[Lou_Duran]

Bob,

I've been a beneficiary of those a couple of times.  As part of the public assisted financing of the Ballpark in Arlington (TX), or whatever name it currently operates under, the city or its sports board got a luxury suite and some box seats in the deal.  One of my son's friends had access to free tickets through his councilman father, and when the Rangers weren't playing well, we'd get the occasional call.

Regarding Asian golf, I've had some experience with that at a couple clubs in Texas.  Invariably, they let it be known to the pro shop that they did not want other people to join them and largely kept to themselves.  Perhaps I am being prejudiced, but with the exception of one or two, they were not very good golfers yet insisted on playing the back tees and holing out each putt.  It was a nightmare getting behind often a dozen or more players, mostly regular guests and a few members, and never being asked to play through.  Fortunately, the pro shop tried hard to work around the well-know problem, resulting in only one or two known scuffles.  And you want to talk about cigarette butts left on the course!         

[Craig Sweet]

Getting back to the original reason for the thread...

It does seem that many of the finest courses in Europe allow groups of visitors to play....so why can't that happen in America?  Why should it be so difficult for a group of guys visiting Long Island to get a game on Shinnicock?  Is it really all about liability?

How would GCA'ers feel if getting on the best clubs in the UK became more difficult to impossible?

[HamiltonBHearst]

Maybe I don't want unacompanied guests because they have not been properly vetted?  Why would I want to take the chance that some knucklehead is going to ruin my day? For what?  We don't need the money, and the money you are talking about paying is less than the average cost per round for many of the members.

Why should a membership take a chance that a guest could  ruin a member's day. 

As far as Europe, I really don't care what GCA'ers feel, that is not my problem and with my connections and those of my friends and fellow members, access is not a problem. 

Judging by some of the intemperate remarks by some on this board, I would be afraid to leave you alone in the men's grill. 

[tlavin]

Judging by some of the intemperate remarks by some on this board, I would be afraid to leave you alone in the men's grill. 

Pithy and perfect.

[Dan Herrmann]

Getting back to the original reason for the thread...

It does seem that many of the finest courses in Europe allow groups of visitors to play....so why can't that happen in America?  Why should it be so difficult for a group of guys visiting Long Island to get a game on Shinnicock?  Is it really all about liability?

How would GCA'ers feel if getting on the best clubs in the UK became more difficult to impossible?

Easy - we're selfish.  I pay a good buck to belong to a private golf club.  I like to talk to other members out on the course and to share a laugh.  But it's mostly about being able to walk to the pro shop, get a game, and be on the first tee within 30 minutes of my arrival.  And play in 3.5 hours.

But I'd happily have anybody as a guest, as long as they know the very easy to follow etiquette-type stuff.

[Mark Chaplin]

David Federman - I do not know of any club in the UK that restricts local visitors, remember we are not a very big country. Some clubs including my own still have artesian membership for local people - usually resident in the town or up to 5 miles from the club. Tee times are restricted, seperate clubhouse and sometimes a requirement to work on the course for an agreed number of hours a year. These memberships are often highly sought after and in some cases can be harder to obtain than membership of the parent club!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom & Dan

So are you telling me that a club with a $2.5 million operating budget can have up to $375,000 of it from visitors? 

Something sounds fishy here. 

There's NOTHING fishy about it at all.
You just don't understand it, nor do you understand club financial's in the U.S.[/color

I spose a chunk of that allowable income disappears for an annual open tournament and/or a charity event (which may be tax exempt anyway as clubs often don't make money or much on these - as is the intention). 

Do you actually THINK before you type ?

What annual open tournament would a club run ?
What are you talking about ?

Clubs that host tournaments for the local, state or regional golf associations that they're members of, typically LOSE money on those events.  A club would be deemed extremely lucky just to break even.[/color]

Say, 100 golfers each at $750.  That still leaves $225,000. 

NO, that leaves $ 300,000 according to your assumption.[/color]

Say a club gets 100 guests a week at $250 a pop all in - thats another $130,000. 

Most clubs in the U.S. are seasonal, not open 52 weeks a year.
Some Southern clubs open in Oct and close in May.
Many Norther clubs are closed in December, Jan, Feb and even March.

During season,
Most clubs are closed on Mondays
Tuesdays and Thursdays are often Ladies days
Wednesdays were historically professional and business days.
Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays have heavy member play.

