Golf Random Irritations

[Orikoru]

I was going to be flippant and suggest that the fuddy-duddies have been alarmed at the number of new members in the 30-39 age range, and want to put a stop to any danger of further dilution of their much-loved traditions.

But in all seriousness, have you asked the general manager or a board member for the rationale?

I have sent an email back trying to politely for the thinking besides our bracket getting a much bigger increase, yes. Not sure if I'll get a reply, I don't always.

 

[Orikoru]

Touch of short sightedness going on and also I suspect a lack of understanding of the demographic of golf

Many clubs around the last 10 years offered reduced memberships for the under 40’s for a reason - there was a distinct lack of them at the golf club and clubs needed to bring in younger people so many clubs offered reduced and incremental yearly subs

There is a false perception that under 30 or 40 have this big pot of money to spend - not true , many are starting careers , buying first house , starting family , paying Uni fees etc and whilst they have reduced fees I bet a lot of them don’t play as much as the over 40 plus players

Clubs will look to balance things but imo clubs will and should continue to look to bring in members for the future and that includes reduced fees

100% agree with you! It's the old timers that have all the money these days.

I don't think over 30s should get any discount. Taking the urine really and means the over 40s are subsidising them when many in 30-40 age group will be at peak earnings

What does this even mean? Once people reach their 40s they never get a payrise ever again??

 

[PNWokingham]

100% agree with you! It's the old timers that have all the money these days.


What does this even mean? Once people reach their 40s they never get a payrise ever again??

No. It means people between 30 and 40 can be earning serious money and maybe as much as they will earn post this age. Why should they get a discount that the rest of the over 40s in the club have to subsidise?

 

[Orikoru]

No. It means people between 30 and 40 can be earning serious money and maybe as much as they will earn post this age. Why should they get a discount that the rest of the over 40s in the club have to subsidise?

I still don't really understand your logic, and the answer is everything Liverpoolphil said above.

 

[Imurg]

Using age as a criteria for golf club subs is a weak method in my view.
You'll get 40 year old earning average money but some will be on less, some substantially more.
Same at any age group.
If you're going to, fairly, use age as the criteria then you have to Means Test everyone..
Why should a 30 year old on 80k a year pay less than a 45 year old on 50k..?

 

[Orikoru]

Using age as a criteria for golf club subs is a weak method in my view.
You'll get 40 year old earning average money but some will be on less, some substantially more.
Same at any age group.
If you're going to, fairly, use age as the criteria then you have to Means Test everyone..
Why should a 30 year old on 80k a year pay less than a 45 year old on 50k..?

I think the point is it's solely to attract a demographic that is more lacking at most clubs. Attract younger members to build for the future. Nothing to do with what they presume people are earning.

 

[PNWokingham]

I still don't really understand your logic, and the answer is everything Liverpoolphil said above.

My logic is that anyone who gets a discount means that others are paying for it. The bit on earnings is just that people are generally good earners in their 30s and should not not to be subsidised. I think it is fair for people starting their career, up to late 20s for the good of the club and the game but a line needs drawing. The debate is where to draw that line

 

[Mandofred]

Almost 2/3 of golf membership is over 50. Go where the money is.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

My logic is that anyone who gets a discount means that others are paying for it. The bit on earnings is just that people are generally good earners in their 30s and should not not to be subsidised. I think it is fair for people starting their career, up to late 20s for the good of the club and the game but a line needs drawing. The debate is where to draw that line

Its not a “discount” - it’s a membership fee for that age group and having sat through many meetings about it no one else is “subsidising” anyone else - it’s all budgeted

It’s different level of membership groups and clubs tailor to address an imbalance

Most clubs also limit the amount of under 40s etc they can have.

The sport and golf clubs in generally need to lower their average age and age level membership categories are a preferred method that works

 

[chrisd]

100% agree with you! It's the old timers that have all the money these

Our club, like most do discounts related to age, I had a discussion with the Chairman who said the same to justify it. I did query how he knew older member available funds, and did he think that the young lad who turns up in his Porche needed a discount more than the vets who are on a pension.

 

[Imurg]

Its not a “discount” - it’s a membership fee for that age group and having sat through many meetings about it no one else is “subsidising” anyone else - it’s all budgeted

It’s different level of membership groups and clubs tailor to address an imbalance

Most clubs also limit the amount of under 40s etc they can have.

The sport and golf clubs in generally need to lower their average age and age level membership categories are a preferred method that works

So lower fees for younger members is there encourage more to join thus addressing an imbalance but...their numbers are limited...
Is that just counterproductive?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So lower fees for younger members is there encourage more to join thus addressing an imbalance but...their numbers are limited...
Is that just counterproductive?

Why is it ?

 

[Imurg]

Why is it ?

Because you're encouraging more younger, say 20-30 year old to join but in the same breath you're limiting the numbers...

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Because you're encouraging more younger, say 20-30 year old to join but in the same breath you're limiting the numbers...

Only counter productive if no one takes it up - if you have filled your quota which we have for example we have reduced the average age and have managed to move them through to the over 40 age bracket. That means the process has worked

 

[Imurg]

Only counter productive if no one takes it up - if you have filled your quota which we have for example we have reduced the average age and have managed to move them through to the over 40 age bracket. That means the process has worked

Fair do's.

 

[Imurg]

When Tour Professional golfers aim for a bunker deliberately because it makes their next shot easier....

 

[PNWokingham]

Only counter productive if no one takes it up - if you have filled your quota which we have for example we have reduced the average age and have managed to move them through to the over 40 age bracket. That means the process has worked

I agree with most of the ideas. The issue is where is the cutoff from non-full-paying memberships. I think 40 is too high and around 28 to 30 about fair.

 

[chrisd]

I don't understand the logic that it's not a discount. If men pay £1500 for a 7 day membership and a 30 year old gets a reduction its clearly a discount to attract them, and hope that they stay when they pay the full amount.

I get that clubs are legally allowed to reduce prices to attract under represented groups but it's quite wrong to assume older people are better off the your average 35 year old. I personally get £100 reduction from my club because I'm on a state pension and have been a member more than 20 years and its listed clearly as a discount

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I don't understand the logic that it's not a discount. If men pay £1500 for a 7 day membership and a 30 year old gets a reduction its clearly a discount to attract them, and hope that they stay when they pay the full amount.

I get that clubs are legally allowed to reduce prices to attract under represented groups but it's quite wrong to assume older people are better off the your average 35 year old. I personally get £100 reduction from my club because I'm on a state pension and have been a member more than 20 years and its listed clearly as a discount

I agree. It isn't the full price members +35 pay so has to be seen as a discount. I get the logic that you want to get them in and keep them in rather than players coming in on a cheap rate and then look elsewhere for the next good deal. I am sure that still happens although joining fees may help curb that. I don't see how a club can arbitrarily decide one band has less or more earning power than another.

 

[phillarrow]

Maybe it's got nothing to do with any assumption of wealth? Maybe it's more about a price based on estimated usage of the course?
I'll bet the average 30 year old member gets to play far less golf than the average 70 year old member, simply due to having less available time.
More use =higher justified cost. Maybe?