Another US Major at a Course You can't play

[smashdn]

SMH at some of these responses, is it a shame that you don't live in a mansion and don't drive a Bentley as well?

 

As long as we can stay in the mansion and drive the Bentley one day a week I think everyone is ok with it.

[cxx]

There is nothing stopping anyone from improving their lot in life. Make more money, make more friends and get invited to join.

[smashdn]

For the good of architecture and growing appreciation for the luxury car market rich people need ot let me crash at their place and drive their cars, just one day a week say like Wednesday from 1-3.

[raynorfan1]

For the good of architecture and growing appreciation for the luxury car market rich people need ot let me crash at their place and drive their cars, just one day a week say like Wednesday from 1-3.

 

You would, however, be willing to pay a *reasonable* amount (you get to define reasonable) for it after all. Right?

 

Even though that amount would be significantly less than the actual cost that the owner pays for the same usage.

[duffer987]

For the good of architecture and growing appreciation for the luxury car market rich people need ot let me crash at their place and drive their cars, just one day a week say like Wednesday from 1-3.

Ha - good 'ol Turd Ferguson :)

The only reason I got a drivers license, was in anticipation of one day owning an Aston Martin, that I was able to sit in at a car show. Without that access, I'd still be riding a bike or relying on public transport!

[BRS2014]

Fun topic to read. I don't understand the perspective of the people who are

 

To the poster who said the PGA doesn't care about growing the game but applauded the USGA for going to public tracks like Pebble and Bethpage. The 1977 PGA was held at Pebble Beach which is 25 years prior to the first US Open held at a public track. Ironically, the PGA will be held at a public facility next spring along with the 2020 PGA at TPC Harding Park and the 2021 PGA at Kiawah Island. So the next 3 PGA's will be held at public/resort courses and 3 of the previous 9 were also held at resort courses. That comment that the PGA doesn't care about growing the game is pure crap!

 

What initiate has the USGA come up with on their own that is helping grow the game as much as PGA Jr. League?

[TheInfidel]

I'm not in the US so can't comment on the tax or social drivers for private clubs.

 

However, I think it's less about whether private clubs are good or bad, and more about the message it sends by hosting the PGA at a course which isn't by any definition accessible.

 

Prior to the Scottish Open being on links courses as a warm up to The Open, it was hosted at Loch Lomond. When that club returned to private ownership the tournament moved away, for that reason and some others. I think it helps grow the game to have spectators know that for a fee (sometimes a hefty one) they can just rock up and play where they've seen the pros play.

[raynorfan1]

To the poster who said the PGA doesn't care about growing the game but applauded the USGA for going to public tracks like Pebble and Bethpage. The 1977 PGA was held at Pebble Beach which is 25 years prior to the first US Open held at a public track. Ironically, the PGA will be held at a public facility next spring along with the 2020 PGA at TPC Harding Park and the 2021 PGA at Kiawah Island. So the next 3 PGA's will be held at public/resort courses and 3 of the previous 9 were also held at resort courses. That comment that the PGA doesn't care about growing the game is pure crap!

 

The USGA hosted the US Open at Pebble Beach in 1972; the first US major held on a public-access course was the 1924 PGA Championship at French Lick.

 

Though I suppose there is some question as to when the PGA Championship ascended to "major" status - a case could certainly be made that it would not have been considered a "major" in 1924.

[mci711]

This whole discussion is based on a false premise. With the exception of Augusta National, every private course that hosts a major also hosts one (or more) charity tournaments a year. Most cost $500 - $2000 (per player) for the round.

 

Bellerive is hosting the St. Louis Blues event next month:

 

https://www.nhl.com/...ty/golf-classic

 

IMHO it's a better model that the clubs leverage their prestige to raise money for charity (Bellerive) than to offset their dues expense (Muirfield).

 

Ding ding ding! Winner!

 

There are very few private courses that have no charity outings. You can play shinnecock, baltusrol lower, winged foot west easily and support a great cause.

 

Exactly. I remember when Pine Valley did a charity event for 9/11. $1000 a person and they sold out both days instantly.

