No, that's not what you said, you said it was property with hundreds of acres ON the water and nothing could be further from the truth.  Here's your quote:

"The fact that you consider hundreds of acres ON the water on LI typical and the norm is an example,"

Perhaps you'd like to amend you post.

You stated that there were hundreds of acres on the water when in fact, one green, the 1st and one hole, the 18th are on the water.  Perhaps if you had actually seen the property you wouldn't have made such an erroneous statement.
On this issue, you don't know what you're talking about

I have a better clue as to what you know about green budgets than you have about the property at Sebonack.
But, I didn't isolate Sebonack, I took two other courses that were recently built in the Metro area.
And, with respect to green budgets I encompassed all of the private golf courses in the Metro NY area.  A green budget of
$ 1.000,000 isn't out of the norm.
If you'd like to produce evidence to the contrary, do so, or just shut up and admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

I never said that Sebonack was typical.
Those are your words, and an attempt to distort the truth.
Try reading what's posted instead of being disengenuous and intellectually dishonest.

adressed the issue of remote land and it's value.
How many people live within a 20 mile radius of Barnbougle.
1,500 ? 15,000 ?
How many people live within a 20 mile radius of Bayonne or Liberty National ? 15,000,000
Now go figure out land costs.
Anyone can buy land in remote areas at a relatively low cost.
But, buying land in, or adjacent to population centers is another matter.  I elaborated on that, but, you must have missed it.

can see why you would try to dismiss the facts.
Noone is coming from Bandon, Oregon to play Sebonack, Liberty National or Bayonne, but, thousands are coming from the Metro NY area to play Bandon.  The Bandon area can't support Bandon, they need outsiders.  Bayonne, Liberty National and Sebonack don't need outsiders, there are 15,000,000 people nearby, and because of that, the land costs are very high.

Now, you've turned into a liar.
I stated that the 1st green and 18th hole at Sebonack are on the water.  You stated that hundreds of acres are on the water when nothing could be further from the truth.
And the land to the right, on the water, isn't Sebonack's, it was deeded to another entity.
Try knowing what your talking about BEFORE offering it as fact.

You need to apologize for being disengenuous, uninformed and intellectually dishonest, but, I don't expect that anytime soon.

Quote

No, that's not what you said, you said it was property with hundreds of acres ON the water and nothing could be further from the truth.  Here's your quote:

"The fact that you consider hundreds of acres ON the water on LI typical and the norm is an example,"

Perhaps you'd like to amend you post.

No thanks, I'll stick with what I wrote. But I appreciate your gracious offer.
The fact that it is hundreds of acres (as I said and which you apparently agree with), combined with the indisbutable fact that it is on the water (which both you and I said), combines to mean that what I said is, well, correct and factual.

Your statement ISN'T factual.
Only the 1st green and 18th hole are on the waterfront.
Your unfamiliarity with the property has led you to a false conclusion.[/color]

I'll also add that this is one heck of a try to divert attention to the bigger issue here--your attempt to change a starightforward discussion about acquistion costs for a golf course in a generic sense into a twisted and extreme one that uses an antypical example.

Not at all, I cited three clubs recently built in my neck of the woods, one set to open over July 4th weekend.
AND, I was careful to cite the area in which the clubs were located and indicated that costs in that area were high.

There's nothing twisted, extreme or false about that.[/color]

PS If someone says there is home is waterfront, does that mean to you that every square foot of it is waterfront? If not, then I'll look forward to you amending your post. If yes, then your tenuous grasp of reality is more imperilled than I had feared.

If someone says that they own hundreds of acres on the waterfront and the fact is that only their home is on the waterfront with the rest of the property,  hundreds of acres is inland, then, they don't own hundreds of acres on the water.

Face it, you don't know what you're talking about with respect to Sebonack.[/color]

Quote

You stated that there were hundreds of acres on the water when in fact, one green, the 1st and one hole, the 18th are on the water.  Perhaps if you had actually seen the property you wouldn't have made such an erroneous statement.
On this issue, you don't know what you're talking about

Actually, there are lots of issues that I don't know what I'm talking about.
But it is fun to watch you contort yourself beyond all recognition in trying to run away from your extreme attempt to portray Sebonack as a typically-priced course.
And, it's funny to watch you compromise whatever integrity you have, by watching you lie about what I stated.  I never stated that Sebonack was a typically priced course.

