The Changing Face of the Game and Golf's Built Environment

[Mike_Young]

Tim Liddy posted this on his blog and on FB today.  Hopefully he will comment since he has read the entire paper I am sure.  David Hueber wrote it for his PHD dissertation.  At one time he was president of Hogan as well as the NGF.   It has many really good points and truths but I honestly don't see us changing.  We continue to hear of 20 million dollar  courses in St Andrews and all over the world  there is golf being built that people can't play.  Developers want it that way.  My other big question here is that now that he has identified the Signatures as aiding in creating the mess, will we continue to worship them and allow it to continue.
read Steve Eubanks brief from Global Golf here :

http://digitalmag.globalgolfpost.com/20130218/20130218/0/0#&pageSet=11&page=0

And the entire paper is here:

http://www.clemson.edu/centers-institutes/pennell/PDFs-2012/David-Hueber-Dissertation-7-17-12.pdf

[Tom_Doak]

Tim Liddy posted this on his blog and on FB today.  Hopefully he will comment since he has read the entire paper I am sure.  David Hueber wrote it for his PHD dissertation.  At one time he was president of Hogan as well as the NGF.   It has many really good points and truths but I honestly don't see us changing.  We continue to hear of 20 million dollar  courses in St Andrews and all over the world  there is golf being built that people can't play.  Developers want it that way.  My other big question here is that now that he has identified the Signatures as aiding in creating the mess, will we continue to worship them and allow it to continue.
read Steve Eubanks brief from Global Golf here :

http://digitalmag.globalgolfpost.com/20130218/20130218/0/0#&pageSet=11&page=0

And the entire paper is here:

http://www.clemson.edu/centers-institutes/pennell/PDFs-2012/David-Hueber-Dissertation-7-17-12.pdf

It really took 211 pages to come to that conclusion? 

Or, it just takes 211 pages to get awarded a Ph.D. so that people will pay you to be the one to suggest how to fix the problem?

David should go spend five years in China and help stop them before it's too late.  Like it's not already too late over there!

[Mike_Young]

TD,
I was hoping you would take first crack at that.

Maybe he can hit the KPMG circuit

[Blake Conant]

Thanks for the info, Mike.  I think it's great research and someone needed to do it even though most people already knew the conclusion. What worries me is the 3,000 courses in financial trouble and 1,000+ that are going to close in the next 10 years.  

[Tom_Doak]

Thanks for the info, Mike.  I think it's great research and someone needed to do it even though most people already knew the conclusion. What worries me is the 3,000 courses in financial trouble and 1,000+ that are going to close in the next 10 years.  

It's gotta sound drastic to gain headline status and get his name out there.  But, I don't know that I would dispute those numbers, either.  If you define "financial trouble" as "unable to operate at a profit" instead of "about to lose the land to a bank", I would say that the number of courses in financial trouble is even more than he stated, but the number in danger of closing is not as high.

If 1,000 courses closed in the next 10 years, I don't think there would be too many golfers who missed them and had no other good option to replace them ... but a lot of rangers and cart guys and maintenance workers will be out of jobs.  That's who I felt sorriest for at Beechtree.  A bunch of people had worked really hard to make the place successful, and they took it personally when it wasn't enough.

[Ben Sims]

So it's not just me that finds the mea culpa aspects of this piece a bit offensive (even if correct)?  Man I would love to be a fly on the wall at the GCIS or PGA show circa 1995.  Free wheeling and fancy free.  And here I thought we had fun at the Vegas GCIS last year!  Of course, folks weren't betting 2000 courses on black and letting it ride.  

I applaud the man for continuing post graduate education.  And no doubt it took a ton of work.  But I wonder what purpose it serves to spend 211 pages talking about how real estate and a busted returns model screwed golf.  Then again, it's not nearly as weird as Greg Norman saying that golf simply has a marketing problem.

Then again, it's tough to be honest with oneself. Golf is no different from many businesses that have problems.  I am helping Nuzzo and Mahaffey on a project that seeks to identify what actual irrigation needs are for root zones and ID how those demands can be best met. Our hypothesis is that current irrigation design uses the wrong metrics and it costs more in irritation design and water use because we're doing it wrong.  Think it'll be popular if that hypothesis is proven correct?  Think its popular that Dr. Hueber calls out golfs ridiculous assertions in the 80s and 90s?  At least he's honest.  

