Jump to content


 

Photo

Huntingdale Gc - Possible Merger?

sandbelt

  • Please log in to reply
150 replies to this topic

#121 Eaglehwk

Eaglehwk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 17 May 2019 - 09:25 PM

I think the post above by member status pending is probably a good generalisation as to where Huntingdale sits in the golfing landscape in Melbourne. 
 
ie a takeover target rather than a merger prospect


Where do you play Shanks4ever?

It was never a takeover, hence why the proposal was denied. We are not desperate like Long Island and most of the other tier 2/3 courses.

It’s just a matter of time until half the courses in Melbourne will disappear.

#122 Eaglehwk

Eaglehwk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 17 May 2019 - 09:33 PM

Anyone know of Metro’s current debt?

#123 Shanks4ever

Shanks4ever

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3169 posts

Posted 17 May 2019 - 10:06 PM

Where do you play Shanks4ever?

It was never a takeover, hence why the proposal was denied. We are not desperate like Long Island and most of the other tier 2/3 courses.

It’s just a matter of time until half the courses in Melbourne will disappear.

A club interstate which is reciprocal with some of the courses being talked about. I know members including family at Metro and some of the other clubs in Melbourne.

 

I have played all of the courses on the Melbourne sand belt some more recently than others. 

 

A proposal may well be a friendly takeover as per Long Island. I think you might find Huntingdale is seeking suitors not from a position of strength.


  • madness likes this

#124 westy5555

westy5555

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 11:50 AM

Im not sure half the courses will disappear.  Melbourne's problem is not too many courses, it is too many courses in the same part of town.  If they were more evenly spread like Sydney, or indeed just about every other city in Australia then it would not be so dire.

 

I just did a quick google earth check, and there seems to be 19 courses within a 10km radius of Royal Melbourne.  That is competitive death for those in the bottom half of that list, or at least the private ones.

 

So yes , there are too many in that SE region, but closing is actually a hard thing to do.  At least I guess most of them own their land so the option is at lest on the table, but one issue is what to do with the money.  All of those clubs in trouble are not for profit, and a requirement of that is that their constitutions forbid any proceeds from sale of the land being distributed to the members.  Yes I suppose they can always change their constitutions and distribute the cash amongst members, but then it all becomes taxable.

 

The other problem is one of, who would actually buy the land??  Yes there are different councils, but I suspect the issues at Dingley would scare a lot of developers off.  At the very least the price would be severely reduced, such that I suspect if you did the sums and divided the greatly reduced value by the number of members, then subtracted tax, there might be just enough left, if you are lucky,  to pay the joining fee at a 2nd tier sand belt club.  


  • madness likes this

#125 marcush39

marcush39

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 443 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 03:04 PM

Thanks for your question,
$10k joining fee can be split over 5 years, that’s what I’m doing.

Fees typical of sand belt: $5200

In my opinion the hardest sandbelt course in Melbourne tee to Green.

Great members too!


Not having a crack at you Eaglehwk but that fees structure is part of the problem IMO.

A $10k joining fee is excessive, even for a sandbelt club and $7k over the first 5 years isn’t exactly inviting for new members. I’d think that if there’s an issue with membership, be it a declining and/or ageing membership etc steps need to be taken to address it rather than live off past glories or the “prestige” of being a sandbelt club. Those things just aren’t going to cut it going forward in an ever changing golf landscape.

There’s some compelling evidence that golfers aren’t the consumers they once were and the growth of SGA, Gen Y etc are proof of this. A friend of mine is a member at Metro and he says their field sizes on weekends are very low (much less than 100 most weekends) and the club most of the time he’s been a member (around 3 years now) has been very quiet comparative to his previous clubs. If that’s the case, and I’m suspecting Huntingdale is in a similar situation, I wonder how these clubs are going financially given we’re constantly being told of the ever increasing cost of maintaining a golf course, let alone to the standards one expects of a Metro or Huntingdale.

I think the time is fast approaching where one of these “big” sandbelt clubs needs to shake up their offering to stay financially viable and take the target off their back from the likes of National. How long will it take? Will one or more be brave enough to do it to get some fresh faces in the doors?
  • madness likes this

#126 Moothia

Moothia

    Suspect

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 04:03 PM

That’s the largely the email I was going to write. Couldn’t agree more. The Chinese whispers have slowed of late but I’d imagine there would be plenty going on behind the scenes with a fistful of clubs.

I’d hate to be late to this party....
  • madness likes this

#127 ParkRoyal

ParkRoyal

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 126 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 05:23 PM

Interesting thoughts!

Are you a RM member? Probably can’t afford it, so where do you play?

I bet you couldn’t break 90 off the back tees at Huntingdale?

You obviously don’t play other sandbelt courses...probably can’t afford to do so. If you did half are worse in condition.

 

Difficulty and Conditioning does not necissarily make a good course. Case in point: Moonah Open.


  • Bernie_Larkham and madness like this

#128 Eaglehwk

Eaglehwk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 06:12 PM

Not having a crack at you Eaglehwk but that fees structure is part of the problem IMO.
A $10k joining fee is excessive, even for a sandbelt club and $7k over the first 5 years isn’t exactly inviting for new members. I’d think that if there’s an issue with membership, be it a declining and/or ageing membership etc steps need to be taken to address it rather than live off past glories or the “prestige” of being a sandbelt club. Those things just aren’t going to cut it going forward in an ever changing golf landscape.
There’s some compelling evidence that golfers aren’t the consumers they once were and the growth of SGA, Gen Y etc are proof of this. A friend of mine is a member at Metro and he says their field sizes on weekends are very low (much less than 100 most weekends) and the club most of the time he’s been a member (around 3 years now) has been very quiet comparative to his previous clubs. If that’s the case, and I’m suspecting Huntingdale is in a similar situation, I wonder how these clubs are going financially given we’re constantly being told of the ever increasing cost of maintaining a golf course, let alone to the standards one expects of a Metro or Huntingdale.
I think the time is fast approaching where one of these “big” sandbelt clubs needs to shake up their offering to stay financially viable and take the target off their back from the likes of National. How long will it take? Will one or more be brave enough to do it to get some fresh faces in the doors?


