The Economist Weighs In

[Sean_A]

All is not lost though-Golf is not for everyone, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
It appeals to only a certain type and our attempts to expand that base artificially are rarely successful.

Taking the game to people still requires people to come to the game.  I am too am ok with golf catering for its core participants.  If the numbers drift downward I can't help but think the game is in better hands.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

IMO the problem with numbers dropping from the game is that the new supply of golfers see the priorty list of their wants at the opposite end of the spectrum to the GCA view. Hence the 'better' courses will be the sufferers if they are weak in location, the way they treat customers, they way the price, if they don't have buggies, if they don't have half way houses/cart girls. They need to be super special to survive the coming tsunami.

This article is nothing new to any of us here or in the trade.

The new brigade of golfers are not all gold.

[Sean_A]

IMO the problem with numbers dropping from the game is that the new supply of golfers see the priorty list of their wants at the opposite end of the spectrum to the GCA view. Hence the 'better' courses will be the sufferers if they are weak in location, the way they treat customers, they way the price, if they don't have buggies, if they don't have half way houses/cart girls. They need to be super special to survive the coming tsunami.

This article is nothing new to any of us here or in the trade.

The new brigade of golfers are not all gold.

Adrian

So what is your solution? 

Sure its regrettable that a few clubs of repute and merit may have to alter their approach to attracting money or perhaps even close down, but what is the alternative?  So far as I can tell, clubs heading the wrong direction roll the dice with terrific visitor/membership offers; some of these clubs will be turned around and some won't.  I am one to believe that the general business side of golf will be bleak for a long time.  The divide between haves and have nots will become sharper.  Could we even see some courses being taken over by local authorities and turned into munis until such time as houses are built?  This may not be a bad investment for LAs and may even buoy the books from the constant pressure of having to come up with balanced budgets on less money. 

So what is your solution? 

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean - More likely LAs will dump more golf courses, this has been the trend recently. We actually stepped in with a rescue plan for a LA course which must remain nameless, we felt we could keep a course on 75% of the land footprint so produce 40 acres of housing. I think things in the background had already been decided they did not like our plan and opted for closure. I half heard the land had already been outed at a big price. To be honest it makes perfect sense as the income to the LA for the land sale will be for the betterment of ALL in that community.

The solution is probably that if numbers do not increase then the oversupply can be balanced only by courses closing. It will be like a declining business that has 500 employees and now they need 350, some will naturally fold up by being not up to standard as other courses in the rat race offer better value. Some (and these are the ones that more concern GCApeeps) are so remote that they cant compete with the others because fuel/time/£££ factor them out. Some could be good courses but would be attractive for housing and at £50,000,000 for the land and 500 members each member takes £100,000 and joins another club and a scenario of 100 new members boost 5 other clubs.

A solution to boost numbers IMO would be to promote the health benifits of the game and active sport. UK people aged 16-50 go to the gym now as a regular thing, golf is an extension of that pattern for people aged 40-100 and yes I mean one hundred because people in 20 years time will be active at that age.

So to quote Carl Spackler......."we got that going for us ....which is nice".

[Paul Gray]

IMO the problem with numbers dropping from the game is that the new supply of golfers see the priorty list of their wants at the opposite end of the spectrum to the GCA view. Hence the 'better' courses will be the sufferers if they are weak in location, the way they treat customers, they way the price, if they don't have buggies, if they don't have half way houses/cart girls. They need to be super special to survive the coming tsunami.

This article is nothing new to any of us here or in the trade.

The new brigade of golfers are not all gold.

So the answer lies in high fixed costs and low marginal returns? Surely not.

[Adrian_Stiff]

IMO the problem with numbers dropping from the game is that the new supply of golfers see the priorty list of their wants at the opposite end of the spectrum to the GCA view. Hence the 'better' courses will be the sufferers if they are weak in location, the way they treat customers, they way the price, if they don't have buggies, if they don't have half way houses/cart girls. They need to be super special to survive the coming tsunami.

This article is nothing new to any of us here or in the trade.

The new brigade of golfers are not all gold.

So the answer lies in high fixed costs and low marginal returns? Surely not.

Paul - You totally baffle me, what have you seen in my post that relates to your reply

[Paul Gray]

IMO the problem with numbers dropping from the game is that the new supply of golfers see the priorty list of their wants at the opposite end of the spectrum to the GCA view. Hence the 'better' courses will be the sufferers if they are weak in location, the way they treat customers, they way the price, if they don't have buggies, if they don't have half way houses/cart girls. They need to be super special to survive the coming tsunami.

This article is nothing new to any of us here or in the trade.

The new brigade of golfers are not all gold.

So the answer lies in high fixed costs and low marginal returns? Surely not.

Paul - You totally baffle me, what have you seen in my post that relates to your reply

Frankly Adrian, I'm beginning to find your tone more than a little annoying. You and I don't always have the same interpretation of things but I've never resorted to adopting the sort of manner you seem to wish to sling in my direction, presumably because I've had the audacity to point out where your business interests might have slanted your perception.
 
OK. Carts, cart girls, half way houses. Do these not come with certain fixed costs? What demographic do you typically attract with these add-ons and what is the net yield from them? What area of the market is currently struggling the most? Is it that overcrowded lower/middle ground market where each club has tried to better the last by focusing on those non essential add-ons, complete with those fixed costs, or is it the traditional clubs which have stuck to the core product of good golf?

Golf is apparently dying and yet many of the more traditional clubs could double membership in a month if they wanted the course to be busier and actively pursued a recruitment policy. Doesn't sound much like a dying industry to me. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Paul - Carts don't cost much to buy or rent, in the UK we don't really need paths but by the same token their winter use is almost zero. They are a good yielder I can only speak for the figures of the clubs I know, but probably they bring in a profit of £25,000 per year. It is how important that is in the scheme of things, plenty of old fashioned clubs won't have them but the loss of £25,000 might not be the only downer. Some groups and they could be worth £2000 for a hours tee time won't play if poor old Charlie can't have a buggy....so they go somewhere else. That might not matter to the top 100 clubs that can more dictate their terms but it does impact those outside the hundred.

Half way houses can mean different things and I am not advocating a new build. A lot of older golf courses are out and in and the nines don't return to the house thats a minus. Returning nines might not mean a toss to GCApeeps but it makes a big difference if the 10th tee is near the clubhouse and they spend £3 on a bacon roll or £1 on a cup of tea and buy a mars bar. That type of commercial design of a golf course, ie the importance to provide that facility within the initial infrastructure is a yielder and might bring in more revenue. If a club does not have that then send a cart girl out twice a day.

The new golfers to the game have very little interest in the finer points of architecture and the game has changed well away from what you like. I would say the Modern clubs are generally run much better as a rule than traditional clubs. Modern Clubs are more professional in their outlook though there are good and bad operators everywhere. New people if they are under 40 want to join modern clubs more than the traditional ones, good practice facilities are another important reason and the modern set ups have tended to focus in those areas. Vat implications are helping traditional clubs and not the modern ones, if the playing field gets levelled it will be a no contest.

The GCA way is romantic but commercially its all about numbers. Success is dependant on what you believe ...statistics or your heart.

But NO the things I mentioned don't come with high costs at all.

[Paul Gray]

Adrian,

I'm not opposed to carts, simply disputing the notion that they are an essential for survival. Their raw financial benefit is clear but the broader issue of promoting those non essentials and who you attract with them is a more subtle issue. Those society days for the local pub or radio station show great returns on buggy hire, not to mention the revenue from them as a whole. They equally however have your core demographic looking elsewhere, leaving you in a race to the bottom.

Again, dispute it all you like but who is actually struggling and who isn't? Whilst I'm not suggesting there won't be any casualties from the top end, I don't see any abundance of first or second tier classic courses hitting the skids.

