[Jason Thurman]

How much is an annual membership at Southern Pines?

[Sean_A]

...an expenditure which for many members and in many clubs clubs is completely unnecessary.

Carts for 99% of USA clubs are "necessary" in the sense of "required if you want the club to have enough members to remain solvent". But no, you don't need carts in order for a golf course to exist any more than you need 18 holes rather than 9 or you need toilets and running water on the premises.

My club has about 300 members which is barely at the break-even level. Of the 200 or so who play golf regularly about 80% of them take carts and I'd estimate if there were no carts available 150 of the them would not be members and the course would be bulldozed to build houses or something instead.

When 3/4 or more of the golfers in a club's target market always play golf using a cart, there's not much future in arm-waving away carts as "completely unnecessary". And I say this as someone who has ridden in a golf cart maybe 12-15 of my last 1,000 rounds.

Brent

Sorry, cart and paths aren't "necessary" for a lot of clubs...they are desireable...very different issue....and in which case I would say let riders pay the extra fee.  I wonder how "necessary" carts would be if there was a true cost difference in dues between cart members and walking members...nothing wrong with offering this as a difference in class membership.  Its just that people throw around the concept of carts as necessary when we don't really know that to be the case for a lot of clubs because the true cost difference is not made available as a membership option.

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

Believe as you will, Sean. But I'm telling you for truth. The majority of golfers in the Southeastern USA where I live do not even consider the question of whether to walk or ride. For them golf is a game played in a cart. They will judge a club or public course based on what it costs to play golf in a cart, the question of what it might or might not cost to ride never enters their mind.

Now in some counter factual alternative reality where carts do not exist would all those folks indeed never play golf because they would have to walk? I don't know. Ask a science fiction writer. Because that hypothetical has no connection with the actual on the ground reality right here and right now.

I have never in my life seen an otherwise innocuous concept like a club charging its members a couple dollars per round turn people whom I've long considered among the most level-headed, thoughtful and generally well-grounded members of the forum into bloody-minded absolutists who refuse to acknowledge even the most obvious realities of the real world of American golf in the current day. Had I known what a loaded topic this was, I would never have typed the first word on it honest to god.

[JMEvensky]

Believe as you will, Sean. But I'm telling you for truth. The majority of golfers in the Southeastern USA where I live do not even consider the question of whether to walk or ride. For them golf is a game played in a cart. They will judge a club or public course based on what it costs to play golf in a cart, the question of what it might or might not cost to ride never enters their mind.

 

This isn't Brent's opinion,this is absolute fact. I don't understand why people continue to argue the what-ifs; there aren't any. In this part of the world--nae carts,nae golf.

[Sean_A]

Brent, don't unnecessarily and needlessly get the hump.  I am most definitely not arguing areas.  That is Brent's JME's assumption that I am...look at the language of my posts.  Still, I adamantly believe that it is perverse to find any way to blame walking members for not paying their fair share...then charge a walking fee because they choose not to use extraneous facilities...which carts are...at a lot of clubs.  Even at some clubs in south where the heat and humidy combine to make most unpleasant golfing conditions....there are those who walk...and yet they are sometimes asked to pay for those who choose to play a more expensive version of the game.  That kind of logic doesn't work for me.  If folks want to spend more, then they should pay more.  Quite a simple and reasonable argument.

Ciao

[SL_Solow]

Sean;  I am a walking golfer.  My club in the Chicago area has a strong caddy program.  In a sense, we are even more restrictive because when caddies are available, walkers are required to take a caddy.  We make that decision every year because we believe it is important to maintain a caddy program.  It is part of our culture so we impose the restriction.  Those who disagree are free to play elsewhere.  Similarly, other clubs may view cart revenue as an important component of their revenue stream and as a means of keeping dues at a reasonable level.  Of course there are attendant costs associated with carts, leasing or acquisition, maintenance, fuel or electricity, cart path maintenance, insurance etc.  So, if the club is smart, they don't view all the cart fees as net revenue, but priced correctly carts contribute to the bottom line.  Clubs that view this as an important component and which have a riding culture could rationally decide to recapture all or part of the "spread" between cart costs and cart revenue by charging a walking fee, however it is denominated.  While you or I might not favor that culture, it is not irrational.  It is merely one of any number of ways that a club can choose to spread the cost of operations in a way that its members or ownership deems to be appropriate given their particular economic circumstances and behavioral preferences.  As I said; I am a walker.  At my club, a caddy is more expensive than a cart.  But we have made our decision.  I am sure there are many who would object preferring to avoid the cost and pull or carry on their own.  Same type of reasoning but a different result compared to the walking fee.  Better for the course and the game in my opinion.

