Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Keith Durrant on January 26, 2003, 08:06:54 AM
-
Looking at all the wonderful courses listed in these pages, i'd love to play as many as i can. However most of the American courses are private, which I assume means you need to know a member to play the course. In most of the Rest of the World at least some tee-times are available to visitors, with either a show of handicap card or a letter of introduction from home club.
Why is this "closed" policy acceptable in the US - shouldnt there be one big golf family?!
-
Honestly,
Foreign players who contact the different clubs in writing directly will find more reception than one would think; somewhere between say RCEG and Royal Aberdeen. I have played more than once with a Scot or an Englishman at a well known club (Including at a "top 10" US private club where the gentleman called to try and set up a game while visiting a major American city). However, I would write well in advance and expect to be rejected, but it can work.
I for one would like to see American private clubs have a program where members can host individuals who are serious golfers and would just like to play the course. The design and execution of this would take some planning as the demand would be tremendous, but certainly some clubs would never do this and some quite literally could not due to demand.
For example, the demand for 725 members is so great at Cherry Hills in Denver, that no Colorado resident can be a week-end guest, and even Castle Pines which is a "National" club (with maybe 175 CO members) has a policy of only one Colorado resident guest in a week-end foursome.
Some American clubs have a policy of "x" times a person can be a "guest" in a season, independent of who hosts the player.
American clubs have great demand for play in most instances, some policies are pretty closed, but I personally would like to see some outside play and do encourage such things.
Heck, I even hosted Tom Huckaby at my own home club having never met him in person before! Talk about open-minded.
-
rottcodd-
For a decade or so, privacy in clubs has been under pressure from different quarters, and many states have passed laws defining what will or will not be considered private. All private clubs have had to revisit their guest proceedures so as not to be deemed a "public accomodation." That status doesn't mean they become open to the public, but that the may forfeit items such as liqour licenses or non-profit status.
Clubs must be especially concerned about accepting play by people who are not guests of members. The same applies to renting club facilities for non member events. Many will not accept cash.
However, I've found that it really isn't too hard to find a connection to most private clubs, and an introduction from the friend of a friend will make a useable connection to a member. may not work for Augusta, but I've played a lot of great courses through a favorable introduction.
Good luck.
-
Jesplusone makes a very important point there about the ever increasing statutes and restrictions on clubs to maintain their "private" status. The more difficult it becomes state to state to maintain that status the more restrictive these clubs will have to become and the less accessible they will be.
There also seems to be a perception on here that European clubs and memberships are far more welcoming and accomodating to guests. I don't think it's a matter of the European memberships being friendlier or more accomodating---it's a matter of economics. Those European clubs let in so many more guests because it simply defrays their costs which they pass on to their memberships as a reduced cost of memberhip compared to American clubs.
Obviously many private American clubs and their members just don't mind paying for their privacy.
-
No, clubs are more accomodating in UK/Europe. Very, very few clubs in the UK are as exclusive as Seminole... it's a cultural difference towards private golf and it has been that way for a long time. Probably down to how the US clubs formed originally and they've always asserted that privacy.
-
You may recall that the Judge in the Haverford Club case ruled that unaccompanied guests were a form of membership, and thus catapulted the club from the private to public arena.
I also don't understand this "right of entitlement" where everyone thinks that a "private" club should be open to everyone who wants to play golf.
In the U.S., if you let non-members play at will, it won't be long before discrimination suits follow. Some people are undesireable irrespective of anything other than themselves.
If the laws changed, perhaps it would be more attractive.
Redanman,
What is Lehigh's position on unknown guests ?
-
"No, clubs are more accomodating in UK/Europe. Very, very few clubs in the UK are as exclusive as Seminole... it's a cultural difference towards private golf and it has been that way for a long time."
Guest:
Right! Just take away that need to defray per member cost in so many of those European clubs for about one week and we'll see how much more accomodating they are then private American clubs such as Seminole. The cultural difference in golf in Europe, in my opinion, is how much less it costs in Europe to be a member of a club. You show me a golf club in Europe whose members do not feel the need to defray those per member costs and I'll show you a club that's just as exclusive as Seminole.
-
Pat:
What's the Haverford Club?
If anyone looks at a private golf club logically they will soon see that most private golf clubs are basically populated up with a membership to accomodate play on the golf course.
