Are 'traditions' killing the traditional UK golf club?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Josh - I would not want to be in the same golf club as you. I feel quite ashamed that British golf clubs are like that. Fortunately we dont have any like that around here.

[Josh Stevens]

that's cool, no offense.  All I can say is that we have a hoot of a time and are immensely welcoming of visitors, who also have a hoot of time.  All these perceptions of elitism are purely external - to each his own.  Or perhaps, the land of the free and all that stuff

[Jon Wiggett]

Josh,

I am guessing you are actually not here in the UK. I understand what you mean and I like getting dressed up when the occasion calls for it but the way you phrased it was a sign of distinction that definitely separates you from the masses.

Adrian,

my experience of most high brow golf clubs has been great. Having said that the one exception was the worst experience I have ever had. I think there is room for all types of club so long as they can carry it with dignity .

Jon

[Josh Stevens]

Australia - so a little more relaxed, but the traditions remain intact.  In the UK, at the risk of making a terrible generalisation, the higher up the tree you go, the more welcoming it becomes.

Read a book called "Watching the English" by Kate Fox.  I was given a copy when I moved to London many years ago - it is hilarious, but also so accurate as to be scary.

In essence, the theory goes that it is the middle class that is the problem.  The working class and the upper class are entirely comfortable with themselves and so are very relaxed and very welcoming.  Put this in golf context and if you show up to a  public course or to Muirfield, Sunningdale or Sandwhich and you have a wonderful time, get pissed to the back teeth with the members and struggle to find your way home - assuming you dress correctly.  This is certainly my experience.

But on the other hand, show up to a 2nd or 3rd tier club of middle class wannabes and they will sniff at you.

It does seem to be more of an insecurity issue rather than elitism.

[Brent Hutto]

All this palaver makes me glad that golf is simply an activity I do for the fresh air and recreational value. If the game for me came freighted with all the baggage it seems to for some of you guys, I'd take up shuffleboard or something rather than try to cope.

[David_Elvins]

90% of clubs have no waiting list or joining fee. They are on the knife-edge of survival yet have no idea of what their potential market actually wants.

If clubs without joining fees are struggling for survival, the logical first step to a healthy future is to start having a joining fee.  

There is no reason for any club of any type in any part of the world to not have a joining fee.  It is illogical.  

[Mark Pearce]

Duncan

I've been a member of 5 different clubs in the UK, two just over the border in England and three in Scotland. All bar one were local clubs and the other was a men only top 100 club. In none of them was the Captain addressed as Mr Captain or any such thing on a habitual basis. The only time I heard that was when one of his pals was having a laugh or pulling his leg about something. With regards to office bearers having prime parking spots, well good luck to them. I think the ordinary member has an inkling how these largely unpaid "officials" work hard for the club in their own time and appreciate their efforts even if they don't agree with every decision.

Frankly, can't help thinking that you're largely imagining all this class warfare pish.

Niall  

At last.  This is my experience and two of the clubs I am or have been a member of would be considered very "proper".

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

90% of clubs have no waiting list or joining fee. They are on the knife-edge of survival yet have no idea of what their potential market actually wants.

If clubs without joining fees are struggling for survival, the logical first step to a healthy future is to start having a joining fee.  

There is no reason for any club of any type in any part of the world to not have a joining fee.  It is illogical.  

David,

I don't understand your logic. If a product is not being shifted from the shelves, you don't make it more expensive. Clubs that had hefty entrance fees during the boom times have had to slash or eliminate them in order to make the price of joining more attractive. I know for sure it has happened in both Ireland and Sweden, and I'm sure it's being done in the UK as well.

[Thomas Dai]

Donal,

If you don't mind me chipping in here, the subject of entrance/initiation fees is also currently being discussed on another spread - the thread about your ideal club - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,57261.0.html

It's certainly an area that attracts different perspectives and I understand your comparison to products not shifting from the shelves and not then making more expensive. However, there is another side and this is how I attempted to explain it on the other thread -

"The membership (the owners) of my club in the UK have debated the appropriateness of joining/initiation fees numerous times over the years and we've kept with them.

A couple of reasons why - encourages long-term membership, less cut-n-run to some other club/course that is maybe annually less expensive - and fairness, we're a member owned club so those who've paid a joining/initiation fee in the past are (not surprisingly really) peeved at the idea of newcomers joining without paying a joining/initiation fee.

In the UK the joining/initiation fee would typically be in the region of one year's membership fee/dues. Many clubs these days have however, relaxed the payment of the joining/initiation fee from a once-off up-front payment to payment over a period of years, say 3,4 or 5 yrs.

