how small a % of the overall budget goes to golf course maintenance -- although, if your club is really at 18-20%, they must be wasting a hell of a lot of money somewhere else.

But I'm sure all of the other departments rationalize all their expenses the same way you just did.

Regarding your last question -- my experience is that if you were going to try to cut your budget, or try to maintain your course better from the standpoint of natural resources, no matter which it was you would make most of the same adjustments.

Tom if you add in our golf pros department we still only reach about 23-25% of total costs....God knows where all that money goes, we sups and pros talk about it all the time.  It's the worst use of resources in the business, obviously just my opninion and that's where I think the model is broken.  Our club has spent millions on clubhouse remodels and never once did it become smaller....I can only imagine what the heat and air condition bills run for it!!  That building could perform the same function and he half the size.

[Mike_Young]

At the risk of pissing a few off....
IMHO....
Business schools teach guys how to go out and try to operate a business for a profit.
But golf seems to be a little different.
You have two main business models in my opinion.
The private club model is where the supt presents a budget and the pro presents a budget and the Club manager presents a budget and the unknowing board reviews them and adjust budgets and dues to make it work.
The "for profit" owner operated, public,private or semi private course tells the staff.  Heres what we can charge and here what you need to run the place for.  Do it.
Don't get me wrong, I am 100% behind good golf supts and know that they are the most critical part of the equation in golf growing but the schools don't teach profit.  So often I have heard a conversation that goes like this:  Supt says:  " This is my reputation on the line so I need this much budget in order to give you these conditions and I can't risk doing less for my reputation.  If I don't produce a good product here then I may not get a better job."   What???  How many courses realize they are often stepping stones for guys seeking better jobs and the main goal is to convince a membership they need more budget so that they can produce a product that will make the "better" course down the street want to hire them?  There's too much bullshit being slung in the schools and the market.  And in many cases today the supts have never even mowed with a ground driven gang mower so it's hard to convince.  And the suppliers will certainly not convince you because the mower last too long and requires much less maintenance and parts.  Same for irrigation and chemicals.
PLEASE DON'T HIT ME

Mike

I'm not sure what sup's you hang around but it's not any I know and certainly since 2008 every sup I know has been asked to give the same conditions with much less.  Most sup's I know are extremely inovative and creative at getting things done or fabricating to solve problems so to make a blanket statement that were all trying to spend more or add to our budget to get a better job is alittle over the top.

I'm not going to reveal what my budget is but what I will tell you that might help you understand something about maintenance is this and we are a high end club.

Labor/insurance/taxes  68%
Equiment maint and irrig  4.5%
Chemicals/fertilizer 12%
Fuel 5%
Bunker sand, topsoil, sod 2%
supplies and such add to the last 8.5%

Man power is what drives every golf budget period.  Thank god for the flow of generic chemicals into the market that has driven cost down considerable and will continue to do so and if you add in new turfs hitting the market or gps driven sprayers you can see reductions of 50-60% of that chemical number.

Last...I'm going on a limb here to say you didn't attend school for turf and with having a BS in it I can tell you that I had plenty to tell me how to handle the business side.  I have to deal with CEO's, Lawyers, Doctors and the like so to say I can just bullshit them is off the mark.

If your at course that has two heights of cut...Greens and everything else I would say a gang mower is useful.  If your trying to cut bentgrass or bermuda grass fairways with them and you want quality not so much.

Btw, none of your comments tick me off...I love discussion.  Cheers  

Hello AAron,
I don't get ticked off at entertainment chat room discussions so fire away...
I have been around a few supts   And my statement was clarified as not being blanket.  But I do think the schools are a problem as well as the associations.  However, rest assured the market will correct much of this. 

You say:
"Last...I'm going on a limb here to say you didn't attend school for turf and with having a BS in it I can tell you that I had plenty to tell me how to handle the business side. "
If it was professors telling you how to handle the business side..they have zero clue and most could not run your golf operation.
I did not attend an accredited turfgrass school but I have seen a lot of BS in it ...
Your numbers look ok except I usually see labor down around 60 to 64%.
You say: "I have to deal with CEO's, Lawyers, Doctors and the like so to say I can just bullshit them is off the mark."
I say most supts can BS all of these types....that's  one reason why we are in the mess we are with golf....and they continue to be BS'ed.
With all due respect almost any supt can BS

[Aaron McMaster]

At the risk of pissing a few off....
IMHO....
Business schools teach guys how to go out and try to operate a business for a profit.
But golf seems to be a little different.
You have two main business models in my opinion.
The private club model is where the supt presents a budget and the pro presents a budget and the Club manager presents a budget and the unknowing board reviews them and adjust budgets and dues to make it work.
The "for profit" owner operated, public,private or semi private course tells the staff.  Heres what we can charge and here what you need to run the place for.  Do it.
Don't get me wrong, I am 100% behind good golf supts and know that they are the most critical part of the equation in golf growing but the schools don't teach profit.  So often I have heard a conversation that goes like this:  Supt says:  " This is my reputation on the line so I need this much budget in order to give you these conditions and I can't risk doing less for my reputation.  If I don't produce a good product here then I may not get a better job."   What???  How many courses realize they are often stepping stones for guys seeking better jobs and the main goal is to convince a membership they need more budget so that they can produce a product that will make the "better" course down the street want to hire them?  There's too much bullshit being slung in the schools and the market.  And in many cases today the supts have never even mowed with a ground driven gang mower so it's hard to convince.  And the suppliers will certainly not convince you because the mower last too long and requires much less maintenance and parts.  Same for irrigation and chemicals.
PLEASE DON'T HIT ME

Mike

I'm not sure what sup's you hang around but it's not any I know and certainly since 2008 every sup I know has been asked to give the same conditions with much less.  Most sup's I know are extremely inovative and creative at getting things done or fabricating to solve problems so to make a blanket statement that were all trying to spend more or add to our budget to get a better job is alittle over the top.

