[Sean_A]

Does anyone know what the percentage breakdown is for the average club of members vs visitors?  More than half of annual revenue?

Over 50% revenue for green fees would be very few UK clubs.

Ciao

I’m not so sure.

At Conwy green fees account for 50% of income. At Cavendish it’s 40%. Those are two clubs I’ve got the accounts for.

Off the top of my head I can say with some certainty that green fee income exceeds membership income at Harlech, Silloth, Dornoch, and Machrihanish.

Yes, some pretty well mapped courses. The vast majority of courses don't have much pull.


Ciao

[David Jones]

The price comparisons are very interesting to me. Because the fees are so much higher than inflation, it makes me wonder where the money was spent. What exactly is driving up the cost and are the line items luxury or necessity.

Ciao

Gullane is an interesting example. I couldn't find the historical green fees going back too far but it's now at least £170 to play number 1 in the summer. That's gone up massively in recent years.


They get feedback every year from the travel companies who bring high-end tours over and it is then 'suggested' where they should improve their proposition. The underlying concern being that if they don't they will lose the visits. Guess what they say? Better clubhouse facilities and practice facilities please. So the club embark on an investment plan in order to improve the features to keep the visitors coming. Something of a vicious spiral.


While the improvements will be appreciated by many of the members you end up with a kind of homogenization. Every practice range will feel the same, every shop will stock the same Peter Millar gear. The experiences blend into one.


The course is invested in too of course. Gullane has been in phenomenal condition as the investments in manpower and machinery reap their benefits. Mike Clayton talks frequently about the over-conditioning of golf courses though - people don't know how to deal with a bad lie any more. And of course expectations rise here too. If courses don't look picture postcard then they risk being marked down too.


I guess I'm just worried that at this top end we end up with cookie cutter golf experiences. The good thing is that you don't need to have to go too far from any of the courses I cited in the original article to find authenticity, and normally more fun. We just have to hope the Peter Millar rep doesn't get their hands on them too!

[Sean_A]

The price comparisons are very interesting to me. Because the fees are so much higher than inflation, it makes me wonder where the money was spent. What exactly is driving up the cost and are the line items luxury or necessity.

Ciao

Gullane is an interesting example. I couldn't find the historical green fees going back too far but it's now at least £170 to play number 1 in the summer. That's gone up massively in recent years.

They get feedback every year from the travel companies who bring high-end tours over and it is then 'suggested' where they should improve their proposition. The underlying concern being that if they don't they will lose the visits. Guess what they say? Better clubhouse facilities and practice facilities please. So the club embark on an investment plan in order to improve the features to keep the visitors coming. Something of a vicious spiral.

While the improvements will be appreciated by many of the members you end up with a kind of homogenization. Every practice range will feel the same, every shop will stock the same Peter Millar gear. The experiences blend into one.

The course is invested in too of course. Gullane has been in phenomenal condition as the investments in manpower and machinery reap their benefits. Mike Clayton talks frequently about the over-conditioning of golf courses though - people don't know how to deal with a bad lie any more. And of course expectations rise here too. If courses don't look picture postcard then they risk being marked down too.

I guess I'm just worried that at this top end we end up with cookie cutter golf experiences. The good thing is that you don't need to have to go too far from any of the courses I cited in the original article to find authenticity, and normally more fun. We just have to hope the Peter Millar rep doesn't get their hands on them too!

David

Yes, I realize Gullane has done serious clubhouse work some time ago.  The visitor house is going to get an upgrade, which isn't a bad idea if done right.  The practice range is usurping part of #3. 

I agree.  Proshops these days seem to be kitted out in a verys similar fashion.  New locker rooms look similar.  The gear on offer is the same companies.  Slowly, but surely, the individual nature of clubs is being eroded.  Plus, the reasons to play these courses is being worn away by new work...which often times looks very similar. 

When folks pay £150 and more they should expect good conditions, but it might be time to take a look at what is being accomplished.  I hate to see grass unduly stressed because a certain level green fee demands it.  I don't see a problem with raising the blades a bit and focus more on sustainable maintenance.  At the same time drop the championship nonsense and cut the rough to enable quicker pace of play.  But mostly, stop tinkering.  If there is going to be tinkering let it be for good reasons.  That said, explore cheap options before blowing up a hole or two.  What I am seeing is the process of codification taking over British golf. 

Ciao

[David_Elvins]

Gullane is an interesting example. I couldn't find the historical green fees going back too far but it's now at least £170 to play number 1 in the summer. That's gone up massively in recent years.

Not what you are specifically after but the 1990 price was £20 weekdays and £30 for weekends.  One other notable green fee from 1990 was the £42 weekly ticket for st Andrews (old course excluded). 


100% agree with the rest of your post but and Sean Arbles's too.  Some great points.

