The decline of the country club

[North Butte]

> @smashdn said:

> This is my (limited) understanding of UK golf and the difference in the US.

>

> In the UK you are a member of a club that plays at and takes care of a golf course possibly with other clubs playing at the same course. In the US you are a member of a club that owns (perhaps leases) the land, course, buildings, pool, tennis etc.

 

No, most UK clubs own their course and land just like USA clubs. There are some UK clubs where land "ownership" is more complicated with public right-of-ways that must be respected, that sort of thing. But that's more about UK property laws than any real difference in the nature of the club.

 

There are "clubs without real estate" in both USA and UK but that's not the usual thing in either place.

 

[Roody]

> @OrangeGravy said:

> The thing I will say is, I hear a lot of "join with friends", "want to play with my friends." There was even the scenario mentioned about "we want three tee times together." I think you have to be careful about making all your plans based on friends. They have different lives, different financial situations. If you want to join a club, you shouldn't let someone else outside your household make the decision. After all, how many times do you end up not doing something you want to do because you needed someone else to do it as well? That's the beauty of a club: there are people there. Sure you have to put yourself out there a bit, but are you seriously going to not play golf because Jimmy can't/won't play, and you don't want to play with someone else?

>

This is so very true. I made that mistake. For the past 5 years or so, every year my friends and I would talk about how we should all join a private club together. How it'd be great to join the same club, always play golf together, etc. The biggest problem was, like you said above: my friends were/are at different places in their lives.

 

For years I kept holding off on joining somewhere, thinking "maybe if I wait another year or so, Friend A will get his financials in order and join with me". Problem is, Friend A is more than a few years away from getting that in order unfortunately. And then Friend B would do things like say every year "yeah, I'm gonna do it", but when it came time to finally get serious some sort of thing would get in his way. And then we'd repeat the process again next year. Big tease, then nothing.

 

Finally, last August I pulled the trigger on my first fully private club. They had a great deal running for new members, and it was a fantastic time to get in. I decided that I can't wait around for all of us to be in sync. It was the right decision, and I am glad that I made it.

 

 

[Pepperturbo]

> @QMany said:

> > @Pepperturbo said:

> > > @QMany said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > @QMany said:

> > > > > I thought I would throw a few thoughts into the ring. We just moved to a new metropolitan area and have been doing the country club cost benefit analysis. I'm just thinking out loud here...

> > > > >

> > > > > * We bought a home in a new subdivision. Like many in this era, it will have its own neighborhood pool. That negates one of the benefits of joining a CC. My wife will walk a block instead of packing up and driving. She can bring a friend or niece and not be charged $20!

> > > > > * I have never been a fan of the country club restaurants. We rarely ate at my previous club. I'd rather go to a variety of local spots, most of which will have better quality food. I think F&B minimums are a deterrent to new members.

> > > > > * Young Professionals. A few clubs here don't offer reduced rates, which I don't think is smart. This generation has been squeezed by stagnant wages when compared to raising housing, healthcare, and education costs. It doesn't make sense for most young families to join at full rack rates.

> > > >

> > > > It sounds like you shouldn't join a club. The issues you raise are minor and totally miss the most important reasons to join a club.

> > >

> > > Again, that was just a few thoughts I had. I was a member at two clubs in Kansas City for the last 6 years and have joined a club here in Omaha for this year. But do enlighten us on the most important reasons to join a club, I'm all ears.

> >

> > Curious @QMany... You say you joined two clubs in KC for 6yrs and joined another in Omaha. What level of clubs where they? Full-private golf or country clubs and did you pay hefty initiation fees for each? If so, did you walk away from each club leaving initiation fee monies on the table, or were your memberships sold in the secondary market or minimal fee clubs?

>

> Canyon Farms GC, Lenexa, Kansas (2013-15): Golf club only. When I arrived in town, they were "semi-private" after a recent acquisition. They offered cheap memberships my first year. They increased dues considerably during my three years there. At the time of my departure, a new group known for running clubs into the ground acquired them. They were supposedly building a new practice facility and clubhouse. Four years later, it is now done. They were getting $6,000 initiation, which is about par for the clubs not on the Plaza, but previous members were grandfathered in.

>

> Nicklaus Golf Club at Lions Gate, Overland Park, KS (2015-18): Full country club (clubhouse, restaurant, pool, tennis, etc.). Host of the Web.com for over a decade, until this year. ClubCorp owned and operated, so it was all about the bottom line. When I joined in November 2015, it was a $3000 initiation for Junior Members. If I remember correctly, it was closer to $10,000 for over 40. (Before the recession, it was $25,000+ equity membership). As now a corporately owned course, the initiation wasn't huge because they just seemed to want a full membership at all times; the turnover seemed high. That was non-refundable (and non-transferable to the ClubCorp operated club in Omaha).

>

> Shadow Ridge Country Club, Omaha, NE (2019-present): Full country club (clubhouse, restaurant, pool, tennis, etc.). Probably Top-3 private club in Omaha. More importantly for me, Top-50 Private Range in America. Privately owned by an Omaha family. $10,000 initiation no matter your age, no junior memberships. They have a real estate arm that offers deep discounts and sometimes even waiving initiation if you use their agents, which we did. I understand it used to be equity memberships, but I have heard there is not much value in that nomenclature, members that left 5-10 years ago are still far down the list waiting on their $25,000+.

 

Thanks for sharing.

[smashdn]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @smashdn said:

> > This is my (limited) understanding of UK golf and the difference in the US.

