Price vrs conditioning/facilities - higher/better/more vrs lower/lessor/less …?

[Thomas Dai]

Would you accept lessor course conditioning in exchange for lower greenfees?


Would you accept less off-course facilities in exchange for lower subscriptions/greenfees?


Thoughts?


Atb

[Jeff Schley]

Good question Thomas.  As the US has more of a biased towards conditioning, I suspect many would not sacrifice conditioning as they go hand in hand with guest fees staying high. In the UK I think the course conditioning (meaning green and lush with irrigation) isn't nearly as important for links.  Off course facilities aren't as important to me so I'd gladly pay less to reduce those costs.

[Sean_A]

Would you accept lessor course conditioning in exchange for lower greenfees?

Would you accept less off-course facilities in exchange for lower subscriptions/greenfees?

Thoughts?

Atb

Absolutely. I agree that there is a certain degree of conditioning which will make any course be it’s best. I am not convinced achieving the final 10 or 15 percent is worth the expense for the end product. A well designed course doesn’t need to stand at complete attention to maintain interest and be fun.

Ciao

[Matt Schoolfield]

I think in one sense, I'd take the lower price. I play match play almost exclusively. I always have. I think Tom had a really, really point about the effect of match play and the value of conditioning in the latest Fried Egg video.

In another sense, however, I think it's a false dichotomy. I would rather have a course focus and care about efficiency and value over luxury and conditioning. This is where I'm at loggerheads with the vast majority of course raters.

That is to say, as much is I like sand scrapes, I'm prefer if all vanity bunkers were pretty much gone. An aiming bunker could just as easily be an aiming native area, and it'd cost nothing to maintain. I'd rather just keep the money if it's not a resort. If a bunker isn't strategic, I'd rather it be native in general, but I'm a bit of a tree hugger.

Green speed is the other obvious one for me. I'd rather play a greens that roll at 8, with big, gnarly contours, than a muted version of the same green running an a quick 12. It's going to be cheaper to maintain, and it's probably going to drain better.

Lastly, and this one is the one that really gets under my skin... overseeding Bermuda is just the stupidest thing in the world as far as I'm concerned. The dormant grass vastly cheaper to maintain, it's a better playing surface except in some very specific instances, and I think it's honestly really beautiful.

So, yea, I don't think it's one or the other, but I'd rather golf be more accessible to more people, and that means making it as affordable as is practicable.

[Matt Schoolfield]

.

[jeffwarne]

Good question Thomas.  As the US has more of a biased towards conditioning, I suspect many would not sacrifice conditioning as they go hand in hand with guest fees staying high. In the UK I think the course conditioning (meaning green and lush with irrigation) isn't nearly as important for links.  Off course facilities aren't as important to me so I'd gladly pay less to reduce those costs.

Yet the "condition" of UK courses is far more preferred for me.
Greens at reasonable speeds(allowing more interesting hole placements)
Grass on the fairways(allowing contact on grooves for less than super elite)
And if really lucky, livestock maintained rough that keep it at manageable heights
and something rarely mentioned, I almost never see crews on the course in the UK, at anytime, unlike the US, where larger crews are ducking play attempting to finish their endless list of tasks.

[Tommy Williamsen]

It is an off thing for me. In GB&I, conditioning the fairways, rough, and bunkers is not very important to me. On the US side of the Atlantic, it is more important. I wish it were not true, but it is.

[Charlie Goerges]

Would you accept lessor course conditioning in exchange for lower greenfees?

I think it’s a bit of a false choice. Firstly, I don’t think a higher HOC with fewer inputs constitutes lesser conditions, just different (and maybe even better) conditions. And it would cost less, for the course at least. I think it’s well established that our retail price is more determined by supply and demand.

[Sean_A]

Would you accept lessor course conditioning in exchange for lower greenfees?

I think it’s a bit of a false choice. Firstly, I don’t think a higher HOC with fewer inputs constitutes lesser conditions, just different (and maybe even better) conditions. And it would cost less, for the course at least. I think it’s well established that our retail price is more determined by supply and demand.

Conditioning helps drive demand.

Ciao

[Brian Finn]

Would you accept lessor course conditioning in exchange for lower greenfees?

Would you accept less off-course facilities in exchange for lower subscriptions/greenfees?

Thoughts?

Atb

I think these are fair questions for discussion, and I answer YES to both.  I don't need (and in many cases don't want) what many consider "ideal" course conditioning, and my off-course requirements are similarly modest.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Does lesser conditioning lower the price?  With the level of demand these days it seems like visitor golf in places like the UK & Ireland is a Veblen good and higher prices lead to higher demand, regardless of the conditioning.  So increasingly there is no link between the cost to maintain a course and the price charged for visitors to play the course.


Or are we just talking about fees for members/locals in this thread?

[Joe_Tucholski]

It is an off thing for me. In GB&I, conditioning the fairways, rough, and bunkers is not very important to me. On the US side of the Atlantic, it is more important. I wish it were not true, but it is.

