[Patrick_Mucci]

But you know what I say---if you want to save a bit of money on man-power get yourself a super who gets dirty.

TEPaul, you ignorant twit.

That's one of the dumbest suggestions I've ever heard.

Save money by having your top executive do mundane tasks ?

Are you suggesting that the Chairman of the phone company  come to your house or climb a pole to fix your phone lines ?

That's the dumbest suggestion I've ever heard.

A superintendent is an professional in charge of a department.
Probably the most important department, with the largest budget in a club.  He must function as a chief executive, hiring talent, and delegating tasks, all under his watchful eye.
He must interface with the membership, green committee, Chairman, Board and President.

It's not that he shouldn't know how to get down in the dirt, but, if he's doing all that work himself, either he's hired the wrong staff or is woefully short in the budget department.

A superintendent is a professional who is a manager, of men, material, a living organism and a budget as well as being one politically adept at club politics.

You've just begun to understand the difference between a Biarritz and A Night at the Ritz, so please, leave the maintainance end of golf to those who know something.

The next thing you'll be doing is suggesting that we blend the maintainance practices to the architecture calling it something inane like a "maintainance meld"[/color]

That's what I like about Matt Schaeffer of Merion---everytime I see the guy over there he looks like he's been in Hog Heaven all day!  

Since you're a farmer, and love to lie, rout, romp and dig in the mud all day, I understand your affinity for Hog Heaven.[/color]

Anthony Nysse,

No, you can't.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I think all superintendents should be dressed like Carl Spackler (Bill Murray's character in Caddie Shack).

[Mike_Young]

Donnie and Anthony,
I have the utmost respect for your profession and would expect you guys to strive for the top.  I understand what you guys are saying.  There is definitely a need for the HH product and the FI.  But for most of the 24 million golfers to afford to play  this game, it either has to be subsidized by a municipality, corporation or real estate sales.  I don't think it is sound to rely on any of the mentioned factions to always be there.  Just as the Mercedes driver might say I cannot maintain and drive a car for a speciific amount, the Honda driver might say it is no problem. Does the Ritz Carlton feel they can manage maid service for the same as the Marriott Courtyard.  No.  But you can sleep well in either one.   For a few years in the 80's, I sold turf equipment through out the SE and called on many of the lower budget courses.  They made it work.  Ex: can I not get an acceptable cut using a transport frame 11 blade reelmaster instead of a 5 reel lightweight fairway unit that has an extremely high maitenance budget.  I think so.  Are there not some triplex greensmowers that can give one an acceptable surface? sure
Can one cut fairways one less day per week ?  or Tees?
There will always be the need for the FI experience and the HH experience.  But day in and day out something has to be done.  IMHO.

[Joe Hancock]

Mike,

I've tried to make the point many times here that there are still a lot of courses maintaining at the level that requires....no, prefers...mowing with transport frames/ Reelmaster, ground driven gang mowers. But, as soon as you mention those ghastly machines, it is assumed by most that the course is a "muni".

I know I've mentioned it before, and at the risk of being a Diamond Springs homer, but they are very adequately maintained with two Parkmasters (same concept) and two greens mowers. No tee mowers, no roughs.....it's a beautiful thing.

I personally maintain our courses fairways with the aforementioned transport frame/ gang unit mower, but I additionally trim my edges with a lightweight 5 gang. While the edges are being done, that mower does what little fairway there is on the par 3's.

Of course, all that info is out of context. This thread is about the big boys, for the most part. High maintenance will reign supreme as long as the rating game is on.

Joe

[Anthony_Nysse]

Mr. Young,
  I agree with you completly. I've worked on courses that both walk mow everything and mow fairways 6 times a week and also a course that triplexes greens, tees and approaches and only double cuts greens when there is a tournament. It's is all based on what a membership wants and is willing to privide.($) Some designs, such in Donnie and my case, call for walk mowing greens-steep sloping bunkers right next to greens(minimum area to turn a triplex) bulkheaded greens surrounding 3 sides.... the quality of cut is better with a walker. We've done both...triplexed greens and walk mowed right behind ast the same height an cut much more grass that what the triplex did. It's all in what a membership will allow a superintendent to do......

