[wsmorrison]

Mark,

Your model isn't completely without merit for those municipal courses that have no other choice.  So that is the positive I see in this.  However, it clearly results in all the leverage being on the side of the donor foundation and its surrogates and not the owners, managers and participants.  The more you explain yourself the more the negative conflicts come out and expose the project as a scheme of yours to get work and not a scheme of the foundation. 

You already look down upon and disparage groups when you say they wouldn't know what to do with the money even if they had it, implying that only by working with a group such as yourselves could they hope to get good results.  How arrogant!  Not only that it is demeaning, and not true enough to make such a broad generalization.  And if these bumpkins don't know their ass from a hole in the wall, what makes you think they'll know enough to make the right decision to engage your foundation?  How could they possibly know what sort of course you'll leave them and the true costs of maintaining it?  What happens to the employees of the courses that are not working while you and your crews (getting paid) are restoring/remodeling?  What if they want to keep much of the course open during the work but you guys want to shut it down because of all the other work you're doing and other commitments that might conflict with their work?  Where do the golfers that use the course go while you are doing your work?  A model that takes these interests into account and works with them instead of dictating to them makes a lot more sense, unless they are truly desperate.  If there are a number of interested groups waiting in line for you guys, great.  I hope they get what they pay for.  Oh, they're not paying for anything.  How often does that model work? 

Dan doesn't want any publicity and the donors will all or in many cases be anonymous.

If this is the case, why did you bring it up on this public forum?  It would seem to be a self-serving act on your part.  Perhaps a warning that you'll be knocking on the doors of the FPC soon?

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
I mention an organization that was set up to try to do something good for the game of golf and all you can do are find negatives in it.  That is pretty sad    You would think a site like this that loves golf architecture, especially classic golf architecture, would embrace such a vision and hope for its success.     

Our vision is that many of the courses Keep It Classic ends up working on will be models for others to follow in terms of how to go about restoration/renovation and how to maintain a classic golf course on a budget that keeps golf affordable, as well as one that is fun and exciting to play and helps introduce more golfers (espeically kids) to the game of golf.   

If you continue to find negatives in that then maybe it shows what you are really thinking.
Mark

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

On the contrary, I do hope for its success.  I am just skeptical that the model will ensure that the owners, managers and members will see the success in the same way you will.  There seem to be too many conflicts that divide those perspectives.

If the model turns out to work, I will applaud your efforts.  You should be able to understand that I can be critical of the structure and still hope for its success, right?

[Forrest Richardson]

In the past decade our office has met with or performed detailed studies for more than 40 struggling municipal courses. Four of them have since shut down and on the now-famous (and growing) NGF "List of Closures" which, sadly, outpaced openings for the first time since WWII in the U.S.)

I agree — not every municipal/public sector course deserves to be restored to its "classic" era style or aesthetic. However, several do "qualify" and should be approached carefully.

There is a major issue: NO MONEY!

The organization mentioned by Mark F. is a great tool. But it is a tool that will be very rare in use. Quite simply, there is only so much fund raising that can be mustered by Keep It Classic. I would suspect that 1 or 2 courses per year would be quite a goal. Cobb's Creek presents a great opportunity if it works out. But a lot of stars and planets need to line up.

[Eric Smith]

Wayne,
I posted the below to the other thread.....this is an old trick....been used with municipalities a few times before....and expect to see it more as construction slows....   Sorry for MCP that this type of BS has to detract from efforts.....

"Mark,
I also got in this business the unconventional way by not working for another archie ....BUT I worked in the business for 10 years learning it before getting a project.......I am all for someone pursuing their dream in this business.....what I am not for is all the bullshit that sometimes takes place on this site where one makes it look like one has all of this expertise and experience when it is not there.....I see that alot on here....or they create a website that doesnt hold water....I dont know you so I can't say if that is you or not ....   it is so easy to do when one can use a digital camera and can opine over the ODG courses and what they meant to do.....personally I don't consider one in this business until they have a few courses on the ground and can actually profit from such work.....the talk part of this website is cheap.....I continue to see different guys in all regions retire from one job and print a business card stating   golf architect, golf sales rep, golf pro etc all to be in the "business".....BUT if you do have a passion and can do this stuff then it will prevail.....I WILL also say that this "charitable save the municipal golf course" route has been used before.....it is a great marketing/sales tool that guys have tried to use to acquire projects.....a couple of more are in the works as we speak.....THATS ALL IT IS....A SALES TOOL... but it might work....
BUT my biggest question about many of your post is .....
What do you bring to the table for FR?  I have read all of these post but never could understand the reasoning....
Best of luck with your pursuit....."

Mike Y: Why lecture Mark Fine?

[Forrest Richardson]

Eric...who are you posting to?

[mike_malone]

 I expect the FOCC to continue to focus on the goal of restoring the old routing for Cobbs and to also continue to pursue the process that we agreed on. As for this other stuff going on why don't you bring it over to the Merion threads !

   The passion shown by Mike Cirba ,Geoff Walsh, and Joe Bausch in this effort is the main reason it is moving forward. They understand that our best efforts are in unearthing research to support the rerouting and to attempt to nudge the process along.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()