Dear Members,
We are pleased to share the second instalment of Questions and Answers, prepared by the Board in response to the queries received following the announcement of the forthcoming Extraordinary General Assembly to be held on 3 December:
- We do not want third-party events in the restaurant
We fully agree, particularly when such events might interfere with the Club’s social life. This is in fact one of the strongest arguments for keeping the restaurant under internal management, as virtually any external operator would request —and often require— the ability to organise events for third parties.
- How does the agreement with the hotel work? Why is its fee increase so small? There are rumours that no contract exists. We demand transparency.
Since 1990, a commercial agreement has been in place under which, while the ownership of 35 Series A shares of Guadalmina Golf S.A. remains with the owner of the Hotel Guadalmina, the hotel undertakes to pay three times the annual membership fees set by the Club and is entitled to designate 35 daily players, provided they are hotel guests.
The agreement contains some minor terms and has undergone various adjustments over the years.
In 2023, due to the temporary closure of the Hotel Guadalmina for refurbishment —and at their request— the agreement was modified. The obligation to pay three times the annual fees was maintained, while the number of daily tee times was reduced to 20, to be allocated to guests of the group’s hotels Mett Estepona and Barceló Marbella. This arrangement remains in force today.
The fees paid have been maintained and will continue to increase in line with any changes approved by the Board —always at the established multiplier of three.
- Increasing staff costs by €400,000 does not seem reasonable
The increase has several origins. First, the alignment of professional categories with the applicable labour agreement and the salary updates scheduled for 2026. Second, the proposed new hires needed to cover existing staffing gaps. All proposed hires have been formally justified and requested in writing by the managers of the corresponding departments —some of whom are currently working significantly beyond their contracted hours to compensate for these shortages.
At the June Assembly it was noted that clubs such as Aloha or Las Brisas, each with only one course, half our number of members and a lower level of facility usage, nevertheless operate with staff numbers similar to ours. We are not seeking to replicate their model, but simply to cover essential positions expressly requested by two of the Club’s most valuable employees.
Naturally, the Assembly may decide not to approve the staffing requests presented.
- Aloha and Las Brisas have their courses in better condition, they have fewer members than us, and they pay a similar fee to the new A-type fee.
The first two points are correct. The third is not. Aloha’s annual fee is €3,200 and Las Brisas’ fee for 2026 is €4,000. We have prepared a broader comparison which will be made available to Members.
- If the Board wants to increase revenue, why reduce the joining fee? Especially when the courses are saturated.
The joining fee is not intended to generate additional income; its purpose is to manage demographic balance. We do not want to increase the total number of Members —we want to maintain it. In 2025 we have lost Members, and we are concerned that a prolonged decline could force even higher fee increases in the future.
For this reason, the incentives are limited in both duration and number. Their sole aim is to ensure adequate generational renewal without increasing the overall size of the Club.
- If the restaurant figures are not in the budget, does that mean its deficit does not need to be covered or its surplus reinvested? It is surprising that this unit is not included.
The restaurant is operated by Guadalmina Golf S.A., and therefore does not form part of the Club’s budget. The annual meeting of Guadalmina Golf S.A. takes place in spring. Even so, we will provide a brief update on its situation during the Assembly, as already mentioned in previous responses.
- Interclubs create more problems than Category C membership.
These are separate issues and should be treated as such. Category C is not problematic in itself; it is simply too low. As for interclub competitions, the Competition Committee will be pleased to receive any suggestions.
- An economic model that increases debt and costs without guaranteeing stability is, in my view, a mistake. Accordingly, I will vote against the budget.
The Club has no debt. The debt belongs to Guadalmina Golf S.A. and predates our mandate.
As for stability, this budget aims precisely to strengthen it: to increase recurring and reliable income (membership fees) and reduce dependence on more volatile sources (joining fees and services), which have fallen in 2025. From this perspective, the proposed budget moves firmly toward greater financial stability.
If financial stability is your main concern, we would respectfully suggest that voting in favour of the budget would be the most consistent choice.
- The budget contravenes Articles 9 and 11 of the Statutes and Article 2 of the Internal Regulations.
We understand that this refers to the joining fees, particularly the proposed incentive for Members’ children aged 25 to 35. It is important to distinguish between fees and budgets. They are separate matters, and the budget cannot contravene those articles.
Regarding the joining fees, our legal adviser has confirmed that the full incentive for those over 25 is perfectly valid. Articles 9 and 11 protect only those under 25 —who cannot be required to pay a joining fee— but do not prevent the Board from granting incentives to those over 25 if it deems it appropriate.
In any case, the Assembly concerns only the budget, not the approval of the fees.
- The budget includes €800,000 of rental costs, without considering that the loan for the purchase of the Club’s shares will mature in two years. Therefore, the rental payment to Guadalmina S.A. will soon no longer be needed.
This is not correct. The lease arrangement between Guadalmina Golf S.A. and the Club is essential to maintain the dual structure originally established for tax reasons, and no grounds have been identified for modifying it. As long as this structure exists, a market-value lease must exist, and the rent was set by an independent adviser.
