[Duncan Cheslett]

Raglan Parc in Monmouthshire

https://www.raglanparc.co.uk/the-club/discover/club-news/item/248-closure.html


Canwick Park in Lincoln

https://www.golf-monthly.co.uk/news/canwick-park-golf-club-enters-liquidation-168092


I know nothing of Canwick Park but Raglan Parc has been on my radar for a few weeks after I met a nice couple at Cavendish who were looking to relocate to the area as their two children were now living in Manchester and Sheffield respectively. Buxton is equidistant from both.

They were from South Wales and members of Raglan Parc. They were effusive about how their club had turned things round in recent years and attracted large numbers of new members by slashing their annual subscriptions to well under £600pa for full 7 day membership. They were clearly convinced that this was the way forward for golf clubs and a panacea for declining participation numbers. They thought that £800 for full membership at Cavendish was very expensive, despite my reassurances that not only was it the best course in the area by far - a top 100 course in England no less - but that it was also one of the most reasonably priced.

Annual subscriptions in the surrounding urban areas of Stockport, Sheffield, and Stoke are all around the £1000 mark or more.

For the last few weeks I have been wondering about how a club like Raglan Parc can buck the trend, charge lower fees, attract more members, and flourish.

Today I found out.

They can't!

[Adrian_Stiff]

Some one probably advised them that you can sell a five pound note for four pounds.


With the minimum wage going up again this time to 4.9% this coming April. Any club not raising the bar by the same amount will be doing the same.


That Play more golf scheme has started to get some traction in the South West with a few clubs signing up, Cleeve Hill is one. PMG market heavily that golf can be cheaper with them. It costs £325 per year (on offer for 15 months currently) and you can play up to 500 times if you pick the right/cheap times....that takes golf to a £6.50 level with the club getting about £4.70 after PMG take their pimp fee.


I find it beyond belief that a club could sign up to PMG. Great for the consumer though. No good for golf in general as it is educating the world that you can supply golf for £6.50.

[Rich Goodale]

I played Ragan Park a few years ago with a long term golfing buddy, and remember it as a pleasant course and a friendly clubhouse.  It didn't deserve to die, but c'est la vie.  I'll send condolences to my pal.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I played Ragan Park a few years ago with a long term golfing buddy, and remember it as a pleasant course and a friendly clubhouse.  It didn't deserve to die, but c'est la vie.  I'll send condolences to my pal.

The thing is Rich if a golf course fails or survives its often not about the course itself. I am thinking almost everything is suffering (not just golf) because of the ease we can compare prices and seek the lowest possible price. Everyone is guilty of it (if its a crime) but it does make it difficult for people long term to become rich because it is so hard to make good profits. In a good economy everyone benifits from the profits and spending as long as the money is circulated and recirculated. In today's world and probably in the future there are 'No' or 'Less' profits so very little circulation or recirculation. It will be hard to become rich in the future.

[Duncan Cheslett]

I am thinking almost everything is suffering (not just golf) because of the ease we can compare prices and seek the lowest possible price. Everyone is guilty of it (if its a crime) but it does make it difficult for people long term to become rich because it is so hard to make good profits. In a good economy everyone benifits from the profits and spending as long as the money is circulated and recirculated. In today's world and probably in the future there are 'No' or 'Less' profits so very little circulation or recirculation. It will be hard to become rich in the future.

I'd not thought about it like that but I am sure you are right.


Price transparency across all sectors is great for the consumer, and therefore very difficult to argue against in principle.


However, it will make it increasingly difficult for inefficient businesses to survive as they once might have done, and increasingly difficult even for efficient businesses to generate significant profits. The pressure continually to lower prices in order to attract new business will become ever more incessant.


Already the cancer afflicting the car insurance and energy markets is creeping into golf. Offer new members a great deal to get them through the door, while shafting the loyal long-standing member who can be relied upon meekly to stump up his full subscription each year.


I do like Adrian's idea of no joining fee but a 'loyalty discount' after a certain number of years membership.




The trouble is, any business that makes price the primary reason to be a customer is on a hiding to nothing long term. If price got the member in, price will take him away.

[Niall C]

Adrian makes his usual point regarding members and visitors, and as always it is compelling and well made. For me therefore the question becomes how do you make membership worth more, or better value for money (not necessarily the same thing) ?

Certainly hiking the cost of visitor greenfees and also restricting when visitors are allowed on adds to the value of the membership. Nothing worse than pitching up at your club to play a few holes to find a society or Perry bus-full of golfers are clogging up the course. 50 visitors at £100 a round is better than 200 at £25 a round. As well as adding to the “prestige” of the course I’ve heard it argued that a higher price has a bearing on desirability for the visiting golfer.

