[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian,

I understand cutting labor, but what I don’t understand is the reference to “less assistant greenkeepers”.  If you are referring to Assistant Superintendents, I think you are way off base.  What is an assistant greenkeepers in the UK?       

Scott - An assistant greenkeeper would be exactly that; ie not the head man or the deputy but the ones that say do the mowing. Each club if they lost two men would naturally chose their own, whatever method is totally up to them. Is an assistant superintendent different? do you have assistant greenkeepers or just greenkeepers? Superintendent always sounds like a grand more singular name.
Clubs will not want to lose their best staff, knowledge is important, we are looking at possibly very gloomy times, who knows how things are going to pan out and for how long, people will still play golf but they will play less frequently and want to play cheaper, another view ...with mass unemployment there may even be an increase in some peoples golfing as they have more time although this will be cheap golf.

[Chris Tritabaugh]

Scott - An assistant greenkeeper would be exactly that; ie not the head man or the deputy but the ones that say do the mowing. Each club if they lost two men would naturally chose their own, whatever method is totally up to them. Is an assistant superintendent different? do you have assistant greenkeepers or just greenkeepers? Superintendent always sounds like a grand more singular name.
Clubs will not want to lose their best staff, knowledge is important, we are looking at possibly very gloomy times, who knows how things are going to pan out and for how long, people will still play golf but they will play less frequently and want to play cheaper, another view ...with mass unemployment there may even be an increase in some peoples golfing as they have more time although this will be cheap golf.

It seems assistant greenkeeping in UK terms is what I would refer to as a grounds crew member. Our Assistant Superintendents in the UK would be the Deputy Greenkeepers?

[Mark Chaplin]

Head green keeper, foreman, green keepers.

Annualised hours is a good way of reducing cost;

You pay a guy the same rate each month of the year.

In the winter he say works 30 hours a week for 20 weeks.

He owes you 200 hours.

In the growing season he works 50 hours a week for 10 weeks and 45 hours for the other 20 weeks.

You get him when you need him and reduce your overtime costs considerably.

[JMEvensky]

Not trying to be a smart ass,but isn't the original question an impossibility?If conditions can be maintained in the status quo for less money,the presupposition is that some amount of money is currently being wasted.

[Chris Tritabaugh]

In our situation reducing water usage has created a snowball effect of reduced maintenance costs. Our water comes from the city so we do pay for it. Even those who do not pay for their water pay for the electricity to run their pumps. So if you use less water you save one way or another.

Use less water you also use less fertilizer, less pesticides, less mowing, less labor, and on and on and on.  

JME:
I think you are right. After two years at my club I have been asked to cut 8% from our operations. I am not concerned about this because I do feel after two seasons we have identified waste, which can be cut out.

Dr. Frank Rossi of Cornell University wrote a great column for Turfnet on this very subject, unfortunately I only have my hard copy of the article as it has not be posted on the website yet. Basically what he wrote was that the next couple of years are a wonderful opportunity, as Superintendents, to show our membership/clients that sustainable turf management can produce wonderful and enjoyable playing conditions.

[Ryan DeMay]

Not trying to be a smart ass,but isn't the original question an impossibility?If conditions can be maintained in the status quo for less money,the presupposition is that some amount of money is currently being wasted.

I think a better way to say it is: which priorities can be eliminated or curtailed in order to control and/or cut costs while still providing value to the member and an enjoyable golf experience?  This puts the powers-that-be in driver seat to consider and choose what is truly important to that facility albeit with the professional opinion of the superintendent.  BODs, GMs, Superintendents, and members need to take a hard look at what each and every task costs and decide where said task fits into the grand scheme of the golf course.  

[JMEvensky]

Not trying to be a smart ass,but isn't the original question an impossibility?If conditions can be maintained in the status quo for less money,the presupposition is that some amount of money is currently being wasted.

I think a better way to say it is: which priorities can be eliminated or curtailed in order to control and/or cut costs while still providing value to the member and an enjoyable golf experience?  This puts the powers-that-be in driver seat to consider and choose what is truly important to that facility albeit with the professional opinion of the superintendent.  BODs, GMs, Superintendents, and members need to take a hard look at what each and every task costs and decide where said task fits into the grand scheme of the golf course.  

I agree.It's all going to come down to somebody's definition of "worse" playing conditions.

At my place,so far,we've cut back on bunker maintenance and allowed some rough to "go native".The bitching has been expected but most understand the reasons.We've tried to draw a line in the sand on maintaining greens,fairways,and tee boxes while trying to save money/man hours elsewhere.

But,these things just nibble around the edges of the maintenance budget.So long as compensation is the biggest line item,it will get the biggest cut.The only way to really move the budget needle is to cut back on manhours.

[PThomas]

ignore as much as possible out of play areas

[Craig Sweet]

Snowball....cut labor and something will not get done....and someone will bitch...be ready to lower expectations.

We budgeted for a small reduction in membership..so far we have not loss as many as we feared...but who knows with this economy....the problem, as I see it isn't so much with the course as it is with the club house...how many don't hemorrhage money?

