What Now for Scottish Golf?

[Spuddy]

I see that they have agreed a £14.50 increase. Absolute disgrace.

And surprise surprise it's £14.50 per club you are a member of.

It’s a £3.25 increase

 

[Jacko_G]

It’s a £3.25 increase

Its, not the money that is the issue I suggest you read the full thread before coming out with flippant remarks.

 

[Foxholer]

I see that they have agreed a £14.50 increase. Absolute disgrace....

Its, not the money that is the issue I suggest you read the full thread before coming out with flippant remarks.

Then why complain about it? Especially when you actually get it wrong!

...
And surprise surprise it's £14.50 per club you are a member of.

It would almost certainly 'cost' as much/more to identify/confirm those belonging to more than 1 club than £14.50 - in spite of having a 'key' of Congu Handicap ID. And the 'logic' is that if you are prepared to pay the sub of more than 1 club, then the (relatively) small fee for the National Association shouldn't be a concern. That was certainly how I felt when I belonged to 2 Scottish clubs!

I'd suggest that, as per a Tennis org I was involved in 'back home', those that were members of more than 1 club could apply for a refund of any duplicated County/National fees. But that was still quite expensive to administer for the organisation.

As for the quantum leap in actual performance of National Association programs...I'm far too far removed these days, but doubt the 25-30% increase will make a huge difference in the extent of activities. It's visibility of programs and results - including 'failures'! - that' needed. And that's something many National orgs are reluctant to do - and the members tend to only get to hear about from news media headlines!

 

[Spuddy]

Its, not the money that is the issue I suggest you read the full thread before coming out with flippant remarks.

I have read it, live/play in Scotland and will be paying the increase so thought best to get the facts correct

 

[Jacko_G]

Then why complain about it? Especially when you actually get it wrong!


It would almost certainly 'cost' as much/more to identify/confirm those belonging to more than 1 club than £14.50 - in spite of having a 'key' of Congu Handicap ID. And the 'logic' is that if you are prepared to pay the sub of more than 1 club, then the (relatively) small fee for the National Association shouldn't be a concern. That was certainly how I felt when I belonged to 2 Scottish clubs!

I'd suggest that, as per a Tennis org I was involved in 'back home', those that were members of more than 1 club could apply for a refund of any duplicated County/National fees. But that was still quite expensive to administer for the organisation.

As for the quantum leap in actual performance of National Association programs...I'm far too far removed these days, but doubt the 25-30% increase will make a huge difference in the extent of activities. It's visibility of programs and results - including 'failures'! - that' needed. And that's something many National orgs are reluctant to do - and the members tend to only get to hear about from news media headlines!

What are you gibbering about you fool?

Why would it cost more when your CDH number identifies you regardless of how many clubs you play at!

 

[Foxholer]

What are you gibbering about you fool?

Why would it cost more when your CDH number identifies you regardless of how many clubs you play at!

Is the CDH number passed through the club system to the SGU one?

Sure, it's available. But that doesn't mean it's passed! And I strongly suspect it isn't - primarily because there hasn't been a need to do so since CDH number was implemented (not very long ago)!

So both Club and SGU 'systems' would need amendment to cater for the relatively few who belong to more than 1 club - which is where the additional costs would be - for both Clubs and SGU and, as I posted, likely deemed unjustifiable.

 

[Spuddy]

Just curious, at the moment do you only pay the fee once (at your ‘home’ club) so this is a change to the system? The story on the SG website says it’s a fee per capita which means per person, rather than per membership

 

[SGC001]

Scottish Golf’s membership has voted in favour of a resolution to increase the per capita fee at a General Meeting held at the Stirling Court Hotel tonight.
The resolution was passed with a majority vote of 60.2%. The increase from £11.25 to £14.50 will take effect from January 2019 and will be frozen until the collection of subscriptions in January 2022.
The increased revenue of circa £500,000 has been ring-fenced to support the development of key strategic priorities and also to offset proposed cuts announced in light of decreased funding available to Scottish Golf.
Specifically, it will also enable Scottish Golf to create a fit-for-purpose national junior programme, explore income generation from non-membership golfers – known as nomadic golfers – and offer a free-of-charge digital service for clubs to support and improve membership services at all levels, including tee-booking, competition management, and handicapping.............

