The following matters were put to the members and feedback was received:
Governance
It was explained that the trial appeared to be working well (the splitting of the Council of Management into a “Board” and a “Captains Committee” and that an industry professional had been engaged to carry out a consultation over the next few months with a view to presenting updated articles of association for adoption at the next AGM.
Finance and Balancing the Books
On the 1 July 2025 we had 595 playing member so the club. We lost 66 members on renewal and as at the date of this note we have replaced 27 so are some 39 below where we were when we commenced the last budget. This represents a potential loss of 8% of income.
Last year we budgeted for 44 losses, to lose 50% more is disappointing as is only being able to replace 27 of those that have been lost and we are keen that this does not happen again.
To address this we, the Board, have been looking at what measures we can take both to be able to reduce resignations and to encourage new people to join given that it seems traditional marketing has brought us little.
The proposed changes are therefore:
1) Subject to ensuring that the administration burden is as we believe it to be we are proposing to change the way that we charge the annual subscription from being a lump sum to payment by 12 equal direct debit amounts – a la gym memberships and indeed the way that many businesses now collect their income. This will remove the “buying decision” that occurs in July – “have I played enough to justify paying £1,550?”. Paying by direct debit is more manageable for many members. It will also allow us to be able to recruit new members more easily as it reduces substantially the amount that they will need to find “up-front”.

We would suggest that there would be a minimum contract of 12 months for new members and a 6 month notice period for existing members. A £500 bond is suggested to reduce the risk that members would stop their DD without notice. The bond is not a cost, it is simply an amount held by the club on the members behalf to discourage people cancelling their direct debit without notice. Should the member give the appropriate notice then the amount would be returned in full.

If we are to move to this model then administratively we would like as many people as possible to pay that way. However we will not turn away members that want to pay annually in whatever form. The important point is that we want to find a method that retains members.

2) In a bid to close the funding gap we propose to remove the 2 free vouchers for members quests. If we do so we have a potential saving of up for £27,500 (500 x 2 x £25). The reality is that not all the vouchers are utilised so the saving is more likely in the region of £20,000 however still a significant sum.

3) We are proposing to limit the benefits of the Age Related Discount Scheme (“ARDS”). Following a legal challenge by a member we had to take legal advice and the advice we received was that the scheme is non-contractual, that is for the members of the club to agree what benefits this provides and can be changed at anytime and that we should document the scheme to remove ambiguity.

As a result a sub-committee was formed to look at the current scheme and also address whether it was fit for purpose in 2026. The sub-committee’s opinion is that the scheme has become too expensive and will continue to rise in cost for some time before the changes made in 2003 (closing the scheme to new members) take effect. The scheme currently costs the members c£60k and means that the “standard” subscription for members is artificially high thereby inhibiting our ability to retain and recruit members.

Various proposals were put to the board and a vote was taken. As a result the preferred proposal is that there be some minor changes to the “young” members, reducing the discounts for those agreed 32 to 34, the removal of any discount for those over 75 and 70 and a halving of the discount to members over the age of 80 so that they will pay a fee of 50% of the standard.

If acceptable to the members this would result in an annual saving of £40,000 per annum. This saving is due to rise for a few more years before it falls away.

Taken together all three measures will fill the losses from the reduced membership. Should changing the way that we collect the fees limit the loses and encourage new joiners then we should return to healthier numbers and therefore put us in a much better position heading into the 2027 budget discussions.
Capital Projects
Things are progressing with the replacement of key machinery and with the arrival of Linda (Angela’s replacement in or accounts department) we will look to put a long term plan in place.
We are awaiting tenders for the replacement of the irrigation system which should now be with us very soon. We are hopeful that the winning bid will be affordable and once we know the amount we will work up how we might fund it. It will be for the members to decide whether we proceed or not.
CASC and Beyond
Following much research and discussion with industry experts we have concluded that CASC is not right for us – we could set up a robust legal position to enjoy the financial benefits however there would be a limited lifespan and we could open the club up to litigation given the apparent dim view that HMRC has to Golf Clubs looking to join the scheme.
The discussions did however open up another opportunity – should we become a charity? Sports Clubs are able to qualify for this status and the financial benefits are far greater than those for being a CASC. They are not time limited and do not have the annoying limits on fees and affordability of same.
Charities enjoy exemption from Corporation Tax, would have the opportunity to apply for grants, would receive gift relief and get up to 100% exemption from business rates. There are also significant IHT reliefs – those leaving 10% of their estate to the club receive a 36% rate of IHT (rather than 40%) on the balance of their estate. By my maths that means that someone with an estate of £5m could leave £500k to the club at a cost to their beneficiaries of “only” £100k, those with £1m that leave a £100k to the club costs their beneficiaries only £20k.
Such sums would of course make a massive difference to the club finances.
Charities are also able to build without VAT – so if we were to build a new clubhouse this could save us c£400k. The CT exemption would also mean that aside from the annual saving of tax that we pay we could also avoid paying 25% on the sale of the building plot that we are hoping to gain planning permission on – a saving of perhaps £100,000.
If we were to take the decision to become a charity it could not be revoked in the future. We appreciate that this may seem scary however what do we have to lose? The Charity would be managed by Trustees that can be members appointed by members (so little different to what we have now).
We are fortunate that we own our land, this has a massive value to the club however it carries little financial value other than as a golf club given that the site could not be developed (being in an area of natural outstanding beauty). Our articles state that if the club were to be wound up then any proceeds are to go to charity.
Giving the club over to a charity would merely cement its future as golf club.