[Mike_Young]

Joe,
Same here....give me 11 blade transport frame....park it in winter and use the tractor for other uses etc....
A transport ground driven unit can last 20 years while you will do good to get 4 out of a lightweight self contained....BUT if you are the equipment distributor you will sell the lightweight unit to a course for your cost just so you can sell the parts during the life of the mower....just the nature of the game......I remember the mid eighties when Paul Latshaw was at Oakmont and  took a G3 greensmower and had his mechanic weld 2 more units on it for the first lightweight fairway unit.  Many thought he was nuts.....But Toro took off with it.....as with many equipment businesses, turf equipment distributors make their money by selling parts....if you can place your equipment in a site with a small margin , parts will make it up....and there are a lot more parts with hydraulic lightweight units.
Mike

[Don_Mahaffey]

Mike,
While I have used a gang quite a bit in the past I'm not as big a fan as you.
There is absolutly no reason that a well cared for lightweight fwy mower should not last at least 7 seasons. If there is one thing I see over and over (I mentioned it in another thread) it's the need to always have new stuff. The equipment guys have done a great selling job when it comes to buying new equipment. They have all kinds of data that will show repair costs vs. leasing costs and how it costs more to run an old machine then buy new, I promise you that in most cases it's total BS. Well cared for equipment can last a long time. I ran triplexes in AZ that were still in service, and working well, after 6 years and 7000 hours. A strict preventative maintenance program that exceeded recomendations resulted in a very long life for our equipment.

One other thing about maintenance budgets. How many supts ever moved up the ladder because they provided a quality product at a low cost? I can assure you I see more employment ads that state the candidate should have experience with large budgets. Supts don't get plume jobs because they save money. In our world the more people on our crew and the more money we spend the higher on the career ladder we go.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don,

Another question I'd like to throw out to all Superintendents is the following.

Could you use another $ 100,000 in your operating budget ?
Could you use another $ 100,000 in your capital budget ?

[Mike_Young]

Don,
I am not saying a gang is the same QOC as a selfcontained lightweight unit....I would rather have the self contained if possible.  Just trying to say that those types of decisions are needed to be in the $35 dollar range of green fees.

[Donnie Beck]

Pat,

In my case another 100k in either would be extremely wasteful. I am comfortable where I am at.

[Steve Curry]

Pat,

Yes.
Yes.

And neither would be fluff.  It would only ease the tension between where we are trying to be and the resources I have available.

Steve

[Eric Johnson]

Don,

Another question I'd like to throw out to all Superintendents is the following.

Could you use another $ 100,000 in your operating budget ?
Could you use another $ 100,000 in your capital budget ?

Pat,
That all depends, what are the standards of maintenance required by owner-management?  Sure, a lot of operating budgets would find a way to spend the extra $$$.  But then, in many cases wouldn't that be chasing the elusive target of "perfection?"  For most golf courses, asking for another 100k could be justifiable but that would be a big increase in an operating budget or capital budget.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Eric,

I haven't seen too many budgets that had a lot of surplus built into them.

In many, if not most cases the superintendent prepares his budget for his Chairman, who usually pares it down, and subsequently submits it to the finance committee, who may pare it down, before going to the Board, who may pare it down further.

Sometimes it's easy to notice under budgeted golf courses.

And, in many cases, to compensate for a lack of funds, excess water is applied to camaflage the short comings in order to keep member unrest to a minimum.

That affects playing conditons too.

Remember, to most, green is beautiful.

I've also seen a good number of golf courses where the capital budget for the green committee is shockingly low.
And, the problem is, trying to play catch-up, because sooner or later, penny pinching is going to come back to haunt the golf course, and unfortunately, it's the superinetendent who's in the cross hairs instead of the club's leadership.

Since a budget is a guestimate, I'd prefer to be a little fat rather then a little thin in that department.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Patrick,
I believe the best approach to capital budgets is to assign a % of gross revenues to a capital fund. For instance, if a course/club has 2M in gross revenues, 9% could be assigned to a capital fund which would be used to cover all golf related capital expenses. 180K a year may not sound like much, but when it is done each year it becomes SOP and the business learns to plan capital expenses using real numbers. In my experience where I've seen problems is when little to no dollars are spent on capital expenses for a few years and the business gets behind and is forced to asses or borrow to fund capital expenses.

When it comes to operating budgets, the method I like best is to define course conditioning expectations, cost out the processes needed to reach the expectations and then create a budget. Then if the budget comes in high the expectations or processes can be modified to reach a number that works. Its a lot of work, but once an agronomic plan is developed and budgeted it becomes a very good tool for tracking the methods used to care for the course and planning future expenses.

[Ed_Baker]

About 7 years ago I helped our superintendent create a maintainence paradigm using very similar dynamics to what Don Mahaffey just outlined above.

