# Golf subs for 2014



## sweeneytoddd (Dec 3, 2013)

My club had its AGM last night and rather than increase the subs ( currently Â£545 including SGU fees, county fees and course insurance ) they decided to implement a Â£30 levy to cover clubhouse repairs and some on course projects. This was voted in by the members present at the meeting instead of a Â£30 increase in the fees. By having a levy it means that ALL members have to pay towards these projects as seniors pay a percentage of the men's subs and therefore would only pay a percentage of the increase and life members also have to pay the Â£30 where an increase in subs has no effect on them. This is already bringing negative comments from some members on social media so what is everyone else's clubs doing about fees for next year?


----------



## patricks148 (Dec 3, 2013)

Ours are up by Â£30 again, more or less paying for the 95K the club lost on the bar and catering again


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

Ours are up Â£30 (seems to be the going figure in Scotland). 
BUT, we have intermediate memberships that the club want to phase out after complaints regarding age discrimination. Which will be controversial but WILL generate increased income as most of the internediate members were surveyed and 86% said they would stay and that they appreciate that they have had many years of "getting it easy". 

At last year's AGM we had the usual naysayers that just sat and complained about the Â£20 increase for last season so I stood up and challenged them to find another way to increase the income to balance the expenditure. Funnily enough not a single one had an idea, let alone any that were viable. 

It's a sad fact of life that everything is going up, energy, food and fuel (all things that a club use incidentally) so how do these naysayers propose that the club continue to exist? 
Golf is a luxury at the end of the day, it is a hobby for the amatuer and as such it costs money. If they can't/won't get behind the club maybe they should take up knitting instead...


----------



## Lincoln Quaker (Dec 3, 2013)

patricks148 said:



			Ours are up by Â£30 again, more or less paying for the 95K the club lost on the bar and catering again

Click to expand...

95K on the bar and catering!! Someone wants firing very quickly. No F&B operation should lose that amount of money.


----------



## Doh (Dec 3, 2013)

patricks148 said:



			Ours are up by Â£30 again, more or less paying for the 95K the club lost on the bar and catering again

Click to expand...


Wow that is shocking.


----------



## patricks148 (Dec 3, 2013)

Lincoln Quaker said:



			95K on the bar and catering!! Someone wants firing very quickly. No F&B operation should lose that amount of money.
		
Click to expand...

its a members club who are they going to fire???

They won't be told though ( the committee ) . all the prices went up last year and all that has done is make less people use the place. Which cost us another 10K on last year. They see it as a service to members and an acceptable loss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 3, 2013)

sweeneytoddd said:



			My club had its AGM last night and rather than increase the subs ( currently Â£545 including SGU fees, county fees and course insurance ) they decided to implement a Â£30 levy to cover clubhouse repairs and some on course projects. This was voted in by the members present at the meeting instead of a Â£30 increase in the fees. By having a levy it means that ALL members have to pay towards these projects as seniors pay a percentage of the men's subs and therefore would only pay a percentage of the increase and life members also have to pay the Â£30 where an increase in subs has no effect on them. This is already bringing negative comments from some members on social media so what is everyone else's clubs doing about fees for next year?
		
Click to expand...

I imagine those complaining about the Â£30 are the same ones that would be first to complain about the quality of the course if there is something they don't like. Why should those paying full subs incur costs that are for the benefit of all?

Not sure what we are doing yet as they aren't due until March

EDIT: I did hear that someone had suggested that full membership should be the same rate for all full members regardless of age but while I agree, I don't see it happening, it will just be kept that those who are able to use the course more pay less, which seems fair


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 3, 2013)

I think golf clubs should increase the age for seniors membership discounts in line with the pensions age. ie discount only for over 66 years of age.

Reduced fees for seniors was introduced about 30 years ago when life was quite different.
Nowadays many golf club pensioners are better off than the adult membership and use the course much more.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 3, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I think golf clubs should increase the age for seniors membership discounts in line with the pensions age. ie discount only for over 66 years of age.

Reduced fees for seniors was introduced about 30 years ago when life was quite different.
Nowadays many golf club pensioners are better off than the adult membership and use the course much more.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, subscription rates based on age (young or old) is antiquated and unfair.


----------



## Lincoln Quaker (Dec 3, 2013)

patricks148 said:



			its a members club who are they going to fire???

They won't be told though ( the committee ) . all the prices went up last year and all that has done is make less people use the place. Which cost us another 10K on last year. They see it as a service to members and an acceptable loss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
		
Click to expand...

Blimey, 95k is an acceptable loss.


----------



## patricks148 (Dec 3, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			I agree, subscription rates based on age (young or old) is an antiquated and unfair.
		
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, we have an Under 30 cat and they paid no Joining fee and half the normal green fee, can't see how thats fair, at this price its cheaper than all the other clubs in the area and were have the best course for 50 miles.

Granton On Spey got rid of the Senior Subs a couple of years ago and i think a couple of others were going to follow that example


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 3, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			I agree, subscription rates based on age (young or old) is antiquated and unfair.
		
Click to expand...

I'm definitely biased, being one of the young, but I would argue that is giving a lower subscription to younger members unfair? Traditionally earning less, younger families needing more time (these are all generalisations, but I find them normally to be true), and with a wider range of hobbies meaning they get to use the course less I would suggest? Certainly seems to be the case with a lot of younger members I know!

I couldn't afford a full membership, and I'm in a reasonably good job, without many overheads!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Clubs need to offer reduced rates to juniors - they can't afford the fees other pay.


----------



## andrew_mac (Dec 3, 2013)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			I'm definitely biased, being one of the young, but I would argue that is giving a lower subscription to younger members unfair? Traditionally earning less, younger families needing more time (these are all generalisations, but I find them normally to be true), and with a wider range of hobbies meaning they get to use the course less I would suggest? Certainly seems to be the case with a lot of younger members I know!

I couldn't afford a full membership, and I'm in a reasonably good job, without many overheads!
		
Click to expand...

I agree and the risk in removing the intermediary category hat as junior members hit 18 and go to work or study the jump in price to full membership will be such that it will not be financially viable and will get dropped.  

Retaining these players during their 20s is key for the future of the club as keep them on board then there is 2, 30 ore even more years of committed membership.  Removing the rate on fairness grounds is very short sighted and could have repercussions for the game and clubs in the longer term.


----------



## Junior (Dec 3, 2013)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			I'm definitely biased, being one of the young, but I would argue that is giving a lower subscription to younger members unfair? Traditionally earning less, younger families needing more time (these are all generalisations, but I find them normally to be true), and with a wider range of hobbies meaning they get to use the course less I would suggest? Certainly seems to be the case with a lot of younger members I know!

I couldn't afford a full membership, and I'm in a reasonably good job, without many overheads!
		
Click to expand...

I agree that clubs need to find a solution to attract the 20-30 age bracket.  Most now have big mortgages and young families and can't really justify a full years subs for one game (maybe two) per week.  

I also think (and have suggested to a few) that the majority of nay-sayers  who complain tirelessly about every little thing should try and change from within.  They should get involved and join a committee or sub-commitee and help change the club for the better if they feel so passionately about what they say.  Unfortunately though, complaining is habitual and most just do it for the sake of wanting to fit in with the social group.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Clubs need to offer reduced rates to juniors - they can't afford the fees other pay.
		
Click to expand...

Juniors fine, adults with jobs is another thing altogether


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 3, 2013)

Junior said:



			I agree that clubs need to find a solution to attract the 20-30 age bracket.  Most now have big mortgages and young families and can't really justify a full years subs for one game (maybe two) per week.  

I also think (and have suggested to a few) that the majority of nay-sayers  who complain tirelessly about every little thing should try and change from within.  They should get involved and join a committee or sub-commitee and help change the club for the better if they feel so passionately about what they say.  Unfortunately though, complaining is habitual and most just do it for the sake of wanting to fit in with the social group.
		
Click to expand...

I've got a big mortgage and if I have kids won't be able to afford the golf membership, what do I do?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			I've got a big mortgage and if I have kids won't be able to afford the golf membership, what do I do?
		
Click to expand...

Have a smaller mortgage 

Or play at a cheaper course.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 3, 2013)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			I'm definitely biased, being one of the young, but I would argue that is giving a lower subscription to younger members unfair? *Traditionally earning less, younger families needing more time *(these are all generalisations, but I find them normally to be true), *and with a wider range of hobbies meaning they get to use the course less I would suggest*? Certainly seems to be the case with a lot of younger members I know!

*I couldn't afford a full membership, and I'm in a reasonably good job, without many overheads!*

Click to expand...

1st bold bit:Yes, they are generalisations and not as true as they used to be
2nd bold bit: Give something up then, that's what the rest of us do
3rd bold bit: What else are you spending your money on?


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Have a smaller mortgage 

Or play at a cheaper course.
		
Click to expand...

So why can't those under 30 do that?

I should probably add that I played at my local muni until 3 years ago when I was 34 and could afford to join a private club. Before that, I gave up my football season ticket so I could play golf.


----------



## Birchy (Dec 3, 2013)

Im in the 20-30 age group and will be leaving a club with no intermediate option for one that has got one. My current club wonder why people in my age group are like rocking horse droppings when they are paying full whack on top of a big mortgage & young family.

Trouble is theres too many old gits stuck in their ways to realise what todays society is like. There was a waiting list for the waiting list in my day laddie or I paid a joining fee and could only join 5 day until there was a space to upgrade etc blah blah blah. Well im sorry grandad but its not 1950 anymore and you need to get with the programme.

Somebody at the club suggested to me that why don't me and another lad in the same age group get one of our mates down to join? :rofl:  I said yeah ive got loads of mates with a spare grand hanging around desperate to join a golf club to add the their expenditure of a massive mortgage and 2 kids.


----------



## patricks148 (Dec 3, 2013)

Birchy said:



			Im in the 20-30 age group and will be leaving a club with no intermediate option for one that has got one. My current club wonder why people in my age group are like rocking horse droppings when they are paying full whack on top of a big mortgage & young family.

Trouble is theres too many old gits stuck in their ways to realise what todays society is like. There was a waiting list for the waiting list in my day laddie or I paid a joining fee and could only join 5 day until there was a space to upgrade etc blah blah blah. Well im sorry grandad but its not 1950 anymore and you need to get with the programme.

Somebody at the club suggested to me that why don't me and another lad in the same age group get one of our mates down to join? :rofl:  I said yeah ive got loads of mates with a spare grand hanging around desperate to join a golf club to add the their expenditure of a massive mortgage and 2 kids.
		
Click to expand...

So you are happy for the Older members at your club to sunsidise your golf then?


----------



## jimbob.someroo (Dec 3, 2013)

Our club is looking at changing the scales to further appeal to 18-30 year olds (which is great for me!)

Put simply, too many juniors leave and those that do return usually do so in their late 30's early 40's. Like most clubs around, we have less 20 somethings than we do 30 somethings, and less 30 somethings than we do 40 somethings etc etc. We need to make sure the club is attracting new members as otherwise the number of full members leaving (either due to price or illness) is going to continue to be higher than the number of people joining. This will obviously put the price up for everyone. 

If we didn't have incremental membership at our club, we'd lose the majority of the first two teams as these are largely made up of 18-30 year olds and the price would increase for the rest of the membership. This isn't a dig at those with families and mortgages etc but Â£1800 a year is too much to ask of an 19 year old who's just started an apprenticeship on Â£15k a year, especially when they were paying junior rates of Â£300-Â£400 previously and, as mentioned,  in our club we'd lose two or three lads who live for golf and want to make a career out of the sport. 

Rates are stupidly high down here anyway, and I don't think they should be as heavily discounted in places where full priced membership is more affordable, but you can't punish those who have been junior members of a club for maybe 10 years and potentially represented the club at county / country level by sticking Â£1500 on top of their subs the day they turn 18. I know that not everyone has loads of disposable income, but as someone who's got about Â£60 a week after house / transport / food bills go out, there's not a cat in hell's chance I'd be able to afford to play at any club in the south of England without these sorts of memberships.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

patricks148 said:



			So you are happy for the Older members at your club to sunsidise your golf then?
		
Click to expand...

Older members also get subsidies at a lot of clubs.


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

Birchy said:



			Im in the 20-30 age group and will be leaving a club with no intermediate option for one that has got one. My current club wonder why people in my age group are like rocking horse droppings when they are *paying full whack on top of a big mortgage & young family.*Trouble is theres too many old gits stuck in their ways to realise what todays society is like. There was a waiting list for the waiting list in my day laddie or I paid a joining fee and could only join 5 day until there was a space to upgrade etc blah blah blah. Well im sorry grandad but its not 1950 anymore and you need to get with the programme.

Somebody at the club suggested to me that why don't me and another lad in the same age group get one of our mates down to join? :rofl:  I said yeah ive got loads of mates with a spare grand hanging around desperate to join a golf club to add the their expenditure of a massive mortgage and 2 kids.
		
Click to expand...

Hmm, I can see where I have gone wrong. I must contact the bank forthwith and advise them that I am over 30 so need this discount that obviously applies to me to not make my mortgage massive. The kids I can't do anything about...

This is a problem with many of the young with "what about me" syndrome IMO. You expect the same priviledges for a fraction of the cost. A cost that has to be borne elsewhere. Do you travel on a bus any cheaper than a 31 year old? The train? Should you expect to because, afterall, you have a massive mortgage and kids that must have been positively THRUST upon you rather than being optional...


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 3, 2013)

patricks148 said:



			So you are happy for the Older members at your club to sunsidise your golf then?
		
Click to expand...

I don't think it should be thought of as one type of golfer subsidising another.  Any decent business should have a business plan in place that takes into account the current social and economic conditions.  And also they should be looking at their potential market and working how how to get their business.  Like what Jimbobs above is doing.

Too often on here it seems to be a battle between existing members and new members, young and old, people who want their course to themselves as much as possible and those who just want to play affordable golf in the little spare time they have etc etc.  Seems to me that there are a lot of golf businesses still using with a business model from the days when there were long waiting lists, people tended to stick at one place for ever and joining a golf club was seen as the pinnacle of society.  Where as a lot of that has changed.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

The wages of people between 21-30 on average are considerably lower compared to the wages of a 30 -50 year old across the country. 

Obviously that won't be the case for everyone but it's a reason why I believe some clubs offer lower fees to the guys in therapy 20's (who are the future of golf clubs )


----------



## Birchy (Dec 3, 2013)

patricks148 said:



			So you are happy for the Older members at your club to sunsidise your golf then?
		
Click to expand...

You could twist that and say the same the other way.

Without the younger people paying the reduced fee the older members fees would increase. Why else would clubs be trying so hard to get younger members in?

Also if these younger members become a big part of the club and move up the ranks they will be doing the same for the next generation etc. You look after people when they need it and the loyalty will most likely be there down the line.

Older members once they've been members for x amount of years also get subsidised membership so it works both ways.


----------



## GB72 (Dec 3, 2013)

As far as the OP is concerned, I think that that the idea of a Â£30 levy is a great and fair idea. The one thing that everyone benefits from are course improvements and it would only seem fair that the cost is spread evenly amongst all those using the course. 

As for reduced fees based on age, I will put my hand up and say that I took advantage of that for 2 years at my old club but admit to not even knowing it was there until I got my first membership invoice to pay. That said, I sometimes wonder whether there are that many in the younger groups to warrant reduced rates. In my experience, most of the 18 year olds head off to college or uni and then it is a total lottery as to whether they come back to the club as a future member. Perhaps costs should be on a slowly increasing scale to reduce the shock when they come to paying for a full membership. I do, however, support reductions for those in their late 20s/early 30s. At that time there is probably the greatest pressure on finances as people look at buying houses, having kids, getting married etc. Those are the people who have, in theory, now settled in an area and are going to be around for the medium to long term and they are the members that you want to get integrated into your club.


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



*The wages of people between 21-30 on average are considerably lower compared to the wages of a 30 -50 year old across the country. *

Obviously that won't be the case for everyone but it's a reason why I believe some clubs offer lower fees to the guys in therapy 20's (who are the future of golf clubs )
		
Click to expand...

And this data comes from where? 
Lets not forget that we are talking about a hobby. A choice (incidentally, so is having a massive mortgage) that people have whether they can afford to play the game or not. If they "have too many other interests" then I would suggest that they prioritise and choose which are most important - old fuddy-duddy that I am!


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 3, 2013)

Birchy said:



			You could twist that and say the same the other way.

Without the younger people paying the reduced fee the older members fees would increase. Why else would clubs be trying so hard to get younger members in?

Also if these younger members become a big part of the club and move up the ranks they will be doing the same for the next generation etc.

Older members once they've been members for x amount of years also get subsidised membership so it works both ways.
		
Click to expand...

It's the age group in between that take the hit


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			And this data comes from where? 
Lets not forget that we are talking about a hobby. A choice (incidentally, so is having a massive mortgage) that people have whether they can afford to play the game or not. If they "have too many other interests" then I would suggest that they prioritise and choose which are most important - old fuddy-duddy that I am!
		
Click to expand...

:thup: none of us have the time or money to do everything we want


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 3, 2013)

Birchy said:



*You could twist that and say the same the other way.*

Without the younger people paying the reduced fee the older members fees would increase. Why else would clubs be trying so hard to get younger members in?

Also if these younger members become a big part of the club and move up the ranks they will be doing the same for the next generation etc. You look after people when they need it and the loyalty will most likely be there down the line.

Older members once they've been members for x amount of years also get subsidised membership so it works both ways.
		
Click to expand...

Which is why it should be a flat rate somewhere in between


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			And this data comes from where? 
Lets not forget that we are talking about a hobby. A choice (incidentally, so is having a massive mortgage) that people have whether they can afford to play the game or not. If they "have too many other interests" then I would suggest that they prioritise and choose which are most important - old fuddy-duddy that I am!
		
Click to expand...

That comes from government polls and surveys which our treasurer used to highlight the current pay structure we have currently

Most 21-25 years old etc are just starting out their careers so will start on lower wages and then people advance through their careers as they get older and also increasing the salary through promotions and work changes. 

