2004 -- The Golf Course Shakeout ???

« **Reply #75 on:** May 26, 2004, 11:33:10 AM »

While I can't speak to resort area courses I think that many of the so-called upscale courses which are having financial concerns should consider annual memberships to establish a solid basis to work from. They could take 200 members at $2000 to $3000 per year and generate a nice pool of funds to begin their year with. We are beginning to see some of this in the DC area and I think that it will catch on more and more as time goes by.

I would suggest that the area where Bulle Rock is located will not support the building of high end luxury homes. It is too far from DC or Philadelphia for people to consider commuting and Baltimore has some very desirable areas which are much closer and not extravagantly priced. Bulle Rock was envisioned as a golf destination with 2 courses and a convention center which could be done because of lower land costs, etc. To now change it to a high end residential area just does not make sense to me.

« **Reply #76 on:** May 26, 2004, 11:39:40 AM »

Jerry
Re Bulle Rock...It is my understanding that the original developers could not get funding for a hotel/convention center after 9/11. I would have been folly to build the second course without it. Furthermore, BR depended a lot on corporate customer golf play during the weekdays. This lessened after 9/11. I understand that BR is not too busy on weekends. New ownership is offering "frequent player" specials to entice repeat business. I wish them luck at their price level and location.
Steve

« **Reply #77 on:** May 26, 2004, 01:59:10 PM »

Matt Ward. While some of what you say regarding McCullough's is true, you miss the major problem (gee, what a surprise).

The major problem with McCullough's is that the $10M construction bond was Guarnteed by Egg Harbor Township, with no taxpayer approval. On top of that the Mayor formed a non-profit corporation to run the course (and appointed himself to the board of the non-profit), thereby skirting the need to conduct the affairs of the course in the open (the open records act doesn't apply to non-profits). Once the first bond payment of $750k is missed -- which will occur this year -- the taxpayers of EHT are on the hook to pay the bond. So the real problem is there aren't enough hours of sunlight in the day to create enough rounds to pay the debt, at the current prices. Just to recap, the non profit running the course announced an operating loss of $17k for the past year -- remember, the manner in which the bond payment was structured meant NO bond payment this year, so in actuality, had a payment been due, McCullough's would have lost 767K. Not bad for a tiny Muni.

« **Reply #78 on:** May 26, 2004, 02:10:56 PM »

SS1:

My point on AC golf still stands -- it's you that need to see the totality of what is happening from eyes beyond the view of those who live there.

If the folks who put forward the idea for McCullough's didn't get taxpayer approval then that's something for the taxpayers of that community to resolve -- possibly voting or recalling the folks responsible out of office if that's their desire.

Frankly, I could care less about how the structuring took place. That's for the taxpayers to decide. My point is that the top tier places don't want ANY competition -- especially from taxpayer owned facilities -- that can offer lower rates that will drive players from their overly expensive places to play.

My issue was that too many of the AC upscale public courses actually think in their mind they are Gods gift to golf and are ENTITLED to charge triple digit greens fees when the designs of all but a few are simply formulistic at best. It's nothing more than sucking the blood out of people during the high season when the Shore traffic surges.

These same courses did little to offer incentives for multiple rounds or provide some other return besides digging their big hand into the wallet of players.

I know of many people in Northern NJ who will pony up the tariff one time to play a few of these layouts but will not venture back a second time. It makes you wonder how creative the marketing side really is.

McCullough's provides a taxpayer owned course that was created to deal with the local golfers of that township and the surrounding area. But let's be clear the people who are on the privately owned daily fee side have a major league hard-on against those who use public resources to develop golf. They (privately owned daily fee operators) see it as competition and in order to know where they stand you also need to figure out where they sit.

« **Reply #79 on:** May 26, 2004, 02:16:35 PM »

You're such a know it all. I'm in complete awe of you (NOT)

I especially like your patronizing "you need to see" statements, those statements that rightfully make you a blow hard.

McCullough's never should have been built. It was ill conceived, was built on a land fill which drove up construction costs. I don't see you addressing those points. And my point is still correct, McCullughs didn't have to be built -- there was no demand at the shore. You haven't addressed that either. Renault doesn't need to be built either.

Not all the course at the shore are as you describe. The real problem is the economy and the 5+hour rounds, not this esoteric BS that you're rolling out.

Now, go ahead, write you're "i'll huff and i'll puff and I'll blow your house down" reply to me.

Oh, and for Steve. Things are fine at hidden creek. We had our clubhouse ground breaking on Saturday. Key media was invited, which would explain Matt Ward's absence

« **Reply #80 on:** May 26, 2004, 02:23:50 PM »

I don't see architecture as relevant in this discussion.

Mike

« **Reply #81 on:** May 26, 2004, 02:28:39 PM »

SS1:

I was invited to attend the Hidden Creek opening and planned to attend until the untimely death of a close friend. Unfortunately, as a "key" member of the media I could not be there.

Enough of your musings -- they are quite transparent.

