What is the Future of American Private Club Golf?

[Mike_Young]

There will continue to be private clubs but they will not be positioned the same.
The average private club member in the US is approx 58 years old.  And that has increased so we know what that means.  The two earner household has also had an affect because the weekend golfer is expected to do things where in the past he had the weekend for golf and kids later.  Now we have soccer/BB/Basketball etc and duties are shared.  The other item that has affected private clubs in my area is the overwhelming expense of a clubhouse and the constant need for justification of these monsters by GM's and boards.  When towns had no alcohol policies the private country club, Elks club and VFW were the only places for dinner and drinks.  Now the dining is competing with a glut of restaurants.  Also our daughters are not wanting the country club weddings of yesterday.  So, IMHO many of these clubs can remain private and offer a very good quality golf experience once the clubhouse issues are grasped and ELIMINATED BUT it has to be realized and addressed....competing with four or five golf courses in an area is one thing but paying dues to eat a hamburger while you compete with 50 food establishments is a completely different issue.

[Andrew Buck]

The two earner household has also had an affect because the weekend golfer is expected to do things where in the past he had the weekend for golf and kids later.  Now we have soccer/BB/Basketball etc and duties are shared.

I think it is just a change in family expectations all together.  It may be as much that the wife has the "potential" to earn, as that they do earn.  If I sample a relatively large group of friends, I think the wives who previously were successful in business but stay home have a harder time when the husband takes off for hours than those that work.  Spending 6 - 7 hours at the Club means the wife who had 50 - 60 hours alone with the kids during the week while the husband was at work is asked to "work overtime" by tending to the kids alone for more time. 

[Mark Chaplin]

The majority of new members at my clubs come from friends of existing members, no need to solicit when that's free and you know the quality of the applicant. If you advertise you need a very robust system to weed out the unsuitable.

[John Kavanaugh]

You would have to pry my private club membership out of my cold dead hands. Despite the occasionally rude ignorant guest I love my fellow members. I would quit the game if I had to play with strangers day after day. Private courses will survive as long as there are inconsiderate golfers and my guess is that will be for quite some time.

I also think there is value in private golf for no-hassle tee times (or none at all) and public play suffers from morbidly slow (5+ hour) rounds.  The perceived ease and convenience of a private facility is worth something.  I also like that I don't have to whip out my credit card every time I play golf....prepaying dues takes the sting out 364 days of the year, even though I realize I spend much, much more on the private side. 

Jeff D - without naming names, how many of the 8 clubs you quit are having problems today?  I'd guess they are REALLY good clubs and unless they're strictly destination clubs, most are still relatively difficult to get into.  Not making a statement on your post, just curious.  I had 3, dropped 1 a couple years ago b/c I would play it once or twice a year at most.  Don't think they're full, but not hurting as far as I can tell.  You do raise an interesting point, at some level it just doesn't make sense to own all of them and be happy with the occasional visit.

Hi John.

I think super slow play is for the most part a fallacy. There is no doubt that private play is faster than public play but unless you play the busiest public tracks at the busiest times, 4 to 4.5 hours is more the norm, at least in my experience. Due to work I almost exclusively play on the weekends and the key is an early tee time. I'll play this Sunday at my local muni and we will tee off at 7:28am. Hackers rarely want to play that early and we should be done in 4.25 hours walking the course.

Of course there are horror stories but if you choose the right course at the right time you can play relatively quickly. Nothing beats the Private Club conditions, courses and quality of players but our green fees will be about $30.00 and the course is nice and always in good condition.

Maybe I like playing slow. I think far too many golfers head off to the course with the expectation of being unhappy.  I get the Goldilocks tee time  most everytime I play.

[Mike Sweeney]

 I get the Goldilocks tee time  most everytime I play.

John,

This is like Pat Mucci telling us how Seminole, Pine Valley and National are run as private clubs. Congratulations, you live in the middle of nowhere, so you get to break the Sherman Act and you get the Goldilocks tee times.

Now for the rest of us, how much would you be willing to pay for that Goldilocks tee time in NYC area? And please don't give us the babe in the woods routine. You know how to cut the line at Shake Shack....

[John Kavanaugh]

I could not afford the Goldilocks tee time in New York but I can afford a plane ticket and rental car to Dismal.  This is where the membership at private destination clubs becomes viable.

I saw the Shake Shack founder on 60 minutes this week. Brought back some great memories.

[Mike Sweeney]

The majority of new members at my clubs come from friends of existing members, no need to solicit when that's free and you know the quality of the applicant. If you advertise you need a very robust system to weed out the unsuitable.

