Declining Growth

« **on:** January 27, 2008, 08:40:58 PM »

Several of the discussions on this forum lately have touched on the decline of the popularity of the game - fewer rounds, course closures, fewer new courses being built.

At first glance, it would seem to be a big problem. But are periodic downturns like this good for the game?

Serious golfers will keep playing - casual dabblers may not. Would you rather play a course filled with avid golfers than those mostly interested in the beer cart?

I get a sense from reading Mr. Doak's posts that he has a genuine concern about having enough future development opportunities. Would you architects feel that if fewer courses will be built, would the developers tend to seek the "name" architects, and would lesser known ones be forced out? Or is this concern more based on leaving the architects with less of selection to choose from?

I guess I tend to look at these downturns as more of an opportunity for the best in the business to differentiate themselves.

What positives do you guys see if, in fact, we continue to see a decline?

« **Reply #1 on:** January 27, 2008, 08:43:08 PM »

Peter,

Incredibly good. When the market is sketchy developers start asking the question as to whether or not a golf course "should" be built instead of just whether or not it "could" be built. A retraction and a few course closures would be good for the game as a whole, IMO.

Site selection will be more scrutinized and more sensible and simple business models will be necessary.

« **Reply #2 on:** January 27, 2008, 09:40:55 PM »

Peter:

I'm not worried about my own future opportunities, so much as those for others. I think we're looking at a serious downturn in new construction here in the USA. We're still getting a good number of calls, but most of them are about courses in Mexico, the Caribbean, and overseas. I have had three from Texas; Brauer must finally have saturated the market there.

The big names are going to get the lion's share of the overseas jobs, and it will be hard for less well known U.S. architects to compete with the locals -- although I am constantly amazed to hear where some of my compatriots are working these days. I'm glad they're hanging in there, but they are going to have a hard time "differentiating themselves", as you suggest, if all their work is in Outer Mongolia where nobody in the US ever sees it.

« **Reply #3 on:** January 27, 2008, 10:36:59 PM »

Declining growth is only good for the game if we're all in agreement that only the upper classes should play.

Otherwise, it means what it means. Less of everything for most of the people.

« **Reply #4 on:** January 27, 2008, 10:40:08 PM »

Peter-

The good from a perceived downturn could be from clubs investing in their own courses. Existing courses competing for players - by doing renovations - might be a good thing.

« **Reply #5 on:** January 27, 2008, 10:41:52 PM »

I would love to see a chart comparing the states of the economy, incomes, and employment with the popularity of golf.

Remember the 90's?

« **Reply #6 on:** January 27, 2008, 10:46:57 PM »

Wayne,

That makes perfect sense.

The eras where the game experienced the greatest growth in terms of rounds played, courses built, etc. I would bet were the 20s, the later 50s/early 60s, and the 90s.

They were all economic "boom times", when average folks flocked to the game, simply because they could.

« **Reply #7 on:** January 28, 2008, 07:30:50 AM »

Quote from: MPCirba on January 27, 2008, 10:36:59 PM

Declining growth is only good for the game if we're all in agreement that only the upper classes should play.

Otherwise, it means what it means. Less of everything for most of the people.

Mike, are we sure that it's the so-called lower/middle classes that are the ones giving it up, or at least where the growth isn't occuring? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just curious if there is any evidence of who is stopping or not starting to play...

« **Reply #8 on:** January 28, 2008, 08:18:40 AM »

This is not shocking given the over supply of golf courses in most areas of the country. It’s also not surprising given the current real estate market. I would predict this trend continuing for another 2 or 3 years at least (more realistic is probably 4 years). I would also expect the number of course closings to decline and the number of new courses openings to steeply decline.

The reason for the number of closings declining is that land development is slowing tremendously. Many courses that close end up as re-development projects. Those won’t happen as often, taking pressure off courses to sell.

The reason for the steep decline in new courses is similar to the decline in course closings, only at a much larger scale. The majority of new golf courses are associated with a residential development. With residential development at extreme lows, that translates to less demand for golf courses - a lot less.

This is not good for the game. A drop in demand is rarely good in any market, and it's bad for the game. The only way this doesn't matter is if the number of rounds played doesn't decrease, and I highly doubt that will be the case.