[Blake Conant]

I don't think Hueber is presenting anything unpopular.  He was one of the top dogs behind the ridiculous assertions made in the late 80s i.e., "Build a Course a Day from 1988-2000."  The residential golf community model failed once in the late 70s and early 80s, then they tried it again in the 90s and it fell flat on its face a decade later.  I'd have to imagine most developers recognize that model is dead accepted it five years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone take another crack at it. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Golfweek has managed to suck even more money from the game by charging their raters a hefty fee to keep their card. When is the con of free golf going to catch up with nowhere to play?  The game needs to rid itself of its parasites to survive.

Instead of Golfweek being greedy, and losing all credibility by selling rater cards, wouldn't the game been better off is this money was given to golf courses rather than a magazine?  With over a thousand raters now and so few courses being built taking comps is obsolete. I feel for the good guys out there now being played the rube so Crane can line his pockets.

This is just one of many examples of leeches sucking 10's of millions of much needed dollars every year.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Thanks for the info, Mike.  I think it's great research and someone needed to do it even though most people already knew the conclusion. What worries me is the 3,000 courses in financial trouble and 1,000+ that are going to close in the next 10 years.  

It's gotta sound drastic to gain headline status and get his name out there.  But, I don't know that I would dispute those numbers, either.  If you define "financial trouble" as "unable to operate at a profit" instead of "about to lose the land to a bank", I would say that the number of courses in financial trouble is even more than he stated, but the number in danger of closing is not as high.

If 1,000 courses closed in the next 10 years, I don't think there would be too many golfers who missed them and had no other good option to replace them ... but a lot of rangers and cart guys and maintenance workers will be out of jobs.  That's who I felt sorriest for at Beechtree.  A bunch of people had worked really hard to make the place successful, and they took it personally when it wasn't enough.

To develop this concept further, I think the whole dissertation is bogus because the economic factors Tom cites above are omitted. If a course is able to make a profit, it will stay open as a course, unless there is a clearly defined better economic use of the land. The thread I read about one of the LA courses turning down $500k/member + 2 new courses comes to mind.

If Huber puts some real numbers including these concepts, it's worth a read. Right now, all he has is a resume builder.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think Hueber is presenting anything unpopular.  He was one of the top dogs behind the ridiculous assertions made in the late 80s i.e., "Build a Course a Day from 1988-2000."  The residential golf community model failed once in the late 70s and early 80s, then they tried it again in the 90s and it fell flat on its face a decade later.  I'd have to imagine most developers recognize that model is dead accepted it five years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised to see someone take another crack at it.  

Blake:

The question is whether "the golf industry" has a major role to play in course closings.  

Of course, they'd like to ... they would like to make money as consultants to anything having to do with golf.  But whether these places succeed or fail is really a matter of looking at the specifics of each example, instead of a generic solution.

It's just like the foreclosure market in housing.  There are plenty of guys looking to pile a bunch of individual cases into a common pool so they can make a % of the solution.  But isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place?

P.S.  I DO think there are some solutions to the problem that haven't been investigated yet ... and if I were only in the business to make money, instead of to build golf courses, I know exactly what I'd be doing to try and consolidate.  I've yet to hear anyone else suggest it as a business plan, but if there's somebody who's interested, I'd be glad to share those ideas for a small finder's fee. 

[Mike Sweeney]

Golfweek has managed to suck even more money from the game by charging their raters a hefty fee to keep their card. When is the con of free golf going to catch up with nowhere to play?  The game needs to rid itself of its parasites to survive.

Instead of Golfweek being greedy, and losing all credibility by selling rater cards, wouldn't the game been better off is this money was given to golf courses rather than a magazine?  With over a thousand raters now and so few courses being built taking comps is obsolete. I feel for the good guys out there now being played the rube so Crane can line his pockets.

This is just one of many examples of leeches sucking 10's of millions of much needed dollars every year.

Honestly, you are the problem and the lawyers. You have a fantasy view of "private golf" in America that is changing and the next generation does not care about. I am not talking about the 1000 courses that we discuss on this site. Sure a couple were badly financed, but the majority will survive. It is the other 14,000 that are struggling.

The Tax Code for the majority of private clubs is killing them where they can only take in a small percentage of revenues from outside sources to finance themselves. The lawyers, accountants, and Jaka all support this existing structure that now is severely dated.

Golf needs a European model in the USA and you know I am right. You are not wrong about raters, but they are down on the list and they are a not taking money from they game. Okay, we have to pay for seed to replace their divots, but they do not get paid real $ like the lawyers and accountants who support the old system.

Next, or rather first, see Mike Young for who is taking money out of the system.
 

[Mike_Young]

Notes:
I think we have to remind ourselves that in most cases the talking heads have never been involved in the business at the ground level.  They look at it as a business formula they learned somewhere.

