Municipal Madness

There are a great number of municipal courses in the UK catering for the chavs in our society. (We even have a resident caravan dweller in Edinburgh who admits to the use of these courses on a regular basis). My question today is this: Are these places really a worthwhile use of the land?

In many cases the course is laid out in the middle of a housing estate, or very close to one, and attract a clientele who are in some cases unable to afford or have the desire to join a private club. Now given the housing shortage and lack of places in inner cities to park your caravan would these areas not be better given over to the unmarried mothers of 12?

I feel that by forcing the private members clubs to re-introduce artisans clubs... or forcing them to have a lower (non-voting perhaps) membership category then more people can become members of these so called higher echelon clubs and free up much needed inner city land for burnt out mondeos.

Obviously a select few of these places could be saved.... but not many. It would also ensure that the illuminati down in Surrey could be exposed and made to integrate with the rest of the populace.

What a lovely non controversial yet thought provoking article, well done LJ. How do we give 5 stars on here??

Having said that, my main club is a muni and doesn't suffer from any of the ill's you'd expect from a "cooncil" course except I do remember on one medal a couple of years ago a couple of wee chavs nipped onto the course and stole the White teemarkers from the 8th tee.

Speaking of munis, I guess the good people of St Andrews, Carnoustie and a good few of the Ayrshire courses wouldn't neccessarily agree with your sentiments

Dig up Carnoustie, build houses on it. Absolute joke of a golf course! *

* I might be saying this in September after the Tassie

:run2:

That front right bunker on 16...I felt like I was digging the foundations of a new house there last year...with a sand wedge!!!

LJ
Good comments.

I have a vested interest in this as I play mainly on Cooncil courses.

Can I expand your argument by bringing into question the whole subject of Cooncil leisure spending.

Golf, athletics and swimming subsidised/ football, rugby, hockey and shinty not.
Theatre, Opera and classical music subsidised/ cinema, rock music bingo not.

Spot the odd ones out.

Muni's are well past thier sell by and should be sold, leased or put in trusts.
There are eight courses in my Local Authority at least 5 are heavily subsidised and taking much needed resourses from the 3 which are popular.

There are less than eight municipal courses in the six counties who make up the SW of England and there seems to be plenty of opportunities for new players to join clubs at various financial levels. Our Authority is about the same size as Plymouth yet we have eight courses.

Doon the Water wrote:

There are less than eight municipal courses in the six counties who make up the SW of England and there seems to be plenty of opportunities for new players to join clubs at various financial levels. Our Authority is about the same size as Plymouth yet we have eight courses.

DTW

I'm not questioning your figures because I don't know otherwise but if that is correct, I find it absolutely staggering! How can golf have got itself into a situation where a geographically huge area only has 8 public courses?? I know the population is quite sparse down there but even so, surely there is enough demand to support more courses than that?

Doon. I tend to agree with some points and disagree with others.

I think that the subsidsing of any recreation activity, not meant for the very young, by a council is pointless. I would prefer much lower taxes and if people can't afford it then they don't do it. After all that's what school sports afternoons are for.

LJ
Private members clubs are by definition Private, and no one can force them to do anything.
Like me most members have paid a huge joining fee, and pay our annual subscriptions each year.

The local councils, allow play and pay courses to be built on land they own, but do not recommend how much they should charge per round or what a yearly membership should be, allowing these company's to make huge profits, but not catering for the local community


It should be up to the local councils to provide facilities for golf, as does with swimming baths etc etc and the prices pitched to cater for the locals

oldparwin wrote:It should be up to the local councils to provide facilities for golf, as does with swimming baths etc etc and the prices pitched to cater for the locals

Why?

If Councils want to provide sports facilities for local people,( just to ensure they get re-elected) then a golf course should be no different to swimming baths and football fields etc etc.

Sorry LJ but at my course,(like many others) we have procedures for people becoming members, and most of us members want to keep it.

I'm not saying they should be bypassed.

What I am saying is that it is not the responsibility of the councils who run public courses to make the game accessible. It is in the interest of the members of the golfing fraternity to make it accessible and they could do so easily.

By adopting the attitude that you have demonstrated, basically it's not our problem, the game remains out of the reach of many people.

Sorry LJ but dissagree it is the responsibility of the council to cater for local needs, and if it is as you think that there is a need for more municipal golf courses then the local council should address the problem not the private sector

So you would perpetuate the system which effectively removes the game from the reach of certain segments of society on the basis that they are not wealthy enough or of the 'right sort' to become a member of your club?

