EGU’s Computerised National
Handicapping System in Turmoil

In July this year, in the light of much speculation, the English Golf Union, in an association formed with the Property Golf and Finance Group (PGF) and the English Ladies Golf Association, outlined their scheme for a computerised handicapping system, (see GCS August 2000, page 118). In the press release, they stated that an early roll out of value added services to both Clubs and members was set to commence in the Autumn.

Under the scheme it was proposed that members of partaking Clubs would each receive a smart card and the Clubs would receive equipment to run the scheme. Furthermore in the press release, PGF advised Golf Clubs that “The equipment to do this (is) also being provided free of charge to each Club”. Since then no further announcement has been made and as a result companies supplying computer equipment to Golf Clubs have had their businesses virtually paralysed and are understandably furious. The fact that they are now no further forward has only exacerbated the problem and there are mutterings within the industry that the consortium’s action may well be an infringement of anti-competitive legislation.

Therefore, at the recent ClubHouse Exhibition, held at the NEC on 2-3 November, the AGCS arranged for the final Seminar in their programme to be a debate on the proposed System with speakers from both sides of the argument stating their respective cases. Unfortunately, no one had invited the EGU to take part and they only knew about it when they saw it printed in the Exhibition catalogue. When this was challenged, Tony Evans of Golf Club Management admitted to Paul Baxter, Secretary of the EGU, that they had failed to notify them and agreed to cancel the debate and publish an apology in their next issue. Regrettably, the Seminar was not cancelled and this put the EGU in an even worse position as they were not represented.

The Seminar largely comprised computer companies whose businesses are at risk, but it was evident that there were strong reservations to the stance of the EGU from those Secretaries who were present. This was borne out on our own Stand where, without exception, subscribers’ were not in favour of the Scheme as depicted and saw little or no advantage. Indeed, most Clubs attending stated that they will not divulge their members addresses to the computer company, and without them the funding of the proposed schemes must surely be questionable.

The only good aspect to come from the Seminar debate was the information presented for the anti’s by Alistair Griffiths (owner of Golfpac, a software company), which applied to both the SGU Scheme as well as that of the EGU; they are different - at the moment. This information will be published when the full details of the EGU scheme are available.

Centralised handicapping schemes are being considered and implemented by a number of countries, e.g. Australia, where there has been a take-up by only 60% of the Clubs; Portugal, software has been installed but is still to be implemented; Ireland, a pilot scheme is in operation with implementation due next Spring; Scotland, is due to be implemented early in the new year; and England, which is in limbo.

Alistair Griffiths stated that in England, it was proposed that the Clubs’ existing software should remain intact and the centralised handicapping software would be interfaced with each system to suit. Nevertheless, all existing DOS-based competition entry touch screens will still have to be replaced. Furthermore, because of the use of non-conforming software it has been suggested that the EGU will have to introduce compulsory training for Handicap Secretaries.

Regarding the cost of the EGU scheme he advised that whilst the initial budget was £2.5 m, he estimated the cost to be least £7.5 m. Even at £2.5 m the PGF would have needed to sell 170,000 units (insurance, mobile phones, credit cards, etc) to finance the scheme; that is 1 in 5 of all affiliated members !

Furthermore, only a couple of days before the Exhibition, BT who were providing a fundamental part of the financial backing to the Consortium led by the Property Golf and Finance Group (PGF), announced that due to their need to reduce their world-wide debt burden from £30 billion to £20 billion, they would not be making any further ‘investments’ for the foreseeable future. Thus, when BT pulled out, the PGF consortium was left stranded.

Subsequently, we have learnt that the Scheme as presented by PGF in their July press release, see GCS August 2000, page 118, has been put on hold - at least for the moment. Another consortium is currently being considered for the Scheme until mid-December, when it is hoped that an agreement can be concluded. If this happens, judging by the comments we have received, whoever has the ‘rights’ will then face a huge uphill struggle to convince Golf Clubs and their officials that it has any merit or that it is needed at all.

There would now appear to be a number of options. First, that the new consortium is ‘successful’ in its bid; secondly, if they are not, that the original EGU Consortium comes back with another company to replace BT and their £5 m; or thirdly, that the whole scheme is dropped until such a time as it has been properly thought through and all participating organisations have asked the Golf Clubs and their Members what they actually want !

However, there is a further problem for the EGU and that is unless the Scheme goes through and they are in receipt of the money that should accrue from the Scheme, their considerable debt will take longer to clear, despite having paid off a very substantial sum this year.

Paul Baxter, Secretary of the EGU, stated that “We fully understand the resentment that has stemmed from the delay and the EGU are very embarrassed by it, but we are surprised that professional Secretaries have already decided to opt-out of the project when, due to confidentiality clauses, we (the EGU) have been unable to provide them with the full details as to the benefits for the Clubs and their members”.

There is no doubt that the EGU are unpopular within their constituency. Their huge expansion since the early 90’s, their move to Woodhall Spa and now the mess created by the confusion, secrecy and delay in their Computerised Handicapping Scheme, has only compounded the problem. This may be due to their inexperience in dealing with commercial organisations.

The SGU

In Scotland, the SGU have sent their specification to all the competition and handicapping software suppliers to facilitate their participation within the scheme. It does mean that amendments will need to be made to the Club’s existing software packages, as these do not currently interface with the CHS hardware that will be provided to the Clubs ‘free of charge’. Existing DOS-based competition entry screens will also have to be replaced as they will not be compatible.

However, the rumour that Clubs are no longer required to provide members’ addresses is not true. SGU claim that members’ addresses will be required for the handicap business as each member will receive his/her handicap smart card direct. Under the Data Protection laws, Kevin Weir of the SGU stated that “Each individual member must explicitly request to participate, or receive information, on any of the members’ benefits that may be offered. No direct marketing or advertising material will be issued by commercial partners direct to individual members against their will”. He further stated that “Where an individual does not wish to take up any of the members’ benefits, they will simply use their card as a standard handicap card”.

It is possible that the constitution of some Private Members’ Clubs may not permit the release of members names and addresses and in these circumstances the cards may have to be distributed via the Clubs. Kevin Weir stated that “Under the Data Protection Act the SGU are permitted to obtain the names and addresses of members for ‘the purpose of pursuing our day to day (legitimate) business’. Clearly handicapping fits within this criteria as a core business of the governing body, i.e. Scratch Score and Handicapping Scheme, as approved by CONGU from time to time and also the Scottish Ladies Golfing Association, who are responsible for administering and applying the rules of the Ladies Golf Union Handicapping Scheme, as amended from time to time. Clubs will therefore be requested to supply details of their names and addresses to the SGU for card issuance purposes”.

According to our own legal advisers, as the law is still unclear on this aspect, Golf Clubs are advised to request the permission of every individual member to declare their name and address to any third party and giving the reason for so doing. Even after a member has given this permission, he will still be within his rights to subsequently withdraw it.

Regarding the wording of existing Club constitutions, Kevin Weir stated, “If (Club) constitutions cause an issue for any reason, then we will assess each case on its own merits and seek legal opinion on the position. What is imperative is that all dealings are compliant with the requirements of the Data Protection Act from both the Club’s and the SGU’s perspective”.

The SGU will be running road-shows around Scotland during the months of January, February and March 2001 with implementation following immediately on a geographical basis. They therefore hope to be up-and-running by April/May 2001.