Handicaipping for public players...

[John]

I've used the handicapping software on this site the last few years but was wondering what other people use who don't play private courses. I'm interested in playing in the Citizen Am so i was thinking of using the rcga?

[jvincent]

I'm a GAO public player which gets you an RCGA handicap. I went with the GAO because when I first enrolled Golf Quebec didn't have one and they have some stupid policies so I'm boycotting them.

[John]

Signing up with GAO currently!

[marcf]

I'm a GAO public player which gets you an RCGA handicap. I went with the GAO because when I first enrolled Golf Quebec didn't have one and they have some stupid policies so I'm boycotting them.

What stupid policies are you referring to?

[jvincent]

They imposed a restriction on the number of players required to form a club which essentially froze out a couple of places that wanted membership but weren't allowed as an example. Dan could give more details since it impacted Manderley.

There was another one that I can't remember right now.

[Break68]

I may have to join GAO.

[Kilroy]

Golf Quebec governs RCGA membership for clubs in this region and runs events such as intersectionals.

A golf course needs 40 members minimum and we didn't have that many at Manderley, so we lost our status. No more official handicapping. No more intersectionals. No more club events. Membership is now a "season's pass".

It also impacted the frequent player program we wanted to have here. We signed up 30 people for the RM Public Player Program to start, and submitted our application and cheque. The advertised minimum for a "club without a course" was 15. They heard we had 500 members in the RM discount golf club at the time, so they demanded that we pay for 500 memberships in Golf Quebec. We closed the program.

IMHO they don't seem to be genuinely focussed on growing the game of golf.

[Break68]

Manderley doesn't even have 40 members. I am shocked.
How many members does it have?

[Kilroy]

Not sure for this year, but that's not really the point.

[Break68]

true, not really the point.

[Ruskie]

It also impacted the frequent player program we wanted to have here. We signed up 30 people for the RM Public Player Program to start, and submitted our application and cheque. The advertised minimum for a "club without a course" was 15. They heard we had 500 members in the RM discount golf club, so they demanded that we pay for 500 memberships in Golf Quebec. We closed the program.

I sympathise Dan, I think EG had the same debacle with them. That's why we're playing our intersectionals in Kingston...

However, I'm curious if a "club within a club" would've worked for this, i.e. create an "RM Competitive Club" and have those 15 member signup for it, as well as RM. I wonder what GQ would say to that...

[jvincent]

Since we are on the subject, is there anything preventing the Manderley or Ottawa Golf from joining the GAO?

If there is nothing in the RCGA bylaws preventing it I would say go for it.

[Kilroy]

It's not something RM is looking at now. RM doesn't run events so providing official handicapping isn't really bringing anything of value to our members. They can get it directly through the RCGA's public players programs for the same price.

[Kilroy]

However, I'm curious if a "club within a club" would've worked for this, i.e. create an "RM Competitive Club" and have those 15 member signup for it, as well as RM. I wonder what GQ would say to that...

They said "No, you have 500 members. That will be $12,500 please."

[Break68]

They said "No, you have 500 members. That will be $12,500 please."

Insane!

[Kilroy]

Really? They thought it was perfectly reasonable. I had to ask her to rephrase it a few times to be sure I was hearing what I thought I was hearing. Turns out she was serious.

[nokids]

Does Clublink have handicapping system for their members? I called their infoline once and the operator was clueless.

[Break68]

Really? They thought it was perfectly reasonable. I had to ask her to rephrase it a few times to be sure I was hearing what I thought I was hearing. Turns out she was serious.

Ok, so after doing the math, that seems about right dollars wise. But why wouldn't they offer a decent group discount at least. They don't seem too user or golf friendly to me.

[jvincent]

Does Clublink have handicapping system for their members? I called their infoline once and the operator was clueless.

All of the Clublink courses are RCGA members and part of your Clublink fee is your RCGA membership so you use the normal handicapping system.

[Kilroy]

They don't seem too user or golf friendly to me.

Not gonna talk about anything other than the facts. I have to obey my own forum rules.

[jvincent]

No you don't! If the King makes a law that says nobody can wear the crown, he is still allowed to.

[Kilroy]

Cool. I'll have to keep that in mind

[BC MIST]

Since we are on the subject, is there anything preventing the Manderley or Ottawa Golf from joining the GAO?

If there is nothing in the RCGA bylaws preventing it I would say go for it.

It would be interesting to see if the GAO would permit your RM Public Player Program group to join their organization. Common sense says that the criteria for acceptance should be the same from province to province.

Not trying to be argumentative, only trying to understand. What is the difference in principle between our club (with property) of 300 members having to pay 300 X annual fee to the RCGA, and RM, (without property) with 500 members having to pay only 30 X annual fee?

I do find it strange that the RCGA requires a "club" to have a minimum of 10 members, but allows the provincial organizations to set their own minimum.

[jvincent]

Based on my several discussions with the RCGA folks on this subject, here is my take on their rationale.

1. They believe that the course rating/handicap system is benefit that they provide for their members.

2. If a club has members, then the course can/will get an official rating.

3. Since all members of the club would in theory benefit from the rating, all club members should have to pay the RCGA membership fee.

My position is that the RCGA is that they should rate ALL courses in Canada for free. Then they can offer official handicapping and other services to golfers who are willing to pay the membership fee.