« **Reply #9 on:** January 28, 2008, 10:30:43 AM »

I think a certain amount of downturn is good because it has a tendency to cull out the people who thought golf was easy and have developed sub-standard product. (developers, designers, builders)

It also has an effect on contractors who have done one or two courses (good or bad) and usually puts them back into another business.

I do think the large architecture shops struggle with keeping people on with the dwindling amount of work. We're currently getting resumes almost every day.

Letser

« **Reply #10 on:** January 28, 2008, 11:09:26 AM »

I don't know if the decline is good for the game or not.....there are two schools of thought. I am sure there will be less architects and also less builders. And much of the fluff will be gone. BUT there are 17000 golf courses in the US. We only discuss about 500 of those on this site and about 13,000 of those courses are silent....that is they have no reason to stage an advertising campaign past a radius of about 25 miles and thus many of the stats we see don't know how these types of places are doing. I think they will actually not be affected much.
I try to look at this golf thing like I would food.....most people do not eat at a fine dining establishment every meal and if times were tight they would scale back....McDonalds type restaurants may not be affected much.....BUT say that over the last decade McDonalds had installed Italian marble floors, teak tables and five people in the drive thru....could it not be said that they had missed their market? Same goes for golf.....the ones that can scale back maintenance and clubhouse will do well since everyone will be searching for that deal....and most of us will never hear of them because all of these deals will be small local places....JMO

« **Reply #11 on:** January 28, 2008, 11:55:30 AM »

Chuck Corica in Alameda, California, a good example of golf courses going to waste. And, a muni, at that.

Not a great course or modern course by any measure, but an 80 year-old establishment needing some TLC. Needs work, but the city still pulls close to a million dollars from it every year, and does not re-invest.
By my calculations, it still makes .50 cents on the dollar.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/assignment_7&id=5910737

« **Reply #12 on:** January 28, 2008, 01:24:16 PM »

Quote from: Wayne_Freedman on January 28, 2008, 11:55:30 AM

Chuck Corica in Alameda, California, a good example of golf courses going to waste. And, a muni, at that.

In that report, it said . . .
" . . . According to a study commissioned by Alameda, the place needs $10 million dollars worth of work to set it right."

Now, I haven't seen the plan for "setting it right" but numbers like that are incomprehensible when compared to building a new course. How can updating an old course cost more than building a new course?

They should consider what the community would do if they lost the course. Would people move away?

BTW Californians . . . it's really cold up here, rains a lot, the white wine is always tepid, and the golf is always crowded.

« **Reply #13 on:** January 28, 2008, 05:50:47 PM »

I do not understand how something in decline can really be good. We need more people playing golf, those people are likely to be new to golf, so we need to make things user friendly and accessable. There will always be new resorts based on urbanisation. Weather patterns here in the UK are making golf expensive many people just did not play much last year because May, June and July were so poor, if you put the clubs away in the winter, golf was maybe $100 per round.. twice the norm. That accounts a lot of this years decline. The only thing that could be thought of as good is that with fewer golfers courses will be less crowded, things have to be commercial, the customer will ultimately pay the bill.

« **Reply #14 on:** January 28, 2008, 07:50:26 PM »

Slag,

It's three courses, 45 holes, plus a practice area.
The 150 page report (if memory serves), recommends 1.5 million for a new driving range, plusa new clubhouse, plus
new greens, and improved drainage.

'Members' think they could do it for less with a note from the city, and an easing of payments. Bottom line, the city of Alameda has used this course as a cash cow, and now the udders are wrinkling.

To remain competitive, the place needs plastic surgery, at least. Or else, sell some of the land in these times of fewer rounds, and put that money into making the place what it ought to be.

« **Reply #15 on:** January 28, 2008, 09:21:52 PM »

Quote from: Wayne_Freedman on January 28, 2008, 07:50:26 PM

The 150 page report (if memory serves), recommends 1.5 million for a new driving range

I'll come down and do it for 1/2 that amount and still come away feeling guilty. 1.5 million for a grass field with a few bunkers ?!!

Quote

plus a new clubhouse,

It's a muni, fer gosh sakes !!! A new roof, some spackle, maybe those no touch toilets that never flush it ALL away. (Kohler!!! Get on that!)

Quote

plus new greens, and improved drainage.

Great, and I guarantee you it won't cost another $9.25 million for that end of the deal. They ever think of doing 9 or 18 at a time? or is gov too obtuse for thinking fiscally rational?

