[archie_struthers]

 


Mr Sweeney's Fairfield Muni isn't even the poster child for government golf gone wrong,  but we've been down that road before. Some might enjoy the banning of Nike razor shirts but that and no kids under 12 leaves me cold.

[Lou_Duran]

I have long suspected that I don't love the game the many do. I wouldn't want to give it up, but at the same time it's hard for me to understand the current situation...and I am not a hard core ball roll backer because I don't think that IS THE PROBLEM with problem with golf. To me this stance is a completely over simplistic representation of where golf is now. Likely the biggest disconnect I feel is the constant reliance on golf as a barometer of the game. I suspect this had more to do with age than anything.

Ciao

"Likely the biggest disconnect I feel is the constant reliance on golf as a barometer of the game."  What do you mean- the shape of the golf industry financially as a barometer of the game?

I've been playing golf for some 50 years and my feelings toward the game have changed numerous times depending on everything else that was going on in my life.  With limited time, playing competitively was abandoned in favor of playing with my son and in occasional weekend games.  My interest in golf architecture and travel followed as family responsibilities lessened.  Age, no doubt, plays a big part, as does one's perceptions of financial circumstances.

Golf is highly capital and time intensive.  I don't think you can separate economics from the game.  It is not an opinion, but a demonstrable fact that if things are not improving, they are declining.  My home club, for example, has been treading water for the past 5+ years.  It now has $2M+ in deferred maintenance and but for being ideally located in a growing, advantaged demographic area, it would be shedding members at a fast pace.

Homeostasis, or even "shrink the game", would ensure fewer choices and a smaller segment playing golf.  There are no shortages of smaller courses- just play the red tees, 9 holes, or even a smaller loop instead of the full 18.  Don't want to pay for Augusta-like conditioning, you have a wide range in the 99% of the remaining courses to choose from.

What will likely greatly reduce the game is our unwillingness to produce more than we consume as a country.  Modern monetary theory nearly ensures that what remains for many Baby Boomers' in golfing years will be spent not on the course, but worrying about running out of their money before getting called up from God's waiting room.  I've known several avid golfers who no longer play, and not a one quit because golf was too Big or too difficult.  It was primarily a choice of financial circumstances pointing in a different direction for spending their leisure budget.

[Kalen Braley]

I have long suspected that I don't love the game the many do. I wouldn't want to give it up, but at the same time it's hard for me to understand the current situation...and I am not a hard core ball roll backer because I don't think that IS THE PROBLEM with problem with golf. To me this stance is a completely over simplistic representation of where golf is now. Likely the biggest disconnect I feel is the constant reliance on golf as a barometer of the game. I suspect this had more to do with age than anything.

Ciao

Golf is highly capital and time intensive.  I don't think you can separate economics from the game.  It is not an opinion, but a demonstrable fact that if things are not improving, they are declining.  My home club, for example, has been treading water for the past 5+ years.  It now has $2M+ in deferred maintenance and but for being ideally located in a growing, advantaged demographic area, it would be shedding members at a fast pace.

Lou,

I would beg to differ on this point.

There are 3 states: Growing, Maintaining, and Declining.  If they have $2 Mil in deferred maintenance then they were in fact is some state of decline the whole time by not addressing it and staying current.  It may be that standing still in a state of equilibrium is difficult to do, but it still exists as that 3rd state.

P.S.  It seems like a lot of private UK clubs have been very close to this state, running on lean budgets, but also keeping up year over year obligations....until Covid-19 hit.

[Bernie Bell]

I recommend taking a half-hour and listening to the podcast.  I don't think Mr. Kearney is saying what some of you think he's saying.