> >

> > In the UK you are a member of a club that plays at and takes care of a golf course possibly with other clubs playing at the same course. In the US you are a member of a club that owns (perhaps leases) the land, course, buildings, pool, tennis etc.

>

> No, most UK clubs own their course and land just like USA clubs.

 

This is an example I was referring to:

Development and maintenance of the courses has been the responsibility of several different bodies over the years – Dalhousie Golf Club, the Town Council and, latterly, Angus Council – but the formation of Carnoustie Golf Links Management Committee back in 1980 saw management of the links revert back to the care of the local golf clubs – Carnoustie, Dalhousie, Carnoustie Ladies, Carnoustie Caledonia, Carnoustie Mercantile & New Taymouth.

 

A limited company and registered charity CGLMC Ltd consists of a board of 15 elected trustees – 2 representatives from each of the local golf clubs – Caledonia; Carnoustie; Carnoustie Ladies; Dalhousie, Mercantile & New Taymouth – and 3 representatives from Angus Council . The company reinvest all profits into the courses and facilities to ensure that future generations will benefit from the game of golf at Carnoustie

 

Carnoustie may be a special case however.

 

 

[North Butte]

Yes, I believe Carnoustie is something akin to a municipal or city owned course. In a sense St. Andrews is the same type of thing, it is not one club's property the way the majority of UK and USA clubs are.

 

But the majority of the 3,000+ golf courses in UK are either public courses owned by some sort of for-profit venture or private clubs which own their course. Much like USA.

 

It just happens to be that a few of the most well-known courses in UK, especially in Scotland, are on public land.

 

It's always difficult in these discussions to know whether someone is wanting to discuss golf courses (and clubs) in the UK versus golf clubs in the UK which are on the Open rota or otherwise tourist attractions.

[ctsgolf]

> @duffer987 said:

> Interestingly for kicks I was taking a look Sat evening for a Sunday round on Golfnow and I saw a local private course Berkeley CC/Formerly Mira Vista show up with a number of Sunday afternoon rounds.

> Since I moved here, it's always been one of the few non-expensive joins in the Bay Area and I guess it now points to what folks have mentioned here about the mid-tiers being the ones to struggle.

>

> So generally speaking - as who knows what their particulars are - is this GN listing the first public facing canary in the coalmine for this particular club? I'm guessing members wouldn't be too keen for this. They list it as 'member for the day', but I don't think GN is where you go to tout for new members to your club.

 

I am a member at an affordable private club and as much as I love playing the course I still frequent GN on a weekly basis because I like playing with friends every once in a while and there's one or two public courses in the area that I absolutely love so I try to play them regularly. That being said, if a private course threw up a couple Hot Deals, it doesn't matter how they branded it, I'm grabbing a one when I can.

 

To me, it seems like not only a good source of additional revenue, but a way to lure people in to potentially join in the future, whom may not have considered it before being allowed to play the course.

[oneunderbogey]

If a private course is putting up rounds on golf now or any other website with regularity its not really a private course.

[North Butte]

> @oneunderbogey said:

> If a private course is putting up rounds on golf now or any other website with regularity its not really a private course.

 

There really does seem to be a slippage, driven one supposes by marketing/image reasons, in modern usage. Not that many decades ago when a course (in USA) was referred to as "Private" that almost always implied no unaccompanied visitor play. There was and still is a huge number of courses that used to be unashamedly called "Semi-Private".

 

It seems that one thing which has changed is many courses which were really "Private" 20 years ago have fallen on hard times and are no longer viable as strictly member's clubs. So they become _de facto_ "Semi-Private" but want to call attention to themselves as better than the ones which have been semi-private all along. Just another example of marketing nonsense, in the end.

[smashdn]

If you reciprocate with adjoining county clubs, would you still be private? Unaccompanied guest play but you must have made prior arrangements and be a member of the other club.

[North Butte]

> @smashdn said:

> If you reciprocate with adjoining county clubs, would you still be private? Unaccompanied guest play but you must have made prior arrangements and be a member of the other club.

 

Sure, private clubs have been doing that for years. For that matter I've also arranged for an out of town visitor to play at my club on a day I couldn't leave work. I guess strictly either is "unaccompanied" but still it's an extension of member privileges.

 

The bright line is when someone off the street can play for a greens fee simply by showing up. That's no longer "private" in anything other than a Humpty Dumpty sense of the word.

[golfortennis]

> @oneunderbogey said:

> If a private course is putting up rounds on golf now or any other website with regularity its not really a private course.

 

Yep. A few years ago we had actually put a few fall afternoon times on one of those discount sites to bring in a little revenue. We had had some bad management that put us in the predicament where things were tough going(current management is excellent and has really exposed the flaws of the previous regime). Anyway, while they did result in a slight revenue bump, it was discontinued after that one time. The reason? Several members, including myself, were adamant that we would leave and go elsewhere. We don't pay the dues we pay just to have someone off the street come in and play anytime with no skin in the game. If we wanted to play public golf that is what we would do.

 

Again, since the current management has taken over, there has been a lot of creativity to generate additional sales among the members, along with a bit of hustle to bring our wedding/banquet business back up to its customary level(prior management had a "we are here and you will come" attitude towards most of it.)

 

I've always maintained the brains and the money in the golf business rarely reside with the same person. Public courses have owners with some crazy IMHO views on how to run things, and private clubs where management is allowed to continue to perform poorly.

 

 

[North Butte]

> @Bluefan75 said:

> I've always maintained the brains and the money in the golf business rarely reside with the same person. Public courses have owners with some crazy IMHO views on how to run things, and private clubs where management is allowed to continue to perform poorly.