Oh, say hi to E Bermudez. PDX misses her.

« **Reply #16 on:** January 28, 2008, 09:31:05 PM »

I just discussed this with Kyle Harris, and I don't agree with him that it's "good" for the game. That being said, hopefully the reason for declining growth will be corrected, and the game can grow again.

Primarily, I think the problem is that the marginal cost for a round f golf has gotten too high for the average golfer, and the wealthy golfer, while not necessarily price sensitive, just lacks the time to play substantial hours.

Municipal courses, at least in NY and DC, are doing fine - the margins for this market are just too small given the overhead.

Architects, superintendents, and designers need to come together and figure out how to build golf courses with low overhead, so that margins don't need to rise.

There are other "means" problems - architects keep building courses based on the most modern equipment, but the average golfer can't spend $2,000 a year on equipment - but lets start with this challenge: let's build a muni-model that is both financially viable and keeps the game interesting. Do that, and you'll grow the game.

« **Reply #17 on:** January 29, 2008, 12:12:12 AM »

It depends at least in part on how severe the decline is. A brief shakeout of over-supply may not hurt that badly. A huge falloff could drastically damage the game and architecture.

What did the Great Depression do to golf? My uneducated sense is that is brought on the end of GCA's golden age. When things turned up again, we were rewarded with all those wonderful new RTJ-style courses. The dark ages of golf course architecture.

Couldn't a big downturn do the same thing? That would not be good for the game, IMO.

« **Reply #18 on:** January 29, 2008, 02:00:23 AM »

Quote from: Adrian_Stiff on January 28, 2008, 05:50:47 PM

I do not understand how something in decline can really be good. We need more people playing golf, those people are likely to be new to golf, so we need to make things user friendly and accessable. There will always be new resorts based on urbanisation. Weather patterns here in the UK are making golf expensive many people just did not play much last year because May, June and July were so poor, if you put the clubs away in the winter, golf was maybe $100 per round.. twice the norm. That accounts a lot of this years decline. The only thing that could be thought of as good is that with fewer golfers courses will be less crowded, things have to be commercial, the customer will ultimately pay the bill.

Adrian

Why does golf need more golfers? We are probably at an all time high world wide and not far off that mark in most markets, yet it never seems enough. I don't believe the game needs to continually grow to remain strong and nobody puts forth a reason why the game needs to grow. I suspect it is folks who make a living off the game that stir the pot. Unfortunately, they stir their own pot which will only harm themselves.

I don't know if this so called recent downturn in the game is good or bad. Perhaps a few clubs will go under, but isn't this indicative of the quality and location of the clubs? Meaning the land may have a more viable use. If the members don't enjoy the courses enough not to sell it should the rest of us worry? Are these sorts of decisions really bad for the game?

Ciao

« **Reply #19 on:** January 29, 2008, 01:39:12 PM »

Like many things, it is a function of what you care to measure. In my mind, in no particular order, the issues of the game are:
1. learning the game and access for youngsters ($ is a part of this)
2. slow play
3. the ANGC mindset of course conditioning

This has been true for a long time.

and if I knew more about it, maintenance staff could probably use a raise.

« **Reply #20 on:** January 29, 2008, 03:04:09 PM »

Quote from: Sean Arble on January 29, 2008, 02:00:23 AM

Quote from: Adrian_Stiff on January 28, 2008, 05:50:47 PM
I do not understand how something in decline can really be good. We need more people playing golf, those people are likely to be new to golf, so we need to make things user friendly and accessable. There will always be new resorts based on urbanisation. Weather patterns here in the UK are making golf expensive many people just did not play much last year because May, June and July were so poor, if you put the clubs away in the winter, golf was maybe $100 per round.. twice the norm. That accounts a lot of this years decline. The only thing that could be thought of as good is that with fewer golfers courses will be less crowded, things have to be commercial, the customer will ultimately pay the bill.

Adrian

Why does golf need more golfers? We are probably at an all time high world wide and not far off that mark in most markets, yet it never seems enough. I don't believe the game needs to continually grow to remain strong and nobody puts forth a reason why the game needs to grow. I suspect it is folks who make a living off the game that stir the pot. Unfortunately, they stir their own pot which will only harm themselves.

