[David_Tepper]

The experience at Ballyneal illustrates that a golf only project, even with a wonderful golf course, can have problems.

[Terry Lavin]

The experience at Ballyneal illustrates that a golf only project, even with a wonderful golf course, can have problems.

Especially golf only in the middle of nowhere. It's a numbers thing.

[Carl Johnson]

Pat, not sure what you mean by "no other activities."  I would venture that in my area, metro Charlotte, a private golf club with no other activities could not make it.  The club I belong to, Carolina Golf Club (D. Ross, 1929), comes close, but, we do have a very nice swimming pool, and without the pool (remember it is really hot down here in the summer), we could not make it.  So, we do have "other activities."  What we don't have: tennis or other sports, a fitness center, "fine dining," or a "fancy clubhouse."  (We do also have some special food and entertainment events - e.g., pig roast and club members' hobby band in connection with golf events, such as member-guests.)

You'd like to get the whole family into golf, but in reality it is the men, and the market here requires something for the rest of the family, and the pool works well.  Maybe our GM, who's a member of this site, will chime in - he knows the numbers and has the pulse - I'm just speculating.

In any case, we have 500 members and a waiting list.  There are four traditional, very upscale, full scale country clubs in Charlotte.  Our initiation and dues are way less than half of theirs.  I think that's a huge plus for us.  There are also a number of newer "upscale" residential subdivision clubs (e.g., The Point, now Trump Charlotte), and many more moderately priced full scale country clubs.  I can't speak with certainty, but I expect that all of the other clubs are below capacity.

Where do we "pledge" to spend money?  On the golf course.  Clubhouse upgrades, tennis courts, etc. are not in the picture.  We run a very lean operation with, so far, no pretensions to social status.

In the past it's been suggested that we are a "starter" club - that as younger members become more prosperous, they move to the high end, full scale clubs.  I'm an older (and old) member so I don't have a real good feel for younger members today; however, I have a sense that more and more, they may stick around.

As a footnote, at least two of the really high-end, full scale clubs here have recently spent, and continue to spend, lots of money on non-golf facilities.  Obviously, someone at the clubs wants those extras, but from what I've heard the "golfers" are not all that happy about the spending.

In conclusion, based on my observations in my metro area, there is room for at least one golf club (with a swimming pool), but beyond that . . . I am glad that this is not a "business" that I am in.

[David_Tepper]

"Especially golf only in the middle of nowhere. It's a numbers thing."

Terry L. -

Isn't Ballyneal less than a 3 hour drive from Denver? Compared to some other destination clubs, it is nearer the edge rather than the middle of nowhere.

DT

[Neil Johnston]

As a 30-something guy with kids, there is zero chance my wife would sign off on the expense of a private club (locally) if it didn't at least have a pool, and maybe tennis courts too. I suspect most working stiffs are in the same boat. Single me would view it in a much different manner.

 If your situation allows you to join something called a "bathing club" on top of a golf-only club, then maybe this is not an issue for you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The experience at Ballyneal illustrates that a golf only project, even with a wonderful golf course, can have problems.

Would you call Ballyneal your typical local golf club ?

Or, is it a remote, destination golf club ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

In some ways, Shinny and NGLA are very much part of a country club  like atmosphere.  A very sizable percentage of their membership belongs to Southampton Bathing, Inc., Quogue Field Club, and Meadow Club, or at least has no access issues.

Not in any manner, shape or form !

I bet some also belong to the DAC and NYAC 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Anytime you infuse 100 new members, especially non-golf members, you're going to change the culture of the club.

As you add more and more non-golfing members, 135 currently, you'll eventually see the schism that arises between golf and non-golf activities and the vying for budget dollars, goods and services.

And, I never found a club that made money in their food and beverage service.
Every club I've ever encountered lost money in the kitchen, that's why they have to enforce minimums.
Many clubs, lose more money as they serve more meals.[/size][/color]

Amen and amen.You'd think these kinds of things would be self evident.

Pat,

I understand you've never locked your locker.
Did you get clipped for cash and/or credit cards?

I saw the article but don't know how to link it.


CBS News and the Drudge Report have the article and video.

In 50+ years, I've never had anything stolen from my locker, but, one day, some guests at my club in Florida had items stolen from their locker.

And, who were those guests ?

High ranking law enforcement officers from the DOJ in Washington, DC.

Their credentials, credit cards, wallets and cash were stolen.

Man, with their credentials, you could get into Fort Knox.

