I wonder if any of you read this in Tuesday's(?) Daily Telegraph:

"Old 'leeches' drive a wedge in golf clubs
By Lewine Mair and Nick Britten

"Senior citizens who dedicate their retirement days to golf have been 
denounced as "leeches" on their clubs.  Many elderly players, who pay 
reduced fees, spend more than half their week playing, ruining courses and 
annoying younger members who often pay a lot more for membership, says The 
Golf Club Secretary Newsletter.

Now clubs are considering banning elderly players at certain times and 
dropping concessionary rates.
The suggestion will split opinion in the golfing world.
The monthly newsletter says that as life expectancy and fitness levels 
increase, older players are making greater use of memberships, playing two 
or three times a week. They spend so long on the course they become 
"leeches" on the club.
Most regular members are too busy at work to play more than 20 rounds a 
year.
Typically, they could be paying £1,000 as against the £700 of an over-65."


Has there been any debate in your club on this issue?

It seems to me there are difference between pay and play clubs where 
subscriptions and green fees are aimed at generating profits without 
emotion, and private clubs often give reduced membership fees to those who 
have reached a certain age and have been members for a given number of years 
based on emotional considerations.

I don't like the journalistic style of the article and have not read the 
source, but I have always been of the view that either all members, except 
juniors, should pay the same, irrespective of age, years of membership and 
gender, or they should pay according to course usage, market forces and 
demands on the course.

Malcolm

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:30:45 -0000, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:

>I don't like the journalistic style of the article and have not read the 
>source, but I have always been of the view that either all members, except 
>juniors, should pay the same, irrespective of age, years of membership and 
>gender, or they should pay according to course usage, market forces and 
>demands on the course.
>
>Malcolm

I believe that my father's club does it this way -- everyone pays the
same.  There are a couple of different membership options with reduced
privileges on weekends and the such, though.

However, anyone who has been a member for X[1] number of years and
reaches 90 years of age pays no dues of any kind.  They have a couple
of members who fit this category and it's neat to see them out with a
trolley chasing the little white ball.  

[1] -- I don't know how long X is.  
-- 
jvdp
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

M L Wadsworth wrote:

> Has there been any debate in your club on this issue?
> 
> It seems to me there are difference between pay and play clubs where 
> subscriptions and green fees are aimed at generating profits without 
> emotion, and private clubs often give reduced membership fees to those who 
> have reached a certain age and have been members for a given number of years 
> based on emotional considerations.

My club in Australia briefly discussed this a couple of years ago when 
someone moved at the AGM for a reduced membership rate for over-65s, on 
the basis that many retirees find the cost of living, and golfing, 
increasingly difficult. There was also the argument that we should 
reward service over many years to the club.

The motion was defeated, the main argument being that age by itself is 
not a sufficient condition for reduction ... many retirees are a lot 
better off financially than some of those who are still working. The 
issue of course usage and wear and tear was also raised -- many of these 
people play 4-5 times a week ... and they want a fee reduction! The fees 
are already extremely low: A$315 per year!

If you try to narrow a fee reduction down to "less well-off over-65s", 
then you have to start working through qualifying conditions and things 
like means tests (for example "in receipt of a pension"). This becomes 
very murky. Then what about single parents on a pension? Or people on 
unemployment? Or people with a disability? In the end it's all too hard 
to administer.

The concept to me is whether to consider this as a social/emotional 
issue or a business one. Over-65s gain a lot of concessions from 
government, like public transport and council rate concessions, and a 
few discounts from commerce, but they are not automatically entitled to 
buy things cheaper, whether it's at the supermarket, the petrol station 
or the department store. I don't see why a golf club should offer any 
more concessions than a supermarket ... it's a business that needs to 
keep its head above water, not a social welfare institution.

Having said that, my club runs almost 100% on volunteers. A great number 
of the volunteers are in the retired age bracket, because they are the 
ones with the time to undertake the work. So there is give and take for 
their high usage of the course. The incentive is however that 
volunteering keeps fees low, so they are gaining the mutual benefits of 
service and saving money. The problem with simply "rewarding service" en 
masse is that many people have been members for 20-30 years without 
doing anything more than turning up to play.

We have also discussed the idea of a fee discount (up to a maximum 20%) 
for hours volunteered, but that's also very difficult to administer.

