Trump's Aberdeen Episode

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, the berming issue is what I am referring to.  At one time, I followed this story pretty closely and the reports relate the termination directly to the berming issue.  I don't maintain a file on this and I'm not inclined to spend my day finding old articles to prove a point. I participate in this DG to pick up some fact, be entertained by a lot of opinion, and participate in some banter just like we are doing now.

Rory,

My post about Peter Sellers's famous line in "I'm alright Jack" was in jest.
But, think about what you're saying.
If my boss told me to do something, and that something was legal, and I refused to do it, that's insubordination, and grounds for dismissal.
It's that simple.
I don't know what you do for a living, but, if your boss told you to do something, and it was legal, and you refused, I'd be shocked if you remained in his employ.  Same for me and same for everyone I know who doesn't own the company.[/b]

You have a perspective that differs from mine and no one is going to make or lose money or anything else on the basis of either perspective. I certainly don't have a hard on for Trump or event the project.  I do not like, however, to see people belittled in the manner that O'Connor was on the show and I suspect that if you came to Lancaster and had occasion to see me speak to a highly qualified and hard working professional superintendent (or any other member of the staff for that matter) in the way DT spoke to O' Connor on the show, you would be unimpressed, uncomfortable and think less of me than perhaps you already do. :-)

I disagree with you.
Trump took him aside, away from the other people and talked to him like a Dutch Uncle.
He relayed the problem, told him how to fix it, and tried to help him fix it.
I like a boss like that.
Years ago, the President of a club approached me and told me that he had appointed me as head of the search committee for a new head Professional.  I said, what's wrong with the one we have.  He said, alot of the members don't like the way he does this and that.
I then said, has anyone spoken to him about the perceived short comings and his need to address them.
The President said, "no".  I then said, "well, that's the proper way to do things.  I think he's a good pro, loyal, hard working and he's been here a number of years.  He's entitled to know of his perceived shortcomings and his entitled to being given a chance to fix them.
So, go sit down with him, explain the shortcomings and what he needs to do to correct them.
In the interim, I will not accept the position.
The President did as I said, and now, 15 years later, the pro is still the pro.
That's the way to deal with people and that's what Donald did initially, but, the groundswell against Paul, from the other members of the team, seemed to get worse with Donald's time on site.
In addition, the pesticide event radiated incompetence.
How many times could he say, "if the dosage is right" ?  He's the professional, he's supposed to know the right dosage and he's supposed to supervise his men in mixing and applying the dosage.  I hate to see anyone fired, but, it appeared that Donald's staff was up in arms about Paul's inability to communicate and work with them.  That's how it appeared to me.  Perhaps there's more to the story than either of us know, but, based on what was presented on the show, it seemed that Donald wasn't the motivating force behind the termination, but the rest of the staff and Paul's fumbling over the weed and  pesticide issue.[/b]  

As for whether I know it for a fact?  No, I was not on site but the reports from the time of the termination and O'Connor himself identified this as the basis for the termination.  

I don't know either, so we'll just have to wait until the jury/court decides before demonizing Trump and drawing predetermined conclusions.[/b]

As for whether Trump has control of the content, I do not know this for a fact. I can say, however, that in my experience representing clients that are in the media's eye and dealing with PR people, giving up control of content/message is a good way to lose the public even when all of the facts are in your favor so I would be amazed if someone as media savvy and sophisticated at DT would ever consent to give up control.

If Trump had control, he'd be a producer of the show.
He was not a producer of the show.
Hence, you and others are putting forth your predetermined views absent the facts.

I never stated that Trump was a choir boy.
My point was that he's being unduely criticised, as is his golf course, long before the course is open.

Give the guy a chance.
Let the course open, play it, then have at it.
That's the appropriate protocol for architectural evaluation.[/b]

My view of the show as an infomercial is totally subjective. I am not trying to change the facts. I've been a professional advocate for long enough to know when a presentation is less than objective though.  if you disagree, fine with me. I don't need to convince you.

In any event O'Connor is better off without DT and vice versa.

