Handicaipping for public players...

[Break68]

BCMIST, I am all ears if you want to educate me.
I am an uninformed Public Player that can't afford a membership anywhere.
I don't know much of anything about the GAO or the RCGA, or the history of either organization.

[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.

Turns out this is not the case based on a quick read of the 2010 annual report.

There is however some interesting stuff in there.

[Break68]

I am reading it now.

[jvincent]

The part that immediately jumped out to me is that the membership drive that the RCGA started in 2010 was only successful in keeping membership levels flat. They spent $1M on this effort.

This was actually better than previous years where membership had declined.

Clearly, something is wrong when they spend $1M and can only add enough members to offset their losses for a current year.

[BC MIST]

BCMIST, I am all ears if you want to educate me.
I am an uninformed Public Player that can't afford a membership anywhere.
I don't know much of anything about the GAO or the RCGA, or the history of either organization.

I certainly have more questions than answers. My only involvement in the RCGA/GQ/OVGA is 50 years of tournament participation and more recently, as a rules official in GQ and OVGA events. Perhaps in the next few months I will get some explanations for both others' and my questions regarding the issue.

[BC MIST]

The part that immediately jumped out to me is that the membership drive that the RCGA started in 2010 was only successful in keeping membership levels flat. They spent $1M on this effort.

This was actually better than previous years where membership had declined.

Clearly, something is wrong when they spend $1M and can only add enough members to offset their losses for a current year.

Would a significant reason be that many golfers are finding club membership to be too expensive for the number of games played? The availability of organizations like Corporate Golf, Executive Golf, Reservation Masters and the like, are much more affordable and reasonable for golfers who play, say 40 games or less per season.

I have often wondered why the golf course owners didn't form their own, similar organization, years ago, so that the membership fees stayed within the member clubs.

As an aside, if you were a public player for Golf Quebec, would you feel that participation in GQ and OVGA tournaments should be one of the membership benefits?

[goochy]

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

It clearly is an issue.

I joined the RCGA as a public player right from day one of playing golf 2 years ago. However, my reasons were selfish really. I wanted an official handicap simply because many courses in the UK where my mates play will not let any guest play unless they have an OFFICIAL handicap.

I have learnt a little more about the RCGA and what they do over the last couple of years and in all honesty, what they do for me (other than providing an official handicap) is minimal. However, I don't have any problem paying my dues because they do a lot for the game at other levels.

The national teams, the youth and junior teams and the junior programs...I don't really have a problem dropping $30 or so a year to support that...I do honestly believe its good for Canadian golf.

However..if only 5% or so or players keep an official handicap and the majority of golfers in Canada do not belong to private clubs I really don't know what the RCGA can do to raise membership. The vast majority of golfers play social golf at public courses and dont keep a handicap...they are only interested in their own pastime not the health of Canadian golf. The more serious golfers join clubs or the RCGA as a public player. If the rating system and handicapping was provided for free what "stick" would the RCGA have...why would anyone join?

I do think it was very short sighted of them to turn away Kilroys members though...30 members (with potential for growth) is infinitly better than zero members

[jvincent]

Would a significant reason be that many golfers are finding club membership to be too expensive for the number of games played? The availability of organizations like Corporate Golf, Executive Golf, Reservation Masters and the like, are much more affordable and reasonable for golfers who play, say 40 games or less per season.

I'm pretty sure those are part of the reason. And the current RCGA policy, as shown by Dan's example, DISCOURAGES those players from becoming RCGA members.

As an aside, if you were a public player for Golf Quebec, would you feel that participation in GQ and OVGA tournaments should be one of the membership benefits?

I might. I know that the GAO has a specific public player tournament and allows the public players into their other tournaments. Not sure about Golf Quebec.

[jvincent]

If the rating system and handicapping was provided for free what "stick" would the RCGA have...why would anyone join?

The course ratings is a free service.

The handicapping system, and any benefits that it carries with it are available to members only.

To use the cliche, the RCGA simply cannot think outside the box. They are stuck in their ways and without a significant change are going to be in serious trouble.

