Are 'traditions' killing the traditional UK golf club?

[Brent Hutto]

Yes, our club has about 2/3 the number of members that have historically been required for sustained financial health. And we have cut quite a bit of spending over the last five or six years. Those cuts include no longer employing a General Manager (a position added, funnily enough, when our membership numbers were at just about their lowest ebb in several decades).

But for all the alleged belt tightening, every time I arrive at the club there is a gentleman dispatched in a golf cart offering me a ride for the 40 yards from my car to the clubhouse. Even when I'm carrying the bag of clubs that will be on my back for 4-1/2 miles over the next several hours.

Most country clubs wouldn't know a unnecessary expenditure if it bit them squarely on the ass.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Niall - Maybe I have not explained myself correctly I am not against every dress code rule. Firstly everybody has their little quirks of likes/dislikes.. I am not one for suit & tie so when I play golf I like to have a drink after, If I had to coat & tie I would not go in and probably go to a pub. I would not want to be a member of a club that you had to wear long socks in the summer and I think a lot of people would count that as a silly rule and it would people off. If I could not take my phone I could not play absolutely a full stop for me. I clarified the bit about the embarressment as it not happening because I would not be a member anyway.

I dont like earings or tattoo's but I accept that as normal, equally if someone wants to wear a jacket and tie thats fine too. I think the point Duncan is making is that archaic rules will cost you members and I agree with that.

You are not really going to put off playing somewhere or joining if phones can be used or sports socks, but the other way of enforcing these rules will work against you.

I do think almost every club has realised they have to relax the rules anyway. In two or three years time there will not be a club in the country where you cant have your phone with you. There has just be a significant rule change so the APP market will flourish.

CLUB A will do the best, the others will struggle to the verge of bankrupcy if they dont change but they will, they have already.

[Paul Gray]

Niall,

We shall have to agree to disagree I suppose. I truly wish I saw it as you do but it's not the picture I'm getting.

Club A in my example is very successful. The tee sheet in the summer is full seven days per week and caters to the 'every man' golfer. As the crow flies Camberley Heath Golf Club is just a mile or so away and membership fees are comparable. For you and I it would be an absolute no-brainer but not so for Golfer X. Golfer X is quite OK with the fact that rounds take five hours and he's still going to keep paying something to the club even if times are hard because he'll simply swap membership fees for occasional green fees.

I should perhaps point out at this stage that Camberley is not mentioned as an example of Club B. I know little of the internal running of Camberley but, run correctly, it's in Club C territory, or perhaps a hybrid of Clubs B and C being well run. The babbled point that I'm trying to make is that no criticism of Camberley is intended.

Now then, by the sounds of it your friends are enjoying their golf and wouldn't mind Club A. They perhaps would be interested in Club B but it's not really selling itself to them. They've probably heard conflicting reports as inconsistency at the club seems to be rife. Club B has probably got a few members that are by now damn right hostile to visitors. They pay their subs only to see badly dressed hackers on their beloved course that have paid £10 green fees to boot. If Club B could only establish just what it stands for, that it's very much open to all but does enforce it's own rules and get that message out to the public then your two friends might well be tempted. Of course, if times are hard club membership might be one of the first things to go but at least club B will have a solid base by then.
 

[Pete Lavallee]

You Brits are a funny lot, I've really enjoyed the discussion so far. What amazes me is you're all hung up on jeans, collarless shirts and cell phones. What about my biggest pet pieve: not be able to change shoes in the car park!  

[Paul Gray]

You Brits are a funny lot, I've really enjoyed the discussion so far. What amazes me is you're all hung up on jeans, collarless shirts and cell phones. What about my biggest pet pieve: not be able to change shoes in the car park!  

If Pete, by some miracle, me and my self righteous opinions ever stumble into enough money to buy a club you will be very welcome to change your shoes in the car park.  

But, to tie in with something Brent said, no amount of money will ever see me employ somebody to drive you forty yards to the first tee. And you think we're a funny lot!

[John Kavanaugh]

I love shoe guys.  Love everyone I have ever met.  When I see someone changing shoes in the parking lot I am only offended by the thought that their sole purpose is to screw the shoe guy.  Use some sense and rotate the shoes you wear to the course.  I may be old but have always been taught and thought that a well kept pair of shoes is priceless in first impressions.

