Another US Major at a Course You can't play

[raynorfan1]

For voyeuristic entertainment, here's the property card for Augusta National:

 

https://qpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?AppID=678&LayerID=11365&PageTypeID=4&PageID=4760&Q=213449967&KeyValue=0190062000

 

$178M value.

 

And here's their tax bill:

 

https://arctaxpayments.com/#/Record/F8BBF919ABA8C651F466C6C861799899

 

($1.8M)

[Schley]

For voyeuristic entertainment, here's the property card for Augusta National:

 

https://qpublic.schn...alue=0190062000

 

$178M value.

 

And here's their tax bill:

 

https://arctaxpaymen...466C6C861799899

 

($1.8M)

 

They are set up as non-profits so they don't pay corporate income taxes. Many clubs do this, but the trade off is they have to file public returns for their non-profit status to be maintained.

 

BTW the idea for private clubs to open to the public will eliminate their tax exempt status as no more than 15% of their total gross receipts from their sale of goods and services to non-members. If they do, like open it up as a public access, they lose their tax exempt status.

 

https://wagenmakerlaw.com/blog/social-club-q-section-501c7-tax-exempt-organizations

[raynorfan1]

For voyeuristic entertainment, here's the property card for Augusta National:

 

https://qpublic.schn...alue=0190062000

 

$178M value.

 

And here's their tax bill:

 

https://arctaxpaymen...466C6C861799899

 

($1.8M)

 

They are set up as non-profits so they don't pay corporate income taxes. Many clubs do this, but the trade off is they have to file public returns for their non-profit status to be maintained.

 

BTW the idea for private clubs to open to the public will eliminate their tax exempt status as no more than 15% of their total gross receipts from their sale of goods and services to non-members. If they do, like open it up as a public access, they lose their tax exempt status.

 

https://wagenmakerla...t-organizations

 

Augusta actually is set up as a for-profit corporation (presumably a C); not to be confused with the 501©(3) charitable foundation that is administered by the club.

 

But you're right in that most member-owned clubs opt for 501©(7) status.

[Schley]

For voyeuristic entertainment, here's the property card for Augusta National:

 

https://qpublic.schn...alue=0190062000

 

$178M value.

 

And here's their tax bill:

 

https://arctaxpaymen...466C6C861799899

 

($1.8M)

 

They are set up as non-profits so they don't pay corporate income taxes. Many clubs do this, but the trade off is they have to file public returns for their non-profit status to be maintained.

 

BTW the idea for private clubs to open to the public will eliminate their tax exempt status as no more than 15% of their total gross receipts from their sale of goods and services to non-members. If they do, like open it up as a public access, they lose their tax exempt status.

 

https://wagenmakerla...t-organizations

 

Augusta actually is set up as a for-profit corporation (presumably a C); not to be confused with the 501©(3) charitable foundation that is administered by the club.

 

But you're right in that most member-owned clubs opt for 501©(7) status.

 

If you are talking Augusta example yes.

 

501C(7) are tax-exempt organizations (social clubs for country clubs)

 

501C(3) is an organization set up for exempt purposes: The exempt purposes set forth in section 501©(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

[raynorfan1]

For voyeuristic entertainment, here's the property card for Augusta National:

 

https://qpublic.schn...alue=0190062000

 

$178M value.

 

And here's their tax bill:

 

https://arctaxpaymen...466C6C861799899

 

($1.8M)

 

They are set up as non-profits so they don't pay corporate income taxes. Many clubs do this, but the trade off is they have to file public returns for their non-profit status to be maintained.

 

BTW the idea for private clubs to open to the public will eliminate their tax exempt status as no more than 15% of their total gross receipts from their sale of goods and services to non-members. If they do, like open it up as a public access, they lose their tax exempt status.

 

https://wagenmakerla...t-organizations

 

Augusta actually is set up as a for-profit corporation (presumably a C); not to be confused with the 501©(3) charitable foundation that is administered by the club.

 

But you're right in that most member-owned clubs opt for 501©(7) status.

 

If you are talking Augusta example yes.

 

501C(7) are tax-exempt organizations (social clubs for country clubs)

 

501C(3) is an organization set up for exempt purposes: The exempt purposes set forth in section 501©(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

 

We're in violent agreement (and to clarify, by "tax exempt" we mean only Federal Income Tax...they're still on the hook for full property taxes).