If you could cite where I said that, I'd appreciate it.
If you can't, admit that you lied in an attempt to make your point.[/color]

Quote

I have a better clue as to what you know about green budgets than you have about the property at Sebonack.
But, I didn't isolate Sebonack, I took two other courses that were recently built in the Metro area.
And, with respect to green budgets I encompassed all of the private golf courses in the Metro NY area.  A green budget of
$ 1.000,000 isn't out of the norm.
If you'd like to produce evidence to the contrary, do so, or just shut up and admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

No, as I suggested earlier, on this you are clueless, but it does not seem to slow you down any.    Using other extreme examples really doesn't change much, does it?

I didn't use extreme examples, I indicated that in the Metro NY area 1,000,000 green budgets are commonplace.
I stand by that statement.

I also asked you how many 2007 green budgets you've review and you failed to answer that question.
The reason is, you haven't reviewed any green budgets.[/color]

As I said, if I made a mistake believing what you said about Sebonack, apologies.

Apology accepted[/color]

PS As to green budgets, it clearly has gone over your head as you twist and contort that I haven't said a word on the subject.  So how exactly would I 'shut up' any more on the subject than the total silence I have offered so far?  Your manners, by the way, seem to suffer a bit when you are shown to be wrong. It happens to all of us--don't take it so hard  

My manners are fine, it's your character that hss the flaw.
You're far to intelligent to have made a casual mistake.
When you typed that I stated that the acquisition costs for Sebonack were average, that was a blatant lie.  A clear attempt to distort and misrepresent my position.[/color]

Quote

I never said that Sebonack was typical.
Those are your words, and an attempt to distort the truth.
Try reading what's posted instead of being disengenuous and intellectually dishonest.

Well, yeah, you did.  The discussion was general to begin with. I would be happy to go back a page or two and throw some quotes in if it would help jog your memory.  

Please do so.[/color]

But then when it got down to nuts and bolts, the first course you come up with was Sebonack. I believe the second was Friars Head.  A general discussion regarding land acquistion costs and the first two courses you come up are those two.  


To show you how disengenuous you are, there were no land acquisition costs for Friar's Head.  You've told another lie.
Another deliberate attempt to distort and misrepresent my position and the truth.  Forget about manners, try intellectual honesty and telling the truth.[/color]

That is the truth, not an attempt to distort the truth, nor is it 'intellectually dishonest.'  Or is it dishonest to read your quotes accurately?

Please provide them [/color]

Quote

adressed the issue of remote land and it's value.
How many people live within a 20 mile radius of Barnbougle.
1,500 ? 15,000 ?
How many people live within a 20 mile radius of Bayonne or Liberty National ? 15,000,000
Now go figure out land costs.
Anyone can buy land in remote areas at a relatively low cost.
But, buying land in, or adjacent to population centers is another matter.  I elaborated on that, but, you must have missed it.

Nope, I've enjoyed every last thing you've added to this thread.  And when the rubber hit the road vis a vis land costs, you make an executive decision that the numbers to be used should come only from an area that has some of the highest land costs in the world.  And somehow, you seem to genuinely believe that land costs only in the NY metro area are relevant to the subject and land costs for all other courses are somehow not relevant. Becuase they don't fit your thesis?   The number of people within 20 miles of Barnbougle couldn't be less relevant--the issue was the case of higher green fees/player costs.

Yes, and higher green fees are driven by the costs to acquire the land, develop and build the golf course.  I cited three perfect examples of courses built in densely populated areas.

I also stated that land costs in remote locations are far less.

But, how many go to remote locations in comparison to how many play golf courses in densely populated areas.

How many rounds are played at Sand Hills per year ?
Compare that to how many will be played at Winged Foot, Olympic, TCC, Merion, Olympia Fields, Riviera ? [/color]

Quote

can see why you would try to dismiss the facts.
Noone is coming from Bandon, Oregon to play Sebonack, Liberty National or Bayonne, but, thousands are coming from the Metro NY area to play Bandon.  The Bandon area can't support Bandon, they need outsiders.  Bayonne, Liberty National and Sebonack don't need outsiders, there are 15,000,000 people nearby, and because of that, the land costs are very high.

And yet, the greens fees at Bandon are what exactly?  

You have said land acquisition costs was a big reason that fees are so high.

