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

[Mike Sweeney]

Shelly and Pat,

The point of this thread was to explore alternative models, not to exclude ANY models - public, private, or semi-private.

Since Shelly extended the conversation of the "no prices on the restaurant menu", I heard about this restaurant the other day (have not visited) in Red Bank, New Jersey, which is near the Jersey Shore:

Our vision here at Soul Kitchen is to serve healthy, delicious, and when possible, organic meals. At Soul Kitchen you will notice there are no prices on the menu and you might have been seated with someone you don’t know. Customers pay the minimum donation or volunteer in some way to earn a dining certificate for a meal.

http://www.jbjsoulkitchen.org/about

Now it is well funded by Jon Bon Jovi's Foundation (I am fond of him, but not his music) but my guess is it will need to build a sustainable model on its own, otherwise it will not last. The vibe that they present on the website is very compelling to me, and if I head to the Jersey Shore this summer to visit friends at the beach this is the restaurant that I would want to visit. Why? Well having a Special Needs son has probably made me overly sensitive to the topics of inclusion, and this place just has a great vibe from here on the other side of a computer screen.

What does this remind me of in golf? The artisan golf club, and one could even say The Golf Club @ Golf Club Atlas where donations are accepted to maintain our little nuthouse and many golf trips are run at break-even by members of this site.

12 years later, I still like Gib's thread - You have started your own club - who gets in?

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,3876.0.html

[BCowan]

In reflecting on this thread, it occured to me that the plague that's been sweeping America might be at the core of this thread.

What plague you ask ?

The plague known as "the right of entitlement"

WHY should a private club display confidential information to satisfy the requests of strangers ?

Why should a private club provide any information for public consumption ?

Pat,
 
   When was the last time you played a club with 50% of its membership filled?  In your neck of the woods being in close relationship to the printing press and a propped up stock market you have nothing to worry about.  It's called people of your generation not knowing how to adjust to market forces.  You are also the type to believe in Supply Side economics, that if you just cut taxes it will bring in more revenue for the FED gov't, but then you tell me that wouldn't work at a Golf Club that is significantly hurting and I say fuey! 

[BCowan]

Pat;  That may be part of it but I think there is more.  The suggestion appears to be that private clubs are facing hard times.  This is undoubtedly true because it is true for all golf.  We are overbuilt so there are a certain number of clubs that are struggling.  
The suggestion is that by making its fee schedule public, a club will have a better chance to compete.  Additionally, there appears to be a fear that the reason a club will not go "public" is because it makes special deals for favored applicants.  I suspect that if an individual needs to see the fees in public and is unwilling to make the effort to find out through a personal call, he is unlikely to become a member.  Its not much of an effort for one who is truly interested in making a significant financial and personal commitment.  As to the special deals, if the club is member owned and operated, that practice would be very difficult to maintain.
Overbuilt in some areas, but quality always shins through.  Overbuilt is the excuse.  He is less likely to waste his time and your time.  Again if you have 150 members and 350 is your limit, you should be eliminating jobs to save money.  No special deals, restructuring of membership to a 21st Century model.
What I think is missing from a lot of these comments is the lack of feeling for that which makes a club a "club".  The camaraderie and friendships that arise at a club, the fun that is had playing in competitions with fellow members over time and the satisfaction gained working on shared projects are the glue that binds clubs.  Thus the emphasis on dollars and cents and the failure to consider the intangible aspects shows a lack of understanding of the real appeal of a club.  Jackie Burke had a nice section on this aspect in his book.I have very close bonds at the quasi private club I play at, we have club Championships and very easy to make games with people of ages ranging from 27-75.  The Jackie Burke quote was from when?  It is out of date and an excuse.  Why do restaurants post the price of a filet, and many post their menu on the outside of their restaurant (fine dining)