 

I do wish every PGA course was at least required to hold a charity lottery event every year. Say, $10 for a raffle ticket to play in a single day event. They could raise millions for charity while at least giving us the dream of playing some of these courses.

 

I'd pay $1000 for PV without even thinking twice. What a deal.

 

Also, I don't mind the idea of the PGA only being held at public courses. Switching between Bethpage, Kiawah, EH, WS etc. I'd love to see chambers get another major shot.

 

Also, I know Streamsong doesn't have enough hotels nearby, but they are an hour from Tampa. I am sure there is plenty of areas for parking/shuttling between. The majority of the US open fans didn't live in the Hamptons, they lived a 2-hour+ train ride to Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens etc. If Chambers can host a US Open then Streamsong Red can host a PGA or regular tournament.

[Luke.Sutton]

I’ve played a number of the “impossible” to get on courses mentioned here with zero member connections... and I’m not a millionaire.

 

Have you tried emailing the club?

 

John Sabino’s Book is worth a read if this stuff interests you

[wingedfoot97]

I get it, and personally I don't care that much, but if the stewards of the game are really interested in growing it more, projecting a certain amount of "access" to major championship pro courses could be an idea worth considering.

 

Do you really think that allowing more access to Shinnecock Hills, Winged Foot, Oakmont, et. al would grow the game more?

 

Yes. It would grow my game and my logo hat collection. It would ensure I keep playing for 20 more years so yes to your question.

[pinestreetgolf]

The tax code has nothing to do with it. I don't know about the rest, but i do know that. While they would have to change what type of 501c organization they are, they would still be a 501c eligible even as a public course. Anyone can join little league and its non-profit. There are a ton of recognized purposes under 501c and offering recreation to a community for a fee is one of them.

[raynorfan1]

The tax code has nothing to do with it. I don't know about the rest, but i do know that. While they would have to change what type of 501c organization they are, they would still be a 501c eligible even as a public course. Anyone can join little league and its non-profit. There are a ton of recognized purposes under 501c and offering recreation to a community for a fee is one of them.

 

Not true. Many private clubs are organized as 501©(7) organizations, which explicitly limit the club from providing goods or services to the general public, and further requires that it be predominantly supported by member dues, fees, and assessments.

 

Organizing as a 501©(3) and limiting public access in any way would be a tough sell. I suppose if you converted a muni to private ownership, you might be able to get away with it.

 

The issue isn’t the “non profit” part of it; it’s the fact that once you lose 501c7 status, you could be considered “open to the public” and subject to a wide variety of public accommodation laws.

[pinestreetgolf]

The tax code has nothing to do with it. I don't know about the rest, but i do know that. While they would have to change what type of 501c organization they are, they would still be a 501c eligible even as a public course. Anyone can join little league and its non-profit. There are a ton of recognized purposes under 501c and offering recreation to a community for a fee is one of them.

 

Not true. Many private clubs are organized as 501©(7) organizations, which explicitly limit the club from providing goods or services to the general public, and further requires that it be predominantly supported by member dues, fees, and assessments.

 

Organizing as a 501©(3) and limiting public access in any way would be a tough sell. I suppose if you converted a muni to private ownership, you might be able to get away with it.

 

The issue isn't the "non profit" part of it; it's the fact that once you lose 501c7 status, you could be considered "open to the public" and subject to a wide variety of public accommodation laws.

 

That's correct. i should have said "the tax effects have nothing to do with it" rather than the tax *code* has nothing to do with it. They won't get taxed higher (its zero either way obviously) but there would be potential non-tax side effects.

[raynorfan1]

The tax code has nothing to do with it. I don't know about the rest, but i do know that. While they would have to change what type of 501c organization they are, they would still be a 501c eligible even as a public course. Anyone can join little league and its non-profit. There are a ton of recognized purposes under 501c and offering recreation to a community for a fee is one of them.

 

Not true. Many private clubs are organized as 501©(7) organizations, which explicitly limit the club from providing goods or services to the general public, and further requires that it be predominantly supported by member dues, fees, and assessments.

 

Organizing as a 501©(3) and limiting public access in any way would be a tough sell. I suppose if you converted a muni to private ownership, you might be able to get away with it.

