Quote:
Originally Posted by fdpaq0580
Gotcha!
So, how many courses, and how many courses per contractor? Let them provide and maintain their own equipment? Let them decide on treatments and provide products of their choosing?
Like having Massey cut and maintain 1/2 of my lawn while Dean's does the other 1/2. Best looking 1/2 gets a bonus.
Let me sleep on this. Something just doesn't feel right but I can't put my finger on it. ☺️
|
Not exactly. I think overall, the contracts should contain "standards" that mirror USGA recommendations as to products, processes, equipment, etc.
As I've said before, I would prefer to see ONE entity, in full control, under the supervision of real professional agronomists. As TV has a long tradition of sub-contracting course maintenance to a number of contractors, I doubt that's about to change. I was simply looking for a suggestion that would maintain the existing infrastructure/process, yet provide a financial incentive for the good sub-contractors to excel and the poorer performing sub-contractors to become obvious.
At the end of the day, "customer/user satisfaction" should be the controlling standard ... I think? Instead of judging the playability/condition of the golf courses by what we see and read on Facebook or TOTV, let's run a community-wide Consumer Satisfaction Index (CSI), like hotels, automobile manufacturers and most every other business does these days.
We make it or manage it and you the consumer, tells us how we're doing and let us know where we need to improve.
It applies to most every other business in the USA, why not to golf courses in TV?