Also, if you join the club at a young enough age, not just as a junior but also as what we call intermediate (sliding scale of fees up to age 30), you don't have to pay the joining/initiation fee, the assumption being that you've probably not got the money to pay it and that you're likely to be a full member of the club for many, many years so will over time make a significant financial contribution in any case. We''ll see how this second assumption works out in the long-term as it's to date not been in operation for that long a period."

All the best.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Frankly, can't help thinking that you're largely imagining all this class warfare pish.

Niall  

At last.  This is my experience and two of the clubs I am or have been a member of would be considered very "proper".

I don’t agree with this perspective at all. For the past two summers I’ve played 9 holes with two young Gardiners. Great guys who could be very good golfers after they’ve given up football and chasing girls.  I haven’t discussed it in depth with them but they are clear that there is no interest in visiting what they call a ‘proper’ golf club.  The view from new golfers I talk to outside of clubs, is that they are perceived as being inhospitable, I hear it a lot.  With the no of pay and play courses available they do not see a Club as part of their future.  This might change as they get older or play more if it looks sufficiently attractive.

 The mobile phone is ACTUALLY GREAT FOR GOLF as it allows people time to play.

Interesting argument Adrian.  I think in future this will be recognised as the dividing line, clubs who do allow phones on the course and the minority who don’t.


If the Golf club has less of a social role today, are the traditions as important?  When we remove our hats and shake hands with our opponent at the end of the round we are following the Medieval Code of Chivalry established when Knights greeted each other with their masks removed and offering their sword hand in greeting.  Outside of golf I rarely wear a hat and I also note that many young men today are less quick to accept my outstretched hand in greeting and never think of removing their beanies.  There has been discussion on here decrying players during the Ryder Cup who hug their caddies before shaking hands with their opponents, so where do non club players get their lead from?  It will be a sad day if this tradition at the end of the round totally dies out.

But where to draw the line?

When I’m retired I will certainly prefer to play at Club’s who don’t allow phones, but then I recognise I’ll be getting older, fussier and closer to death. Hope that’s not true of the clubs as well.

[Adam Lawrence]

I think this is a case of people arguing from different perspectives. To be quite honest, it isn't important whether we, regular golfers who get to play at some of the best venues around, perceive golf clubs as welcoming or not. What matters is whether any reputation that clubs might have is putting off potential members. And in that respect I think it is pretty unarguable that it is. Duncan's comparison of golf clubs to the Freemasons is on point, I'm afraid - that is how we are perceived in a large portion of society.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adam - I think that is definitley the view of the younger set or even non golfers. I think nearly all UK clubs realise the problem and have done something about it. The point has been made my many on here that plenty of 'the top 100 club' are more customer friendly now and most are very relaxed. We dont have reserved parking, just a few disabled spots, anytime it has been brought up I have quashed it and explained we are a modern club and its just not what we are about. We dont allow jeans on the course, but thats almost a standard dress code. We dont ban them in the clubhouse but it is rare to see someone in denims.

I think the joining fee situation is another product or problem that has evolved with the under 40s but coupled with the over supply.

I have always been strongly in favour of retaining a joining fee, I dont want to work with third party tee times people. I dont want to Join PGA city. The golf club needs that money to function, there is not much surplus as it is, so giving away 25% of your take is dopey.

The real problem exists for me if others do it. I can't control what they do. As soon as they enter death spiral it is possible that others get vacumed in as well, because the others have set the price and the deals. Whilst a golf course is different to another the majority see price as the major factor.  So, if the golf clubs near you do not charge a joining fee its bloody hard for you to do it. It is more of a problem when a similar standard course offers better deals than you do. Celtic Manor offer fantastic offers and I lose trade to them.

I know from talking to potential members the word JOINING FEE is a hated word.

This year I moved my goalposts and I dropped the Joining fee as such and I introduced a two tier pricing, wherby our full membership is £1040 per year but if you have been a member for 6 years you get a £150 per year LOYALTY DISCOUNT.

LOYALTY  is a word people like. All I did was drop the £1000 joining fee and inflated the annual subscription by £150.

Not one person has ever asked to deal at the Loyalty price straight away.

The basic reason reason why you want to retain the joining fee is to stop the migration of your members once they have paid their joining fees they are unlikely to leave and you are back to the Loyalty word. I think the two tier pricing goes some way to keep that.

