Golf clubs low on membership

[Deleted member 15344]

You can have a great product and not be an "exclusive" club. Plenty of "inclusive" great product clubs too.

And by exclusive and inclusive I mean membership wise.

You can no doubt about that

You're right Phil, I really shouldn't be posting about them on this thread, because this is about golf clubs that are low on membership.
However, they are mostly everything the golfing world, in trying to 'grow the game', tell the rest of world golf isn't. Elitist.
It's full because many of the members are either full of themselves or too pompous to consider playing anywhere else, and like minds attract. And good luck to them, and anyone else on this forum who believes that is what a successful golf club should be.

It is a successful club though - it’s successful because of the course at the end of the day. It may not be to your taste but that doesn’t mean it’s not successful

Golfs “image” isn’t going to change to any great detail - one of the biggest golf tournaments is on a course that no one can play - yet it’s the one most want to watch - Augusta is the King of elitism

This club can have an selective set of principles for their members because they know it’s a course people want to play and want to join irrelevant of the stuffy attitude.

 

[robinthehood]

And I’m going to guess they are full and have a waiting list which shows they have no problems getting members - and the reason why will be simple , their product is good and attractive - the course.

It sounds like a truly dreadful club.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It sounds like a truly dreadful club.

It was fine when I played there , very welcoming, treated very well by all and the course was excellent , others on the forum have also been and enjoyed it.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

You can no doubt about that



It is a successful club though - it’s successful because of the course at the end of the day. It may not be to your taste but that doesn’t mean it’s not successful

Golfs “image” isn’t going to change to any great detail - one of the biggest golf tournaments is on a course that no one can play - yet it’s the one most want to watch - Augusta is the King of elitism

This club can have an selective set of principles for their members because they know it’s a course people want to play and want to join irrelevant of the stuffy attitude.

But Augusta over the years has had more than its share of critics for the fact it's elitist, until recently there were no women members etc and indeed it has been said that the Masters shouldn't be considered a major because of the way the club was run.

For me it's very simple. You can have the best course you like but if you're attitude is that terrible and the whole ethos of the club membership so elitist then quite frankly it's not a place I'd want to be a member of anyway irrespective if I could every meet their criteria and process (that's a no so academic)

 

[robinthehood]

There will always be some exceptions like West Sussex and the whole exclusive private members thing still clearly appeals to some, but look around, the game has been in decline for a long long time.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

There will always be some exceptions like West Sussex and the whole exclusive private members thing still clearly appeals to some, but look around, the game has been in decline for a long long time.

Good point but will there come a time when this sort of club can no longer continue with these narrow attitudes (especially with their older members). Some of the very exclusive clubs have been forced to change, Augusta letting in women (granted in small numbers), was it Muirfield that were forced to or lose the Open

 

[Deleted member 15344]

There will always be some exceptions like West Sussex and the whole exclusive private members thing still clearly appeals to some, but look around, the game has been in decline for a long long time.

Decline in what way ? Golf participation has been at a steady level for a while , good golf courses aren’t closing , the ones that do are mainly the poor courses , ones where there is already a high level number of courses or poorly run ones. There will be the odd few that will be sold for good money

But a good course will survive and do well , Golf is not at the “critical” levels some suggestion - these “exclusive” members courses actually seem to be the ones doing well - you don’t hear about them closing.

Golf had a boom in the 80’s - lots of courses got built on the back of that boom , most of those courses were poor and when the recession hit those were the courses that suffered

A recent survey showed that people playing golf was actually on the rise in England

http://www.thegolfbusiness.co.uk/2018/09/club-membership-has-risen-in-england/

 

[robinthehood]

Decline in what way ? Golf participation has been at a steady level for a while , good golf courses aren’t closing , the ones that do are mainly the poor courses , ones where there is already a high level number of courses or poorly run ones. There will be the odd few that will be sold for good money

But a good course will survive and do well , Golf is not at the “critical” levels some suggestion - these “exclusive” members courses actually seem to be the ones doing well - you don’t hear about them closing.

Golf had a boom in the 80’s - lots of courses got built on the back of that boom , most of those courses were poor and when the recession hit those were the courses that suffered

A recent survey showed that people playing golf was actually on the rise in England

http://www.thegolfbusiness.co.uk/2018/09/club-membership-has-risen-in-england/

Your report tells of the well documented decline of golf, for goodness sake at least read it yourself before posting.
I can find you any number of traditional historic members clubs that have gone under, to suggest that its just the ones built in the 80s and 90s that are suffering is just daft.

 

[Jacko_G]

Your report tells of the well documented decline of golf, for goodness sake at least read it yourself before posting.
I can find you any number of traditional historic members clubs that have gone under, to suggest that its just the ones built in the 80s and 90s that are suffering is just daft.

Golf in Scotland is also in decline. It was only yesterday that I read Brunston Castle in deepest darkest Ayrshire has closed it's doors for good now too.

Wasn't a bad track, some decent holes. Probably built in the wrong location.

 

[Parsaregood]

Golf in Scotland is also in decline. It was only yesterday that I read Brunston Castle in deepest darkest Ayrshire has closed it's doors for good now too.

Wasn't a bad track, some decent holes. Probably built in the wrong location.

Played a tie at it last year, literally the worst greens I've ever played on there wasn't any grass on half of them

 

[Grant85]

It is a successful club though - it’s successful because of the course at the end of the day. It may not be to your taste but that doesn’t mean it’s not successful

Golfs “image” isn’t going to change to any great detail - one of the biggest golf tournaments is on a course that no one can play - yet it’s the one most want to watch - Augusta is the King of elitism

This club can have an selective set of principles for their members because they know it’s a course people want to play and want to join irrelevant of the stuffy attitude.