Mark,

Today the two models are still not comparable, but the American model is moving more your way. Deal is not a private club in the traditional American model, and one quick Google search brings up a bunch of coupons for public play at Deal:

http://www.golfbreaks.com/royal-cinque-ports-golf-club/special-offers.aspx

Today in America, you have a variety of ways and options to play private clubs as an outsider (reciprocal, unescorted, friend of Pat Mucci, Outpost Club, outings...)  but Google is not one of them for the most part, yet

[John Kavanaugh]

Let's not discount the fact that there will always be a class of golfer who pays dues knowing full well that he does so others can enjoy his course at a much reduced rate. There is a fine line between stupidity and generosity.

[Sean_A]

Mike

A lot of times those "deals" really aren't deals.  Plus, you have to play where the so called deal takes you.  Hence the headline course is buffered by two others which are not terribly attractive.  So now the deal hunter has committed to two nights and three days to play the one course worth playing.  

I think in the US things will just churn along.  I don't see a need to panic or worry.  Many middle class clubs will die on the vine, become some sort of public course or remain private as low key joints.  That isn't a situation which should be alarming.  Is the middle class private club culture really that important to the game of golf in the US?

I know that if I moved back to the States it would be a very hard adjustment for golf.  I admit to being very fortunate.  I would probably look into forming my own club which plays over public courses.  Whitty's club is quite impressive and a good blueprint on how to move forward.

Ciao  

[Jud_T]

From a GCA perspective, I'm not sure all of this is bad news.  Aside from the toniest zip codes, the focus will be more on value for money and putting the $$'s into the most important asset, i.e. the golf and doing away with all the other extraneous nonsense, including excessive amounts of water!

[John Kavanaugh]

From a GCA perspective, I'm not sure all of this is bad news.  Aside from the toniest zip codes, the focus will be more on value for money and putting the $$'s into the most important asset, i.e. the golf and doing away with all the other extraneous nonsense, including excessive amounts of water!

Jud,

Won't you keep paying dues at Kingsley even knowing you could access the course through cheaper methods?  Does this make you feel stupid?

[Steve Kline]

Good point. Even my club which can't afford to turn away anyone short of a infamous axe murderer or the dictator of North Korea does not have one its web page a clear "Here's what it costs to be a member" but instead gets by with a general solicitation to get in touch for complete membership information. Seems strange in the current day and age.

I just joined the club I played at as a kid and had a junior membership at for a few years after college. I looked at numerous club websites in my city and could not find the cost of membership on any of their websites. They always want you to contact them. This is very annoying. I presume they do this for two reasons: 1) they want to meet you to sell you and 2) they are don't want others to know the price or are afraid of turning you off at the cost. Instead of being concerned about the price, cllubs should be promoting the virtues of joining. In this day and age of price transparency and the internet, it is a really annoying and a big turnoff to not be able to easily find the price without having to contact you.

[Brent Hutto]

From a GCA perspective, I'm not sure all of this is bad news.  Aside from the toniest zip codes, the focus will be more on value for money and putting the $$'s into the most important asset, i.e. the golf and doing away with all the other extraneous nonsense, including excessive amounts of water!

Well that won't happen at my club. For various political/historical reasons I believe in my heart of hearts that some of the extraneous nonsense will continue to be paid for right up until the coffers are empty and the power is shut off to the clubhouse. Even if it were to mean doing away with things essential to the continued health and viability of the golf course. My club is fairly equally split between members for whom "extraneous nonsense" is the entire idea and those who are golf-first. And the golf-first contingent seems to be dying or leaving the club at a slightly faster rate than the lifestyle-oriented ones, as well as not being replentished as readily.

[Steve Kline]

From a GCA perspective, I'm not sure all of this is bad news.  Aside from the toniest zip codes, the focus will be more on value for money and putting the $$'s into the most important asset, i.e. the golf and doing away with all the other extraneous nonsense, including excessive amounts of water!

Well that won't happen at my club. For various political/historical reasons I believe in my heart of hearts that some of the extraneous nonsense will continue to be paid for right up until the coffers are empty and the power is shut off to the clubhouse. Even if it were to mean doing away with things essential to the continued health and viability of the golf course. My club is fairly equally split between members for whom "extraneous nonsense" is the entire idea and those who are golf-first. And the golf-first contingent seems to be dying or leaving the club at a slightly faster rate than the lifestyle-oriented ones, as well as not being replentished as readily.

From my experience, Brent hits the nail on the head here. For many of these guys, the club is a status thing and they want to be able say theirs is better than the ones across town. So, if they don't have all the same amenities and the greenest course then their clubis something less than the others. I can't find a club in my area that truly would fit my desires. But, my club is just five minutes from house and its easy to walk and has a nice practice facility.

[JMEvensky]

Well that won't happen at my club. For various political/historical reasons I believe in my heart of hearts that some of the extraneous nonsense will continue to be paid for right up until the coffers are empty and the power is shut off to the clubhouse. Even if it were to mean doing away with things essential to the continued health and viability of the golf course. My club is fairly equally split between members for whom "extraneous nonsense" is the entire idea and those who are golf-first. And the golf-first contingent seems to be dying or leaving the club at a slightly faster rate than the lifestyle-oriented ones, as well as not being replentished as readily.

