Golf subs for 2014

[sweeneytoddd]

My club had its AGM last night and rather than increase the subs ( currently £545 including SGU fees, county fees and course insurance ) they decided to implement a £30 levy to cover clubhouse repairs and some on course projects. This was voted in by the members present at the meeting instead of a £30 increase in the fees. By having a levy it means that ALL members have to pay towards these projects as seniors pay a percentage of the men's subs and therefore would only pay a percentage of the increase and life members also have to pay the £30 where an increase in subs has no effect on them. This is already bringing negative comments from some members on social media so what is everyone else's clubs doing about fees for next year?

 

[patricks148]

Ours are up by £30 again, more or less paying for the 95K the club lost on the bar and catering again

 

[GreiginFife]

Ours are up £30 (seems to be the going figure in Scotland).
BUT, we have intermediate memberships that the club want to phase out after complaints regarding age discrimination. Which will be controversial but WILL generate increased income as most of the internediate members were surveyed and 86% said they would stay and that they appreciate that they have had many years of "getting it easy".

At last year's AGM we had the usual naysayers that just sat and complained about the £20 increase for last season so I stood up and challenged them to find another way to increase the income to balance the expenditure. Funnily enough not a single one had an idea, let alone any that were viable.

It's a sad fact of life that everything is going up, energy, food and fuel (all things that a club use incidentally) so how do these naysayers propose that the club continue to exist?
Golf is a luxury at the end of the day, it is a hobby for the amatuer and as such it costs money. If they can't/won't get behind the club maybe they should take up knitting instead...

 

[Deleted member 17920]

Ours are up by £30 again, more or less paying for the 95K the club lost on the bar and catering again

95K on the bar and catering!! Someone wants firing very quickly. No F&B operation should lose that amount of money.

 

[Doh]

Ours are up by £30 again, more or less paying for the 95K the club lost on the bar and catering again

Wow that is shocking.

 

[patricks148]

95K on the bar and catering!! Someone wants firing very quickly. No F&B operation should lose that amount of money.

its a members club who are they going to fire???

They won't be told though ( the committee ) . all the prices went up last year and all that has done is make less people use the place. Which cost us another 10K on last year. They see it as a service to members and an acceptable loss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[HawkeyeMS]

My club had its AGM last night and rather than increase the subs ( currently £545 including SGU fees, county fees and course insurance ) they decided to implement a £30 levy to cover clubhouse repairs and some on course projects. This was voted in by the members present at the meeting instead of a £30 increase in the fees. By having a levy it means that ALL members have to pay towards these projects as seniors pay a percentage of the men's subs and therefore would only pay a percentage of the increase and life members also have to pay the £30 where an increase in subs has no effect on them. This is already bringing negative comments from some members on social media so what is everyone else's clubs doing about fees for next year?

I imagine those complaining about the £30 are the same ones that would be first to complain about the quality of the course if there is something they don't like. Why should those paying full subs incur costs that are for the benefit of all?

Not sure what we are doing yet as they aren't due until March

EDIT: I did hear that someone had suggested that full membership should be the same rate for all full members regardless of age but while I agree, I don't see it happening, it will just be kept that those who are able to use the course more pay less, which seems fair

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I think golf clubs should increase the age for seniors membership discounts in line with the pensions age. ie discount only for over 66 years of age.

Reduced fees for seniors was introduced about 30 years ago when life was quite different.
Nowadays many golf club pensioners are better off than the adult membership and use the course much more.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

I think golf clubs should increase the age for seniors membership discounts in line with the pensions age. ie discount only for over 66 years of age.

Reduced fees for seniors was introduced about 30 years ago when life was quite different.
Nowadays many golf club pensioners are better off than the adult membership and use the course much more.

I agree, subscription rates based on age (young or old) is antiquated and unfair.

 

[Deleted member 17920]

its a members club who are they going to fire???

They won't be told though ( the committee ) . all the prices went up last year and all that has done is make less people use the place. Which cost us another 10K on last year. They see it as a service to members and an acceptable loss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Blimey, 95k is an acceptable loss.

 

[patricks148]

I agree, subscription rates based on age (young or old) is an antiquated and unfair.