 

The issue isn't the "non profit" part of it; it's the fact that once you lose 501c7 status, you could be considered "open to the public" and subject to a wide variety of public accommodation laws.

 

That's correct. i should have said "the tax effects have nothing to do with it" rather than the tax *code* has nothing to do with it. They won't get taxed higher (its zero either way obviously) but there would be potential non-tax side effects.

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

You'd definitely lose 501©(7) status by opening to the public.

 

You'd have a hard time establishing 501©(3) status and maintaining something that looks like a private club. A muni could probably convert to a 501©(3), but it would be hard for Oakmont to do.

 

You'd then be a for-profit business, which also might not be a big issue because the "profits" on a golf course can quite easily be managed to zero. It's not like our club runs a huge surplus every year...

 

I'd agree with you that the value of the non-profit tax exemption is relatively insignificant; but the implications of it would dramatically change the club.

[BNGL]

There was a case back in 2009 I think, in Washington state. I wanna say it was Spokane, but anyways the club was sued by 4 women who felt that they were discriminated against. Long story short the club had to file for bankruptcy, and was eventually sold and made part of the res and renamed Kalispell Golf Club. The presiding judge's decision basically said that even though it is a private club, it operates enough publicly (outside events, weddings, facility rentals) that it had to provide accommodations to all. The reason I remember this case is every club in my area was aware and immediately stopped allowing outside rentals, before you could dock your boat for a fee, or rent the club for a wedding if you weren't a member. Now forget about it. I would be worried that those, once a year 2000 dollar tee times could endanger our society and ways of the club. So I am perfectly content with not allowing outside play...at all. Unless sponsored by a member.

 

 

Our club is three entities, two of them are non profits. They had some damn good accountants and attorneys working that for us back in the day.

[BNGL]

I get it, and personally I don't care that much, but if the stewards of the game are really interested in growing it more, projecting a certain amount of "access" to major championship pro courses could be an idea worth considering.

 

Do you really think that allowing more access to Shinnecock Hills, Winged Foot, Oakmont, et. al would grow the game more?

 

Yes. It would grow my game and my logo hat collection. It would ensure I keep playing for 20 more years so yes to your question.

 

My point exactly, it would only benefit those that are already playing. No novice golfer I know aspires to play Baltusrol, Chicago GC, or Seminole. I doubt they'd have ever heard of them.

[mlwenzlick]

Most major championship courses are so far out of price range to what I could afford, they may as well be private. Sure I can pony up, but $200+ for greens fees is silly money. And Erin Hills you can't even enter the property without a tee time. Drove the back roads home from the Broadlands a few weeks ago to avoid rush hour in Milwaukee and bamb, we see a sign that says 1 mi to Erin Hills, so my buddy and I drive up to the old fart in the guard shack and he let's us down gently. We did drive away with a scorecard and a brochure. Public if you have a time, private if you don't. I dunno why, but I was disappointed, even though we happened upon the place.

 

I'm not looking to do it all the time, nor do I have the money for it...but I haven't given it a thought what I paid at Pebble Beach last December...it was incredible. Looking forward to Sawgrass or Ocean Course this fall and Whistling Straits next year. Save money over time for it and don't think about it when its time to go. You can't take it with you when you die, but the memories last forever.

 

Have a plan and work for it if you want it, whether you are able to stash income away or maybe even take up a couple lawns in your spare time if you can't etc.

[pldbryan]

I still go back to, regardless of tax implications or anything else, members at private courses pay money to play at a private course, and that means play is limited to members and their guests only. Open it up to non members even one day a week for one hour a week and the club risks losing those members that fund the general managers job, groundskeepers proshop guys etc. you don’t join a private course in the US, to compete with non members for tee times

Even at a relatively inexpensive club, if paying member can’t get a tee time one time that he wants, because they opened that time to the public, that member is going to raise hell, as he or she should. If you lose one member, it likely negates whatever the course made on that handful of tee times throughout the year.

[braincramp52]

I'm with ya o p. with a few exceptions or concerns. The average beer swillin, blue tooth playin' weekend warrior/hacker would tear up the greens and putting surfaces of these majestic courses.