I don't know that I agree with that.
We'll never know.
But, what you forget is that Paul O'Connor didn't get in the pickle he got in by having a dispute with DT.
It was all of the staff members that Paul got into trouble with.
DT was just the final arbiter.
Had Paul interfaced adequately with the other staff, this wouldn't have been an issue.[/b]

[Robert Thompson]

Patrick: I'm saying I don't know what happened with the super. Maybe he deserved to be fired -- maybe he challenged Trump. Who knows? But I'm not naive enough to think that what I saw edited on a television program represented the truth. O'Connor probably has a sense of what happened and Trump and his people do -- beyond that, who really knows?

I just think a television show where it is clearly edited to demonstrate the apparent problems with one employee shows a lack of class. And though you keep pointing out that some "independent" production company is doing the show, I don't think you know that it is independent at all. In fact, unless you've called them -- or asked the Golf Channel -- you are simply guessing. Have you inquired as to whether Trump has approval of the edit? You don't know, do you? Did Trump hire the production company to do the show? Once again, you don't know, and neither do I. But I'll say it looks to me -- as someone who has worked in television production and the media for almost two decades -- that this was crafted to provide a certain perspective -- and it wasn't Paul O'Connor's take. I could put that all in caps, like you did, but I'm not sure the point will be any more clear.

I have hired people and I have been fired myself, so I have a sense of that. In both cases the people involved handled themselves with a lot more decorum than Trump demonstrated on his show. It is fine to have a "reality" program where you fire people, but I don't think this is quite the same. He demonstrated animus and I found it all quite nauseating. Your approval of his behavior says a lot about your perspective.

As for the course, I have no idea whether it'll be any good. My take is simply from two heavily edited television episodes. Could be good -- I hope it is, because the hype is remarkable and I don't think there has been any indication Trump has delivered greatness in the courses he's paid to have built. Maybe this will be different, but this is the same man who wanted Tom Fazio Jr. to design the course initially.

Robert Thompson,

I don't think Trump is given to "random acts".  I think he's quite measured in his decision making processes.

As to the firing, the newspaper article, when read carefully, if full of unconfirmed third party references.

What's clear is that Trump took Paul aside and told him that everyone else on the "team" was having a hard time getting along with him.

I don't know how many people you've hired, but resumes and references don't tell the entire story, and, like a marriage, it's only when you couple the parties and have them interact with each other, that you know if the chemistry is right.  And in this instance, it appears that Paul was alienating everyone, the entire team.

You also seem to conveniently forget, that Trump was just visiting for a brief time.
He wasn't on site for months, hence, his information was the product of those on site, those working with Paul.
So, it wasn't due to his interaction with Donald, rather his interaction with the development team.

But, since you appear to be so familiar with the situation, why don't you tell us why Trump fired Paul.

As I mentioned to you, when I've questioned employees who have worked for him, at different sites, everyone of them had positive responses, despite my prodding.  Is that a universal endorsement ?  No, but I was surprised by the general positive tone of all those I spoke to.

You don't like the guy.
At times I didn't like the guy.
But, you have to give the devil his due.
He produces quality products.  He puts his money where his mouth is.
And, he's risking his money on golf courses at a time when everyone else is running for the hills.

As to the editing, you would have us believe that the show didn't depict what really happened, so tell us, what really happened.

It's one thing to know what really happened, and it's another to pretend that you know what really happened based on speculation and a dislike of the principle character.

As to the editing, "Donald J. Trump's Fabulous World of Golf" is produced by GOLF CHANNEL in conjunction with The WorkShop, LLC, an independent multi-media production company based in Bryn Mawr, Penn, NOT BY DONALD TRUMP

[Sean Leary]

Can someone explain the pesticide dosage thing? I assumed from watching it that getting the dosage exactly right was going to be not a question of competence but perhaps of some luck.......

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

In the words of Ricky Gervais, "are you having a laugh?"

Trump shows up at the university in a convoy of black SUVs worthy of any 3rd world despot/drug kingpin, looking generally bored, and tells the audience that he went to Wharton, the #1 ranked business school in the world (the Business Week rankings I just searched had Chicago and Harvard ranked higher) and that, because this university bestowed an honor upon him, he won't say any other business school, including Wharton, is better. 


Yeah, but, you didn't look it up when Trump went there did you ?[/b]

That's the graciousness of which you speak?

Absolutely.

He could have said a zillion things, instead he was very complimentary, directly, to the school and his audience[/b]

I would expect that, while playing Royal Aberdeen, you would be considerate of your hosts and probably not make any comparison at all.  Maybe you'd even say that you hope your new course will stand alongside the grand old links of Scotland someday (or something to that effect).  There was no need to insult the course . . . while playing it . . . with the head pro . . . on television. 

