The surprise stems from many of us having an image of BF that was just that, an image: we think, old school style, Rhode Island traditionalist, insightful lover of architecture, with a short-hitter-and-great-putter's appreciation for golden age design. But he's spent his whole adult life playing professional golf -- and he's actually, at this stage, mostly BF the businessman with a good 'brand' to sell. People like that don't save great old golf courses. People like Mike Cirba and Joe Bausch do.
The image you paint for Faxon isn't less accurate or truthful. He's one of the good guys. I hardly think he's selling "a good brand" in this case. My guess is Brad was recruited to join the investment group and most likely truly wished to help save the place he grew up playing.
That said, he was only one of several investment partners and not, I believe, the general partner responsible for making decisions. I'm stupefied that these guys abandoned whatever operational business plan they had this quickly, but capitalizing on some RE development potential was likely their default strategy.
The only outstanding question is what explicitly was promised to those members who stayed on?
The golf business, especially 2nd and 3rd tier private clubs, is an undeniably failing one. Especially so when they reside in a competitive environment with a stagnant or shrinking economic and demographic conditions. Those with significant debt are practically doomed. Metacomet, even with wonderful architecture will never be immune from these pressures.
Mike and Joe are admirably saving a historic and public place, and doing so with a large community and public component. I laude them, but this is a vastly different project. Apples and oranges IMO.
FWIW, I've been involved on both sides of this coin several times and it's never as clear cut as some here would like to believe. Business is business and historic preservation is rarely possible without subsidies.