So where are you going to slot these 100 guests a week ?
Where are you going to put these 25 foursomes, 33 threesomes or 50 twosomes ?
On Ladies days ?
On Business days ?
On Long Weekends ?

The members of these clubs, who pay substantive initiation fees, dues, minimums and assessments, aren't going to have the flexibility of playing when they want, their enjoyment of the club would be limited by strangers who have NO obligation toward the club.[/color]

This leaves $95,000 left over for visitor rounds at say $400 (all in) - that means over 200 outside rounds can be played.  This total amount of outside play sounds incredibly high to be legal for a tax exempt body. 


You're so oblivious to reality that it's simply amazing.
What part of 15 % of total operating revenue don't you understand ?

Do you think that individual golfers or foursomes are the sole source of outside revenue ?

How about the charity affairs held at the club and the revenue from them ?
How about the community affairs held at the club and the revenue from them ?
How about weddings and parties held at the club and the revenue from them ?

Don't they count toward the 15 % ?

What you also don't understand is that most clubs in the U.S. don't run at a profit, they lose money, especially the kitchens which are like a black hole in the accounting/financial world of clubs.  That's why clubs have imposed dining room minimums to try to shore up their loses.

Please, adhere to the adage that it's better to remain silent on an issue you're not familiar with and have people think you're a fool, rather than to open up your mouth and prove it.[/color]

If we put this into perspective, Muirfield allows 2704 visitors a year which probably brings in something close to £500,000 a year when you consider food & drinks as well.

That's irrelevant.

At seasonal clubs in the U.S. with 12,000-14,000 rounds played per year, allowing 2,704 visitors to play the golf course would do one thing, it would insure a membership revolt and the removal of the Executive committee and the Board.[/color]

[Bob_Huntley]

David Federman - I do not know of any club in the UK that restricts local visitors, remember we are not a very big country. Some clubs including my own still have artesian membership for local people - usually resident in the town or up to 5 miles from the club. Tee times are restricted, seperate clubhouse and sometimes a requirement to work on the course for an agreed number of hours a year. These memberships are often highly sought after and in some cases can be harder to obtain than membership of the parent club!

Mark,

Are the artesian members under water?

Bob

[Dan Herrmann]

Patrick Mucci - Kudos!  Perfectly stated!

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have a question and a comment on this thread-

1. Do the "private" clubs on Britain, Ireland, Australia, Scotland,etc. have the same open door policy to local residents as they do for overseas visitors?

2. I remember after 9/11 that  Pine Valley opened its doors to the public for two days for a charity event to help the firefighters. It was $1000 per person, but for a good cause and well worth it and mostly tax deductible, as well! Likewise, the Oakmont event this past fall where anyone could play for $500. for a charity event.

I think if more of the exclusionary clubs would hold such charitable events at least many  non-members could have the opportunity to play and the clubs would benefit as well. 

Dave,

They do.

However, they're limited by the 15 % outside revenue cap, amongst other limitations.

When you consider that the revenue cap isn't limited to GOLF, but applies to all "outside" club activities, you have to be careful in how you schedule outside events.

Remember too, that clubs get requests for their facilities years in advance.
These functions have to be scheduled, approved, budgeted, staffed, etc., etc.  The process and hosting of outside events can't be viewed in a cavalier fashion.

If a miscalculation is made, and the 15 % exceeded, an audit could cause the club to lose its tax exempt status.

At a club that I'm very familiar with, they ceased approving/hosting "Sweet Sixteen" parties due to the potential for legal liability.

In addition, hosting outside events, where liquor is served, brings in another set of issues, problems and liabilities.

The overall issue is far more complex than meets the eye, and probably beyond the comprehension of those clamoring for unlimited, open access.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Mr. Mucci

Thank you for chronicling the financial and legal arguments.  Those arguments should be fairly easy for most here to understand. 

I suspect they will never understand the class arguments and I don't think it is the job of waitstaff to constantly have to tell people to turn-off cell phones, a blackberry counts, take off your hat, eat with the correct fork and don't sit at Mr. Hearst's round table in the corner?   

[Rich Goodale]

David Federman - I do not know of any club in the UK that restricts local visitors, remember we are not a very big country. Some clubs including my own still have artesian membership for local people - usually resident in the town or up to 5 miles from the club. Tee times are restricted, seperate clubhouse and sometimes a requirement to work on the course for an agreed number of hours a year. These memberships are often highly sought after and in some cases can be harder to obtain than membership of the parent club!

Mark,

Are the artesian members under water?

Bob

Bingo, Bob!