 

Some folks in the industry would probably opine that those with brains AND money are smart enough not to put their money into golf!

 

[golfortennis]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @Bluefan75 said:

> > I've always maintained the brains and the money in the golf business rarely reside with the same person. Public courses have owners with some crazy IMHO views on how to run things, and private clubs where management is allowed to continue to perform poorly.

>

> Some folks in the industry would probably opine that those with brains AND money are smart enough not to put their money into golf!

>

 

"How do you become a millionaire in the airline industry?" "Well, you start with a billion dollars..."

[mallrat]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @Bluefan75 said:

> > I've always maintained the brains and the money in the golf business rarely reside with the same person. Public courses have owners with some crazy IMHO views on how to run things, and private clubs where management is allowed to continue to perform poorly.

>

> Some folks in the industry would probably opine that those with brains AND money are smart enough not to put their money into golf!

>

 

My current course would probably be the rare exception. We are basically a tournament course that has a thriving wedding/banquet business and our owners are only involved in major decisions. They are smart enough to let the people they hired do what they do and we turn a VERY healthy profit every year.

 

But this is the issue. It seems as though many of the established private courses are fine and will most likely always be fine. Now the younger or upstart clubs that are struggling will probably have to either go semi-private or public. I say that because it just doesn’t seem that once a club is in trouble financially they can pull themselves out without major changes. IMO, their primary mistake was undervaluing a membership cost in the beginning.

[golfortennis]

> @mallrat said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @Bluefan75 said:

> > > I've always maintained the brains and the money in the golf business rarely reside with the same person. Public courses have owners with some crazy IMHO views on how to run things, and private clubs where management is allowed to continue to perform poorly.

> >

> > Some folks in the industry would probably opine that those with brains AND money are smart enough not to put their money into golf!

> >

>

> My current course would probably be the rare exception. We are basically a tournament course that has a thriving wedding/banquet business and our owners are only involved in major decisions. They are smart enough to let the people they hired do what they do and we turn a VERY healthy profit every year.

>

> But this is the issue. It seems as though many of the established private courses are fine and will most likely always be fine. Now the younger or upstart clubs that are struggling will probably have to either go semi-private or public. I say that because it just doesn’t seem that once a club is in trouble financially they can pull themselves out without major changes. IMO, their **primary mistake was undervaluing a membership cost in the beginning**.

 

That's an interesting point. I guess it goes back to the chase for numbers. It's similar to analysts and AT&T stock recently. Analysts have been hammering at AT&T due to "subscriber losses". But At&T had stated many times the ones that left are ones they didn't make any money on. So is there really a problem?

 

You see it on here. Guys are all in for a membership when they are younger, and "it's a great deal", but they are skipping town once it reaches the point they have to pay full freight. So on the one hand, if you have 10 signups for the "deal", and convert 1 or 2 into full members, I suppose that is good(or whatever the desired ratio is), but are you devaluing the membership doing that?

 

But it really comes back down to management. The GM that sent us into a tailspin was the type, that, our Head Pro said the difference between him and the replacement, was that the replacement let him finish his suggestion before saying. You come to him with a suggestion that required spending a dollar to bring in 10, and it was a no go. He was too focused on that one dollar spent that he left the 10 on the table. And more importantly he hired people run departments with the same mentality. Our current GM came up with the idea of men's league theme in the lounge. Put together some specials around a beach theme, or whatever. I don't play men's league, and rarely am interested in what is on the menu, but I always thought it was a great idea, and sales number bear that out. Took a bit of effort, maybe a little investing in a non-normal menu item, but it was a huge hit.

 

The food and beverage manager that was hired the previous GM was a placeholder essentially. The current one is night and day in the difference. She's so good at what she does, she even goes so far as to put on a wedding ring (she is single) when she is at wedding shows(which old GM never approved), because it gives a level of comfort to the bridezillas she is trying to sell our club to for having their wedding there. Our wedding/banquet business is up huge compared to the past. Just a bit of smarts and effort.

 

What is interesting is at the same time the management changes were happening, the big shareholders imposed a few other changes. It used to be that cart fees counted towards the $500 annual minimum. Well first, they went and raised the minimum to $600. Now, there is a bit of selfishness in this next point, as I sometimes struggle to make the minimum(wife doesn't play), but I posed the question, how many people will this impact? "What do you mean?" I asked if someone actually analyzed the accounts to see how many people fell within $500 and $600 normally, because if they usually spent more than the $600, this is no change other than cosmetic. "Oh. Didn't think of it that way." No, but does having $600 instead of $500 posted scare away some members(psychologically, setting aside the "if they can't afford it" stuff). Removing the carts from the minimum building might be good from a revenue perspective, although it may bite the club in the kiester this year given that it was June before carts were allowed out regularly, and we have a number of members now who can't play with out one.

 

 

[pinhigh27]

> @Bluefan75 said:

> > @mallrat said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > @Bluefan75 said:

> > > > I've always maintained the brains and the money in the golf business rarely reside with the same person. Public courses have owners with some crazy IMHO views on how to run things, and private clubs where management is allowed to continue to perform poorly.

> > >

> > > Some folks in the industry would probably opine that those with brains AND money are smart enough not to put their money into golf!

> > >

> >

> > My current course would probably be the rare exception. We are basically a tournament course that has a thriving wedding/banquet business and our owners are only involved in major decisions. They are smart enough to let the people they hired do what they do and we turn a VERY healthy profit every year.