Of course they are.
But, add in, development and maintainance costs as well.
Do you deny that ?
If so, you're a fool.[/color]

Quote

Now, you've turned into a liar.
I stated that the 1st green and 18th hole at Sebonack are on the water.  You stated that hundreds of acres are on the water when nothing could be further from the truth.
And the land to the right, on the water, isn't Sebonack's, it was deeded to another entity.
Try knowing what your talking about BEFORE offering it as fact.

Puhleaze Patrick. You were wrong, its fine, get over it. If I knew you were going to turn so ugly when it turned out your were blowing smoke I would have stopped 2 pages ago.  It hundreds of acres. Its on the frickin' water. Get over it and drop the namecalling.

You said that I stated that the acquisition cost for Sebonack was average.

You lied.

That's not name callilng, that's a statement of fact.[/color]

Quote

You need to apologize for being disengenuous, uninformed and intellectually dishonest, but, I don't expect that anytime soon.

If by those ugly words you mean having shown you to be both wrong and rather devious in your attempt to try and use Sebonack as typical or a fair example, then yeah, sorry. Otherwise, your expectation is about right.  

You can't stop lying.
Only through distortion and misrepresentation can you make a case.  I never said that Sebonack was a typical case.
If you could cite where I stated that the acquisition costs for Sebonack were average amongst golf courses I'd appreciate it
If not, admit you lied, apologize and let's get back to the original premise[/color]

Quote

I pointed to the incredible rise in green fees/dues over the past 20 years (the years of added mega length) and stated that I believe in the vast majoriy of cases, land prices are not main reason for high green fees.

Quote

I think it has more to do with what the market will bear as much as anything.  All I need to do is look around the UK for evidence of this.  

Hmm, isn't that exactly what Patrick said about Bandon Dunes when Bryan brought it up?

NO[/color]

Quote

How many new golf courses have been built in the UK in the last 5 years ?

Hmm, lookee there, the conversation is not at all about the NY metro area

Quote

I don't think the numbers are quite so convincing in the States, but without knowing any specifics about a single course over there, I would be willing to lay a wager of 10 quid that when all courses are considered, the increase of length is NOT the single biggest factor driving up green fees.

NOONE is interested in ALL the golf courses, stay focused on courses built within the last 5 and 10 years.

Hmm,

Patrick's change of the rules starts.....

Not at all.
The last 10 years is when the distance issue exploded.
Every dunce in the world understands that courses built on land acquired 80 years ago are irrelevant to the subject.[/color]

Quote

I will go out on a very short limb and say there were far more courses built in the UK over 20 years ago than less.  Of this overwhelming majority of courses built more than 20 years ago, very few clubs can claim that extra length is the reason green fees have gone up more than 100% (quite a conservative estimate).  I don't think the numbers are quite so convincing in the States, but without knowing any specifics about a single course over there, I would be willing to lay a wager of 10 quid that when all courses are considered, the increase of length is NOT the single biggest factor driving up green fees

Hmm, lookee there, the conversation is not at all about the NY metro area

Quote

As one exception, Richmond Hill Golf Club was built in the last 10 years at 6,000 yards from the tips.  It's green fees are on a par with other courses in the area that were built in the same time period and that are 1,000 yards longer.
That's overwhelming evidence.  ONE EXCEPTION.

Hmm, lookee there, the conversation is not at all about the NY metro area.

Quote

Trying to limit the
bet to courses built in the past ten years because this is when the distance problem really took off is not really helpful for looking at the game as a whole.

Hmm, didn't you say we would need to use balls from 1970 to deal with the distance issue?  Was 1970 really 10 years ago?


I'd like to push for a roll back to 1970, settling for 1980 or 1990.[/color]

This is just a smattering of what was said earlier.  
Mostly by other individuals, not me.[/color]

Please note, nobodywas talking about land acquisition costs in the NY metro area at this time. Nobody. Not Sean, Not Bryan, not you.  Capiche?   And then, out of the blue, in an inane attempt to justify the numbers Bryan called you out on, you suddenly decide that Sebonack is a logical course to show what costs generally are. Because what else could you do? Use a course in a less expensive area that would put the lie to your astronomical numbers?:

It wasn't just the acquisition costs, it was the maintainance costs as well.