Conclusion:  People who change their shoes in the parking lot are cheap thoughtless bastards.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Thats another old rule thats gone...years ago it was frowned on to change your shoes in the car park, now hardly anyone does.

[Lou_Duran]

I confess to being an Anglophile, and though my golf experience in the UK is limited to two Budas and a short 4-day excursion to Fife, I can't find much wrong with the golf culture there.  But, in pursuit of perfection, I would prefer the relaxation of two fairly common rules: 1) a single tee box from which to play, often shortening already shortish courses by a few hundred yards, and 2) the prohibition of anything more than two ball games per group.  Both of these serve to promote fast play, which, as an impatient Type A, I support fully.   Perhaps a small accommodation could be made for those who prefer to play their own ball on a longer course without sacrificing the brisk pace excessively.  If the players can't be trusted to police themselves, maybe afternoon times for relaxed rules might work.

Regarding mobile phone use on golf courses, so long as they don't ring when I'm playing and the users aren't babbling away, I am ok with it (I can't imagine what it's going to be like on flights if passengers are allowed to talk on their phones; probably a good thing for Bose and other noise reduction equipment manufacturers).  The current culture of being tethered to a mobile device does bother me.  Sitting in a cart while your partner is glued to his phone suggests little interest in your interaction, and, IMO, is disrespectful.  Perhaps this is a generational thing- I have a Smartphone and would never think of pulling it out without first excusing myself very briefly to take care of my informational needs- but something which I probably won't be able to evolve into accepting.

[Paul Gray]

I love shoe guys.  Love everyone I have ever met.  When I see someone changing shoes in the parking lot I am only offended by the thought that their sole purpose is to screw the shoe guy.  Use some sense and rotate the shoes you wear to the course.  I may be old but have always been taught and thought that a well kept pair of shoes is priceless in first impressions.

Conclusion:  People who change their shoes in the parking lot are cheap thoughtless bastards.

Shoe guys!

One comment like that, for me, makes golf in Britain sound like some sort of utopia. I've never even heard of such a thing before now. Is there another guy to wipe up for you when you're done in the toilet as well?

Are you trying to recreate the British aristocracy circa 1890?

[Adrian_Stiff]

I saw a survey that said 97% of UK golfers prefer 4 ball play, so thats not going to happen Lou. I don't know of anyone that plays foursomes unless its in a club match. A lot do like it but quite a few feel the time they have to play they want to play a full game. Greensomes and Bluesomes are better, we play them for annual trophies.

Lou, I also think more courses will allow you to play back tees and front tees, the game has changed so much, a course length I enjoy, another will find too short and vice versa. Clubs will if they can extend the size of their back tees to accomodate more play. We allow Whites or Yellows and we are going to keep the Blacks out this coming year, the Blacks will be a mixture of championship tees and at a few holes we have some forward tees so a 450 yarder is only 290.  We are thinking that one of the match play knockouts will be played with a new rule called CHOICE. You play off the White tee at the first but the winner of the hole can chose Black, White or Yellow into they lose the hole then the choice is swapped, that introduces some set up and strategy back into the game.

[Adam Lawrence]

I'm trying to figure out how many clubs there are in the UK that have a locker room attendant of any kind. It isn't very many. St George's Hill does. Walton Heath does. Wisley does. I'm sure there's a few more at the very top end.

JK - when people change in the car park in the UK, it's with the aim of saving a couple of minutes. Not a couple of quid.

[Paul Gray]

I'm trying to figure out how many clubs there are in the UK that have a locker room attendant of any kind. It isn't very many. St George's Hill does. Walton Heath does. Wisley does. I'm sure there's a few more at the very top end.

JK - when people change in the car park in the UK, it's with the aim of saving a couple of minutes. Not a couple of quid.

Really? Played two of the three and never seen such a character but I shall concede to your considerably greater experience.

[Tim Martin]

I love shoe guys.  Love everyone I have ever met.  When I see someone changing shoes in the parking lot I am only offended by the thought that their sole purpose is to screw the shoe guy.  Use some sense and rotate the shoes you wear to the course.  I may be old but have always been taught and thought that a well kept pair of shoes is priceless in first impressions.

Conclusion:  People who change their shoes in the parking lot are cheap thoughtless bastards.

