How loud should we speak up?

[Paul Gray]

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, can somebody please explain to me why a golf club like Wilmington can survive on $14 green fees in a market which apparently rejects what most of us here would broadly call 'proper golf'?

I'm not suggesting a paradigm shift isn't greatly needed but could it be that supposedly better to do clubs are leaking money through unnecessary non-golf expenditure?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul,

I suspect the biggest thing going for them is no debt, not leaking money.  However, it appears their maintenance budget is low as well.  Conditions are average to sub average by today's standards. The clubhouse is only partly used and in need of repairs, so its also clear they haven't put lots into capital improvements up until now. 

Golf courses can still be run on a shoe string like that for under $1M under those conditions (no debt and no cap improvements included).  50K rounds at $20 overall gets you there if you want to just break even, which is probably the city's goal.

There are lots more of those out there in America, maybe even the majority of courses....we just don't like talking about them much around here......

[Don_Mahaffey]

Don

Sorry to drag up the subsurface irrigation again but one more question.

With the ability to effectively select a depth in the rootzone where the water enters the profile, do you see this as a viable method in the war against poa by being able to keep the top zone dry where the shallow root system exists?

Not just poa, but most weeds as the surface is dry. I think the soil seed bank will still germinate from time to time, but a dry surface has a lot of advantages.
I'd also add that from a competitive POV, you can favor deeper rooted grasses. Shallow rooted grasses are going to be at disadvantage when most of the water is 3-4 inches down and the surface is never irrigated outside of rainfall.

[Tom_Doak]

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, can somebody please explain to me why a golf club like Wilmington can survive on $14 green fees in a market which apparently rejects what most of us here would broadly call 'proper golf'?

I'm not suggesting a paradigm shift isn't greatly needed but could it be that supposedly better to do clubs are leaking money through unnecessary non-golf expenditure?

Paul:

I don't think the Wilmington course CAN survive on $14 green fees, long-term, although owning the facility free and clear, with no property tax bills, is a good start.

It sounds they have many deferred maintenance items that require a major "restoration" once every ten years or so.  We have no idea what the general playing conditions are like.  And if they lose money one year, the city likely just swallows the loss under "salaries and benefits".

I could be completely wrong about this, but I don't know anybody anywhere in the private sector who is making ends meet on $14 golf.  That said, if there was a place in the U.S. it would work, it would be the southeast around Wilmington and Myrtle Beach, where they enjoy year-round playing conditions, cheap non-union labor, freely available water, and the cost savings of having the grass play well while it's dormant 4-5 months out of the year.  

If they could play 60,000 rounds a year that would be $840,000 income, which ought to pay for the maintenance budget and staffing the pro shop.  But, as Jeff says, no capital improvements ... so the facilities will suffer over time.  Hard to run a real business that way.

[SL_Solow]

Paul,  I am not an expert but our association runs a public golf forum every year for operators and customers to discuss issues, exchange ideas etc.  Nobody in Chicago can make ends meet at that number.

[Don_Mahaffey]

While we're on he sub-surface irrigation...

Don,

At what depth are the sub-surface lines laid? How do they affect aeration operations?

Typically for turf they are at 6" depth. In ag, like an alfalfa hay field for instance, they are typically at 12".
I believe they could be at 8" to 12" for a deep rooted turf like Bermuda, but I need to experiment with that a bit since establishment might be an issue. So far, every bunker and tee where we've specified SDI, we've also added QCs in the event you need to wet the surface. Dr. Bernd Leinhurer at NMDU has established cool season turf with SDI using recycled water. In fact, SDI is used a lot when recycled water is used near buildings as some states have no spray zones with recycled water.

As for aerification, the depth does not affect thatch removal, but it would be an issue with deep tine. But, if you are applying the water straight into the rootzone, do you need deep tine?

[Paul Gray]

My knowledge of Wilmington is limited to Ran's review. Certainly he thought very highly of it but I know no more than that.

Really though my point is a broader one in that I wonder how many clubs in America are incurring costs which bring very marginal returns. Those of you that have played golf over here will have a handle on what I mean. Just to give one very small example, whilst membership might drop if you got rid of the guy to clean your shoes for you, would profits necessarily drop? It's just an extension of the argument for leaner, meaner clubs.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul,

I haven't visited every club in America, nor every public course, but I suspect there are very with shoe shine service, and very many who have cut services to the bone. I already think the "if it doesn't pay for itself, we don't offer it" mentality has been in place for a long, long time.  Capitalism as work.

Things just cost what they cost.  Some of it may be expectations, others regulations.  However, a lot of brain power has gone into what it takes to survive, especially in the last five years or so.  If the top 2% of clubs still have shoe shine, or edge paths or maintain perfect rough, its because they can still afford it, and nothing wrong with a few clubs doing that.  I think most have are not in that situation.....

