Golf is dying: "lost 5 million players in the last decade... another 5 million will quit in the next

[DataGolfer]

As a new adult, I think the biggest problem in golf is the lack of availible reasonable priced memberships for kids and young adults. The closest course to me is Compass Pointe, an "upscale" muni that was built about 10 years ago, featuring hundreds of million dollar homes on it. It's the only golf course within 30 minutes of the 50,000 people who live south of Baltimore, MD. It's kind of a dead zone. Too far south to enjoy the Baltimore City and County munis, too far east to enjoy the Howard county ones, and too far north to enjoy the PG county courses. We basically have no choices in where we play, unless we travel. That being said, rounds at compass pointe, even on a weekday, are something like $60. This isn't a great course. The greens aren't fast and true, there's tons of dead patches and crabgrass. The course is impossible to walk due to its construction between the neighborhood streets, etc. Anyhow, membership there is $2000 for county residents. And that doesn't include cart, which costs $10 per ride. That means if you play twilight, like i do, you'd have to play 101 rounds to be getting a value ($3030 vs. $3010). Way too expensive. Why not make it half as expensive. I'd bet they'd see their memberships more than double. I have so many friends in the 16-20 age bracket that would love to golf more than once a week, but it's just too much money.

[Pepperturbo]

I agree with [b]@yellowlab[/b]'s post, especially [b]Golf will never die.[/b] But add a large golf population segment that hasn't been addressed; retirees on fixed incomes. Over recent years they have spent MM on golf. They too, gravitated to golf because others were doing it too and it seemed like a good retirement activity. Unfortunately, many of them have since realize, as the market adjusts, and other living costs go up, the cost of golf is creeping up as well. Consequently, they too gradually slow down or have quit. Sure senior rates are nice, but they add up when playing 4-5 days a week.

Though semi-retired, in SoCA, I play 2-3 times per week during prime time. Average fees are $65-$90 wkend, $40-$55 wk day senior, plus gas to and from; that equates to over $700 a month, not including equipment variables. Nobody can convenience me golf is NOT expensive activity or for that matter, something that every man can afford, especially when living on fixed income or raising a family and building a career. Sure many people play twilight rates, but that's mostly due to other obligations and/or limited funds. Golf will downsize, as it should.

A side note: I find it rather funny when Golf organizations boasts about golf growing, and use China as the example. Sure golf course development is benefiting there, as it benefited years back during housing development projects. What I have to wonder about is, China's economic environment does not foster golf for all citizens. Most people in China cannot afford a home, much less play golf.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='golfman1023' timestamp='1406389612' post='9790025']
As a new adult, I think the biggest problem in golf is the lack of availible reasonable priced memberships for kids and young adults. The closest course to me is Compass Pointe, an "upscale" muni that was built about 10 years ago, featuring hundreds of million dollar homes on it. It's the only golf course within 30 minutes of the 50,000 people who live south of Baltimore, MD. It's kind of a dead zone. Too far south to enjoy the Baltimore City and County munis, too far east to enjoy the Howard county ones, and too far north to enjoy the PG county courses. We basically have no choices in where we play, unless we travel. That being said, rounds at compass pointe, even on a weekday, are something like $60. This isn't a great course. The greens aren't fast and true, there's tons of dead patches and crabgrass. The course is impossible to walk due to its construction between the neighborhood streets, etc. Anyhow, membership there is $2000 for county residents. And that doesn't include cart, which costs $10 per ride. That means if you play twilight, like i do, you'd have to play 101 rounds to be getting a value ($3030 vs. $3010). Way too expensive. Why not make it half as expensive. I'd bet they'd see their memberships more than double. I have so many friends in the 16-20 age bracket that would love to golf more than once a week, but it's just too much money.
[/quote]

I'd like to agree with your half rate wish, but membership growth, whether public or private course, can not exist by lowering rates. A nineteen year old should pay what I pay to play. Typically, public courses that offer memberships to residents, do so as a local community service. I hold two public club memberships at notable courses. Its surprising how few people actually buy them. Recently, one SoCA course that offered, what they felt were reasonable membership rates and accommodations, finally kicked club members out. Members thought their revenue stream to the club was sufficient enough to make demands and effect changes. In actuality, managing that membership was more of headache than profitable.

Here in CA and AZ, even TX, the courses I've seen want tournaments, corporate outings, private events like weddings, etc., that's where they make money; course tee times at near or at rack for people from outside city limits helps. It takes a lot of money to maintain even the basic municipal course, moreover keep it in black ink.

[MikeG]

[quote='golfman1023' timestamp='1406389612' post='9790025']
As a new adult, I think the biggest problem in golf is the lack of availible reasonable priced memberships for kids and young adults. The closest course to me is Compass Pointe, an "upscale" muni that was built about 10 years ago, featuring hundreds of million dollar homes on it. It's the only golf course within 30 minutes of the 50,000 people who live south of Baltimore, MD. It's kind of a dead zone. Too far south to enjoy the Baltimore City and County munis, too far east to enjoy the Howard county ones, and too far north to enjoy the PG county courses. We basically have no choices in where we play, unless we travel. That being said, rounds at compass pointe, even on a weekday, are something like $60. This isn't a great course. The greens aren't fast and true, there's tons of dead patches and crabgrass. The course is impossible to walk due to its construction between the neighborhood streets, etc. Anyhow, membership there is $2000 for county residents. And that doesn't include cart, which costs $10 per ride. That means if you play twilight, like i do, you'd have to play 101 rounds to be getting a value ($3030 vs. $3010). Way too expensive. Why not make it half as expensive. I'd bet they'd see their memberships more than double. I have so many friends in the 16-20 age bracket that would love to golf more than once a week, but it's just too much money.
[/quote]
My condolences. Arundel County is a golf wasteland. I could never figure out why there were so few courses in that area. I used to play at Meade all the time when I lived there. Of course the geniuses couldn't manage to build a replacement when NSA gobbled up the golf course property. I've heard from other people that CP has turned into a dump, and a fairly pricey one at that. Your post epitomizes one of the biggest problems the game is facing.

[playa]

[quote name='Conrad1953' timestamp='1406250065' post='9779489']
[quote name='Yellow Jacket' timestamp='1406245066' post='9778945']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1406243012' post='9778807']
Honestly, the NY Times??? Its about the worst reference source imaginable, especially when it comes to economic reality, honesty and good judgment.
[/quote]
The NYT article is quoting participation figures from the National Golf Foundation. But since you bring it up, if the New York Times isn't a reliable source, what is?
[/quote]

The NY Times stories have to be met with reasonable
skepticism. Often times they are agenda driven in their
choice of what they choose to report and not report.