Clubs need people in the 20's to join because in ten to 20 years time they are the future of the golf club


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			Which is why it should be a flat rate somewhere in between
		
Click to expand...


For all ages ? 

Not sure many members would vote for that at any AGM


----------



## patricks148 (Dec 3, 2013)

Birchy said:



			You could twist that and say the same the other way.

Without the younger people paying the reduced fee the older members fees would increase. Why else would clubs be trying so hard to get younger members in?

Also if these younger members become a big part of the club and move up the ranks they will be doing the same for the next generation etc. You look after people when they need it and the loyalty will most likely be there down the line.

Older members once they've been members for x amount of years also get subsidised membership so it works both ways.
		
Click to expand...

not sure how it works the other way, if there are hardly any under 30 members how are they subing the rest.

We don't have a reduced senior fee unless you have been a member longer than 40 years.

Lets face it golf is a sport played by older people golf memberships back that up and i would bet that if you asked most 25 year old s why they didn't play golf, most would not say due to the cost... not up here anyway.

Im all for keeping existing members from Juniors though to full membership, my main point is the whole not making a commitment any longer that a year. 

if you want reduced rates it should be a some cost, not full rights, no sign on of guests etc or something like it.

Lets face it when clubs worked out what greens fee's are and what they cover, how can you justify someone paying half that?


----------



## bladeplayer (Dec 3, 2013)

Birchy said:



			Im in the 20-30 age group and will be leaving a club with no intermediate option for one that has got one. My current club wonder why people in my age group are like rocking horse droppings when they are paying full whack on top of a big mortgage & young family.

Trouble is theres too many old gits stuck in their ways to realise what todays society is like. There was a waiting list for the waiting list in my day laddie or I paid a joining fee and could only join 5 day until there was a space to upgrade etc blah blah blah. Well im sorry grandad but its not 1950 anymore and you need to get with the programme.

Somebody at the club suggested to me that why don't me and another lad in the same age group get one of our mates down to join? :rofl:  I said yeah ive got loads of mates with a spare grand hanging around desperate to join a golf club to add the their expenditure of a massive mortgage and 2 kids.
		
Click to expand...

Mate  ya have me astounded with this answer , so  you expect the old gits who probably helped build the club up to what ??

Reduce fees so the (see it from an older view) young uns with the big houses and maybe flash cars and all top of the range gear can play for cheaper than the 30-40 year olds who made it possible for themselves to be members when they were at the same stage in life by making sacrifices ??  , 

Now im in the Mortgage and young family brigade the same as yourself , but im in it because thats where i choose to be right now in my life so if i want to be a member i have to make other sacrifices in life to achieve this , sacrifices that don't impinge on the family or our quality of life . 

For me its Juniors (in education) and OAP get discounts , others pay the same for full membership .. just my opinion tho


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			For all ages ? 

Not sure many members would vote for that at any AGM
		
Click to expand...

Of course they wouldn't, but in most cases it wouldn't be because they can't afford it. (Not talking about juniors by the way)


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

bladeplayer said:



			Mate  ya have me astounded with this answer , so  you expect the old gits who probably helped build the club up to what ??

Reduce fees so the (see it from an older view) young uns with the big houses and maybe flash cars and all top of the range gear can play for cheaper than the 30-40 year olds who made it possible for themselves to be members when they were at the same stage in life by making sacrifices ??  , 

Now im in the Mortgage and young family brigade the same as yourself , but im in it because thats where i choose to be right now in my life so if i want to be a member i have to make other sacrifices in life to achieve this , sacrifices that don't impinge on the family or our quality of life . 

For me its Juniors (in education) and OAP get discounts , others pay the same for full membership .. just my opinion tho
		
Click to expand...


I see more 30-40 year olds with big houses and flash cars - don't see many under the age of 30

The current 30-40 took advantage of the reduced fees in their junior years did they not ?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			Of course they wouldn't, but in most cases it wouldn't be because they can't afford it. (Not talking about juniors by the way)
		
Click to expand...

It could be because they couldn't afford it though. A lot do pick clubs that they can afford - make it a flat rate and you could lose senior sections as well as the younger members of the golf club.


----------



## bladeplayer (Dec 3, 2013)

bladeplayer said:



			Mate  ya have me astounded with this answer , so  you expect the old gits who probably helped build the club up to what ??

Reduce fees so the (see it from an older view) young uns with the big houses and maybe flash cars and all top of the range gear can play for cheaper than the 30-40 year olds who made it possible for themselves to be members when they were at the same stage in life by making sacrifices ??  , 

Now im in the Mortgage and young family brigade the same as yourself , but im in it because thats where i choose to be right now in my life so if i want to be a member i have to make other sacrifices in life to achieve this , sacrifices that don't impinge on the family or our quality of life . 

For me its Juniors (in education) and OAP get discounts , others pay the same for full membership .. just my opinion tho
		
Click to expand...

For the record ours is â‚¬800 a year which i think is a bit on the dear side but its 7 minds from home , 2 mins from work , so if you it suits me down to the ground , i pay a bit dearer to be home sooner after a game ,
I prefered my old club but its a 45 min drive away , makes it a long day .. 

money i can replace , time , i cant


----------



## Birchy (Dec 3, 2013)

bladeplayer said:



			Mate  ya have me astounded with this answer , so  you expect the old gits who probably helped build the club up to what ??

Reduce fees so the (see it from an older view) young uns with the big houses and maybe flash cars and all top of the range gear can play for cheaper than the 30-40 year olds who made it possible for themselves to be members when they were at the same stage in life by making sacrifices ??  , 

Now im in the Mortgage and young family brigade the same as yourself , but im in it because thats where i choose to be right now in my life so if i want to be a member i have to make other sacrifices in life to achieve this , sacrifices that don't impinge on the family or our quality of life . 

For me its Juniors (in education) and OAP get discounts , others pay the same for full membership .. just my opinion tho
		
Click to expand...

I don't know many people in the 20-30 age range with a big house and a flashy car and a family. Wayne Rooney maybe??

All the flash cars in the car park are from older people are loaded but yet choose to squabble over a few hundred quid cheaper membership for people with less disposable income. Old gits who vote against change purely on principle, this type of people are what is holding the game of golf back.

The old clique mentality is alive and kicking and creating many barriers for people who look to get into the game of golf.

Looking at most of the top clubs in the north west and in general most of them have some sort of intermediate option for younger people.


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I see more 30-40 year olds with big houses and flash cars - don't see many under the age of 30

The current 30-40 took advantage of the reduced fees in their junior years did they not ?
		
Click to expand...

I'm 35 and never had the option to take advantage of any reduced fees as they didn't exist at the clubs I was a member at. Only been at Muckhart since I was 30 so already in the old git bracket. 

And to your point, I see more young professionals driving Audi's and Mercs these days than I do older people (who seem to drive Mondeos and Octavias these days). 
I work with many 20-30 year olds that have flash pads and flash cars, the older ones seem to be more savvy and live within their means as this is how their generation was raised (like mine was).


----------



## jimbob.someroo (Dec 3, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			Which is why it should be a flat rate somewhere in between
		
Click to expand...

But with a flat rate in between 18-60 those that remain would end up paying more as a good proportion of those in their first few years of work would not be able to pay full rate and if they do return (at the same club), this might not be until they are in the 40's when they hopefully are in a more economically stable place to be able to afford it. Between the ages of 22 (when I joined Ealing) and 28 when incremental membership ends, I would have paid just over Â£7000 in fees. If 10 others did the same, which is a conservative number, that's Â£70,000 the club has missed out on - and there's no guarantee we'd come back when we were 29.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 3, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			1st bold bit:Yes, they are generalisations and not as true as they used to be
2nd bold bit: Give something up then, that's what the rest of us do
3rd bold bit: What else are you spending your money on?
		
Click to expand...

1st bit: I accept that people are having families later, so that isn't as true, but I don't see how any would argue that the younger people earn less on average than people older than them. I don't know many job where people walk in to a large salary, and get demoted over their life.

2nd bit: Ok, I would give up my golf membership to be fair. I'm not playing massive amounts (because of the already mentioned other interests!), so I don't get as much out of it as others do. Lets say a fair amount of the other intermediate members do the same, who do you think is going to make up this shortfall?

3rd bit: Various. Most of it goes on running a semi-alright car, renting a flat, and things like a gym membership. Combine this with an average wage, and there isn't massive amounts left. Again, if my membership were to double, I wouldn't pay it.

I think a lot of people are looking at the "fairness" of this. In the majority, these are businesses. Even in the members clubs. Businesses look at each market, and price accordingly. If 40 year olds will pay on average more than 25 year olds, guess who gets a higher price. Supply and demand in my eyes.


----------



## bladeplayer (Dec 3, 2013)

Birchy said:



			Im in the 20-30 age group and will be leaving a club with no intermediate option for one that has got one. My current club wonder why people in my age group are like rocking horse droppings when they are paying full whack on top of a big mortgage & young family.

s.
		
Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



			I see more 30-40 year olds with big houses and flash cars - don't see many under the age of 30

The current 30-40 took advantage of the reduced fees in their junior years did they not ?
		
Click to expand...

As per the age thing i was directly answering Birchys comment 

As per your second point in some places yes but not in all , definatley not in ours


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It could be because they couldn't afford it though. A lot do pick clubs that they can afford - make it a flat rate and you could lose senior sections as well as the younger members of the golf club.
		
Click to expand...

But in some cases, those outside the discount brackets can't afford it either but in their case, they don't join. This is my point, using age to set boundaries isn't fair. I have a mate who lost his job earlier this year, he is working again but gets paid less and as a result can't afford to rejoin - he's been a member of the club for 6 years before he lost his job and had no intention of leaving. Nobody offers him subsidised rates because he doesn't fit the age bracket.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			I work with many 20-30 year olds that have flash pads and flash cars, the older ones seem to be more savvy and live within their means as this is how their generation was raised (like mine was).
		
Click to expand...

Oh brilliant, top quality "old codger" speak. So the big collapse of a few years ago was built from your generation "living within their means" was it?!

Every single generation will have people who live beyond it, and those who don't. Guess what, if a golf course offers reduced rates, and we take it, that is still living within our means. If we prioritise to have a nice car/flat etc, how do you know that isn't by skimping elsewhere? (by not paying full golf memberships for example!)

Quick, someone start charging juniors more money! We might get too many of them in otherwise, and then who knows what may happen!!


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

Lot of talk about moving with the times in this thread. Surely is it not the case in these modern times that you cannot discriminate against someone due to their age? 
Or is it a case that we will pick and chose the bits of the times that we move with?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			But in some cases, those outside the discount brackets can't afford it either but in their case, they don't join. This is my point, using age to set boundaries isn't fair. I have a mate who lost his job earlier this year, he is working again but gets paid less and as a result can't afford to rejoin - he's been a member of the club for 6 years before he lost his job and had no intention of leaving. Nobody offers him subsidised rates because he doesn't fit the age bracket.
		
Click to expand...

Then he looks for a club he can afford to rejoin. Not everyone can afford to join golf clubs but they do make it as easy as possible for all ages to join. Juniors to teens to graduates who aren't earning much to OAPs living on pensions 

Juniors are the future of a golf club ( including people in their 20's) - the seniors are the lifeblood of a club. The fees are structured at most clubs to reflect this.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			Lot of talk about moving with the times in this thread. Surely is it not the case in these modern times that you cannot discriminate against someone due to their age? 
Or is it a case that we will pick and chose the bits of the times that we move with?
		
Click to expand...

No one is "discriminated" against though are they.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 3, 2013)

jimbob.someroo said:



			But with a flat rate in between 18-60 those that remain would end up paying more as a good proportion of those in their first few years of work would not be able to pay full rate and if they do return (at the same club), this might not be until they are in the 40's when they hopefully are in a more economically stable place to be able to afford it. Between the ages of 22 (when I joined Ealing) and 28 when incremental membership ends, I would have paid just over Â£7000 in fees. If 10 others did the same, which is a conservative number, that's Â£70,000 the club has missed out on - and there's no guarantee we'd come back when we were 29.
		
Click to expand...

But if you made it a flat rate, you might get more people who aren't in the bracket joining because the fees were a bit less. I do understand the need to get younger members into the club but not necessarily with the structure. What happens to all those 28 year olds who's fees are going to double next year? Can the all of a sudden afford full rate when they turn 29. By and large, if you can afford it at 29 you can afford it at 28.


----------



## GB72 (Dec 3, 2013)

Perhaps the solution is to offer reductions based on time spent as a member. I know a fair few who took up the game on retirement and so they have not helped build up the club but benefit from the reduced rate. If you gave a discount based on how long you had been a member then people of all age groups could qualify and would have contributed to the club for a sufficient period to justify it. It would also act as an incentive to stay a member at one club than move on.


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			Oh brilliant, top quality "old codger" speak. So the big collapse of a few years ago was built from your generation "living within their means" was it?!

Every single generation will have people who live beyond it, and those who don't. Guess what, if a golf course offers reduced rates, and we take it, that is still living within our means. If we prioritise to have a nice car/flat etc, how do you know that isn't by skimping elsewhere? (by not paying full golf memberships for example!)

Quick, someone start charging juniors more money! We might get too many of them in otherwise, and then who knows what may happen!!
		
Click to expand...

 I do not know that they are not skimping elsewhere. Just as you don't know that all 20-30 year olds are earning less than me just because I am 35. 
Also if someone is skimping somehwere to spend money somewhere else then should I be responsible for subsidinsing their choice?

The collapse of a few years ago was caused by all not a select few in one generation. Personally I did not take out a mortgage that was beyond my means and I did not buy a car that was out side of my means. If that makes me an old codger then bya ll means.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Then he looks for a club he can afford to rejoin. Not everyone can afford to join golf clubs but they do make it as easy as possible for all ages to join. Juniors to teens to graduates who aren't earning much to OAPs living on pensions 

Juniors are the future of a golf club ( including people in their 20's) - the seniors are the lifeblood of a club. The fees are structured at most clubs to reflect this.
		
Click to expand...

Again I ask you, why should someone of 35 have to look for a cheaper club when someone of 25 gets it half price?


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 3, 2013)

GB72 said:



			Perhaps the solution is to offer reductions based on time spent as a member. I know a fair few who took up the game on retirement and so they have not helped build up the club but benefit from the reduced rate. If you gave a discount based on how long you had been a member then people of all age groups could qualify and would have contributed to the club for a sufficient period to justify it. It would also act as an incentive to stay a member at one club than move on.
		
Click to expand...

That's more like it


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			No one is "discriminated" against though are they.
		
Click to expand...

How do you reason that. If I say to you, here is an apple. How old are you? You are 29, ok that apple is 30p. Next customer. Here is an apple, how old are you? 31, ok that apple is 60p... 

What other grounds could I assume that the charge was more for the same product? Is the apple inferior? Do I get to use it less? If the answer to both is no, that this is, for all intents and purposes, the same apple then it is my age that is determining the price. 
How can that not be discriminatory where I am treated differently based on my age?


----------



## Khamelion (Dec 3, 2013)

At the begining of this year I was a nomadic player, there was no point in myself becoming a member anywhere as my work did not afford me the time to get the benefit of being a member. 

Someone mentioned above that the 'old gits' are too stuck in their ways to comprehend what modern society is and how peoples work life and casual life interact. This became quite clear, when my dad asked at his club if there was a pay and play scheme. I wanted to be a member somewhere as I wanted to enter comps and get a handicap, become pat of the club social scene etc... However the reply from the club secretary was one of shock, disbelief and horror that a pay and play scheme was bein suggested, "What we cannot do that, if we do everyone will want to play", was the reply, which kind of beggars belief coming from the secretary of a club which has lost getting close to 100 members this year. Another example of this clubs inflexibility was a group of golfers had come for a day of golf, there was a dozen of them, they enjoyed the day, enjoyed the course, but when they asked if they could have a little discount on membership if all 12 signed up, they were told no. Which I can see the view of the club on one hand, but when, as I wrote above, that club was losing members 12 new subscriptions surely would have been welcomed.

Anyway, my work circumstances changed allowing me more time to play, another course close by, my home course now, Whickham GC, put up an offer of reduced fees for new members held for two years. At the AGM the members voted to try and get new members in to bolster the ranks rather than increase the annual subs. My mate who was already a member even got a rebate on his subs and got a surprise cheque in the post, due to the annual subs being reduced.

So come January I pay the same in 2014 as I did in 2013, some of the old guard who were opposed to change have seen the light and are slowly but surely moving forward with new ideas to keep the club active and with healthy membership.


----------



## bladeplayer (Dec 3, 2013)

Im quiet enjoying the different opinions on this , it always gets varyied and interesting comments .. to me its about choices and where i appreciate clubs need to do more to attract and keep members i dont think it can be implemented on an age  income biased criteria , it has to be equal all around .. if you are a certain age or status it shouldn't entitle you to anything on them grounds alone ,

The decision to which club you join or stay at is totaly yours , you need to weigh up if you can truly afford it & if you want to stay or join them you have to make the changes in your own life to make this happen .. 

you cant expect that a club should expect a person 10 year older than you has to pay more than you do for the same service because some economists have theory's as to how much you earn and spend is age related .. 

first and fore most a club has to be equal , or to be seen as equal ..


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2013)

sweeneytoddd said:



			My club had its AGM last night and rather than increase the subs ( currently Â£545 including SGU fees, county fees and course insurance ) they decided to implement a Â£30 levy to cover clubhouse repairs and some on course projects. This was voted in by the members present at the meeting instead of a Â£30 increase in the fees. By having a levy it means that ALL members have to pay towards these projects as seniors pay a percentage of the men's subs and therefore would only pay a percentage of the increase and life members also have to pay the Â£30 where an increase in subs has no effect on them. This is already bringing negative comments from some members on social media so what is everyone else's clubs doing about fees for next year?
		
Click to expand...