I like your thoughts on this issue. I agree golf isn’t that cheap but we are paying for convenience of being so close to the cbd. We are also spoilt how cheap golf is in this country compared to the US and Asia.

Besides the course which was one of the reasons I joined we have a great mix of members. I love the social aspect of being part of a club.

I believe the Tier 3 then Tier 2 courses will go first. I don’t know how those clubs are surviving to be honest.

I’m hoping we merge with Metro. A definite no brainer there. Hopefully more will merge.
  • madness likes this

#129 Eaglehwk

Eaglehwk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 06:15 PM

Difficulty and Conditioning does not necissarily make a good course. Case in point: Moonah Open.


I agree...but that course was never meant to be a members course. Primarily for the Oz open that never occurred. Way to difficult.

Huntingdale is a great test but my comparison is to other tier 1 courses.

#130 westy5555

westy5555

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 06:16 PM

There is more to financial success than the quality of the course.  Clubs need to make themselves pleasant places to be, and to broaden their experience and offering to the broadest possible audience.

 

Clubs that simply cater to grumpy old white men, will and should die.

I am a member at the most expense and poshest club In my city, but you wouldn't know it sometimes.  fields are full, clubhouse is heaving all the time with yahooing members and visitors swilling wine, dress down Friday evening pizzas in the courtyard, bouncy castles, kids doing cartwheels on the practice green etc etc.  

 

These places are massibely valuable assets that just have to be worked a bit harder


  • voss, CaNadiAn MiCk, madness and 1 other like this

#131 madness

madness

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 238 posts

Posted 20 May 2019 - 09:37 PM

There is more to financial success than the quality of the course.  Clubs need to make themselves pleasant places to be, and to broaden their experience and offering to the broadest possible audience.

 

Clubs that simply cater to grumpy old white men, will and should die.

I am a member at the most expense and poshest club In my city, but you wouldn't know it sometimes.  fields are full, clubhouse is heaving all the time with yahooing members and visitors swilling wine, dress down Friday evening pizzas in the courtyard, bouncy castles, kids doing cartwheels on the practice green etc etc.  

 

These places are massibely valuable assets that just have to be worked a bit harder

I grew up playing at a posh club in the 80's where you had to wear a tie and jacket to attend the presentation and they were lucky to get 30 players sitting in the clubhouse. I moved to the country for work and joined the local club which had no dress standards and a chook raffle every comp and they always had 70 plus at the presentation and the chook was probably more valued than winning the comp. The wives would come to pick up their husbands so the blokes could have a drink and the wives and kids would turn up early because they enjoyed the atmosphere just as much.


  • voss, iRON MiCK and Birdie Blitz like this

#132 Eaglehwk

Eaglehwk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 22 May 2019 - 03:51 PM

There is more to financial success than the quality of the course.  Clubs need to make themselves pleasant places to be, and to broaden their experience and offering to the broadest possible audience.
 
Clubs that simply cater to grumpy old white men, will and should die.
I am a member at the most expense and poshest club In my city, but you wouldn't know it sometimes.  fields are full, clubhouse is heaving all the time with yahooing members and visitors swilling wine, dress down Friday evening pizzas in the courtyard, bouncy castles, kids doing cartwheels on the practice green etc etc.  
 
These places are massibely valuable assets that just have to be worked a bit harder


Get rid of the kids and women, we should bring back the all exclusive men’s club!

Topless barmaids, cigar and cigarette smoking inside the clubhouse, that would be a club most men would join!

#133 ParkRoyal

ParkRoyal

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 126 posts

Posted 23 May 2019 - 12:59 PM

I agree...but that course was never meant to be a members course. Primarily for the Oz open that never occurred. Way to difficult.

Huntingdale is a great test but my comparison is to other tier 1 courses.

 

You appear to be insinuating that because Huntingdale is a tough course and with better conditioning it was better than other tier 1 courses and that because someone may not be able to break 90 at your course that they couldn't judge wether a course was good or not.


  • madness likes this

#134 madness

madness

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 238 posts

Posted 23 May 2019 - 09:33 PM

You appear to be insinuating that because Huntingdale is a tough course and with better conditioning it was better than other tier 1 courses and that because someone may not be able to break 90 at your course that they couldn't judge wether a course was good or not.

Would Huntingdale have a hole that would make the best 18 from all the sandbelt courses even if you took Royal Melbourne and Kingston Heath out of the equation? The old 15th before they tried to make it look like Port Douglas would have made the list and if they opened up the front of the 8th green for the running ball then that might make the list. Otherwise it's a pretty bland golf course.


  • Parmachine likes this

#135 Member Status Pending

Member Status Pending

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 103 posts

Posted 23 May 2019 - 10:11 PM

Would Huntingdale have a hole that would make the best 18 from all the sandbelt courses even if you took Royal Melbourne and Kingston Heath out of the equation? The old 15th before they tried to make it look like Port Douglas would have made the list and if they opened up the front of the 8th green for the running ball then that might make the list. Otherwise it's a pretty bland golf course.

 

Surely the 13th with the rock encrusted water hazard would be a certainty?  :lol:


  • Parmachine and madness like this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: sandbelt

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users