Private clubs & cart fees

[Golferpaul]

Just now, Argonne69 said:

 

If the tee sheets were packed solid I could see it. However, most of these courses have empty tee sheets, or at least plenty of opportunities to make extra money. I don't understand the business model that passes up money when there are open slots. 

 

I called Fallen Oak early last year and there was basically nobody on the course. The casino was booked solid, so I couldn't even get a room if I wanted. 

 

I've never been to an upscale resort where they had empty tee sheets.  My experience (Pebble, Bandon, Sand Valley, Streamsong, Cabot, etc) has been quite the opposite.  In fact, if I'm planning a golf trip with eight guys, we usually book tee times 8 - 12 months in advance.  But maybe that's because we always go during peak season.

[mshills]

On 1/4/2023 at 5:55 PM, golfortennis said:

 

Isn't your issue that they call themselves public courses while requiring the stay, when in reality they are for resort guests only?

 

I guess I do not understand, or maybe it’s semantics. 
 

Private course: no access unless you’ve purchased a membership, have a reciprocal, or are a guest of a member. 
 

Resort course: available to resort guests. Yes, this means you must stay at the resort and pay for a room. 
 

Public course: pay the fee(s) and play. 
 

A resort course is still public, because purchasing a membership is not required. Maybe this is where the complaint is, I’m not sure. 

[david.c.w]

4 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

I've never been to an upscale resort where they had empty tee sheets.  My experience (Pebble, Bandon, Sand Valley, Streamsong, Cabot, etc) has been quite the opposite.  In fact, if I'm planning a golf trip with eight guys, we usually book tee times 8 - 12 months in advance.  But maybe that's because we always go during peak season.

 

This is the whole point.   You just mentioned the top 6 of the top 10 golf resorts in North America.  They can pretty much command whatever they want and the people will come and play.  

 

Arg wants to play an empty course in Mississippi, but won't because it is $500 for a $150 course.

 

 

[Argonne69]

9 hours ago, david.c.w said:

 

This is the whole point.   You just mentioned the top 6 of the top 10 golf resorts in North America.  They can pretty much command whatever they want and the people will come and play.  

 

Arg wants to play an empty course in Mississippi, but won't because it is $500 for a $150 course.

 

 

Also, I understand the situation when trying to book a large group. As a single player, I have a lot more flexibility. I've played Pebble Beach, Whistling Straits, Bandon Dunes, Sand Valley, Streamsong, and Cabot all without staying on-site. 

 

Now, if every resort had the same policy, I'd say, OK, that's just how it works. However, with the vast majority of resorts allowing non-guest play, I just don't see the rational for turning away players willing to pay a premium for a round on an empty course. Maybe they think the resort guests are more likely to book because they'll be playing on a less than packed course? If that's the case, why don't more resorts go guest-only?

 

[mshills]

10 hours ago, david.c.w said:

Arg wants to play an empty course in Mississippi, but won't because it is $500 for a $150 course.

This makes no sense to me either, but I’ve never run a golf course, so maybe I am missing something. If I had a tee sheet that is not full, and someone willing to play, I would take that man’s money without a second thought of where he slept last night. 
 

Now, if the course is busy that is a whole different thing and resort guests absolutely should get priority. 

[cardia10]

9 minutes ago, mshills said:

This makes no sense to me either, but I’ve never run a golf course, so maybe I am missing something. If I had a tee sheet that is not full, and someone willing to play, I would take that man’s money without a second thought of where he slept last night. 
 

Now, if the course is busy that is a whole different thing and resort guests absolutely should get priority. 

You have to remember, there is a reason Pebble Beach has been sold multiple times over the years. Filling the sheet is a priority, but eventually, you price yourself out of everyone's market and when a downturn happens, you just have another nice course no one is willing to overpay for. Some of those top tier courses are special, but not as special as the owners believe in many cases.

[golfortennis]

12 hours ago, mshills said:

I guess I do not understand, or maybe it’s semantics. 
 

Private course: no access unless you’ve purchased a membership, have a reciprocal, or are a guest of a member. 
 

