Time to break away from England Golf ?

[rulie]

Some years ago Counties made nominations for members of various EG committees (I was one such). Now I believe all committee members are employed staffers

That's not a good thing - there should be volunteers on the committees (eg, membership, Rules, Am Status, championships) who are assisted by staff.

 

[rulefan]

That's not a good thing - there should be volunteers on the committees (eg, membership, Rules, Am Status, championships) who are assisted by staff.

Indeed. When I was on Club Services I think 3/4 were staff and 5/6 County nominees.

 

[rulie]

Indeed. When I was on Club Services I think 3/4 were staff and 5/6 County nominees.

Further, imo, the Committees should be chaired by volunteers.

 

[rulefan]

Further, imo, the Committees should be chaired by volunteers.

As it happened our chair was a staffer but had been a very experienced club manager. He ran the committee well.

 

[Starter]

Further, imo, the Committees should be chaired by volunteers.

Personally the last thing I would wish to see is committees chaired by volunteers.

My experience of such, albeit in non golf settings, is that they are a recipe for endless talking shops with little or nothing being finalised and a lack of subjectivity

 

[doublebogey7]

Further, imo, the Committees should be chaired by volunteers.

Personally the last thing I would wish to see is committees chaired by volunteers.

My experience of such, albeit in non golf settings, is that they are a recipe for endless talking shops with little or nothing being finalised and a lack of subjectivity

I see no reason why it shouldn't be the best person for the job, be it staffer or volunteer, why hamstring yourself by having dividing lines.

 

[rulefan]

Staff would provide more continuity. County nominees are likely to change more frequently.

 

[Backache]

Personally the last thing I would wish to see is committees chaired by volunteers.

My experience of such, albeit in non golf settings, is that they are a recipe for endless talking shops with little or nothing being finalised and a lack of subjectivity

Personal experience is that the effectiveness of a chair is largely dependent on their personal qualities rather than their provenance.

 

[Imurg]

In answer to the OP I think it's time to suck it up, get on with playing golf and not worry about it as nothing is going to change to your liking any time soon.
Just my view.....

 

[Dunesman]

How strong for example was the ground swell of opinion amonst regular club members, and clubs as a whole, wanting handicaps for nonmembers of clubs, that instructed and supported EG to implement iGolf ?

Are there any clubs comprising entirely iGolf members does anyone know ? I could see it suiting some of the commercial model clubs very well.

 

[doublebogey7]

How strong for example was the ground swell of opinion amonst regular club members, and clubs as a whole, wanting handicaps for nonmembers of clubs, that instructed and supported EG to implement iGolf ?

Are there any clubs comprising entirely iGolf members does anyone know ? I could see it suiting some of the commercial model clubs very well.

If they were comprised entirely of igolf members then they would not be affiliated to EG. In which case they wouldn't have an official Course Rating & therefore members could not play acceptable rounds. I don't see how that benefits anyone.

 

[wjemather]

How strong for example was the ground swell of opinion amonst regular club members, and clubs as a whole, wanting handicaps for nonmembers of clubs, that instructed and supported EG to implement iGolf ?

Are there any clubs comprising entirely iGolf members does anyone know ? I could see it suiting some of the commercial model clubs very well.

The drive for independent golfer schemes comes from higher up. If the GB&I unions hadn't implemented their own, The R&A would likely have stepped in and done it themselves (this was strongly hinted at when GI were dragging their feet over introducing theirs). There was plenty of pushback from clubs against the schemes, almost entirely based on a fear of losing members - something that hasn't transpired.

No member of an independent golfer scheme can be a member of an affiliated club. Only affiliated clubs get their courses rated. Only approved organisations have (limited) access to WHS to run competitions & submit scores. Non-affiliated clubs sit outside of this system.

 

[Dunesman]

The drive for independent golfer schemes comes from higher up. If the GB&I unions hadn't implemented their own, The R&A would likely have stepped in and done it themselves (this was strongly hinted at when GI were dragging their feet over introducing theirs). There was plenty of pushback from clubs against the schemes, almost entirely based on a fear of losing members - something that hasn't transpired.

Why did GE, as the association of existing golfers with handicaps, then feel pressured to do it, against the will of the clubs to whom GE is a service ? Was the R&A or other stepping in not an attractive solution for GE ? Let GE look after the interests of the clubs. Other parties to run their own affairs. Where was the threat or loss to members of not implementing iGolf ?

 

[D-S]

The drive for independent golfer schemes comes from higher up. If the GB&I unions hadn't implemented their own, The R&A would likely have stepped in and done it themselves (this was strongly hinted at when GI were dragging their feet over introducing theirs).

Have the R&A got the resources to implement something like iGolf across all GB&I or the rest of the area that they are in control of? Surely they would have to set up a large amount of infrastructure to run something like this.
Do the Spanish or French Golf Federations have something like this? Were they coerced into forming one? I know the restrictions the Spanish Federation impose on GP scores would make it very difficult.

 

[nickjdavis]

Why did GE, as the association of existing golfers with handicaps, then feel pressured to do it, against the will of the clubs to whom GE is a service ? Was the R&A or other stepping in not an attractive solution for GE ? Let GE look after the interests of the clubs. Other parties to run their own affairs. Where was the threat or loss to members of not implementing iGolf ?