Golf clubs are somewhat different than other types of private clubs this way as most have just 18 holes and we all know that it take a group of four players about 13-15 minutes to play a hole. It gets down to simple math. There's only about 12 hours of light in a day etc, etc.
I can't really understand this attitude of entitlement any more than Pat can. Why would a membership want to pay the freigtht for a golf course and club and have people they don't even know playing the course rather than themselves?
Not unless it works like in Europe where so many clubs just prefer to have the guest greensfees ultimately defray the cost per member. That way the European members are obviously content enough to give up their course occasionally for that per member cost defrayment.
Again, a very large number of American private golf clubs just have memberships that don't mind paying on a per member basis for their privacy.
-
TEP.
Hear, hear. The one really private club in England is Swinley Forest. Why, because they do not require guest fees to pay for their costs of membership. Muirfield, generally considered the ne plus ultra of Britiish clubs, is only too delighted to receive the generous guest fees of visiting Americans.
Believe me, if it wasn't for the filthy lucre, their clubs would soon take on the attitudes of those closer to home.
-
TEPaul,
Haverford (sp?) was the club in Massachusets that was sued by seven women and basically put under the jurisdiction of a court appointed guardian/receiver.
-
Haverhill is the name of the club. Here is a brief article on the verdict. http://www.s-t.com/daily/10-99/10-28-99/c11sr091.htm
Since then, the club has been found in contempt of court for failing to meet some of the conditions set. All is under appeal at this time.
-
A lot of the problems that clubs have is that they try to maintain their non-profit, tax-exempt status. In doing that, they have to meet certain criteria, both in membership policies and in access to the general public. States are getting tougher on clubs regarding these items. States like Maryland have passed laws that require that clubs not practice discrimination in the access they give members in order to keep the status. This is an area that many women have attacked to get equal playing rights on the course. At the same time, they can't allow too much outside play or they will lose their not-for-profit status. Sometimes I think that clubs would be better off, just making their own rules and paying the taxes. They are trying to have it both ways and they can't win. Probably most would lose money anyway and not pay many taxes. Property taxes are probably the one that scares them the most.
At Pumpkin Ridge in Oregon, a non-member can only play at the sponsored guest rate once a month. After that, it is at the full rate. Of course, they are not a not-for-profit club (although it probably looks that way on the balance sheet. :(
-
"No, clubs are more accomodating in UK/Europe. Very, very few clubs in the UK are as exclusive as Seminole... it's a cultural difference towards private golf and it has been that way for a long time."
Guest:
Right! Just take away that need to defray per member cost in so many of those European clubs for about one week and we'll see how much more accomodating they are then private American clubs such as Seminole. The cultural difference in golf in Europe, in my opinion, is how much less it costs in Europe to be a member of a club. You show me a golf club in Europe whose members do not feel the need to defray those per member costs and I'll show you a club that's just as exclusive as Seminole.
I'll show you one club, Loch Lomond. Have a guess at the owner's nationality.
Just focussing on a few of the big clubs in the UK, that receive a lot of visitor play, distorts the picture. There are hundreds of private clubs in the UK that have, in comparison, little income from green fees and yet still remain open to the public. Bob Huntley's states that UK clubs would adopt the US system if it wasn't for the "filthy American lucre" but you can see that's complete nonense given the number of private clubs (many top ones too) that receive relatively few visitors.
-
PS
The UK system (just like the US) has been place for decades, long before visiting tourists and their "filthy lucre" were common, even at the big name clubs. So ain't just economics!
-
Some of the pro-private arguments seem pretty weak to my mind. If one needs to keep the "riff-raff" off one's course there are some tried and tested ways of doing it, e.g. insisting the course is very difficult and demanding a handicap certificate of 18 or less, and in addition charging $200 for the privilege.
In addition, tee-times are only available mid-week and mid morning or mid afternoon. And many clubs will allow visitors on Friday, Saturday or Sunday when they know there is overwhelming demand from their memebers. It still allows for the "reciprocity between clubs" principle to be applied at less popular times.
Anyone know the tax-status of golf clubs in the UK? How is the overflow of green-fee income treated?
-
Correction: Insert "not" in last paragraph "not allow visitors on Friday...etc"
-
Working at a pro shop of a private club in Canada growing up, I was called from time to time by out of town visitors from across the country or from the United States. Generally, we had no problem with outside play, as long as they were members of a private club elsewhere, were not inconvienencing the membership and paid full green fees. Ultimately, it came down to increased revenue, our membership was solid and constantly full, but would not stand for increased fees. Thus, it was a little extra cash to help sustain our club amidst the increasingly competitive golf course market.
