What's a Top Greenkeeper Worth?

[Paul Gray]

It is said that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Fair comment in my book. So:


1) What should a club reasonably expect to pay for a top greenkeeper?


2) What sort of variance is there from one part of the golfing world to another?


3) Where do you find the best greenkeepers?


I'm particularly interested in answers pertaining to the south east of England but, for the sake of discussion, all answers are very welcome. If anyone is uncomfortable publicly expressing a view, all PM's are equally welcome.


Thanks all.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Paul - I think it depends on what team he has behind him as to what is sensible to pay, by that I mean there is no point in paying someone £50,000 per year if he has 3 assistants. If he has a crew of 12 then its probably in the ballpark.

Top greenkeeper's can't do much with low budgets, equally it is easy to waste money with high budgets. What is really needed is a general manifesto of what is required and from there the cloth can be cut.

If your looking for numbers as a rough i'd say;
£18,000 for a head man with one assistant
£20,000 for a head man with two more in the crew
£23,000 for a head man with three more in the crew
£26,000 for a head man with four more in the crew
£29,000 for a head man with five more in the crew
the top greenkeepers will be looking for courses with a decent crew
£35,000 for a team of 7 up to £45,000 for a crew of 12
after that the very top guys are getting paid close to £100,000

[Ken Moum]

Since most US privateclubs are non-profit, they have to file 990 tax forms.  That means you can view the forms on the web, and they commonly have the salaries of their top employees listed.

It seems as if some "prestigious" clubs pay their top employees a lot just because they can.

I just looked at two of"them, one on the east coast and one on the east. Both pay their super over $250,000.00.  In one case, more than double what any other employee gets.

[Ryan Coles]

Paul

http://www.bigga.org.uk/uploads/attachment/358/2015-cgcs-recommendations-greenkeepers.pdf

The above may shed some light.

I'd say Adrian has it slightly low if applying specifically to South of England.

Taking out the very small and very large operations a head greenkeeper at an 18 hole £1,000 to £1,200 per annum members club would be £36k - £40k. Promote the deputy and it can be less than this.

The best way for a greenkeeper to boost this is keep moving around and the best ones tend to.

[Paul Gray]

All,


Thank you already for your invaluable input.

[Wayne_Kozun]

The best way for a greenkeeper to boost this is keep moving around and the best ones tend to.

Particularly if that move is to America.  Even here in Canada I would have to think that the greenkeepers at the top clubs earn well into six figures.

I guess this somewhat explains the differentials in annual dues for clubs in the UK vs NA.

[Cliff Hamm]

 So I checked out a form 990 for one of the elite Eastern clubs. Wow, am I naïve. I was shocked by the salaries -general manager about 500 K, superintendent  over 300 K. And folks want to argue a minimum wage of $15 an hour?

[Ryan Coles]

The best way for a greenkeeper to boost this is keep moving around and the best ones tend to.

Particularly if that move is to America.  Even here in Canada I would have to think that the greenkeepers at the top clubs earn well into six figures.

I guess this somewhat explains the differentials in annual dues for clubs in the UK vs NA.

Don't forget £ and $.

It's all relative. Five staff and a budget under £100k is always going to command a lot less than 25 staff and millions of dollars.

Every course has an optimum. I suspect many are bloated and wasteful in this respect.

[Jon Wiggett]

So bigger budget and more staff means bigger wage Well I guess that is the 'don't have to think much about it' way to do it. Using Adrian's figures, you employ a head greenkeeper who has 12 staff and pay him £45K. After a year he not only has improved the course considerably but as he is a conscientious employee, he has also cut the number of staff down to 7. You are delighted on all fronts but inform him that despite the improvement in the course and him saving a considerable amount on the wage bill as he only has 7 staff you are going to cut his wage by £10K to £35K. Now is it likely to endear him to stay?

A club should pay the staff what they are worth with an eye on what the club can afford and where it is located. Really good greenkeepers are motivated by a mixture of working environment, challenge of the job and remuneration. As Ryan says it also depends on where in the country the club is too.

Jon

[Ryan Coles]

It's factual in all walks of life that the more people you manage / size of the operation the more you're likely to be paid in return. It's true of greenkeeping and just about anything else.

I'm not saying it's fair and it could be argued that the guy with two staff and a shoe string budget has the harder job and is more skilled in many respects.

Determining worth is mostly establishing the cost of replacing or what someone else is prepared to pay.

Greenkeepers in the UK don't seem to get the respect that their U.S. counterparts enjoy but  benefit from a less volatile working environment. It is my impression that in the UK they aren't educated to the same level, generally speaking.

Golf in the UK generally doesn't pay well. That's the trade off for such a pleasant working environment and how many want to work in the industry.

