There are dumb questions

[Paul Rudovsky]

Mike--


May I ask the course name and location?

[Pete_Pittock]

On the other hand....and no dog in the fight....




I was all for our renovation. Loved it when it was complete. The more I played it, the more I disliked the style of bunkers and their placement. Then I remembered what the architect said…..” the changes are to enhance the experience of ALL levels of players”. That’s really what’s it’s all about. All the members….

Some Englishmen golfers had a penchant for naming an occasional hole after a battle feature that they encountered in warfare, such as redan.  I doubt the architects of the redan fortress designed it to accommodate all enemies to conquer it.

[Thomas Dai]

Wasn’t it some Doctor bloke who when asked what he thought of the improvements to a course responded along the lines of  “Improvements? Don’t you mean changes?”
atb

[mike_beene]

Paul: Lakewood in Dallas

[Niall C]

As an aside, it might be healthy to have some turnover. With club full we may miss a generation of new members.

Mike


That seems a very cavalier approach to me. After all you are on committee to represent these people. It's not just about shareholdings and percentages but about it being a club. These people you are happy to lose have probably invested time, effort and money to help make the club what it is. Why would you want to treat them like that ?


Or look at it from the other angle. If you don't get your way and the plans aren't approved, will you and your colleagues on committee resign to let in fresh blood ?


Niall

[mike_beene]

Niall:
I am not on the committee. I am not wanting anyone to go, but just saying some will. I bet the staff would like to see a few rude members gone.If I were the dictator I would send them away, but I am not! I do worry that we can’t get new members in. If you were a young person, what would you do if you had to wait some 10 years to get in after getting sponsors, etc.I would look elsewhere personally.

[A.G._Crockett]

As an aside, it might be healthy to have some turnover. With club full we may miss a generation of new members.

Mike


That seems a very cavalier approach to me. After all you are on committee to represent these people. It's not just about shareholdings and percentages but about it being a club. These people you are happy to lose have probably invested time, effort and money to help make the club what it is. Why would you want to treat them like that ?


Or look at it from the other angle. If you don't get your way and the plans aren't approved, will you and your colleagues on committee resign to let in fresh blood ?


Niall

Niall,


I think there is a very large difference between seeking to take care of long-time members who have supported the club through thick and thin (and there ARE ways to do that, even at times of dues increases and assessments) vs dealing with club members who are simply obstructionists and chronic complainers.  And I think it’s fair to say that both obstructionists and chronic complainers tend to be older members.


If Mike is at a member owned club, then a long-range planning committee is pretty essential; capital improvements never cease to necessary.  I don’t know the steps in approval of long-range plans at Mike’s club, but typically at member owned clubs there would be some sort of a vote after the committee had submitted plans to the membership.  I suppose it wouldn’t be unheard of for committee members to leave if the plan wasn’t ratified by the membership, but certainly a particular committee member might view the rejection as meaning that the club would face facilities problems down the road that might make another club more attractive.


Private clubs lose members all the time; job related transfers, changes in family situations and finances, and, of course, death.  The club had better figure out ways to get new members to come in, otherwise the club dies on the vine.  And losing members who don’t want change in the interests of the long term health of the club, AND who bitch about it constantly isn’t a bad loss in the life of a club.  There is a point at which the club management simply has to say, “Ok, we’ve listened, and we understand your concerns, but perhaps YOU should consider that you might be happier at another club.”

[Thomas Dai]

“We had a membership drive at my club. We got rid of forty of them!” … Bob Hope
Atb

[Sean_A]

As an aside, it might be healthy to have some turnover. With club full we may miss a generation of new members.

Mike


That seems a very cavalier approach to me. After all you are on committee to represent these people. It's not just about shareholdings and percentages but about it being a club. These people you are happy to lose have probably invested time, effort and money to help make the club what it is. Why would you want to treat them like that ?


Or look at it from the other angle. If you don't get your way and the plans aren't approved, will you and your colleagues on committee resign to let in fresh blood ?


