David Fay on Opening of Masterpieces to Non-Members

[Mark Pearce]

Mark,

If you're a club member in the UK and are coming to the states, you can have your pro write a letter or make a call and get you on all but a handful of courses, particularly if it's not in high season.  If you wish to begrudge the fact that you have to pay a premium greens fee for this service, there are plenty of more reasonable public options available. 

Jud,

I'm very aware of that, thanks, and I don't begrudge paying a premium green fee at all, just as I don't begrudge paying a premium green fee to pay iconic UK courses.  I resent the suggestion that I might begrudge paying such fees since nothing I have posted in thsi thread suggests I would.  Also, I have been very fortunate to receive invitations to play a small number of great private courses in the US and am, and will continue to be, extremely grateful to those individuals who have extended those invitations.

[Terry Lavin]

I haven't read all of the posts in the Occupy Seminole/Merion/Augusta thread, but the bottom line is that there are precious few golf courses here in America where one cannot make arrangements to play as a guest, whether escorted or unescorted.  Some may be extremely difficult, but there are numerous vehicles that one can use to get that sort of access.  If that were not the case, then how could Brent Morrissy have played all of the courses he played on his trip to the States?  Ditto for Brian Sheehy, our London friend who apparently just had a heck of a trip to Long Island.  There is surely a cultural difference between the US and the UK, which makes golf there for guests measurably easier, but one can get on a lot of great courses here if the proper effort is undertaken.  If that weren't the case, this site would probably not even exist, because access is some of the grease in the machinery that is golfclubatlas, make no mistake.

[Mark Pearce]

Mark - you don't understand the United States at all - and that's not a critique.

I don't know about "at all" but I know there's an awful lot I don't understand.  That's why I'm asking.

 I clearly don't understand the UK.  If a private club were to open up its doors to the public, first, it could lose its non-for-profit status.  Second, it would be legally tenuous for it to discriminate.  While we can agree that discrimination based on color, creed, etc are bad, there's also good discrimination when attempting to keep a level of service, standards and conditions. In the US, a lot of these clubs aren't just golf clubs but there are social clubs and "homes away from homes" for many.  Just as you likely don't invite ANYONE into your house, these clubs don't just invite anyone in as they are perceived as their homes (dinner locations, locations for their kids, recreation locations).

All of which is interesting and helps my understanding, thanks.

[Jud_T]

Mark,

If you're a club member in the UK and are coming to the states, you can have your pro write a letter or make a call and get you on all but a handful of courses, particularly if it's not in high season.  If you wish to begrudge the fact that you have to pay a premium greens fee for this service, there are plenty of more reasonable public options available. 

Jud,

I'm very aware of that, thanks, and I don't begrudge paying a premium green fee at all, just as I don't begrudge paying a premium green fee to pay iconic UK courses.  I resent the suggestion that I might begrudge paying such fees since nothing I have posted in thsi thread suggests I would.  Also, I have been very fortunate to receive invitations to play a small number of great private courses in the US and am, and will continue to be, extremely grateful to those individuals who have extended those invitations.

Mark,

the begrudge phrase wasn't directed at you personally but rather at the tone of some posting on this subject.  Sorry for any misunderstanding.

[Terry Lavin]

I can personally vouch for Mr. Pearce, he's a fine gentleman and a most enjoyable presence on the golf course or in the pub.  Like all of the many gca guys that I've hosted over the years (upwards of 50 I would speculate), Mark was ready, willing and able to pay a green fee, but I politely declined, knowing one day I would impose myself upon him at his club.

[Dean Stokes]

Mark, the begrudge remark was aimed at me I presume, but like you I have never said anywhere that I begrudge paying to be able to play a nice private course........just that it would be nice to have the chance.....just as Americans are able to do in foreign lands.....and my tone never got nasty or ugly unlike several on this threads have.....in fact I have not said anything you haven't yet I was basically attacked for having the same principles as you. Thanks.

[Jud_T]

Dean,

A lot of things would be nice:

1.  If clubs did not discriminate based on sex, race or religion
2. If there were no restrictions on when women can play
3.  If all courses offered junior rates to encourage the next generation
4. If junior golf tournaments were held at match play
5. If I could play at any time at any club in GB&I
6.  If clubs didn't overwater.
7.  If most golfers didn't want them to overwater.
8. If cargo shorts were allowed at my club.
9.  If clubs didn't ban Trues.
10. If one could pay a reasonable greens fee and not have a 5 hour death march (wait a minute...)