Also, the reporters covering the story often write in
such a way to guide readers to an opinion they hold
rather than just report the facts.
[/quote]
Sadly this is an indictment on modern journalism. Journalistic integrity is a relic from the past. With new media ownership laws (in Oz at least) mainstream media is more a propaganda machine than a source of information. Journos don't report the facts anymore, they ram an opinion down your throat. I remember that old days when the great journalists could certainly paint a picture by reporting the facts accurately but in a way which reached an obvious conclusion, but they always did itin a way which let the reader form their own opinion based on facts and not on the opinion (or more accurately the agenda) of the writer.

[Dpavs]

Okay so this is a bit of a facetious counter-point but...

I have to say I am not sure what the impact of golf tapering back a bit will really be on most of us...
What if the attrition continues and consumer money wanes for the industry? Yeah I guess a few clubs that are struggling already might close and that would be a truly be a negative...

That said amongst the other things that might happen could it be that;

PGA players stop getting inflated endorsements and paychecks? .... not sure how many tears I will shed... as they will still make a pretty good living.

Manufacturers will stop coming out with new clubs every 8-12 months? Wow... my existing clubs might actually hold their value a little while longer.... and it seems to me I survived when new clubs only came out every 2 years just fine.

And hey while we're at it... maybe we'll get lucky and they guys that quit will include...

the guy who leaves his stand bag in the middle of a narrow walkway by the club house..
or the guys who park their carts so that no one can get around them..
or even the guys who stand on a tee right next to another green and are loud and rude...
or maybe that guy that just won't leave the beverage gal alone and does his best to indignify her at every opportunity.

And heck heaven forbid that the sport as a whole should lose all those disrespectful fans who chide the golfers or feel the need to shout BA-ba-booey on every tee shot.

How in the world could we live with all that?

Well like I said this is all facetious... or is it?

[DataGolfer]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1406397157' post='9790577']
[quote name='golfman1023' timestamp='1406389612' post='9790025']
As a new adult, I think the biggest problem in golf is the lack of availible reasonable priced memberships for kids and young adults. The closest course to me is Compass Pointe, an "upscale" muni that was built about 10 years ago, featuring hundreds of million dollar homes on it. It's the only golf course within 30 minutes of the 50,000 people who live south of Baltimore, MD. It's kind of a dead zone. Too far south to enjoy the Baltimore City and County munis, too far east to enjoy the Howard county ones, and too far north to enjoy the PG county courses. We basically have no choices in where we play, unless we travel. That being said, rounds at compass pointe, even on a weekday, are something like $60. This isn't a great course. The greens aren't fast and true, there's tons of dead patches and crabgrass. The course is impossible to walk due to its construction between the neighborhood streets, etc. Anyhow, membership there is $2000 for county residents. And that doesn't include cart, which costs $10 per ride. That means if you play twilight, like i do, you'd have to play 101 rounds to be getting a value ($3030 vs. $3010). Way too expensive. Why not make it half as expensive. I'd bet they'd see their memberships more than double. I have so many friends in the 16-20 age bracket that would love to golf more than once a week, but it's just too much money.
[/quote]

I'd like to agree with your half rate wish, but membership growth, whether public or private course, can not exist by lowering rates. A nineteen year old should pay what I pay to play. Typically, public courses that offer memberships to residents, do so as a local community service. I hold two public club memberships at notable courses. Its surprising how few people actually buy them. Recently, one SoCA course that offered, what they felt were reasonable membership rates and accommodations, finally kicked club members out. Members thought their revenue stream to the club was sufficient enough to make demands and effect changes. In actuality, managing that membership was more of headache than profitable.

Here in CA and AZ, even TX, the courses I've seen want tournaments, corporate outings, private events like weddings, etc., that's where they make money; course tee times at near or at rack for people from outside city limits helps. It takes a lot of money to maintain even the basic municipal course, moreover keep it in black ink.
[/quote]

The thing is, around where I live, these courses aren't notable. They're owned by the county, and supposed to be a recreation service provided in part by the taxpayers. The reason golf is dying is because young people don't play. Having 1000 members at $1000 a year is better for a course than having 499 members at $2000 a year. You have to realize too that a 19 year old has much less means to pay than an adult. It's not unfair or anything else, it's just the way it is. Same reason there are senior rates. Up until this year, the course had an offer where any person 17 or younger was free with a paying adult, or $15 by themselves after 3pm on weekdays. Any other times there was a junior rate. There are senior memberships, so why not junior ones too? It's not like these courses are filled. There are more tee times than they know what to do with, so they try to gouge out the most they can. Soccer, basketball, football are all incredibly popular because all it takes is a ball and a pair of cleats. If golf wants to grow or survive or sustain, courses need to stop acting like golfers owe them something. I just checked my local course's website. There are over 20 tee times available for TODAY. If those go unfilled (which they do), they make no money. If the prices were reasonable, those times would be filled, and they would make money. Golf courses put out all the money on the front end and hope to make it back later on greens fees. If there are unfilled tee times at the end of the day, that is money down the drain for the course. Big sticker prices don't mean squat when the players aren't coming

[DataGolfer]

[quote name='MikeG' timestamp='1406407409' post='9791309']
[quote='golfman1023' timestamp='1406389612' post='9790025']
As a new adult, I think the biggest problem in golf is the lack of availible reasonable priced memberships for kids and young adults. The closest course to me is Compass Pointe, an "upscale" muni that was built about 10 years ago, featuring hundreds of million dollar homes on it. It's the only golf course within 30 minutes of the 50,000 people who live south of Baltimore, MD. It's kind of a dead zone. Too far south to enjoy the Baltimore City and County munis, too far east to enjoy the Howard county ones, and too far north to enjoy the PG county courses. We basically have no choices in where we play, unless we travel. That being said, rounds at compass pointe, even on a weekday, are something like $60. This isn't a great course. The greens aren't fast and true, there's tons of dead patches and crabgrass. The course is impossible to walk due to its construction between the neighborhood streets, etc. Anyhow, membership there is $2000 for county residents. And that doesn't include cart, which costs $10 per ride. That means if you play twilight, like i do, you'd have to play 101 rounds to be getting a value ($3030 vs. $3010). Way too expensive. Why not make it half as expensive. I'd bet they'd see their memberships more than double. I have so many friends in the 16-20 age bracket that would love to golf more than once a week, but it's just too much money.
[/quote]
My condolences. Arundel County is a golf wasteland. I could never figure out why there were so few courses in that area. I used to play at Meade all the time when I lived there. Of course the geniuses couldn't manage to build a replacement when NSA gobbled up the golf course property. I've heard from other people that CP has turned into a dump, and a fairly pricey one at that. Your post epitomizes one of the biggest problems the game is facing.
[/quote]


I haven't played CP this year, I'm headed to OC this week and playing Rum Pointe, War Admiral, and Eagle's Landing. I'll take a visit to CP after the vacation to give it a go before college. Last time I played there (1.5 years ago) my experience was quite miserable. The greens are full of crabgrass, the fairways are too, bunkers unplayable, and the manager there tried to deny my 17 and under junior rate of $5 off because "It's not really 17 and under, but rather whether or not you have a driver's license," despite the policy saying otherwise. The course used to be so great. Went to golf camp there when it was first built. Was always in great shape.