[Adrian_Stiff]

So bigger budget and more staff means bigger wage Well I guess that is the 'don't have to think much about it' way to do it. Using Adrian's figures, you employ a head greenkeeper who has 12 staff and pay him £45K. After a year he not only has improved the course considerably but as he is a conscientious employee, he has also cut the number of staff down to 7. You are delighted on all fronts but inform him that despite the improvement in the course and him saving a considerable amount on the wage bill as he only has 7 staff you are going to cut his wage by £10K to £35K. Now is it likely to endear him to stay?

A club should pay the staff what they are worth with an eye on what the club can afford and where it is located. Really good greenkeepers are motivated by a mixture of working environment, challenge of the job and remuneration. As Ryan says it also depends on where in the country the club is too.

Jon

Jon - Read my post again. I am not saying what you have said at all.

[Adrian_Stiff]

It's factual in all walks of life that the more people you manage / size of the operation the more you're likely to be paid in return. It's true of greenkeeping and just about anything else.

I'm not saying it's fair and it could be argued that the guy with two staff and a shoe string budget has the harder job and is more skilled in many respects.

Determining worth is mostly establishing the cost of replacing or what someone else is prepared to pay.

Greenkeepers in the UK don't seem to get the respect that their U.S. counterparts enjoy but  benefit from a less volatile working environment. It is my impression that in the UK they aren't educated to the same level, generally speaking.

Golf in the UK generally doesn't pay well. That's the trade off for such a pleasant working environment and how many want to work in the industry.

+1
Unfortunately or fortunately depending which side your on, in the UK one of the reasons you can play golf for $1000 a year on a pretty reasonable course is that the overheads here are very low. US greenkeepers (superintendents) are much more knowledgeable and whilst the gap has narrowed over the last 20 years American course management is almost a different world.

[Patrick_Mucci]

 So I checked out a form 990 for one of the elite Eastern clubs. Wow, am I naïve. I was shocked by the salaries -general manager about 500 K, superintendent  over 300 K. And folks want to argue a minimum wage of $15 an hour?
 
Cliff,
 
Is any full time employee at the clubs you reviewed making less than $ 15/hr ?
 
If not, why insert your political beliefs into the thread ?

[Jeff Bergeron]

 So I checked out a form 990 for one of the elite Eastern clubs. Wow, am I naïve. I was shocked by the salaries -general manager about 500 K, superintendent  over 300 K. And folks want to argue a minimum wage of $15 an hour?
 
Cliff,
 
Is any full time employee at the clubs you reviewed making less than $ 15/hr ?
 
If not, why insert your political beliefs into the thread ?

I agree with Patrick 100%. Stop the politics!

[Philip Caccamise]

 So I checked out a form 990 for one of the elite Eastern clubs. Wow, am I naïve. I was shocked by the salaries -general manager about 500 K, superintendent  over 300 K. And folks want to argue a minimum wage of $15 an hour?
 
Cliff,
 
Is any full time employee at the clubs you reviewed making less than $ 15/hr ?
 
If not, why insert your political beliefs into the thread ?

~20 years ago I worked full time hours in the bag room at one top (host of multiple major championships) club and then at another as a waiter (no tips allowed) and made barely above minimum wage, which in those years was $4.25-$5.15. Today's equivalent would be about $9-10 an hour. So the answer to your question is yes.


I have no problem with a top greenskeeper making $300k, for what it's worth.

[Mike_Young]

When a golf course hires a good supt salary should not be the determining factor as much as overall budget.  Often a more experienced and higer salaried guy can save more than enough money in his overall budget via chemical applications, fertilizer applications and water and capital expenditure management.   But I do think most courses today find a better fit with a working supt instead guy who has worked as an asst at clubs with extreme budgets and the ability to fix anything with dollars instead of common sense. 

[James Bennett]

Paul

I know of one club In Adelaide (Australia) that is a private club with affordable subs (say under a thousand pounds a year) but struggling with past debt that chose to have the course supt as the highest paid employee - more than the GM.

The club has succeeded because the course supt has been able to deliver despite a low budget, limited access to water and difficult climate challenges.  He makes a significant difference to what continues to be a successful but affordable club with low budgets.

James B

[Jon Wiggett]

So bigger budget and more staff means bigger wage Well I guess that is the 'don't have to think much about it' way to do it. Using Adrian's figures, you employ a head greenkeeper who has 12 staff and pay him £45K. After a year he not only has improved the course considerably but as he is a conscientious employee, he has also cut the number of staff down to 7. You are delighted on all fronts but inform him that despite the improvement in the course and him saving a considerable amount on the wage bill as he only has 7 staff you are going to cut his wage by £10K to £35K. Now is it likely to endear him to stay?

A club should pay the staff what they are worth with an eye on what the club can afford and where it is located. Really good greenkeepers are motivated by a mixture of working environment, challenge of the job and remuneration. As Ryan says it also depends on where in the country the club is too.

