News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Steve Kline

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #25 on: May 03, 2011, 03:14:26 PM »
I just can't understand a member not being willing to buy a pint of beer a week at his club.  To me this is pathetic.

Ciao

I don't drink much of anything other than water. Of the two clubs I have been a member at the food was mediocre at best and the service was down right bad. The menu is pretty limited at most clubs. Also, on the rare chance that my wife and I get to go out, we are going to a play or movie and the club is not convenient to either of those. Then there is the dress code. Then there the members don't like your noisy kid. And, perhaps we are in the mood for Thai, sushi or some other ethnic food that the club can't offer. Maybe we only get out to eat 1-3 times a month. There is simply too much competition for the vast majority of clubs to make a food operation work.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #26 on: May 03, 2011, 03:22:56 PM »
Sean,

I certainly don't have a problem buying a pint (or 12) at my club on a regular basis.  I just don't need to be told that I have to, or else...
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #27 on: May 03, 2011, 03:30:50 PM »
Sean,

I certainly don't have a problem buying a pint (or 12) at my club on a regular basis.  I just don't need to be told that I have to, or else...

"Or else" you pay a minimum to help support the bar and restaurant. Your club has to buy food and hire support staff in case you do show up...
It is not a big deal, if you choose to eat out at places other than your own club and don't meet your minimum, you just write a check at the end of the year. It is completely fair.

By the way, some clubs EXCLUDE booze from the minimum...so you would REALLY have a problem at those clubs...

J Sadowsky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #28 on: May 03, 2011, 03:37:52 PM »
The logical answer is that it depends on your age/how long you plan on staying at a club.  If you are young you desire low dues with a higher initiation fee.  If you are older the opposite. 

I am surprised that golf communities aimed at retirees in the south have not gone this route.  If I join at 70 seems I should have a lower initiation fee than if I join at 55.

I wonder how much of this is simply accumulated wealth.  A retiree has had a lifetime to amass his wealth, and is likely done on major expenses (primarily, kids).  Notwithstanding the desire to leave some of your wealth to your kids, you can't take it with you.

Meanwhile, a younger person, even one in financial health, still has the uncertainty of potential job or investment loss, against a much longer timeframe and list of potential expenses.  Plus, the younger person has less amassed wealth. 

It's counterintuitive, but I think an older person is more, not less, likely to be attracted to high initiation-low dues than a younger person.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #29 on: May 03, 2011, 03:42:09 PM »
While playing a well-regarded equity club recently, my host mentioned that they had a rather large waiting list of members wishing to sell their memberships.  Apparently, the club was looking at ways to boost demand- it had only one new member in the prior year- and lowering the initiation fee was the way they were heading.  Unfortunately, the club imposes a sizable transfer fee ($25k-$30k), which, in effect, sets a floor on the "market" price that's not often cleared.

What struck me most, however, is that he thought there should be some consideration given to members with financial hardships, say, widows, who have a hard time paying the $600-$700 monthly dues and are legally on the hook until their membership can be sold.  It never occured to me that a member couldn't just walk his membership and be absolved of any future liability for dues and assessments.

It seems to me that with the long term economy not showing much promise for disposable income, taking on the financial obligation of an equity membership in all but the top clubs is very risky.  And with modern careers often requiring numerous changes, perhaps this model of private clubs requires a major adjustment.

But with an abundance of quality courses with relatively low green fees, high monthly dues as an option are constrained.    Apparently Roger has found a sweet spot.  I wonder how much of an exception the Carolina Club represents.

  

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #30 on: May 03, 2011, 03:44:08 PM »
Bill,

It goes back to the point of the hidden fees etc.  If the true monthly break/even nut is $1200/month and structuring it all-in vs. a bunch of hidden fees will scare off members, then there is a something rotten in Denmark.  I also don't want people standing around waiting for a tip at every turn either.  It's unpleasant.  Just show me the all-in cost.  P.S.  My club always seems to have a burger on the grill or a freshly made cherry chicken salad sandwich and a cold beer at the ready without a food minimum.  Of course the clubhouse isn't a McMansion by a hack builder on acid, they're not holding an Easter Egg hunt with Paris Hilton's new Faberge Egg line and handing out doggy bags for Boeuf Wellington in tin foil packages in the shape of an ostrich.... 8)
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #31 on: May 03, 2011, 03:47:59 PM »
I think F & B minimums are a total liberty. What if you dont drink?

The problem you have when you mandate stuff is that it does not suit some people so you make it unattractive to them.