Resort course: available to resort guests. Yes, this means you must stay at the resort and pay for a room. 
 

Public course: pay the fee(s) and play. 
 

A resort course is still public, because purchasing a membership is not required. Maybe this is where the complaint is, I’m not sure. 

 

I don't know where I stand on this, but if I understand Arg correctly, it's the "strings attached" part of the resort courses being "public" that sticks in the craw.

 

 

 

[golfortennis]

1 hour ago, mshills said:

This makes no sense to me either, but I’ve never run a golf course, so maybe I am missing something. If I had a tee sheet that is not full, and someone willing to play, I would take that man’s money without a second thought of where he slept last night. 
 

Now, if the course is busy that is a whole different thing and resort guests absolutely should get priority. 

 

The hotel views the course as a perk for its guests, so they want to maintain both the flexibility that a last minute guest can make a last minute tee time, and likely also keeps the conditioning up, which could also lead to the desire to play the golf course creating a hotel guest who wouldn't have stayed there before.

 

Not saying I agree or disagree with this, but I think it's a similar thing to the psychology of the scenario I heard from a top guy at one of the major hotel chains:  Person walks in about 11:30 pm.  The app says it's $99 for a room for that night, but person goes to front desk and says "I'll give you $20 for the room because in half an hour you won't be able to sell that room and it will go empty."  He said "we turn that down, because if you give in, you've now trained that customer that the rates are negotiable on the spot, particularly when they might think they have leverage."  There was more to it(a single front desk agent at a single hotel that is part of a chain of 1,000s of hotels etc.) but the big picture is maintaining whatever it is you want to maintain.

 

From the ownership's point of view, it could be a real slippery slope to start letting people on who aren't staying at the hotel.  There are a number of examples of products whose sales exploded after the prices were *raised*, because it gave the image of a more exclusive product, and people want to associate with that.  Probably a lot of words from me to say there is something similar at play here.

[Golferpaul]

1 hour ago, Argonne69 said:

 

Also, I understand the situation when trying to book a large group. As a single player, I have a lot more flexibility. I've played Pebble Beach, Whistling Straits, Bandon Dunes, Sand Valley, Streamsong, and Cabot all without staying on-site. 

 

Now, if every resort had the same policy, I'd say, OK, that's just how it works. However, with the vast majority of resorts allowing non-guest play, I just don't see the rational for turning away players willing to pay a premium for a round on an empty course. Maybe they think the resort guests are more likely to book because they'll be playing on a less than packed course? If that's the case, why don't more resorts go guest-only?

 

I agree.  They should allow last minute golfers to play and earn extra revenue.  

[dcmidnight]

Honestly I still dont get it. Fallen Oak pretty clearly says its exclusively for Beau Rivage guests and a perk for their hotel guests. Is the argument that they shouldnt have that policy and they should let anyone play? Its their course, their policy?

 

FWIW MGM does this for a lot of courses - this is not unusual. Anyone can play Shadow Creek if they want provided you pay up and stay at an MGM property. But even if the place is empty you cant roll up there and just offer to pay.

 

Sorry that people dont like it but I guess we are really coming to the end of the internet if we are debating where or not a resort course is a public course or not rofl....truly first world problems.

Edited January 6, 2023 by dcmidnight

[Argonne69]

41 minutes ago, dcmidnight said:

Honestly I still dont get it. Fallen Oak pretty clearly says its exclusively for Beau Rivage guests and a perk for their hotel guests. Is the argument that they shouldnt have that policy and they should let anyone play? Its their course, their policy?

 

FWIW MGM does this for a lot of courses - this is not unusual. Anyone can play Shadow Creek if they want provided you pay up and stay at an MGM property. But even if the place is empty you cant roll up there and just offer to pay.

 

Sorry that people dont like it but I guess we are really coming to the end of the internet if we are debating where or not a resort course is a public course or not rofl....truly first world problems.

 

It's Fallen Oak, not Shadow Creek. One is a top 25 course in the country, and the other barely makes #1 in Miss. 