[John Emerson]

I have been in the golf course industry for almost 20 years.  My positions have been at every financial level of club.  Municipal to pga major championship host and in between.  I have seen a little bit of every level.  With that said, there is sooooooo much waste at many clubs/courses. Not just from million dollar clubhouse renovations, but mostly in club hierarchy, roles, and salaries. It’s a slow death by a thousand cuts because a club thinks that it’s the way it’s “supposed” to be, or has always been.  In my professional opinion, many times the role of GM is the biggest waste of money in a clubs budget.  I think that superintendents, in many instances, are more qualified in this role, but they aren’t typically looked upon in this light.  The few courses that I have seen that made their superintendent the GM also (and did away with this position), have been WILDLY successful and turned the club around financially in a fairly short time.  I have never seen a situation where this wasn’t beneficial and helped the club financially.  All things equal, and as long as the super has a good assistants on course, the superintendent is more qualified to act as GM and can do it well. The money saved on salary promoting the superintendent can be used for club CapEx’s and general upkeep as opposed to shelling out money for an extra position.  This change could turn around many clubs.  Of course, every super isn’t interested in this or good enough to wear two hats, but the ones that have, have done nothing short of extraordinary work in helping the club improve. 
The brain of a superintendent thinks completely different from a golf pro or a GM.  At the end of the day they know the “Golden Goose” is the golf course and it must be protected at all cost.  Not the newest and greatest driving range gadget, or million dollar clubhouse addition, but the golf, first and last priority! 


The reputation in the eyes of many people and members is that supers aren’t trained or qualified to be GM, but that is so far from the truth.  At least in the circle I am familiar with.  Many supers I know have minors, to accompany their BS in agronomy, in business administration or some other financial area.  It just a common misconception that grass growers only know how to grow grass.  This must change in order for some clubs to hold on.  Roles need to changes in order for clubs to stay afloat, but again many people resist change especially golfing members.


A perfect example I recently ran across is a medium to upper end private club was paying the GM close to 400k and the club was losing their ass.  The super got his budget cut and the pro was promoted to director of grounds!!!! WT actual F?!  The pro and GM don’t know the first thing about growing grass, but they sure as hell made sure the clubs members thought they did.  This was just an example of many more of the same ilk I have seen over the years. 


Bottom line is that if a club is struggling they should strongly think about promoting the super (if he’s good enough) to the role of GM.  Give him a bump in salary and budget.  Use whatever is leftover for CapEx and other miscellaneous upkeep items.  It CAN be done successfully!  Many clubs could keep their doors open only if they thought outside the box instead keeping the status quo.  End of rant.

[Garland Bayley]

it's "green" committee FWIW
cheers

[Thomas Dai]

I recommend taking a half-hour and listening to the podcast.  I don't think Mr. Kearney is saying what some of you think he's saying.

+1
Interesting point raised by John E in his post about Supers and GM's as well.
atb


PS - folks might also like to listen to this Podcast by Geoff Shackelford which semi-relates to this subject -https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-shack-show/id1506821154?i=1000475391867

[Jeff Schley]

I have been in the golf course industry for almost 20 years.  My positions have been at every financial level of club.  Municipal to pga major championship host and in between.  I have seen a little bit of every level.  With that said, there is sooooooo much waste at many clubs/courses. Not just from million dollar clubhouse renovations, but mostly in club hierarchy, roles, and salaries. It’s a slow death by a thousand cuts because a club thinks that it’s the way it’s “supposed” to be, or has always been.  In my professional opinion, many times the role of GM is the biggest waste of money in a clubs budget.  I think that superintendents, in many instances, are more qualified in this role, but they aren’t typically looked upon in this light.  The few courses that I have seen that made their superintendent the GM also (and did away with this position), have been WILDLY successful and turned the club around financially in a fairly short time.  I have never seen a situation where this wasn’t beneficial and helped the club financially.  All things equal, and as long as the super has a good assistants on course, the superintendent is more qualified to act as GM and can do it well. The money saved on salary promoting the superintendent can be used for club CapEx’s and general upkeep as opposed to shelling out money for an extra position.  This change could turn around many clubs.  Of course, every super isn’t interested in this or good enough to wear two hats, but the ones that have, have done nothing short of extraordinary work in helping the club improve. 
The brain of a superintendent thinks completely different from a golf pro or a GM.  At the end of the day they know the “Golden Goose” is the golf course and it must be protected at all cost.  Not the newest and greatest driving range gadget, or million dollar clubhouse addition, but the golf, first and last priority! 


The reputation in the eyes of many people and members is that supers aren’t trained or qualified to be GM, but that is so far from the truth.  At least in the circle I am familiar with.  Many supers I know have minors, to accompany their BS in agronomy, in business administration or some other financial area.  It just a common misconception that grass growers only know how to grow grass.  This must change in order for some clubs to hold on.  Roles need to changes in order for clubs to stay afloat, but again many people resist change especially golfing members.


