USGA Museum not to move to NYC

[NAF]

Not sure if this was covered elsewhere but there was an article in the NY Post that the 16 million dollar acquisition of the Russian Tea Room has not worked as the renovations won't facilitate the flow thru of people and the museum will stay put in NJ..

Hope they have a buyer of the space.

[Paul_Turner]

Noel

They were still planning the move to NYC, when I was at Golf House a couple of weeks ago.  So I'm not sure that article is correct.

[NAF]

June 21, 2003 -- The famed Russian Tea Room isn't fit to a tee - to become a golf museum.
The U.S. Golf Association announced it has decided against moving its golfers museum from New Jersey to the Manhattan landmark, seven months after buying the 57th Street location.

A red-faced USGA said it was an ill-conceived plan to try to convert the restaurant - for which it paid $16 million - into a golf showcase and gala catering hall.

They said renovations to turn the tea emporium into a museum and to move large numbers of people through the location would prove too burdensome. The USGA also cited concerns about control of the museum because of a state law that provides for oversight of museums by the state's Board of Regents.

[Andrew_Roberts]

It's true, it said it on the USGA website.

[TEPaul]

OOOps!

[Steve Lang]

 where was the fore caddy?

[Bob_Huntley]

If I was an officer or director of the USGA and recommended spending sixteen million dollars on a property that needed another  such sum to bring it up to snuff, and was unaware of the political ramifications of attempting to use it for its intended purpose....I would resign.

Mr. Fay and crowd get an 'F' for governance.

[Bill_McBride]

Not to mention the fact that they cancelled Golf Journal.

[Mike_Sweeney]

I find this news very disturbing. I was reluctant to post on this thread, but I think it is important for people to understand what is going on in the golf industry.

I spoke with David Fay in reference to the Russian Tea room project. To his absolute credit, he did respond when I emailed him and subsequently called on behalf of my wife's firm. My wife's firm does alot of work in "Brand Extention" ie. how Starbucks can extend their products beyond coffee into other things such as ice cream. As the USGA seemed to be trying to extend their "brand" with the Russian Tea Room and grow the game, it seemed like a natural project for her firm. When I spoke with David fay, he was very nice and cordial on the phone, but he seemed as if they had no real direction for the project. When I asked him what kind of research that he had done to date, his answer was that they would probably continue to work with one of their existing vendors. Not exactly a surprising result, but it did seem narrow minded as they were moving into new territory.

Candidly, Bob Huntly is correct. If the USGA bought this building without doing any market research, it is a real problem for the growth of the game. Yes, it would have been nice to get my wife's firm in there, however in another life, I am part of a group that is in the early permitting stages of developing a golf course. If the leadership of the industry does not recognize that the industry is flat despite the Tiger influence, then the industry is in bad shape.

The only way for us to make our golf project (and most others that I have studied) to work is to use it as a loss leader for the housing (a bad word at GCA), and hopefully move/build in our members through the housing. It is not just the economy, without Tiger, the industry would be contracting. The USGA and other leaders need to reinvent themselves, but they seem to be satisfied with a successful Bethpage - The People's Open, so I don't think it will happen near term.

[Steve Lapper]

This doesn't seem at all about "brand" or "brand extension." Instead it is about absolute failure to do any significant due diligence about the facility and the NY Museum laws prior to closing on the transaction. My NYC RE friends who are intimately familar with the Tea Room property spoke forcefully about the property's limitations on handling large crowds. One guy, a very saavy commercial broker, offered the USGA, by phone, a look at a nearby 3 floor plate street level space and was rebuffed as an inappropriate location (it wasn't on a major cross or frontage street). How could they have ignored the NY and NYC regulations regarding museums? Who was legally representing them?

   The USGA has wasted OUR $$ by not using the noggin to understand what they were getting into. This is worrisome for those of us who entrust a large degree of the games future to a group of seemingly out-of-touch administrative types. I do believe a greater explanation remains in order.

[JakaB]

This is the second time in less than a year that the USGA has admited on the world stage that they made a mistake in judgement....the first being the COR issue.  I for one am very impressed that these men have the integrity to call these humiliating bad decisions on themselves...it would have been so much easier to let the COR issue go as was first indicated as it would have been easier to build a lousy museum and then blame the public for not coming.   I don't care if the USGA has a goddamn dime as long as they reflect the honor of the game in their daily operations...

[A_Clay_Man]

Thanx for sharing guys! Great stuff!

Mike Sweeney- I am curious to your statement about the course being a loss leader, almost apoligizing cause the numbers won't work, without the housing. I'm assuming?
But, what comes to my mind are some of the apparent "not flat" recent success that don't have housing as their focus. RC, WH, PD. Aren't these courses built minimalistically, which is a positive step, for us golfers. Not the industry.

