[bstark]

  Our club is about to go to the general membership with a proposal to restore most of the original features of our Raynor course.
  As most of you know many older members on fixed incomes are expressing the following opinions:

The improvements are unnecessary (if it aint broke don't fix it).

Too expensive, my dues will go up.

Will shut down the course, and we can't play when we want.

 The esimtate for the work will be $600,000 to $700,000 with all the work being done by Brian Silva. The improvements were versed out at a general membership meeting last Dec.
 
   From what I can tell the original routing had many more bunkers and quite a few less trees, Silva's concepts obviously involve bringing back that feeling. Also, our old aerials show much smaller greens now vs. then. The proposal includes a minimal amount of added distance (extend a few tees).The plan would shut down a few holes sporadically but not entail shutting down the course totally.
  The question is; Should the sales pitch be geared toward dollars and cents, ie $700,000 over 20 years is minimal cost when spread over 350 members? Or should the pitch be more of an historical lesson where the general membership is educated to the value of Golden Age architecture? The common sense answer is obviously a little of both. I would be curious to get input as to the best way to present it to a disparate membership.

[corey miller]

Could you give information as to how Brian Silva was chosen to the plan and what his mandate was?  Were others interviewed?  Was it his concept or the memberships to go "restoration" rather than change.  Has Brian spoken to the membership?  

[Kelly Blake Moran]

bstark,

When you posed these same questions to Silva, what did he say?

[bstark]

 I am not on the board. I believe a number of other firms were interviewed.
  The mandate, as far as I can gather from the board, was to bring back the 'teeth' of the course without lengthening it. Also to bring back the Raynor features.
   I think that having Silva talk/present his vision to the membership would be a great idea to educate the membership about his mission from the board.  

[Bill Gayne]

You could always tell them that the changes will potentially  get the course ranked in a top 100 list!

[Andy Acker]

bstark

Just as an FYI the outfit I work with presents capital planning projects for clubhouses and golf courses. The overall strategy to sell your project should stress each component of your plan. Returning the course to its historical origin and then the financing plan.

One of the biggest issues clubs face relates to the transparency of this project. Did the members initiate the concept of a golf course improvement project or was it the board. Typically if concensus is not built among the membership, prior to a vote or approval, a  plan may have a hard time being passed.

[TEPaul]

bstark:

If you want my input on this entire subject just email or IM me, I'll give you my tel # and we can talk about it. The best architects I know all said the same thing about restorations and master plans---basically most all clubs look at them at first in the very same way---the very same issues are present no matter what club it is, and so there really is a process to do it right.

The actual master plan and restoration is one process but how to communicate it to any membership is a separate and extremely important process of its own, perhaps even more so. In my opinion, and in the opinions of those architects I know the way not to present a restoration master plan is to create adverserialness amongst the membership for any reason. Some on here seem to look a club memberships as either obstacles to a good restoration master plan or perhaps even unnecessary participants. I believe they are definitely neither. They are very important.

[Pat K]

    One important area overlooked when selling a project is how much fun it could be. Quite often dollars are accounted for and financial reports are gone over with a fine tooth comb, toughening up the course is sold, putting the teeth back into the course, bla, bla bla...members get sold on something that is hard to live up to.
   As a course caretaker and observer of early american golf courses I would have to say that not enough is said about how enjoyable it is for the membership to see a gem of a golf course polished. If the process is transparent and unrealistic promised not made than it is a fun experience, for both the employees and members.
     A member can play golf anywhere. Why not sell the fact that their golf course is ready for a little polishing and they could be part of it. Members can get a lot of personal satisfaction by doing this. And it's another reason to go to the club for some refreshments a a walk to see the prograss.
   

[cary lichtenstein]

Sell it based on improving drainage

[Lester George]

Its all about leadership and process.  The architect should lead the club through the process, and, if planned and communicated properly, the funds will follow.  

