Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Matt_Cohn on January 28, 2025, 02:22:52 PM
-
These courses with greens fees at $400, $500, and above—are they just raking in massive amounts of money, or is it actually that expensive to maintain a golf course at the expected level these days?
I know about supply and demand and that greens fees aren't simply reflective of maintenance costs. I also realize that for many of these places, the courses themselves don't have to make a ton of money because they drive spending on hotel, restaurant, merchandise, etc.
But I'm just curious how it works out for places like PGA West (up to $490/round in high season), Troon North (up to $409/round), Doral (up to $730/round for the blue and $250+ for the other courses), etc.
-
Matt,
It would be great if some superintendents would chime in on this subject.
Anyway, without citing the exact details, a couple years ago I was really surprised to hear how much Ballybunion was spending on course maintenance. I think if one went back to the 1980s, the amount of money being spent was much less and back then I don’t recall feeling anything was lacking. Things were just fine, IMO.
Tim
-
I know about supply and demand and that greens fees aren't simply reflective of maintenance costs. I also realize that for many of these places, the courses themselves don't have to make a ton of money because they drive spending on hotel, restaurant, merchandise, etc.
I think financing costs are likely a big part of it for new clubs. I know that collateralized development loans are still at 8-ish% borrowing rates. That's going to be non-trivially reflected in the green fees by necessity, which basically sets a price floor for comparables.
-
These courses with greens fees at $400, $500, and above—are they just raking in massive amounts of money, or is it actually that expensive to maintain a golf course at the expected level these days?
I know about supply and demand and that greens fees aren't simply reflective of maintenance costs. I also realize that for many of these places, the courses themselves don't have to make a ton of money because they drive spending on hotel, restaurant, merchandise, etc.
But I'm just curious how it works out for places like PGA West (up to $490/round in high season), Troon North (up to $409/round), Doral (up to $730/round for the blue and $250+ for the other courses), etc.
Matt
Down here in Naples, Lely has one private course and two semi private sister courses. They are charging over $300 a round for the semi privates and you can get a tee time anytime you want. I don't get it. At $200 they would be full. I've got a two year wait to get into the club I'm joining so we drive 50 minutes to Ave Maria to play there and pay now $150 to $200. Much cheaper in the off season.
-
Worth considering is how the desire for greater conditioning of golf courses has contributed to the cost of operating a golf course, costs that have to be recovered. Cha ching higher subs and greenfees.
And how the modern era golf ball goes so damn far that money has been spent extending courses and then having to maintain the extra land involved
Plus amongst other factors there could well also be an element Veblen pricing.
Atb
-
It would be great if some superintendents would chime in on this subject.
Yes, it would, but I bet we don't hear much. Many superintendents are happy to spend the $$$. And if you ask them if they couldn't do with a bit less, they just point at the clubhouse, and say that's where the money is wasted.
-
I think financing costs are likely a big part of it for new clubs. I know that collateralized development loans are still at 8-ish% borrowing rates. That's going to be non-trivially reflected in the green fees by necessity, which basically sets a price floor for comparables.
I don't know who is financing their maintenance costs, but that is the first sign of impending bankruptcy.
The problem at a lot of clubs is that they aren't doing that many rounds at the posted rate. The rule of thumb in the golf business used to be that the AVERAGE green fee collected was about 66% of the POSTED top rate, and I doubt that's changed much. At St. Patrick's it is even less than that, for now. But the maintenance costs at St. Patrick's are 20-30% that of an American club.
-
I don't know who is financing their maintenance costs, but that is the first sign of impending bankruptcy.
Sorry, I meant financing and/or amortizing the overall development costs.
-
I don't know who is financing their maintenance costs, but that is the first sign of impending bankruptcy.
Sorry, I meant financing and/or amortizing the overall development costs.
I don't think that happens much, either. Borrowing at 8% to build a golf course would be suicide in most situations, and banks know that! They might do a loan for the last 25-35% of the development cost if it's agreed everyone else is wiped out and they take over in a bankruptcy.
For the most part, golf courses nowadays are financed with private money. That is one main reason there aren't so many of them being built!
-
I don't know who is financing their maintenance costs, but that is the first sign of impending bankruptcy.
