[Niall C]

The other aspect of my take on this issue is a quasi-legal in nature. While I recognize that the Links Trust failed on a moral or ethical level with the process that it employed, it seems to me that they have the legal right to make the call on alterations. Until a different legal mechanism is in place to "protect" St. Andrews, we ought to recognize that the trustees have the power to do what they're doing.  Finally, the work is not only not finished, when it is done, it won't be permanent.

Terry

Can you explain to me why you think "the Links Trust failed on a moral or ethical level with the process it employed". Where do morals come into this one way or the other ? What ethics have the Links Trust broken ? Interested to hear your thoughts.

Niall

[Terry Lavin]

The other aspect of my take on this issue is a quasi-legal in nature. While I recognize that the Links Trust failed on a moral or ethical level with the process that it employed, it seems to me that they have the legal right to make the call on alterations. Until a different legal mechanism is in place to "protect" St. Andrews, we ought to recognize that the trustees have the power to do what they're doing.  Finally, the work is not only not finished, when it is done, it won't be permanent.

Terry

Can you explain to me why you think "the Links Trust failed on a moral or ethical level with the process it employed". Where do morals come into this one way or the other ? What ethics have the Links Trust broken ? Interested to hear your thoughts.

Niall

This is where you and I part ways in a small but perceptible way.  You mentioned that the LT had utilized similar means to make alterations to the Jubilee Course and you felt that their actions were equivalent in a legal fashion.  While that is inarguably correct from a legal, or formal standpoint, when dealing with an iconic piece of land such as TOC, I believe that there was an ethical and moral obligation owed by these stewards that grows out of their job as trustees and the undeniable primogeniture status of TOC.  It does occupy a unique position in the game.  That may not necessarily color the legal duties owed by these folks, but it is pretty appalling that somebody in the chain of command didn't intervene and stake out some ground for a more transparent process.  I could script the dialogue of the meeting pretty easily, with everybody around the room agreeing that TOC is "different" and they had the assignment to "protect" its singular spot in the game of golf by "being outfront" with their decision-making process.

Having said that, as I've stated on several other occasions, given the level of hyperbolic critical response, I'm not persuaded that it would have made much difference.  It just would have made the delivery of the message easier to defend.  And again, since I'm decidely a layman here, I'm not coming down on one side or the other on the "merits or demerits" of the changes.

[Tom_Doak]

The second I read the title of Joe's piece I thought about you and your relationship with Golf Magazine.  Have you contacted Joe and asked him about his opinion? I do not know who is right or wrong but was thrilled to see someone of his stature not follow the party line and write a piece that could move the discussion to the middle.  From a professional standpoint I think that took a measure of courage on Joe's part.  What did you think?

John:

I think Joe is wrong, but he's entitled to his own opinion.

I don't really have a "relationship" with GOLF Magazine anymore.  There are two of the big golf magazines that have asked me to write a column about the changes, including GOLF, but I've agreed to write the piece for LINKS instead.  I think they will publish it as a point-counterpoint but I don't know who is taking the other side.

I'm not sure that it took personal "courage" for Joe to take his position, since it is the one the status quo would want him to take.  GOLF Magazine has UK ownership now and most outlets over there seem very hesitant to criticize the R & A ... in fact all media outlets have to deal with the R & A regarding TV rights, press passes, etc., so their editors and execs are probably wary of biting the hand that feeds them.  By comparison, offending a few architects who hold the opposite view [however passionately] is no big deal.

[Niall C]

Terry

Two things, firstly I didn't say that the way they went about the changes to the Jubilee was equivalent to how they went about things with TOC, I suggested that doing things differently for TOC didn't make it invalid. Where I made the legal comment was to Mark P who seemed to be reaching for some sort of precedent as if this was case law. (Mark - if that wasn't your intent, apologies)

Secondly, you can be up front and open about the process and how you manage things without necessarily publicising whats been deliberated. In other words here's what we're doing and here's the process that lead to that decision. Peter Pallotta posted on another thread a link to the Links Trust 2010 accounts which gives an insight into structure and makes mention that the minutes of the regular Management Team meetings with the Links Management Committee are made public. I'll leave it to others to go and investigate.

Tom

Most of the mainstream golf media seem to be on the side of pulling back golf technology and criticising the role of the R&A in how we arrived at where we are now. Then you have my pal John Huggan, I can't recall who he rights for, but whoever it is certainly isn't going out there way to charm the R&A by employing him.

Niall 

[Mark Pearce]

Niall,

That most certainly was not my intent.  I was trying to contrast the approach, which in my mind begs the question why they were happy to consult regarding the Jubilee but not regarding the Old.  I would also suggest that the preferable approach was that taken with the Jubilee and that given the relative statuses of the courses concerned it is more remarkable and regrettable that they acted as they did in this case.

[Jeff Fortson]

.

[Jud_T]

Probably an interesting time to be a fly on the wall of the local pub....

[Adam Lawrence]

I might manage a couple of local pubs this evening....

[Mac Plumart]

I might manage a couple of local pubs this evening....

All in the name of research.

[Jeff_Brauer]

"I've agreed to write the piece for LINKS instead.  I think they will publish it as a point-counterpoint but I don't know who is taking the other side."

Tom,

Did you start your side with "Jane, you ignorant slut!"?

[Niall C]

Howard - actually reading what Dawson says makes sense and he backs up what he is saying with clear reasoning.  There clearly WAS some consultation and the local clubs appear cool with the work. As the secretary at St Andrews Golf Club says, the hysteria is mainly not from the locals.

Howard - actually reading what Dawson says makes sense and he backs up what he is saying with clear reasoning.  There clearly WAS some consultation and the local clubs appear cool with the work. As the secretary at St Andrews Golf Club says, the hysteria is mainly not from the locals.

Mark, ONE local club appears cool with the work. None of the others are quoted.

The quote from Secretary Gallacher, of St. Andrews Golf Club, simply states that most of the people that are actively sharing their ire regarding the changes are from outside of St. Andrews.  At no point does his quote condone the work, mention that he or his club were consulted, or whether or not he or his club support the renovations.  I think Secretary Gallacher is in a very tough position.  On one hand, he has to be politically gentle in how he responds to the R&A (the dominate Big Brother club of the clubs at St. Andrews) and on the other he just might have a club membership that is fuming at the R&A.  I have a reliable source that claims that the St. Andrews Golf Club was NOT consulted.  I know that there are plenty of members of all three other clubs that have to sit silently on the sideline so as to not upset the R&A even though the majority of their memberships could be frothingly mad.

Jeff

Jeff

I very much doubt whether any of the clubs or club members in St Andrews hold back in expressing their thoughts either publicly or privately. All this depicting the R&A as the Evil Empire who rule other clubs with an iron fist is just so much rubbish.  others on here have accused me of having something of a default position in sticking up for the R&A and ina sense they are right. My default position is actually innocent until proven gulity..............or Not Proven as they do up here 

Niall

[Jeff Fortson]

.

[Bill Brightly]

Here is an article by Iain Carter from the BBC based on an interview with Dawson:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/golf/20587163

Not much new, except that it seems increasingly clear that these suggested changes came for the R & A's competition committee, and Dr. Hawtree is overseeing the actual work.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()