Should the private golf club business model be discussed openly on GCA.com?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

The culture and utilization patterns are changing at private clubs, but the business model remains viable.

"TIME" seems to be the biggest impediment with the emerging demographic.

If clubs don't reduce their time to play to 3:30 to 3:00 they'll have problems restocking their membership ranks

[Mike Sweeney]

What is the problem with supporting golf in the big picture as opposed to worrying about a dying model of private clubs that are short members by 20-30% on average?

Mike,

Not exactly sure what you mean by this...can you clarify? I'm just a dense public school kid...

1. Don't try that stuff with me  , I work with a Founder who in his words "has a high school degree from Florence" (Firenze) and is smarter than just about anyone I know.

2. "public school kid" - As a result of #1 and a number of other factors in my life including a crazy wife and a membership at Kabul Golf Club***, I made a conscience decision at some point to not be a typical St. Joe's Prep kid from the Main Line. Call it niche marketing, call it contrarian, I simply get bored easily and the old school "private country club model" is boring to me and does not fit our family vibe. I love golf, and consider myself "a golfer", and I play at a golf club - Yale. With that, I have a limited membership which gives me the mental freedom to play other courses without worrying about "getting my money's worth."

As Mike Young and others have stated, there are a variety of private club types. I will make the first attempt at defining these types:

• 1. totally private club which is a 501c4 non profit model - example Shinnecock* (I think)
• 2. semi-private club which is a 501c4 non profit model - example Cape Arundel - I think l
• 3. private club which is owned by an individual or group for profit -  Dismal River - I think
• 4. private club - university ownership - Yale**
• 5. others ? - Outpost Club is one example

* There are lots of different ways these clubs are funded. In general, they seem to be debt/bond but I am sure this will be challenged
** There seem to be many ways to allow outside play at university golf courses, so this can easily slide into a separate category.
*** Recruiting picture of GCA.com member to follow.

To answer Sully's question, I believe that other than the top clubs in the country and the top club in a specific region, many private clubs seem to be down 20-30% in memberships. There are many reasons for this, but certainly I am part of the problem. At an obnoxious period of my life I belonged to 4 private clubs. None were that expensive but today I am down to Yale. Why? Hey spending $450+ per round is not flying with The Boss these days and I really don't want to live that way.

#3 above is the new model, lets hear about the variety of models and we don't need to hear the names. Chris Johnston is adding alot to this discussion and if he gets a few enemies but more members, that is great in my opinion.

#5 is also what I would like to hear thoughts on. Obviously Streamsong is not a private club, but similar to Yale it got its land for free. Not sure this ever works for a for-profit private club, but if the Union League completes its purchase of Torresdale Frankford Country Club, should they not get some tax breaks for saving jobs and saving open space?

[Mike Sweeney]

"TIME" seems to be the biggest impediment with the emerging demographic.

If clubs don't reduce their time to play to 3:30 to 3:00 they'll have problems restocking their membership ranks

Agreed, but I think the next generation looks at private clubs as silly and stupid. I work with a 27 year old hipster from Hoboken and he is a casual golfer and he post on http://www.reddit.com/r/golf

If I posted this thread on Reddit, I would be tossed and laughed at. When I was with a business partner who is a similar age to me and we explained to 27 year old hipster how the private club scene works he politely said to us "wow that is crazy". If I knew how to use Reddit, my guess is there is a thread on there titled "So two Manhattan old guy golfers tried to scam me today with a private golf club membership"

[Kevin_D]

Hi Mike,

Fortunately, as a Carroll kid who grew up caddying instead of playing private courses I have none of the mental baggage of a privileged Prep kid 

As to the question of your thread, I would say, in a general sense "sure", though as far as specifics on particular clubs, "no"

I think for those who are interested with the right intentions it is not hard to find info on fees, dues, membership process, etc. through asking around.  I do not think it is appropriate to post some of this information on the internet for clubs where the member and/or owner wishes it to remain private.

I would also add that I am 36 and my club has many non-legacy members in their 20s and 30s.  I think your "down 20-30%" figure might be true of some clubs, but certainly not all.

If you did want more information on your "model #3" (and a real time example), I would suggest interviewing the owner of Long Island National, who has converted it to a private club and is currently selling memberships:
http://www.linationalgc.com/new-membership/

Finally - I am firmly of the belief that if you can't use your initiation fee as kindling without shedding a tear, you are making a foolish decision in joining a club.