[Sean_A]

Tom & Dan

So are you telling me that a club with a $2.5 million operating budget can have up to $375,000 of it from visitors? 

Something sounds fishy here. 

There's NOTHING fishy about it at all.
You just don't understand it, nor do you understand club financial's in the U.S.[/color

I spose a chunk of that allowable income disappears for an annual open tournament and/or a charity event (which may be tax exempt anyway as clubs often don't make money or much on these - as is the intention). 

Do you actually THINK before you type ?

What annual open tournament would a club run ?
What are you talking about ?

Clubs that host tournaments for the local, state or regional golf associations that they're members of, typically LOSE money on those events.  A club would be deemed extremely lucky just to break even.[/color]

Say, 100 golfers each at $750.  That still leaves $225,000. 

NO, that leaves $ 300,000 according to your assumption.[/color]

Say a club gets 100 guests a week at $250 a pop all in - thats another $130,000. 

Most clubs in the U.S. are seasonal, not open 52 weeks a year.
Some Southern clubs open in Oct and close in May.
Many Norther clubs are closed in December, Jan, Feb and even March.

During season,
Most clubs are closed on Mondays
Tuesdays and Thursdays are often Ladies days
Wednesdays were historically professional and business days.
Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays have heavy member play.

So where are you going to slot these 100 guests a week ?
Where are you going to put these 25 foursomes, 33 threesomes or 50 twosomes ?
On Ladies days ?
On Business days ?
On Long Weekends ?

The members of these clubs, who pay substantive initiation fees, dues, minimums and assessments, aren't going to have the flexibility of playing when they want, their enjoyment of the club would be limited by strangers who have NO obligation toward the club.[/color]

This leaves $95,000 left over for visitor rounds at say $400 (all in) - that means over 200 outside rounds can be played.  This total amount of outside play sounds incredibly high to be legal for a tax exempt body. 


You're so oblivious to reality that it's simply amazing.
What part of 15 % of total operating revenue don't you understand ?

Do you think that individual golfers or foursomes are the sole source of outside revenue ?

How about the charity affairs held at the club and the revenue from them ?
How about the community affairs held at the club and the revenue from them ?
How about weddings and parties held at the club and the revenue from them ?

Don't they count toward the 15 % ?

What you also don't understand is that most clubs in the U.S. don't run at a profit, they lose money, especially the kitchens which are like a black hole in the accounting/financial world of clubs.  That's why clubs have imposed dining room minimums to try to shore up their loses.

Please, adhere to the adage that it's better to remain silent on an issue you're not familiar with and have people think you're a fool, rather than to open up your mouth and prove it.[/color]

If we put this into perspective, Muirfield allows 2704 visitors a year which probably brings in something close to £500,000 a year when you consider food & drinks as well.

That's irrelevant.

At seasonal clubs in the U.S. with 12,000-14,000 rounds played per year, allowing 2,704 visitors to play the golf course would do one thing, it would insure a membership revolt and the removal of the Executive committee and the Board.[/color]

Pat

You are gonna give yerself a heart attack, calm down. 

Many clubs hold an annual Invitational or some such event in which the point is to bring guests to the club for a few days of golf and socializing. 

I understand that some clubs hold events for state/nation golf associations.  It is my understanding that often times this is not included in the allowance because the golf associations are tax exempt - same for charities. 

I also understand that many clubs are seasonal.  What are you some kind of dope?  I was just using a very conservative set of numbers to get an idea of how the system works.  I merely commented that 15% of outside cash is quite a large amount of money and it would be interesting to know the breakdown. Instead, you get off on some tirade - probably assuming that I am angling for a reason to allow visitors.  I don't care either way if US clubs allow visitors because I think the pricing of most of the ones of interest to me would be prohibitive.  As usual, you were most helpful. 

Ciao 

[Kalen Braley]

Pat:

I think even more than that is doable.  Consider this scenario.

Take a standard club that is closed 4 months out of the year (winter).  This leaves 34 weeks per year of being open. If public play is allowed two days per week, say Tuesday and Thursday between 11 AM and 1 PM opening 12 time slots of 4 somes per day.

The numbers break down like this:

34 weeks X 2 days per week = 68 days
68 days X 12 time slots per day on 10 minute intervals = 816 tee times
816 tee times X 4 per group = 3264 rounds per year.
3264 rounds X $100 per round = $326,400 extra per year.

