[Tom_Doak]

I think it changes from course to course and who the club wants to be. How big do greens need to be? I think some are too large. They are very expensive to maintain. Maybe more money should be expended on the size of teeing grounds on par threes. We like shorter grass around the greens rather than greens that are ringed with rough, but they are more costly to maintain. Clubhouse additions seem to be a problem, especially those built just prior to 2008. Some that were overbuilt early like Olympia Fields are super costly. What do they do? Some have a great balance like Hidden Creek or Ocean Forest. Some small clubhouses like Nanea are perfect for the little use they get.

Tommy:


The greens are the most important part of the golf course, too.  I agree with you that some greens are bigger than they need to be, but the difference from one course to the next [assuming fairly equal conditions] is probably not more than $50,000 per year [or say $200 per member] except in a few, extreme cases. 


I believe there is way more $$$ at stake than that in other facets of the operation.  On course, bunker maintenance variability would be much greater.

[David_Elvins]

I am going to go out on a limb and say everything.


There isn't a single aspect of golf from equipment, to lessons, to irrigation to bunkers, to clibhouses, to redesigns, to staffing that doesn't involve massive amounts of wasted money.

[Craig Sweet]

Golf magazines..
Bunkers...
Clubhouses....
Garbage cans, ball washers, tee markers,

[Tyler Kearns]

General Managers

John,


In my experience, after our club got burned by a GM who massively under-performed, the Board elected to run things for a few years.  A bad situation only got worse. With our last money, we paid up to hire another well-qualified GM, and in the past 2 seasons has taken us from the brink to large surpluses and a waiting list and saved our club.


Tyler

[John Emerson]

General Managers

John,


In my experience, after our club got burned by a GM who massively under-performed, the Board elected to run things for a few years.  A bad situation only got worse. With our last money, we paid up to hire another well-qualified GM, and in the past 2 seasons has taken us from the brink to large surpluses and a waiting list and saved our club.


Tyler

Again it may not work everywhere, but I can think of half a dozen plus guys right now who are supers/GM’s and they are killing it and they saved the club some money that went back into the agronomy/on-course budget thus creating a better product and cutting out one more large labor expenditure.  It’s a bad cycle that is unnecessary in the world of golf.

[Garland Bayley]

I am going to go out on a limb and say everything.


There isn't a single aspect of golf from equipment, to lessons, to irrigation to bunkers, to clibhouses, to redesigns, to staffing that doesn't involve massive amounts of wasted money.

Especially if run by an uninformed amateur board. Of course, the solution to that is extremely difficult in that you have to find a strong and highly competent GM. We hired a restaurant manager. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

We’ve just hired a new PGA pro who will combine the role with that of GM.


We don’t have the budget to employ a pro AND a GM, so this is the obvious way forward. We were lucky enough to find a guy who was assistant pro at the club 20 years ago and who has run golf operations all over the world in the intervening time before moving home to start a family.

First signs look excellent.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Interesting that so many people have such different views where money is wasted.


The clubhouse is the biggest drainer of money for most golf courses although in some locations it can be a real winner if used for things outside of golf. You make money from F & B via numbers. 65 might be break even. 100 meals a day is break ok. You start hitting 200 its very good.


On the golf course, I would say biggest savings can be made via reduction in numbers or size of sand bunkers. This could change depending on location and if you have to pay for sand though.


Fairway width would be another area of saving in some places.


Sadly saving money on the golf course usually equals a more boring course or a rougher look condition wise.

[archie_struthers]

 


Wall to wall irrigation with computers to track every drop. But of course!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Since you didn't specify golf courses alone, I would add buying a new $500 driver every year or $45 dozen golf balls every week as the biggest individual waste.


For most golf courses, another waste is probably the 7000+ yard tees, which only are used by 1% of players, if that. Now, if they are sized to a minimum 15 x 15 feet, and the first 180 yards or so to the fw is lightly maintained, then they probably aren't too bad.

[jeffwarne]

Since you didn't specify golf courses alone, I would add buying a new $500 driver every year or $45 dozen golf balls every week as the biggest individual waste.


For most golf courses, another waste is probably the 7000+ yard tees, which only are used by 1% of players, if that. Now, if they are sized to a minimum 15 x 15 feet, and the first 180 yards or so to the fw is lightly maintained, then they probably aren't too bad.

Where are you getting those $45 PROV's balls?
More like $60 plus in pro shops.
I walked the length of the first fairway in late October this year and estimated my haul of one hit wonders at $1500 in about 30 minutes.(had to go back for a cart)
Should start saving the discarded boxes and sleeves.

[Adam Clayman]

Softening green contours, to create faster green speeds, across the globe, has to have been the greatest waste of money.


Waste, because all it did was stroke the egos of a very few, while simutaneously removing nearly half the challenge of marrying speed and slope. 

[jeffwarne]

Softening green contours, to create faster green speeds, across the globe, has to have been the greatest waste of money.


Waste, because all it did was stroke the egos of a very few, while simutaneously removing nearly half the challenge of marrying speed and slope.

Ironically, creating the opposite effect of the intention.
Makes it easier because of reduced slope, which affects approaches, pitches and  putting,
and you just made an 8 footer a four footer


It would/is be a bad thing even if the cost was free

[Anthony_Nysse]

Wall to wall irrigation with computers to track every drop. But of course!

Many times those computers are needed for monthly reporting to a government agency that's tracking our water usage.

[David_Elvins]

I am going to go out on a limb and say everything.


There isn't a single aspect of golf from equipment, to lessons, to irrigation to bunkers, to clibhouses, to redesigns, to staffing that doesn't involve massive amounts of wasted money.