Candidly, a lot of this discussion strikes me as rationalizations.  Historically, other than people with old money, people joined clubs in their late 30's to early 50's after they had their feet on the ground in their careers and had a sense of where they stood economically and building their families.  That hasn't changed and we will find out how many of those entering into these years are interested in club life.  The economy will play a role.  But a core of people will enjoy our game and others will want club life.  Perhaps there will be a movement toward other forms of clubs.  Of course many muni's have their own form by establishing Men's and Women's Associations which hold events on the local course.  Before I was ready to join my club, that is how I played my golf.Back in the 30's we were on a gold standard and inflation wasn't 5%.  Yes, it has changed drastically.  Comparing Muni's to what Sweeney and I are talking about is the extremes of GCA in which you can't have a rational discussion about this issue.  My club has a 3-5 year waiting list, the CC that is 7 miles away has 150 members and the dues are double.  Your hard core golfers want private for pace of play reasons, friendships, and the love of golf (Golf club model type).  My course doesn't have an initiation, and people don't leave (amazing) blows the whole people will leave because they aren't invested theory out of the water.

Finally, the amount of disinformation passed around to try and make a point is pretty bad. For example, Ben, if you want to tell me that restaurants in Chicago gave out menus without prices and sold food 30 to 40 years ago, you will have to name the restaurants and not rely on "parents of a friend". Perhaps some establishments retained a sexist practice of keeping prices from the fairer sex, but those were mostly clubs.  How do I know?  39 years ago I returned To Chicago from Cambridge after finishing law school and I didn't cook much so I spent a lot of time in restaurants on my own and chasing girls.  30 years ago I still lived in the metropolitan area and had started my family and I continue to live here.  I can't remember a single instance where I didn't see the prices.What i underlined is basically what they said, I was using it to show that in some part times have changed some.  I am also not saying posting of dues and fees is going to result in a big gain of members (Also not suggesting it is needed for every club).  Restructuring of the model is the most important aspect of failing private clubs IMHO.  Oh, to be young again and chasing girls, I miss those days.

Moreover, I am active in club administration for the entire Chicago District and the characterization of the admission process by the critics in this thread is not reflective of the situation in Chicago except that most clubs don't post their fee schedule.  you still have to ask.  For most member owned clubs, you still have to be sponsored and interviewed.  that's because the members want to know who they are admitting; its part of keeping the club friendly.  But if the economics get tough enough, some will change.  Regardless, I believe a significant number of clubs and courses will fold.  Overbuilding in a bubble results in problems.  The sad part for architecture buffs is that we can't choose the courses that will fail. Shell, you have to think outside Chicago.  I don't know the Chicago Golf market, do you have private clubs that are half full?  This is what bothers me, instead of admitting that some CC's need to go to the GOLF CLUB model similar to Australia and England to be healthy, you say they need to close due to overbuilding.  There are great gems that are in danger of closing, due to following and doubling down on the CC model in the wrong burb.  These clubs were built 80+ years ago.  We aren't talking about your golf course which is in a solid burb.  I also agreed with and enjoyed your post regarding new members.  

[BHoover]

As a history nerd, I don't want to see anything historical, including a golf course, go under. But at the same time, if the members of a club refuse to change and the club/course goes under, then so be it. Perhaps someone like Trump will step in and buy it on the back end and convert it to a golf club or resort.

The idea of the Aussie or UK model is great in theory, but one thing we are forgetting is the tax impact. Many clubs here in the USA are tax-exempt entities and as such it's just not possible to open them up to visitor play...unless they want to face the possibility of paying UBIT, which surely they do not if they're hurting for cash.

[BCowan]

''The idea of the Aussie or UK model is great in theory, but one thing we are forgetting is the tax impact. Many clubs here in the USA are tax-exempt entities and as such it's just not possible to open them up to visitor play...unless they want to face the possibility of paying UBIT, which surely they do not if they're hurting for cash.''

   I'd imagine there are many healthy clubs in Australia that aren't on the major rotation that people don't visit from other countries.  Forget Aussie or UK, how about the courses Sweeney and I play at.  I can't speak for Yale, but my club has a 3-5 year waiting list.  

