Does your club have life members?

[ManinBlack]

Anyone at our club who has been a member 25 years and is over 65 cam pay 3 years' subscription and that's it for life. This was introduced in the days when we had a waiting list when we simply admitted additional members to match the number of life memberships taken up. We now have a situation where there is no waiting list, falling membership, although not as bad as a lot of other local clubs, and lots of members paying reduced subs up to the age of 30.

It looks as if there will be a proposal at the next AGM to surcharge life members to recover some of the fixed costs such as the EGU levy, although how much this will be is not yet clear.

There was a proposal to remove life membership a few years ago but it is enshrined in the Memorandum & Articles of the club & requires a 75% majority in favour. In the event, there was something like a 75% vote against - self interest rules OK.

Although I'm a life member, I can understand the concern in the current climate and would be willing to pay a limited amount, I'm not sure whether 75% of the members at the AGM will be of a similar mind.

Short of a 75% vote the only way to get rid of life membership would be to go bust. I think we're a long way from that but I'd do my bit to avoid it.

Any other clubs have similar schemes? How have you tackled the problem?

 

[BTatHome]

We have lots and now have some very disgruntled members too !

 

[beau d.]

A good topic Maninblack. I feel it kind of ties in with a topic I have started and provides evidence of how some of the old guard behave which was raised by many on that post.
First and foremost it is younger players that the game is lacking and need to encourage by perhaps offering them some financial inducement in the way of reducing fees. Surely the older players are in a financial position that they don't need help (i.e mortgage paid, children's liability regards university fees etc are all passed), and because of the free time they have are likely to use the facilities and the course more often, It simply makes no financial sense to me considering our current position in Golf.
Don't get me wrong I am all for rewarding loyalty, but not at the expense of a golf club. A great pity many, and not just your club don't share your views that the club comes first not the individual.

 

[NorfolkShaun]

We have lots and now have some very disgruntled members too !

Disgruntled due to the amount of life members??

 

[BTatHome]

Disgruntled due to the amount of life members??

... Due to the number of them, the original cost of the membership (compared to the loss of monies to the club) and the fact they have stopped this privilege.

 

[NorfolkShaun]

... Due to the number of them, the original cost of the membership (compared to the loss of monies to the club) and the fact they have stopped this privilege.

I see it as a really nice touch to reward the members loyalty, however I can also see how this would become an issue especially as the numbers of life time members increase. There has to become a point where the club may financially struggle due to the lack of income.

 

[ManinBlack]

I see it as a really nice touch to reward the members loyalty, however I can also see how this would become an issue especially as the numbers of life time members increase. There has to become a point where the club may financially struggle due to the lack of income.

The trouble is too that a lot of us refuse to die! The number of playing life members is something like 80% simply because people are living longer (& the ones who play golf are healthier!). Now not all of those would remain members if they still had to pay but it's still costing the club, or more realistically, the full fee paying members, money.

 

[the smiling assassin]

we have life membership for those who have been members of the club for 50 years. they still pay their sgu fees and also the clubhouse levy.

 

[Foxholer]

A good topic Maninblack. I feel it kind of ties in with a topic I have started and provides evidence of how some of the old guard behave which was raised by many on that post.
First and foremost it is younger players that the game is lacking and need to encourage by perhaps offering them some financial inducement in the way of reducing fees. Surely the older players are in a financial position that they don't need help (i.e mortgage paid, children's liability regards university fees etc are all passed), and because of the free time they have are likely to use the facilities and the course more often, It simply makes no financial sense to me considering our current position in Golf.
Don't get me wrong I am all for rewarding loyalty, but not at the expense of a golf club. A great pity many, and not just your club don't share your views that the club comes first not the individual.

So are you suggesting that guys who have paid £25-30000 (make that £40k allowing for inflation) during the time when they were also pretty much struggling and then pay another £4-5k, in a single whack, should further 'subsidise' the guys starting out?

They should certainly pay the EGU or wherever subs, but they are tiny by comparison.

The real error was enshrining the numbers in the constitution - though fair enough having the concept. With increased life expectancy, the benefit of Life Membership has increased markedly. There does, however, need to be a 'fair' way to change the numbers - towards 35 years and 5 years at age 70 for example - over some period. And to have some sort of review periodically - but not simply set. Of course, another 5 years could see waiting lists back - though i doubt it!

 

[beggsy]

Yes we have a couple of places each year get offered to any member that wishes to pay the £5000 life membership price seems a lot of money but I wish I could afford it as I'm only 32 and if I stay at the club till I'm 65 it could save me in the region of £20.000

 

[HomerJSimpson]

You get life membership after thirty years CONSECUTIVE membership. Clever that as many members decided to take advantage of an offer when we went to a composite nine holes on the race course before the new course was built to be able to leave for a year until it was ready and come back in with no joining fee. However it has counted as a break in membership according to the club and many, many of the old boys are annoyed this was never explained at the time. I wasn't a member at the time so no idea what was and wasn't in the small print but a lot of the "coffin dodgers" are very unhappy

 

[beau d.]