Jon

Jon - Read my post again. I am not saying what you have said at all.

Adrian,

I was commenting on linking wage to number of staff as main reason for amount paid as been too simple a way of looking at it. I was not saying your post was poor but used the figures in it as a basis so no comment was meant about your post. However, as you have brought it up I would suggest that you do link the size of wage to number of staff quite strongly in your original post indeed if you could point out any other point on remuneration you do make in your first post as I can not.

Jon

[Adrian_Stiff]

Jon - my figures were very rough/broadly speaking. I was trying to make the point that if the club has an £80,000 Staff budget then you can't really pay the top man £50,000. The bigger wages will go to the bigger clubs that have decided to mow greens every day, fairways three times a week and aprons and tees every other, that have decided to top dress every two weeks and perhaps have fairway watering in addition to the UK norm. Those situations need more bodies. I was absolutely not trying to make a point that if the man saved money on wages his fee should be reduced.

I think I may be way light on London/South East wages. South West is pretty dire the nearer you get to Cornwall. I don't think many clubs are paying in excess of £35,000 to any member of staff in the six or seven counties in the South West...I am not saying they are not worth it....there is simply less money in golf than there was....it is going to get worse not better... if £9 per hour is the minimum wage we would need to raise our one course meal price from £6 to £10 and a pint of lager goes from £3.50 to £5.80....IMO £9 min wage (eqv of $15 uS) sends the UK into massive problems with inflation and a situation where many business values will crash or just not work.

It must be the same North of Manchester.

[Tom_Doak]

Generally, a great greenkeeper is worth his weight in gold.  However, the best guys are not always the highest-paid.


The numbers presented for the U.S.A. are for the top of the line clubs in the biggest metropolitan areas, at clubs where the dues are $15,000 per year or higher. 


Suffice to say that 99.9% of greenkeepers in the U.S. don't make $250,000 per year, and I'd guess 95-98% don't make $100k.  But, I could be surprised, I always have a bit of trouble understanding salaries in this age of hidden inflation and the growing gap between the haves and have-nots.

[Cliff Hamm]

Generally, a great greenkeeper is worth his weight in gold.  However, the best guys are not always the highest-paid.


The numbers presented for the U.S.A. are for the top of the line clubs in the biggest metropolitan areas, at clubs where the dues are $15,000 per year or higher. 


Suffice to say that 99.9% of greenkeepers in the U.S. don't make $250,000 per year, and I'd guess 95-98% don't make $100k.  But, I could be surprised, I always have a bit of trouble understanding salaries in this age of hidden inflation and the growing gap between the haves and have-nots.

+1

[Steve Okula]

The GCSAA does bi-annual salary surveys of its members.  According to the latest one:

In 2015, the average base salary for golf course superintendents rose to $85,204, a 3.2% increase over the base salary reported in 2013. This increase represents a 72.9% gain since 1995, or an increase of $35,935 in 20 years. In 2015, half of all superintendents earned $75,000 or more annually, 25% of all superintendents earned more than $100,000, and the top 10% earned $135,000 or more annually.

https://www.gcsaa.org/jobs/compensation-resources

This is gathered from predominantly U.S. superintendents, although a few foreigners are in the data as well. It is not a scientific survey, and the numbers may be slightly skewed, but it gives a general indication. I believe the US compensation is probably about 50% higher than that of their UK counterparts.

[Thomas Dai]

If you've ever been a member at a club where over a long period of time the G/k isn't producing the quality of course that is required/expected - and this can be for numerous different, and sometimes understandable, reasons - you'll know that, as Tom puts it, a great G/k is worth his weight in gold, and, to add my own description, a damn good one is worth his weight in silver.


A highly important element of any golf club IMO, maybe the most important element, is the quality/standard of upkeep the course, and the person heading up the maintenance team is absolutely key t othis, so reward him well if he's good or better than good.


atb

[Steve Okula]

Generally, a great greenkeeper is worth his weight in gold.  However, the best guys are not always the highest-paid.


The numbers presented for the U.S.A. are for the top of the line clubs in the biggest metropolitan areas, at clubs where the dues are $15,000 per year or higher. 


Suffice to say that 99.9% of greenkeepers in the U.S. don't make $250,000 per year, and I'd guess 95-98% don't make $100k.  But, I could be surprised, I always have a bit of trouble understanding salaries in this age of hidden inflation and the growing gap between the haves and have-nots.

That is a provocatively political post, Tom. You know that Mucci won't abide it.

[Jon Wiggett]

Adrian,

I totally agree with what you say in your second post although it is not present in your original post. A club needs to adjust the wage in accordance with its budget constraints but not in my opinion to the number of people in their staff otherwise many in the US would be minted in summer but very poor in winter me thinks

If a club cannot afford a higher wage then it needs to think of ways of making the working environment such as this more than compensates for the lack of money.

Jon