[Jud_T]

Shel,

It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.  Are members required to take a forecaddie if they take carts?  Theoretically the caddie is providing a service and the club has decided to support the program for good, charitable reasons.  A straight up fee to pull or carry strikes me as simply an odd way of masking real dues or greens fees.

[A.G._Crockett]

Brent, don't unnecessarily and needlessly get the hump.  I am most definitely not arguing areas.  That is Brent's JME's assumption that I am...look at the language of my posts.  Still, I adamantly believe that it is perverse to find any way to blame walking members for not paying their fair share...then charge a walking fee because they choose not to use extraneous facilities...which carts are...at a lot of clubs.  Even at some clubs in south where the heat and humidy combine to make most unpleasant golfing conditions....there are those who walk...and yet they are sometimes asked to pay for those who choose to play a more expensive version of the game.  That kind of logic doesn't work for me.  If folks want to spend more, then they should pay more.  Quite a simple and reasonable argument.

Ciao

Sean,
I don't think I understand your argument.  Whatever a cart fee is, some portion of that is straight revenue for the club, right?  (I know you aren't arguing that carts don't provide a revenue stream at all.)  Clearly, the club is not providing carts at cost, right?  So why is it that I should be able to walk at cost?  The fact that cart costs are higher than walking costs is irrelevant, isn't it?

I walk almost 100% of my rounds at my club (approx. 125 last year, and 22 already in 2015), and during Daylight Savings Time on Sat. and Sun. before noon, I am charged a $10 trail fee.  Management is very honest with those of us who walk; the trail fee is needed revenue for the club.  Just as riders pay a fee above cost for riding, so do I; I don't think I see the difference at all.  In fact, I'm grateful that my club waives the trail fee during Standard Time AND that they don't require me to ride on weekend mornings.

What is so complicated about this?

[Sean_A]

AG

You are confused. Carts do add cost to clubs and therefore members must find a way to pay the extra cost.  Walking doesn't add any cost to clubs.  Saying carts generate revenue for a private club is completely false.  The club charges members money to cover the costs (well that is the theory, but I am not convinced) of carts and cart paths plus a bit more. The golf would be cheaper if there were no carts and no paths...correct?  My argument is since some members want carts, they should bear the true cost of that amenity.  Of course these days, we are on a second generation of cartballers so as Brent points out, people now think of carts and cart paths not as an added amenity, but a necessity.  My entire point is to show how far removed some clubs are from the concept of a simple club...to the point where a member is charged to walk is course!  Its no wonder so many middle class clubs are in financial difficulties when they think of things like carts and paths as a necessity. 

Ciao 

[Eric Strulowitz]

AG

You are confused. Carts do add cost to clubs and therefore members must find a way to pay the extra cost.  Walking doesn't add any cost to clubs.  Saying carts generate revenue for a private club is completely false.  The club charges members money to cover the costs (well that is the theory, but I am not convinced) of carts and cart paths plus a bit more. The golf would be cheaper if there were no carts and no paths...correct?  My argument is since some members want carts, they should bear the true cost of that amenity.  Of course these days, we are on a second generation of cartballers so as Brent points out, people now think of carts and cart paths not as an added amenity, but a necessity.  My entire point is to show how far removed some clubs are from the concept of a simple club...to the point where a member is charged to walk is course!  Its no wonder so many middle class clubs are in financial difficulties when they think of things like carts and paths as a necessity.  

