[Grant Saunders]

50 visitors at £100 a round is better than 200 at £25 a round.

I understand the sentiment of this but cant agree fully with what you're saying

200 people will put more through your bar, pro shop and other services than 50 people will.

[Duncan Cheslett]

50 visitors at £100 a round is better than 200 at £25 a round.

I understand the sentiment of this but cant agree fully with what you're saying

200 people will put more through your bar, pro shop and other services than 50 people will.

The vast majority of golfers paying £25 for a round will change their shoes in the car park and drive straight home.


Members' guests will nearly always have a bite to eat and a couple of drinks. In my experience members' guests are generally club golfers themselves.


In my view, the golf industry needs to promote club membership over purely nomadic play. The best deals on green fees should be available only on production of a valid CDH number - proof of membership of a bone fide golf club.


The County Card system is intended to give added value to club membership. Unfortunately, in many cases the advertised price to all-comers on TeeOffTimes is less than the County Card rate. Clubs are doing themselves and the industry in general no favours.


Adrian is quite right. The majority of visitors any course receives will be belt notchers - one time players who want to knock off every course in the area or region eventually. There is no point therefore, in setting the fee too low. You are literally giving money away unnecessarily.


There are of course, certain groups of vagabond golfers in every area who are not members of any club but instead scour TeeOffTimes for cheap deals and meet at a different club each week.  Unfortunately, it is these guys who are setting the agenda and consequently the green fee policy at many clubs. Clubs would IMO be better off ignoring completely this sector of the potential market and instead holding their nerve and focusing on those prepared to pay a realistic green fee. At the moment everyone pays the low fee dictated by the internet golfer.

[Jon Wiggett]

Clubs need to decide what they are and chose the appropriate model. If they are a member's club then the greenfee should be about 5% to 7.5% of the full membership rate with the weekend rate being highest. Member's guests need to be restricted to either a certain number overall per member per season or each guest just being allowed certain number of times. The club should cover ALL its costs through the membership fees.


The county card scheme is great for those wanting a cheap greenfee but not for clubs. If you want to play another club cheaply then try one of the interclub matches or open events The county card scheme would work if the greenfee included the reduction as a voucher to spend in the bar/dining room. Contrary to what many suppose most county card players also turn up, pay, play and leave.


Finally, cheap teetime booking sites should be avoided at all costs. Why let someone else discount your main outside presence. Yes to online booking but clubs need to take charge of this themselves.

[Duncan Cheslett]

The club should cover ALL its costs through the membership fees.

For the vast majority of everyday clubs I agree entirely. Unfortunately many (if not most) clubs have allowed things to slip to the point that green fee and society income are now integral to covering basic costs, rather than being the cream on top that allows for future investment.

This has led to the current situation where all green fee income is chased, no matter at what cost. Clubs have become obsessive about losing green fee business to other clubs, and even many decent quality courses are competing with or matching the suicidally low prices of the relative goat tracks.

On a micro level maybe this can be justified to some extent, but on a macro level massive problems are being created for the future. As a generation of golfers gets accustomed to being able to play regularly with a bunch of mates at a variety of courses at less cost than being a member of a single club, where are tomorrow's members going to come from?

In my area at least, the general thinking is that there are too many golf clubs for the available number of golfers, and that the inevitable outcome is that many clubs will have to disappear. Many clubs are consequently resigned to hanging on by their fingertips for the next few years until one of their neighbours goes bust or sells up for housing.

I prefer to try to think a little more imaginatively and proactively. I can't help feeling that the clubs who cling on and hope for the best are more than likely going to be the ones who end up closing.

The county card scheme is great for those wanting a cheap greenfee but not for clubs. If you want to play another club cheaply then try one of the interclub matches or open events The county card scheme would work if the greenfee included the reduction as a voucher to spend in the bar/dining room. Contrary to what many suppose most county card players also turn up, pay, play and leave.

I beg to differ. I think the County Card scheme is potentially very good for golf and golf clubs generally. It could be a great benefit of club membership, in effect giving reciprocal playing rights at every other golf club in the country.

As it is however, the County Card scheme is grossly under-utilised. I've had one for five years and used it precisely once - at Royal Liverpool.  The secretary at my last club received maybe half a dozen requests for them from members this year. The pros at both my recent clubs rarely see one proffered at all.