Where's David Tepper when you need him?

He's making the six hour drive from Denver to Ballyneal, at the posted speed limit.

[Patrick_Mucci]

And, I never found a club that made money in their food and beverage service.
Every club I've ever encountered lost money in the kitchen, that's why they have to enforce minimums.
Many clubs, lose more money as they serve more meals.[/size][/color]

This is a good point, and does highlight the problem with trying to be all things to all people.  While I know our Club couldn't survive as a private Golf Club only, and the pool pays for itself with social members there for the pool, but the changing dynamic for dinners is certainly at play.  

There are very few members who utilize the Club for dinners regularly.  Friday night is fairly crowded, but it's also a lot of families with kids eating in the bar.  The reality is, I'd love to do away with the formal dinning.  You could cater the 3 - 4 big events, and do simple bar food the rest of the time.  That said, you may have 20 people paying full golf memberships, simply because they like to eat at the club a couple Fridays and have lunch there after Church on Sunday.  

I think many, if not most clubs have reassessed their dining needs.
Utilization patterns have changed dramatically ......... generationallly.

I think it just further highlights there are so many variables for each Club.

No question about it, each club has it's own dynamic, it's own culture.

But, the question remains, are existing golf "only" clubs better positioned to weather the changing environment in golf.

The more services you add, the more costs go up, and I don't know of one club where the dining supports itself.
That's why clubs had to add food minimums, because utilization was down.  

I'm also curious, are dues at the clubs you mentioned less than their CC counterparts as you suggest?

Inherently, yes, because "country club" dues tend to be all encompassing family dues, whereas, golf only clubs, tend to provide per/person dues.

Golf "only" clubs, also tend to be "second" clubs for many.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Shelman,

Some or all of the factors you list, manifest themselves in "cost to operate" which translates to dues.

If the economic malaise continues, costs will become more significant in terms of decisions.

Carl,

Each club has it's own dynamic or cache.

The ability for a community to support a club depends upon a variety of factors, as you point out.

But, in the ultimate, "cost" tends to be "A" if not "THE" primary factor, and with additional ancillary services, costs go up.

If you have 100,000 residents to draw from and only 5 clubs, well, chances are, all clubs will survive quite nicely.
But, if you try to be all things to all people, that costs money and when money gets tight, clubs, always a luxury, are up for consideration.

I've noticed, at so many country clubs, ............ change in operations.

Dining, pool, tennis and golf.

There's been a trend to become more efficient.

First, to cut costs without cutting services.

Then, cutting costs by cutting services.

Even menus have been pared.

The clubs that I see in the most trouble are those that expanded/enhanced their plant and did do by taking on debt.

Golf "only" clubs tend to pay as they go and don't take on debt.
That's a major difference I see.

[Jason Topp]

Having switched from a country club to a golf club in the last year I can see both sides of this.  It is easier for a country club to attract members because it is much easier to justify joining a club when there is a pool and other stuff for the rest of the family to use.  However, I think it is easier for a golf club to retain members because the people are there because they are obsessed with the game, rather than for other reasons. The kids that hang around my golf club are there because they are stiving to become great players rather than because they are being dropped off at a babysitting location.   The membership seems more likely to stick once it is in the door.

I think deep pockets within the club are most critical for survival but if you equalize for that factor, my guess is that an established golf club is better positioned than an equally established country club.

[Carl Johnson]

. . .

Carl,

But, in the ultimate, "cost" tends to be "A" if not "THE" primary factor, and with additional ancillary services, costs go up. . . .

Sorry Pat, but I have to agree with you.

[Andrew Buck]

And, I never found a club that made money in their food and beverage service.
Every club I've ever encountered lost money in the kitchen, that's why they have to enforce minimums.
Many clubs, lose more money as they serve more meals.[/size][/color]

This is a good point, and does highlight the problem with trying to be all things to all people.  While I know our Club couldn't survive as a private Golf Club only, and the pool pays for itself with social members there for the pool, but the changing dynamic for dinners is certainly at play.  

There are very few members who utilize the Club for dinners regularly.  Friday night is fairly crowded, but it's also a lot of families with kids eating in the bar.  The reality is, I'd love to do away with the formal dinning.  You could cater the 3 - 4 big events, and do simple bar food the rest of the time.  That said, you may have 20 people paying full golf memberships, simply because they like to eat at the club a couple Fridays and have lunch there after Church on Sunday.  