Full story at https://www.scottishgolf.org/affiliation-increase-approved-at-scottish-golf-general-meeting/

Why when i read things like do i think
Ring fenced = we're not going to spend any more than we were going too in that area anyway (thinking road tax) and will waste the rest we collect
And the nomad revenue thing sounds like we the governing body wants to cash grab as much as we can, similarly the subs been charged per club one is a member of reeks of this

 

[Foxholer]

Just curious, at the moment do you only pay the fee once (at your ‘home’ club) so this is a change to the system? The story on the SG website says it’s a fee per capita which means per person, rather than per membership

It would seem (from Jacko_G's post that it's 'per membership'.

I believe it depends whether it's actually 'per capita in the club' (ie charge each club 'per capita') or 'per capita in the union' (in which each person should only be charged once). As the relationship is between SGU and affiliated Clubs, I strongly suspect that it's the former!

 

[Foxholer]

Why when i read things like do i think
Ring fenced = we're not going to spend any more than we were going too in that area anyway (thinking road tax) and will waste the rest we collect
And the nomad revenue thing sounds like we the governing body wants to cash grab as much as we can, similarly the subs been charged per club one is a member of reeks of this

That's pretty cynical! But perhaps that's reasonable!

I'm a litle surprised they've 'frozen' the cost for 3 years - that seems a little restrictive, but may have been the only way to get it passed. The idea of offering 'a free-of-charge digital service for clubs to support and improve membership services at all levels, including tee-booking, competition management, and handicapping.' seems a bit bizarre! That'd be in direct competition to a number of commercial companies - and not the sort of thing I'd think a National Union was really all about!

 

[SGC001]

That's pretty cynical! But perhaps that's reasonable!

I'm a litle surprised they've 'frozen' the cost for 3 years - that seems a little restrictive, but may have been the only way to get it passed. The idea of offering 'a free-of-charge digital service for clubs to support and improve membership services at all levels, including tee-booking, competition management, and handicapping.' seems a bit bizarre! That'd be in direct competition to a number of commercial companies - and not the sort of thing I'd think a National Union was really all about!

I've always wondered if the push for flexible memberships is a good for golf thing or a good for the golf unions who get a double whammy of union fees and funding based on participation.

Not trusted them to make good decisions since the 90s build more courses golf is booming debacle and i yake everything they say with a pinch of salt. Some of the usage stats belong firmly in the lies damned lies and statistics area as at times they do seem to compare apples with oranges if u look at it.

 

[Jacko_G]

That's pretty cynical! But perhaps that's reasonable!

I'm a litle surprised they've 'frozen' the cost for 3 years - that seems a little restrictive, but may have been the only way to get it passed. The idea of offering 'a free-of-charge digital service for clubs to support and improve membership services at all levels, including tee-booking, competition management, and handicapping.' seems a bit bizarre! That'd be in direct competition to a number of commercial companies - and not the sort of thing I'd think a National Union was really all about!

Or the cynic says they should have implemented this properly and efficiently in the first place. The CDH card should have been made a "swipe" or "chip and pin" style card that allows you to enter any competition at any golf club without "entering" via a club secretary who then has admin to complete. It should also have incorporated a top up credit system where you can put money on it to pay entry fees at both monthly medal and open competition level.

Not too much to ask in today's age of technology.

 

[Foxholer]

Or the cynic says they should have implemented this properly and efficiently in the first place. The CDH card should have been made a "swipe" or "chip and pin" style card that allows you to enter any competition at any golf club without "entering" via a club secretary who then has admin to complete. It should also have incorporated a top up credit system where you can put money on it to pay entry fees at both monthly medal and open competition level.

Not too much to ask in today's age of technology.