Sorry, I meant financing and/or amortizing the overall development costs.
I don't think that happens much, either. Borrowing at 8% to build a golf course would be suicide in most situations, and banks know that! They might do a loan for the last 25-35% of the development cost if it's agreed everyone else is wiped out and they take over in a bankruptcy.
For the most part, golf courses nowadays are financed with private money. That is one main reason there aren't so many of them being built!
Interesting... good to know.
-
I think we need to accept that the price of our golf is determined by things other than maintenance costs. I often justified my desire for more rustic conditions with the fact it could cost us less, I don’t think that’s true anymore. I still want more rustic conditions, but there are now other reasons. Environmental, for one. But also, those conditions make the game easier for me. Drier turf gives me more bounce and run, higher HOC gives me more cushion under the ball.
-
I think we need to accept that the price of our golf is determined by things other than maintenance costs. I often justified my desire for more rustic conditions with the fact it could cost us less, I don’t think that’s true anymore. I still want more rustic conditions, but there are now other reasons. Environmental, for one. But also, those conditions make the game easier for me. Drier turf gives me more bounce and run, higher HOC gives me more cushion under the ball.
Price, actually, is a function of demand [and perceived quality], which is why this topic is generally silly.
As long as there are enough people willing to pay a high rate, that's what the rate is going to be. As soon as there aren't enough people willing to pay, the rate will go down, and then it will be up to the golf course to decide if they can afford the level of maintenance they've been supporting. It doesn't work the other way around . . . just because you spend a lot on maintenance doesn't mean golfers will pay whatever price you say.
The difference between now and fifty years ago is the profit motive. Back in the day, courses used to be run by non-profit golf clubs that were trying to keep prices down. Nowadays, even most of those clubs have a profit motive, and those that don't just charge the market price and put the proceeds into "improving" irrigation systems, doing big restorations, hiring more staff, and paying the managers a lot more.
P.S. The only course I have built which does not operate by this system is CommonGround. They are truly a non-profit and their goal is to keep the green fees low for Colorado Golf Association members. As part of that mission, they have never re-built the clubhouse they planned, 16 years into their reopening.
-
I know about supply and demand and that greens fees aren't simply reflective of maintenance costs. I also realize that for many of these places, the courses themselves don't have to make a ton of money because they drive spending on hotel, restaurant, merchandise, etc.
I think financing costs are likely a big part of it for new clubs. I know that collateralized development loans are still at 8-ish% borrowing rates. That's going to be non-trivially reflected in the green fees by necessity, which basically sets a price floor for comparables.
Matt -
You'd be hard pressed to find a lending institution in the last few years that will touch a golf course. There are circumstances that can make it happen, but in general, they won't touch it.
It's been an incredible 4 year run for golf .. unprecedented. High green fees are a result of demand. Conditions followed. If they're not making $ now, they never will. It's a tough business. If I owned a golf course, I would have been a seller last year (probably early '23 actually ;)
-
I know about supply and demand and that greens fees aren't simply reflective of maintenance costs. I also realize that for many of these places, the courses themselves don't have to make a ton of money because they drive spending on hotel, restaurant, merchandise, etc.
I think financing costs are likely a big part of it for new clubs. I know that collateralized development loans are still at 8-ish% borrowing rates. That's going to be non-trivially reflected in the green fees by necessity, which basically sets a price floor for comparables.
Matt -
You'd be hard pressed to find a lending institution in the last few years that will touch a golf course. There are circumstances that can make it happen, but in general, they won't touch it.
It's been an incredible 4 year run for golf .. unprecedented. High green fees are a result of demand. Conditions followed. If they're not making $ now, they never will. It's a tough business. If I owned a golf course, I would have been a seller last year (probably early '23 actually ;)
Mike-Are all the projects being funded by private money? There have to be some lenders that are providing financing.
-
As Tom alluded to it seems like fairly straight forward math:
Say you have 150 time slots in a given day that you can fill with a $100 green fee. But if you increase the green fee to $200 only half are bought, 75. You'd still end up with the same daily revenue: 150 X $100 = 75 X $200 = $15,000
However the latter scenario results in half as much on course traffic (and theoretically half as much "damage") as well as you could space the tee times out and avoid waiting/congestion.