I think many, if not most clubs have reassessed their dining needs.
Utilization patterns have changed dramatically ......... generationallly.

I think it just further highlights there are so many variables for each Club.

No question about it, each club has it's own dynamic, it's own culture.

But, the question remains, are existing golf "only" clubs better positioned to weather the changing environment in golf.

The more services you add, the more costs go up, and I don't know of one club where the dining supports itself.
That's why clubs had to add food minimums, because utilization was down.  

I think it's clear, it depends on location, services provided and quality of experience.

I'm also curious, are dues at the clubs you mentioned less than their CC counterparts as you suggest?

Inherently, yes, because "country club" dues tend to be all encompassing family dues, whereas, golf only clubs, tend to provide per/person dues.

Golf "only" clubs, also tend to be "second" clubs for many.  

Isn't the fact that "Golf only clubs" tend to be "second" clubs indicate they are likely to be the first to be cut?  Or is it that people who can both, A) Join a second club, and B) have been accepted into membership of a long established club, are less likely to feel enough financial difficulty to leave it? 

On the surface, lower dues would make sense, but is it really the case?  Is NGLA or Shinnecock less than Winged Foot (that presumably can accommodate more members?  Are dues at Merion less than Aronimink since the don't have a pool?  

Since I do think this is hard to discuss at the elite level, because they aren't really reflective of 80% of clubs.  If there are two private Golf clubs with comparable courses in a market with 350 potential member families, and the "Country Club" spends 25% more to offer the pool and tennis courts (it's not that much at most clubs),  essentially the dues would be the same if the Country Club had 200 members vs the golf club having 150 members.  I'd posit, that in this scenario, where the only variable is a pool and tennis courts, the country club would end up attracting more than the 57% market share required to keep dues the same.

[Andrew Buck]

Having switched from a country club to a golf club in the last year I can see both sides of this.  It is easier for a country club to attract members because it is much easier to justify joining a club when there is a pool and other stuff for the rest of the family to use.  However, I think it is easier for a golf club to retain members because the people are there because they are obsessed with the game, rather than for other reasons. The kids that hang around my golf club are there because they are stiving to become great players rather than because they are being dropped off at a babysitting location.   The membership seems more likely to stick once it is in the door.

I think deep pockets within the club are most critical for survival but if you equalize for that factor, my guess is that an established golf club is better positioned than an equally established country club.

I will tend to agree with this, key word being established.  This is also the case because in absolutes, there are far fewer golf only clubs than Country Clubs. 

[Tim McManus]

So, it really doesn't make any sense (barring some miraculous data you have up your sleeve) that you somehow think Country Clubs are at a disadvantage in the hunt for new members.

They clearly are, for no other reason than cost.
The cost to belong to a golf ONLY club, versus a full services (golf, pool, tennis, paddle and daily three meal dining) clubs puts full service clubs at a distinct financial disadvantage [/color]


While it is true that a golf only club will almost always have lower dues than the country club that also offers tennis and pool, the golf only club , despite lower dues, is often the more expensive option for a golfing family that wants these amenities and would need to also join a swim, tennis or beach club to obtain them.

[Brent Hutto]

In my limited, low-end experience the whole discussion is moot. There are no like-versus-like Golf Only and Full Service Country Club options in my geographical and economic landscape. Any place that is Golf Only will be a public course or some kind of semi-private operations. Any fully private entity will be a Country Club with amenities like pool, tennis, etc.

So if you ask (in my area) which is in better shape to weather a downturn, you're really comparing daily-fee courses mostly somewhat affordable in cost to Country Clubs that yes, cost much more but also offer a better golf experience than the public golf courses.

Just how many high-end Golf Only clubs are located in the same geographical area with Country Clubs in which the two offer exactly the same golf experience? And is my backwater location the oddity or are Pat's northeastern rich-guy clubs the oddity?

[Phil McDade]

Just how many high-end Golf Only clubs are located in the same geographical area with Country Clubs in which the two offer exactly the same golf experience? And is my backwater location the oddity or are Pat's northeastern rich-guy clubs the oddity?