[BHoover]

''The idea of the Aussie or UK model is great in theory, but one thing we are forgetting is the tax impact. Many clubs here in the USA are tax-exempt entities and as such it's just not possible to open them up to visitor play...unless they want to face the possibility of paying UBIT, which surely they do not if they're hurting for cash.''

   I'd imagine there are many healthy clubs in Australia that aren't on the major rotation that people don't visit from other countries.  Forget Aussie or UK, how about the courses Sweeney and I play at.  I can't speak for Yale, but my club has a 3-5 year waiting list.  You should go email Royal Melbourne and see what there dues are, then compare it to one of our top 40 courses. 

The only reason I would email a club to ask about pricing would be if I was serious about joining. I wish I could say that I was looking to join RM, but unfortunately that is not the case.

Regardless of that, how do you get around the tax issue? It's not so easy to go from tax-exempt status to taxable, particularly if you're in need of cash.

[BCowan]

''Regardless of that, how do you get around the tax issue? It's not so easy to go from tax-exempt status to taxable, particularly if you're in need of cash.''

    I don't understand.  I am not advocating taxing change.  Single memberships, may have to take out a loan to advertise.  If the price is right, people will come.  Do cost benefit analysis too, to see what areas a club needs to shut down (Pool?)  Tennis has been in decline for 20 years i believe (don't hold me to that). 

[BHoover]

''Regardless of that, how do you get around the tax issue? It's not so easy to go from tax-exempt status to taxable, particularly if you're in need of cash.''

    I don't understand.  I am not advocating taxing change.  Single memberships, may have to take out a loan to advertise.  If the price is right, people will come.  Do cost benefit analysis too, to see what areas a club needs to shut down (Pool?)  Tennis has been in decline for 20 years i believe (don't hold me to that). 

I assumed that the Aussie and UK c,ub model would include allowing visitor play to generate revenue. But that's not feasible with the tax status of many country/golf clubs in the USA.

I agree that struggling clubs ought to do a cost-benefit analysis. My guess is that F&B is a loss generator at many clubs (but I have no evidence). I also assume that upkeep on clubhouses is a big drain on cash.  Not sure about pools because the ones at the clubs I've been at seem to do a brisk business. Tennis could be a loss but the upkeep of tennis courts seems to be rather minimal. What if the cost-benefit analysis shows that the golf course is the biggest money loser? What then?

[Dan Herrmann]

There one other key differentiation I don't think I've seen mentioned - equity vs. corporate ownership private clubs.

I've been in both, and I prefer the corporate model.  Lots of reasons, but the primary is that we don't have a Green Committee chair that can screw around with the design of the golf course. 

Key to me because the course design is the primary reason I joined where I am now.   The other factor was pace of play.

It's a dumb economic decision to join, but it's a great quality of life decision.  That's the balance clubs need to sell - the quality of life, because without it, you may as well be selling Orlando-area timeshares!  

[BCowan]

''Regardless of that, how do you get around the tax issue? It's not so easy to go from tax-exempt status to taxable, particularly if you're in need of cash.''

    I don't understand.  I am not advocating taxing change.  Single memberships, may have to take out a loan to advertise.  If the price is right, people will come.  Do cost benefit analysis too, to see what areas a club needs to shut down (Pool?)  Tennis has been in decline for 20 years i believe (don't hold me to that).  

I assumed that the Aussie and UK c,ub model would include allowing visitor play to generate revenue. But that's not feasible with the tax status of many country/golf clubs in the USA.

I agree that struggling clubs ought to do a cost-benefit analysis. My guess is that F&B is a loss generator at many clubs (but I have no evidence). I also assume that upkeep on clubhouses is a big drain on cash.  Not sure about pools because the ones at the clubs I've been at seem to do a brisk business. Tennis could be a loss but the upkeep of tennis courts seems to be rather minimal. What if the cost-benefit analysis shows that the golf course is the biggest money loser? What then?