What will change after the debt is repaid is that Guadalmina Golf S.A. will retain all rental income, which may be used for investments or to cover any future operating expenses.
- Lower joining-fee income is projected due to incentives for “young people”. Why adopt this policy? The courses are saturated. Increasing members and fees at the same time makes no sense.
This is not correct. Lower joining-fee income is projected because the 2026 forecast is based on real joining-fee income in 2025. The 2025 projections are not being met.
Several issues should be considered separately. The courses are indeed saturated, and we do not wish to increase the number of Members —we wish to maintain it. In 2025 we have lost Members and want to avoid a continuing decline. To achieve this, we can either reduce the joining fee for everyone or apply selective incentives. We have chosen the latter.
It is worth noting that offering incentives to younger Members is common practice across many clubs, not only golf. Younger adults are generally at the beginning of their careers, with higher financial commitments and lower disposable income.
This policy is unrelated to the increase in ordinary fees, which responds to the need for greater budgetary stability and reduced dependence on variable income. That logic remains the same regardless of whether Membership numbers rise, fall or remain stable.
- The most serious issue for me is offering a €0 activation fee for Members’ children “only for the first 100 before 30 June”. This is a potential €1.5M loss of revenue.
In practice, this is not the case. Very few new Members under 50 join the Club —the data of recent years confirm this— meaning that such incentives do not represent a real loss of revenue. Without incentives, these new memberships simply would not occur.
Therefore, we are not renouncing income; we are enabling a limited number of Members’ children to join and contribute through their annual fees. Ironically, we are doing precisely the opposite of what is being suggested: creating income that would otherwise not exist.
- Why are the reduced joining fees available only for a limited time and for a limited number of new Members?
Because we do not wish to increase the total number of Members. The 100 places offered are intended solely to offset the loss of Members recorded in 2025 and the decline we expect in the coming years.
- Why do we need young Members? People over 60 who come to enjoy Málaga’s exceptional conditions will continue to arrive in large numbers and are willing to pay whatever is required to join Guadalmina.
We cannot assume that new Members will continue to join indefinitely or that they will accept any fee. The reality is that projected new memberships for 2025 have not materialised, we have lost Members this year, and it is reasonable to expect this trend to continue if we do not act proactively.
- The budget report states that only 14% of Members are under 50. Therefore, any economic, facility or staffing investment will only benefit a tiny minority. Why invest so much in the golf academy? I want the best courses, the best restaurant, the best gym, the best sauna, the best tennis, the best croquet, etc., for all Members.
Every investment is designed to benefit the Membership as a whole. The golf academy is a very small part of the overall project. It costs less than €30,000. The planned improvements —across courses, services, facilities and operations— are intended to raise the overall quality of the Club for everyone.
- A possible loss of up to €400,000 is suggested for the 2025 financial year.
We regret if this impression was given. It is not the case. The 2025 result is close to budgetary balance. Some revenue shortfalls have occurred but have been offset by reductions in expenditure.
- Employment conditions are being renegotiated despite a recently signed agreement with staff representatives. Without wishing to question workers’ rights, it seems odd to offer conditions different from those agreed. Staff would naturally challenge any breach.
This is precisely what has happened. A significant number of employees did not have the category to which they were entitled under the recently signed labour agreement. They requested the corresponding salary adjustments and, after verifying that the situation was irregular, we recognised their claims.
- All investments are being halted, particularly those relating to the courses (the bunker renovation has stopped). This concerns me greatly, as Members choose Guadalmina because of its courses. Without exceptional course conditions, nothing else matters.
The course maintenance budget remains intact —indexed to inflation— and includes improvements within that allocation. The only notable difference from 2025 is that there will be no irrigation-system works in 2026, which were very costly last year. For this reason the total maintenance budget decreases, but the level of course care does not.
The bunker renovation was paused out of prudence: the first holes were more expensive than anticipated and the budget was insufficient to complete the entire project. In addition, reasonable doubts arose regarding the artificial faces, which present practical issues and affect the course’s design. Based on the recommendations of the team and the specialist company, the remaining budget will instead be used to replenish and improve the sand in all green-side bunkers through to the 18th —a more efficient solution for our maintenance conditions.
- No effort has been made to reduce taxes. A simple binding query to the tax authorities, creating a capital account with Members’ joining fees and declaring the Club non-profit, could exempt us from tax and allow for better planning.
This was one of the first options we analysed upon taking office, noting that clubs such as Sotogrande, Las Brisas and Aloha allocate joining fees to their social fund. Shortly thereafter, we learned that the tax authorities have opened inspections into dozens of clubs for failing to pay tax on these fees in recent years. In cases such as Aloha and Las Brisas, the preliminary tax assessments exceed one million euros, and they are now calling extraordinary general meetings to decide how to proceed.
In this context, submitting a binding consultation or modifying current practice would not be prudent. If it is ultimately confirmed that the alternative model is valid, we will re-evaluate it.