Yeah, so he just should have played golf and remained silent.  That would have generated a lot of interest and ratings.
He didn't insult the course, he merely stated that his new course would be better.
Quite simply, You don't get it, the guy's a great promoter, that's what he does.[/b]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Can someone explain the pesticide dosage thing? I assumed from watching it that getting the dosage exactly right was going to be not a question of competence but perhaps of some luck.......

Sean, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard on this site.

So now we're to believe that professional credentialling means nothing, that scientist's and chemist's recommendations mean nothing, that mixing the proper solution is simply a matter of LUCK ?

I'm sure that Superintendents, Boards, Presidents and members will be relieved to find that out.

[Tim Pitner]

Quite simply, You don't get it, the guy's a great promoter, that's what he does.[/color][/b]

No, Pat, you don't get it, the guy's a jackass, that's who he is. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

[quote jeffwarne]
Patrick,
My apologies to your friend. I've amended my post.

I've read the book, and I've spoken to Mr. Keiser about it as well.
I still disagree; but then you know more about the design of the 18th hole at Sebonack than the co-architect-because you read the book.

That's faulty logic on your part.
My typed words weren't based solely on reading the book.
I think you'll find my position on # 18 at Sebonack isn't as off the mark as you seem to think.[/b]

Trump drew the comparisons-he didn't need to say it was inferior to bandon-he simply didn't need to bring it up.
If he wanted to promote his project, he doesn't need to do it at the expense of other projects.

Tell that to Coke and Pepsi, Miller and Budweiser[/b]

Mr. Bakst remains a visionary and it would take a lot more than the judgement of a poorly placed berm to pull him down into such company.

You can't duck the issue that easily.
If Ken Bakst,, Lowell Shulman, Steve Wynn and others use berms to create a visual or accoustical barrier, you can't take Trump to task for doing the same thing.  You're giving everyone a free pass while chastizing DT and that's not fair.[/b]

as far as money at stake, no doubt many of his former creditors may disagree with you.

A lot of his creditors made money with him also.
No one twisted their arm and forced them to partner with Donald Trump.
They were all sophisticated, experienced businessmen who knew the risks and the rewards.
And, if they lost money on a bankruptcy, so did he.[/b]

Unless you want to apologise for his multiple bankruptcy filings as well.

I think his casino operation is the only business entity to file bankruptcy, but, it wasn't a liquidation, it was a reorganization.
The casino business in Atlantic City has abominable for some time.
His casino/s aren't the only ones in trouble, there and elsewhere[/b]

I have no "resentment" of Mr. Trump, just the black eye he puts on American business, golf and Americans abroad.
Do you really feel good about him as the face of golf and business in America and New York?

Trump helped revitalize New York City when no one wanted any part of it.
He's bright and he produces quality products, that's a fact.
That you don't like his persona is understandable, but, you have to give the devil his due.
He's been successful in Real Estate, TV and other projects, married gorgeous women and raised terrific kids.
He's become a celebrity but you want him to act like an accountant in a cubby hole..

He's big, he's brash and he's created himself as a target.  But, he produces quality products, there's NO DENYING THAT.[/B]

and actually he may be perfect for President as he and Congress would be a good match for each other.

I'd rather have him negotiate our trade treaties than bureaucrats in Washington who never ran a company or prospered in business.

He's brighter than 99 % of them.

You're letting his image and your dislike of his persona taint an objective assessment of what he produces.... quality products.[/b]

just think how many waterfalls and golf courses you could build with trillions of dollars that never had to be paid back.

You just went from sounding reasonable to sounding dumb.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Quite simply, You don't get it, the guy's a great promoter, that's what he does.[/color][/b]

No, Pat, you don't get it, the guy's a jackass, that's who he is. 

How many times have you been in his company ?
How many times have you spoken to him ?
Do you know friends of his ?
Do you know what they think of him.

He's far from a jackass, he's smart as a whip, successful as can be, married to a gorgeous woman, raised great kids, and the fact is, that most are jealous of him.

Your problem, and the problem of like minded individuals is that you take him, or rather his image, too seriously

[Sean Leary]

Pat,

If that is the case and it is so easy, why was O'Conner so reticent to do it? I doubt he is simply incompetent.