So are you suggesting that guys who have paid £25-30000 (make that £40k allowing for inflation) during the time when they were also pretty much struggling and then pay another £4-5k, in a single whack, should further 'subsidise' the guys starting out?

They should certainly pay the EGU or wherever subs, but they are tiny by comparison.

The real error was enshrining the numbers in the constitution - though fair enough having the concept. With increased life expectancy, the benefit of Life Membership has increased markedly. There does, however, need to be a 'fair' way to change the numbers - towards 35 years and 5 years at age 70 for example - over some period. And to have some sort of review periodically - but not simply set. Of course, another 5 years could see waiting lists back - though i doubt it!

No not at all, I am merely suggesting that we keep open as many golf clubs as we can, paying 3 to 5 years subs in one go should not entitle anyone to threaten the existence of a Golf club, where does the money come to finance the club when that 3 to 5 years money runs out? Increased subs to non life members?
Though I am no advocate of life membership at all if a Club is in such a healthy financial position that they can offer incentives/rewards that money would be better spent encouraging younger people to join/remain at the Golf Club to ensure the clubs long term future.
Just my opinion and as I am in my early fifties under my suggestion I would not be entitled to financial inducements aimed at the younger generation, indeed my stance would probably cost me life long membership.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Are you related to DelC? You seem to want to change a lot when maybe the status quo isn't such a bad idea. Many clubs have their own ways of doing it and seem to be doing nicely. I don't think it's an issue. I'd rather be getting members in the 35+ category, paying full subs and working harder on retaining them and existing members to keep subs down

 

[beau d.]

Are you related to DelC? You seem to want to change a lot when maybe the status quo isn't such a bad idea. Many clubs have their own ways of doing it and seem to be doing nicely. I don't think it's an issue. I'd rather be getting members in the 35+ category, paying full subs and working harder on retaining them and existing members to keep subs down

It's a forum where people discuss and express their views, that's the whole point. I was simply stating my view/opinion as you do on most threads. So long as we do so with respect I see no problem, if you read the topic I recently started re. the editor as you did post on it, you will see I want to change nothing about golf only ensure its sustainability. No I am not related to DelC sorry.

 

[PNWokingham]

we have 20, I think, that were sold prior to opening in 1995. I believe that they paid circa 12-15k all in. They are gloating known as "jammy b*start members". Current fees are £3300 and only going one way. I reckon that was one of the best financial investments ever!

 

[beau d.]

we have 20, I think, that were sold prior to opening in 1995. I believe that they paid circa 12-15k all in. They are gloating known as "jammy b*start members". Current fees are £3300 and only going one way. I reckon that was one of the best financial investments ever!

Wow one hell of an investment..... Personally even if it could be done I think it would be out of order to revoke an agreement, however given the current dilemma regarding declining memberships we should all learn that a quick buck may cost years down the line, and if many life long agreements are in place at clubs they can only be paid for by raising the subs of existing and potential members when that initial lump sum has gone, which would only make things worse..... Nice avatar .

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Surely the number of life members and how much they contribute annually only matters if you have a limited membership and are at that limit. Otherwise just get out there attracting new members.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

It's a forum where people discuss and express their views, that's the whole point. I was simply stating my view/opinion as you do on most threads. So long as we do so with respect I see no problem, if you read the topic I recently started re. the editor as you did post on it, you will see I want to change nothing about golf only ensure its sustainability. No I am not related to DelC sorry.

I was only teasing although I think regarding sustainability there is a lot of entrenchment from clubs to maintain their own agenda and so unless change is foisted upon them many will never make the first step. Those that do may realise change isn't necessarily a bad thing but its getting them to do so. I don't see how a few life memberships is really going to be at the expense of a golf club and if they are that near the edge in terms of operating costs that they can't absorb a few memberships to reward loyalty, maybe in tougher times, then I don't think they have a future anyway

 

[ManinBlack]

Surely the number of life members and how much they contribute annually only matters if you have a limited membership and are at that limit. Otherwise just get out there attracting new members.

Easier said than done. Our course is playable virtually every day because of its limestone base but another club 3 miles away has a fairly full membership in spite of being closed or on temporary greens for best part of the winter. We have a regular monthly Open in the winter and receive many compliments about the condition of ther course. We have loads of refugees from other courses when ours is open and theirs are closed. What more can you do?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Easier said than done. Our course is playable virtually every day because of its limestone base but another club 3 miles away has a fairly full membership in spite of being closed or on temporary greens for best part of the winter. We have a regular monthly Open in the winter and receive many compliments about the condition of ther course. We have loads of refugees from other courses when ours is open and theirs are closed. What more can you do?

So the issue isn't really your LMs - it's your club's (in)ability to attract new members.

What more can you do? Dunno - but can't see that the answer is having a downer on LMs who, after all, have committed to the club over many years or are willing to commit for a few more into the future.

You can attract players - but not members? Sounds like your club needs to ask some hard questions of itself - as my club and many others are currently having to do as we look to ensuring a healthy future. We need to raise the baseline membership by 50. Not easy to do but we have to and we will - we've just got to find the way that we'll get there. Because there is a way though that way is not likely to be universally popular. But so be it.