Intermediate Golf

[Orikoru]

Aha, but not all are like you, and me actually. We pay £14 for two phones. My grandsons gf pays, I kid you not, £60, and thinks that's fine She's a student!!! Not of money. Lol. Others will be the same. They want the monster screen and everything else and happily dole out the money

It's irrelevant though. Nobody is deciding whether they want a golf membership or a phone. You're making a straw man argument here. The factors at play are clubs wanting to bring in younger members ahead of other clubs by making it more affordable/desirable for that group of people. It's nothing to do with phones. You sound like Rishi Sunak telling people to stop buying their avocado lattes so they can afford a house.

 

[sjw]

Aha, but not all are like you, and me actually. We pay £14 for two phones. My grandsons gf pays, I kid you not, £60, and thinks that's fine She's a student!!! Not of money. Lol. Others will be the same. They want the monster screen and everything else and happily dole out the money

And does she play in comps, or only midweek afternoons?

 

[BiMGuy]

I couldn't be bothered with full explanation, but ..Okey dokey. The 30 quid note is the extra that the person getting the cheap rate could add to that cheap rate and pay the full rate if they were to have to make choices.
Look I know this is basically an arguement I won't win as most on here are in favour of the reduction in fees. But will this get more young people playing? I don't think so. Will the ones that do sign up to play carry on. Again I don't think so. The cost of golf is rising. At my place we are cheap, yet still can't attract members in, apart from a load coming over from a nearby place after they had a spat with the owner. I just don't believe that offering cheap deals is the way forward. I would be very interested to find out if golf clubs actually were retaining players once full fee age was reached. And also if they actually had an increase in membership of those in the age groups that got the discounted rate. Sure any increase is good, but just actually how many in relation to how many they would normally have without the discount, if anyone can rember that far back.
It just a discussion.

If your club is cheap and people still don’t want to join. That would suggest there is a problem with the course or the membership or both!

 

[IanM]

. Nobody is deciding whether they want a golf membership or a phone.

Guns or Butter? (For the economics students here!)

 

[PJ87]

Aha, but not all are like you, and me actually. We pay £14 for two phones. My grandsons gf pays, I kid you not, £60, and thinks that's fine She's a student!!! Not of money. Lol. Others will be the same. They want the monster screen and everything else and happily dole out the money

But the point is it's people's money. They will buy what they want with it.

Phones are an important part of life now. Lots of people don't have computers anymore, the humble phone can replace so much.

I do a lot of my admin on mine. Mine controls my house

It's not £60 on a phone it's £60 on a mini computer that's more powerful than the computer that landed on the moon.

If golf clubs want to offer young people discounts that's their choice to do so. They have done the costings

 

[sjw]

I couldn't be bothered with full explanation, but ..Okey dokey. The 30 quid note is the extra that the person getting the cheap rate could add to that cheap rate and pay the full rate if they were to have to make choices.
Look I know this is basically an arguement I won't win as most on here are in favour of the reduction in fees. But will this get more young people playing? I don't think so. Will the ones that do sign up to play carry on. Again I don't think so. The cost of golf is rising. At my place we are cheap, yet still can't attract members in, apart from a load coming over from a nearby place after they had a spat with the owner. I just don't believe that offering cheap deals is the way forward. I would be very interested to find out if golf clubs actually were retaining players once full fee age was reached. And also if they actually had an increase in membership of those in the age groups that got the discounted rate. Sure any increase is good, but just actually how many in relation to how many they would normally have without the discount, if anyone can rember that far back.
It just a discussion.

I'm really struggling to understand why this is bothering you, other than you just being bitter.

You're saying it's not getting more people playing, and they aren't sticking around if they do. And that it's already cheap, but you can't attract new golfers. At the same time, an increase in members is a good thing, but you don't think lowering prices is the way. Do you have an alternative?

 

[Genu9]

I have no problem with intermediate rates, but I do think the transition should be phased over a number of years, exponentially if necessary, but avoid the big hit. 10% of difference year 1, 20% year 2, etc.

 

[Oddsocks]

I have no problem with 30 year olds paying half what I do - just feel that they should be required to play after 9pm and be finished by 7am

Although clearly said tongue in cheek, there’s merit to this.

Maybe a 7 day “ off peak “ rate is suitable for the youngers wanting cheap golf. Also gives them chance to sleep off that hangover, spend time with a young family etc.

Full paying get peak times, people on restricted funds get cheap golf, courses get max revenue.

As a junior we got cheap fees but we couldn’t tee off until 12 in the winter and 1pm in the summer.

 

[BiMGuy]

Although clearly said tongue in cheek, there’s merit to this.

Maybe a 7 day “ off peak “ rate is suitable for the youngers wanting cheap golf. Also gives them chance to sleep off that hangover, spend time with a young family etc.

Full paying get peak times, people on restricted funds get cheap golf, courses get max revenue.

As a junior we got cheap fees but we couldn’t tee off until 12 in the winter and 1pm in the summer.

Which is fine until one of the youngsters wants to play with a parent!

Thankfully times have changed. Well at some clubs anyway.