Well - I wish ours had gone up by Â£30 - Â£70 increase unfortunately.  We need to increase our full membership by about 75 to 500 - we have 'let' it drop. Whilst the course would obviously be busier I think we have to accept that.  Maybe we should actually be looking to increase it even further - maybe to 550 to take into account churn.  Were we to get 75 more members and back to 500 that would (at today's renewal cost) give us another Â£110k a year!  And all hunky-dory.  Things are a bit tough at the moment - but the club is financially stable - we just need to give it a bit more ballast for choppy waters that may be ahead.   But first we have to work out how to get these 75 members (not all at once please )  

Thankfully we look to have an extremely professional committee to steer our course - couple of accountants, couple of successful businessmen, marketing professionals etc.  We are also broadening the role of the Club Secretary to include business development and marketing aspects of the running a club - with many traditional secretary duties being delegated to to the assistant secretary.  Not how the Golf Club Secretary has been seen in the past in traditional members clubs - but has to be.


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

bladeplayer said:



			Im quiet enjoying the different opinions on this , it always gets varyied and interesting comments .. to me its about choices and where i appreciate clubs need to do more to attract ans keep members i dont think it can be implemented on an age  income biased criteria , it has to be equal all around .. if you are a certain age or status it shouldn't entitle you to anything on them grounds alone ,

The decision to which club you join or stay at is totaly yours , you need to weigh up if you can truly afford it & if you want to stay or join them you have to make the changes in your own life to make this happen .. 

you cant expect that a club should expect a person 10 year older than you has to pay more than you do for the same service because some economists have theory's as to how much you earn and spend id age related .. 

first and fore most a club has to be equal , or to be seen as equal ..
		
Click to expand...

Equality in golf Bill? Hahaaa, ye crack me up so ye do


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			Again I ask you, why should someone of 35 have to look for a cheaper club when someone of 25 gets it half price?
		
Click to expand...

Because on average a 35 year old has more disposable income than a 25 year old( again not everyone ) .

But why should a 25 year old just finishing uni on peanuts pay the same as someone who has managed to build a career and get a good wage behind him. 

It could go around in circle and I'm sorry about your mate ( maybe he could speak to the club about doing a package ) but having sat with the treasurer about these differing level in fees it's done in a way to get maximum membership possible. 

Start flat lining and you will lose more members than you gain


----------



## jimbob.someroo (Dec 3, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			But if you made it a flat rate, you might get more people who aren't in the bracket joining because the fees were a bit less. I do understand the need to get younger members into the club but not necessarily with the structure. What happens to all those 28 year olds who's fees are going to double next year? Can the all of a sudden afford full rate when they turn 29. By and large, if you can afford it at 29 you can afford it at 28.
		
Click to expand...

By the age of 28 you are pretty much paying full membership anyway (I think it's about 90-95%). It doesn't double at this age. That's the point of it going up year on year - they're just needs to be an age limit for it to slide up to on a consistent scale. I pay (very roughly) 50% of full, next year will pay 60%, year after 70% etc. 

This sort of a scale allows young people the opportunity of assessing whether or not it is something they can afford. If, at the age of 26 they decide they can't justify the Â£1200 ish then they wont rejoin, but at least the club has gained some money in the previous few years. If they can't afford Â£1200 at 26, they most certainly can't afford Â£1800 at 18.

It's never going to please everyone, but honestly, as somebody within this bracket and with the majority of my friends in this age group, clubs with incremental membership would lose a large % of their 18-28 year olds were they to be charged full price, which would not reduce the cost for everybody else, it would increase it.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			How do you reason that. If I say to you, here is an apple. How old are you? You are 29, ok that apple is 30p. Next customer. Here is an apple, how old are you? 31, ok that apple is 60p... 

What other grounds could I assume that the charge was more for the same product? Is the apple inferior? Do I get to use it less? If the answer to both is no, that this is, for all intents and purposes, the same apple then it is my age that is determining the price. 
How can that not be discriminatory where I am treated differently based on my age?
		
Click to expand...

Discrimination is a word far to easily thrown around - to discriminate would be to deny on the basis of something - no one is denied anything.

Fee structures within golf clubs have been around for years for a reason - do you earn less money now at 35 than you did at 25 or more.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 3, 2013)

jimbob.someroo said:



			By the age of 28 you are pretty much paying full membership anyway (I think it's about 90-95%). It doesn't double at this age. That's the point of it going up year on year - they're just needs to be an age limit for it to slide up to on a consistent scale. I pay (very roughly) 50% of full, next year will pay 60%, year after 70% etc. 

This sort of a scale allows young people the opportunity of assessing whether or not it is something they can afford. If, at the age of 26 they decide they can't justify the Â£1200 ish then they wont rejoin, but at least the club has gained some money in the previous few years. If they can't afford Â£1200 at 26, they most certainly can't afford Â£1800 at 18.

It's never going to please everyone, but honestly, as somebody within this bracket and with the majority of my friends in this age group, clubs with incremental membership would lose a large % of their 18-28 year olds were they to be charged full price, which would not reduce the cost for everybody else, it would increase it.
		
Click to expand...

Or, more of my mates who can't afford to join because they have mortgages and kids might be able to


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Discrimination is a word far to easily thrown around - to discriminate would be to deny on the basis of something - no one is denied anything.

Fee structures within golf clubs have been around for years for a reason - do you earn less money now at 35 than you did at 25 or more.
		
Click to expand...

It's also a word that seems to get it's meaning bent for all intents. To treat one subject in a preferential manner due to a specific attribute is also discrimination. It doesn't have to be about denial, but I agree that denial of a specific service, for example, is also discrimination. 

I do not earn any more that I did at 25. This is for a variety of reasons, but mainly due to the fact that I was in a very well paid position at 25 that was untenable for a number of reasons.


----------



## jimbob.someroo (Dec 3, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			Or, more of my mates who can't afford to join because they have mortgages and kids might be able to 

Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense? They'd be able to join because it would be more expensive?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			How do you reason that. If I say to you, here is an apple. How old are you? You are 29, ok that apple is 30p. Next customer. Here is an apple, how old are you? 31, ok that apple is 60p... 

What other grounds could I assume that the charge was more for the same product? Is the apple inferior? Do I get to use it less? If the answer to both is no, that this is, for all intents and purposes, the same apple then it is my age that is determining the price. 
How can that not be discriminatory where I am treated differently based on my age?
		
Click to expand...

So is car insurance illegal? Or Saga holidays?


----------



## Twire (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			That comes from government polls and surveys which our treasurer used to highlight the current pay structure we have currently

Most 21-25 years old etc are just starting out their careers so will start on lower wages and then people advance through their careers as they get older and also increasing the salary through promotions and work changes. 

Clubs need people in the 20's to join because in ten to 20 years time they are the future of the golf club
		
Click to expand...

Most 21-25 years olds are still living with Dad & Mum and don't have a great deal of commitments.

Between the age of 18-30 I was down the pub or night club most nights of the week with money to burn. I didn't get married until I was 30 got a mortgage when I was 32 had my first child when I was also 32, and bless, starting from next year I have to put her through uni.

Times have changed, people are getting married and starting families later in life, but I can't see anyone feeling sorry for me and subsidising my membership.

I agree with Junior membership up until the age of 21, then I feel everyone should pay the same.


----------



## jp5 (Dec 3, 2013)

As an intermediate member I am grateful for reduced fees - though I agree it is unfair that one group of members subsidizes another group for the same product. I wouldn't have a problem if clubs went to a flat rate for all ages, though the club would lose me as a member. So, it depends on whether the club would rather have my 33% of a full membership, or none of it. I wouldn't mind either way.


----------



## JezzE (Dec 3, 2013)

patricks148 said:



			Ours are up by Â£30 again, more or less paying for the 95K the club lost on the bar and catering again

Click to expand...

Maybe your bar and catering prices are unrealistically and unsustainably low...?


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

Hacker Khan said:



			So is car insurance illegal? Or Saga holidays?
		
Click to expand...

Insurance? You mean a complex set of calculations that are based on statistical evidence gathered over a number of years and then used to determine a probibility factor? Hmm, let me think? I would probably say no. 

Saga? What do Saga do? Do they provide the same access to a cruise ship (for example) to younger people but charge more for the priviledge? I'm not so sure that they do?


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 3, 2013)

jimbob.someroo said:



			That doesn't make sense? They'd be able to join because it would be more expensive?
		
Click to expand...

No, if it was a flat rate somewhere between the discount rate and the full rate, the full rate would be cheaper so they may be able to afford it


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			It's also a word that seems to get it's meaning bent for all intents. To treat one subject in a preferential manner due to a specific attribute is also discrimination. It doesn't have to be about denial, but I agree that denial of a specific service, for example, is also discrimination. 

I do not earn any more that I did at 25. This is for a variety of reasons, but mainly due to the fact that I was in a very well paid position at 25 that was untenable for a number of reasons.
		
Click to expand...

But the majority do earn more money at the age of 35 than they did at 25. 

And also the fees structure are that different financially at the clubs I have been at - possibly 50 quid a year but over 65's pay less than a 29 year for example


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 3, 2013)

Twire said:



			Most 21-25 years olds are still living with Dad & Mum and don't have a great deal of commitments.
		
Click to expand...

Well apart from paying off increasingly large student loans and saving up a massive amount for the deposit on a one bedroom flat if they are lucky.


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



*But the majority do earn more money at the age of 35 than they did at 25*. 

And also the fees structure are that different financially at the clubs I have been at - possibly 50 quid a year but over 65's pay less than a 29 year for example
		
Click to expand...

Can you link me to that data please? I think a fair few at my work would be interested in that.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			Insurance? You mean a complex set of calculations that are based on statistical evidence gathered over a number of years and then used to determine a probibility factor? Hmm, let me think? I would probably say no. 

Saga? What do Saga do? Do they provide the same access to a cruise ship (for example) to younger people but charge more for the priviledge? I'm not so sure that they do?
		
Click to expand...


They offer discounted holidays based on age so yes they will offer a cruise cheaper to older people


----------



## jimbob.someroo (Dec 3, 2013)

Twire said:



			Most 21-25 years olds are still living with Dad & Mum and don't have a great deal of commitments.

Between the age of 18-30 I was down the pub or night club most nights of the week with money to burn. I didn't get married until I was 30 got a mortgage when I was 32 had my first child when I was also 32, and bless, starting from next year I have to put her through uni.

Times have changed, people are getting married and starting families later in life, but I can't see anyone feeling sorry for me and subsidising my membership.

I agree with Junior membership up until the age of 21, then I feel everyone should pay the same.
		
Click to expand...

What about those that aren't mollycoddled and move away from home for work. There was a survey done last year, 18-30 year old are by far and away lesser paid on average than any other working age group, including the 60+ age. 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/22/pay-salaries-survey-ashe-ons

People who have moved away from home, especially to London, have a lot less disposable income than people in their 30's+ whether they have a mortgage or not. I would guess that my Â£700+ house bills and rent are as high as the majority of mortgages, and there's only one of me paying it, rather than a couple. Not to mention the fact that my wage is almost certainly less than every 30+ year old adult in the country (not just london), how can it not be fair to have incremental membership for those at the start of their careers?


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Discrimination is a word far to easily thrown around - to discriminate would be to deny on the basis of something - no one is denied anything.

Fee structures within golf clubs have been around for years for a reason - do you earn less money now at 35 than you did at 25 or more.
		
Click to expand...

I earnt less at when I left uni, but had considerably more disposable income. If I'd have wanted to join a golf club, I could easily have afforded full rate at a better course than I am at now.

Which is my whole point about age being the wrong thing to use as a subs bracket.


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

Hacker Khan said:



			Well apart from paying off *increasingly large student loans *and saving up a massive amount for the deposit on a one bedroom flat if they are lucky.
		
Click to expand...

You mean paying for the CHOICE of going to uni? Ah well why didn't you just say so. I am happy to subsidise the remaining life choices they make then.


----------



## jimbob.someroo (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			Can you link me to that data please? I think a fair few at my work would be interested in that.
		
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...urvey-ashe-ons


----------



## bladeplayer (Dec 3, 2013)

Hacker Khan said:



			So is car insurance illegal? Or Saga holidays?
		
Click to expand...


its now illegal over here for women to pay less , i think the rest is based on experience and driving history ..


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			Insurance? You mean a complex set of calculations that are based on statistical evidence gathered over a number of years and then used to determine a probibility factor? Hmm, let me think? I would probably say no. 

Saga? What do Saga do? Do they provide the same access to a cruise ship (for example) to younger people but charge more for the priviledge? I'm not so sure that they do?
		
Click to expand...

No Saga technically discriminate on age.  If you are under a certain age you cannot use their services.  And golf clubs can say they have done huge amounts of market research and probability and statistical analysis and concluded that not many young people will pay full whack, so they are charging a lower price.  Same difference, so called age discrimination does go on.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			Can you link me to that data please? I think a fair few at my work would be interested in that.
		
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom#Income_distribution_across_age_bands

Soources on the page. It's 2004-5, to be fair, but are you really saying that much has changed?

I actually can't believe this is the point you're arguing? Where do you get the idea that younger people are getting such amazing jobs?!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			Can you link me to that data please? I think a fair few at my work would be interested in that.
		
Click to expand...


http://webarchive.nationalarchives....tats/income_distribution/table3-2-2004-05.pdf

This is from 2005.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 3, 2013)

Hacker Khan said:



			Well apart from paying off increasingly large student loans and saving up a massive amount for the deposit on a one bedroom flat if they are lucky.
		
Click to expand...

They aren't gonna get any sympathy from me on either of those fronts


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

jimbob.someroo said:



			What about those that aren't mollycoddled and move away from home for work. There was a survey done last year, 18-30 year old are by far and away lesser paid on average than any other working age group, including the 60+ age. 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/22/pay-salaries-survey-ashe-ons

People who have moved away from home, especially to London, have a lot less disposable income than people in their 30's+ whether they have a mortgage or not. I would guess that my Â£700+ house bills and rent are as high as the majority of mortgages, and there's only one of me paying it, rather than a couple. Not to mention the fact that my wage is almost certainly less than every 30+ year old adult in the country (not just london), *how can it not be fair to have incremental membership for those at the start of their careers*?
		
Click to expand...

Because golf is a hobby. How can it be fair for those that (apparently) have worked hard to build up their careers and earnings to subsidse your hobby?
If someone has _chosen_ to move to London to work then surely they factor in thier choices to their ability to sustain a hobby?
I had to give up membership for 3 years because I had other committments, should I have expected someone esle to subsidise me becuase I made the choice to have other committments?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			I earnt less at when I left uni, but had considerably more disposable income. If I'd have wanted to join a golf club, I could easily have afforded full rate at a better course than I am at now.

Which is my whole point about age being the wrong thing to use as a subs bracket.
		
Click to expand...

Whose choice is it in regards the disposable income ?

A flat rate will never work in golf clubs - it's why clubs don't do them


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



http://webarchive.nationalarchives....tats/income_distribution/table3-2-2004-05.pdf

This is from 2005.
		
Click to expand...

:thup: thanks I will have a look at this.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			You mean paying for the CHOICE of going to uni? Ah well why didn't you just say so. I am happy to subsidise the remaining life choices they make then.
		
Click to expand...

You chose to pay for golf - if you don't like it then don't pay it. You aren't being forced by anyone. 

A lot of new jobs require people to have degrees so people need to go to uni to get a good job


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

Hacker Khan said:



			No Saga technically discriminate on age.  If you are under a certain age you cannot use their services.  And golf clubs can say they have done huge amounts of market research and probability and statistical analysis and concluded that not many young people will pay full whack, so they are charging a lower price.  Same difference, so called age discrimination does go on.
		
Click to expand...

The golf club isn't saying I can't use the service. They are saying I can use the same service as somone 6 years younger than me for nearly double the cost. That's fair is it?
I am not saying that discrimination doesn't go on. I'm asking are we as a forum (or those in favour of age based subs) saying that it should!


----------



## bladeplayer (Dec 3, 2013)

jimbob.someroo said:



			What about those that aren't mollycoddled and move away from home for work. There was a survey done last year, 18-30 year old are by far and away lesser paid on average than any other working age group, including the 60+ age. 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/22/pay-salaries-survey-ashe-ons

People who have moved away from home, especially to London, have a lot less disposable income than people in their 30's+ whether they have a mortgage or not. I would guess that my Â£700+ house bills and rent are as high as the majority of mortgages, and there's only one of me paying it, rather than a couple. Not to mention the fact that my wage is almost certainly less than every 30+ year old adult in the country (not just london), how can it not be fair to have incremental membership for those at the start of their careers?

Click to expand...

Sorry Jimbob but have ya ever heard if you cant afford it maybe you shouldnt have it ? why should someone who has their finances under control for what ever reason subsadise someone who hasn't ? apologies but its nuts to think someone should subsadise your hobby or past time mate


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 3, 2013)

To be honest, I think this "fair" argument is pointless. We live in a capitalist society. Golf courses charge what they need to, to attract the people they want, to run the course as they want best. 

I would be interested, does anyone who wants equal payment for all ages, also support golf clubs being male or female only>?


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

CheltenhamHacker said:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom#Income_distribution_across_age_bands

Soources on the page. It's 2004-5, to be fair, but are you really saying that much has changed?

I actually can't believe this is the point you're arguing? Where do you get the idea that younger people are getting such amazing jobs?!
		
Click to expand...

That's not the point I'm arguing. I'm saying that it is unfair for people to subsidise the hobby of others utilising the same facilities but being charged more. If you think thats FAIR then that's your opinion. It is mine that it is not. 
I would not offer to sell you my car for Â£1k less than someone who is over 30 just because I think they earn more than you? 

Anyhow, that's my opinion. Obviously the people that benefit from these schemes are hardly going to agree with me.


----------



## jp5 (Dec 3, 2013)

How about means tested golf memberships then


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			You mean paying for the CHOICE of going to uni? Ah well why didn't you just say so. I am happy to subsidise the remaining life choices they make then.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right, by trying to get an education they have brought it on themselves and they should have thought about this if they wanted to have the privilege and honour of joining a golf club. And whilst they are at it they should do something about the increasingly unaffordable property market whilst they are at it as well before they moan about not being able to afford golf club fees, the selfish ******ds


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			The golf club isn't saying I can't use the service. They are saying I can use the same service as somone 6 years younger than me for nearly double the cost. That's fair is it?
I am not saying that discrimination doesn't go on. I'm asking are we as a forum (or those in favour of age based subs) saying that it should!
		
