What does a new course built in 21st century Scotland have to....

[Simon Holt]

....embrace to 'fit in' with the old classics?

Driven by many threads which go off track concerning the likes of the Castle Course, Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart, I would like to know what we consider to be a COURSE that sits well beside the likes of Prestwick, Gullane and Dornoch.  Forget the strictly private clubs- just pay and play.

I would like to stick to GCA factors but I will run a book on how many posts it takes before someone starts talking business models!

Will a course ever be built again (from scratch, so Askernish doesn't count..for now) that gets the praise of the magazines and the adoration of the 'locals'?

Is it that some of the newer courses do actually fit in very well but we dont like the fact we have to pay top dollar for them? (I won my own book!)

I have my arguments for both sides but will happily play devil's advocate on this one for a while!

What say you??!!

[Michael Whitaker]

Simon - Have any 21st Century courses been built in the UK (public or private) that were set up to be sustained by their local market, first and foremost. I can't think of any.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Simon - If its going to cost money to do it has to be commercial. Askernish may have cost zero or close to it and the whole thing is romantic but it just does not get enough play.... its a dream. Any sensible post will acknowledge you have to pay, best courses need staff to maintain them, poorer end courses need staff to maintain them. Money to do things involve third parties that want to see a return on their £. At just 5% a £2,000,000 investment needs to produce £100,000 clear. £100,000 clear is tough.

[Gary Slatter]

"will a course ever be built again....?"     
Simon, as much as GCA and others have panned it, The Castle Course got the praise of magazines and locals.  Originally, after my first 5/8 rounds I didn`t like it.  Now, I think it`s pretty good and wish they could replace the wild things that were removed.

The second Castle Course, Castle Stuart, hosting the Scottish Open this week, is also getting praise from magazines and locals, and maybe even getting the attention of Trump (covet).

Market price should not affect what we think about a course - we can bitch all we want but if the owners can survive and charge more than good seats at Cirque, why not.   Kingsbarns still gets away with rates from 15 to 160 pounds.  A friend had a corporate group at the Old Course Hotel and the rate to add a round on the Old Course was $1300.00 (through the wholesaler).  They paid of course.

Simon, on another note, how do you think your member will do in the steroid `trial`.  Pretty sad that so much money is spent on useless vendettas, instead of education.

[Simon Holt]

Simon - Have any 21st Century courses been built in the UK (public or private) that were set up to be sustained by their local market, first and foremost. I can't think of any.

Hey Michael,

Craigielaw?  Again just posing questions, why do we think that is?  Surely if there is a demand for what the majority of the more vocal members of our site think to be the right way to go, someone would have done it?

Thoughts?

[Simon Holt]

Simon - If its going to cost money to do it has to be commercial. Askernish may have cost zero or close to it and the whole thing is romantic but it just does not get enough play.... its a dream. Any sensible post will acknowledge you have to pay, best courses need staff to maintain them, poorer end courses need staff to maintain them. Money to do things involve third parties that want to see a return on their £. At just 5% a £2,000,000 investment needs to produce £100,000 clear. £100,000 clear is tough.

Adrian,

Agreed.  I knew you were the man for the numbers but so many (not yourself) seem to say these courses, in terms of the way they play, do not fit.  What would fit with the classics while being applicable to the demands of the modern day golfer in Scotland- be they visitor or resident?

S

[Simon Holt]

"will a course ever be built again....?"     
Simon, as much as GCA and others have panned it, The Castle Course got the praise of magazines and locals.  Originally, after my first 5/8 rounds I didn`t like it.  Now, I think it`s pretty good and wish they could replace the wild things that were removed.

The second Castle Course, Castle Stuart, hosting the Scottish Open this week, is also getting praise from magazines and locals, and maybe even getting the attention of Trump (covet).

Market price should not affect what we think about a course - we can bitch all we want but if the owners can survive and charge more than good seats at Cirque, why not.   Kingsbarns still gets away with rates from 15 to 160 pounds.  A friend had a corporate group at the Old Course Hotel and the rate to add a round on the Old Course was $1300.00 (through the wholesaler).  They paid of course.

Simon, on another note, how do you think your member will do in the steroid `trial`.  Pretty sad that so much money is spent on useless vendettas, instead of education.

Gary,

While the Castle is not my favourite I did find it fun, no one else's opinion can change the experience I had.  It seems you agree after some repeat play.

Again, the numbers you quote must work as they sell.  Simple economics right?  Supply and demand.  The UK golfer is NOT the target market at the high ticket course- that's not to say it should or shouldn't be- but these people are running a business.