Tyler Kearns
-
The circumstance has everything to do with the reception. If your just looking to play golf or to add another notch to your top 100 list; there not interested. But if you have a letter of introduction, or can exhibit some real knowledge of their architectural history, you often do get an informal invite. The pro at Olympic told me to show up and wait for a member to be willing to take me.
Write to the club well in advance, explain why you want to see/play the course, let them decide when would be best, and hope for an opportunity. I wrote Cypress Point and they had me as a guest. I was a (very) young architect at the time, but the current president liked the letter of introduction enough to invite me as his guest.
When people write the UK clubs, its well in advance, and they are send a letter of introduction. People don't seem to think the same courtesy applies here.
-
I agree with the sentiment Ian Andrew expressed. Though not very active recently, over the past thirty years I've sought out golf courses to further my knowledge of golf architecture. Just about every place in the US I've wanted to gain access, I've been able to do so. The key has not been knowing members. In most cases, I didn't. Rather, expressing a sincere interest in studying golf architecture is more important.
People will pretty quickly judge whether your interest is sincere. If you are just looking to play another Top 100, that will probably come across and you are less likely to find a warm reception. On the other hand, when people decide you are serious about studying architecture rather than just playing a famous course, you might find people really open up in surprisingly generous ways.
I do think a club like Pine Valley - just one example - faces a much different situation than say a Royal Portrush. PV can't possibly accomodate all the people who might like to gain access. By contrast, the geography of Portrush automatically limits the number of potential visitors to the hardcore.
-
Guest:
The only reason I said what I did is because I've asked this question of a pretty good number of Europeans (one a past captain of the R&A) from some pretty significant European clubs in the last few years and this is what they've all said in comparing the way we do things to the way they do things.
-
One thing that has been alot of fun for me is the New York Athletic Club (NYAC) Golf Club (nicknamed NYACKERS). For those from the UK, Nyackers is a golf club without real estate. While the founding members of Winged Foot were members of the NYAC, there is no formal relationship between the two other than similar logos. The NYAC has no golf club. Thus, Nyackers schedules 12-15 outings per year around New York at private clubs. You can play in as many as you want, however, most of the days are weekdays, and most of the clubs (Montclair, Metropolis, Rockaway Hunting) may not be on the New York "A" list. However, as most people here know many "B" courses in the New York area are great courses, they often just happen to sit in the shadow of more famous clubs.
Typically, there is a NYAC member who is a member of the golf club where the day is scheduled, thus he is sponsoring 50+ guests and the club avoids legal hassels. I am the host up at Yale in 2004. It is a great way to see other courses, and it is good for the courses who pick up some extra revenue. Only downside is that on crowded days it is a shotgun start, which is not my favorite.
-
Most outside play at private UK courses (except for the big names) comes from golfing societies - which are sanctioned by the EGU and allow members to establish a hcp certificate. Almost all that I have seen are very knowledgeable, play quickly, and are respectful of the golf course. As far as I know, this concept is little used in the US. The private clubs also tend to be populated heavily by "country" members who live some distance from the course and usually play on weekends and holidays only. This gives plenty of open times during the week for society play and keeps dues at an absurdly low level compared to the US.
-
rottcod
UK clubs are subject to Corporation Tax if their visitor income is over some minimal figure. You are allowed to allocate course costs against that income, in proprotion to the number of rounds played by visitors vs. members. The club pays something like 20-25% tax on the net income. At the club for which I was Finance Convenor the tax came to about 5-10% of gross visitor revenue.
Tom P, Bob H and CraigD are right and they are wrong. Yes, UK and Irish clubs are quite happy to have visitor income to keep dues down, but it is a stretch to say that this is why dues are so cheap on this (European) side of the pond. Even if visitors were completely banned, at the clubs I'm familiar with (including one "name" one) the dues for members would only go up by about $200-500/member. Now this is a big number to many of these members, as the normal dues only range from $300-500 per year at these clubs in the first place. Compared to any comparable US clubs, however, to total numbers are trivial.
