Joining fees creeping back ?

[Blue in Munich]

Just turns it into an elitist sport the old stories of joining fees, interviews and having to have a member sponsor your application just make me cringe

Interviews and members proposing and seconding applications is simply due diligence; nothing elitist in that, just plain common sense.

 

[sunshine]

Interviews and members proposing and seconding applications is simply due diligence; nothing elitist in that, just plain common sense.

I think that can be very elitist, old boy network etc.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

How do you fit your clubs and trolley in it?

Trolley goes on back seat…clubs in the boot. It’s my mobile locker room…doesn’t go distances, never have to have passengers in the back seats. It’s the oldest and scruffiest car in the car park…don’t care…I’m not elitist…and frankly I’d rather pay the subs I have to pay than have a better car.

 

[backwoodsman]

"You want to be a member at this club? Fine, it costs £2000 to get in. And £1800 a year to stay in."

I really, really, don't see the issue. If you want to join, pay it.

We've always had a joining fee, still do, and I'm not aware there's any plans to drop it. We're full with a waiting list.

 

[r0wly86]

Nearly every club that I have looked at in SE London has a joining fee, varying from £1,000 to £4,000. Some are to be paid fully up front, some paid over the first year. I have rarely seen ones that can be paid over longer periods, or got close enough to joining to see what happens if you decide to leave whilst still paying off the joining fee. I understand why clubs do it, it just becomes a major deterrent for a lot of people (which is maybe what they want!).

In my instance, I would love to join a club, but at the moment I don't know how long I will end up living in the area (even moving 5 miles away can mean an hours drive in traffic!), so paying £1-4k to join a club is a tough position if you can't guarantee you will live in the area for a least 5 years. I personally would much rather clubs charged a higher annual fee for the first 5 years or so to essentially cover a joining fee, than ask for everything up front or in the first year. I guess this is why clubs typically have an older, more geographically settled, membership demographic.

I am in the same boat, the closes course to me, which happened to be a decent one has a joining fee of £1915 and a annual membership of 1915, all has to be paid up front, so for me to and wife to join we need nearly £4k spare. With a toddler and another baby on the way it makes it nigh on impossible, especially working full time as we do, it make golf an extremely expensive habit.

I understand the reasons stated here, but for me all it is doing is pricing out huge swathes of people. Golf has an elitist image and yet we continue with a joining fee that means only the wealthier people can join. Also especially in SW London where I am the chances of younger people buying in the area are getting slimmer and slimmer. Golf maybe booming at the moment but I do wonder what the average age of members are, I cannot see that coming down any time soon. Even if younger people under 40, could afford the joining fee, they will be thinking that may need to move and get a bigger house which would take them out of the area so would be put of losing nearly £2K

Yes golf clubs can do well now, but if I were them I would be looking towards ensuring the future is just as rosy. Some clubs are taking steps and I think they are doing the right thing, whether that is weekend membership, or a different way to organise joining fees. Royal Mid Surrey probably not one you would associate with forward thinking has a joining fee, but not really. In the joining fee you buy voting shares, which if you leave are then sold. Depending on how long you have been there the greater percentage you keep/

Other clubs could do this , joining fee of £1,000, stay longer than 10 years you get £900 back. Between 5-9 you get £600 back, less than 5 you get £300 back. A joining fee wouldn't then seem a sunk cost but would also reward long term membership

 

[Imurg]

I am in the same boat, the closes course to me, which happened to be a decent one has a joining fee of £1915 and a annual membership of 1915, all has to be paid up front, so for me to and wife to join we need nearly £4k spare. With a toddler and another baby on the way it makes it nigh on impossible, especially working full time as we do, it make golf an extremely expensive habit.

I understand the reasons stated here, but for me all it is doing is pricing out huge swathes of people. Golf has an elitist image and yet we continue with a joining fee that means only the wealthier people can join. Also especially in SW London where I am the chances of younger people buying in the area are getting slimmer and slimmer. Golf maybe booming at the moment but I do wonder what the average age of members are, I cannot see that coming down any time soon. Even if younger people under 40, could afford the joining fee, they will be thinking that may need to move and get a bigger house which would take them out of the area so would be put of losing nearly £2K

Yes golf clubs can do well now, but if I were them I would be looking towards ensuring the future is just as rosy. Some clubs are taking steps and I think they are doing the right thing, whether that is weekend membership, or a different way to organise joining fees. Royal Mid Surrey probably not one you would associate with forward thinking has a joining fee, but not really. In the joining fee you buy voting shares, which if you leave are then sold. Depending on how long you have been there the greater percentage you keep/

Other clubs could do this , joining fee of £1,000, stay longer than 10 years you get £900 back. Between 5-9 you get £600 back, less than 5 you get £300 back. A joining fee wouldn't then seem a sunk cost but would also reward long term membership

In a way our system "rewards" loyalty.
The joining fee of £1000 is spread over 5 years so you, effectively, pay £200 a year more than a long term member
After 5 years your subs reduce to the "loyalty " fe which is £200 cheaper....not quite the same but after 5 years your subs do go down....

 

[IanM]

I understand the reasons stated here, but for me all it is doing is pricing out huge swathes of people.

Other clubs could do this , joining fee of £1,000, stay longer than 10 years you get £900 back. Between 5-9 you get £600 back, less than 5 you get £300 back. A joining fee wouldn't then seem a sunk cost but would also reward long term membership

I agree that as a barrier to entry, joining fees are a bad thing. Sadly this could be said of many things.

Your last point certainly covers the loyalty bit, but the feasibility of it depends on how the clubs use the fees and how it appears in their balance sheet.

 

[r0wly86]

In a way our system "rewards" loyalty.
The joining fee of £1000 is spread over 5 years so you, effectively, pay £200 a year more than a long term member
After 5 years your subs reduce to the "loyalty " fe which is £200 cheaper....not quite the same but after 5 years your subs do go down....

I think if JFs are spread out like that then it does make it a little more palatable, still a lot of money but at least you can see it spread over the years helps

 

[r0wly86]

I agree that as a barrier to entry, joining fees are a bad thing. Sadly this could be said of many things.

Your last point certainly covers the loyalty bit, but the feasibility of it depends on how the clubs use the fees and how it appears in their balance sheet.

My points is mainly down to SW London which granted is quite specific

I just don't think they are doing any future planning. They are sitting comfortably in a very affluent area, but I can foresee the next generation or two or even three will be much harder to find. The plumbers, builders, office professionals that could afford to buy around here in the 1990s and 90s and are now playing golf won't be playing golf forever, and with house prices now in the area are just ridiculous. A family home will be not far of £1m means that the normal person is going further west to places like Camberley or Basingstoke, golf clubs around there will do well.

I just think it would be sensible for golf clubs to plan for the future and make changes now in a controlled manner rather than having to make drastic changes or suffer in 10-20 years time. There is no easy answer but I feel some clubs are happy continuing to use things that have worked in the past and not thinking that the future holds problems that were never thought of when the dreamt up their systems

 

[G1z1]

When I joined my first club last year think my joining fee was £850 and now I don’t like the club lol. Looking at 4 other clubs the now to possibly join and noticed only two of them are asking joining fees. So If all the clubs are of similar level I think I’ll be picking one of them that have no joining fee.

 

[Ser Shankalot]

Yes golf clubs can do well now, but if I were them I would be looking towards ensuring the future is just as rosy. Some clubs are taking steps and I think they are doing the right thing, whether that is weekend membership, or a different way to organise joining fees. Royal Mid Surrey probably not one you would associate with forward thinking has a joining fee, but not really. In the joining fee you buy voting shares, which if you leave are then sold. Depending on how long you have been there the greater percentage you keep/

Other clubs could do this , joining fee of £1,000, stay longer than 10 years you get £900 back. Between 5-9 you get £600 back, less than 5 you get £300 back. A joining fee wouldn't then seem a sunk cost but would also reward long term membership

At Royal Mid-Surrey, pre-Covid atleast (may be different now), you got back 95% of the joining fee at whatever was the then market price when you left. However, the upfront payment was quite sizable, multiples of some of the joining fees for most other higher end courses in the area. It's a clever way of doing it, but you still have to have a very large sum of spare cash lying around to effectively invest in the club - which by itself could price out most people.

If you're going to have a joining fee, then atleast offering a deferred payment scheme over 2-3 years (even at a higher rate), could make it more appealing to potential joiners. I think it comes down to what the joining fee is for - loyalty or help fund ongoing capital improvements.

 

[r0wly86]

At Royal Mid-Surrey, pre-Covid atleast (may be different now), you got back 95% of the joining fee at whatever was the then market price when you left. However, the upfront payment was quite sizable, multiples of some of the joining fees for most other higher end courses in the area. It's a clever way of doing it, but you still have to have a very large sum of spare cash lying around to effectively invest in the club - which by itself could price out most people.

If you're going to have a joining fee, then atleast offering a deferred payment scheme over 2-3 years (even at a higher rate), could make it more appealing to potential joiners. I think it comes down to what the joining fee is for - loyalty or help fund ongoing capital improvements.

Yes I think you may be right about RMS the joining fee was £8k but they aren't a normal club in terms of clientele

 

[sweaty sock]

As house prices increase, isnt it just as likely the courses dissapear forever to build more? Not sure about green belt laws etc but particularly if the membership are ageing the financial pay out could be significant?

Obviously a terrible result, but as the super league shows, big numbers turn heads...

 

[r0wly86]

As house prices increase, isnt it just as likely the courses dissapear forever to build more? Not sure about green belt laws etc but particularly if the membership are ageing the financial pay out could be significant?

Obviously a terrible result, but as the super league shows, big numbers turn heads...

More unlikely than you would think

I used to work in planning. Golf courses are home to quite a bit of flora and fauna not found in the surrounding areas, they are also rules to try prevent infilling, so planners wouldn't want to build over all green spaces, but prefer building further out

 

[Bobthesock]

How do you fit your clubs and trolley in it?

Trolleys are for women and seniors

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Trolleys are for women and seniors

I won't ask where you put the sock, but I imagine........

 

[HomerJSimpson]

My old stomping ground Wimbledon Common for 7 day membership is £950 with a £60 joining fee. There are restrictions around tee times (so London Scottish can play round from their side of the course and around bank holidays) but proof that you don't necessarily need a second mortgage in SW London to get a membership

 

[sunshine]

My points is mainly down to SW London which granted is quite specific

I just don't think they are doing any future planning. They are sitting comfortably in a very affluent area, but I can foresee the next generation or two or even three will be much harder to find. The plumbers, builders, office professionals that could afford to buy around here in the 1990s and 90s and are now playing golf won't be playing golf forever, and with house prices now in the area are just ridiculous. A family home will be not far of £1m means that the normal person is going further west to places like Camberley or Basingstoke, golf clubs around there will do well.

I just think it would be sensible for golf clubs to plan for the future and make changes now in a controlled manner rather than having to make drastic changes or suffer in 10-20 years time. There is no easy answer but I feel some clubs are happy continuing to use things that have worked in the past and not thinking that the future holds problems that were never thought of when the dreamt up their systems

So if soaring house prices are leading to more wealthy people moving to the area, doesn’t that mean there will be more demand for golf? As these wealthy people have more disposable income.

Surely having nice golf courses in the area increases its attractiveness so there is a relationship between supply and demand.

 

[SammmeBee]

My points is mainly down to SW London which granted is quite specific

I just don't think they are doing any future planning. They are sitting comfortably in a very affluent area, but I can foresee the next generation or two or even three will be much harder to find. The plumbers, builders, office professionals that could afford to buy around here in the 1990s and 90s and are now playing golf won't be playing golf forever, and with house prices now in the area are just ridiculous. A family home will be not far of £1m means that the normal person is going further west to places like Camberley or Basingstoke, golf clubs around there will do well.

I just think it would be sensible for golf clubs to plan for the future and make changes now in a controlled manner rather than having to make drastic changes or suffer in 10-20 years time. There is no easy answer but I feel some clubs are happy continuing to use things that have worked in the past and not thinking that the future holds problems that were never thought of when the dreamt up their systems

Are you really just saying they should make it cheaper for you now so you can join?

Richmond Park does some great offers to allow people to play golf, as does Wimbledon Common. Hounslow Heath making a comeback soon also in a different guise……

 

[IanM]

I thought folk were legging it away from London in their droves and working remotely.
Why do people think affordability of housing is a new thing? Growing up in Guildford in the 80s, no one could afford to buy in that area. All my contemporaries moved out and away. I got a job in Southampton so I could buy there.

Yes, prices were lower, but check out salaries and interest rates!

Golf clubs back then were full, then pre covid were sending out begging letters with deals.... it's gone full circle. For now.