[Keith Durrant]

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?!

[redanman]

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.  

[Jim Sweeney]

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.

[TEPaul]

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.

[guest]

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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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 ?

[TEPaul]

"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.

[TEPaul]

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.

[Bob_Huntley]

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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

[JohnV]

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.

[JohnV]

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.

[guest]

"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.

[guest]

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!

[Keith Durrant]

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?

[Keith Durrant]

Correction: Insert "not" in last paragraph "not allow visitors on Friday...etc"

[Tyler Kearns]

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

[ian]

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.

[Tim Weiman]

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.

[TEPaul]

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.

[Mike_Sweeney]

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.

[Craig Disher]

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.

[ForkaB]

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.

[THuckaby2]

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!    

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

[frank_D]

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

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()