Golf subs for 2014

[GreiginFife]

Im quiet enjoying the different opinions on this , it always gets varyied and interesting comments .. to me its about choices and where i appreciate clubs need to do more to attract ans keep members i dont think it can be implemented on an age income biased criteria , it has to be equal all around .. if you are a certain age or status it shouldn't entitle you to anything on them grounds alone ,

The decision to which club you join or stay at is totaly yours , you need to weigh up if you can truly afford it & if you want to stay or join them you have to make the changes in your own life to make this happen ..

you cant expect that a club should expect a person 10 year older than you has to pay more than you do for the same service because some economists have theory's as to how much you earn and spend id age related ..

first and fore most a club has to be equal , or to be seen as equal ..

Equality in golf Bill? Hahaaa, ye crack me up so ye do

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Again I ask you, why should someone of 35 have to look for a cheaper club when someone of 25 gets it half price?

Because on average a 35 year old has more disposable income than a 25 year old( again not everyone ) .

But why should a 25 year old just finishing uni on peanuts pay the same as someone who has managed to build a career and get a good wage behind him.

It could go around in circle and I'm sorry about your mate ( maybe he could speak to the club about doing a package ) but having sat with the treasurer about these differing level in fees it's done in a way to get maximum membership possible.

Start flat lining and you will lose more members than you gain

 

[jimbob.someroo]

But if you made it a flat rate, you might get more people who aren't in the bracket joining because the fees were a bit less. I do understand the need to get younger members into the club but not necessarily with the structure. What happens to all those 28 year olds who's fees are going to double next year? Can the all of a sudden afford full rate when they turn 29. By and large, if you can afford it at 29 you can afford it at 28.

By the age of 28 you are pretty much paying full membership anyway (I think it's about 90-95%). It doesn't double at this age. That's the point of it going up year on year - they're just needs to be an age limit for it to slide up to on a consistent scale. I pay (very roughly) 50% of full, next year will pay 60%, year after 70% etc.

This sort of a scale allows young people the opportunity of assessing whether or not it is something they can afford. If, at the age of 26 they decide they can't justify the £1200 ish then they wont rejoin, but at least the club has gained some money in the previous few years. If they can't afford £1200 at 26, they most certainly can't afford £1800 at 18.

It's never going to please everyone, but honestly, as somebody within this bracket and with the majority of my friends in this age group, clubs with incremental membership would lose a large % of their 18-28 year olds were they to be charged full price, which would not reduce the cost for everybody else, it would increase it.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

How do you reason that. If I say to you, here is an apple. How old are you? You are 29, ok that apple is 30p. Next customer. Here is an apple, how old are you? 31, ok that apple is 60p...

What other grounds could I assume that the charge was more for the same product? Is the apple inferior? Do I get to use it less? If the answer to both is no, that this is, for all intents and purposes, the same apple then it is my age that is determining the price.
How can that not be discriminatory where I am treated differently based on my age?

Discrimination is a word far to easily thrown around - to discriminate would be to deny on the basis of something - no one is denied anything.

Fee structures within golf clubs have been around for years for a reason - do you earn less money now at 35 than you did at 25 or more.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

By the age of 28 you are pretty much paying full membership anyway (I think it's about 90-95%). It doesn't double at this age. That's the point of it going up year on year - they're just needs to be an age limit for it to slide up to on a consistent scale. I pay (very roughly) 50% of full, next year will pay 60%, year after 70% etc.

This sort of a scale allows young people the opportunity of assessing whether or not it is something they can afford. If, at the age of 26 they decide they can't justify the £1200 ish then they wont rejoin, but at least the club has gained some money in the previous few years. If they can't afford £1200 at 26, they most certainly can't afford £1800 at 18.

It's never going to please everyone, but honestly, as somebody within this bracket and with the majority of my friends in this age group, clubs with incremental membership would lose a large % of their 18-28 year olds were they to be charged full price, which would not reduce the cost for everybody else, it would increase it.

Or, more of my mates who can't afford to join because they have mortgages and kids might be able to

 

[GreiginFife]

Discrimination is a word far to easily thrown around - to discriminate would be to deny on the basis of something - no one is denied anything.

Fee structures within golf clubs have been around for years for a reason - do you earn less money now at 35 than you did at 25 or more.

It's also a word that seems to get it's meaning bent for all intents. To treat one subject in a preferential manner due to a specific attribute is also discrimination. It doesn't have to be about denial, but I agree that denial of a specific service, for example, is also discrimination.

I do not earn any more that I did at 25. This is for a variety of reasons, but mainly due to the fact that I was in a very well paid position at 25 that was untenable for a number of reasons.

 

[jimbob.someroo]

Or, more of my mates who can't afford to join because they have mortgages and kids might be able to

That doesn't make sense? They'd be able to join because it would be more expensive?

 

[Hacker Khan]

How do you reason that. If I say to you, here is an apple. How old are you? You are 29, ok that apple is 30p. Next customer. Here is an apple, how old are you? 31, ok that apple is 60p...

What other grounds could I assume that the charge was more for the same product? Is the apple inferior? Do I get to use it less? If the answer to both is no, that this is, for all intents and purposes, the same apple then it is my age that is determining the price.
How can that not be discriminatory where I am treated differently based on my age?