   I would say F&B staying open in the cold months is a big money loser.  Pool depending on location can do really well, so I agree with you.  I grew up at a golf club that had a pool and a successful social membership just for the (pool).  Tennis courts are suppose to be resurfaced every X amount of year.  Well personally i think private clubs spend more on maint then their upscale public counterparts (maint arms race).  I would say the model is wrong.  The private club model is set up for family's.  Well I grew up with both parents playing so it was beneficial to us.  The single guy or gal who is into golf can't justify the model when they break down the cost per round, paying $100-200 a round to play your own course doesn't make sense for a lot of people. (This is coming from a friend who went to Ryder Cup at Valderama and the British Open, serious golfer I'd say)  The Single membership with small fees for kids 13-22 seems to work very well where I play.  That way if your wife plays, she is more of a serious golfer.  If you have 350 active family memberships vs 700 individual memberships you open up to more potential players.  I know there is only X amount of Sat morning times, but it seems to work spontaneously very well.  

[Sean_A]

Brian

I think there are plenty of private clubs that could accept the tax element in becoming a business and do very, very well.  The issue is more the members don't really want a business for their golf club and that is understandable.  Some clubs will be forced to go public and in these cases, I wonder why the UK model isn't attempted.  Basically, a public with a club attached.  Of course, the club would have to have some special treatment to make it viable, but I have always thought the marriage could work in the US.  

Ciao  

[Jud_T]

1.  Yale and Radrick are University golf courses.  As such they are not true semi private public entities (even if anyone with $500 can "join" a club and play Radrick).

2.  Many clubs do have individual member categories and are not full.

3.  So clubs are supposed to plow under the tennis court, pool and big old clubhouse, cut maintenance and get rid of the silly outdated membership process so anyone can join for a season.  Good luck selling that to any membership without a fire sale and an ownership change.

[BHoover]

Brian

I think there are plenty of private clubs that could accept the tax element in becoming a business and do very, very well.  The issue is more the members don't really want a business for their golf club and that is understandable.  Some clubs will be forced to go public and in these cases, I wonder why the UK model isn't attempted.  Basically, a public with a club attached.  Of course, the cub would have to have some special treatment to make it viable, but I have always thought the marriage could work in the US.  

Ciao  

Sean, I would love for the UK model to find its way here to the USA. Eventually it could happen, but I think you're right about the issues holding it up. I don't begrudge members not wanting to open up their course to outside play. It's their club so they have every right to do with it what they want. But some day, when the deep pocketed members are gone or few in number, they may need to think of adopting a model that allows the club to survive.

[BHoover]

3.  So clubs are supposed to plow under the tennis court, pool and big old clubhouse, cut maintenance and get rid of the silly outdated membership process so anyone can join for a season.  Good luck selling that to any membership without a fire sale and an ownership change.

Not sure anyone is saying that. I for one certainly don't advocate that any club should do anything that its members don't want (we still do believe in some measure of private property in this country, I think).

But at some point it may come to that, to some extent, at man clubs. Maybe not in big markets like NYC, Chicago or San Fran, but perhaps here in "flyover country" where the supply of future members at country/golf clubs is rather limited. It would be a shame to see classic courses go under simply for the sake of adherence to an unfeasible economic model...but if that's what members want, then they have every right to do so.

[BCowan]

1.  Yale and Radrick are University golf courses.  As such they are not true semi private public entities (even if anyone with $500 can "join" a club and play Radrick).

Yeah, you can't get a tee time off the street, hence quasi private.  Equity clubs aren't the only private model.  

2.  Many clubs do have individual member categories and are not full.  

they aren't half dues, they are most likely 10-15% of a family membership is my bet.