Most club members don't visit other clubs other than as part of an organised match or day out. Or as a guest of a member of another club. If they do fancy a game at another club they simply go on TeeOffTimes and find a good deal - probably just as good as they would get with a County Card!

Finally, cheap teetime booking sites should be avoided at all costs. Why let someone else discount your main outside presence. Yes to online booking but clubs need to take charge of this themselves.

TeeOffTimes has its place, just as Booking.com does for hotels. There is no problem being on there - just don't use it to compete with other clubs on price.


I am just as likely to be attracted by a good deal on TeeOffTimes that isn't at a particularly low price point. For example, Prestbury GC occasionally offers rounds on there for £45 instead of the normal £70. That seems to me to be a sensible way of marketing your off-peak tee times to a wide audience without joining in the death spiral.


They are currently offering rounds at £55. This is exactly the same as their shoulder season rack-rate.


https://www.teeofftimes.co.uk/tee-times/facility/14563-prestbury-golf-club/search#qc=Facility&q=prestbury&view=Grouping&timemax=42&timemin=10&sortby=Date&date=Nov+05+2018&facilityid=14563&longitude=-2.1200896&latitude=53.3880832

[Adrian_Stiff]

One thing Cumberwell does that is good is 9 hole rates.  I am perplexed as to why more clubs don't do this.

Like Niall, I don't think guest fees should be a revenue stream of any consequence.  It is easy to control guest fees with tracking, graded fees, limited plays, cheaper rate for guest who is a member of a club, limited times etc etc. Controlling the situation isn't difficult.  To me, things like this should be down to member vote rather than a management decision because it really should be a member added value.  If the members vote for a high fee then so be it, but members should decide.  I guess it is no different to green fees being waved for matches etc.  It is done because its a zero sum gain with other clubs and seen as added value of membership.  With the way guest fees are going, clubs will actually cut revenue because it is often the case that other courses can be played cheaper than paying guest fees. 

Ciao

The guest fee is a fairly big source of income for us and it would be for Cumberwell too. We have some members that annually bring a £1000 into the club playing with guests, maybe one that brings £3000 in. Our summer green fee is £48 midweek, standard guest fee is £36 though we have another rate for our premium members at £30. Afternoon +14.30 at £36. County Card is £40 so IMO the key is not to give it away cheap aka Duncans principle of keeping the price UP rather than the OFTEN WRONG CLUB  that chops its price to ratsh!t. Team matches are zero green fee and important to build the soul of the club. We have an Open Week in August where members can bring up to 3 guests free. About 80% of the membership don't bother to take this up.


The County Card has become a national discount card, in theory offering any MEMBER OF A GOLF CLUB golf at a lesser rate. Some Clubs see this as a way to SLASH their price to attract revenue. I would imagine at £40 rate we are second highest (to Burnham) in our area.


A great source of income is to have an Online tee time system, if you don't have one its like being a hotel and not being on booking.com  OK if you are already full but if you want some golf business I reckon 1x 4 ball every day (£192) book this way, though it is noticeable that the 14.32 tee time is the one often taken as that is the first time of discounted £36 rate. By definition the 14.24 time is almost always empty from a visitor booking.


If you have returning nines then a 9 hole rate makes perfect sense.

[Adrian_Stiff]

50 visitors at £100 a round is better than 200 at £25 a round.

I understand the sentiment of this but cant agree fully with what you're saying

200 people will put more through your bar, pro shop and other services than 50 people will.

50 at £100 is much better than 200 at £25, but that thinking about volume and up spend is a very common mistake.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Clubs need to decide what they are and chose the appropriate model. If they are a member's club then the greenfee should be about 5% to 7.5% of the full membership rate with the weekend rate being highest. Member's guests need to be restricted to either a certain number overall per member per season or each guest just being allowed certain number of times. The club should cover ALL its costs through the membership fees.


The county card scheme is great for those wanting a cheap greenfee but not for clubs. If you want to play another club cheaply then try one of the interclub matches or open events The county card scheme would work if the greenfee included the reduction as a voucher to spend in the bar/dining room. Contrary to what many suppose most county card players also turn up, pay, play and leave.


Finally, cheap teetime booking sites should be avoided at all costs. Why let someone else discount your main outside presence. Yes to online booking but clubs need to take charge of this themselves.