> >

> > But this is the issue. It seems as though many of the established private courses are fine and will most likely always be fine. Now the younger or upstart clubs that are struggling will probably have to either go semi-private or public. I say that because it just doesn’t seem that once a club is in trouble financially they can pull themselves out without major changes. IMO, their **primary mistake was undervaluing a membership cost in the beginning**.

>

> That's an interesting point. I guess it goes back to the chase for numbers. It's similar to analysts and AT&T stock recently. Analysts have been hammering at AT&T due to "subscriber losses". But At&T had stated many times the ones that left are ones they didn't make any money on. So is there really a problem?

>

> You see it on here. Guys are all in for a membership when they are younger, and "it's a great deal", but they are skipping town once it reaches the point they have to pay full freight. So on the one hand, if you have 10 signups for the "deal", and convert 1 or 2 into full members, I suppose that is good(or whatever the desired ratio is), but are you devaluing the membership doing that?

>

> But it really comes back down to management. The GM that sent us into a tailspin was the type, that, our Head Pro said the difference between him and the replacement, was that the replacement let him finish his suggestion before saying. You come to him with a suggestion that required spending a dollar to bring in 10, and it was a no go. He was too focused on that one dollar spent that he left the 10 on the table. And more importantly he hired people run departments with the same mentality. Our current GM came up with the idea of men's league theme in the lounge. Put together some specials around a beach theme, or whatever. I don't play men's league, and rarely am interested in what is on the menu, but I always thought it was a great idea, and sales number bear that out. Took a bit of effort, maybe a little investing in a non-normal menu item, but it was a huge hit.

>

> The food and beverage manager that was hired the previous GM was a placeholder essentially. The current one is night and day in the difference. She's so good at what she does, she even goes so far as to put on a wedding ring (she is single) when she is at wedding shows(which old GM never approved), because it gives a level of comfort to the bridezillas she is trying to sell our club to for having their wedding there. Our wedding/banquet business is up huge compared to the past. Just a bit of smarts and effort.

>

> What is interesting is at the same time the management changes were happening, the big shareholders imposed a few other changes. It used to be that cart fees counted towards the $500 annual minimum. Well first, they went and raised the minimum to $600. Now, there is a bit of selfishness in this next point, as I sometimes struggle to make the minimum(wife doesn't play), but I posed the question, how many people will this impact? "What do you mean?" I asked if someone actually analyzed the accounts to see how many people fell within $500 and $600 normally, because if they usually spent more than the $600, this is no change other than cosmetic. "Oh. Didn't think of it that way." No, but does having $600 instead of $500 posted scare away some members(psychologically, setting aside the "if they can't afford it" stuff). Removing the carts from the minimum building might be good from a revenue perspective, although it may bite the club in the kiester this year given that it was June before carts were allowed out regularly, and we have a number of members now who can't play with out one.

>

>

 

Well sure but my goal isn't to make the golf course money. It's to have a good course at a reasonable price. Taking on 10 juniors and converting a couple is a calculated risk. Make your course better and more people will stay and become full members.

[golfortennis]

> @pinhigh27 said:

> > @Bluefan75 said:

> > > @mallrat said:

> > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > > @Bluefan75 said:

> > > > > I've always maintained the brains and the money in the golf business rarely reside with the same person. Public courses have owners with some crazy IMHO views on how to run things, and private clubs where management is allowed to continue to perform poorly.

> > > >

> > > > Some folks in the industry would probably opine that those with brains AND money are smart enough not to put their money into golf!

> > > >

> > >

> > > My current course would probably be the rare exception. We are basically a tournament course that has a thriving wedding/banquet business and our owners are only involved in major decisions. They are smart enough to let the people they hired do what they do and we turn a VERY healthy profit every year.

> > >

> > > But this is the issue. It seems as though many of the established private courses are fine and will most likely always be fine. Now the younger or upstart clubs that are struggling will probably have to either go semi-private or public. I say that because it just doesn’t seem that once a club is in trouble financially they can pull themselves out without major changes. IMO, their **primary mistake was undervaluing a membership cost in the beginning**.

> >

> > That's an interesting point. I guess it goes back to the chase for numbers. It's similar to analysts and AT&T stock recently. Analysts have been hammering at AT&T due to "subscriber losses". But At&T had stated many times the ones that left are ones they didn't make any money on. So is there really a problem?

> >

> > You see it on here. Guys are all in for a membership when they are younger, and "it's a great deal", but they are skipping town once it reaches the point they have to pay full freight. So on the one hand, if you have 10 signups for the "deal", and convert 1 or 2 into full members, I suppose that is good(or whatever the desired ratio is), but are you devaluing the membership doing that?

> >

> > But it really comes back down to management. The GM that sent us into a tailspin was the type, that, our Head Pro said the difference between him and the replacement, was that the replacement let him finish his suggestion before saying. You come to him with a suggestion that required spending a dollar to bring in 10, and it was a no go. He was too focused on that one dollar spent that he left the 10 on the table. And more importantly he hired people run departments with the same mentality. Our current GM came up with the idea of men's league theme in the lounge. Put together some specials around a beach theme, or whatever. I don't play men's league, and rarely am interested in what is on the menu, but I always thought it was a great idea, and sales number bear that out. Took a bit of effort, maybe a little investing in a non-normal menu item, but it was a huge hit.