 

HEY! What you got against beer ?!! :)

[cxx]

So the idea is to restrict the PGA tour to using public courses because we can't stand to see something, presumably better, that we can't have? Doesn't make sense to me. I imagine it doesn't make sense to most golfers. I don't see it helping to grow the game at all.

[pinestreetgolf]

The tax code has nothing to do with it. I don't know about the rest, but i do know that. While they would have to change what type of 501c organization they are, they would still be a 501c eligible even as a public course. Anyone can join little league and its non-profit. There are a ton of recognized purposes under 501c and offering recreation to a community for a fee is one of them.

 

Not true. Many private clubs are organized as 501©(7) organizations, which explicitly limit the club from providing goods or services to the general public, and further requires that it be predominantly supported by member dues, fees, and assessments.

 

Organizing as a 501©(3) and limiting public access in any way would be a tough sell. I suppose if you converted a muni to private ownership, you might be able to get away with it.

 

The issue isn't the "non profit" part of it; it's the fact that once you lose 501c7 status, you could be considered "open to the public" and subject to a wide variety of public accommodation laws.

 

That's correct. i should have said "the tax effects have nothing to do with it" rather than the tax *code* has nothing to do with it. They won't get taxed higher (its zero either way obviously) but there would be potential non-tax side effects.

 

You'd have a hard time establishing 501©(3) status and maintaining something that looks like a private club.

 

You'd then be a for-profit business, which also might not be a big issue because the "profits" on a golf course can quite easily be managed to zero. It's not like our club runs a huge surplus every year...

 

I'd agree with you that the value of the non-profit tax exemption is relatively insignificant; but the implications of it would dramatically change the club.

 

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree on keeping the 501 after opening to the public. You don't need to manage profits to zero in a non-profit you just can't distribute them (unless its payroll, which is how most do it, and that carries tax to the recipient assuming they are not tax-exempt.) You could easily "establish" 501 status for a very nice golf course open to the public. They don't call them "non-profits" but rather "not for profits". Actually making the profit is fine. The test is whether you reinvest the profit/equity (whichever) in your mission to keep your 501c.

 

I mean, the NBA is a 501 not for profit. I'm not sure a golf course couldn't make the same arguments. They make a bit of money, but are organized for the entertainment of the community.

 

The non-tax implications of opening to the public could be devastating (compliance with ADA, equal access, 14th amendment, etc...) and I am not qualified to speak to them.

[KAndyMan]

Out side the government regulation issues, I think member access is the biggest issue. I'm paying for my 2.5 hour 18 hole rounds after work without needing a tee time. Allowing public play would put that benefit in jeopardy and ruin the value proposition.

 

All of this!

Along with other things like endless amounts of divots with zero attempt of a repair and walking up to a green that has 6-12 untouched pitch marks. Stuff like that going on every day doesnt equate for a course worthy of the best players in the world playing a major for millions upon millions of dollars.

 

Keep them at private courses. If a person is really that frustrated about it then they need to figure out how to build a better network of people and create more wealth. Almost anyone can play Augusta if they REALLY wanted to put in the right work.......

 

On a side note i think it would be cool to have the pros play an average muni course in normal conditions. Just as a comparison for us mere mortals and possibly see a 18 hole round in the mid 50s.

[ode1]

Most major championship courses are so far out of price range to what I could afford, they may as well be private. Sure I can pony up, but $200+ for greens fees is silly money. And Erin Hills you can't even enter the property without a tee time. Drove the back roads home from the Broadlands a few weeks ago to avoid rush hour in Milwaukee and bamb, we see a sign that says 1 mi to Erin Hills, so my buddy and I drive up to the old fart in the guard shack and he let's us down gently. We did drive away with a scorecard and a brochure. Public if you have a time, private if you don't. I dunno why, but I was disappointed, even though we happened upon the place.

 

I'm not looking to do it all the time, nor do I have the money for it...but I haven't given it a thought what I paid at Pebble Beach last December...it was incredible. Looking forward to Sawgrass or Ocean Course this fall and Whistling Straits next year. Save money over time for it and don't think about it when its time to go. You can't take it with you when you die, but the memories last forever.

