[Adam Clayman]

Mike, It sounds like another Big World theory candidate. Site and situation specific.


Heck, I frequent a course that has never had a pro, or, a gcsaa guy. And their closest competition is 24 miles away. Like most course committees, political influence drives these folks, not the golf course (as long as it's green), it's heritage, or the design intent. All that matters is that "they" like it. And believe me, it's an arboreal abortion.


But I'm with you, and feel that if you know what you have, architecturally, (as an owner/operator) accentuate it with the proper maintenance meld, that emphasizes sustainable, responsible stewardship. Treat your people well, and encourage the spirit of golf through proper etiquette and friendly competition, all the facets will fall into place, making profit inconsequential in the short run. Think Austin Golf Club.

[Sean_A]

Mike, you say the golfer isn't "IN" the golf business but that the golf course should be at the top of the golf business food chain. I'm confused. The golf course is there for the sole purpose of the pleasure of the golfer...with the amount of pleasure dictating the amount of revenue the owner derives.

How well the owner runs their business dictates their profit.

I think...

That's true.  BUT.....outside factors such as GolfNow have destroyed the pricing structure and the loyalty factor for most of the courses in the US.  To make it golf has to be a dues driven business and not a green fee business.  It's almost impossible to determine the proper profitable green fee with all of the variables that go into how many green fees one will collect. 
An owner needs to have the option of good, better , best when it comes to purchasing from vendors or preparing course conditions etc.  The only way to really get that now is by purchasing used equipment and less employees thus less fairway mowings or bunker rakings or greens rolling.

Hang on...the overwhelming majority of courses are public. Are you saying public courses can't make it without yearly tickets?  I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT MUNIS...AND YES ANNUAL FEES, DUES ETC ARE THE KEY...

BTW...For sure, the golfer is at the top of food chain..of that there is no doubt.  What you are saying is akin to the ocean being at the top of the food chain rather than the shark      NO IT'S NOT

Mike...I think you need to heal yourself by letting go of the anger.   LET'S UNDERSTAND...I DON'T HAVE ANY ANGER TOWARDS ANY OF MY SLAPDICK GCA THREADS...I'M THROWING THINGS OUT THERE TO STIR ....I KNOW HOW TO MAKE MONEY WITH A PUBLIC COURSE...I JUST FIND IT ENTERTAINING THAT THE BUSINESS CAN CONTINUE WITH MUCH OF THIS BS AND SO MANY TAKE THEMSELVES SERIOUSLY....BE COOL...

Ciao

Catch your breath dude.

Ciao

Sean,My breathing is totally under control.  Just don't take yourself any more seriously that I take you and all will be fine...Ciao..

Well, after the 43rd rant about golf association this or golf organization that...I thought maybe you hit the wall. 

As for me, if you take anything close to half the stuff I say as serious, then we should meet for a beer.  I am sure we could put the world the rights without ever mentioning Trump.

Ciao

[Mike_Young]

Sean,My breathing is totally under control.  Just don't take yourself any more seriously that I take you and all will be fine...Ciao..

Well, after the 43rd rant about golf association this or golf organization that...I thought maybe you hit the wall. 

As for me, if you take anything close to half the stuff I say as serious, then we should meet for a beer.  I am sure we could put the world the rights without ever mentioning Trump.

Ciao

Sean,I don't rant about golf associations etc.  I just try to emphasize the negative affect they have had on the industry and how they try to control the business while doing nothing but advocate for sponsors and also protecting mediocrityin so many of their members.  There is not one that golf would miss.    As for havng a beer, sure...any time...I don't drink but will be glad to eat.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


While I find a few things I can agree with, like for most courses, yes, keeping cost low is paramount to profit.  Duh.  However, not for all courses.  And, most are doing what you suggest without your help, thank you very much.


In general, this thread is BS, as usual.  Just another way to bash associations, and prove you know better than everyone else in da' biz. 