I don't know if this so called recent downturn in the game is good or bad. Perhaps a few clubs will go under, but isn't this indicative of the quality and location of the clubs? Meaning the land may have a more viable use. If the members don't enjoy the courses enough not to sell it should the rest of us worry? Are these sorts of decisions really bad for the game?

Ciao

Sean- In the UK there has been a decline in the number of rounds in 2007, in part due to the weather, but a number of clubs have noticed a membership decline over the last 5-10 years. A few things have contributed to the fact that LESS people in the UK are playing, in particular the number of junior golfers playing is much lower than previously, a lot of traditional members clubs do not have many golfers between the ages of 21-40, the golfers of tommorow are more nomadic, they use 2-4-1 vouchers and look to shop for deals, maybe 20-30 years ago we joined golf clubs played 50-60 times per year, mainly at our own club. The younger element are part of groups or societies. The golf course has become dramatically more expensive to run over the last few years, many clubs that dont own their land have seen their rents skyrocket, water costs crazy money now and some clubs are still mains reliant, health and safety compliance has become almost stupid, those aspects mean costs have soared and golf has become expensive, that does not fuel people into the game and in some cases forces people away from membership, if you area member and play a llot away its expensive, fewer members with the same run costs mean further increases to those that stay loyal as members. As some of the old traditional clubs see their membership wane, some will go under as the younger element join clubs which are more a lower initial figure with a small green fee per round. I dont know if this is worldwide but its certainly a UK problem, probably only rectified by getting more young people into the game.

« **Reply #21 on:** January 29, 2008, 05:04:07 PM »

Quote from: Adrian_Stiff on January 29, 2008, 03:04:09 PM

Quote from: Sean Arble on January 29, 2008, 02:00:23 AM
Quote from: Adrian_Stiff on January 28, 2008, 05:50:47 PM
I do not understand how something in decline can really be good. We need more people playing golf, those people are likely to be new to golf, so we need to make things user friendly and accessable. There will always be new resorts based on urbanisation. Weather patterns here in the UK are making golf expensive many people just did not play much last year because May, June and July were so poor, if you put the clubs away in the winter, golf was maybe $100 per round.. twice the norm. That accounts a lot of this years decline. The only thing that could be thought of as good is that with fewer golfers courses will be less crowded, things have to be commercial, the customer will ultimately pay the bill.

Adrian

Why does golf need more golfers? We are probably at an all time high world wide and not far off that mark in most markets, yet it never seems enough. I don't believe the game needs to continually grow to remain strong and nobody puts forth a reason why the game needs to grow. I suspect it is folks who make a living off the game that stir the pot. Unfortunately, they stir their own pot which will only harm themselves.

I don't know if this so called recent downturn in the game is good or bad. Perhaps a few clubs will go under, but isn't this indicative of the quality and location of the clubs? Meaning the land may have a more viable use. If the members don't enjoy the courses enough not to sell it should the rest of us worry? Are these sorts of decisions really bad for the game?

Ciao
Sean- In the UK there has been a decline in the number of rounds in 2007, in part due to the weather, but a number of clubs have noticed a membership decline over the last 5-10 years. A few things have contributed to the fact that LESS people in the UK are playing, in particular the number of junior golfers playing is much lower than previously, a lot of traditional members clubs do not have many golfers between the ages of 21-40, the golfers of tommorow are more nomadic, they use 2-4-1 vouchers and look to shop for deals, maybe 20-30 years ago we joined golf clubs played 50-60 times per year, mainly at our own club. The younger element are part of groups or societies. The golf course has become dramatically more expensive to run over the last few years, many clubs that dont own their land have seen their rents skyrocket, water costs crazy money now and some clubs are still mains reliant, health and safety compliance has become almost stupid, those aspects mean costs have soared and golf has become expensive, that does not fuel people into the game and in some cases forces people away from membership, if you area member and play a llot away its expensive, fewer members with the same run costs mean further increases to those that stay loyal as members. As some of the old traditional clubs see their membership wane, some will go under as the younger element join clubs which are more a lower initial figure with a small green fee per round. I dont know if this is worldwide but its certainly a UK problem, probably only rectified by getting more young people into the game.

Adrian

I accept your premise that many clubs in the UK are struggling for members, but that doesn't answer why golf needs to continually grow to remain strong. Perhaps some courses should go under. Can the game be strong with 5% less courses? I think so.

