[Mike_Young]

I've noticed several of the larger management companies are beginning to advertise that they are starting "private club" divisions.  Over the last 30 years I've also noticed how much more expensive it is to gain the same results thru a board than an individual.  While there may also be a few clubs operated via the board method I think this economy is going to eliminate this method as the main method of private club operation.  JMO.

[Mike Sweeney]

 While there may also be a few clubs operated via the board method I think this economy is going to eliminate this method as the main method of private club operation.

I think the economy is one thing, and economics will certainly drive decisions for management styles. However, as Boards tend to be older, I see other problems too with integrating the next generation. Here is one example of how a Board is completely out of touch with the next generation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/new-york-athletic-club-brawl-fight-wall-street-jackass_n_1449912.html

O'Neill also emphasized that members should remain mum on the melee's details. "Similarly, the distribution of via the various social media of photographs and letters that are detrimental to the Club and its reputation will not be tolerated."

They started to let in younger members who did not embrace "the vibe" of the place and then to think you can put out a mailed letter a week letter to control the damage is pointless in this era of instant communications.

I left a few years ago and the NYAC is still a great place as they sponsor dozens of Olympic athletes and in this an Olympic year, you hear very little about those stories. Perhaps a professional management company could adjust? I don't know, but the Board method certainly needs to figure out how to integrate the next generation.

[David_Tepper]

I know of a San Francisco Bay Area member-owned/equity club that brought in Troon Golf to manage the club for them last fall.

http://www.troongolf.com/golf-course-management-services.html

[Steve_ Shaffer]

See the lenghty LuLu thread:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,39821.0.html

And now this one:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,52072.0.html

[Steve Pozaric]

I agree with Mike S that continuing to integrate new members is the key.  Coming off a 4 year term, including a year as president, I will admit it was frustrating at times  to have a member say they weren't interested in "working" at the CC  and declining to step up and run for the board or serve on a committee.  I understand it, but still...  

I would be interested to hear from Mike Y why he thinks the Neconomy will eliminate member boards.  Our club might not be the most efficient, but it seems the fee someone like Troon would demand could eat up a lot of any benefits.

[Jason Hines]

My prior club is now being run by Billy Casper golf, the original and founding members from the 60’s wanted to cash out while the club was still in the black.

I think it goes back to what we have discussed here in the past, the 60-80 work week, select soccer and baseball practice, spouse working, gym membership, not to mention that the gym and the neighborhood association both have pools, etc. 

My hope is that a more pure form of a “golf club” is going to emerge over time.  That focus might be your differentiator in the market.

[Bill_McBride]

 While there may also be a few clubs operated via the board method I think this economy is going to eliminate this method as the main method of private club operation.

I think the economy is one thing, and economics will certainly drive decisions for management styles. However, as Boards tend to be older, I see other problems too with integrating the next generation. Here is one example of how a Board is completely out of touch with the next generation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/new-york-athletic-club-brawl-fight-wall-street-jackass_n_1449912.html

O'Neill also emphasized that members should remain mum on the melee's details. "Similarly, the distribution of via the various social media of photographs and letters that are detrimental to the Club and its reputation will not be tolerated."

They started to let in younger members who did not embrace "the vibe" of the place and then to think you can put out a mailed letter a week letter to control the damage is pointless in this era of instant communications.

I left a few years ago and the NYAC is still a great place as they sponsor dozens of Olympic athletes and in this an Olympic year, you hear very little about those stories. Perhaps a professional management company could adjust? I don't know, but the Board method certainly needs to figure out how to integrate the next generation.

Mike, I am pleased to report that Tiger B and I did not get into any fights when you set us up to stay there a few years ago.   In fact, our decorum was quite decorous.

[Mike_Young]

I would be interested to hear from Mike Y why he thinks the Neconomy will eliminate member boards.  Our club might not be the most efficient, but it seems the fee someone like Troon would demand could eat up a lot of any benefits.

Steve,
I don't claim to have some magical answer and I also don't think the fee itself would be a shows topper.  I think that most boards just don't have the time to know how to argue with the employees and therefore they usually end up discussing options and going with the employees recommendation.  Just read the various trade journals where they write the articles telling supts or golf pros how to convince a board.  The employees of a non profit club have a totally different mindset than the employees working for an individual owner or a group working for a profit.  I know back in the early 80's when I was selling turf equipment and irrigation to golf courses, I could sell the same mower to a private club run by members for much more than I could sell it to a club run by a developer or an owner.  And today every penny counts and the boards are going to evaluate and in many cases choose to have someone handle it all.  JMO

[Dan Herrmann]

I've been in clubs with both models.  From my experience, having a professional organization run things has been by far the better experience to me.