Lester

[Mark_Fine]

There is no one best way to "sell" a restoration and if someone tells you otherwise be wary.  "Every" club is different and the secret is to spend the time to understand what is required for success at that individual club.  Just like someone once said when asked what it takes to design a great golf course (their answer was "time"), the same goes for selling a restoration.  Time understanding the design and time understanding what is best for the membership at large.  If you can grasp those two things, you are well on your way to gaining approval of the presented plan (or the need to do one in the first place).
Mark  

[Ed_Baker]

We did it in two segments.

First we only asked for funding to produce the master plan and then we obtained actual bids on the major construction elements (with the help of the architect). Once the real cost parameters were set and the actual nuts and bolts of the restoration project were defined, we went back and had another vote on the funds to proceed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Our club is about to go to the general membership with a proposal to restore most of the original features of our Raynor course.

Why not ALL of the original features ?
Who elects which features get restored and which features don't get restored.
Why is a PARTIAL restoration being undertaken ?[/color]

As most of you know many older members on fixed incomes are expressing the following opinions:

The improvements are unnecessary (if it aint broke don't fix it).

Too expensive, my dues will go up.

Many clubs make special provisions for older members, like a decreasing valued bond that represents their cost.
The longer they live and enjoy the course, the more the bond is discounted and as a result, they pay their full share.  Should they die early, their family gets the remaining value of the bond.[/color]

Will shut down the course, and we can't play when we want.

Do most of the work in the off season.[/color]

The esimtate for the work will be $600,000 to $700,000 with all the work being done by Brian Silva. The improvements were versed out at a general membership meeting last Dec.
And, how did the members receive the proposal ?[/color]
 
From what I can tell the original routing had many more bunkers and quite a few less trees, Silva's concepts obviously involve bringing back that feeling. Also, our old aerials show much smaller greens now vs. then. The proposal includes a minimal amount of added distance (extend a few tees).The plan would shut down a few holes sporadically but not entail shutting down the course totally.

Why not restore all of the bunkers ?

How much tree clearing is proposed ?[/color]

The question is; Should the sales pitch be geared toward dollars and cents, ie $700,000 over 20 years is minimal cost when spread over 350 members? Or should the pitch be more of an historical lesson where the general membership is educated to the value of Golden Age architecture? The common sense answer is obviously a little of both. I would be curious to get input as to the best way to present it to a disparate membership.

Mark Fine's comments are on target.
Each membership is different, unique.
You need to look within your own membership for the keys to success rather then looking at how other clubs did it.
What works for one may not work for another.[/color]

[bstark]

  >>>Many clubs make special provisions for older members, like a decreasing valued bond that represents their cost.
The longer they live and enjoy the course, the more the bond is discounted and as a result, they pay their full share.  Should they die early, their family gets the remaining value of the bond<<<<

 That is a good idea. I'm sure the older members would be receptive to a "tiered" bond, sort of like a golf CMO with tranches!
  I've forwarded all these wonderful comments to our "restoration" guy. I don't know if he lurks here or not. I will keep all apprised of our progress.

[TEPaul]

"I would be curious to get input as to the best way to present it to a disparate membership."

Brian:

Even if you have a disparate membership, and I understand that you do, with a course like that one the place to start, in my opinion, is to do whatever works most effectively to build up some real pride within that membership for Seth Raynor. There're various ways to do that but the easiest is to get the historian or whoever can provide that sort of research input and disseminate it comprehensively amongst the entire membership. The general effect of that, if done properly and comprehensively could inspire some real renewed pride in the architect and the course and that gets the membership in a restoration frame of mind!

To me Southampton G.C. is a no-brainer that way since Raynor was from Southampton. There could be some pretty impressive research material right around there. If you don't know where to look for some of it I think I might.

[Andy Acker]

bstark:

You bring up an excellent point regarding a depreciating component for a member assessment. In our experience if the plan is well conceived and communicated the depreciating component has little impact as to whether or not the plan gains membership approval but will protect the club's future cash flow.

Typically a senior member would pay a reduced, pro-rated amount based on the current dues structure found at a club.

Back in September  I submitted an article to the USGA Green Section Record dealt with these types of issues. Titled "Capital Campaigning". It may be helpful

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()