If you were a course operator which scenario would you prefer?
-
It would be great if some superintendents would chime in on this subject.
Yes, it would, but I bet we don't hear much. Many superintendents are happy to spend the $$$. And if you ask them if they couldn't do with a bit less, they just point at the clubhouse, and say that's where the money is wasted.
Its interesting that many think the entire green fee goes directly to the maintenance of the golf course.... ???
-
I think we need to accept that the price of our golf is determined by things other than maintenance costs. I often justified my desire for more rustic conditions with the fact it could cost us less, I don’t think that’s true anymore. I still want more rustic conditions, but there are now other reasons. Environmental, for one. But also, those conditions make the game easier for me. Drier turf gives me more bounce and run, higher HOC gives me more cushion under the ball.
Price, actually, is a function of demand [and perceived quality], which is why this topic is generally silly.
As long as there are enough people willing to pay a high rate, that's what the rate is going to be. As soon as there aren't enough people willing to pay, the rate will go down, and then it will be up to the golf course to decide if they can afford the level of maintenance they've been supporting. It doesn't work the other way around . . . just because you spend a lot on maintenance doesn't mean golfers will pay whatever price you say.
The difference between now and fifty years ago is the profit motive. Back in the day, courses used to be run by non-profit golf clubs that were trying to keep prices down. Nowadays, even most of those clubs have a profit motive, and those that don't just charge the market price and put the proceeds into "improving" irrigation systems, doing big restorations, hiring more staff, and paying the managers a lot more.
P.S. The only course I have built which does not operate by this system is CommonGround. They are truly a non-profit and their goal is to keep the green fees low for Colorado Golf Association members. As part of that mission, they have never re-built the clubhouse they planned, 16 years into their reopening.
It took me a longer than I'd like to admit to believe you on this, but it was more wishful thinking than anything else on my part.
-
I know about supply and demand and that greens fees aren't simply reflective of maintenance costs. I also realize that for many of these places, the courses themselves don't have to make a ton of money because they drive spending on hotel, restaurant, merchandise, etc.
I think financing costs are likely a big part of it for new clubs. I know that collateralized development loans are still at 8-ish% borrowing rates. That's going to be non-trivially reflected in the green fees by necessity, which basically sets a price floor for comparables.
Matt -
You'd be hard pressed to find a lending institution in the last few years that will touch a golf course. There are circumstances that can make it happen, but in general, they won't touch it.
It's been an incredible 4 year run for golf .. unprecedented. High green fees are a result of demand. Conditions followed. If they're not making $ now, they never will. It's a tough business. If I owned a golf course, I would have been a seller last year (probably early '23 actually ;)
Mike-Are all the projects being funded by private money? There have to be some lenders that are providing financing.
Tim -
Every situation is going to be different and it depends. For the most part, institutional lenders won't touch golf. You might get them to look at a fully functioning course with history for repairs / upgrades .. and even then, the process is grueling. The majority are with private equity and / or debt. If they do happen to get some portion of bank debt, it's going to be EXTREMELY low LTV and most likely in a location that could ultimately be something other than a golf course (if they have to take it back).
-
I know about supply and demand and that greens fees aren't simply reflective of maintenance costs. I also realize that for many of these places, the courses themselves don't have to make a ton of money because they drive spending on hotel, restaurant, merchandise, etc.
I think financing costs are likely a big part of it for new clubs. I know that collateralized development loans are still at 8-ish% borrowing rates. That's going to be non-trivially reflected in the green fees by necessity, which basically sets a price floor for comparables.
Matt -
You'd be hard pressed to find a lending institution in the last few years that will touch a golf course. There are circumstances that can make it happen, but in general, they won't touch it.
It's been an incredible 4 year run for golf .. unprecedented. High green fees are a result of demand. Conditions followed. If they're not making $ now, they never will. It's a tough business. If I owned a golf course, I would have been a seller last year (probably early '23 actually ;)
Mike-Are all the projects being funded by private money? There have to be some lenders that are providing financing.