Wow! That's a quantum leap in apportioning 'blame'!

Remember the CDH was 'developed' for Congu. Any features that were 'over and above' those required fpr CDH would have required approval - and funding - by the Unions involved - something I believe was pretty unlikely. And it was done (or at least proposed) when the Internet was nowhere near as all-pervading as it is now! I'm inclined to think 'Chip and Pin' cards didn't even exist then! And 'swipe' cards would likely have involved considerably more expense and complexity than was justifiable!

 

[Jacko_G]

Wow! That's a quantum leap in apportioning 'blame'!

Remember the CDH was 'developed' for Congu. Any features that were 'over and above' those required fpr CDH would have required approval - and funding - by the Unions involved - something I believe was pretty unlikely. And it was done (or at least proposed) when the Internet was nowhere near as all-pervading as it is now! I'm inclined to think 'Chip and Pin' cards didn't even exist then! And 'swipe' cards would likely have involved considerably more expense and complexity than was justifiable!

Bollaches, technology has been there for years and it's a simple thing to implement. A bit of forward thinking and a little investment instead of spunking millions into a great white elephant then just expect a bail out.

You keep "believing" though.

 

[Foxholer]

Bollaches, technology has been there for years and it's a simple thing to implement. A bit of forward thinking and a little investment instead of spunking millions into a great white elephant then just expect a bail out.

You keep "believing" though.

I know of no organisation, other than 'financial' ones, that are using Chip and Pin on their membership cards.

Chip an Pin was implemented in UK 2006. The proposals for the CDH had been 'on the table' for a considerable amount of time before that - though it certainly took a long time to get done (2009?). Chip and Pin and CDH were never going to be associated!

Btw. It's not CDH that has caused the 'great white elephant' that has caused the need for a bail-out! Nor did CDH require SGU to 'spunk millions'!

 

[Andy]

I know of no organisation, other than 'financial' ones, that are using Chip and Pin on their membership cards.

Chip an Pin was implemented in UK 2006. The proposals for the CDH had been 'on the table' for a considerable amount of time before that - though it certainly took a long time to get done (2009?). Chip and Pin and CDH were never going to be associated!

Btw. It's not CDH that has caused the 'great white elephant' that has caused the need for a bail-out! Nor did CDH require SGU to 'spunk millions'!

My club card has my bar levvy money on it, it's presented, swiped and monies taken. No chip and pin on it. Same thing could be used for club competition entry money.

 

[Foxholer]

My club card has my bar levvy money on it, it's presented, swiped and monies taken. No chip and pin on it. Same thing could be used for club competition entry money.

Indeed, 'zillions' of those about!

And relatively secure in a 'Club' environment. Less so, or at least there's more to consider, if extended outside that.

But that wasn't the question I was calling Jacko_G out on! It's the bit in bold that I'm chllenging!

 

[williamalex1]

My club card has my bar levvy money on it, it's presented, swiped and monies taken. No chip and pin on it. Same thing could be used for club competition entry money.

We use our club door entry card to pay bar bill, enter and pay comps also enter and pay the magic 2s comp.

 

[Andy]

Indeed, 'zillions' of those about!

And relatively secure in a 'Club' environment. Less so, or at least there's more to consider, if extended outside that.

But that wasn't the question I was calling Jacko_G out on! It's the bit in bold that I'm chllenging!

He did say swipe or chip and pin, the former is available and works, no reason to harp on about the latter.

 

[Foxholer]

He did say swipe or chip and pin, the former is available and works, no reason to harp on about the latter.

Oh but there is! To demonstrate the complete 'pie in the sky' impractical nature of his original assertion!

And, as I replied to you, security and legal considerations prevent 'Club' cards being practical, or even legal, for use outside the issuing 'Club'. Great for Bar or even Pro shop purchasing/credit, but do you know of any where the funds deposited in 1 'club' can be used to purchase goods/services in an unrelated organisation?

I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have - just exposing the complete impracticality of an organisation like Congu (not actually SGU which the thread is about) doing it at the time!