[Schley]

For voyeuristic entertainment, here's the property card for Augusta National:

 

https://qpublic.schn...alue=0190062000

 

$178M value.

 

And here's their tax bill:

 

https://arctaxpaymen...466C6C861799899

 

($1.8M)

 

They are set up as non-profits so they don't pay corporate income taxes. Many clubs do this, but the trade off is they have to file public returns for their non-profit status to be maintained.

 

BTW the idea for private clubs to open to the public will eliminate their tax exempt status as no more than 15% of their total gross receipts from their sale of goods and services to non-members. If they do, like open it up as a public access, they lose their tax exempt status.

 

https://wagenmakerla...t-organizations

 

Augusta actually is set up as a for-profit corporation (presumably a C); not to be confused with the 501©(3) charitable foundation that is administered by the club.

 

But you're right in that most member-owned clubs opt for 501©(7) status.

 

If you are talking Augusta example yes.

 

501C(7) are tax-exempt organizations (social clubs for country clubs)

 

501C(3) is an organization set up for exempt purposes: The exempt purposes set forth in section 501©(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

 

We're in violent agreement (and to clarify, by "tax exempt" we mean only Federal Income Tax...they're still on the hook for full property taxes).

 

Unless the states have special rules regarding their property tax status like Maryland, which has given special discounted rates to CC's. https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/politics/country-clubs-come-out-against-state-bill-that-would-raise-their-property-taxes/

 

This also applies to LA, which has several unique laws passed to drastically reduce the property tax liability for private CC's in LA. https://www.laweekly.com/news/california-should-raise-taxes-on-golf-courses-liquor-and-billboards-to-pay-for-healthcare-8391565

[TadWPJ]

You would have to pay me $200 and have a PM round set up at St Louis CC before I'd even consider playing Bellerive CC.

[raynorfan1]

Unless the states have special rules regarding their property tax status like Maryland, which has given special discounted rates to CC's. https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/politics/country-clubs-come-out-against-state-bill-that-would-raise-their-property-taxes/

 

This also applies to LA, which has several unique laws passed to drastically reduce the property tax liability for private CC's in LA. https://www.laweekly.com/news/california-should-raise-taxes-on-golf-courses-liquor-and-billboards-to-pay-for-healthcare-8391565

 

It is definitely true that in some jurisdictions, golf courses (generally together with other 'open spaces') get some preferential options in property taxes. In my home state, you can opt to cut your tax bill by about half if you take the open space exemption, but doing so gives the Town right-of-first-refusal on the property and the right to collect the accumulated difference if you ever sell. It effectively destroys the economic value of the property as anything except open space. Which is, perhaps, a fair trade.

 

The California example isn't a good one because Prop 13 applies relatively evenly to everybody - and it was passed on that basis of equality. It's unreasonable, IMHO, to go back years later and try to claw back on the deal.

[Schley]

Unless the states have special rules regarding their property tax status like Maryland, which has given special discounted rates to CC's. https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/politics/country-clubs-come-out-against-state-bill-that-would-raise-their-property-taxes/

 

This also applies to LA, which has several unique laws passed to drastically reduce the property tax liability for private CC's in LA. https://www.laweekly.com/news/california-should-raise-taxes-on-golf-courses-liquor-and-billboards-to-pay-for-healthcare-8391565

 

The California example isn't a good one because Prop 13 applies relatively evenly to everybody - and it was passed on that basis of equality. It's unreasonable, IMHO, to go back years later and try to claw back on the deal.

 

Unless of course your state isn't solvent, then I guess this could come into play...... time rapidly approaching.......... :cheesy:

 

Also keep in mind Prop 13 applies if the property hasn't changed hands IIRC, so most property has since 1979.

[Andrew Bond of Glencoe]

Private clubs are just that private and there are pros and cons that go along with it.

 

Pro side:

-> At the high end private club the conditioning is suburb

-> The high end clubs can afford and will shut down their course for over a year to perform superior historic restorations

-> Generally speaking they can control the pace much better- at Seminole for instance you play your round in 3.5 hours (whether you finish 18 holes or not).

