Concert Golf

[Ed Brzezowski]

A local Philly club just voted to sell to them. Does anyone have any experience with them or their business model??

From what I am hearing it's too good to be true.

ed

[Tim Martin]

Concert comes in as a "white knight" to retire all the club's debt and fund capital projects going forward with no assessments. Additionally their website says that dues will remain reasonable and in accordance with industry standards. Now it's time to sit down for the next part of the equation. Although they say that nothing will change going forward Concert owns everything. Additionally they advise that they have never divested any of the golf courses they oversee although it appears to be an option. I agree that it sounds way to good to be true.

[David_Tepper]

http://concertgolfpartners.com/

[SL_Solow]

Is there any reason to believe that Concert is any different/better than the other companies who approach under capitalized over leveraged clubs and offer to rescue them from their debt/operating losses with an injection of capital in return for all the equity?  Not a new concept in golf or elsewhere.  An old maxim applicable in many contexts; if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.  In my experience groups like this eliminate the debt.  If they want to keep the dues static, or reduce them, they  have to inflate the membership significantly, become more efficient, and/or reduce the level of service.  They usually try a combination of all three.  For many, this works out fine but for other club members it is a different experience.  Of course, if they couldn't service their debt or maintain a membership given the cost, the prior experience was unsustainable.  But anyone expecting an operator to maintain the same club at the same cost while cashing out debt and making a profit is likely kidding themselves.  But most clubs that get into that type of predicament did so by refusing to face economic reality so it may be a continuation of a pattern.  Not a knock on these types of operators, more power to them if they can save failing clubs and turn a profit.

[Matt MacIver]

They're ex Club Corp folks who are funded by private equity, I believe. I also think their pitch is they'll leave your private club more "private" than CC. My guess is they build a portfolio and then sell in bulk to make their return - to CC or another financial buyer.

[Mike_Young]

They're ex Club Corp folks who are funded by private equity, I believe. I also think their pitch is they'll leave your private club more "private" than CC. My guess is they build a portfolio and then sell in bulk to make their return - to CC or another financial buyer.

I think that is the way it works...I thought it was owned by Peter Nanula who has some good Wall St contacts and started Arnold Palmer Management. 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Until I retired and moved I belonged to a club that Concert Golf purchased. Reviews are mixed. They did retire the $4,000,000 debt we had from renovations to clubhouse and course. They kept the course in fine shape and kept the old employees except the GM. They also made changes that rankled many of us. They turned the well used men's grill and card room into a little used fitness center. I think I was the only person to use it, even though it was outfitted greatly. I guess it was a selling point for new members. They did know how to attract new members and within a couple of years we had added about fifty members. We just had no say into what happens at the club. We would come into the clubhouse and something would be changed. We had glass the separated the bar from the dining room. Folks sitting in the bar could look out over the lake and course. I came in one day and the glass was gone. Now the dining area is noisy. I would show up on a Wednesday and there would be an outing. Previously, I never needed a tee time and know that Monday was the only day we accepted outings. I'd come in after a round only to find both the bar and dining area closed due to a private function. The good news is that we are solvent, the course is in good condition, and the clubhouse well maintained. The bad news is we no longer had any control over what was done. Reviews are wildly mixed. Although we did pick up a bunch of new members we also lost many long time ones.

[SB]

Peter is a good guy and is well respected.  He does what he says, which is the most important thing for you to know if your club is thinking of selling.


I wouldn't say what he does is too good to be true.  He takes struggling clubs, invests capital, and run them correctly.  He cuts silly expenses and invests in the right areas.  I do the same thing, it's not magic.  It doesn't mean he'll cut services, unless the services don't make sense.  In many cases, we increase services.  Will he make decisions that everyone doesn't like?  Sure, but that will happen no matter who is running it.  Do you have a say in things?  Technically no, but anyone running a business will listen to their customers. It doesn't mean that he will agree with them, but I assure you he will listen. 

[Tim Martin]

Maybe someone can enlighten me but it would appear that once Concert takes the reigns there would be no reason to have any member committees/boards i.e. Board of Governors, Greens Committees, House, Social etc. So yeah I guess it's still "private" in the sense that public play isn't accepted but doubtful that any member/committee would have much say in anything. The sell is that it's better than going out of business but along with the debt goes the club's soul. The club is forever under the thumb of a manager. I am not saying it's not an alternative but I doubt it's a panacea either. I don't like giving up control of the golf course as far as maintenance practices and architectural decisions.

[Ed Brzezowski]

I just heard the area might have another course going over to Concert. In four days I have heard about five Philly area clubs selling to them or CC.

What the hell is going on?

[JESII]

What the hell is going on?

Ed - Philly has too many clubs.

[Mike_Young]

The model is changing...the new boards don't see the club like their fathers did and would just as soon not deal with the "board" thing.  Things are always changing.

[BCowan]

I just heard the area might have another course going over to Concert. In four days I have heard about five Philly area clubs selling to them or CC.

What the hell is going on?

Ed,


   MY and I would be happy to advise or do intervention for a nominal fee.   

[Ed Brzezowski]

I just heard the area might have another course going over to Concert. In four days I have heard about five Philly area clubs selling to them or CC.

What the hell is going on?

Ed,


   MY and I would be happy to advise or do intervention for a nominal fee.   

payable in beer?

[Tim Martin]

The model is changing...the new boards don't see the club like their fathers did and would just as soon not deal with the "board" thing.  Things are always changing.

Mike-I don't know of any private clubs in my area that don't use the board system. With a truly member owned club(not the Concert model) what is the alternative? If you want to pursue certain initiatives or effect change you need to be involved. If not than you can't complain when decisions are made that are counter to your expectations/wishes. Happy Holidays

[SB]

The private clubs that we owned we did have advisory boards.  Some of our clubs had multiple boards - greens, social, etc.  Some just had an executive board.  It just depended on what the members wanted, and generally what was in place prior to us taking over.  The GM, super, and I had made all final decisions, but in general we tried to do what they asked.  Take the greens committee - we did the vast majority of what the members wanted to do - they are the ones that played every day and knew better than I what needed to be done.  What we took out of their hands were things like budgeting, equipment purchases, and capital projects.  Members are not experienced in those areas and I am.  Not all privately owned clubs use boards like that, and I can't say if Concert does or does not, and it may vary by club for them as well.  I found the boards to be tremendously valuable, as they knew a lot of the history of the club, and provided a very clean and efficient way of communicating with the membership as a whole.  But that's just me.


As Mike says, times are changing.  Fewer people have the time to commit to a board, plus it's now a grind with stress and a lot of big decisions which can really impact the future of the club.  It's no longer just a free meal a month and the chance to add a bunker.

[Mike_Young]

The model is changing...the new boards don't see the club like their fathers did and would just as soon not deal with the "board" thing.  Things are always changing.

Mike-I don't know of any private clubs in my area that don't use the board system. With a truly member owned club(not the Concert model) what is the alternative? If you want to pursue certain initiatives or effect change you need to be involved. If not than you can't complain when decisions are made that are counter to your expectations/wishes. Happy Holidays

My club here is a board system but a few are changing.  I don't disagree with your comments but I see it changing.  The fathers ran clubs differently because at that time golf etc was more of a game than a business but once the kids got the MBA's and came back and started borrowing money and reworking clubs with changes their fathers would have never made, it changed.  JMO