Your American model will work less and less with the passage of time. WHY WHY WHY must you have a caddie? As a Brit onlooking you just seem to want to have a snobotorium. Golf membership is about playing golf to most people, if you want add ons they are merely pay as go extras. Your USA model needs to move more toward the UK one but the UK one is moving also. I lost two members this week because they do not like seeing people wear hats in the clubhouse and mobile phones on the course.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #32 on: May 03, 2011, 03:53:33 PM »
Jud,
They are NOT hidden fees . Minimums are simply a mechanism to encourage members to spend a portion of their outside dining expenses at the club.

I am not of fan of big bar and restaurant operations, but if I join a club that has them, I have to be prepared to support it. And a club with 300-400 members (including house menbers, perhaps) needs to have its members use the restaurant or it simply will not work.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 03:56:30 PM by Bill Brightly »

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #33 on: May 03, 2011, 03:54:33 PM »


It's counterintuitive, but I think an older person is more, not less, likely to be attracted to high initiation-low dues than a younger person.

Talk to operators of golf courses catering to retirees.  For the most part, older folks become more "thrifty" as they approach the end.  Add the negative returns after inflation and taxes on low-risk investments and the normal uncertainty that comes with age gets worse.

BTW, as it was explained to me, a young man can amortize a $50,000 initiation fee over a long lifetime.  Us old guys are mostly depreciated, and we're thinking about leaving our affairs in order.

In the event that current trends can be arrested and eventually reversed- and assumption I am not able to make- the one saving grace for the heirs of the baby boomers is that they might be left with enough loot to start paying for what the geezers forced on them.  Of course, since taxing the "rich" at 100% won't bring current expenditures into balance even on a static basis (i.e. that the higher taxes won't affect job creation and investment), taxing wealth can't be far down the road.  But I digress.    

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #34 on: May 03, 2011, 03:57:17 PM »
Bill,

If the food/service/atmosphere/location ain't good enough so that the F&B will not work without a minimum, then there is something rotten in Denmark...
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

C. Squier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #35 on: May 03, 2011, 04:06:29 PM »
Bill,

If the food/service/atmosphere/location ain't good enough so that the F&B will not work without a minimum, then there is something rotten in Denmark...

Professor,

That works well in theory, but reality says different.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #36 on: May 03, 2011, 04:11:17 PM »
Why?  The membership/owner's wife/board etc. wants a full service restaurant/bar/wait staff but are unwilling to pay for it unless forced to do so?
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #37 on: May 03, 2011, 04:16:13 PM »
Bill,

If the food/service/atmosphere/location ain't good enough so that the F&B will not work without a minimum, then there is something rotten in Denmark...

Jud,

I don't know you, but I'll guess that you are young and have never served on a board at a club.

I live in North Jersey, and there are at least 50 EXCELLENT restaurants within 15 minutes of my club, to say nothing of Manhattan.. Our food is good, but not great, and I can say the same about every other country club in the area. The minimum just reminds members that they need to use the club. I never have a problem meeting minimum and most members do not, as well. A handful write out checks at the end of the year, and that is their choice. If you are in a position to afford a club, you are probably also in a position to eat out once or twice a week, and  the minimum just encourages you to spend some of that money at the club. And if you don't like that, you probably chose the wrong club. (Of course, if the food sucks, you get involved and fix that...)
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 04:28:17 PM by Bill Brightly »

Brent Hutto

Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #38 on: May 03, 2011, 04:17:46 PM »
Jud,

Think of it as an assessment that recurs each month. The membership (presumably) requires the club to operate a money-losing F&B concern. In order to pay for this requirement they assess each member who fails to heavily use that "service" some amount each month or each year.

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #39 on: May 03, 2011, 04:29:22 PM »
I'm not so young, but I haven't served on a club board.  If you saw my dashing figure you'd realize that I'm well aware of the culinary offerings in Manhattan.  ;)  So why does the membership require a full service food/bev operation?  Because it's always had one?  Because it helps pay for a larger clubhouse/ facilities than the club really needs these days? Because everyone wants their kids to have a place to have their wedding/sweet sixteen/confirmation/bar mitzvah?  I get it, I just don't get it.  My old club was run by a rich guy with an iron fist.  His wife wanted a full service club so he paid for a $6mm clubhouse with full banquet facilities.  They had a french chef on staff who obviously wasn't good enough to get a job at a real french restaurant and a full wait staff, but only served dinner on weekends during the season.  There wasn't a food minimum but the dues got to the choking point relative to the quality of the course/location for many when the proverbial sh*t hit the fan in '08. 
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Brent Hutto

Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #40 on: May 03, 2011, 04:29:38 PM »
The minimum just reminds members that they need to use the club.