[JSPayne]

Quick response in regards to "any money that can be saved now is theoretically money that has been wasted in the past....."

As it seems to me, what happens is that during good times, when people aren't really afraid to spend money, they look at their course (or sometimes even their neighbor's course....the next direct competition) and ask "How can we make this place even better?" Sometimes they want fairways or tees mowed more often. Or mow tees and greens with walk-behinds instead of triplexes, sometimes just to get the "upscale appearance" of skinny cross-patterned lines. Sometimes they want fancy landscaping around the clubhouse. Sometimes they want to add a bunch of new bunkers or trees. And when they have these ideas, the ask the super, "What do you need to get this done?" and then they shell out the cash. Not always, but you get the basic idea.....none of it is really NECESSARY.....but it's often deemed so by owners, or members or BODs.

And when times are tough, we're almost lucky we have all these things that have been added on and funded as such for so long. Because it often does make it easier for us to find cuts and make savings.....it's kind of like a foul-weather cushion. Liken it to the big financial companies having their private jets and limo services......useful, yes...necessary, no. And they too would look alot better if they were forward enough thinkers to do away with "the fat" and produce the savings necessary to survive.

So no.....long answer short.....the money wasn't wasted before. It was just spent on superfluous "desires" that were probably well-intentioned, thought necessary, useful enough....but definetely not a "must have" addition to keep excellent course conditions.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Not trying to be a smart ass,but isn't the original question an impossibility?If conditions can be maintained in the status quo for less money,the presupposition is that some amount of money is currently being wasted.

JME- You are quite right, when I looked at the question initially, I thought it was impossible. The question really is how can we best trim costs and not see too much of a drop in playing conditions which is how everyone has answered. In the rawest of terms each head greenkeeper/superintendent has his budget and does the best job he can for the $$$$.. cut his budget it will be a worse product. This whole scenario will filter through everything and many industries will see they did not need so many people, worth ethics may change as the tide shifts to people being grateful for jobs and more willing to alter that contract back to winter 30 hours and summer 50 hours. A year ago it would impossible in the UK, now I think people are more likely to get in the trench and work together.

[Sean_A]

Not trying to be a smart ass,but isn't the original question an impossibility?If conditions can be maintained in the status quo for less money,the presupposition is that some amount of money is currently being wasted.

JME- You are quite right, when I looked at the question initially, I thought it was impossible. The question really is how can we best trim costs and not see too much of a drop in playing conditions which is how everyone has answered. In the rawest of terms each head greenkeeper/superintendent has his budget and does the best job he can for the $$$$.. cut his budget it will be a worse product. This whole scenario will filter through everything and many industries will see they did not need so many people, worth ethics may change as the tide shifts to people being grateful for jobs and more willing to alter that contract back to winter 30 hours and summer 50 hours. A year ago it would impossible in the UK, now I think people are more likely to get in the trench and work together.

Adrian

It depends on how one defines worse, worst, good, better, best etc etc and of course, waste.  Someone will always find waste in someone else's budget.  IMO a very real consideration has to be value.  What do the line items deliver and are they worth the expense?  Every membership and super will look at these considerations differently, but the important thing is that they are critically evaluated.  I assume more of this evaluation will take place in the current climate and this has to be good thing in terms of delivering quality course conditions at a value based price.  So an argument can be made that the course may be better for spending less on it if one considers money is a resource that should be spent sparingly, with good reason and with the intention of delivering value.  While money is important, it doesn't necessarily follow that the product is better for spending more money on it. 

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean- I think if you can find a way to save money (a considerable amount) and make the course better (in the opinion of the majority) then with those factors you need to sack the decsion maker who defined the original budget spend for the course.
Largely you give the course manager the budget and he spends it wisely, there will always be things that someone would choose not to do and all of our top 20 priority lists will see some difference especially in the lower pecking order.
Most of the points in this read are very prudent and there are certainly things I have learned that we could implement at our course.
Last year in the summer we never had many free days, almost every day was booked, in 2006 we did 436 golf societies, in 2007 we did 431 and in 2008 we did 352...but the second half was really bad. At feb 28th 2008 we had 190 booked for the 2008 season at Feb 11th 2009 we went through the 100 barrier. I think we are going to trail some 30-40%. We have 4 seperate pro-events with a Euro-pro event, Jamega tour, West Region PGA championship and the Glenmuirpro 's, so we are one of the better clubs our package is coffee, free range balls, 9 hole par 3 course, 1 course lunch 18 holes ..we are £39 midweek. good value...there are some deals where you get that, and some dancing girls for £16. UK golf clubs will be like rats competing for the business.

