Is affordable golf a realistic option for Trump, Keiser, etc.?

[Mike_Young]

I'm not saying they don't want to make money .  Im saying they could take the same capital and make a lot more in other ventures.  They are playing in a big boy sand box.  I've seen High net worth guys do it before...often they wake up one day and say ok...had enought and get out and go to something else...but I think these guys enjoy it...and feel rewarded for it...

[BHoover]

I'm not saying they don't want to make money .  Im saying they could take the same capital and make a lot more in other ventures.  They are playing in a big boy sand box.  I've seen High net worth guys do it before...often they wake up one day and say ok...had enought and get out and go to something else...but I think these guys enjoy it...and feel rewarded for it...

Absolutely, but that still doesn't necessarily translate to wanting to make golf affordable or accessible. But again, that's not a bad thing IMO.

[Mike_Young]

I'm not saying they don't want to make money .  Im saying they could take the same capital and make a lot more in other ventures.  They are playing in a big boy sand box.  I've seen High net worth guys do it before...often they wake up one day and say ok...had enought and get out and go to something else...but I think these guys enjoy it...and feel rewarded for it...

Absolutely, but that still doesn't necessarily translate to wanting to make golf affordable or accessible. But again, that's not a bad thing IMO.

Never said it did...
Example:
Muira Golf has never sought to be affordable ..great product....I'm sure the owner takes pride and is in it to make money...And then you have Knight Golf whom most have never heard of.... People don't realize that Knight golf bought more grips from Golf Pride a few years ago and more shafts from True Temper than any golf company around...it's all in what you want...you can often make less money and get more press or hype...

[William_G]

I'm not saying they don't want to make money .  Im saying they could take the same capital and make a lot more in other ventures.  They are playing in a big boy sand box.  I've seen High net worth guys do it before...often they wake up one day and say ok...had enought and get out and go to something else...but I think these guys enjoy it...and feel rewarded for it...

yes

at some point it is not about the money

fortunately when I go to work I fell rewarded by what I do irrespective of the $

more money I could make doing something else, yet I would not feel as rewarded or fulfilled

when is enough money enough?

however, some folks just love playing the dollar game, day in and day out, they eat the Wall Street Journal for breakfast lunch and dinner, which is sad IMHO

[Mike Schott]

David,
That's a good point...I have sort of a hybrid take on muni golf.  I have designed and built 5 for various municipalities.  If a town is in a spot where there is no other privately owned public golf course competing then OK...BUT once the private sector comes in they need to make sure each is on the same playing field or shut it down. 

Mike S,
You are right. These courses are usually built no different than a local sports complex or performing arts center.  If there were no private owners in the area then perhaps it is acceptable but once the private sector enters they need the same playing field...the way I read your post is that a privately owned public course could kill it in your area if the muni's were not involved    JMO

Thanks Mike.

We have some nicer privately owned public's in the area and they do well. Certainly they market themselves better than the muni's. I'd never build one myself in this economy. There are muni's I'd love to own and have modified to reduce maintenance costs so they play f and f. Of course that would probably be a fatal move.

[BCowan]

''There are muni's I'd love to own and have modified to reduce maintenance costs so they play f and f. Of course that would probably be a fatal move.''

   I think that would be a good move IMO. 

[William_G]

''There are muni's I'd love to own and have modified to reduce maintenance costs so they play f and f. Of course that would probably be a fatal move.''

   I think that would be a good move IMO. 

+1

[PCCraig]

I think Mike Keiser has done a good job keeping Bandon affordable. In the "off" season in Bandon you can effectively play golf from sunrise to sunset for $150. Less expensive rooms are something like $120 in the winter. Add in a handful of beers, a couple of burgers, and a souvenir hat and you're looking at ~$350 for a night and a full day of golf. At no point does Bandon require a cart, caddie, or even pushcart.

When I was at Bandon last week I got paired up with a group, one of the guys told me he works in a restaurant. He and his buddies drove down from Washington for three days of 36 holes of golf. Seems like a pretty affordable golf trip to me. I was told this past January was the busiest January in the resorts history...seems like people are finding value at Bandon.

