Agree with this 100%. As long as there is the option of a 5 day membership for those seniors who want to save a bit of cash.
1 Oct 2012 - Government change rules again on age discrimination for golf clubs!
- Thread starter ian.cook
- Start date
Agree with this 100%. As long as there is the option of a 5 day membership for those seniors who want to save a bit of cash.
USER1999
Grand Slam Winner
He started a software company aged 14, and sold it aged 17 for quite a few millions.
stevie_r
Tour Winner
And neither should the 18 - 30 age group IMO
jimbob.someroo
Journeyman Pro
Obviously biased as someone in this age group, but without a reduction in subscriptions I would definitely not be playing golf. I've just moved to London and golf is pretty much all I do outside of working and drinks with friends. If you put people in this age bracket off, the club would lose £1000's in fees which no club can afford to do at the moment. You'll get to a stage where people return to golf in their late 30's having not played for 20 years and the quality of all clubs would suffer.
Whilst I can understand the frustrations of people in the middle bracket (30-60), asking a junior to pay £500 one year and £1800 the next is ridiculous.
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
I agree..
I'd love to join one of our top local clubs. But because I'm an Oldie and expected to have made my fortune by now I'd have to pay over 1200 quid.
If I were a Whippersnapper, potentially earning more than I do now, I'd have to pay less than 700....
If that's not Age Discrimination then I don't know what is...
And that's why I play at a lesser club - coz I can't afford/justify 1200 quid on membership....
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
by this argument surely everyone of any age should be on a lower subscription!!!
equally regarding the statement "asking a junior to pay £500 one year and £1800 the next is ridiculous." as we don't have any fees (county union fees only) for Juniors presumably we should let them play for nothing for ever, which adding the above argument, means everyone should play for free!
At this point the flaws in the arguments become a little obvious...
jimbob.someroo
Journeyman Pro
Obviously not.
The idea of an incremental membership helps retain the young adults who would otherwise leave the club. Our club rises from £500 ish to £1800 over 8 years I believe, which ensures people like myself in their first full time job away from home can still play. The idea of a 'club' is just that, something which has lifelong members from juniors through full members and then to seniors. Like somebody said earlier in the thread, people can be rich at any age, but the vast majority of recent graduates (rightly) earn less than someone who has been working for 10 years. Forcing those people to give up the club which they have been a member of for up to ten years by tripling fees in one year is daft.
Incidentally, I do think the vast majority of juniors are undercharged, they certainly play a lot more than the majority of adult members. However, there is something fundamentally wrong with your fees policy if the juniors only have to pay county union fees, obviously depending on their entitlement to play.
HawkeyeMS
Ryder Cup Winner
But the whole reason I didn't join RAGC until last year, when I was 35, was because I couldn't afford it, so i played a a local muni. Why should you, as a 20 something who can't afford to join a club, get special rates because of your age, when I, as a 30 something couldn't afford it either? Makes no sense and is age discrimination no matter which way you look at it,
jimbob.someroo
Journeyman Pro
The nearest local muni to me is trent park which is £24 a round at the weekend. I've probably played around 30 rounds or so since I picked up the game again in April. If I had played there, I would have already spent £720. I'll probably play another 20 times before my membership is renewed in March (£480) which would have cost me £1200 for the year. I might as well have joined a club anyway ...
The fact is that the majority of people in the 30-50 age bracket earn more than the majority of people in the 20-30 bracket. In my (perhaps incorrect) opinion, the reason these fees were introduced was to encourage members to stay on after junior level, that would otherwise not be able to. If they can't afford the full fees at the end of the incremental membership (at our club 26), then tough, but at least they've been given a chance. And the club has gained eight years of membership fees, totaling somewhere in the region of £7,600. This is better than that person leaving altogether at 18 and returning in their 30's having not paid fees since then.
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
Juniors have full playing rights on the course and can play in all competitions once they have the appropriate CONGU handicap - in line with EGU policy. I should probably clarify that the free memberships are associated with a parent having full membership. It's designed to bring juniors into the sport.
jimbob.someroo
Journeyman Pro
Wow! Can understand it in principle when they're young but surely when they're 16-18 and competing in comps (and presumably winning vouchers?) they should put some towards it? Do the majority stay on post 18?
I think my first junior membership (at 10) was about £100 which rose to about £400 by the time I turned 18 (this was back up t'north).