Ever since it got turned over to Billy Casper golf managment....... Prices up, quality down

[DataGolfer]

Made this album. This is three years of disaster at CP

[url="http://imgur.com/a/zc83g"]http://imgur.com/a/zc83g[/url]

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='golfman1023' timestamp='1406466545' post='9794345']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1406397157' post='9790577']
[quote name='golfman1023' timestamp='1406389612' post='9790025']
As a new adult, I think the biggest problem in golf is the lack of availible reasonable priced memberships for kids and young adults. The closest course to me is Compass Pointe, an "upscale" muni that was built about 10 years ago, featuring hundreds of million dollar homes on it. It's the only golf course within 30 minutes of the 50,000 people who live south of Baltimore, MD. It's kind of a dead zone. Too far south to enjoy the Baltimore City and County munis, too far east to enjoy the Howard county ones, and too far north to enjoy the PG county courses. We basically have no choices in where we play, unless we travel. That being said, rounds at compass pointe, even on a weekday, are something like $60. This isn't a great course. The greens aren't fast and true, there's tons of dead patches and crabgrass. The course is impossible to walk due to its construction between the neighborhood streets, etc. Anyhow, membership there is $2000 for county residents. And that doesn't include cart, which costs $10 per ride. That means if you play twilight, like i do, you'd have to play 101 rounds to be getting a value ($3030 vs. $3010). Way too expensive. Why not make it half as expensive. I'd bet they'd see their memberships more than double. I have so many friends in the 16-20 age bracket that would love to golf more than once a week, but it's just too much money.
[/quote]

I'd like to agree with your half rate wish, but membership growth, whether public or private course, can not exist by lowering rates. A nineteen year old should pay what I pay to play. Typically, public courses that offer memberships to residents, do so as a local community service. I hold two public club memberships at notable courses. Its surprising how few people actually buy them. Recently, one SoCA course that offered, what they felt were reasonable membership rates and accommodations, finally kicked club members out. Members thought their revenue stream to the club was sufficient enough to make demands and effect changes. In actuality, managing that membership was more of headache than profitable.

Here in CA and AZ, even TX, the courses I've seen want tournaments, corporate outings, private events like weddings, etc., that's where they make money; course tee times at near or at rack for people from outside city limits helps. It takes a lot of money to maintain even the basic municipal course, moreover keep it in black ink.
[/quote]

The thing is, around where I live, these courses aren't notable. They're owned by the county, and supposed to be a recreation service provided in part by the taxpayers. The reason golf is dying is because young people don't play. Having 1000 members at $1000 a year is better for a course than having 499 members at $2000 a year. You have to realize too that a 19 year old has much less means to pay than an adult. It's not unfair or anything else, it's just the way it is. Same reason there are senior rates. Up until this year, the course had an offer where any person 17 or younger was free with a paying adult, or $15 by themselves after 3pm on weekdays. Any other times there was a junior rate. There are senior memberships, so why not junior ones too? It's not like these courses are filled. There are more tee times than they know what to do with, so they try to gouge out the most they can. Soccer, basketball, football are all incredibly popular because all it takes is a ball and a pair of cleats. If golf wants to grow or survive or sustain, courses need to stop acting like golfers owe them something. I just checked my local course's website. There are over 20 tee times available for TODAY. If those go unfilled (which they do), they make no money. If the prices were reasonable, those times would be filled, and they would make money. Golf courses put out all the money on the front end and hope to make it back later on greens fees. If there are unfilled tee times at the end of the day, that is money down the drain for the course. Big sticker prices don't mean squat when the players aren't coming
[/quote]

Clearly, you want golf to be able to enjoy golf like I do. Great, except I have paid my life dues and can afford golf, as it is, regardless of rates, and I play 2-3 times per week, plus pay for my wife and son to play. With regards to senior rates, they too have paid their life dues, which deserves special attn. As opposed to youngsters just starting out, which are not entitled or comparable to seniors.

Another factor that you need to consider, adolescents (-18) and 20 somethings are vary fickle about what they commit to, including sports like golf; my son is 20+ as are his friends so I see it first hand. For that reason, clubs generally don't cater to them; course it doesn't help they don't spend money at the course, yet take up tee times that, otherwise, could be used for those that pay higher rates. Another influential factor in walkers do not contribute to the pockets of mgt. Cart fees typically go to the GM and or Head Pro and require 16 to 18 with Lic, and in some cases, proof of insurance. Hence, its not a surprise pros prefer keeping tee times open for those that pay more. As for unfilled tee times at the end of the day, they are not confirmed unfilled, till the end of the day. If that happens, usually its seen as less wear and tear on the course, which is a good thing. So, I suppose what I am indirectly saying is the effort that goes into adolescent playing, will NOT save the day for golf.

[gmu155]

This is probably a repeat of what alot of you have been saying...
My 2cents to all of these golf is dieing post.....edited and reposted.

Golf take an investment that most people can't or choose not to afford:
• TIME: Learning to play, Practicing, and Actually playing. (Finite)
• MONEY: Lessons, Range time, Green fees, Equipment. (Finite)

Golf is a difficult game, its not something you pick up and do naturally like running, throwing, or kicking a ball. You compete against yourself, your partner, and the course. There are no team members to help you out, you can't just go along for the ride.

Golf compete for dollars against all other entertaiment options. People do not enjoying doing difficult things as entertaiment. People want to do something fun and makes you them feel accomplish, energized, etc. versus fustrated, and demoralize. Hacking a ball around the course, not knowing what do, damaging the course, slowing people down, is not a fun, even if the pace of play is under 4hours. You CAN'T make the game that much easier by changing the rules or shortening the course. It still requires a level of skill to get from tee to green.

For a new person to get into golf and enjoy the experience, they need to invest. You need to keep investing in order to be proficient enough to actually enjoy it. And most people can't afford or choose not to after the first experience. These investments equal the "opportunity cost"

Time + $ = how Accessible the game is to certain people. And lets not forget the "opportunity cost" factor as well.

[MelloYello]

There are several things I think would help golf:

#1 - Get more educated and unbiased people into the fray who can help run the clubs on the business side. I don't know what kids are learning in "golf school" but I haven't met a lot of guys through golf that I'd consider "sharp." My experience is that most folks in the golf industry aren't all that fluent in math and economics. This problem sounds to me like you've got a lot of "managers" and no real "engineers" to solve the technical problems. The kinds of cost/benefit analysis and basic optimization I see being discussed here sounds an awful lot like what goes on in high school and early college classrooms.