Are you saying there is that much demand that members would be pissed to not have 4 hours per week open to the public on Tuesdays and Thursdays in non early AM hours.  And to boot all of thier coveted Friday, Saturday, and Sunday time slots are still wide open. 

Sure your high end clubs wouldn't care about an extra $320k per year, but I would find it hard to believe a very good non-elite private wouldn't want that extra money laying around for renovations or the like.

[Doug Ralston]

I'd never tell any man what to do with his private property.

Now, this statement I had to challenge.

I watched a man FORCED to sell his property in an upscale community in Knoxville, simply because he left two junk cars in HIS yard, on HIS property. Of course, the rational given the City Council [who threatened him with condemnation, even though his house was fine and very livable], was that he was bringing down property values of other people who did NOT own HIS property.

I have lived in housing where it was forbidden to put up a clothesline. Recognize this?

It is all based on the same 'truth'. Wealthy owners WILL ALWAYS get what they want from local government, because they have the power to buy influence. And if that means 'telling someone what to do with their property', tough crap! You can be made responsible for other people's prejudices, like the idea that 'po white trash' would be in your neighborhood if you bought property where there was a clothesline, junk car etc. Therefor, instead of denying others their biases, they WILL be encouraged!

Been there, seen that.

But do not say you would never 'tell any man what to do with his private property' unless you are certain you would never do any of these things. I do not know you, so perhaps you would not. On the other hand, i have been on GCA a while, and have listened to lots of people's words. Some here WOULD.

Just a little aside. I, myself, have only ever played one private course, and that at the direct invitation of a very kind member. I shall never be able to play Pine Valley or afford to play CP. Likely not even Bandon. But I am not asking. I have still gotten to play some great courses, and am pretty much content.

Doug

[Chris Kane]

The overall issue is far more complex than meets the eye, and probably beyond the comprehension of those clamoring for unlimited, open access.

Who is clamoring for "unlimited, open access"?  I don't know of any top club, ANYWHERE, which has the unlimited, open access you talk of.

The idea that allowing visitors is an all or nothing proposition, where the place would be overrun with undesirables who prevent members getting a tee time, ignores the reality at some great clubs outside America.

It couldn't work in America unless and until the tax liability laws are amended. Furthermore, top clubs in America tend to have high initiation fees and enormous yearly dues, something the best clubs overseas tend not to have.  If you're spending $20,000 a year, I can understand why you'd have difficulty seeing someone play unaccompanied for a few hundred dollars.

I have a question and a comment on this thread-

1. Do the "private" clubs on Britain, Ireland, Australia, Scotland,etc. have the same open door policy to local residents as they do for overseas visitors?

In Australia most of the top clubs don't allow local residents to play as manager's guests: its restricted to interstate and overseas.  I never came across a similar restriction in the UK.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I wasn't really talking about a purely "economic" benefit to the clubs from holding charity events, but I would think  that clubs do charge for the use of their club, carts, green fees, food, etc. for charitable and non-charitable events.  

They do, and that counts toward the 15 % cap.
As to the profit they make, that's always been a grey area.
Wear and tear on the facility, having to pay staff overtime, forcing staff to work 7 days a week, all season long are just some of the problems associated with outside events[/color]

I don't have any idea how you misread my comment to suggest that private clubs should open their doors to the public and then give the money to the public.  

All I was suggesting is that the clubs do more of it.

Why is your assumption that they don't ?
Dave, you're presuming that they don't and you're wrong.
Are you aware of how much these clubs presently host outside events ?
Do you want to examine the Winged Foot's and Baltusrol's of the golf world ?

They're extremely generous with their facilities, BUT, they have to be careful, for if they overdo it, they'll lose their tax status and "strictly private" classification, hence, the members will suffer, financially and from the perspective on not having access to THEIR club.

As a member would you want to run that risk ?[/color]

After all, don't most clubs enjoy substantial real estate tax savings than if their property were zoned in some other fashion?

No, they don't.
Where did you get that notion from ?

The highest potential use value was a concept that was onerous to all landowners, not just golf courses.  It's been largely dismissed.

Ask the neighbors, the municipal residents of the town of situs how they'd like a mall, factory, industrial or commercial buildings in their back yard insteqad of a golf course.
[/color]

Isn't that a public benefit that they receive?

No, it's not, because they don't receive it.  It's inapplicable.[/color]

Why not give something back by way of more charity functions?