-- 
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
Barnbougle Dunes: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Colin Wilson"  wrote in message 
news:VW4%i.13363$CN4.5714@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>M L Wadsworth wrote:
>
> My club in Australia briefly discussed this a couple of years ago when 
> someone moved at the AGM for a reduced membership rate for over-65s, on 
> the basis that many retirees find the cost of living, and golfing, 
> increasingly difficult. There was also the argument that we should reward 
> service over many years to the club.
>
> The motion was defeated, the main argument being that age by itself is not 
> a sufficient condition for reduction ... many retirees are a lot better 
> off financially than some of those who are still working. The issue of 
> course usage and wear and tear was also raised -- many of these people 
> play 4-5 times a week ... and they want a fee reduction! The fees are 
> already extremely low: A$315 per year!
>
> If you try to narrow a fee reduction down to "less well-off over-65s", 
> then you have to start working through qualifying conditions and things 
> like means tests (for example "in receipt of a pension"). This becomes 
> very murky. Then what about single parents on a pension? Or people on 
> unemployment? Or people with a disability? In the end it's all too hard to 
> administer.
>
> The concept to me is whether to consider this as a social/emotional issue 
> or a business one. Over-65s gain a lot of concessions from government, 
> like public transport and council rate concessions, and a few discounts 
> from commerce, but they are not automatically entitled to buy things 
> cheaper, whether it's at the supermarket, the petrol station or the 
> department store. I don't see why a golf club should offer any more 
> concessions than a supermarket ... it's a business that needs to keep its 
> head above water, not a social welfare institution.
>
> Having said that, my club runs almost 100% on volunteers. A great number 
> of the volunteers are in the retired age bracket, because they are the 
> ones with the time to undertake the work. So there is give and take for 
> their high usage of the course. The incentive is however that volunteering 
> keeps fees low, so they are gaining the mutual benefits of service and 
> saving money. The problem with simply "rewarding service" en masse is that 
> many people have been members for 20-30 years without doing anything more 
> than turning up to play.
>
> We have also discussed the idea of a fee discount (up to a maximum 20%) 
> for hours volunteered, but that's also very difficult to administer.
>
> -- 
> Cheers
> Colin Wilson

Those are my sentiments entirely.  Private golf clubs are not charitable 
organisations.
They are clubs managed and financed by the members.  If members can no 
longer afford the subscription then they can't be members.

The volunteer situation is interesting.  Most volunteers get their enjoyment 
from being volunteers and for them that is reward enough.
Often there are small privileges which come with the job: reserved parking 
space; first option on tickets for popular functions like New Years Eve, 
Captain's subscription waived during year of office, etc.

The market place plays an important part nowadays if membership vacancies 
are to be kept to a minimum, and sometimes these dictate.
If a club is short of members, offering cheaper midweek only memberships can 
be a solution but it has its disadvantages:  it raises the average age of 
the membership and increases wear and tear on the course because midweek 
only members will frequently play 3 times a week and spend little in the 
clubhouse.

Malcolm

M L Wadsworth wrote:
> I wonder if any of you read this in Tuesday's(?) Daily Telegraph:
> 
> "Old 'leeches' drive a wedge in golf clubs
> By Lewine Mair and Nick Britten
> 
> "Senior citizens who dedicate their retirement days to golf have been 
> denounced as "leeches" on their clubs.  Many elderly players, who pay 
> reduced fees, spend more than half their week playing, ruining courses and 
> annoying younger members who often pay a lot more for membership, says The 
> Golf Club Secretary Newsletter.
> 
> Now clubs are considering banning elderly players at certain times and 
> dropping concessionary rates.
> The suggestion will split opinion in the golfing world.
> The monthly newsletter says that as life expectancy and fitness levels 
> increase, older players are making greater use of memberships, playing two 
> or three times a week. They spend so long on the course they become 
> "leeches" on the club.
> Most regular members are too busy at work to play more than 20 rounds a 
> year.
> Typically, they could be paying £1,000 as against the £700 of an over-65."
> 
> 
> Has there been any debate in your club on this issue?
> 
> It seems to me there are difference between pay and play clubs where 
> subscriptions and green fees are aimed at generating profits without 
> emotion, and private clubs often give reduced membership fees to those who 
> have reached a certain age and have been members for a given number of years 
> based on emotional considerations.
> 
> I don't like the journalistic style of the article and have not read the 
> source, but I have always been of the view that either all members, except 
> juniors, should pay the same, irrespective of age, years of membership and 
> gender, or they should pay according to course usage, market forces and 
> demands on the course.
> 
> Malcolm
> 
> 

I had recently suggested a cull, which didn't go down that well!