-> As for majors the private clubs can make the sacrifice to shut down and ultimately destroy their course with spectators and corporate tents

 

Con Side

-> These events trample the course

-> Assessments - members get the bill for any cost over run. My father in law once received a bill for $20,000 at the end of the year for his share of the restoration of their course

 

Most public courses just don’t have the resources available at a private club. As for opening the course to the public, I play 99% of my golf at private courses, between my own which is pretty good to those that are ranked in the Top 100. The better the club the more the membership is encouraged to bring outside guests to experience the course.

 

Ask around, make friends and make connections that can help you play some of these courses- then make sure to pay back the member the fees or anything they spent on your golf.

 

[fraydog]

To grow the game, this country needs public courses that can provide better golf for lower cost. Too much of this debate is about exclusivity and not enough of it is about what needs to be done to keep costs under control.

 

The private clubs don’t have to be affected by this, though I do suspect a lot of people will bail from the private model over time due to simply not wanting to put in the financial investment to make it work.

[fraydog]

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 !!!!!

 

This is fascinating to me as a seemingly pretty squared away human. Getting upset RIGHTFULLY at maybe one time on a course that more than likely you have played 1000x over or do frequently because joe public has that one time?

 

Lighten up people. It's golf. You'll play again tomorrow

 

These are the one percenters. If a guy gets that bent over 1 time one day chances are he's probably club fodder by the staff for his entitlement. I have a good golf buddy who worked at a country club as a range/cart attendant and the amount of entitled white old guy crap was rampant. Lighten up people

 

The irony in this post is off the charts.

 

I need an hour in your house/apartment. Tomorrow around noon work? $20 ought to cover it, right? Thanks. make sure your fridge is stocked, and your internet is at full speed. Oh, and if you can make sure you have all the HBOs handy, that would be great. Mmmkay?

 

Ever heard of AirBNB? People are making business models of this in 2018.

[golfortennis]

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 !!!!!

 

This is fascinating to me as a seemingly pretty squared away human. Getting upset RIGHTFULLY at maybe one time on a course that more than likely you have played 1000x over or do frequently because joe public has that one time?

 

Lighten up people. It's golf. You'll play again tomorrow

 

These are the one percenters. If a guy gets that bent over 1 time one day chances are he's probably club fodder by the staff for his entitlement. I have a good golf buddy who worked at a country club as a range/cart attendant and the amount of entitled white old guy crap was rampant. Lighten up people

 

The irony in this post is off the charts.

 

I need an hour in your house/apartment. Tomorrow around noon work? $20 ought to cover it, right? Thanks. make sure your fridge is stocked, and your internet is at full speed. Oh, and if you can make sure you have all the HBOs handy, that would be great. Mmmkay?

 

Ever heard of AirBNB? People are making business models of this in 2018.

 

Sure. but people are doing it because they want to do it, not because someone is using some kind of "grow the rental market by making what you paid for available because I say so."

[dhc1]

Too many private club members are instantly giving ideas like this the bird because it’s their club and it’s private and this is why they join and I don’t care about other people and that’s where my broad stroke of entitlement comes in the play. I can drive a Ferrari if I want to rent one for the day, I can buy a nice house if I have the money, I can never play a nice course that’s exclusive without somebody getting butt hurt over public place. I may cancel use of my club and I feel like I get my moneys worth and I have no problem with anything that they do to help club revenue.

 

You keep ignoring my question wrt to charity play (where there is public access but apparently you want more). Why?

[callawayjay]

I’ve done charity play. At nice courses. It’s cool but it’s usually a scramble. That’s not golf. I don’t want to play a watered down event where my team has to shoot 52 to win. I want to come out. By myself. Tee off by myself. Take it in and get done and be on my way. If that is intrusive I get that. But I’m not the guy and if you want to play my club that’s fine too. Playing a scramble at Bellerive would be meh at best. I’ve been fortunate to play some courses after tour events he following week and that’s cool. That’s really all I want. The chance.

[Golfnuck]

Too many private club members are instantly giving ideas like this the bird because it's their club and it's private and this is why they join and I don't care about other people and that's where my broad stroke of entitlement comes in the play. I can drive a Ferrari if I want to rent one for the day, I can buy a nice house if I have the money, I can never play a nice course that's exclusive without somebody getting butt hurt over public place. I may cancel use of my club and I feel like I get my moneys worth and I have no problem with anything that they do to help club revenue.

 

Why do you and others feel that you are "entitled" to play at a private club that you are not a member of?

 

And why do you feel it is right to broad stroke private club members as "entitled" just because they do not want to offer up any access to the general public?