[Bill_McBride]

I just ran across an article in Golf Business magazine that talks about golf architects, including Mike Young, starting management companies to run failed courses.  Mike has some great ideas to improve operations and cut costs while improving the experience for golfers.  Cut the rough, reduce water usage, make the course more fun?  What a concept!  Check it out:  http://www.golfbusiness.com/flash/digital/2012May/default.html#36   


This could be the future of golf, or at least one good model.

And I'll bet Longshadow is in a lot better nick than it was when I saw it a couple of years ago.

[Sam Morrow]

That picture makes Mike look much less standoffish than he really is.

[JMEvensky]

Speaking only for member-owned clubs,the surest way to get into trouble is to corporatize the place. Watching expenses and other common sense practices are one thing.But,when somebody uses the phrase "business model",it's time to find different Board members.

Clubs are clubs first--businesses second.Good ones can recover from some questionable financial decisions.But,once a member-owned club believes that a management company understands the uniqueness of member-owned clubs,it's time to look for another place to play golf.

[Mike_Young]

Speaking only for member-owned clubs,the surest way to get into trouble is to corporatize the place. Watching expenses and other common sense practices are one thing.But,when somebody uses the phrase "business model",it's time to find different Board members.

Clubs are clubs first--businesses second.Good ones can recover from some questionable financial decisions.But,once a member-owned club believes that a management company understands the uniqueness of member-owned clubs,it's time to look for another place to play golf.

JM,
I don't disagree with what you mention above but the world has changed and there are many member owned clubs that don't have the numbers they once did and things will be changing.  And yep...lot's are looking for another place to play golf...I never said I liked it...I just think that's the way we are headed.

Sam,
I'm not standoffish....I'm obnoxious....what part of being obnoxious do you not understand

[Dan Herrmann]

JM - From my point of view, only the most solid clubs can still be run without a business model.  Losing money these days is just not a viable option because I think assessments will drive members out.  If membership drops belong a certain number, the club will find itself in jeopardy.

[Brent Hutto]

I'd think in a given market, if there advantage to corporate-operated "private" clubs versus member-operated ones then eventually the former would drive the latter out of the market.

Which has the inverse implication that if we see corporate-operated driving out member-operated ones there much be some advantage to that management structure.

I think nowadays relatively few potential club members will be swayed by abstract notions of the desirability of member ownership and a traditional Board management structure. The whole business has gotten leaner and members will go to where ever the bottom line is more attractive. If professional/corporate management yields a better experience at a more attractive or more long-term stable price it's going to be hard to resist.

Or if it doesn't the point is moot.

[Sam Morrow]

Speaking only for member-owned clubs,the surest way to get into trouble is to corporatize the place. Watching expenses and other common sense practices are one thing.But,when somebody uses the phrase "business model",it's time to find different Board members.

Clubs are clubs first--businesses second.Good ones can recover from some questionable financial decisions.But,once a member-owned club believes that a management company understands the uniqueness of member-owned clubs,it's time to look for another place to play golf.

JM,
I don't disagree with what you mention above but the world has changed and there are many member owned clubs that don't have the numbers they once did and things will be changing.  And yep...lot's are looking for another place to play golf...I never said I liked it...I just think that's the way we are headed.

Sam,
I'm not standoffish....I'm obnoxious....what part of being obnoxious do you not understand

Sorry Mike, I thought I was obnoxious, maybe I'm the standoffish one.

[Dan Byrnes]

There are pros and cons.  What most clubs haven't had is professional management.  That doesn't mean a management company like Troon or others.  Those groups have successes and failures from what I have seen.  It really depends on the structure of the deal.

The management company needs to be able to extract their pound of flesh form the operation.  So there management needs to improve operations not only enough to pay for their services but allow them to profits as well.  This can cause friction with the membership who sees costs being to controlled and service lacking. A professional GM can achieve much of the same efficiencies and still cater to the membership?

Both work in different cases, but it's the setup. Of the terms that makes or breaks it.

I would say the days of non professional management are certainly behind us, except where a single or small group of folks call the shot because Its their money and they can do as they like.

Dan
 

[Ken Fry]

Mike,

I thought there was a similar thread this past winter where we lamented about management companies also being the death of the industry.

