Extending staggered fees for young adults

[Val]

Perfectly happy to man up, but I'll be doing it somewhere else other than at my golf club

That's the choice for you to make, I also disagree it should extend beyond 30, at 30 you are all the man you are going to be and well into working life, if you want a family then budget accordingly, if golf has to give then so be it

 

[mikepops]

We recently extended our staggered fees upper age limit from 22 to 25. I think that is enough.
I suspect the wealthiest group at our club are the over 65 set who also get a discount!

Another excellent point!

 

[FairwayDodger]

We recently extended our staggered fees upper age limit from 22 to 25. I think that is enough.
I suspect the wealthiest group at our club are the over 65 set who also get a discount!

And who probably have more access to the course than everyone else! Bring on retirement!

 

[Val]

Exactly my thinking, and the point about retaining members who could get their kids involved is a very good one. It might feel a way off, but I'm just wondering whether by offering a £150 discount now, you could lock in a member for 5 years, by which time you could have a fledging junior member on your hands.

And if they do that for 100 members they potentially have to look at ways to find that loss in revenue, golf clubs tend to work to tight budgets

 

[patricks148]

And who probably have more access to the course than everyone else! Bring on retirement!

you don't get the SS rate unless you have been a member for 25 year plus at our place and in that time you would have paid the full whack and for most and prob longer.

Personally i think golf clubs have it wrong. trying to attract "younger" members. Pretty much a all the guys i play with started in their 40 with the odd exception.

Im all for trying to keep players who have been juniors, but a this under 30 reduced rate is a bit of a joke at our place. all have good jobs and quite a few have just used it to get cheap golf and will be gone as soon as they are 30 and over, so where do you draw the line?

 

[Jimaroid]

Perfectly happy to man up, but I'll be doing it somewhere else other than at my golf club

Yep, consumer power wins out but good deals have to end at some point and I think you've had a pretty good run of it.

I do sympathise with your predicament though, I regret not playing golf in my twenties because of the costs. When I was growing up in Shropshire, going from a casual junior and turning 18 meant I was no longer welcome at any nearby clubs without stumping up ridiculous amount in membership fees. There was no flexibility at all back then and I turned my back on golf for 15+ years.

 

[GreiginFife]

At 29 my wife and I were expecting our first (and only) child. Part of the discussion around financial feasibility and one thing thay went was my membership. I had never not been a member of a club since I was 16 (save for 18 months when I had a serious knee injury but kept my social membership) so it was a tough choice but one I had to make as my club had no intermediate pricing anyway.
I was out of a club for 2 years while our family coats stabilised and then joined where I am now.

Golf is a hobby, and a luxury one at that compared to football or other sports. If you chose to have a family that financially restricts you then its just one of the numerous tough choices you will have to make as a new parent.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

And if they do that for 100 members they potentially have to look at ways to find that loss in revenue, golf clubs tend to work to tight budgets

No they don't, because the alternative is that those members cease to be member and the club gets nothing. It would actually provide the club with incremental revenue, rather than create a loss.

 

[Hobbit]

This is going to sound awfully fuddy duddy. Back in the day there were joining fees, subs at many clubs had to be paid in one hit, and there were no reduced fees for young adults. If you wanted to play golf you had to make a decision on where you spent your cash... we didn't have a holiday abroad till the mid 90's, by which time I was well into my 30's. I don't agree with reduced fees for anyone over 25, and in truth I struggle to agree with it for the over 18's. If you want to play golf, pay for it.

Does your wife/hubby have a car too? Do you have a nice house and holidays abroad? Do you have the latest ipad/iphone?

But if you are getting it cheaper, who is paying for it to be cheaper? Its the over 25's/30's who are paying more, and in effect paying for your lifestyle outside of golf because today's generation wants everything now.

Rant over.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

At 29 my wife and I were expecting our first (and only) child. Part of the discussion around financial feasibility and one thing thay went was my membership. I had never not been a member of a club since I was 16 (save for 18 months when I had a serious knee injury but kept my social membership) so it was a tough choice but one I had to make as my club had no intermediate pricing anyway.
I was out of a club for 2 years while our family coats stabilised and then joined where I am now.

