Equality??

Afternoon all,

Im writing an article on sustainability for golf clubs, generic stats say that active participants are up, but memberships down.  Sport england say golf numbers will decline by 2% by 2013 (from 2005-2013)  The EGU and EWGA are voting to merge, ethnic minorities make up 3% of members of clubs yet far more play, women 13% and juniors lower.  Low earning families/individuals make up 20% of memberships, higher earning 80%

Whats everyones views on this?  Is there a general acceptance that juniors / women / ethnic minorities should be targeted via marketing strategies?  Should they all receive equal rights on the course?  These groups say they want to play but feel golf is elitist / sexist / not geared to cater for them

 I accept equality is a risky strategy and one that will change the whole culture of the industry/clubs, however as more courses offer cheap golf do we feel that clubs most broaden and spread their base to remain in business?

none taken ivan, its been good to converse with you and i value your opinions.  However on this i disagree.  Stats dont lie, and all women / juniors / ethnic minoroties do not have chips on their shoulders.

Where i agree is the nanny state arguement you propose and I accept on occassions there is inequality termed equality.  However from  my personal experience in north west & golf there are few initiatives publicised nor maintained for clubs to tap into membership other than 30 - 80 year old males...i am not looking strictly at race but that is a proven negative statistic.  Also im talking from a club perspective, should they selfishly target these areas?  it works both ways..should women pay same fees and seniors if they are able to use the facility equally?

my post is not one of righteousness but one of possible common sense to ask as a busines or a club that needs money to continue operating and developing should clubs do more for themselves with these groups as there is a market?  I take your response to be a no?

i know there are solid arguements for and against..

Gavin,  I can think of many delightful pursuits for those of either sex who are below 30 years of age and therein lies the rub.

Too many options other than golf and only those dedicated to being good at that age will forego the other pleasures I have mentioned.

Brilliant post Ivan, with which I concur.

hi john, thanks for comments.

but i dont agree, is golf not delightful? stats show how many youngsters play golf, they just dont stick at it, drop off is obvious but at my club particularly it is clear junior numbers are low and the clubs approach could maybe improve this?  Could we change format for juniors? could clubs be more family orientated?can activities that promote younger players be encouraged more? or do we want to keep golf as it is...

do we just want to accept theres nothing we can do ? Surely its good for the industry and the courses if we look at this and dont just suggest "well theres other things for them to do"?  Golf is good for society, the principles, the honesty and the etiquette are more positive than  most other sports. 

I understand ivans view but i can speak fo rmany and ive done research, to suggest the current crop of youngsters, and ladies specifically feel intimidated by clubs and embarassed at their lack of ability, I think its in clubs and societies interests to remove such barriers

Speaking from experience of being a junior way back in the mists of time I can tell you that it is the lure of beer and women rather than any access issues that cause juniors to drift away from the game. ~It becomes a tug of war between spending the time and money at the club or out on the town.

And as a junior organiser for many years I saw many juniors join the club, get a handicap and play for several years, and a number got to Cat 1, then hit the age of beer and women. Some return to the game fairly quickly, and others buy cars, houses and start a family early and don't return for quite a few years if at all.

Quite a number of clubs have recognised the financial difficulties many juniors face as they reach adulthood, and have staggered the rise in subs over a number of years. Personally, although I wholeheartedly support junior golf this isn't an initiative that has my support. Ask those young adults where they holidayed, or where they are most Saturday nights and you will find they can afford full subs.

Getting juniors into golf; having been tasked with that I can say that a clubs needs to establish a good programme of events that excites the juniors that are already at the club - and it doesn't take a huge effort. Once that is in place the juniors will tell their friends at school and within a couple of years you've got queues of them knocking on the door.

Managing their handicaps, as they improve both physically and from a skill perspective, is essential in helping them integrate into the club. Managed properly, with junior comps every week thro' the school holidays, will see them welcomed into the clubs competitions. In a relatively short time you'll see them sitting with adults, post round, and joining in the banter. A by-product of this is the juniors learn to behave quicker out on the course, and their playing ability progresses even quicker as they lose the feelings of being intimidated by senior players.

As for how to get ladies into golf... can't help you with that one.

As to changing what golf is, i.e. a number of shorter comps for those who haven't got the time or don't like 18 hole comps. Sorry but why should the current members, 300+ established golfers, change how they play the game just for the benefit of bringing a very small minority into the game. The current fast food, MacDonalds, lifestyle certainly isn't for me but equally T20 has proved popular in cricket and maybe a golf version might work... but I hope not.