 

[badgergm]

Very much a live debate in our club at the moment. There are fairly substantial discounts up to age 39.
We have seen a large number of younger members join. So much so that we have been able to limit full fee increases in the last 2 years to c. 6% (over the 2 years).
So whilst the difference is hard to justify in some ways, can argue it is beneficial to all.

 

[Oddsocks]

Which is fine until one of the youngsters wants to play with a parent!

Thankfully times have changed. Well at some clubs anyway.

As with all things in life, your income restricts everything you do.

They gym you join, the clothes you wear, the holidays you can go on, where you go out for meals, where can afford to buy/rent properties etc etc.

How would you feel if you’d just stumped up £10k on a holiday for you and the wife to an exclusive resort to find the guy in the room next door only £1500 because he was between 19-35? In theory it’s the same principle.

 

[Oddsocks]

Very much a live debate in our club at the moment. There are fairly substantial discounts up to age 39.
We have seen a large number of younger members join. So much so that we have been able to limit full fee increases in the last 2 years to c. 6% (over the 2 years).
So whilst the difference is hard to justify in some ways, can argue it is beneficial to all.

One question around this. While this category has reduced your increase in subs, has there been any negatives with it. Strain on available tee times etc?

If you need to add 50-75 members at discount rate in order to raise the same funds as 20 full paying members, surely an intro offer to attract full payers has to be a more sustainable long term option?

Some clubs around here are limiting spaces to reduced categories and leaving space in higher priced categories for this very reason.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

As much as I am not a fan of these age related discounts there is now a large weekend contingent aged from late 20's upwards so they will be the next main nucleus of the club for team games etc so I can see how it works

 

[BiMGuy]

As with all things in life, your income restricts everything you do.

They gym you join, the clothes you wear, the holidays you can go on, where you go out for meals, where can afford to buy/rent properties etc etc.

How would you feel if you’d just stumped up £10k on a holiday for you and the wife to an exclusive resort to find the guy in the room next door only £1500 because he was between 19-35? In theory it’s the same principle.

See. I don’t worry about things like this. If I thought the holiday was worth what I had paid l. I would say well done to them for getting a bargain.

Same at work, if someone can negotiate better pay for doing a job. Well done to them rather than being bitter about it.

There would soon be hell on if the senior and long service rates were removed.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Way back in the 1970s, our club had junior rate and a 18-21 semi-senior rate, then full-whack.
I never paid the semi-senior, as I went away to university.
I left university with no debt whatsoever due to government subsidy of higher education.
When I embarked on a mortgage, I received the government hand-out of MIRAS. This was not scrapped until the year 2000.
Three times an average salary could get you the mortgage for a decent semi-detached house in the 1980s.
It makes sense to me that the 18-21 reduced fees have been extended in age range in order to keep up-to-date.
Membership fees are an act of collectivism. It is a collective decision to have age-varying fees or to not have them. I prefer the inclusiveness aspect of having them.

 

[Reemul]

Some of it is about choices, I have my income and there are lots of things I would like to do with it but cannot afford to so I have to make choices.

I love watching sport so is it £100 a month for sky or do I go at a bigger monthly cost taking the family.

I love movies do I spend a lot going to the movies or not.

I want a better car do I take a bigger loan or lease.

I want a holiday, do I go for 1 week or 2, and where to, cost driven.

I want to play golf, which course do I join, does it have a joining fee, is it too busy when I can play.

Do I work more hours to earn more but reduce my time for the above.

It always used to be about choices but it does feel more and more like people want it all. If can’t have a discount I can’t have so I need discounts across the board so I can still have it all.

There is a guy I work with who has a dodge stick paid £60 for it gets full sky and piracy package, I said it’s not right and he said he cannot afford sky package, I said you had 4 foreign holidays this year and 3 4 day golf trips away in the uk.

It’s about choices but apparently not anymore.

 

[sunshine]

Just make it means tested.

Everyone has to have a credit check and submit 6 months of bank statements, to assess affluence, along with a forecast of how much they intend to play.

The club can run a calculation and charge a fee that is proportionate and fair. If you end up playing more you get charged more, if you end up playing less, you get a rebate.

Maybe the club should charge everyone the full rate but then offer credit or benefits to members who successfully qualify for discounts. The office would need a benefits assessment team, this could be outsourced to India.

 

[MadAdey]

I totally understand where CrazyFace is coming from and it is frustrating when someone is getting the same as you but not paying as much. My question would be this, has your green fees increased to cover these reduced cost memberships, or getting these extra members through the door kept your membership fees from increasing drastically?

I remember turning 18 and being told I need to pay full membership fees. I went from 75 a year to about 400 a year (that was 30 years ago). This was before the days of monthly pay plans, and it had to be paid in 1 lump. I think at the time after tax I was seeing less than 120 a week in my hand, so did not have the money and stopped playing golf for a few years. I only started playing again after joining the RAF and the local course had a deal for service members.

If by reducing fees to get more members in the club is what your club needs to do to survive, then so be it. If you are not happy about it then voice these concerns at your AGM and let it be known that it is not welcome, and the current members would be more than happy to cover the lost income by not having these reduced fee members by increasing your fees.