[Thomas Dai]

An example of how things change.
In 1982 I joined a famous links Club with a main course laid out 120+ years ago with input by several of the great architects of the time. The main course is a strong, challenging test of golf including an element of quirk and has stunningly photogenic views. It is much beloved of many herein and elsewhere, indeed it is somewhere that is now a bucket list course for national and international visitors from far and wide. There is also a second course, only 9-holes, but one of the best 9-hole links courses to be found anywhere.
My full membership annual subs, annual subs, on joining were less than half of the current 1-round midweek green-fee to play the main course. The full membership annual subs are now 10-times what I paid in 1982. I don't recall what the green-fee was back when I joined.
But if necessary the course(s) could easily go back to lessor maintenance standards and have sheep graze the fairways, which is what once upon a time was the case, and I'm confident they'd still play just fine. Whether the new Clubhouse built a few years ago that replaced the previous large wooden chalet building would still be viable is another matter as would be financing of any course change projects.
Supply, demand, location, publicity, inflation all do wonders but also change over time. Make hay while the sun shines and then hang on for dear life and be careful of relying on visitor income.
atb

[jeffwarne]

Quote from David Jones

"They get feedback every year from the travel companies who bring high-end tours over and it is then 'suggested' where they should improve their proposition. The underlying concern being that if they don't they will lose the visits. Guess what they say? Better clubhouse facilities and practice facilities please. So the club embark on an investment plan in order to improve the features to keep the visitors coming. Something of a vicious spiral.


While the improvements will be appreciated by many of the members you end up with a kind of homogenization. Every practice range will feel the same, every shop will stock the same Peter Millar gear. The experiences blend into one.


The course is invested in too of course. Gullane has been in phenomenal condition as the investments in manpower and machinery reap their benefits. Mike Clayton talks frequently about the over-conditioning of golf courses though - people don't know how to deal with a bad lie any more. And of course expectations rise here too. If courses don't look picture postcard then they risk being marked down too.

I guess I'm just worried that at this top end we end up with cookie cutter golf experiences. The good thing is that you don't need to have to go too far from any of the courses I cited in the original article to find authenticity, and normally more fun. We just have to hope the Peter Millar rep doesn't get their hands on them too!"





There's a lot of wisdom packed into the post above.
Probably a topic for another thread, and brings up 2 key questions (at least)
1. How does a classic course retain their authenticity and uniqueness yet attract and retain the "appropriate" amount of visitors
2. How does a new course avoid being the cookie cutter new destination course of which so many have the same formula,and attract customers while retaining/creating its own unique memorable and traditions that set it apart. Bagpipes at sunset kind've jumped the shark..along with stupid goody bags..

haven't been to Sweetens Cove but it seems they're a new course that found their own niche (out of necessity)
It's a bit of a risk to create/keep something different as an attraction identity, and of course you risk losing a few, but it could result in a lower cost structure and less need to feed the beast with the self fulfilling prophecy of giving the masses what they want.
Just because people can afford, and many people demand, the same homogonized amenities....doesn't mean many would miss it if gone, and even appreciate the lack of such. (Palmetto for years, and most of the favorite gems in the UK of my well to do clients-never heard one story years later about how cool Kingsbarns was-despite its quality-I hear anecdotal references to Shiskine, Carradale and Mulranny all the time from those same people-things they can't get at their high end club with the well architected parking lot and perfect clubhouse)

The pandemic has been quite eye opening in seeing what (and which) lack of amenities people will tolerate to play golf.
Whipped us right back to 1976 in so many ways, most of them good.

[Richard Fisher]

I suspect that for many British clubs the benchmark post-pandemic may not turn out to be 1976, but 1946, and post-war re-opening....it's very striking to look at membership numbers and facilities offered by even well-known clubs and courses in the decade after WW2 (check out e,g the appendices to Patric Dickinson's Round of Golf Courses of 1951 for some quite spartan post-war examples).

When the Royal St David's Golf Club reconvened in August 1946 for its first Summer Meeting post-war, there were c260 members on the roll, and the clubhouse catered very modestly for drinks, sandwiches (in the simple British sense - no burgers!) and afternoon teas only (and was dry on Sunday). If you wanted a proper lunch between rounds or any other main meals, you had to go back to your hotel or lodging for same. This situation persisted at least until the early 1960s, during a period in which the RStD hosted such important British events as the Ladies Championship and both sets of Home Internationals (as well as the various Welsh national championships).

Would that level of service be acceptable to visitors or indeed members now? Very possibly not, and for a club like RStD that (as Duncan notes above) has always received more in green fees than in annual subscriptions (which remain between £700 and £250 per annum, depending upon local residence), the implications of a change in the visitor proposition are potentially very significant. That said, modest Welsh clubs like Borth have already given up full-time catering and bar opening, using member support to provide drinks and refreshments on high days and holidays. I suspect we shall see a lot more of that in the future.

Resolving these post-pandemic financial challenges is going to be fundamental for 95% of British golf clubs over the next decade. Substantial multi-course facilities like Gullane or Lahinch or Ballybunion or Dornoch that receive quite a lot of tour operator business may well be differently exposed, but I'll be amazed if we don't see a scaling back of expenditure on 'nice-to-haves' (like smart practice facilities) and a concentration of very limited resources upon the core course proposition, and a shrunken and sustainable clubhouse and catering proposition. I personally wouldn't mind that at all, but I am genuinely not sure how typical such a response would be?