 

Have a plan and work for it if you want it, whether you are able to stash income away or maybe even take up a couple lawns in your spare time if you can't etc.

 

That's the beauty of perspective, that works for you, but not for me. I'll stretch out my earnings and choose to play any number of courses that are in the 40-100$ price range and maximize my value throughout the season. No way 1 round at a major type course is worth 5 ~ 10 rounds at places like Wild Rock, Washington County, Lawsonia Links, etc. I will splurge and go north of a c note from time to time, maybe once or twice per year. That will likely be Mammoth and/or SV this fall.

[teejaywhy]

the USGA gets a lot of flak on this forum, but give them credit for expanding the 'rota' of US Open venues to publicly accessible facilities. Bethpage, Torrey Pines, Chambers Bay, Erin Hills...

[Shilgy]

I still go back to, regardless of tax implications or anything else, members at private courses pay money to play at a private course, and that means play is limited to members and their guests only. Open it up to non members even one day a week for one hour a week and the club risks losing those members that fund the general managers job, groundskeepers proshop guys etc. you don’t join a private course in the US, to compete with non members for tee times

Even at a relatively inexpensive club, if paying member can’t get a tee time one time that he wants, because they opened that time to the public, that member is going to raise hell, as he or she should. If you lose one member, it likely negates whatever the course made on that handful of tee times throughout the year.

Spot on. We have plenty of members that pay their dues every month but only play a time or two a month. Some less than that. So in essence they are paying $200-$300 per round, if not more plus their initiation fee. Letting the public play for $150 a round even why should the rarely playing member not drop his membership and play as a public round?

[az2au]

I still go back to, regardless of tax implications or anything else, members at private courses pay money to play at a private course, and that means play is limited to members and their guests only. Open it up to non members even one day a week for one hour a week and the club risks losing those members that fund the general managers job, groundskeepers proshop guys etc. you don’t join a private course in the US, to compete with non members for tee times

Even at a relatively inexpensive club, if paying member can’t get a tee time one time that he wants, because they opened that time to the public, that member is going to raise hell, as he or she should. If you lose one member, it likely negates whatever the course made on that handful of tee times throughout the year.

Spot on. We have plenty of members that pay their dues every month but only play a time or two a month. Some less than that. So in essence they are paying $200-$300 per round, if not more plus their initiation fee. Letting the public play for $150 a round even why should the rarely playing member not drop his membership and play as a public round?

I fit this description. There was a period where I played 2 rounds in 30 months for various reasons (mostly because I was overseas). I paid my dues without hesitation realizing that those two rounds cost multiple thousands of dollars. I’d resign tomorrow in a situation like that described. There’s be no incentive for me to keep it if that were the case.

[jli2636]

Anyone offer a case for not letting golfers on private courses?

 

My understanding is that it has to do with the tax code. To remain a private club (from a tax perspective), the amount of outside income must be very small. Thus, they can't open it up to public play. I don't believe the same issue occurs in the U.K., so almost all clubs have some form of public play.

 

This is why whenever I am back in my college town I don’t usually have to pay at the course I worked at. I offer to pay but the pro just tosses me a key and says don’t worry about it.

[Golfnuck]

I still go back to, regardless of tax implications or anything else, members at private courses pay money to play at a private course, and that means play is limited to members and their guests only. Open it up to non members even one day a week for one hour a week and the club risks losing those members that fund the general managers job, groundskeepers proshop guys etc. you don't join a private course in the US, to compete with non members for tee times

Even at a relatively inexpensive club, if paying member can't get a tee time one time that he wants, because they opened that time to the public, that member is going to raise hell, as he or she should. If you lose one member, it likely negates whatever the course made on that handful of tee times throughout the year.

 

Right on !!!!!

[burnsniper]

The golf world is very small. I was talking to a car salesman yesterday about a new SUV for my wife. I have purchased a car from this salesman before (and two from the dealer) and he is a big fixture in the national car club of the brand. From past conversations I knew he was a golfer. Turns out he is oringially from St. Louis, played his high school golf matches at Bellerive and that his brother is a currently a member. Now I have an in if I find myself in St. Louis for business.

 

These types of connections happen all the time and are unique to the golf world.