 

Have a good look in the mirror because I think it is you that has the "entitlement" issue.

[callawayjay]

Too many private club members are instantly giving ideas like this the bird because it's their club and it's private and this is why they join and I don't care about other people and that's where my broad stroke of entitlement comes in the play. I can drive a Ferrari if I want to rent one for the day, I can buy a nice house if I have the money, I can never play a nice course that's exclusive without somebody getting butt hurt over public place. I may cancel use of my club and I feel like I get my moneys worth and I have no problem with anything that they do to help club revenue.

 

Why do you and others feel that you are "entitled" to play at a private club that you are not a member of?

 

And why do you feel it is right to broad stroke private club members as "entitled" just because they do not want to offer up any access to the general public?

 

Have a good look in the mirror because I think it is you that has the "entitlement" issue.

 

Agree to disagree. I don’t have an issue. I’m a member if you read the thread. Competent players willing to pay a price shouldn’t be shunned on a slow arse Tuesday at 2pm. Unless you just don’t the possibility of more members joining. Give some people a chance, at a price, to play something they may never get to play. If the answer at your club is no, that’s on you. At my club if yuh want to play and can manage the time and the cost. Have at it.

[troublelove]

I'm very lucky that I live in the UK and am surrounded by top class courses. All of these are private members clubs and I can play any of them when I want as long as I pay the money.

 

Sunningdale, Walton Heath, Royal St George's, Swinley Forest, St George's Hill etc..... The most expensive is Sunningdale at c$300.

 

Australia was exactly the same.

 

It is such a shame the top end American courses are closed doors.

[Chanceman]

I find it interesting that in the USA there is such a protective attitude to private golfing rights. US history right there? And maybe it adds to the mystique of places like ANGC and Cypress Point etc that it is very difficult to get on. Easy access leads to less mystique and less prestige? Maybe not an issue for Droopville CC but is for the big clubs.

Consider that until about 10 years ago a ticket to the Masters was "gold" - very few people did it. Now just about every golf nerd in town has been to AN and has experienced the pimento sandwiches and $1.50 beer. That logo seems to be on every second cap and shirt.

But I am playing at Royal County Down next month and for 240 quid it had better be good.

[Golfnuck]

Too many private club members are instantly giving ideas like this the bird because it's their club and it's private and this is why they join and I don't care about other people and that's where my broad stroke of entitlement comes in the play. I can drive a Ferrari if I want to rent one for the day, I can buy a nice house if I have the money, I can never play a nice course that's exclusive without somebody getting butt hurt over public place. I may cancel use of my club and I feel like I get my moneys worth and I have no problem with anything that they do to help club revenue.

 

Why do you and others feel that you are "entitled" to play at a private club that you are not a member of?

 

And why do you feel it is right to broad stroke private club members as "entitled" just because they do not want to offer up any access to the general public?

 

Have a good look in the mirror because I think it is you that has the "entitlement" issue.

 

Agree to disagree. I don't have an issue. I'm a member if you read the thread. Competent players willing to pay a price shouldn't be shunned on a slow arse Tuesday at 2pm. Unless you just don't the possibility of more members joining. Give some people a chance, at a price, to play something they may never get to play. If the answer at your club is no, that's on you. At my club if yuh want to play and can manage the time and the cost. Have at it.

 

 

I was aware that are a member of a private club. You stated that you could not play on prime weekend times, $45k initiation fees etc.

 

So now you are saying offering public access is about getting new members??????

 

Well at our club there is no public access and we have a full play waitlist of over 60 players which is estimated to be 4 years long.

 

The core of our membership strategy is the belief that new members should be referred by existing members. Therefore potential new members would already have access to our course as a guest of an existing member.

 

If you are serious about joining our club you are welcome to play a round or two free to make sure our course and facilities suits you.

 

Of course that is after you are vetted to ensure you are a proper candidate for membership.

 

"Give some people a chance, at a price, to play something they may never get to play. If the answer at your club is no, that's on you. At my club if yuh want to play and can manage the time and the cost. Have at it."

 

Please clarify what you are trying to say? Are you saying the public has access to your club?