It could be the case that some really good courses bite the dust. I would hate to see this, but it is bound to happen if a down turn lasts long enough. The one recent case of an excellent course which didn't survive is Addington. I don't know if the course has been hurt by being sold, but I reckon the problem with the course is where it is located as much as anything. They will do well to get £2100 a year plus some sort of joining fee (presumably) when it is located in Croydon. The first thing the new owners did was jack up the dues and the fees for visitors. Not a smart move if you are looking for new members and visitors. I spose they reckon smartening up the club will justify the extra money, but it is Croydon. People wanting to belong to smart clubs don't live in that area - they live nearby smart clubs or in toward the city cause god knows trying to get to Addington is a pain in the arse. I think its a harsh cycle for Addington, but the truth of the matter is the club will do well when Croydon is smartened up - which by the way I believe is happening right now and will continue for several years. Shaking the rep is another matter!

With all that said, if I could get to Addington in under an hour I would join, but there aren't many people who care enough about the golf that much to make them willing to drive that sort of distance to their home club.

Ciao

« **Reply #22 on:** January 29, 2008, 05:11:41 PM »

Quote from: Justin Sadowsky on January 28, 2008, 09:31:05 PM

Primarily, I think the problem is that the marginal cost for a round f golf has gotten too high for the average golfer, and the wealthy golfer, while not necessarily price sensitive, just lacks the time to play substantial hours.

Municipal courses, at least in NY and DC, are doing fine - the margins for this market are just too small given the overhead.

Architects, superintendents, and designers need to come together and figure out how to build golf courses with low overhead, so that margins don't need to rise.

Justin - I think this is a key point. It seems that neither the very high end nor the LOW end courses struggle as much as the middle of the road courses. The high end can handle the increased costs, and the very low end are merely interested if there is a hole in the ground somewhere.

It is those courses in between that try to maintain great conditions with keeping the costs affordable - not an easy task.

But I do think it is beyond the superintendents and the architects desire - I think it is more the courses' decision-makers that need to be convinced. Like we see in other discussions on this site, "brown is not necessarily bad," and neither are ragged bunker edges. Think of the saving in maintenance alone if we limit the bunker preparation, allow more "native" areas to be developed, irrigate less (which requires I would imagine less fungicide applications), etc. etc.

It takes time, but my superintendent and I are beginning to get this through to our members. The superintendent is convinced - now it is a matter of convincing the Board and Committee.

And this is an example of the positives in the decline of the game - it forces us to look to ways to improve our operations, to reduce costs, yet still provide a great golf experience.

« **Reply #23 on:** January 29, 2008, 05:38:44 PM »

Quote from: Sean Arble on January 29, 2008, 05:04:07 PM

Quote from: Adrian_Stiff on January 29, 2008, 03:04:09 PM
Quote from: Sean Arble on January 29, 2008, 02:00:23 AM
Quote from: Adrian_Stiff on January 28, 2008, 05:50:47 PM
I do not understand how something in decline can really be good. We need more people playing golf, those people are likely to be new to golf, so we need to make things user friendly and accessable. There will always be new resorts based on urbanisation. Weather patterns here in the UK are making golf expensive many people just did not play much last year because May, June and July were so poor, if you put the clubs away in the winter, golf was maybe $100 per round.. twice the norm. That accounts a lot of this years decline. The only thing that could be thought of as good is that with fewer golfers courses will be less crowded, things have to be commercial, the customer will ultimately pay the bill.

Adrian

Why does golf need more golfers? We are probably at an all time high world wide and not far off that mark in most markets, yet it never seems enough. I don't believe the game needs to continually grow to remain strong and nobody puts forth a reason why the game needs to grow. I suspect it is folks who make a living off the game that stir the pot. Unfortunately, they stir their own pot which will only harm themselves.

I don't know if this so called recent downturn in the game is good or bad. Perhaps a few clubs will go under, but isn't this indicative of the quality and location of the clubs? Meaning the land may have a more viable use. If the members don't enjoy the courses enough not to sell it should the rest of us worry? Are these sorts of decisions really bad for the game?