> >

> > The food and beverage manager that was hired the previous GM was a placeholder essentially. The current one is night and day in the difference. She's so good at what she does, she even goes so far as to put on a wedding ring (she is single) when she is at wedding shows(which old GM never approved), because it gives a level of comfort to the bridezillas she is trying to sell our club to for having their wedding there. Our wedding/banquet business is up huge compared to the past. Just a bit of smarts and effort.

> >

> > What is interesting is at the same time the management changes were happening, the big shareholders imposed a few other changes. It used to be that cart fees counted towards the $500 annual minimum. Well first, they went and raised the minimum to $600. Now, there is a bit of selfishness in this next point, as I sometimes struggle to make the minimum(wife doesn't play), but I posed the question, how many people will this impact? "What do you mean?" I asked if someone actually analyzed the accounts to see how many people fell within $500 and $600 normally, because if they usually spent more than the $600, this is no change other than cosmetic. "Oh. Didn't think of it that way." No, but does having $600 instead of $500 posted scare away some members(psychologically, setting aside the "if they can't afford it" stuff). Removing the carts from the minimum building might be good from a revenue perspective, although it may bite the club in the kiester this year given that it was June before carts were allowed out regularly, and we have a number of members now who can't play with out one.

> >

> >

>

> Well sure but my goal isn't to make the golf course money. It's to have a good course at a reasonable price. Taking on 10 juniors and converting a couple is a calculated risk. Make your course better and more people will stay and become full members.

 

In my experience dealing with people who are looking for deals, you have two very contradictory statements. What you consider "reasonable" is very subjective.

[az2au]

> @Bluefan75 said:

> > @pinhigh27 said:

> > > @Bluefan75 said:

> > > > @mallrat said:

> > > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > > > @Bluefan75 said:

> > > > > > I've always maintained the brains and the money in the golf business rarely reside with the same person. Public courses have owners with some crazy IMHO views on how to run things, and private clubs where management is allowed to continue to perform poorly.

> > > > >

> > > > > Some folks in the industry would probably opine that those with brains AND money are smart enough not to put their money into golf!

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > My current course would probably be the rare exception. We are basically a tournament course that has a thriving wedding/banquet business and our owners are only involved in major decisions. They are smart enough to let the people they hired do what they do and we turn a VERY healthy profit every year.

> > > >

> > > > But this is the issue. It seems as though many of the established private courses are fine and will most likely always be fine. Now the younger or upstart clubs that are struggling will probably have to either go semi-private or public. I say that because it just doesn’t seem that once a club is in trouble financially they can pull themselves out without major changes. IMO, their **primary mistake was undervaluing a membership cost in the beginning**.

> > >

> > > That's an interesting point. I guess it goes back to the chase for numbers. It's similar to analysts and AT&T stock recently. Analysts have been hammering at AT&T due to "subscriber losses". But At&T had stated many times the ones that left are ones they didn't make any money on. So is there really a problem?

> > >

> > > You see it on here. Guys are all in for a membership when they are younger, and "it's a great deal", but they are skipping town once it reaches the point they have to pay full freight. So on the one hand, if you have 10 signups for the "deal", and convert 1 or 2 into full members, I suppose that is good(or whatever the desired ratio is), but are you devaluing the membership doing that?

> > >

> > > But it really comes back down to management. The GM that sent us into a tailspin was the type, that, our Head Pro said the difference between him and the replacement, was that the replacement let him finish his suggestion before saying. You come to him with a suggestion that required spending a dollar to bring in 10, and it was a no go. He was too focused on that one dollar spent that he left the 10 on the table. And more importantly he hired people run departments with the same mentality. Our current GM came up with the idea of men's league theme in the lounge. Put together some specials around a beach theme, or whatever. I don't play men's league, and rarely am interested in what is on the menu, but I always thought it was a great idea, and sales number bear that out. Took a bit of effort, maybe a little investing in a non-normal menu item, but it was a huge hit.

> > >

> > > The food and beverage manager that was hired the previous GM was a placeholder essentially. The current one is night and day in the difference. She's so good at what she does, she even goes so far as to put on a wedding ring (she is single) when she is at wedding shows(which old GM never approved), because it gives a level of comfort to the bridezillas she is trying to sell our club to for having their wedding there. Our wedding/banquet business is up huge compared to the past. Just a bit of smarts and effort.

> > >

> > > What is interesting is at the same time the management changes were happening, the big shareholders imposed a few other changes. It used to be that cart fees counted towards the $500 annual minimum. Well first, they went and raised the minimum to $600. Now, there is a bit of selfishness in this next point, as I sometimes struggle to make the minimum(wife doesn't play), but I posed the question, how many people will this impact? "What do you mean?" I asked if someone actually analyzed the accounts to see how many people fell within $500 and $600 normally, because if they usually spent more than the $600, this is no change other than cosmetic. "Oh. Didn't think of it that way." No, but does having $600 instead of $500 posted scare away some members(psychologically, setting aside the "if they can't afford it" stuff). Removing the carts from the minimum building might be good from a revenue perspective, although it may bite the club in the kiester this year given that it was June before carts were allowed out regularly, and we have a number of members now who can't play with out one.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Well sure but my goal isn't to make the golf course money. It's to have a good course at a reasonable price. Taking on 10 juniors and converting a couple is a calculated risk. Make your course better and more people will stay and become full members.

>

> In my experience dealing with people who are looking for deals, you have two very contradictory statements. What you consider "reasonable" is very subjective.

"Reasonable" and "value" when it comes to golf are always fascinating to me. I have no idea how people decide what is or isn't worth it to them in this regard and see the same issue as you.

