Additional levy on members?

[Deleted member 23270]

Absolutely nothing wrong. In fact it is probably very, very healthy as likely to prevent the stagnation present in most Private Clubs.... however it probably won't!!

That's an interesting view. You'd rather have a proprietary club run for profit with little or no say in what happens over a private club where the membership makes the decisions?

 

[GB72]

That's an interesting view. You'd rather have a proprietary club run for profit with little or no say in what happens over a private club where the membership makes the decisions?

Not sure that is what is being said, simply that a bit of membership churn can be good for a club, stops the membership stagnating and getting overly set in its ways, helps stop cliques forming etc. I can be good for a club and the atmosphere to have a bit of turnover. It also means that if there are deals elsewhere, clubs have to work harder to ensure that members want to stay and stops them resting on their laurels.

I would far rather clubs had to work to retain members rather than tie them in with financial chains.

Also, bear in mind that some people, me included, do not want to base their entire life around the golf club and actually go there just to play golf.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Not sure that is what is being said, simply that a bit of membership churn can be good for a club, stops the membership stagnating and getting overly set in its ways, helps stop cliques forming etc. I can be good for a club and the atmosphere to have a bit of turnover. It also means that if there are deals elsewhere, clubs have to work harder to ensure that members want to stay and stops them resting on their laurels.

I would far rather clubs had to work to retain members rather than tie them in with financial chains.

Also, bear in mind that some people, me included, do not want to base their entire life around the golf club and actually go there just to play golf.

I guess that would suit you better then as a club with high turnover stops being a club and just becomes somewhere to play golf.

 

[GB72]

I guess that would suit you better then as a club with high turnover stops being a club and just becomes somewhere to play golf.

Not necessarily. Churn does not mean high turnover. Freedom of movement and deals makes clubs work to retain members. New members replacing existing can bring evolution and new ways of thinking.

 

[Deleted member 25575]

Is there really anything wrong with somewhere that’s just to play golf, or that has a high turn over?
Or in fact is there really anything wrong with somewhere that is a complete club with next to no turn over?
We all play golf for different reasons, what works for some doesn’t work for others. It doesn’t make one option better or worse than the other

 

[IanM]

If both entries are sustainable, no, there is nothing wrong...

 

[doublebogey7]

Is there really anything wrong with somewhere that’s just to play golf, or that has a high turn over?
Or in fact is there really anything wrong with somewhere that is a complete club with next to no turn over?
We all play golf for different reasons, what works for some doesn’t work for others. It doesn’t make one option better or worse than the other

Not at all what works for you is fine whatever that is.

 

[NearHull]

I think a key word that has been used is ‘ sustainability’. Private members clubs do not set a budget to pay dividends. Our club, which is a private members club PLC , aims to make a profit of just £3k on a turnover of circa £900k. We do build in contingency, but the budget is based on best estimates. As the year progresses, we are focussing on breaking even and sustaining the club as a business. The tools available to deliver the budget are costs reductions, increased revenue, or increased subscription contributions. It is unfortunate ( or perhaps poor planning) if the Board has to make a mid - term call on members.

 

[timd77]

Update on this. Levy voted in.

Meeting was last night, quite a fiery meeting. Essentially the shortfall is due to energy costs. The previous board signed up to a fixed contract at what now appears to be twice the going rate, club are taking legal action against the broker.

The 300k+ is held in accounts of a separate company, which was set up with a different board, solely designed to protect the money from being spent on running costs, it’s purely there to develop the course over the next however many years.

Forecasted running costs mean that the annual subs are likely to increase by £250 next year.

Yes they can withdraw playing rights from non payers.

Will see what transpires over the coming weeks and months.

 

[Swango1980]

Update on this. Levy voted in.

Meeting was last night, quite a fiery meeting. Essentially the shortfall is due to energy costs. The previous board signed up to a fixed contract at what now appears to be twice the going rate, club are taking legal action against the broker.

The 300k+ is held in accounts of a separate company, which was set up with a different board, solely designed to protect the money from being spent on running costs, it’s purely there to develop the course over the next however many years.

Forecasted running costs mean that the annual subs are likely to increase by £250 next year.

Yes they can withdraw playing rights from non payers.

Will see what transpires over the coming weeks and months.

When is membership renewal? It seems odd that somebody who paid for a full 12 months membership last year could then be banned for playing before that 12 months is up.