I don't think any association has ever charged a club anything, unless its the USGA for the handicapping system or whatever.


There are at least two vendors for all major equipment categories golf courses need to buy, no?  That some promote their services better than others is just a part of the free market system.  Hey, I'm sure you don't give away your services for free either, so why bash the profit motives of others?  I have no doubt you know how to make money running a pubic course, however, I doubt yours is the only way, either.


As to management companies, yeah, I agree that if a course can self manage and NOT send a monthly fee, of course it's better.  But, these guys wouldn't be in business if there wasn't a market for outside management.  And, it seems to me, many of them lose as much business as they gain every time their leases are up. And, the one man show, PGA pros who form small management companies aren't always as efficient.


As to Golf Now, the fact is I have used it as a consumer when traveling because of ease of booking.  In Orlando and want to know who has a tee time?  Better to check one website than let your finger do the walking.  Has it affected revenues? Of course, but again, that is the nature of the free market.



As a good old Republican, you sure don't trust the free market, wanting to control it (presumably by you and your way) whenever you see a problem, when in reality, it is mostly self correcting.   


But, have a nice day!

[Mike_Young]

Mike,


While I find a few things I can agree with, like for most courses, yes, keeping cost low is paramount to profit.  Duh.  However, not for all courses.  And, most are doing what you suggest without your help, thank you very much.


In general, this thread is BS, as usual.  Just another way to bash associations, and prove you know better than everyone else in da' biz. 


I don't think any association has ever charged a club anything, unless its the USGA for the handicapping system or whatever.


There are at least two vendors for all major equipment categories golf courses need to buy, no?  That some promote their services better than others is just a part of the free market system.  Hey, I'm sure you don't give away your services for free either, so why bash the profit motives of others?  I have no doubt you know how to make money running a pubic course, however, I doubt yours is the only way, either.


As to management companies, yeah, I agree that if a course can self manage and NOT send a monthly fee, of course it's better.  But, these guys wouldn't be in business if there wasn't a market for outside management.  And, it seems to me, many of them lose as much business as they gain every time their leases are up. And, the one man show, PGA pros who form small management companies aren't always as efficient.


As to Golf Now, the fact is I have used it as a consumer when traveling because of ease of booking.  In Orlando and want to know who has a tee time?  Better to check one website than let your finger do the walking.  Has it affected revenues? Of course, but again, that is the nature of the free market.



As a good old Republican, you sure don't trust the free market, wanting to control it (presumably by you and your way) whenever you see a problem, when in reality, it is mostly self correcting.   


But, have a nice day!

Jeff,Come on now....I'm not saying I know more than anyone else about this business nor is this thread based on bashing associations.  Look at me more like the John Stossel of this stuff.  But if you don't think associations charge clubs you are mistaken.  It may be indirectly but it cost a club plenty either as employees going to meetings paying dues, traveling as an officer etc and clubs are the ones that pay vendors for the entertaining they do for associations etc.  Associations are the easiest thing to eliminate in the industry.  They try to act like unions but are slipping...
Simply put Jeff, I'm all for the free enterprise system and realize that is why PGA class A pros are at under 6000 of our golf courses today.  BUT you should know GolfNow is just bad for the business. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


Yes, many clubs play for their GM's or Supts to go to annual education meetings.  Most don't go every year, some go not at all.  So, they pay for a service to educate their employees, just as most companies do.  Unless you are stating that there is no educational benefit at all to such conferences, and thus, GCSAA or CMAA is just a pure and simple rip off, I don't see the problem in that.


I would love to hear your comparison of GCSAA to unions.  Don't see it off hand.  Yes, they do want to continue, yes, there have been a few accusations of the paid board looking more after their own jobs than members interests, but those are rare.  Most could (and probably do) prune Admin expenses from time to time.