I pretty much agree with all this John but for us and Cumberwell, Kendleshire  50% of our income is from visitors. Last time I did some stats the round split was 80% Membership versus 20% Visitor....but the income was 50% v 50%. In pure business terms just having Visitors would be the way to go but you need to be a Belfry to do that.

[Niall C]

Niall


Your colleague Oscar is of course correct. The market outside of your  circles is driven by price rather than value - more’s the pity. As is your rather snide ad hominem dig.


I’m not disputing that your preferred golfing model exists. It is however a tiny percentage of Clubs and is not the answer to the problems of the Raglan’s of this world.


We’re all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Ryan

There was nothing snide about my comment. My point was that you operate in a different way to the majority and with your relative youth maybe can't recall a time when commercial golf operations were relatively rare at least up here.

My circle, that you refer to, consists of members at fairly ordinary clubs. None as far as I know are Lord's of the Realm. Costs are important to all of them but value more so. They value being a member of a club. Not just because it means on average the cost per round of golf per year is cheaper (although with a few folk I know they would be cheaper not being members given how little some of them play) but for the other things it brings. When you start eroding that and start treating them like retail punters they will act like retail punters, that's the problem.

Niall

[Niall C]

50 visitors at £100 a round is better than 200 at £25 a round.

I understand the sentiment of this but cant agree fully with what you're saying

200 people will put more through your bar, pro shop and other services than 50 people will.

Grant

Duncan beat me to it with some of his comments but by and large my argument was more than just the arithmetical one and was about increasing the value of the membership which in turn (hopefully) would lead to a full and happy membership. By charging more and therefore having less visitors and hopefully getting the same overall revenue, you free up the course for more member play. Therefore better value for members.

Niall

 

[Niall C]

Ryan runs a golf club so speaks first hand of what I call the 'real world'. Often on this forum people speak like it is the gospel when really only 1% play or like their golf that way. Adrian - not sure if that last comment was aimed at me but up here at least the vast majority of golf facilities belong to members clubs and therefore the vast majority of regular golfers effectively are in charge of their club whether they take an active part or not. That's the reality.


I suspect Ryan gets the same phone calls as I do where the conversation starts with ...."What deal can you do us?" How do you answer that question ? Do you respond as the owner/retailer looking to generate as much revenue as you can, or as the club manger looking after members interests ?


Most people just care about the $£$£$£ they do the maths and sometimes make decisions to join another club to save £20 or play another course to save a £1......THIS IS THE REAL WORLD...the world where a free bacon roll clinches the deal.In the real world as you put it it is a lot more complicated than that. I've known quite a number of golfers go from one club to another or who have left a club but never for the price of a bacon roll. It is far more nuanced and in terms of club membership often other factors other than the cost of the subs come into play.


The elite style 1950s style golf exists only at places like Deal and Muirfield. Very few UK people play international golf outside of Portugal, Spain and Turkey....the main reason to golf abroad is not the architecture, most people would rather play EL Crappo in Spain in a pair of shorts, golf buggy and the sun shining that trudge around Dornoch in driving rain. Agreed about what most do today but not sure of the reference to 1950's golf or who it was aimed at.


Mobile phones on golf courses must be allowed or the Under 40s will almost certainly join or play somewhere else. Most of the things held high by the old school are going out the window..I am not sure if FOURSOMES has much life left in it and whilst personally I like many of the games traditions and dislike many of the 'evolutions' of the last 10-20 years a lot of PEOPLE POWER now dictate the way people vote with their pocket.That might put you in a niche market but I know very few golfers, under 40 or otherwise who have the time or interest to make calls/send texts while on the course. And if some one did do that, would you want to be in their fourball ? So gain one member and lose three others ? Foursomes - at how many clubs do they actually play foursomes outwith competitions let alone insist members/visitors do ? I can think of perhaps two but there not part of any discussion about survival.


I think the thing Niall alludes too whilst nice, not enough see it as membership value. If you are alluding to the guest fee issue then on it's own perhaps not that big a deal but it's part of the conversation in creating value in being a member, and again I'm really looking at members clubs and not your type of operation, that's important.


Too many clubs allow people without a membership or handicap to win prizes. If you allow non members to play in competitions it is yet another nail in BEING A MEMBER. never heard of such a thing unless you refer to annual Open comps. My only concern/objection to them as a member, is their timing.


