What will The R&A do ...

... about Turnberry?  What a predicament!  

Surely the governing body can't very well take their flagship event to a venue owned by an individual who so ruthlessly bullied his neighbours in Aberdeen?  

Trump has stated he will do nothing to the Ailsa course without first consulting with the R&A (Kintyre course - brace yersel!).  Will this be enough to woo The Open back to Turnberry.  I don't believe so.  I think it would be fair to describe Trump's 'business style' as representing the very antithesis of how the R&A goes about its business.

Of course, perhaps the question we should be asking is, what else can Trump do to bring The Open to Turnberry?  Seems to me, the answer lies in Aberdeen where undoubtedly a large slice of humble pie will be awaiting him.

Not sure why they should do anything Gael, they can't dictate who owns the courses on the rota especially when they have their own dubious business practices going on.

Are the R&A and Trump all that different?

As for Aberdeen, I'm pretty sure in a few years the Scottish Open will be held at Trump following on from Royal Aberdeen, so he might not find it that hard to get the Open at Turnberry, which last time I looked was still on the Rota.

Which "dubious business practices" would those be s_r?

Re the Scottish Open, I rather think it'll be while before the Scottish Open goes to Trump's course in Aberdeen.  Aside from it going back to Castle Stuart in 2016 (I think), Dundonald and either the Renaissance or Gullane will be more likely shoo-ins for the foreseeable future.  

In any event, I fail to see the relevance of a Trump Scottish Open having any bearing on whether or not the R&A takes The Open to Turnberry.  There is simply no comparison to be made between these two events.

It would be a brave new chief at the R&A who decided to take Turnberry OFF the rota just because certain sections of the golfing public "didn't like" the facility's owner.
We didn't see the PGA Tour pull out when he bought Doral and that's an annual event, so I'd say it's unlikely that anything will change with a once in 10 year rota...he may even have popped his clogs or sold it before the Open is next due there. I therefore don't see the R&A having any kind of predicament at all.

Besides, they're not exactly famous for being sensitive and responsive to general trends in society anyway are they?

Have you been round at Mac's for Bank Holiday tea & scones Gael??

Eh, perhaps permitting their business to continue to the complete exclusion of women.
Not illegal, but not very nice. Like Trump, not illegal, but not very nice.

As for the Trump having the Scottish Open, surely he would demonstrate the ability to hold a competition.
I'm also not sure why you think Castle Stuart would get it back, difficult to get to, and poor weather will probably put paid to that, and not sure why Gullane or Renaissance would have a claim over it either.

The R&A host the worst, least entertaining and dreariest major every 5 years at St.Andrews, so not like they've got particularly high standards when it comes to hosting events.
What would they have to lose by having The Open at Turnberry?

In any event, it's not even up for debate, The R&A haven't removed Turnberry from the list, just as they haven't removed Carnoustie, Birkdale or any other course that doesn't have a date (as yet) when it will next hold the Open.

I would have thought each Golf organization would have its own tolerance level for contentious venue ownerships.

The PGA Tour has climbed in to marriages of convenience with some characters who are even shadier than Trump, so can't seem them batting an eyelid regarding the use of Doral. Plus they stage an opposite field tournament at Trump's Puerto Rico place.
And the PGA of America have announced one Trump venue, in Virginia, for their Senior PGA Championship in 2017, and another for the 2022 PGA Championship.
While the USGA has their Womens Open at the same Trump course in 2017 as is getting the PGA Championship in 2022.
 
I wouldn't have considered the R&A to be as overtly commercial as their American counterparts but we know the European Tour is and can't see any reason not to take the Scottish Open to Trump's place.
 
As for Turnberry, I can only see one chance before 2021 and would think Carnoustie would be ahead of them. Perhaps the new R&A bloke will make Trump cool his heels for a couple of years before making a decision on Turnberry?

2015 The Bore Course
2016 Troon
2017 England somewhere guaranteed.
2018, 2019 Could be England again, Turnberry or Carnoustie.

JAS wrote:It would be a brave new chief at the R&A who decided to take Turnberry OFF the rota just because certain sections of the golfing public "didn't like" the facility's owner.
We didn't see the PGA Tour pull out when he bought Doral and that's an annual event, so I'd say it's unlikely that anything will change with a once in 10 year rota...he may even have popped his clogs or sold it before the Open is next due there. I therefore don't see the R&A having any kind of predicament at all.

Besides, they're not exactly famous for being sensitive and responsive to general trends in society anyway are they?  