And yes, Golf Now is both a blessing and a curse.  No doubt there is little room for another cut of the greens fee there, but the trade off is they do sell the tee times.  Whether or not they sell enough to cover their cost, I don't know.  The courses I see are all over the map from kick them out to use them, so I am not as sure about it being all negative as you are.


The biggest problem as I see it is lack of golf demand.

[Peter Pallotta]

Years ago late at night I stood out over Los Angeles looking down at the millions of sparkling lights and thinking of how many tens of thousands of people were earning (very good) livings in Hollywood, the vast majority by working on films that never went into production or tv pilots that were never picked up or the 10th sequel of some 3rd rate action-film franchise. And then it hit me: Hollywood-the film industry doesn't exist to make great movies; it exists to make a lot of money -- and a lot of money even for the countless folks (eg agents, managers, associate producers) who have never stepped in front of the camera or written a word of dialogue. In short: film is as much just the 'product/mechanism' in LA as cars (used to be) the product/mechanism in Detroit.
Maybe what Mike is really saying is that 'golf courses' have become just the product too?

[Mike_Young]

Years ago late at night I stood out over Los Angeles looking down at the millions of sparkling lights and thinking of how many tens of thousands of people were earning (very good) livings in Hollywood, the vast majority by working on films that never went into production or tv pilots that were never picked up or the 10th sequel of some 3rd rate action-film franchise. And then it hit me: Hollywood-the film industry doesn't exist to make great movies; it exists to make a lot of money -- and a lot of money even for the countless folks (eg agents, managers, associate producers) who have never stepped in front of the camera or written a word of dialogue. In short: film is as much just the 'product/mechanism' in LA as cars (used to be) the product/mechanism in Detroit.
Maybe what Mike is really saying is that 'golf courses' have become just the product too?

Peter,As usual, you have said what I was trying to say.  Golf definitely has a deep state.  Just start with the World Golf Foundation.  Does ZERO for the game....go from there...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,
Not too many golf courses make lots of money. Many were created with the expectations of being subsidized,  most hope to break even.


But, yes, there is a business aspect to them. Most have to make some profit to survive. Even on a website that prefers to talk about the exceptional architecture examples, this should be no surprise.


Yes, most courses are a tool to sell greens fees, memberships, houses, etc.

[Mike_Young]

Peter,
Yes, most courses are a tool to sell greens fees, memberships, houses, etc.

I read Peter as saying courses are there for the industry, golf cars, turf equipment, irrigation, and on and on....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


Just as the public needs to buy movie tickets to support the industry, golfers need to pay for golf.  So, the product is aimed at the golfers, no matter how you cut it.


It is probably true that the industry got fat and happy in the boom days, with too many hangers on that the free market has shown to be dispensable, vs. indispensable.  While the museum biz is a folly, and WGHF isn't strictly necessary, when times are good, those things are seen to be a nicety, like arts.  Not sure the WGHF biz model, and/or who supports it (is it subsidized and by whom?) but in this economy, agree it is probably a burden on someone.


My personal bug in that scenario is the number of "project managers" who sold services of "coordinating" the design team.  In all but the most complex projects, where they are valuable, it amounted to a project being "fee'd to death."  I see less of those these days, and see the process returning more to normalcy.  You see design-build as the way to go, and there is no doubt that trend is a reaction to project managers, management companies, other consultants, etc., trying to trim out all the fat that can be trimmed, now that it needs to be trimmed.


But, I continue to disagree with your black/white thinking of all good or all bad, seeing a bit more nuance on the time space continuum than you seem capable of, or willing to consider.


Cheers!

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
My personal bug in that scenario is the number of "project managers" who sold services of "coordinating" the design team.  In all but the most complex projects, where they are valuable, it amounted to a project being "fee'd to death."  I see less of those these days, and see the process returning more to normalcy.  You see design-build as the way to go, and there is no doubt that trend is a reaction to project managers, management companies, other consultants, etc., trying to trim out all the fat that can be trimmed, now that it needs to be trimmed.