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that a resort can't set whatever ridiculous policy they want. It's turning away potentially paying customers when the course is basically empty that has many of us scratching our heads. 

 

[dcmidnight]

I think my point was - hotels/resorts in the gambling industry including MGM do this all the time. If one high roller - one - wakes up and decides he wants to play on an empty course, that makes up for months of empty tee times.

This is a weird take but OK.

[Argonne69]

1 minute ago, dcmidnight said:

I think my point was - hotels/resorts in the gambling industry including MGM do this all the time. If one high roller - one - wakes up and decides he wants to play on an empty course, that makes up for months of empty tee times.

This is a weird take but OK.

 

I think it's rare. I've played dozens of casino courses that didn't require a stay. The ones that do are in a very small minority. 

 

[dcmidnight]

Well I've played 3 MGM courses that all required hotel stays so clearly I don't find it any more a strange policy than hotels saying their pools are for guests only. Why not let people come in off the street to use the pool if they want to pay/buy drinks? The pool is empty? Its a hotel perk they offer to their guests and its right on their website.

[StudentGolfer4]

36 minutes ago, dcmidnight said:

Well I've played 3 MGM courses that all required hotel stays so clearly I don't find it any more a strange policy than hotels saying their pools are for guests only. Why not let people come in off the street to use the pool if they want to pay/buy drinks? The pool is empty? Its a hotel perk they offer to their guests and its right on their website.

I get the idea but it’s a pretty poor comparison. If the hotel pool requires guests to pay extra for the pool (like a round of golf) this would make sense. 
 

I think if it more like a suite area for a football game. If you have a ticket in that area you have upgraded food and beverage options available. You are still required to pay for what you want but you have access because of your tickets. Staying at Pinehurst gives you the option to play #2 and #4, at a fee. 

[dcmidnight]

Actually I thought it was a pretty reasonable comparison. The hotel offers a certain number of perks to be at the disposal of its guests. People are mad that one of those is a golf course - OK. But then...just dont stay there.

 

Do people get equally mad if they cant play at a private club? Hey guys you have no one playing here today but I'll give you...$200, thats better than nothing. Isnt this the same idea? Would you be happier if they just called Fallen Oak a "private club owned by MGM Inc" and called it a day?

Again - I think this is the bottom nit on the pile of nits to pick about the golf industry.

Edited January 6, 2023 by dcmidnight

[Palmydrain]

The best option is to become buddies with the people who work the front desk... then you never have to worry about cart fees. 

[Pepperturbo]

Private clubs with nice facilities, locker rooms, locker room attendant, food & beverage and a well-stocked pro shop and up-to-date leased carts and push carts, in a nice barn with accommodating staff throughout the club, ALL-COSTS money.  Also, as one that was on the BOD of two clubs, accounting is NOT as simple as balancing your checkbook, if you even do that.

 

If a person feels all the extra charges levied at private clubs are excessive, best NOT join a private club.  Private clubs are NOT like resort/muni tracks, where green fees are all you're responsible for.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Pepperturbo

[golfortennis]

On 1/6/2023 at 12:21 PM, Argonne69 said:

 

It's Fallen Oak, not Shadow Creek. One is a top 25 course in the country, and the other barely makes #1 in Miss. 

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that a resort can't set whatever ridiculous policy they want. It's turning away potentially paying customers when the course is basically empty that has many of us scratching our heads. 

 

 

Again, though, what is the potential revenue trade-off?  What does a resort guest pay to play it?  Should someone off the street pay double?  How many will do that?  

 

I think the difference is that some see it as a golf course that needs to cover its costs and thus any paying customers are good.  the other side of that coin is that like a pool, concert hall, etc., the ownership doesn't care about it in its own right, but whether it attracts enough hotel guests to the resort.  Almost like a loss leader.

 

It's a little bit like those uber rich people who have their own golf course on their property, where hardly anyone ever plays it.  But the owner doesn't care, because they want it to be the way they want it, and to play it when they want, without hassle.  It costs them a boatload of money , sure, but they aren't looking for additional revenue just to cover costs.