Have you been round at Mac's for Bank Holiday tea & scones Gael??

JAS ... since when have you ever known the R&A to make any announcements to the effect that it's NOT taking an Open back to a particular venue?  I'm sure the R&A would like to take it back to Turnberry some day but I rather think you have to take into consideration the 15 year gap between the last time it was there and the time before that and ask yourself if there could be any other reasons as why Turnberry is not an ideal venue.  So you see, there is no hurry for them to take it back there ... if at all.  

Re your comment apropos "general trends", I hardly think denial of m'ship for females* to a non course-owing club can be compared to the bullying of neighbours.    

* This will in all likelihood be resolved in September although good luck to the R&A in trying to drum up some females who'd wish to join this club in the first place.  For the vast majority of the m'ship, it's a 2nd, 3rd or 4th club!

Why wouldn't they take it back Gael?
It's held good Open's every time it's been there. It's been held twice as many times as Carnoustie has since 1977

THe R&A "bullies" it's neighbours (i.e the other St.Andrews Clubs), why would they care about legitimate building practices of Trump?

Pretty much every business in the world does something which you wouldn't agree with, but I doubt you are taking your pension out of being invested in BP etc are you?

super_realist wrote:Eh, perhaps permitting their business to continue to the complete exclusion of women.
Not illegal, but not very nice. Like Trump, not illegal, but not very nice.

See previous post!

As for the Trump having the Scottish Open, surely he would demonstrate the ability to hold a competition.

He doesn't need to demonstrate his ability to host an event.  He's already achieved this in the USA.

I'm also not sure why you think Castle Stuart would get it back, difficult to get to, and poor weather will probably put paid to that, and not sure why Gullane or Renaissance would have a claim over it either.

Not me who thinks it.  Take your question to the media.  As to the suitability of Castle Stuart, (is this the best you do in wind-ups?), I'll give you two words in support of this venue .............. Phil Mickelson ................ who ... by the way ... went to win his first Open Championship the following week!

The R&A host the worst, least entertaining and dreariest major every 5 years at St.Andrews, so not like they've got particularly high standards when it comes to hosting events.

It's cheap though!

What would they have to lose by having The Open at Turnberry?

Money!

In any event, it's not even up for debate, The R&A haven't removed Turnberry from the list, just as they haven't removed Carnoustie, Birkdale or any other course that doesn't have a date (as yet) when it will next hold the Open.

Er, see previous post!

super_realist wrote:THe R&A "bullies" it's neighbours (i.e the other St.Andrews Clubs) ...

How?

So what exactly are you moaning about? You are just using it as a bat to attempt to beat Trump, when it's demonstrated in the past that the R&A don't care about upsetting people, and that other governing bodies don't give a jot who owns courses.

As for Castle Stuart, they actually required a back hander from the Scottish Government to host the last one there, so sponsors or the lack of are going to have more weight than Phil Mickelson's desires whether it's held there.

So, all it comes down to in the absence of your Trump argument is that the R&A provides majors that are cheap to hold. Great. Lets just hold it at Glasgow Gailes every year then.

The rather pitiful wish that Trump could get Turnberry to host the open again quicker than the current rota by "apologising" for Trump Aberdeen when the R&A haven't even voiced their displeasure on the issue is just bonkers.

gaelgowfer wrote:

super_realist wrote:THe R&A "bullies" it's neighbours (i.e the other St.Andrews Clubs) ...

How?

The R&A get preferrential times over local clubs on New Course (every second time) and also get a disproportionate bookings on TOC for competitions despite the fact that The Links Trust is not supposed to favour any club or ticket holder type.

kwinigolfer wrote:I would have thought each Golf organization would have its own tolerance level for contentious venue ownerships.

The PGA Tour has climbed in to marriages of convenience with some characters who are even shadier than Trump, so can't seem them batting an eyelid regarding the use of Doral. Plus they stage an opposite field tournament at Trump's Puerto Rico place.
And the PGA of America have announced one Trump venue, in Virginia, for their Senior PGA Championship in 2017, and another for the 2022 PGA Championship.
While the USGA has their Womens Open at the same Trump course in 2017 as is getting the PGA Championship in 2022.
 
I wouldn't have considered the R&A to be as overtly commercial as their American counterparts but we know the European Tour is and can't see any reason not to take the Scottish Open to Trump's place.
 