I agree.For most clubs/memberships,it's the golf course which has become the "extraneous nonsense".

[Jud_T]

From a GCA perspective, I'm not sure all of this is bad news.  Aside from the toniest zip codes, the focus will be more on value for money and putting the $$'s into the most important asset, i.e. the golf and doing away with all the other extraneous nonsense, including excessive amounts of water!

Jud,

Won't you keep paying dues at Kingsley even knowing you could access the course through cheaper methods?  Does this make you feel stupid?

Not for the amount of rounds my family and I get in.  I do, however, understand that we have a reciprocal arrangement with one of those dogtrack Nebraska faux links.   

[Josh Stevens]

On the basis of the dollar amounts I hear, I suspect there is not a great future.  It does seem a lot.  I am not absolutely sure, but I suspect the most expensive club in Australia would be perhaps $20k nomination fee and perhaps $4k per year.  How on earth a club needs to charge more than that is utterly beyond me - numerous posters have said it, lots of extraneous nonsense.

But then again there are other sources of revenue.  In the UK and Aus, even the most elite clubs allow corporate groups, trade days, and interstate/oversease visitors without a member.  This is a lot of money that the closed US clubs do not get access to.

Then there is the reciprocal system - being a member of one club in effect makes you a member of 10 others around the country and so no need for multiple memberships.

And then there is the structure.  FOr a club to be coinsidered "private" it must be owned by the members, not some corporate entity.  MOst of these are old and so the land value is not an issue as it was paid for 80- years ago.  My club (and therefore by extension, me) owns a peice of realestate worth perhaps $1bn, and yet it sits on our accounts at a value of $6000, because that is what it cost back in the 20's.  What would the fees be if it had to be rebuilt today, I shudder to think? 
My club is the most expensive in town by some margin and yet is full with people queuing to join.  $10k nomination and $4k per year - great course, good location, excellent facilities, good people, but no valets, no locker room attendants.  Put that course in the US and from what I am told, you would have to multiply those numbers by 5. 

[Carl Johnson]

From a GCA perspective, I'm not sure all of this is bad news.  Aside from the toniest zip codes, the focus will be more on value for money and putting the $$'s into the most important asset, i.e. the golf and doing away with all the other extraneous nonsense, including excessive amounts of water!

Well that won't happen at my club. For various political/historical reasons I believe in my heart of hearts that some of the extraneous nonsense will continue to be paid for right up until the coffers are empty and the power is shut off to the clubhouse. Even if it were to mean doing away with things essential to the continued health and viability of the golf course. My club is fairly equally split between members for whom "extraneous nonsense" is the entire idea and those who are golf-first. And the golf-first contingent seems to be dying or leaving the club at a slightly faster rate than the lifestyle-oriented ones, as well as not being replentished as readily.

Brent captures the crux of it.  The American golf club model is not really a "golf" club model.  It's a model based on class and status.  The USA is very much, or has been, a class conscientious society.  We don't have estates and titles, but the idea has been that money can buy class or status.  I do not know how the American "golf club" thing will play out.  I could see three models.  The old money (or the type) at the old clubs on Long Island or the Oakmonts, etc., will survive just fine.  Some of the wannabes in local markets will survive, for the same reason.  But other local market wannabes will be under duress.  The question is whether there is room in the USA for a third model - just a golf club.  Old money is not the driver.  Social wannabe prestiege is not the model.  But just golf is the model.  My sense as an outsider is that in GB this model works, but will it work in the USA?  That, to me, is the question.  I do not know the answer.  I't like to think that we (USA folks) could make that model work, but . . . .

P.S. I know I'll take flack for this, but I think that for the future of the American golf club the secret is getting more women involved in GOLF.

[C. Squier]

Good point. Even my club which can't afford to turn away anyone short of a infamous axe murderer or the dictator of North Korea does not have one its web page a clear "Here's what it costs to be a member" but instead gets by with a general solicitation to get in touch for complete membership information. Seems strange in the current day and age.

Yep.  Of course this doesn't apply to the elite clubs or those that are thriving, but there lack of information for clubs in need of members is bad business, imo.  Any "product" that wont provide a price without getting a sales pitch "like a timeshare" screams bad deal to me.

As I said in the post above yours, it's because most US clubs enjoy tax exempt status.  If you advertise, your club may be deemed to be no longer operating for the "enjoyment of its members", but for profit. 

So, in effect, you're right about it being bad for business....b/c it's not a business in the eyes of the IRS.  The second it becomes one, goodbye tax exempt status.  Prospective members need to be "recruited" by current members which is why you always see "invitation only" when you know darn well a phone call and a check will likely get a new member in at many, many clubs. 