[Mark Mammel]

Too many people on the big (read: expensive and luxurious) golf tours aren't there to play the game and experience Scotland as the Scots do. They go to check off a bucket list item,  add to their bragging rights, and enjoy 5 star amenities. God forbid they play 2 rounds in a day or venture out when the rain is coming down! And if that's the crowd you have to have to survive, what you get is the new Carnoustie: totally posh today, with headcovers at L100 (I am not kidding) and a fancy restaurant. Now the old bunker-like clubhouse wasn't great, but you played from the yellow boxes like everyone else, none of this "Play wherever you like", which used to be heard only in Ireland. Ditto Cruden Bay. I fear what's happening, for good or ill, is that these great places are now transitioning from member clubs that welcome visitors to visitor clubs that tolerate members. But as always, when things seem off just ask "Where's the money?"

[Kalen Braley]

As a follow up question.

For the clubs that do receive enough outside play that outside money more or less equals inside dues money, what percentage of rounds played are Member vs Visitor?


P.S.  If most visitors are one and done and not likely to come back, why would thier opinions matter?  They aren't coming back, and the fresh meat will still be lined up for thier one and done...

[Daryl David]

P.S.  If most visitors are one and done and not likely to come back, why would thier opinions matter?  They aren't coming back, and the fresh meat will still be lined up for thier one and done...

Their opinions matter because of one of the oldest marketing rules.  A disappointed customer will tell 10 potential future customers about their bad experience and encourage them not to visit.  The steady flow of one and done players relies on positive feedback of those who have gone before.

[David Jones]

P.S.  If most visitors are one and done and not likely to come back, why would thier opinions matter?  They aren't coming back, and the fresh meat will still be lined up for thier one and done...

Their opinions matter because of one of the oldest marketing rules.  A disappointed customer will tell 10 potential future customers about their bad experience and encourage them not to visit.  The steady flow of one and done players relies on positive feedback of those who have gone before.

Indeed. In fact they tell their tour company who decide where to take guests the next year.


I have found the Gullane revenue for last year, it was 65% for visitor green fees to 35% members’ subs.


Many thanks for those Gullane rates David - your records are very impressive!!

[Niall C]

Too many people on the big (read: expensive and luxurious) golf tours aren't there to play the game and experience Scotland as the Scots do. They go to check off a bucket list item,  add to their bragging rights, and enjoy 5 star amenities. God forbid they play 2 rounds in a day or venture out when the rain is coming down! And if that's the crowd you have to have to survive, what you get is the new Carnoustie: totally posh today, with headcovers at L100 (I am not kidding) and a fancy restaurant. Now the old bunker-like clubhouse wasn't great, but you played from the yellow boxes like everyone else, none of this "Play wherever you like", which used to be heard only in Ireland. Ditto Cruden Bay. I fear what's happening, for good or ill, is that these great places are now transitioning from member clubs that welcome visitors to visitor clubs that tolerate members. But as always, when things seem off just ask "Where's the money?"

Mark


In fairness regarding the choice of tee boxes, members generally get the same treatment as visitors. Back in the day that meant playing from whatever tee you were told to. These days the thinking is, or so I am told, is let players play whichever tee they want so as to keep them firm otherwise they go soft and cut up badly if you only play them a couple of times a year.


Re prices in Carnoustie pro shop, I agree. I was up there last year and the prices were eye watering. I suppose that's how you pay for a £7m building.


Niall

[Lou_Duran]

During my visits to a number of clubs in the UK and Ireland I have been typically welcomed appropriately.  I can't think of an experience where I felt that the club was run for the benefit of the full-fee visitor.  Quite the contrary, while being treated fairly, my impression is that we're there at the pleasure of the members.  And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.


As to fees, I am aware of a club which up until now generated more than $3.5 Million annually in visitor (not accompanied guests) revenues exclusive of pro shop purchases and F & B.  A member I know said he paid either $700 or $900 in annual dues.  For around 100 rounds per year, his costs to play a world-class course are minimal, under $10 per round, in no small part due to visitors paying $250-$300 for a single round.  BTW, I inquired about joining and was told it was nearly impossible, even as an international member.


I suspect that international travel will be curtailed more than we might think over the next several years.  It will be interesting to see if members will be happy to revert to operational models of the prior century.


   

[Niall C]

David


The bizarre thing about the Gullane changes is that a large percentage of the visitor income is from repeat play by "locals" of courses 2 and 3, and yet the on course changes seem to be for the benefit mainly of those playing no. 1 which supposedly the club traditionally like to keep clear for members. I tend to think mucking about with 2 and 3 could come back and bite them.


Niall

[Niall C]

Lou


The subs for a lot of clubs are in line with the club you talk about but they just don't have the same amount of money in the bank nor do they have all the trimmings in terms of clubhouse/facilities.


I don't think anything would change with the course, it's just all the peripheral stuff that might get downgraded and I doubt most of the members would be too put out by that. (generally speaking obviously as I don't know the club you refer to)


Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()