For instance, if the greenfee is £140 compared to £75 for the neighbouring course then the visiting golfer, particularly if they are travelling from afar and spending heavily anyway, might go for the higher priced course on the assumption that the price differential indicates difference in quality. Clearly not many courses are in that price bracket but the principle of comparative cost holds true no matter what level your club is at I’d have thought.

Where I disagree with others on this thread is the contention that reducing the cost of membership was necessarily a fatal thing to do. You have to wonder how that club managed to attract the additional members they were looking for, as Duncan alludes to, then still managed to go bust. Clearly someone had got their sums wrong. I can only assume that they failed to cut their costs in line with their projected income ?

Niall

[Duncan Cheslett]

Niall,


Every golf club bar in the land is full of experts espousing that if the membership subs were cut substantially the number of members would rise leading to an increase in income overall.


Simple mathematics disprove this.


If you cut subs by a quarter you need to increase the number of members paying those subs by a third.


Say you have 100 members paying £1000pa.  Total revenue is £100,000


Reduce the subs to £750pa and you immediately need 133 members to achieve the same £100,000


Realistic?  Of course not!


Yet this appears to be the business model followed by the hapless Raglan Parc GC.

[Niall C]

Duncan

So, what makes you more of an expert than those advocating cutting costs 

If you read my post you will note I referred to them presumably failing to cut their cloth accordingly. You also seemed to suggest in your earlier post that they had managed to meet their target in getting new members so you seem to be arguing against yourself ?

I can only speak of my personal preferences and it doesn’t include having to pay for a fancy clubhouse, open all hours, heated all hours and staffed all hours. It also doesn’t include flower and shrub beds and all the other peripheral stuff that costs money. Now I appreciate that some are happy to pay the extra cost in their subs, and others might move to another club if they can’t get served with a breakfast at 8am every morning but I think if you gave most members the choice of reduced “service” with corresponding reduction in subs, you would retain most and also attract new members.

Just an idea.

Niall

[Matt Dawson]

Niall,


Every golf club bar in the land is full of experts espousing that if the membership subs were cut substantially the number of members would rise leading to an increase in income overall.


Simple mathematics disprove this.


If you cut subs by a quarter you need to increase the number of members paying those subs by a third.


Say you have 100 members paying £1000pa.  Total revenue is £100,000


Reduce the subs to £750pa and you immediately need 133 members to achieve the same £100,000


Realistic?  Of course not!


Yet this appears to be the business model followed by the hapless Raglan Parc GC.

Duncan I'm sure you are well aware this is simply how percentages work!

The logical mathematical answer would therefore be to put subs up 25% to £1250, and hope that less than 20 members resign (breakeven at 80 x £1250 = £100,000)

There's obviously a spectrum of ways to get to the annual running amount a club needs, from 1 person paying everything (totally private club) to a municipal at £5 a pop at the other end

Each club has to assess where they would like, and can realistically expect given their location and quality, to be. As many contributors have previously pointed out, the UK & Australian golf club models are to have higher membership rolls, but each paying a lower amount than at an equivalent course in the US

[Adrian_Stiff]

I kinda believe we are quite lucky with golf in that each course is unique and we all love to experience different golf courses. So you kinda want to tick off the top 100 or at a lesser level play the better courses in your area. I think I have played 300 different courses but 200 of them only the once......


If people want to play your course and they are probably going to play it once why give it away at a cheap price. Price your green fee at a fair rate say £40 - £50. Run your membership at between 20-30 times the green fee, always remember that MEMBERSHIP should be the cheapest and best value.


Somewhere like Painswick or Cleeve Cloud advertises £10 golf yet the people that want to play it probably pay £50 to get there, those clubs think that the only way they will get business is to drop the price. I think they would do better pricing their fees at £40.


The Manchester model that golf is £1000 per year for a membership but you can play a single round for £20 is quite chaotic, it is the same in the Oxfordshire/Berkshire area with the second tier clubs competing in a price war that actually causes members to defect into being a nomad because of the economics.


Adding values into the membership are the friends and friendships, a good friendly pro shop, the team golf, adding quirky fun competitions tomorrow we have a MIX UP where you chose your strategy how you play the course, you play off 6 red tees (ladies) 6 tee of the days and 6 medal tees....win or lose its great banter. All clubs are different and with the right location some join for the clubhouse activity. 


The main reason why people join a club is because that's where there friends play so a friendly club where members interact by definition will retain members better.