The Board concept is for the most part dead.  Most clubs don't have the time or money to be reactionary enough in the current business climate.  Private clubs that survive going forward have A leader where decisions are made and not open for debate.  Democracies don't work at private clubs.  Dictatorships do.  Everyone tends to be well behaved when expectations are met, goals are shared and reactions to problems are consistent.

Ken

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I agree with al the above here. the private benevolent Dictator may be the most efficient now. I do see how a management company might look good to an out of control or lost board. There are certainly plenty that are no more than yes men to the employees. So I do see a evolution that will occur. However the most important thing is to not break the bank while finding a way to keep the club world alive as the next few generations come to desire to be in a club. There will be some need for private golf clubs as long as there are rich old golfers who need insurance, stock brokers and ball warmers.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

I thought there was a similar thread this past winter where we lamented about management companies also being the death of the industry.

The Board concept is for the most part dead.  Most clubs don't have the time or money to be reactionary enough in the current business climate.  Private clubs that survive going forward have A leader where decisions are made and not open for debate.  Democracies don't work at private clubs.  Dictatorships do.  Everyone tends to be well behaved when expectations are met, goals are shared and reactions to problems are consistent.

Ken

Ken,
Yep we did discuss.  I don't think my post says management companies were the answer.  I think it says that some of the management companies are looking that way which means they smell a problem.  I think the answer is probably more of a GM type of answer with F&B viewed as an amenity for golf /tennis/swimming etc and not an equal.  There is too much competition in the local communities for F&B to compete in most cases...but somehow many boards have allowed F&B to become their nemesis....and for that I sort of blame the PGA for letting the CMAA step on their weiners.

[Ken Fry]

Ken,

Yep we did discuss.  I don't think my post says management companies were the answer.  I think it says that some of the management companies are looking that way which means they smell a problem.  I think the answer is probably more of a GM type of answer with F&B viewed as an amenity for golf /tennis/swimming etc and not an equal.  There is too much competition in the local communities for F&B to compete in most cases...but somehow many boards have allowed F&B to become their nemesis....and for that I sort of blame the PGA for letting the CMAA step on their weiners.

Mike,

Our discussion last time was quite the opposite regarding management companies.  Not only are they not the answer but part of the problem in my opinion.  They've gained a foothold because boards at private clubs and committees in the public sector don't have the expertise the run the clubs so they feel a management company is the best option.

In the world of private clubs, history has proven for the most part a wealthy benevolent dictator will do a much better job than a committee.  No earth shattering decisions come from a committee.  Plus, committees change so quickly there is minimal continuity as time goes on.

Clifford Roberts may not have been the most popular man in the history of golf, but Augusta is where it is because of his long time leadership.

Ken

[Ed Brzezowski]

We had a national firm manage our facility near Philly, it was less than we had hoped for as far as quality and responsiveness.

My favorite was when the GM looked at the Sat tee sheet and asked the pro " who are the important members here today ?"

While a board is at times cumbersome I believe it knows the purpose of the club. Besides their fees and charges were completely out of normal ranges. We were charged thousands for work done at their home office for insurance that could have been done in less than two hours.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I think financial pressures are making "consolidation" more of a reality.

I see this trend toward management companies as a trend appealing to clubs in financial trouble.

The boards remain operational, but, they cede the day to day operations to professional firms.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

My former club, Commonwealth National GC in the Philly 'burbs,a non-equity private club that opened in 1990,  was acquired By Matrix Hospitality Group after the original developer went under in 1992. After operating the club for a year for the mortgagee, Matrix acquired the club,kept it private, protected our refundable membership deposits and still operates the club today. While I was there, I served on the Board and Golf Committee. Both were advisory but Matrix was a benevolent owner as far as golf was concerned. They do an excellent job and have acquired other courses/clubs. They formerly managed Forsgate in NJ as a minority owner but are no longer involved. As far as I know, they are NOT entering the management only arena.

http://www.matrixcompanies.com/golfhospitality.html

I have seen some traditional local clubs mismanaged and even become NLE as a result of poor member Boards, etc. I prefer the non-equity corporate owned private clubs. See Trump's expanding empire.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve,

I always liked Commonwealth National and the way it ran.
The Pro was a nice fellow too.

It was an interesting situation, the conversion of the golf course from 36 to 18, the office buildings, the Naval Air Station, all combined to make it pretty unique.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()