Can we lower the cost of playing golf?

[Jason Thurman]

Also, the Parks and Rec page linked above is just a collection of numbers but some are very interesting. There's been a 26% decrease in rounds played on "value courses" since 1987 (value courses are defined as those with green fees below $40). One conclusion you could draw, based on that number, is that golfers simply don't want "inexpensive golf" as much as we might think.

[jeffwarne]

Why on earth if we're discussing affordable golf, would we limit the discussion to private courses?
First call back on 18 privately owned 18 hole pubic?
LESS than $300000,.so yes, there are metro ny courses under 825 k
and Pat you said NO COURSE would be under 825
Plenty of publics are, or they're NLE


Jeff,

Courses owned by municipalities have to be excluded because I don't believe that they pay property taxes, which as Matt Day pointed out, is a significant number.

In addition, I believe their operating budgets may be subsidized by the taxpayer and there may be a significant difference in municipal vs private accounting.

Which part of the phrase I used "privately owned" do you not grasp?
Just got my second call back ........privately owned 18 holer semi private under 825k again, this time by only a mere $500000.
Mike Young's got this nailed.

Pat,
No one's saying that you don't have tremendous board experience, it's just that that has nothing to do with affordable golf.
I thought it might have some relevance, until I heard you threw out your comment to Mike that NO course in the MET area had a budget under 825k.

and even if we were talking municipal golf courses, their maintenance budgets are what they are, regardless of whether they pay taxes or not.
I mentioned 2 earlier that I know well that are comfortably under $150,000 but they're 9 holes.

[JLahrman]

Also, the Parks and Rec page linked above is just a collection of numbers but some are very interesting. There's been a 26% decrease in rounds played on "value courses" since 1987 (value courses are defined as those with green fees below $40). One conclusion you could draw, based on that number, is that golfers simply don't want "inexpensive golf" as much as we might think.

Is that $40 indexed to inflation? There are courses that had greens fees under $40 in 1987 that are above $40 now. According to the CPI, $40 in 2010 had the same buying power as $21 in 1987.

[Brent Hutto]

Also, the Parks and Rec page linked above is just a collection of numbers but some are very interesting. There's been a 26% decrease in rounds played on "value courses" since 1987 (value courses are defined as those with green fees below $40). One conclusion you could draw, based on that number, is that golfers simply don't want "inexpensive golf" as much as we might think.

Well the private course I play on has seen much more than a 26% decrease in rounds played just in the past four years. Probably closer to twice that much.

I personally have not been to any course in the past several years, public or private or resort, where the rounds played are not down severely.

[Kyle Harris]

I haven't read through this massive thread but lowering the cost of golf, a luxury good, is quite simple.

Step 1: Never pay more than $75 for a round.

Step 2: See Step 1.

So long as the market enables a high price, such will be the price.

[Jud_T]

Kyle,

How am I going to continue to notch my belt of top 100 courses then?   

[Sean_A]

I haven't read through this massive thread but lowering the cost of golf, a luxury good, is quite simple.

Step 1: Never pay more than $75 for a round.

Step 2: See Step 1.

So long as the market enables a high price, such will be the price.

Why not $100 or $50? 

The bottom line is (given that golf has to cost something) golf is as cheap as folks want it to be.  At the low end, is there a better place than the US?  I know the UK can't touch the US for depth of quality at cheap prices.  Over here, cheap is £30 ($45-$50).  Where the US suffers is in the moderate to expensive range because of the private club system.  So its an issue of access rather than quality or depth of quality.  The last few decades have gone a long way to fixing this problem.  I reckon folks are spolied by the last 25 years.  Now golfers want $100 quality for $50.  If it doesn't readily exist they complain about the price of golf rather than sticking with the cheap courses.

Ciao 

[Kyle Harris]

I haven't read through this massive thread but lowering the cost of golf, a luxury good, is quite simple.

Step 1: Never pay more than $75 for a round.

Step 2: See Step 1.

So long as the market enables a high price, such will be the price.

Why not $100 or $50? 

The bottom line is (given that golf has to cost something) golf is as cheap as folks want it to be.  At the low end, is there a better place than the US?  I know the UK can't touch the US for depth of quality at cheap prices.  Over here, cheap is £30 ($45-$50).  Where the US suffers is in the moderate to expensive range because of the private club system.  So its an issue of access rather than quality or depth of quality.  The last few decades have gone a long way to fixing this problem.  I reckon folks are spolied by the last 25 years.  Now golfers want $100 quality for $50.  If it doesn't readily exist they complain about the price of golf rather than sticking with the cheap courses.

Ciao 

Just insert what you feel is afforadable. For me, the cap is $75.

[Jason Thurman]

Also, the Parks and Rec page linked above is just a collection of numbers but some are very interesting. There's been a 26% decrease in rounds played on "value courses" since 1987 (value courses are defined as those with green fees below $40). One conclusion you could draw, based on that number, is that golfers simply don't want "inexpensive golf" as much as we might think.

Well the private course I play on has seen much more than a 26% decrease in rounds played just in the past four years. Probably closer to twice that much.

I personally have not been to any course in the past several years, public or private or resort, where the rounds played are not down severely.