Tim -
Every situation is going to be different and it depends. For the most part, institutional lenders won't touch golf. You might get them to look at a fully functioning course with history for repairs / upgrades .. and even then, the process is grueling. The majority are with private equity and / or debt. If they do happen to get some portion of bank debt, it's going to be EXTREMELY low LTV and most likely in a location that could ultimately be something other than a golf course (if they have to take it back).
Mike-Thanks for clarifying. :)
-
There is one other factor too, many travelling on golf packages don't know the individual cost of courses and when some don't know what they are paying it's easier to charge inflated prices and get them.
-
Tom Doak hit the nail on the head...it's all supply and demand and how people want to spend their money.
For me it has gone crazy and is not worth it, the only course for me that's worth the high bucks is Pebble, I'd gladly play there for the going fee.
I'm wondering if the market isn't beginning to soften, privates in my area are coming down in initiation fees and in some cases there is no wait to join which wasn't the case when I moved here 4 years ago.
-
According to Golf Course Industrie's survey of superintendents the average non-capital maintenance budget has increased from $622k in 2013 to $1.34M in 2025. That is outpacing inflation significantly - my math is 60% above an inflation-adjusted amount.
Peace
-
According to Golf Course Industrie's survey of superintendents the average non-capital maintenance budget has increased from $622k in 2013 to $1.34M in 2025. That is outpacing inflation significantly - my math is 60% above an inflation-adjusted amount.
Peace
It's important, though, that people remember that many items "outpacing inflation" are often the ones that are creating the inflation. I'm not in the golf maintenance industry, but I follow the finance news, and the obvious item that sticks out is something like fertilizer. The cost of fertilizer has been wild in the last five years, and remains twice the price (https://ycharts.com/indicators/fertilizers_index_world_bank) that it was in 2019, which is down from the after spiking to 440% increase from 2022. This is largely the result of the invasion of Ukraine, and the sanctions against Russian nat gas, and the subsequent US exports to Northern Europe.
-
I know about supply and demand and that greens fees aren't simply reflective of maintenance costs. I also realize that for many of these places, the courses themselves don't have to make a ton of money because they drive spending on hotel, restaurant, merchandise, etc.
I think financing costs are likely a big part of it for new clubs. I know that collateralized development loans are still at 8-ish% borrowing rates. That's going to be non-trivially reflected in the green fees by necessity, which basically sets a price floor for comparables.
Matt -
You'd be hard pressed to find a lending institution in the last few years that will touch a golf course. There are circumstances that can make it happen, but in general, they won't touch it.
It's been an incredible 4 year run for golf .. unprecedented. High green fees are a result of demand. Conditions followed. If they're not making $ now, they never will. It's a tough business. If I owned a golf course, I would have been a seller last year (probably early '23 actually ;)
But they'll lend on a big ol' new clubhouse project in a heartbeat!! :o
-
As Tom alluded to it seems like fairly straight forward math:
Say you have 150 time slots in a given day that you can fill with a $100 green fee. But if you increase the green fee to $200 only half are bought, 75. You'd still end up with the same daily revenue: 150 X $100 = 75 X $200 = $15,000
However the latter scenario results in half as much on course traffic (and theoretically half as much "damage") as well as you could space the tee times out and avoid waiting/congestion.
If you were a course operator which scenario would you prefer?
However, 1/2 the traffic is half the pro shop sales, 1/2 the food and BEVERAGE sales.
There are players that spend more on booze than green fees(easier to do when beers are $8)
Lots of revenue sources.
that depend on high traffic.
As far as the original premise, maintenance is only one of many factors in covering costs.
The price of a new build, clubhouse, infrastructure, interest etc. can be substantial.
The numbers are very hard to make work unless one is the third owner paying pennies on the dollar for the course, infrastructure etc.
Here's hoping it's still possible.
-
As Tom alluded to it seems like fairly straight forward math:
Say you have 150 time slots in a given day that you can fill with a $100 green fee. But if you increase the green fee to $200 only half are bought, 75. You'd still end up with the same daily revenue: 150 X $100 = 75 X $200 = $15,000
However the latter scenario results in half as much on course traffic (and theoretically half as much "damage") as well as you could space the tee times out and avoid waiting/congestion.
If you were a course operator which scenario would you prefer?