Ciao  

Right on Sean.

The problem is that carts and cart paths ARE viewed as a necessity.  This makes the whole proposition a whole lot more costly.  My Atlanta area  club has spent tens, maybe hundreds,  of thousands on cart path repairs over the last few years.  The fairways are frequenty tore up by imbeciles that insist on riding down the fairways when they were told quite clearly  that it is cart  path only.  I cannot imagine how much we spend each year placing new turf, the carts tear the course apart and members drive so close to the putting areas, when they are clearly told not to.   We have a lot of hot rodders out there, that push these carts to the limit and slam the brakes, I cannot imagine what maintenance costs must be.

Yes, we have gotten so far away from the concept of a simple club, no wonder so many are closing  and so many cannot afford to play.  If I have to pay for walking, I will quit the game.   Not that I am cheap or can't afford it, but stupid is stupid and you have to draw the line somewhere.    There are plenty of other pastimes out there, I think people are starting to realize this, the idiosyncrasies of this game and those that manage it can really be mind boggling at times.  

[Matt MacIver]

I know you all know this, but in the SE US nearly all the courses built in the last 20-30 years had a residential component...so the routings aren't tight loops but 6-8 mile death marches. Walking takes forever, is often wayyyy too hilly, etc., so management forbids walking, esp at peak times. 

Then, some of the people that buy these houses have never played golf - they bought the bourse for the location, the pool, the possibility of learning golf - so this is their first intro to the game, and carts ARE a part of it, walking ISN'T.

PS no flames please I walk at home 90%+ because it's allowed, and possible.

[A.G._Crockett]

AG

You are confused. Carts do add cost to clubs and therefore members must find a way to pay the extra cost.  Walking doesn't add any cost to clubs.  Saying carts generate revenue for a private club is completely false.  The club charges members money to cover the costs (well that is the theory, but I am not convinced) of carts and cart paths plus a bit more. The golf would be cheaper if there were no carts and no paths...correct?  My argument is since some members want carts, they should bear the true cost of that amenity.  Of course these days, we are on a second generation of cartballers so as Brent points out, people now think of carts and cart paths not as an added amenity, but a necessity.  My entire point is to show how far removed some clubs are from the concept of a simple club...to the point where a member is charged to walk is course!  Its no wonder so many middle class clubs are in financial difficulties when they think of things like carts and paths as a necessity.  

Ciao  

No, I'm not confused.  Of course carts add costs; the cart fee a golfer pays absorbs those costs and then provides profit to the club above and beyond the cost.  That's a pretty simple business matter, and I know you understand that.

Let's agree that it is simplistic to argue that there are NO costs to the club when a golfer walks; that isn't true.  For that to be the case, it would mean that there is NO maintenance necessary outside of the use of carts, that there is NO wear and tear to the course outside the use of carts, and clearly this isn't the case.

The club has a maintenance budget that has to be paid by the membership, whether it's in the form of dues only, or in the form of user fees like a cart fee or a trail fee.  There is no difference, is there?  The only alternative is higher dues, with no user fees at all; otherwise, the riders are subsidizing at least some portion of the walkers' wear and tear on the course.

If you don't like user fees as a way to fund a service, that's fine.  But the revenue has to come from somewhere, or the service can't be provided.  That's true for the national park system, a toll road, or a golf club.  User fees, or higher taxes/dues.  Pretty simple, really.

If my club raised the dues high enough to provide carts at cost and no trail fees, it would lose membership because some of the more casual golfers/families wouldn't see the the value in their membership.  The lower membership numbers would then force the dues to go even higher, or the club to shut down; we've seen this all over the country.  

As it is, I pay $150/month, and $10 on weekend mornings during DST.  It's a helluva deal, really, and I've never resented the trail fee for a moment.  The alternatives are poor at best.

[jeffwarne]

There are many ways to fund a club.
Higher dues may turn off an infrequent player, and the club may need to resort to user fees.

A "user" fee is simply a different model where those who use a facility more pay more.
Surely there's a way to make this work without pissing off walkers.