They have a bunch of money in the bank from the sale Glen Abbey to Clublink that will keep them alive for a while, but that won't last forever.

[goochy]

The course ratings is a free service.

They have a bunch of money in the bank from the sale Glen Abbey to Clublink that will keep them alive for a while, but that won't last forever.

Golf courses have to be RCGA members to have their course rated i believe.

I don't know what the RCGA can do to encourage average members to join..except appeal to their alturistic nature in supporting Canadaina Golf.

If they were a bit more imaginative thay could provide services to members at discounted rates...Tournament entry fees, Spectator entry fees at Canadian Open etc, insurance and travel perks, even discounted purchasing at golf retailers etc....all these things they could negotiate a great deal for with a large membership.

I think these sorts of "real" benefits might encourage more to join

[jvincent]

Sorry, I meant that the course ratings should be a free service.

Well, don't feel bad, the RCGA doesn't know how to get members to join either.

[marcf]

I'm pretty sure those are part of the reason. And the current RCGA policy, as shown by Dan's example, DISCOURAGES those players from becoming RCGA members.



I might. I know that the GAO has a specific public player tournament and allows the public players into their other tournaments. Not sure about Golf Quebec.

All you have to do is check the golfquebec website and you will see they have a public player championship as well. GQ also allows public players access to try to qualify for several of the provincial champioships.

Why does it seem like most people hear are basing their support for GAO on info about Golf Quebec that is out of date, or they haven't taken the time to go, look, and read. Kinda short sighted wouldn't ya say?

[marcf]

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.

I have a fundamental problem with this theory. If the RCGA (Golf Canada) is a member based organization, then why should it provide any of it's core services to non members for free? That just doesn't make any common business sense at all? That's like saying that any of the private clubs in the area should allow non members to come and practice on their practice areas, or enjoy another service they offer their paying members for free.

[jvincent]

Earlier in the thread, I said why I joined the GAO, Golf Quebec did not have a public player program at the time.

Also, their policies regarding membership are bad so I see no reason to switch.

Does the GAO have a similar policy on clubs? Perhaps, but since I don't need to switch programs I don't need to dig further.

[jbgolf67]

The RCGA (Golf Canada) derives no money from the Canadian Open. The event has actually lost money the last few years because of weather and extra expenses. Even if the event did make money, apparently the contract with RBC has stated that any profit must be re-invested back into the event. Therefore, the majority of money Golf Canada receives is from membership and sponsorship of its programs, etc. Therefore, membership dollars are a key contributor to development programs like Golf in Schools (which doesn't have a sponsoring org), CN Future Links, etc.

As for Handicap and Course Rating - this is the key service that the RCGA provides to its members and member clubs. Each provincial organization is responsible for completing course ratings and paying for trained volunteers to go and rate the courses. They can then submit a report to the RCGA to obtain a subsidy on a portion of their course rating expense. The RCGA also offers a FREE Handicap System (RCGA Network) which is an online certified handicap system - this is the system that is used by every provincial golf association's public players club. However, in order to gain access, the club must be an RCGA / Golf Canada member club.

Golf Canada is trying to move away from the idea that the only benefit they offer is Handicap and course rating. Last year they launched 'Golf Canada' as their new membership brand which included benefits/discounts with RBC Insurance, itravel2000, Aeroplan, IHG Hotels, and BlackBerry. I realize that many of these may not hit home with all golfers, but Golf Canada is trying to offer value to its members.
As any business person knows, when lauching a new brand (Golf Canada) you must market it heavily to get the name out. That was the case here and the reason for the $1 million expense. This will obviously decrease over time.

I hope this sheds some light on Golf Canada / RCGA and its funding.

[jvincent]

[/B]
I have a fundamental problem with this theory. If the RCGA (Golf Canada) is a member based organization, then why should it provide any of it's core services to non members for free? That just doesn't make any common business sense at all?

From the Golf Canada website.

As the national sport organization (NSO) for golf in Canada, as designated by Sport Canada, Golf Canada is charged with promoting and increasing participation in golf in Canada, including assisting our best and brightest athletes to excel and represent Canada on the international stage.