Even in the Summer, at something like $400/day for golf, that's a steal considering the quality, better chance of weather, and longer daylight.

I think it's admirable that Keiser wants to build a "muni" near Bandon, but I suspect he's mostly interested in building another golf option as his current facility is getting too crowded and isn't supporting demand for resort guests.

Heck, wasn't there a story about Sand Valley where the guest fee is going to be something like $150 initially? I'd say that's pretty affordable considering Kohler charges $400+ for WS and Erin Hills costs over $200. Even $150 is only ~$50 more than what Lawsonia charges in the summer these days.

I don't think Trump gives a hoot about affordable golf, considering it costs $400+ to play Doral. That's his choice and his business model.


Generally speaking, I'm not sure you're going to see any affordable golf courses built anywhere near a metropolitan area again. Land and development just costs too much.

[Mike Schott]

''There are muni's I'd love to own and have modified to reduce maintenance costs so they play f and f. Of course that would probably be a fatal move.''

   I think that would be a good move IMO. 

+1

Not a chance. No way that the average public golfer wants to walk and see brown fairways. They want trees and green. You can't be successful catering to a niche clientele at muni prices.

[Jaeger Kovich]

People don't get into the golf business to make a billion dollars, they get into the golf business because they want to be a part of the golf business. This goes for golf course owners, architects, supers, pros, etc. A small, percentage will make some real cash, but generally its just something they really wanted to do.

[Will MacEwen]

''There are muni's I'd love to own and have modified to reduce maintenance costs so they play f and f. Of course that would probably be a fatal move.''

   I think that would be a good move IMO. 

+1

Not a chance. No way that the average public golfer wants to walk and see brown fairways. They want trees and green. You can't be successful catering to a niche clientele at muni prices.

I think the average player might overlook brown if price and pace of play are favourable, especially for those who play regularly. 

[Mike Schott]

''There are muni's I'd love to own and have modified to reduce maintenance costs so they play f and f. Of course that would probably be a fatal move.''

   I think that would be a good move IMO. 

+1

Not a chance. No way that the average public golfer wants to walk and see brown fairways. They want trees and green. You can't be successful catering to a niche clientele at muni prices.

I think the average player might overlook brown if price and pace of play are favourable, especially for those who play regularly. 

I think we need to define the average golfer. I don't see that as the frequent golfer. There was a time (before my toddler was born) when I walked 18 holes every Saturday from May to September with 3 buddies. Most of the other golfers were in carts and obviously were not regular golfers. If those players had to walk and saw a brown course, they would go elsewhere. Those are the average muni golfer IMO.

I agree that the frequent and enthusiastic golfer would be fine with firm and fast.

[BCowan]

You can have a F & F course without it being brown.  Most muni's have Rye grass fairways and the grass tends to stay green even when it is firm.

[William_G]

Augusta green tint sprayed on the fairways and greens would work

[Tom_Doak]

We all love and certainly appreciate what Donald Trump, Mike Keiser, Mosaic, etc., have done for the game but is there a realistic possibility of someone taking up the cause of affordable golf? 

Jerry:

The reason these courses are not "affordable" by your definition is because they are SUCCESSFUL.  They could charge less, but they don't have to ... and if you were an investor, you would most likely tell them to charge as much as they could.

There is no reason for someone who's been successful to build affordable courses, when there are so many unsuccessful developers already providing that service, and so many older courses that don't have to worry about paying off $10 million development costs.

Also -- I've noticed driving around New Zealand this week the difference between the expensive courses and the affordable ones [and by affordable I mean $30 green fees or $300 per year] seems to be simply that the affordable courses don't irrigate their fairways.

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
Great point...had not thought about it that way.  If one doesn't water fairways there is less electricity used, less fertilizer and chemicals, less mowing, less machinery repairs and upkeep and longer machinery life expectancy and less labor.