As for Turnberry, I can only see one chance before 2021 and would think Carnoustie would be ahead of them. Perhaps the new R&A bloke will make Trump cool his heels for a couple of years before making a decision on Turnberry?

kwini ... I think it's a lot easier for the pros to get into bed with Trump and to hell with integrity.  As a governing body for golf, the R&A will get roasted by the media if it takes The Open to a Trump Turnberry at anytime in the future ... unless he's dead!  

I still think the answer lies in Trump's hands.  If he wants to see an Open at Turnberry in his lifetime then he needs to goes to Aberdeen and make peace with his neighbours.

Integrity? Who's integrity?

THe R&A have been roasted for years in regards to Muirfield. Why would they care about a non issue like who owns Turnberry when it comes to whether or not it would be a suitable venue?

The R&A couldn't care less about Trump Aberdeen and those members of the public who do are a complete minority.

super_realist wrote:

gaelgowfer wrote:

super_realist wrote:THe R&A "bullies" it's neighbours (i.e the other St.Andrews Clubs) ...

How?

The R&A get preferrential  times over local clubs on New Course (every second time) and also get a disproportionate bookings on TOC for competitions despite the fact that The Links Trust is not supposed to favour any club or ticket holder type.

Boy oh boy, you sure have an unfortunate penchant for twisting the facts s_r.

As I understand the history, the R&A paid for the New Course to be built and, gifted it to the town on the understanding its members retain access to alternate times ... if required!  It should be remembered of course that the vast majority of the m'ship neither resides nor lives near to St. Andrews so on the whole, a pretty good deal for the locals ... doncha think.

As to your "disproportionate bookings" claim, this is nonsense, as well you know.  Because of the global m'ship nature of the club, it meets twice a year to hold their competitions.  At any other time, they have to go into the ballot like everyone else.

gael,
Yeah, That's what I was trying to point out, but would also imagine he sees a USGA gig as an endorsement of him.

Not to open a slightly different can of worms, but perhaps the new R&A chief will dispense with the de rigeur visit to TOC every five years, perhaps restore it to 6 or more? Plus he also has a chance to go to Northern Ireland which Dawson always seems to be mindlessly prejudiced against.

gaelgowfer wrote:

super_realist wrote:

gaelgowfer wrote:

super_realist wrote:THe R&A "bullies" it's neighbours (i.e the other St.Andrews Clubs) ...

How?

The R&A get preferrential  times over local clubs on New Course (every second time) and also get a disproportionate bookings on TOC for competitions despite the fact that The Links Trust is not supposed to favour any club or ticket holder type.

Boy oh boy, you sure have an unfortunate penchant for twisting the facts s_r.

As I understand the history, the R&A paid for the New Course to be built and, gifted it to the town on the understanding its members retain access to alternate times ... if required!  It should be remembered of course that the vast majority of the m'ship neither resides nor lives near to St. Andrews so on the whole, a pretty good deal for the locals ... doncha think.

As to your "disproportionate bookings" claim, this is nonsense, as well you know.  Because of the global m'ship nature of the club, it meets twice a year to hold their competitions.  At any other time, they have to go into the ballot like everyone else.

Gael, you're not from St.Andrews, and it shows. Yes, they get every second time on the New Course, if they want, and can DEMAND to play in front of you if they see fit and they often do, especially when competition season starts and they can't get on Old, Jubilee, Castle, Eden etc, despite the club having been in the hands of the Links Trust for decades. Although I tell them to "F**k off", so it doesn't really affect me, but it's the principle. The "fact" it was gifted on that premise, is about as much use as saying you can still shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow inside the York city walls.
Secondly they get 3-5 weeks each year where, as a club they get the Old Course booked EXCLUSIVELY for them, despite tee times not being taken you CANNOT use them, so it's even worse that they are allowed to do this with such a sparse playing membership. Bunch of old farts.

kwinigolfer wrote:gael,
Yeah, That's what I was trying to point out, but would also imagine he sees a USGA gig as an endorsement of him.

Not to open a slightly different can of worms, but perhaps the new R&A chief will dispense with the de rigeur visit to TOC every five years, perhaps restore it to 6 or more? Plus he also has a chance to go to Northern Ireland  which Dawson always seems to be mindlessly prejudiced against.

Yep, interesting times ahead.    

In so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the logistical problems are significant.  If two new holes are required and those holes require destroying part of an equally historic but shorter course then this is about as difficult as it can get.  Not only that but establishing infrastructure for a brand new 21st century Open venue doesn't come cheap so I rather suspect (should it go ahead) the five yearly Opens at St. Andrews might be here for a while! 

