Golf subs for 2014

[GreiginFife]

So you don't actually want them to pay the same as you - you actually want to pay less yourself.

And you didn't mind paying the cheaper rate when you could hence why you didnt suggest a flat rate then.

Umm, yes I want them to pay the same as me. If we all paid £490 then we would all be paying the same. I am happy to pay the higher rate and have indicated that I am doing so by renewing.
You asked me if I thought flat rates could work so I suggested an event that would see everyone pay the same in a mutually beneficial way... Was I wrong to do so in the context of what you asked?

On Jezz's point, I am more of the belief that if more clubs looked at the fundementals of the operating model rather than reducing some fees and removing waste from the operation then they may make more headway in making the club stable. And, who knows, as a result they may even be able to reduce fees for all as a result.
For me, and in my day to day role, it's as important to look at where the money is going than it is solely focussing on where it's coming from. If clubs (which I have been advised are indeed businesses) act in a businesslike manner and control their processes and operation better then there are probably more wins to be gained than just the obvious get people through the door at a reduced rate.

That's my thoughts on the matter take them or leave them but I maintain my view point that as a hobby, no one should be propping up anyone else and thankfully my club are coming round to this following a set of Lean Sigma initiatives that meant that they now know where the real problems with the club lay.

 

[jp5]

Flat rates if somewhere in the middle would probably increase membership IMO. So if I paid £490 a year and so did everyone, instead of £580 for me and £400 for under 30's then I see that as a compromise that lots of the over 30's, that left because they could no longer afford it

Except that the split between under 30s and over 30s isn't 50/50. At my club, looking at just members in the 20-65 bracket (i.e. no juniors or seniors), the split is:

20-30: 12%
30-65: 88%

So that's about 7 times as many full paying members as intermediates. As such, by your figures, if you wanted every to pay a flat rate, that rate would be £560. You'd save £20 a year, if all of your 20-30s stayed.

 

[GreiginFife]

Except that the split between under 30s and over 30s isn't 50/50. At my club, looking at just members in the 20-65 bracket (i.e. no juniors or seniors), the split is:

20-30: 12%
30-65: 88%

So that's about 7 times as many full paying members as intermediates. As such, by your figures, if you wanted every to pay a flat rate, that rate would be £560. You'd save £20 a year, if all of your 20-30s stayed.

And your point is? I am not interested in the saving. I am interested in everyone partaking equally in their HOBBY...
I merely used £490 as an arbitrary figure as I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that someone was asking me to give an example of how I thought a mutually beneficial flat rate would work...

 

[JezzE]

I don't know for sure, but surly youngsters have always been in the minority in golf. its an older persons recreational sport, no? so isn't targeting younger players always going to fail?

I only started playing in my 40's and quite a few guys i know are the same.

When you are younger at Uni or in the few years after etc, are you interested in golf i should say prob not.. in my 20's i was more interested in going out and at the weekend drinking and chasing Girls, i'm sure many guys today are into the same.

are you not more likely to start playing when you have more time into your 30s and 40's when other sports become harder to maintain?

Memberships have always been on the older side and with people living longer then you are going to get more older members?

Maybe, and I guess the supply and demand equation was loaded in favour of demand going back a few years so clubs weren't too worried about age breakdown as there would always have been someone waiting to fill a slot when a member left or died.

Everything I read also tells me that people are getting married later (closer to their 30s than before) so expensive things like kids and bigger houses are coming to the fore in that 30-40 age bracket. So even if football and rugby need replacing, you may not have either the time or money to join the local golf club!

Lots of factors at play, but what I do know from meeting golf club secretaries regularly is that many are concerned about the missing younger generation for the long-term well-being of their clubs

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Umm, yes I want them to pay the same as me. If we all paid £490 then we would all be paying the same. I am happy to pay the higher rate and have indicated that I am doing so by renewing.
You asked me if I thought flat rates could work so I suggested an event that would see everyone pay the same in a mutually beneficial way... Was I wrong to do so in the context of what you asked?

On Jezz's point, I am more of the belief that if more clubs looked at the fundementals of the operating model rather than reducing some fees and removing waste from the operation then they may make more headway in making the club stable. And, who knows, as a result they may even be able to reduce fees for all as a result.
For me, and in my day to day role, it's as important to look at where the money is going than it is solely focussing on where it's coming from. If clubs (which I have been advised are indeed businesses) act in a businesslike manner and control their processes and operation better then there are probably more wins to be gained than just the obvious get people through the door at a reduced rate.