I'd say "...need to pay for the club". If they needed to use it they would. Obviously they don't or they wouldn't owe money on their minimum at the end of the year.

In an experiment that fortunately ended after a year or two, my club was until recently charging each member monthly for one round of cart fee whether they ever used a cart or not. So we had a dining minimum (even for those who don't dine there) and a cart minimum (even for those who don't ride a cart). Both were based on the same specious reasoning, that "not enough members" dine or ride in carts therefore a steady stream of income is needed to make the books balance.

It's a lame line of argument proposing that members of the club are not capable of ascertaining their own needs and therefore must have their monthly bill structured in a way that goads them into doing what they really "need" to be doing. My experience is limited to just the one country club but I've observed no effect on behavior whatsoever. It brings in money, yes. It does not redefine my "needs" or those of anyone I know.

The whole things come down to people who want not only to eat at the club themselves but to somehow gain leverage to force other members to do so as well. Or people who want not only to ride in a golf cart but to induce other members into using carts as well. All in the interest of alleviating some small part of the cost to themselves by spreading it around to people with no use for such "services".

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #41 on: May 03, 2011, 04:31:29 PM »


Jud,

I don't know you, but I'll guess that you are young and have never served on a board at a club.



+1000.

But,he's still right.

Those of us who do serve or have seved on Boards may start to get Stockholm Syndrome.We keep telling the members that their food minimum is a good thing if they'd just realize it.Pretty soon,we start to believe it.

But,I think a lot of the problems at clubs are just a result of trying to fix things which are a result of trying to fix other things,etc.

The ideal situation is dividing up the expenses equally every 31 December.The further a club gets away from the ideal,the more "fixes" are required.And each fix pisses somebody off.

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #42 on: May 03, 2011, 04:40:37 PM »
The minimum just reminds members that they need to use the club.

I'd say "...need to pay for the club". If they needed to use it they would. Obviously they don't or they wouldn't owe money on their minimum at the end of the year.

In an experiment that fortunately ended after a year or two, my club was until recently charging each member monthly for one round of cart fee whether they ever used a cart or not. So we had a dining minimum (even for those who don't dine there) and a cart minimum (even for those who don't ride a cart). Both were based on the same specious reasoning, that "not enough members" dine or ride in carts therefore a steady stream of income is needed to make the books balance.

It's a lame line of argument proposing that members of the club are not capable of ascertaining their own needs and therefore must have their monthly bill structured in a way that goads them into doing what they really "need" to be doing. My experience is limited to just the one country club but I've observed no effect on behavior whatsoever. It brings in money, yes. It does not redefine my "needs" or those of anyone I know.

The whole things come down to people who want not only to eat at the club themselves but to somehow gain leverage to force other members to do so as well. Or people who want not only to ride in a golf cart but to induce other members into using carts as well. All in the interest of alleviating some small part of the cost to themselves by spreading it around to people with no use for such "services".

OK, I retract the work "need" and replace it with "should" use the club and stand by every word that I have written.

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #43 on: May 03, 2011, 04:41:43 PM »
Surely the ideal situation is that everyone pays for what they use but if you have to set a minimum spend, why not allow it to spent either on carts or on the range or by bringing guests to golf or by eating or drinking or by using the pool with your family.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #44 on: May 03, 2011, 04:55:11 PM »
I'm not so young, but I haven't served on a club board.  If you saw my dashing figure you'd realize that I'm well aware of the culinary offerings in Manhattan.  ;)  So why does the membership require a full service food/bev operation?  Because it's always had one?  Because it helps pay for a larger clubhouse/ facilities than the club really needs these days? Because everyone wants their kids to have a place to have their wedding/sweet sixteen/confirmation/bar mitzvah?  I get it, I just don't get it.  My old club was run by a rich guy with an iron fist.  His wife wanted a full service club so he paid for a $6mm clubhouse with full banquet facilities.  They had a french chef on staff who obviously wasn't good enough to get a job at a real french restaurant and a full wait staff, but only served dinner on weekends during the season.  There wasn't a food minimum but the dues got to the choking point relative to the quality of the course/location for many when the proverbial sh*t hit the fan in '08.  

