[Simon Holt]

Kris- no problems pal, we honestly havent made a final decision yet thats all.  Could be 1, 3 or 5....or none at all!!  I doubt that would happen though.  I am just being careful!

In terms of turf nursery we have a HUGE one so we could comfortably sod if that was the decision.

Ally- still nothing decided but we will find out later today, so far its all been speculation.  I will let you all know as soon as I get the green light to do so.  You will find out here first!!!   Even if the press have got a leak, no one would know for sure before us and CS.

[Michael Whitaker]

Jon - I stand by my comments concerning CS... fairways and all. You may find the fairways crumpled enough for your personal taste, so be it and I'm happy for you. Not so much for me. I have gone on record concerning my feelings about this course in a previous thread:   http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,44471.0/

As for giving RC a pass... as I mentioned above, I look at private clubs in a different light than public/resort courses... especially very private places like RC. Why? Because truly private clubs must live by attracting a small group of like minded individuals who all buy into the same ideal.   Yes, I tend to be more pointed in my criticisms of entities that are trying to coax hard earned money from the pockets of the general public:  golf courses, restaurants, or any other business. I haven't gone over your comments with a fine toothed combed, but you seem to always compare CS to famous private courses. Perhaps this is where our main difference in opinion lies... I think that is conceptually mixing apples and oranges. I understand if you don't agree and respect your opinion, but CS is NOT a private club.

To be clear... I am more opposed to the "concept" of CS than I am to the course itself. The course is beautiful and ego boosting to play for the average golfer (from the proper set of tees  ). It is a  "faux links" that was designed to push all of the right holiday golfer buttons...  and to that extent I guess it is quite the masterpiece.  I'm just disappointed that this opulent form of American public golf has taken a foothold in one of the last vestiges of classic Scottish golf.

[Jon Wiggett]

Michael,

everybody is entitled to their opinion and I respect your right to one.

I do however find your inability to answer a direct question a shame. Having a point of view and refusing to look or discuss other opinions does mean that you will always be sure you are right. Even if this is only in your own mind (not that I am saying in this point that you are wrong as that would require open and honest discussion to decide).

It is only apples and orange for you but for me it is different varieties of bananas

Jon

[Michael Whitaker]

Jon - I'm not the brightest bulb in the box, so you need to help me out here... what direct question of yours have I not answered? I only found three question marks in your post (#3) and I feel I have directly answered the questions posed in each, although two contain in essence the same question.

I understand why you are so passionately and emotionally defensive of Castle Stuart as its success could simulate the local golfing economy and attract visitors who would not ordinarily visit the area. I'm sure the folks in Aberdeenshire feel the same way about their influx of American capital and justify the decision to approve Mr. Trump's project as "good for the economy." No arguments from me on either case. I'm just disappointed that it had to be so.
 

[Adam Lawrence]

Mike - I understand where you're coming from wrt Castle Stuart. However, isn't Renaissance just as conceptually alien to Scottish golf in its embracing of the American model of clubs (ie member and guest play only)?

(I know it's not as simple as that, but am slightly playing devil's advocate).

Adam

[David_Tepper]

If nothing else, I think we can all agree that Castle Stuart (and its surroundings) should look GREAT on TV!

[Jud_T]

I wonder what percentage of the play at Castle Stuart is from Yanks?

[David_Tepper]

Jud -

Courses like Castle Stuart (and Gleneagles, Turnberry, Kingsbarns, etc.) get a lot more play from within the UK than you might think.

DT

[Jud_T]

David,

That's good news, because although I may be in the minority and have nothing against CS as I haven't played it, I really don't go all the way over to GB&I to play new courses, we have plenty of those here...

[Mark Chaplin]

David - any idea how much full price golf is played at CS by home players? I am pleased they at least do a half reasonable rate for locals and Scots.

As for the model of CS and RC neither are very "Scottish" in business model but the market will determine if they are a success or not. I fear more for RC than CS due to the demise of Loch Lomond which by all accounts is a pretty special experience and different to much of the market place. Scotland does have a large number of high quality links courses.

[Scott Warren]

The attitude of "I don't go all the way to the UK to play new courses" perplexes me a bit.

Imagine if a golfing visitor to the US blackballed Bandon, Sand Hills or Ballyneal on grounds of age, or a visitor to Australasia bypassed Barnbougle or Kidnappers for the same reason...