Brent:

Here in Madison WI, we've got three traditional, old-school, very nice clubs in town with what I'd guess are solid, longstanding memberships. Two are full-service clubs (Maple Bluff CC, Nakoma CC) with swimming pools (and active summer swim clubs at each), plus tennis and clubhouses with full dining services; one is a golf-only club (Blackhawk): http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41775.0.html

There are also two other private clubs -- one about 40 years old, one about 20 years old -- that offer golf, tennis, pools, and even racquetball at one of them. One of the clubs -- Cherokee -- is PGA pro Steve Stricker's home away from home, and interestingly has the most active tennis program in town (both indoor and outdoor courts) -- my son spends a lot of time up there playing tennis (as does Stricker's daughter, who's quite good!), because they offer a reasonable tennis-only membership for juniors. I have little doubt tennis is helping to augment the expenses of golf at Cherokee. And there are two other clubs in the burbs -- Hawks Landing (Harbottle) and Bergamont (Andy North design) -- that offer tennis and pools in addition to golf. Both are open to public play for golf, although both have made noises about going totally private.

We're in a metro area of about a half-million, with lots of other public golf options -- particularly University Ridge (I'm not a fan, but am in a distinct minority with that view), the Oaks (Greg Martin), and a few other decent courses, plus a full-fledged Madison muni system that features 72 holes at four courses (36, 18, and two 9s). And given the egalitarian leanings of Madison, the country clubs (in my view) will always run up against a ceiling in terms of membership potential, because there are folks who simply won't join a club because it's private. But -- there's also steady employment, and decently paid workers here (home to the university, major hospitals, the seat of state government), and I've often played as a guest at some of the clubs with career state employees who join a private club to avoid the tee time lottery.

In short, we've got both types -- private full-scale clubs, and one private golf-only club. My sense is the old three (Maple Bluff, Nakoma, Blackhawk) are doing pretty well; Bergamont was recently sold amid reports it was over-leveraged (building a monstrosity of a clubhouse probably didn't help), and word is that Hawks wants to go private, but needs the subsidy of public golf play to cover golf course expenses.

[David_Tepper]

"The experience at Ballyneal illustrates that a golf only project, even with a wonderful golf course, can have problems."

Would you call Ballyneal your typical local golf club ?

Or, is it a remote, destination golf club ?

Pat M. -

When Shinnecock, NGLA and Pine Valley were built, were they "your typical local club?" You know they weren't.
You could say the same thing about AGNC.

DT

[Bill Crane]

Pat;
As Membership Chair at Springdale GC in Princeton NJ I can tell you that our culture and mission are clear and it is easy to convey to prospective members what the club is all about.  Assessments for our new clubhouse and irrigation are shared by all; there is no haggling over what type of member is paying for what amenity and how to apportion overhead.    We may not attract some prospective members who really want a country club environment, usually due to a spouse/wife that does not play golf.  Consequently, we need to attract spouses and children into the game to be as successful.
 
With our new clubhouse four years ago came better space for events including parking, and quality foodservice which has resulted in a more social club, but we are still and always will be primarily a golf club.  For instance, we only have regularly scheduled dinners on Fridays during the golf season that roughly follows the handicap season.  Special events or private parties are additional and most still enable to get a drink on the patio or the back of the bar. Yes, we did take on some debt to finance the clubhouse, but it was not excessive, unless our membership declines significantly.

It has been a labor of love to guide the growth of our membership over the past seven of eight years and we have weathered well the three realities of our situation 1) we had an aging membership, many of whom joined the club in the 1960s like my parents, and they were leaving, dying or just downgraded social members 2) the economy started to affect some members who had weaker income or career issues  3)  the area is overbuilt with private golf clubs since  four new private clubs had been built within about twenty-five minutes, and five new public access courses as well.  Several new and old clubs in the Princeton area have really been struggling and so far have hung on – but barely for two.  One country club nearby with a substantial physical plant with a big acreage course, tennis courts, pools, two clubhouses actually sold itself to ClubCorp, although the reasons why are not clear. One justification that has been mentioned was to pay out the initial fee/bond owed to former members, which is a benefit that will also accrue to current members who hold bonds.

Two years ago we held a major membership drive that was a smashing success and we filled the club and had a small waiting list for the next year.  Last year we were able to replace attrition and were full by year end as well.  We are fortunate in a number of respects:
1)    We have a wonderful Wm Flynn golf course in a charming setting partially surrounded by attractive academic buildings.
2)   Our membership is our secret factor, we are a mix of locals & “townies”, successful business people and executives, and fascinating academic individuals.
3)   Our location is super since we are right in the heart of Princeton and many of our members live nearby.
4)   We are an historic club and are only beginning to identify and make the club aware of our past.  Examples: we were the 5th club in NJ to join the USGA in 1897, Hugh Wilson was captain of the PU team and joined our greens committee when the course moved to its current site in 1900, Bill Campbell played on the Princeton team, Woodrow Wilson played at the club when he was PU President and much more.