At our course we have now dispensed with the senior's concession which 
was withdrawn over 3 years to lessen the impact, introduced a 6-day 
membership and improved the value of the 5-day membership by putting on 
more mid-week competitions and as a result Saturdays are a bit less 
cluttered though each game seems to go on for longer. The 6 and 5 day 
subs should have been less than pro rata for it to be of real attractive 
value though (i.e. Saturdays are at a premium) in my opinion and they 
can still use the clubhouse etc socially.

It has to be said that there are still some who no longer enter in the 
competitions, either qualifying or pro's fourball comps, who have been 
playing at more or less the same time for donkey's years, are retired, 
can and do play frequently during the week, slow play up and complain 
about how hard the course is set up and neither do they volunteer for 
anything though they may have served in the past. I was unfortunate to 
play with a couple of them a few weeks ago and I found their lack of any 
competitive spirit and general torpor distracting to say the least.

-- 
D

On 15 Nov, 20:30, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
> I wonder if any of you read this in Tuesday's(?) Daily Telegraph:
>
> "Old 'leeches' drive a wedge in golf clubs
> By Lewine Mair and Nick Britten
>
> "Senior citizens who dedicate their retirement days to golf have been
> denounced as "leeches" on their clubs.  Many elderly players, who pay
> reduced fees, spend more than half their week playing, ruining courses and> annoying younger members who often pay a lot more for membership, says The> Golf Club Secretary Newsletter.
>
> Now clubs are considering banning elderly players at certain times and
> dropping concessionary rates.
> The suggestion will split opinion in the golfing world.
> The monthly newsletter says that as life expectancy and fitness levels
> increase, older players are making greater use of memberships, playing two> or three times a week. They spend so long on the course they become
> "leeches" on the club.
> Most regular members are too busy at work to play more than 20 rounds a
> year.
> Typically, they could be paying £1,000 as against the £700 of an over-65."
>
> Has there been any debate in your club on this issue?
>
> It seems to me there are difference between pay and play clubs where
> subscriptions and green fees are aimed at generating profits without
> emotion, and private clubs often give reduced membership fees to those who> have reached a certain age and have been members for a given number of years
> based on emotional considerations.
>
> I don't like the journalistic style of the article and have not read the
> source, but I have always been of the view that either all members, except> juniors, should pay the same, irrespective of age, years of membership and> gender, or they should pay according to course usage, market forces and
> demands on the course.
>
> Malcolm

I was amazed to hear of this article. It was on BBC Breakfast TV.
At my club we basically have 2 types of membership 5 day and 7 day.
There are some reductions for over 80s but they don't play that often.
In most of the clubs I have belonged to, or know of locally, the
seniors (vets) are the backbone of the club. Always support club
events, both golfing and social. They use the bar ,and other club
facilities, and mainly occupy the course during the week when,
otherwise, the course would be empty. Those seniors that play at
weekends are 7 day members and are entitled to play whenever they
like. Certainly most members clubs would suffer financially without
these "leeches".
But the real argument is that our club offers a "peak" and "off peak"
memberships called 7 and 5 day memberships. This is no different to
many other organisations  that do the same...so whats the problem?
I was amazed that a member of the AGCS would write such an article.
Please note I am not a senior and I have just gone back to work and
can only only play at weekends.

AlanC

This might be of interest....

This link includes some background to this news item and includes a link to 
where the original article in the Golf Club Secretary Newsletter can be 
read:

http://www.golfbusinessnews.com/news/news.asp?storyid=4206§ion=6

-- 
Nick Perkins
HandicapMaster Ltd

"Nick Perkins"  wrote in message 
news:13jrkev9hhcs0d9@corp.supernews.com...
> This might be of interest....
>
> This link includes some background to this news item and includes a link 
> to where the original article in the Golf Club Secretary Newsletter can be 
> read:
>
> http://www.golfbusinessnews.com/news/news.asp?storyid=4206§ion=6
>
> -- 
> Nick Perkins
> HandicapMaster Ltd

Thanks for the link, Nick.

The original article makes interesting reading
  http://www.golfclubsec.co.uk/PAGES/SAMPLE%20PAGE.html

Malcolm