combining two private courses: keep one private, make other public

[Joe Bausch]

I was having a discussion with a fellow GCAer concerning the health of private golf courses.  He suggested the following which I thought was fairly clever:

In areas that are concentrated with private golf courses, some of which are struggling to keep up their membership, why don't two of these clubs merge, keeping one of the courses private and taking in the other members, and convert the other course to a public layout (and maybe reserve a few tee times each day for the members, and if not used within say 48 hours, release those times back to the general public).

I'm wondering if this has been successfully done anywhere, and if not, why? 

[Kalen Braley]

Joe,

I've always thought this was an interesting model, but I doubt it will ever work here in the states as long as membership costs remain so high...especially if the courses were similar quality.

The Chardonnay in Napa Valley is one of the few that does this that I can think of, but I'm not sure how well its working for them.

[George Pazin]

Aren't the two courses at Pumpkin Ridge that way? One private, one public?

Perhaps John Kirk can share. Too bad JVB isn't on board anymore...

[Niall C]

Joe

While not strictly public, Gullane 2 and 3 get a huge number of visitors while the no. 1 course is mainly for members due to the high visitor fees charged for it. It seems to work very well for everyone.

Niall

[Joe Bausch]

Thanks for the info thus far.

What do you think of this model as a viable solution for two private clubs that aren't thriving?

[Sean_A]

Joe

I think the idea can work if 1) there aren't too many members kept on board AND 2) if dues are cut to reflect that the "members" course will be more crowded AND 3) every effort is made to make a profit from the second course and the members understand it exists to make a profit rather than be an outlet course for the members. 

There are probably quite a few members of middle class clubs that would buy into this plan.

Ciao   

[Jeff_Brauer]

La Costa is private and resort, and they switch the courses every day, with one availalbe to members, the other public.

[Pete_Pittock]

    Pumpkin Ridge always had this model since it opened- one private course (Witch Hollow), one public course (Ghost Creek). Members at Pumpkin Ridge can play either course. Also in the Portland area The Reserve Vineyards has two courses. It is semi-private and the private play is on the North (Cupp) course the first half of the month, and on the South (Fought) course the last half of the month. In the last few years there was an attempt to merge two private courses with adjoining properties (Columibia Edgewater and Riverside) but they remain separate.

   The idea has merit if the playing memberships will not combine to be too big for one course to handle. Clubhouse issues at the "public course" would seem to be a financial sticking point as well as some maintenance issues - do you maintain the public course to the same high standards.  

 

[Sean Leary]

Superstition Mountain east of PHX did this and it works pretty well. They rotate which one is public and which one is private, but it did go bankrupt first.

[Jason Topp]

Random thoughts:

I think it could be a viable solution but the biggest hurdle would be getting memberships to buy in.  Financial necessity could force such a result.

If I were a member of one of the clubs, I would want to sell the course that would be operated publicly in order to avoid being on the hook for having the public course make money. There are plenty of public courses that are struggling out there but that issue varies by location.

I vaguely recall Ventana Canyon in Tucson attempted to operate as one public/one private for awhile and may even do so today.    It always felt a bit strange as a guest of a member or as a public customer.  

I have seen suggestions to merge three clubs into two and then sell the remaining course at the highest possible price.  In order to maximize the value of such a transaction, the sale would likely be for housing purposes in an attractive neighborhood. There would be many hurdles to such an approach but it could yield a powerful financial result.   Potential hurdles I would anticipate include membership support, resolving which course would be shut down, resolving legal and tax issues, and figuring out how to merge membership cultures.  I am sure there are others.

[Matthew Sander]

Most of the examples thus far are for clubs that have always been a single entity, am I right?

Obviously, the challenge for Joe's suggestion (combining two separate clubs) is whether or not the memberships found it to be a somewhat equitable solution. Merging two clubs would create numerous logistical, cultural, and financial issues - but many of those may be palatable if the solution improves the likelihood of the club(s)' success.

It also sounds like Joe is suggesting that one of the courses is permanently private and the other permanently public as opposed to alternating periodically. I know it is only hypothetical so getting bogged down with details is silly, but the membership of the course that is turning public may not feel the equal benefit of the partnership (unless their course is no-good and they feel they won the lottery by merging with a far better club )

P.S. - Jason T. replied as I was typing and made some similar points (much better points actually!)

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I think if both clubs kept weekend and holiday morning tee times to themselves it could work;otherwise, it would be chaos on those days.

The Superstition Mountain in AZ experience is a good thing,at least until more memberships are sold for them to return to private status but the chances are remote that it will happen in the near future.

A club in the Philly area with 2 courses has considered the idea but has it on hold.

[Tyler Kearns]

I believe 13th Beach outside of Melbourne operates along these lines. One course being open to the public, the other private, alternating every day.

TK

[Howard Riefs]

Geneva National in Wisconsin has three courses designed by Palmer, Player and Trevino. Each day it rotates which course is reserved for member play; the other two are open for public play.

[Pete Balzer]

Two Courses I frequent  alternates courses (private/public)

Red Sky

Prairie Club- On paper, a third course will be built, Old School. This has been designated a members only course, unless you shell out the big $, whatever that means

[Paul OConnor]

I believe this is exactly what happened to Idlewild and Ravisloe a couple years ago.  The Rav members went to Idlewild and Ravisloe is public, but under new ownership.  Rav and Idlewild had the advantage of having a similar membership which probably made the merger a little easier.  In my opinion, without the merger, both clubs would have gone under.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Royce Brook in Central, NJ has 2 courses- 1 private and the other semi-private:

http://www.roycebrook.com/Hillsborough-New-Jersey-Golf-Memberships.html

http://www.roycebrook.com/East-Course-Players-Card.html

http://www.roycebrook.com/Hillsborough-New-Jersey-Golf-Rates.html

[JMEvensky]

Assuming member-owned,why bother trying to run a public course?If it was a viable idea,an operator would already have proposed it.