[Lou_Duran]

If water politics continue in many parts of the U.S. we may get the opportunity to test Mr. Doak's theory.  Of course, our analysis will have to go beyond our pet biases to identify the real causes and effects: are the lower green fees the result of lower input prices (all the things Mike Young cited) being passed on to golfers OR due to less demand for golf as discretionary income gets sucked up by food prices going through the roof as constrained water resources are allocated away from farming to other uses deemed more important by those who control such things.  Interesting editorial piece on this subject in this morning's WSJ (of much greater consequence than the one cited in the Doral thread).

If Tom's observation about NZ is correct, it must mean that the "golf is like the pizza business" theory is not correct (at least in NZ).  Apparently, there are golf consumers in sufficient numbers there who do not see golf as a commodity, making decisions where they play on bases other than price.  I've always suspected that the Augusta National Syndrome was greatly exaggerated. 

[William_G]

We all love and certainly appreciate what Donald Trump, Mike Keiser, Mosaic, etc., have done for the game but is there a realistic possibility of someone taking up the cause of affordable golf? 

Jerry:

The reason these courses are not "affordable" by your definition is because they are SUCCESSFUL.  They could charge less, but they don't have to ... and if you were an investor, you would most likely tell them to charge as much as they could.

There is no reason for someone who's been successful to build affordable courses, when there are so many unsuccessful developers already providing that service, and so many older courses that don't have to worry about paying off $10 million development costs.

Success begets success in Keiser's case, he has the midas touch, simply brilliant and great instincts for golf

[Sven Nilsen]

Brian

   I believe he did the muni to help him do the land switch to build the next course. 

Not sure where to start with this one.

First of all, you say he "did" the muni.  The muni has not yet been done, unless somehow you think Bandon Crossing is the course everyone is talking about when they discuss Bandon Muni (you would be wrong on that). 

Second, the land swap has to be made before they can proceed further with the Muni plan.   What you wrote makes it sound like the land swap was planned to enable the construction of the next course at the Bandon resort.  That is also not the case.

Perhaps you meant to convey something different from how I read it.  If that's the case, I'd suggest some proofreading.

I think Mr. Keiser sincerely wants to give something back to the area that let him create Bandon Dunes (and I would think that he has been very pleasantly surprised by its success and what that has lead to).  The idea behind the muni is not to create another resort, it is to create an option for Oregonians who may not want to, or can not afford to, pay a premium for golf (and if that creates a handful of jobs in a rather depressed area, all the better).  There's a reason why the overwhelming majority of local play at the resort is in the winter.

Between the misinformation being thrown out and the admitted speculation on the financial motives of certain players, I find much of this thread to be in pretty poor taste. 

To answer the basic question posed, I think Mr. Keiser would be happy to fund the creation of golf courses that operated at a break even level.  I don't think the same applies to Mr. Trump.  However, I don't think you can build the Bandon's, Cabot's or Barnbougle's of this world without a significant investment, and as he is not running a charity program the demand for quality comes with a corresponding need to recoup the dollars spent.

I'll start listening to arguments that there are similarities between the two men and their business practices when Keiser International gets built.

[BCowan]

Brian

   I believe he did the muni to help him do the land switch to build the next course.

Not sure where to start with this one.

First of all, you say he "did" the muni.  The muni has not yet been done, unless somehow you think Bandon Crossing is the course everyone is talking about when they discuss Bandon Muni (you would be wrong on that).  

Second, the land swap has to be made before they can proceed further with the Muni plan.   What you wrote makes it sound like the land swap was planned to enable the construction of the next course at the Bandon resort.  That is also not the case.

Perhaps you meant to convey something different from how I read it.  If that's the case, I'd suggest some proofreading.

I think Mr. Keiser sincerely wants to give something back to the area that let him create Bandon Dunes (and I would think that he has been very pleasantly surprised by its success and what that has lead to).  The idea behind the muni is not to create another resort, it is to create an option for Oregonians who may not want to, or can not afford to, pay a premium for golf (and if that creates a handful of jobs in a rather depressed area, all the better).  There's a reason why the overwhelming majority of local play at the resort is in the winter.

Between the misinformation being thrown out and the admitted speculation on the financial motives of certain players, I find much of this thread to be in pretty poor taste.  