Sean's reference was limited to but one golf course.
Citing three golf courses recently constructed was a logical choice and indicative of costs in the Metro NY area, an area that's densely populated, as opposed to costs in remote sites halfway around the world, which you brought up.[/color]

Quote

That's mighty expensive land Patrick.
That's true, but, even if we ratchet the numbers down, the extra 15 acres is expensive.
Mike Pascucci paid $ 46,000,000 just for the raw land at Sebonack, 298 acres.  That's about 155,000 an acre, and, I'll guarantee that the price is considerably higher today than it was in 2001.  In addition, he didn't know if he'd get the necessary permits.  I believe that Mike donated a good amount of acreage to the town and to a college, so the cost per useable acre is higher.  Then, add in all the development and construction costs and the cost per acre climbs dramatically higher.
Friar's Head was a different situation, the land was what amounts to a capital contribution by partners who owned the land for eons.  But, if you were to sell that land today for homesites, I'm sure the costs would be up in the low to mid six figure range.

Also, please note that you, not me or Bryan or Sean or anyone else, decided to throw Frairs Head into the mix to justify your extreme example. Again, what else could you do--you needed a way to justify your inflated numbers.

The numbers aren't inflated, they're actual.

As to Friar's Head it's just another new golf course that everyone's heard of that's not far from Sebonack.[/color]

Nobody else brought it in to the discussion. You did. So when you come up with silliness like this:

To show you how disengenuous you are, there were no land acquisition costs for Friar's Head.  You've told another lie.
Another deliberate attempt to distort and misrepresent my position and the truth.  Forget about manners, try intellectual honesty and telling the truth.

Obviously you were the one to use the land costs of Friars Head for justification.

I never mentioned land costs at Friar's Head.
I stated that the land at Friar's Head was a capital contribution.  I stand behind my statement.[/color]


Not Sean. Not Bryan. And certainly not me.  This reflects very poorly on your Patrick. There are two possible conclusions:
1. You forgot you brought it up, which happens, but then your namecalling and rudeness are still an issue
2. You knew you had done it but thought that namecalling and tawdry bullying would, well, what?  Make us forget that you tried to use Friars Head as an example to try to justify your inflated numbers?

There are more than just two possible conclusions.
3.  You lied in alleging that I quoted land costs at
     Friar's Head.
4   The cost of land at Friar's Head remains unknown as it
     was a capital contribution.
5   You continue to distort and misrepresent my statements.
     Especially since I asked you to specifically cite where I
     stated that land costs for Sebonack were average.
     Since you've been unable to produce any such citations, it
     would indicate that you lied about the issue.[/color]

Quote

Look at Sebonack with an acquisition of land cost of approx 43 million.  Look at Liberty National, Trump Los Angeles, Trump Bedminster, etc., etc..  When land costs alone are in the multi millions, with millions more for building big golf courses, what do you think drives the cost to play ?

Quote

I also asked you how many 2007 green budgets you've review and you failed to answer that question.
The reason is, you haven't reviewed any green budgets.

I failed to answer that because I have never been a part of that discussion.  I have mentioned that several times now.  But you either failed to read it, or what? It is not relevant.


You supported Sean and his contentions relative to costs, including the notion that maintainance costs on longer golf courses are not responsible for driving up the cost to play golf.

I asked you to cite where I stated that the acquisition costs for Sebonack were average, as you alleged.  
Why have you failed in that mission ?
Because you lied about that statement.
You were disengenuous and intellectually dishonest.
I think you confused maintainance costs relating to green budgets of $ 1,000,000 with the acquisition cost issue and can't admit that you made a mistake.[/color]

[/b][/color]

Someone says they would not use 20-40 year old equipment when that line of reasoning suits their need in an argument.  The same person then says their irons are 20 years old and their putter is at least 40 years old to someone else when that line of reasoning suits their argument. And best of all? That man tries to call someone else a liar.  Why have you not owned up to your own words?  

It's quite simple, my Ping Eye 2's are perimeter weighted.
Had you read all of the posts thoroughly, you would have seen that I was clear about perimeter weighted irons versus traditional blades.[/color]

If you need a refresher, here's your own words:
"I'm not about to use clubs 20-40 years old and not get invited back again because I'm no longer competitive."
 
"I guess that's why I'm playing Pings I got in 1985, a putter I acquired in the 1960's, a Taylor driver I got about 5 years ago and a Titleist 3-wood I bought at about the same time."