Cheers,
Kevin

[Mike Sweeney]

If you did want more information on your "model #3" (and a real time example), I would suggest interviewing the owner of Long Island National, who has converted it to a private club and is currently selling memberships:
http://www.linationalgc.com/new-membership/

Wow. Thanks for posting that. Our group had the 7:08 tee time "membership" (see #5) on Saturday's when LI National opened. There is a case study there for sure...

[Carl Johnson]

What is the problem with supporting golf in the big picture as opposed to worrying about a dying model of private clubs that are short members by 20-30% on average?

Mike,

Not exactly sure what you mean by this...can you clarify? I'm just a dense public school kid...

As Mike Young and others have stated, there are a variety of private club types. I will make the first attempt at defining these types:

• 1. totally private club which is a 501c4 non profit model - example Shinnecock* (I think)
• 2. semi-private club which is a 501c4 non profit model - example Cape Arundel - I think l

[[/list]

Most clubs are actually 501(c)(7)s.  Here's Shinnecock's 990, which reports (c)(7) status.

http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/111/111324970/111324970_201212_990O.pdf  See line I at the top of page 1.

I could not find a 990 for Cape Arundel (assuming it's the club in Maine), so it may be differently organized (not a 501(c) nonprofit, unless the official name is different).

Here's a list of the 29 different tax exempt org sections of the IRC.  Golf clubs would fit much better under (c)(7) than (c)(4), IMHO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

The culture and utilization patterns are changing at private clubs, but the business model remains viable.

"TIME" seems to be the biggest impediment with the emerging demographic.

If clubs don't reduce their time to play to 3:30 to 3:00 they'll have problems restocking their membership ranks

Pat,
There is one other thing that will save private clubs and if it isn't fixed quickly they will decrease in number rapidly.  The average ageof the member is 59 nationwide and it needs to be down in the high 40's to early 50's range.  With as many baby boomers as we have passing 60 it is going to be hard to do without getting a lot of 35 year olds in the mix...I don't see it happening and not sure it can be fixed....

[JC Jones]

I'm in the under 35 golfer demographic and te furthest thing from my mind is pace of play.  First, I've found the pace of play at the private clubs I've been fortunate to play to be just fine.  Such things are handled well internally.

Secondly, my wife and, I assume, most non-playing wives understand that with travel time, range time and post-round beer a trip to the course is going to be a 5+ hour commitment so trimming off 30 minutes by speeding up pace of play is not likely to have any impact on the decision to play or not play.  Even on days where I'm just trying to get out to play and nothing else the spousal assumption is 4 hours plus travel time and again, another 30 mins is not going to make or break that decision.  Either my wife and I are willing to commit the time for me to play or not but shaving at the margins is not the issue.

The 3 things, in my opinion, that are at the forefront are:

1.  Commitment to the game.  My generation is much more committed to being active in our children's lives than the previous generation.  Wr also work more hours (and for less money, see #2) There is time, however, to play golf but not to play golf and have 10 other hobbies.  Guys I know are just choosing other hobbies over golf.

2.  Cost.  The price to join clubs as increased along with baby-boomer ability to pay.  My generation isn't making as much money as the previous generation considering wages have not increased with cost of living and we are more responsible for our retirement than the baby-boomer generation.  The money just isn't there for a lot of people.

3.  Spouse involvement.  Like a lot of things, if the spouse sees value in the club beyond the golf then the club has value.  A good friend of mine is a member of a traditional club and his wife doesn't play but her father is a member and they eat at the club often, use the pool, tennis courts, exercise room, etc.  My wife (nor I) did not grow up at a club and she finds other outlets for such things so she doesn't see any value in a club with all of those amenities.

This all being said, the private clubs in Charlotte are doing well (I can't say that as a matter of fact but they seem to be) and my favorite club here, even with a hefty initiation, has 500 members and a waiting list.  Most of their new membership are guys in my demographic who are avid golfers.  So, the people are out there, it's just finding the right mix of 1, 2 & 3 to fill the membership rolls.

There might be markets out there that have too many clubs for their economic and population demographic and so they either need to change or close.  But, in Charlotte that doesn't seem to be a huge problem.

I think the multi-million dollar question is WHY are guys choosing biking, hiking, running, etc. over golf?  Pace of play might be some of an issue for public golfers but not for people who would join a private club.  In Charlotte, we have a brewery that has a run club.  On Wednesday nights, a bunch of people get together around 6pm, run for an hour or so and then have a couple beers.  Why would they rather do that than go play 9 holes?  The Saturday AM cyclists go out in groups for hours.  That isn't a pace of play/time commitment issue.