Being a member of a golf club  is not expensive at all but proper golf membership only appeals to those who wish to play under the rules that apply at the club they wish to join.

Don't forget that ther majority of the clubs are private and they wish to remain so, which gives them the choice of who they allow to join and how the club is run.

There are now hundreds of pay and play courses which should satisfy the needs of those who do not wish a club life but would prefer to play where and whenever they wish.

The game is nowhere near as competitiive as it used to be in days gone by for players of all standards. Decline is brought about by apathy and by not supporting all the events that over the years have become well known, the decline will continue.

I might add that in days gone by the only way to play competitive golf was by joining a club, which were all private. The rest had to play at public courses. Now of course this has changed and completely altered the way that people can play.

I had this conversation with someone who was on the committes of a club & he had said "if you cheapen the product & make it like Aldi then you will attract Aldi customers, keep the product special like Marks & Sparks & you'll attract those people. I thought it was a great comment.

If the club wish to remain as it is & can afford not to have queues of people waiting to join then they should be able to dictate prices etc. This also safeguards from existing loyal members who would leave if the offer changed.

thanks gents,

brian i dont want the game changing or diluting but with powerplay etc it is evident its changing and other things may well be looked at..i really am against this too..it shud be the very last thing that ever happens..im playing devils advocate and all the opinions help me get a rounder picture however we shouldnt ignore what is actually happeniong nationwide, different clubs may have prioroties etc but may also benefit long term form looking outside of their own club .... player numbers in total are dropping and nomads numbers going up....

i agree on your junior comments regards engagement and am due to start assisting at my local club with this section...involvement and acceptance is key to young people...i think its slightly irrelevant that juniors spend their money elsewhere though i take the point and imagine many agree......i dont have an issue in staggering memberships from juniors to seniors if it keeps more people, id priorotise sustainability over my own issue with it.....doesnt it have to be the bigger picture?

thanks again john, i agrre with most of your comments, however you note things are changing, clubs need to combat the pay and play and the development of these other options that offer competition dont they, these peopkle can be their market?  or the clubs wont stay current for long? things develop...i think clubs should target all markets to remain sustainable, this doesnt mean a relaxing in rules, it means an awareness of potential members and an acceptance / desire to reap the benefits different age grous and genders may bring, maybe by offering certain initiatives.....again i accept clubs care for themselves, they have too, but at what point does this approach alienate them, take the recent ewga merger fro example? as [people join this bandwagon wont clubs that dont embrace it  it peak with supporters then fall away as this becomes mainstream and equality grows up with the youth of today?? wont the egu keep pushing golfmark and other such schemes? will the old fashoined clubs leave this? I dont refer to you but i see golf as a little ignorant and old fashioned in its approach.....the stats show clearly people want to play and there are barriers...you dont have to approve of these opinions but they are there...

and john i dont want to cheapen golf, payment methods can be direct debit to just make things easier? this would help many..how many clubs have dropped joinging fees??  other sports are heavily subscribed, how do we encourage new blood and sustainability by comitting to remaining elitist??

im asking to get opinion all opinions against are welcome

thanks

and john f your man has a point if hes woburn or the belfry..but what if hes one of 20 clubs in a 30 mile radius?? we will always have the prestige..i agree thats good and certainly needed...i just think to suggest cheapening memberships brings in less quality individuals is ridiculous..club rules shouldnt change so this maintains the level and id fight the view that the less affluent are a poorer standard of person...again stats show 80% of members have higher household incomes..

Gavin,

Again if your 0ne of 20 within a 20 mile radius it depends what type of clientele you want to attract.

Also offering direct debit does help the members but doesn't always help the club. Members can at anytime just say "can't afford this anymore & stop the direct debit". Would the club have the funds / time to pursue the missed income via small claims court etc??