Ciao
Sean- In the UK there has been a decline in the number of rounds in 2007, in part due to the weather, but a number of clubs have noticed a membership decline over the last 5-10 years. A few things have contributed to the fact that LESS people in the UK are playing, in particular the number of junior golfers playing is much lower than previously, a lot of traditional members clubs do not have many golfers between the ages of 21-40, the golfers of tommorow are more nomadic, they use 2-4-1 vouchers and look to shop for deals, maybe 20-30 years ago we joined golf clubs played 50-60 times per year, mainly at our own club. The younger element are part of groups or societies. The golf course has become dramatically more expensive to run over the last few years, many clubs that dont own their land have seen their rents skyrocket, water costs crazy money now and some clubs are still mains reliant, health and safety compliance has become almost stupid, those aspects mean costs have soared and golf has become expensive, that does not fuel people into the game and in some cases forces people away from membership, if you area member and play a llot away its expensive, fewer members with the same run costs mean further increases to those that stay loyal as members. As some of the old traditional clubs see their membership wane, some will go under as the younger element join clubs which are more a lower initial figure with a small green fee per round. I dont know if this is worldwide but its certainly a UK problem, probably only rectified by getting more young people into the game.

Adrian

I accept your premise that many clubs in the UK are struggling for members, but that doesn't answer why golf needs to continually grow to remain strong. Perhaps some courses should go under. Can the game be strong with 5% less courses? I think so.

It could be the case that some really good courses bite the dust. I would hate to see this, but it is bound to happen if a down turn lasts long enough. The one recent case of an excellent course which didn't survive is Addington. I don't know if the course has been hurt by being sold, but I reckon the problem with the course is where it is located as much as anything. They will do well to get £2100 a year plus some sort of joining fee (presumably) when it is located in Croydon. The first thing the new owners did was jack up the dues and the fees for visitors. Not a smart move if you are looking for new members and visitors. I spose they reckon smartening up the club will justify the extra money, but it is Croydon. People wanting to belong to smart clubs don't live in that area - they live nearby smart clubs or in toward the city cause god knows trying to get to Addington is a pain in the arse. I think its a harsh cycle for Addington, but the truth of the matter is the club will do well when Croydon is smartened up - which by the way I believe is happening right now and will continue for several years. Shaking the rep is another matter!

With all that said, if I could get to Addington in under an hour I would join, but there aren't many people who care enough about the golf that much to make them willing to drive that sort of distance to their home club.

Ciao

Sean- Without more players coming intothe sport, costs for those playing will rise, some clubs will go the wall, probably the oversupply is 20% or most clubs are only working at 80%... maybe only 1% will close, clubs will struggle on but the consumer will be paying say 20-30% more than an efficiently run club. Golf in the UK is to expensive now, it needs to get cheaper.

« **Reply #24 on:** January 29, 2008, 06:06:44 PM »

Quote from: Adrian_Stiff on January 29, 2008, 05:38:44 PM

Quote from: Sean Arble on January 29, 2008, 05:04:07 PM
Quote from: Adrian_Stiff on January 29, 2008, 03:04:09 PM
Quote from: Sean Arble on January 29, 2008, 02:00:23 AM
Quote from: Adrian_Stiff on January 28, 2008, 05:50:47 PM
I do not understand how something in decline can really be good. We need more people playing golf, those people are likely to be new to golf, so we need to make things user friendly and accessable. There will always be new resorts based on urbanisation. Weather patterns here in the UK are making golf expensive many people just did not play much last year because May, June and July were so poor, if you put the clubs away in the winter, golf was maybe $100 per round.. twice the norm. That accounts a lot of this years decline. The only thing that could be thought of as good is that with fewer golfers courses will be less crowded, things have to be commercial, the customer will ultimately pay the bill.

Adrian

Why does golf need more golfers? We are probably at an all time high world wide and not far off that mark in most markets, yet it never seems enough. I don't believe the game needs to continually grow to remain strong and nobody puts forth a reason why the game needs to grow. I suspect it is folks who make a living off the game that stir the pot. Unfortunately, they stir their own pot which will only harm themselves.

I don't know if this so called recent downturn in the game is good or bad. Perhaps a few clubs will go under, but isn't this indicative of the quality and location of the clubs? Meaning the land may have a more viable use. If the members don't enjoy the courses enough not to sell it should the rest of us worry? Are these sorts of decisions really bad for the game?