I don't know it all, but I see a side to this issue you can't because of conflicts of interests that are likely present. If you want use the 'demand' side of the equation then start to understand the mentality of the consumer who will certainly come back time after time if they get something of value for their money. What's laughable is that the people who get somewhere first then want to roll up the gate for the next guy. This sounds just like the immigration argument that I hear on Rush and Sean Hannity. How convenient!

If McCullough's represents a threat then how bout the other facilities that are privately owned and operated as daily fees make a better effort in communicating what they have and why they are so special for repeat play -- how about developing a rewards system for multiple plays -- how about developing varied price points because not all of the layouts are equals to the more deserving few like Blue Heron Pines / East and Twisted Dune, to name just two.

There are just a few ideas to offer people for more than just a round fling. Geeeeeeeze -- putting together ideas -- that would be a novel thing! Oh -- I'm sorry -- you'd rather insult media people because they don't tow your party line.

« **Reply #82 on:** May 26, 2004, 02:28:41 PM »

ss1- This is a systemic problem throughout our great experiment, America. Hopefully because a story like this bond issue is on the east coast, will shine the light where it needs to be pointed. Watching Mueller and Ashcroft talk about major issues, as I type this, only helps convince me that these politicos who act as though ethics is a four letter word, or a class they missed at half-truths college, belong in the prisons more than most.

« **Reply #83 on:** May 26, 2004, 02:42:06 PM »

Talk about transparent, I don't even watch Hannity, nor do I listed to Rush. I can see you do -- you seem too familiar with their rants.

The golfing public doesn't over analyze architecture -- put them most any place and they will say it's a great design, just as long as it's well maintained and they have a club house afterwards. The bottom line is there isn't enough demand at the shore, period. Why you continue to deny this is ridiculous

What any knowledgeable person will tell you about McCullloughs is that it is a threat to the daily fee courses in the off season, not so much in July and August, when the daily fees are charging their best rates. The off season is when you have far too many courses competing for too few golfers, and then you have a taxpayer subsidized operation undercutting the private market (but of couse the taxpayers don't all know they are going to end up buying out McCullloughs)

But you, being all knowing, of course, know and understand this, right?

By the way, I don't consider you media. Your more a propogandist, which explains why you watch and quote Hannity and Rush (the ultimate party-liners)

« **Reply #84 on:** May 26, 2004, 02:53:42 PM »

SS1:

Here's your party line -- I got here first and everything was fine. Then came all the others and look at what they're doing TO ME.

How nice ... how utterly transparent!

Tell me where the creative marketing and branding side is regarding the upscale daily fee courses -- even during the low season? I mean it took them a few seasons BEFORE they instituted variable price points throughout the year. Such an idea has been ongoing in other locales like the Grand Strand for over a decade.

How bout developing a rewards play program so people develop some sort of connection instead of the focus on higher and higher rates?

Hate to break the news to you but taxpayer owned facilities have been around for quite some time. McCullough's clearly has financial issues and that's something for the people of that locality to sort through and hold accountable those responsible.

The botton line is that facilities that get to a market first don't like others who crowd their turf. This is the same beef that the hot dog pushcart vendors NYC say to those who operate a similar venture just across the street from them.

I love your spin on who is media -- it's someone you can shape and brainwash to suit your fancy. Nice try.

« **Reply #85 on:** May 26, 2004, 03:11:42 PM »

Matt
Speaking of customer loyalty, Twisted Dune has a special for those of us age 50+ on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday for $55!!! No associate membership required.This is during prime season as well. I'm going to try to play there every week at this pricepoint. I don't have a house "downa shore" otherwise I'd be there more often. I'd be there today but the weather was iffy.
Steve

« **Reply #86 on:** May 26, 2004, 03:53:24 PM »

Quote from: SS1 on May 26, 2004, 02:42:06 PM

The golfing public doesn't over analyze architecture -- put them most any place and they will say it's a great design, just as long as it's well maintained and they have a club house afterwards. The bottom line is there isn't enough demand....

Bingo!

Mike

« **Reply #87 on:** May 26, 2004, 04:23:10 PM »

Careful, Mike, if you seem to be agreeing with me, you might get a bellowing, verbose, bombastic, and patronizing lecture from Matt Wart, resident propogandist.

News:

Jerry Kluger

Re:2004 -- The Golf Course Shakeout ???

Steve_ Shaffer

Re:2004 -- The Golf Course Shakeout ???

Mike Worth

Re:2004 -- The Golf Course Shakeout ???

Matt_Ward

Re:2004 -- The Golf Course Shakeout ???

Mike Worth

Re:2004 -- The Golf Course Shakeout ???

Mike Hendren

Re:2004 -- The Golf Course Shakeout ???

Matt_Ward

Re:2004 -- The Golf Course Shakeout ???

A_Clay_Man

Re:2004 -- The Golf Course Shakeout ???

Mike Worth

Re:2004 -- The Golf Course Shakeout ???

Matt_Ward

Re:2004 -- The Golf Course Shakeout ???

Steve_ Shaffer

Re:2004 -- The Golf Course Shakeout ???

Mike Hendren

Re:2004 -- The Golf Course Shakeout ???

Mike Worth

Re:2004 -- The Golf Course Shakeout ???