I would like to get your take on my question to everyone regarding a course style that would fit if CS and KB are classed as American imports.

With regard to your last comment- I think you have to respect the fact I am not going to comment!  But yes, perhaps the money could be used to offset tee time costs for junior golf at say........

S

[Mark Pearce]

To "fit in with the classics" will, I suspect, take time, particularly for the top end courses.  For those with very different business models (which is Loch Lomond, Kingsbarns, Renaissance and Castle Stuart, albeit that these don't all share the same business model) I'm not sure what "fitting in" would look or feel like.  Perhaps the closest to fitting in are places like Craigielaw or, my personal favourite for the closest to fitting in, the Craighead at Crail.

[Simon Holt]

Mark,

I can actually think of a few more now after Michael posed that question. (Castle Park and Whitekirk (late 1990s) near me in East Lothian being two)  I think there are a few that fly under the radar for good reason.  The ones that get column inches are like most things in life- people want what they cant have, so buy mags to read about what they cant have or aspire to.  Just like car mags or Top Gear show flash cars not Astras (no offence Astra drivers!)

We above any focus group should know of these courses, and we do. Sean Arble being a great example of this.  I sometimes feel that it is a chance to vent fury at the courses most of us cant afford to play each day.  Having said that, I can see Michael's concerns on the Castle Stuart thread; it could be an upward spiral for green fees in the immediate area. Time will tell.

Still no suggestions on what course would fit in?  Carte blanche to a group of GCA enthusiasts that are usually keen to say where places are going wrong?  Come on guys!  How can a developer do it right to fit with the area and achieve international acclaim?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Askernish …. It’s a dream

Let’s stop and think, let’s try and learn something here. Be it romantic or a dream, the point is that these guys on South Uist with a little professional help achieved a blood interesting course.

If that course was on the mainland coast, I feel that the designers and architects the world over would have to take it very seriously and certainly Look & Learn.

Could it be that you do not want to learn, that you want this out of way course to fail as it did not need a fortune spent on it. Could it be that land fit for purpose will reduce costs. Have you become stuck in your ways

Who is dreaming, how many have even matched designs like Machrie or for that matter Brora, no its not a dream, its reality. If golfers want a course it is possible, however there may be no money in the project to satisfy a designer or architect or make him consider even looking at it.

It’s no dream it’s a normal Scottish golfing club with its members coming together to produce the traditional Scottish golf course for its members and yes they would like additional revenue to make further improvements, just like the history of our club scene.

You should be ashamed to consider such a thing, let alone put it in writing. The members of Askernish Golf Club have a rather formidable golf course which should be praised and not to dismissed a romantic or a dream. Its there, its open and many who have played it have expressed great pleasure from their rounds.  Or is it a figment of their imagination.

Adrian go and check it out for yourself, I’m certain Ralph would be only too pleased to show you his pride and joy.

Melvyn

[Mark Pearce]

Simon,

For some time to come almost anyone playing any of these courses will think of them as "new" courses and will treat them differently to the classics.  Of the new Scottish courses I have played RC, Craigielaw, The Carrick and the Craighead.  Of these I think Craighead and Craigielaw, being traditional members clubs will "fit in" soonest.  For my money the course that most nearly matches the style and quality of the classics is RC but in the minds of those that play it the business model will differentiate it (and remind of its newness) for longer.

Interestingly, when I go to Crail I play Craighead, by choice, at least as often as Balcomie.  I suspect the same is true of many younger members and stronger golfers but not of older or weaker members.

[Simon Holt]

Melvyn,

I am excited by the thought of visiting.  One question though, you say its a dream then say it is not.  I am a little confused.


Mark,

That's nice to hear about RC and its design, and great to hear that the Craighead works so well.  I am still yet to play it but as you know I love the Balcomie.

I would love to see a simple out and back right on the water- not high above it which seems to be the trend.  Perhaps a leasehold would work so you wouldn't have to buy the land?  An entry fee, but a low one, to absorb some of the initial costs (thats what they did in 1850) and reasonable enough fees to cover the lease, maintenance and modest facilities.

A few hours a day of visitor play to offset members fees but not so much to keep the locals off the course. (that kills me at North Berwick)

Yes, in a perfect world with the right land blah blah blah.  I would love to hear solutions for a change and not just knock downs.

S

[Melvyn Morrow]

Simon

The openiing line is taken from Adrian's post, he desceibed it romantic....& its a dream.