I do believe, however, that because of the fact that many of our most favorite UK clubs have found out that they can in fact charge extremely high fees to (mostly) American visitors, that many of them have reached the point where they do not need any more visitor income. In fact many feel like they "have" to spend increasingly large surpluses on increasingly foolish projects just to keep the taxman from taking more money away from them. These high fees have had the effect of driving the ordinary "punter" particularly those golfing societies of which Craig speaks, away from the "name" courses and onto the more modest ones. They are also causing members at those name courses go more and more down the Muirfield route, of limiting visitor play only to that amount that meets some sort of minimum income requirements.
As a result, I very much believe that it will be harder and harder for visitors to get tee times at the name courses, and while I do not expect these courses to become as exclusive as US private clubs (or Swinley Forest), I do think that days of being able to walk up to Sandwich or Muirfield or Troon or Hoylake and get a game almost immeidiately (as I was able to do 20-25 years ago) are gone and unlikley to return.
They will keep letting on visitors, however, becuase, as others have mentioned, this is part of the ethos of clubs over here. They are proud of their courses, and enjoy sharing them--even with strangers. This is a fine quality, and it is a pity that so few private courses in the US seem to have the same attitude.
-
Heck, I even hosted Tom Huckaby at my own home club having never met him in person before! Talk about open-minded.
Yes, that was one hell of a risk... and it was much appreciated! ;D
Rich sums all this up perfectly - different "ethos" over there most definitely. The fact a guy like me can still play Muirfield - which I will be doing this July - speaks volumes. Oh, it's not easy to set up, like it was when I first played there in 1987, but it still can be done w/o accompaniment or recommendation by or bothering a member, and to me that's a wonderful thing. It's hard enough being America's Guest - adding the UK title would be more than I can bear. ;)
TH
-
dear rottcodd-
welcome to the constitution of these united states in 2003
two words which scare the hell out of any private club today are "PUBLIC ACCOMODATION" which is why "CLOSED" will remain a way of life in private club golf in the foreseeable future - its not usually intended as an insult - just a legal way of controlling ones (club members) substantial investment - like someone who personally owns a valuable piece of art but is prohibited (too costly or will cancel policy) by the insurance carrier from displaying it in public - eventhough the owner would like to make it accesable to the public - HOWEVER
1) many clubs are accessable by allowing their courses to participate in local charity tournaments - simple schedule accordingly and pay the fee requested - you do not need any connections to either the club or the charity - get three others like minded golfers and play the course (stroke or match) as you otherwise would and don't both turning in the scorecard (scramble format) [ i suspect most of these are un-winnable to an outsider anyway (read sandbagging handicaps)] OR
2) resort tie ins (ask - many deluxe hotels have unadvertized arrangements with local private clubs)
personally my own sentiment is somewher between these two quotes -
can't we all just get along ? rodney king
any club that would have me as a member, i wouldn't care to join ? groucho marx
-
Well summed up by Rich.
Reading old books by B Darwin et al, it's clear that the private clubs in Britain and Ireland have always had this open door policy (or certainly have for a very long time). To suggest they would adopt the totally private system if the tourist money dried up, is frankly a load of old bollocks (sorry Tom)! :D
I wonder if a very high profile club in the US could adopt a ballot system, like at TOC, for limited tee times without infringing their private tax status?
I still can't figure out why private golf is so much more expensive here. As Rich's figures point out, you cannot attribute this to green fee income- that's peanuts in comparison. What happens to my $20K-$50K if I manage to get in a top private club in NJ? Where do they spend it all!?
-
That's a very interesting financial and tax explanation by Rich about how or even why European clubs may be more accomodating with visitors than many American clubs. However, I'm not that certain I follow the logic of what Rich is saying--it seems a bit like a sort of cultural two-way-stretch to some of those clubs, particularly when Rich says many of those European clubs either can't or don't want to spend the visitor income in the form of off-setting costs on their clubs or courses. We notice that most American clubs are very good at spending money on their clubs or courses needlessly.
The European way that Rich describes sounds frugal, conservative and ultimately probably very prudent when you consider what needlessly large available monies can somtimes do to traditional and tasteful clubs and their architecture that can survive very well if basically left alone and not have needless monies thrown at it.
However, it does seem that some of the European clubs are beginning to run into a few sort of catch-22s and are going to have to dial down on visitor play anyway but probably for some different reasons than US "private" clubs are.
As Frank D mentioned the sad fact is that in an ever encroaching attempt by "public accomodation" laws and such to limit "privacy", private clubs in the US are always less able to be accomodating to those that they may otherwise wish to be accomodating to.
