Do golf clubs need a new voice or continue to be pale, stale and male?

BUNKER-TO-BUNKER: Inside Golf writers have their say!

By Peter Owen

AT my golf club’s last Annual General Meeting – when the makeup of the next board was decided and important initiatives are discussed and voted upon – nearly 120 men and women turned up to have their say.

I would be surprised if five of them were under the age of 60 – and the women in the room were outnumbered by the men at a rate of about 20 to one.

I’m not so worried about any gender inequality in the administration of golf at a club level. The number of female general managers is increasing rapidly, and they seem to be particularly well-suited to the challenges of running member-based clubs. 

But how do we get young people – and I’m talking about those in their 40s and below – to take an interest in joining a club board. It’s as if they believe it’s not their role, responsibility or duty to get involved.

Perhaps they think they don’t have the time. If so, it’s our own fault. We’ve allowed board members to spend far too much time getting involved in operational matters that should always be left to paid staff. Being a board member of a golf club need not occupy 20, 30 or 40 hours a week, as I sometimes see.

It’s the ideas, innovation and creativity of the savvy 30-somethings, male and female, that we need at board level – not their willingness to work ridiculously long hours. And if we can’t work out a way to harness their talent, then we are all going to be the poorer.

---

By Michael Court

PEOPLE are so time-poor these days that our younger mothers and fathers have little time for golf.

I’ve been harping on about the need to address slow play for so long now that I’m close to giving up.

Could our young time-poor golfers be the answer to my prayers?

Let’s be honest here, golf is a selfish game, played largely by selfish players who go out of their way to ensure you are going nuts waiting for them to putt out, they take so long.

We have joked for too long about people who stand over the ball for an eternity before they hit what is usually such a bad shot that it couldn’t be any worse if we had blindfolded them and told them to just run in and whack it.

It’s time to play the right bower … our young people.

We have some under-30s at my private club who can play the game and would love to have some input in how things are run at a club that is soaked to the skin with old guys [like me], who have had their shot at trying to improve the game.

Yet these guys aren’t even given a look-in when discussing prospective committee members.

Maybe we should be blaming multi-vitamins and steroids – and the wonders of limb replacement – because a few decades back the older club players would have given golf away long ago and be playing bowls and downing a schooner at each ‘end’.

No, let’s look to the future and offer the youngsters a voice on all golf club boards.

---

By Michael Davis

BEING ‘pale, stale and male’ myself, I feel I am being a little disloyal to the ‘brotherhood’ by stating what is glaringly clear.

And that is in spite of the giant strides made by the game in the areas of inclusivity and participation rates, too many old white blokes are calling the shots at club level.

They selfishly worry about next week rather than the next 30 years and if the trend continues a lot of clubs will wither on the vine – victims of their own short sightedness.

To be fair, most sharp-witted club general managers and golf administrators are aware of the problem.  And some clubs have made giant strides towards rectifying two big weaknesses in their memberships – too few women and not enough young people.  Still, the wider problem needs to be urgently addressed.

I would even go as far as giving women and young members a voice at board level by providing them with direct access to the decision makers at each club. Even promoting them to board positions at clubs without facing election would not be too big a step. 

Granted, many of the members I have branded ‘pale, stale and male’ have done some fabulous (mostly honorary) work for their clubs over the journey. But many are also perennial naysayers who rail against change seemingly for the sake of being contrary.

Often, they are against the simplest things like a change to the clubhouse menu. Sometimes the issues are more complex like a club merger, or a course or clubhouse renovation. Whatever, you can bet they’ll take a negative stance on them.

---

By Larry Canning

I HAD a reasonably insightful conversation with my old mate Wrighty yesterday on this very issue. 

I say ‘reasonably’ because a conversation between Wrighty and me is usually over a beer and usually about nothing remotely sensible, but this was different.

He has been a member of his golf club for no less than 50 years and served on the board as a younger bloke, so he’s seen it all. 

“It didn’t matter what we tried to do the last word was always down to the old guard most of whom weren’t on the committee at the time,” he said.  “If they didn’t like it, it didn’t happen.”

I have seen exactly the same thing, but from the other side of the counter where decisions made based on “we don’t do things that way here”, had direct financial effects on my revenue and overheads. And of course, that usually meant the same commercial issues for the club, either short- or long-term.

Don’t get me wrong; I’ve seen some terrific decisions made by committee men and women, young and old and I really admire their devotion to their clubs, but you can’t beat a fresh look at the business of running a golf club. And folks, a golf course and club, whether you like it or not, is now a business.

I know our PGA and Golf Australia have records if you need it. Wrighty hasn’t stood for committee since that time, but clearly still adores his club, mates and fellow members.     

What do you think? Email comments to david@insidegolf.com.au