Click to expand...

Then bring it up at the AGM.

Did you volunteer to pay higher fees in your 20's and will you volunteer to pay higher fees in your 60's


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			That's not the point I'm arguing. I'm saying that it is unfair for people to subsidise the hobby of others utilising the same facilities but being charged more. If you think thats FAIR then that's your opinion. It is mine that it is not. 
I would not offer to sell you my car for Â£1k less than someone who is over 30 just because I think they earn more than you? 

Anyhow, that's my opinion. Obviously the people that benefit from these schemes are hardly going to agree with me.
		
Click to expand...

I don't benefit from any scheme - I pay full whack. 

But I'm open enough to understand the reasons why certain age groups pay less and the effect it would have on a golf club if a flat rate was introduced.

Two crucial parts of a golf club are it's younger members and it's senior section

One is the future and one keeps the club alive.


----------



## jimbob.someroo (Dec 3, 2013)

bladeplayer said:



			Sorry Jimbob but have ya ever heard if you cant afford it maybe you shouldnt have it ? why should someone who has their finances under control for what ever reason subsadise someone who hasn't ? apologies but its nuts to think someone should subsadise your hobby or past time mate
		
Click to expand...

But I can afford it, at subsidised rates. And when I'm 27/28 should be able to afford it at full price rates.

If me and 10 other 18-28 year olds left (like I said earlier, a very conservative estimate) because the club decided we were going to be charged full rate, then the rest of the club would pay more money? Why would the rest of the club want that? 

If I wasn't allowed to join the club next year on the incremental rate (which will be about Â£1000), I would spend that same amount playing at other courses as a nomad. Surely clubs would prefer to take all of that Â£1000 off me, as opposed to maybe one or two green fees of Â£25?

I pay the maximum the club think I will, without jumping ship. It's a balancing act as it is with everyone's membership. If they put it up by Â£500 this year, I'd go elsewhere where it was cheaper, as would many others, and as a result, full adult membership would go up. Which is the reason that they have this in place ...


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You chose to pay for golf - if you don't like it then don't pay it. You aren't being forced by anyone. 

A lot of new jobs require people to have degrees so people need to go to uni to get a good job
		
Click to expand...

Indeed I do. And I do it because I can afford to do it. I CHOOSE to do it and I CANafford to. If you cannot afford to do it why expect subsidy from others, why not wait until you can do afford it?

A lot of new jobs don't need a degree. But whether they do or not it is still a choice to go to Uni and once that is over, as hard as it might be to not play golf, well sometimes we need to make tough choices. 

We all have to be accountable for the choices we make.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			Indeed I do. And I do it because I can afford to do it. I CHOOSE to do it and I CANafford to. If you cannot afford to do it why expect subsidy from others, why not wait until you can do afford it?

A lot of new jobs don't need a degree. But whether they do or not it is still a choice to go to Uni and once that is over, as hard as it might be to not play golf, well sometimes we need to make tough choices. 

We all have to be accountable for the choices we make.
		
Click to expand...

And because younger people don't ear as much if they had to pay the same as older members then they couldn't join and the lost fees would need to be recovered some how - guess how - by increasing your subs.


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And because younger people don't ear as much if they had to pay the same as older members then they couldn't join and the lost fees would need to be recovered some how - guess how - by increasing your subs.
		
Click to expand...

And? I would then have to assess whether I could afford it. If I could (like I have with the last few year's increases) then I would continue to pay. If I couldn't then I would need to make that tough choice and not continue. 
But at least I wouldn't be talking to a guy in the bar that's been out on the course every day that week but pays Â£200 a year less than me just because he is 29. 

As I said, we all make choices and need to be accountable for them.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2013)

As far as 'reduced' rates for under 30s.  I have no issue with this.  As an over 30yr old member, what is more important to me is that my club remains solvent and that I can remain a member without me having to fork out on above inflation risers in annual subs - or have to stick my hand in my pocket for a levy - though if I had to I would.  

The best way of my objectives being met is by the club attracting new members and retaining them.  If that is helped by having introductory offers and reduced rates for under 30s then fine - so be it.  I don't really care if someone joins and takes advantage of any introductory or under 30 deals - and then disappears.  I can't really control that (though we could try and have some sort of - difficult to administer - 'early exit' penalty fee).  I choose to accept that some will take advantage - but whilst they are members they help keep my subs down.  Does it really bother me if there is a high annual churn rate?  Not really.  

*I am not really that bothered about whether a new lad gets his golf for x% less than I - as long as my subs don't go up too much year on year.  *I am just not into 'why should so and so get...?' type discussions as they are almost ALWAYS concerned about the personal needs and wishes of the individual and hence are inconsistent with improving the the collective well-being of the club.

As long as I can afford to stay a member, and new member and member retention initiatives don't have a significant impact on my membership and playing pleasure - then I'm OK with that.

We need and can easily accommodate 75 new full members - I'll support pretty much any initiative put forward to get these members.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Out on the course every day that week ? 

Again the structure is done in a way to protect the future of the club. Flat rates will reduce membership - unless you disagree

So did you complain about your fees when in your 20's and will you complain when I'm your 60's


----------



## jimbob.someroo (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			And? I would then have to assess whether I could afford it. If I could (like I have with the last few year's increases) then I would continue to pay. If I couldn't then I would need to make that tough choice and not continue. 
But at least I wouldn't be talking to a guy in the bar that's been out on the course every day that week but pays Â£200 a year less than me just because he is 29. 

As I said, we all make choices and need to be accountable for them.
		
Click to expand...

With all due respect, that's a really petty point of view. You'd rather pay more each year so that some others couldn't play. I know golf is an elitist, but do you not think that's a little far?


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			And? I would then have to assess whether I could afford it. If I could (like I have with the last few year's increases) then I would continue to pay. If I couldn't then I would need to make that tough choice and not continue. 
But at least I wouldn't be talking to a guy in the bar that's been out on the course every day that week but pays Â£200 a year less than me just because he is 29. 

As I said, we all make choices and need to be accountable for them.
		
Click to expand...

So the prices go up for all. And X% realise they can't afford it, so they leave. And the prices go up again to cover for the lack of their income, and Y% decide they can't pay the even higher. etc etc.

I can kind of see where your viewpoint comes from, but I couldn't think you were more wrong. It is coming across as bitter that someone may get something you didn't when you were that age. And unfortunately, society has changed a hell of a lot, so thinking the same way as it was years ago will just not work.


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Out on the course every day that week ? 

Again the structure is done in a way to protect the future of the club. Flat rates will reduce membership - unless you disagree

So did you complain about your fees when in your 20's and will you complain when I'm your 60's
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I had a conversation with a chap that had played every day that week. 
Flat rates if somewhere in the middle would probably increase membership IMO. So if I paid Â£490 a year and so did everyone, instead of Â£580 for me and Â£400 for under 30's then I see that as a compromise that lots of the over 30's, that left because they could no longer afford it, could accept. In the last two years we have lost more members from the 30+ category than we have gained in the intermediate bracket. 

No, I did not complain about my fees in my 20's nor will I in my 60s. I made and will make the same informed choice that I make every year when deciding to renew my subs - can I afford it?


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			No, I did not complain about my fees in my 20's nor will I in my 60s. I made and will make the same informed choice that I make every year when deciding to renew my subs - can I afford it?
		
Click to expand...

Exactly the same decision I make. So why, because I'm offered subsided rates, does it mean I'm not looking after my money, or living beyond my means?


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			So the prices go up for all. And X% realise they can't afford it, so they leave. And the prices go up again to cover for the lack of their income, and Y% decide they can't pay the even higher. etc etc.

I can kind of see where your viewpoint comes from, but I couldn't think you were more wrong. It is coming across as bitter that someone may get something you didn't when you were that age. And unfortunately, society has changed a hell of a lot, so thinking the same way as it was years ago will just not work.
		
Click to expand...

It can come across any way you like it to. But YOU cannot sit there and say that someone else "could not be more wrong" to have an opinion on a matter. 
I work in business improvement, have done for 8 years, certified as a Lean Sigma practitioner, saved businesses in excess of Â£30m so know that there are other ways to protect income than just the bleeding obvious "lets offer a staged payment".
Of course, you might not understand that there are options outside of the obvious.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			But YOU cannot sit there and say that someone else "could not be more wrong" to have an opinion on a matter.
		
Click to expand...

My apologies for that, I retract that comment as an ill-thought out phrasing.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			Yes, I had a conversation with a chap that had played every day that week. 
Flat rates if somewhere in the middle would probably increase membership IMO. So if I paid Â£490 a year and so did everyone, instead of Â£580 for me and Â£400 for under 30's then I see that as a compromise that lots of the over 30's, that left because they could no longer afford it, could accept. In the last two years we have lost more members from the 30+ category than we have gained in the intermediate bracket. 

No, I did not complain about my fees in my 20's nor will I in my 60s. I made and will make the same informed choice that I make every year when deciding to renew my subs - can I afford it?
		
Click to expand...

So you don't actually want them to pay the same as you - you actually want to pay less yourself. 

And you didn't mind paying the cheaper rate when you could hence why you didnt suggest a flat rate then.


----------



## Twire (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You chose to pay for golf - if you don't like it then don't pay it. You aren't being forced by anyone. 

A lot of new jobs require people to have degrees so people need to go to uni to get a good job
		
Click to expand...


And this is my point, I'm now 50 and thinking I might have to give up my golf for a few years to help finance my daughter through uni...........oh unless someone want's subsidise me.


----------



## jimbob.someroo (Dec 3, 2013)

Twire said:



			And this is my point, I'm now 50 and thinking I might have to give up my golf for a few years to help finance my daughter through uni...........oh unless someone want's subsidise me. 

Click to expand...

Without taking this massively off tangent, and appreciate that everyone's circumstances are different, but you can get through uni without help from family relatively straightforwardly. Although the new loans have a scarier headline figure, you pay it back in much smaller increments than previous loans and it gets wiped off a lot sooner. If you get the full loan, and work a couple of days a week, you'll be absolutely fine. I did this and had more disposable income than I'd ever had (and probably ever will). Had an amazing time at uni and met some great friends during the couple of days working. And despite the naysayers and the one-offs, all the studies done around the time came to the same conclusion; you'd still be several hundred thousand pounds better off over the course of your lifetime compared with those that dont - in 2011, the figure was around Â£400k


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2013)

...and I used to resent that seniors (when they had a reduced subs) could and did play every day when I couldn't.  

[Aside - though that was largely due to the mess my previous course got into during the winter  - and that mess was partly caused by heavy weekday golf - much if not most by seniors.  But that is winter course management and spring recovery, and isn't an issue with my current place]

But today - well actually I don't care about how much seniors play during the week (for the same subs) and the same would be for a new member paying a reduced sub who was in the fortunate position to play every day.  Would I be resentful? - no.  Why?  Because the fact that he plays every day makes absolutely no difference to me and my playing and his subs help keep mine down.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

Twire said:



			And this is my point, I'm now 50 and thinking I might have to give up my golf for a few years to help finance my daughter through uni...........oh unless someone want's subsidise me. 

Click to expand...


And that will be your choice to make.

Your daughter can make the choice also on what to do - she can also finance her way through uni 

Getting people into golf clubs young helps reduce the fees - keeping the seniors playing a long as possible keeps the fees down


----------



## JezzE (Dec 3, 2013)

Clearly a very emotive subject this one!

Of course, I can see all sides to most of the arguments, but many golf clubs run the risk of dying if something isn't done to bring more of the younger adult generation into the fold, so I would have to come down on the side of needing to see the wider picture, otherwise some golf clubs won't be there by the time that generation hits their 40s and 50s and is rolling around in so much money they don't know what to do with it... oh, hang on, that's me now and I'm most definitely not doing that! But even so, I would far rather something is done to keep the younger generation in the fold even if they're paying less than me - others clearly disagree with that!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

JezzE said:



			Clearly a very emotive subject this one!

Of course, I can see all sides to most of the arguments, but many golf clubs run the risk of dying if something isn't done to bring more of the younger adult generation into the fold, so I would have to come down on the side of needing to see the wider picture, otherwise some golf clubs won't be there by the time that generation hits their 40s and 50s and is rolling around in so much money they don't know what to do with it... oh, hang on, that's me now and I'm most definitely not doing that! But even so, I would far rather something is done to keep the younger generation in the fold even if they're paying less than me - others clearly disagree with that!
		
Click to expand...

Summed up perfectly - lots of thinking about the now.

People didn't mind paying reduced fees when they were younger and won't mind paying reduced when they are older 

But also,want it in their 30's to 60's as well - sorry but can't have it all


----------



## JCW (Dec 3, 2013)

I have just got mine , Â£1405 for 2014 payable in Jan , I have sat down and will get up soon .............EYG


----------



## patricks148 (Dec 3, 2013)

JezzE said:



			Clearly a very emotive subject this one!

Of course, I can see all sides to most of the arguments, but many golf clubs run the risk of dying if something isn't done to bring more of the younger adult generation into the fold, so I would have to come down on the side of needing to see the wider picture, otherwise some golf clubs won't be there by the time that generation hits their 40s and 50s and is rolling around in so much money they don't know what to do with it... oh, hang on, that's me now and I'm most definitely not doing that! But even so, I would far rather something is done to keep the younger generation in the fold even if they're paying less than me - others clearly disagree with that!
		
Click to expand...

I don't know for sure, but surly youngsters have always been in the minority in golf. its an older persons recreational sport, no? so isn't targeting younger players always going to fail?

I only started playing in my 40's and quite a few guys i know are the same. 

When you are younger at Uni  or in the few years after etc, are you interested in golf i should say prob not.. in my 20's i was more interested in going out and at the weekend drinking and chasing Girls, i'm sure many guys today are into the same. 

are you not more likely to start playing when you have more time into your 30s and 40's when other sports become harder to maintain?

Memberships have always been on the older side and with people living longer then you are going to get more older members?


----------



## Khamelion (Dec 3, 2013)

jp5 said:



			How about means tested golf memberships then 

Click to expand...

Didn't that used to be the case for some courses? Apply in writing, then sit before a comittee, where you were asked what you did for a living and what kind of car you drove?

Fortunatley that's not the case anymore, as you cannot discrimate against someone, well quite frankly for anything. So even if yu come from the planet Andoria, have blue skin and antenae coming out the top of you head, if you can pay your fees, then your money would be as good as anyone elses.


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So you don't actually want them to pay the same as you - you actually want to pay less yourself. 

And you didn't mind paying the cheaper rate when you could hence why you didnt suggest a flat rate then.
		
Click to expand...

Umm, yes I want them to pay the same as me. If we all paid Â£490 then we would all be paying the same. I am happy to pay the higher rate and have indicated that I am doing so by renewing. 
You asked me if I thought flat rates could work so I suggested an event that would see everyone pay the same in a mutually beneficial way... Was I wrong to do so in the context of what you asked?

On Jezz's point, I am more of the belief that if more clubs looked at the fundementals of the operating model rather than reducing some fees and removing waste from the operation then they may make more headway in making the club stable. And, who knows, as a result they may even be able to reduce fees for all as a result. 
For me, and in my day to day role, it's as important to look at where the money is going than it is solely focussing on where it's coming from. If clubs (which I have been advised are indeed businesses) act in a businesslike manner and control their processes and operation better then there are probably more wins to be gained than just the obvious get people through the door at a reduced rate. 

That's my thoughts on the matter take them or leave them but I maintain my view point that as a hobby, no one should be propping up anyone else and thankfully my club are coming round to this following a set of Lean Sigma initiatives that meant that they now know where the real problems with the club lay.


----------



## jp5 (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			Flat rates if somewhere in the middle would probably increase membership IMO. So if I paid Â£490 a year and so did everyone, instead of Â£580 for me and Â£400 for under 30's then I see that as a compromise that lots of the over 30's, that left because they could no longer afford it
		
Click to expand...

Except that the split between under 30s and over 30s isn't 50/50. At my club, looking at just members in the 20-65 bracket (i.e. no juniors or seniors), the split is:

20-30: 12%
30-65: 88%

So that's about 7 times as many full paying members as intermediates. As such, by your figures, if you wanted every to pay a flat rate, that rate would be Â£560. You'd save Â£20 a year, if all of your 20-30s stayed.


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

jp5 said:



			Except that the split between under 30s and over 30s isn't 50/50. At my club, looking at just members in the 20-65 bracket (i.e. no juniors or seniors), the split is:

20-30: 12%
30-65: 88%

So that's about 7 times as many full paying members as intermediates. As such, by your figures, if you wanted every to pay a flat rate, that rate would be Â£560. *You'd save Â£20 a year, if all of your 20-30s stayed*.
		
Click to expand...

And your point is? I am not interested in the saving. I am interested in everyone partaking equally in their HOBBY...
I merely used Â£490 as an arbitrary figure as I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that someone was asking me to give an example of how I thought a mutually beneficial flat rate would work...


----------



## JezzE (Dec 3, 2013)

patricks148 said:



			I don't know for sure, but surly youngsters have always been in the minority in golf. its an older persons recreational sport, no? so isn't targeting younger players always going to fail?

I only started playing in my 40's and quite a few guys i know are the same. 

When you are younger at Uni  or in the few years after etc, are you interested in golf i should say prob not.. in my 20's i was more interested in going out and at the weekend drinking and chasing Girls, i'm sure many guys today are into the same. 

are you not more likely to start playing when you have more time into your 30s and 40's when other sports become harder to maintain?

Memberships have always been on the older side and with people living longer then you are going to get more older members?
		
Click to expand...

Maybe, and I guess the supply and demand equation was loaded in favour of demand going back a few years so clubs weren't too worried about age breakdown as there would always have been someone waiting to fill a slot when a member left or died.

