The EGU Answer Some Questions

The following is an interview with Philip Parker, Chairman of the EGU, in which we tried to unravel some of the problems that have beset the Union over the last few years and to clarify some of the misunderstandings.

The reputation of the English Golf Union has steadily declined over the last decade, despite considerable success on the course. It would appear that although the EGU’s Executive Committee is made up of representatives from all the English Counties, administrators at all levels feel detached from the EGU’s decision making. The move to Woodhall Spa was, by common consent, a public relations disaster, driven through by your predecessor. Everyone dislikes the idea of Woodhall Spa because of where it is and how it was ‘railroaded’ through the Executive, but when individuals visit they are invariably very impressed. How do you propose to change this image ?

Geographically it is a problem, but the EGU spent four years seeking a suitable venue at a price they could afford. Over 100 sites were considered and nothing matched up to Woodhall Spa. Location was not a high priority, a championship standard golf course was. When the Woodhall Spa became available the final decision had to be taken quickly. English Clubs would never have been able to have access to a National Centre other than at the price the EGU paid for Woodhall Spa.

The decision to choose Woodhall Spa was not ‘railroaded’ through but its location carefully considered after having due regard to the existing infrastructure and the availability of good quality, reasonably priced hotels in the location. The proposal was put to all 34 of the County Unions. Meetings were held to present the details and costing for its purchase and 28 of the County Unions, out of 31 who held meetings, approved the proposal. The decision was therefore totally democratic.

Promoting the venue is a problem, but it was democratically chosen; it is the home of English golf; and it seeks to serve its members and amateur golf, albeit imperfectly at the level of the ordinary golfer, who is invariably impressed by both the facilities and the warmth of the reception from the staff. However, Philip Parker believes that many in golf “have not made too much effort to find out (for themselves)”.

Handicapping - Recently we have also witnessed the protracted and unsuccessful attempt to launch a Centralised Handicapping Scheme (CHS). What happened and why ?

The original backers of the Scheme, Property Golf Finance (PGF), who were recommended by their Management Consultants, Arthur Andersen, in partnership with BT and Capital Bank are no longer the preferred option. They are, however, still pursuing the Scheme with another consortium, Advance Wave, who are in partnership with Hitachi, and an Australian bank, the terms of which are at present confidential.

The income generated by the Scheme will help resource the core activities of the Union, which at present are under-resourced due to the rejection of the proposal by the Executive to raise the subscription by £2 in 2000. This resulted in the Executive’s decision to appoint Arthur Andersen to look at means for raising of funds by commercial activities, and it was they who came up with this idea. The Scheme is not a ‘dead duck’ but will cause untold discussion. It will be very difficult to achieve but when all the details are known, they are “convinced that it’s good for the golfer, the Club and the game.” It is anticipated that the decision to proceed will be known in the very near future. It is an offer worth fighting for as it affects the total game. The EGU are very positive that it will be achieved.

How are you resolving the problem caused to the industry last year by your statement to Clubs informing them to withhold purchase of computer equipment pending the introduction of this Handicapping scheme ?

The EGU are very sorry, but stated that the control of the situation was out of their hands, due to the delay in finalising the contract. But they point out that the Scheme was always designed so that existing software would be compatible.

What is the financial position of the EGU - in simple terms ? Does Woodhall Spa pay its way and how much of the cost is still outstanding ? If the Centralised handicapping Scheme fails to materialise will there be a shortfall and will this mean a further increase in the per capita fee ?

Woodhall Spa Management Ltd, which is an entirely separate commercial organisation from the EGU, is “washing its own face.” The debt servicing is on track and with the £2 per head addition to the per capita subscription, introduced in 1994, it will be paid off by 2005, on schedule. The core administration costs, however, need adjustment and it is hoped that the Handicapping Scheme will be able to make a bonus payment to the EGU to assist its future funding. The per capita fee will have to be raised if the CHS does not operate successfully. The Committee are looking at the consequences and it may be a question of, ‘Is your game worth supporting ?’

The EGU is an NPMO, mutually trading and exempt of VAT. To enable members to play on Woodhall Spa at a non-VATable rate each member had to produce a letter from his Home Club to prove that he was an affiliated member. This became too cumbersome to operate and consequently the commercial vehicle, Woodhall Spa Management Ltd, was created to accommodate this and other commercial aspects.

The rejection of the Executive proposal for a £2 increase in the subscription fee has caused a shortfall in the funding of the core administration and activities. Initially, some of the per capita subscription allocated to the purchase of Woodhall Spa was wrongly used to assist, but this has to be paid back. At present, some of the benefits can not be commenced until income is increased.

Membership - What are the benefits now of being a Member of the IMS (Individual Membership Scheme), originally started for Captains and Past Captains ?