Every situation is slightly different and whilst some people that play golf play so infrequently its not worth being a member, we should always remember in the UK that the cheapest way to play golf is by being a member. If you start selling green fees too cheap you will affect the balance. There are other things that are great about membership but its often not enough to defeat price.

[Niall C]

Adrian

A couple of things;

1 - in an earlier post in response to Josh you said you would be ashamed to be a member of his club, why ?

2 - in your last post, in agreeing with Adam, you suggested that the view of non-golfers was that clubs are elitist. The question I have is why do you care what non-golfers think ? Surely, as a commercial golf facility operator, you want to be catering for golfers, not non-golfers.

Niall

[Mark Pearce]

Tony,

You do understand, don't you, that it'spossible for your young friends to have a view of "proper" golf clubs and for that view to be ill-informed, don't you.  I wonder what you, as a member of one of the most proper golf clubs in the country, are doing to correct that misapprehension?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian

A couple of things;

1 - in an earlier post in response to Josh you said you would be ashamed to be a member of his club, why ?

2 - in your last post, in agreeing with Adam, you suggested that the view of non-golfers was that clubs are elitist. The question I have is why do you care what non-golfers think ? Surely, as a commercial golf facility operator, you want to be catering for golfers, not non-golfers.

Niall

Niall - 1. I dont like dressing up in penguin suits or masonic things, coats, cravats and ties are just not for me. I certainly would not want to wear long socks with shorts or change to have a drink afterwards, because I dont like those things if I took a friend I would feel embarressed but it would not happen because I would not want to join a club like that and to be honest they dont really exist within 60 miles of me.
2. Only in the fact that a non golfer might become a customer later. Someone taking up the game wont know rules or protocols so if they think its a minefield it could put them off joining.

[Niall C]

Duncans basic premis is that as clubs are struggling to get the requisite number of members to meet their current level of expenditure, that they should look at changing the dress code/parking arrangements and other normal club arrangements that Duncan thinks put off prospective members, in order to attract new members to make up the shortfall in subscriptions. I think I've got that right, if not Duncan, please correct me.

Now, imagine if you will a good sized town that has three golf clubs, each with comparable facilities/courses/subs etc and each of which now have 450 members but "need" 500 to meet their outgoings. At each club the normal rules apply vis a vis dress code etc.

Club A, after a visit from The Cheslett Consultancy, decides to relax the dress code such that jeans can be worn in the clubhouse and on the course, mobile phones can be used throughout the clubhouse, office bearers no longer get parking privileges and the pro shop is turned into a tattoo parlour (OK forget that last bit  )

Club B, while aware of the "need" to bring in more members, and after canvassing the existing membership, decide to keep the status quo ie. no jeans anywhere, smart casual wear dress code, no mobiles.

Club C, after careful consideration, decide to firm up on the dress code that the committee feel has been abused and twisted by recent fashions (collarless shirts indeed !) and decide that jacket and tie must be worn in the lounge but that smart casual is perfectly OK for the dirty bar. No mobiles allowed except in bona fida emergency.

Now I imagine that there will be a bit of cross migration between clubs as well as new members who previously weren't members at any of the three clubs. The question for the DG, is which club will win and which will lose members ?

Niall

[Paul Gray]

Hmm, I'm loathed to disagree with Duncan as the spirit of his point seems to me to be from the right place, however.....

Giving the public a laissez-faire guide to dressing and behaving smartly will result in very varied interpretations. I see it day after day at my club and frequently find myself nipping out of the Pro Shop to prevent Mr. X from playing golf in his apparently 'smart jeans.' You have to decide within your club exactly what your expectations are of visitors and/or potential members are be prepared to stick to them. My personal experience is that rules, and moreover their enforcement, don't particularly frighten most golfers but, rather, actually help to avoid unpleasantness in the long run as Colonel Double Barrelled Surname and Mr X have a common understanding.

The economics suggest there's a real trade off has to be had and, like it or loathe it, 'growing the game' (which I personally now interpret as salesman speak for making more money) frequently means debasing the game. Set the bar low and a greater number of people can clear it.

To give Duncan some support here, whilst I've stated that rules must be agreed upon and enforced, those same rules must not be discriminatory. Separate car parks (although I have no problem with reserved spaces), separate changing rooms and insisting that visitors stay off of tees which the Colonel is given access to for his midweek fourball friendly will only result in your club suffering, certainly if your course doesn't fall within the top couple of tiers.