As an engineer, I have never associated the world of golf with STEM-oriented intelligence, and that's probably a major f'in red flag. It's my guess that golf just doesn't have enough people on the "inside" who really know what they're doing or have something valuable to offer.

Yeah, you've got salespeople. You've got reps. You've got "pros" and "managers" at all these places, but I fail to see real business acumen amongst the crowd.



#2 - Market Yourself! Why, as a 28-year old golf-obsessed single male, has no one at a club ever bothered to talk to me about membership?



Think about that for a couple seconds.



Keep thinking.



Think about it.



See where I get the notion I discussed in #1? It's like these people don't even want to try and get guys like me paying monthly dues. Complain all you want that you're losing money but I swear these people must be the laziest in the world. I just don't get the sense the guys "behind the counter" are really all that concerned whether they make money or not. They let the quality and experience on the course degrade and wonder why fewer and fewer people show up.

This is business does. It's separates the winners and losers and no offense, but as a smart and motivated person, I see a lot of losers in the golf industry.

If you aren't proactive in business (or life) you're going to die faster than if you were. It's really not all that surprising that bad things are on the horizon.

[DataGolfer]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1406577352' post='9803325']
[quote name='golfman1023' timestamp='1406466545' post='9794345']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1406397157' post='9790577']
[quote name='golfman1023' timestamp='1406389612' post='9790025']
As a new adult, I think the biggest problem in golf is the lack of availible reasonable priced memberships for kids and young adults. The closest course to me is Compass Pointe, an "upscale" muni that was built about 10 years ago, featuring hundreds of million dollar homes on it. It's the only golf course within 30 minutes of the 50,000 people who live south of Baltimore, MD. It's kind of a dead zone. Too far south to enjoy the Baltimore City and County munis, too far east to enjoy the Howard county ones, and too far north to enjoy the PG county courses. We basically have no choices in where we play, unless we travel. That being said, rounds at compass pointe, even on a weekday, are something like $60. This isn't a great course. The greens aren't fast and true, there's tons of dead patches and crabgrass. The course is impossible to walk due to its construction between the neighborhood streets, etc. Anyhow, membership there is $2000 for county residents. And that doesn't include cart, which costs $10 per ride. That means if you play twilight, like i do, you'd have to play 101 rounds to be getting a value ($3030 vs. $3010). Way too expensive. Why not make it half as expensive. I'd bet they'd see their memberships more than double. I have so many friends in the 16-20 age bracket that would love to golf more than once a week, but it's just too much money.
[/quote]

I'd like to agree with your half rate wish, but membership growth, whether public or private course, can not exist by lowering rates. A nineteen year old should pay what I pay to play. Typically, public courses that offer memberships to residents, do so as a local community service. I hold two public club memberships at notable courses. Its surprising how few people actually buy them. Recently, one SoCA course that offered, what they felt were reasonable membership rates and accommodations, finally kicked club members out. Members thought their revenue stream to the club was sufficient enough to make demands and effect changes. In actuality, managing that membership was more of headache than profitable.

Here in CA and AZ, even TX, the courses I've seen want tournaments, corporate outings, private events like weddings, etc., that's where they make money; course tee times at near or at rack for people from outside city limits helps. It takes a lot of money to maintain even the basic municipal course, moreover keep it in black ink.
[/quote]

The thing is, around where I live, these courses aren't notable. They're owned by the county, and supposed to be a recreation service provided in part by the taxpayers. The reason golf is dying is because young people don't play. Having 1000 members at $1000 a year is better for a course than having 499 members at $2000 a year. You have to realize too that a 19 year old has much less means to pay than an adult. It's not unfair or anything else, it's just the way it is. Same reason there are senior rates. Up until this year, the course had an offer where any person 17 or younger was free with a paying adult, or $15 by themselves after 3pm on weekdays. Any other times there was a junior rate. There are senior memberships, so why not junior ones too? It's not like these courses are filled. There are more tee times than they know what to do with, so they try to gouge out the most they can. Soccer, basketball, football are all incredibly popular because all it takes is a ball and a pair of cleats. If golf wants to grow or survive or sustain, courses need to stop acting like golfers owe them something. I just checked my local course's website. There are over 20 tee times available for TODAY. If those go unfilled (which they do), they make no money. If the prices were reasonable, those times would be filled, and they would make money. Golf courses put out all the money on the front end and hope to make it back later on greens fees. If there are unfilled tee times at the end of the day, that is money down the drain for the course. Big sticker prices don't mean squat when the players aren't coming
[/quote]

Clearly, you want golf to be able to enjoy golf like I do. Great, except I have paid my life dues and can afford golf, as it is regardless of rates, and I play 2-3 times per week, plus pay for my wife and son to play. With regards to senior rates, they too have paid their life dues, which deserve special attn. As opposed to youngsters just starting out, which are not entitled, nor comparable to seniors.

Another factor that you need to consider, adolescents (-18) and 20 somethings are vary fickle about what they commit to, including sports like golf; my son is 20+ as are his friends so I see it first hand. For that reason, clubs generally don't cater to them; course it doesn't help they don't spend money at the course, yet take up tee times that, otherwise, could be used for those that pay higher rates. Another influential factor in walkers do not contribute to the pockets of mgt. Cart fees typically go to the GM and or Head Pro and require 16 to 18 with Lic, and in some cases, proof of insurance. Hence, its not a surprise pros prefer keeping tee times open for those that pay more. As for unfilled tee times at the end of the day, they are not confirmed unfilled, till the end of the day. If that happens, usually its seen as less wear and tear on the course, which is a good thing. So, I suppose what I am indirectly saying is the effort that goes into adolescent playing, will NOT save the day for golf.
[/quote]

But the thing is, people aren't paying higher rates. People simply aren't playing at all, and therefore not paying at all. If you're only catering to wealthy adults/seniors who can "afford golf regardless of rates" and have "paid their life dues" then you're just reverting back to the stuffy attitude that has plagued golf for the past 15 years

[joey2aces]

[quote name='Yellow Jacket' timestamp='1406245066' post='9778945']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1406243012' post='9778807']
Honestly, the NY Times??? Its about the worst reference source imaginable, especially when it comes to economic reality, honesty and good judgment.
[/quote]
The NYT article is quoting participation figures from the National Golf Foundation. But since you bring it up, if the New York Times isn't a reliable source, what is?
[/quote]

Unfortunately 'media' in and of itself is no longer reliable. For whomever controls the media controls most of the minds which in the end controls most of the votes. For instance (and I am not trying to get political here) Look at what happened when Chris Christie allegedly 'controlled traffic', there was a firestorm in the media. Then, last week, Gov Cuomo is being accused of influencing an ethics commission that he created. Both are allegations, both vehemently deny having anything to do with it yet one is a (R) and one is a (D),..... which one did you and I read about and get force fed?

