In an era in which some golf course operations scrutinize how nearly every penny is spent, a host of decisions made in an effort to save money now, can be costly long-term mistakes.
Larry Hirsh, whose firm Golf Property Analysts provides brokerage and consulting services for golf courses, said there are many decisions made by cost-conscious owners and operators that blow up in their faces.
The biggest problem I see with member-owned clubs is that everyone wants to be a champion of saving money, Hirsh said. And they do so to a fault. Its not all about cost.
Hirshs list of top mistakes clubs make in the name of cutting costs includes: allowing facilities to deteriorate, cut costs to diminish quality, ignore member satisfaction, limit golf course maintenance, allow food quality to slip, reduce service, failure to reinvest in the club, emphasize cost over value, incur too much debt, resist change.
Clubs are about value, Hirsh said. I was a member at club that refused to make the club better and move forward. As a result, it failed.
Cutting corners can affect golf course maintenance, particularly because turf maintenance typically represents the largest chunk of a clubs budget.
Hirsh said clubs in financial straits often look to golf course operations because they fall into a trap of thinking that effects of cutting expenses a little will go unnoticed.
To help superintendents avoid the pitfalls of the decisions of cost-cutting members, Gary Grigg, CGCS, a former superintendent and now vice president of Grigg Brothers Foliar Fertilizers, speaks regularly on the need for a program-based budget.
It is critical in order to meet golfer expectations as well for job security for the superintendent that the golf maintenance budget includes expectations for course maintenance along with a corresponding cost for each task required to produce those conditions, Grigg said in a TurfNet University Webinar.
Grigg recalled from his days of managing multiple courses that each had different levels of maintenance, yet all had one thing in common.
Every course had membership that wanted their course to be the best, Grigg said.
Most want more than they are willing to pay for."
The key to success for any course and its greenkeeper, Grigg said, is creating club buy-in of the budget process. That means learning what conditions on the golf course are most important and what the club is willing to spend. Only then can superintendent and members sit down and figure out what the club can get for its money.
Its not your budget, its their budget, Grigg said. Most want the best. You need to find the best they are willing to pay for.
And when that buy-in means making cuts to the budget, it is up to the superintendent to inform them that doing so will mean cutting into maintenance practices, too.
They have to understand if they cut money from your budget that they are taking money out of your programs, Grigg said. And if theyre taking money out of their programs, then their approved standards might not be met.
Those who fail to convince the club of the importance of written stands run the risk of constantly trying to hit a moving target, one that changes depending on who is judging the work of a superintendent.
Written maintenance standards establish expected results and a baseline of acceptable conditions. They have a place in all golf operations regardless of size or stature.
In his Webinar presentation, Grigg borrowed a line from Jon Scott, agronomist for Nicklaus Design.
The quicker you can develop and publish a written standard document for any club, rich or poor, private or public, the more likely the expectations will match the resources. The biggest problem I see today in my maintenance consulting work is expectation levels are not being managed well enough, and they almost always exceed the resources available to the superintendent. This inevitably leads to conflict and loss of credibility. The end result is usually a change of superintendents.
Hirsh agreed every superintendent and club need to reach agreement on a maintenance plan.
When membership is down and the board wants to cut costs, they look at the maintenance budget because it is so large, and they think they can cut a little there and no one will notice, he said. Every golf course needs a written maintenance plan, and we can help them make one. In the written plan, when the board cuts the budget, it is incumbent on the superintendent to show them what is going to happen when they make those cuts. Are you going to rake less often, mow less, raise height of cut? When the board says theyre going to cut $50,000, the superintendent has to show them the specs of what that is going to mean. That is Job One.
Even a set of agreed-upon maintenance standards is not enough to stop budget cuts in times of economic concern. When the board or an owner/operator decides to make cuts to the maintenance budget, there is a right way and a wrong way to handle the news.
Don't say no, I cant do that, Grigg said. If you have a program-based budget lay down the management plan and your standards policy and say 'which programs do you want me to eliminate or cut, because I'm going to have to cut that money out of programs, and how is this going to affect our standards policy?'
Many courses are adjusting budgets without adjusting standards. Standards have to adjust to the means, and the best way to do that is to have a written document that everyone can read and understand. Not everyone may agree to it, as there will always be dissenters. Many think that all they have to do is just impose a smaller number and superintendents will rise to the occasion, or they will someone else who can.