[Tim Pitner]

Quite simply, You don't get it, the guy's a great promoter, that's what he does.[/color][/b]

No, Pat, you don't get it, the guy's a jackass, that's who he is. 

How many times have you been in his company ?
How many times have you spoken to him ?
Do you know friends of his ?
Do you know what they think of him.

He's far from a jackass, he's smart as a whip, successful as can be, married to a gorgeous woman, raised great kids, and the fact is, that most are jealous of him.

Your problem, and the problem of like minded individuals is that you take him, or rather his image, too seriously

Pat, you've got it wrong again--I don't take him seriously at all, I'm amazed that anyone does.  

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

A lot of people seem to have trouble distinguishing between "reality TV" and reality, but I am surprised to find that you're one of them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick: I'm saying I don't know what happened with the super. Maybe he deserved to be fired -- maybe he challenged Trump. Who knows? But I'm not naive enough to think that what I saw edited on a television program represented the truth. O'Connor probably has a sense of what happened and Trump and his people do -- beyond that, who really knows?

I tend to agree, but, I did like the fact that Trump tried to talk to and counsel Paul on his interpersonal skills and his need to get along with everyone.

Time will tell what happened.
[/b]
I just think a television show where it is clearly edited to demonstrate the apparent problems with one employee shows a lack of class.

But, Trump didn't edit the show.
It's independently produced, so why keep blaming Trump.

In a scene at a restaurant in the show "Housewives of New Jersey", some wild things went on.
In speaking to the staff at that restaurant, you get the clear impression that the producers tend to egg on the participants.
Now, I'll admit, I don't think that Donald gets pushed around very easily, but, I don't think he's your culprit here.
He wanted to help Paul.  But, I think Paul might have created the problem that led to his dismissal.
Again, time will tell[/b]

And though you keep pointing out that some "independent" production company is doing the show, I don't think you know that it is independent at all. In fact, unless you've called them -- or asked the Golf Channel -- you are simply guessing.

You and others were doing more than guessing, you were blaming Trump, and only Trump.  Then you found out that he didn't produce the show, that the golf channel and an independent company did.
And, now you're asking me if I called them ?
Why didn't you call them before you made your unfounded allegations ?[/b]

Have you inquired as to whether Trump has approval of the edit? You don't know, do you?
Did Trump hire the production company to do the show? Once again, you don't know, and neither do I.

Yeah, but you and others were the one's making all the allegations and you never considered embarking upon a fact finding mission before making them.  It was only AFTER I pointed out that Trump didn't produce the show that you now seek information regarding editorial review.[/b]

But I'll say it looks to me -- as someone who has worked in television production and the media for almost two decades -- that this was crafted to provide a certain perspective -- and it wasn't Paul O'Connor's take. I could put that all in caps, like you did, but I'm not sure the point will be any more clear.

What you're doing here is dishonest.
You're making a statement, a condemnation absent any factual information.
Don't tell us what it looks like to you.  Do your due diligence FIRST, then present your opinion based on factual data, not character assassination.[/b]

I have hired people and I have been fired myself, so I have a sense of that. In both cases the people involved handled themselves with a lot more decorum than Trump demonstrated on his show. It is fine to have a "reality" program where you fire people, but I don't think this is quite the same. He demonstrated animus and I found it all quite nauseating. Your approval of his behavior says a lot about your perspective.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

One of two things SEEM apparent.  Either,
1   Paul couldn't get along with the staff and the staff wanted him gone, NOT Donald who tried initially to counsel him.
2   He was insubordinate if he refused to carry out a directive from his superiors.
Or, BOTH.[/b]

As for the course, I have no idea whether it'll be any good. My take is simply from two heavily edited television episodes. Could be good -- I hope it is, because the hype is remarkable and I don't think there has been any indication Trump has delivered greatness in the courses he's paid to have built.

Which courses would that be ?
Have you played them ?[/b]

Maybe this will be different, but this is the same man who wanted Tom Fazio Jr. to design the course initially.


So what, what does that mean ?
If he asked Pete Dye, would that make a difference ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

If that is the case and it is so easy, why was O'Conner so reticent to do it?


He wasn't reticent to do it.
He just kept on saying that you needed to get the dosage right.
Isn't that a given ?