  

[Mark Pearce]

Interestingly, all the clubs in Newastle are struggling, to various extents, with member numbers.  The one suffering least badly is also the most formal.  That said, thee's nowhere I know of in North East England where you can't turn up in golf gear, play, then have a drink and a bite to eat, all in that golf gear.  If Duncan, Adrian or Tony's mates really have a problem with wearing a pair of trousers that aren't jeans and a shirt with a collar then that's astonishing.  The problm, to the extent there is one, isn't club rules, which, by and large have been adjusted over the years, but the attitude of a small part of traditional club memberships.

[Paul Gray]

Duncans basic premis is that as clubs are struggling to get the requisite number of members to meet their current level of expenditure, that they should look at changing the dress code/parking arrangements and other normal club arrangements that Duncan thinks put off prospective members, in order to attract new members to make up the shortfall in subscriptions. I think I've got that right, if not Duncan, please correct me.

Now, imagine if you will a good sized town that has three golf clubs, each with comparable facilities/courses/subs etc and each of which now have 450 members but "need" 500 to meet their outgoings. At each club the normal rules apply vis a vis dress code etc.

Club A, after a visit from The Cheslett Consultancy, decides to relax the dress code such that jeans can be worn in the clubhouse and on the course, mobile phones can be used throughout the clubhouse, office bearers no longer get parking privileges and the pro shop is turned into a tattoo parlour (OK forget that last bit  )

Club B, while aware of the "need" to bring in more members, and after canvassing the existing membership, decide to keep the status quo ie. no jeans anywhere, smart casual wear dress code, no mobiles.

Club C, after careful consideration, decide to firm up on the dress code that the committee feel has been abused and twisted by recent fashions (collarless shirts indeed !) and decide that jacket and tie must be worn in the lounge but that smart casual is perfectly OK for the dirty bar. No mobiles allowed except in bona fida emergency.

Now I imagine that there will be a bit of cross migration between clubs as well as new members who previously weren't members at any of the three clubs. The question for the DG, is which club will win and which will lose members ?

Niall

An excellent example. And if I may....

Club A will be fine. No one at GCA will want to go within drivable distance of it but it'll suit a lot of people just fine. I note that you've reviewed your plans to introduce a tattoo parlour so I'll suggest you use the space for a bowling alley.

Club B is doomed, plainly and simply. And it's exactly these middle of the road, can't-make-a-decision sort of places which are failing. Try to please everyone by sticking with the rules but leaving everyone to interpret at will and you're in a mess. The Football Association and the current state of referring leaps to mind, but that's another story.

Club C, whilst taking a bit of a gamble on it's local market, should be just fine. Certainly it isn't going to struggle in many parts of Britain.

[Niall C]

I don’t agree with this perspective at all. For the past two summers I’ve played 9 holes with two young Gardiners. Great guys who could be very good golfers after they’ve given up football and chasing girls.  I haven’t discussed it in depth with them but they are clear that there is no interest in visiting what they call a ‘proper’ golf club.  The view from new golfers I talk to outside of clubs, is that they are perceived as being inhospitable, I hear it a lot.  With the no of pay and play courses available they do not see a Club as part of their future.  This might change as they get older or play more if it looks sufficiently attractive.

Tony

I get it, these guys don't want to be members, that's fine. But why do away with the club culture that most members enjoy and repsect just to make a couple of prospective members feel more comfortable. Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Suggest Mark is right, it would be better to introduce these guys to "the club" to make them more at ease however as you say they are probably at the time of life where golf isn't that far up the pecking order anyway.

Niall

[Adrian_Stiff]

Mark - I am not an advocate of NO dress code. I am against denim jeans, I am against collarless shirts. I believe there is a uniform you should wear playing golf, like you wear for other sports. I am anti the dressing up to go into the bar afterwards. It must put more people off than not.

Niall - I think your taking Duncan's a bit out of line. Its probable we are all agreeing.

I think that whilst traditions are killing the UK golf club a lot of is what has been done in the past, most clubs have embraced the dare I say it new way.

The big reason why golf clubs are struggling is Over supply. If one in ten courses closed the problem would be largely solved as a rough figure every club is down 10% but I am generalising.

Running golf courses has become a rat race and each vies for the others trade. I even had an email the other day that said "How to steal your competitors golfers". Equally golf has become a business and any club that does not think that is likely to get into trouble. The golf world has changed in the 40 years I have been playing. Typically in the 70s you joined a club and played 40 rounds at your club and a couple at Uncle Charlies course in Bournemouth when you visited him at Easter, possibly if you were a good player or a face at the club you might play team matches, but primarily you played your golf where you were a member.

