The Independent Golfer

[rulefan]

https://read.nxtbook.com/global_golf_post/euro/20192110/callander_notes.html

 

[patricks148]

The SGU have made noises about doing this too, personally i don't think its likley to bring in loads of new golfers, rob clubs of members maybe and boost the SGU coffers def

 

[Robster59]

The SGU have made noises about doing this too, personally i don't think its likley to bring in loads of new golfers, rob clubs of members maybe and boost the SGU coffers def

That's my thought as well. People like the idea of playing lots of different courses but don't seem to get the fact that without sufficient membership these courses just won't be there.
And there's a lot more to being a member of a course than just getting a handicap.

 

[dronfield]

I have read rumours if the EGU looking to implement a similar scheme - havent the Yorkshire and Lancashire unions raised objections re possible reduction in club memberships etc etc?
In principle it seems a good idea - enables someone to have an official handicap without the financial commitment of a club membership.
More clubs need to wake up to the demands of todays golfers and offer flexible membership schemes - appreciate that some are already doing this.
Rich

 

[IanG]

Joining such a scheme and playing lots of club Opens would be an attractive option for many current nomads.

 

[patricks148]

Joining such a scheme and playing lots of club Opens would be an attractive option for many current nomads.

of course it would, why be a club member when you can forget paying club membership fee and play an open every week. plenty of clubs up here struggling, this is just going to make it worse IMO

 

[rulefan]

I wonder how many who are not members of a club are really interested in joining a club. Perhaps those who want to play in opens but can't without a handicap, would sign up for that purpose alone. It could bring income to the clubs that they wouldn't get otherwise.

I seem to remember that EG (EGU as was) had an associate member scheme which ran for a few years in the late '90s

PS. #2 #4. The article does contain comments from all the CONGU unions

 

[SammmeBee]

I have read rumours if the EGU looking to implement a similar scheme - havent the Yorkshire and Lancashire unions raised objections re possible reduction in club memberships etc etc?
In principle it seems a good idea - enables someone to have an official handicap without the financial commitment of a club membership.
More clubs need to wake up to the demands of todays golfers and offer flexible membership schemes - appreciate that some are already doing this.
Rich

I think you find Yorkshire vote against everything and for some reason they have enough power to make things not go through - the Bercow of golf if you like!

 

[GB72]

Could be a disaster. Take me as an example. I can play once, maybe twice a week at most but also lose out some weeks to family commitments, weather etc. As such, on a purely financial level, club membership is not ideal. Give me the option where I can have an official handicap, play a few nomad rounds plus open comps in the summer and suddenly I can get the golf I want for a whole lot less. I suspect many in my position would give up their membership if this were an option.

 

[dronfield]

Could be a disaster. Take me as an example. I can play once, maybe twice a week at most but also lose out some weeks to family commitments, weather etc. As such, on a purely financial level, club membership is not ideal. Give me the option where I can have an official handicap, play a few nomad rounds plus open comps in the summer and suddenly I can get the golf I want for a whole lot less. I suspect many in my position would give up their membership if this were an option.

Agree. Or your existing club club could offer a membership option of, say 24 rounds @ £480, so that you are still playing your occasional rounds at the club (as opposed to other ones) - they still receive an annual subscription and you are happy with the round cost value for money.

As i said in earlier post - clubs need to review and amend their membership options to meet the demands of todays golfers.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

My club has just joined the playmore scheme. That is a good one for golfers who do not want to commit to a full membership fee. I think in our case it is a possible misjudgement as we will find a good number of full, current members will downgrade to this scheme. It will be interesting to see if we get a spike in new members on the scheme next year.

 

[duncan mackie]

My immediate reaction was that there must be consequences, but on further consideration I'm less convinced.
Fundamentally all this does is move the handicap administration from those clubs that already offer such a service at a relatively low cost to the unions. I was a member on such a basis at 2 'clubs' for nearly 30 years (annual membership was around £10 over the union fee - green fees to play). I'm not sure I would change this were I to still be a member on that basis because it did give that little bit more, including comps.
What might develop is the increased development of virtual golf clubs, associations or, if you prefer, societies; where they underpin membership with a union managed formal handicap and organise events based on society type bookings. This could bring a wide range of existing golfers into the mainstream handicap system which would then lead to clubs being able to market their own comps (opens) to a wider audience etc
There's little doubt in my mind that some open models are already broken (un-realistic pricing on a flawed marketing basis on the one hand, high entry fee/ large prize table on the other), so that's all going to evolve anyway.
There is such a large proportion of courses, favouring the South, that are fundamentally commercial propositions that the evolution of player models beyond single associated club or pure visitors must be beneficial.
There will of course also be massive pushes by national app based services - either new or evolutions to existing.
Interesting times.