Especially if run by an uninformed amateur board. Of course, the solution to that is extremely difficult in that you have to find a strong and highly competent GM. We hired a restaurant manager. 

Generally the good boards hire the good general managers.

[Padraig Dooley]

Not spending on expertise.

[Tim Martin]

I am going to go out on a limb and say everything.


There isn't a single aspect of golf from equipment, to lessons, to irrigation to bunkers, to clibhouses, to redesigns, to staffing that doesn't involve massive amounts of wasted money.

Especially if run by an uninformed amateur board. Of course, the solution to that is extremely difficult in that you have to find a strong and highly competent GM. We hired a restaurant manager. 

Generally the good boards hire the good general managers.

I’ve see the dual roles of Head Golf Professional or Director of golf associated more with the General Manager than the superintendent. That’s not to say they are not qualified as such but more a general observation.

[John Emerson]

I am going to go out on a limb and say everything.


There isn't a single aspect of golf from equipment, to lessons, to irrigation to bunkers, to clibhouses, to redesigns, to staffing that doesn't involve massive amounts of wasted money.

Especially if run by an uninformed amateur board. Of course, the solution to that is extremely difficult in that you have to find a strong and highly competent GM. We hired a restaurant manager. 

Generally the good boards hire the good general managers.

I’ve see the dual roles of Head Golf Professional or Director of golf associated more with the General Manager than the superintendent. That’s not to say they are not qualified as such but more a general observation.

It should be the other way around imho.  At the end of the day the asset is the golf course.  Superintendent is well aware of this and this is always his/her first, second, and third priority.  Some golf pros have their priorities confused making the course a secondary thought.

[Bruce Katona]

Several folks chimed in on the biggest waste at a club being the clubhouse; and I don't disagree.  The biggest money losers ($$ waste) is pool and tennis - few play tennis and the insurance and upkeep for the pool far outweigh the "pool members" dues.


The $500 driver and $60 dozen of Pro V's the 24 handicapper buys at the shop is a close second.  a 24 will likely do better with a Top Flight or Pinnacle ball and a driver with higher loft. 


Lessons - I don't need no stinking lessons!  I recall a long time head professional who left his club after the Board chose to change directions and he came to work with us.  I saw him on the range one day giving someone a lesson and came over to say "Hello" after he was done.  We were chatting on how his season was going, students he was instructing progressing and the number of lives that could be lost on the range on a weekend with the members hitting balls 90 degrees to where they were aiming.  I'll never ever forget what he said to me " Bruce - if I get get one of my students to hit 3 GOOD shots a round, I have a client for and entire season.

[Garland Bayley]

...
The $500 driver and $60 dozen of Pro V's the 24 handicapper buys at the shop is a close second.  a 24 will likely do better with a Top Flight or Pinnacle ball and a driver with higher loft. 
...

According to Titleist, this is simply wrong. Their studies have shown that high handicappers shoot lower scores with the Prov1 than the do with a two piece ball like a Pinnacle.

If you think about it, it becomes obvious why that is true.

Of course, you don't have to buy Prov1s to get the benefit they provide. My best purchase ever was 6 dozen Strata Professionals for 67 cents a ball.

[Jeff Schley]

For private clubs it probably is the clubhouse and capital assets needed to keep up with the jones' in your locale. Nothing wrong with a great clubhouse, although demonized on this site, many members see it as the flagship to attract and retain members. Spouses and their guests utilize it.

For public courses this is a different ballgame, particularly muni's. I would say an overbunkered muni is unnecessary for both excess maintenance cost, adding to pace of play, and difficulty for mid/high handicappers.

I also think you can separate out the UK / Ireland courses from the US model above. Curious what our friends across the pond view as the excesses that can be trimmed.

[Sean_A]

For a great many GB&I clubs I think it's the same as the States. Focus on bunkers and clubhouse. So many clubhouses have rooms barely used, open space serving no function other than as areas to needlessly heat and under used kitchens.

Ciao

[Ryan Coles]

In the UK, inland, is winter golf a waste of money for both consumer & provider?

[Duncan Cheslett]

In the UK, inland, is winter golf a waste of money for both consumer & provider?

A lot of money is spent keeping inland parkland courses “playable” in winter with poor results. The damage caused by traffic across wet ground then costs more money to rectify each spring.


This year’s enforced winter closure is enabling greens staff to do useful long term work rather than fire fighting to keep courses open for the few members who want to play in all weathers.


I’ve yet to speak to anyone who feels hard done by missing out on a few weeks golf in appalling conditions. I can see a drift in sentiment developing towards closing courses in January and February to allow them to rest awhile in preparation for the new season.


It would  probably make financial sense too.


Who says golf has to be a 52 week a year activity?

[Sean_A]

In the UK, inland, is winter golf a waste of money for both consumer & provider?

A lot of money is spent keeping inland parkland courses “playable” in winter with poor results. The damage caused by traffic across wet ground then costs more money to rectify each spring.

This year’s enforced winter closure is enabling greens staff to do useful long term work rather than fire fighting to keep courses open for the few members who want to play in all weathers.

I’ve yet to speak to anyone who feels hard done by missing out on a few weeks golf in appalling conditions. I can see a drift in sentiment developing towards closing courses in January and February to allow them to rest awhile in preparation for the new season.

It would  probably make financial sense too.

Who says golf has to be a 52 week a year activity?

Sure, easy for you to say with a links membership in your back pocket.

I have long questioned the wisdom of some clubs which offer reduced winter rates. It seems to me that for courses that drain well winter is the time to say pay full whack. If folks don't want to pay then the course gets a bit of rest.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()