At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, can somebody please explain to me why a golf club like Wilmington can survive on $14 green fees in a market which apparently rejects what most of us here would broadly call 'proper golf'?
I'm not suggesting a paradigm shift isn't greatly needed but could it be that supposedly better to do clubs are leaking money through unnecessary non-golf expenditure?
Paul:
I don't think the Wilmington course CAN survive on $14 green fees, long-term, although owning the facility free and clear, with no property tax bills, is a good start.
It sounds they have many deferred maintenance items that require a major "restoration" once every ten years or so. We have no idea what the general playing conditions are like. And if they lose money one year, the city likely just swallows the loss under "salaries and benefits".
I could be completely wrong about this, but I don't know anybody anywhere in the private sector who is making ends meet on $14 golf. That said, if there was a place in the U.S. it would work, it would be the southeast around Wilmington and Myrtle Beach, where they enjoy year-round playing conditions, cheap non-union labor, freely available water, and the cost savings of having the grass play well while it's dormant 4-5 months out of the year.
If they could play 60,000 rounds a year that would be $840,000 income, which ought to pay for the maintenance budget and staffing the pro shop. But, as Jeff says, no capital improvements ... so the facilities will suffer over time. Hard to run a real business that way.