The number cited in the link also mentions that the 26% decline in rounds at "value" courses is the steepest decline in the industry. Your experience on your course is anecdotal, though it certainly is not alone. It's true that rounds are down everywhere (also shown in those numbers), but drilling into them a little deeper reveals actual trends.

JLahrman, I assume they are but I can't find confirmation of that. My assumption is based on the way that statistic is worded, as it sounds like they only surveyed courses whose current green fee is below $40.

I’m with Sean. The issue isn’t a lack of cheap golf. It’s much deeper than that.

[Doug Siebert]

Who says golf clubs need to turn a profit for the golf industry, in general, to be sustainable?

Isn't it the case that 90% of businesses fail?  What's the failure rate for restaurants and bars?  Hasn't it always been that high?  Has that high failure rate ever prevented you (as a customer) from having a wide variety of drinking and dining establishments from which to choose?  Has the business failure rate ever denied you a restaurant meal or cold beer when you wanted one?

It seems to me that there's a pretty large assumption missing in all these "golf needs to run in the black" arguments - and that assumption is that people are unwilling to run the risk of failure or run in the red.   Can anybody here prove that?  

An industry can succeed even with a high failure/turnover rate (just line restaurants and bars), and frankly I'm not sure golf is any different -  so I'm not sure I'm buying this assumption that everybody in golf needs to turn a profit. 

They don't, but just like if your favorite restaurant goes bankrupt because it can't turn a profit, you might not like it if your favorite course goes under and is sold for a housing development.

Whether a course can meet its debt service and whether it can meet its cost of operation are two different things, but if it fails due to the latter, unless there is some obvious mismanagement, there's no reason to suspect that even if it acquired for $0 in bankruptcy that the new owner will do any better.  Maybe that doesn't matter if he's willing to lose money for 5-10 years before he gives up and the next guy tries, but if they try to make ends meet by cutting back on maintenance, and cut back in the wrong places it might not be the same course you liked so much.  Much like if your favorite restaurant closed and was replaced by a Chuck-E-Cheese.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Also, the Parks and Rec page linked above is just a collection of numbers but some are very interesting. There's been a 26% decrease in rounds played on "value courses" since 1987 (value courses are defined as those with green fees below $40). One conclusion you could draw, based on that number, is that golfers simply don't want "inexpensive golf" as much as we might think.

Well the private course I play on has seen much more than a 26% decrease in rounds played just in the past four years. Probably closer to twice that much.

I personally have not been to any course in the past several years, public or private or resort, where the rounds played are not down severely.

Brent,

That's very true, but the problem is that there's been little or no decrease in expenses.
And, as Matt Day pointed out, expenses continue to go higher even though rounds played and revenue declines.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Which part of the phrase I used "privately owned" do you not grasp?
Just got my second call back ........privately owned 18 holer semi private under 825k again, this time by only a mere $500000.
Mike Young's got this nailed.

Identify the club and the source of the financial data.
Anyone can make a claim.

No one's saying that you don't have tremendous board experience, it's just that that has nothing to do with affordable golf.

I thought it might have some relevance, until I heard you threw out your comment to Mike that NO course in the MET area had a budget under 825k.

Jeff, I'd like to know the club, non-municipal, in the NYC Met area, that has a budget of less than 825K
If there are any, they shouldn't be hard to identify.
And, it shouldn't be difficult to verify the source.
As I said, anyone can make a claim, but, can it be substantiated with reliable sources ?

and even if we were talking municipal golf courses, their maintenance budgets are what they are, regardless of whether they pay taxes or not.
I mentioned 2 earlier that I know well that are comfortably under $150,000 but they're 9 holes.

It does matter if they don't pay taxes and don't have debt associated with acquisition costs.

You want to be able to demonstrate an apples to apples comparison

[Joe_Tucholski]

An article in today's Wall Street Journal, centered around courses in the Phoenix/Scottsdale area, indicated that the cost of water has risen by 40 % in the last five (5) years.

The article also stated that 65 % to 85 % of the revenue courses derive is obtained in the winter season when golfers from colder climates visit.

The article indicated that the cost of seed for overseeding purposes can cost $ 100,000  and a local Superintendent indicated that total overseeding costs can run as high as $ 350,000 to $ 500,000 annually.

The gist of the article was that overseeding may be on its way out for public and private courses due to cost.

Pat I read that article over the weekend and thought it was pretty interesting.  Here's the link to the full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981504578179511085429422.html?mod=WSJ_LifeStyle_Lifestyle_5
I'm spending the holidays with my wife in FL and while she was at work I played a round today.  The course certainly falls in the affordable category as it cost me $9.50 to play 18 holes at their twilight rate.  The course overseeds their fairways and I have no idea why.  I thought the condition of the rough was signifcantly better than the overseeded fairways.

[Joe_Tucholski]

Also, the Parks and Rec page linked above is just a collection of numbers but some are very interesting. There's been a 26% decrease in rounds played on "value courses" since 1987 (value courses are defined as those with green fees below $40). One conclusion you could draw, based on that number, is that golfers simply don't want "inexpensive golf" as much as we might think.

Jason that is one conclusion you could draw...another would be those with the least disposable income to spend on golf (a luxury good) play the lowest cost courses and the recession has impacted the lower income brackets the most.