Sean/Adrian,
Regarding the numbers game, the pool of golfers is there for the number of courses however overall not enough of those golfers are members of a club. If you reduced the cost base ie. the average cost of subscription, then you would undoubtedly induce some of those non-members to join a club. It is my contention this can be done by going back to the basics and shedding the unnecessary costs as mentioned in earlier posts.
After all, how often have you heard someone say the have left because they weren't using there membership enough and they couldn't justify the subs ? Probably loads and if these same people were honest they would probably admit that they were using the club as much or as little as they had done in previous years it was just that now the (increasing) cost had tipped them over the edge. When I think back to my days of youth and the fun of having the course to myself and my friends during the summer holidays it was because the membership was made up of a fair proportion of these fair weather golfers, who were very happy to be members at the then cost even if they didn't play that often.
That's what we should be aiming for again. Make a virtue out of reduction in non-core (ie. non golfing) costs together with emphasis on club and course. As an aside, that doesn't mean doing away with the clubhouse, but just being economical with how you use/staff it.
Niall