But, I continue to disagree with your black/white thinking of all good or all bad, seeing a bit more nuance on the time space continuum than you seem capable of, or willing to consider.


Cheers!

Now Jeff, I have never said it is all good or all bad.  There is a lot of good in this business but it often doesn't service the segments that hype the various aspects of the industry so you may not hear it.  My "personal bug" as you call it is more of a " I don't suffer fools gladly" .  So much of the industry and associations have given credibility to people who are ( idiots is not a nice word) and bozos may be better but they are just not what the press makes them to be.  Lot of Peter's Principle stuff going on in the business.  I can show you bozos who are USGA agronomists, supts with 10 ribbons on their jacket at a GCSAA annual meeting that talk down to some guy who is getting the same results for half of what they spend, architects who couldn't build an affordable course, or any course without a general contractor holding their hand, PGA golf pros that would run their own course in the ground and have run others there before. And then there are probably those who think I couldn't do any better but I could care less.  I just don't tolerate the BS that has inflated this industry.  That's my entire gripe. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


While I have no doubt that supers, pros, architects and contractors all perform at different levels (and different sub levels, as in some specialize in hard sites, drainage, and other technical issues and others worry more about the fluff on top that golfers see, etc.) you still have a pretty dark view of the industry!

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
While I have no doubt that supers, pros, architects and contractors all perform at different levels (and different sub levels, as in some specialize in hard sites, drainage, and other technical issues and others worry more about the fluff on top that golfers see, etc.) you still have a pretty dark view of the industry!

Jeff,Sorry but I don't have a dark view of the industry...I have a realistic view of the industry and an appreciation for real talent and products  etc in the industry not the press hyped or association hyped  talent or products.  I think it is what I used to hear a few years ago where one gets to an age where they don't care if it offends.  I think I'm there...

[V. Kmetz]

Lot of Peter's Principle stuff going on in the business.  I can show you bozos who are USGA agronomist, supts with 10 ribbons on their jacket at a GCSAA annual meeting that talk down to some guy who is getting the same results for half of what they spend, architects who couldn't build an affordable course, or any course without a general contractor holding their hand, PGA golf pros that would run their own course in the ground and have run others there before. And then there are probably those who think I couldn't do any better but I could care less.  I just don't tolerate the BS that has inflated this industry.  That's my entire gripe.

Mike, I've been following this thread without comment and while I'm a layman in your precise department of the business, I've been in that club business "environment" for 35 years...I say you're precisely right..."inflated" is the proper term and the hypo you describe is so often the case...very few want to serve the common and sensible and direct efficiently addressed needs if it means even a hint of their own possible diminishment...but this in all walks of life.


cheers  vk

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,
While I have no doubt that supers, pros, architects and contractors all perform at different levels (and different sub levels, as in some specialize in hard sites, drainage, and other technical issues and others worry more about the fluff on top that golfers see, etc.) you still have a pretty dark view of the industry!

Jeff,Sorry but I don't have a dark view of the industry...I have a realistic view of the industry and an appreciation for real talent and products  etc in the industry not the press hyped or association hyped  talent or products.  I think it is what I used to hear a few years ago where one gets to an age where they don't care if it offends.  I think I'm there...

Mike,


I'm with you on not worrying about offending people, including friends, which is why I am responding in this debate with you!    My experience is that most people in the industry are ethical and diligent, albeit with varying skills.  As VK says, how can you expect that not to be the case?


I have worked with a few supers who were or would shortly be national officers, i.e., have ribbons on at the turf show.  Their courses gladly send them out their liking the prestige they believe it brings.  At the base majority of my projects, the supers belong to the local chapter at hundreds per year, and another $50 per meeting.  Some go to the GCSAA show every year, with assistants, others go every third year, or not at all.  It depends on budget.  If it totals $1000 per year on a $500K maintenance budget, it "inflates" the cost of golf at that course by 0.2%.  Certainly not the biggest budget buster. 