Hi john. Regulation is the only issue I see with this and budget control. If it encourages more members who can't afford an up front fee it is positive. If by your intimation on previous posts existing members are deemed suitable they wouldn't want this option. If a few did then it obviously works and the club can look to managee it. Small claims shouldn't happen. If a payment isn't made a member is not welcome at the club unless prior arrangment is made, (flexibility is a marketing strategy too), the service ends. This option and a combination of up front fees should help with cashflow etc for clubs?? I think its an option worth considering and its a model that is succesful at my club. Obviously details on here are brief..for me its how the club sees themeself and what their prioroties are. But I would expect in time more come aligned with egu and they are clear on their direction..kpmg/sport england and bgia all suggest the same regards potential markets and the future, women and more option for juniors etc are main focuses through equality etc..again finance is only one area..as I keep saying only 20 % on lower incomes are playing at clubs...if golf clubs are expensive and this factor excludes people then by definition they are elitist. This isn't a good message for all clubs collectively, nor the industry, though some make their money because of this elitism, these must still exist. I find it all interesting

Gavin,

Yes budget control, future plan, course maintenance, staff wages will all be affected by people just cancelling their direct debits. How can clubs properly plan expediture if all of a sudden 10 members decide they can't afford their subs & cancel them OR another club has a 'special offer' & they decide to leave & join that one?? It doesn't promote loyalty.

As for getting lower income families into golf then surely the starting point are the goverment run local municipals, not private run clubs? 

Hi john..totally agree. Municipal membership format needs shaking up this would open the door to far more....however I get the image your club is doing well..my thoughts concern clubs that aren't or may not in future. I'm thinking as much for new potential members as I am for clubs additional revenue. Many clubs don't have the luxury of members falling over themselves, clubs are going out of business. Also I would think that the things you mention are affected far more by a lack of members paying upfront each year than a lesser monthly fluctuation that would be monitored. Risk could be managed very simply? loyalty is very sadly a dying quality as more options pop up. I believe this would be more beneficial than damaging. in the current climate your more likely to lose revenue from upfront payments though I accept the diehard won't go. There is lots that may, newer players know no better, players tempted by cheaper options elsewhere, financial difficulty....clubs could do more to promote loyalty..I think flexible payment does encourage this?.There are ways to do it as is shown by my club. They specifically are in a strong financial position and are growing the membership, . This is not the case for a lot of clubs. Clubs activities affect the golf industries finances as a whole.

Gavin, you're assuming that golf is expensive without saying what expensive is. A club has a budget which to a large extent is historical in so much as it has evolved around what it costs the club to operate. As I see it, the only way that an expensive club could fit the pocket of 'poor' people is by having something along the lines of afternoon memberships,  twilight memberships and Sunday afternoon memberships to name but a few ideas. Going on from that, in every area of the country there are expensive clubs and cheap clubs, albeit the prices for each catagory varies from area to area. There is already affordable choice. 

Saying an expensive golf club is elitist is a bit of a stretch.  Its just expensive, that's all. Are Clark's shoes elitist? And as so many kids from 'working class' areas often have designer trainers are they elitist? Wealth may contribute to elitism but there are other social markers needed before something or someone is elitist. The vast majority of golf club memberships are made up of working class people who prioritise a percentage of their income into golf.  They don't have the social markers that are found in the "uppermost class of society that is considered the elite."

Golf suffers from an historical perception that it's stuffy and elitist, which quite frankly having been a member of 11 clubs in various parts of the UK in the last 40 odd years I find laughable.

A question for you on one of the statistics you quote. Juniors make up less than 13% of members. A spread of years for a gent runs from 21 to 75-ish. 54 years worth of adult males will always contribute more than the 10 year spread of  juniors. What is the percentage of the junior population of this country that play golf versus the percentage of adult male population? It may well be that as a direct comparision the ratio's are an awful lot closer.

A Golf Club is only as strong as the people who run it.

Get a Committee who don't see the need for Ladies and Juniors and those sections are not likely to be big.

You take a Clubs Scratch Team (max hcp 6). One Club will have it's Team in Club Sweaters & Shirts and fund all entries into Events, while another will not. Is it because they don't have enough Cat1 players? No, it is because the Committee don't see why they should 'look after' that section.

I have heard "well it's for the benefit of the Club" ring around the bars of Clubs up and down the Country when in actual fact the decision only benefits a few. A few, who are Officials of that Club.

TheLyth

Just like to add that when you get judge by what somebody else is wearing on a golf course by certain members on here, then you know golf is in a sorry state of affairs.