3.  So clubs are supposed to plow under the tennis court, pool and big old clubhouse, cut maintenance and get rid of the silly outdated membership process so anyone can join for a season.  Good luck selling that to any membership without a fire sale and an ownership change. --  

Yeah keep putting money into a sinking ship.  If you don't have the social members to pay for the pool expenses (closing/opening and operating) you aren't a wise club.  Funny thing is the people that are alum at the course I play at continue to re-sign their memberships at $1800 a pop.  A friend has been there for 22 years.  I don't expect them to change, they will just typically complain about who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, much easier.  The definition of insanity.  

[BCowan]

Brian

I think there are plenty of private clubs that could accept the tax element in becoming a business and do very, very well.  The issue is more the members don't really want a business for their golf club and that is understandable.  Some clubs will be forced to go public and in these cases, I wonder why the UK model isn't attempted.  Basically, a public with a club attached.  Of course, the cub would have to have some special treatment to make it viable, but I have always thought the marriage could work in the US.  

Ciao  

Sean, I would love for the UK model to find its way here to the USA. Eventually it could happen, but I think you're right about the issues holding it up. I don't begrudge members not wanting to open up their course to outside play. It's their club so they have every right to do with it what they want. But some day, when the deep pocketed members are gone or few in number, they may need to think of adopting a model that allows the club to survive.

  I am not advocating opening a club up to public (maybe on a monday if outing isn't booked).  The individual membership model does work (when implemented properly). 

[Jud_T]

Brian,

Members who paid 10, 20, 50 k down will have to be dragged kicking and screaming off the course before they vote to give up the amenities they bought into and have become used to.

[BHoover]

Brian,

Members who paid 10, 20, 50 k down will have to be dragged kicking and screaming off the course before they vote to give up the amenities they bought into and have become used to.

I'm not saying they don't have every right to enjoy what they have paid for. More power to them if they have the means to pay for that. But someday, there may not be enough deep pocketed members to fund those amenities.

[SL_Solow]

Mike;  Thanks for your response.  I think I understood the purpose of your post.  Many of us involved in golf discuss these issues regularly.  They are not easy.  I suppose that is why I am so troubled by the tenor of this discussion.  What was intended to be a discussion of alternate methods of running a golf operation quickly devolved to a combination of complaints that one of the current models is unsatisfactory to the individual writer and a series of largely amateurish and idealistic proposals for a better way to run courses.  Golf courses are very investment intensive.  The cost of the land and improvements is high. Fixed costs for maintenance are high.  Ancillary services often operate on extremely tight margins. There exists oversupply in many markets.  These are all important topics for discussion although they are only ancillary to architecture issues.  But they are also complex issues and the discussion here has been less than enlightening.  So while I understand the purpose of the discussion, for anyone who has spent anytime looking at industry numbers and thinking about these issues, the discussion lost interest very quickly.  These types of issues involve a complex interaction between, economic, demographic and cultural issues, all of which are dynamic.  They are not easy to analyze in the best of forums with a truly informed group of participants.  Here, the discussion has no chance.  Perhaps I shouldn't have posted.

Ben;  It seems that every time a discussion goes beyond personal tastes in golf courses or means of play, you feel compelled to attack the knowledge/qualifications of those on the other side and resort to apocryphal anecdotal evidence to support your theories.  Of course, no one ever bothers to ask you about your experience as it is unnecessary, the substance of your comments tells us enough.  But I am getting a little tired of you suggesting to others who have real experience in the field that they have to get out more, that they don't know enough or that they are somehow sheltered from the real world.  One last time for me;  I have noted that I work in golf administration in the Chicago area as a way of giving back.  In connection with that work, I interact with others in the golf business all around the country.  In my real  work, I deal with distressed companies in many industries including golf.  As such I have seen the operating statements of a lot of troubled enterprises of all types and sizes including golf clubs and I have even advised individuals and groups about reorganizing or acquiring troubled golf courses.  So I respectfully suggest that I have the bona fides to discuss the problems of operating a golf club, issues impacting the industry, and approaches to reorganizing troubled operations.  I don't claim to be the only one and I am sure there are others on this board who have unique perspectives that I would enjoy learning about.  But don't think that you are alone in interacting with smaller clubs even in Detroit.  You might be surprised at what some others have seen, even in your neck of the woods.  In any event, I have concluded that further dialogue of this type is a waste of time so I will return to discussing architecture.  I am sure I will have ample opportunity to discuss these issues elsewhere.