As a club we have taken a stand against any club joining the PlayMoreGolf scheme. Another back door cheap way to golf. Most clubs will sit and watch though. Sadly England Golf have actually backed it. On this I think we are in total agreement.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ryan runs a golf club so speaks first hand of what I call the 'real world'. Often on this forum people speak like it is the gospel when really only 1% play or like their golf that way. Adrian - not sure if that last comment was aimed at me but up here at least the vast majority of golf facilities belong to members clubs and therefore the vast majority of regular golfers effectively are in charge of their club whether they take an active part or not. That's the reality. No not aimed at you at all. A lot on here really value their golf and all of us on here are golf nutcases, the real world is the game 95% play. In Ryans world of golf he has to carefully consider every minor spend and save because their is so little excess to play with. Ryan is a success if he can keep the course in great condition have a buzzing social scene and not increase the fees too much. If Sean took over a club and ran it the same way he golfs he'd have it bust pretty quick, because Sean Arble is very different to the 99%, he will drive a long time to seek out and try golf courses. Peter Palotta made a point a few posts back about he would rather pay an extra fiver, it is nice but its not real world, sadly there are not enough people that think different from Lowest Price Wins.


I suspect Ryan gets the same phone calls as I do where the conversation starts with ...."What deal can you do us?" How do you answer that question ? Do you respond as the owner/retailer looking to generate as much revenue as you can, or as the club manger looking after members interests ? Stay firm and reiterate that everyone pays the same and we just have a standard policy of pricing as fairly as possible. On group bookings I might add in a free pudding/ second course if its a regular or a charity day or large group. I take the view I have given them £3.50 value but its only cost me 75p having factored all the staff costs in with the main course. I can have two identical phone calls about a group booking quote my speel and price and have two very different answers from the customer, 1 - thinks its good value. 2- Makes a sound like I have stabbed him and was looking for 18 holes, coffee & bacon roll, 2 course meal and free range balls  @ £20 because that's what the used to pay at Dewstow. (Dewstow closed a couple of years ago)


Most people just care about the $£$£$£ they do the maths and sometimes make decisions to join another club to save £20 or play another course to save a £1......THIS IS THE REAL WORLD...the world where a free bacon roll clinches the deal.In the real world as you put it it is a lot more complicated than that. I've known quite a number of golfers go from one club to another or who have left a club but never for the price of a bacon roll. It is far more nuanced and in terms of club membership often other factors other than the cost of the subs come into play. Yes I agree there are often other factors but the price for many is crucial.


The elite style 1950s style golf exists only at places like Deal and Muirfield. Very few UK people play international golf outside of Portugal, Spain and Turkey....the main reason to golf abroad is not the architecture, most people would rather play EL Crappo in Spain in a pair of shorts, golf buggy and the sun shining that trudge around Dornoch in driving rain. Agreed about what most do today but not sure of the reference to 1950's golf or who it was aimed at. Not really aimed at anyone. I always searched for better golf when I played, but I played El Chapparell a couple of years back and it is a truly dreadful golf course in my opinion, but with the sun out, shorts, beer, buggy allowed on the fairway, nice company it made me think about the whole Costa Del Sol golf thing versus the top 100 golf courses in cold damp conditions and waterproofs......Costa Del Sol wins


Mobile phones on golf courses must be allowed or the Under 40s will almost certainly join or play somewhere else. Most of the things held high by the old school are going out the window..I am not sure if FOURSOMES has much life left in it and whilst personally I like many of the games traditions and dislike many of the 'evolutions' of the last 10-20 years a lot of PEOPLE POWER now dictate the way people vote with their pocket.That might put you in a niche market but I know very few golfers, under 40 or otherwise who have the time or interest to make calls/send texts while on the course. And if some one did do that, would you want to be in their fourball ?  So gain one member and lose three others ? Foursomes - at how many clubs do they actually play foursomes outwith competitions let alone insist members/visitors do ? I can think of perhaps two but there not part of any discussion about survival. Some people that are self employed have gaps in their day and can sneak a round in, if they can take their phone they can be in contact. Phones on the course are more important to the modern course rather than the trad clubs, it will all be about the average age. If your 65 you dont want business phone calls. Foursomes less and less we dont have one in our calendar though we have Greensomes and a Bluesome. Our Scratch team play Foursomes I hope it survives.