Yes Kyle the sorry state of affairs has been caused by the very poor standards of dress now.

thanks for continued comments,

kyle i must confess im a fan of regulation and clothing being appropriate, i dont see this as a barrier to people, uniform is good for me, maybe clubhouses need to relax it if revenue is the main aim but thats aniother conversation..., however i do accept there is appropriate ways of telling people...it does appear (and ive seen it) many golfers struggle to advise others of dress code in a polite or appropriate way..a massive generalisation of course but my experience bothers me....and its fair to say this interjection can put people off.....it tends to be newer players that have the dress issue...i dont want to dilute the rules or the formats or the etiquettes....i thikn they make golf what it is..

and david id disagree with benefitting the few.  Your scratch team example maybe does but im touching on equality and sustainability...ladies sections and juniors do benefit the club.....i agree with what you say on a committees prioorities..and comittees are made up of individuals that regularly arent interviewed against ability for a role but have been in the club a long time, certainly this happens in members clubs, maybe less so in private? mindsets can be similar and club vision and policy can be blinkered in my opininon...it is a clubs choice to operate this way..i just think awareness of actual stats on participants, member numbers etc may help clubs change their mindset..if they dont want too thats fine but the world is changing it would be a shame to be left behind...to justify my dull rants when i get to finishing my ramblings in a relevant format ill be happy to forward to anyone to quantify qwhat im saying..agree in principle or not there are serious issues coming that must be considered...

john f, read this earlier, these are the company that service my club, worth a read even if you disagree...

http://www.golfclubmanagement.net/2011/11/michael-swan-let-your-members-pay-by-direct-debit/ 

My club already does this and there is no charge for paying monthly either. Still not enough to attract the membership they are looking for.

What has changed is that yearly subs are now twice and sometimes three times the weekly wage when in the good old days they were only 1 weeks wage.

Golf club prices are ridiculous when compared to years gone by, I mean no one ever paid the equivalent of £300 for one club. Everyone wants a £300 electric trolley and £300 Galvin Green waterproofs, when we just bougt a set off the rack in a Pro's shop, stuck them in a carry bag and went on to the course.

My old club had 650 Male members and a very strong Ladies Section as well as a fair sized Junior Section.

This club ran very successfully with a small complement of Green staff, a Pro and an  assistant, An honorary Secretary and, believe it all not the catering and Bar was run by an old couple and they made a far better job than any other club I have been a member of since. 

Progress? not on your nelly.

thanks john,

so for you main change is cost? and the  material world we are in that hikes costs?  everywhere is the same..there is no way football boots should be 100+ plus because they are pink! its now less about quality and more about marketing, the substance is leaving us.......this is why i talk of cost and flexible payment amongst many many other things..each club has its own issues im trying to be quite broad on here...

and john what are your club looking for and where are they now in member number / split? 

Gavin, I joined my club for one reason only, I can get a buggy most of the year as the course drains exceptionally well. It is also a very good test of golf,. but it does not attract the average player because of its length and difficulty, when just across the road is another golf club with an exceptionally fine health club a part of it.

I have always felt that playing on a short course only deludes oneself that one can play the game, but there are not many who think like me.

Where the club falls down is that it is not a golf club in the true sense of the word. It does not operate anything sophisticated like operating proper procedures for ensuring that 2 balls and 3/4 balls are kept apart.

Having the clubhouse used as cheap meals for the many eldery homes we have around our area. One cannot get a seat in the clubhouse sometimes because of this. We are overbloated with staff for the relatively small turnover of the club house bar and catering side. An overall manager, a clubhouse manager, a Bar manager, 2 serving staff at any one time and god knows how many cooks in the kitchen. The we have 2 Office girls and the Pros shop which pays the Pro's a wage.

All for a membership of about 400.

All my club is looking for, Gavin is anyone who is prepared to join the club irrespective of anything else.

thanks john, i welcome the knowledge.

is it not the case that your club could be better managed? do the board not care for this?  Does the food and business of the clubhouse affect the members more than increase the revenue? can this be changed? the club manager should surely have more responsibility? even if this comes with a change in personnel and at least 2 salaries could be lost? not to be overly ruthless but its got to work??  the 400 would suffer for the few otherwise..my club has a higher membership and far fewer staff though it seems our catering isnt as busy..

i agree with your comments on diffculty, my course is narrow and tree lined..not the longest but is a real test...ive played elsewhere to a single figure but am well aware in grand scheme of things im not tht good your only kidding yourself, though john there is a market for people who are happy with that bubble..

would your course accept anyone external looking  at their affairs and making any suggestion?

Gavin,

I will give you some figures from a Golf Club that states that it is OK, just! It shows around a £10,000 profit each year.

Membership is £800p.a and no Entry Fee. This can be paid by D/D through a commercial company so the Club recieves Full Payment at the start of each year. The members borrow money from this company for their Fees, paying about 5% interest.

The Club operates on 600 Members, 404 Full, 110 Others 75 Ladies and 57 Juniors. It also has 143 Social Members.