Shoe guys!

One comment like that, for me, makes golf in Britain sound like some sort of utopia. I've never even heard of such a thing before now. Is there another guy to wipe up for you when you're done in the toilet as well?

Are you trying to recreate the British aristocracy circa 1890?

Paul-JaKa set the trap and you took the bait. A beautiful exchange.

[John Kavanaugh]

I get it if there isn't a locker room attendant.  Matter of fact I do the same at public courses all the time.  Most people who fight traditions do it out of cheapness.  People love to wear jeans because they can be worn multiple days without going through the wash.   Once again, cheap.

[John Kavanaugh]

The odd truth about shoe guys is that they save you money over the long run.  Golf shoes will last until you tire of the style.  Street shoes, if properly rotated to the course, will last a lifetime.  As a fat bastard with an odd gait my shoes beg to be professionally maintained.  I love my shoe guy.

[Paul Gray]

From that description John I can see how that Toilet Assistant might just be a requirement.  

I assume you would feel guilty if you lost a few pounds and thereafter denied your club the extra revenue it receives for carrying you around the course in one way or another. I'm slightly confused as to whether you're trying to promote the tenants of capitalism or ensure full employment Soviet style.  

[Pete Lavallee]

I wish I had taken a photo of the look that got shot my way when I changed shoes in the car park at West Sussex; it could have turned me to stone! When I inquired later why this simple act was so heinous, the member replied "It's taboo and just isn't done"! However it can work in your favour as my wife and I were allowed an extra two hours drinking time in the bar as the waitress had to keep the place open to allow the lone golfer still on the course to get into the locker room to change back into his street shoes.

[Duncan Cheslett]

So long as the course was good, Club A sounds like my kind of place! I agree with Adrian (and he should know) that it would also be the most succesful commercially. It would certainly be the most fun.

I'm biding my time before putting in my proposal to convert the underused barn of a function room at Reddish Vale into a proper sports bar, with snooker, pool, at least one golf simulator, and a HUGE television!


Adrian is also quite right about oversupply. Within half an hour's drive of my home in south Manchester I have at least 36 golf clubs to choose from. Maybe five resemble Club C, with the rest clinging on to the Club B model I had in mind when initiating this thread.

I can see at least half a dozen of these clubs going to the wall in the next few years. Unfortunately a couple of those have bloody good courses...

... one of them a favourite of many GCAers.

[Sean_A]

The curious thing about this discussion is the smarter clubs for the most part are not the ones in financial trouble.  It is the new breed clubs and the many old guard clubs with iffy courses (iffy meaning dodgy neighbourhood, poor drainage, bad design, poor condition etc) which are fighting tooth and nail for survival.  The issue Adrian speaks of in terms of attracting members works both ways.  There are a great many golfing families and hard core golfers that would never dream of a joining a new breed club if the opportunity was there to join a smart club.  Part of that is due to reputation, part is due to not wanting fancy new ideas about phones etc. (associating with like minded people) and part is due to course quality/condition. Eventually, for any serious golfer, quality and course condition will become more and more important.  Some eventually get fed up and leave the poor specimens and some put up with it.  These days, its much easier to jump ship.  I know in my neck of the woods, £1000 is a mental barrier for many.  That number for some reason represents too much to be a member of a so so club with a so so course. 

Ciao

[Tim Martin]

The odd truth about shoe guys is that they save you money over the long run.  Golf shoes will last until you tire of the style.  Street shoes, if properly rotated to the course, will last a lifetime.  As a fat bastard with an odd gait my shoes beg to be professionally maintained.  I love my shoe guy.

+1- If you plan accordingly you get your street shoes as well as golf shoes taken care.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean - I want to firstly say say I like you lots but sometime you need to step outside the square and look in. I have opinions that are sometimes minority, but you got to realise sometimes when you make a bad call. Also any opinion is never wrong it is an opinion even if its a 1% call. There is nothing wrong with a minority opinion .

The mobile phone is a commin with Apps that include virtual scorecards, distances to greens centres fronts and banks, probably digital mapping of the greens.....its the way it is. The majority of people want to be within 5 minutes of facebook, the latest tweet and the best deal in town. You either embrace or you repelll.

If you look at history things change, very little success is seen staying in the dark ages.