I think the thing Niall alludes too whilst nice, not enough see it as membership value. If you are alluding to the guest fee issue then on it's own perhaps not that big a deal but it's part of the conversation in creating value in being a member, and again I'm really looking at members clubs and not your type of operation, that's important. Agree its about giving value.


Too many clubs allow people without a membership or handicap to win prizes. If you allow non members to play in competitions it is yet another nail in BEING A MEMBER. never heard of such a thing unless you refer to annual Open comps. My only concern/objection to them as a member, is their timing.


As a club we have taken a stand against any club joining the PlayMoreGolf scheme. Another back door cheap way to golf. Most clubs will sit and watch though. Sadly England Golf have actually backed it. On this I think we are in total agreement.

[Steve Lang]

    TIMEOUT!     has anyone reported why the closure next week is occurring, when the lease ran to March 2020?


LEASE NEGOTIATIONS
[/size][/color]Many of you may be aware that Raglan Parc Golf Club Limited’s current lease ends on 31st March 2020 as a result of which during the summer of 2017 our Board entered protracted negotiations with our landlords, Raglan Castle Properties Limited, with regard to a new lease. We were of the opinion that we had reached an understanding with regard to this in September 2017. However following 2 Extraordinary General Meetings of the shareholders of Raglan Castle Properties Limited the members of that company advised their Directors that they were not happy for the Company to proceed with a new lease on the basis of that agreement.[/font]
[/size][/color]Also regrettably for whatever reason, discussions on the way forward became deadlocked leaving us with a lack of helpful information to pass on to you as members of the golf club.[/font]

[Jon Wiggett]

   TIMEOUT!     has anyone reported why the closure next week is occurring, when the lease ran to March 2020?


LEASE NEGOTIATIONS
Many of you may be aware that Raglan Parc Golf Club Limited’s current lease ends on 31st March 2020 as a result of which during the summer of 2017 our Board entered protracted negotiations with our landlords, Raglan Castle Properties Limited, with regard to a new lease. We were of the opinion that we had reached an understanding with regard to this in September 2017. However following 2 Extraordinary General Meetings of the shareholders of Raglan Castle Properties Limited the members of that company advised their Directors that they were not happy for the Company to proceed with a new lease on the basis of that agreement.
Also regrettably for whatever reason, discussions on the way forward became deadlocked leaving us with a lack of helpful information to pass on to you as members of the golf club.

Steve,


it could be that as part of the lease agreement coming to an end the tenant has to return the land to the owner in a particular condition. This may include removing irrigation, bunkers, greens and ensuring the land is usable for whatever the landowner wishes on the date of return. This would mean doing the work in the summer prior to return. Whatever the reason it does not appear the club was no longer financially viable.


Duncan,


I am not saying the county card is a bad thing per se but if you are correct about how little it is been used then why have it at all? I think the card is very useful if used to encourage the players to use the club facilities as well. Another way is for juniors in encouraging them to play other courses and this was certainly what the county card in Yorkshire was when I was a junior not a senior perk.


Adrian,


I fully appreciate that your course (as with mine) has a business model which also incorporates greenfee revenue into the general concept. My comments were purely meant for the average members' club.


Jon

[Duncan Cheslett]

A few minutes' detective work reveals that the main directors and shareholders of Raglan Castle Properties Ltd go by the name of Crump.


Now where have I heard that name before?


https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02835055

[Sean_A]

One thing Cumberwell does that is good is 9 hole rates.  I am perplexed as to why more clubs don't do this.

Like Niall, I don't think guest fees should be a revenue stream of any consequence.  It is easy to control guest fees with tracking, graded fees, limited plays, cheaper rate for guest who is a member of a club, limited times etc etc. Controlling the situation isn't difficult.  To me, things like this should be down to member vote rather than a management decision because it really should be a member added value.  If the members vote for a high fee then so be it, but members should decide.  I guess it is no different to green fees being waved for matches etc.  It is done because its a zero sum gain with other clubs and seen as added value of membership.  With the way guest fees are going, clubs will actually cut revenue because it is often the case that other courses can be played cheaper than paying guest fees. 