I presented it first to the board and then to the membership and we had three levels of course presentation. Being in the automobile business, I called them the, "Rolls Royce,Lincoln,and Chevy." The "Chevy" was about 68% of the cost of the "Rolls Royce, and it basically was the common sense absolutely essential program from an agronomic standpoint but maximized payroll efficency.. It produced very good playing conditions for the weekends and tournaments, the Tuesday through Thursday players dealt with shaggier cuts throughout, and the bunkers were not groomed daily, the green collars were longer,blah,blah. The Chevy lasted one season. The only difference in the Lincoln and Rolls Royce paradigms from the Chevy was..... man hours. All 3 paradigms used a task and area format.
Our membership wanted to pay 32% fluff,for... are you ready... consistency. The greens budget is now $5600.00 per day.
I agree with Mike Young, something has to change.

[Ed_Baker]

I should ammend the above post to say that the $5600.00 figure is the entire green budget for the year compressed in to the 7 month playing season. There are 5 year round salary's in that number, and there is an additional capital budget that is not included, regardless the number is still silly.
I say roll out the old Impala.

[Steve Curry]

Hey Ed,

I did apply for that job a time ago and I drive a Dodge extended cab.  

Steve

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Mike,
Few Canadian courses would be above 700K USD, granted they have a limited season relative to GA. Still, I know a couple that are under 500K Canadian, which is about 400K. They are ranked among the best in the country and I think they are in great shape.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don Mahaffey,

It's not the idea of phrasing your capital budget as a % or $ amount, it's getting the club to understand the need for a realistic capital budget.

All too often, the green capital budget is the step child of the club.

All too frequently, purchases get put off for another year, and then another year, and suddenly, the club finds itself in a difficult position with its equipment.

Getting the club to commit to an adequate capital budget is critical.

If a course had a 1,000,000 operating budget wouldn't you need the same 180K for your capital budget ?

My question to the superintendents on the site is as follows.

When a position opens up at a club, how much due diligence, in the capital budget area, do prospective superintendents engage in when considering the job ?

What are the areas that they examine the closest, other then compensation and fringes ?

[Gary_Mahanay]

I know that Pat is getting a little off the thread here Mike but I couldn't help myself to give his last question a go.  Well I guess this fall's under the fringes category but if the budget is right then the chemical, equipment and irrigation companies will take you to lunch at least once a week.  Then there is about three or four duck hunts a year.  The chemical, equipment, and irrigation company golf outings (lots of free stuff).  Throw in two or three fishing trips and then there is the annual trip to Augusta for the Master's with the superintendent getting the chemical company's credit card to buy anything he wanted at the Augusta National merchandise pavilion.  My super brought me back a nice cap.  But, you have to have one of those real nice fat budgets to get all this... I think?

[Steve Curry]

Pat,

In light of the most recent observation I answer the quality or lack thereof of the membership.
 

Steve

[Mike_Young]

Steve,
I think there should be much consideration given to quality of membership as it relates to golf, average handicap level, other clubs where members might belong...all of this can give one an idea of what might be expected even if it is not said.

Don't take what Gary said to heart...that is just the free enterprise system at work.....from congress on down....
When one says supts are always striving to get jobs with bigger budgets..good...
we all do....

[Steve Curry]

Mike,

I don't take it to heart beyond the hypocrisy of such statements, as this seems to be business as usual with all businesses most are just jealous as some of our perks involve great golf or venues.

I went from being an intern at an unlimited budget to an assistant at a million dollar budget to my first superintendent’s position at a 1/5 of a million job.  I learned the most at the later as I was striving for the same conditions as the first.  This situation was great for the club, but had me working mind-boggling hours.  I think the change in the quality and character of maintenance is very much parallel to that of our society in the US.  The conditions we look back to came when most didn't have phones (on the wall kind), electricity or sometimes food.  We superintendents are surfing the wave of change, television, pros, and subsequently the average golfer are the lunar gravity.  People who want cheaper golf should go join those mom and pop clubs in order to enact the change.  I don't think the vanity will let them free.  Oh and another point a lot of the low budget clubs have the "cash" advantage that seems to be forgotten when these discussions arise.


Steve

[Mark_Fine]

Lehigh CC's course budget is under $800K.  Pat, I guess those flower beds you always talk about aren't that expensive after all!    Actually, John Chassard is just an amazing Superintendent as the course is always one of the best conditioned you will find anywhere.  He is always working on the front end with wetting agents, growth regulators,...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

I know of their detrimental and deflecting nature with respect to the costs of labor and materials as well as diverting focus from the golf course.

John does a terrific job.  But, I'll bet, if he had his druthers, that he'd spend the money elsewhere.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()