Fair enough some of these clubs are successful, but at some point their ageing membership will not be able to sustain their club on their terms. And while they are entitled to run their own affairs, they are harmful to the image of the game.

Look at Muirfield, they were broadly of the view that they could continue as a Gentlemen's club until the R&A stated they would be off the Open Rota. At that point the finances were going to change considerably for them, as well as no doubt the prestige of hosting the Open and they got over the hurdle at the 2nd time of asking. I'm sure it is still as elitist as ever (which is just as great a crime as being sexist) and while they are entitled to run their club how they want, it doesn't mean they are entitled to host the Open there and for a week in July, have the golfing focus on a stuffy Gentleman's club who are pretty much exclusively open to white upper class males.

I personally would like to see some minimum thresholds for clubs on the Open rota. In terms of a minimum number of tee times each week for visitors (at a sensible rate) and access to membership for all residents who live in the area of the club, obviously subject to a cap.

 

[Jacko_G]

Played a tie at it last year, literally the worst greens I've ever played on there wasn't any grass on half of them

I'd assume that it was in decline then!

When it was a few years old it wasn't a bad track tbh.

Some decent holes.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

No, I was referring to all of the private members golf clubs around where I live which are around £1200 or more. Not even remotely affordable for me. Which is why I have a £100 membership at a club operating from a public course.

Fair enough, but presume you have to pay a green fee each time you play.

How much is this and how often do you play?

Coz if it’s £15 a pop and you play twice a week , that’s £1500 plus £100 over a year.

If it’s £20 a pop and you play once a week that’s still £1100 with the fee.

Just askin

 

[bluewolf]

If you think that clubs like WS are going to decline as the membership dies off then you really don't understand the appeal (and it's far from being just the course).
People like being a member of "exclusive" clubs. The harder to get in, the more they like it. They like being surrounded by people just like them. They feel safe. They don't want any Tom, Dick or Tyler to join. They want Charles, Henry and Bertie.
This isn't going away, in fact, in today's political climate, I'd say that it was increasing.

 

[Parsaregood]

I'd assume that it was in decline then!

When it was a few years old it wasn't a bad track tbh.

Some decent holes.

Yeah not a bad layout but it was a mess, just in the wrong location, too far out the way and too many quality courses around the area

 

[Grant85]

If you think that clubs like WS are going to decline as the membership dies off then you really don't understand the appeal (and it's far from being just the course).
People like being a member of "exclusive" clubs. The harder to get in, the more they like it. They like being surrounded by people just like them. They feel safe. They don't want any Tom, Dick or Tyler to join. They want Charles, Henry and Bertie.
This isn't going away, in fact, in today's political climate, I'd say that it was increasing.

As I said, that may be the case, but it may not go on for ever and if clubs want to do that, then fair enough - but for the image of golf it is better that they keep a low profile. There are a few clubs like that in Glasgow - Pollok and Glasgow Golf Club.

Pollok has now opened it's doors, reduced its joining fee and put up very attractive deals for younger members.

As far as I know, Glasgow is doing ok (apart from a fire last year) but the Glasgow operation may well be heavily subsidised by the Ayrshire course and they aren't even at the stage of advertising the cost of membership.

 

[Homer]

Fair enough some of these clubs are successful, but at some point their ageing membership will not be able to sustain their club on their terms. And while they are entitled to run their own affairs, they are harmful to the image of the game.

Look at Muirfield, they were broadly of the view that they could continue as a Gentlemen's club until the R&A stated they would be off the Open Rota. At that point the finances were going to change considerably for them, as well as no doubt the prestige of hosting the Open and they got over the hurdle at the 2nd time of asking. I'm sure it is still as elitist as ever (which is just as great a crime as being sexist) and while they are entitled to run their club how they want, it doesn't mean they are entitled to host the Open there and for a week in July, have the golfing focus on a stuffy Gentleman's club who are pretty much exclusively open to white upper class males.

I personally would like to see some minimum thresholds for clubs on the Open rota. In terms of a minimum number of tee times each week for visitors (at a sensible rate) and access to membership for all residents who live in the area of the club, obviously subject to a cap.

But they don’t want to just play it at St Andrews!

You can get on all of them for a sensible rate anyway already too.

 

[Jacko_G]

As I said, that may be the case, but it may not go on for ever and if clubs want to do that, then fair enough - but for the image of golf it is better that they keep a low profile. There are a few clubs like that in Glasgow - Pollok and Glasgow Golf Club.

Pollok has now opened it's doors, reduced its joining fee and put up very attractive deals for younger members.

As far as I know, Glasgow is doing ok (apart from a fire last year) but the Glasgow operation may well be heavily subsidised by the Ayrshire course and they aren't even at the stage of advertising the cost of membership.

I'd hardly say that Pollok and Killermont are in the same "exclusive" leagues as the London based clubs that are getting mentioned.

The closest we can come up with is Loch Lomond. £160k debenture and then £6k a year for 6 months golf.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Fair enough, but presume you have to pay a green fee each time you play.

How much is this and how often do you play?

Coz if it’s £15 a pop and you play twice a week , that’s £1500 plus £100 over a year.

If it’s £20 a pop and you play once a week that’s still £1100 with the fee.

Just askin

Full weekend green fee for a local resident is £20 according to the council website Phil, so £1100 per year for one round week or £1200 for as much as you can play elsewhere... no brainer for me.

 

[SatchFan]

I pay £90 per year for membership at my local pay and play with a seven day season ticket costing £590. Playing 3 or 4 times a week that's an absolute bargain for me.