Ciao

The guest fee is a fairly big source of income for us and it would be for Cumberwell too. We have some members that annually bring a £1000 into the club playing with guests, maybe one that brings £3000 in. Our summer green fee is £48 midweek, standard guest fee is £36 though we have another rate for our premium members at £30. Afternoon +14.30 at £36. County Card is £40 so IMO the key is not to give it away cheap aka Duncans principle of keeping the price UP rather than the OFTEN WRONG CLUB  that chops its price to ratsh!t. Team matches are zero green fee and important to build the soul of the club. We have an Open Week in August where members can bring up to 3 guests free. About 80% of the membership don't bother to take this up.

Unless the guest revenue stream is more directed at off-peak times I wouldn't be happy as a member having other members bring that many guests.  Its pretty easy for many UK courses to get congested because of high membership numbers and if it is congested a lot with guests and visitors its a bit of a pisser.  Again, if a private club, I think the members need to be in on the decision-making for this stuff.  I don't like the idea of management calling the shots for this because it can directly effect the value of membership and cause friction.  Its a simple thing to do at the AGM...dues cost x amount in exchange for X number of tee times or Y amount with more tee times available for members.  There are few things more frustrating then to not have access to your course because management is overselling the tee sheet to non-members.   

Ciao

[Ryan Coles]

Niall


Your colleague Oscar is of course correct. The market outside of your  circles is driven by price rather than value - more’s the pity. As is your rather snide ad hominem dig.


I’m not disputing that your preferred golfing model exists. It is however a tiny percentage of Clubs and is not the answer to the problems of the Raglan’s of this world.


We’re all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Ryan

There was nothing snide about my comment. My point was that you operate in a different way to the majority and with your relative youth maybe can't recall a time when commercial golf operations were relatively rare at least up here.

My circle, that you refer to, consists of members at fairly ordinary clubs. None as far as I know are Lord's of the Realm. Costs are important to all of them but value more so. They value being a member of a club. Not just because it means on average the cost per round of golf per year is cheaper (although with a few folk I know they would be cheaper not being members given how little some of them play) but for the other things it brings. When you start eroding that and start treating them like retail punters they will act like retail punters, that's the problem.

Niall

Niall




Rather than hanker for the past, (and I’m not sure whether your ordinarily Club’s you frequent were exemp from this) have you approached this discussion from the fact that Scotland has 60,000 less Club Members than it did 10 years ago? The largest decline of any European Country.


Perhaps a more commercial outlook was needed long before now......


You had it right when you said that Club’s need to cut their cloth accordingly, but you’re talking from self interest re: guest fees. [size=78%] [/size]


Burnham & Berrow has a Sub of £1,100. A greenfee of £115. Unbelievably good value for those lucky enough to be a member. Yet you and Sean begrudge a £35 members guest fee or similar. ‘Not how it used to be’.


There are lots of ways to add value to a membership, as touched upon in this thread. A greatly reduced guest fee such as above is good value. Yet despite your Oscar Wilde quote, you’re fixating on the price and ignoring the value.


An amazing thing to grumble about really and to bring it into a thread about failing Club’s and citing it as an example as to why they are, to my youthful mind, shows a detachment to the reality of the wider subject.


The something for nothing mentality of many members, which you display, as well as the something is better than nothing mentality of management in both ownership models, has exacerbated the decline of many Clubs and the migration from Member to nomadic golfer.


Members paying their way, and their Club’s being run in a way that keeps them financially viable doesn’t necessarily turn them into punters either. There is lots that Clubs can do to generate Club spirit and ethos and it costs nothing.

[Sean_A]

Ryan

I have no issue with the £115 green fee (in fact I think its should stay at that rate in the winter), but I do question the need to charge mates £35 as guests.  Because the green fee rises, doesn't mean the guest fee needs to rise accordingly.  As I say, it is my opinion that guest fees should not be a serious source of revenue and instead should be seen as a perk of membership.  That said, if the membership were to vote for high fees then fair enough.  I dislike the decision on how members treat their mates being up to management especially when there are many free green fees via club matches etc.

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

I agree with the sentiment of higher visitor green fees and less play but still get same revenue....that makes tons of sense.


What I have a harder time understanding is how a guest fee at 35, nearly 70% less than the visitor fee of 115 is no good?  That seems a tremendous discount...

[Ryan Coles]

I agree with the sentiment of higher visitor green fees and less play but still get same revenue....that makes tons of sense.