[cxx]

[quote name='joey2aces' timestamp='1406643178' post='9809043']
[quote name='Yellow Jacket' timestamp='1406245066' post='9778945']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1406243012' post='9778807']
Honestly, the NY Times??? Its about the worst reference source imaginable, especially when it comes to economic reality, honesty and good judgment.
[/quote]
The NYT article is quoting participation figures from the National Golf Foundation. But since you bring it up, if the New York Times isn't a reliable source, what is?
[/quote]

Unfortunately 'media' in and of itself is no longer reliable. For whomever controls the media controls most of the minds which in the end controls most of the votes. For instance (and I am not trying to get political here) Look at what happened when Chris Christie allegedly 'controlled traffic', there was a firestorm in the media. Then, last week, Gov Cuomo is being accused of influencing an ethics commission that he created. Both are allegations, both vehemently deny having anything to do with it yet one is a ® and one is a (D),..... which one did you and I read about and get force fed?
[/quote]

I have to agree that there are no unbiased news sources. There may never have been, but it seems that at some point things really changed. Instead of facts and analysis we started getting opinion and speculation as news. It might be due to the slow death of the newspaper industry and the pandering for eyeballs that we have now. There have been some successes of decidedly biased coverage and everyone is following down the hole. The worst though are the ones that don't think that they are biased. They are the fools.

By the way, golf will survive. Some golf related companies won't, but that's always the way it is. Might as well enjoy the chance to play without crowds while it lasts. The closure of courses always lags the loss of golfers by a long time.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='golfman1023' timestamp='1406620193' post='9807789']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1406577352' post='9803325']
[quote name='golfman1023' timestamp='1406466545' post='9794345']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1406397157' post='9790577']
[quote name='golfman1023' timestamp='1406389612' post='9790025']
As a new adult, I think the biggest problem in golf is the lack of availible reasonable priced memberships for kids and young adults. The closest course to me is Compass Pointe, an "upscale" muni that was built about 10 years ago, featuring hundreds of million dollar homes on it. It's the only golf course within 30 minutes of the 50,000 people who live south of Baltimore, MD. It's kind of a dead zone. Too far south to enjoy the Baltimore City and County munis, too far east to enjoy the Howard county ones, and too far north to enjoy the PG county courses. We basically have no choices in where we play, unless we travel. That being said, rounds at compass pointe, even on a weekday, are something like $60. This isn't a great course. The greens aren't fast and true, there's tons of dead patches and crabgrass. The course is impossible to walk due to its construction between the neighborhood streets, etc. Anyhow, membership there is $2000 for county residents. And that doesn't include cart, which costs $10 per ride. That means if you play twilight, like i do, you'd have to play 101 rounds to be getting a value ($3030 vs. $3010). Way too expensive. Why not make it half as expensive. I'd bet they'd see their memberships more than double. I have so many friends in the 16-20 age bracket that would love to golf more than once a week, but it's just too much money.
[/quote]

I'd like to agree with your half rate wish, but membership growth, whether public or private course, can not exist by lowering rates. A nineteen year old should pay what I pay to play. Typically, public courses that offer memberships to residents, do so as a local community service. I hold two public club memberships at notable courses. Its surprising how few people actually buy them. Recently, one SoCA course that offered, what they felt were reasonable membership rates and accommodations, finally kicked club members out. Members thought their revenue stream to the club was sufficient enough to make demands and effect changes. In actuality, managing that membership was more of headache than profitable.

Here in CA and AZ, even TX, the courses I've seen want tournaments, corporate outings, private events like weddings, etc., that's where they make money; course tee times at near or at rack for people from outside city limits helps. It takes a lot of money to maintain even the basic municipal course, moreover keep it in black ink.
[/quote]

The thing is, around where I live, these courses aren't notable. They're owned by the county, and supposed to be a recreation service provided in part by the taxpayers. The reason golf is dying is because young people don't play. Having 1000 members at $1000 a year is better for a course than having 499 members at $2000 a year. You have to realize too that a 19 year old has much less means to pay than an adult. It's not unfair or anything else, it's just the way it is. Same reason there are senior rates. Up until this year, the course had an offer where any person 17 or younger was free with a paying adult, or $15 by themselves after 3pm on weekdays. Any other times there was a junior rate. There are senior memberships, so why not junior ones too? It's not like these courses are filled. There are more tee times than they know what to do with, so they try to gouge out the most they can. Soccer, basketball, football are all incredibly popular because all it takes is a ball and a pair of cleats. If golf wants to grow or survive or sustain, courses need to stop acting like golfers owe them something. I just checked my local course's website. There are over 20 tee times available for TODAY. If those go unfilled (which they do), they make no money. If the prices were reasonable, those times would be filled, and they would make money. Golf courses put out all the money on the front end and hope to make it back later on greens fees. If there are unfilled tee times at the end of the day, that is money down the drain for the course. Big sticker prices don't mean squat when the players aren't coming
[/quote]

Clearly, you want golf to be able to enjoy golf like I do. Great, except I have paid my life dues and can afford golf, as it is regardless of rates, and I play 2-3 times per week, plus pay for my wife and son to play. With regards to senior rates, they too have paid their life dues, which deserve special attn. As opposed to youngsters just starting out, which are not entitled, nor comparable to seniors.

Another factor that you need to consider, adolescents (-18) and 20 somethings are vary fickle about what they commit to, including sports like golf; my son is 20+ as are his friends so I see it first hand. For that reason, clubs generally don't cater to them; course it doesn't help they don't spend money at the course, yet take up tee times that, otherwise, could be used for those that pay higher rates. Another influential factor in walkers do not contribute to the pockets of mgt. Cart fees typically go to the GM and or Head Pro and require 16 to 18 with Lic, and in some cases, proof of insurance. Hence, its not a surprise pros prefer keeping tee times open for those that pay more. As for unfilled tee times at the end of the day, they are not confirmed unfilled, till the end of the day. If that happens, usually its seen as less wear and tear on the course, which is a good thing. So, I suppose what I am indirectly saying is the effort that goes into adolescent playing, will NOT save the day for golf.
[/quote]

But the thing is, people aren't paying higher rates. People simply aren't playing at all, and therefore not paying at all. If you're only catering to wealthy adults/seniors who can "afford golf regardless of rates" and have "paid their life dues" then you're just reverting back to the stuffy attitude that has plagued golf for the past 15 years
[/quote]

That might be the case in certain region areas, but NOT nationally. And assuming "who" a given market caters to has a "stuffy" attitude, not only shows a lack of respect for the ones that pave "your" way, but ignorance.