Everything I read also tells me that people are getting married later (closer to their 30s than before) so expensive things like kids and bigger houses are coming to the fore in that 30-40 age bracket. So even if football and rugby need replacing, you may not have either the time or money to join the local golf club!

Lots of factors at play, but what I do know from meeting golf club secretaries regularly is that many are concerned about the missing younger generation for the long-term well-being of their clubs


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			Umm, yes I want them to pay the same as me. If we all paid Â£490 then we would all be paying the same. I am happy to pay the higher rate and have indicated that I am doing so by renewing. 
You asked me if I thought flat rates could work so I suggested an event that would see everyone pay the same in a mutually beneficial way... Was I wrong to do so in the context of what you asked?

On Jezz's point, I am more of the belief that if more clubs looked at the fundementals of the operating model rather than reducing some fees and removing waste from the operation then they may make more headway in making the club stable. And, who knows, as a result they may even be able to reduce fees for all as a result. 
For me, and in my day to day role, it's as important to look at where the money is going than it is solely focussing on where it's coming from. If clubs (which I have been advised are indeed businesses) act in a businesslike manner and control their processes and operation better then there are probably more wins to be gained than just the obvious get people through the door at a reduced rate. 

That's my thoughts on the matter take them or leave them but I maintain my view point that as a hobby, no one should be propping up anyone else and thankfully my club are coming round to this following a set of Lean Sigma initiatives that meant that they now know where the real problems with the club lay.
		
Click to expand...


Did you want to pay the same as older members when you were in your 20's

I can say with a lot of confidence that if every was forced to pay the same at most clubs then the membership numbers would reduce and fees would go up.


----------



## Khamelion (Dec 3, 2013)

As I wrote earlier in the thread, before I joined my course, my mate who was already a member told me that rather than increase the annual subs and potentially lose some, perhaps many of the current members, that they would lower the fees, to try and encourage new members to join. 

Which is what they did. Exisiting members got a rebate cheque in the post to reflect the new reduced rates and new members got a good deal when joining. Now I don't know if this tactic has fully paid off, I guess we won't until the next AGM.

At present the junior membership up to 20 years old only pay Â£48 per year, the 21-29year old pay Â£270 for a 7 day membership and the 30 and overs pay Â£540 per year. Me being a new member only paids Â£480 this year and that is held for next year as well. The existing members got Â£60 back so that everyone in each band paid the same as anyone else.


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Did you want to pay the same as older members when you were in your 20's

I can say with a lot of confidence that if every was forced to pay the same at most clubs then the membership numbers would reduce and fees would go up.
		
Click to expand...

No, I can honestly say I never did. I accepted that I chose to join the club and that I was receiving the same product/service. 
Why would I want to pay less just because I was younger? I was over 18 and therefore an adult. So paid adult transport fees and adult entry to any other place I went. Why would I think my club would be any different. 

I think you can say in your opinion you have a certainty that numbers would decline. I'm not sure that you can prove that as certain fact. And nor can I otherwise. If you can I would be absolutely astounded (as well as hugely interested) as to how.


----------



## AMcC (Dec 3, 2013)

We got an email out last week saying the committee is proposing a Â£20 rise to Â£890. This would have to be ratified at the agm though, which is being held in March.  They have offered a deal of Â£870 if you pay your fees by 31st Dec and you wouldn't pay any rise.
The annual membership runs from January to December and fees are normally paid in April after agm.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Dec 3, 2013)

I think single figure handicappers should pay less, as we don't cut the fairways up as much, and see less of the course than the high handicappers.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

So you didn't feel guilty that you were paying less but getting the same service - did you offer to pay more. Will you do the same when you get older and your fees come down ? Did you not know you were paying less ? 

Do you get the point I'm making ? 

As for losing members 

At my old club 2 years ago they increased the age of when the reductions started from 65 to 70 ( after being at the club for a period )

Because of that 21 members left the club. That resulted in a loss of income and we had a midway EGM to add more money onto our fees and the membership had dropped.

And you should also be thankful you don't pay the fees we have too down here.


----------



## jp5 (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			And your point is? I am not interested in the saving. I am interested in everyone partaking equally in their HOBBY...
I merely used Â£490 as an arbitrary figure as I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that someone was asking me to give an example of how I thought a mutually beneficial flat rate would work...
		
Click to expand...

My point is that a flat rate would decimate the intermediate section of your club for a small saving for everyone else. And that is done on the presumption that all your intermediate section would stay. It may well have the reverse effect and push up memberships rates across the board as you lose income from the intermediates.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2013)

Twire said:



			And this is my point, I'm now 50 and thinking I might have to give up my golf for a few years to help finance my daughter through uni...........oh unless someone want's subsidise me. 

Click to expand...

It is a problem.  My two are both at uni - their loans are one thing - pay for course fees and living - but we pay for their accommodation and this year that's Â£9K+ and we also pay for their course expenses (and for books, programs that runs into Â£100s)

And of course they only qualify for the minimum loan - Â£1k a term.  And as much as we might ask that they budget - they run out before end of term - and what do we do?  We fund the rest of their term - the alternative being...?

So my golf subs are scrutinised and if they had gone up by much more than they did - serious questions would have to be asked.  So that is why I am very supportive of initiatives that attract and keep members - I'll go with just about anything to keep my subs affordable.


----------



## jimbob.someroo (Dec 3, 2013)

Is almost impossible because the only really good data comes from England Golf and their analysis is generally split into junior/adult when looking at new members. However, they do talk of the need for more appealing membership packages to young adults 

_An increased percentage of golf clubs are offering intermediate, corporate, flexible, social and student membership categories, demonstrating the need to adapt and be more creative. To support recruitment and retention, golf clubs should examine whether they are providing membership packages which offer value for money and meet customer requirements._

Like any data, can be skewed how you want, but the full research is here: http://www.englandgolf.org/shared/get-file.ashx?id=11112&itemtype=document


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

jp5 said:



			My point is that a flat rate would decimate the intermediate section of your club for a small saving for everyone else. And that is done on the presumption that all your intermediate section would stay. It may well have the reverse effect and push up memberships rates across the board as you lose income from the intermediates.
		
Click to expand...

Only if the intermediate membership was dispersed like you illustrated. Not all clubs are distributed like this.
Also, clubs (and businesses) IMO should not be looking to solely rely on the income from subs. They should be looking at the business as a whole. 
Our club looked at processes and procedures that had been in existence since day dot, suppliers, best practice in marketing, catering supplies, best practice in communication, course maintenance, Energy consumption. Combined the savings were tens of thousands per anum. This means that they can start to look at equalising the value that members of all genders and ages get from the club. 

Are they wrong to do that?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			That's my thoughts on the matter take them or leave them but I maintain my view point that as a hobby, no one should be propping up anyone else
		
Click to expand...

Understand your thoughts - but who is propping up who?  If a new member pays less than I - am I subsidising his golf or is he subsidising mine by joining and hence preventing my subs increasing?

I'll add - the subs calculations and the 'who is subsidising who?' question are different between a club that has a full membership and one recruiting members.  In the former you are replacing a member with a member - and so what the new member pays compared with the old matters.  Where a club is recruiting new members - every new member is new money.


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			I think single figure handicappers should pay less, as we don't cut the fairways up as much, and see less of the course than the high handicappers. 

Click to expand...

My God.. Scouser would have to sell his house to pay this years subs!!!!!!


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

jimbob.someroo said:



			Is almost impossible because the only really good data comes from England Golf and their analysis is generally split into junior/adult when looking at new members. However, they do talk of the need for more appealing membership packages to young adults 

_An increased percentage of golf clubs are offering intermediate, corporate, flexible, social and student membership categories, demonstrating the need to adapt and be more creative. To support recruitment and retention, golf clubs should examine whether they are providing membership packages which offer value for money and meet customer requirements._

Like any data, can be skewed how you want, but the full research is here: http://www.englandgolf.org/shared/get-file.ashx?id=11112&itemtype=document

Click to expand...

Flexible and Social memberships are something different completely and generally are a cost vs access exercise. Which I agree with as long as everyone getting the same use pays the same "flexible or social" membership cost. 
There is no issue that these people generally pay less but get less for the money that they pay. 
Its the intermediate categories that, in my OPINION (jeez how often do you need to say that on here these days?) that do not present a fair crack at the whip for those that subsidise others. That's all.

How many people that have just turned 31 and want to join a course have to take the decision not to because the top level category is out of their reach financially and then look at the tiered structure and think "ok if I was a year younger..., that's fair enough"? 

Where do we draw the line at who is the future? Those 18-21, 18-25. Is someone who is 30 more of the future than someone who is 31? 

Not much more I can add to this now as I am in a minority, I appreciate that and accept that.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			Flexible and Social memberships are something different completely and generally are a cost vs access exercise. Which I agree with as long as everyone getting the same use pays the same "flexible or social" membership cost. 
There is no issue that these people generally pay less but get less for the money that they pay. 
Its the intermediate categories that, in my OPINION (jeez how often do you need to say that on here these days?) that do not present a fair crack at the whip for those that subsidise others. That's all.

How many people that have just turned 31 and want to join a course have to take the decision not to because the top level category is out of their reach financially and then look at the tiered structure and think "ok if I was a year younger..., that's fair enough"? 

Where do we draw the line at who is the future? Those 18-21, 18-25. Is someone who is 30 more of the future than someone who is 31? 

Not much more I can add to this now as I am in a minority, I appreciate that and accept that.
		
Click to expand...

@Greig... you seem to be caught up with resentments around some sections of the membership subsidising others.  That consideration applies where the membership is fixed (full) but is much less clear when you are recruiting new members.  And even if membership is fixed - it is surely in everybody's interest to do things to encourage some key groups of members to stay - and build loyalty to the club.  As mentioned - personally I really don't care if someone else's golf is cheaper than mine - if it keeps my subs down.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			I think single figure handicappers should pay less, as we don't cut the fairways up as much, and see less of the course than the high handicappers. 

Click to expand...

Ah but you do that annoying thing of hitting long clubs onto the green and messing it up  Us high handicappers barely hit a green, so our little duffed chips where the ball just about rolls onto the green barely cause any damage


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			Only if the intermediate membership was dispersed like you illustrated. Not all clubs are distributed like this.
Also, clubs (and businesses) IMO should not be looking to solely rely on the income from subs. They should be looking at the business as a whole. 
Our club looked at processes and procedures that had been in existence since day dot, suppliers, best practice in marketing, catering supplies, best practice in communication, course maintenance, Energy consumption. Combined the savings were tens of thousands per anum. This means that they can start to look at equalising the value that members of all genders and ages get from the club. 

Are they wrong to do that?
		
Click to expand...

Could they not do both of these? Look at all of the above, AND discount the intermediate and senior rates?


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			@Greig... you seem to be caught up with resentments around some sections of the membership subsidising others.  That consideration applies where the membership is fixed (full) but is much less clear when you are recruiting new members.  And even if membership is fixed - it is surely in everybody's interest to do things to encourage some key groups of members to stay - and build loyalty to the club.  As mentioned - personally I really don't care if someone else's golf is cheaper than mine - if it keeps my subs down.
		
Click to expand...

Just to clarify. I have no resentment as you put it. If you have a member who is paying less but with the same priveledges, what esle would you call it? I am intrigued. As to who is propping up who... What worth does a nett addition as a number have to a club (the business). If a club requires a nett income of Â£300k per year but sapce for 600 members, it needs that regardless of how many members it has so a member paying less than the average required from the 600 members means that they add no [business] value as they are costing the business money unless someone covers the missing money. 

No, not resentment... mainly puzzlement.


----------



## cookelad (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverbirdie said:



			I think single figure handicappers should pay less, as we don't cut the fairways up as much, and see less of the course than the high handicappers. 

Click to expand...

Don't forget of course that if a single figure (let's say a 5) handicapper and a 25 handicapper both play the same number of rounds 75 for arguments sake, assuming they play average around their handicaps the higher handicapper is getting 1500 more shots for his or her annual subs than the low handicapper!!!! Forget age related subscriptions I'm getting ripped off because I don't hit the ball as often!


----------



## jimbob.someroo (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			If a club requires a nett income of Â£300k per year but sapce for 600 members, it needs that regardless of how many members it has so a member paying less than the average required from the 600 members means that they add no [business] value as they are costing the business money unless someone covers the missing money.
		
Click to expand...

Right, good example (with just the groups discussed atm).

Club needs Â£300k from it's male members over 18.

At the moment, they are:
400 full payers at Â£600 each = Â£240k
100 seniors at Â£400 each = Â£40k
100 incrementals at Â£200 each = Â£20k
= Â£300k


They decide that they are going to charge everybody Â£500  and in the process gain 50 full male members:
450 full payers at Â£500 = Â£225000

but they lose 30 seniors and 50 incrementals
70 seniors at Â£500 = Â£35k
50 incrementals at Â£500 = Â£25k

= Â£285k

All of a sudden the club are Â£15,000 short which needs to be clawed back from one of the groups. You can't attract new seniors or incrementals as there is cheaper options elsewhere, how do you go about filling that gap for an extra 30 members without either raising fees for full prices or lowering them for the other brackets?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			Just to clarify. I have no resentment as you put it. If you have a member who is paying less but with the same priveledges, what esle would you call it? I am intrigued. As to who is propping up who... What worth does a nett addition as a number have to a club (the business). If a club requires a nett income of Â£300k per year but sapce for 600 members, it needs that regardless of how many members it has so a member paying less than the average required from the 600 members means that they add no [business] value as they are costing the business money unless someone covers the missing money. 

No, not resentment... mainly puzzlement.
		
Click to expand...

Understand

On another member having the same privileges as me and paying less? - this is fine with me if it is the sort of situation that arises if needs must to keep my subs down.  I have absolutely no issue paying more than him. I play my own game and I am my own member.  My only condition is that I would ask that new member or lower-rate membership initiatives should not impact significantly upon my playing or membership enjoyment.

And yes - if you need Â£300k a year and you *have* 600 members then an average Â£500 a year does it - and so that is what the club would work towards.  But the club can't just look at this year they have to look at subsequent years - and keeping members is a lot easier than recruiting members.  So some pay Â£450 a year whilst others Â£550 say?  Seems absolutely sensible to me.  

And I will add that many on here are debating (and complaining) about amounts of money, and differentials in subs for diff categories and ages of members, that us living in the south can only dream about.  Think yourself very fortunate if you pay Â£500 a year for your golf when many of us are having to fork out 3x as much for - in most cases - *exactly* the same thing.


----------



## chellie (Dec 3, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			Just to clarify. I have no resentment as you put it. If you have a member who is paying less but with the same priveledges, what esle would you call it? I am intrigued. As to who is propping up who... What worth does a nett addition as a number have to a club (the business). If a club requires a nett income of Â£300k per year but sapce for 600 members, it needs that regardless of how many members it has so a member paying less than the average required from the 600 members means that they add no [business] value as they are costing the business money unless someone covers the missing money. 

No, not resentment... mainly puzzlement.
		
Click to expand...

I'm with you Greg. Don't see why there should be different rates once you've gone past junior stage.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

chellie said:



			I'm with you Greg. Don't see why there should be different rates once you've gone past junior stage.
		
Click to expand...


How many 70 year olds will be willing to fork out full membership fees when they live of pensions ?


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 3, 2013)

Oh to return to the days of full memberships, when none of these additional subscription deals were necessary...
How many clubs have full memberships (and waiting lists) now?


----------



## patricks148 (Dec 3, 2013)

JezzE said:



			Maybe, and I guess the supply and demand equation was loaded in favour of demand going back a few years so clubs weren't too worried about age breakdown as there would always have been someone waiting to fill a slot when a member left or died.

Everything I read also tells me that people are getting married later (closer to their 30s than before) so expensive things like kids and bigger houses are coming to the fore in that 30-40 age bracket. So even if football and rugby need replacing, you may not have either the time or money to join the local golf club!

Lots of factors at play, but what I do know from meeting golf club secretaries regularly is that many are concerned about the missing younger generation for the long-term well-being of their clubs
		
Click to expand...

Its an Interesting one Jezz.

But did clubs ever have many members is this 20-30 age bracket anyway?

Have clubs just look at  the age ranges, seen that there are not many in this group and jumped to the conclusion that they need to gain more members in this group when in fact they never have had as this group just don't fit the profile of golf membership?

Take my club, not a typical example , but i would say 90% of our members are over 50 i imagine its always been that way.

you now might just have 30 extra members paying half fee's as app to 15 paying full, if you get my drift?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 3, 2013)

I'd suggest all those that do not agree with people paying a different amount for the same service do not talk to anyone on a flight. Or on a package holiday.  I totally agree it may not seem fair, but it's what some business have to do to survive.


----------



## GreiginFife (Dec 3, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Understand

On another member having the same privileges as me and paying less? - this is fine with me if it is the sort of situation that arises if needs must to keep my subs down.  I have absolutely no issue paying more than him. I play my own game and I am my own member.  My only condition is that I would ask that new member or lower-rate membership initiatives should not impact significantly upon my playing or membership enjoyment.

And yes - if you need Â£300k a year and you *have* 600 members then an average Â£500 a year does it - and so that is what the club would work towards.  But the club can't just look at this year they have to look at subsequent years - and keeping members is a lot easier than recruiting members.  So some pay Â£450 a year whilst others Â£550 say?  Seems absolutely sensible to me.  

And I will add that many on here are debating (and complaining) about amounts of money, and differentials in subs for diff categories and ages of members, that us living in the south can only dream about.  Think yourself very fortunate if you pay Â£500 a year for your golf when many of us are having to fork out 3x as much for - in most cases - *exactly* the same thing.
		
Click to expand...

What I don't get is why people think, that if they are in the top tier of a tiered system, that discounts to others keeps thier subs down... where does the shortfall come from?

Also all the focus on what happens if an intermediate leaves. What if a full paying member leaves due to thier subs increasing too much to cover the "incentive" do you just recruit two more intermediates for every full rate that leaves? How long would that be sustainable for?

Its not the 'member numbers' that a club needs to survive, its the money that they bring. 
As I said, if a club needs an average from a member base as a minimum to survive and it is not evenly distributed then someone has to pick up the tab for the underages.  A single 22 year old member addition means nothing from a business perspective.


