[Jon Nolan]

[caveat]
From a GCA perspective this is a little off topic.  We're talking about a decent set of munis here.  No world beaters. However, from the 'state of the game' angle it does seem relevant.
[/caveat]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57703259-90/council-course-courses-golf.html.csp

"One of the most striking options outlined in the report by Florida-based National Golf Foundation is the recommended closure of Rose Park Golf Course and nearby Jordan River Par-3, which has nine holes. Those courses provide less revenue than the city’s other courses."

"The study also suggests changing green fees at various courses. The consultant recommends that green fees at Mountain Dell be increased from $49 to $72 for an 18-hole round plus cart, and Wingpointe should go from $47 to $50. It also suggests that Glendale be decreased from $44 to $30, and that green fees at nine-hole Nibley be reduced from $34 to $31. Bonneville and Forest Dale should remain at current rates of $49 and $37.44, respectively."

So much wrong with this.  I'm actually playing Rose Park for the first time tomorrow but I've heard good things about it with the understanding that it is what it is.  Seems to be popular with the older crowd and I've met a few guys who are passionate about the place.  I couldn't begin to say why it isn't as profitable as the other SLC courses.  The article doesn't say.  The article also doesn't say why the big jump in Mountain Dell green fees is justified by the report.  Increasing Mountain Dell to $72 will put them out of business IMO.  No locals will pay $20-25 more to play either Mountain Dell course over basically any other public in the valley and, on the mountain course at least, you can't walk so it's the full rate.  I doubt they are drawing enough tourist rounds to risk it as Wasatch seems to get all those people (as a related aside, since Wasatch raised their rates by $5-10 last year it's much easier to get the tee time you want).  The other howler is reducing Glendale by over 30%.  It's a fun little course with greens in fantastic shape.  Rumor has it getting on the men's association there is a non-starter as it is chock-a-block full.   It always seems busy although I'm never there during the week.  Wingpointe increasing by $3 is fair enough I suppose as long as they use it to replace the gravel in the bunkers with actual sand. 

The profitability issues with SLC golf are surely not known to me.  But as a customer I have a completely different set of concerns.  I could go on about Wingpointe alone for an hour and I really like playing there.  None of my concerns are likely to be fixed by these price changes.  I do know one thing, Mountain Dell will never see me again and Glendale is likely to see a lot more of me. 

I'm sure this is going to annoy someone (or probably a few someones) here but I am very curious and I'm going to ask.  Of what use is the NGF?  This is just the latest thing from them that makes me shake my head.  Are they of use to you guys in the golf business?

[Greg Chambers]

I'm not sure how any golf operator can trust anything the NGF has to say.

[Brett Wiesley]

I live in SLC as well, and find this article difficult to swallow or understand.  I think SLC Golf is very well valued, and utilized by the people the courses owned by SLC and SL County serve.  Yes, they should have better management, and anticipation of future upgrades and course improvements, but to do really any better than that and covering operating costs would be a disservice to the residents.  Maybe qualify with local rates.  I think the golf courses of SLC are one of the most enjoyed and used resources here.  I have been to other areas, and some municipal courses there are $100 a round, and I think the quality is the same.  As for upgraded F&B facilities, I wonder, when has the municipal golfer needed anymore than a hotdog and a beer?

[SB]

The NGF's consulting division has been around for a long time and is no better or worse than any other consultant.  More importantly, though, is that they are consultants.  Like any consultant, these recommendations would not have been made (or released to the public, in any event) if the City was not 100% on board.  More likely, the City wanted some things done and this report is to provide them the political cover to do it (I notice that the article is on the Politics page, not the Sports page).  Piling on to the NGF is a waste of time.

[Jon Nolan]

SBusch,

Your post suggests that NGF proposals and recommendations can be a foregone conclusion based on what the client tells them they want.  If that's the case I have all I need to know.  Doesn't seem to jive all that well with their mission as presented on their site:

The NGF is the most trusted source of information and insights on the business of golf. As the only trade association serving 4,000 members from all segments of the golf industry, NGF is a non-profit, objective and independent resource dedicated to supporting all the people, companies, facilities and associations that earn their living in golf.

Or maybe it jives completely.  Either way, my impressions are confirmed.

[Bill_McBride]

Where is Kalen when you need him?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,

Maybe you should read the report before making broad based accusations?

I have been the gca consultant to NGF on a few occasions.  They have compiled a lot of demographic data to determine how much play and what kind of courses are likely to appeal to golfers in a particular region.