To answer the basic question posed, I think Mr. Keiser would be happy to fund the creation of golf courses that operated at a break even level.  I don't think the same applies to Mr. Trump.  However, I don't think you can build the Bandon's, Cabot's or Barnbougle's of this world without a significant investment, and as he is not running a charity program the demand for quality comes with a corresponding need to recoup the dollars spent.

I'll start listening to arguments that there are similarities between the two men and their business practices when Keiser International gets built.

I miss typed, I meant proposed Muni to help with doing the resort course.  I have no doubt that his intentions are pure, which I stated in past threads, so don't cherry pick Sven.  We know what the purpose of a muni is.  Bandon Crossing was referencing the owner building a golf course and it not being on the Ocean and being affordable to more golfers!  I know what I am talking about.

[Sven Nilsen]

You may "know" what you are talking about, but you seem to struggle in conveying those thoughts in writing.  Its not "cherry picking" when its a trend.  Take it as a friendly suggestion that you slow down a little, reread what you write and make sure the language reflects your intentions.  Sorry if this comes across as harsh, but I tend to tune out posts that read like a Miley Cyrus tweet.

Also, we all know that you walk.  No need to remind us every fourth post.

[BCowan]

You may "know" what you are talking about, but you seem to struggle in conveying those thoughts in writing.  Its not "cherry picking" when its a trend.  Take it as a friendly suggestion that you slow down a little, reread what you write and make sure the language reflects your intentions.  Sorry if this comes across as harsh, but I tend to tune out posts that read like a Miley Cyrus tweet.

Also, we all know that you walk.  No need to remind us every fourth post.

Yes you were cherry picking my posts.  Trying to say we weren't serenading Mr Keiser to your liking!  I'm not into twitter and if I was I wouldn't be reading Miley Cyrus tweets.  Not the least harsh.  I don't remind people every 4 posts that I walk, but maybe i will bring it up more from now on.  Funny how Keiser (your hero) pretty much is admit on walking at his courses, yet you criticize me, lol.

[Sven Nilsen]

You may "know" what you are talking about, but you seem to struggle in conveying those thoughts in writing.  Its not "cherry picking" when its a trend.  Take it as a friendly suggestion that you slow down a little, reread what you write and make sure the language reflects your intentions.  Sorry if this comes across as harsh, but I tend to tune out posts that read like a Miley Cyrus tweet.

Also, we all know that you walk.  No need to remind us every fourth post.

Yes you were cherry picking my posts.  Trying to say we weren't serenading Mr Keiser to your liking!  I'm not into twitter and if I was I wouldn't be reading Miley Cyrus tweets.  Not the least harsh.  I don't remind people every 4 posts that I walk, but maybe i will bring it up more from now on.  Funny how Keiser (your hero) pretty much is admit on walking at his courses, yet you criticize me, lol.

Proving the point... 

The "lol" was a nice touch.

[BCowan]

Sam

   He and or his daughter said in an interview that he only cared about certain high end properties.  Which is his business.  

Of course, and that was what i was surprised hasn't been said yet. Trump doesn't care about 99.9% of the world, nothing wrong with that but people need to realize than and not look for him to be something he is not.

Let's not pretend that it's just Trump. You think Keiser is any different just because he's less brash and high profile. I don't think any of the current golf moguls care about affordable golf or the "average" Joe Golfer. Trump, Keiser, etc. are in business to make money and, to do that, they focus on the high-end golfing public. it's not wrong. I applaud their business models if they can make a profit in a tough economic market. But let's not pretend that they are focused on growing the game and bringing it to the masses.

You proved my point, you didn't address this post, Sven.

 ''Yeah, I think Keiser is a revolutionary with deep pockets.''

What I said above.  Again thanks for proving my Cherry Picking theory.

[Jerry Kluger]

I was not questioning the current business models of Trump, etc.  I was throwing out the question of whether there is a scenario where affordable golf is a plausible investment.  Could a business person see him/herself buying up some affordable courses and get a reasonable return on the investment with a greater return as  the courses become busier and operate more efficiently?