"Tom
You are wrong.
The income from green fees is valuable. But I can think of dozens of clubs that have relatively little income from visitors (compared with the big clubs you list). And they keep their doors open."
Paul:
You're just like Rich on this subject and although you don't seem to be so critical of American clubs and so praiseworthy of Euro clubs this way, as is Rich, which makes me enjoy lancing his smugness all the more, I'm definitely not wrong about this and I'm afraid you are.
These number of conversations I had over there with these people in those clubs was firstly all completely consistent and even addressed a remark you just made here.
There're plenty of clubs (probably those like that dozen you mentioned) that don't have the amount of outside play income that the larger and more prestigous and famous courses mentioned have and still keep their doors open to outsiders as you said! Of course they do---they practically advertize their open doors to some! They don't have the amount of outside play income simply because they're not as much in demand for it as the more famous ones are.
The conversation I had at one of those significant clubs even got around to this odd point here. They basically said in no uncertain terms they do this to defray their own individual clubs cost (and those of their fellow members who may not be so well heeled) and not because they're a bunch of democratic club egalitarians and altruists. So I asked; "Well, if you aren't so egalitarian why do you want to appear that way?"
One of them looked at me and laughed and said:"Why do you think?" I said, " I have no idea". He said: "Why not, we look like nice egalitarians and that perception keeps the demand up and the income from outside play coming."
Paul, again, that's precisely why the more well known clubs have more of that kind of income than the lesser known ones.
They even explained how their rather formal introduction process of the club secretary and all looks like a combination of formal exclusivity and egalitarianism at the same time--sort of a nice combined touch. Those clever dudes are sort of playing a general cultural thing based on economics and making it look like democratic egalitarianism!
My God, I knew you fellows were naive, but I didn't think you were that naive---even some of your own countrymen have you snowed!
"Golf is simply more egalitarian in GB&I. The private clubs in the US were always very exclusive, right from the start."
Right Paul! Some of those fellows who really do run those clubs over there ought to come over here and teach some of our politicians the art of persuasion and image--because they're a whole lot better at it over there than we are here! That much I'll honestly say for them. I admire that--they're clever!
But you're right about one thing, Paul, An awful lot of American clubs always were really exclusive---but the reasons were always the same--they wanted to be because they didn't mind paying for it!
In Europe, golf and the clubs are so old it just didn't evolve that way. A number of the really old courses had club structures with courses that almost had to be democratic. We virtually have nothing here where golf courses are on town "common" ground (an inherently "must-do" democratic structure) and we virutally have no clubs here who share a golf course with other clubs. That's unheard of in America!
Everything just evolved differently over there being so old and with that evolution of apparent democracy the economic realities today are easier to couch in a democratic veneer. But the reality of it is just as those who run those clubs I talked to say it is.
Rich actually said they were 'pulling my leg'. I think this is funny, particularly whose pulling whose leg---and he lives there?