The benefits are unchanged, although the magazine production is not as good as it used to be. Looking at the structure of the IMS, Philip Parker was of the opinion that it should revert back to the inclusion of Captains only plus the addition of Secretary/Managers. Those who were elected as a result of serving on a Club Committee should remain.

Communications - Most organisations now have their own web-site. What are you proposing to carry on your site in the future ? Up until a few years ago you had a successful publication, Amateur Golf. The magazine you now produce English Golf is little more than a results service and a document of record, carrying out-of-date reports with little or no news. Why does this publication no longer carry advertising to defray its considerable cost ? Will you abandon it in favour of your web-site?

The magazine comprised ten editions per year and was only sent to IMS members. It became a victim of the same delay, as a replacement had been promised by PGF. It still forms part of the CHS package. The EGU’s web-site is very active and carries all manner of advice/information including a results service. However, the EGU will continue to produce a magazine as Philip Parker considers the web-site to be a very limited means of communication.

Greenkeeper Training - The GTC is now struggling, having failed to convince employers (Clubs) of the necessity to train their staff. Would you agree that there are fewer colleges covering the whole syllabus, who have even fewer trained lecturers ? The GTC are now asking for an increase in the contribution made by the Home Unions. What do you see as its future ?

The EGU still supports the GTC. At present they give them a per capita donation of 8p. The GTC have asked it to be increased to 12p, the EGU have agreed to 10p. It is their belief that the GTC have an identity problem, and their communication with Golf Clubs poor. At present, improvements cannot be afforded. The EGU have no plans to train greenkeepers themselves but they are passionate about greenkeeper training. It is their belief that greenkeepers can be trained on-site up to NVQ Level 2 using ‘assessors’ but thereafter College training is essential. They also will only support the training of a Head Greenkeeper as an in-house assessor where a Club has student trainees.

STRI - The STRI which has seen its market share in golf fall over the past decade, has recently appointed a new Director. The EGU help fund the Institute, can you see the decline being arrested and if so how ?

Philip Parker confirmed that he sits on the STRI Golf Course Committee which meets annually during the BTME. The STRI is now split into two companies, research and operating, following its damaging court case with a Dorset Golf Club. They believe that with the recent appointments the excellent service provided by the STRI will be further strengthened and improved. The Institute has a healthy future.

Junior Golf - This is an area of success for the EGU (and ELGA). What are you doing to encourage Clubs to accept junior members, particularly when they are not related to a member ? You have recently produced an excellent booklet entitled ‘Child Protection Procedures’ which has been sent to all Clubs. How do you propose to further publicise this initiative ? You receive a very significant outside support for the Junior Development Programme to what do you actually allocate this funding ?

The elite English golfers are in receipt of coaching and development second to none from Regional up to National level, and the bulk of the money goes to this level. At the lower level they have launched the highly successful ‘Free Golf Coaching for Beginners’; encouraged Clubs to embark on Junior Programmes; promoted Junior golf for the under 18’s and formed the English Junior Golf Partnership. As to how Clubs are able to integrate junior s into a Club, who are unrelated to members, they have no answers.

The booklet ‘Child Protection Procedures’ has been very successful and Richard Brown, the Junior Liaison Officer, has been inundated with in-depth enquiries into the issues raised by the booklet.

Surveys - The EGU have conducted two Surveys in recent times, the Millennium Junior Census and a Survey of your affiliated Clubs covering vacancies. We understand that with the former the results were encouraging, but the latter showed that the vast majority of Clubs have a shortfall in the desired number of members . Can you elaborate ?

The results of the latter showed that there were currently 25,000 membership vacancies in English Golf Clubs and the breakdown of memberships showed only 7.9% are juniors. This is a very serious situation and the EGU has engaged Richard Brown solely for the active promotion of juniors, in Clubs around the country. According to the latest research, conducted by the EGU as part of the ‘Free Golf Coaching for Beginners’ initiative last summer, participants have been eager to continue their participation. The research highlighted that over 2000 people had received the opportunity to experience golf for the first time, and that those participants have been able to sustain their interest in golf through EGU initiatives. Of those who returned the survey 88% have been involved with golf since, of which 53% have booked further lessons; 30% have played golf at the same venue; and 13% have joined a Golf Club. The attraction of ‘Free Golf Coaching for Beginners’ is that it encourages people of all ages, both male and female, to have a go ! It is the EGU’s intention to continue and increase this initiative in 2001 in an effort to attract more people into the game.

There is clearly much frustration felt on the part of the EGU, both by elected Officers and staff, that their efforts to progress are the subject of so much criticism, despite being democratically founded; still more that they are silenced by confidentiality agreements. We look forward to the opportunity of publishing the details of the Centralised Handicapping Scheme in the near future.