What I have a harder time understanding is how a guest fee at 35, nearly 70% less than the visitor fee of 115 is no good?  That seems a tremendous discount...

Not just no good, a reason membership is in decline.......

[Kalen Braley]

Ryan


So you're saying membership is down because the accompanied guest fees are too high?  Given all the other constraints like loss of free time, changing circumstances (financial or family), too many members (overcrowded), moving from the area, etc...I would not have guessed this is why.

[Ryan Coles]

No Kalen.


I’m refuting Mr Carlton who believes members guests should pay for free and Mr Arble who thinks his mates should play for less than the discount you describe.

[Kalen Braley]

No Kalen.


I’m refuting Mr Carlton who believes members guests should pay for free and Mr Arble who thinks his mates should play for less than the discount you describe.

Ahh OK, Glad to have mis-understood! 


Perhaps we should posit a question to the group.  Has anyone left a club because the accompanied guest fee was too high?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ryan

I have no issue with the £115 green fee (in fact I think its should stay at that rate in the winter), but I do question the need to charge mates £35 as guests.  Because the green fee rises, doesn't mean the guest fee needs to rise accordingly.  As I say, it is my opinion that guest fees should not be a serious source of revenue and instead should be seen as a perk of membership.  That said, if the membership were to vote for high fees then fair enough.  I dislike the decision on how members treat their mates being up to management especially when there are many free green fees via club matches etc.

Ciao

I am at a total opposite to this. If I was pricing at £115  for the standard green fee then the guest fee would be £75. If B & B is only £35 guest rate then we are higher.

[Adrian_Stiff]

One thing Cumberwell does that is good is 9 hole rates.  I am perplexed as to why more clubs don't do this.

Like Niall, I don't think guest fees should be a revenue stream of any consequence.  It is easy to control guest fees with tracking, graded fees, limited plays, cheaper rate for guest who is a member of a club, limited times etc etc. Controlling the situation isn't difficult.  To me, things like this should be down to member vote rather than a management decision because it really should be a member added value.  If the members vote for a high fee then so be it, but members should decide.  I guess it is no different to green fees being waved for matches etc.  It is done because its a zero sum gain with other clubs and seen as added value of membership.  With the way guest fees are going, clubs will actually cut revenue because it is often the case that other courses can be played cheaper than paying guest fees. 

Ciao

The guest fee is a fairly big source of income for us and it would be for Cumberwell too. We have some members that annually bring a £1000 into the club playing with guests, maybe one that brings £3000 in. Our summer green fee is £48 midweek, standard guest fee is £36 though we have another rate for our premium members at £30. Afternoon +14.30 at £36. County Card is £40 so IMO the key is not to give it away cheap aka Duncans principle of keeping the price UP rather than the OFTEN WRONG CLUB  that chops its price to ratsh!t. Team matches are zero green fee and important to build the soul of the club. We have an Open Week in August where members can bring up to 3 guests free. About 80% of the membership don't bother to take this up.

Unless the guest revenue stream is more directed at off-peak times I wouldn't be happy as a member having other members bring that many guests.  Its pretty easy for many UK courses to get congested because of high membership numbers and if it is congested a lot with guests and visitors its a bit of a pisser.  Again, if a private club, I think the members need to be in on the decision-making for this stuff.  I don't like the idea of management calling the shots for this because it can directly effect the value of membership and cause friction.  Its a simple thing to do at the AGM...dues cost x amount in exchange for X number of tee times or Y amount with more tee times available for members.  There are few things more frustrating then to not have access to your course because management is overselling the tee sheet to non-members.   

Ciao

We have members times and they can book those times in advance. If I book in groups a year in advance then they are booked outside the window that is considered for members. If members cant get the prime times yeah its going to get them annoyed.

[Adrian_Stiff]

No Kalen.


I’m refuting Mr Carlton who believes members guests should pay for free and Mr Arble who thinks his mates should play for less than the discount you describe.

Ahh OK, Glad to have mis-understood! 


Perhaps we should posit a question to the group.  Has anyone left a club because the accompanied guest fee was too high?

Yes. We lost a group this year to Cumberwell funnily enough. They are a fairly money consious group as golfers though several of them are millionaires. A few of the group just pay a guest fee as they only play 10-15 rounds a year, they had everything worked out to the penny. It has been brought up by the membership that our guest fee is too high but it is a big earner so why do I want to drop it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()