If Dawson is prejudiced against NI hosting an Open, given the current situation, perhaps it is with good reason.

Incidentally, when the Trump buy-out of Turnberry was announced, Dawson came across as being very positive about the whole thing.  Of course, it's entirely possible his positivity may have had something to do with his impending retirement! 

There seems to be an assumption by one person that the R&A should veto Turnberry on the basis that said singular person thinks Wiggy didn't behave in a way a tiny number of people didn't like in Aberdeen.

If they won't even answer a question on Muirfield, they're hardly likely to strike off a superb venue on the behest of a few people seeking out a reason to be outraged.
I'm sure with a bit of digging you could have found a fair bit of dirt on the Dubai based company that used to own it, but because it's Trump and he's an obvious idiot and target for the easily "offended", the demands that he shouldn't be allowed to hold an Open is somewhat typical and predictable.

Completely absurd and an over-reaction.

Just to veer off topic:
I can't stand Peter Dawson!
He always comes across as being excessively pleased with himself; bet he's pocketing gazillions.
'Orrible man.

Gael, you're not from St.Andrews, and it shows.

Well, I wasn't born in St. Andrews if that's what you mean.  Have I ever lived in St. Andrews ... most definitely!

Yes, they get every second time on the New Course, if they want, and can DEMAND to play in front of you if they see fit and they often do, especially when competition season starts and they can't get on Old, Jubilee, Castle, Eden etc, despite the club having been in the hands of the Links Trust for decades. Although I tell them to "F**k off", so it doesn't really affect me, but it's the principle.

The members don't make any demands at all;  the Starter sorts out who goes when so, when you claimed to have told them to - what you said  - this was a lie.

The "fact" it was gifted on that premise, is about as much use as saying you can still shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow inside the York city walls.

Really?  What you seem to be saying is that members of a private club aren't entitled to preferential tee-times.  The situation at the New Course really isn't much different in principle to that of a private club.  

The Secondly they get 3-5 weeks each year where, as a club they get the Old Course booked EXCLUSIVELY for them, despite tee times not being taken you CANNOT use them, so it's even worse that they are allowed to do this with such a sparse playing membership. Bunch of old farts.

So then, does your club at St. Andrews not have match-play competitions then?

super_realist wrote:There seems to be an assumption by one person that the R&A should veto Turnberry on the basis that said singular person thinks Wiggy didn't behave in a way a tiny number of people didn't like in Aberdeen.

If they won't even answer a question on Muirfield, they're hardly likely to strike off a superb venue on the behest of a few people seeking out a reason to be outraged.
I'm sure with a bit of digging you could have found a fair bit of dirt on the Dubai based company that used to own it, but because it's Trump and he's an obvious idiot and target for the easily "offended", the demands that he shouldn't be allowed to hold an Open is somewhat typical and predictable.

Completely absurd and an over-reaction.

"over-reaction"?

No s_r.  Over-reaction is when you resort to using foul language to get your point across.

kwinigolfer wrote:Just to veer off topic:
I can't stand Peter Dawson!
He always comes across as being excessively pleased with himself; bet he's pocketing gazillions.
'Orrible man.

I have to admit kwini, he does come across as being on the super side of supercilious!

gaelgowfer wrote:

Gael, you're not from St.Andrews, and it shows.

Well, I wasn't born in St. Andrews if that's what you mean.  Have I ever lived in St. Andrews ... most definitely!

Yes, they get every second time on the New Course, if they want, and can DEMAND to play in front of you if they see fit and they often do, especially when competition season starts and they can't get on Old, Jubilee, Castle, Eden etc, despite the club having been in the hands of the Links Trust for decades. Although I tell them to "F**k off", so it doesn't really affect me, but it's the principle.

The members don't make any demands at all;  the Starter sorts out who goes when so, when you claimed to have told them to - what you said  - this was a lie.

The "fact" it was gifted on that premise, is about as much use as saying you can still shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow inside the York city walls.

Really?  What you seem to be saying is that members of a private club aren't entitled to preferential tee-times.  The situation at the New Course really isn't much different in principle to that of a private club.  

The Secondly they get 3-5 weeks each year where, as a club they get the Old Course booked EXCLUSIVELY for them, despite tee times not being taken you CANNOT use them, so it's even worse that they are allowed to do this with such a sparse playing membership. Bunch of old farts.