Every golfer creates a certain operational cost (maint, clubhouse, staff)
The trick is finding out how you want to pay for it.
If a club has cartpaths that were there when you joined , thinking you don't have to pay for them is a bit like thinking you don't have to pay for a pool, the clubhouse amenities , the "overpaid pro  ", or the practice area if you don't use them.

It makes good sense however to charge a large enough premium on car usage to encourage walking on an economic basis, as this will reduce coursewear and tear, and ultimately create a need for a smaller fleet, thus further lowering everyone's cost.
But that doesn't mean noncart users should be exempt from a per use fee--IF that's the model the club has chosen to adopt rather than pure dues.

But don't call it a "walking" or "trail fee"

and those who think walkers don't cause ANY damage haven't taken a good look at all the signage, ropeage, worn out turf, and artificial paths ringing many of the more popular courses overseas caused by trolley traffic.

[BCowan]

There are many ways to fund a club.
Higher dues may turn off an infrequent player, and the club may need to resort to user fees.
Clubs that resort to user fees are usually in trouble, trying to patch a big hole of debt.
A "user" fee is simply a different model where those who use a facility more pay more.
Surely there's a way to make this work without pissing off walkers.

Every golfer creates a certain operational cost (maint, clubhouse, staff)
The trick is finding out how you want to pay for it.
If a club has cartpaths that were there when you joined , thinking you don't have to pay for them is a bit like thinking you don't have to pay for a pool, the clubhouse amenities , the "overpaid pro  Wink Grin", or the practice area if you don't use them.
Bad analogy, if the social membership isn't strong and paying for the pool, most likely fill it in.  Best for CC in declining burbs to do this.  Yes overpaid head pro and that now has a teaching professional that gives all the lessons.  Isn't that the pro's job?
It makes good sense however to charge a large enough premium on car usage to encourage walking on an economic basis, as this will reduce coursewear and tear, and ultimately create a need for a smaller fleet, thus further lowering everyone's cost.
But that doesn't mean noncart users should be exempt from a per use fee--IF that's the model the club has chosen to adopt rather than pure dues.There is simply no point in joining a private club if you have to pay to walk.  Beyond nickle and dimming, all the Golden Age Archies and Old Tom are turning over in their grave.  Adopting this means ur trying to fill a leak with a bandaid.

But don't call it a "walking" or "trail fee" Wink Grin Roll Eyes

and those who think walkers don't cause ANY damage haven't taken a good look at all the signage, ropeage, worn out turf, and artificial paths ringing many of the more popular courses overseas caused by trolley traffic.  If the course has a great walking culture they take the trollies around the bunkers.  Don't some of those ban trolleys in the winter time, lets compare apples to apples. 

[BCowan]

No, I'm not confused.  Of course carts add costs; the cart fee a golfer pays absorbs those costs and then provides profit to the club above and beyond the cost.  That's a pretty simple business matter, and I know you understand that.  I don't disagree with you there.

Let's agree that it is simplistic to argue that there are NO costs to the club when a golfer walks; that isn't true.  For that to be the case, it would mean that there is NO maintenance necessary outside of the use of carts, that there is NO wear and tear to the course outside the use of carts, and clearly this isn't the case.Are you serious?  Walkers provide no wear and tear in the US.  Please elaborate? 

The club has a maintenance budget that has to be paid by the membership, whether it's in the form of dues only, or in the form of user fees like a cart fee or a trail fee.  There is no difference, is there?  The only alternative is higher dues, with no user fees at all; otherwise, the riders are subsidizing at least some portion of the walkers' wear and tear on the course.I would never join a club that I had to pay walking fees.  I would quit the game if the area i lived in within an hour had walking fees and no walking policies at most of the courses.

