Nomads to get official handicaps

[Sweep]

England Golf and the other “powers that be” often seem to forget that they rely a great deal on the clubs to grow the game.
The pandemic effect aside, clubs are struggling enough. Giving golfers another reason not to join a club won’t help.
Fewer members means higher subscriptions which in turn leads to even fewer members.
The cost of playing golf has disproportionately fallen on the people who support it the most - club members.
No members means no clubs and nowhere or certainly fewer courses for the nomads to play. Eventually golf returns to being an elitist sport again, where only the rich can afford a membership.
For the past 20 years golf has been devaluing it’s own product and practically begging members to become nomads. It’s working. This is just another step down this road.

 

[fundy]

England Golf and the other “powers that be” often seem to forget that they rely a great deal on the clubs to grow the game.
The pandemic effect aside, clubs are struggling enough. Giving golfers another reason not to join a club won’t help.
Fewer members means higher subscriptions which in turn leads to even fewer members.
The cost of playing golf has disproportionately fallen on the people who support it the most - club members.
No members means no clubs and nowhere or certainly fewer courses for the nomads to play. Eventually golf returns to being an elitist sport again, where only the rich can afford a membership.
For the past 20 years golf has been devaluing it’s own product and practically begging members to become nomads. It’s working. This is just another step down this road.

Time after time I read on here how members of clubs are paying a few quid a round as they play so much through the year. This thread has a lot of people saying it would be far too expensive not to be a member as the per cost round would shoot up greatly. How does that tally with "The cost of playing golf has disproportionately fallen on the people who support it the most - club members"? The majority of costs falls on the people who use a facility the most. Seems pretty standard to me. How is that disproportionate?

If membership levels do fall at clubs, then the business model needs revisiting, why would you put the prices up if you are losing members? And why does more nomads and fewer club members make it more elitist? does it just not represent the different wishes of the consumers? Not everyone wants to be tied to the same club with hefty membership fees for various reasons but for some reason the majority on this forum thinks that is wrong (albeit that is far more elitist than the current move towards more nomads)

 

[Colonel Bogey]

Terrible move, will lead to lots of members giving up their membership and clubs struggling to make up the shortfall. I can see a few clubs going under as a result of this.

You are absolutely spot on !!!! My first thought on the matter was to stop paying for membership. I can play anywhere I want to. Book up on Golf Now for cheaper fees, also still get to play in Opens. And how many more will be thinking the same?

 

[howbow88]

Are that many people members at clubs purely so they have an official handicap? I can see how it could be a factor in joining or renewing membership, but I'm not sure it is much more than a small consideration for most golfers.

 

[USER1999]

I am always amazed at those who play in so many opens. Many near me have been cancelled the last few years, and those that do still run get balloted out at around a 4 handicap. I doubt there will be many 4 handicap nomads.

 

[fundy]

I am always amazed at those who play in so many opens. Many near me have been cancelled the last few years, and those that do still run get balloted out at around a 4 handicap. I doubt there will be many 4 handicap nomads.

partly an area thing that though Murph, have a look on golf empire and compare say Herts to Lancs for both the number of opens on offer and the price of entry!

 

[USER1999]

partly an area thing that though Murph, have a look on golf empire and compare say Herts to Lancs for both the number of opens on offer and the price of entry!

I don't want to upset myself!

 

[Sweep]

Time after time I read on here how members of clubs are paying a few quid a round as they play so much through the year. This thread has a lot of people saying it would be far too expensive not to be a member as the per cost round would shoot up greatly. How does that tally with "The cost of playing golf has disproportionately fallen on the people who support it the most - club members"? The majority of costs falls on the people who use a facility the most. Seems pretty standard to me. How is that disproportionate?