Ciao
Sean- In the UK there has been a decline in the number of rounds in 2007, in part due to the weather, but a number of clubs have noticed a membership decline over the last 5-10 years. A few things have contributed to the fact that LESS people in the UK are playing, in particular the number of junior golfers playing is much lower than previously, a lot of traditional members clubs do not have many golfers between the ages of 21-40, the golfers of tommorow are more nomadic, they use 2-4-1 vouchers and look to shop for deals, maybe 20-30 years ago we joined golf clubs played 50-60 times per year, mainly at our own club. The younger element are part of groups or societies. The golf course has become dramatically more expensive to run over the last few years, many clubs that dont own their land have seen their rents skyrocket, water costs crazy money now and some clubs are still mains reliant, health and safety compliance has become almost stupid, those aspects mean costs have soared and golf has become expensive, that does not fuel people into the game and in some cases forces people away from membership, if you area member and play a llot away its expensive, fewer members with the same run costs mean further increases to those that stay loyal as members. As some of the old traditional clubs see their membership wane, some will go under as the younger element join clubs which are more a lower initial figure with a small green fee per round. I dont know if this is worldwide but its certainly a UK problem, probably only rectified by getting more young people into the game.

Adrian

I accept your premise that many clubs in the UK are struggling for members, but that doesn't answer why golf needs to continually grow to remain strong. Perhaps some courses should go under. Can the game be strong with 5% less courses? I think so.

It could be the case that some really good courses bite the dust. I would hate to see this, but it is bound to happen if a down turn lasts long enough. The one recent case of an excellent course which didn't survive is Addington. I don't know if the course has been hurt by being sold, but I reckon the problem with the course is where it is located as much as anything. They will do well to get £2100 a year plus some sort of joining fee (presumably) when it is located in Croydon. The first thing the new owners did was jack up the dues and the fees for visitors. Not a smart move if you are looking for new members and visitors. I spose they reckon smartening up the club will justify the extra money, but it is Croydon. People wanting to belong to smart clubs don't live in that area - they live nearby smart clubs or in toward the city cause god knows trying to get to Addington is a pain in the arse. I think its a harsh cycle for Addington, but the truth of the matter is the club will do well when Croydon is smartened up - which by the way I believe is happening right now and will continue for several years. Shaking the rep is another matter!

With all that said, if I could get to Addington in under an hour I would join, but there aren't many people who care enough about the golf that much to make them willing to drive that sort of distance to their home club.

Ciao
Sean- Without more players coming intothe sport, costs for those playing will rise, some clubs will go the wall, probably the oversupply is 20% or most clubs are only working at 80%... maybe only 1% will close, clubs will struggle on but the consumer will be paying say 20-30% more than an efficiently run club. Golf in the UK is to expensive now, it needs to get cheaper.

Adrian

I understand we need new players, but that doesn't mean growth. I believe there are too many courses in the UK because there are so many I am not interested at any price. You seem to be making some link between the game of golf being in a healthy state with cheap green fees. I don't really buy this. A healthy state is offering golf at several price levels. I reckon for a large number of clubs that the low end price is being met very well. For example, if one is member of a club with £700 (a very commonish figure these days) dues and plays 35 games a year thats £20 a game. Its tough to beat that playing public courses or as a visitor at private courses. How cheap do you expect the low end of private golf to be?

I accept that fees have gone up dramatically in the past ten years. At my old club the dues were just over £400 when I joined in Jan '99 (maybe it was '98). The fees have gone up £300 to this year. That is probably something like double the inflation rate (which in a way goes to show that the inflation rates have been inaccurate because they always take out house prices in their calculations). However, when you break down the numbers, its hard to see how the club could be running more efficiently.

Even so, when I broke down my numbers for this coming year I decided membership wasn't a good deal for me as I lost interest in the course. It seemed I was finding more reasons not to get down there. IF I was still interested in the course I would have kept my membership. I can't say if I am unusual, but I do know that a mate dropped his membership for nearly the same reasons as me. Golf isn't necessarily about keeping it cheap. Price is important, but interesting golf at a well run club is just as important.

Ciao

News:

Peter Nomm

Kyle Harris

Tom_Doak

Mike_Cirba

Mike McGuire

Wayne_Freedman

Mike_Cirba

JLahrman

TaylorA

Lester George

Mike_Young

Wayne_Freedman

Norbert P

Adrian_Stiff

Wayne_Freedman

Norbert P

J Sadowsky

Jim Nugent

Sean_A

Carl Rogers

Adrian_Stiff

Sean_A

Peter Nomm

Adrian_Stiff

Sean_A