You seem to assume, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, that tomorrow's average player will demand magpie shiny, binary golf and convenience when they're 65, simply because that's what they want from their Playstation at the age of 20. Reality is that classic courses have retained the interest of multiple generations simply because there's far more to discover, hence the endless allure and applicable repeat visits. The hook is stronger because there's so much more to explore. The fact that a few of us here can articulate that while the average golfer can't is of no relevance.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think pretty much all clubs are struggling in the UK. It is the 'degrees of' of course. I know that we lose a lot of business on price, our membership is going down in terms of numbers ie am losing the flexible memberships more but firming up with the traditional pay one fee for a years golf, overall I have put the price up not down and we are doing okay. I only really know the ones that I designed and how they are doing, a couple in difficult locations are struggling, one does groupons and idiotic deals and IMO has destroyed it's integrity. By and large the other's are still good in the scheme of things.

I would say considering my courses (ones I have designed) as commercial operations I have at least three in the GB & I top 100 for what they make profit's wise. Bearing in mind the courses were built on limited budgets I would say that was pretty dam good.

Now if you were going to build a golf course do you want one that makes money or go's bust. None of mine have (yet) and one will post pre tax profits this week of £340,000.

Everyone will have their way they think it will work, you have your's and I have mine. I don't know how old you are, I assume fairly young as you said you worked in a pro shop a few summers back, but without sounding big headed 87% of golf developers get it wrong. There is a lot which commercially is the anti of best GCA practice.

[Paul Gray]

I'm 37. It was a career break during the recession which did enough to convince me that if I were to have a career change and enter golf, me and the proprietary market weren't going to be bed fellows.

As I've said to you before, more than once, clearly you get a lot right where most get it wrong. In fact 87% getting it wrong does sound about right to me.

Where we always seem to differ is your insistance on always coming back to profit. I don't knock you for seeking profit but I equally don't believe your motives can best serve the game. Traditional clubs, courtesy of ideal conditions, tax breaks and a need to only break even can offer the golfer more for less. That isn't your fault, simply the reality of the situation.

Respectfully, you are not the first and won't be the last in the proprietary market to tell me that you've done well "all things considered." The consumer is interested in the end product and how well that product stacks up against the local alternatives. Telling me that it's a good course when considering that you started off with a toxic swamp and a tiny budget is irrelevant to me as the customer. If the heathland course down the road offers more bang for my buck, that's where I'm going. Your agronomic genius which turned a swamp in to an average golf course is neither here nor there. If it's great then it's great and if it's average then it's average. The fact that you were dealt a bad hand is not my concern, nor anyone else's that might be looking to spend their hard earned cash on golf. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Paul - You have just made your usual mistake. You believe your opinion on what's good and what's bad is the law. Everyone likes different things. The winner is the one that most consumers like not Paul Gray's call. Your opinion is just that. There is nothing wrong in a minor opinion though and some will like course A, B, C or D more and have a different 1 to 4 for it.

I wear a number of different hats in the golf industry, primarily I think of myself as a golf course architect but the one slant I do put on everything is the viability of 'will it work' and if I think the client is wasting his money I will tell him/her. I think it is important that a club seeks to make a profit and those that don't try are likely to get into trouble, you never know what's around the corner so there should be some money in the coffers. Too many clubs lease their equipment instead of having a good mechanic and work with older equipment. A lot of clubs have no rainy day funds at the moment. These things are good business practice not just about making a profit. Traditional clubs don't need to make a profit as such but planning anything to break even is dodgy ground. The profit is the rainy day fund.

I am tired of talking to you Paul. You have your own agenda and clearly we clash, you seem to come up with things I don't even say or you assume I am going to say them. So I would rather put you on my list of people I don't engage with.

[Paul Gray]

Adrian,

Where you got all that from is beyond me but clearly there's a certain raw nerve there which I've managed to more than niggle.

I really am at a total loss to comprehend where the 'me right, everyone else wrong' interpretation has come from but there's more than a hint of bitter desperation therein.

I wish you well.