[pinhigh27]

> @Bluefan75 said:

> > @pinhigh27 said:

> > > @Bluefan75 said:

> > > > @mallrat said:

> > > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > > > @Bluefan75 said:

> > > > > > I've always maintained the brains and the money in the golf business rarely reside with the same person. Public courses have owners with some crazy IMHO views on how to run things, and private clubs where management is allowed to continue to perform poorly.

> > > > >

> > > > > Some folks in the industry would probably opine that those with brains AND money are smart enough not to put their money into golf!

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > My current course would probably be the rare exception. We are basically a tournament course that has a thriving wedding/banquet business and our owners are only involved in major decisions. They are smart enough to let the people they hired do what they do and we turn a VERY healthy profit every year.

> > > >

> > > > But this is the issue. It seems as though many of the established private courses are fine and will most likely always be fine. Now the younger or upstart clubs that are struggling will probably have to either go semi-private or public. I say that because it just doesn’t seem that once a club is in trouble financially they can pull themselves out without major changes. IMO, their **primary mistake was undervaluing a membership cost in the beginning**.

> > >

> > > That's an interesting point. I guess it goes back to the chase for numbers. It's similar to analysts and AT&T stock recently. Analysts have been hammering at AT&T due to "subscriber losses". But At&T had stated many times the ones that left are ones they didn't make any money on. So is there really a problem?

> > >

> > > You see it on here. Guys are all in for a membership when they are younger, and "it's a great deal", but they are skipping town once it reaches the point they have to pay full freight. So on the one hand, if you have 10 signups for the "deal", and convert 1 or 2 into full members, I suppose that is good(or whatever the desired ratio is), but are you devaluing the membership doing that?

> > >

> > > But it really comes back down to management. The GM that sent us into a tailspin was the type, that, our Head Pro said the difference between him and the replacement, was that the replacement let him finish his suggestion before saying. You come to him with a suggestion that required spending a dollar to bring in 10, and it was a no go. He was too focused on that one dollar spent that he left the 10 on the table. And more importantly he hired people run departments with the same mentality. Our current GM came up with the idea of men's league theme in the lounge. Put together some specials around a beach theme, or whatever. I don't play men's league, and rarely am interested in what is on the menu, but I always thought it was a great idea, and sales number bear that out. Took a bit of effort, maybe a little investing in a non-normal menu item, but it was a huge hit.

> > >

> > > The food and beverage manager that was hired the previous GM was a placeholder essentially. The current one is night and day in the difference. She's so good at what she does, she even goes so far as to put on a wedding ring (she is single) when she is at wedding shows(which old GM never approved), because it gives a level of comfort to the bridezillas she is trying to sell our club to for having their wedding there. Our wedding/banquet business is up huge compared to the past. Just a bit of smarts and effort.

> > >

> > > What is interesting is at the same time the management changes were happening, the big shareholders imposed a few other changes. It used to be that cart fees counted towards the $500 annual minimum. Well first, they went and raised the minimum to $600. Now, there is a bit of selfishness in this next point, as I sometimes struggle to make the minimum(wife doesn't play), but I posed the question, how many people will this impact? "What do you mean?" I asked if someone actually analyzed the accounts to see how many people fell within $500 and $600 normally, because if they usually spent more than the $600, this is no change other than cosmetic. "Oh. Didn't think of it that way." No, but does having $600 instead of $500 posted scare away some members(psychologically, setting aside the "if they can't afford it" stuff). Removing the carts from the minimum building might be good from a revenue perspective, although it may bite the club in the kiester this year given that it was June before carts were allowed out regularly, and we have a number of members now who can't play with out one.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Well sure but my goal isn't to make the golf course money. It's to have a good course at a reasonable price. Taking on 10 juniors and converting a couple is a calculated risk. Make your course better and more people will stay and become full members.

>

> In my experience dealing with people who are looking for deals, you have two very contradictory statements. What you consider "reasonable" is very subjective.

 

Isnt everyone looking for a deal? What is the point in spending more than you have to?

[Roadking2003]

> @pinhigh27 said:

> Isnt everyone looking for a deal? What is the point in spending more than you have to?

 

No. If you want to join a top tier club you don't look for a deal. You just look for a way to get in.

[pinhigh27]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @pinhigh27 said:

> > Isnt everyone looking for a deal? What is the point in spending more than you have to?

>

> No. If you want to join a top tier club you don't look for a deal. You just look for a way to get in.

 

sure I guess if you're trying to join like LACC or something like that. but I would say 95 + % of country club people aren't looking to spend more money than they have to.

 

capitalism = not paying more than you have to

[North Butte]

There's a club you join because you want status and there's a club you join because you want to play golf. Sometimes they might be the same club but if you're just looking for golf you can shop around for an affordable option just as surely as you shop around for affordable golf clubs or shoes or clothing.

 

The club I've belonged to for quite a few years now has the best golf course in town (IMHO). I'd always wanted to play there but when I initially inquired back in the 90's they were getting a $10,000 initiation fee. I don't have anything like that kind of money so it was a complete non-starter for someone of my means. Fast forward a few year and during a downturn in the golf business they were recruiting members for a fraction of that cost (although the dues were still very expensive by my standards). So I was able to join.

 

Of course people joining nowadays pay a couple grand and probably think that's a lot compared to some of the other clubs in the area which will practically pay you to sign up. But my point is, joining a golf club is a business transaction and is subject to the same price versus value calculus as any other.