Golf is a hobby, and a luxury one at that compared to football or other sports. If you chose to have a family that financially restricts you then its just one of the numerous tough choices you will have to make as a new parent.

Although I agree that retaining or giving up a membership is one of the big decisions golfers that are new parents will be faced with, I don't accept that it has to be the case.

If clubs offered more flexible membership options, a lot of people that are forced to turn away from membership due to its binary nature of £1k of fees or no membership, could be retained.

Not sure extending staggered fees is the way to go as it's not really about age, but different types of membership that allow golfers of varying lifestyles to continue to be members should be encouraged. A points based system perhaps? Or a system that requires a retainer fee and a green fee to be paid?

Golf needs to try and move away from the perception of it being expensive, inflexible and a luxury.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

This is going to sound awfully fuddy duddy. Back in the day there were joining fees, subs at many clubs had to be paid in one hit, and there were no reduced fees for young adults. If you wanted to play golf you had to make a decision on where you spent your cash... we didn't have a holiday abroad till the mid 90's, by which time I was well into my 30's. I don't agree with reduced fees for anyone over 25, and in truth I struggle to agree with it for the over 18's. If you want to play golf, pay for it.

Does your wife/hubby have a car too? Do you have a nice house and holidays abroad? Do you have the latest ipad/iphone?

But if you are getting it cheaper, who is paying for it to be cheaper? Its the over 25's/30's who are paying more, and in effect paying for your lifestyle outside of golf because today's generation wants everything now.

Rant over.

I disagree with this last bit. Your assumption is that the people that have reduced fees would still be members if they didn't and this underpins your view that those that pay full membership fees are subsidising the rest. It could equally be viewed the otherway round. I expect that if there were not incentives for these age groups then golf clubs revenue would fall rather than rise and those members that remain would have more to pay. Fundamentally, that's why these incentives are offered, isn't it? Because it's in the long-term interests of the club, its members and the sport of golf.

 

[Hobbit]

I disagree with this last bit. Your assumption is that the people that have reduced fees would still be members if they didn't and this underpins your view that those that pay full membership fees are subsidising the rest. It could equally be viewed the otherway round. I expect that if there were not incentives for these age groups then golf clubs revenue would fall rather than rise and those members that remain would have more to pay. Fundamentally, that's why these incentives are offered, isn't it? Because it's in the long-term interests of the club, its members and the sport of golf.

As an ex-chairman of finance at a club I'm well aware of the reasoning of why its done, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Why are you doing me a favour by paying less? Shouldn't it be you pay the same as me, and not have your holiday abroad/second car?

I prefer what you suggested in your previous post, i.e. that of a lower fee and a pay as you play. That way everyone pays for what they use.

 

[Hacker Khan]

This is going to sound awfully fuddy duddy. Back in the day there were joining fees, subs at many clubs had to be paid in one hit, and there were no reduced fees for young adults. If you wanted to play golf you had to make a decision on where you spent your cash... we didn't have a holiday abroad till the mid 90's, by which time I was well into my 30's. I don't agree with reduced fees for anyone over 25, and in truth I struggle to agree with it for the over 18's. If you want to play golf, pay for it.

Does your wife/hubby have a car too? Do you have a nice house and holidays abroad? Do you have the latest ipad/iphone?

But if you are getting it cheaper, who is paying for it to be cheaper? Its the over 25's/30's who are paying more, and in effect paying for your lifestyle outside of golf because today's generation wants everything now.

Rant over.

Trouble is that we are not back in the day. Society has changed in many ways and in general most golf clubs have to adapt to these changes by whatever methods they see fit to ensure a healthy membership and future for the club. We can rant all day about youngsters wanting everything now which may be true, but that's the way it is so people kind of have to get used to it and adapt, as it won't change.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

As an ex-chairman of finance at a club I'm well aware of the reasoning of why its done, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Why are you doing me a favour by paying less? Shouldn't it be you pay the same as me, and not have your holiday abroad/second car?