If you don't like user fees as a way to fund a service, that's fine.  But the revenue has to come from somewhere, or the service can't be provided.  That's true for the national park system, a toll road, or a golf club.  User fees, or higher taxes/dues.  Pretty simple, really.
We always love to talk about revenue, WHAT ABOUT EXPENSES?   Really when you see how the golf club is run vs how it was 70 years ago, it really isn't that simple for many on here.  Head Pro's used to make a living on the lesson tee, now they punch cart tickets.  The one thing you didn't mention to offset expenses is MORE MEMBERS

If my club raised the dues high enough to provide carts at cost and no trail fees, it would lose membership because some of the more casual golfers/families wouldn't see the the value in their membership.  The lower membership numbers would then force the dues to go even higher, or the club to shut down; we've seen this all over the country.  Instead of raising dues, why not attract new members??  Again if you are in the North A.J. have you looked into shutting down the clubhouse or limiting the hours the clubhouse is open in the Winter months?  What we have seen all over the country is too many CC, that think they are in the 1950's.  Ones that were you can't carry your bag till after 4pm, they would rather close their doors before ever allowing a trolley, heaven forbid.

As it is, I pay $150/month, and $10 on weekend mornings during DST.  It's a helluva deal, really, and I've never resented the trail fee for a moment.  The alternatives are poor at best.Forced user fees whether it is a locker, range fee, food min. are idiotic, they have been led to walking fees.  With nickle and dimming i would rather just play a muni or quit the game all in all.

[SL_Solow]

Jud;  I know that the comparison is inexact.  It was simply an illustration of choices that clubs make as a counterpoint to those who suggest that   walking should be a free choice.  At clubs with mandatory caddy programs, walkers do not pay a use fee toward overhead as the caddy keeps his entire fee. Yet the charge to walk, admittedly for a service, is required and exceeds a trail fee.  The club then pays for costs via higher cart fees or increased dues.

As to the bulk of the other objectors, their arguments are not grounded in economics but rather in an idealized version of the type of club that they desire.  Perhaps that is part of the reason why economics has been labeled the dismal science.  One must recognize that many clubs cannot generate enough play without carts to be economically viable.  Those of us who are walkers, myself included, may regret this reality, but it doesn't change the fact.  While the costs of carts have been conceded by everyone, it is equally true that priced correctly with an appropriate spread, carts create revenue which help carry the costs of the operation.  The question is whether those who walk should contribute something on top of their green fees to help cover those costs?  If the cart fee covered costs for cart use and there was no margin, then economically, the use of a cart would be neutral as compared economically to walking without a fee.  If the cart rider is asked to contribute a spread, why not a walker?  The spread leads to profit for a public course or reduced dues for a member owned facility.  Thus the decision comes down to a choice of how one wants to run the facility.  My club wants a caddy program so we require caddies but receive no revenue from that program, indeed the cost of a caddy master etc. increases costs.  That leads to higher dues.  But we make the choice.  Other clubs allow walking at any time with no upcharge.  Again a choice which leads to higher fees elsewhere.  Still others charge the walking fee.

This is true of all fees.  We hear objections to mandatory lockers.  But some clubs feel an inviting locker room is important and require locker charges as a means of providing that atmosphere.  Right or wrong?  Neither.  Its a choice guided by the desires of club members.  Food minimums?  Analysis remains the same.  No one is required to join any of these clubs.  For those who don't agree, they need not apply.  So long as the choices do not violate more important societal norms, members or owners should be free to structure their operations in a way they deem appropriate for their wants and needs and consistent with their economic preferences.  Clubs are for groups of like minded individuals to come together for recreation and perhaps more, including in many cases, charitable and other good works.  Merely because one doesn't like the model proposed by a club to pay for the services its members want doesn't make those choices wrong, it means that club is the wrong one for that individual. 

[Jud_T]

Shel,

Well reasoned as usual.  I suppose in these times of shifting demand in the industry that all options are on the table.  Some of us who prefer transparency and no hidden fees at clubs don't care for all the little extras on top of dues, but so be it.  Clubs have profited for years on the generosity of members who pay dues and barely use the facilities.  Similarly folks who walk and play every day have benefited from a fixed dues structure.  Some might rightly argue that trail fees are in fact a more equitable distribution of costs by usage.  Each market is a microcosm and making broad generalities about the way things "should" be done in financing a course/club while serving an ideal may not be in the best economic interests of a given club in a given neighborhood with it's own micro economy, climate, demand and competitive landscape.  Only a small percentage of clubs are in a position to be painting with a broad brush with regard to these matters these days.  Whatever structure keeps the sprinklers on at the marginal Doak 5 is a good thing in this environment.  Live and let live...