----------



## bladeplayer (Dec 3, 2013)

I must admit i cant understand the amount of people who expect to pay less for the exact same service as someone else just because of your age ..  i can totaly understand  2 cases 
Juniors (including full time students) i agree and maybe a buffer year or two if need be to soften the blow
OAP yes  

the rest .. no.. 
Should your car be serviced cheaper because your 20-30 ?
Should your Mortgage be lower because your 20-30?
Should you get discount on youe shopping , heating , electricity or gas because you are 20-30?

Im sorry i just dont get how able bodied adults should get a discount to partake in their hobby or past time simply because of what age bracket .. 
Discounted membership should IMO mean discounted service or use of service 

But as always just my opinion


----------



## jp5 (Dec 3, 2013)

A golf club must, as a business, look at its annual target income from membership fees and decide how best to achieve that. I would suggest that if that could be accomplished through a flat rate then we would be seeing most clubs offering that.

It's evidently not possible otherwise we wouldn't see clubs offering incentives to certain age groups - certainly a more complex and polemic strategy. Any business has an acquisition cost of new customers and no doubt golf clubs see this reduced intermediate rate as a way of recruiting members.

Ultimately it comes down to whether you are happy paying the price you do to play where you play.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2013)

chellie said:



			I'm with you Greg. Don't see why there should be different rates once you've gone past junior stage.
		
Click to expand...

Do you see that a club has to both recruit and also retain members and build loyalty?  

If you can then accept that potential members are going to look for the best deal around - especially if they are younger (let's say under 30) and unsure about whether they will be in the area for long (quite possibly no local ties, family, schools etc).  

Also accept that some existing members may look elsewhere if they haven't been a member for long (no loyalty built up) and others might have to consider leaving for financial reasons if subs go up too much.

Then if you are OK paying your subs you may ask yourself whether it really matters if new or existing member pays less than you.  Try asking yourself what difference this actually makes to you and your membership - especially if next year, because of the member, you pay the same for your membership as you did the previous year.


----------



## jp5 (Dec 3, 2013)

bladeplayer said:



			I must admit i cant understand the amount of people who expect to pay less for the exact same service as someone else just because of your age ..  i can totaly understand  2 cases 
Juniors (including fuul time students) i agree and maybe a buffer year or two if need be to soften the blow
OAP yes  

the rest .. no.. 
Should your car be serviced cheaper because your 20-30 ?
Should your Mortgage be lower because your 20-30?
Should you get discount on youe shopping , heating , electricity or gas because you are 20-30?

Im sorry i just dont get how able bodied adults should get a discount to partake in their hobby or past time simply because of what age bracket .. 
Discounted membership should IMO mean discounted service or use of service 

But as always just my opinion
		
Click to expand...

Because golf clubs struggle to recruit intermediate members and see it as an incentive to safeguard the future of the club. You make out like 20-30 year olds are pining for reduced fees - it's not the case. I can only assume that intermediate members are seen as a valuable commodity by golf clubs - otherwise there wouldn't be the incentives there are to attract them.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2013)

bladeplayer said:



			I must admit i cant understand the amount of people who expect to pay less for the exact same service as someone else just because of your age
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there are many individuals breezing into a golf club office and laying out to the secretary their conditions for joining the club.

There is surely a big difference between someone expecting to play less for something and a business offering that something for less.  It's up to the club to determine it's recruitment and retention strategies - and these must recognise the local market conditions and environment.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

So it's seems the major problem some have is between the age of 20-30 and the age of the people who have the problem are between 30-40 ( at a guess so apologies if that's not correct )

But I'm going to guess when those people were eligible for those reduced rates between the ages of 21 to 30 they actually volunteered to pay more because they felt so guilty getting something for a bit cheaper.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 3, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I'm not sure there are many individuals breezing into a golf club office and laying out to the secretary their conditions for joining the club.

There is surely a big difference between someone expecting to play less for something and a business offering that something for less.  It's up to the club to determine it's recruitment and retention strategies - and these must recognise the local market conditions and environment.
		
Click to expand...

You're really going to have to stop this SILH. You're talking much too logically, and if you keep doing that, we'll all end up agreeing with you about DMD's!


----------



## bladeplayer (Dec 3, 2013)

jp5 said:



			Because golf clubs struggle to recruit intermediate members and see it as an incentive to safeguard the future of the club. You make out like 20-30 year olds are pining for reduced fees - it's not the case. I can only assume that intermediate members are seen as a valuable commodity by golf clubs - otherwise there wouldn't be the incentives there are to attract them.
		
Click to expand...

ok  fair comment jp, do discounted deals for people who want discounted rates tho ..  .. should they really be afforded full membership ? 

i just picked 20-30 as an example as  it was said earlier, it goes for all brackets..


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 3, 2013)

It seems to me that most on here are viewing this issue from a golfer perspective, rather than a Golf Clubs perspective. Take the aforementioned 600 member GC. What does the club do, if for some reason it only has 450 members, and a recruitment drive has failed? It has to either increase fees for the remaining members or attract new members. The GC studies the membership and realizes that it has very few members between certain ages (say 20-30). Therefore, this is where it targets its recruitment drive. It also may target Ladies, Seniors etc.

Unfortunately it's a classic sign of a contracting market. An expanding market would have no need of these incentives. Not enough full fee paying members to go around, so we have to attract members from other demographics.. It will get worse before it gets better....


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

bladeplayer said:



			ok  fair comment jp, do discounted deals for people who want discounted rates tho ..  .. should they really be afforded full membership ? 

i just picked 20-30 as an example as  it was said earlier, it goes for all brackets..
		
Click to expand...


Well juniors can't play before certain times 

Country members can only play a certain amount

What other restrictions would you like - restrictions you would have been ok with when you paid discounted fees in your 20's

A lot can't see the bigger picture at the moment


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2013)

jp5 said:



			Because golf clubs struggle to recruit intermediate members and see it as an incentive to safeguard the future of the club. You make out like 20-30 year olds are pining for reduced fees - it's not the case. I can only assume that intermediate members are seen as a valuable commodity by golf clubs - otherwise there wouldn't be the incentives there are to attract them.
		
Click to expand...

Simple - potential intermediate members have in general the greatest amount of flexibility in their life.  But get 20-30yr olds in; keep them - however you can; have them build a loyalty to the club and a social circle within it; you have a chance keeping them when they get into their 30s and maybe have family and schools.  Besides.  Younger guys want to associate with at least a few like-aged and like-minded.  A clubhouse full of over 55s may not give out the right signals to a 25yr old prospective member.


----------



## bladeplayer (Dec 3, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I'm not sure there are many individuals breezing into a golf club office and laying out to the secretary their conditions for joining the club.

There is surely a big difference between someone expecting to play less for something and a business offering that something for less.  It's up to the club to determine it's recruitment and retention strategies - and these must recognise the local market conditions and environment.
		
Click to expand...

I agree that clubs have to do deals,  most clubs over here do introductory offers around august for the remainder of the year and the following year , they are for new members .. my argument all along is on how these deals are allocated .. it is no longer ok to tag people automatically by age alone .. 

Would it be ok then for Golf Clubs to  negotiate membership fees on individual basis with each member in private, pay what you can for full membership depending on your current financial status ? .. Surely that would keep all its members ? 

I dont think it would be feasible tho


----------



## bladeplayer (Dec 3, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Well juniors can't play before certain times 

Country members can only play a certain amount

What other restrictions would you like - restrictions you would have been ok with when you paid discounted fees in your 20's

A lot can't see the bigger picture at the moment
		
Click to expand...

I didnt play junior golf and i have never recieved discounted membership for my age or any reason , so for many years i played at a club thats 45 min drive , because i could afford it .. 
I can see the bigger picture but dont agree with how its defined ..


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2013)

bluewolf said:



			It seems to me that most on here are viewing this issue from a golfer perspective, rather than a Golf Clubs perspective. Take the aforementioned 600 member GC. What does the club do, if for some reason it only has 450 members, and a recruitment drive has failed? It has to either increase fees for the remaining members or attract new members. The GC studies the membership and realizes that it has very few members between certain ages (say 20-30). Therefore, this is where it targets its recruitment drive. It also may target Ladies, Seniors etc.

Unfortunately it's a classic sign of a contracting market. An expanding market would have no need of these incentives. Not enough full fee paying members to go around, so we have to attract members from other demographics.. It will get worse before it gets better....
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely in agreement.  If my subs increase by inflation year on year then I honestly don't care (that much and all within reason) what the club does in respect of member recruitment and retention to make that possible.  Especially if what the club does is aimed at filling any gap between the current and the ideal membership level - and maintaining it at the ideal.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 3, 2013)

bladeplayer said:



			I didnt play junior golf and i have never recieved discounted membership for my age or any reason , so for many years i played at a club thats 45 min drive , because i could afford it .. 
I can see the bigger picture but dont agree with how its defined ..
		
Click to expand...

And I never took advantage of any discounted junior fees but have seen the results of giving younger people incentives to join clubs - a thriving golf club with a membership that will last and has a future. Most clubs lowest % of membership is between the ages of 20-30 - making them pay more won't increase that % - if anything the opposite.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2013)

bladeplayer said:



			I agree that clubs have to do deals,  most clubs over here do introductory offers around august for the remainder of the year and the following year , they are for new members .. my argument all along is on how these deals are allocated .. it is no longer ok to tag people automatically by age alone .. 

Would it be ok then for Golf Clubs to  negotiate membership fees on individual basis with each member in private, pay what you can for full membership depending on your current financial status ? .. Surely that would keep all its members ? 

I dont think it would be feasible tho
		
Click to expand...

You are going down the means testing route.

Also note that whilst individualised membership deals may sound attractive what a club would have to do in the context of the FSA (Financial Services Authority) would generally preclude many arrangements.   So for instance a club might offer a 5 yr fixed subs deal with a penalty for early exit from the agreement.  Fix subs at reduced level for year one and pay the same for 5 yrs - but you are in for 5 yrs and pay a penalty if you pull out before the end of the 5yr period.  Sounds good for the club in respect of financial planning - and attractive to the member who stays for 5 yrs. But this sort of thing would require the club to satisfy and adhere to many financial services rules and regulations.  Not an option for members clubs I'd suggest.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2013)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			You're really going to have to stop this SILH. You're talking much too logically, and if you keep doing that, we'll all end up agreeing with you about DMD's! 

Click to expand...

Ah buddy - I hope I am not always a p-i-t-a and not always talking through it.  But I doubt you'll ever agree with me on DMDs - and you know what? - for that I am pleased because wouldn't life be boring if we all agreed about DMDs


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 3, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Ah buddy - I hope I am not always a p-i-t-a and not always talking through it.  But I doubt you'll ever agree with me on DMDs - and you know what? - for that I am pleased because wouldn't life be boring if we all agreed about DMDs 

Click to expand...

Not a p-i-t-a at all, I enjoy debating these sort of things! Never get overly annoyed at things on the internet, it's only words!


----------



## chellie (Dec 3, 2013)

Our club has a waiting list.

I'm also new to golf and also being a member of a club. Am also female so have to pay the same rate as men. HimID has gone back to golf after a break of 30 years. He couldn't have afforded either the time to play golf or the membership costs when we were younger. Other things took priority for our money. A cheaper rate wouldn't have made any difference.

Would also add that from what I see the intermediate members seem to be dash off as soon as they've played their round. Would seem to be the 40+ plus pensioners who are spending in the clubhouse.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 3, 2013)

The way I see it, it starts at the bottom. A lot of clubs don't have enough juniors coming through. They need to be inspired to join a club and welcomed into the fold and not treated like a nuisance. They then need to be held onto and so if that means offering a subsidy going from juniors into the adult ranks then up to a point I am happy. I think the ceiling has to be lower and I think that after say 21, they are adults and capable of making their own life style choices and that includes being able to afford and wanting to join a club.

I am not a big fan of these discounts going all the way up to almost 30. I think it's divisive and creates barriers and animosity. In the same way, I don't agree with discounts for senior golfers who by and large have more chance to use the course on a more frequent basis. In my mind (and on planet Homer it makes sense) the onus is firmly with the owners and powers that run clubs to ensure they are doing everything they can not only to recruit members regularly but to retain them. That is key

The issue in the OP (remember that) of having to top up bar levies to cover short falls in catering smacks of poor management. Out of interest, do the club do things like Supper Club (9 holes and a chance to buy off a set menu), theme nights etc. Do they actually encourage members to want to eat there and spend money


----------



## Dodger (Dec 3, 2013)

patricks148 said:



			Ours are up by Â£30 again, more or less paying for the 95K the club lost on the bar and catering again

Click to expand...

This cannot be real surely?

Can't be and your assumption of the paltry Â£30 rise paying for it is even more tougher to believe.


----------



## Dodger (Dec 3, 2013)

JezzE said:



			Clearly a very emotive subject this one!

Of course, I can see all sides to most of the arguments, but many golf clubs run the risk of dying if something isn't done to bring more of the younger adult generation into the fold, so I would have to come down on the side of needing to see the wider picture, otherwise some golf clubs won't be there by the time that generation hits their 40s and 50s and is rolling around in so much money they don't know what to do with it... oh, hang on, that's me now and I'm most definitely not doing that! But even so, I would far rather something is done to keep the younger generation in the fold even if they're paying less than me - others clearly disagree with that!
		
Click to expand...

Spot on.

A man not looking selfishly but looking at the bigger picture and the future of golf clubs and what will undoubtedly happen to golf clubs within the next ten years if clubs do not capture more youngsters.  

Too many members are solely interested in the present and themselves and not the long term future of their club.


----------



## PNWokingham (Dec 3, 2013)

I was an intermediary when starting reading this thread - I now feel ready to join the seniors!!:lol:

I totally agree with Jezz and several others. Offering reduced rates for a transition period can be healthy for the spirit of the club an make perfect business sense and possibly keep the rates down for others - although I think much beyond 25 is taking it a bit far! I am not sure I agree with seniors getting a discount - they play a lot more than others and are often some of the wealthiest one at the club, especially as many will have benefited from pensions that our generation can only dream of!! The compromise here could be a loyalty disount - maybe they should get X% off after X age if they have been at the club for X number of years - maybe with a voluntary opt out for those that choose and offer to pay full fees with the difference going into the Junior Coaching pot to encourage young golfers


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 3, 2013)

I'm not sure I get this future of the club bit. I would wager that it is more likely for some around the 40 mark to be more likely to still be a member of the club they are at now in 10 or even 5 years than someone of 25. The changes in a 25 year olds life over those years is likely to mean giving up golf or at least not being a club member whereas I know so many in their 40s who have just come back to the game now the kids are older and they have more free time.

I can't see many of the younger generation keeping up their membership when families and bigger mortgages come along just because the club gave them a discount when they were younger, it doesn't work like that.


----------



## davidg2010uk (Dec 3, 2013)

Young people are leaving uni with Â£10k + debts / struggling to get jobs.  Older people are watching their pensions pots diminish - its easy to see why your average golf club need to provide incentives to these age groups.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 3, 2013)

davidg2010uk said:



			Young people are leaving uni with Â£10k + debts / struggling to get jobs.  Older people are watching their pensions pots diminish - its easy to see why your average golf club need to provide incentives to these age groups.
		
Click to expand...

Graduates - Uni debts - bit of a red herring IMO - it's a tax it's not really a loan; but struggling to get a job - yes - a big issue. Getting a job, and able to live in the locality of the club you are, or have been, a member of - very difficult


----------



## andrew_mac (Dec 3, 2013)

davidg2010uk said:



			Young people are leaving uni with Â£10k + debts / struggling to get jobs.  Older people are watching their pensions pots diminish - its easy to see why your average golf club need to provide incentives to these age groups.
		
Click to expand...

Agree or at least some shock absorbers to help those in their 20s build up towards paying full fees from say 28 plus.  It's an investment in the future and to assume you will get these players back when they hit 40 is a big assumption in a fast moving society.


----------



## Imurg (Dec 3, 2013)

andrew_mac said:



			Agree or at least some shock absorbers to help those in their 20s build up towards paying full fees from say 28 plus.  It's an investment in the future and to assume you will get these players back when they hit 40 is a big assumption in a fast moving society.
		
Click to expand...

Isn't it just as big an assumption that you'll get them back once they've finished Uni....?
Assuming they've started in the first place..?


----------



## andrew_mac (Dec 3, 2013)

Imurg said:



			Isn't it just as big an assumption that you'll get them back once they've finished Uni....?
Assuming they've started in the first place..?
		
Click to expand...

There appeared to be agreement earlier in the end to support junior right up to 21 which I agree with and was specifically addressing the fairness point in respect of those with jobs that are 21 plus.


----------



## mchacker (Dec 3, 2013)

CBA reading all 18 pages but got to throw my 2p in.

I joined my club during an offer period of half year membership with no joining fee, and continued the next year at full rate. Then in January this year(my 3rd full year) I got an email saying that as I was under 30 my subs were coming down to a reduced rate and my direct debit was changing as a result. This was just dumb, I had already agreed to pay the full rate for the year so by changing all the club did was lose Â£200. Offering a better deal to new or wantaway members is fine but reducing existing income is just giving away free money.

As I'm turning 30 before the year's out I'll be paying full rate again next year, bringing it closer in price to Patricks club down the road, and for reasons I outlined in another thread(and a few more beside) I am seriously considering moving if I can squeeze some sort of deal out of them, it's further from me but I seriously think it would be worth it.

I think if clubs want to offer a reduced rate to under 30s then great, it get's in fresh blood which a lot of clubs need, but more should be done to keep them at that magic number, why not have a reduced rate if you sign up to a 5yr deal?


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 4, 2013)

andrew_mac said:



			Agree or at least some shock absorbers to help those in their 20s build up towards paying full fees from say 28 plus.  It's an investment in the future and to assume you will get these players back when they hit 40 is a big assumption in a fast moving society.
		
Click to expand...

