Member owned clubs vs privately owned

[Tommy Williamsen]

There seem to be fewer member owned clubs in the country. I live in only one of three member owned ski/golf resorts in the country. We only make improvements when we have a good financial year.


In the past twenty years bunches of money has been poured into clubs that have been privately purchased. John McConnell put all kinds of money into Musgrove Mill. Ballyhack (which was not member owned) has benefitted from its new owner, although there has been controversy as well. I belonged to two member owned clubs outside DC. Both were purchased, one by a corporation and one by a member. One benefited and one did not.


We all know clubs that have had to sell, either to individuals or companies like Concert Golf. What has been your experience? No need to name clubs if you do not want to.

[Edward Glidewell]

The people I know who have gone through this (member owned club sold to a private individual) have had a mixed bag experience, which is probably the norm.


Some nice investments that they may not have been able to afford (or get approved), but also some changes that long-time members do not like at all, both to the course/maintenance and to other things like rules involving guest play.

[Jason Topp]

I have been at both.   Member owned is messy because of all of the interests you need to satisfy to get things done.  Nonetheless it can be rewarding to learn those perspectives and you have the power to really I prove the place by participating in committees or the board.


Overall my experience with privately owned has been very good.  No committee meetings, resource decisions are made quickly and there are fewer vanity projects that do little to improve the place.   It is much more difficult to spearhead change which is often a good thing if the idea is someone else’s and a bad thing if the idea is mine.   

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have been at both.   Member owned is messy because of all of the interests you need to satisfy to get things done.  Nonetheless it can be rewarding to learn those perspectives and you have the power to really I prove the place by participating in committees or the board.


Overall my experience with privately owned has been very good.  No committee meetings, resource decisions are made quickly and there are fewer vanity projects that do little to improve the place.   It is much more difficult to spearhead change which is often a good thing if the idea is someone else’s and a bad thing if the idea is mine.

Generally privately owned clubs do not have assessments although dues and guest fees can be raised by the whim of the owner.

[Thomas Dai]

Is it preferable to be an employee at a private member owned or proprietary owned Club/facility?
Atb

[V. Kmetz]

40 years says MEMBER OWNED


It does matter whether you work inside or outside, outside always being better, but still members. Members might exact more and there are lousy political controversies that come close to people's jobs, but they breed loyalty, better esprit de corps, and usually have enough means as a group (imexperience) to compensate the staff with benefit...Top staff get extra base hits, some homeruns.


The private/corp owned are a mid-to high end retail store with simply regular customers, who are rarely in a "member-wealth" position to support a staff with broad benefit, filtered through an owner.  The owner wants $omething and he or she is not cutting their package first, or cutting the P/T help first to get it... managers and pros and dept. heads change regularly and I've seen it become a near toxic environment where no ones managing anything ...not as a rule, but a member owned club goes on...its member committees that change, so if a bad era has taken hold, it's on its way out as quickly.

[Daryl David]

My dad’s advice rings true. Only join a club that is owned by a total dictator whose values align with yours. That advice has served me well. It is not a good situation to belong to a member owned club that whipsaws back and forth depending on who rises to the board in a particular year. As soon as I hear the words, “the owner is ready to turn the cub over to the members”, I’m gone.

[Jerry Kluger]

Member owned clubs can work provided they have a long history and are financially sound.  It is when they start borrowing money to make improvements that the big problems begin. It comes with a projection of how long the assessment will last to pay for the improvement and what happens when additional funds are needed. Privately owned clubs can be very good because you pay your dues and keep your mouth shut and enjoy the facility.  An owner who is doing it to make money can make things difficult but I am fortunate as one person owns the club and he is not looking to make money from the club - just break even so he doesn't have to pump money in.

[V. Kmetz]

My dad’s advice rings true. Only join a club that is owned by a total dictator whose values align with yours. That advice has served me well. It is not a good situation to belong to a member owned club that whipsaws back and forth depending on who rises to the board in a particular year. As soon as I hear the words, “the owner is ready to turn the cub over to the members”, I’m gone.

I was answering Thomas Dai's q...working for a club, not joining one...

[Wayne_Kozun]

Member owned clubs are less likely to sell out to real estate developers, although that does still happen.  Here in Toronto we have been losing a number of courses due to the white-hot real estate market.