Commercial success is determined by numbers and rarely by niche situations, thats not to say that occasional situations cant break the mould...Bandon Dunes did that and Mike Keisser is the first to acknowledge that fact, if 'dream golf' is to be believed. But we are talking real situations and the absolute fact is that the majority of UK golfers do not want the archaic bollocks!

You have often had the alternative view fortunately you are able to convey it in a way that it remains always friendly.  Thigs do break moulds, I see the golf situation everyday changing, as time elapses it wont be nice for many of the opinions held so highly here, that aside the odd bastille will stay strong but its formula not to follow for 90% and Duncan's idea are much more in line with the proper path.

[Sean_A]

Adrian

Jeepers, my issue isn't with phones, its how phones are used.  I stand by my original opinion that if clubs allow people to talk on phones on the course and in the house, wthin 10 years those places will be indistinguishable from the normal phone use we see by younger folks.  IMO, this is would be an awful situation which once the started, cannot be retracted.  Its fine if folks want that and want to play that way, but its also fine if folks don't want that.  I don't think it will be doom and gloom for quality clubs with quality courses to stick with what they have.   

There is room in the market place for all sorts of club models with varying rules, varying levels of quality and varying levels of cost.  You say doom and gloom will come to those clubs which will not adopt phones etc.  My experience is telling me it is the new breed clubs or the old clubs which for whatever reason have a significant percentage of new breed members (big turnover in recent years) which are struggling, not the old line clubs which you perceive to be stuffy.  Like you, I think the real issue is overbuild, not undersubscription.  Unlike you, I don't really care if 5 or 10 percent of clubs fall by the wayside or if we retain 100% of the current clubs.  Sounds harsh, but either way, my situation remains the same.  I look for course quality and value 100% over club rules when deciding where to spend my money on golf.  I prefer not to change to eat lunch or have a drink, but on the other hand, in my experience, that is an extremely rare demand - and as I say, the clubs that demand it are some of the best financially positioned clubs in the country. I will bet on Sunningdale being around in 25 years than practically any course built in the past 30 years.  So I guess I don't buy Duncan's premise that first, there are stuffy clubs and second, that these so called stuffy clubs are failing. 

All that said, things are changing and I have seen clubs relax their rules, mainly dress rules on and off the course.  The curious thing is, were these folks stuffy the day before the rule(s) changed and not so the day after?  When we put this way, it seems quite clear the stuffy argument is the stuff of nonsense.  Its about different values (basically generational differences) and what people want out of their club, not stuffiness. 

Ciao       

[Duncan Cheslett]

There is room in the market place for all sorts of club models with varying rules, varying levels of quality and varying levels of cost.

Couldn't agree more.  

My experience is telling me it is the new breed clubs or the old clubs which for whatever reason have a significant percentage of new breed members (big turnover in recent years) which are struggling, not the old line clubs which you perceive to be stuffy.

Adrian's club doesn't appear to be struggling, and probably the most successful membership model today is that of the DeVere group.

Like you, I think the real issue is overbuild, not undersubscription.  Unlike you, I don't really care if 5 or 10 percent of clubs fall by the wayside or if we retain 100% of the current clubs.

If the closures were to be be those clubs with so so courses, I'd agrre entirely. Unfortunately, outside the top tier, quality of course from a GCA standpoint does not always correspond with the success or otherwise of the club.

So I guess I don't buy Duncan's premise that first, there are stuffy clubs and second, that these so called stuffy clubs are failing.

My issue isn't with stuffy clubs; it is with the perception given to potential new members of the club being stuffy, old fashioned, and elitist. Perception is all, and in my view it is a huge contributing factor to clubs having shortfalls in membership.

All that said, things are changing and I ahve seen clubs relax their rules, mainly dress rules on and off the course.  The curious thing is, were these folks stuffy the day before the rule(s) changed and not so the day after?  When put this way, it seems quite clear the stuffy argument is the stuff of nonsense.  Its about different values (basically generational differences) and what people want out of their club, not stuffiness.  

Every club is different, but for many the pace of change needs to increase if they are to attract more younger golfers as members or the countless guys like me who took up golf in middle age and for whom the traditional Edwardian club mode was a huge culture shock. If it wasn't for the quality of the course I'd have left after a year and become a nomad paying my £15-£20 a round with the two internet golf clubs of which I am also a member.