So then, does your club at St. Andrews not have match-play competitions then?

So because it's never happened to Gael, it's never happened to anyone? You've clearly been fortunate then if you've never had an R&A member try to sneak in in front. I've had it on several occasions and they get told where to go, in fact I've had it in a medal too. Most are content when told that they aren't playing in front, but on one occasion I have had to use "foul"    language.

As for the "private club". The course doesn't belong to any club anymore, so trying to enforce who gets preferential times  on an out of date "by-law" is an antiquated and preposterous claim.

Yes, my club gets TWO days per year when we get a medal on the Old. The R&A get entire WEEKS to themselves.
in 2014 Clubs where all the courses are shared should not be favoured over any others.

Kwini

I always wonder how Dawson has never noticed that he seems to have suffered a dislocation of the jaw. You would think he aught to do something about it?



As for Trump and the open

I have made the case for a long time that the open should follow the masters model and be played every year at trumpton (many sources available that explain my reasoning).

I do however also agree with Gaels points regarding the RandA getting into bed with trump, but these points are only valid if we think it is realistic that the governing bodies ever get it. And by "it" I mean golf having a terrible image, the worst aspect of this image is golf being a community where white males can act as they please without ever being questioned about their privilege. Where privilege means all the advantages you gain in life just by being white and male, regardless of your background.

But golf and the R and A doesn't get it, so why not jump into bed with trump and let him and go all the way, letting him penetrate their arse hole.

Gael and Super just have to meet up and play a round on the Old Course and hope there are some members there looking to butt in.

It's the New Course they push in on.

kwinigolfer wrote:Just to veer off topic:
I can't stand Peter Dawson!
He always comes across as being excessively pleased with himself; bet he's pocketing gazillions.
'Orrible man.

He always reminds of an bit-part actor from To The Manor Born or Monarch Of The Glen.

As for Turnberry as an open venue - you can't please all of the people so you please the majority. The majority of spectators, TV viewers and thus sponsors don't even usually know or care who owns a course. Trump goes out of his way to publicise that he is the owner of certain courses, but the majority of people still don't care.

If Trump is indeed the devil incarnate (I don't know this for a fact, mostly because...wait for it, there's a theme, I don't care), enough people would need to make enough noise for the R&A to worry about it. I think we're a long way short of that.

kwinigolfer wrote:Just to veer off topic:
I can't stand Peter Dawson!
He always comes across as being excessively pleased with himself; bet he's pocketing gazillions.
'Orrible man.

Reminds me of James William Bottomtooth III

Bob_the_Job wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:Just to veer off topic:
I can't stand Peter Dawson!
He always comes across as being excessively pleased with himself; bet he's pocketing gazillions.
'Orrible man.

He always reminds of an bit-part actor from To The Manor Born or Monarch Of The Glen.

As for Turnberry as an open venue - you can't please all of the people so you please the majority.  The majority of spectators, TV viewers and thus sponsors don't even usually know or care who owns a course.  Trump goes out of his way to publicise that he is the owner of certain courses, but the majority of people still don't care.

If Trump is indeed the devil incarnate (I don't know this for a fact, mostly because...wait for it, there's a theme, I don't care), enough people would need to make enough noise for the R&A to worry about it.  I think we're a long way short of that.

Exactly, once all the "professionally offended" stopped "protesting" about Trump's Aberdeen course, no one gives a flying toss about who owns a course.

super_realist wrote:It's the New Course they push in on.

I stand corrected.

I just read that Trump is buying Turnberry from ... get this ... the Abu Dhabi government. Not exactly pilfering an asset the Brits were too proud to sell once before!

I say this from direct experience: I've played two Trump courses that are now far better run than when he took them over. And both appear to be pretty busy in an over saturated US East Coast golf market.

mclaren wrote:But golf and the R and A doesn't get it, so why not jump into bed with trump and let him and go all the way, letting him penetrate their arse hole..

  

gaelgowfer wrote:

 As a governing body for golf, the R&A will get roasted by the media if it takes The Open to a Trump Turnberry at anytime in the future ... unless he's dead!  

I still think the answer lies in Trump's hands.  If he wants to see an Open at Turnberry in his lifetime then he needs to goes to Aberdeen and make peace with his neighbours.

Er... I don't think so. As everyone else has said, only an insignificant handful care about the complaints of some random people in Aberdeen, and when the Open is next held at Turnberry neither the R&A, the media or the world will care about whether Trump owns it or not.