Over the past few weeks, I've been running polls on LinkedIn.

Seven of them. Covering pricing, profitability, data, governance, catering models, service style, and food quality.

Between them, they've collected over 600 votes and hundreds of comments from club managers, board members, general managers, committee chairs, and hospitality professionals across the UK.

I want to share what I've learnt, because I think the picture that emerges is more interesting than any single poll result.

The industry knows it has a data problem

I asked whether clubs use their EPOS and till data effectively to drive F&B decisions. 59% said "we could do more." Only 27% said they review it regularly.

The data is there. It's sitting in every till, every system, every end-of-week report that gets glanced at and filed away. The gap is in how it's used, or more accurately, how it isn't.

When I work with a club, the EPOS data is the first thing I ask for. Not the menu or the accounts. The data. It tells you what members actually do, not what they say they want. Buying patterns, peak times, top sellers, dead weight, margin winners and margin killers.

Members make suggestions all the time, "we should have a Sunday carvery every week," "the portions are too small," "we need two real ales on", and those suggestions come from a good place. But the data doesn't have an opinion, it doesn't have a favourite, and it doesn't sit on the committee. It just tells you the truth.

If 59% of clubs know they could do more with their data, the question isn't whether the insight is available. It's why so few clubs are acting on it.

Clubs need to be clear on what F&B is for

This was the poll that generated the most engagement. 186 votes. 34 comments. And an almost perfect three-way split.

37% said F&B should make a profit. 31% said break even or a small surplus. 32% said it should be a subsidised member service.

I find that split fascinating, and telling. The issue isn't which answer is correct. All three are valid models. In my experience, too many clubs haven't actually chosen one.

When F&B is expected to make money but isn't resourced to do so... when it's treated as a member benefit but measured as a business... when the strategy says one thing and the budget says another, that's when problems start.

Losses are costs. And if a managed subsidy is your model, that's completely fine. But it has to be planned for. It's the unplanned losses that cause the real damage.

The clubs I see operating well have made a clear decision about what F&B is for. Everything else — pricing, staffing, menus, investment — flows from that decision. The clubs that struggle are usually the ones that haven't made it yet.

Clubs are underpricing, and they know it

I asked how much cheaper F&B should be in a private members club compared to the High Street. 35% said the same price. 38% said 10% cheaper. That's 73% of respondents saying club pricing should be at or very near High Street levels.

Yet when I visit clubs, I typically see pricing 20–30% below the High Street equivalent, after member discounts.

That's a significant gap between what the audience believes is fair and what clubs actually charge. And when you factor in the additional costs that come with running F&B in a club environment — extended opening hours, lower volume, higher staffing ratios — it's not hard to see why so many operations struggle financially.

I don’t think this is a pricing issue, but more of a confidence problem. Clubs are afraid of the pushback. Afraid of the member who says "you can't charge that in a members club." However, the data suggests most people don't actually feel that way.

Quality wins. Every time.

I asked a simple question: what matters more to members; quality of ingredients or presentation? 76% chose quality. 24% chose presentation.

I've always been in favour of high-quality ingredients, fresh bread, good produce, honest cooking. And yes, it needs to look good too. The first bite is with the eye, as the saying goes.

But if clubs are making trade-offs, and golf club F&B is full of trade-offs, this tells you where the priority should sit. Invest in what goes on the plate before you invest in how it looks. Members can tell the difference.

Boards need more operational understanding

I asked whether board members should experience a shift in the kitchen before making F&B decisions. 52% said yes. 36% said no, it's not their role. 12% said training alone would help.

This one generated the most debate, 18 comments, 29 reactions, 2 reposts, and I think that's because it touches on something sensitive. The relationship between governance and operations.

I've sat in board meetings recently where well-meaning people make suggestions that reveal a gap in operational understanding. This isn't a criticism. It's an observation. You don't know what you don't know. And just because you can cook at home doesn't mean those skills translate to a commercial kitchen.

Chefs should set menus, taking input and guidance from boards and committees. But the final sign-off should sit with the people who know what's in the fridges, what the prep looks like, and what the best supplier prices are. These are operational decisions that require operational knowledge.

Governance is about setting direction and strategy, not dictating the daily specials. And I think more clubs would benefit from finding a clearer line between the two.

The franchise model is under pressure

I asked how clubs feel about the future of their catering. 71% said they've moved in-house and it's working. 11% are considering it. 17% are happy with their current caterer. Nobody… 0%… said they're looking for a new caterer.

The franchise catering model isn't broken. There are some very good operators out there. But the economics are getting harder. Chef pay has risen significantly. Margins are tighter. The talent pool is smaller. And the reality is, the risk a franchise operator takes on often doesn't justify the return anymore.

More clubs should be looking seriously at moving in-house. Not reactively — not because the caterer handed in their notice and there's no plan B — but proactively, with the right systems, processes, and support in place.

The clubs that make this transition well do it from a position of clarity, not crisis.

Table service drives revenue

Finally, I asked about table service in the bar. 38% said it drives spend. 26% preferred a hybrid model. 31% said it depends on the club. Only 6% said members prefer ordering at the bar.

The evidence supports what the majority are saying. Full-service environments consistently generate higher spend per head. Structured upselling by servers — prompting for another round, suggesting a dessert, offering a premium option — can lift average check by 10% or more. Some operations report 15–30% revenue uplift when these behaviours are embedded properly.

And the gains come disproportionately from high-margin items. Drinks. Coffee. Desserts. Exactly the products that are easiest to sell when someone's being looked after at the table, and easiest to lose when they have to motivate themselves to queue again.

Table service isn't just a nicer experience. It's a revenue strategy.

So what does all of this mean?

Taken together, these results paint a picture of an industry at a turning point.

Clubs know they're sitting on data they're not using. They can't agree on what F&B is for. They're undercharging despite knowing it. They want better governance but aren't sure how to get there. They're moving away from franchise catering. And they recognise that how they serve matters as much as what they serve.

The knowledge is there. The intent is there. What's often missing is the clarity to turn all of that into a plan — and the confidence to execute it.

TL;DR

The knowledge is there. The confidence to act on it isn't always. That's the gap.

That's what I help clubs do. If any of this resonates, I'd love to hear from you.

Have a great weekend.

Tony

If you'd like dedicated time to work through your club's F&B challenges, book a Power Hour Strategy Call. One hour, focused on your situation, with benchmarking, guidance, and a clear action plan to take away. £245 + VAT.