Niall

Niall,


I think there is a very large difference between seeking to take care of long-time members who have supported the club through thick and thin (and there ARE ways to do that, even at times of dues increases and assessments) vs dealing with club members who are simply obstructionists and chronic complainers.  And I think it’s fair to say that both obstructionists and chronic complainers tend to be older members.


If Mike is at a member owned club, then a long-range planning committee is pretty essential; capital improvements never cease to necessary.  I don’t know the steps in approval of long-range plans at Mike’s club, but typically at member owned clubs there would be some sort of a vote after the committee had submitted plans to the membership.  I suppose it wouldn’t be unheard of for committee members to leave if the plan wasn’t ratified by the membership, but certainly a particular committee member might view the rejection as meaning that the club would face facilities problems down the road that might make another club more attractive.


Private clubs lose members all the time; job related transfers, changes in family situations and finances, and, of course, death.  The club had better figure out ways to get new members to come in, otherwise the club dies on the vine.  And losing members who don’t want change in the interests of the long term health of the club, AND who bitch about it constantly isn’t a bad loss in the life of a club.  There is a point at which the club management simply has to say, “Ok, we’ve listened, and we understand your concerns, but perhaps YOU should consider that you might be happier at another club.”

Maybe the so called “chronic” complainers are right. Everybody gets a vote, no? There are at least two sides to every story.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Niall:
I am not on the committee. I am not wanting anyone to go, but just saying some will. I bet the staff would like to see a few rude members gone.If I were the dictator I would send them away, but I am not! I do worry that we can’t get new members in. If you were a young person, what would you do if you had to wait some 10 years to get in after getting sponsors, etc.I would look elsewhere personally.

Mike


Apologies, I thought you were on Committee/council.


Re new members, why are you worried about getting new members if you have a 10 year waiting list ? Does that not suggest the club is doing something right ?


Niall

[Jerry Kluger]

A friend is a member of a club with three courses. It had been decided, and continues to be going forward, a plan to make the courses easier so they play faster. So they are taking out any fairway bunkers that extend into the fairways (cross bunkers) and making all other bunkers smaller and shallower.  They have also slowed the greens down.  I simply could not believe that somehow a membership believed that pace of play is so much dependent on the challenges faced by the golfer.  They should have simply required every member how to play and enjoy the game while at the same time understanding what causes slow play.  I would be more worried that future potential members would not view the courses good enough to warrant the fees charged by the club.

[mike_beene]

Niall:
I am just worried that people will give up after a few years on list. And some don’t even try. I see your point but it seems strange to have no new younger people getting in. I haven’t really studied it. There are clubs harder to get in than mine. Just not enough options in central Dallas.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I simply could not believe that somehow a membership believed that pace of play is so much dependent on the challenges faced by the golfer. They should have simply required every member how to play and enjoy the game while at the same time understanding what causes slow play.

Course setup is a HUGE part of what causes slow play. Have you read Out of Time?

[Thomas Dai]

I bet the staff would like to see a few rude members gone.

A secret ballot amongst the staff as to who 'goes'. Like it. Might be a few surprises and some of the self-important personalities who have a tendency to achieve leadership roles might not be too pleased with the outcome.
atb

[jeffwarne]

A friend is a member of a club with three courses. It had been decided, and continues to be going forward, a plan to make the courses easier so they play faster. So they are taking out any fairway bunkers that extend into the fairways (cross bunkers) and making all other bunkers smaller and shallower.  They have also slowed the greens down.  I simply could not believe that somehow a membership believed that pace of play is so much dependent on the challenges faced by the golfer.  They should have simply required every member how to play and enjoy the game while at the same time understanding what causes slow play.  I would be more worried that future potential members would not view the courses good enough to warrant the fees charged by the club.

Just put the tees on the fringes and make carts mandatory.
Should greatly increase pace and reduce maintenance costs.