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul,  I am not an expert but our association runs a public golf forum every year for operators and customers to discuss issues, exchange ideas etc.  Nobody in Chicago can make ends meet at that number.

SL - just because you were the one to put it so succinctly, I'll ask through you to others:

Why not double that number? In Chicago or Toronto or Philadelphia or Buffalo - what about raising it 250%, to $35 a round.

I'm saying that the trouble with the Wilmington example is that it's too extreme -- the very low cost to play it and the very low maintenance/capital spending as well as the very long season makes it a place that (justifiably) people say can't be a model.

Fair enough -- but is it similarly too much to ask for/aspire to an interesting and modest and decently mainitained course in the northeast not loaded down with debt to make a go of it for $35 a round?

It sounds like a rheotrical question, but i don't mean it to be. It's a honest question. Can the operators you meet with make it at that number? (I'm guessing that the answer will be 'no', since I  haven't been able to play a $35 round of golf on an interesting course since I was in Michigan 2+ years ago and played The Mines in Grand Rapids.)  

Happy thanksgiving to you and all!

[Steve Okula]

While we're on he sub-surface irrigation...

Don,

At what depth are the sub-surface lines laid? How do they affect aeration operations?

Typically for turf they are at 6" depth. In ag, like an alfalfa hay field for instance, they are typically at 12".
I believe they could be at 8" to 12" for a deep rooted turf like Bermuda, but I need to experiment with that a bit since establishment might be an issue. So far, every bunker and tee where we've specified SDI, we've also added QCs in the event you need to wet the surface. Dr. Bernd Leinhurer at NMDU has established cool season turf with SDI using recycled water. In fact, SDI is used a lot when recycled water is used near buildings as some states have no spray zones with recycled water.

As for aerification, the depth does not affect thatch removal, but it would be an issue with deep tine. But, if you are applying the water straight into the rootzone, do you need deep tine?

So the water percolates upwards from the drip lines? Does this work in all soils?

How does it work for grow-ins, where the seed or sprigs are on the surface and need to be constantly wet?

Sub-surface irrigation would seem to limit the application of any granular products, either fertilizer or pesticides, that normally need to be watered in. I suppose one could wait and pray for rain, but this could be a serious drawback in arid climates where water conservation is most critical.

[Paul Gray]

Paul,  I am not an expert but our association runs a public golf forum every year for operators and customers to discuss issues, exchange ideas etc.  Nobody in Chicago can make ends meet at that number.

SL - just because you were the one to put it so succinctly, I'll ask through you to others:

Why not double that number? In Chicago or Toronto or Philadelphia or Buffalo - what about raising it 250%, to $35 a round.

I'm saying that the trouble with the Wilmington example is that it's too extreme -- the very low cost to play it and the very low maintenance/capital spending as well as the very long season makes it a place that (justifiably) people say can't be a model.

Fair enough -- but is it similarly too much to ask for/aspire to an interesting and modest and decently mainitained course in the northeast not loaded down with debt to make a go of it for $35 a round?

It sounds like a rheotrical question, but i don't mean it to be. It's a honest question. Can the operators you meet with make it at that number? (I'm guessing that the answer will be 'no', since I  haven't been able to play a $35 round of golf on an interesting course since I was in Michigan 2+ years ago and played The Mines in Grand Rapids.)  

Happy thanksgiving to you and all!

Peter,

Well put.

I used Wilmington as an extreme example simply to make the point but the essence of my argument was just as you've outlined.

I openly confess to probably having as naive a concept of the America market as those on your side of the pond that assume all golf in Britain is played on either links or heathland gems. Nonetheless (and forget the shoe guy example), I wonder how many clubs still need to turn the fountain off, literally and metaphorically. I understand that clubs might panic at the first sign of rounds declining, as undoubtedly they would do in the short term but, again, and stating the bleedingly obvious, less rounds doesn't automatically mean less profit. Moving away from the status quo can be worry for any number of reasons.

My reference point is the struggles of some of the new breed clubs here in Britain. Currently it would be fair to say that there are some excellent courses within 30 miles of me which I can play, peak time, for £20, where the fairways are never busy and the clubs continue as they have for 100 years or so. Conversely, some of the new breed, with over elaborate maintenance and all sorts of costs to boot, struggle to get by with 500 members, wedding parties, Christmas parties and £50 green fees available all day long to the public.