This is also assuming you sell half the slots at twice the price. There is a point where you will sell less than the price increase. If you sell 50 tee times, at $200, you've lost $5k.
-
Keep reading "the UK private clubs are so awesome because they allow outside play" but the more I hear seems in real-terms they are loosely slotted into the "semi-private" category, at best.
Clubs that are solving for profitability, are not private, but rather public -- by definition.
-
Keep reading "the UK private clubs are so awesome because they allow outside play" but the more I hear seems in real-terms they are loosely slotted into the "semi-private" category, at best.
Clubs that are solving for profitability, are not private, but rather public -- by definition.
Categorize it how you like, Chris, but the model (for the majority of UK clubs) is superior in virtually every way. Additionally, they are not solving for profitability, but rather covering operating costs, maintaining cash reserves, and keeping member dues low. I'd think you, of all people, would recognize and respect those goals.
-
Keep reading "the UK private clubs are so awesome because they allow outside play" but the more I hear seems in real-terms they are loosely slotted into the "semi-private" category, at best.
Clubs that are solving for profitability, are not private, but rather public -- by definition.
Categorize it how you like, Chris, but the model (for the majority of UK clubs) is superior in virtually every way. Additionally, they are not solving for profitability, but rather covering operating costs, maintaining cash reserves, and keeping member dues low. I'd think you, of all people, would recognize and respect those goals.
Ben
Why is it superior in virtually every way?
-
Keep reading "the UK private clubs are so awesome because they allow outside play" but the more I hear seems in real-terms they are loosely slotted into the "semi-private" category, at best.
Clubs that are solving for profitability, are not private, but rather public -- by definition.
Categorize it how you like, Chris, but the model (for the majority of UK clubs) is superior in virtually every way. Additionally, they are not solving for profitability, but rather covering operating costs, maintaining cash reserves, and keeping member dues low. I'd think you, of all people, would recognize and respect those goals.
Ben
Why is it superior in virtually every way?
At the majority of the ~150 UK clubs I have visited, something along these lines occurs:
- Visitors are welcome at select times - a big plus on its own, in my view
- Visitor fees supplement club revenue - at the clubs typically mentioned here, the contribution is substantial
- Annual dues (subscription) at the vast majority of UK clubs are far lower than in the US - this allows more people to join a club, and for some (still a minority, I imagine), multiple memberships - I view these as positives
- Members have access to prime tee times, with weekends (Saturdays especially) usually reserved for member play
- Golf is the focus - the golf course and playing golf are prioritized
I recognize the above is vastly oversimplified, and also based on rather limited experience, as an American who visits a couple of times per year. I am also not privy to any club financials (other than joining fees and subscription costs, which most clubs post on their public websites), so my views may be taken with a grain of salt. Additionally, clubs in the UK have a far different operating environment, as it pertains to items such as taxes, land cost, and many more of which I am surely unaware. So, many holes may be poked in my simplistic view of UK clubs.
Additionally, I recognize that visitor demand continues to grow at the best-known clubs, such that members are sometimes being squeezed out of playing when they would like. It seems this trend has spread into some clubs that might be referred to here as "2nd & 3rd tier." Some clubs have now blocked a greater portion of their schedule strictly for member play (e.g. Elie closed to visitors for 45? days during the prime summer season) due to this dynamic. So, again, I recognize that even my rose-colored view is not without issue. In many ways, the market seems overheated, but I will save my short to medium term forecast for the golf-course “industry” for another time.
In summary, I far prefer the model employed by most of the UK clubs that I have visited. I acknowledge no model is perfect, and even attempt to point out some of the potential flaws, but this, like the vast majority of posts here, is just my opinion. I think it is a fairly well-informed opinion, but understand many people have different preferences than my own. I’ve attempted to focus on more concrete issues (e.g. $/£ and tee time availability), avoiding concepts that lean political for many people.
-
Matt, to answer your original question, yes, they are raking in a lot of money. Expenses have definitely gone up too, particularly the labor costs, plus I think many courses are spending more to make things nicer. But there's no question that in general, golf courses are making more money than they used to. Which is good, because it was really rough there for a while.