As far as I know private clubs in this country are basically limited to a certain percentage of outside income and that is a straight percentage not able to be offset in any way by cost to course.
Again, I'm not sure about Rich's explanation--by that I mean I'm only not sure I understand it but it does sound interesting. It also seems, if I understand it correctly, that an increase in visitor income would only enure to the benefit of the club if you only have to pay the tax man a relatively low percentage until that point comes when visitor play began to encroach too much on member play. Isn't this the same as the old tax accountant adage that if you're paying more tax ultimately your making a lot more money anyway? Some people may want to make less simply so not to pay the tax man anything or almost so.
The reason I mention any of this stuff is because of what I said earlier about why I said some or much of this apparent European accomodation is probably driven by economics at many Euro clubs.
When I asked about the amount or percentage of visitor play at two very significant Irish clubs both respondents said they had no idea what the amount of visitor's rounds numbers were, only the amount of money they were trying to collect in a year from that source and once they did they then stopped it!
And also Rich implying that the ethos of European visitor accomodation came before the visitor income--I don't know how completely convinced I am of that even going way back--in a way it's beginning to sound a little like the chicken or the egg thing.
-
Paul Turner,
Let me try to provide some insight with respect to the difference in costs.
First, you have to distinguish between a GOLF club and a COUNTRY club.
A COUNTRY club has a pool, life guards, snack bars with food, beverage and staff costs etc., etc.. and big electic bills to pay for heating the pool. Swim instructors.
A COUNTRY club has tennis courts, a tennis pro shop, a tennis pro, assistants,staff. Big electric bills for night tennis
A COUNTRY club has paddle tennis courts, staff, electric.
All of the above have employee benefit costs, workers comp costs and property, casualty and liability insurance costs as well as maintainance costs.
A COUNTRY club has breakfast, lunch and dinner service which usuallly encompases overstaffing, benefits, Kitchen equipment, maintainance etc. etc..
A COUNTRY club has social functions, dinners, dances, parties and all the costs that are associated with same.
COUNTRY CLUBS seem to have to cater to every member's whim in every area
With all this comes a large administrative staff, office and operational. Managers, controllers, food and beverage managers, staff, waiters, bar tenders, busboys, catering managers, Maitre D's and on and on and on and on.
Wear and tear on the facility due to these activities usually requires refurbishing more frequently.
A GOLF club isn't burdened with many of these ongoing operational and capital expenses.
GOLF CLUBS Are RARE in America.
COUNTRY CLUBS are abundant.
If the economy remains the same or gets worse, I think you'll see more country clubs cut back, but culturally it's hard to do.
Many COUNTRY CLUBS are the social focal point of the local community.
Hope this helps.
-
Pat:
I know you're the fact man but you should have checked with me first on that last post to Paul Turner and simply said to him that the American golf course/country club just has a helluva lot more OVERHEAD than a European golf club.
GMGC is very good example of an American golf club with no anciliary crap going on--and as such it's one of the best deals in town but certainly nowhere near as reasonable per member as many of those Euro golf clubs.
But the one thing we're apparently going to resist forever is the thought of starting times. One of the reasons is that everyone seems quite aware that that is the very reason the club was started 87 years ago. Our eleven founders came from the old Merion Cricket Club and although a nice place there was just way too much play over there for them around 1915--and unbelievably that means both Merion East and West--probably the first 36 hole club in America if not the world!
-
TEPaul,
Paul Turner asked, if he joined a club in NJ and spent 20-50 K, where would all the money go. I was just trying to provide an example for him.
I forgot about the men's and ladies card rooms and staff,
and the mens, ladies and mixed grills and staff, and the
shack on the 6th/13th holes and staff.
I was outvoted on my board with respect to starting times, which were implemented.
I feel that they have totally changed the character of the club. No longer can anyone just wonder up and find a game.
They have also created cliques and eroded general membership comraderie.
Keep your club free of starting times, it makes for a more relaxed atmosphere and congenial membership.
-
Tom
The ethos was definitely in place well before these courses became tourist destinations. As I wrote above, Darwin wrote several books on touring the famous courses by train; but believe me, the vast majority of these courses certainly didn't get a glut of visitors back in the 1920s! Private clubs could certainly have become totally private with very little financial impact, they just chose to keep their doors open.
I think it all links back to Scotland and the country's inclusive attitude to the game.