Not sure how many use the USGA TAS or other outside agronomists for a yearly review. At say, $3000 on a $600K budget, still 0.2%.


Is there some incompetence?  Of course.  A friend of mine used to work for Levi's, as one of ten regional sales managers.  Every year, the lowest performing 2 managers got the ax and they brought in someone new, even if their sales were higher than the year before.  I guess you are suggesting that for any association?


I go back and forth on this thread, noting that yes, you are the site expert at muckraking and enjoy it, even if it sounds to me a bit arrogant on your part.  The other extreme is that this is just another attempt for you to circuitously bash ASGCA without mentioning it by name, just be inference.  And probably your other favorite target, the USGA.


At the very least, what you label as BS is really just your anger and perspective, not a true representation of what happens in at least 80% of the industry (just based on the old 80-20 rule, which apparently Levi used, too)  At least you say you do recognize there is some true talent in the industry, and I agree.  We may disagree on whether someone who builds a $10M golf course at clients request is talented, or if building one cheaper is the only measure of talent and success.  The golf market is simply too big for either of us to say it should be done any one way (i.e., cheap)


Anyway, my $0.02

[Mike_Young]

Mike,


I'm with you on not worrying about offending people, including friends, which is why I am responding in this debate with you!    My experience is that most people in the industry are ethical and diligent, albeit with varying skills.  As VK says, how can you expect that not to be the case?


I have worked with a few supers who were or would shortly be national officers, i.e., have ribbons on at the turf show.  Their courses gladly send them out their liking the prestige they believe it brings.  At the base majority of my projects, the supers belong to the local chapter at hundreds per year, and another $50 per meeting.  Some go to the GCSAA show every year, with assistants, others go every third year, or not at all.  It depends on budget.  If it totals $1000 per year on a $500K maintenance budget, it "inflates" the cost of golf at that course by 0.2%.  Certainly not the biggest budget buster. 


Not sure how many use the USGA TAS or other outside agronomists for a yearly review. At say, $3000 on a $600K budget, still 0.2%.


Is there some incompetence?  Of course.  A friend of mine used to work for Levi's, as one of ten regional sales managers.  Every year, the lowest performing 2 managers got the ax and they brought in someone new, even if their sales were higher than the year before.  I guess you are suggesting that for any association?


I go back and forth on this thread, noting that yes, you are the site expert at muckraking and enjoy it, even if it sounds to me a bit arrogant on your part.  The other extreme is that this is just another attempt for you to circuitously bash ASGCA without mentioning it by name, just be inference.  And probably your other favorite target, the USGA.


At the very least, what you label as BS is really just your anger and perspective, not a true representation of what happens in at least 80% of the industry (just based on the old 80-20 rule, which apparently Levi used, too)  At least you say you do recognize there is some true talent in the industry, and I agree.  We may disagree on whether someone who builds a $10M golf course at clients request is talented, or if building one cheaper is the only measure of talent and success.  The golf market is simply too big for either of us to say it should be done any one way (i.e., cheap)


Anyway, my $0.02

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff...one more time.  I'm not an angry person.  And there is no anger here.  I agree that 98 % of the people in this industry and in life are ethical, hardworking people.  Those same people would still be that way whether golf had associations or not.  My comments were that associations could be eliminated and no one would miss them.  I still feel that.  I didn't say they were unethical just that they required funding from courses and vendors.  And then you bring up ASGCA as if it were an association.  I never mentioned it because it was a club of just 175 people within the golf business and and many of those worked for even a less number of companies.  That's why I did not mention ASGCA so , no , I was not angry toward that.  I'm just not angry.  I bring up thoughts to ponder....The business is inflated with BS...that doesn't say people are not ethical or intelligent or whatever.  And, you have the 80/20 reversed.  what you mention happens at 20% and 80% go my way IMHO. 

So take care and come see me if this way...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()