I can appreciate people feeling there is plenty of good golf to be had in Scotland without handing over 200 quid for one round of golf, but to simply disregard it on the basis that it's new doesn't make sense to me.

[JNC Lyon]

The attitude of "I don't go all the way to the UK to play new courses" perplexes me a bit.

Imagine if a golfing visitor to the US blackballed Bandon, Sand Hills or Ballyneal on grounds of age, or a visitor to Australasia bypassed Barnbougle or Kidnappers for the same reason...

I can appreciate people feeling there is plenty of good golf to be had in Scotland without handing over 200 quid for one round of golf, but to simply disregard it on the basis that it's new doesn't make sense to me.

Scott,

Many people go to Scotland to experience a certain type of golf that they cannot find elsewhere.  For most visitors, golf in Scotland is a once in a lifetime experience. The classic courses give that experience in Scotland, but I am not sure that the modern courses do.  The same cannot be said of the best modern courses in the US.  Where else will you find a course like Sand Hills?

Did you play any modern courses when you went to the US?  

[David_Tepper]

Guys -

If you go to the Castle Stuart website (www.castlestuartgolf.com), you will see right upfront that they reference Turnberry & Gleneagles as the business models they are trying to emulate. Their intention is to build a world class golf resort.

Given the state of the global economy, it may take them a while longer than expected to build out the resort according to their plans, but I have no doubt it will happen. The exposure on TV they will get from hosting the Scottish Open is priceless.

DT   

[Jon Wiggett]

Michael,

so you want to turn this into a wattage war do you?

What I am saying is you make a statement that CS hasn't the fairway movement you think a classic course should have. I challenge it by giving examples of CS similar courses amongst the classics but rather than address this you chose to ignore it and reaffirm your original position. I in turn can only assume that you do not address this point because you can not and keep your rigid stance.

Should you require a straight question to answer then you say that the fairways at CS are wide which is good for the punters but not for tournament pro's. I therfor take it that you think the narrowing down of the fairways at Augusta is a good thing. Would that be correct?

Jon

[Jud_T]

Scott,

If in 10 years, Castle Stuart is considered by people who's opinion I respect to be a Doak 9 then I'll put it in the rotation.  Until that time, I'd rather play a quirky Doak 7 classic links that I can't get at home.  I guess the question is why should I go to Castle Stuart when I can go to Bandon?

[Scott Warren]

Jon, I believe Michael has already said (I believe here, but perhaps in the equivalent thread that seems to have been superceded) not that he is against that degree of width period, but that he does not believe the green complexes at CS have the complexity for such width to be much more than a way of saving guys from losing balls.

I can't see the point of your question to Michael about width/fairway narrowing given SC and Augusta don't have the same set of greens, and the merits of width cannot really be judged without reference to elements that are going to be completely different between the two courses.

[Sean Leary]

Scott,

If in 10 years, Castle Stuart is considered by people who's opinion I respect to be a Doak 9 then I'll put it in the rotation.  Until that time, I'd rather play a quirky Doak 7 classic links that I can't get at home.  I guess the question is why should I go to Castle Stuart when I can go to Bandon?

Jud,

I won't play parkland style courses over there for the same reason but I am surprised you wouldn't play a CS or a Kingsbarns.  No Bandon for you either? 

[Jud_T]

Sean,

I have played Kingsbarns and enjoyed it.  In pracice, if I'm in the area I wouldn't go out of my way to avoid CS.

[Michael Whitaker]

Michael,

so you want to turn this into a wattage war do you?

What I am saying is you make a statement that CS hasn't the fairway movement you think a classic course should have. I challenge it by giving examples of CS similar courses amongst the classics but rather than address this you chose to ignore it and reaffirm your original position. I in turn can only assume that you do not address this point because you can not and keep your rigid stance.

Should you require a straight question to answer then you say that the fairways at CS are wide which is good for the punters but not for tournament pro's. I therfor take it that you think the narrowing down of the fairways at Augusta is a good thing. Would that be correct?

Jon

Jon - What has Augusta National got to do with CS. Trust me, CS is NOTHING like Augusta National. Why you want to constantly compare CS to championship private courses is beyond me. Every course stands on its on as far as I'm concerned.  Some courses with narrow fairways I love... some I hate. Some courses with wide fairways I love... some I hate. Each course has its own personality and a feature that is successful on one has nothing to do with whether that same feature will work on the other.