There have been three key membership tenets that have driven all we do, all relevant in the context of us being a private club:
   New members primarily come from existing members.
   All members are on the membership committee.
   Membership efforts in this environment must be done on a sustained basis.
So, these concepts have certain implications, for instance we do not advertise like many clubs because that’s not how truly private clubs get their members.  We need new members who have acquaintances in the community that are potentially new prospects for the club.   There are really only two golf clubs in our area including us who are able to charge initiation fees on a regular basis.

While we are talking about private clubs, each club is attracting members in what is essentially a marketplace, and your product has to have appeal that fits it‘s market.

Wm Flynnfan

[JMEvensky]

Bill Crane,thanks for taking the time to type all that.It's always interesting to read the challenges faced by clubs in other areas--some irrelevant to my club,some identical.

Could you please expound on the idea of having all new members serve on the Membership Committee? I understand the logic but would be curious as to how it's worked in practice.

Is there only one single membership category?

[Carl Nichols]

In the DC Metro area, of the clubs I know something about:

1.  At least one "golf only" club (Burning Tree) appears to be doing very well financially, even with a tax burden that other clubs don't have.  But it's also a very unique club from which (IMHO) one shouldn't draw many general conclusions.  As for other golf only clubs, RTJ seems to be doing just fine, although the rumor is that they've dropped their initiation fee.  And from time-to-time I hear that Four Streams is looking for new members--but I don't have any specifics to back that up.

2.  On the country club side, Congressional appears to be thriving--they have a huge membership, including out-of-towners, and get lots of play.  Chevy Chase and Columbia also seem to be doing well, and while we'd like a few more members, Bethesda is as well (including our very strong junior golf program).  My sense is that around DC there is still quite a bit of demand for full-service clubs where the courses are solid and the family also gets the use of a pool, tennis, dining, workout room, ice hockey (Chevy Chase, Columbia), paddle tennis (Chevy Chase, Columbia, Congressional), bowling (Chevy Chase, Congressional, Columbia), etc.  At the same time, some country clubs seems to be struggling for members a bit.

So in DC, at least, I don't think you can conclude that "golf only" clubs are "better positioned to weather the membership storm."  Some are, some aren't.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

"The experience at Ballyneal illustrates that a golf only project, even with a wonderful golf course, can have problems."

Would you call Ballyneal your typical local golf club ?

Or, is it a remote, destination golf club ?

Pat M. -

When Shinnecock, NGLA and Pine Valley were built, were they "your typical local club?" You know they weren't.
You could say the same thing about AGNC.


David, Pine Valley is just 13 miles from Camden and had an existing rail line immediately adjacent to the course that had nearby stops

NGLA and Shinnecock were located in an established summer resort area that also enjoyed rail service immediately adjacent to the course, hence access to those courses from the major population centers was fairly easy

ANGC was in a winter resort area and more remote than the other three

At the time the three were built, probably 60-70 % of the population in the U.S. lived within one to three hours time from those courses.

That's hardly the case at Ballyneal
DT

[David Kelly]

At the time the three were built, probably 60-70 % of the population in the U.S. lived within one to three hours time from those courses.

Both the median and mean center of the US population has been located in Indiana since the 1890s.

[BHoover]

Bump. I was going to start a new thread, but I found this one. I've been thinking recently about the concept of a "golf-only" membership. I'm not talking about a strictly golf-only club. Instead, I'm wondering whether any country clubs offer the option of a golf-only membership, and if not, why not? Country clubs offer social memberships that allow members to utilize the pool, tennis, dining, clubhouse, etc. But why no golf-only membership as well? Why should a member who wants to golf but does not use the other club facilities be forced to pay for facilities and activities that he/she does not want? I guess I know the answer--full golf memberships are required to subsidize money-losing activities like pools, tennis, food & beverage service and clubhouses.

I raise this because it's a question that my wife recently asked me about our own club. She rarely uses the facilities and iv been to our pool exactly once. Yet, my club does not have an option for the member who wants to play golf only except the full membership. As a result, I pay for services and facilities that I simply don't use. The consequence is that I am looking into other golfing options.

Will country clubs eventually adapt to economic and social realities? Or will they continue business as usual and hope (against hope, IMO) that the golden days of the 1950s-90s return!

[BCowan]

...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()