I prefer what you suggested in your previous post, i.e. that of a lower fee and a pay as you play. That way everyone pays for what they use.

Because if I didn't, I wouldn't pay at all and you'd be paying more.

As it happens, and as I said in my previous post to which you refer, I don't think age based rate reductions are fit for purpose in this day and age. Although there is merit in them for those that are in full time education or at an age where they are switching from education to full time work, potentially with debts to pay (I appreciate others may be so sympathetic to students), the real issue is people giving up golf between the age of 30 and 40 because they now have a family and can't afford either the time commitment, or more likely the financial outlay - an age concession doesn't help with that, it's more about flexibility.

Ultimately, the more members each club has the better. I'm all in favour of thinking of ways to help the people that need help the most, i.e. those most likely to give up their membership and reduce the revenue of the club, leaving you and I, and all others that continue to be members to pick up a bigger share of the bill.

 

[FairwayDodger]

I agree that clubs need to look at more innovative ways of pricing membership but, other than a token gesture for a few years for juniors joining the full membership, it cannot be a case of charging different amounts based on age. That's a very crude indicator of ability to pay anyway, for example I earned more at 30 than I do now in my forties!

I'd say make some sort of flexible membership options available to anyone, not just "young adults".

 

[Deleted member 16999]

So the people with the money are. 35-65, offer them the discount, settled job/family/interests.
Catch them during the mid life crisis!😃😃

 

[Val]

No they don't, because the alternative is that those members cease to be member and the club gets nothing. It would actually provide the club with incremental revenue, rather than create a loss.

Unlikely 100 are looking for the deal currently, I appreciate if it's in place and it gets pulled then they'd look to leave.

 

[Hobbit]

Trouble is that we are not back in the day. Society has changed in many ways and in general most golf clubs have to adapt to these changes by whatever methods they see fit to ensure a healthy membership and future for the club. We can rant all day about youngsters wanting everything now which may be true, but that's the way it is so people kind of have to get used to it and adapt, as it won't change.

Yep, I understand that and supported those changes when I worked on club finances but that doesn't mean I don't think the have now attitude and someone else can pay for it is right. Long gone are the days of all the membership being able to play on a winter's Saturday. Memberships of 600-700 players make getting everyone out impossible... but that is how clubs and club finances have evolved.

Its a microcosm of society. Certain sections of society think the Govt will pay for x,y,z, Where does the Govt get its money from? It gets it from you and me. Some members think the club should sort cheaper fees for them, but in reality it isn't the club that pays. Its the other members.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

Unlikely 100 are looking for the deal currently, I appreciate if it's in place and it gets pulled then they'd look to leave.

My point was really that it's not as straightforward as some people pay less and therefore cost the club money, because the assumption that they would all continue to be members is not reliable.

If 100 were after the £150 reduction, which I think was the original example, that would be a reduction of £15,000 of revenue. If the deal were not given, (assuming fees of £1,000), it would only take 16 of the 100 leaving to make the club worse off. Who knows whether they would or not? That's pie in the sky. But I very much doubt the real cost of the reduction in fees would be £15,000.

 

[Val]

My point was really that it's not as straightforward as some people pay less and therefore cost the club money, because the assumption that they would all continue to be members is not reliable.

If 100 were after the £150 reduction, which I think was the original example, that would be a reduction of £15,000 of revenue. If the deal were not given, (assuming fees of £1,000), it would only take 16 of the 100 leaving to make the club worse off. Who knows whether they would or not? That's pie in the sky. But I very much doubt the real cost of the reduction in fees would be £15,000.

I fully get your point, what I'm saying is if a club pass a discount for lets say 10 members asking for it but have 100 members not asking for it then they'd be giving discount they don't have to, that's where I'm saying a potential shortfall, that's different from 100 members looking to leave because there is no discount for their catagory