Sell the weaker sister to anybody BUT a golf course operator,take the proceeds and transfer them to the stronger sister as initiation fees.I believe this is allowable under the law.

At the end of the day,you end up with one financially strong club--and one less competitor.

[John Shimony]

Regarding Roycebrooks membership options, I like the thought of no monthly food minimum and carrying one's own bag at anytime.  This type of membership would appeal to me as someone who just wants to golf, period.

[Mike_Trenham]

I was the guy talking with Joe.

Here in Philadelphia we are way short of decent public options and overstocked with privates that need investment to keep-up with expectations that come with high dues.  This is especially true in close vicinity of the city.  Many members have an emotional connection to their clubs and are not going to sell it for housing.

Addtionally rounds are down everywhere in Philly except the absolute elites of elites.  All these claims of not getting a tee time at a private club are bs or the complainers have no perspective.  Rounds would need to grow 50% on average around here to get to the 1990 round counts.  That is pretty consistent at the privates.  My club had 24,000 rounds and was  considered slow paced, now we have 16,000 tops, places that were at 30,000 are at 20,000.  

Two biggest impedements are combining club cultures and which course to close.  

I would hope there would be some easy efficiency gains in staffing and equipment which other than debt service can be the biggest line items.

Okay I will say it "why won't Manny's buy/merge with LuLu?

[Keith Phillips]

Wentworth has 3 18s and they (used to) rotate with one being open to public, one being for four-balls and one being for 2-3 balls - worked very well

Stratton Mountain Country Club in VT has three nines and the 'country club members' have one nine blocked for them in rotating 2+ hour shifts, so you can generally avoid the crowds - the two 'public nines' tend to get a lot of slow resort play, so you can end up bumping into them on your second nine

I think the rotating 18-hole model could be very cost-effective and attractive to prospective members

[Tim Martin]

I was the guy talking with Joe.

Here in Philadelphia we are way short of decent public options and overstocked with privates that need investment to keep-up with expectations that come with high dues.  This is especially true in close vicinity of the city.  Many members have an emotional connection to their clubs and are not going to sell it for housing.

Addtionally rounds are down everywhere in Philly except the absolute elites of elites.  All these claims of not getting a tee time at a private club are bs or the complainers have no perspective.  Rounds would need to grow 50% on average around here to get to the 1990 round counts.  That is pretty consistent at the privates.  My club had 24,000 rounds and was  considered slow paced, now we have 16,000 tops, places that were at 30,000 are at 20,000.  

Two biggest impedements are combining club cultures and which course to close.  

I would hope there would be some easy efficiency gains in staffing and equipment which other than debt service can be the biggest line items.

Okay I will say it "why won't Manny's buy/merge with LuLu?

Mike-Is Manny`s at capacity or do they need members?

[Mike Sweeney]

Okay I will say it "why won't Manny's buy/merge with LuLu?

I personally think it would be a huge mistake for Manny's to buy LuLu, under the proposed model to make LuLu public with some sort of priority for the Manny members.

In my opinion, golf clubs are like schools, some are "for-profit" and some are "not-for-profit" but you can't mix the two models. For years and years, Manny's (at least my old recollection of it) has been run for the benefit of members and set up to make a small profit every year. The members come together to contribute to the club, similar to to "not for profit" school which are always short on money. Being a little short of money creates the community that makes a club or a school special. Now you are asking the Board and management to shift gears and make money.

You can make the argument that "we just want to break even" but it just does not work.

The esteemed Pat Mucci pointed this out to me one time at "The Knoll" a town owned course with Seth Raynor as an architect and George Bahto pouring his heart and soul into it. What is it misssing? When Pat grew up nearby, it had a Greens Chairman, that may have made mistakes, but he obsessed over every detail on the course with the Super and the staff. Now on the public course the manager has to cut corners to make a profit every year and it gets all mixed up and the course suffers.

For the record, I have tried both "for profit" and "not for profit" schools (for my son) and golf clubs, and I would take a Board full of Pat Mucci's with all their flaws   over a for-profit model for both golf clubs and schools every time.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Mike,

LuLu would have been a public course by now IF Upper Dublin Twp. sold their muni- Twining Valley- to developers and used the money and the "Open Space" money they used to gift LuLu to buy LuLu. It would now be one of top munis in the country.

As far as Manny's buying LuLu, perhaps they have their own problems.

Looking at the LuLu "Recap" proposal to their members, it seems to me that LuLu needs more big bucks members to save their club. Gee, since Manny's, LuLu and North Hills are almost adjacent to each other, why not merge all 3 clubs?

[Dan Byrnes]

It was one of the things that was discussed when my club went under.  Another private club in the area considered buying it and merging the two memberships.  While members could play either course as they wished, there course would remain private and mine go public.  In order to do this they required a certain amount of our membership had to join their club but could play all their golf at the public one if they wished.

In end it didn't happen but I can see the plan working with the right location and mix of memberships,


Dan

[Tags:]

Tags: