Joining fees creeping back ?

[IanM]

But surely all full members have an equal vote, whether they paid a joining fee or not?

Why? A club could open up a tranche of membership without a joining fee, with different sub and with no vote. I was at one such club in the 90s.

Any variation of terms "could" be offered as long as contractually clear. Joining or staying isn't compulsory. (Nor is staying in business )

 

[Leftitshort]

It’s a choice. Pay or don’t pay. It’s not compulsory. Just find a club that doesn’t have one. A club that charges one doesn’t owe you anything.
I think it makes you make a a considered decision. No joining fee…jump straight in. The fee may make you pause & research the club first.
There maybe no correlation but I’ve been a member of 2 clubs. First one no joining fee, lasted a year. Second one, paid a joining fee, been there 10 years

 

[Blue in Munich]

But surely all full members have an equal vote, whether they paid a joining fee or not?

It would depend on the club constitution would be my guess. It’s one reason why clubs that have one are reluctant to do away with it as it can lead to a feeling of two tier membership and potentially resentment amongst those who paid a joining fee towards those who hadn’t.

 

[sunshine]

How many new members do you get each year to allow any significant investment into the course from their joining fee?

Any club will have a natural turnover of members. People move out of the area and of course the age profile of a typical golf club membership means that every year a number of members will be leaving to join the great golf club in the sky.

The manager at my place told me they expect 5% churn per year, that's 20-25 people at a typical club. With a £3k JF that's £60k-£75k extra income which buys some machinery or funds a small project like a tee rebuild.

 

[sunshine]

Why? A club could open up a tranche of membership without a joining fee, with different sub and with no vote. I was at one such club in the 90s.

Any variation of terms "could" be offered as long as contractually clear. Joining or staying isn't compulsory. (Nor is staying in business )

I think we are agreeing but talking about different things.

Many clubs have different levels of membership, including flexible options with credits and restricted access. Often those types of memberships have no vote.

But if you go back 5 years (or less) many clubs removed a JF for full membership because they had vacancies and needed new members. A lot of those clubs have now reintroduced the JF. If you are a full member you have the same rights regardless of it you paid a £5k JF in 2021, a £50 JF in 1990 or zero in 2010.

 

[Foxholer]

To me, 'Joining Fee' is only justifiable as 'buying a stake in the club' if it is returned when a member leaves - effectively from the contribution of the member from the waiting list who replaces them - and, perhaps, after an appropriate 'qualifying' period. Otherwise, it's simply a cheap, and possibly unfair, way for a club to finance capital expenditure.

 

[Orikoru]

I just wouldn't even consider a club with a joining fee. Firstly, I don't see what justifies it - perhaps other than the top courses in the UK - it just feels like an opportunistic moneyspinner. Membership has to be cost effective first and foremost for me. Even the membership I have is on the cusp of that, without any joining fee added on. If I was looking to change clubs this year, any club with a joining fee would be crossed off the list immediately. It was bad enough when I joined my current club, unknowingly right before a three-month lockdown and wasted a few hundred quid. In those pandemic-affected world you never know what's round the corner.

Secondly, I don't agree with this notion of loyalty people keep bandying about. It's enforced loyalty rather than earning it. Golfers will be loyal to a club that provides good service and value for money year in year out - if they fail to do that golfers should be free to look elsewhere. Not feeling like their hands are tied because they paid a massive joining fee a year or two ago. It's a disingenuous way to hold onto members in my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 25575]

Im not 100% sure where I sit on this one. On a personal level, I am loathed to pay a joining fee, but that wpuld tie me to a club and, I have never wanted to be tied down, I tend to get bored playing the same course over and again year in year out, so not being tied by a joining fee, for me is a must. Id rather join for a couple of years then move to the next place. I'm not one who wants to be part of a 'club' I just want to play golf. Comps, club nights, roll ups and the like hold no interest to me personally. So with my like for playing different courses and my not wanting to be part of anything, joining fees don't work for me.

All that said, I can completely see it from a clubs point of view, a joining fee is more likely going to lead to a more steady yearly subs revinue stream and will put the likes of me off.

 

[IanM]

I think we are agreeing but talking about different things.

Many clubs have different levels of membership, including flexible options with credits and restricted access. Often those types of memberships have no vote.

But if you go back 5 years (or less) many clubs removed a JF for full membership because they had vacancies and needed new members. A lot of those clubs have now reintroduced the JF. If you are a full member you have the same rights regardless of it you paid a £5k JF in 2021, a £50 JF in 1990 or zero in 2010.

Yes, and I know plenty of examples as you give above too.