To assume they will stay beyond 28 is a big assumption too. It's not an investment in the future, it gives them cheap golf now, that's it.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 4, 2013)

mchacker said:



			CBA reading all 18 pages but got to throw my 2p in.

I joined my club during an offer period of half year membership with no joining fee, and continued the next year at full rate. *Then in January this year(my 3rd full year) I got an email saying that as I was under 30 my subs were coming down to a reduced rate and my direct debit was changing as a result. This was just dumb, I had already agreed to pay the full rate for the year so by changing all the club did was lose Â£200*. Offering a better deal to new or wantaway members is fine but reducing existing income is just giving away free money.

As I'm turning 30 before the year's out I'll be paying full rate again next year, bringing it closer in price to Patricks club down the road, and for reasons I outlined in another thread(and a few more beside) I am seriously considering moving if I can squeeze some sort of deal out of them, it's further from me but I seriously think it would be worth it.

I think if clubs want to offer a reduced rate to under 30s then great, it get's in fresh blood which a lot of clubs need, but more should be done to keep them at that magic number, why not have a reduced rate if you sign up to a 5yr deal?
		
Click to expand...

It sounds dumb, but if they didn't do it, a lot of under 30s who were already members would have complained new members were getting cheaper subs than them. That's the way people work


----------



## andrew_mac (Dec 4, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			To assume they will stay beyond 28 is a big assumption too. It's not an investment in the future, it gives them cheap golf now, that's it.
		
Click to expand...

Golf England figures suggest otherwise. 

Clubs need to attract younger members to be sustainable in the future and by time person reaches 28 they could have been at a a club for 10/15 years depending on when they joined as a junior so in for long term and should be for future.  Double that same member's subs when they hit 21 and they will be gone in most cases. 

Plus is there is an upword trajectory in the the intermediate rate through the 20s by time they reach 28 it is less much of a jump to full membership.


----------



## Twire (Dec 4, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			I'm not sure I get this future of the club bit. I would wager that it is more likely for some around the 40 mark to be more likely to still be a member of the club they are at now in 10 or even 5 years than someone of 25. The changes in a 25 year olds life over those years is likely to mean giving up golf or at least not being a club member whereas I know so many in their 40s who have just come back to the game now the kids are older and they have more free time.

I can't see many of the younger generation keeping up their membership when families and bigger mortgages come along just because the club gave them a discount when they were younger, it doesn't work like that.
		
Click to expand...


Totally agree with this, I don't think it's about the money why there not joining golf clubs. It's a period in their life where things are changing, going off to uni, starting a family, buying houses, moving to different areas, chasing that new job, there's to much going on in their life to worry about golf club member ship. Coupled with golf not being that cool for youngsters, this is why they come back, or even start playing later on in life.

As I said earlier I don't mind the discount up to 21 or even while their in full time education, but after that they should be on their own and pay their way.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2013)

Checked our rates and the discounts decrease from age 21 until 25 then go to full whack then until late 60's

But the difference isn't that massive at the end bad doesn't bother me as long as my own fees aren't effected too

Understand and can see the bigger picture and why certain ages get small discounts and can't see it changing much.


----------



## nil1121 (Dec 4, 2013)

just had my 3 childrens subscription letter thro yesterday. not gone up but Â£500 each so pretty expensive !!


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 4, 2013)

Whilst I agree with clubs looking to attract more members from different age ranges, I do think that having a reduced rate all the way up to 30 is stretching it too far. 

Why not reduce the rate for all members?

I wonder how many in their mid to late 20's take up the offer of reduced fees AND also have their week's drinking holiday in Ibiza with their mates? 

I afforded full fees and a joining fee and a mortgage and a family whilst on a relatively low wage in the late 70's/80's. If people care enough about their sport, and access to it, they'll find the fees.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 4, 2013)

nil1121 said:



			just had my 3 childrens subscription letter thro yesterday. not gone up but Â£500 each so pretty expensive !!
		
Click to expand...

Looks like your kids are exactly the people the game needs to keep, well done, do they kick your ass on the course yet?   And if you have to shell out one and a half grand a year to do that then I would suggest something is wrong.  

But no doubt some on this board will say something like you and them have to make choices, you and them have to take responsibility and if you can't afford it then tough.So they would be happy for the game to lose them until they can afford to pay upwards of 500 notes every year in their teens


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 4, 2013)

Hacker Khan said:



			Looks like your kids are exactly the people the game needs to keep, well done, do they kick your ass on the course yet?   And if you have to shell out one and a half grand a year to do that then I would suggest something is wrong.  

But no doubt some on this board will say something like you and them have to make choices, you and them have to take responsibility and if you can't afford it then tough.So they would be happy for the game to lose them until they can afford to pay upwards of 500 notes every year in their teens 

Click to expand...

Junior membership is fine, junior memberships aren't cheap because the kids can't afford it, it's because the clubs know that the parents pay the fees and asking a parent to pay 2,3 or 4 full subscriptions will likely mean the parent doesn't join either.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 4, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Checked our rates and the discounts decrease from age 21 until 25 then go to full whack then until late 60's

But the difference isn't that massive at the end bad doesn't bother me as long as my own fees aren't effected too

Understand and can see the bigger picture and why certain ages get small discounts and can't see it changing much.
		
Click to expand...

We actually have a category now for 30 to 35 year olds. That didn't go down well with the full paying members I can tell you. I don't know what the rates are or what the take-up has been.


----------



## Imurg (Dec 4, 2013)

The 17-24 age bracket is the exact demographic my industry focuses on. Numbers of kids wanting to learn to drive are declining and the average age for passing the Test is now at the top end of that bracket.
Why?
Because they haven't got 2 penny's to rub together and neither have their parents.
Chances are, if they can't afford a life skill that can increase their chances of getting a job, they can't afford to join a club either - regardless of the offers.
I'm not convinced that there are large numbers of kids out there that want to play golf. Rightly or wrongly, Golf is seen as an older person's game. I had no thought of playing until I was 30, there was too much Footy or Cricket to be played.
That's not saying that there are not kids who want to play,obviously there are, but are these kids doing to play anyway? Are they the offspring of existing members/players?
You could drop the sub's for late teens/early 20's to next to nothing and I doubt numbers would increase massively because of the image and startup costs, especially if you have to add in lessons. Ours is now the only Club in Town that is cheap enough for the younger player. Even during the Summer hols you don't see many on the course.
A good friend of mine has a 12 year old daughter getting County coaching at one of the best clubs in the area. It costs him Â£95 a year for her to be a Junior member. Chances are his 7 year old son will do the same.
The club has a sliding scale of sub's but even with that, I doubt they will be able to afford memberships for both past 16. Now take a kid of the same age as Ellie but hasn't got a Dad who plays. Along with all the other activities, fuel bill increases, everything going up, where are they going to get enough spare cash to put their kid in the same position - unless they already have the means, in which case they're more likely to be able to do it in the first place - assuming the kid wants to ply an "Old Man's" game....


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 4, 2013)

Might be more sensible to target the 35-40 age group as in the context of family this is the age group whose children will be beyond toddler stage and hence able to breath.  Talking blokes - this is the group you have a chance getting back to golf (especially if they quit when family came along).  As far as earning is concerned many will have moved up the salary scale between ages of 25 and 35, and so may have a little money and some time to spend on their *own *leisure - having for 5-8 yrs been closely involved in the early years of their little 'uns - so NO time or money to spare.   

But money and time will still be a bit tight and so we have to make membership attractive and consistent with the demands around the dad with a young family.  And that might mean a different sort of flexible membership that some or indeed many members would find difficult to swallow.  

Pre-30yrs old?  Seems an obvious target group but I'm thinking guys and gals in the 25-30yr age group who might (re)join a golf club a likely to have life and work opportunities presented that make membership of a golf very secondary - certainly as a longer term commitment the sort of which clubs may well be looking for.  If they are members certainly do what you can to keep them (by having stepped subs for instance - but don't bust a gut to get new 25-30yr olds to join - not a good investment for the club to make IMO.

btw - I joined a new club having had 8 yrs without being a member of a club (we moved area and kids were little), when my lad reached 11.  I was mid-40s by then.  My Mrs decided it would be a good for *my lad* (not me) to play golf and become a member of a golf club - and so she let me join as well.  Our kids have now both gone through secondary school and are going through uni - so we've been stable in where we live. And I've now been a member 10yrs and have no thoughts of leaving.  But by gawd it was expensive that first year and we couldn't really afford it.  I almost certainly would not have joined my club back then if it hadn't been for my lad and Mrs!  Just my personal experience and thoughts


----------



## bladeplayer (Dec 4, 2013)

Hacker Khan said:



			But no doubt some on this board will say something like you and them have to make choices, you and them have to take responsibility and if you can't afford it then tough.So they would be happy for the game to lose them until they can afford to pay upwards of 500 notes every year in their teens 

Click to expand...

I may have missed someone saying that , apologies if so ,but i dont think anyone has problems with junior membership ..


----------



## patricks148 (Dec 4, 2013)

No one obviosly reads any of my posts!

I made the point 5 pages ago that this whole thing about under 30's getting targeted and being the life blood  and saviours of clubs, is a red herring.

I doubt clubs ever had lots of this age group as its just not drawn to playing golf at this time.

we let in about 30 odd under 30 members, we already have a student and junior rate. My clubs thinking was we needed guys to play in the medals and comps to bolster the numbers, i don't think hardly any have and are just using the place as cheap memberships and when they are out of the under 30 deal will just go for the next cheap offer local to them.

I'm all for supporting the youngsters who come up though the club and and normally stick with it, but its only a handfull.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 4, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Might be more sensible to target the 35-40 age group as in the context of family this is the age group whose children will be beyond toddler stage and hence able to breath.  Talking blokes - this is the group you have a chance getting back to golf (especially if they quit when family came along).  As far as earning is concerned many will have moved up the salary scale between ages of 25 and 35, and so may have a little money and some time to spend on their *own *leisure - having for 5-8 yrs been closely involved in the early years of their little 'uns - so NO time or money to spare.   

But money and time will still be a bit tight and so we have to make membership attractive and consistent with the demands around the dad with a young family.  And that might mean a different sort of flexible membership that some or indeed many members would find difficult to swallow.  

Pre-30yrs old?  Seems an obvious target group but I'm thinking guys and gals in the 25-30yr age group who might (re)join a golf club a likely to have life and work opportunities presented that make membership of a golf very secondary - certainly as a longer term commitment the sort of which clubs may well be looking for.  If they are members certainly do what you can to keep them (by having stepped subs for instance - but don't bust a gut to get new 25-30yr olds to join - not a good investment for the club to make IMO.

btw - I joined a new club having had 8 yrs without being a member of a club (we moved area and kids were little), when my lad reached 11.  I was mid-40s by then.  My Mrs decided it would be a good for *my lad* (not me) to play golf and become a member of a golf club - and so she let me join as well.  Our kids have now both gone through secondary school and are going through uni - so we've been stable in where we live. And I've now been a member 10yrs and have no thoughts of leaving.  But by gawd it was expensive that first year and we couldn't really afford it.  I almost certainly would not have joined my club back then if it hadn't been for my lad and Mrs!  Just my personal experience and thoughts
		
Click to expand...

This I agree with, as I said earlier, you are likely to get more longevity from the 35 to 40 age group than the 25-30. If clubs are trying to attract long term members, this is where they should be looking IMHO.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 4, 2013)

patricks148 said:



			No one obviosly reads any of my posts!

I made the point 5 pages ago that this whole thing about under 30's getting targeted and being the life blood  and saviours of clubs, is a red herring.

I doubt clubs ever had lots of this age group as its just not drawn to playing golf at this time.

we let in about 30 odd under 30 members, we already have a student and junior rate. My clubs thinking was we needed guys to play in the medals and comps to bolster the numbers, i don't think hardly any have and are just using the place as cheap memberships and when they are out of the under 30 deal will just go for the next cheap offer local to them.

I'm all for supporting the youngsters who come up though the club and and normally stick with it, but its only a handfull.
		
Click to expand...

I read it and I agree :thup:


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 4, 2013)

patricks148 said:



			we let in about 30 odd under 30 members, we already have a student and junior rate. My clubs thinking was we needed guys to play in the medals and comps to bolster the numbers, i don't think hardly any have and are just using the place as cheap memberships and when they are out of the under 30 deal will just go for the next cheap offer local to them.

I'm all for supporting the youngsters who come up though the club and and normally stick with it, but its only a handfull.

Click to expand...

I think this highlights the issue with the needs of the specific club versus the needs of the game in general.  You are saying that most use it cheap membership and then go somewhere else and it has not had the intended effect of bolstering numbers in medals.  So the club, and indeed you have argued that this scheme is not successful as not many play in medals, and questioning that if they are not to stick at one club, then is it worth supporting them.

But on the other hand there is a strong argument that getting people in at that age (or indeed any age) and just playing golf is good for the game in general.  Yes they may not be playing medals and comps, but surely it is better for the game to have people playing the game at any club, rather than not playing. Wont your club pick up some of these transitory players from other clubs when their cheap deals run out?  But of course it is then very difficult to balance the more short term needs of the club with the longer term needs of the game.  

No idea if this happens but I'd see this an an area where the authorities running the game would help clubs out.  It would also be nice that instead of paying the top players millions to appear in one tournament, some of that money is put into getting more people into the game.  But I know that it does not work like that, mores the pity.


----------



## Fish (Dec 4, 2013)

I'm not sure this reducing fee's to certain age groups work at the lower and mid scales, especially in business terms.

Example;

20 existing members between 18-24 have their existing fee's reduced by Â£200 as the club looks to increase that age membership, net cost to the club Â£4k

The club has now got to find 4 full adult members to fill that gap, which is not what the reduction is for, or 7 new members between 25-30 at half the adult rate or another *14 members at 18-25* to break even at 1/3rd the adult fee's!  The net cost to the club is no more gross revenue than before from subscriptions but, there is now more people on the course increasing costs of maintenance.  OK, there may be a little more spent in the bar, but, I think that would be negligible in the grand scheme of things, especially the much younger bracket who are very seldom seen in the clubhouse.

Will it lock these younger people in and will they upgrade through the various subscription rates and be loyal to the club, or will they seek out better deals at the time when they hit an age that takes them into another bracket? If their parents are subsidising the fees in some way, can or could they afford to keep up with the subscriptions when they raise by more than 50% at certain age breakpoints and if they then have to fend for themselves, will they just leave? 

I understanding ageing memberships and the need to find younger people but, I am of the attitude that if the course and facilities are good enough and offer something for all age groups and are not stuck in the dark ages so younger people feel welcome and not intimidated, then the subscriptions can be the same across the board with the exception of a Junior Membership which is >18.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2013)

Is this whole thing being blown a lite out of proportion ? 

Look at your golf club and see how many members they actually have between the ages of 21-30 ?

At previous clubs it was very minimal - would be surprised if there was more than 10 members. Most of them were also country members at Uni.

Most of the membership was mid 30's upwards so the first time a reduction in fees happened was at age 65 - but even that was increased until age 70. With over 150 taking advantage of those reductions 

Now at current club the reductions finish at 25 and below that there is a lot of juniors up to age 21 but not many between 21-25. 

The biggest portion of membership is between 30 and 60 and we all pay full whack. 

So is it possible that it's not really a major issue ?


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 4, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Is this whole thing being blown a lite out of proportion ? 

Look at your golf club and see how many members they actually have between the ages of 21-30 ?

At previous clubs it was very minimal - would be surprised if there was more than 10 members. Most of them were also country members at Uni.

Most of the membership was mid 30's upwards so the first time a reduction in fees happened was at age 65 - but even that was increased until age 70. With over 150 taking advantage of those reductions 

Now at current club the reductions finish at 25 and below that there is a lot of juniors up to age 21 but not many between 21-25. 

The biggest portion of membership is between 30 and 60 and we all pay full whack. 

So is it possible that it's not really a major issue ?
		
Click to expand...

Or, as some are saying, that clubs are targeting the wrong audience? If you target the older age brackets you are likely to get a better uptake and longer memberships.


----------



## jimbob.someroo (Dec 4, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So is it possible that it's not really a major issue ?
		
Click to expand...

Yup, under 20-30's are by far and a way the minority membership at every club. Still, people like to have a good old whinge about something which doesn't necessarily effect them a great deal. At the end of the day, these memberships were brought in to try and entice young adults to keep playing the game after being a junior, or maybe get into the game. They were put in at reduced rates to give this demographic of people a chance to play, as many*wouldn't be paying or playing at all otherwise*. There obviously has to be a cut off, at some clubs its 21 or 24 or 28 or even higher, but it has to go up on a scale or it would defeat the whole objective.

At the end of the day, 65% of clubs in 2012 (re: the report I posted earlier) now offer these sorts of memberships. Surely, people can take the 'i hate people paying less than me' blinkers off for a minute to realise that there must be a reason for this. Such a large proportion of clubs wouldn't bring this in, knowing the backlash from full members, if it wasn't worth their while.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			Or, as some are saying, that clubs are targeting the wrong audience? If you target the older age brackets you are likely to get a better uptake and longer memberships.
		
Click to expand...


So who pays full whack for memberships then ? 

Reduces the rates for the bigger portions of club members ? 

We would all love to have smaller membership fees but I can't see it working or being sustainable. 

Again I can only use my old club as I know more about the membership but they used various methods to target members but it was never age focused - it was focused on making it more accessible in terms of joining fee and making the course as attractive as possible. 

Beds have a good number of private clubs and most of the iniatives to improve membership revolve around joining fees. 

Woburn are lucky they can just charge what they need because the demand is there but joining fees are what stops people joining clubs ( that's taken from market research when helping during a recruitment drive  ) as opposed to lack of reduced fees at certain age groups. Any AGM I have been too and I can't remember a problem from members about intermediate fees or reduced fees. 

You biggest portion of members all pay the same fee in my experience and the biggest portion is the 40-60


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 4, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So who pays full whack for memberships then ? 

Reduces the rates for the bigger portions of club members ? 

We would all love to have smaller membership fees but I can't see it working or being sustainable. 