Today, I had surgery.
Do you think I was going to ask the anesthesiologist if he knew how to get the dosage right ?
Are you kidding me ?
He's the trained professional.
That's what he gets paid to do.
If he doesn't know how to get the dosage right, or apply the right dosage, he's the WRONG man for the job.

As anesthesiologists, go, that's malpractice.  They lose their license, money and reputation.

Let's see, I'm going to anesthetize this 110 pound woman, I hope I don't confuse the dosage with that needed for a 250 pound man.
OR, vice versa.
Yikes, I'd wake up right in the middle of the surgery.
Having had surgery that took six hours, the surgeon would be right in the middle of the procedure, my vital organs all exposed, when I woke up.
And you don't think that's incompetence ?
Whatever you do for a living, remind me not to adhere to your standards of performance.(;[/b]

I doubt he is simply incompetent.

I doubt it also, but he sure sounded unsure of himself.  Perhaps he's not licensed as a chemical applicator and has to rely on other professionals.  Whatever the case, if you're the man in charge, you'd better get it right.

How many superintendents have been fired for getting the dosage wrong and ruining greens, tees, etc. etc..
I know of more than a few.
It's a universal no-no[/b]

[Rory Connaughton]

I suspect that the issue with the dosage has to do with the impact that the product may have when it runs off from the marram covered dunes into fairways that are in the grow in process though I would love to hear from a super on this. There was definitely something to that exchange that was not in the show.
O'Connor's credentials and past performance are obviously strong so it is not an issue of competence.

Pat, you are right that if it is the berming issue, O' Connor was insubordinate and risked being fired.  What was particularly irritating was the effort to make him look incompetent which he is not. I suspect that as the project progressed, O'Connor decided he would rather not be on Goliath's side.  They don't call his home county (and my mother's) The People's Republic of Cork for nothing.

As for the notion that Trump took him aside and gave him corrective counseling in a discrete and constructive way outside of earshot of the others, you would have a stronger argument if he also did it off camera.

In any event its provided all of us with some good fodder. I particularly enjoyed Martin Hawtree's reactions during the episode. I haven't spoken with Hawtree so I won't offer any observations beyond that :-)

Pat, please take this in the vein in which it is intended, I would have loved to have had an advocate like you when I was getting in trouble in school.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

A lot of people seem to have trouble distinguishing between "reality TV" and reality, but I am surprised to find that you're one of them.

My life is full of surprises.

My point on this is that before everyone jumps all over Donald Trump, an admitted, larger than life target, get all of the facts and make sure you're directing your angst toward the right party.

From the moment Donald Trump arrived on site, he was greeted with the news that his Super was having interpersonal problems.

Those weren't problems Trump created.  He was in the U.S.  Those were site specific problems involving Paul O'Connor.

Now, maybe Paul is right and the entire development staff wrong.  And, Trump wrong for siding with them.
Or, perhaps they're right, and Trump right for siding with them.

Before anyone makes any judgements, let's find out all the facts.

But, this is really a tangential issue.

Most were bashing the golf course before anyone had ever played it.

I don't think, other than yourself and perhaps a few others on this site, that the great majority on this site are capable of making that analysis.
Especially when they've NEVER seen the course in person.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I suspect that the issue with the dosage has to do with the impact that the product may have when it runs off from the marram covered dunes into fairways that are in the grow in process though I would love to hear from a super on this. There was definitely something to that exchange that was not in the show.
O'Connor's credentials and past performance are obviously strong so it is not an issue of competence.

While I would tend to agree, Paul hedged his bets and sounded incompetent.
I don't know if he possesses a chemical application license or must rely on others.
But, if it was a runoff problem, he should have said so.[/b]

Pat, you are right that if it is the berming issue, O' Connor was insubordinate and risked being fired.  What was particularly irritating was the effort to make him look incompetent which he is not. I suspect that as the project progressed, O'Connor decided he would rather not be on Goliath's side.  They don't call his home county (and my mother's) The People's Republic of Cork for nothing.