From their very own annual report they are having trouble growing the game with their current policies/programs.

I am offering different (gasp!) option for them to try. Will it work? I don't know. But spending $1M to keep membership flat isn't a very good ROI.

Like I said earlier, if membership in the RCGA was worth $25, people would not have a problem joining. It's up to the RCGA to demonstrate that membership is worth $25. Holding courses captive bye demanding all members pay the fee or they don't get access to the rating/handicap system is the wrong way to approach it.

[marcf]

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.

I am a member at private club. I play tournament golf (fortunately Lyle hasn't had to give me any complicted rulings), and in order to play in some events, I have to prove my index is below a certain number. This is a service I pay for in addition to my membership dues (or inclusive of, whatever). Our club has roughly 500 playing members, and we all pay the Golf Canada / RCGA fee. I can guarantee you that not all of the 500 use, or come close to using the handicap system. Paying the fee, because of it being a requirment to be a member club of GQ and Golf Canada is part of having access to the Golf Canada services, no matter if you think there are enough, or none at all. Think of hockey, every association in Canada, if they want the support of Hockey Canada must pay a member fee, which is handed down to the participants. This is true from novice through to junior. What is so wrong with that. I support the fact that there is no difference in the treatment of a virtual club, or a tangible club by Golf Quebec. Isn't that what we've been striving for in Canada for 100 years, that everyone is treated the same? lol... ironic that it took a Qubec organization to do this, and yet, people still have problems with it? Arrghh...pass the advil.

[marcf]

From the Golf Canada website.



From their very own annual report they are having trouble growing the game with their current policies/programs.

I am offering different (gasp!) option for them to try. Will it work? I don't know. But spending $1M to keep membership flat isn't a very good ROI.

Like I said earlier, if membership in the RCGA was worth $25, people would not have a problem joining. It's up to the RCGA to demonstrate that membership is worth $25. Holding courses captive bye demanding all members pay the fee or they don't get access to the rating/handicap system is the wrong way to approach it.

Seems like you have all of the answers. Next time cut and past the whole paragraph, not just the parts that support your point.

As the National Sport Organization (NSO) for golf as designated by Sport
Canada, our primary mandate is to grow participation and excellence in our
sport. The blueprint continues to be our three-year rolling strategic plan which
provides our organization with a roadmap; a disciplined strategic approach that
sets the present and future direction of our proud association.
This past year, Vision 2012 focused on three core pillars – enhanced
membership value for clubs and golfers; excellence and participation through
both grassroots and high performance programming; and best in class
championships. Our strategic plan also lays out a measure of progress tied to
our financial sustainability, our organizational effectiveness and the overall

awareness of our brand.

Read the three core pillars. All NSO's have a this type of mission statment, and name one that is giving away services for free. I've worked with directors of many different NSO's and no one is holding anyone hostage. Clubs are free to leave if they want. Funny on how more clubs in our region are RCGA members, than are not. I've been playing golf since I was 10 years old, and the only whining I have heard about the RCGA's policies are from non membrs of the RCGA...or people that think they have all of the answers but don't do anything to volunteer ther time to help. You want services? Attend a handicap seminar, get certified as a rules official, go spend 12-14 hours at a junior tournament in the rain helping with rulings and scoring as Kilroy and BC Mist have done and do. Who do you think provides the knowledge base, examination and certification for these things? Yeah, it's worth my $25.00 and to abide by their policies, weather at the provincial or national level.

[mpare]

I could be wrong, but the confrontational nature of this discussion suggests to me that there is a fundamental disconnect between the RCGA or Golf Canada and those golfers whom they intend to serve. Those who have raised critical questions about Golf Canada's modus operandi have been given short shrift. This is hardly helpful, especially when one considers that those who have posed questions are some of the most committed and honourable golfers I know. Attacking them should not be the first response to their legitimate queries. Rather, Golf Canada and its defenders should be asking themselves why has the relationship between this historic and valued organization and its constituency of Canadian golfers soured so much. Answering that question might lead to a re-think in how its business should be done.

[jvincent]

I never said I had all the answers. I am simply proposing a different way for the RCGA to behave.