If membership levels do fall at clubs, then the business model needs revisiting, why would you put the prices up if you are losing members? And why does more nomads and fewer club members make it more elitist? does it just not represent the different wishes of the consumers? Not everyone wants to be tied to the same club with hefty membership fees for various reasons but for some reason the majority on this forum thinks that is wrong (albeit that is far more elitist than the current move towards more nomads)

I will use an example I have outlined before to explain how the cost of golf has fallen disproportionately on members.
In 2012 one of the unions conducted a study, comparing the cost of golf in 1990 to 2012. They found that in 1990 the cost of a round of golf without being signed in by a member was £20. In 2012 it was £22. A 10% increase.
In 1990 the average cost of a membership in their region was £250. In 2012 it was £1,000. A 4 fold increase.
The fact is that paying £20 every now and again for a round of golf doesn’t sustain a course. A typical member will spend in excess of their membership again at their club in bar spend, comp fees, pro shop spend, social functions etc etc. A nomad simply doesn’t spend anything like as much on golf. I will be the first to argue that a membership is about so much more than playing golf but the clubs are selling it too cheaply to nomads and actually tempting their main customers - the members - away.
I agree, the business model does need revisiting. The only reason nomads are sold rounds so cheaply is because clubs are struggling, the course is there anyway so they may as well take the money. If most members actually looked at their club accounts they would be surprised at how little income is generated by nomads unless they are located in tourist areas. Societies are different, they bring in a lot. The odd two ball or four ball doesn’t.
The simple fact is that if you are losing members the cost is split between fewer people and the cost of membership has to rise. Another way is to raise the price of a round to nomads, which as I have demonstrated would be justified. It also has the added benefit of encouraging your members to stay.
Also, don’t take this forum, populated by ardent golfers, as a typical example of the situation. Most on here, myself included, get good value out of their membership because they play a lot. Many members will be borderline and if they actually bothered to do the sums they may well not rejoin.
I am not suggesting for a minute that nomads should have nowhere to play or be costed out of playing at clubs. Far from it. I am arguing that the way to ensure accessible golf is to keep the clubs healthy and memberships high in numbers. This move by EG does not help in this regard.

 

[fundy]

I will use an example I have outlined before to explain how the cost of golf has fallen disproportionately on members.
In 2012 one of the unions conducted a study, comparing the cost of golf in 1990 to 2012. They found that in 1990 the cost of a round of golf without being signed in by a member was £20. In 2012 it was £22. A 10% increase.
In 1990 the average cost of a membership in their region was £250. In 2012 it was £1,000. A 4 fold increase.
The fact is that paying £20 every now and again for a round of golf doesn’t sustain a course. A typical member will spend in excess of their membership again at their club in bar spend, comp fees, pro shop spend, social functions etc etc. A nomad simply doesn’t spend anything like as much on golf. I will be the first to argue that a membership is about so much more than playing golf but the clubs are selling it too cheaply to nomads and actually tempting their main customers - the members - away.
I agree, the business model does need revisiting. The only reason nomads are sold rounds so cheaply is because clubs are struggling, the course is there anyway so they may as well take the money. If most members actually looked at their club accounts they would be surprised at how little income is generated by nomads unless they are located in tourist areas. Societies are different, they bring in a lot. The odd two ball or four ball doesn’t.
The simple fact is that if you are losing members the cost is split between fewer people and the cost of membership has to rise. Another way is to raise the price of a round to nomads, which as I have demonstrated would be justified. It also has the added benefit of encouraging your members to stay.
Also, don’t take this forum, populated by ardent golfers, as a typical example of the situation. Most on here, myself included, get good value out of their membership because they play a lot. Many members will be borderline and if they actually bothered to do the sums they may well not rejoin.
I am not suggesting for a minute that nomads should have nowhere to play or be costed out of playing at clubs. Far from it. I am arguing that the way to ensure accessible golf is to keep the clubs healthy and memberships high in numbers. This move by EG does not help in this regard.