There's a lot that goes into how much of that rate gets to the bottom line, for example most of the ones you mentioned are in seasonal markets so, while they are $400 in season, you can play for less than $100 off season. So Tom's 66% might be right for a normal market, but it might be 40% in a seasonal market. There's packages and members and juniors that all get discounts. There isn't a single golf course that is just (X Rounds) * (Y Rack rate) = total green fees.
It has really never been profitable to just go build a golf course in a typical city and make a decent return. You either need houses to boost the returns or somebody willing to take a low return (a municipality). The one exception has been high end resorts or high end private clubs. And plenty of those are financial disasters. But there are certainly some big winners, too. Most people that own golf courses today bought them off the original developer for less than what it cost to build.
-
At the majority of the ~150 UK clubs I have visited, something along these lines occurs:
- Visitors are welcome at select times - a big plus on its own, in my view
- Visitor fees supplement club revenue - at the clubs typically mentioned here, the contribution is substantial
- Annual dues (subscription) at the vast majority of UK clubs are far lower than in the US - this allows more people to join a club, and for some (still a minority, I imagine), multiple memberships - I view these as positives
- Members have access to prime tee times, with weekends (Saturdays especially) usually reserved for member play
- Golf is the focus - the golf course and playing golf are prioritized
I recognize the above is vastly oversimplified, and also based on rather limited experience, as an American who visits a couple of times per year. I am also not privy to any club financials (other than joining fees and subscription costs, which most clubs post on their public websites), so my views may be taken with a grain of salt. Additionally, clubs in the UK have a far different operating environment, as it pertains to items such as taxes, land cost, and many more of which I am surely unaware. So, many holes may be poked in my simplistic view of UK clubs.
Additionally, I recognize that visitor demand continues to grow at the best-known clubs, such that members are sometimes being squeezed out of playing when they would like. It seems this trend has spread into some clubs that might be referred to here as "2nd & 3rd tier." Some clubs have now blocked a greater portion of their schedule strictly for member play (e.g. Elie closed to visitors for 45? days during the prime summer season) due to this dynamic. So, again, I recognize that even my rose-colored view is not without issue. In many ways, the market seems overheated, but I will save my short to medium term forecast for the golf-course “industry” for another time.
In summary, I far prefer the model employed by most of the UK clubs that I have visited. I acknowledge no model is perfect, and even attempt to point out some of the potential flaws, but this, like the vast majority of posts here, is just my opinion. I think it is a fairly well-informed opinion, but understand many people have different preferences than my own. I’ve attempted to focus on more concrete issues (e.g. $/£ and tee time availability), avoiding concepts that lean political for many people.
The number and variety of UK courses that Brian as a visitor from another country has played over a number of years is impressive and puts him in a good position to make the above assessment. From a UK perspective I suggest it’s a very fair and nicely balanced summary.
Atb
-
Keep reading "the UK private clubs are so awesome because they allow outside play" but the more I hear seems in real-terms they are loosely slotted into the "semi-private" category, at best.
Clubs that are solving for profitability, are not private, but rather public -- by definition.
Categorize it how you like, Chris, but the model (for the majority of UK clubs) is superior in virtually every way. Additionally, they are not solving for profitability, but rather covering operating costs, maintaining cash reserves, and keeping member dues low. I'd think you, of all people, would recognize and respect those goals.
Ben
Why is it superior in virtually every way?
At the majority of the ~150 UK clubs I have visited, something along these lines occurs:
- Visitors are welcome at select times - a big plus on its own, in my view
- Visitor fees supplement club revenue - at the clubs typically mentioned here, the contribution is substantial
- Annual dues (subscription) at the vast majority of UK clubs are far lower than in the US - this allows more people to join a club, and for some (still a minority, I imagine), multiple memberships - I view these as positives
- Members have access to prime tee times, with weekends (Saturdays especially) usually reserved for member play
- Golf is the focus - the golf course and playing golf are prioritized
I recognize the above is vastly oversimplified, and also based on rather limited experience, as an American who visits a couple of times per year. I am also not privy to any club financials (other than joining fees and subscription costs, which most clubs post on their public websites), so my views may be taken with a grain of salt. Additionally, clubs in the UK have a far different operating environment, as it pertains to items such as taxes, land cost, and many more of which I am surely unaware. So, many holes may be poked in my simplistic view of UK clubs.