[Dancin]

The whole model is pretty much dead and only going to get worse in the US. The only private clubs that will succeed long term are either top ranked courses/clubs that will always do well or those that happen to exist in an area with a lot of people where there are no other private courses for a 30 minute or more drive. Any other course is going to be susceptible to the 3rd/4th owner experience where that last bankruptcy buyer can come in and undercut everyone else, because all they have to pay for is the maintenance of the course without the big loans. It's really annoying because the golf business ends up favoring the monstrosity, big money courses that go bankrupt to the detriment of well run, better designed, older classic courses.

[golfortennis]

> @pinhigh27 said:

> > @Bluefan75 said:

> > > @mallrat said:

> > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > > @Bluefan75 said:

> > > > > I've always maintained the brains and the money in the golf business rarely reside with the same person. Public courses have owners with some crazy IMHO views on how to run things, and private clubs where management is allowed to continue to perform poorly.

> > > >

> > > > Some folks in the industry would probably opine that those with brains AND money are smart enough not to put their money into golf!

> > > >

> > >

> > > My current course would probably be the rare exception. We are basically a tournament course that has a thriving wedding/banquet business and our owners are only involved in major decisions. They are smart enough to let the people they hired do what they do and we turn a VERY healthy profit every year.

> > >

> > > But this is the issue. It seems as though many of the established private courses are fine and will most likely always be fine. Now the younger or upstart clubs that are struggling will probably have to either go semi-private or public. I say that because it just doesn’t seem that once a club is in trouble financially they can pull themselves out without major changes. IMO, their **primary mistake was undervaluing a membership cost in the beginning**.

> >

> > That's an interesting point. I guess it goes back to the chase for numbers. It's similar to analysts and AT&T stock recently. Analysts have been hammering at AT&T due to "subscriber losses". But At&T had stated many times the ones that left are ones they didn't make any money on. So is there really a problem?

> >

> > You see it on here. Guys are all in for a membership when they are younger, and "it's a great deal", but they are skipping town once it reaches the point they have to pay full freight. So on the one hand, if you have 10 signups for the "deal", and convert 1 or 2 into full members, I suppose that is good(or whatever the desired ratio is), but are you devaluing the membership doing that?

> >

> > But it really comes back down to management. The GM that sent us into a tailspin was the type, that, our Head Pro said the difference between him and the replacement, was that the replacement let him finish his suggestion before saying. You come to him with a suggestion that required spending a dollar to bring in 10, and it was a no go. He was too focused on that one dollar spent that he left the 10 on the table. And more importantly he hired people run departments with the same mentality. Our current GM came up with the idea of men's league theme in the lounge. Put together some specials around a beach theme, or whatever. I don't play men's league, and rarely am interested in what is on the menu, but I always thought it was a great idea, and sales number bear that out. Took a bit of effort, maybe a little investing in a non-normal menu item, but it was a huge hit.

> >

> > The food and beverage manager that was hired the previous GM was a placeholder essentially. The current one is night and day in the difference. She's so good at what she does, she even goes so far as to put on a wedding ring (she is single) when she is at wedding shows(which old GM never approved), because it gives a level of comfort to the bridezillas she is trying to sell our club to for having their wedding there. Our wedding/banquet business is up huge compared to the past. Just a bit of smarts and effort.

> >

> > What is interesting is at the same time the management changes were happening, the big shareholders imposed a few other changes. It used to be that cart fees counted towards the $500 annual minimum. Well first, they went and raised the minimum to $600. Now, there is a bit of selfishness in this next point, as I sometimes struggle to make the minimum(wife doesn't play), but I posed the question, how many people will this impact? "What do you mean?" I asked if someone actually analyzed the accounts to see how many people fell within $500 and $600 normally, because if they usually spent more than the $600, this is no change other than cosmetic. "Oh. Didn't think of it that way." No, but does having $600 instead of $500 posted scare away some members(psychologically, setting aside the "if they can't afford it" stuff). Removing the carts from the minimum building might be good from a revenue perspective, although it may bite the club in the kiester this year given that it was June before carts were allowed out regularly, and we have a number of members now who can't play with out one.

> >

> >

>

> Well sure but **my goal isn't to make the golf course money**. It's to have a good course at a reasonable price. Taking on 10 juniors and converting a couple is a calculated risk. Make your course better and more people will stay and become full members.

 

I just realized something tonight. The bolded shows you are the difference between an occasional customer and a member. Not to go all pepper on you, but when you are a member, it's "your" course. You have a certain level of conditioning and or other amenities you want. I'm not saying anyone other than super rich just wants to hand over any sum, but it costs money to have the things the members want. So there needs to be a way for the club to generate the revenue. There is a combination of dues, f&B, weddings/banquets, cart fees that make it happen. If you're going to take revenue away from dues, there better be bigger numbers in the other categories. Point is, you pay for it one way or another.

 

It's not about making the course money, or pulling one over. It's about having the type of course/club you want.

[Lodestone]

I joined a semi-public course last August. Next day I ruptured my achilles tendon. After an autumn of re-hab, and a long winter I finally got out on my new course for 2 months before my back went out. Haven't played since Memorial Day. How am I doing so far?

[pinhigh27]

 

> > @pinhigh27 said:

> > > @Bluefan75 said:

> > > > @mallrat said:

> > > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > > > @Bluefan75 said:

> > > > > > I've always maintained the brains and the money in the golf business rarely reside with the same person. Public courses have owners with some crazy IMHO views on how to run things, and private clubs where management is allowed to continue to perform poorly.

> > > > >

> > > > > Some folks in the industry would probably opine that those with brains AND money are smart enough not to put their money into golf!

