7% at my place.
That’s interesting, however even if your subs have been kept low for many years it does raise the question as to why a 36% income increase might be needed. I assume to catch up on all the issues that the underfunding has caused?
Or leave.Thankfully we don't get to vote on such issues at AGM's. In my view we elect the board to make such decisions and if the membership aren't happy with the overall route they are taking then they are free to elect another board.
For what reason ?Just got ours - 7% increase (about £140). Which isn't so bad, all things considered. And have decided to pay in one lump rather than monthly installments because they are offering an extra £50 on one's bar-card for doing so. Obviously they are trying to phase out the 'monthly installment brigade' - which I sort of agree with.
Everyone would want that if offered I would imagine.Or leave.
With regard to membership fee increases, are there other ways for clubs to protect their income stream by offering alternative memberships and attracting new members?
Flexible memberships are becoming more popular, they have their downsides but can be structured in many different ways.
Given the pressures of money, time and winter weather related restrictions what about an 8 or 9 month ‘full’ membership with a nominal green fee for the other 3 or 4 months?
Obviously changing the membership tariffs carries a risk
I’d happily move to a 9 month membership but I realise the club needs funding for 12 months so any sort of monthly membership isn’t really going to work (unless it’s 9 months for the price of 12).Everyone would want that if offered I would imagine.
The club has to be financed during winter .
Full members are not going to subsidise 9 month members.
That’s already on offer.I’d happily move to a 9 month membership but I realise the club needs funding for 12 months so any sort of monthly membership isn’t really going to work (unless it’s 9 months for the price of 12).
I’d happily move to a 9 month membership but I realise the club needs funding for 12 months so any sort of monthly membership isn’t really going to work (unless it’s 9 months for the price of 12).
Judging by some of the posts re closures and restrictions it’s not just on offer, but reality.That’s already on offer.
It depends what the discounted fees were and When you can play.!Judging by some of the posts re closures and restrictions it’s not just on offer, but reality.
A 9 month membership wouldn't be priced pro-rata the 12 month rate, it would have to have some kind of premium element, so perhaps 10 or 10.5 times the equivalent monthly rate of the annual sub, which could still exist for those that want it. In the event of a decent winter the 9 month member would pay discounted green fees.
I‘m not sure that everyone would want it, it wouldn’t be cost effective for the hardy, “play in all conditions” member, however it could be attractive to fair weather golfers currently on “play as you go” memberships such as PMG.
As for subsidies, don’t those that are unable to play in winter months due to various restrictions, (trolley bans etc) subsidise those that can?
Offering a nine month membership would only increase revenue for clubs if it attracted enough new members to counter the current members who would take it up. With warm wet winters clubs are going to find it increasingly more difficult to keep courses open and could see up to 50% of members taking that option. That would mean clubs having to attract more new members than they could cope with in the summer months. Might be an option for less popular clubs but not for those that have close to full membership.Judging by some of the posts re closures and restrictions it’s not just on offer, but reality.
A 9 month membership wouldn't be priced pro-rata the 12 month rate, it would have to have some kind of premium element, so perhaps 10 or 10.5 times the equivalent monthly rate of the annual sub, which could still exist for those that want it. In the event of a decent winter the 9 month member would pay discounted green fees.
I‘m not sure that everyone would want it, it wouldn’t be cost effective for the hardy, “play in all conditions” member, however it could be attractive to fair weather golfers currently on “play as you go” memberships such as PMG.
As for subsidies, don’t those that are unable to play in winter months due to various restrictions, (trolley bans etc) subsidise those that can?
My old club is in financial trouble.Surely it would be unworkable from a clubs perspective, too many people would take the 9 month offering, the club income would drop by a quarter and overall condition of the course would suffer as a result