[BCowan]

I know that the comparison is inexact.  It was simply an illustration of choices that clubs make as a counterpoint to those who suggest that   walking should be a free choice.  At clubs with mandatory caddy programs, walkers do not pay a use fee toward overhead as the caddy keeps his entire fee. Yet the charge to walk, admittedly for a service, is required and exceeds a trail fee.  The club then pays for costs via higher cart fees or increased dues.  Ur course is in the N. burbs of Chicago, hardly a representation of 95% of the private clubs in the US.  That is great that you have a caddy program, the Evans is a wonderful organization.  Basically courses that used to have caddy programs now have cart boys.  Clubs that do not have Caddy programs still give a portion of their monthly dues to the organization.  

As to the bulk of the other objectors, their arguments are not grounded in economics but rather in an idealized version of the type of club that they desire.  Perhaps that is part of the reason why economics has been labeled the dismal science.  One must recognize that many clubs cannot generate enough play without carts to be economically viable.  Those of us who are walkers, myself included, may regret this reality, but it doesn't change the fact.  While the costs of carts have been conceded by everyone, it is equally true that priced correctly with an appropriate spread, carts create revenue which help carry the costs of the operation.  The question is whether those who walk should contribute something on top of their green fees to help cover those costs?  If the cart fee covered costs for cart use and there was no margin, then economically, the use of a cart would be neutral as compared economically to walking without a fee.  If the cart rider is asked to contribute a spread, why not a walker?  The spread leads to profit for a public course or reduced dues for a member owned facility.  Thus the decision comes down to a choice of how one wants to run the facility.  My club wants a caddy program so we require caddies but receive no revenue from that program, indeed the cost of a caddy master etc. increases costs.  That leads to higher dues.  But we make the choice.  Other clubs allow walking at any time with no upcharge.  Again a choice which leads to higher fees elsewhere.  Still others charge the walking fee. Carts are needed in the USA, so i totally disagree with Sean.  The fact clubs rely on that income for their bottom line is sad, for the market (economics) is talking, it says you don't have enough members.  The high cart fee goes to pay the bottom line when the club loses money in other areas of the club.  Privately managed Muni's have a cart fee and a walking fee, with no trail fee.  Those do good.  Other clubs allow walking at any time with no upcharge.  Again a choice which leads to higher fees elsewhere.  This statement is utter nonsense.  You aren't including people that are potential members that would overlook a course due to your line of thinking. What is the point of being a member of a private club?  

This is true of all fees.  We hear objections to mandatory lockers.  But some clubs feel an inviting locker room is important and require locker charges as a means of providing that atmosphere.  Right or wrong?  Neither.  Its a choice guided by the desires of club members.  Food minimums?  Analysis remains the same.  No one is required to join any of these clubs.  For those who don't agree, they need not apply.  So long as the choices do not violate more important societal norms, members or owners should be free to structure their operations in a way they deem appropriate for their wants and needs and consistent with their economic preferences.  Clubs are for groups of like minded individuals to come together for recreation and perhaps more, including in many cases, charitable and other good works.  Merely because one doesn't like the model proposed by a club to pay for the services its members want doesn't make those choices wrong, it means that club is the wrong one for that individual. Courses featured on this website (unnamed) have a monthly dues that include everything (they are 98% full).  It isn't a disingenuous scheme of charges.  Again your locker room analogy is important to 10% or less of private clubs (GCA snobbery).  Yes, no one is required to join the club (if only health care was that way), but clubs where founders broke their backs with great risk to build clubs, that people would rather see go under than be a low key private club (attrition excuse).  The audacity of people not using a shoeshine room.  Tiger Woods changes his shoes in the parking lot, gasp.  The way they deem appropriate is causing massive closing of Golden Age clubs, due to regressive ways of thinking.  Enough with the charity nonsense, 1% clubs are used for Biz purposes and social status. it means that club is the wrong one for that individual that is such a snobby comment.  A club in S. Chicago burbs can't run itself like a club in the N. Chicago burbs (unless very highly ranked).  It's called economics, and your version of economics is causing closings.  I suggest reading up on the Perry Maxwell quote that Geoff Schack. posted not to long ago on his blog.  Your outlook sounds as though you possibly are pro attrition (too many private clubs) because we don't want to restructure the Club.  Poor leadership and stewards of great golden age golf courses causing aging memberships and closings.