What changed about the game?  Or, did nothing change we just have too many golf courses?

[Mike Sweeney]

A little dated from 2008, and not Mike Young's favorite group, but here is a pretty good report from the NGF on private clubs:

http://media.naplesnews.com/media/static/Private_Club_Report_final.pdf

[Jud_T]

Mike,

Thanks for posting that.  The 2 things that stood out glaringly at first glance were that 1) There's a 40% higher female participation rate at private clubs and 2) the average score shot at private clubs is 101.   How many private courses, and clubs for that matter, have been designed and maintained primarily to accommodate #1 & 2?

[Joe_Tucholski]

As touched on earlier the costs associated with construction and maintenance is an interesting topic to me.  George Thomas gives some general dollar amounts in his book:
Clearing....$4k (5%)  approx. $54k after inflation adjustment
Grading....$18k (22%) approx. $243k inflation adjustment 
Water system....$24k (30%) approx. $324k inflation adjustment
Seed....$2k (2%) approx. $27k inflation adjustment
Sowing fairways....$4k (5%) approx. $54k after inflation adjustment
Labor...$20k (25%) approx. $270k inflation adjustment
Sand for traps....$4k (5%) approx. $54k inflation adjustment
Other infrastructure costs (roads, bridges)....$5k (6%) approx. $67k inflation adjustment

Total $81k approx. $1.1million after inflation adjustment.

There is really no reason for me to know this information but it is interesting to me…despite the unrealistic dreams, chances are I won’t build a course anytime in my life.

As far as operating budgets I do feel this topic is a bit more important to know about, especially when joining a private club, and hopefully the budget includes the loan payments from building/purchasing the land/course.  Not sure if the affordable golf symposium goes into details about golf course budgets but there are tons of reports on the internet written by consultants that analyze the operations of golf courses.  Here’s one about the LA municipal courses and then an aggregated study on all courses.  Not surprising the budgets for private courses are significantly higher than public courses.  (http://www.laparks.org/golf/pdf/Final%20Golf%20Study%20Report_September%202011.pdf  http://www.golfcourseindustry.com/gci0212-state-of-industry-report.aspx)

To discuss the topic further I’m 30 and joined a private club at 28 that I think falls into category 2 (semi-private club which is a 501c4 non profit model - example Cape Arundel).  I don’t understand all the tax implications for clubs, and figure most people don’t understand the tax codes.  When I was looking at clubs to join it was frustrating to try and find out what the costs were going to be.  I’m sure there is a subset of people that says if you’re concerned about costs you shouldn’t be joining a club…well that’s not me and I don’t think that’s a realistic viewpoint for most perspective private club members.  I didn’t like that I had to give my name and information to the club and then have the club contact me.  I felt like it was the same process when buying a car.  We do our research online and are forced to enter our information and have a representative contact us and give us a price.  Why do they add this unnecessary layer?  Just publish the information online.  From my perspective the only logical reasons to keep the information under wraps is so they can charge different customers different prices without upsetting those that pay more and to allow the sales guys to sell.  Even after two years I’m still getting occasional e-mails from clubs asking about my interest (just got one 2 weeks ago from a top 100 club).  There are some that say they want their finances private.  I get that but people who want to know can find out, they just have to do a little more leg work.  Further I would much rather have my neighbor know what I paid than spread rumors that I paid 200k to join such and such club.  I feel expectations on privacy are changing, you can figure out when someone has a bowel movement by following them on twitter or friending on facebook.

When we joined the club I was able to find an archive of the minutes from the board of directors and in the minutes they seemed to be discussing changes in the membership structure and the initiation fees.  When I asked the membership coordinator about this she wouldn’t provide any details about the potential changes.  About 3 months after we joined the initiation fee went down 66% for the category we joined.

To be honest joining the club clearly wasn’t the smartest economic decision we’ve made.  We’re both in careers where we move every few years and joining a private club really doesn’t make a lot of sense in this situation.  I think moving often due to multiple job changes is becoming more of the norm.  All of my college friends have moved multiple times (this is a bit unique) but even when looking at my high school friends I can only think of one that has stayed with the same company since finishing undergrad, and even he has moved once in the last 9 years.

I also agree with everything JC said in his last post and I think courses that want to attract younger members are going to have to change if they want to survive.

[Mike_Young]

I'm not sure these semi private clubs can come under a non-profit club status...I think it requires that only a small amount of income come form non members....not sure but have heard it often..