I tend to agree, we have an Under 30 cat and they paid no Joining fee and half the normal green fee, can't see how thats fair, at this price its cheaper than all the other clubs in the area and were have the best course for 50 miles.

Granton On Spey got rid of the Senior Subs a couple of years ago and i think a couple of others were going to follow that example

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

I agree, subscription rates based on age (young or old) is antiquated and unfair.

I'm definitely biased, being one of the young, but I would argue that is giving a lower subscription to younger members unfair? Traditionally earning less, younger families needing more time (these are all generalisations, but I find them normally to be true), and with a wider range of hobbies meaning they get to use the course less I would suggest? Certainly seems to be the case with a lot of younger members I know!

I couldn't afford a full membership, and I'm in a reasonably good job, without many overheads!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Clubs need to offer reduced rates to juniors - they can't afford the fees other pay.

 

[andrew_mac]

I'm definitely biased, being one of the young, but I would argue that is giving a lower subscription to younger members unfair? Traditionally earning less, younger families needing more time (these are all generalisations, but I find them normally to be true), and with a wider range of hobbies meaning they get to use the course less I would suggest? Certainly seems to be the case with a lot of younger members I know!

I couldn't afford a full membership, and I'm in a reasonably good job, without many overheads!

I agree and the risk in removing the intermediary category hat as junior members hit 18 and go to work or study the jump in price to full membership will be such that it will not be financially viable and will get dropped.

Retaining these players during their 20s is key for the future of the club as keep them on board then there is 2, 30 ore even more years of committed membership. Removing the rate on fairness grounds is very short sighted and could have repercussions for the game and clubs in the longer term.

 

[Junior]

I'm definitely biased, being one of the young, but I would argue that is giving a lower subscription to younger members unfair? Traditionally earning less, younger families needing more time (these are all generalisations, but I find them normally to be true), and with a wider range of hobbies meaning they get to use the course less I would suggest? Certainly seems to be the case with a lot of younger members I know!

I couldn't afford a full membership, and I'm in a reasonably good job, without many overheads!

I agree that clubs need to find a solution to attract the 20-30 age bracket. Most now have big mortgages and young families and can't really justify a full years subs for one game (maybe two) per week.

I also think (and have suggested to a few) that the majority of nay-sayers who complain tirelessly about every little thing should try and change from within. They should get involved and join a committee or sub-commitee and help change the club for the better if they feel so passionately about what they say. Unfortunately though, complaining is habitual and most just do it for the sake of wanting to fit in with the social group.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Clubs need to offer reduced rates to juniors - they can't afford the fees other pay.

Juniors fine, adults with jobs is another thing altogether

 

[HawkeyeMS]

I agree that clubs need to find a solution to attract the 20-30 age bracket. Most now have big mortgages and young families and can't really justify a full years subs for one game (maybe two) per week.

I also think (and have suggested to a few) that the majority of nay-sayers who complain tirelessly about every little thing should try and change from within. They should get involved and join a committee or sub-commitee and help change the club for the better if they feel so passionately about what they say. Unfortunately though, complaining is habitual and most just do it for the sake of wanting to fit in with the social group.

I've got a big mortgage and if I have kids won't be able to afford the golf membership, what do I do?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I've got a big mortgage and if I have kids won't be able to afford the golf membership, what do I do?

Have a smaller mortgage

Or play at a cheaper course.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

I'm definitely biased, being one of the young, but I would argue that is giving a lower subscription to younger members unfair? Traditionally earning less, younger families needing more time (these are all generalisations, but I find them normally to be true), and with a wider range of hobbies meaning they get to use the course less I would suggest? Certainly seems to be the case with a lot of younger members I know!

I couldn't afford a full membership, and I'm in a reasonably good job, without many overheads!

1st bold bit:Yes, they are generalisations and not as true as they used to be
2nd bold bit: Give something up then, that's what the rest of us do
3rd bold bit: What else are you spending your money on?

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Have a smaller mortgage

Or play at a cheaper course.

So why can't those under 30 do that?

I should probably add that I played at my local muni until 3 years ago when I was 34 and could afford to join a private club. Before that, I gave up my football season ticket so I could play golf.