Here in SoCA and elsewhere in my travels, many courses are raising prices. Last wkend alone, I visited one practice range at one course, that raised the cost of a bucket of balls to $10. The next day we showed up a favorite course, only to find they raised rates across the board, more than $10; I paid $80 + balls. Nice course, but not anything overtly special. Why should they raise rates? Attendance might be off at some courses, but others like that one have full tee sheets on wkends. As a business man that understands the P&L, when that's the case, its time to try and regain profits lost during previous years. That's not going to happen by discounting rates to accommodate a certain segment, just to fill tee times. Municipal courses are not all that different either. Their low fees have been offset by redirecting revenue from other profit bearing depts. That is slowing stopping too. City fathers are realizing the cost of maintaining even a rudimentary course today, is draining their coffers. Many club owners have tried to attract diverse segments, only to realize they are not making enough revenue to offset past loses. Golf, by design, is not an every man sport; its too costly, and there's no way to make it less so. Governments can NOT afford to get into the business either, as they already have too many fiscal problems.

[billyhandsomeface]

 

Pepper you no longer need to point out that you are a business man in every post. We got it.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='billyhandsomeface' timestamp='1406656230' post='9810541']

Pepper you no longer need to point out that you are a business man in every post. We got it.
[/quote]

Thank you for your, no doubt, tainted intentions. But when I am talking with others, I don't assume.

[topr]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1406656767' post='9810585']
[quote name='billyhandsomeface' timestamp='1406656230' post='9810541']
Pepper you no longer need to point out that you are a business man in every post. We got it.
[/quote]

Thank you for your, no doubt, tainted intentions. But when I am talking [s]with[/s] down to others, I don't assume.
[/quote]

Fixed

[QuigleyDU]

I think the whole senior discount thing is misplaced. Especially at a golf course.I think they should be charged more.

[DevilDog]

Participation is down but again I believe it is more an issue of economics and the filtering out of those who were fringe players are best. The methodology for collecting the number of players isn't based on rounds played either. It is a questionaire about how much people play. I would think rounds per course, which is a large data set, would be much more accurate in determining participation than asking people how much do you play.

Also, interestingly enough, weren't we reading just a few years ago about how overbuilt the USA is in terms of courses? If there are too many courses, then one would expect to see a contraction when the economy falters so much. As I said in a previous post, in the last 25 years the number of courses were I lived more than doubled while the population grew about 10%.

[EK16]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1406395959' post='9790497']
SoCA
[/quote]

Of all things driving me nuts today....

No one says/writes/uses SoCA here. It's socal. Socal and norcal.

[studatnu]

well golf is a live and well here in MA. Called around to all the clubs around here looking for a morning tee time for saturday.....pretty much booked solid until 1:00

[DataGolfer]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1406577352' post='9803325']
[quote name='golfman1023' timestamp='1406466545' post='9794345']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1406397157' post='9790577']
[quote name='golfman1023' timestamp='1406389612' post='9790025']
The thing is, around where I live, these courses aren't notable. They're owned by the county, and supposed to be a recreation service provided in part by the taxpayers. The reason golf is dying is because young people don't play. Having 1000 members at $1000 a year is better for a course than having 499 members at $2000 a year. You have to realize too that a 19 year old has much less means to pay than an adult. It's not unfair or anything else, it's just the way it is. Same reason there are senior rates. Up until this year, the course had an offer where any person 17 or younger was free with a paying adult, or $15 by themselves after 3pm on weekdays. Any other times there was a junior rate. There are senior memberships, so why not junior ones too? It's not like these courses are filled. There are more tee times than they know what to do with, so they try to gouge out the most they can. Soccer, basketball, football are all incredibly popular because all it takes is a ball and a pair of cleats. If golf wants to grow or survive or sustain, courses need to stop acting like golfers owe them something. I just checked my local course's website. There are over 20 tee times available for TODAY. If those go unfilled (which they do), they make no money. If the prices were reasonable, those times would be filled, and they would make money. Golf courses put out all the money on the front end and hope to make it back later on greens fees. If there are unfilled tee times at the end of the day, that is money down the drain for the course. Big sticker prices don't mean squat when the players aren't coming
[/quote]

Clearly, you want golf to be able to enjoy golf like I do. Great, except I have paid my life dues and can afford golf, as it is regardless of rates, and I play 2-3 times per week, plus pay for my wife and son to play. With regards to senior rates, they too have paid their life dues, which deserve special attn. As opposed to youngsters just starting out, which are not entitled, nor comparable to seniors.

Another factor that you need to consider, adolescents (-18) and 20 somethings are vary fickle about what they commit to, including sports like golf; my son is 20+ as are his friends so I see it first hand. For that reason, clubs generally don't cater to them; course it doesn't help they don't spend money at the course, yet take up tee times that, otherwise, could be used for those that pay higher rates. Another influential factor in walkers do not contribute to the pockets of mgt. Cart fees typically go to the GM and or Head Pro and require 16 to 18 with Lic, and in some cases, proof of insurance. Hence, its not a surprise pros prefer keeping tee times open for those that pay more. As for unfilled tee times at the end of the day, they are not confirmed unfilled, till the end of the day. If that happens, usually its seen as less wear and tear on the course, which is a good thing. So, I suppose what I am indirectly saying is the effort that goes into adolescent playing, will NOT save the day for golf.
[/quote]

But the thing is, people aren't paying higher rates. People simply aren't playing at all, and therefore not paying at all. If you're only catering to wealthy adults/seniors who can "afford golf regardless of rates" and have "paid their life dues" then you're just reverting back to the stuffy attitude that has plagued golf for the past 15 years
[/quote]

That might be the case in certain region areas, but NOT nationally. And assuming "who" a given market caters to has a "stuffy" attitude, not only shows a lack of respect for the ones that pave "your" way, but ignorance.

Here in SoCA and elsewhere in my travels, many courses are raising prices. Last wkend alone, I visited one practice range at one course, that raised the cost of a bucket of balls to $10. The next day we showed up a favorite course, only to find they raised rates across the board, more than $10; I paid $80 + balls. Nice course, but not anything overtly special. Why should they raise rates? Attendance might be off at some courses, but others like that one have full tee sheets on wkends. As a business man that understands the P&L, when that's the case, its time to try and regain profits lost during previous years. That's not going to happen by discounting rates to accommodate a certain segment, just to fill tee times. Municipal courses are not all that different either. Their low fees have been offset by redirecting revenue from other profit bearing depts. That is slowing stopping too. City fathers are realizing the cost of maintaining even a rudimentary course today, is draining their coffers. Many club owners have tried to attract diverse segments, only to realize they are not making enough revenue to offset past loses. Golf, by design, is not an every man sport; its too costly, and there's no way to make it less so. Governments can NOT afford to get into the business either, as they already have too many fiscal problems.
[/quote]

Jesus you're bitter.... Wasn't assuming anything about the market, only quoting what you said. Everything you've said is all about "tradition" and "respect" and "life dues." If you want golf to die in front of your eyes because the course is filled with 30 60+ year olds when it could be filled with 100+ 20 year olds, then go for it. This isn't the 1970s. Gone are the days of the gentleman's game. Now it's about being flashy. Rbz clubs, orange pants, white belts and fist pumps. Get with the times. I'm glad your anecdote conforms perfectly to your point, and there are probably a few select markets that justify high prices (think Pebble beach or Kiawah or something) but at the end of the day, when golf courses are empty, the prices are too high. The price of golf should always be slightly over the price at which the course fills up regularly, and if that means lowering prices, then so be it. No golf course is going to "make up for lost profits" by gouging a few people instead of giving good value to a mass of people. Sorry.