They dont spend as much over the course of a year but will often spend more on a per round basis! Have seen the accounts of 3 clubs over the last 10 years or so, none are in tourist areas. 2 of the 3 have made substantial proportion of their income from green fees, to the point where the last club I was a member at is continually making it less and less attractive to be a member and more and more attractive to be a visitor (cancelling club matches, reducing number of comps, less member only tee times etc). Whys he doing this? Because hes running it as a business and having done the maths on a per round basis he gets more money from the nomads than he does from the members (including bar/food spend) and there is enough demand (and he doesnt give 2 hoots about the members)

The reason nomads are sold rounds so cheaply is there are too many poor standard golf clubs/courses, a large proportion built in the 1980/90s where tbh they are lucky to get £20 a round for what they offer. Many of these courses dont invest in improvements and now offer tired golf courses along with tired clubhouses. Not convinced you can exclude societies from the nomads category either, a large proportion of those who play society golf arent club members anywhere, yes some are but not a high proportion of them

Youre spot on saying this forum isnt representative at all, what is clear is there are a lot of club members who get exceptional value as they play a lot who struggle to see it from any other perspective (and yes this used to be me, slightly more balanced view having also been a non member at times now). What does seem apparent is those who play a lot and get great value dont want to see those who basically subsidise their fees by also being members, but barely play, may soon stop doing so (and again i think they overestimate how many will leave based just on a handicap, they havent done the sums before and this wont force them to do so)

Understand your last point but thats very much from a club members perspective, golf needs to be healthy to all not just old fashioned clubs and their members, and this move actually helps that. This is the crux for me, some of these clubs need to look forward as to how they should be positioning themselves rather looking back and trying to keep doing it the way they always have done, and that may not be the traditional membership led model

 

[Sweep]

They dont spend as much over the course of a year but will often spend more on a per round basis! Have seen the accounts of 3 clubs over the last 10 years or so, none are in tourist areas. 2 of the 3 have made substantial proportion of their income from green fees, to the point where the last club I was a member at is continually making it less and less attractive to be a member and more and more attractive to be a visitor (cancelling club matches, reducing number of comps, less member only tee times etc). Whys he doing this? Because hes running it as a business and having done the maths on a per round basis he gets more money from the nomads than he does from the members (including bar/food spend) and there is enough demand (and he doesnt give 2 hoots about the members)

The reason nomads are sold rounds so cheaply is there are too many poor standard golf clubs/courses, a large proportion built in the 1980/90s where tbh they are lucky to get £20 a round for what they offer. Many of these courses dont invest in improvements and now offer tired golf courses along with tired clubhouses. Not convinced you can exclude societies from the nomads category either, a large proportion of those who play society golf arent club members anywhere, yes some are but not a high proportion of them

Youre spot on saying this forum isnt representative at all, what is clear is there are a lot of club members who get exceptional value as they play a lot who struggle to see it from any other perspective (and yes this used to be me, slightly more balanced view having also been a non member at times now). What does seem apparent is those who play a lot and get great value dont want to see those who basically subsidise their fees by also being members, but barely play, may soon stop doing so (and again i think they overestimate how many will leave based just on a handicap, they havent done the sums before and this wont force them to do so)

Understand your last point but thats very much from a club members perspective, golf needs to be healthy to all not just old fashioned clubs and their members, and this move actually helps that. This is the crux for me, some of these clubs need to look forward as to how they should be positioning themselves rather looking back and trying to keep doing it the way they always have done, and that may not be the traditional membership led model

You may be confusing members clubs and proprietary clubs. A proprietor will be in its solely for the money and may not care about his members, but in any business it’s foolish not to care about your main customers.
These clubs will always be around, assuming the demand is there which I am sure it will be. However, the vast majority are members clubs, owned by the members. Not for profit. These are the clubs growing golf. These are the clubs EG and the R&A rely on.
I suppose it depends on whether you want the future to be courses run for profit or clubs run for members.
The reason many clubs are run down is that they are not making the money to reinvest. It’s probably a fair assumption that many will be gone in 10 years.
I don’t think it’s about losing members who subsidise more active members who play more. That ship has sailed. Back in the day we actually had members who never played, they just liked being a member of a great club. Now, the course has never been busier but the membership is smaller.
I think it is genuinely about keeping the club viable. Clubs closing helps no-one.
Whilst I doubt many will give up their membership because of this move by EG alone, it is undoubtedly another reason removed for joining a club in the first place. And that cannot be good for the game. When people become members they make new friends with golf being their common interest. As a result they play more, bring more people in, the game grows.