That's my thoughts on the matter take them or leave them but I maintain my view point that as a hobby, no one should be propping up anyone else and thankfully my club are coming round to this following a set of Lean Sigma initiatives that meant that they now know where the real problems with the club lay.

Did you want to pay the same as older members when you were in your 20's

I can say with a lot of confidence that if every was forced to pay the same at most clubs then the membership numbers would reduce and fees would go up.

 

[Khamelion]

As I wrote earlier in the thread, before I joined my course, my mate who was already a member told me that rather than increase the annual subs and potentially lose some, perhaps many of the current members, that they would lower the fees, to try and encourage new members to join.

Which is what they did. Exisiting members got a rebate cheque in the post to reflect the new reduced rates and new members got a good deal when joining. Now I don't know if this tactic has fully paid off, I guess we won't until the next AGM.

At present the junior membership up to 20 years old only pay £48 per year, the 21-29year old pay £270 for a 7 day membership and the 30 and overs pay £540 per year. Me being a new member only paids £480 this year and that is held for next year as well. The existing members got £60 back so that everyone in each band paid the same as anyone else.

 

[GreiginFife]

Did you want to pay the same as older members when you were in your 20's

I can say with a lot of confidence that if every was forced to pay the same at most clubs then the membership numbers would reduce and fees would go up.

No, I can honestly say I never did. I accepted that I chose to join the club and that I was receiving the same product/service.
Why would I want to pay less just because I was younger? I was over 18 and therefore an adult. So paid adult transport fees and adult entry to any other place I went. Why would I think my club would be any different.

I think you can say in your opinion you have a certainty that numbers would decline. I'm not sure that you can prove that as certain fact. And nor can I otherwise. If you can I would be absolutely astounded (as well as hugely interested) as to how.

 

[AMcC]

We got an email out last week saying the committee is proposing a £20 rise to £890. This would have to be ratified at the agm though, which is being held in March. They have offered a deal of £870 if you pay your fees by 31st Dec and you wouldn't pay any rise.
The annual membership runs from January to December and fees are normally paid in April after agm.

 

[Liverbirdie]

I think single figure handicappers should pay less, as we don't cut the fairways up as much, and see less of the course than the high handicappers.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So you didn't feel guilty that you were paying less but getting the same service - did you offer to pay more. Will you do the same when you get older and your fees come down ? Did you not know you were paying less ?

Do you get the point I'm making ?

As for losing members

At my old club 2 years ago they increased the age of when the reductions started from 65 to 70 ( after being at the club for a period )

Because of that 21 members left the club. That resulted in a loss of income and we had a midway EGM to add more money onto our fees and the membership had dropped.

And you should also be thankful you don't pay the fees we have too down here.

 

[jp5]

And your point is? I am not interested in the saving. I am interested in everyone partaking equally in their HOBBY...
I merely used £490 as an arbitrary figure as I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that someone was asking me to give an example of how I thought a mutually beneficial flat rate would work...

My point is that a flat rate would decimate the intermediate section of your club for a small saving for everyone else. And that is done on the presumption that all your intermediate section would stay. It may well have the reverse effect and push up memberships rates across the board as you lose income from the intermediates.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

And this is my point, I'm now 50 and thinking I might have to give up my golf for a few years to help finance my daughter through uni...........oh unless someone want's subsidise me.

It is a problem. My two are both at uni - their loans are one thing - pay for course fees and living - but we pay for their accommodation and this year that's £9K+ and we also pay for their course expenses (and for books, programs that runs into £100s)

And of course they only qualify for the minimum loan - £1k a term. And as much as we might ask that they budget - they run out before end of term - and what do we do? We fund the rest of their term - the alternative being...?

So my golf subs are scrutinised and if they had gone up by much more than they did - serious questions would have to be asked. So that is why I am very supportive of initiatives that attract and keep members - I'll go with just about anything to keep my subs affordable.

 

[jimbob.someroo]

Is almost impossible because the only really good data comes from England Golf and their analysis is generally split into junior/adult when looking at new members. However, they do talk of the need for more appealing membership packages to young adults

An increased percentage of golf clubs are offering intermediate, corporate, flexible, social and student membership categories, demonstrating the need to adapt and be more creative. To support recruitment and retention, golf clubs should examine whether they are providing membership packages which offer value for money and meet customer requirements.

Like any data, can be skewed how you want, but the full research is here: http://www.englandgolf.org/shared/get-file.ashx?id=11112&itemtype=document

 

[GreiginFife]

My point is that a flat rate would decimate the intermediate section of your club for a small saving for everyone else. And that is done on the presumption that all your intermediate section would stay. It may well have the reverse effect and push up memberships rates across the board as you lose income from the intermediates.