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > My current course would probably be the rare exception. We are basically a tournament course that has a thriving wedding/banquet business and our owners are only involved in major decisions. They are smart enough to let the people they hired do what they do and we turn a VERY healthy profit every year.

> > > >

> > > > But this is the issue. It seems as though many of the established private courses are fine and will most likely always be fine. Now the younger or upstart clubs that are struggling will probably have to either go semi-private or public. I say that because it just doesn’t seem that once a club is in trouble financially they can pull themselves out without major changes. IMO, their **primary mistake was undervaluing a membership cost in the beginning**.

> > >

> > > That's an interesting point. I guess it goes back to the chase for numbers. It's similar to analysts and AT&T stock recently. Analysts have been hammering at AT&T due to "subscriber losses". But At&T had stated many times the ones that left are ones they didn't make any money on. So is there really a problem?

> > >

> > > You see it on here. Guys are all in for a membership when they are younger, and "it's a great deal", but they are skipping town once it reaches the point they have to pay full freight. So on the one hand, if you have 10 signups for the "deal", and convert 1 or 2 into full members, I suppose that is good(or whatever the desired ratio is), but are you devaluing the membership doing that?

> > >

> > > But it really comes back down to management. The GM that sent us into a tailspin was the type, that, our Head Pro said the difference between him and the replacement, was that the replacement let him finish his suggestion before saying. You come to him with a suggestion that required spending a dollar to bring in 10, and it was a no go. He was too focused on that one dollar spent that he left the 10 on the table. And more importantly he hired people run departments with the same mentality. Our current GM came up with the idea of men's league theme in the lounge. Put together some specials around a beach theme, or whatever. I don't play men's league, and rarely am interested in what is on the menu, but I always thought it was a great idea, and sales number bear that out. Took a bit of effort, maybe a little investing in a non-normal menu item, but it was a huge hit.

> > >

> > > The food and beverage manager that was hired the previous GM was a placeholder essentially. The current one is night and day in the difference. She's so good at what she does, she even goes so far as to put on a wedding ring (she is single) when she is at wedding shows(which old GM never approved), because it gives a level of comfort to the bridezillas she is trying to sell our club to for having their wedding there. Our wedding/banquet business is up huge compared to the past. Just a bit of smarts and effort.

> > >

> > > What is interesting is at the same time the management changes were happening, the big shareholders imposed a few other changes. It used to be that cart fees counted towards the $500 annual minimum. Well first, they went and raised the minimum to $600. Now, there is a bit of selfishness in this next point, as I sometimes struggle to make the minimum(wife doesn't play), but I posed the question, how many people will this impact? "What do you mean?" I asked if someone actually analyzed the accounts to see how many people fell within $500 and $600 normally, because if they usually spent more than the $600, this is no change other than cosmetic. "Oh. Didn't think of it that way." No, but does having $600 instead of $500 posted scare away some members(psychologically, setting aside the "if they can't afford it" stuff). Removing the carts from the minimum building might be good from a revenue perspective, although it may bite the club in the kiester this year given that it was June before carts were allowed out regularly, and we have a number of members now who can't play with out one.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Well sure but **my goal isn't to make the golf course money**. It's to have a good course at a reasonable price. Taking on 10 juniors and converting a couple is a calculated risk. Make your course better and more people will stay and become full members.

>

> I just realized something tonight. The bolded shows you are the difference between an occasional customer and a member. Not to go all pepper on you, but when you are a member, it's "your" course. You have a certain level of conditioning and or other amenities you want. I'm not saying anyone other than super rich just wants to hand over any sum, but it costs money to have the things the members want. So there needs to be a way for the club to generate the revenue. There is a combination of dues, f&B, weddings/banquets, cart fees that make it happen. If you're going to take revenue away from dues, there better be bigger numbers in the other categories. Point is, you pay for it one way or another.

>

> It's not about making the course money, or pulling one over. It's about having the type of course/club you want.

 

Sure? Not sure what I said that disagrees with that.

[pinhigh27]

I don't know what occasional customer means and I have no idea how thats related to not wanting to throw away money.

 

Yes running a golf course takes money?

 

Do you volunteer to pay more taxes than you have to?

[North Butte]

At my club, if everyone volunteered to kick in an extra couple grand a year they'd just spend it on fancier carpet for the ballroom or hiring a live band instead of a DJ for the next party.

 

Not 20 cents on the dollar of it would go to the golf course. The last few years the social tail has been wagging the golf course dog, so to speak.

 

So I'll take a pass on splashing out some extra dosh for the Greater Good, thanks.

[DrSchteeve]

Warren Buffet has said (though he's probably not the originator) that you should pick a business to invest in that any idiot can run, because eventually one will. The declining golf business - especially private clubs - aren't that business. Sure, there are plenty of stories about how "management" screwed up the private club they are a member of, but it's a tough business model.

[az2au]

> @DrSchteeve said:

> Warren Buffet has said (though he's probably not the originator) that you should pick a business to invest in that any idiot can run, because eventually one will. The declining golf business - especially private clubs - aren't that business. Sure, there are plenty of stories about how "management" screwed up the private club they are a member of, but it's a tough business model.

Is it really still declining at the same rate though? I know for a fact of at least three clubs with waiting lists in our immediate area. One is 6-8 months, one is 12-14 months and I don't know the other one's estimated time but that's still not a sign of declining business when you have people on a waiting list with $50K+ initiations and >$1000/month dues at each. So, in some regions I'm sure that this is still the case but I think most of the shake out is over here in the near term (we'll hit another cycle eventually, I'm sure).