This brings in £400,000p.a. and a further £35,000 from visitors. Wages are about £200,000.

It is a traditional Club and the 'Board' are not looking to make big profits. Large Corporate Clubs are.

Most of the disgruntled comments on the Web are from people outside, looking in. It may be that they want to be a member of the Club but on their terms, not the Clubs. "Too expensive, Dress Code etc".

TheLyth

david thanks,

i wrote a long and full response only to find i hadnt signed in ive now lost it

in summary again, i think this club is at great risk, 10k is not a big profit even to just remain sustainable, this could be lost by a 13 member drop off (very likely in a 404 full membership) or any drop off in catering, visitiors could ?? Do the club have much marketing strategy?  |Do they have other revenue streams or do they regularly absorb cost?

i play in a club very similar to this..a not for profit, members club.  In order to generate revenue without having to oversubscribe and ruin the members experience we try to generate through catering and various events and by encouraging visitors, we are fortunate to have a high membershiupbut must do more to not be a 40+ male club..  we try to maintain membershipo happiness by offering deals on days we dont have comps and are less busy etc, we only let societies play on 2 specific days...it is a balance....we need to do far more for our marketing..especially online

I dont think i agree with your last point, in my experience these keyboard warrior complainants are the minority, i think people simply dont know what golf costs nor what vehicles there are to pay, they dont understand enough about its rules and club setup, i think more engagement and awareness spread by clubs  would remove barriers ..we can remain ignorant to this or we can accept it..

furthermore online and social media is vital for the future, even if just to attrract visitors if membership is settled, clubs may benefit from embracing this, many committee ideas get off the table and into the pro shop or the notice board, word of mouth is positive but we need to do more...71% of clubs from egu survey (only 53% clubs responded) said they used online for marketing, this in many cases is a website that many potential members/visitors dont know,  clubs can go get people, facebook / twitter / youtube...they are massive medias used by milllions and are free...clubs could do well to seek assistance in these areas in my opinion...i accept this is a huge jump for some and maybe not in line with their traditions...an hour a day can massively boost a clubs visibility to people and can keep them updated with club affairs, golf and events,(over 20,000 people exist per golf club in the uk..how many of these people even if they dont play golf watch sport? or have a drink? or go to a party? this is a market too) id be happy to advise anyone if this was of interest though i accept many will disagree it is useful...i seek to prove in the near future it is...

Gavin,

In reponce to:- " i think this club is at great risk, 10k is not a big profit even to just remain sustainable """ " 

What I didn't say was that this Club had a 25yr loan which stood at £700,000, had over £500,000 in a 'Members Fund', £100,0000 in the Bank and assests of £1.4m, not including the land the course stands on, which the Club own.

This Club uses the Internet and sends regular Newsletters to its members via e-mail.

TheLyth

in my original post that i lost i mentioned they must be cash + asset rich (i assuming you meant 100k and not 100m in bank?), still you cant lose money forever....as competition increases they will lose more, at what point with constantly red figures do a club continue?  whats your personal take on this?  is it ok to lose because theres money there? Many clubs are not in this fortunate position, maybe this club doesnt need much change?

for me they could easily lose 50k a year in membership if competition developed, the visitors figures may dwindle also?? even at 50k..ten years of that is 0.5 million without looking at social trends, economy and other factors..PESTLE etc?

thanks for continued comments...

im guessing you cant say who the club is after mentioning their situation but look at their online presence..how do they attract visitors? how many followers do their groups or accounts have? id be interested to know..as i say many suggest they have a presence but many dont target or go to get people, their information just exists..this isnt enough, email communication with members is good..as is an interactive website they can sign in to..all are low if any cost

Gavin,

The target of every Golf Club at the start of every financial year should be to break even and not have to dip into funds they may have stored away, or worse still, borrow from the bank.. The Committee has the job to see this happens.

The cost of buying new equipment should be in this budget. A service 'contract' can be more expensive over a ten year period but it doesn't involve a large chunk of money being paid out initially.

I have found that in a 'good' Club, a lot of information is passed about in the bar and a lot of members will be willing to help their Club, be it to supply goods at cost, or put people in touch with others who can help.

I find that once a Club employs a 'Business Manager' they are after profit, and the Golf side is second to the Social side. Visiting Parties take presidence over members and the Clubhouse is turned over to Private Functions. Members then leave at a rate that causes more problems for the Club. Now that is a slippery slope.