Today its different we play in outings, societies, weekend trips, there are more competitions and invitations. We still might only play the 40 times but 10 or 15 might be on another course. That equates to the membership being lesser value. When the money gets tight some things have to change and those are the sort of problems golf clubs are faced with, we are all trying for the same green fee market. Our golf income is made up 50% membership and 50% visitors but the rounds played are 80% membership 20% visitors. The visitor market is lucrative but its getting less because the clubs are chasing the price down.

I think golf clubs need to sell the health benifits that from 40-90 you play golf and its great exercise and if you play golf you live longer. Get that across to men and women that a once a week 5 mile stroll will put 5 years on your life then golf could be on the up again. It needs new golfers to solve the problem of over supply.

[Paul Gray]

Fair enough Niall, but it's not so much a perspective as an observation. For example:

Club A - Pine Ridge Golf Club (no jeans on the course, I believe). There are many more such clubs out there of course but I know of this place and its successes.

Club B - Since I've suggested Club B is only good at chasing its own tail I'll refrain from naming it.

Club C - Let's go with Liphook. Again, there are any number to choose from but Liphook always strikes me as 'getting it.'

[Niall C]

Adrian

A couple of things;

1 - in an earlier post in response to Josh you said you would be ashamed to be a member of his club, why ?

2 - in your last post, in agreeing with Adam, you suggested that the view of non-golfers was that clubs are elitist. The question I have is why do you care what non-golfers think ? Surely, as a commercial golf facility operator, you want to be catering for golfers, not non-golfers.

Niall

Niall - 1. I dont like dressing up in penguin suits or masonic things, coats, cravats and ties are just not for me. I certainly would not want to wear long socks with shorts or change to have a drink afterwards, because I dont like those things if I took a friend I would feel embarressed but it would not happen because I would not want to join a club like that and to be honest they dont really exist within 60 miles of me.
2. Only in the fact that a non golfer might become a customer later. Someone taking up the game wont know rules or protocols so if they think its a minefield it could put them off joining.

Adrian

Fine, you don't like going to black tie dinners. Not sure that has any relevance for dress code within a club. Also I don't see why it would be embarrassing to invite someone to a club and tell them the dress code. Surely that would save embarrassment ? A well mannered guest would surely be happy to respect the rules of the club I would have thought.

Yes non-golfers may become golfers or just customers at the bar, but surely it makes better business sense to look after existing customers rather than piss them off (or at least a section of them) in the pursuit of new customers ? That was really what my post about the 3 different clubs was about.

Niall

[Niall C]

An excellent example. And if I may....

Club A will be fine. No one at GCA will want to go within drivable distance of it but it'll suit a lot of people just fine. I note that you've reviewed your plans to introduce a tattoo parlour so I'll suggest you use the space for a bowling alley.

Club B is doomed, plan and simply. And it's exactly these middle of the road, can't-make-a-decision sort of places which are failing. Try to please everyone by sticking with the rules but leaving everyone to interpret at will and you're in a mess. The Football Association and the current state of referring leaps to mind, but that's another story.

Club C, whilst taking a bit of a gamble on it's local market, should be just fine. Certainly it isn't going to struggle in many parts of Britain.

Paul

Interesting response.

Club A - given that the majority of members seem to want some sort of standards (if it was otherwise then all clubs would have already relaxed there rules to the extent of this example), what makes you think that this club will be OK ? All things being equal they will join a club that suits them best which may be B or C. The question is whether the amount of new members would be more than those lost and also whether these new members will stay the pace.

Club B - may well gain out of Club A's change of rules, as members migrate to B or C. Equally may lose some members who either like the idea of slumming it/dressing up. Suggest most likely to gain overall.

Club C - as Mark has pointed out, these type of clubs tend to be the ones that still have a full membership although in fairness alot of them also have superior golf courses although not all. I can think of a number of old fashioned clubs with average courses that still have a full membership albeit with shorter waiting lists.

My analysis would be that Club A would be the "business" with the shakiest foundation with its more volatile membership while B and C in comparison would be more secure in that they would likely retain more of their existing membership. In the same way Adrian try's to engender loyalty through his pricing structure, Clubs B and C are more likely to retain their membership by having a stronger club culture, largely engendered by the rules that Duncan opposes.

Just my opinion.

Niall  

[Jon Wiggett]

Isn't the real problem that clubs are spending too much money rather than taking too little in? I would suggest this is the case and it was caused though clubs increasing their spend through the good years with increasing revenue and now not being willing to recut their cloth.

Jon