The point is, when a course isn't full, the rates are too high. When a course is too full, the rates are too low. That's how supply and demand works.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='EK16' timestamp='1406662718' post='9811205']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1406395959' post='9790497']
SoCA
[/quote]

Of all things driving me nuts today....

No one says/writes/uses SoCA here. It's socal. Socal and norcal.
[/quote]

Sorry, such a short word drives you nuts. I have been in SoCA for a long time, and a great many people I know use it as well as clients.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='golfman1023' timestamp='1406667921' post='9811757']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1406577352' post='9803325']
[quote name='golfman1023' timestamp='1406466545' post='9794345']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1406397157' post='9790577']
[quote name='golfman1023' timestamp='1406389612' post='9790025']
The thing is, around where I live, these courses aren't notable. They're owned by the county, and supposed to be a recreation service provided in part by the taxpayers. The reason golf is dying is because young people don't play. Having 1000 members at $1000 a year is better for a course than having 499 members at $2000 a year. You have to realize too that a 19 year old has much less means to pay than an adult. It's not unfair or anything else, it's just the way it is. Same reason there are senior rates. Up until this year, the course had an offer where any person 17 or younger was free with a paying adult, or $15 by themselves after 3pm on weekdays. Any other times there was a junior rate. There are senior memberships, so why not junior ones too? It's not like these courses are filled. There are more tee times than they know what to do with, so they try to gouge out the most they can. Soccer, basketball, football are all incredibly popular because all it takes is a ball and a pair of cleats. If golf wants to grow or survive or sustain, courses need to stop acting like golfers owe them something. I just checked my local course's website. There are over 20 tee times available for TODAY. If those go unfilled (which they do), they make no money. If the prices were reasonable, those times would be filled, and they would make money. Golf courses put out all the money on the front end and hope to make it back later on greens fees. If there are unfilled tee times at the end of the day, that is money down the drain for the course. Big sticker prices don't mean squat when the players aren't coming
[/quote]

Clearly, you want golf to be able to enjoy golf like I do. Great, except I have paid my life dues and can afford golf, as it is regardless of rates, and I play 2-3 times per week, plus pay for my wife and son to play. With regards to senior rates, they too have paid their life dues, which deserve special attn. As opposed to youngsters just starting out, which are not entitled, nor comparable to seniors.

Another factor that you need to consider, adolescents (-18) and 20 somethings are vary fickle about what they commit to, including sports like golf; my son is 20+ as are his friends so I see it first hand. For that reason, clubs generally don't cater to them; course it doesn't help they don't spend money at the course, yet take up tee times that, otherwise, could be used for those that pay higher rates. Another influential factor in walkers do not contribute to the pockets of mgt. Cart fees typically go to the GM and or Head Pro and require 16 to 18 with Lic, and in some cases, proof of insurance. Hence, its not a surprise pros prefer keeping tee times open for those that pay more. As for unfilled tee times at the end of the day, they are not confirmed unfilled, till the end of the day. If that happens, usually its seen as less wear and tear on the course, which is a good thing. So, I suppose what I am indirectly saying is the effort that goes into adolescent playing, will NOT save the day for golf.
[/quote]

But the thing is, people aren't paying higher rates. People simply aren't playing at all, and therefore not paying at all. If you're only catering to wealthy adults/seniors who can "afford golf regardless of rates" and have "paid their life dues" then you're just reverting back to the stuffy attitude that has plagued golf for the past 15 years
[/quote]

That might be the case in certain region areas, but NOT nationally. And assuming "who" a given market caters to has a "stuffy" attitude, not only shows a lack of respect for the ones that pave "your" way, but ignorance.

Here in SoCA and elsewhere in my travels, many courses are raising prices. Last wkend alone, I visited one practice range at one course, that raised the cost of a bucket of balls to $10. The next day we showed up a favorite course, only to find they raised rates across the board, more than $10; I paid $80 + balls. Nice course, but not anything overtly special. Why should they raise rates? Attendance might be off at some courses, but others like that one have full tee sheets on wkends. As a business man that understands the P&L, when that's the case, its time to try and regain profits lost during previous years. That's not going to happen by discounting rates to accommodate a certain segment, just to fill tee times. Municipal courses are not all that different either. Their low fees have been offset by redirecting revenue from other profit bearing depts. That is slowing stopping too. City fathers are realizing the cost of maintaining even a rudimentary course today, is draining their coffers. Many club owners have tried to attract diverse segments, only to realize they are not making enough revenue to offset past loses. Golf, by design, is not an every man sport; its too costly, and there's no way to make it less so. Governments can NOT afford to get into the business either, as they already have too many fiscal problems.
[/quote]

Jesus you're bitter.... Wasn't assuming anything about the market, only quoting what you said. Everything you've said is all about "tradition" and "respect" and "life dues." If you want golf to die in front of your eyes because the course is filled with 30 60+ year olds when it could be filled with 100+ 20 year olds, then go for it. This isn't the 1970s. Gone are the days of the gentleman's game. Now it's about being flashy. Rbz clubs, orange pants, white belts and fist pumps. Get with the times. I'm glad your anecdote conforms perfectly to your point, and there are probably a few select markets that justify high prices (think Pebble beach or Kiawah or something) but at the end of the day, when golf courses are empty, the prices are too high. The price of golf should always be slightly over the price at which the course fills up regularly, and if that means lowering prices, then so be it. No golf course is going to "make up for lost profits" by gouging a few people instead of giving good value to a mass of people. Sorry.

The point is, when a course isn't full, the rates are too high. When a course is too full, the rates are too low. That's how supply and demand works.
[/quote]

Bitter???? NO I am NOT bitter about anything, much less anything discussed online. But given that's your perception, I am done, except, golf isn't going to dye, because of men like me. Have a good day.