I'm not going to reveal what my budget is but what I will tell you that might help you understand something about maintenance is this and we are a high end club.

Labor/insurance/taxes  68%
Equiment maint and irrig  4.5%
Chemicals/fertilizer 12%
Fuel 5%
Bunker sand, topsoil, sod 2%
supplies and such add to the last 8.5%

Man power is what drives every golf budget period.  Thank god for the flow of generic chemicals into the market that has driven cost down considerable and will continue to do so and if you add in new turfs hitting the market or gps driven sprayers you can see reductions of 50-60% of that chemical number.

Last...I'm going on a limb here to say you didn't attend school for turf and with having a BS in it I can tell you that I had plenty to tell me how to handle the business side.  I have to deal with CEO's, Lawyers, Doctors and the like so to say I can just bullshit them is off the mark.

If your at course that has two heights of cut...Greens and everything else I would say a gang mower is useful.  If your trying to cut bentgrass or bermuda grass fairways with them and you want quality not so much.

Btw, none of your comments tick me off...I love discussion.  Cheers  

Hello AAron,
I don't get ticked off at entertainment chat room discussions so fire away...
I have been around a few supts   And my statement was clarified as not being blanket.  But I do think the schools are a problem as well as the associations.  However, rest assured the market will correct much of this. 

You say:
"Last...I'm going on a limb here to say you didn't attend school for turf and with having a BS in it I can tell you that I had plenty to tell me how to handle the business side. "
If it was professors telling you how to handle the business side..they have zero clue and most could not run your golf operation.
I did not attend an accredited turfgrass school but I have seen a lot of BS in it ...
Your numbers look ok except I usually see labor down around 60 to 64%.
You say: "I have to deal with CEO's, Lawyers, Doctors and the like so to say I can just bullshit them is off the mark."
I say most supts can BS all of these types....that's  one reason why we are in the mess we are with golf....and they continue to be BS'ed.
With all due respect almost any supt can BS

Mike your kind of proving my point....if you didn't attend how can you say "you have seen a lot of BS in it"  My college experience gave me a foundation it's not like both turf and business models are the same as when I graduated (hate to say) 18 years ago.  It prepared me to be ready to adapt, change and be open to new ideas.  My same professors, still visit yearly and they are constantly looking at how we've adapted to new models or practices to incorporate to the current crop of students.

My labor is probably slightly higher due to serious increases in health care or maybe they pay me too much. 
Health Care 7% of budget if you pulled it out of what I call Labor.

I'd say the entire world is full of BS types, it certainly isn't limited to turf or golf but when a guy who used to be CFO of Ford and is used to wielding a sledgehammer looks at you and says here's how much money you have get it done.  There isn't much room for BSing. 

I just think overall your painting with a broad brush in general.

One of the reason's I asked earlier about is sustainable natural resoursces or money is what doesn't seem to be talked about much here (now I'm new so it could be in another thread somewhere) is how long it takes to play the game.  Being around it everyday, I think time is as much as factor too golfs problem of how sustainable is the money/business model going forward.  I love the game but just don't understand why people can't play 18 holes in 3 hours.  Why not look at the possibility of some 12 holes courses that are maybe structured with a small range and 4 3-holes loops so someone could hit balls and play 6 holes after work.  That would be a lot cheaper and sustainable.

[Ben Sims]

Aaron,

When it comes to Mike, he's got MORE THAN ENOUGH experience at both ends to see what works, what doesn't and what is just rhetoric.  His son manages golf courses, he owns and manages a few courses himself, he has designed and built them in multiple countries, he was an employee with Toro for quite a long time, is very close to several "big names" in the business, and is a member of a course that has had a unique experience with regard to how to sell BS.  His opinion should carry weight with you.

And coming from someone that is currently a turf student, quite a few of my essays have dealt with the topic of using scientific analysis to prove why the expensive sand is better, why the fungicide may save your job, and why the lightweight $50K mower reduces compaction.  

[Aaron McMaster]

Aaron,

When it comes to Mike, he's got MORE THAN ENOUGH experience at both ends to see what works, what doesn't and what is just rhetoric.  His son manages golf courses, he owns and manages a few courses himself, he has designed and built them in multiple countries, he was an employee with Toro for quite a long time, is very close to several "big names" in the business, and is a member of a course that has had a unique experience with regard to how to sell BS.  His opinion should carry weight with you.

And coming from someone that is currently a turf student, quite a few of my essays have dealt with the topic of using scientific analysis to prove why the expensive sand is better, why the fungicide may save your job, and why the lightweight $50K mower reduces compaction.  

Ben, I'm sure he does have experience, I'm just saying he's tossing out quite a few blanket statements and he seems like he'd be fun to sit back talk golf and have a cold beer with...it's just discussion. 


You said "And coming from someone that is currently a turf student, quite a few of my essays have dealt with the topic of using scientific analysis to prove why the expensive sand is better, why the fungicide may save your job, and why the lightweight $50K mower reduces compaction."

I don't know what any of that means to what I've said...I'm not here advocating no fungicide and I've already harped enough on gang mowers but I'd be interested in your scientific analysis of why expensive sand is better since in most cases the reason it's expensive is color...not playing characteristics and usually when one wants color the shipping cost can be ourageous.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()