A perfect example I recently ran across is a medium to upper end private club was paying the GM close to 400k and the club was losing their ass.  The super got his budget cut and the pro was promoted to director of grounds!!!! WT actual F?!  The pro and GM don’t know the first thing about growing grass, but they sure as hell made sure the clubs members thought they did.  This was just an example of many more of the same ilk I have seen over the years. 


Bottom line is that if a club is struggling they should strongly think about promoting the super (if he’s good enough) to the role of GM.  Give him a bump in salary and budget.  Use whatever is leftover for CapEx and other miscellaneous upkeep items.  It CAN be done successfully!  Many clubs could keep their doors open only if they thought outside the box instead keeping the status quo.  End of rant.

John interesting insights and what you are alluding to, exists in many organizations/companies/government as unnecessary "bureaucracy" or management. The reason IMO that there are more GM's at private clubs nowadays, is the advent of more and more non-golf related functions. There is a pool, tennis, pickle ball, weddings/events, corporate/charity outings, robust F/B programs, fishing/skeet shooting, on site lodging, etc.  With more services offered there are more departments, thus a need to coordinate all these aspects outside of the golf course and it's conditioning.

Golf clubs without many of the above ancillary services can and should get back to (if they haven't) your model where you don't need the pied piper to coordinate and be responsible for all aspects.  Simplify and focus on the golf course is what some may do, many will not and continue to offer more services/functions because that is what their clientele is demanding (or they believe so).
Having said my opinion of a golf club vs. a country club there are some advantages to having a GM where the individual committees can't have their own fifedoms, priorities are aligned with the vision, mission, history, customs of the entire club/membership, financial controls are simplified with followed consistently (not based on a rogue committee), capital projects/needs are planned as a whole and prioritized according to a plan.

I'm not advocating for a GM, but at Country Clubs with many non-golf related functions it does have value. For golf clubs without these activities it is unnecessary IMO.

[Mike_Young]

John E, I think you are on the right track there.  I have been in the golf business since 1979.  The best advice I ever got was from a guy when I told him I wanted to design courses one day was to get in the business from the turf side where I called on supts and courses to learn the business and have access to see all the many courses and how they operate. 
The game and the business are two different things IMHO.  The game is beginning to take care of itself.  You saw that start Sunday if you watched Seminole with guys in shorts, carry bags and no caddies.  The younger golfers are not into the crap we have loaded around most of our courses. I can tell you that since the day I began in the business, the best owner/operators I have seen were once supts.  The best business minded supts I have seen were often formally educated in other fields than agronomy and learned their agronomy informally.  ( same for archies and formal education).  I know that sounds like a slam at supts and some may take it that way.  (There are some very good ones with top formal educations of course.)  But what I'm trying to say is that again ,IMHO , operating at a profit is the key and so many in the business operate like the government whereby dues are increased to fit the budget instead of the budget fitting the dues.  This is almost always true when there is a board involved. I did a course in the early 90's that was sold to a supt who was turning 50 a few years back.  He had trained at ANGC and then became the Director of Agronomy at a large upscale resort for 20 years.  BUT he was raised by a golf pro father and mother who ran a small town privately owned public course.  He knew how to go to a maintenance budget under $300 thousand and cook hamburgers while doing so.  And most importantly , he had the personality to do so. Today this business is loaded with too many characters who are too impressed with themselves.  And to take the heat, we can start with archies, golf pros , supts and GMs.  This game is not being saved by the 150 c0urses discussed on this site.  It's being saved by the guys who understand delivering a product that can make a profit.  And one of the primary keys to doing so is understanding enough about the facets to not be bullshitted by employees when it comes to budgets in their department.  And so often it is the supt who does this best.  And so often that supt that had worked with used equipment, old irrigation, ag fertilizers, unedged cart paths and yet made it all work without 4 assistants.

[William_G]

it's "green" committee FWIW
cheers

hahaha

[John Kavanaugh]

What does a private club that has 500 members and regularly accessed each member $500 at the end of the year do this year?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()