Jud,

I truly understand what you are saying. Let me try to explain it another way. Let's say you, me and 198 other guys (all with money) decide we want to start a brand new country club tomorrow. One of the first things we have to decide is what we are going to do about food. Humor me and say that you want a full service bar/restaurant/banquet hall model, ok? Now once we decide on that, we damn well better have good, fresh food every night, and a full staff to cook it and serve it, whether or not you, me and our friends show up to eat there EVERY night that we are open. We recognize that we have STIFF competition from nearby restaurants, and our wives are gonna want to eat at every damn new place their friends told them about...So how do we ensure a flow of paying customers to give this model a chance of breaking even? We establish minimums! And that is how almost every old line country club operates in the US. (A VERY small number of elite clubs simply split up the costs at the end of the year.)The huge club houses have already been built. The dining operations are in full swing, whether or not they actually break even...and it is next to impossible to go back. Take away the minimums and all you do is sink these restaurant operations further into the hole. Scale back on the dining options and you lose every house member and probably a significant number of the full members.

My guess is the club that you and I form will only have burgers and beer,  one helluva golf course, a modest locker room,  and no place to hold weddings. That is fine, but that is NOT the model in place at the vast majority of private clubs in the US, so pick your club accordingly.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 05:01:11 PM by Bill Brightly »

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #45 on: May 03, 2011, 05:03:47 PM »
got it.  guess that's why I joined the latter... :)
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Dan Byrnes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #46 on: May 03, 2011, 05:19:24 PM »
When I was President of my club, I dropped the food minimum.  This was done because our margins on that spending were too low.  I needed to raise more revenue so I raised dues some and dropped the food minimum.  For my club the end result was a positive one.  The club got more net revenue and the restaurant was forced to cater more towards the customers who wanted to use instead of being forced to and focus more on its outside business.  The restaurant became a bit more lean and ended with better margins.  Most members were happy although the fine dining crowd wasn't.  They were used to a menu containing too many items to be cost efficient and staffing always on the stand by in case they wanted to show up.

In the end the membership didn't want to subsidize member fine dining.

As far as initiations they are the best way for a club to pay for additional projects and keep a member involved.  Dues should be kept low as possible as I believe occasional assessments should pay for upgrades and refurbishments.

The competition for members in my area has pretty much eliminated Initiation Fees in my area as the products are somewhat generic and its hard to compete against clubs that do not have an initiation.  This is not a good thing!
 
Form my experience clubs are no longer about being part of a community but looked upon like a consumer good, which also doesn't bode well for clubs in the future.  Certainly there are well heeled places that this isn't a factor but its certainly becoming more and more of one.

Dan

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #47 on: May 03, 2011, 05:20:10 PM »
I have to agree on the food minimums and the ticky-tacky charges.  They really turned me off of some local clubs, who were charging extra for GHIN membership, lockers, and club storage.  Hmm, should I spend $80 to have my clubs stored? leads to the question "Why am I being asked if $80 is fair value for club storage?"

On the food charges, I wouldn't mind a minimum but I expect good value, and $8 kids plates did not represent value.  The thought of my kids running up $500-$1,000/month on burgers at the pool was over the top.

David-I don`t know how old your children are but I would think you would have some oversight in regard to their spending. As far as $8 kids plates is that expensive? As far as GHIN goes your local golf association does not provide that to the member clubs for free. Is $25 expensive? Is $80 a lot for the convenience of storing your clubs for a season? You are griping about small potato issues. Initiation fees and assessments are what need to be vetted before jumping in head first.

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #48 on: May 03, 2011, 05:29:14 PM »
When I was President of my club, I dropped the food minimum.  This was done because our margins on that spending were too low.  I needed to raise more revenue so I raised dues some and dropped the food minimum.  For my club the end result was a positive one.  The club got more net revenue and the restaurant was forced to cater more towards the customers who wanted to use instead of being forced to and focus more on its outside business.  The restaurant became a bit more lean and ended with better margins.  Most members were happy although the fine dining crowd wasn't.  They were used to a menu containing too many items to be cost efficient and staffing always on the stand by in case they wanted to show up.

In the end the membership didn't want to subsidize member fine dining.

As far as initiations they are the best way for a club to pay for additional projects and keep a member involved.  Dues should be kept low as possible as I believe occasional assessments should pay for upgrades and refurbishments.

The competition for members in my area has pretty much eliminated Initiation Fees in my area as the products are somewhat generic and its hard to compete against clubs that do not have an initiation.  This is not a good thing!
 
Form my experience clubs are no longer about being part of a community but looked upon like a consumer good, which also doesn't bode well for clubs in the future.  Certainly there are well heeled places that this isn't a factor but its certainly becoming more and more of one.

Dan

I agree with 100% of your assessment--no pun intended.

Can I ask what part of the world you're in?

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Dues vs. Fees - which is more important to lower?
« Reply #49 on: May 03, 2011, 05:43:17 PM »
A cart minimum is grotesque.
"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back