 

[fundy]

You may be confusing members clubs and proprietary clubs. A proprietor will be in its solely for the money and may not care about his members, but in any business it’s foolish not to care about your main customers.
These clubs will always be around, assuming the demand is there which I am sure it will be. However, the vast majority are members clubs, owned by the members. Not for profit. These are the clubs growing golf. These are the clubs EG and the R&A rely on.
I suppose it depends on whether you want the future to be courses run for profit or clubs run for members.
The reason many clubs are run down is that they are not making the money to reinvest. It’s probably a fair assumption that many will be gone in 10 years.
I don’t think it’s about losing members who subsidise more active members who play more. That ship has sailed. Back in the day we actually had members who never played, they just liked being a member of a great club. Now, the course has never been busier but the membership is smaller.
I think it is genuinely about keeping the club viable. Clubs closing helps no-one.
Whilst I doubt many will give up their membership because of this move by EG alone, it is undoubtedly another reason removed for joining a club in the first place. And that cannot be good for the game. When people become members they make new friends with golf being their common interest. As a result they play more, bring more people in, the game grows.

Not confusing them at all, I was commenting on all golf clubs, as they are all competing in the same marketplace for the same customers and viewing proprietary clubs as different (and not as important as member clubs) will only continue to hold back the industry, the clubs and their offerings. To most golfers they dont care whether its a members club or a proprietary club but once again on this forum the members club is better/more important than a proprietary club viewpoint arises. This attitude is a massive part of golfs problem imo. There are some great proprietary clubs and some awful ones, just as there are great and awful members clubs

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Are that many people members at clubs purely so they have an official handicap? I can see how it could be a factor in joining or renewing membership, but I'm not sure it is much more than a small consideration for most golfers.

Playing club competitions is part of the reason I'm a member and so by doing so my handicap was always active under CONGU. Add in club matches, a great bunch of guys to play roll ups, good facilities and always someone up there to wander up and have a social beer or three and I'm paying for a package, not just one facet

 

[Sweep]

Not confusing them at all, I was commenting on all golf clubs, as they are all competing in the same marketplace for the same customers and viewing proprietary clubs as different (and not as important as member clubs) will only continue to hold back the industry, the clubs and their offerings. To most golfers they dont care whether its a members club or a proprietary club but once again on this forum the members club is better/more important than a proprietary club viewpoint arises. This attitude is a massive part of golfs problem imo. There are some great proprietary clubs and some awful ones, just as there are great and awful members clubs

There is a big difference between a proprietary club and a members club. As you have pointed out already, a members club looks after it members (or should), a proprietary club’s first duty is to profit. Imagine being a member of a members club whose team match was cancelled for visitors as in the example you gave.
I don’t think anyone is saying proprietary clubs aren’t as important. There are lots of great proprietary clubs. Majors are played on some. They have a different model. I don’t see how either model is holding the industry back. But, neither will be helped and may well be harmed by this move (assuming proprietary clubs have members and are not simply pay to play).
One thing about members is, as long as they rejoin it’s guaranteed income. In my experience of running a club that makes your job a lot easier. Relying on nomads gives you no such guarantees.
Whilst membership may not be for everyone, like it or not, the sport needs members and as many as it can get. They support clubs to grow the game, put a lot of money into the sport and provide jobs for those who earn their living from it. They play regularly and commit to the sport.
This isn’t going to help get more members.