Melvyn

[Simon Holt]

Ahh, gotcha.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Melvyn - I am not against Askernish. I am trying to be realistic, it is land fit for purpose, unfortunately it is not position fit for purpose and the facts are that position wins over the former in a commercial world. It does not have to be commercial of course and it can be romantic a dream or the members/islanders enjoyment.

Dont take offence, it is a beautiful dream. RL work is commendable, I dont want to be a nay sayer but it needs other RLs to continue the work.

I would like to see it but its too hard for me to get to. But who knows one day I might try and combine it with a view of the Northern Lights.

[Mark Chaplin]

Simon - who owns the NB links? If it is the NBGC or the collective clubs then they are clearly not acting in the best interest of their
members.

[Michael Whitaker]

Come on guys!  How can a developer do it right to fit with the area?

Simon,

I think you have sort of answered your own question. A modern "developer" is not looking to create something that is going to serve the most people economically. A developer is creating a course or club for strictly business reasons and wants to make as much profit as possible. Fair enough.

But, what has made golf in the UK a "success" (such that it is) is the fact that courses and clubs were created to serve communities as efficiently as possible without "profit" as the number one goal. Afterward, a course might be opened up to limited outside play, but only to the extent that it didn't inconvenience the members.... with revenue from outside play used to offset the operating expenses of the club, not line someone's pocket.

It seems that modern developers in the UK have all decided that their facilities must be extremely high-end, whether created as a public or private entity. Sometimes it comes across (to me) as the developer just trying to exploit of the hundreds of years of Scottish golfing heritage as a marketing cloak for their private benefit. They seem to think that just by being physically located in Scotland they will inherit the credentials to be considered truly "Scottish." The bottom line is an American operation is an American operation... no matter where it is physically located.

Every developer who builds a new course in the UK, particularly anything near the ocean, seems to always want it to be the next home for the Open Championship. The private clubs are usually based on major exclusivity and the public ones on luxury. Why isn't someone ever trying to build the next Pennard, or Deal, or Littlestone, or North Berwick, etc, etc, etc? Why do these new courses always have to be about exclusivity and luxury? I guess it is because they are created by a developer as a conduit for making massive profits instead of by a group of like-minded individuals who want to gather together to enjoy a game and life.

[DMoriarty]

Don't even some of the old Scottish greats significantly benefit from the tourist trade?   Would they be able to provide the locals the same quality at the same price without the tourist trade? 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Michael - Its not like that. Most golf courses pre 1960 are members owned. It is not really possible for a new course post 1960 to be member owned, simply because 500 individuals do not get together and stump £4,000 each...it happens by one or more fronting the £2M to buy land build course build house buy the maintenance kit. That person/s want to see a returm..... HERE IS THE BIG FACT... only very keen golfers front the money and people that love the game, its near impossible to convince institutions to lend or take equity stakes, they know the returns are small...to invest in golf it takes the heart and soul of a golfer. The biggest profits are in mom and pop courses the biggest rate of failure is when you go high end... in the UK 86% of golf courses go bust with the first owner.

My advice to those that want golf courses is lower end. Good enough to stage a county championship but in that level of a £30 green fee, good enough that a pro can enjoy it and shoot 65 and not tough enough that Uncle Bob can get it round and make a par somewhere... thats the courses that can earn money if they are located right. I have done 10 and im 0% for going bust with most of my courses having extra nines added top fill demand. Absolutely not all designers have decided that golf courses in the UK must be top end. John Day and the late Bob Sandow will mirror my words.

[Simon Holt]

Michael,

I have answered my own question as I think I already knew the answer to a small degree.  As an economist by trade (albeit no world beater!) I know that there needs to supply to meet demand.  If there is demand someone will take the opportunity.  

A few years ago you couldn't get a membership to any East Lothian club.  They built Craigielaw, Whitekirk etc and they all still operate today.  There was demand.  The same clubs would fail today due to the recession.

The high ticket clubs work because there is demand for beefier courses with the opportunity to play classic golf on the same trip for the visiting golfer.  The smaller clubs that get visitor play will still get it as it is a different market- there is little demand as the existing 'lower end' courses are struggling for members as it is.

As far as all the American developers doing it for profit I have to disagree purely because I am involved with one and see it day by day first hand.  You have met one of the brothers developing RC, obviously people will say I am biast, but I can promise you they are not in it for profit.  The first day I went to work for them they asked me 'why do you want to work in golf?  You know there is no money in it right?'  