The virus that attacks everything today is LOWEST PRICE WINS  and you can have a good business and get affected by what someone else does, time after time we see something being sold at a crazy low price... the customer buys at the cheap price .... takes custom away from the higher priced outlet, perhaps even forcing that out of business....Often that crazy low price outlet suddenly out of the blue folds up as the model was never sustainable. They  never made a profit.

[Peter Pallotta]

From the outside and far away, reading this is saddening and (in terms of the health of the game) a bit demoralizing:
That in a country where golf has an exceedingly long history, and a climate that in many places allows for (almost) year-round play, and with so many fine members clubs with little/no initiation fee and priced so reasonably on a per-year basis -- that in such a place golf courses are still struggling to stay afloat...well, that's not a great sign of the game's future/participation rates.
On Adrian's point: I mentioned here a while ago that, after my one and only experience with it, I never again used and committed to never again using those golf-tee-time-discount type websites. I'm not wealthy, but I don't *need* to save the $5 on an already reasonable green fee, and I hate the thought of all my local golf courses engaging in a race to the price-point-bottom while struggling to make ends meet.
No, I'm not an altruist. I think my approach is more enlightened self interest: if folks keep trying to save that $5 dollars and jumping around from site to site seeking a course where they might save $8, pretty soon there won't be many golf courses left to choose from.
Peter   

[Rich Goodale]

Some good thoughts here, but for golf (which has limited products/services and high fixed costs) minimum pricing doesn't work, but very expensive algorithms (such as dynamic pricing in the airline business) can eke out profits.  The golf courses/clubs which are in the dreaded middle (i.e. good product but not good enough to price at the high end) where the fall to the minimum pricing is the next move to bankruptcy.  Courses which offer unique experiences can price-is-hardly-important high, if they can also express and broadcast their uniqueness to the high-end market.


Given the fact that the demand for golf (at all levels) is on a long term decline (in the developed world at least), "growing the game" is a slippery slope with decreasing cash at the bottom.  Those mid-level clubs which have inherited their land can crawl and scratch to make the accounts look OK, but they are never going to make a "profit."


IMO

[Jonathan Mallard]

This entry on the Raglan Parc website may be enlightening on the situation...


It seems they were unable to come to an agreement on the lease or purchase of the land from the owners of the Castle.


https://www.raglanparc.co.uk/component/acymailing/listid-3-members/mailid-69-raglan-parc-golf-club-cliff-evans-trophy.html?Itemid=172

[Niall C]

If people want to play your course and they are probably going to play it once why give it away at a cheap price. Price your green fee at a fair rate say £40 - £50. Run your membership at between 20-30 times the green fee, always remember that MEMBERSHIP should be the cheapest and best value.

+1

I'd also add that the trend in recent years of charging for guests also devalues membership. Another example of the balance between visitor and members tilting towards the visitors.

Niall

[Niall C]

Rich

I'm not a big fan of the "grow the game" ethos in terms of the UK (can't really comment on elsewhere). I tend to think the health of the game is far more important, and by that I mean things like the golfing culture if I can call it that; the health of clubs (golf in the UK is predominantly through clubs); ease of access; and the basic cost of playing the game. "Grow the game" to my way of thinking is more an industry thing. I'm happy that some lucky folk manage to make a living out of golf but they are there to serve golfers, not the other way round.

One other comment regarding decline. I recall some 40 years ago during school holidays being able to have the freedom of the whole course on weekdays during the school holidays. You could play morning, noon and night without looking over your shoulder to see if you were getting in anyone's way. If I went back to that course now I'd have to book a tee time and unless I was very quick on the internet button I'd have no chance of getting an early morning tee time.

So to my mind the problem isn't participation in golf, but how it is paid for. My perception is that the casual golfer of yesteryear who maybe didn't play that many rounds but enjoyed being a member of a club has long given up membership due to the cost of the subs. That's the real problem that clubs face and that the Golf Unions should be addressing IMO.

Niall

[Ryan Coles]

If people want to play your course and they are probably going to play it once why give it away at a cheap price. Price your green fee at a fair rate say £40 - £50. Run your membership at between 20-30 times the green fee, always remember that MEMBERSHIP should be the cheapest and best value.

+1

I'd also add that the trend in recent years of charging for guests also devalues membership. Another example of the balance between visitor and members tilting towards the visitors.

Niall

I’d disagree with this.


One of the first things I did was increase the members guest fee. Many of those who were playing too cheaply as guests joined and became members. Every overly cheap access point, including guest rates need to be sealed.

[Niall C]

Ryan

This all goes back to the value of membership not only in monetary terms. Firstly I wouldn't necessarily equate guest with visitor play. They are distinct in my book, not just in a monetary sense. Yes, I believe in the idea of visitors being members for the day and should be treated a such but guests aren't members, they are or should be receiving the members hospitality. 