MikeS,
It's not that NGF is not one of my favorites...they just happen to be a good picture of what happened to golf...and they are corporate driven idiots...

[BCowan]

Joe_Tucholski,

Great post

[Mike Sweeney]

http://www.golfcourseindustry.com/gci0212-state-of-industry-report.aspx)

I didn’t like that I had to give my name and information to the club and then have the club contact me.  I felt like it was the same process when buying a car.  We do our research online and are forced to enter our information and have a representative contact us and give us a price.  Why do they add this unnecessary layer?  Just publish the information online.  From my perspective the only logical reasons to keep the information under wraps is so they can charge different customers different prices without upsetting those that pay more and to allow the sales guys to sell. 

Joe,

1. Thanks for posting that report, very informative.

2. Your perspective of "membership sales" is exactly what I was expecting when I posted this thread. Thanks for posting and hopefully some of the Old Guard will see this. As you are obviously a golf nut since you post here, perhaps 90% of the younger candidates never even fill out the form. I hope they understand this....

[Dave Doxey]

I'm in agreement with Joe.

I have a hard time understanding why membership fees for private clubs are not readily available to people looking for a club to join.

What is the reason to require contacting a membership person at each club for pricing?  What are they hiding?  Certainly competitors stay aware of pricing. If it's to appear “exclusive”, that practice in no longer aligned with the times.

Whenever someone is not open about the price of their product or service, I am suspect.

Today, people expect transparency on pricing to make comparisons and decisions easier.  Unless a club does not need members, publish rates. 

And clubs wonder why younger people aren't joining....

[Jud_T]

Are you guys who are for complete transparency also for allowing in every race, creed, gender and sexual orientation?  How about every a$$hole with a checkbook?

[Dave Doxey]

Are you guys who are for complete transparency also for allowing in every race, creed, gender and sexual orientation?  How about every a$$hole with a checkbook?

Yup.  Bigots also.  As long as they can pay their dues....

[Jason Thurman]

Dave, I agree with you. Guys from my generation don't like contacting a membership director, and clubs that are looking for members would be well-served to publish their rates online, especially if they're competitive.

Jones, do you think part of the attraction to hiking, cycling, running, and other endeavors stems from how much more casual they are? I wear jeans to work a few days a week, but I can't wear them to my club. I don't see a lot of guys our age who get excited to throw on a sport coat and slacks to go eat comfort food with a bunch of old people.

I don't think the issues clubs are facing have a lot to do with golf. Rounds are down over the last 15 years, but it's not a gigantic decline. I see the bigger issue lying with club culture itself. My anecdotal observations that private clubs locally have struggled, closed, declared bankruptcy, or rearranged their business models with far more frequency than public courses supports that notion. Most guys my age just aren't that interested in boring club food, eating at the same place over and over again, drinking average booze, and dressing in clothes that are dressier than what we wear to work. Clubs aren't going to get younger until the decision-makers at clubs get younger, and the atmosphere and activities become more youthful. Of course, moving in that direction risks driving off a lot of the old guys who pay the bills. It's a tough balance to strike.

[Dave Doxey]

Dave, I agree with you. Guys from my generation don't like contacting a membership director, and clubs that are looking for members would be well-served to publish their rates online, especially if they're competitive.

Jones, do you think part of the attraction to hiking, cycling, running, and other endeavors stems from how much more casual they are? I wear jeans to work a few days a week, but I can't wear them to my club. I don't see a lot of guys our age who get excited to throw on a sport coat and slacks to go eat comfort food with a bunch of old people.

I don't think the issues clubs are facing have a lot to do with golf. Rounds are down over the last 15 years, but it's not a gigantic decline. I see the bigger issue lying with club culture itself. My anecdotal observations that private clubs locally have struggled, closed, declared bankruptcy, or rearranged their business models with far more frequency than public courses supports that notion. Most guys my age just aren't that interested in boring club food, eating at the same place over and over again, drinking average booze, and dressing in clothes that are dressier than what we wear to work. Clubs aren't going to get younger until the decision-makers at clubs get younger, and the atmosphere and activities become more youthful. Of course, moving in that direction risks driving off a lot of the old guys who pay the bills. It's a tough balance to strike.

Thanks Jason.  I'm one of "the old guys who pay the bills".  A few of us recognize the need to change from the stodgy old traditions and get some young guys to start paying the bills before the club goes under.  You still will never see me wearing my hat backwards while eating the boring food in the dining room 

[Matt Ingraham]

I'm in the under 35 golfer demographic and te furthest thing from my mind is pace of play.  First, I've found the pace of play at the private clubs I've been fortunate to play to be just fine.  Such things are handled well internally.

