I get the Golf Club’s desire to maintain the integrity of the membership base and revenue, as well as have a pleasant playing atmosphere that’s not crowded after the COVID / remote work driven surge in membership.
Members have invested a lot in it.
I wonder if we’ve really proven there is no alternative *between* the stance of today’s policy vs reverting to the 6 and 12 packs for residents.
The Golf Club communication in The Divot ignores the middle ground.
I don’t know what’s viable either way – but hard to assess with no discussion or data.
RSF Inn guests can book rounds after 12pm/1pm for $499.
Why can’t a resident have some limited ability to directly book a round without finding a member to sponsor?
I suppose I could just book a night at the Inn which seems odd vs spending the dollars with the club itself, and confers no consideration to being a fee paying resident.
Perhaps there’s a ‘less than 48 hours advance only when less than 70% of tee times booked’ kind of restriction, pricing, and annual cap that maintains the member revenue integrity and low key atmosphere for golf members.
No dues paying member should have to deal with an overcrowded course.
And limited access shouldn’t be a vehicle for much more than a round or two a year unless priced higher to avoid membership leakage.
When there’s perishable inventory there’s often some that can be better utilized via modern course management that takes a more yield oriented approach.
Is our golf club using modern course management to benefit all stakeholders?
Maybe it would turn out to be quite revenue and profit accretive if we have lots of off-peak slots going unused.
And that can help maintain the course in top condition.
Maybe we don’t.
But hard to say without serious inquiry.
.