It used to be that taking a guest on cost nothing or was a very nominal cost in many clubs but the number of guests you could take on was restricted. That engendered a sense of worth in the invite for both the member and the guest. To my mind that has been eroded by charging. Even at £10 to £15 per guest, that could be £30 to £45 for a fourball. It used to be the custom that the member as host paid whatever "nominal" charge. Now it is becoming common for the guests to pay the guest fees which to my mind makes them cheap day visitors, but even then you often have that awkward thing of should I or should I not charge my guest and the guest wondering whether they should offer to pay their way.

Maybe others don't get that and I appreciate I'm old school and prefer to host rather than provide cheap access. But either way, charging for guests erodes the value of the membership. And it should be also borne in mind that each of those guests could be a potential member.

Niall

[Ryan Coles]

Niall


Someone has to pay for the Club. It is indeed an old school golden age you refer to and highly select golden age[size=78%] at that. [/size]


Low subs and free guests only really works at tourist venues and the very elite, where the Clubs are propped up by visitors paying hundreds of pounds a round whilst members pay a relative pittance.


Rank and file Clubs (which is what the Clubs closing in this thread are) charging less for a guest than Annual Sub / 40 are actively encouraging people NOT to join and driving nomadic golf.


The masses do the maths and the way they consume adapts accordingly.


You’re applying a very specific set of highly desirable circumstances as a solution to the problems of the mass market.


We’d all love to be members owners or employed by a good Club, with low subs, free guest fees and a ready supply of visitors ready to pay a greenfee equivalent to 3-4 months subs, at a time we dictate, obviously.


The guests you refer to would be members elsewhere and would reciprocate at their place. The vast majority of members guests at average Clubs aren’t members anywhere. That guest is never going to join as a member when he can play for a pittance as a guest!


Where I do agree with you is ‘health of the game’ being far more important than ‘grow the game’.


Much of the efforts and empire building of the latter by governing bodies has certainly been counter productive to the former.

[Niall C]

“Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.” - Oscar Wilde


Ryan

See above. Also, the golden age you refer to was only "yesterday" and in some places is still the reality. Something that a bright young industry type like yourself possibly wouldn't appreciate.

But when all's said and done, I suspect we are trying to achieve the same goal even if we are coming at it from different angles.

Niall

[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.


I suspect Ryan gets the same phone calls as I do where the conversation starts with ...."What deal can you do us?"


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.


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.


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.


I think the thing Niall alludes too whilst nice, not enough see it as membership 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.


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.

[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.

[Adam Lawrence]

Rather than focusing on what people do wrong, let's examine a few who get it right.


Adrian, you know Cumberwell Park very well. Now obviously their economics are helped out because all their courses were built using inert fill. However, the simple fact is that I have never seen a golf club parking lot so packed apparently ALL THE TIME.


What are the James family doing so right?

[Ryan Coles]

Rather than focusing on what people do wrong, let's examine a few who get it right.


Adrian, you know Cumberwell Park very well. Now obviously their economics are helped out because all their courses were built using inert fill. However, the simple fact is that I have never seen a golf club parking lot so packed apparently ALL THE TIME.


What are the James family doing so right?

1. Location.


2. Construction costs / land acquisition farm to land fill to Club. As you mention.


3. Hard work by the family. Everyone mucks in.


4. A fair price for a fair product.


5. Excellent pro.


6. Bespoke facilities to suit modern golfer.


7. 36 + holes hugely helpful. Twice the revenue whilst only half of some of the fixed costs.


8. Function activity.

9. Striking a reasonable balance between looking after members wishes and commercial reality.


10. Water holes.


11. 7000 yards.


12. Tee time booking.


13. Profile from closing the course for europro tour and west region pga events.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Rather than focusing on what people do wrong, let's examine a few who get it right.


Adrian, you know Cumberwell Park very well. Now obviously their economics are helped out because all their courses were built using inert fill. However, the simple fact is that I have never seen a golf club parking lot so packed apparently ALL THE TIME.


What are the James family doing so right?

Following what I told them which are the same things I have preached on here and the formula has never failed them. The courses are well thought of by the 95% but you probably would not like three of the nines because they feature water, trees. Membership fees are reasonable, membership options for golfers that don't play lots of rounds, course in good condition, good practice facilities, they also have a good pro, good catchment area and have never been shy of investing the money back in. Both the James' are happy with a nice steak and not really money driven for themselves. The only thing I can remember they did that I advised them not to do was to number the holes 1-36, rather than two lots of 1-18. They do well with functions and conferences. The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park are all similar stories working off the same formula.

[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   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()