-
Patrick
You make a good case. But is even that enough to account for an order of magnitude (x10) or even up to two orders of maginitude difference (x100) in dues?
Is the golf course still the most expensive factor?
Perhaps it's also just supply and demand. The clubs charge it because they know they can.
What's the going rate for a private Golf Club in the metro area?
-
"I think it all links back to Scotland and the country's inclusive attitude to the game."
Paul:
Frankly, I've always believed you're absolutely right about that. I hope that "ethos" can last and always be maintained in Europe.
It's always been an oddity and a fascination to me that when Americans think of Europe they often think of stratified societies definitely including royalty and aristorcracies while Americans think of themselves as the ultimate democratic society.
But when it comes to golf in America vs Europe the whole thing is just about the other way around. Just another fascinating aspect of the roots of golf where kings played with cobblers! Only if it was ever so over here--but it never was.
I think it's one of the most poignant things about golf coming to this country to read really carefully C. B. Macdonald's account of things (we have to realize he might have been the one real transporter of the game in all that it's supposed to be to America). He was so concerned about successfully transporting the "spirit" and "essence" of golf from St Andrew's to these shores and exactly how to do that without forcing it on this culture.
He was so concerned it's almost touching and he feared it wouldn't happen well enough. As it turned out he was probably right both then and now!
-
Paul Turner,
Members act as part time, uncompensated volunteers in serving their club. I don't believe they have the time, desire, focus or consensus from the membership to run the club as strictly as one would run a business.
Some clubs have large budgets, $3,000,000 to $ 6,000,000.
I don't think that the club's themselves know where all the money goes. It's sucked up like a sponge in the dark.
I'd rather see clubs migrate back to golf clubs with minimal non-golf activities, but obviously, I'm outvoted.
-
Haverford (sp?) was the club in Massachusets that was sued by seven women and basically put under the jurisdiction of a court appointed guardian/receiver.
Patrick:
I believe the Club you are referring to is Haverhill CC, in Haverhill, Ma. The issues were much different than just unaccompanied guests and was very poorly handled by the Club or so I have been told.
Best,
Dave
-
Tom
Yes, I think many Americans have an old fashioned idea of what the UK is like these days. Social status really isn't much different from the U.S. If you haven't got money, it doesn't matter if you can trace your family name back 100 years!
I'm often asked, and often find asking myself: which country would I prefer to live in? I know this seems like a "no brainer" to most Americans, because I think most of you are brought up to believe that (in school...)! But overall my feeling is there's not much choose between the two places. From a golfing perspective, Britain will always have my "soul courses" (links) and also take preference because of the openess of the clubs, as we've been discussing.
From a different perspective, America has vibrancy that is now often lacking in Britain. Over there, we are all too aware that our heyday has long since past and it has instilled a pessimism. This is obviously apparent in GCA; what does Britain have to show for new golf courses in the last 50 years!? In America, there are many new and exciting projects.
At times, living here, I feel that America is a chaotic place and is spinning out of control! And I look back to Britain for a sense of stability: there's something reassuring about visiting you local pub, where you know they've been pulling pints of beer since King Henry V111's time (500 years ago).
-
Paul:
That's a darn extraordinary post and it's certainly appreciated--by me anyway.
PS:
I guess what my only problem is sometime on this website I see so many people complaining about so many things about this country--the culture, the way of golf, the USGA, the handicap system, the touring pros, even sometimes the way our own Constitution has evolved with our society. There's nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but if any of them have a better solution, then offer it--something that one doesn't see much of these day--only complaints!
It just makes me tired sometimes because I feel they really don't know how lucky they are in comparison to so much in this world.
I hope you stay in the USA--it may not be ideal but all in all it's not bad at all.
-
Tom
But for all the complaining, really they wouldn't consider living in any other country.
Me, I may well flip back and forth every decade or so, depends on the Mrs!
I find the constitution dabates fascinating and bamboozling! Coming from a country that has no constitution, it's strange to see so much focus on words and their meaning. I think this is also apparent with the a fascination of speeches (words) over here. I'm always amazed at how often Churchill's speeches are wheeled out in public here, particularly at times of crisis. That virtually never happens in the UK! Although, I guess partly because it's too close to home, and any British politician quoting Churchill would be lambasted for comparing themselves to him.