[Kilroy]

Not trying to be argumentative, only trying to understand. What is the difference in principle between our club (with property) of 300 members having to pay 300 X annual fee to the RCGA, and RM, (without property) with 500 members having to pay only 30 X annual fee?

The 500 members didn't buy into our Public Player program. 30 did. Just because RM runs both programs does not make them the same program. To not understand that is just being obtuse. I didn't appreciate being treated like I was trying to cheat them out of member's dues. They saw dollar signs and got greedy, so they got nothing from us. How does that make sense? We may have had 500 members for them in time. Now we'll never know.

It was added administration work for us with no profit. We were willing to do that as a service to our customers who wanted it, to support the golfers, encourage the use of the handicapping system and help with golfer education. THAT is supporting the game IMHO.

Shall we discuss how the RCGA added a clause to the licensing agreement for certified handicapping software providers to report to the RCGA on members rolls for participating clubs? Yup. They wanted us to rat on the clubs so they could bill them for members they feel the clubs are under-reporting. You will notice our handicapping system is no longer certified by the RCGA.

I was certified as a Rules Official but after all of this I couldn't justify volunteering my time to support such an organization. They are all take and no give.

Is their mandate to support the game or to make as much money as possible by strong arming clubs and taking advantage of volunteer enthusiasts?

[mpare]

I can understand your frustration. They just don't appear to get it. They are letting real opportunities to grow the game slip through their fingers by clinging to a business model whose utility has passed. At the same time they've managed to annoy long time supporters. This is a sad state of affairs.

The 500 members didn't buy into our Public Player program. 30 did. Just because RM runs both programs does not make them the same program. To not understand that is just being obtuse. I didn't appreciate being treated like I was trying to cheat them out of member's dues. They saw dollar signs and got greedy, so they got nothing from us. How does that make sense? We may have had 500 members for them in time. Now we'll never know.

It was added administration work for us with no profit. We were willing to do that as a service to our customers who wanted it, to support the golfers, encourage the use of the handicapping system and help with golfer education. THAT is supporting the game IMHO.

Shall we discuss how the RCGA added a clause to the licensing agreement for certified handicapping software providers to report to the RCGA on members rolls for participating clubs? Yup. They wanted us to rat on the clubs so they could bill them for members they feel the clubs are under-reporting. You will notice our handicapping system is no longer certified by the RCGA.

I was certified as a Rules Official but after all of this I couldn't justify volunteering my time to support such an organization. They are all take and no give.

Is their mandate to support the game or to make as much money as possible by strong arming clubs and taking advantage of volunteer enthusiasts?

[Break68]

I agree with mpare.
I just didn't know things were that bad at the RCGA.

[BC MIST]

Based on my several discussions with the RCGA folks on this subject, here is my take on their rationale.

1. They believe that the course rating/handicap system is benefit that they provide for their members.

2. If a club has members, then the course can/will get an official rating.

3. Since all members of the club would in theory benefit from the rating, all club members should have to pay the RCGA membership fee.

My position is that the RCGA is that they should rate ALL courses in Canada for free. Then they can offer official handicapping and other services to golfers who are willing to pay the membership fee.

While I stand to be corrected, it is my understanding that:
(a) the two main sources of income for the RCGA are the Canadian Open, the 8 or so dollars of the $25 that members of clubs pay for their RCGA fee, and a portion of the fee that the public players pay. Without the Open, the national and provincial organizations would probably cease to exist.
(b) the RCGA owns the course rating and handicap systems, trains member volunteers at the expense of both the volunteers and the provincial organization and rates courses at the expense of the provincial organizations.

Why then:
1. should clubs who choose NOT to be part of the RCGA and pay NOTHING to the RCGA, receive a course rating for FREE?
2. should golfers, who pay NOTHING to the RCGA, get a handicap for FREE?

If the only golfers to pay a membership were those who desired a handicap, (my estimate is 5% to 10%) and if the provincial share of the $25 is approximately $17, would there be sufficient funds to run all the activities that Golf Quebec, for example, does?

As a public player, what benefits, apart from having an official handicap, do you feel you should get?

I agree with all of you that there has to be a better way encouraging PP's to become part of the system for the good of and growth of the game, and understand that there have been discussions regarding this at the provincial level, but don't know the reasons why more than what has already been done, has not.

[jvincent]

I'd have to check the annual reports, but I'm pretty sure the RCGA derives the lion's share of it's income from the Canadian Open. They also have a bunch of other sponsorship deals that probably help as well.

So, why should the rating be free?

There are two ways to look at this. If the RCGA can create a program that members feel they benefit from, people will pay for it. It's as simple as that.

If the RCGA chooses to act autocratically, then they will not meet their mandate to grow the game.

I maintain that the RCGA head office is still filled with people from the old boys club. They do not understand that if they provide a service that golfers value they will actually INCREASE their membership. Instead, they stick with the old model of needing to belong to a club to be a member.

The fact that the RCGA cannot clearly articulate the value of being a member says volumes.

[BC MIST]

I agree with mpare.
I just didn't know things were that bad at the RCGA.

You come to that conclusion based on a few, one sided postings here? Maybe things are bad at the national/provincial level and maybe they're not. But before making judgments, I would like to know "the rest of the story." Seems only fair.