Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeod
C'mon Doc. Comparing Pebble Beach to TV? $495 greens fee! If played as frequently as you describe, imagine the resources they have available to keep the course in the condition you experienced. BTW, when I played PB, it was in the middle of a drought like exists now in CA. They had no grass on the fairway and were watering the greens and tees only. No reduction in fees, though. Plus, the quality of player who goes to PB is far superior to the beginners and novice players who frequent TV courses. Makes a big difference in maintenance costs.
The number of rounds played in TV has increased significantly every year, surpassing 2 million in 2015. Although they have added courses, those of us who have been here for 10 years or more will confirm that it gets harder every year to get desired tee times on desired courses. Each year you have to increase the number of courses and widen the time range on requests in order to avoid being shut out.
The organization of the maintenance program in TV is exactly as it should be. If we follow your logic in the previous post, then any large company or corporation should not utilize suppliers or sub-contractors and should do it all themselves. With all the courses to be maintained, it only makes sense to contract it out to companies that do this as their sole business activity. This is not the easy way out. It is the most efficient. Eric and GMS manage the contractors rather than manage the mass of individuals that would be required by your example.
Every year we go through "Miserable May" as the courses recover from the high season play and overseeding followed by the necessary aeration. And every year they get back to good condition.
|
The comparison is valid depending on the income and the acreage being maintained. And executive golf course wth virtually no fairways and only nine greens should cost much, much less than an eighteen hole par 72 course.
I agree, I've seen Pebble during a drought and they water and maintain the greens only. With our executive courses they don't have much more than the greens to maintain. It's the greens that are the problem here.
As I stated before, if we knew what percentage of the total amenity fees collected goes toward exec golf, we would know how much we each pay. Unless we know that number, we don't know what we pay to play the execs.
While I can certainly understand courses getting damaged from a high amount of play, like I said, if they're getting that much play, they should be getting more income. And there is no excuse for the condition of the greens that I've seen. Like I've stated so far I've seen deplorable and horrendous. No amount of play should result in the condition that we currently have.
I don't know the income or budgets for these courses, but I still maintain that having the maintenance done in house rather than contracting it out would yield better results.