Dick,
I just read Dermot Gilleece's very good article and am amazed.
Exhibit A: Hawtree won the work at Lahinch because he responded to the board’s question of “ If we decide to go with you, what will you leave us with when you are finished?” with “ A restored MacKenzie course.”
Ok, sounds great so far.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77434/77434be3f65c2f521c5e1a10b1b705caae576653" alt="Smiley :)"
Exhibit B: Later in the article, Hawtree says that "The club has given me a free hand that has allowed me to use my imigination to recreate what I believe was once there. We don’t know precisely what was there but I have drawn on my knowledge of other MacKenzie courses and his writings about golf. I have tried to be true to him while delivering MacKenzie greens for the demands of the modern world.”
Uh-ho...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/19400/1940030778ed66d7948181755c7eab53acbbb8d5" alt="Embarrassed :-["
Exhibit C: Hawtree wraps it up by saying, “ But I suspect I’ve gone beyond that. There’s probably a fair bit of Hawtree there, too.”
Party's over
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/944f3/944f3ba254499ea84dd340928e244554cc858953" alt="Angry >:("
I can imagine (but I have no interest in understanding) how a board gets suckered into accepting Exhibit A and then being delighted with the end result as expressed in Exhibit C.
Royal Melbourne, beware - the precedent has been set by your newly selected consulting architect.