[BNGL]

Too many private club members are instantly giving ideas like this the bird because it's their club and it's private and this is why they join and I don't care about other people and that's where my broad stroke of entitlement comes in the play. I can drive a Ferrari if I want to rent one for the day, I can buy a nice house if I have the money, I can never play a nice course that's exclusive without somebody getting butt hurt over public place. I may cancel use of my club and I feel like I get my moneys worth and I have no problem with anything that they do to help club revenue.

 

Why do you and others feel that you are "entitled" to play at a private club that you are not a member of?

 

And why do you feel it is right to broad stroke private club members as "entitled" just because they do not want to offer up any access to the general public?

 

Have a good look in the mirror because I think it is you that has the "entitlement" issue.

 

Agree to disagree. I dont have an issue. Im a member if you read the thread. Competent players willing to pay a price shouldnt be shunned on a slow arse Tuesday at 2pm. Unless you just dont the possibility of more members joining. Give some people a chance, at a price, to play something they may never get to play. If the answer at your club is no, thats on you. At my club if yuh want to play and can manage the time and the cost. Have at it.

 

Because it’s private...there should be zero public access outside of reciprocity or the occasional charity fundraiser. If said player is willing to pay a price pay the price of initiation. And if it’s about attracting new members then contact the membership director.

[dhc1]

I’ve done charity play. At nice courses. It’s cool but it’s usually a scramble. That’s not golf. I don’t want to play a watered down event where my team has to shoot 52 to win. I want to come out. By myself. Tee off by myself. Take it in and get done and be on my way. If that is intrusive I get that. But I’m not the guy and if you want to play my club that’s fine too. Playing a scramble at Bellerive would be meh at best. I’ve been fortunate to play some courses after tour events he following week and that’s cool. That’s really all I want. The chance.

 

So you agree there is public access but because

 

A) it’s not your preferred format (btw, not all charity tournaments are scramble)

B) you can’t tee off by yourself

 

you think that the members are entitled for only allowing outsiders to play 1 out of 7 days and not additional tee times during the week?

[Stetson]

This thread has taken some absolutely crazy turns and tangents. Back to the original post and sentiment.

 

1) Yes you can play the major venues in the UK & that is great

2) Yes it is true the majority of the US Major venues are very difficult for the average person to play

3) Yes the "majority" (over 50%) of golfers in the US would like to play on these courses

4) Yes Private Clubs have every right to keep their venues private for any reason they want (Taxes, exclusivity, minimize unnecessary wear & tear)

5) I am going to do the best I can to play as many public access venues as possible. I will be playing my third Major venue this weekend (Torrey Pines South).

6) The majority (over 50%) of US golfers are more restricted by time and money than access in regards to Major venues. (Kiawah, Chambers Bay, Erin Hills, Whistling Straits, Torrey Pines, Bethpage, Pinehurst, Pebble Beach). Until I have played these courses I will be wishing I could play the private courses but will understand I have not yet taken advantage of all available options.

[callawayjay]

Too many private club members are instantly giving ideas like this the bird because it's their club and it's private and this is why they join and I don't care about other people and that's where my broad stroke of entitlement comes in the play. I can drive a Ferrari if I want to rent one for the day, I can buy a nice house if I have the money, I can never play a nice course that's exclusive without somebody getting butt hurt over public place. I may cancel use of my club and I feel like I get my moneys worth and I have no problem with anything that they do to help club revenue.

 

Why do you and others feel that you are "entitled" to play at a private club that you are not a member of?

 

And why do you feel it is right to broad stroke private club members as "entitled" just because they do not want to offer up any access to the general public?

 

Have a good look in the mirror because I think it is you that has the "entitlement" issue.

 

Agree to disagree. I don't have an issue. I'm a member if you read the thread. Competent players willing to pay a price shouldn't be shunned on a slow arse Tuesday at 2pm. Unless you just don't the possibility of more members joining. Give some people a chance, at a price, to play something they may never get to play. If the answer at your club is no, that's on you. At my club if yuh want to play and can manage the time and the cost. Have at it.

 

 

I was aware that are a member of a private club. You stated that you could not play on prime weekend times, $45k initiation fees etc.

 

So now you are saying offering public access is about getting new members??????

 

Well at our club there is no public access and we have a full play waitlist of over 60 players which is estimated to be 4 years long.

 

The core of our membership strategy is the belief that new members should be referred by existing members. Therefore potential new members would already have access to our course as a guest of an existing member.

 

If you are serious about joining our club you are welcome to play a round or two free to make sure our course and facilities suits you.