In addition Golf is not a private sector. It's a sport. And one which is funded via a series of contributions made by every member of a club through county and country fees. Those are then filtered down to the juniors in the games through appropriate projects.

What you are saying is that isn't appropriate and the intake of new players is not the responsibility of those already playing but of a local or national government. In this country they are typically in masses of debt and should not be wasting money on sports anyway.... so the game should be allowed to stagnate. Is that about right?

Strangely I find myself agreeing with something LJ has said. The clubs should really be forced by golf governing bodies to do more for the grass routed of the game and for encouraging new players.

At the same time the council should also provide courses for those who cannot afford to join a private club.


I am certain the two types of club could work together in a more productive fashion.

Why should the game be within reach of everybody? The type of people that use the generally awful council facilities are usually getting it for free, or near enough, so do need to work hard and aspire to afford membership at a private club. Make them pay double for everything and they then have the choice to either feed off their own limbs or get up and make something of themselves...

I don't agree with the sentiment that the council should provide courses for those who can't afford to play "proper" courses, especially if they don't make money.

If that was the case that Councils provide just because someone wants one then I demand a nudey hot tub facility to be used by busty models and me only.

I'm not saying the game should be in reach of everyone. I am saying that the public courses are a drain on a stretched budget and should be lost or sold.

And that the introduction of new players from less privileged backgrounds should reside with those already in a position to enjoy the game.

As a tax payer, who is happy for my hard earned taxes to pay for all the other facilities that Government and local authorities want to spend it on, then golf should be one of them.

If Scotland can have as many municipal golf courses, with very cheap golf fees, why cant other local authorities do the same, at the end of the day, its our hard earned taxes that pay for them.

I'm also a taxpayer. And I would rather the money which would go on golf courses went on abortions and neutering operations to be handed out at the discretion of the childcatcher in the relevant areas.


Like Basildon.

Another problem with council run facilities is that they are generally very poorly run at a cost to the taxpayer. There are thousands of public courses in the UK that are run as private businesses and thrive because if they do not make money then they will go out of business. If a local council leisure centre for example cannot attract enough paying customers then they just ask for a larger hand out at the end of the year from the council so they do not have the incentive to make them work well as businesses.

There are loads of people that cannot quite afford private golf clubs/health clubs etc but would also not want to use council offerings because they are so poor. This just leaves those on benefits using them because they get them for virtually nothing and that is no way to run a business. Council golf clubs would be run exactly the same...

LondonJonnyO wrote:I'm also a taxpayer. And I would rather the money which would go on golf courses went on abortions and neutering operations to be handed out at the discretion of the childcatcher in the relevant areas.


Like Basildon.

They should just put sterilising drugs into tins of potatoes - that would pretty much sort the problem out nationally...

Carnoustie and St.Andrews aren't municipal courses before anyone claims they are. The land was gifted to the respective towns and are run by charitable trusts.

They might be cheap (in regard to the fact that annual Links tickets are subsidised by Yanks and Japs payin extortionate green fees) but they are effectively private members clubs as they have waiting lists (You'd have to kill off a very long queue to get a ticket for the Championship at Carnoustie) and unless you join a local club they you ticket is actually quite expensive, whilst the waiting list at St.Andrews is now closed for the foreseeable future.

LJ
Problem solved just move to Scotland away from the very expensive south, with green fees under £300 per year would put a large smile on your face.

oldparwin wrote:LJ
Problem solved just move to Scotland away from the very expensive south, with green fees under £300 per year would put a large smile on your face.

Considering that my green fee for the year was under 700 quid I'm not unhappy about it really.

I dont think I or anyone else who supports state run golf courses was suggesting they should be free. Rather that they provide affordable golf to those not able to afford a private club membership. I would also have no problem if people hit by hard times were given some free rounds on a council course to help them partake in leisure activities. Whether this be people who are unemployed or in other vulnerable situations.

I could have joined a private club but though that the muni course provided all I wanted and was very close to my house. Now this course is not in the middle of a council housing estate as some seem to think all muni's are. It is nearer a very nice part of town.

I enjoy the fact I meet people other than the typical golf club types who I had to suffer at previous clubs. Really it is hard to understand how people could resent the gap in the market filled by muni's?

Mac, perish the thought, the wretched scumbags would simply procreate in the bunkers whilst waiting for the green to clear. Before you know it the council would have to build more and more municipal courses.

Sorry I do not understand your last post SR, who are the scumbags of which you speak?

Do you mean anyone who plays a muni?