 

[fundy]

There is a big difference between a proprietary club and a members club. As you have pointed out already, a members club looks after it members (or should), a proprietary club’s first duty is to profit. Imagine being a member of a members club whose team match was cancelled for visitors as in the example you gave.
I don’t think anyone is saying proprietary clubs aren’t as important. There are lots of great proprietary clubs. Majors are played on some. They have a different model. I don’t see how either model is holding the industry back. But, neither will be helped and may well be harmed by this move (assuming proprietary clubs have members and are not simply pay to play).
One thing about members is, as long as they rejoin it’s guaranteed income. In my experience of running a club that makes your job a lot easier. Relying on nomads gives you no such guarantees.
Whilst membership may not be for everyone, like it or not, the sport needs members and as many as it can get. They support clubs to grow the game, put a lot of money into the sport and provide jobs for those who earn their living from it. They play regularly and commit to the sport.
This isn’t going to help get more members.

Understand your point, but its wholly from a member clubs perspective and not from both the clubs and the individual golfers perspective, hence I expect why I see this as a good, long overdue move whereas you dont think it should happen at all

 

[Sweep]

Understand your point, but its wholly from a member clubs perspective and not from both the clubs and the individual golfers perspective, hence I expect why I see this as a good, long overdue move whereas you dont think it should happen at all

You are right. I don’t think it should happen for the reasons I have stated. Rightly or wrongly I also don’t think such handicaps will be altogether trusted. Clubs are excellent at regulating handicaps and peer pressure within a club keeps things honest.
EG seem to have done a great job of making the handicap system as bandit proof as possible and now seem to be undoing some of that by making opens a pot hunters fertile ground again. I can see a lot of clubs only allowing entrants from club members or having a nomads prize. We will see.

 

[rulefan]

Of course it was the R&A that caused the problem in the first place. Twenty/thirty years ago they were saying there were far too few golf courses in the UK. That resulted in a massive building boom. The result - an over supply of golf courses and a reduction of income per club. Paying members are now spread too thinly. Those who don't want a club atmosphere can pick and choose and rarely experience the buzz of true competitive golf. The R&A seem to think that having a handicap will encourage them to play competitive golf.
I suspect most clubs will not be too happy about giving them the facility without a high cash recompense.

 

[USER1999]

Is a handicap obtained 'not under the heat of battle' a real handicap? Playing in the monthly medal, name in the book, off the tomb stones, knowing this is the one. That's your handicap.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Is a handicap obtained 'not under the heat of battle' a real handicap? Playing in the monthly medal, name in the book, off the tomb stones, knowing this is the one. That's your handicap.

Sadly no longer - any scores will now suffice with minimal (if any) verification.

I am sitting in my lounge looking at the rain as today's comp has been cancelled. I register to play a general play round and after lunch I enter a score never having left my house. I can even add a markers name (a neighbour would do). I submit the score and tomorrow morning my handicap has been updated.

This is true for club members now and will be true for nomadic members going forward i'm sure. A great pity that a fundamental of our sport is being dismantled.

 

[Sweep]

Sadly no longer - any scores will now suffice with minimal (if any) verification.

I am sitting in my lounge looking at the rain as today's comp has been cancelled. I register to play a general play round and after lunch I enter a score never having left my house. I can even add a markers name (a neighbour would do). I submit the score and tomorrow morning my handicap has been updated.

This is true for club members now and will be true for nomadic members going forward i'm sure. A great pity that a fundamental of our sport is being dismantled.

If that’s the case - and I have no reason to doubt what you say - then that seriously needs addressing.

 

[ger147]

It would be easy enough for any club to negate any negative impact on their open competitions they feel may be coming their way via this new development. All they need to do is change the entry criteria for their open comps to be must have a handicap AND must be a member of a golf club, so no nomads with new WHS handicaps in their open comps if they don't want them.