[Kevin_Keeley]

Yes Jaka, those USGAers are so honorable for not sweeping this mistake from day one under the rug like they've done with so many other issues.

And they blame the fact this is falling apart on things that they should have researched. What character! How honorable!

But you are right about one thing, they are reflecting the honor of the game today in their daily operations: making and spending money.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Unfortunately it turned out that some astute GCAers were right about this:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/YaBB.cgi?board=GD1&action=display&num=1038606665

[Geoff_Shackelford]

The USGA, a regulatory body (well, in theory anyway), claims it is concerned about interference from the state Board of Regents? Ironic isn't it?

[Robert_Walker]

Geoff,
Explain the irony.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Robert,
The USGA creates rules for golf and expects people to abide by them. They are the "legal guardians of the game."

The Board of Regents maintains rules and standards, the "legal guardians" of museum space in New York. And the USGA has concerns about their "oversight," kind of like Wally Uhlien has concerns about the USGA's oversight of golf.

Does that help?
Geoff

[Robert_Walker]

Geoff,
That helps a whole bunch!
Let us note that the BOR also seizes control of the assets and regulates the museums.
That would be like the USGA telling member clubs how to run their facilities.
What do you think?

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Robert,

I think one of the USGA's SEVEN in-house lawyers should have researched that before moving ahead with this purchase.

Geoff

[JakaB]

Sometimes you need to own something to see what a piece of crap it is.....it is then the true genius that unburdens himself before making futher emotional or financial investment.   Oh the times I have kept something out of either spite or fear of admitting a mistake....hail the leaders of the USGA and others who can admit when they blundered.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Jaka,

You say that they admitted this blunder...as if they had a choice in the matter!

The estimates to repair the building were twice the cost of buying the Tea Room. Even cutting Golf Journal wasn't going to justify a total tab in the $50 million range.

Maybe they can afford to bring the magazine back now?

Geoff

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

We had an indepth discussion on this last year. I made my possition very clear on the poor use of moeny. That was when we thought they had done basic due dilligence on the project. It seems they did not. I also spoke strongly about the good of the game and how this was not the way to reach the golfers of America. I have not seen any move out of the USGA in recent years to really support the good of the game. And no spending millions on their vendors to make Bethpage black like a USGA course is really not taking the game to the people. They need to take a long hard look at themselves as drives keep going further and further. It is not the USGA's responsibility to keep golf club makers meeting quarterly growth numbers. Please do your job for the good of the game and quit being an irresponsible boys club.

[Robert_Walker]

Geoff,
I suspect that you do not care for the USGA.

[ChipOat]

Geoff:

At the risk of turning this thread into a "semantics joust", I do have to take issue with your analogy regarding the USGA and the Board of Regents.

I'm not sure whose quotation marks you used, but the USGA isn't the "legal guardian" of anything except the conduct of their championships.  All other compliance by all other golfers is voluntary.  The USGA is extraordinarily INFLUENTIAL for a lot of good reasons that we all know, but they are without legal empowerment except as noted above.  Frank Hannigan has made this point repeatedly in discussing the very real difference between the words "illegal" and "non-conforming".

The Board of Regents is, however, a legally empowered regulatory body.

This doesn't change the original point regarding the USGA's poor due diligence in this matter.  Nor does this alter my admiration for your considerable contributions to golf architecture.

But in this case, I'm afraid your observation isn't supported by the FACTS.

Now who else says stuff like that around here?

[Geoff_Shackelford]

chipoat,
The USGA's ad slogan during the US Open says "we've been the legal guardians of the game" for over a hundred years. I wrote it down because like you, I wouldn't quite describe their role that way, particularly these days.

Robert,
To put it simply as I can, the USGA has taken on the role of testing equipment. When it started to become obvious that their outdated testing procedure had been outsmarted, they denied that was the case. They still do. They dragged their feet, and thus, have decided that future testing will work around what is on the marketplace (balls which I presume was illegal in the "optimization" ball testing procedure that was scrapped). As far as I'm concerned this is a major concession at the expense of golf's future.

We can and will argue whether rapidly expanding distances is good or bad (right now, the numbers and common sense aren't supporting those who say this is a healthy thing for golf). The point is, while they were out looking for real estate to buy and milking the US Open for millions despite non-profit status, the USGA should have been investing in testing and its museum collection. And instead of asking golf courses to adjust to the game so they wouldn't have to do their job, they ignored the issue thinking it would go away. And it would be nice if they gave Rand Jerris a bigger budget to better preserve the artifacts they have, which as I understand it needs better storage to be preserved for the future. Instead, they wanted a city presence in New York.

I think the current regime is failing the sport, and embarrassing the many fine people in the USGA who would like to uphold the values established by the organization's founders.
Geoff