For better or worse, that's not the world that we live in.

[Mark Chaplin]

Much interesting debate today sadly nothing in green. I guess I'm one of the "Marks" who doesn't know what I'm talking about but am currently in my fifth year as a member of the Board of Directors dealing with such agenda items as shooting cyclists, tagging caddies and aerial surveillance of the putting green to monitor sex predator Labradors, evidence suggests the golden ones are the frisky types.

Mr Pearce maybe you could get some bright green trousers to prove your class at the iconic courses of the North East.

[Mark Pearce]

Mr Chaplin,

Those trousers can only be purchased at one of the South East's finest clubs.  I'm not sure they'll let me in.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So I just used those words, absent any context ?

Given that this isn't Barnyard Atlas.com, yes.

So, Ted Cahill's statement, which I quote, is accurate according to you ?
Namely that Pine Valley, Seminole, Merion, Newport, Winged Foot, Oakmont, etc, etc.. are all about selling real estate and garnering golf cart fees ?
That's the biggest croc of crap I've heard since one of your posts.
Ted stated:
, "In the US, the icon clubs used golf as a measuring stick of wealth and exclusivity.  I believe this attitude contributed to an indifference to the games' progress outside of these exclusive clubs- and allowed golf in the US to be turned into a vehicle to sell real estate and golf cart fees.

There's no other way to describe his decree, but, in the harshest of terms.

You're full of crap/horseshit and I thought that needed to be emphasized.

You know who you remind me of, Patrick?  Otto, from A Fish Called Wanda.

Mark, I don't care who I remind you of.

Go back and reread your own posts, it's apparent that you don't know what you're talking about with reference to this topic and the U.S.

Actually, I do.  It's about the former Executive Director of the USGA saying that private golf clubs in the USA should operate more akin to that of the British model, even though he himself is a member at two such clubs and didn't do anything whilst in his position, and even knowing that the US tax code doesn't allow it, not to mention the fact that prominent club members such as yourself get their Elle Macpherson Intimates G-bangers in a twist at the thought of the great unwashed setting foot on their property, even though you yourself display all the deportment of a drunken wharfie who's just had a vasectomy without anesthetic.

You still don't get it.
In reply # 76 I cited the legal issues, which you conveniently ignore, or are just ignorant about.
The legal issues are a paramount concern and for you to dismiss them as minimal or non-existant shows how little you know about the vicisitudes associated with allowing non-members on the property.

And go back and reread the posts yourself you blustering bully.  My first comment was after you screamed horseshit, not before.
How would you classify Ted Cahill's remark ?

I'll have to defer to your familiarity with pedophiles.
Based on your experience, is that where they hang out ?

A ridiculous inference.

I imply, you infer !

Yes, I want to keep out the "undesirables", those that I can't vet/screen prior to their entry onto the property.

A simple way to do that would be to have a huge sign out the front of the golf club - Patrick Mucci is Playing Here Today.  
I think you would be amazed at the number of people who would make a rapid detour.

I'll guarantee you that I'm more fun to be with and play with than you are.

[David_Elvins]

I'll guarantee you that I'm more fun to be with and play with than you are.

Patrick,

It is always fun to point out when you are wrong in the hope that one day you will admit an error in your writing. 

As one of the few people (perhaps only person) on Earth to have played with you both, I am qualified to say that you are both excellent company on the golf course with nothing seperating the two of you.   Your guarantee counts for little

[JLahrman]

In the US, the icon clubs used golf as a measuring stick of wealth and exclusivity.  I believe this attitude contributed to an indifference to the games' progress outside of these exclusive clubs- and allowed golf in the US to be turned into a vehicle to sell real estate and golf cart fees.  

This statement says that the lack of concern by the elite clubs for the game's development outside their walls allowed the golf industry as a whole - lacking leadership from the elite clubs who could have helped set the bar for golf culture in the US instead of just at their own club - to focus on raising revenue through real estate and cart fees.

