Mark
First of all I do not consider The Open to be the property of The R&A, if we are going to go down that line then clearly its Prestwick that I favour. Having said that if the R&A where to lose their authority over golf (which I hope in the end it does not), then any right appertaining to revenue should also be removed.
The real problem arises if we need to replace The R&A, it leaves a vacuum in GB, first no national authority and the need to replace it with an international body – Hell will ensue but it is achievable albeit at a cost to Scottish and GB Golf.
We do have a choice and the R&A must understand the turmoil that will pursue if it does not take control and govern while listening to the concerns of all the important bodies that make up golf. Information is the key to good management, and where best to get that info if not from those who are involved with the Game of Golf. I still believe in my last in depth reply (#24)to you with at least one conference a year plus regular updates from all the organisations within the game is the best option. But we should not be scared to face refusal or non-cooperation; however we should make it clear that the final resort could be the full stripping of power, which would hurt all.
The R&A are far from a lost cause but they need to start to hear what the golfers are saying. Yes I agree that there are many talented people working hard on behalf of the game at the R&A.
AS for the Royal connection, I am a Royalist and am very keen on the association after all we live in a kingdom, but that does not mean we should accept Andrew. He conveys the wrong message and demeanour, he is and was not right for the job, being happy in using public funds to travel to St Andrews to undertake his duties at The R&A, but the club where still intent in having him as Captain. The Royal would remain if he had not been elected as it goes deeper that Andrew, way deeper, so have no fear on that. The Members misjudge the golfing public’s mood by asking Andrew IMHO.
Tony
I cannot say, but would find it difficult to believe that they had as they have always been The R&A. But yes there are indeed disagreements within the organisation sometimes a few have decided that they have to resign that go along with the latest ideas. Most of the turmoil seem to have surfaced in the last 30 years but of course it also existed over the years but to my understand is that from the late 1970’/80’s as money amassed in great quantity the real problems started coming to a head.
The real problem is that they (the R&A) have brought all this down upon their own heads.
Melvyn