Jud's response was very good and articulate.  

[jeffwarne]

I'll give you a real world example.

At my club I have played very little the last few years due to me playing in a large number of events.
If they were to adopt a lower dues structure and a user fee each time you played, and LOWER the dues to attract more members, I would be thrilled.
With two kids in private college it's a yearly decision to decide whether I want to continue to pay for something I rarely use.

That would mean you pay x to walk, x + cart fee to ride, or x + trolley fee to ride.
Perhaps in the age of destination clubs and less leisure time this is the way to incentivize people to join and stay joined at clubs, rather than play solely at their destination clubs, daily fees, and as guests of others.

My rounds cost $600 each and others that play daily may get that down to $40 per round.(good for them-I aspire to that )
That only works if I and others continue to subsidize their high frequency of play by staying members and paying dues.

That may not be the way going forward, especially for those with other options or obligations.
More and more clubs may adopt a per use fee that is in no way aimed at walkers, just a different fee structure which may well have its place in certain markets.

calling it a walker fee is a poor PR decision

[BCowan]

Jeff,

    User fee totally diminishes one reason for joining a private club.  John Doe play 50 rounds and Jeff play 8 rounds, and Jack plays 70 rounds, it becomes pointless to join if we begrudge heavy users.  If you looked at the Individual membership model my course has, it enable the guy like yourself (who plays infrequent) to pay half what he would pay for the Family Active Membership at private club down the street.  Where husband & wife play 100 rounds for $5k as a the guy who pays 5k for himself to play 40 rounds.  Individual membership model attracts serious golfers and is utilized best at a golf club.  It works extremely well, we have a waiting list.  It's also cool seeing brand new A8 drinking craft beer in the parking lot after a round parked next to a guy in 15 year old chevy, Gasp!  All to often people are worried about weekend times of 7am-10am, as if no market share of golfers play after that    ...     Being that you are on LI, I'm thinking this is unneeded, you already close your clubhouse down 6 months a year so ur ahead of the curve 

P.S.-  Why would you pay $600 a round when you have thee Goat?

[Philip Hensley]

How much is an annual membership at Southern Pines?

A couple months ago I contacted them and they quoted $115/month

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

    User fee totally diminishes one reason for joining a private club.  John Doe play 50 rounds and Jeff play 8 rounds, and Jack plays 70 rounds, it becomes pointless to join if we begrudge heavy users.  If you looked at the Individual membership model my course has, it enable the guy like yourself (who plays infrequent) to pay half what he would pay for the Family Active Membership at private club down the street.  Where husband & wife play 100 rounds for $5k as a the guy who pays 5k for himself to play 40 rounds.  Individual membership model attracts serious golfers and is utilized best at a golf club.  It works extremely well, we have a waiting list.  It's also cool seeing brand new A8 drinking craft beer in the parking lot after a round parked next to a guy in 15 year old chevy, Gasp!  All to often people are worried about weekend times of 7am-10am, as if no market share of golfers play after that    ...     Being that you are on LI, I'm thinking this is unneeded, you already close your clubhouse down 6 months a year so ur ahead of the curve 

P.S.-  Why would you pay $600 a round when you have thee Goat?

You just made my point for me.
I have options (the club I work at,the club I'm a member at , events I play in, The Goat that I play quite often, my destination club Palmetto, and Sag Harbor Golf Club)
Costs keep going up. If my club were to raise dues and I and others resign, they have to further raise dues, making it even harder on the infrequent golfer.