[BHoover]

Royal St George's has around a dozen green keeping staff, Royal Cinque Ports has eight. How many decent US member clubs have less than 20?

In UK member owned clubs you won't find bag drops, more than one locker room attendant, membership managers and function managers. Serious cost cutting is how US clubs will survive.

I agree that too many clubs in the US are focused on offering extraneous features that, when it comes down to it, are merely useless frills. Personally, I'd be fine with a starter shack/pro shop, practice range and golf course. But I know that many folks, particularly those with families, want tennis courts, a pool and other "family-friendly" features.

With respect to smaller greens keeping staffs, I have to wonder whether being in the UK has something to do with it. When your course is built on sand and rarely sees oppressive heat and humidity, is it easier to maintain the course with fewer staff? But when the course is built on heavy soils and is faced with killer summer heat and humidity (not to mention too many trees that impede turf growth), can a course get by with the smaller staff that a UK club can have? Just wondering.

The other thing to keep in mind is that, because of tax laws, a tax-exempt club in the US cannot allow guest play like a club in the UK can. If the club generates excessive revenue from guest play, that revenue is taxable as unrelated business income (UBI) and can result in loss of tax-exempt status.

If possible, I'd welcome the UK model here in the US. Focus on a golf course that is fun to play and operates on a reasonable and sustainable budget and eliminate the frills. But I don't see it happening anytime soon...at least on a widespread basis.

[Brent Hutto]

Our membership considers it somewhat shameful that during the current wintry economic climate not every single bunker on the course gets groomed every single morning. For the longest period of time we were supposedly cutting costs and paring expenses to the bone yet 27 holes with nearly 70 bunkers were being groomed daily just because that had always been the standard of maintenance.

And I doubt things will ever get "economized" to the extent that we don't have an attendant driving a golf cart out to the parking lot to schlep golf clubs from the member's trunk onto the cart and then drive them up to the clubhouse. A distance of about 40-70 yards from car to door. Every time the Board talks about all the extremely vigilant and budget-sensitive steps being taken these last few years I just look at those guys hauling people across the parking lot and shake my head.

A typical USA country club wouldn't know a necessary expense from "extraneous nonsense" if it bit them on the ass. In fact, many club asses have been getting a right good chomping since about 2008 and they still don't know they're being bit.

[Andrew Buck]

Good point. Even my club which can't afford to turn away anyone short of a infamous axe murderer or the dictator of North Korea does not have one its web page a clear "Here's what it costs to be a member" but instead gets by with a general solicitation to get in touch for complete membership information. Seems strange in the current day and age.

Yep.  Of course this doesn't apply to the elite clubs or those that are thriving, but there lack of information for clubs in need of members is bad business, imo.  Any "product" that wont provide a price without getting a sales pitch "like a timeshare" screams bad deal to me.

As I said in the post above yours, it's because most US clubs enjoy tax exempt status.  If you advertise, your club may be deemed to be no longer operating for the "enjoyment of its members", but for profit.  

So, in effect, you're right about it being bad for business....b/c it's not a business in the eyes of the IRS.  The second it becomes one, goodbye tax exempt status.  Prospective members need to be "recruited" by current members which is why you always see "invitation only" when you know darn well a phone call and a check will likely get a new member in at many, many clubs.  

Makes sense, but as long as there are annual assessments to cover the shortfall, I'm not too worried about the tax consequences at our club. 

[Wayne_Kozun]

But I know that many folks, particularly those with families, want tennis courts, a pool and other "family-friendly" features.

Here in Canada we essentially have the US model and very few clubs in the Toronto area have waiting lisst and almost all have ageing memberships.  But the clubs that seem to be doing better are the family friendly places that have these features.

The other feature not really discussed here is tee access in prime time.  At my club there has been some discussion around whether we should allow couples to play on weekend mornings.  Obviously this is a highly contentious issue but there is a feeling from some that couples want to play together at any time.  But we are an equity club and initiations are much lower for spouses as are annual dues.  And in my perspective most of the younger guys joining (<50) are joining without the wife.  But we do have full equity female members that play on weekend mornings but this isn't an issue as they are paying the full freight and all of the guys are used to it.

[Josh Stevens]

Is the class and status system really that prevelent in the US?  Play Royal Melbourne on any given comp day and you have as much chance of playing along side a captain of industry as a plumber.  Would farting, or pissing in the bushes be frowned upon at Pine Valley?

[Wayne_Kozun]

Is the class and status system really that prevelent in the US?  Play Royal Melbourne on any given comp day and you have as much chance of playing along side a captain of industry as a plumber.  Would farting, or pissing in the bushes be frowned upon at Pine Valley?

Pissing in the bushes is fine but there is very little chance of playing with a plumber at a North American club, although plumber's make good money here.