 

Of course that is after you are vetted to ensure you are a proper candidate for membership.

 

"Give some people a chance, at a price, to play something they may never get to play. If the answer at your club is no, that's on you. At my club if yuh want to play and can manage the time and the cost. Have at it."

 

Please clarify what you are trying to say? Are you saying the public has access to your club?

 

The charity events it’s allowed. And I’m saying, from my seat that if my club allowed a small fraction of times for access on a Tuesday I would not have a problem with it. It seems most people in this thread DO have a problem with it. I don’t understand why it would be a problem at all. I don’t get into the inner workings of my club. I pay the bill. I play. I don’t usually raise a stink about much. It’s golf. I’ll play again tomorrow. The crux of the argument is in other parts of the world access is easy to top courses. Here it’s a huge part of prestige and who has the most money and toys. Sometimes I think we do it backwards here. And I’m not deceitful enough to lie about wanting to join to get out on the course and then not following through on joining. That’s disingenuous at best

[TadWPJ]

I find it interesting that in the USA there is such a protective attitude to private golfing rights. US history right there? And maybe it adds to the mystique of places like ANGC and Cypress Point etc that it is very difficult to get on. Easy access leads to less mystique and less prestige? Maybe not an issue for Droopville CC but is for the big clubs.

Consider that until about 10 years ago a ticket to the Masters was "gold" - very few people did it. Now just about every golf nerd in town has been to AN and has experienced the pimento sandwiches and $1.50 beer. That logo seems to be on every second cap and shirt.

But I am playing at Royal County Down next month and for 240 quid it had better be good.

 

Unfortunately we don't have enough Aussie club models here in the US. I did a paper on this. In the US we associate big money clubs as a preconceived better experience. The best clubs imo are the ones with a old truck parked next to a $120k car. You have a large wave of high end public being created now in the last 20 years. This will hurt 2nd and 3rd tier private clubs that think it's 1950 and haven't gotten the memo that waiting till 4pm to carry your clubs and spending obscene amounts of money on the clubhouse that less people wanna hang out at, is a huge drain on a clubs long term viability. You can be a member of Royal Melbourne for $4000 a year with 2 world class tracks. Only 1% of Aussie population golfs, where we are at 7% in the US.

 

I personally only pay $175 to play any golf course, that is my limit for anywhere excluding Royal Melbourne and TOC. I would never join a top tier club in a big city, don't like the culture. Unfortunately society is the US is deteriorating at a rapid rate. There was a charity round (prob $800-1000 for 4some) being played a few falls ago at a top tier club in my area. One individual threw his putter and took a chunk out of the green as an unaccompanied guest. The club president witnessed this and went up to the individual. Outside play was axed after that incident. I've worked at clubs that have a $250k initiation, not a place I'd like to hang.

 

You can play a lower tier Golden Age track, the difference is it just doesn't have as deep of a bench of holes as the top 20 course. I love hanging with my friends who travel 3 hours for a golden age muni, then I take them to a gem they have never heard of and we geek out on "what could be" with said gem.

[TadWPJ]

Callaway,

 

Here is my $.02. I have caddied at Major Championship clubs that have outings on Monday for groups larger then 7. It's all corporate stuff and many of the people are Sunday golfers that are slow and hack up the course. I'd much rather have them open up the course 1 or 2 Monday's a year at $175 a person (money goes to charity). I don't believe in mandates, just a GOOD Will gesture. $2000 only gets you holes playing (I'm a Capitalist too). IMO, you would have people better take care of the course and you would really change folks perception of the game.

[callawayjay]

Amen tad. Good stuff.

[cxx]

I find it interesting that in the USA there is such a protective attitude to private golfing rights. US history right there? And maybe it adds to the mystique of places like ANGC and Cypress Point etc that it is very difficult to get on. Easy access leads to less mystique and less prestige? Maybe not an issue for Droopville CC but is for the big clubs.

Consider that until about 10 years ago a ticket to the Masters was "gold" - very few people did it. Now just about every golf nerd in town has been to AN and has experienced the pimento sandwiches and $1.50 beer. That logo seems to be on every second cap and shirt.

But I am playing at Royal County Down next month and for 240 quid it had better be good.

 

I think private property rights are important to most in the US and elsewhere. If a group of people get together and create a club, they should determine how it is run and who gets invited to play.