TheLyth

thanks david,

i think theres certainly some validity to your point and in many cases you are right, though i think that example is the affect of clubs choosing the wrong person...the right person would not work this way...if a board/committee is clear on its objective the manager should minimise risk (by managing and improving relevant areas) and advise on best practice to sustain, he should be aware of the members being priority and minimise the effect of revenue generation on them....i do see this as important...maybe the club in question has this...but management is needed and i think a small profit too year on year. Not for profit clubs work similarly to private clubs but they dont have profit anything made goes into the club...they still must  operate sustainably, development is needed in all cases and things cost more year on year......, i accept there is some risk and golf management qualifications are relatively new concept and there isnt a magical framework for clubs...if managers report to the committee and  have some but not too much autonomy all will benefit..

again all clubs are different and are in different situations, one solution wont suit another...i remain adamant that sustainability long term needs more attention and equality and removal of barriers is a good thing as a generic approach (even if people have individual arguements against)...i accept its more relevant to some clubs rather than others but it is the clubs collective approaches that will affect the golf industry + golfs economy positively in the future,.

i think an effective golf manager , (the right person) or part time consultant (with much golf/club experience) will pay for themselves 5 x over...they will save money for the club, they will structure operations and they will maximise and innovate where necessary, they will also address many poklitical issues prevalent in all clubs...this protects a comittee in many cases...comittee structures in many clubs are good and work, but many are overly bureacratic and blinkered...a golf manager maybe able to improve this...if you had an approachable , transparent person whose job it was to take your concerns on board then youd get further than trying to get through a comittee...the committee would of course have to give the manager suitable responsibility..

at the end of the day us golfers will never be happy with everything,.,thats how we are..but at least if we have transparency and justification given for changes we can accept them easier...a good manager offers this...

Gavin, you seem to hail the Golf Club mgr as the way forward, which in itself will come at a cost. Lets' say that cost is £35k by the time you include the Employer's NI and pension responsibilities. £35k is approx £100 on top of each member's subs. In reality, that's £120 on full gent's subs and £xx on ladies subs, and a small increase in junior's subs. You pick a figure out of the air and say they will save the club 5 times what it costs... so are you saying they'll generate £150k on top of covering the £35k costs?

To generate £185k would see the course hammered by traffic, the bar busting to the gills and the restaurant with a queue out into the carpark. Well maybe not that bad but success comes with further costs. That level of increase requires the infrastructure to support it, whether it be bar staff, restaurant staff or greens staff. All of a sudden it's not one new member of staff, its 4 or 5.

There is a formula floating about in my very old grey cells that gives a raw indication of the staffing ratio 'v' revenue raised in a service industry - first time I saw it used I thought it was questionable but after years of budgeting and big business I can tell you  that although your concept is sound, your outcomes wouldn't be that good. So the £185k of revenue will equate to what level of profit?  

In the 'real' world, outside of golf, I budget in £millions and have a staff and associated costs. And 12 years of golf club committee's and administration has given me a huge insight into enthusiastic amatuers and what they achieve versus what they could achieve. Committee's do an awful lot better than the vast majority of members give them credit for. I hear a lot of bar talk fueled by beer which more often than not is just plain rubbish.

The only two areas that clubs might be able to improve is in marketing and project mgt, where big sums are involved. I emphasise the might because in my experience there are some very good marketeers in golf clubs, andsome excellent committee's, although project mgt and big spending could do with a good look at. That said most of them need to improve their communication with their membership, if only to 'sell' the reasons behind some of their decisons.

brian seems im not the bnightest..reponded again without being signed in and lost it ll..bugger took me 15 mins...

in summarry ill respond to each point seperately...out of interest do you see an issue with clubs and the future or do you beleive participation stats are all wrong and clubs are doing enough? i guess each case is different?

firstly i dont hail the manager, just im very aware of his/her benefits.  there are varying models for employment, you have used worst case in your example.... a manager can be contracted, they can be paid against proven performance (this justifys cost) there are many employment models that dont place a burden as yuo suggest, you will know this from your business experience..

i said save not generate..generation would be part of it..a poorly performing club can easily generate 50-100 members through positive marketing,...it is not expensive to market via social media ...nike have more visitors to their facebook than their website and it cost them nothing but some time...the customer is out there for membership this is proven by participation figutres..there is barriers..we would do well to accept this..catering in many clubs is not maximised...cost is not controlled as well as it could be.,,promotions arent widespread nor regular, societies arent welcomed....i will happily do a budget/figures as part of my report and would welcome your opinion on it in the hope you may see what i say more clearly..i will even post it here to confirm im not ducking your counter arguement....i did go into more detail on my previous post...