For me, golf is a luxury and a privilege that should not necessarily be available to everyone. My parents and grandparents could not afford to play golf so they didn't and instead worked hard for me to be able to enjoy it, as I work hard for my children to enjoy opportunities that I did not have.

I'm afraid that I just don't understand why a lot of people on the UK feel that they are entitled to so much when they should feel lucky that they were born in a wealthy Western country that can provide them with a hell of a lot that other people do not enjoy. Just because a good standard of free education, free healthcare and a host of other benefits are available to people in this country it does not mean that they should just get everything on a plate. I strongly believe that being given all of these perks of being born in Britain comes with a social responsibility to give back and there are far too many people that do not recognise this and are happy to live off the state. If a person born in the UK cannot achieve enough to even afford a round of golf on a pay and play then they need to re-evaluate how they are living their lives and wonder why people in far poorer countries can achieve so much more with little or no help.

Got to agree with Harrison, it's not up to the council to provide our wants and needs. The world does not owe us a living and it certainly should not provide us with our leisure facilities. If you can't afford to undertake an activity then you'll have to pick something you can afford to do, either that or save up.


I can't afford to own a Spitfire, as much as I'd like one. Should the council provide me with one that I can fly at a subsidised rate I can afford?

Where Mac gets this golf for all notion I don't know.

Mac, anyone in the UK who is prepared to go out and do a full time job can afford to play golf in a private club. They might have to revaluate their spending and prioritise, but it is not out of the reach of the working man.

super_realist wrote:I can't afford to own a Spitfire, as much as I'd like one. Should the council provide me with one that I can fly at a subsidised rate I can afford?

Spitfire no... but I can point you in the direction of another WW2 aircraft that you can take a flight in.

The point is the council can run a course without the frills of a private members club and charge accordingly. It is not golf for all as at £300 or more a year for council membership many would not be able to afford that. Many rural clubs in scotland will charge less than that for the full private club experience. Well as full an experience as rural scotland can be expected to provide.

If £300 is the figure you have in mind then a simple reorganisation of your finances is the way to achieve it.
I simply don't believe that so-called poor people don't have that available. After all they seem to be able to afford sky TV, Burberry caps, copious amounts of fags and booze and to be able to feed a staffordshire bull terrier.

So let me get this straight....some people on here are saying they should do away with golf courses that are subsidised by councils?

It is just golf or should badminton courts, swimming pools and a whole host of other activities (that are also available in private clubs) be shut down as if they are in receipt of subsidy?

I assume it's because some of those on here don't use said facilities that they see it as a waste of their tax contributions?

Where does it stop? Should subsidised bus routes be stopped because wealthy people have cars and don't need to use them? Should we pack in the NHS beause people with highly paid jobs have private health cover?

Are these not just examples of the same concept?

I'd just like to understand where people are drawing the line...

But a council run golf course could not survive by charging £300 a year for membership - pay and play clubs that are run as businesses cannot afford to do this so why should a council be able to? It is very different in Scotland where local benefits are not exactly paid for locally but offering this across the UK would be ridiculous. If most local councils decided to open and run a golf club then they would do it so poorly that it would cost the tax payers millions. The course would be poorly maintained so the only people that would play it are those claiming benefits and those golfers that just want a cheap round so would probably just hack it up anyway. The course manager would be an appointment from the council so they will probably also be useless - the whole thing would be a waste of land and money.

There is also the problem of those that do not choose or wish to play golf - how will a council run golf course be of benefit to them? Just because a percentage of people play golf in the UK that doesn't mean that everyone should nor will they all want to. Our country is run by capitalism whether people like it or not. If people are not prepared to muck in and work for luxuries like enjoying golf then they should not expect them. Our society is already too heavily loaded with people that are content with not pulling their weight and the less this is encouraged, the better it will be for everyone. I am sick of people expecting the government to do things for them when in reality it should be the government asking these people what they are going to do for Britain.

If it is so easy to run a golf club profitably by charging £300 per year for membership then there are plenty of wealthy people that could have already exploited this opportunity of undercutting the competition. The fact that this is not possible would also mean that council run courses subsidised by the tax payer would also then eat into the profits of privately run courses (private and pay and play) so they could close costing jobs and making things generally worse.

Rossa, nobody is saying that councils should get rid of golf courses, what they are saying is that it is not a councils responsibility to provide them (or any other leisure facility)
We are not a communist state in which the state provides everything. If I wanted a hang gliding facility, should the council be required to provide this or should I get off my backside and pay for it myself.