None of that is actually true in the Hamptons which exists in yet another bubble-but you get my point.

Lower dues via user fees are simply another model-nothing more-nothing less.
They make more sense (to walkers) though if everyone pays them. i.e. I pay $29 for a $25 cart ($25 +4$ user fee)

[Philip Hensley]

Hi, I work for the current management of Southern Pines Golf Club. The fee for walking has been around for years. It was in place at the time the current management took over, and they simply continued it.

My understanding is that the original fees were coded as a "cart fund" fee and "trail fund" fee.
Again it is my understanding that these fees had been used by the Elks to pay for maintenance/upgrades to the cart paths and the carts.

I believe it was originally $1 per 9 holes for each fund for a total of $4 per 18.
Later it was increased to $2 per 9 holes for each fund for a total of $8 per 18.

Brandon Livengood
Southern Pines Golf Club

Is SPGC interested in promoting walking? Is it something that comes up in discussion? Last time I was there I briefly talked to one of the employees there he seemed dismissive and said the course is so hilly and the typical player there is older so they aren't interested in walking much.

I walked the course that day and it is certainly hilly but out of the many times I have played it, walking made the experience much more enjoyable.

[jeffwarne]

Hi, I work for the current management of Southern Pines Golf Club. The fee for walking has been around for years. It was in place at the time the current management took over, and they simply continued it.

My understanding is that the original fees were coded as a "cart fund" fee and "trail fund" fee.
Again it is my understanding that these fees had been used by the Elks to pay for maintenance/upgrades to the cart paths and the carts.

I believe it was originally $1 per 9 holes for each fund for a total of $4 per 18.
Later it was increased to $2 per 9 holes for each fund for a total of $8 per 18.

Brandon Livengood
Southern Pines Golf Club

Is SPGC interested in promoting walking? Is it something that comes up in discussion? Last time I was there I briefly talked to one of the employees there he seemed dismissive and said the course is so hilly and the typical player there is older so they aren't interested in walking much.

I walked the course that day and it is certainly hilly but out of the many times I have played it, walking made the experience much more enjoyable.

Phillip,
Sometimes it can depend greatly on who owns the cart concession.
If the pro owns it, chances are good his staff will promote riding.

It would seem to me, if the club owns the concessions, that it would be good to find the correct fee structure that encourages management to 
promote walking, as ultimately it wears less on the course, and walking creates more predictable traffic flow (singles and duos in carts can wreak havoc playing through the world)

[Eric Strulowitz]

Hi, I work for the current management of Southern Pines Golf Club. The fee for walking has been around for years. It was in place at the time the current management took over, and they simply continued it.

My understanding is that the original fees were coded as a "cart fund" fee and "trail fund" fee.
Again it is my understanding that these fees had been used by the Elks to pay for maintenance/upgrades to the cart paths and the carts.

I believe it was originally $1 per 9 holes for each fund for a total of $4 per 18.
Later it was increased to $2 per 9 holes for each fund for a total of $8 per 18.

Brandon Livengood
Southern Pines Golf Club

Is SPGC interested in promoting walking? Is it something that comes up in discussion? Last time I was there I briefly talked to one of the employees there he seemed dismissive and said the course is so hilly and the typical player there is older so they aren't interested in walking much.

I walked the course that day and it is certainly hilly but out of the many times I have played it, walking made the experience much more enjoyable.

I have walked that course and yes it might be rolling, but there are many tougher walks than SPGC.   It is not even close to the hilliness of other courses in the area.  A good example would be Dormey Club, now that is some hills, but a course very much enjoyed when walked.    I live in Northwest Georgia, many incredibly hilly tracks.   After walking some of these courses, there is not only a better appreciation of the design and connection with nature, but an almost morphine like euphoria when you are done and just sit back to chill.  All the tension feels gone, you feel totally disconnected from the lunacy around you.  And to add, the positive feeling that you did something good for your body and soul, and maybe postponed for many years an income stream for some cardiologist.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()