In no way do I interpret Ted's statement to imply that the elite clubs were or are trying to sell real estate or collect cart fees themselves.

Ted specifically says that he's describing "the game's progress outside of these exclusive clubs".

I'm not sure how anyone could interpret his statement in any other way.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think Mr Mucci is moving the goalposts now, from the vanishingly unlikely sexual predator taking advantage of access to kids in the club pool, to the more general liability for incidents involving a visitor to the club.

I'm not moving them at all, from the begining I referenced the legal issues.

Most US states impose specific requirements for the tort of negligence:
-Duty
-Breach
-Cause in Fact
-Proximate (Legal) Cause
-Damages  (from http://randazza.wordpress.com)

It appears that no data is kept on the number of cases sought, how many are struck down either prior to or during a trial or how many are settled, and I suspect that is just how the lawyers like it.

Which is why Patrick and others in similar positions see potential law suits everywhere and decide that it just isn't worth the bother. Risk management is hard. However, all of the above criteria apply to the myriad of non-member visitors that come through the gates each day. Delivery drivers, cleaners, garbage collectors etc. could all injure themselves or others on the grounds with the same potential lawsuit liabilities. Do you prevent them from arriving?

When you go through the selection process, you make sure that they're bonded and have the required coverages.
As employees of the vendor, they're covered under their employer's plans, along with statutory state plans.

Or do you look at the criteria with a steely eye and decide that you have done your best to cover them off for everyone on the grounds, whether or not they are members. If you can't do that then your risk profile is already too high.

You can't compare the risks associated with individuals with the risks associated with employees of vendors.

In addition, vendors are on your property for 15 minutes and don't interface with the general staff or members.
Nor do they drink, eat, change and spend 5 or more hours utilizing the facility.

[Ed Brzezowski]

Vendors usually provide a certificate of insurance and a hold harmless clause in the certificate.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JR Potts, I agree with you. You describe the American private golf club culture very well. Personally I prefer the Australian/British model, but that isn't to say that I'd want American private clubs to be forced to do something they don't want to do.

I do find Patrick's xenophobic view of the 'general public' to be quite amusing though.

Chris,

What you and the other cretins don't understand is the vast difference in the legal systems.
Forget the tax ramifications.
If a member slips in the shower and breaks his arm, or slips going down a set of steps from a tee/green and breaks his arm, will he sue the club ?
If a "general public" golfer experiences the same fate, will he sue that club ?
You bet he will.
So why would a club want to expose themselves to the additional liability associated with allowing the general public unfettered access ?

Many clubs ceased hosting "sweet sixteen" parties due to the liabilities associated with them.
And, those clubs employed uniformed police officers from the same town as additional security, and still the problems and liabilities persisted.

You bozos don't have a clue with respect to what you're talking about, never having experienced the problems private clubs face when outsiders, the general public or special event attendees, are granted access.

And since "sexual harrassment" seems to be in the news, you should know that the club's can be liable for the conduct of an outsider, a member of the general public you glorify, should they make inappropriate comments to the wait staff.  Now, I know you'll claim that never happens, but, that's just your ignorance talking.

The sexual predator was just one example, amongst a myriad number of examples, where the clubs exponentially magnify their risks, by admitting the "general public"

You and especially the "Marks" have never sat on a Board of Governor's and had these problems confronting you.
You just rant against the present arrangement with a complete lack of understanding regarding the problems associated with your raison d'etat.

You just want what somebody else has and you want it without paying for it, or you want it at a deep discount.

I'm surprised the "Marks" have had the time to type their responses since I thought they'd be spending all of their time in Zuccotti Park.

Patrick,

To be so bitter about a simple suggestion that private clubs open their doors a little more, you must have been somehow abused yourself given your hysterical fear of the "general public" and the scum that you must keep out.  Why so glum chum?

I'm not bitter in the least, I think that's your hysterical reaction to my points, and very comical to boot.
But, how can I ever forget or thank Valerie ?
She introduced me to a new, wonderful world at a young age.
I went from watching Bugs Bunny and playing basketball one day, to spending as much time as I could with Valerie every day thereafter.