[Tim Martin]

I had an experience recently with a privately owned club that changed all the membership options in February after collecting dues for the Winter months. There would have been a number of members that  bailed out after the 2020 season if they had known what was coming. I don’t think this would have happened had it been member owned or at least the timing would have been different.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Sometimes the member owned club has only a few options: close, have a big assessment, sell to a developer, sell to someone willing to keep it as a club. One of my clubs had a $5000 assessment to try and stave off the bank (2009). We still sold the club and everyone lost their refundable membership fee. It seems to me that clubs only sell under duress.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Sometimes the member owned club has only a few options: close, have a big assessment, sell to a developer, sell to someone willing to keep it as a club. One of my clubs had a $5000 assessment to try and stave off the bank (2009). We still sold the club and everyone lost their refundable membership fee. It seems to me that clubs only sell under duress.

The sales in Toronto, either member owned or not, have not been under duress.  They have been profit-motivated.
A member-owned 27 hole club called York Downs voluntarily sold for $412M in 2015.  A privately owned club called Mandarin Golf Club sold in 2015.  A company called Clublink that owns a dozen or more private and public clubs has turned a few of their clubs into housing, and they are in a battle to develop Glen Abbey Golf Course, which has held most of the Canadian Opens over the last 50 years.

Beacon Hall, which is an excellent member-owned golf course just north of Toronto, has been considering selling.   They have often been ranked as one of the top ten courses in Canada.  They recently had a vote to develop that failed by 8 votes - apparently the battle is not over.  Each of the 260 members would have received $900,000 pre-tax.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Sometimes the member owned club has only a few options: close, have a big assessment, sell to a developer, sell to someone willing to keep it as a club. One of my clubs had a $5000 assessment to try and stave off the bank (2009). We still sold the club and everyone lost their refundable membership fee. It seems to me that clubs only sell under duress.

The sales in Toronto, either member owned or not, have not been under duress.  They have been profit-motivated.
A member-owned 27 hole club called York Downs voluntarily sold for $412M in 2015.  A privately owned club called Mandarin Golf Club sold in 2015.  A company called Clublink that owns a dozen or more private and public clubs has turned a few of their clubs into housing, and they are in a battle to develop Glen Abbey Golf Course, which has held most of the Canadian Opens over the last 50 years.

Beacon Hall, which is an excellent member-owned golf course just north of Toronto, has been considering selling.   They have often been ranked as one of the top ten courses in Canada.  They recently had a vote to develop that failed by 8 votes - apparently the battle is not over.  Each of the 260 members would have received $900,000 pre-tax.

Wayne, interesting story. That might be true for some US courses but I think the vast majority of them have been sold because it is a last ditch effort to save the club. I have to admit, however, that I only have anecdotal information, not hard facts.

[Garland Bayley]

My dad’s advice rings true. Only join a club that is owned by a total dictator whose values align with yours. That advice has served me well. It is not a good situation to belong to a member owned club that whipsaws back and forth depending on who rises to the board in a particular year. As soon as I hear the words, “the owner is ready to turn the cub over to the members”, I’m gone.

Whipsaw! Yep! Too many egos at member owned.

[Mike_Trenham]

What clubs owned by fewer than 10 individuals are the best member clubs in the United States?  And I am not talking about the course alone but the total member experience.


I can’t think of a single one in the confines of the Golf Association of Philadelphia where I would happily choose to join.


(thinking a bit more about this, if I was a shore person I would join Greate Bay because of the culture there created by Archie and secondly their Willie Park course, but I am not certain how many people have an equity stake in the place, so my initial premise may be true).

[SL_Solow]

In Chicago the vast majority of the outstanding clubs are member owned

[jeffwarne]

My dad’s advice rings true. Only join a club that is owned by a total dictator whose values align with yours. That advice has served me well. It is not a good situation to belong to a member owned club that whipsaws back and forth depending on who rises to the board in a particular year. As soon as I hear the words, “the owner is ready to turn the cub over to the members”, I’m gone.

That holds true for most staff too...
but I've had great experiences working at both

[Craig Disher]

There are great clubs in both categories and membership in any of them would be a satisfying experience. Privately owned clubs that are driven by maximizing owner profit can be frustrating for those who are looking for a club of members who share a common view of what's essential in a golf club. The old guard oligarchy in a member-owned club can be just as frustrating. From my experience, either model can work well and often does but if forced to choose, I'll take my chances with a club that is member-owned. Having an opportunity to participate in running the club or at least to be heard regarding its running is important. Sometimes one member can really make a difference.

[Jeff Schley]

In Chicago the vast majority of the outstanding clubs are member owned

Yes, certainly in Chicago area the members are at the controls and I don't know of any of the top clubs being dysfunctional clubs because of their member owned governance. Everyone is aware of the structure of a club when they join, although occasionally they may change it doesn't appear to happen often, certainly not the noteworthy clubs.