    

[Phil McDade]

Brian,

Members who paid 10, 20, 50 k down will have to be dragged kicking and screaming off the course before they vote to give up the amenities they bought into and have become used to.

Kinda like the guy I saw kicking and screaming as they closed the doors on the last Blockbuster, complaining he had no where else to rent videos.

I admire anyone who has joined a private golf club -- they've clearly made an investment in an entity that many of us around here care about (stewardship of good and sometimes historic golf clubs, or recognition of the growing quality of modern-day architecture).

But some of the comments here -- not all, but more than a few -- seem to suggest that private golf clubs can somehow be immune from the vast changes occurring both economically and socially in our country. Maybe it's just the circle of folks I run with, but.....

-- I know of no one under the age of 25 who subscribes to a newspaper (sayeth the ex-newspaper man);
-- I know of no under under the age of 16 who doesn't own a cell phone -- and most of those are smart phones;
-- I know of no one who -- as the first step in buying a car -- goes directly to a dealership and asks: "What's on the lot?"
-- I know of hardly anyone who hasn't used Amazon in some way in the past year for an economic transaction.

A few other nuggets to chew on:

-- The baby boom is on the verge of not playing golf much anymore; I was born in 1961, at the very end of the baby boom that began in the mid-1940s, and I probably won't play much golf in about 10-15 years. I assume those born at the start of the baby boom have largely stopped. Birth rates are now roughly half of what they were during the baby boom, and have been mostly flat for the past four decades: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/06/chart-of-the-week-big-drop-in-birth-rate-may-be-levelling-off/

-- Wages (disposable income?) make up a smaller share of the GDP than at any time since the mid-1970s: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/sunday-review/americas-productivity-climbs-but-wages-stagnate.html Say what you will (I won't ) about economic wage disparities these days, but I'm doubtful private golf clubs can survive on the wage gains of the upper strata of our economy alone. Some will, but not nearly as many as we have now.

-- The best golfer of all time admits his children don't play golf anymore: http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/print-edition/2012/04/13/golf-clubs-moving-past-economic-malaise.html?page=all

What's the point of all this? I wonder if private golf clubs aren't missing the larger picture here. The world out there is an increasingly transparent one, and hyper-connected one, and institutions (not just private golf clubs) that don't recognize that risk, in my view, their enterprise. The issue, to me, isn't whether or not a club posts membership pricing on its website; it's that clubs that don't start to resemble the corner bookstore, or buggy-whip maker, holding on to old traditions that make little sense anymore. As the great Danny DeVito said, the surest way to go broke is to gain an increasing share of a shrinking market: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62kxPyNZF3Q

[Patrick_Mucci]

In reflecting on this thread, it occured to me that the plague that's been sweeping America might be at the core of this thread.

What plague you ask ?

The plague known as "the right of entitlement"

WHY should a private club display confidential information to satisfy the requests of strangers ?

Why should a private club provide any information for public consumption ?

Pat,
 
When was the last time you played a club with 50% of its membership filled? 

Ben,

When I'm a guest at a club I'm not prone to walking into the club's office and examining the books.

A club with 50 % membership means dues have doubled, ergo I don't believe they can survive, and I have my doubts as to whether member owned clubs with only 50 % membership exist.  Could you name five ?  

In your neck of the woods being in close relationship to the printing press and a propped up stock market you have nothing to worry about. 

Washington D.C. Isn't in my neck of the woods, and, the stock market isn't propped up.  It's attraction to cash is a super low interest rate environment.   I don't see the relevance of the location of the New York Stock Exchange any more than I do the location of the CBOT.