Here's where I disagree with you.
Remember, it was others on this site who alleged that he was fired for not berming a neighbor's property.
But, that's not his function, he's a green super, not a construction guy, he's neither an architect nor a shaper.
With all the construction equipment on site, with all the construction experts and operators, why would you put an agronomist in charge of constructing a berm.   Answer:  YOU WOULDN'T.  I suspect this is a fabrication and that Paul had nothing to do with the task of constructing a major berm.   And that this is just a sham, an excuse to make DT look bad.  That's my theory and I'm sticking to it until a revelation of the complete facts prove otherwise.[/b]

As for the notion that Trump took him aside and gave him corrective counseling in a discrete and constructive way outside of earshot of the others, you would have a stronger argument if he also did it off camera.

Then you'd never know that fact.  And, you and others would bash him all the more.
I believe, and I'll have to watch the show again, that he told the cameraman to turn off the cameras.
And, if he did, then he did the right thing, in the right way.
And, appologies will be accepted.[/b]

In any event its provided all of us with some good fodder. I particularly enjoyed Martin Hawtree's reactions during the episode. I haven't spoken with Hawtree so I won't offer any observations beyond that :-)

I hope the project turns out to be a resounding success.
I was glad to learn that another 18 hole course can easily be built do to prior application.
If the course is great, everyone benefits.
Why wouldn't anyone want the course to be great ?[/color

Pat, please take this in the vein in which it is intended, I would have loved to have had an advocate like you when I was getting in trouble in school.


I must confess that the reason that I may be a good advocate was because of all the trouble I got into when I was in school.
I had to defend myself, and that wasn't easy.(;

[Robert Thompson]

Patrick: You're assuming an "independent" production company means it is independent of influence. Doesn't mean that at all -- Trump may have hired them, or maybe he only agreed to do the show with final approval (I'd guarantee that is in there). It simply means they are not Golf Channel productions -- they create the programming and sell it. You seem to be under the impression this is some sort of documentary -- and Trump has no influence on the result. I'd say any thinking, intelligent person who wasn't overtaken by his own contrarian perspective would see the show demonstrated a singular perspective -- Trump's.

I have some contacts at GC. I'll contact them tomorrow to see who exactly is financing the show and whether Trump has approval over the final result.




 

Patrick:

A lot of people seem to have trouble distinguishing between "reality TV" and reality, but I am surprised to find that you're one of them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick: You're assuming an "independent" production company means it is independent of influence.


I know what an independent production company is.
[/b]

Doesn't mean that at all -- Trump may have hired them, or maybe he only agreed to do the show with final approval (I'd guarantee that is in there).

Trump did NOT hire them.
This was a "Golf Channel" production in concert with "The Workshop LLC', in which Donald Trump has NO beneficial interest.
As long as your guaranteeing that Trump had final approval, what are you willing to pay to Ran and myself if you're wrong, which you can't be, since you're guaranteed that you're right.[/b]


It simply means they are not Golf Channel productions -- they create the programming and sell it.

That's not my understanding.
I had understood that the Golf Channel's programming, production and operations department were co-producers with "The Workshop LLC", but, I have some contacts at TGC, so let me see how the series was structured, rather than have you guess at how it was structured.[/b]

You seem to be under the impression this is some sort of documentary

NO, I'm not.  I'm well aware that this isn't a documentary.
And, I don't do impressions.[/b]

and Trump has no influence on the result.

And, you state that he has total editorial control over the final product.
I'll find out who's closer to the truth.[/b]

I'd say any thinking, intelligent person who wasn't overtaken by his own contrarian perspective would see the show demonstrated a singular perspective -- Trump's.

I can see that someone so embittered and prejudgemental, without an iota of personal experience or contact with Donald Trump would show a singular perspective,  Anti-Trump [/b]

I have some contacts at GC. I'll contact them tomorrow to see who exactly is financing the show and whether Trump has approval over the final result.

So do I, Sounds like a great idea, you go first.[/b]

[Robert Thompson]

Patrick: Explain why I'd pay you or Ran anything?

You're a perplexing, single-minded individual, I'll give you that. And apparently your 24,000 posts indicate you've got lots of time on your hands to dig into this -- so go to it.

I'm not sure why you'd bother -- your canonization of Donald Trump might not proceed if you don't find the facts to support your perspective.

That said, I've never had a big issue with Trump until I watched the two shows on the Aberdeen project. And if you feel that is the appropriate way for a man of means to behave, then we just see things very differently, and in fact, it would appear from the remarks on here -- a limited group I'll admit -- that you're out on your own on this. You must be a real pleasure to do business with.