 

[RichA]

When is membership renewal? It seems odd that somebody who paid for a full 12 months membership last year could then be banned for playing before that 12 months is up.

Is this a peculiarity of member owned clubs, where your joining fee buys an equity stake in the club?
Kind of like apartments where the owners actually own the freehold of the building. If the roof needs repairing and the maintenance account is empty then they have to cough up the unexpected costs between then.
I guess nobody reads the contract too closely when they've spent 3 years on the waiting list desperate to join.

 

[fenwayrich]

If the club is successful in its action against the broker, will the damages received be returned to the members who have had to pay the levy under threat of having playing rights withdrawn?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Is this a peculiarity of member owned clubs, where your joining fee buys an equity stake in the club?
Kind of like apartments where the owners actually own the freehold of the building. If the roof needs repairing and the maintenance account is empty then they have to cough up the unexpected costs between then.
I guess nobody reads the contract too closely when they've spent 3 years on the waiting list desperate to join.

Why my members (limited company) club has two AGMs…one the Members AGM, the other the Company Shareholders AGM. Each with its quite different focus and agenda…though obviously there are overlaps and interdependencies as the only shareholders are the members (we relinquish our shareholding when we leave the club). As I assume is the case for all members-owned clubs.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Unless it is a phenomenally good course and club I'd expect a pretty big exodus come renewal time. Those are big hikes.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Unless it is a phenomenally good course and club I'd expect a pretty big exodus come renewal time. Those are big hikes.

But if the increase in subs is what is required to cover actual and projected costs that the club will and is expected to incur, what else can it do. It has to remain solvent…

As the increased costs are likely to be ongoing year-on-year, then these costs simply have to be met through ongoing y-on-y income - and that’s either through subs or significantly increased ‘visitor take’.

If, at some future point in time, some significant costs fall then the club and members will have the option of building funds through maintaining the level of the subs, at least not increasing them - or it could choose to reduce them…

 

[Lord Tyrion]

But if the increase in subs is what is required to cover actual and projected costs that the club will and is expected to incur, what else can it do. It has to remain solvent…

As the increased costs are likely to be ongoing year-on-year, then these costs simply have to be met through ongoing y-on-y income - and that’s either through subs or significantly increased ‘visitor take’.

If, at some future point in time, some significant costs fall then the club and members will have the option of building funds through maintaining the level of the subs, at least not increasing them - or it could choose to reduce them…

That's a pretty major mismanagement though and for members to pay an extra £250 p/a, wow. It all depends what subs are like in the area, how they compare. If other clubs are more expensive still, or not as good, then they may largely get away with it. Otherwise, it will leave a bad taste and people will leave in droves. That's the reality.

 

[Swango1980]

Is this a peculiarity of member owned clubs, where your joining fee buys an equity stake in the club?
Kind of like apartments where the owners actually own the freehold of the building. If the roof needs repairing and the maintenance account is empty then they have to cough up the unexpected costs between then.
I guess nobody reads the contract too closely when they've spent 3 years on the waiting list desperate to join.

Maybe, not sure how it all works out legally to be honest.

But, from a reputation point of view, I think it would be terrible from the club. Banning a few members from the club would not just alienate them (and lose their future membership), but upset their friends and other members that think it is an injustice.

If they need money, could they not just ask members for a "voluntary" fee, and then work out what the increased sub needs to be next year. For anyone that paid the voluntary fee now, they get that "discount" from next years sub. So you're basically figuring out what next years sub needs to be to cover the current and future overheads, and getting some members to cough up a bit of it earlier.

 

[Crazyface]

How did they get round that CF

Offered cheap rates £50 a month for twenty months. Luckily 30 blokes had a row with their club just down the road and have all jumped on our offer. The AGM will be interesting

 

[sunshine]

That's a pretty major mismanagement though and for members to pay an extra £250 p/a, wow. It all depends what subs are like in the area, how they compare. If other clubs are more expensive still, or not as good, then they may largely get away with it. Otherwise, it will leave a bad taste and people will leave in droves. That's the reality.

As you say, depends on their peer group of clubs. Maybe subs were too low and this brings them in line.

 

[Crazyface]

We are expecting a big rise in membership cost next year. Also, a list came out show the handicaps of all the men, for the 9 hole winter league thing we have. We only have 240 male members. And about 30 women. That's low isn't it???? Oh and some of those will be on reduced fees because of age. I don't think it looks good at all