-
TomP
What I wsa trying to say re: taxes and club decisions is that IF a club in the UK finds it has made a "profit" it can either:
1. Take that profit to surplus after paying corporation tax on it (at the rate of 20-25%) for later use
2. Spend that surplus on the club or course
NB--reducing member fees is not always an option as it may trigger more draconian tax treatment based on re-classifying the entity as a "business" rather than a "club."
As the clubs I'm familiar with already have ample budgets for course maintenance and adequate club facilities, if that money is spent it tends to be so on projects of dubious merit ("foolish") such as imitation Swilcan Burn bridges or tearing up the 2-year old carpet in the lounge and replacing it with the current Captain's idea of chic.
PaulT
Great description of the bi-continental angst for those of us who have lived in both places. If only we could take the best golfing elements of each--e.g. US architectural creativity, UK landforms, Californian weather patterns, UK course access, US grill room cuisine, the CONGU handicapping system..........
-
PaulT:
Americans do quote Churchill all the time. I think they look at much of what he said as examples of some of the best inspiration as well as humour there ever was. A couple of years ago I got a tape of some of his old speeches (I'd never really heard him before that totally). His voice and delivery was nothing at all like what I expected but to listen to him today is really pretty hair-raising. The man definitely had that knack to motivate and to apparently to see things in a different perspective. His years in the wilderness were pretty amazing given what came after them. He didn't make them happen just seemed to be able to see something at a time few others could.
But Americans may tend to claim him as much as their own as possible. His mother, Jenny Jerome was a New Yorker and a fairly outrageous one at that (the snake tatooed on her wrist)!
Churchill did say in his historic "Iron Curtain" speech in Missouri that his mother was an American and had it been the other way around he might have got here on his own!
-
Rich:
I also understand the angst of you two. Unfortunately it's never possible to combine the best from here and there into one.
I guess I can understand why the Good Lord put all those 7th century BC tribal nomads out in all that sand in the Middle East but I still can't figure out why he ALSO had to put ALL that oil underneath them!
-
Tom
I recently found out that a lot of Churchill's famous radio speeches were delivered by an actor impersonating him! Perhaps he was too drunk at the time. When I first found this out, it pissed me off, but in retrospect it doesn't really matter, they were still his words.
The guy did have some bizarre opinions on some subjects though and was a poor peacetime leader (I think).
-
One aspect of golf in the British Isles, that has not been commented upon, is that many courses there exist upon public "common" lands or lands held in public trust. Obviously, this has spared many golf clubs the cost of acquiring property, which in some way may account for lower dues, greens fees etc. It also may account for the more welcoming nature of many of these clubs, as these courses, which sit on public lands, are, in some way, quasi-public facilities. You simply do not see the "Private Property - Members Only" signs that you see at so many golf clubs here in the US in the British Isles because so many of the golf course there are not, in fact, private property.
-
David:
That's a good point about some European clubs being on "public land" and consequently keeping per member prices down and maybe being more accomodating to visitors.
I also don't know of any American clubs that have a number of "golf clubs" that all share a single golf course. One wonders some times about how they can do that considering total RPY (rounds per year).
-
TEPaul-
I was a member of the Presidio Golf Club in San Francisco for 16 years (1983-99). The PGC is/was a private club that owns its clubhouse and the land under it but "shared" the Presidio golf course (which it built but never owned) with the Presidio Army Golf Club for well over 80 years. The PGC has continued to operate as a private club even though the Presidio golf course has been a full public course since 1995-96. It is the closest situation I am aware of in the US to what you described in your last post.
DT
-
David:
That's interesting. Over 30 years ago I had an apartment for a short time that looked right out over the Presidio G.C. but I never did set foot on the place.
-
David: just curious - what rights and benefits re the golf course do members of Presidio Golf Club have these days, with the course being so over-run by the public hordes? Man, that is one of the most crowded courses in the entire Bay Area - the Palmer management people really do pack them in.
Or does your termination of your membership answer this question?
TH
-
Shivas:
Are you talking real estate planning or estate planning?
-
TEPaul-
Your comments are not unusual. Several years ago there was an article about the Presidio golf course in the USGA Journal (I think). I believe they quoted both Ken Venturi and Johnny Miller, who would both have to be considered "Mr. SF Golf", as saying that neither of them had ever played the Presidio as well!
The whole time I was a PGC member I never lived more than 12 or 13 blocks from the course. In the 1980's, you pretty much had the course to yourself almost any summer weeknite after 7pm. You could play 2 or 3 balls down every fairway and not bother anyone. It was great while it lasted.