A school teacher/coach like myself with a good bit of experience in the industry as a professional and caddie was treated INCREDIBLY WELL with a simple phone call by the likes of Lahinch, RCD, Swinley, Alwoodley, Kennemer, etc. etc. when I lived overseas - and I am incredibly grateful!  While I prefer that model rather than our own (I do realize most of these clubs need a good deal of public play), I do respect your right as a member of a private club to only allow guests and sparingly at that.  But, I think a lot of us DO WANT TO EXPERIENCE THESE HALLOWED GROUNDS ONCE WITHOUT PAYING A SUM OF MONEY WE CANNOT AFFORD TO DO SO ON AN EVERYDAY BASIS.  I don't see why you consider promoting this idea "class warfare"!?!?  That is paranoia at best.  

Not at all.
And, I'm not promoting "class warfare" I'm just identifying it when I see it.

I cited legitimate examples of aberrant behavior and legal pitfalls.
Why would a club want to expose itself and its membership to that financial risk ?

I'd like to experience Heidi Klum, Katherine Hegl Megan Kelly, Martha McCallum, Savanah Guthrie and others, but does that mean that they're obligated to invite me over for a fling.  I don't understand this "right of entitlement" mentality.

Many, if not most clubs make Monday's Caddy's and local day.
Many, if not most clubs host the local high school teams.
Many, if not most clubs host charity events, open to the public.
Many, if not most clubs host local community events.

Why should any club be obligated to open their doors to the general public, understanding the risks associated with that course of action ?

Just lighten up!  All this name calling gives you 1%'ers a really bad reputation and makes you sound like the stereotype of an arrogant American.

It's not arrogance, it's the reality of the legal system here, which you have no understanding of.
And, what kind of deranged individual would deny me the pleasure of calling misguided posters, morons, cretins and imbiciles ?
Where's your sense of humor ?
Where's your sense of justice ?
 

You CAN'T be THIS angry about anything golf-related given how lucky you have been in this realm of your life.  

I'm not angry in the least, in fact, I'm rather happy, just having returned from a delightful dinner with two brothers and their dad.
I met one of the brothers at a member-guest tournament this summer and we became fast friends.
I've had him and his brother as my guest on several occassions and we're planning on getting together for golf this winter in Florida.
In fact, they surprised me this evening by presenting me with a beautiful gift at dinner, a very nice tie.
So, my mood and spirits are near euphoria, except when the likes of you tries to prevent me from identifying the cretins, morons and imbiciles on this site.  Why do you want to ruin my fun ?

If you think comments on this site can make me angry, then you're not a good judge of character.

Don't tell me you're one of those morons, cretins or imbiciles I was referencing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

This entire discussion really comes down to the difference in golf cultures.  One culture has less exclusivity than the other.  The British Isles certainly have exclusive clubs but they don't have the same 'bar the doors' mentality of American clubs.  They also, I suspect, don't have triple digit initiation fees.  Golf is golf over the pond.  Private golf is status here.

Cliff,

I'm glad you agree that the cultures are different, vastly different, including the legal culture.

That in essence is the problem.  If you allow the huddled masses onto your private enclave you lose that sense of high status and exclusivity.  

Cliff, that's not close to being correct, in the eyes of the law, you're either public or private, you can't be both.

What you and the others don't understand is that most clubs have a provision in their by-laws restricting guest play.
ie, the number of times a guest can play in a month/season.
Why do you suppose that is ?

In the US it's not just about the golf.

What clubs, specifically, are you speaking for ?

BTW..I wonder how many private clubs the ex linebacker coach at Penn State played...

Just watch the number of lawsuits that leap from that unfortunate situation.
Just watch who gets sued, individually and institutionally.

Then, maybe the risk factor will start to dawn on the morons, cretins and imbeciles arguing for an open door policy.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'll guarantee you that I'm more fun to be with and play with than you are.

Patrick,

It is always fun to point out when you are wrong in the hope that one day you will admit an error in your writing. 

As one of the few people (perhaps only person) on Earth to have played with you both, I am qualified to say that you are both excellent company on the golf course with nothing seperating the two of you.   Your guarantee counts for little

David,

What did Mark pay you to make that claim, that's libelous, I'm calling my lawyer in the morning.

When Mark next visits, he'll get to experience the workings of our legal system first hand.

Lastly, you're a terrible judge of character, mine and Mark's, and your assessment should be ignored.