So is car insurance illegal? Or Saga holidays?

 

[Twire]

That comes from government polls and surveys which our treasurer used to highlight the current pay structure we have currently

Most 21-25 years old etc are just starting out their careers so will start on lower wages and then people advance through their careers as they get older and also increasing the salary through promotions and work changes.

Clubs need people in the 20's to join because in ten to 20 years time they are the future of the golf club

Most 21-25 years olds are still living with Dad & Mum and don't have a great deal of commitments.

Between the age of 18-30 I was down the pub or night club most nights of the week with money to burn. I didn't get married until I was 30 got a mortgage when I was 32 had my first child when I was also 32, and bless, starting from next year I have to put her through uni.

Times have changed, people are getting married and starting families later in life, but I can't see anyone feeling sorry for me and subsidising my membership.

I agree with Junior membership up until the age of 21, then I feel everyone should pay the same.

 

[jp5]

As an intermediate member I am grateful for reduced fees - though I agree it is unfair that one group of members subsidizes another group for the same product. I wouldn't have a problem if clubs went to a flat rate for all ages, though the club would lose me as a member. So, it depends on whether the club would rather have my 33% of a full membership, or none of it. I wouldn't mind either way.

 

[JezzE]

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

Maybe your bar and catering prices are unrealistically and unsustainably low...?

 

[GreiginFife]

So is car insurance illegal? Or Saga holidays?

Insurance? You mean a complex set of calculations that are based on statistical evidence gathered over a number of years and then used to determine a probibility factor? Hmm, let me think? I would probably say no.

Saga? What do Saga do? Do they provide the same access to a cruise ship (for example) to younger people but charge more for the priviledge? I'm not so sure that they do?

 

[HawkeyeMS]

That doesn't make sense? They'd be able to join because it would be more expensive?

No, if it was a flat rate somewhere between the discount rate and the full rate, the full rate would be cheaper so they may be able to afford it

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It's also a word that seems to get it's meaning bent for all intents. To treat one subject in a preferential manner due to a specific attribute is also discrimination. It doesn't have to be about denial, but I agree that denial of a specific service, for example, is also discrimination.

I do not earn any more that I did at 25. This is for a variety of reasons, but mainly due to the fact that I was in a very well paid position at 25 that was untenable for a number of reasons.

But the majority do earn more money at the age of 35 than they did at 25.

And also the fees structure are that different financially at the clubs I have been at - possibly 50 quid a year but over 65's pay less than a 29 year for example

 

[Hacker Khan]

Most 21-25 years olds are still living with Dad & Mum and don't have a great deal of commitments.

Well apart from paying off increasingly large student loans and saving up a massive amount for the deposit on a one bedroom flat if they are lucky.

 

[GreiginFife]

But the majority do earn more money at the age of 35 than they did at 25.

And also the fees structure are that different financially at the clubs I have been at - possibly 50 quid a year but over 65's pay less than a 29 year for example

Can you link me to that data please? I think a fair few at my work would be interested in that.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Insurance? You mean a complex set of calculations that are based on statistical evidence gathered over a number of years and then used to determine a probibility factor? Hmm, let me think? I would probably say no.

Saga? What do Saga do? Do they provide the same access to a cruise ship (for example) to younger people but charge more for the priviledge? I'm not so sure that they do?

They offer discounted holidays based on age so yes they will offer a cruise cheaper to older people

 

[jimbob.someroo]

Most 21-25 years olds are still living with Dad & Mum and don't have a great deal of commitments.

Between the age of 18-30 I was down the pub or night club most nights of the week with money to burn. I didn't get married until I was 30 got a mortgage when I was 32 had my first child when I was also 32, and bless, starting from next year I have to put her through uni.

Times have changed, people are getting married and starting families later in life, but I can't see anyone feeling sorry for me and subsidising my membership.

I agree with Junior membership up until the age of 21, then I feel everyone should pay the same.

What about those that aren't mollycoddled and move away from home for work. There was a survey done last year, 18-30 year old are by far and away lesser paid on average than any other working age group, including the 60+ age.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/22/pay-salaries-survey-ashe-ons

People who have moved away from home, especially to London, have a lot less disposable income than people in their 30's+ whether they have a mortgage or not. I would guess that my £700+ house bills and rent are as high as the majority of mortgages, and there's only one of me paying it, rather than a couple. Not to mention the fact that my wage is almost certainly less than every 30+ year old adult in the country (not just london), how can it not be fair to have incremental membership for those at the start of their careers?

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Discrimination is a word far to easily thrown around - to discriminate would be to deny on the basis of something - no one is denied anything.

Fee structures within golf clubs have been around for years for a reason - do you earn less money now at 35 than you did at 25 or more.

I earnt less at when I left uni, but had considerably more disposable income. If I'd have wanted to join a golf club, I could easily have afforded full rate at a better course than I am at now.

Which is my whole point about age being the wrong thing to use as a subs bracket.

 

[GreiginFife]

Well apart from paying off increasingly large student loans and saving up a massive amount for the deposit on a one bedroom flat if they are lucky.

You mean paying for the CHOICE of going to uni? Ah well why didn't you just say so. I am happy to subsidise the remaining life choices they make then.