How many inland courses built on clay, silt or loam in GB&I have you played?  I haven't played too many but my feelings were generally the same as what I'd feel in the US.  It's a whole lot easier to get by with a bit less money when the soil is good.  Third course I played in GB&I was Borth.  At the time I was told they had a green staff of 2 and they cut the greens 1x/week.  I thought it was in really good condition.


How many budget courses in the US are built on sand or links like land?

[Thomas Dai]

Or are we just talking about fees for members/locals in this thread?

All thoughts welcome. Write about any aspect you like.
Atb

[Thomas Dai]

How many inland courses built on clay, silt or loam in GB&I have you played?  I haven't played too many but my feelings were generally the same as what I'd feel in the US.  It's a whole lot easier to get by with a bit less money when the soil is good.  Third course I played in GB&I was Borth.  At the time I was told they had a green staff of 2 and they cut the greens 1x/week.  I thought it was in really good condition.

Soil type and terrain are obviously important although it’s an aspect that may well raise the question of why build in less suitable locations, but that is in many ways an aside.
Borth is an excellent example so thanks for mentioning it and glad you thought well of it.
The number of on-course (and off-course) staff is small, almost minuscule, at Borth, but do for example links courses need, really need, to be immaculately manicured? It’s the lack of manicuring part of the authentic links charm? Same for heathland courses too.
Some of the higher echelon GB&I links (and heathland) courses have a dozen or so on-course staff for 18-holes yet is the links golf experience really likely to be be six or so more times that of playing say a course akin to Borth? Now Borth, of which I’m a fan, is at the lower extreme as an example but staff cost money and money spent has to be reclaimed some way or another and that way is via higher subscriptions and greenfees. Lower expectations and corresponding lower standards can mean, should mean, lower cost to play, and cost to play is one of the biggest grumbles about golf.
Veblen golf was mentioned above and I accept that there’s an element of that. But there’s also the opposite side of the coin, experiencing a more natural, rustic, authentic type of golf, a type of golf also which happens to be a less expensive version of the game too.
And the same I would suggest also applies to the off-course experience.
Atb

[Joel_Stewart]

Running a golf course is a business and selling memberships at any golf course because it's cheap is a losing strategy.


I was involved with a private club that had an old worn out clubhouse and a tree infested golf course and the few new members they attracted were either beginners, super seniors who received a huge discount or were aspirational, that is waiting to be admitted to bigger better clubs. That was 10 years ago and they're still struggling.


 

[Cal Carlisle]

Whether you're primarily a public or private golfer, I think we all make our observations and develop a mental idea of the kind of value a particular golf course offers.


I am not a huge fan of what I consider "guilding the lilly". The creeks and ponds do not need to be fly mowed down to the water. The rough does not need to be a monostand of a particular cultivar of grass. Fairway and green height of cut does not need to be at the edge of death. For me personally that doesn't really add a great deal to the round.


That being said, that mental idea of value also tells you that for X amount of dollars in that market, for that level of upkeep, and the architectural interest, the cost of the round should fall in a certain range.


So, yes, put me in the camp of lesser conditioning, but if you're going to cut the greens once a week let me know which day you plan on doing it. 

[David_Tepper]

The world of golf is a very big one. Most golfers can access the game at a price point and conditions that suit their wants and needs.

If anyone can cite an example of a golf course or club that has reduced its level of course maintenance and service to its members/customers (and thereby lowering its daily/monthly/annual dues & fees) yet has succeeded financially by doing so, please let us know.   
 

[Matt Schoolfield]

If anyone can cite an example of a golf course or club that has reduced its level of course maintenance and service to its members/customers (and thereby lowering its members' monthly/annual dues & fees) yet has succeeded financially by doing so, please let us know.   

Inflation makes this quite tricky to show. I would presume most instances of this happening are prices staying flat, when they should be going up. As a result, there may be a reduction in maintenance just to offset the inflationary pressure.

[Tommy Williamsen]

It is an off thing for me. In GB&I, conditioning the fairways, rough, and bunkers is not very important to me. On the US side of the Atlantic, it is more important. I wish it were not true, but it is.

How many inland courses built on clay, silt or loam in GB&I have you played?  I haven't played too many but my feelings were generally the same as what I'd feel in the US.  It's a whole lot easier to get by with a bit less money when the soil is good.  Third course I played in GB&I was Borth.  At the time I was told they had a green staff of 2 and they cut the greens 1x/week.  I thought it was in really good condition.


How many budget courses in the US are built on sand or links like land?

Joe, I played Woodhall Spa with Richard Latham (head of English Golf Union at WS) about ten years ago. He asked me what the agronomy budget was for my club. I said around a million dollars. He replied that a Million $ was more than was spent on both courses there.

[Wayne_Kozun]

If anyone can cite an example of a golf course or club that has reduced its level of course maintenance and service to its members/customers (and thereby lowering its daily/monthly/annual dues & fees) yet has succeeded financially by doing so, please let us know.   

