The Mole’s having a rant. In the latest Compleat Golfer, the editors tried to give a balanced argument, both for and against virtual clubs, but as a full playing member of a traditional club who spends a bucket-load on membership fees, The Mole thinks that something needs to be done to put a stop to the madness.

To quote from the Compleat Golfer article:

“What we now refer to, incorrectly, as virtual clubs are any number of ‘membership broker’ schemes. Put simply, marketing agents go to golf clubs that need members and then put a cunning system in place to attract new members to the club at a very low fee. The whole thing started with Skukuza GC that had more giraffe than members roaming its fairways and was looking to increase its base. It worked rather well, and Skukuza now boasts a large number of affiliated members – the majority of whom have never, and probably will never, play the course. Spot the problem. When a fair number of old club members in areas like Gauteng resigned from clubs like Wanderers, joined Skukuza for a couple of hundred bucks and then pitched up for their weekly game demanding affiliated visitor rates, that was a problem. Cue controversy, anger and frustration.”

Damn right! I pay a fortune in membership fees, but then I have to compete against Joe Soap from Nęrensrus for a tee-off time – and he’s paying the same as I am for the privilege!

“Since clubs aren’t required to indicate on the NGN cards they issue whether someone is a full playing (aka paying) member or some other limited form of member, everyone’s the same in the eyes of a club being visited. What’s more, when you join one of these clubs at a vastly reduced annual rate, you are probably not going to play there much, or participate in club life, hang out at the 19th, etc. You will also probably not be allowed to play in club championships, have the right to vote and be subject to whatever other restrictions the club decides to impose. And, in most cases, you will be in a class of membership defined as something like ‘associated’ and you will pay either reduced or affiliated visitor greenfees at your ‘home’ club. Basically, the club is allowing you to use it in order to get a handicap and an affiliation, simple as that. So as a ‘virtual’ member of this ilk, don’t expect a warm welcome from golfers who are actually full members of clubs, paying a couple of grand a year for the privilege.”

No AGM? Big deal – I’m more concerned with the idea that pseudo-members get to pay affiliated rates.

“Here’s the counter-argument: surely these membership schemes are just good business? Surely the smaller clubs have a right to create a category of membership that will at least contribute to their running costs? And don’t they encourage more people to play golf, book tee times all over the place and generally expand and grow golf as a whole in South Africa? Welcome to a great argument for the 19th hole – and one that’s not going to be resolved in the near future. These are muddy waters indeed in which we find ourselves.”

You said it, pal. Yes, these clubs may be ‘wallet-friendly’ and could be a way to grow the game, but that’s like trying to end world hunger by dishing out McDonald’s burgers. All you end up with is an obese, unhealthy, diabetic world – ie another problem. Likewise, creating a whole new classification of ‘not-quite-golfers’ is hardly growing the game in a meaningful way.

Are you a member of a virtual club? The Mole wants to know what you think. <>