Again, you make a false presumption.
Where are you getting your information from ?
What clubs don't host outside events ?
Can you name 10 clubs being contexted out of the thousands ?[/color]

[Ed Oden]

With ANGC and The Masters, the fact is they are two separate legal entities and the monies derived from the Masters tournament may not excessively flow into and inure to the benefit of the members of ANGC exclusively. The Masters Tournament entity is a separate charitable entity.

Do clubs that hold regular tour events or other majors also take the dual entity approach?  

[erichunter]

What you also don't understand is that most clubs in the U.S. don't run at a profit, they lose money, especially the kitchens which are like a black hole in the accounting/financial world of clubs.  That's why clubs have imposed dining room minimums to try to shore up their loses.

Doesn't this confirm that the traditional model does not work for most clubs? 

I can't recall a substantial number of GB&I clubs citing dining room losses or any operating losses for that matter.  I'm not claiming a direct cause & effect between limited guest play and operating surpluses/deficits but it seems most overseas clubs are financially healthier than their US counterparts.

[TEPaul]

"It does seem that many of the finest courses in Europe allow groups of visitors to play....so why can't that happen in America?  Why should it be so difficult for a group of guys visiting Long Island to get a game on Shinnicock?  Is it really all about liability?"


Craig:

No, it's not all about liability. It's all about the fact that Shinnecock doesn't want a ton of visitors playing their golf course, and it's all about the fact they don't need their money either as apparently many of the European clubs feel they do.

[Joe Hancock]

I can't believe this thread has gone 5 pages...I had no idea anyone actually paid to play golf!

Joe

[Michael Christensen]

I think Osama Obama and Hillary may have a platform here: guaranteed health care insurance, guaranteed mortgage rate and guaranteed access to nearest top 100 private club!  One out of three ain't bad.....isn't that a Meatloaf song?

[erichunter]

With ANGC and The Masters, the fact is they are two separate legal entities and the monies derived from the Masters tournament may not excessively flow into and inure to the benefit of the members of ANGC exclusively. The Masters Tournament entity is a separate charitable entity.

Do clubs that hold regular tour events or other majors also take the dual entity approach?  

Apples and oranges as ANGC owns and conducts The Masters.  Most Tour events are run by non-for profit entities that lease the course for the week.  The other majors are the same as the USGA (for this year) has an agreement with the City of San Diego (as owners of Torrey Pines).  

EDIT: One possible exception is The Players Championship and TPC Stadium Course.  I would assume the TPC Stadium is set-up as a for profit venture but that is a guess.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

I think even more than that is doable.  Consider this scenario.

Take a standard club that is closed 4 months out of the year (winter).  This leaves 34 weeks per year of being open. If public play is allowed two days per week, say Tuesday and Thursday between 11 AM and 1 PM opening 12 time slots of 4 somes per day.

Kalen, I'm going to give you some good advice and hopefully educate you in the ways of club life and life in general.

If there's ever been two (2) Cardinal rules at Country/Golf clubs, it's this.

Rule # 1   Don't fuck with women's golf days.
Rule # 2   Go back and reread rule # 1.

Abide by those rules and life will be far more enjoyable at your club.
Violate them and .... well..... Hell hath no fury ......   [/color]

The numbers break down like this:

34 weeks X 2 days per week = 68 days
68 days X 12 time slots per day on 10 minute intervals = 816 tee times
816 tee times X 4 per group = 3264 rounds per year.
3264 rounds X $100 per round = $326,400 extra per year.

Are you saying there is that much demand that members would be pissed to not have 4 hours per week open to the public on Tuesdays and Thursdays in non early AM hours.  And to boot all of thier coveted Friday, Saturday, and Sunday time slots are still wide open. 

You bet I am.

And, in addition, what you may not understand is the 15 % revenue cap.

With large outside functions/outings/parties chewing up big chunks of revenue, there's not that much room for outside GOLF[/color]

Sure your high end clubs wouldn't care about an extra $320k per year, but I would find it hard to believe a very good non-elite private wouldn't want that extra money laying around for renovations or the like.

# 1   They couldn't take the revenue, it would trigger onerous tax
        consequences
# 2   Who wants to play a non-elite private club ?  What's the lure ?
# 3   It could cause them to be classified as a public facility, which is has
         onerous consequences.

A Judge in MA already ruled that outside play was a form of membership and as such cast the club over the member threshold (300 or 400) required for "strictly private" qualification.

It's a lot more complex than most think.[/color]

[Paul_Turner]

Private European golf clubs had open gates long before golf tourism took off.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()