Clubs in the Metro NYC area are struggling and I'm familiar with the efforts those clubs are making to increase their membership ranks.
At the core all of these clubs are asking and depending upon their existing members to find and recruit new members.
Publishing their rates, which can change on a whim, is not the method of choice.

Having sat on membership committees and boards of numerous clubs over 50 years I think my experience in this area is well grounded

It's called people of your generation not knowing how to adjust to market forces. 

The people of my generation are pretty astute and probably the last generation to have lived better than their parents.
We're cognizant of the changing mores, culture and demographic.
What many seem to forget is that joining/belonging to a private club is a luxury, one that can or can't be afforded.

Private clubs try to strike a balance between accommodating their aging population, the need to restock their ranks with younger members and the need to satisfy the requirements of their core membership, male and female, and it isn't accomplished by posting the financials on the Web.

You are also the type to believe in Supply Side economics, that if you just cut taxes it will bring in more revenue for the FED gov't, but then you tell me that wouldn't work at a Golf Club that is significantly hurting and I say fuey! 

What you don't understand is that the Federal Government can just print more money and incur more debt.
Private clubs can't do that.
They have to raise the funds to pay for their annual and long term operating and capital expenses.

If your operating expenses are $ 3,000,000 and your revenue is $ 2,500,000 you don't reduce your revenue to $ 2,000,000 in an attempt to solve your problems.

Clubs have gotten into trouble for a number of reasons.
One reason is spending money currently without having the funds available, currently, through the membership.
Enter "DEBT" stage left.
The second reason is that many clubs tried to be all things to all members.
The third reason is that many clubs thought that the good times would last forever.

I've fought against incurring debt at clubs my whole life.
I believe in "pay as you go" and not passing the burden to the next generation or future members.

Getting out of the current financial dilemma isn't just about initiation and dues, it's about reexamining the culture of the club and operations, today and for the foreseeable future, line item by line item.  

[BCowan]

Mike;  Thanks for your response.  I think I understood the purpose of your post.  Many of us involved in golf discuss these issues regularly.  They are not easy.  I suppose that is why I am so troubled by the tenor of this discussion.  What was intended to be a discussion of alternate methods of running a golf operation quickly devolved to a combination of complaints that one of the current models is unsatisfactory to the individual writer and a series of largely amateurish and idealistic proposals for a better way to run courses.  Golf courses are very investment intensive.  The cost of the land and improvements is high. Fixed costs for maintenance are high.  Ancillary services often operate on extremely tight margins. There exists oversupply in many markets.  These are all important topics for discussion although they are only ancillary to architecture issues.  But they are also complex issues and the discussion here has been less than enlightening.  So while I understand the purpose of the discussion, for anyone who has spent anytime looking at industry numbers and thinking about these issues, the discussion lost interest very quickly.  These types of issues involve a complex interaction between, economic, demographic and cultural issues, all of which are dynamic.  They are not easy to analyze in the best of forums with a truly informed group of participants.  Here, the discussion has no chance.  Perhaps I shouldn't have posted.

Ben;  It seems that every time a discussion goes beyond personal tastes in golf courses or means of play, you feel compelled to attack the knowledge/qualifications of those on the other side and resort to apocryphal anecdotal evidence to support your theories.
Shell, when people attack the course that I play at (ribbing) It doesn't sit well with me.  There is no theories the books of my course don't lie.  We donate $130k back to the University.  I'd imagine if the course was member owned the prop taxes would be around $80k a year, which gets you around $9 extra a month for 750 members.  Alum pay $1800 a year and we have 750 individual members (facility pay less, seniors pay less, and then you have mathaeii members who donate $500 at the beginning for access plus fees each time we play, those members aren't even required to turn a profit maybe 50 of us total.  We don't have any riff raff either and I am sure they reserve the right to not renew an undesirable out!  Now I have respect for you and you giving back, I give back myself, spending money putting together walking events isn't cheap.  