Secondly, my wife and, I assume, most non-playing wives understand that with travel time, range time and post-round beer a trip to the course is going to be a 5+ hour commitment so trimming off 30 minutes by speeding up pace of play is not likely to have any impact on the decision to play or not play.  Even on days where I'm just trying to get out to play and nothing else the spousal assumption is 4 hours plus travel time and again, another 30 mins is not going to make or break that decision.  Either my wife and I are willing to commit the time for me to play or not but shaving at the margins is not the issue.

The 3 things, in my opinion, that are at the forefront are:

1.  Commitment to the game.  My generation is much more committed to being active in our children's lives than the previous generation.  Wr also work more hours (and for less money, see #2) There is time, however, to play golf but not to play golf and have 10 other hobbies.  Guys I know are just choosing other hobbies over golf.

2.  Cost.  The price to join clubs as increased along with baby-boomer ability to pay.  My generation isn't making as much money as the previous generation considering wages have not increased with cost of living and we are more responsible for our retirement than the baby-boomer generation.  The money just isn't there for a lot of people.

3.  Spouse involvement.  Like a lot of things, if the spouse sees value in the club beyond the golf then the club has value.  A good friend of mine is a member of a traditional club and his wife doesn't play but her father is a member and they eat at the club often, use the pool, tennis courts, exercise room, etc.  My wife (nor I) did not grow up at a club and she finds other outlets for such things so she doesn't see any value in a club with all of those amenities.

This all being said, the private clubs in Charlotte are doing well (I can't say that as a matter of fact but they seem to be) and my favorite club here, even with a hefty initiation, has 500 members and a waiting list.  Most of their new membership are guys in my demographic who are avid golfers.  So, the people are out there, it's just finding the right mix of 1, 2 & 3 to fill the membership rolls.

There might be markets out there that have too many clubs for their economic and population demographic and so they either need to change or close.  But, in Charlotte that doesn't seem to be a huge problem.

I think the multi-million dollar question is WHY are guys choosing biking, hiking, running, etc. over golf?  Pace of play might be some of an issue for public golfers but not for people who would join a private club.  In Charlotte, we have a brewery that has a run club.  On Wednesday nights, a bunch of people get together around 6pm, run for an hour or so and then have a couple beers.  Why would they rather do that than go play 9 holes?  The Saturday AM cyclists go out in groups for hours.  That isn't a pace of play/time commitment issue.

What changed about the game?  Or, did nothing change we just have too many golf courses?

This is one of the best posts I have read on this matter.  One issue facing many of my friends in the 30-35 age range not mentioned above is student loan debt.  Several friends who could afford to join a club today are instead putting a lot of their disposable income towards their student loans. 

[JC Jones]

I'd like to say, firstly, that I do not think that clubs necessarily need to publicly disclose their membership structures and dues.  They are, still, a private club and anyone who is interested in joining shouldn't have a problem reaching out to the membership director.  I think this, along with pace of play, are the two biggest distractions in this discussion.  I agree with a lot of what Joe had to say and even share with him some of his issues in making a decision on joining a club but I do not agree with the availability of cost issue.  I think that should remain private and I don't think people who are seriously interested in joining a club would let that preclude them from joining.

Thurms, I think casualness does have some influence.  Some clubs can get away with it depending on their prestige and exclusivity, then again, those are the clubs who aren't really having a problem.  For example, I think it is silly that one has to wear a jacket to eat lunch in the men's grill at Shoreacres but I doubt Shoreacres is on an active membership hunt.  And really, I think all of the issues we are talking about are not relevant to a certain subset of private clubs.  You're right though, a modern club that is struggling financially should not be jacket only and a single seating for dinner.

That being said, I belong to a club that asks that you take your hat off before entering the clubhouse.  I don't see a problem with that and was always taught to take my hat off before entering any building.  The game has always expected a certain level of decency and  decorum, and I think that is fine.  How decent is an interesting question and there is certainly a happy place in between requiring all golf be played in long pants and allowing people to play in jeans.

I think your other points regarding food and atmosphere are interesting.  Our generation likes to eat at different restaurants, we like craft beer and cocktails and are generally more of the "foodie" set.  I'm still not sure how much of a role that plays in the decision making matrix.