 

[Kennysarmy]

Our club has a flexible membership option, you buy credits are redeem when you play, its less credits to play during the week in the off-peak than in the summer at the weekends.

You can still play in all the charity days and medals but not in any board competitions.

I did it for 18 months then found the exclusions from the major competitions too much so although it's costing me more probably - I can also now play when I like - but I know the flexi scheme is popular with a lot of our members....

 

[IanM]

Well, the "club model" is an old one, maybe times change. Some seniors at out place must play close to, or over 120-150 rounds a year. Working away, I doubt if I manage 40.

Mind you, that means I pay just under £25 a round. Decent value, until you see the oldies are paying less than £10 though!! But that's their good fortune. Clubs that continue to offer good value will thrive, those that don't, won't.

For some players options like this might get more people playing.... but if it just migrates existing members away, it is shooting itself in the foot!

 

[Robster59]

Agree. Or your existing club club could offer a membership option of, say 24 rounds @ £480, so that you are still playing your occasional rounds at the club (as opposed to other ones) - they still receive an annual subscription and you are happy with the round cost value for money.

As i said in earlier post - clubs need to review and amend their membership options to meet the demands of todays golfers.

That all sounds nice and good but a club needs a minimum amount of money through the books to keep the course and clubhouse up to a standard that people want to play there. You put other levels of membership in at lesser rates and you are less likely to get new members than you are existing members move to those levels. The nett result is less cash for a club at a time when many clubs are struggling.

 

[fundy]

That all sounds nice and good but a club needs a minimum amount of money through the books to keep the course and clubhouse up to a standard that people want to play there. You put other levels of membership in at lesser rates and you are less likely to get new members than you are existing members move to those levels. The nett result is less cash for a club at a time when many clubs are struggling.

Those clubs that are struggling are going to continue to struggle if they continue to rely on an outdated model that doesnt fit a large part of their current target market, theyre just delaying the inevitable in most cases. Its as if there is some sort of protective nature about golf clubs that they shouldnt be allowed to close, when ultimately market forces of supply and demand will dictate that in the long run. The ones that do survive will pretty much fit into 2 categories imo; 1) outstanding courses with good facilities, conditioning etc 2) those that adapt to what their customers want and offer a varied product at a price point that is perceived to be good value. Theres a lot of clubs that think they are in category 1 that need to realise they need to be in category 2 if they are to survive and thrive in the long term

 

[funkycoldmedina]

Golf really has to adapt the way it gets people to pay for it. The numbers are stark when it comes to engaging 30-50 year olds into paying at one club. I don't think these suggestions should be dismissed out of hand if they bring new or ex players back to the game. Clubs should take this as an opportunity to entice these players on permanent basis with new membership models. The whole idea should be that you price walk these players towards full membership as they get more financially stable and/or have more time.
If they only have ~£500 per year for golf or time for 20 rounds surely it's better to have them as a member than nomading wherever they can get a deal (which really is a race to the bottom).

 

[IanM]

That all sounds nice and good but a club needs a minimum amount of money through the books to keep the course and clubhouse up to a standard that people want to play there. You put other levels of membership in at lesser rates and you are less likely to get new members than you are existing members move to those levels. The nett result is less cash for a club at a time when many clubs are struggling.

Not sure if this is still true, but years ago a Sec told me that roughly speaking, a club covers fixed costs (wages, maintenance, rates, taxes etc) from Subs.... green fees, societies, bar profit is the cherry on the top. Clearly, you can fiddle with different sides of the equation, but clubs need to cover fixed costs first..... therein lies the challenge. How toy get the right number of folk paying an sensible sub! That's why some great courses have low subs.... they have folk queuing to pay high green fees! Or, high subs and no visitors!

Schemes like this need to enhance, not damage current revenue.

 

[ADB]

I am bang on the target demographic and would be interested in joining something like this, will follow with interest...

 

[patricks148]

I am bang on the target demographic and would be interested in joining something like this, will follow with interest...

so would you give up your membership?