Kevin Hall - Chairman

Q & A
Governance
Will the members be consulted over the proposed changes? We are due to meet the consultant next week where we will find out more and then we will let members know how the consultation is to work.
Balancing the Books
The proposals do not appear to be fair in that they do not reflect the loyalty of the members that have been with the club for many years? This is not about fairness, this is about putting the clubs finances into the most secure position, we accept that there is an element of unfairness in that members have an expectation of a discount this being available for many years however equally there are younger members that have been at the club longer that have not had any discounts and of course any new joiners will also never achieve a discount even under the current proposal.
I paid a joining fee, I should get a discount? In fact joining fees were charged up to 2009, 6 years after the scheme ended for new joiners, before being reintroduced a year or so ago and yet no-one that has joined the club since 2003 could take advantage of the scheme. Indeed there are members without continuous service that have paid the joining fee and been at the club for more than 30 years and that were members before 2003 that will never have access.
I am over 80 and only play a handful of times a year however enjoy being a member of the club. Under the proposed change I would have to pay a disproportionate amount for the small number of games I am likely to play? It is impossible for us to cater for every member and we accept that going from 0% to 50% of the membership fees would represent a large increase. We would not want you to feel excluded and would suggest that in these circumstances you step down to being a social member (at no cost) and that any games you play are at the members guest rate.
What is the £500 bond, this just means that we have to pay out more money? The proposed bond is not a charge, it is simply a “deposit” held against the DD payment. This remains the property of the member and will be returned as and when they leave the club. It was suggested at the event that long serving members should not need to have a bond as they have already demonstrated their allegiance and perhaps this could be waived for members that have been with the club for say 10 years. We feel that there is merit in this suggestion and would be interested in your views.
How do we have a say over the proposed changes? Nothing is set in stone, we, the Board are empowered to look for solutions and we welcome all feedback and thoughts. The intention is to invite feedback so that we can put the most appropriate budget/subscription to the membership in the May EGM, the meeting at which we look to agree the fees for the following year.
How much will the fees be next year? We will be looking at the budgets over the next couple of weeks as we will have access to the Q3 management accounts. The proposed changes are proposed to mitigate any increases so that we can make our rates as competitive as possible.
We have a joining fee, if we add to this the bond and the DD how will this attract new members? Currently new joiners face having to pay the membership fee in full plus the joining fee so if we were to take no measures now this would mean a subscription fee of say £1,736 plus £500 (the £1,736 is simply the current fee plus 8% plus an illustrative 4% inflationary increase) for a total of £2,236. Under the proposal the applicant would pay £750 up front plus in the region of £135 per month – a much easier sell. The £750 is made up of the £500 bond plus 50% of the joining fee as we are proposing to spread this over 2 years.
If we are struggling to get new members why have a joining fee, surely this should only apply when we are full? The joining fee was imposed when we were full (in fact we were slightly oversubscribed) and has been under review. Our competitors have joining fees and if we are to take the steps we are proposing – minimising what we charge whilst making it easier to pay – then we would hope to be able to maintain the joining fee. We feel that the joining fee helps member loyalty and of course brings a cash benefit to existing members.
If we receive income monthly then will that affect our cashflow? Presently we have a large bank balance every 1 July which gets whittled away every month before the account gets replenished the following July. We receive interest on the balance however it is not significant enough to justify putting off prospective members from joining. Also on member retention, those that struggle to meet the current level of fee would not have to suffer the 11% interest that Novuna charges that make their fees £200 more than what others pay. Indeed if we can limit the subscription then those that are in this group are likely to be some £350 per annum better off.
What if we do not agree the “official” proposal at the AGM? Our intention is to build the subscription taking account of the proposed changes. If these are not accepted then we will need to quicky remodel however it is likely that would need to charge approximately £150 more that we might otherwise have. We, the board, are concerned that this would significantly harm renewals and would make it much harder to find replacement members over the following year.
Do we have an opportunity to table amendments for the EGM? It is your meeting and therefore you will have the opportunity to ask questions and to request a vote on alternative proposals. We would very much prefer members to engage with the Board in advance so that if there are better solutions we can adopt them in the proposal that goes to members. We are in this together and have the club’s interests at heart.
CASC and Charitable Status
If we were to become a charity, would that mean that if we were to sell a parcel of land that this would need to be paid to a charity? No, the requirement to pay over the proceeds of a sale would only happen if we were to wind up the club. Any monies raised by the club (or charity as it would be) would go into the club for its own use.
Do we need to make a decision on this now as part of the all the other proposals and that will be considered in the May AGM? No, this was brought up in the presentation as it is something we need to give some thought to. It has a different timeline and needs to be thought through more before we can propose this to the membership as a whole. We would welcome feedback and questions that would help us to determine whether we take this forward.
Are there other clubs that are charities? This is something that I would like to research further. I have some anecdotal evidence that there are and that these take advantage of the IHT reliefs however I would like to speak to someone that has been done the road already. According to the solicitors that we have discussed the matter with, that specialise in charity work, they see no reason why we would not qualify. Such status would not be available to non-member owned clubs and may not be advisable to those that where their land carries commercial value so it may not be surprising that there would be a limited number that would apply.