Only if the intermediate membership was dispersed like you illustrated. Not all clubs are distributed like this.
Also, clubs (and businesses) IMO should not be looking to solely rely on the income from subs. They should be looking at the business as a whole.
Our club looked at processes and procedures that had been in existence since day dot, suppliers, best practice in marketing, catering supplies, best practice in communication, course maintenance, Energy consumption. Combined the savings were tens of thousands per anum. This means that they can start to look at equalising the value that members of all genders and ages get from the club.

Are they wrong to do that?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

That's my thoughts on the matter take them or leave them but I maintain my view point that as a hobby, no one should be propping up anyone else

Understand your thoughts - but who is propping up who? If a new member pays less than I - am I subsidising his golf or is he subsidising mine by joining and hence preventing my subs increasing?

I'll add - the subs calculations and the 'who is subsidising who?' question are different between a club that has a full membership and one recruiting members. In the former you are replacing a member with a member - and so what the new member pays compared with the old matters. Where a club is recruiting new members - every new member is new money.

 

[bluewolf]

I think single figure handicappers should pay less, as we don't cut the fairways up as much, and see less of the course than the high handicappers.

My God.. Scouser would have to sell his house to pay this years subs!!!!!!

 

[GreiginFife]

Is almost impossible because the only really good data comes from England Golf and their analysis is generally split into junior/adult when looking at new members. However, they do talk of the need for more appealing membership packages to young adults

An increased percentage of golf clubs are offering intermediate, corporate, flexible, social and student membership categories, demonstrating the need to adapt and be more creative. To support recruitment and retention, golf clubs should examine whether they are providing membership packages which offer value for money and meet customer requirements.

Like any data, can be skewed how you want, but the full research is here: http://www.englandgolf.org/shared/get-file.ashx?id=11112&itemtype=document

Flexible and Social memberships are something different completely and generally are a cost vs access exercise. Which I agree with as long as everyone getting the same use pays the same "flexible or social" membership cost.
There is no issue that these people generally pay less but get less for the money that they pay.
Its the intermediate categories that, in my OPINION (jeez how often do you need to say that on here these days?) that do not present a fair crack at the whip for those that subsidise others. That's all.

How many people that have just turned 31 and want to join a course have to take the decision not to because the top level category is out of their reach financially and then look at the tiered structure and think "ok if I was a year younger..., that's fair enough"?

Where do we draw the line at who is the future? Those 18-21, 18-25. Is someone who is 30 more of the future than someone who is 31?

Not much more I can add to this now as I am in a minority, I appreciate that and accept that.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Flexible and Social memberships are something different completely and generally are a cost vs access exercise. Which I agree with as long as everyone getting the same use pays the same "flexible or social" membership cost.
There is no issue that these people generally pay less but get less for the money that they pay.
Its the intermediate categories that, in my OPINION (jeez how often do you need to say that on here these days?) that do not present a fair crack at the whip for those that subsidise others. That's all.

How many people that have just turned 31 and want to join a course have to take the decision not to because the top level category is out of their reach financially and then look at the tiered structure and think "ok if I was a year younger..., that's fair enough"?

Where do we draw the line at who is the future? Those 18-21, 18-25. Is someone who is 30 more of the future than someone who is 31?

Not much more I can add to this now as I am in a minority, I appreciate that and accept that.

@Greig... you seem to be caught up with resentments around some sections of the membership subsidising others. That consideration applies where the membership is fixed (full) but is much less clear when you are recruiting new members. And even if membership is fixed - it is surely in everybody's interest to do things to encourage some key groups of members to stay - and build loyalty to the club. As mentioned - personally I really don't care if someone else's golf is cheaper than mine - if it keeps my subs down.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

I think single figure handicappers should pay less, as we don't cut the fairways up as much, and see less of the course than the high handicappers.

Ah but you do that annoying thing of hitting long clubs onto the green and messing it up Us high handicappers barely hit a green, so our little duffed chips where the ball just about rolls onto the green barely cause any damage

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

Only if the intermediate membership was dispersed like you illustrated. Not all clubs are distributed like this.
Also, clubs (and businesses) IMO should not be looking to solely rely on the income from subs. They should be looking at the business as a whole.
Our club looked at processes and procedures that had been in existence since day dot, suppliers, best practice in marketing, catering supplies, best practice in communication, course maintenance, Energy consumption. Combined the savings were tens of thousands per anum. This means that they can start to look at equalising the value that members of all genders and ages get from the club.

Are they wrong to do that?

Could they not do both of these? Look at all of the above, AND discount the intermediate and senior rates?