To me, 'Joining Fee' is only justifiable as 'buying a stake in the club' if it is returned when a member leaves - effectively from the contribution of the member from the waiting list who replaces them - and, perhaps, after an appropriate 'qualifying' period. Otherwise, it's simply a cheap, and possibly unfair, way for a club to finance capital expenditure.

This was the case at the first club I joined, but only if membership was "full." Which never happened.

But of course, if return of the funds was immediate and guaranteed, it wouldn't stop churn and would make utilisation of the funds an accounting challenge.

 

[Swango1980]

Im not 100% sure where I sit on this one. On a personal level, I am loathed to pay a joining fee, but that wpuld tie me to a club and, I have never wanted to be tied down, I tend to get bored playing the same course over and again year in year out, so not being tied by a joining fee, for me is a must. Id rather join for a couple of years then move to the next place. I'm not one who wants to be part of a 'club' I just want to play golf. Comps, club nights, roll ups and the like hold no interest to me personally. So with my like for playing different courses and my not wanting to be part of anything, joining fees don't work for me.

All that said, I can completely see it from a clubs point of view, a joining fee is more likely going to lead to a more steady yearly subs revinue stream and will put the likes of me off.

Why would you bother joining a golf club at all, joining fee or not?

Could you not just pay green fees and go and play whichever course takes your fancy on any given week?

 

[Deleted member 25575]

Why would you bother joining a golf club at all, joining fee or not?

Could you not just pay green fees and go and play whichever course takes your fancy on any given week?

I could yes but I like to play a lot of golf and its just not cost effective.

Last summer I was playing 5 times a week at £30 wpuld be £600 a month.

 

[Foxholer]

...
But of course, if return of the funds was immediate and guaranteed, it wouldn't stop churn and would make utilisation of the funds an accounting challenge.

The churn issue was the reason behind the 'qualifying period'. It actually makes the 'Joining Fee' more honest, by turning it into a 'Leaving Fee' if that's its real purpose. The subsequent JF of the new member from the waiting list would fund it, so no issue there either.
I don't see why it would be any greater 'accounting challenge' than it already is. I'd expect it to be separated into a 'Capital Reserve' type account as opposed to Fees going into 'Income/Expenditure' ones.

 

[Bobthesock]

Any club will have a natural turnover of members. People move out of the area and of course the age profile of a typical golf club membership means that every year a number of members will be leaving to join the great golf club in the sky.

The manager at my place told me they expect 5% churn per year, that's 20-25 people at a typical club. With a £3k JF that's £60k-£75k extra income which buys some machinery or funds a small project like a tee rebuild.

I would be disappointed if 60-75k would only buy a tee rebuild, what are you building it out of?

 

[Orikoru]

To me, 'Joining Fee' is only justifiable as 'buying a stake in the club' if it is returned when a member leaves - effectively from the contribution of the member from the waiting list who replaces them - and, perhaps, after an appropriate 'qualifying' period. Otherwise, it's simply a cheap, and possibly unfair, way for a club to finance capital expenditure.

This is exactly what I was thinking. 'Investing in the club' as people have been saying is nonsense unless you can withdraw your investment again when you leave.

 

[Crazyface]

But surely all full members have an equal vote, whether they paid a joining fee or not?

Some clubs are giving reduced fees for membership that mean players who take this up don't get a vote.

 

[Leftitshort]

This is exactly what I was thinking. 'Investing in the club' as people have been saying is nonsense unless you can withdraw your investment again when you leave.

An investment in a club doesn’t have to be monetary. A joining fee won’t keep you somewhere you hate but it will focus your attention when joining. Also it may serve to dissuade those who move clubs every year to chase deal.

 

[Backache]

To me, 'Joining Fee' is only justifiable as 'buying a stake in the club' if it is returned when a member leaves - effectively from the contribution of the member from the waiting list who replaces them - and, perhaps, after an appropriate 'qualifying' period. Otherwise, it's simply a cheap, and possibly unfair, way for a club to finance capital expenditure.

It's only unfair if some pay joining fees and others do not.
If everyone pays a joining fee it's the same for everyone.

 

[Foxholer]

It's only unfair if some pay joining fees and others do not.
If everyone pays a joining fee it's the same for everyone.

Maybe; maybe not!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It's only unfair if some pay joining fees and others do not.
If everyone pays a joining fee it's the same for everyone.

What about juniors ?

Most clubs don’t charge under 16s a joining fee ?

 

[HarrogateHacker]

I didn't mind paying a Joining Fee. I joined a private members club - The club reinvest the money back into the course and facilities, so the more income they generate the better the member experience is, which would be my preference as a member. Completely comfortable that many golfers disagree with JF's and wont knock anyone that is unwilling to pay one but there may be a compromise over the type of course you get to play. Each to there own, hopefully most golfers get a choice as to what type of club they would like to join.