This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
In all fairness, a rising tide will raise all salaries.
Which is more valuable to a club: 25 new members willing to spend $20,000 per year, or...Management finding $500,000 in budget cuts?
Quote from: John Kavanaugh on December 05, 2017, 11:49:18 AMIn all fairness, a rising tide will raise all salaries.and yet the gap between the haves and have nots has widened quite a bit in the last 30 years or so John so your cute sounding sound bite is a bit hollow.Quote from: John Kavanaugh on December 05, 2017, 09:27:16 PMWhich is more valuable to a club: 25 new members willing to spend $20,000 per year, or...Management finding $500,000 in budget cuts?Clearly the 25 new members but what if you cannot find them?
1. Rollback the ball to a uniform performance standard, somewhat similar to the Titleist Professional in terms of distance and non-cutability. Elite balls now cost c. $15 for a sleeve, whereas elite tennis balls cost under $3 a can. And it's damn hard to cut or lose a tennis ball....2. Fuggeddaboot irrigation if your course is not located on a desert.3. No concrete or asphalt paths (sorry JakaB......)4. Downsize your clubhouse,restaurant and pro shop by half, and then by half again, and then again until they match demand.5. Hire a pro who is capable of running the club and pay him or her a good salary.6. Hire a greenkeeper who is capable running the maintenance of the course and pay her or him a good salary,7. Abolish the commitee/council/board/etc. of worthies and replace them with members who are willing to work for and with (but not manage) the pro and the greenkeeper.This is just a start......Rich
Yes - I guess that's basically it, Sean. A friend (who rarely plays my favourite local course) called once to say he'd gotten us a "deal" at the course for later that day -- I think it was $28 for what is usually a $40 round. I played that round, and since then have purposely made sure never to even ask about let alone try to get that kind of deal again. No, I don't have money to burn, and I'm not particularly altruistic and/or foolish. But: - since I've rarely done anything else to "support local golf" (e.g. like becoming a member of a club)- don't play all that very often- like the people who own and run my favourite course- can play that same course later in the afternoon for its then regular fee of $35 (thus saving only $7 with the "deal"), and - want to support the courses I like best and not have them enter a 'race to the bottom' with courses I like less It just feels, literally, like the least I can do to try to help keep my local golf scene healthy. I can spare that $7 or so as a very small gesture in support of the game. Now, if it was a very well-heeled and high-end club that usually charges $300 but that is offering a special (or I have a British-American friend who knows someone who knows someone), I am going to take that discount in a heart-beat! Peter
Tim - you may well be right. I'm certainly conscious about costs, and I know others are too. But:1. The ripple effect of this sinking too low: the nearby (100 year old) 9 holer that now routinely charges $20 for all you can play after 2 pm; the 1990s course offering flex passes that price out at $25 a round. I'm not good with economics, and I don't know about the finances of these courses, but at those prices it sure feels like the "closing for new housing" signs can't be far behind. 2. I think there are limits to how much golf many of us can play, at any price. Except for retirees, modern life imposes certain limits. If most of the golfers I know can allow themselves one or two rounds a week, few I think will play a 3rd round if the price was $28 instead of $35; they don't have the time even if they have the money. Which is to say: these "deals" may encourage someone to play at Course X instead of at Course Y, but over-all I don't think they increase the total number of rounds being played. 3. I think this golfnow/low pricing model may take the place of other (better?) approaches. The semi private I mention has yearly membership packages (that get you into the 3 members tournaments and some preferred tee times) priced so that you need to play 60 rounds a year (and the standard rate) to "make it worthwhile". No one in my circle comes near playing 60 rounds a summer, especially locally. Wouldn't the course be better off offering membership that prices out at 30 rounds a year instead - which I think would bring a lot more of us to joining as members without dropping the standard price-per-round? All tentative thoughts; but based on a hope that modest local courses can continue to survive/flourish, and the belief that this low-pricing model might serve in the very short term but not in the long one. As I said to Sean, my extra $7 is obviously nothing but a drop in the bucket - but it's all I can do. Peter