Fancy mission statements aren't going to help the RCGA grow membership. They need to address the fact that membership has been falling for several years and that there are many more golfers who are NOT members of clubs than there are golfers who are members.

What happens to the RCGA when club membership continues to decline? Isn't it in their best interests to figure out how to get all those other golfers interested in becoming members?

The RM example is a perfect example of what the RCGA is doing wrong. They have a group of golfers who want to join, but the RCGA essentially says no to them. How does that help grow membership?

I'm an RCGA member so I think I'm entitled to my opinion that they aren't approaching the membership problem the right way. I actually volunteered at the women's Open when it was in town. Dan has stated he actually stopped volunteering because of the actions of the RCGA.

[BC MIST]

Like I said earlier, if membership in the RCGA was worth $25, people would not have a problem joining. It's up to the RCGA to demonstrate that membership is worth $25. Holding courses captive bye demanding all members pay the fee or they don't get access to the rating/handicap system is the wrong way to approach it.

"The RCGA relies heavily on membership dues to perform their role as the National Sport Organization for golf." The "Sources of Funds" graph in their report shows that roughly 60% of revenue comes from membership dues. If, as you suggest above, that club members pay dues only if they wish, the reality is that a very small percentage of them would become RCGA members. Losing that significant source of revenue would likely see the demise of the RCGA.

If one looks at the $25 RCGA fee solely from the "What's in it for me," point of view, it may not seem like very much, apart from a getting handicap. However, it doesn't take much investigation to discover that the national and provincial organizations do a lot to advance the game of golf, which includes much more than just adding members to the roster.

Marc suggests above, "You want services? Attend a handicap seminar, get certified as a rules official, go spend 12-14 hours at a junior tournament in the rain helping with rulings and scoring as Kilroy and BC Mist have done and do." As have many others, I have done all of these and more and have appreciated the opportunity to get involved, have enjoyed what I have learned and valued the experiences and the people that I have met. Being able to give back a little, by helping/teaching golfers with/about the Rules of Golf has been extremely satisfying. And all this for $25 a year.

[jvincent]

"The RCGA relies heavily on membership dues to perform their role as the National Sport Organization for golf." The "Sources of Funds" graph in their report shows that roughly 60% of revenue comes from membership dues. If, as you suggest above, that club members pay dues only if they wish, the reality is that a very small percentage of them would become RCGA members. Losing that significant source of revenue would likely see the demise of the RCGA.

I was surprised by the revenue chart when I saw it, and in my mind it means that the RCGA needs to do even more to get the casual golfer interested in becoming a member.

The economic reality of today (and who knows how much longer) is that membership levels at clubs are not likely to increase so the revenue model for the RCGA going forward is in trouble. I'm in the overwhelming minority of public golfers who have an RCGA membership.

My assertion is that they are not doing the right thing to get the casual golfer interested in becoming a member.

The RCGA needs to figure out how to get all of the other public golfers out there interested. Exclusionary policies like what Dan experienced is absolutely not the way to go.

[jvincent]

A datapoint from the 2006 industry survey on the RCGA website.

They pegged the number of "core" golfers (8 or more rounds per year) at 2.7 million. At that time the number of RCGA members was 377,000.

[jeffc]

Jordan, look what you started

[mpare]

For which we should thank him. This is the most animated and interesting discussion that we've had in a long time. Thanks, Jordan.

Jordan, look what you started

[Break68]

Actually this thread and the RCGA's advertising for their membership drive for Golf Canada last year ($1 Million) has got me seriously thinking of joining the GAO which automatically makes me a member of the RCGA.
So thank you all you RCGA debaters on both sides.

[mpare]

For the record, I too am an RCGA member.

[nokids]

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.

This should be your signature, a bumper sticker on your car, your facebook status, and if you don't bring about change in your lifetime I'll make sure it's on your tombstone!

[Break68]

Woohoo, I just joined the GAO and I am also now a member of the RCGA!
Very cool.

[jeffc]

is there any advantage or benefit for me to join the GAO or RCGA? I am a public player, don't play tournaments, probably never will, and don't foresee joining a club anytime in the near future.