[DataGolfer]

[quote name='golfman1023' timestamp='1406667921' post='9811757']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1406577352' post='9803325']
[quote name='golfman1023' timestamp='1406466545' post='9794345']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1406397157' post='9790577']
[quote name='golfman1023' timestamp='1406389612' post='9790025']


Clearly, you want golf to be able to enjoy golf like I do. Great, except I have paid my life dues and can afford golf, as it is regardless of rates, and I play 2-3 times per week, plus pay for my wife and son to play. With regards to senior rates, they too have paid their life dues, which deserve special attn. As opposed to youngsters just starting out, which are not entitled, nor comparable to seniors.

Another factor that you need to consider, adolescents (-18) and 20 somethings are vary fickle about what they commit to, including sports like golf; my son is 20+ as are his friends so I see it first hand. For that reason, clubs generally don't cater to them; course it doesn't help they don't spend money at the course, yet take up tee times that, otherwise, could be used for those that pay higher rates. Another influential factor in walkers do not contribute to the pockets of mgt. Cart fees typically go to the GM and or Head Pro and require 16 to 18 with Lic, and in some cases, proof of insurance. Hence, its not a surprise pros prefer keeping tee times open for those that pay more. As for unfilled tee times at the end of the day, they are not confirmed unfilled, till the end of the day. If that happens, usually its seen as less wear and tear on the course, which is a good thing. So, I suppose what I am indirectly saying is the effort that goes into adolescent playing, will NOT save the day for golf.
[/quote]

But the thing is, people aren't paying higher rates. People simply aren't playing at all, and therefore not paying at all. If you're only catering to wealthy adults/seniors who can "afford golf regardless of rates" and have "paid their life dues" then you're just reverting back to the stuffy attitude that has plagued golf for the past 15 years
[/quote]

That might be the case in certain region areas, but NOT nationally. And assuming "who" a given market caters to has a "stuffy" attitude, not only shows a lack of respect for the ones that pave "your" way, but ignorance.

Here in SoCA and elsewhere in my travels, many courses are raising prices. Last wkend alone, I visited one practice range at one course, that raised the cost of a bucket of balls to $10. The next day we showed up a favorite course, only to find they raised rates across the board, more than $10; I paid $80 + balls. Nice course, but not anything overtly special. Why should they raise rates? Attendance might be off at some courses, but others like that one have full tee sheets on wkends. As a business man that understands the P&L, when that's the case, its time to try and regain profits lost during previous years. That's not going to happen by discounting rates to accommodate a certain segment, just to fill tee times. Municipal courses are not all that different either. Their low fees have been offset by redirecting revenue from other profit bearing depts. That is slowing stopping too. City fathers are realizing the cost of maintaining even a rudimentary course today, is draining their coffers. Many club owners have tried to attract diverse segments, only to realize they are not making enough revenue to offset past loses. Golf, by design, is not an every man sport; its too costly, and there's no way to make it less so. Governments can NOT afford to get into the business either, as they already have too many fiscal problems.
[/quote]

Jesus you're bitter.... Wasn't assuming anything about the market, only quoting what you said. Everything you've said is all about "tradition" and "respect" and "life dues." If you want golf to die in front of your eyes because the course is filled with 30 60+ year olds when it could be filled with 100+ 20 year olds, then go for it. This isn't the 1970s. Gone are the days of the gentleman's game. Now it's about being flashy. Rbz clubs, orange pants, white belts and fist pumps. Get with the times. I'm glad your anecdote conforms perfectly to your point, and there are probably a few select markets that justify high prices (think Pebble beach or Kiawah or something) but at the end of the day, when golf courses are empty, the prices are too high. The price of golf should always be slightly over the price at which the course fills up regularly, and if that means lowering prices, then so be it. No golf course is going to "make up for lost profits" by gouging a few people instead of giving good value to a mass of people. Sorry.

The point is, when a course isn't full, the rates are too high. When a course is too full, the rates are too low. That's how supply and demand works.
[/quote]

Bitter???? NO I am NOT bitter about anything, much less anything discussed online. But given that's your perception, I am done, except, golf isn't going to dye, because of men like me. Have a good day.
[/quote]

We all get it. You're a wealthy businessman (you keep letting us know this) who wants to spend $100 a round and get the satisfaction of knowing that all the people who can't afford to play a round wherever you're playing haven't the experience, respect, or wealth that you have, and that makes you feel good.

But that isn't going to save golf.

[MikeG]

[quote namyou're pPepperturbo' timestamp='1406676347' post='9812689']
[quote name='QuigleyDU' timestamp='1406661281' post='9811075']
I think the whole senior discount thing is misplaced. Especially at a golf course.I think they should be charged more.
[/quote]

Yep, maybe so. With that in mind though, maybe we should draft more men like you, so men like me don't have to spend inordinate amounts of time incountry, protecting your "Freedom". Yep, I like that idea. See if you can measure up to this man, and honestly think he shouldn't have discounted green fees.

[url="http://www.greatamericans.com/video/Portraits-of-Valor-Roy-Benavide"]http://www.greatamer...or-Roy-Benavide[/url]
[/quote]
Geez. And you're probably one of those people who complain about the Millenials' entitlement mentality.

[zstar77]

Drove by an empty 9 hole course so stopped and asked if i could play a quick nine.sorry no as you need to b signed in by a member.... no chance then .... no sorry....ok thanks bye bye .

[Mr. Herbert]

[quote name='joey2aces' timestamp='1406643178' post='9809043']
[quote name='Yellow Jacket' timestamp='1406245066' post='9778945']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1406243012' post='9778807']
Honestly, the NY Times??? Its about the worst reference source imaginable, especially when it comes to economic reality, honesty and good judgment.
[/quote]
The NYT article is quoting participation figures from the National Golf Foundation. But since you bring it up, if the New York Times isn't a reliable source, what is?
[/quote]

Unfortunately 'media' in and of itself is no longer reliable. For whomever controls the media controls most of the minds which in the end controls most of the votes. For instance (and I am not trying to get political here) Look at what happened when Chris Christie allegedly 'controlled traffic', there was a firestorm in the media. Then, last week, Gov Cuomo is being accused of influencing an ethics commission that he created. Both are allegations, both vehemently deny having anything to do with it yet one is a (R) and one is a (D),..... which one did you and I read about and get force fed?
[/quote]

This might be the most absurd thing I've read in a long time. Christie is a potential presidential candidate, of course that's going to get more play than a local New York story. Also, Christie's scandal affected tens of thousands of motorists who were just trying to get back and forth to work, Cuomo's scandal affects no one's daily life. Christie's scandal may have caused a death when emergency services couldn't get through the traffic, Cuomo's scandal involved a commission most people weren't even aware of. Cuomo deserves to be kicked out of office for what he did, but come on, a five year old could explain why these two stories don't deserve equal coverage.

The funniest part of all is that it was the NY Times who broke the Cuomo scandal. But since they're the "worst reference source imaginable", maybe that's why it isn't getting covered as much.