And I wonder why any club would do this in the current golf business climate where, at least in most places, demand for golf greatly exceeds supply.  I can see this in my local market - my golf club in Toronto struggled to attract new members from 2009-2019.  We now have a waiting list of over 100 people.  Courses in the UK have implemented very high guest fee price increases as is documented by UK golf guy.


Why would anyone cut fees in this environment?  If we have a bad recession and mass resignations of memberships from clubs, or golfers stop travelling to the UK & Ireland or other high end golf destinations in North America then that could be an impetus to cut costs.  But there is no reason to do so today.

[Charlie Goerges]

And I wonder why any club would...

I think you're completely right from a business standpoint. What I'm curious about is why I feel like exceptional conditions from that point of view are actually unappealing conditions. As in, is there something terribly wrong with me? Super short, slightly-wet, very green fairways; thick, green, lush rough; and ultra-fast greens are not as enjoyable to play on for me (and frankly lots of players I have played with...they struggle in those so-called perfect conditions, and I can too).


What I want is a little more cushion under the ball in the fairways, drier/browner/easier-to-play-from rough (and easier to not lose a ball), and greens with some interest rather than merely fast. Problem is a lot of people call those bad conditions, when in my opinion, those are the best possible conditions. The game is a little easier (and probably faster too) in those conditions but I feel crazy even asking for them because most people, even on GCA, call them less than optimal. And believe me, I give my money to the mom and pops who maintain those conditions, but I'd love to play something with more architectural interest with those conditions too.

[Cal Carlisle]

If anyone can cite an example of a golf course or club that has reduced its level of course maintenance and service to its members/customers (and thereby lowering its daily/monthly/annual dues & fees) yet has succeeded financially by doing so, please let us know.   

And I wonder why any club would do this in the current golf business climate where, at least in most places, demand for golf greatly exceeds supply.  I can see this in my local market - my golf club in Toronto struggled to attract new members from 2009-2019.  We now have a waiting list of over 100 people.  Courses in the UK have implemented very high guest fee price increases as is documented by UK golf guy.


Why would anyone cut fees in this environment?  If we have a bad recession and mass resignations of memberships from clubs, or golfers stop travelling to the UK & Ireland or other high end golf destinations in North America then that could be an impetus to cut costs.  But there is no reason to do so today.

To answer your question I don't see any reason why they would. The original question was whether you'd accept it, or not.

[Joe Zucker]

In my opinion the correct answer is people already do accept this by choosing different courses to play.  In most major cities, there are courses in varying conditions at different price points. People choose which one they want to play and pay accordingly.


It's obviously not as simple as I described because there are a million other factors in deciding where to play, especially since there generally are not too many courses close by one other.  But people have to make this decision "across" courses every day, rather than "within" a current course.

[Joe_Tucholski]

The world of golf is a very big one. Most golfers can access the game at a price point and conditions that suit their wants and needs.

If anyone can cite an example of a golf course or club that has reduced its level of course maintenance and service to its members/customers (and thereby lowering its daily/monthly/annual dues & fees) yet has succeeded financially by doing so, please let us know.   

Wouldn't many private clubs that fail and then go public fit the bill.  Understand the failure and bankruptcy reduces debt, but I figure they often reduce services, staff and maintenance in order to fit the market they are hoping to appeal to.

Joe, I played Woodhall Spa with Richard Latham (head of English Golf Union at WS) about ten years ago. He asked me what the agronomy budget was for my club. I said around a million dollars. He replied that a Million $ was more than was spent on both courses there.

Woodhall Spa charges almost $300 for a guest.  I figure the conditioning is pretty comparable to a $300 course in the US.  I don't doubt UK clubs spend less but also wonder if you guys were comparing apples to apples and appropriate exchange rates.

[Niall C]

A couple of links courses I played recently in Scotland. Let's call the first course course A and the second course B.


Course A sits just outside the top 10 of the Top 100 Scotland list and recently has had the M&E makeover. More than design tweaks it has also acquired the sharp cut lines, pristine conditioning and regulation width footpaths that have become de rigueur for courses of this standing.


In contrast course B is what you'd call rustic. It's also a links but isn't included in the Top 100 Scotland list. It has possibly the best set of green complexes I've seen on a Scottish links course and I don't say that lightly. They possibly/probably could have done with being a touch quicker but there was still plenty borrow and interest as it was. Conditioning was also what you'd call rough and ready with the local rabbit population clearly being left to do their part in terms of upkeep. Paths are (wonderfully) overgrown and the revetted bunkers beautifully degraded with new patch repair revettment here and there. This is maintenance on a budget and all the better for it in my book. Less shabby chic and more like benign neglect.


You can probably tell what my preference is !


The greenfee for course A is approx 3 times that of course B. The relative conditioning doesn't account for the discrepancy in greenfees as course A has probably always had higher greenfees (maybe not 3 times as much) but the recent surge in greenfees for the top courses has allowed them, and probably encouraged them to splash the cash on conditioning and tweaks to the course. Personally, even if the greenfees for each were the same, I'd still go for course B ahead of course A, admittedly not purely for reasons of conditioning but that would play a part in it.


Niall