Where is Lord Voldemort when I need him ?

[Sean_A]

At my old club in the UK a long term member brought a suit against the club when he slipped and fell on a hill.  The steps leading up to the tee were removed for cleaning (not sure why) and the member claimed the club (ie him), knew it was a dangerous situation - hence the reason for the steps in the first place.  The club unwisely settled with the member not realizing  insurance company had just recently gone bust.  In the re-negotiation of settlement the member received cash, 10 years free dues and a new collection of golfing clothes.  He claimed his old clothes didn't fit anymore since the lay-off from golf due to the injury.  To pay for suit the club had to issue an assessment to its members (I wonder if BAD MAN chipped in?).  Needless to say this chap was not thought very highly of by a great percentage of the membership. 

So yes, the blame culture exists everywhere in varying degrees - that is what insurance is meant to mitigate. 


Folks, at some point you have to give it a rest.  American memberships have their reasons for not following a model more in line with the GB&I.  Much of that is down to cultural differences.  Legalities and tax are issues which can be overcome, but culture is not something that should be overcome.  More than any nation I know, Americans prize the right to privacy and individual rights.  These are historic rights with origins dating back to reactions to the British Crown.  This isn't going to change in my lifetime.  Most clubs choose to take advantage of allowable outside income by hosting large events - if they care about outside income at all.  There is no question this can be seen as a more efficient way to take in the money.  The system is what it is.  At the end of the day, even though I would hope clubs feel some obligation to to not only preserve historic golfing grounds, but also share those grounds, in fact, memberships have no such obligation.  Essentially, where nobody is harmed, nobody can call foul.

Ciao
Ciao

[Joe Sponcia]

At my old club in the UK a long term member brought a suit against the club when he slipped and fell on a hill.  The steps leading up to the tee were removed for cleaning (not sure why) and the member claimed the club (ie him), knew it was a dangerous situation - hence the reason for the steps in the first place.  The club unwisely settled with the member not realizing  insurance company had just recently gone bust.  In the re-negotiation of settlement the member received cash, 10 years free dues and a new collection of golfing clothes.  He claimed his old clothes didn't fit anymore since the lay-off from golf due to the injury.  To pay for suit the club had to issue an assessment to its members (I wonder if BAD MAN chipped in?).  Needless to say this chap was not thought very highly of by a great percentage of the membership.  

So yes, the blame culture exists everywhere in varying degrees - that is what insurance is meant to mitigate.  


Folks, at some point you have to give it a rest.  American memberships have their reasons for not following a model more in line with the GB&I.  Much of that is down to cultural differences.  Legalities and tax are issues which can be overcome, but culture is not something that should be overcome.  More than any nation I know, Americans prize the right to privacy and individual rights.  These are historic rights with origins dating back to reactions to the British Crown.  This isn't going to change in my lifetime.  Most clubs choose to take advantage of allowable outside income by hosting large events - if they care about outside income at all.  There is no question this can be seen as a more efficient way to take in the money.  The system is what it is.  At the end of the day, even though I would hope clubs feel some obligation to to not only preserve historic golfing grounds, but also share those grounds, in fact, memberships have no such obligation.  Essentially, where nobody is harmed, nobody can call foul.

Ciao
Ciao

Mr. Arble,
I believe you hit the nail rather squarely;  it is a right to privacy issue.
…and as Mr. Mucci has pointed out, to some degree, whether it is acceptable or not, it is a legal issue for some clubs.  

All,

While Mr. Mucci’s pedophile example seems far-fetched, slipping and falling as a guest on the dining room…not as a guest of a member, but one of these “member for a day” passes everyone is clamoring for, is a reality.
 
I guess clubs could, upon entering the hallowed grounds, issue some kind of “we are free from everything you or we do to you while you are here for five hours” document, but then the club wouldn’t really be truly private would it?

Again, in Scotland/England, it is (apparently) customary to call a private club…private, even though, it is semi-private (allowing outside play unsponsored).   Again, that is their prerogative, but I wish for the life of me the gentlemen representing this system would quit saying it is PRIVATE.  Private means we/they pick and choose at their own discretion, by their own discretion, who gets on the property.  Racist/sexist/homophobe/bigoted/silver spoon/Ponzi-schemed rich…doesn’t matter, they pick.  Is it right?  I will say they have THE right.  