So while you can argue that things like subsidised bus routes shouldn't be taken away and ask "Where does it end?" you can ask precisely the same question for which leisure facilities they do and don't supply.

Why should they provide a golf course, but not for example a horse riding facility? What is special about golf that means the council have a responsibility to provide them?

Rossa, great points that will sadly float over the heads of a few on here.

Rossa wrote:So let me get this straight....some people on here are saying they should do away with golf courses that are subsidised by councils?

It is just golf or should badminton courts, swimming pools and a whole host of other activities (that are also available in private clubs) be shut down as if they are in receipt of subsidy?

I assume it's because some of those on here don't use said facilities that they see it as a waste of their tax contributions?

Where does it stop? Should subsidised bus routes be stopped because wealthy people have cars and don't need to use them? Should we pack in the NHS beause people with highly paid jobs have private health cover?

Are these not just examples of the same concept?

I'd just like to understand where people are drawing the line...

Private health care in the UK is not ready to handle that but one would assume that it will happen. The recent health bill regarding funds being given to GP's is the first step in privatising the health system - PCT's will no longer have the budgets to run hospitals but rather the GP's will be able to send a patient to whoever offers the best service, private or not.

With regards to swimming pools and health centres, these provide far more value for tax money than a golf course. A single leisure centre site offering sports such as badmington, tennis, swimming etc etc offers a large variety of uses for the size of it's area - local schools can also use them and they have rooms to offer for hire for kids clubs etc. A golf course would be a completely different prospect because the only service that it would provide is for golf.

I personally do not see £150 per year for my local private health club as good value for money but I would not even consider going to a council run one. The last time I went in one was as a student and it was full of old people and children urinating in the pool - I quickly decided that it is cheaper and better to just go for a run if you want to stay fit.

And as for buses, they are a nuisance on the roads and are only used by people that get them for nothing. They are particularly bad for the environment and should be as uncomfortable as possible to make people that use them work harder so they can afford a car.

Mac, Rossa did make some good points, but he only considered them from one side of the argument. The question is what right do golfers have to demand that the council provides affordable golfing facilities, when there are without doubt many more popular sports which also have a claim?

Unfortunately for you and thankfully for us we don't live in a socialist utopia. The country is festooned with golf courses and I don't see how any council ought to feel under obligation to create a facility or indeed keep one open if it was no longer financially viable (or was underused).

I can see both sides of the coin as I'm a member at both a muni (my main club for comps and handicap mgt) and a private club. I do consider myself fairly fortunate as golf club part of the muni is very very well run and I'm not n an area where you'd expect to find half empty cans of special brew in the bunkers in the morning.

I do think golf, indeed all sport should be as accessible as possible to the general public. By and large in this country golf is much more accessible than it used to be whereas tennis is still quite elitist. Go contrast the world rankings of those 2 sports then think again about accessibility. To me golf has got as much right as tennis has got wrong over the past 30 years.

With wider participation comes the fringe benefits to the economy of equipment sales, employment etc etc.

I assume its due to demand?

Most munis are rammed on weekends in my experience, as are swimming pools and council owned tennis courts especially in summer...

I would aslo assume assume that the subsidy is relatively small when worked out on a per head of usage.

Things like horse rising would be prohitively expensive i would imagine?

I guess it comes down to value for money...

If a muni is £15 a round to play, i would have thought that the subsidy would be a few pounds as many private pay and play courses of a similar standard charge £20 and make money?

In order to charge £15 for horse riding i assume the subsidy would have to be at least that much again?

I was having a laugh at the banter LJ had initiated but i have to say -

"it's not up to the council to provide our wants and needs"

SR come on?! If you think that through to it's logical conclusion you must realise it's nonsense!

Rossa, it was merely an example, perhaps horses were not a good choice, but other popular sports such as fishing, skiing, cycling, athletics, tennis etc do not have representation in all municipal areas. What is so special about golf that people think it is a pre-requisite that the council should cater for it?

In terms of your claim that facilities are well used, as someone who has worked at the sharp end of local government I can tell you that many such facilities run at considerable loss despite their peceived use.

I'm not saying that any facility ought to be removed, closed down or paved over, I'm just asking why golf and certain golfers seem to think that it has a manifest destiny to be supplied by the council.

S_R
Isn't golf the 2nd most popular sport in terms on participation after fishing? Possibly 3rd after football i guess depending on what you believe.
Surely that's reason enough. Local governemnt is not there to cater for everyone's whims and wants (hang gliding) but it is there to cater for the masses, for want of a better term.
If you don't think they should provide for golf, being 2nd or 3rd most popular, then presumably you don't think they should cater for sport at all?