[Jud_T]

Paul,

You do realize that the demands of growing an acceptable playing surface in say St. Louis in July are somewhat different than Britain, don't you?  I sometimes frequent a course with $18 green fees but playability suffers on certain shots, for instance when a flop shot is called for and one is faced with a lie with insufficient turf to execute it.  I agree it's not an all or nothing proposition, and I'm against unnecessarily pricey green and soft conditions, but to assume that a minimally acceptable surface can be provided in much of the states on a shoestring is a bit naive.

[SL_Solow]

Paul and Peter;
     Sorry for the delay but Thanksgiving intervened.  Here in Chicago at public fees courses, price varies by location to some degree depending on demand and the affluence of the surrounding community.  However in season a decent muni course can be played in the 32 -45 dollar range walking.  Of course, the muni's have an advantage because they don't pay property taxes and don't have mortgages.  However they are facing pressure as tax dollars are needed elsewhere. Privately owned courses are somewhat more expensive with greater variance.  Well located, highly regarded courses with better conditioning can range from $70 to over $100 per round. Others come closer to the municipal rates but struggle. All of these are walking rates with pull carts or riding carts available for additional fees.  A few publics have limited caddy programs.

[Jason Thurman]

Jud nailed it. The problem with conditioning in America isn't only that golfers clamor for "green and lush" instead of "fast and firm." It's also that achieving fast and firm with decent turf is really tough in a lot of the country, at least during certain parts of the year, and it requires you to give up something in return. The extreme fluctuations in seasonal weather patterns in a continental country instead of an island like the UK make it really difficult to compare course maintenance from one side of the pond to the other.

RE: Wilmington, it’s really crazy to use a municipal course that doesn’t need to run at a profit as any sort of blueprint for the sustainability of the game. The reason they can offer a $14 green fee is simple – they’re taxpayer subsidized, and it’s even okay if they operate at a small loss. I was able to find a bit of budget information on the city of Wilmington’s website (http://www.wilmingtonnc.gov/Portals/0/documents/City%20Manager/Budget/FY12-13/5%20BUDGET%20SUMMARY.pdf).

Basically, the course generates a tiny profit in some years but usually loses a bit of money and the city has a number of funds from which it pulls the difference. Keep in mind too, that, as Shelly mentioned, they also pay fewer taxes than other courses. To my untrained eye, it looks like the city of Wilmington's general goal is for the course to come close to breaking even, which is pretty normal for a municipal golf program. We can debate the merits of municipal golf as taxpayers, but the fact is that municipal courses really exist in their own bubble when it comes to setting sustainable green fees.

[Paul Gray]

Paul,

You do realize that the demands of growing an acceptable playing surface in say St. Louis in July are somewhat different than Britain, don't you?  I sometimes frequent a course with $18 green fees but playability suffers on certain shots, for instance when a flop shot is called for and one is faced with a lie with insufficient turf to execute it.  I agree it's not an all or nothing proposition, and I'm against unnecessarily pricey green and soft conditions, but to assume that a minimally acceptable surface can be provided in much of the states on a shoestring is a bit naive.

I do understand that Jud and note your comment that it isn't a matter of all or nothing but, again, the extreme example of Wilmington suggests to me, with my admittedly somewhat second hand knowledge, that perhaps there isn't too much suffering, depending on your definition of such. Given that firm and fast is pretty much universally promoted on this sight, I'm not sure why the flop shot is such a concern. Of course playing style will always differ, but no one here would bemoan the lack of short, aerial options on the kind of dry turf which we so keenly declare to be the best for golf.

Much like over here, it seems to me that so often it is the middle ground clubs which actually have, with demands for artificially maintained conditions, the least enjoyable courses. As I said before, a change in policy would mean, in the short term at least, that rounds would inevitably drop off at these clubs as the ill formed objected to the new landscape but, with those lower costs, and considering the example set by the Wilmingtons of this world, would profits actually fall.

Please don't read this as anything other than me trying to throw a few ideas out there. Again, I declare my knowledge of your market to be, at best, somewhat second hand and therein naïve.      

[Jud_T]

Paul,

I'm not talking about having the choice of greenside shot options.  I'm probably the first guy on this site to pull out a 4-wood in such situations.  I'm talking about having no real option other than chunking a wedge off hardpan with sparsely grown grass that is mowed infrequently.

[Tom_Doak]

Paul,

You do realize that the demands of growing an acceptable playing surface in say St. Louis in July are somewhat different than Britain, don't you?  I sometimes frequent a course with $18 green fees but playability suffers on certain shots, for instance when a flop shot is called for and one is faced with a lie with insufficient turf to execute it.  I agree it's not an all or nothing proposition, and I'm against unnecessarily pricey green and soft conditions, but to assume that a minimally acceptable surface can be provided in much of the states on a shoestring is a bit naive.