But, to answer your question... I wish ANGC not not been altered as much as it has. But, ANGC is a private club that hosts a MAJOR championship EVERY year and their tournament committee has determined that they need to "protect" the course from the onslaught of technology. I liked the course better before the changes, but members don't play from those tournament tees and the course doesn't really play too differently for them.

[Michael Whitaker]

Mike - I understand where you're coming from wrt Castle Stuart. However, isn't Renaissance just as conceptually alien to Scottish golf in its embracing of the American model of clubs (ie member and guest play only)?

(I know it's not as simple as that, but am slightly playing devil's advocate).

Adam

Adam - I agree that the Renaissance Club's business model is purely American. The beauty of golf in Scotland is that most club memberships are reasonable in price, and that most of the great courses are accessible to the masses... under a certain set of circumstances. The idea of opulent exclusivity is an American invention and its unfortunate that the concept has been imported into Scotland.

I like the Renaissance course better than Castle Stuart. CS has far superior views, vistas & wow factor, but RC has better golf. Ironically, I give RC a bit of a pass because its business model is so American and super private. If RC is successful financially it is not going to have much effect on other clubs in Scotland because the other clubs are never going to follow their lead. On the other hand, if Castle Stuart is financially successful it could influence other courses that vie for overseas visitors to raise their rates to keep up with the Americans. It has happened in Fife where Crail, Elie and other "second" tier courses have become more and more expensive as Kingsbarns has become more successful. I guess if you are one of the course owners that is a good thing. Or, if you are a local who's golf is subsidized by visitor fees it is a good thing. But, if you are the average visitor who's footing most of the bill it's not so good.

[Mark Chaplin]

The problem I see with the RC model is thus: An overseas golfer could easily join four established & respected high quality clubs for £1500pa (total not each) add a £3000 business class flight and 5 nights a year in quality golfers accommodation say £1200. That's £5700pa for a top end quality golf vacation playing and having access for guests to 4 great clubs. After 15 years you have spend less than the initiation for one fine (but without pedigree) club and would still need to fund flights and accommodation for the one club.

Can someone explain how RC can compete with that logic?

[Jon Wiggett]

Scott,

where my problem with Michael's point of view is it does not stand up to scrutiny when looked at in comparison to the rest of whats available in scotland. He criticises the fairways for being too flat when there are ample examples of other courses with the same. Same for the greens. I find his argument of you can't compare a private course with a public one to be weak as I do not see how business model affects wether the architectural merits of a course are better or worse.
It seems to me that he has made a statement which he can not back up when challenged. I am not saying that I am correct only that Michael does not seem able to justify his opinion.

I find for instance his following two statements very confusing


About CS "It breaks my heart to see the American idea of over-the-top, super-expensive public courses with the "exclusive-club-for-a-day" scheme worming their way into Scotland".
and about RC "Ironically, I give RC a bit of a pass because its business model is so American and super private".

I am also not sure that the model of the super expensive green fee club is very scottish but at the same time I don't believe the model of the super expensive private club is overly scottish either, yet he choses to criticise in one case and praise in the other for exactly the same thing.

Jon

[David_Tepper]

"The problem I see with the RC model is thus: An overseas golfer could easily join four established & respected high quality clubs for £1500pa (total not each) add a £3000 business class flight and 5 nights a year in quality golfers accommodation say £1200. That's £5700pa for a top end quality golf vacation playing and having access for guests to 4 great clubs. After 15 years you have spend less than the initiation for one fine (but without pedigree) club and would still need to fund flights and accommodation for the one club.

Can someone explain how RC can compete with that logic?"

Mark -

Based on your logic (which I admire and respect), why would anyone ever buy a Rolex or a Mercedes? Owning a Swatch or a Honda is far more practical and cost effective.

The fact of the matter is that there is a luxury segment of almost every market (and certainly a sizable segment of the golf market) that is immune to price. For those people, intangibles such as status, exclusivity and privacy are a far bigger consideration than cost.

DT  

[Ross Tuddenham]

David

I think what Michael is saying is you can buy a Mercedes, second hand Ferrari and BMW or go for a lexus with some mental after market upgrades. 

[Jim Nugent]

David, I read Mark as saying you can buy four other Mercedes/Porsches/Bentleys for even less than RC costs.  So why spring for the RC? 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()