About twenty years ago I was involved in a VFM review of my local council.
If my memory serves me right

A swim cost the ratepayers £8 per person [after admission charges were paid]
A game of football £120 per team
A game of Hockey £80 per team
Indoor sports such as basketball, badminton, bowls etc more or less broke even.
Golf showed a pofit of £2.50 per person.

Following the review they increased football pitch hire to £50 [£2 per player] and there was nearly roits. Many clubs left the council pitches and built thier own pitches or used vacant school facilities.
They also built another golf course.

Of course I think they should cater for sport, but I don't necessarily think that golf has a divine right to be catered for, despite it's perceived popularity. Not all councils have the requisite land available to do so or the finances to maintain the resourse.
Also in many parts of the country there are enough private clubs already operating at an affordable level so why should such councils feel the need to provide facilities?

In a time when football pitches which occupy a small area equal to one hole are being sold to raise revenue to pay for council tax freezes it's easy to see why golf courses are not a financially viable option in many areas.

Golf may well be popular in terms of comparison to other sports, but the vast majority of golfers in the UK are not golfers who play at municipal courses. There are many many private courses currently struggling and some have even closed. If it were that popular then this wouldn't be happening. Simply creating new courses from council tax payers may well not be worthwhile as there are many similarly priced courses currently facing winding up orders. Adding new subsidised courses will only make this worse.

Surely a council should be providing a bare minimum of services.

Rubbish collection
Street cleaning
Street lighting (where appropriate. There are far too many streetlights)
and global neutering for caravan owners

Other than that what should they be providing.

There is an argument for playgrounds for the very young and swimming pools (as that's a life skill in my opinion). But golf? Really? Why should they pay for it? No-one has provided a good reason for them to keep it open when the current golfing society should be welcoming to newcomers.

But then if golf is already so popular why do councils need to offer it at a cost to the taxpayer at all? As a sport if works perfectly well as it is if it is so popular so why do the councils need to get involved? To me it this debate points towards a wider issue of what people feel that they are entitled to receive from the state and for me that should be the minimal and should include leisure activities such as golf. As already pointed out, this is not a communist country and there is plenty of opportunities for people to be able to afford to play golf without the government having to hand it to them.

Since I am living in Cumbria at the moment I should consider myself fortunate.
The Council leisure facilities are run by a "not for profit Trust" and cover a wide spectra of activities including Golf.
http://www.carlisleleisure.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=2
Although I have been unable to access the 2009 figures they did show a surplus for 2008.
Golf is reasonably cheap especially if rather elderly as it only costs £198.
http://www.carlisleleisure.com/images/stories/documents/gpack.pdf

Municipal leisure facilities provide opportunities to try a wide variety of sports that people otherwise would not consider trying and are a useful resource in rural areas where the "big profit" org's will not go.

Most Councils are part of the "The Sport and Physical Activity Partnership" and part of that is to ensure people
"Are more aware of the value of sport and physical activity in leading happier lives
Have more opportunities to access and take part in sport and physical activity
Are more active by taking part more regularly to attain the recommended levels of participation for health gains
Have more skills, and are more positive and successful as participants leading to lifelong enjoyment in all aspects of life.
Have a safe local environment in which they can take part in sport and physical activity."

http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_094359.pdf
"1.5 Inactivity costs
Inactivity has a cost to it, which it is important to quantify when considering the case for investment. Cost to the nation The economic burden of inactive lifestyles results from the additional costs to the NHS of the treatment of long-term conditions and associated acute events such as heart attacks, strokes, falls and fractures, as well as the costs of social care arising from the loss of functional capacity. Inactivity also leads to costs to the wider economy from sickness absence and premature death of productive individuals, costs to the individuals themselves, and the costs of lost productivity of their carers. Turning this on its head, the economic benefi ts of physical activity can even extend to other sectors of the economy such as our industrial competitiveness, transport and the environment. Estimates for the annual costs to the NHS as a result of physical inactivity are between £1 billion and £1.8 billion. The costs of lost productivity to the wider economy have been
estimated at around £5.5 billion from sickness absence and £1 billion from premature death of people of working age.17 Taken together, these costs total approximately £8.3 billion every year. These fi gures represent conservative estimates for the costs of inactivity based upon available published data and they exclude the cost implications of other diseases and health problems infl uenced by physical activity, such as osteoporosis and falls – which affect many older people."