[Carl Nichols]

I think his casino operation is the only business entity to file bankruptcy, but, it wasn't a liquidation, it was a reorganization.

Pat:
I think you're right that only his casino operations have filed, but I think he/they've filed more than once.

[Keith Phillips]

I thought I'd seen everything on The Golf Channel but I definitely missed the Trump Aberdeen show/series - I have never met 'The Donald' and am instinctively not a fan of his...I generally react negatively to 'showy people'.

Having said that, i would point out that every New Yorker remembers Trump bailing out Dinkins' Wollman Rink project, I think to the tune of $1.4mm - that rink in Central Park would not exist without Trump - I trust all the haters will put their cameras and smiles away as they walk past that absolutely wonderful addition to NYC life.

In terms of his 'bankruptcies', some of you may have noticed the volatile market conditions that prevailed over the past several years...like all wealthy entrepreneurs, Trump places bets carefully...for every loser there are several winners...in each 'loss situation' there are rationale creditors who made bad bets...reminder - that is not the equity sponsors' fault!!

In terms of golf, I have only played 'Trump L.A.' and suffice it say I was underwhelmed - I do, however, have friends who are very happy members of Trump Bedminster, and while some on GCA may argue that 'Doak/Coore/Crenshaw/Hanse/Devries/George' would have done better with the land, everything I have heard about the course/club is positive...at a minimum we should all agree (with Pat!!) that what Trump has built in Bedminster is a positive addition for the community of golfers to enjoy!

I am bored with all the posts on Trump Aberdeen...yes Trump has lovers and haters in the local community, such is the life of any developer in a reasonably built-up area - to the extent he is proceeding, and he adds one or more B+ or better modern links to the Scottish golf scene, I think we should all be very grateful and do our best to support the area by partaking in the services offered.

[Jim Nugent]

Patrick, Trump's willingness to use compulsory purchse (eminent domain) alone fills me with contempt for him.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick: Explain why I'd pay you or Ran anything?

That's easy.
Because you guaranteed that you were right, that you were the authority on the issue despite the lack of solid information.
And, with that position, a substantial cost of forfeiture should accompany your position if you're incorrect.
Forget about me, just send money to support GCA.com to Ran.[/b]

You're a perplexing, single-minded individual, I'll give you that. And apparently your 24,000 posts indicate you've got lots of time on your hands to dig into this -- so go to it.

The time on my hands that generated the 24,000 posts was during a 12 month period when i went through chemotherapy every day, 24 hours a day, coupled with radiation every weekday at 4:00 pm, followed by major surgery, followed by months of  post op chemo.
Since the chemo prevented me from sleeping, from midnight to 8:00 am, GCA.com got my attention.  After all, you can only watch the weather channel, every 8 minutes, for so long.[/b]

I'm not sure why you'd bother -- your canonization of Donald Trump might not proceed if you don't find the facts to support your perspective.
But, I have.
You're the one who needs to find the factual evidence supporting your position.
Get back to us when you do.

As to canonization, I never claimed he was a saint, perfect or without his faults.
But many of you, who've never interacted with him, are criticizing him, probably because you're jealous or don't like his hair.

Just this morning I received an IM from a member of one of his clubs indicating that his takeover was the best thing that ever happened to his club, that everything about his club is better, since Trump took it over.

So, go ahead, having absolutely NO personal experience, tell me all about Trump, his organization and how his clubs are doing.[/b]

That said, I've never had a big issue with Trump until I watched the two shows on the Aberdeen project. And if you feel that is the appropriate way for a man of means to behave, then we just see things very differently, and in fact, it would appear from the remarks on here -- a limited group I'll admit -- that you're out on your own on this. You must be a real pleasure to do business with.

I have a good number of clients who have been clients of mine for a long, long time, many for over 45 years.
Individuals, small companies and large publically traded companies.  20 + years, 30+ years and 40+ years.
In this day and age, having clients over that duration is a sure sign that I must be doing something right, that I'm highly competent,  and that yes, I'm a pleasure to do business with.

I guess that tells us plenty about your judgement skills

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, Trump's willingness to use compulsory purchse (eminent domain) alone fills me with contempt for him.   

Jim,

Why don't you get all the facts before you jump to conclusions.

By the way, ED, not the kind you're thinking of, is commonly used by municiipalities today.

[Jim Nugent]

Patrick, what are the facts?