Jud:

It might be different if American courses weren't also geared toward having to take on cart traffic, which complicates the use of lower-input grasses.  In Britain they DO chunk a wedge off hardpan with sparsely grown grass that is mowed infrequently.  They call it links golf.

[Tom_Doak]

is it similarly too much to ask for/aspire to an interesting and modest and decently mainitained course in the northeast not loaded down with debt to make a go of it for $35 a round?

It sounds like a rheotrical question, but i don't mean it to be. It's a honest question. Can the operators you meet with make it at that number? (I'm guessing that the answer will be 'no', since I  haven't been able to play a $35 round of golf on an interesting course since I was in Michigan 2+ years ago and played The Mines in Grand Rapids.)  

Peter:

It's quite difficult to do, even at $35.

The rule of thumb is that the break-even green fee for a golf course is $1 for every $100,000 it cost to develop the course ... so, a $35 golf course would have to be developed for $3.5 million, all in.  There are many metro areas where it's impossible to acquire the property for less than that.  [The Mines would be an exception, because the land was unusable for other purposes due to issues from the mining.]

If the land is free, then $3.5 million is about the minimum you'd spend for a golf course, maintenance building and equipment, parking, and a double-wide trailer for a clubhouse.  [That's $2 million for the golf course itself.]  So you can see why I was questioning the $14 figure ... for $1.4 million you don't get parking, clubhouse, or any maintenance equipment!

The other factor is ... I have actually made those numbers work before, but if the golf course is good, the owner will want to make money on it, instead of just charging the break-even green fee.  I'd guess The Mines would, too, if they were in a city with more disposable income, but in Grand Rapids that's the only price the market will bear.

[Paul Gray]

Paul,

You do realize that the demands of growing an acceptable playing surface in say St. Louis in July are somewhat different than Britain, don't you?  I sometimes frequent a course with $18 green fees but playability suffers on certain shots, for instance when a flop shot is called for and one is faced with a lie with insufficient turf to execute it.  I agree it's not an all or nothing proposition, and I'm against unnecessarily pricey green and soft conditions, but to assume that a minimally acceptable surface can be provided in much of the states on a shoestring is a bit naive.

Jud:

It might be different if American courses weren't also geared toward having to take on cart traffic, which complicates the use of lower-input grasses.  In Britain they DO chunk a wedge off hardpan with sparsely grown grass that is mowed infrequently.  They call it links golf.

Exactly, exactly, exactly.

Mr Lob Wedge himself won the Open last year when he finally figured it out. Lesser players, hence my previous comment, don't have the option necessarily, much in the same way that they don't have the option to fly a driver 280 yards.

[John Kavanaugh]

Paul,

I am a member of a nine hole private course here in the transition zone that has 200 members where the dues are $480 per year. The conditions are perfect for playing the ball as it lies. I can also name another 10 courses in my area where I play for under $30 including cart with perfectly acceptable conditioning. Each of these courses have full tee sheets more often than not.

Two things that confirm the quality of conditioning. 1. I could choose to play a high budget top 100 course instead for free. 2. We play our game where you can lose a weeks pay without concern of not being able to execute a flop off of unmaintained hard pan.

I know you like to play quickly, that ain't gonna happen at $14 on a fine course. High budgets are one of the last legal ways to discriminate against the unwashed masses. Who doesn't love an empty course?

[John Kavanaugh]

The paradox of American golf course conditioning:  The higher the budget, the fewer the golfers. One of our ex supers once said "The best thing for my course is to keep the members off of it."  He made this his number 1 priority through excessive spending and unending capital expenditures.

[Paul Gray]

Paul,

I am a member of a nine hole private course here in the transition zone that has 200 members where the dues are $480 per year. The conditions are perfect for playing the ball as it lies. I can also name another 10 courses in my area where I play for under $30 including cart with perfectly acceptable conditioning. Each of these courses have full tee sheets more often than not.

Two things that confirm the quality of conditioning. 1. I could choose to play a high budget top 100 course instead for free. 2. We play our game where you can lose a weeks pay without concern of not being able to execute a flop off of unmaintained hard pan.

I know you like to play quickly, that ain't gonna happen at $14 on a fine course. High budgets are one of the last legal ways to discriminate against the unwashed masses. Who doesn't love an empty course?

And accordingly to current received wisdom, nothing empties a course more quickly than daring to allow nature to do its thing. So, reduce the number of rounds required by reducing the maintenance budget, lose some of the lawn chasing brigade and, hey presto, we all win.  

Well, except of course that we all have to repeat some mantra about growing the game until such a point that mass participation hits 100%. I assume at that point we'll need to start discussing just how we should mess about with the game some more in order to encourage more canine participation.