Blake, it may be tried again but it will be a "core product" if golf is ever associated with housing again.

The jacked up plans and 50 pages of drawings of the signatures was all part of the sale and the hype for trying to justify the fee...that's gone away...

TD says a thousand need to close , I say two thousand.  

The old guys became known because they built special courses...the signatures are known for their golf and hope they can build special courses...just the opposite of the old days.  

There will be a day when competing clubs combine and sell one of their courses.  

This stuff is far from over...

[Mike_Young]

So it's not just me that finds the mea culpa aspects of this piece a bit offensive (even if correct)?  Man I would love to be a fly on the wall at the GCIS or PGA show circa 1995.  Free wheeling and fancy free.  And here I thought we had fun at the Vegas GCIS last year!  Of course, folks weren't betting 2000 courses on black and letting it ride.  

I applaud the man for continuing post graduate education.  And no doubt it took a ton of work.  But I wonder what purpose it serves to spend 211 pages talking about how real estate and a busted returns model screwed golf.  Then again, it's not nearly as weird as Greg Norman saying that golf simply has a marketing problem.

Then again, it's tough to be honest with oneself. Golf is no different from many businesses that have problems.  I am helping Nuzzo and Mahaffey on a project that seeks to identify what actual irrigation needs are for root zones and ID how those demands can be best met. Our hypothesis is that current irrigation design uses the wrong metrics and it costs more in irritation design and water use because we're doing it wrong.  Think it'll be popular if that hypothesis is proven correct?  Think its popular that Dr. Hueber calls out golfs ridiculous assertions in the 80s and 90s?  At least he's honest.  

Ben,
Make it simple.....just study the USGA green recommendations( not specifications) biggest hype job ever....how much has that cost golf???
Everything you mention above is based on segments of the industry that have no skin in the game.  I regress back to the USGA as an example...the clout they have is listened to by most and the industry as a whole knows that.  So this paper will be discussed..$$$$ will be made and industry sponsors will send the funds.  Schools will continue to have more turfgrass programs and PGM programs and there will be no jobs.    And the 14000 golf courses will continue to do it their way.  And another paper will be written asking " what the hell happened?"
I think once we all realize this is an apprenticeship business we will all be better off.  It isn't big enough to support all the facets that wish to be part of it....

[Blake Conant]

Mike, I can't see many of the 1000-2000 potential closures being private.  They'll be local munis, daily fees, run down par 3s that have been bleeding for years.  We'll see quite a few suburban residential golf developments close and maybe some of the bigger ones like Reynolds or Sea Palms. 

I have a harder time wrapping my head around how the local metropolitan courses will be handled.  In my ideal world, they'll go for such cheap costs that we can do a number of profitable things to them depending on the site and the region:  wind farms, urban agriculture, viticulture, orchards, consolidating and redesigning for juniors, nature preserves, bike trails, etc.  Unfortunately, I fear a lot of them will be clear cut, graded, and paved over so a Walmart can move in. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Golfweek has managed to suck even more money from the game by charging their raters a hefty fee to keep their card. When is the con of free golf going to catch up with nowhere to play?  The game needs to rid itself of its parasites to survive.

Instead of Golfweek being greedy, and losing all credibility by selling rater cards, wouldn't the game been better off is this money was given to golf courses rather than a magazine?  With over a thousand raters now and so few courses being built taking comps is obsolete. I feel for the good guys out there now being played the rube so Crane can line his pockets.

This is just one of many examples of leeches sucking 10's of millions of much needed dollars every year.

Honestly, you are the problem and the lawyers. You have a fantasy view of "private golf" in America that is changing and the next generation does not care about. I am not talking about the 1000 courses that we discuss on this site. Sure a couple were badly financed, but the majority will survive. It is the other 14,000 that are struggling.

The Tax Code for the majority of private clubs is killing them where they can only take in a small percentage of revenues from outside sources to finance themselves. The lawyers, accountants, and Jaka all support this existing structure that now is severely dated.

Golf needs a European model in the USA and you know I am right. You are not wrong about raters, but they are down on the list and they are a not taking money from they game. Okay, we have to pay for seed to replace their divots, but they do not get paid real $ like the lawyers and accountants who support the old system.

Next, or rather first, see Mike Young for who is taking money out of the system.
 

Mike,

Please tell me how selling rater cards to the highest bidders helps the game.  A million here, a million there and before you know it you have real money. I'm sorry but in a world with only 14,000 courses 2,000 of the most enthusiastic golfers matter.