I got the job because I believe in what they want to build- even though hand on heart (risking my job here!) I dont agree with the way we go about somethings.  Again, thats why I got a job- they dont want yes men as they know it wont succeed with that attitude.  They are mad keen golfers and love the game that gave them the values to succeed in business and now they want to leave a mark in their chosen way.  That is why if they break even they will do backflips- they care not for profit in this situation.

I don't want this to be about RC though so I would prefer to stick to semi-private or pay and play discussion.

Ok, as I have an early morning battle at North Berwick I will have to call it a night.  I would love to hear more on this though!

[Michael Whitaker]

Adrian - is golf as overbuilt and saturated in the UK as it is here in the US? Nearly all of the new courses I have heard about in the UK are the high-end big ticket ones. We don't hear about the new courses with a £30 green fee... or, at least I don't. Where are these courses?

Why are there not more traditional members clubs being built? Is it because most communities already have a club and there is not enough demand?

Mark Chaplin has said it many times... there is a great opportunity for clubs who actively seek overseas members. At the reasonable annual subs most clubs charge for international memberships one can purchase a round trip ticket to the UK a couple of times per year, spend several days playing golf with their mates and still come out cheaper (including all meals and accommodations) than the cost of dues alone for a typical national membership to a comparable club in this country. I know, because I do it. A smart club would find a way to market themselves to those potential overseas members.

[Tom_Doak]

Simon:

Melvyn talks correctly about land fit for purpose, but how often is the modern developer allowed to work on such land?

Look at the modern courses you're talking about.  The business model for Kingsbarns and for Castle Stuart demanded a world-class course on sites that didn't have world-class contour ... so they had to spend millions of pounds creating it, and it put them at a price point that makes them untraditional.

Look at The Renaissance Club.  The most natural ground for golf is the part that we've been trying to get permits to build on FOR FIVE YEARS.  We could have built those holes for peanuts and not had to take down so many trees on the more inland terrain, except that the authorities and the environmental groups would have lined up to protest it.  The best ground left for a golf course in all of Scotland is the land Muirfield owns just north of The Renaissance Club, but they'd have to mortgage The Honourable Company just to get permission to build a Machrihanish-Dunes style roll of the dice.

Speaking of that, look at Machrihanish Dunes ... from everything I've heard it was a great piece of ground, but the restrictions on what they could do were so severe that this is the first time I've seen it mentioned on GCA in 2011.

It would be easy to build a new course in Scotland that would fit in with the classics, if only they would let us.

[David_Tepper]

"Don't even some of the old Scottish greats significantly benefit from the tourist trade?   Would they be able to provide the locals the same quality at the same price without the tourist trade?"

DMoriarty raises an interesting and very valid point. The notion that Scottish golf is defined exclusively by local clubs serving local communities is wrong. The golden age of railway travel in Britain introduced golf resorts (built by developers for profit no less!) and golf tourism to Scotland almost 100 years ago. Turnberry, Gleneagles and Cruden Bay were not built by local members. They were built by businesses to generate revenue. Countless "golf hotels" were built across Scotland 60, 80 or 100 years ago to so the same.

The Scots invented golf tourism. Resort golf is a Scottish as stick toffee pudding!    

[Sean_A]

One course not mentioned (and rarely is) is Dundonald Links.  I don't know how it is doing, but I think its a members' club after spinning off from Loch Lomond.  Its pretty expensive, but not as much as any of the other stars of recent Sottish golf save for Mach Dunes.  I always thought the course looked very good and quite traditional in the design being formed from the land.  The place has always intrigued me.

Ciao

[Mark Chaplin]

Sean - I played Dundonald a few weeks ago as part of a three course package with the Gailles clubs. I was very pleasantly surprised with the design and quality of the course. I don't however think it is a members club, although it is still linked to Loch Lomond. The clubhouse is still a rather large - but grand - portacabin. Cheapest fees were £40 and I doubt many pay the £90 rack rate.

David - Prestwick, Royal Troon & both Gailes clubs are basically Glasgow clubs and Luffness New, Gullane and HCEG Edinburgh clubs. Many on the best links are well away from towns and in areas of low populations.

Mike - there are hundreds of courses in the model Adrian talks about in the UK, 20 must have been built in Kent in the last 15 years. You will not have heard of them as they possess zero GCA merit and are often on pretty average land.

David - Scottish clubs on the tourist trail survived 100 years without tourists, if they stopped tomorrow clubs would tighten their belts, trim off the receptionists & starters and of course the locals would have to pay a little more. Do not think fees would double as much of the costs go on meeting visitor expectations.