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
they pay their competition entry fees in the same way as any other member entering - vouchers are only a re-distribution of entry fees.
It isn't age discrimination actually.
Discounted membership rates to people between 18 - 30 on the basis that they are
under represented in most clubs?
Answer : Such discounts remain lawful.
There has been a recognition of the difficulties in retaining junior members when they reach
the age of 18, or in attracting members early in their adulthood, offering a discount of
membership fees in this age group may be seen as a proportionate way of redressing an age
imbalance in a club's membership taking account as it does their ability to pay a full
subscription. Therefore, such discounts remain lawful as the provisions on age
discrimination allow for differences in treatment where these can be justified as proportionate
to achieve a legitimate aim.
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
Then it's legal age discrimination then.
I'm paying more for the same because I'm older.
It may be legal but it's still discrimination
I'm paying more for the same because I'm older.
It may be legal but it's still discrimination
And what you say counts for nowt legally.
Seems people have selfish attitudes and attitudes of feck the club...if it dies when I am gone so be it but hey I've looked after myself.
Sad really.
I pay a full sub and have done since I was 22 but my pal who is 23 won't pay full sub til he's 31 now but it is benefiting my club and ensuing that it will still be here when I am 72 which is great IMO.
DCB
Well-known member
Without this approach many clubs would have been in serious financial trouble in recent times. The 20-30 age group was, and still is to an extent, the most under represented group on the golf course. Without enticing them into the club, there really is no future.
I'm in the same boat as Dodger, I paid full whack in my 20's and don't see what the problem is giving them a reduced fee, if they didn't have a reduced fee for that age range now, I'm sure that I'd be thinking of looking for a new club before long.
Search out some of the national statistics on golf club membership and see what is shows. The club game is dying with not enough new blood, and yes I still lay the blame at the 2for1 voucher schemes. Same thing is affecting Bowling clubs up here. members getting older, clubs getting weaker and folding.
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
Sad indeed if I have to give up due to financial difficulties.
The club would then need 2 more 23 year olds to plug the gap left by me quitting.....
I know the reasoning behind it Dodge and that not enough youngsters are getting into golf but why are there so many clubs having to give these discounts to attract them in?
If the Club/Course is good enough then they'll come - maybe there are just too many courses?
It just annoys me that I pay more for the same thing - just because I'm 49. No other reason.
I'm 49 and pay, say, £1200
A 23 year old pays £700 for exactly the same thing.
Do I have to pay more to watch a footy match than a 23 year old?
Do I have to pay more for a can of beans than a 23 year old?
And it's not selfish it's realism. If I can't afford 1200 quid then I can't afford it - period. I'm not going to get subsidised by the rest of the members. I have to go and find somewhere cheaper or stop playing.
That's life...
No thought for the club in that statement at all though is there Imurg?
Sadly there are too many golf courses at the moment but as I said earlier there seems a very much look after myself and bollox to the long term future of the club....sad,very sad.
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
So say, for example, I'd joined Ellesborough - decent course here - 10 years ago.
I'd have paid a joining fee of £x00 quid along with my £1k fees.
After 5 years my fees level out a £1100 - loyalty rate.
Now in 2012 I have a severe change in financial circumstances and can't afford the 1100 quid.
I have to leave, I have to join another club or give up.
But if I was new to the game and aged 23 I can join and pay less than 700 quid.
Where is that extra 400 notes coming from?
The club won't subsidise me 400 quid to stay a member so why subsidise a 23 year old who, lets face it, is far more likely to stay a year or 2 and then move on due to work or family...?
It is sad, I agree. But i what other Sport is the amount you're required to pay determined by your age?
I'd have paid a joining fee of £x00 quid along with my £1k fees.
After 5 years my fees level out a £1100 - loyalty rate.
Now in 2012 I have a severe change in financial circumstances and can't afford the 1100 quid.
I have to leave, I have to join another club or give up.
But if I was new to the game and aged 23 I can join and pay less than 700 quid.
Where is that extra 400 notes coming from?
The club won't subsidise me 400 quid to stay a member so why subsidise a 23 year old who, lets face it, is far more likely to stay a year or 2 and then move on due to work or family...?
It is sad, I agree. But i what other Sport is the amount you're required to pay determined by your age?
You are missing the point made throughout this thread regards age groups and the offers available.
