“The new approach to country clubs is not an employee perk.”

The best thing about this story is how they’re trying to sell not one, not two, but three country club memberships for the top brass in Nebraska’s athletic department as sound business practice.

You’re the best, amateurism.  Don’t ever change.

(h/t)

21 Comments

Filed under It's Just Bidness

21 responses to ““The new approach to country clubs is not an employee perk.”

  1. Brayman1

    Well, it is nice to see an emphasis on the $100-$500 donors….looking at you McGarity.

    Like

    • The Georgia Way

      Rest assured, we will include our $100-$500 donors the next time we start the season with four losses.

      #COMMITTOTHEG

      Like

  2. Macallanlover

    Snark all you want but it would be “business stupid” to ignore the advantages country clubs offer to the Athletic Departments of any large program. Any overt signs of success in this country are under attack these days; bizarro world, to me. Might as well attack where these deplorables live, what they drive (cough…Porches), where they eat, and criticize them for vacationing in the finer places. Best to fish where the fish are, IYAM. All companies who act this stupidly obviously know nothing about running their businesses, best they let the geniuses here tell them how to operate.

    Like

    • Point wasn’t about country club memberships in general, but about paying three sets of dues when one should suffice.

      By the way, nice irrelevant cheap shot. At least I spent my own money on my car.

      Like

      • Macallanlover

        Come on, I think you realize I fully support that opportunity to choose what to do with your own money. I believe succeeding while doing things the right way should be rewarded, and others should aspire to achieve that. That is something that most all American above 40 grew up with believing, didn’t change until the last dozen years or so. Wasn’t cheap-shotting at all, just saying the same position could be taken over anyone’s lifestyle that enjoys the finer things, mostly a matter of perspective from someone else’s vantage point. Funny how some who criticize wasteful spending while others are in need, don’t live that way when given the opportunity to choose (Hollyweird folks, highly paid athletes, etc.) Hope you enjoyed the trip, my favorite spot of the country, in many ways, not all. 🙂 Big Sur, and north, is very special as a destination travel point

        In some larger markets, there can be multiple influential country clubs, Lincoln is certainly one, Athens is not. Atlanta is but one of dozens, as is many medium size markets. I have lived in medium markets where there are 2-3 clubs that should get “attention”. What struck me was the price of social memberships, which is mostly the right to have access and pay for less than stellar food, all while adding $200-400 to your monthly eating/drinking costs, with some tennis and pool privileges thrown in. But what it does say, these are people a lot of expendable income that love having access, and paying for the right to be treated “special”. Perfect targets for donation seekers.

        Like

        • It’s not their money. It’s not their lifestyle.

          Other than that, great analogy.

          Like

          • Macallanlover

            Well, that is certainly an interesting take. Perks are most certainly about both money, and lifestyle; if you don’t see that, not my issue. And putting them in a place to being in more money, provide more feedback, and show the flag is smart business; not to mention having a place to entertain. Enough. You have your back up from what you misread as a personal attack and now it is becoming gibberish. They may not have been effective in selling it, but they have a good case.

            Like

            • I’m sure you’d be just as sanguine about this if it were, say, the City of Atlanta paying for the perks.

              Like

              • Macallanlover

                Kidding I guess, politicians and city workers get tons of perks, not all are country club involved. Perks come in many different packages, any government provides them in dozens of ways, and many are far more valuable than a CC membership. A job’s compensation may be immediate, or come later, and may not always be money related. So the answer is, yes, of course. But you knew that I suspect, and most likely knew that I might have figured it out as well. Many different ways to not only get wealthy, but to have more access, inside info, power, time off to enjoy life, etc. One has to value the total package and assign value to what is most important to you, imo.

                Like

        • If you don’t play golf, the key is an actual Tennis Only venue. (As opposed to a “social” membership at a golf-centric club.) I love mine. It’s about half the price and since there’s no massive overhead of a golf course, everything else is really nice with excellent programming and participation plus you can afford to keep quality chefs.

          Like

          • Macallanlover

            Understand, but maintained tennis courts aren’t as significantly different as golf courses are. Easier to find something acceptable, imo. I was once a “social member” at a club because of proximity from the club I played golf at. It was only $125 a month, but I used it for dining/drinks only. I had no different access to the golf there if I wanted to play with some friends than other residents, just another guest. Basically, I was paying $125 a month for the right to spend money there. Mentioned to the president of the club that just allowing 2 greens fees a month, during non “prime time” week day periods to provide some “value” for my membership, didn’t fly so I left a few months later because I could go there and pay a friend when I wanted to eat, or have drinks. Rarely went there more than once or twice a month. Have to weigh what you get and decide, sounds like it works for you, just didn’t for me.

            Like

        • I’m really wanting to make a snobby comment about clubs that offer social memberships here….

          Like

    • Whiskeydawg

      “Any overt signs of success in this country are under attack these days” Is Nebraska’s season is an overt sign of success?

      Liked by 1 person

    • DawgByte

      Nice shot Macallanlover. Don’t take this class warfare stuff from Senator to heart. He’s just pissed because he’s driving a beat up Prius with bald tires and cigarette smell.

      Like

  3. If you want to subsidize a country club membership for fundraising purposes in Nebraska, for goodness sake, make it Sand Hills.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Macallanlover

      Would be my choice as well, but that is for golf purposes only…which is enough. A true “country club” n the original sense.

      Like

  4. Whiskeydawg

    I just have a hard time with Nebraska and country club in the same sentence.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Macallanlover

      Lot of bigotry, and generalizations, in vogue these days. I suspect there many things in Nebraska to experience that would make almost anyone have a favorable feeling about it. Been true with virtually any place I have ever been to, or lived, in my considerable years.

      Like

  5. ASEF

    If the donors are already members, then the fund raisers can just show up as guests, correct?

    And if they aren’t going to write a check unless you take them to the club for a round of golf and a bar tab, then have you really made any money in the $100 to $500 donation range?

    The reason this got nixed is because no one could demonstrate a tangible ROI on it. The reason it’s back is because someone would rather the state pay for it rather than using his $20,000 bowl bonus or $15,000 APR bonus on it.

    Oh that’s right, Nebraska doesn’t go to bowl games anymore.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Macallanlover

      “tangible” is the key word, and hard core tangible at that. It’s not like all the money available os being wisely spent in a “thrifty” sort of way, amiright? Nebraska gets bowl money whether it plays in a bowl or not, just like Vandy , Florida, and TN. In fact, it keeps many schools from losing money when they cannot sell their guaranteed tickets, or take too many non-football freeloaders.

      Like