Again I can only use my old club as I know more about the membership but they used various methods to target members but it was never age focused - it was focused on making it more accessible in terms of joining fee and making the course as attractive as possible. 

Beds have a good number of private clubs and most of the iniatives to improve membership revolve around joining fees. 

Woburn are lucky they can just charge what they need because the demand is there but joining fees are what stops people joining clubs ( that's taken from market research when helping during a recruitment drive  ) as opposed to lack of reduced fees at certain age groups. Any AGM I have been too and I can't remember a problem from members about intermediate fees or reduced fees. 

You biggest portion of members all pay the same fee in my experience and the biggest portion is the 40-60
		
Click to expand...

I'm not saying reduce rates for all members, I'm saying offer incentives to get people to join, that is after all apparently what the reductions for young members are there for. The argument appears to have been that reductions for the under 30s gets them all signed up and they become long term members which is good for the clubs. Now we seem to be saying that no young members are joining anyway so lets try to target those who will join and are likely to stay.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			I'm not saying reduce rates for all members, I'm saying offer incentives to get people to join, that is after all apparently what the reductions for young members are there for. The argument appears to have been that reductions for the under 30s gets them all signed up and they become long term members which is good for the clubs. Now we seem to be saying that no young members are joining anyway so lets try to target those who will join and are likely to stay.
		
Click to expand...

And as I was saying - the main reduction to get people to join is down to joining fees. They are what puts people off joining clubs as opposed to paying an extra Â£50 to Â£100 quid a year on subs.

People don't go to Woburn because of the 6 grand joining fee not because of the subs


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 4, 2013)

jimbob.someroo said:



			Yup, under 20-30's are by far and a way the minority membership at every club. Still, people like to have a good old whinge about something which doesn't necessarily effect them a great deal. At the end of the day, these memberships were brought in to try and entice young adults to keep playing the game after being a junior, or maybe get into the game. They were put in at reduced rates to give this demographic of people a chance to play, as many*wouldn't be paying or playing at all otherwise*. There obviously has to be a cut off, at some clubs its 21 or 24 or 28 or even higher, but it has to go up on a scale or it would defeat the whole objective.

At the end of the day, 65% of clubs in 2012 (re: the report I posted earlier) now offer these sorts of memberships. Surely, people can take the 'i hate people paying less than me' blinkers off for a minute to realise that there must be a reason for this. Such a large proportion of clubs wouldn't bring this in, knowing the backlash from full members, if it wasn't worth their while.
		
Click to expand...

Fine post...  Especially the part about giving young people the chance to play as they will bring in additional revenue and it will be healthy for the game in general.  You'd have thought that this would be a no brainer and essential for the long term development of the game, but obviously not .


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 4, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			This I agree with, as I said earlier, you are likely to get more longevity from the 35 to 40 age group than the 25-30. If clubs are trying to attract long term members, this is where they should be looking IMHO.
		
Click to expand...

Interesting as I thought I'd be shot down


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 4, 2013)

patricks148 said:



			No one obviosly reads any of my posts!

I made the point 5 pages ago that this whole thing about under 30's getting targeted and being the life blood  and saviours of clubs, is a red herring.

I doubt clubs ever had lots of this age group as its just not drawn to playing golf at this time.

we let in about 30 odd under 30 members, we already have a student and junior rate. My clubs thinking was we needed guys to play in the medals and comps to bolster the numbers, i don't think hardly any have and are just using the place as cheap memberships and when they are out of the under 30 deal will just go for the next cheap offer local to them.

I'm all for supporting the youngsters who come up though the club and and normally stick with it, but its only a handfull.
		
Click to expand...

And I also agree :thup:


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 4, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			This I agree with, as I said earlier, you are likely to get more longevity from the 35 to 40 age group than the 25-30. If clubs are trying to attract long term members, this is where they should be looking IMHO.
		
Click to expand...

But the average age of the first time buyer is now 35 and the average age that people are having kids is 30.  So you will be targeting people just starting to pay a mortgage with young children.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 4, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			Or, as some are saying, that clubs are targeting the wrong audience? If you target the older age brackets you are likely to get a better uptake and longer memberships.
		
Click to expand...

Agree - there is a big difference between having a new member strategy aimed at getting younger folk into golf and one aimed at growing the membership to meet the needs of the club.  Encourage juniors into the club as best you can - absolutely - but are they the life-blood of a club?  Nope - they are not.  

However - introduce attractively priced family or parent and child membership packages - where the parent element of the package is a much reduced subscription - and I think you have an opportunity.  

My situation was a classic of wanting to join and only just being able to afford it - and only was able to join on basis of my son joining also as that is what my wife wanted.  He's no longer a member and I'm 10yrs.  In early days when son was a member (3 yrs) I didn't play much 'normal' member golf as I tended to play when my son could - and that meant that I didn't really get that much out of my first 3 yrs membership bar occasional comps and a few medals each year - and a couple of years having to put in supplementary cards.  In fact when I say I've been a member 10 yrs most members can't believe it's been that long - and that's simply because I was invisible to most members for my first three yrs.  I'm not invisible any more


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2013)

Hacker Khan said:



			Fine post...  Especially the part about giving young people the chance to play as they will bring in additional revenue and it will be healthy for the game in general.  You'd have thought that this would be a no brainer and essential for the long term development of the game, but obviously not .
		
Click to expand...


Are younger players not getting the chance to play then ?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 4, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			I'm not saying reduce rates for all members, I'm saying offer incentives to get people to join, that is after all apparently what the reductions for young members are there for. The argument appears to have been that reductions for the under 30s gets them all signed up and they become long term members which is good for the clubs. Now we seem to be saying that no young members are joining anyway so lets try to target those who will join and are likely to stay.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely.  Forget trying to entice in *new *20-30s - but make it easier for more affordable for existing members under 30 to continue (as many if not most do)


----------



## andrew_mac (Dec 4, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Interesting as I thought I'd be shot down 

Click to expand...

 
In the past possibly but I think the game is benefiting from its association with younger, fitter professional players on the tour who have a much greater media profile than players did 10/15 years ago.  

Walk into any golf store and look at the fashion to see how the gold retailers are developing fashion products that will have more credibility on the street with younger people.

Golf clubs that tap into this, attracting more members in their 20s building a broader membership base for the future will be much more financially robust and all members should reep the benefits in reduced subs over the longer term


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Dec 4, 2013)

My brothers club only have reduced membership fees for members who have 30 years full membership.
He was paying Â£400 a year for 3 courses [2 championship] when he was 56.
Seems to make more sense than someone paying reduced fees at 65 when they joined aged 63.

Good thread.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 4, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Encourage juniors into the club as best you can - absolutely - but are they the life-blood of a club?  Nope - they are not.
		
Click to expand...

Depends which time frame you are using, the lifetime of the average member or the lifetime of the club.


----------



## talksalot81 (Dec 4, 2013)

Yeesh, I feel very hard up - my _house_ member fees are almost as high as many of the full membership fees being quoted!!

With regards to age, I agree that this is a tough topic. My club was costing nearly Â£1500 when social fees and all were included and this is a massive lump, especially for a 20-something who might be having to think about buying houses, getting married or having kids. In practice, that is why I am a house member - I was playing very infrequently and not a prayer of affording that amount. On the flip side, we have the senior members of the club who are the ones most often floating around in mercedes and who are there almost every day of the week - paying dramatically less. It just doesn't quite make sense.


----------



## DCB (Dec 4, 2013)

This is a bit like trying to solve Fermats Last Theorem. If someone finds the right answer please let us know.

Whilst we're sitting here squabbling over who's right and who's wrong and what age deserves what membership rate spare a thought for those who's clubs will not be there for the start of next season. One gone already in my area and another is hanging by a fast unravelling thread as I write this.

The good old days have gone, clubs are now struggling to recruit members and if the answer isn't found, there will be a lot of nice new housing estates springing up over the next few years in prime locations.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Dec 4, 2013)

DCB said:



			This is a bit like trying to solve Fermats Last Theorem. If someone finds the right answer please let us know.

Whilst we're sitting here squabbling over who's right and who's wrong and what age deserves what membership rate spare a thought for those who's clubs will not be there for the start of next season. One gone already in my area and another is hanging by a fast unravelling thread as I write this.

The good old days have gone, clubs are now struggling to recruit members and if the answer isn't found, there will be a lot of nice new housing estates springing up over the next few years in prime locations.
		
Click to expand...

At the risk of sounding callous, and I feel very sorry for those members who are losing their club, but this is bound to happen from everything I've heard? I've seen a lot of mention of a load of course being built around the early 1990's, to try and capture the booming golf market. It's normal that not all of these will survive, and the ones that appeal best to their market will do.


----------



## DCB (Dec 4, 2013)

CheltenhamHacker said:



			At the risk of sounding callous, and I feel very sorry for those members who are losing their club, but this is bound to happen from everything I've heard? I've seen a lot of mention of a load of course being built around the early 1990's, to try and capture the booming golf market. It's normal that not all of these will survive, and the ones that appeal best to their market will do.
		
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with the glut of poor proprietary courses that were built around that time. We're not too badly afflicted with these sort of places, fortunately.  These two were established in 1892 &1895, so even the well established clubs can be hit hard.


----------



## jimbob.someroo (Dec 4, 2013)

Really really frustratingly, our club has just sent out it's pretty radical membership change proposals for next year, including data and analysis to support exactly what a few have been saying throughout the thread. However, I don't feel I can publish this here as there is info specific to the club and don't want to get in any trouble.

However, after doing a LOT of research both nationally and in the local area there are some proposals which I think are really good steps forward. At this time, they're only proposals, so please don't approach my club and ask for this sort of stuff yet, but some of the 'headlines' include;



Only around 20% of male members are under 45 with those up to the age of 28 receiving incremental membership (I won't publish the exact numbers) but there are far more 18-28's than 30-45 in all likelihood due to a combination of the incremental membership and families/houses taking over in the late 30's.

Over 40% of members are over 60 paying full price, although this has dropped off as many move to 5-day as they can play during the week and play a lot more than full members who majoritively only play weekends.

The club loses 'most' young adults in their late 20's (as they get close to full price)



The proposal is to offer incremental membership up to the age of 34 to keep those 20 somethings that leave, and because there's not too many in this bracket, and they hope to gain a few new members, this won't negatively effect income. There is also a 'lifestyle' membership being considered which would allow conditional golf of x number of rounds and entry to x number of comps to try and retain those who want to be a member but can't justify full price (possibly those in their late 30's / early 40's). Pricewise this sits in between a late 20's person and a 5-day member.

The proposals would be partly helped out by an increase in one of the areas of membership which is currently far too low and indeed much lower than equivalent membership at other courses in the area, despite our full price being higher.

There's lots of other great proposals too which I think are an amazing step forward for a club not wanting to get left behind as membership patterns change. It is being modeled on another local club who have done similar things and there is a projected six-figure increase in membership income over the next few years. As far as I'm concerned even if income from membership goes up Â£1 they've made progress so such large figures are really exciting to see.

If the proposals pass, I will post the full details when they are published.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Dec 4, 2013)

DCB said:



			This is a bit like trying to solve Fermats Last Theorem. If someone finds the right answer please let us know.

Whilst we're sitting here squabbling over who's right and who's wrong and what age deserves what membership rate spare a thought for those who's clubs will not be there for the start of next season. One gone already in my area and another is hanging by a fast unravelling thread as I write this.

The good old days have gone, clubs are now struggling to recruit members and if the answer isn't found, there will be a lot of nice new housing estates springing up over the next few years in prime locations.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps the clubs nearby that are struggling could do worse that find out what business plan and structure the club that went under had.  Try and learn from the what went wrong as well as from other good practice.  

From visiting clubs I see some that seem to be thriving (and yes I know I am only getting a snap shot so appearances may be deceiving) and some that seem as dead as a dodo.  With the quality of the actual courses themselves being very similar. 

So some are getting it right, but as you say it is pretty inevitable that some will go under due to a combination of factors.


----------



## Cheifi0 (Dec 4, 2013)

Me and my brother have been at our club for a year and a half.  One of the attractions apart from 27 great holes was the price.  We pay a reduced rate compared to full membership which is about 1500.  I wouldn't of been able to afford that and would of therefore joined another club. By the time I get to the age when I have to pay full fees I should be  in a more comfortable position to be able to afford it.  Surely it's better to have the fees we contribute than not.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 4, 2013)

Cheifi0 said:



			Me and my brother have been at our club for a year and a half.  One of the attractions apart from 27 great holes was the price.  We pay a reduced rate compared to full membership which is about 1500.  I wouldn't of been able to afford that and would of therefore joined another club. By the time I get to the age when I have to pay full fees I should be  in a more comfortable position to be able to afford it.  Surely it's better to have the fees we contribute than not.
		
Click to expand...

That's fine, but there are plenty over 30 who would have to join the cheaper club


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2013)

Cheifi0 said:



			Me and my brother have been at our club for a year and a half.  One of the attractions apart from 27 great holes was the price.  We pay a reduced rate compared to full membership which is about 1500.  I wouldn't of been able to afford that and would of therefore joined another club. By the time I get to the age when I have to pay full fees I should be  in a more comfortable position to be able to afford it.  Surely it's better to have the fees we contribute than not.
		
Click to expand...

Yep it's lots better.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			That's fine, but there are plenty over 30 who would have to join the cheaper club
		
Click to expand...

When would it stop ? There would be plenty over 40 or 50 or 60 who would also have to join the cheaper club 

People regardless of age will join the club they can afford to join.

5 years ago I couldn't afford to play where I do but I can now. I didn't seek for any cheaper rates to join Woburn - I joined a club within my means.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 4, 2013)

Hacker Khan said:



			Depends which time frame you are using, the lifetime of the average member or the lifetime of the club.
		
Click to expand...

My point is - how many juniors become full members?

I'll add - not that many in this part of the world - at ;least not that many in my club.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 4, 2013)

Liverpoolphil said:



*When would it stop ? There would be plenty over 40 or 50 or 60 who would also have to join the cheaper club*
So if there are plenty over 30, 40, 50 & 60 who have to join the cheaper club, why should the under 30s be any different, especially as we have already established, there aren't that many of them

*People regardless of age will join the club they can afford to join*.
Indeed they will, except the under 30s 

*5 years ago I couldn't afford to play where I do but I can now. I didn't seek for any cheaper rates to join Woburn - I joined a club within my means.*
Exactly what I did and what everyone else on here does
		
Click to expand...

....


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 4, 2013)

Under 30's still only join clubs that they can afford too.

As i have said a few times - the years 21-30 is when you earn the less money and people are still in Uni or finishing and graduating so clubs offer incremental fees until they hit the full whack - if they cant afford it at full whack then they leave.

If people arent happy then vote with their feet or bring it up for discussion at the AGM


----------



## Break90 (Dec 4, 2013)

I either consider MY subs to be value for money, in which case I'll pay them and enjoy my golf, or I don't, in which case I won't pay them, and I'll play my golf somewhere else or not at all. 

I'ts down to the individuals perception of whether they get value for money or not from their membership. I don't really give a monkeys what anyone else pays.


----------



## Cheifi0 (Dec 4, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			That's fine, but there are plenty over 30 who would have to join the cheaper club
		
Click to expand...

Isn't that the case with any type of high end product.  It's just that golf clubs don't have the same demand to sustain it's position currently so need more incentives to try to make up the shortfall.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Dec 4, 2013)

Break90 said:



			I either consider MY subs to be value for money, in which case I'll pay them and enjoy my golf, or I don't, in which case I won't pay them, and I'll play my golf somewhere else or not at all. 

I'ts down to the individuals perception of whether they get value for money or not from their membership. I don't really give a monkeys what anyone else pays.
		
Click to expand...

This^^


----------



## Laka (Dec 29, 2013)

Shall i be rebellion again and having asking myself many times-----isnt out of date to be a member----shouldnt all courses be pay and play with differential fees for play---for ex --play 10 times pay for 8 . As it now are those playing much subventioned by those playing less.....( i guess this thought probably is annoying for most forum members here which probably play a lot)

I mean i play tennis or badminton or bowling several of hundreds time without being a member in a tennis or badminton or bowling club....

Just a thought from rebellion north :whoo:


----------



## guest100718 (Dec 29, 2013)

sweeneytoddd said:



			My club had its AGM last night and rather than increase the subs ( currently Â£545 including SGU fees, county fees and course insurance ) they decided to implement a Â£30 levy to cover clubhouse repairs and some on course projects. This was voted in by the members present at the meeting instead of a Â£30 increase in the fees. By having a levy it means that ALL members have to pay towards these projects as seniors pay a percentage of the men's subs and therefore would only pay a percentage of the increase and life members also have to pay the Â£30 where an increase in subs has no effect on them. This is already bringing negative comments from some members on social media so what is everyone else's clubs doing about fees for next year?
		
Click to expand...

You pay Â£545 and people are not happy? My local club is Â£1200 pa with a Â£1500 joining fee!


----------



## monktonhallgc1882 (Dec 29, 2013)

HawkeyeMS said:



			I agree, subscription rates based on age (young or old) is antiquated and unfair.
		
Click to expand...

So your expecting 9/10 year olds who have just started playing the game to have the same fees as somebody playing 150+ times a year. How will that attract new players and a new generation. I do disagree with senior fees though as you can't get some of them off the course paying half the price.


----------



## HawkeyeMS (Dec 29, 2013)

monktonhallgc1882 said:



			So your expecting 9/10 year olds who have just started playing the game to have the same fees as somebody playing 150+ times a year. How will that attract new players and a new generation. I do disagree with senior fees though as you can't get some of them off the course paying half the price.
		
Click to expand...

Probably best read the whole thread before picking up on a single comment. I'm not talking about juniors.


----------



## andrew_mac (Jan 2, 2014)

New figures out today for GB which I have seen on twitter show that 81% of clubs have 51+ dominant membership and youth membership has declined by 60% over last five years. These trends are surely unsustainable for golf clubs over the longer terms and something will have to be done to address this whether it be reduced fees for under 30s or a direct debt gym membership style system.


----------