 

Edit:

I'm glad some of these clubs agree to host important tournaments. It's probably a big pain for the members. Then again they probably play at their other club during the tournament.

 

I'm not sure what people get out of chasing tournament venues. Unless you are playing in a tournament hosted there, you never get to play in tournament conditions. Just seems like something to do.

[Golfnuck]

I'm very lucky that I live in the UK and am surrounded by top class courses. All of these are private members clubs and I can play any of them when I want as long as I pay the money.

 

Sunningdale, Walton Heath, Royal St George's, Swinley Forest, St George's Hill etc..... The most expensive is Sunningdale at c$300.

 

Australia was exactly the same.

 

It is such a shame the top end American courses are closed doors.

 

In another of the many threads here that discuss access to private clubs I did some research on the difference between the North American (NA) model vs. the UK model.

 

In every one of these access to private club discussions someone from the UK always points out how easy it is to access private clubs in UK and how great their system is.

 

Well I did some research to see if it is simply a cultural North American vs UK issue or is there another possible reason to explain the difference.

 

It is now a few years old but I think still relevant -

• for UK clubs my source is the Golf England 2014 Golf Club Membership Questionnaire - http://www.englandgo...naire&preview=1
  
• for US clubs my sourse is National Golf Foundation - http://golf-info-gui...d-golf-courses/
  

UK golf courses

- 65% of clubs are private, 26% are proprietary clubs (private club but not owned by the membership but owned by an owner for commercial return), 3% are Artisan (class of members who gain access at private clubs at low cost but had limited rights for example green keepers etc) and 6% are municipal.

- average annual membership fee for UK private club is 850 British Pounds or US$1,100

- 36% of private clubs have joining or initiation fees which average 930 British Pounds or US$1,200

- 71% of private clubs accept daily green fees

 

US golf course

- approx total number of golf courses 15,500 of which 11,581 have public access (75%), 2,449 are municipal courses (16%) and that leaves 1,470 as private (9%)

 

Clearly there is a huge difference in the number of private clubs between the UK and the US. In fact they are diametrically opposite.

 

Also note the minimal annual membership fees in the UK and the fact only 36% of private clubs have initiation fees. It seems to me that a majority of so called private clubs in the UK are essentially semi private clubs with annual fees.

 

So based on the above information I will address the posters points.

 

“The private courses that don't allow it probably don't need the money or the members prefer the exclusivity. In Europe almost all privates are accessible, albeit you may pay a high fee to play. I wish we took this approach as well. In short, golf, for whatever reason, is more pretentious here than overseas."

 

The difference is not due to US golf culture or pretentiousness rather it is due to the structure of golf membership in the US vs. the UK.

 

The majority of UK clubs are defined as private 91% whereas only 9% of US clubs are private.

 

You state you would prefer the UK model but it looks to me the average US golfer has more access to golf courses than the UK golfer. US - 91% UK - 74% ((71%*(65+26))+3+6).

 

IMHO the difference to me has more to do with the definition of "private club" in the US vs. the UK rather than the perception that private US clubs are more pretentious because they restrict public access.

 

In the UK there are very few public/municipal clubs (6%) and the majority of clubs are termed "private" but are essentially clubs owned by an organization other than a governmental body that give access to "public players".

 

In the US the vast majority of clubs (91%) allow for public access.

 

 

Perhaps ownership of the land has something to do with the difference?

 

Sunningdale Golf Club was founded in 1900 on Chobham Common, on land owned by St. John's College, Cambridge. - not a member owned course.

 

5th August 1903 Walton Heath Golf Club Company is incorporated - based on the financial statements it appears to be similar to member owned courses in NA - https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01021637/filing-history

 

St. Andrews and Carnoustie are publicly owned courses.

[duffer987]

^C'mon, this is a distinction without a difference: The difference is not due to US golf culture or pretentiousness rather it is due to the structure of golf membership in the US vs. the UK.

'Golf culture' is absolutely at the heart of the comparison; one that's an apples and bowling ball comparison TBF.

 

However you want to classify a golf course doesn't change the fact, that an unintroduced, non-club member golfer can simply make a teetime with a few clicks or a phone call, at 99% of courses that are used for major professional tournies in the UK and Ireland. That number is drastically smaller in North America.

 

I don't particularly care that is the case - I'm happy with what I can play in North America - but it simply is.