 Of course, no one ever bothers to ask you about your experience as it is unnecessary, the substance of your comments tells us enough.  But I am getting a little tired of you suggesting to others who have real experience in the field that they have to get out more, that they don't know enough or that they are somehow sheltered from the real world.
Please provide to me when I said or implied that you didn't get into the real world?  I though your last post was weak.  I have worked golf construction, have friends that own a course, maint, caddied, have close friends who are archies.  They seem to echo my outlook, but they don't post on here, I don't need my own cheer leading team for validation!  You are reading way to much into this, really what it is when someone offers up an idea or something that has worked the old guard likes to shoot them down!

  One last time for me;  I have noted that I work in golf administration in the Chicago area as a way of giving back.That is great, my mom's best friend ran the Toledo mens district for 30+ years and many Ohio events and is in the Ohio Golf Hall, we have dinner 5 or 6 times a year.  I give back by hosting walking events, something I believe in.  Also the gentlemen who taught me to play the game has the lawn named in his honor at the OSU Evans house.


  In connection with that work, I interact with others in the golf business all around the country.  In my real  work, I deal with distressed companies in many industries including golf.  As such I have seen the operating statements of a lot of troubled enterprises of all types and sizes including golf clubs and I have even advised individuals and groups about reorganizing or acquiring troubled golf courses.  So I respectfully suggest that I have the bona fides to discuss the problems of operating a golf club, issues impacting the industry, and approaches to reorganizing troubled operations.That is great, i am open to your ideas.  I may not like them, but i will give them respect, if you do the same to me.


  I don't claim to be the only one and I am sure there are others on this board who have unique perspectives that I would enjoy learning about.  But don't think that you are alone in interacting with smaller clubs even in Detroit.  You might be surprised at what some others have seen, even in your neck of the woods.  In any event, I have concluded that further dialogue of this type is a waste of time so I will return to discussing architecture.  I am sure I will have ample opportunity to discuss these issues elsewhere.
There has been many great posts, and many people have chimmed in what they look for in a private club!  Jud, happens to get sarcastic and I give it back to him.  I like Jud and yourself.  I also never implied for this to be blanket one way or the highway.  Please let us know what clubs have done in the poorer parts of Chicago to survive?  I have 3 friends who drive an hour to play at the quasi private that others call a muni.  Maybe we should start listening to the younger market and the Scots who invented the game.  Remember the Perry Maxwell quote, he had very good foresight!
    

I will bow out of this thread, for I would like to hear more from the 40 and younger crowd. 

[Adam Warren]

Someone mentioned about the US getting into the "Golf Club" movement.  My club has already made a move toward that.  The tennis courts had not been used but once or twice in a couple years.  We were getting so full for outings and Thursday-Sunday that we needed more parking.  What did we do?  Voted to get rid of the tennis courts and make it more parking.

Some of the membership feel the pool is not enough of a necessity to keep it as well, and have been pushing to close it.  They feel that the pool is drain on expenses and those funds could be used to do some projects on the golf course that we would like to have done.  With a wife and daughter who do use the pool, personally I am not behind this movement, but as a board member I am willing to review the numbers to see if the difference in what we might save would make significant impact for golf course projects.  We are going to do a study dating back to two summers ago which was very hot, this past summer which was quite cool, and this summer and potentially next year to determine the best course of action.  Our club is mostly a golf club as is.  I am glad that we have seen the light over the past couple of years to actually review our best options to move forward.  Next up is gaining more young membership, much like these old classic country clubs where many of you seem to members.  We have probably about 250 memberships, and I would wager that only 20 or so are under 35. 

As a younger person, and I am sure many of you will deplore the idea I am about to speak of, I believe these TopGolf facilities that are being placed in some metro areas around the nation could potentially help in growing the game.  It is becoming something that is drawing out younger people and exposing them to golf.  I can only hope my metro area is lucky enough to get one of these facilities located here.  We already have a dearth of quality driving ranges available to the general public, so I think one of these facilities could really be successful and potentially help our area in increasing participation among mine, and even younger generations.