England Golf are not "the association of existing golfers with handicaps"...they are the governing body of the sport of amateur golf in England, and as such their remit goes way beyond solely representing the interests of the club golfer. They didn't just have a responsibility to the clubs and club members, they have a responsibility towards ALL golfers and the wider sport and, at the time of iGolfs implementation, the number of "independent golfers" (estimated around 2.3 million) vastly exceeded the number of "club golfers" in England (approx. 647,000 in Feb 2021).

To suggest that England Golf should have only been considering the needs of "club handicap golfers" is simply wrong, and for them to have done so, would have been a dereliction of their duty to the wider sport.

As for whether England Golf should have stood by and let the R&A implement their own scheme....what a potential waste of income that would have been...46,000 current IGolf members, each paying £46 a year...just over £2.1 million, tossed away into the pockets of the R&A instead of their own....now that would have been a disservice to golf.

 

[D-S]

England Golf are not "the association of existing golfers with handicaps"...they are the governing body of the sport of amateur golf in England, and as such their remit goes way beyond solely representing the interests of the club golfer. They didn't just have a responsibility to the clubs and club members, they have a responsibility towards ALL golfers and the wider sport and, at the time of iGolfs implementation, the number of "independent golfers" (estimated around 2.3 million) vastly exceeded the number of "club golfers" in England (approx. 647,000 in Feb 2021).

To suggest that England Golf should have only been considering the needs of "club handicap golfers" is simply wrong, and for them to have done so, would have been a dereliction of their duty to the wider sport.

As for whether England Golf should have stood by and let the R&A implement their own scheme....what a potential waste of income that would have been...46,000 current IGolf members, each paying £46 a year...just over £2.1 million, tossed away into the pockets of the R&A instead of their own....now that would have been a disservice to golf.

I understand and appreciate this although it would be interesting to know (I’m sure it’s available) to know the proportion of the funding of EG that comes from “existing golfers with handicaps” and dependent on this the amount of their remit that should be dedicated to this. The same argument is true for the shareholders of England Golf i.e. the County Unions and Associations.

 

[nickjdavis]

I understand and appreciate this although it would be interesting to know (I’m sure it’s available) to know the proportion of the funding of EG that comes from “existing golfers with handicaps” and dependent on this the amount of their remit that should be dedicated to this. The same argument is true for the shareholders of England Golf i.e. the County Unions and Associations.

Acccording to the 2021 accounts on the EG website, affiliation fees were pretty much bang on £7 million, with the remaining £5.5 million of income coming from Grants, sale of goods, membership income and geen fees (I guess at Woodhall Spa itself) and "other services"...also iGolf subscriptions were just under £150k but the scheme was in its infancy. So 55% of income from "existing golfers with handicaps".

2021 summary of income on the left, 2023 on the right (or perhaps below, depending on how big a screen you are viewing on!!!)


2021

 

[rulefan]

I understand and appreciate this although it would be interesting to know (I’m sure it’s available) to know the proportion of the funding of EG that comes from “existing golfers with handicaps” and dependent on this the amount of their remit that should be dedicated to this. The same argument is true for the shareholders of England Golf i.e. the County Unions and Associations.

The playing members of each club contribute a portion of their subscription to their County Union or Association. The County then forwards a fixed sum per head to England Golf.
The members of iGolf contribute directly to England Golf. No other golfer makes a contribution to EG.

Incidentally, each County Union or Association sets their own affiliation fee, of which a fixed figure goes to EG and the rest they keep.

 

[D-S]

The playing members of each club contribute a portion of their subscription to their County Union or Association. The County then forwards a fixed sum per head to England Golf.
The members of iGolf contribute directly to England Golf. No other golfer makes a contribution to EG.

Incidentally, each County Union or Association sets their own affiliation fee, of which a fixed figure goes to EG and the rest they keep.

They are two distinct fees, one set by England Golf and one by the County Union or Association, at most clubs in Gloucestershire these are separated on each subscription invoice and broken down as to how much is the EG sub and how much is County. So it is not seen as contributing’a portion of their subscription’ but two defined separate amounts.

 

[doublebogey7]

England Golf are not "the association of existing golfers with handicaps"...they are the governing body of the sport of amateur golf in England, and as such their remit goes way beyond solely representing the interests of the club golfer. They didn't just have a responsibility to the clubs and club members, they have a responsibility towards ALL golfers and the wider sport and, at the time of iGolfs implementation, the number of "independent golfers" (estimated around 2.3 million) vastly exceeded the number of "club golfers" in England (approx. 647,000 in Feb 2021).

To suggest that England Golf should have only been considering the needs of "club handicap golfers" is simply wrong, and for them to have done so, would have been a dereliction of their duty to the wider sport.

As for whether England Golf should have stood by and let the R&A implement their own scheme....what a potential waste of income that would have been...46,000 current IGolf members, each paying £46 a year...just over £2.1 million, tossed away into the pockets of the R&A instead of their own....now that would have been a disservice to golf.

Not forgetting the marketing value of those 46k