Private clubs are not parks where the public owns/pays a piece of the rent, but that seems to be the perception?  The beef then is the 1) lack of (perceived) ability to play a top tier course 2) perceived or real snobbiness 3) perceived unfairness in ranking a course in the top 50 without the public at large getting at least one round per citizen at a price resembling a nicer semi/public course in ones own town provided they don’t show up in tabasco shirts, cargo shorts, green joys, and a miller lite bag.

1)   Again, can be taken care of with a hand-written or typed letter, a friend, or acquaintance who is schmoozed.  If not, then would you really want to play on a course so unwelcoming that you, a friendly and honest guy, couldn’t get on without a good dose of humility?
2)   That is human nature and people have the right to be themselves.  If Mr. Mucci showed up (who I can tell has a great sense of humor) showed up in a seersucker suit/bow tie and loafers no socks to the local dive in Pittsburgh, would the patrons welcome him with open arms, stare, pick a fight, buy him a beer?  It goes both ways.  Most of the wealthy people (I am firmly middle class) I have played with hardly recognize their fortune in being able to play where they play from an architectural standpoint.  Yes, they muddle Ross/Tillinghast over and over again during the round, but could hardly tell you anything more than who designed it.
3)   In America, you have a right to invent something big or work at a factory.  You can get a degree and make 100k or get the same degree and make 50k.  You make your own destiny.  Oftentimes in life, A students teach B students who work for C students.  We have the right to make our life what we want, but not the right (or access) to someone else’s property despite our desire, a ranking in a magazine, architectural value, or because “God made the land, we are simply stewards”.  Part of what makes America great is the right to privacy and free association.  Because a person thinks “A” should happen doesn’t make it so.

[Sean_A]

Joe

The private clubs in the UK are indeed private - privately owned - and that is what private means.  How each private clubs goes about vetting who is allowed on the course is up to them.  Usually, clubs choose those willing to pay the visitor fee, although there are times when even that isn't a requirement. 

Ciao 

[Jud_T]

 We have the right to make our life what we want, but not the right (or access) to someone else’s property despite our desire, a ranking in a magazine, architectural value, or because “God made the land, we are simply stewards”.  Part of what makes America great is the right to privacy and free association.  Because a person thinks “A” should happen doesn’t make it so.

+1

[Cliff Hamm]

BTW..I wonder how many private clubs the ex linebacker coach at Penn State played...

Just watch the number of lawsuits that leap from that unfortunate situation.
Just watch who gets sued, individually and institutionally.

Then, maybe the risk factor will start to dawn on the morons, cretins and imbeciles arguing for an open door policy.

Pat...most private clubs have weddings.  Members invite guests.  Does that not open the club to liability?

What makes you think that a private club member is less apt to be a pedophile than a guest?

Finally, name calling does not become anyone and it is frankly insulting to the retarded and others with disabilities.

Cliff

[Mark Chaplin]

Joe if I play reciprocal golf which I've done a number of times this year and on world top 100 courses I pay no fee whatsoever. That's what we call reciprocal not somewhere your pro can call and you still pay $200+.

Semi private clubs tend to be owned by an individual have members but allow anyone to play. Private clubs in the UK are not on that model.

We are divided by a common language.

[Pete Lavallee]

Many, if not most clubs make Monday's Caddy's and local day.
Many, if not most clubs host the local high school teams.
Many, if not most clubs host charity events, open to the public.
Many, if not most clubs host local community events.

How are the legal ramifications of these actions any different from unescorted guests?

[Dean Stokes]

Many, if not most clubs make Monday's Caddy's and local day.
Many, if not most clubs host the local high school teams.
Many, if not most clubs host charity events, open to the public.
Many, if not most clubs host local community events.

How are the legal ramifications of these actions any different from unescorted guests?

Although i agree with Pat on many things, i too was going to question this. I can only presume that the outside entities have their own insurance. Every year we play many county amateur association events at various 'high end' private clubs......we park our own cars, ride carts and some guys even swill a few beers!!!!! Does the county association have its own insurance or are the clubs just taking a huge risk of being sued in the event one of us gets injured and hits on the waitress?