[Scott Furlong]

I was a little worried Assistant Superintendents were getting the bulls’ eye placed on their back.  That doesn't seem to be the case.  Nevertheless, Assistant are very valuable and if on salary will work the long hours and the hard jobs in hard times because they have a vested interest in the profession.  Cut overtime, Assistants pick up the extra hours……cut employees, Assistant pick up the extra duties.  Every budget can be cut but at what expense?  If you cut labor, detail job will be cut.  The course that fills divots everyday, whips sand off of the greens during play, edge heads once a week, edges paths once a week, etc..will have to prioritize.  Members hopefully will understand the luxury items have to be sacrificed.  Turf quality will never be sacrificed so I don’t think clubs are going to see massive turf death because of a lower budget.  Sometime we are our own worst enemy; always pushing the course to make it healthier, faster and greener.  There are 2 types of Superintendent; those that have lost grass and those that will lose grass.  That being said, we do this to present the members and guest with the best conditions every day of the week.  As the late Dave Mahoney used to say, “all in the name of maintenance”, Siwanoy C.C. 

[JMEvensky]

So no.....long answer short.....the money wasn't wasted before. It was just spent on superfluous "desires" that were probably well-intentioned, thought necessary, useful enough....but definetely not a "must have" addition to keep excellent course conditions.

This sums it up pretty well for me.However,here's the problem,IMO.

During these "fat" years,a lot of people joined clubs and came to see these "desires" as normal/customary.To these people,any lessening of eyewash is tantamount to the golf course maintenance going to hell.

Which gets us back to the definition worse golf course conditions.For "golfers",greens,fairways,and tee boxes are pretty much all that matter.I wonder how much the others will like going back to what's really important to course maintenance.

[Chris Tritabaugh]

During these "fat" years,a lot of people joined clubs and came to see these "desires" as normal/customary.To these people,any lessening of eyewash is tantamount to the golf course maintenance going to hell.

In my opinion times like these will allow us as Superintendents to really show our true ability and skill across a number of areas. Agronomy, personnel management and communication to name a few. I think in a lot of cases we as Superintendents are our own worst enemy. I often hear or read a comment along the lines of, "golfers these days are demanding lower and lower cutting heights". Are they? Do golfers care what height the greens are being cut? Lowering height of cut is not the only way to provide green speed. This is meant as an example, not a general criticism of Superintendents. I simply feel we as Superintendents sometimes are so hung up on perfection; green from wall to wall, disease free playing surfaces, etc., etc that we lose sight of what the golfers are actually seeing. Are these things golfers demand or is it what we think they demand?

From personal experience I can tell you that two years ago our fairways were full of dollar spot. There were places where from over 200 yds away I could see a brown haze to the turf because of all the dollar spot. Not one single solitary player said a single word about it. It was hard for me to look at because I knew a simple spray application would take care of the problem. But it was my first year and I wanted to see how far cultural controls alone would take us. And I  knew was an opportunity to see what the golfers really noticed.

[Joshua Pettit]

Josh,

Great thread.  I would be curious to know if you have been discussing any of these ideas wit your professors at Rutgers, and if so what insight they may have that hasn't already been discussed here?  I would imagine that most American turf schools are having to update their principles and philosophies about greenkeeping in order to appease the increasingly popular ideals of "sustainability"?

One of my favorite practices directly related to cutting maintenance costs on golf courses has to do with embracing the "loop" mowing pattern (as shown below). 

Benefits:
-Less overall labor hours
-Less use of gas
-Less ware and tear on the mowing units
-Less ware and tear on the turf
-WAY MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING! (IMHO)
-In some cases may be beneficial to golfers

[Josh Smith]

Good stuff guys, and let me preface this with, I don't claim to have the ANSWER.

I am planning to read Brad Kleins article now, I was kind of hoping for answers like Grandpa Joe's,  Sean A's, Josh P's, and Chris T's.  Less doomsday and more, "maybe this is a small opportunity for a cultural shift, possibly even making golf more fun, more random, more luck involved, less standardized, more aesthetically pleasing (subjective I know), perhaps more natural". 
 
I personally tend to disagree with most things that standardize golf and attempt to take variety and luck completely out of the game.  Wish like many of you that the equiptment technology could just halt forever or recess.

Maybe it leads to less man hours, sure, but my hope on this thread was to encourage creative ideas that wouldn't affect the enjoyment of the game, and may enhance it.  And not just with maintenance stuff.

I have to confess, often golfing at a course less manicured gives me a nicer feeling deep in the soul.  You know a place where your ball might end up on a gravel road or hard pan dirt every now and then.

Maintenance...

A) Long term using more grasses that can survive long drought periods, (I understand Fescues and Colonial Bents may be nice options for this) Does anyone have some solid data or other suggestions on this to share...

B) Mowing tees once a week, albeit a higher height with a riding mower most often.  (less man hours, less disease, you put your ball on a tee anyways, even on par threes, don't u?) 

C) Never having maintenance rake bunkers (let the golfers do it) except for cleaning up clippings from the occasional bunker trim.


Not claiming to know anything about it, but wouldn't you guess Maidstone operated on a fairly low budget, and had a good deal of handwatering going on in crucial areas, but used very little water on their course before they had any central irrigation system.  Is that a wash on cost,  a lot manhours for handwatering, but no real large irrigated less crucial areas?

Suggestions should pertain to golf in general.  Maybe I should re read Carthage Club profile, Ran probably already set the model there.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()