The truth is, that with all the alternatives avalable today, no-one needs to be a member of a golf club to play regular competitive golf. For many the only attraction of a club is the CONGU handicap it confers. This can be bought very cheaply however - all people have to do is purchase the cheapest pay as you play membership at some goat track and stick three cards in!


      

[Sean_A]

Every club is different, but for many the pace of change needs to increase if they are to attract more younger golfers as members or the countless guys like me who took up golf in middle age and for whom the traditional Edwardian club mode was a huge culture shock.

Duncan - maybe you are overly sensitive  .  

The truth is, that with all the alternatives avalable today, no-one needs to be a member of a golf club to play regular competitive golf. For many the only attraction of a club is the CONGU handicap it confers. This can be bought very cheaply however - all people have to do is purchase the cheapest pay as you play membership at some goat track and stick three cards in!

Duncan - I would find it very inconvenient to retain a CONGU handicap without being a member of club which has a course.  These pay and play memberships exist, none very close to me and none with a course I would want to play once a year let alone enough times to maintain a handicap.  

No question golf and particularly golf clubs have a terrible image.  I am not convinced allowing jeans and talking on the phone in the house and on the course are going to change that perception.  What I do know is if guys have time to chit chat on the phone the game is going slower than it should.  That in and of itself is reason enough to squash the idea of phone conversations/texting.  I can see it now, "Hang on Tiger, the Mrs is calling, she wants me to pick up milk on the way home, I need to find out which type and from which shop."  It surprises me that pro- phone people can't see the eventual outcome of such a phone policy.  In short, based on my experience with phone people, I have little reason to trust that enough of them will be sensible on the course or in the house.  All it takes for maybe 10% of phone golfers to be inconsiderate and its a completely different world at the club.  A world which doesn't look appealing to me.  

The dress issue, could care less.  I have no desire to dress people and what folks wear doesn't impress nor upset me.  In fact, for clubs in/near town or cities, it may be a great thing to greatly relax the rules for the bar.  It would be great if folks used the club as a local when they do go out.  I can't see a problem with a club member in jeans drinking a pint coming in contact with a club member in jack and tie having a meal in another room.  Though I never could understand why ties are required, seems silly to me, but not nearly as important an issue as the quality of the course or course conditions.  There can't be many clubs remaining which require jacket & tie in certain rooms and as I said before, I suspect a good percentage of those clubs are probably some of the most financially sound in the country.  

Ciao

[Niall C]

Niall - Maybe I have not explained myself correctly I am not against every dress code rule. Firstly everybody has their little quirks of likes/dislikes.. I am not one for suit & tie so when I play golf I like to have a drink after, If I had to coat & tie I would not go in and probably go to a pub. I would not want to be a member of a club that you had to wear long socks in the summer and I think a lot of people would count that as a silly rule and it would people off. If I could not take my phone I could not play absolutely a full stop for me. I clarified the bit about the embarressment as it not happening because I would not be a member anyway.

I dont like earings or tattoo's but I accept that as normal, equally if someone wants to wear a jacket and tie thats fine too. I think the point Duncan is making is that archaic rules will cost you members and I agree with that.

You are not really going to put off playing somewhere or joining if phones can be used or sports socks, but the other way of enforcing these rules will work against you.

I do think almost every club has realised they have to relax the rules anyway. In two or three years time there will not be a club in the country where you cant have your phone with you. There has just be a significant rule change so the APP market will flourish.

CLUB A will do the best, the others will struggle to the verge of bankrupcy if they dont change but they will, they have already.

Adrian

I agree with quite a lot of your post. Time moves on and rules need to be updated but that doesn't necessarily mean they have to be relaxed. With regards to mobiles, one of the guys in my group is an inveterate user of his mobile on the golf course and doesn't have the excuse of saying he is using it as an emergency as most if not all of his use is for social purposes. He's not allowed to use it at the club where he and most of my other friends are members but when 8 of us go off to Spain on our annual golfing trip he is constantly on the phone. Judging by the abuse he gets from the rest of us (not at all good natured) I would gauge that a majority of golfers at that club are dead against the use of mobiles.

I might add that most of us on that tour are mid to late 40's and early 50's so we are by no means old fogies.

Niall