You and Pat Mucci are the only two guys in the world that use the "tax excuse" as a reason to believe unaccompanied play is limited. You know as well as me that any of us can play Cypress or NGLA if we choose. The problem is that we have to pay.

I promise you that if I was a rater I would have never joined Dismal. Are you going to deny that one man can't make a difference.  Now multiply that by 2000 and ask yourself if that matters.

[Mike_Young]

Blake,
Here is what I see happening.
Take two developers with 500 lot subdivisions in the same location.  One has been successful and is paying the bank.  The other hands the bank the keys and walks.  A guy comes in and buys the project of the unsuccessful guy for 10 cents on the dollar.  AND NOW the new guy has lots that cost him 1/10th the price of the successful guy.

I see the same happening right now with golf.

Example:  A course forecloses for 4 million.  Someone buys it for $300,000.  All of a sudden the guy that was doing ok and survived the first round has to compete with a course that has 1/10th the debt cost if any.  That's why many of these that are going under now will survive and some of those that are hanging on now will not.  It's not fair but it the way our system is set up.  That's why as bad as the business is right now there is a silver lining that will be around for maybe another year.

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike Young,

Do you think there are enough golfers to support the game if their monies were allocated properly?  Is there any need to cater to the golfer who spends less than $1,000 per year in green fees or dues? 

[Mike_Young]

John,
Let's do it another way.
480 million to 500 million rounds per year divided by 16000 courses equals 30,000 rounds per course.  So the numbers are there as a country but courses cna be in the wrong location with no population or too many course for an area etc....

[John Kavanaugh]

John,
Let's do it another way.
480 million to 500 million rounds per year divided by 16000 courses equals 30,000 rounds per course.  So the numbers are there as a country but courses cna be in the wrong location with no population or too many course for an area etc....

I think we agree that there are enough golfers.  I just would like to see the get something for nothing crowd cut loose. Which includes the magazines and associations.

Please note:  I was the first person to speak out against the turf schools and consultants. We can save this is we make it real simple. Just play and just pay.

[Mike_Young]

John,
Let's do it another way.
480 million to 500 million rounds per year divided by 16000 courses equals 30,000 rounds per course.  So the numbers are there as a country but courses can be in the wrong location with no population or too many course for an area etc....

I think we agree that there are enough golfers.  I just would like to see the get something for nothing crowd cut loose. Which includes the magazines and associations.

Please note:  I was the first person to speak out against the turf schools and consultants. We can save this is we make it real simple. Just play and just pay.

JK,
I know where you are coming from.  But I don't think the magazines are that much of a problem for most of us.  The magazines only care about a few of the top courses.  What irks me the most is to go to another club as an owner or architect or whatever with full intentions to pay and not requesting a comp.  You bring the second asst from your club and guy behind the counter comps the second asst and charges you and the supt. 
IMHO the golf business is made up of three groups:  First group is the owners/membership clubs that are out to make their particular product profitable but as a group they don't say much.  The second group is the municipalities and management companies( with some exceptions) and they have some voice but not as much as group three.  And the third most vocal group is the association, vendor, educational group.  The 2nd and third groups have to feed off of the first group.  The first group is of the personality whereby they are just going to deliver the product their way and get it done.  The second and third groups would love it if the industry could be regulated and they could enforce their ways on the 16000 courses out there.  It ain't happening. 
The vendors fund the associations and the educational arms.  AND THE TRADE SHOWS ( which are huge for the associations) And all of this is passed on to the 16000 clubs out there.  The municipalities and the management companies can endorse or support the vendors and the associations because they are not worried about bottom line like an owner or a club.  Their mantra is we can lose you less money than you can yourself.  The ultimate scam on the third group is the KPMG conferences and to some extent the Crittenton meetings on a smaller scale.  All are their rubbing each others heads and very few dollars being spent at these places are from owners of clubs.  It's all corporate expense accounts.  The 16000 don't care about what these guys  have to say yet these guys have the dollars to garner all of the press and to inflate the egos and the hype so that the unknowing consider them the experts. (WATCH The Hueber paper will be making the rounds for the conferences this year...) and an expert will be reborn.

Presently we are in a state where the maintenance vendors( mowers, irrigation, fertilizer chemical) and golf equipment vendors feel they can blow smoke up the rears of the rest of the world that is just now experiencing golf.   It's all EFF YEWED and will blow up in our faces.
But at the end of the day the 14000 to 16000 individual clubs out there can do as they please and they will survive.  It is not a regulated business nor is it a business large enough to take care of the industry that has tried to engulf it.  Free enterprise will prevail. There's my rant