i fully accept many clubs are happy, i talk of the clubs that need help, that would benefit from seriosuly looking at sustainability and equality as tools to help them..though personally i think even the most elitist club has a duty to do more for all comers...even if just by way of acceptance

i agree comittes get far too miuch stick, this is through ignorance aqnd unclear communication as you suggest, this is another area that would improve..

in the "real" world i have a business degree and 11 years experience in a mangement role, my budgets arent as bigg as yours but the same issues occur..ive met many pros, have many friends in and around various clubs, speak to senior golf writers / contributors, including chairmen on committees and i study a golf management degree bursting with stats highlighting golf industry issues...i dont know too many people with a golf degree that covers the areas that are relvant to clubs based on years and years of research and study..i respect your opinion but disagree and think its a bit grand to refer to "enthusiatic amateurs" this isnt about one person over another, many committees are good but many very ignorant....... it is for me this lack of engagament and acknowledgement that causes many issues...at the recent gcma conference no club could say they had anyone on the committee under 35..this should bother people...ill quote Eddie Bullock, if your good enough your old enough! 

as a spin brian, lets see my figures are wrong..say it only doubled its cost?  would it still be a bad idea?

One of the reasons why golf clubs are losing members is because they have forgotten that players join a golf club because it is a golf club and not some fancy moneymaking machine that shows little respect for the members who have paid an annual subscription.

john i agree..but some clubs dont operate this way.,..there is many models..for members clubs happy with their 10k as the lyth suggested then this is fine...there are mnay that operate for profit and still provide a service 1000s are happy with..its very much horses for courses approach..but many clubs dont need to forget what you are saying to improve and be more sustainable...things always change its important to be relevant....clubs that are golf only need to develpo, they need to maintain the service and value they offer......i know you disagree but again i hark back to equality and sustaina bility, member numbers are decreasing, this is an issue and many clubs are old fashioned where there is a potential market to sustain them...

different clubs have different needs dependant on what their vision is and where they are....

however all must be sustainable...a members club who are all about golf will still go out of business if their 45+ core membership ages and isnt replenished....

You may well be right, Gavin, but any club that is pursuing your methods, then ceases to be a club that would appeal to me, so I would leave, making your observations dead in the water.

We have to accept that the game has changed dramatically and until the old farts like me are well and truly gone will you know whether or not golf clubs have members at all.

I might add that being old fashioned is something I am proud of. I love traditions.

john you offered to play with me at your club, your promote the game, you love it and would help me and others to learn to play better, why the issue with its development?  some things are necessary evils for the greater good?  traditions should definitelty still remain and there is a place for this...i just beleive sustainability is the main concern for clubs,dont see how it cant be  ? if tradition dies with a club this is no good to anyone???, , methods to achieve this can be as subtle or extreme as a comittee decides?  What would you do with dwindling membver numbers etc? thats not a challenge im genuinely interested, moreso given your backgorund.

i respect tradition, none of this is about rules, format or etiquette...

and john humanity  wants to belong its a fundamental..clubs will always exist because of this though the models may well be different..

Gavin,

Your mention of Eddie Bullock brought back a vivid memory.

Eddie and I were stood outside the Pro Shop of the course we both started our Pro careers at (almost at the same time) watching a guy with no shirt on playing the last hole. He was with his son (?) who was wearing football boots and his wife (?) who was pushing a pram with the clubs laid across it's hood. Our boss walked around the corner and saw the scene and said to us "go tell that guy to put his shirt on, we have to draw the line somewhere".

Now if we want all Clubs open to anyone, this scene will be repeated all over.

TheLyth

David,

I agree. The problem is if clubs try to attract new members by offering incentives etc then they stand a chance of upsetting the existing loyal members & losing them to other clubs.

david / john

i played with a member scruffy as hell..shirt out, turns out he was on the committee..played with a young lad, keen to be accpeted and new to golf, smartest golfer ive seen a while, with respect i dont agree at all with the claim that if more people are encouraged to play golf they will disregard the rules and there will be a movement towards jeans and flip flops...i dont quite know what "type" of people you beleive will act this way but i really dont think yuo have a point....clubs should maintain their dress code requirements, this is part of the game and shouldnt change...they may consider clubhouse dress changes to suit their priorities and enciourage public if this suits them...if people dont follow the rules they are removed...dress is not an equality or sustainability issue...i dont understand who you dont want to see at clubs???? ive met some awful people playing golf many times..did they slip the net of acceptability??

and john its abuot understanding, if they offer incentives there is a reason, they can work with the membership..engagement and transparency helps..