I still think cost is the prevailing issue.  The report that Mike Sweeney linked to had data to suggest that cost was the biggest factor and I still think it is.  The other activities I cited are certainly cheaper than golf.  I think clubs need to seriously consider meaningful discounts to junior members and scaling up membership costs.  Some clubs have junior programs but they are not significantly different than the regular membership or they cut off too early.  

[JC Jones]

I'm in the under 35 golfer demographic and te furthest thing from my mind is pace of play.  First, I've found the pace of play at the private clubs I've been fortunate to play to be just fine.  Such things are handled well internally.

Secondly, my wife and, I assume, most non-playing wives understand that with travel time, range time and post-round beer a trip to the course is going to be a 5+ hour commitment so trimming off 30 minutes by speeding up pace of play is not likely to have any impact on the decision to play or not play.  Even on days where I'm just trying to get out to play and nothing else the spousal assumption is 4 hours plus travel time and again, another 30 mins is not going to make or break that decision.  Either my wife and I are willing to commit the time for me to play or not but shaving at the margins is not the issue.

The 3 things, in my opinion, that are at the forefront are:

1.  Commitment to the game.  My generation is much more committed to being active in our children's lives than the previous generation.  Wr also work more hours (and for less money, see #2) There is time, however, to play golf but not to play golf and have 10 other hobbies.  Guys I know are just choosing other hobbies over golf.

2.  Cost.  The price to join clubs as increased along with baby-boomer ability to pay.  My generation isn't making as much money as the previous generation considering wages have not increased with cost of living and we are more responsible for our retirement than the baby-boomer generation.  The money just isn't there for a lot of people.

3.  Spouse involvement.  Like a lot of things, if the spouse sees value in the club beyond the golf then the club has value.  A good friend of mine is a member of a traditional club and his wife doesn't play but her father is a member and they eat at the club often, use the pool, tennis courts, exercise room, etc.  My wife (nor I) did not grow up at a club and she finds other outlets for such things so she doesn't see any value in a club with all of those amenities.

This all being said, the private clubs in Charlotte are doing well (I can't say that as a matter of fact but they seem to be) and my favorite club here, even with a hefty initiation, has 500 members and a waiting list.  Most of their new membership are guys in my demographic who are avid golfers.  So, the people are out there, it's just finding the right mix of 1, 2 & 3 to fill the membership rolls.

There might be markets out there that have too many clubs for their economic and population demographic and so they either need to change or close.  But, in Charlotte that doesn't seem to be a huge problem.

I think the multi-million dollar question is WHY are guys choosing biking, hiking, running, etc. over golf?  Pace of play might be some of an issue for public golfers but not for people who would join a private club.  In Charlotte, we have a brewery that has a run club.  On Wednesday nights, a bunch of people get together around 6pm, run for an hour or so and then have a couple beers.  Why would they rather do that than go play 9 holes?  The Saturday AM cyclists go out in groups for hours.  That isn't a pace of play/time commitment issue.

What changed about the game?  Or, did nothing change we just have too many golf courses?

This is one of the best posts I have read on this matter.  One issue facing many of my friends in the 30-35 age range not mentioned above is student loan debt.  Several friends who could afford to join a club today are instead putting a lot of their disposable income towards their student loans. 

That is a good call.  $50,000 in student loan debt is roughly equal to $500/mo for 20+ years.

[John Kavanaugh]

I think the multi-million dollar question is WHY are guys choosing biking, hiking, running, etc. over golf?  Pace of play might be some of an issue for public golfers but not for people who would join a private club.  In Charlotte, we have a brewery that has a run club.  On Wednesday nights, a bunch of people get together around 6pm, run for an hour or so and then have a couple beers.  Why would they rather do that than go play 9 holes?  The Saturday AM cyclists go out in groups for hours.  That isn't a pace of play/time commitment issue.

What changed about the game?  Or, did nothing change we just have too many golf courses?

I love to hike and cycle with my wife because it is not competitive.  I play tennis and golf with my friends because they are.  The younger generations were raised on tee ball and not keeping score.  Cycling and hiking feeds into the unisex everybody wins culture.

My wife and I always tie when we hike and cycle.  If I had to tie her playing golf I would quit.  A nice pic from our hike in the red rocks of Colorado.

https://myspace.com/gillettesilver/mixes/profilemix-213623/photo/66613579

[Keith Grande]

^ if you had to wait for other runners/cyclists/hikers to get out of your way, you'd bitch too! 

[Thomas Dai]

Generally speaking, folk in the western world are living longer and retiring or semi-retiring earlier. So maybe the grow-the-game element is actually the 50+ age group?
atb