DT
-
In the military days, Presidio was well-known for being quite the tough nut to crack... I was lucky to have some military connections so I got to play it a few times, but he had to actually be there with us, as opposed to Fort Ord, where all he had to do was call... Interesting.
It really did have a mystique almost on the level of Cypress Point back in the day... perhaps even more so, cuz you couldn't see much of it from any public roads, whereas a lot of Cypress is visible from 17Mile Drive and the rest most people had seen in photos or on TV.
It's strange how over-run it is these days...
TH
-
David;
I was out there in 1970 and the Presidio course was run by the military, or else I thought it was. Probably the reason I never considered going over there was I'd just gotten out of the Marine Corps and I felt like if I never talked to a military uniform again it woulda been too soon for me.
-
Tom Huckaby-
As far as I know, the PGC receives no benefits regarding golf course access or favored teetimes from the Presidio Trust/Palmer Group. The PGC staff books teetimes for the PGC members thru the same channels as any public player might.
When I was still a member, getting a decent teetime was not too much of a problem. However, going out on a weeknite for a casual 9-holes after work was a real pain that sometimes lasted for 2 1/2 or 3 hours.
DT
-
David - thanks. I was just cringing imagining how it must have been for the PGC members when the military left...
Side note: I am part of the hordes, or at least I used to be. I secured the first tee time on the first day the course opened to the public officially, and during that year anyway played the course a lot... Haven't been there in awhile - too crowded, too expensive! I do love the course though, always have.
TH
-
Did you guys know that the 1956 Western Open was played at the Presidio in 1956? Mike Fetchik beat Doug Ford, Jay Hebert and Don January in a playoff. The winning score was 284, which is a pretty high score considering the Presidio is no more than 6,400yds. from the tips. In fact, 284 was a much higher score than the winner shot when the Western Open was at Butler National (supposedly a much, much tougher course) in many years.
DT
-
Shivas:
To me "real estate tax planning" is the local and state real estate tax stuff--things like Act 319 and "clean and green" in my state as opposed to "estate tax planning" which in a land context can be a whole lot more significant as we're talking Federal and the IRS. In the latter would be things like "federal land conservation easments" which although possibly extremely rare in golf courses at this point can actually be used. The only one I've heard of, however, is Hanse's Applebrook--a course about two years old.
-
Very interesting, David - I didn't know that!
I can imagine the pros having difficulty there though most definitely. Assuming the trees were big in 1956 (fair assumption, they all look ancient), add overgrowth there, high rough, shaved greens... well, infinite putting wasn't invented at Pasatiempo - Presidio sure can have that given some of the severe slopes... 284 seems believeable for sure.
TH
-
I have plenty of fine memories of the Presidio. Back when I worked for NASA, as fellow DODers, we could play the course for $12. We'd have the course practically to ourselves all for a little more than a sawbuck. The only drawback was that they had no facilities for us. Pay cash-only at a little starter shed and at the turn you could to the Quonset hut (Nissen hut to you Brits) and get coffee out of a machine (terrible, terrible stuff.)
Kind of similar to St. Andrews before the Visitor's Clubhouse.
I just can't go back there and pay the hundred or so bucks it now costs.
TEPaul writes:
I guess what my only problem is sometime on this website I see so many people complaining about so many things about this country--the culture, the way of golf, the USGA, the handicap system, the touring pros, even sometimes the way our own Constitution has evolved with our society. There's nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but if any of them have a better solution, then offer it--something that one doesn't see much of these day--only complaints!
While I was reading this graph, I started thinking you were referring to me. But then I got to the end, and realized you must mean someone else, cause I always come up with a better solution.
That's interesting. Over 30 years ago I had an apartment for a short time that looked right out over the Presidio G.C. but I never did set foot on the place.
How the heck did that we ever allow that? We leave our borders open and see what happens. Tom Paul managed to sneak his way in. Maybe Michael Savage is right.
Over 30 years, that's getting you close to the Summer of Love. Tom, could you be a closet Dead Head?
Dan King
"You've heard of Arnie's Army. Well, those are Dean's Drunks."
--Dean Martin (on his followers on the golf course)
-
Shivas,
The farthest a tax lawyer will go is to call something a "tax-advantaged" transaction.
Jeff Goldman