They usually provide several options from the "no change scenario" which, given the courses are in financial trouble, or the city wouldn't have called them, usually shows a continued "death spiral" to minimal corrective input, to a total rebuild and upgrade and rebranding of the facility.  They are not afraid to show the "nuclear" option of closing a course.

They present all 3-4 options, with financial projections for each, and allow the city to pick which path they see as best.

Granted, projections are projections, and they can't take responsibility, as usually, the cities fall back into some of the similar traps that got them in financial trouble in the first place, such as not really marketing the new course any better than the last one.  On the other hand, there have also been some spectacular successes and turnarounds of courses following the NGF reports to a tee.

[SB]

SBusch,

Your post suggests that NGF proposals and recommendations can be a foregone conclusion based on what the client tells them they want.  If that's the case I have all I need to know.  Doesn't seem to jive all that well with their mission as presented on their site:

The NGF is the most trusted source of information and insights on the business of golf. As the only trade association serving 4,000 members from all segments of the golf industry, NGF is a non-profit, objective and independent resource dedicated to supporting all the people, companies, facilities and associations that earn their living in golf.

Or maybe it jives completely.  Either way, my impressions are confirmed.

No, my post implied that ANY consultant's report can be a foregone conclusion depending on the client.  Particularly when the client is a municipality.  However, the reports are valuable in that they do contain actual fact in terms of revenue, rounds and profit.  Obviously a consultant can't recommend something that goes directly against the facts.  But if the courses are losing money then everything is on the table.

[Tom_Doak]

"In business and economic decision making, reliance on data causes severe side effects -- data is now plentiful thanks to connectivity, and the proportion of spuriousness in the data increases as one gets more immersed in it.  A very rarely discussed property of data:  it is toxic in large quantities -- even in moderate quantities."

The same author has a lot to say about governmental decision-making, too much to print here.

The only data I would like to see the before-and-after financials of all the courses that the consultants have previously turned around.  I wonder how much of that was in this report?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I was part of a recently completed NGF report for a facility near DFW.

I know this doesn't directly answer your question about how their reports hold up, but in it, they studied all the remodels of public courses around here.  Every course that remodeled experienced better financial performance.

As I mentioned before, from my experience, many cities follow some, but not all, of consultants recommendations.  As such, it would be easy for either to blame the other, but hard to determine the real cause of poor performance, if it exists.

[Jon Nolan]

Jeff,

I'm guessing the remark directed at Joe is meant for me.  Unfortunately, the report doesn't appear to be available to the common man.  All I have to go on is the impressions I get from the Joe Sixpack, man on the ground, perspective.

I make no accusations.  Over time I've come to shake my head at things the NGF puts out.  My question on this thread is whether people in the golf industry have much use for them.  The responses so far are a mixed bag and some have come from people having a relationship with NGF.  Perhaps others have come from people with an axe to grind.  No way for me to know.  I guess I'm left where I was before.  I'll probably continue to shake my head at stuff the NGF puts out.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jon,

As a city document, you would think it would be available on their website, if not now, then after it is formally accepted.  If you are a citizen, you have a right to know, and you probably would find it interesting reading.

It's not uncommon for the Joe Six Pack golfer to want to keep things as they are.  Which usually means, cheap, but with lots of upgrades.  Seniors are the worst, often getting unlimited play for $300 a year, or $1-3 a round for many of them.  Obviously, no course can survive on $3 per round, when it probably cost $30 a round to produce, and a renovated one has to pay even more for improvements somehow.  Unfortunately, much golf has been subsidized somehow, and when those subsidies have to end, those who have enjoyed them aren't happy.

If there is anything NGF does know, its the stats of golf.  As TD says, sometimes that can paralyze, and be toxic, but maybe not in all cases.

 It is something any city fights when trying to figure out how to make golf courses financially sound.

[Jon Nolan]

Jeff, this bit resonates.  It might easily describe the course they are recommending for closure.

Seniors... often getting unlimited play for $300 a year, or $1-3 a round for many of them.

I still can't fathom how anyone could think some of the other recommendations are going to help but maybe I'll withhold judgement until I see how it plays out. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jon,

Based on my limited experience with NGF, I am willing to bet that they suggested differentiating their course offerings, and the higher fees would accompany a major upgrade and rebranding, while other courses merely held prices in line with inflation.  With their demographic data - which I imagine in SLC is pretty good for golf - they might have seen that all the courses were fighting for the same value golfer while there are actually plenty of golfers who actually will gladly pay more for a better, mid to upper range experience.

But, I haven't seen the report either, so I will also withhold judgment.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()