Gavin,

But are you not saying that for some Clubs to survive they will have to drop their standards?

TheLyth

david,

is it best to not be there rather than consider something that may sustain the club?? 

im all for standards and think it improves things outs]ide of the club too..im not aginst tradition im just aware of the wider environment and id rather see a range of clubs offering different things than closed books or clubs disapearing because of unrealistic unsustainable approaches......a club with no maintenance of rules wouldnt suit me personally.....i think there are municipals for people who want to be more casual and members clubs for people wanting the most traditional...i dont think standrads when in a club is an issue personally and they dont/shouldnt affect equality, but... im raising awareness that clubs that arent sustaibnable may need to look at certain areas...if the club isnt overly traditional and the membership is low i dont see an issue in encouraging joe public to use the clubhouse and to allow slightly less regulation with dress code..this could potentially increase visiting players / members and revenue..... ...its very much on an individual basis..i would see this as a last resort however..junior numbers / ladies numbers/ young adults are low and there is a market for these people ...my approach to each case would be to look at what the club are..what is their aim and how best can that be reached bearing in mind the existing members....i beleive in mnay cases marketing to the many groups that arent as represented as they could be is a good start...there is lots that can be done...

my rants are aimed at getting people into clubs, and people of all kinds...i dont see any reason this should be an issue if they are prepared to keep to club rules....i actually beleive with all the funding sport england and others fly around we should consider feeder courses as part of leisure centres or other facilities...3 holes of golf or something similar not in a club environment that anyone can play at...it would gauge interest, club membership could be further up the chain

Gavin, when I first started to play this wonderful game, the only option open to me was the public courses, usally owned by the local councils. Some of these were council run, others farmed this operation out to those prepared to tender for the rights.

The aspiration being that one would get good enough to be able to apply for membership at a private club. A minimum standard play in those days would be around 18 handicap.

Applications to become a member where quite daunting as it would entail being proposed and seconded by existing members, as well as an interview with the committee.

This was how it was and only those interested in club life, joined. Those who wished to be nomads, played the municipals.

Unless you have been a member of a proper private club, then I feel you will never understand exactly what it was like. I knew every member, not only by name, but just by seeing them swing.

When the teams were playing home or away, the members jumped in to caddie and also support. In other words a proper club, not a place for the nomad player whose only interest is playing a game and then going home.

This state of affairs continued, until the corporate sector, noticing the uptake in the game overall, decided to build courses specifically for the corporate sector. As we all know this failed pretty dismally, with many players losing vast sums of money in the process.

As these clubs came onto the market they were snapped up by the large hotel chains, who, at this moment in time had not moved into this territory as a means of expanding their businesses.

These courses have managed to make a sound business because of their abilities to provide packages on an all inclusive basis, which are excellent value for money, attracting many new players in the process.

All this new diversity has changed the game completely, for me, to its detriment, for you, an opportunity to try and open it out even further.

We have seen other sports changed by having coloured clothing for Tennis and Cricket, something I again disagree with.

I am just thankful that I was born into an era that fulfilled all my needs, because I would hate to be a young person in this day and age.

john i wont argue with yuor last points, i would say however i had to be proposed and seconded and had to wait 4 weeks for an interview even though my club were looking for members at the time, i play at a members, not for profit club and we are traditionalist, we dont market, nor do we have many activities outside the golf course being a good one, to attract new memebrs..........ability wasnt judged fortunately for me as id just started playing, i was awarded a 21 handicap but i played a lot after that as i had somewhere i felt comfortable and involved and this improved golf as a game for me...i now play off 11 which to me is reasonable and i have my name in gold leaf on a board and am recognised by most of the membership , the same board that has names of far finer gentleman than me since 1913, some of who died in the 2 tragic wars...i respect this and am humbled by it...my father caddied for me the day i won, it was a great day for my family, my father was proud, as was i, golf offers this to people...again its nothing like youve achieved and i strive to be a far better golfer if time permits however everyone wants something different and everyone gets something different from golf....

i am however aware as you say of opportunity for the game and specific courses and i think golf is positive for society and the economy and i think its beauty is well worth spreading to the masses..i accept this approach isnt somehting you subscribe too...