Additionally, I recognize that visitor demand continues to grow at the best-known clubs, such that members are sometimes being squeezed out of playing when they would like. It seems this trend has spread into some clubs that might be referred to here as "2nd & 3rd tier." Some clubs have now blocked a greater portion of their schedule strictly for member play (e.g. Elie closed to visitors for 45? days during the prime summer season) due to this dynamic. So, again, I recognize that even my rose-colored view is not without issue. In many ways, the market seems overheated, but I will save my short to medium term forecast for the golf-course “industry” for another time.
In summary, I far prefer the model employed by most of the UK clubs that I have visited. I acknowledge no model is perfect, and even attempt to point out some of the potential flaws, but this, like the vast majority of posts here, is just my opinion. I think it is a fairly well-informed opinion, but understand many people have different preferences than my own. I’ve attempted to focus on more concrete issues (e.g. $/£ and tee time availability), avoiding concepts that lean political for many people.
Thanks for the reply Ben. I don't necessarily agree with all but you make some good points.
-
Thanks for the reply Ben. I don't necessarily agree with all but you make some good points.
You're welcome, Roger.
-
Keep reading "the UK private clubs are so awesome because they allow outside play" but the more I hear seems in real-terms they are loosely slotted into the "semi-private" category, at best.
Clubs that are solving for profitability, are not private, but rather public -- by definition.
Categorize it how you like, Chris, but the model (for the majority of UK clubs) is superior in virtually every way. Additionally, they are not solving for profitability, but rather covering operating costs, maintaining cash reserves, and keeping member dues low. I'd think you, of all people, would recognize and respect those goals.
Ben
Why is it superior in virtually every way?
At the majority of the ~150 UK clubs I have visited, something along these lines occurs:
- Visitors are welcome at select times - a big plus on its own, in my view
- Visitor fees supplement club revenue - at the clubs typically mentioned here, the contribution is substantial
- Annual dues (subscription) at the vast majority of UK clubs are far lower than in the US - this allows more people to join a club, and for some (still a minority, I imagine), multiple memberships - I view these as positives
- Members have access to prime tee times, with weekends (Saturdays especially) usually reserved for member play
- Golf is the focus - the golf course and playing golf are prioritized
I recognize the above is vastly oversimplified, and also based on rather limited experience, as an American who visits a couple of times per year. I am also not privy to any club financials (other than joining fees and subscription costs, which most clubs post on their public websites), so my views may be taken with a grain of salt. Additionally, clubs in the UK have a far different operating environment, as it pertains to items such as taxes, land cost, and many more of which I am surely unaware. So, many holes may be poked in my simplistic view of UK clubs.
Additionally, I recognize that visitor demand continues to grow at the best-known clubs, such that members are sometimes being squeezed out of playing when they would like. It seems this trend has spread into some clubs that might be referred to here as "2nd & 3rd tier." Some clubs have now blocked a greater portion of their schedule strictly for member play (e.g. Elie closed to visitors for 45? days during the prime summer season) due to this dynamic. So, again, I recognize that even my rose-colored view is not without issue. In many ways, the market seems overheated, but I will save my short to medium term forecast for the golf-course “industry” for another time.
In summary, I far prefer the model employed by most of the UK clubs that I have visited. I acknowledge no model is perfect, and even attempt to point out some of the potential flaws, but this, like the vast majority of posts here, is just my opinion. I think it is a fairly well-informed opinion, but understand many people have different preferences than my own. I’ve attempted to focus on more concrete issues (e.g. $/£ and tee time availability), avoiding concepts that lean political for many people.
Brian, I have absolutely no problem at all with the model and you are right, I quite like it...simply suggesting the proper descriptor is "semi-private".
That said, I do believe there is an element of solving for profitability (redistribution?) in play -- Sean Arble sheds light on it here: https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=72402.0 (https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=72402.0) (theme: "price gouging" Americans)
{see post #9 for a Brora reference ;) ...slippery slope they are on}
-
Thanks for the reply Ben. I don't necessarily agree with all but you make some good points.
You're welcome, Roger.
::) ;D 8) :D