So, should you really be calling anyone a liar or throwing around accusations of intellectual dishonesty?  

Absolutely, you clearly lied when you said that I stated that the acquisition costs at Sebonack were average.

As to my remarks, they're also simple to explain.
I indicated that I'm not going back to blade irons and persimmon woods in competitions.
While my equipment isn't up to date, it's not comprised of blades and persimmon.[/color]

I look forward to you addressing this directly. I see only two possible explanations:
1. You are highly forgetful, and truly had no idea what golf clubs you use (though that would tend to undercut your entire thesis)
2. You just make stuff up as you go.  Please remember though that if you continue to just pull numbers out of your nether regions as you did here, we can go back a day or two or three and see what you wrote.

That's the problem, you ONLY see limited explanations, the ones you want to see, and not all of the explanations.[/color]
 

Quote

I think it has more to do with what the market will bear as much as anything.  All I need to do is look around the UK for evidence of this.  
Hmm, isn't that exactly what Patrick said about Bandon Dunes when Bryan brought it up?
NO

Quote

Or is it what the market will bear?
Both.

Hmm, so you actually did have something to say about Bandon and what the market will bear. And yet you claim you didn't. More issues with the truth, or just forgetfulness? Nevermind, I am sure you will come back with all sorts of bluster or semantic explanantion for what the definition of 'is' is. But no matter, your words are there for all to see.

Bandon is a destination golf resort, a hotel complex, not a local club supported solely by it's members.
This discussion had nothing to do with hotel/resort golf courses, something you conveniently overlooked.[/color]

Quote

Patrick's change of the rules starts.....

Not at all.
The last 10 years is when the distance issue exploded.
Every dunce in the world understands that courses built on land acquired 80 years ago are irrelevant to the subject.

So we are to assume that courses older than 10 years old don't charge higher rates? Or that older courses haven't lengthened, even though you said they have. Another example of you saying anything you need to at the moment to justify yourself?

I'm can't help it if you can't understand that the land costs on a golf course built 80 years ago have been amortized, and that the land costs for a golf course built within the last 10 years haven't[/color]
 
Please note that Sean was NOT talking about only courses in the US, much less the NY metro area. That is clear. Bryan was not either. That is clear. You changed the focus at the last minute when you needed to justify yourself.

Not at all.
Sean referenced green budgets of $ 1,000,000 as being way out of line.  I referenced green budgets in the Metro NY area and the area between Stuart, FL and Key Largo, FL because I''m familiar with them and can talk from personal experience, whereas neither you or Sean have one iota of experience with respect to structuring green budgets.

Why would I want to be like you and Sean and make claims that you know nothing about ?   I'd rather know what I'm talking about.  It's an issue of intellectual honesty, something you lack when it comes to debating.[/color]

Again, saying anything at the moment when it suited your needs.
To be intellectually honest, you should have said your Mucci Theory of higher fees only applied to courses in a very specific geographical area that were built within a tiny window of time.

I did reference geographic areas and time frames, you must have missed it.

However, it's undeniable, longer courses require more land and more maintainance, and that drives up costs.
That you and Sean deny that is pure ignorance.[/color]

Quote

Hmm, didn't you say we would need to use balls from 1970 to deal with the distance issue?  Was 1970 really 10 years ago?

I'd like to push for a roll back to 1970, settling for 1980 or 1990

'Course you would. Because saying 1970 was the year that mattered in a different context but it helped your weak argument, but then in a different argument with a different context, 1997 helped your argument. So you used both, because the vastly different years helped you in different ways at different times.

Not at all.
I couldn't pin point the exact date that the ball transitioned to a distance ball, so I picked a point that was clearly before that date, it's that simple.[/color]

Also, please note that neither 1980 nor 1990 are ten years ago.
Who are you, sir, to throw accusations of intellectual dishonesty about?

I"m someone who knows a liar when he's lying.
You lied, you deliberately lied.
You stated that I said that the acquisition costs for Sebonack were average.
You know you lied, I know you lied, everybody knows you lied.
You just can't admit it.[/color]

Quote

This is just a smattering of what was said earlier.  
Mostly by other individuals, not me.

Yes, that is the point of a conversation. It is not just one person talking--and no one person, if they wish to be intellectually honest, gets to pull the rug out at the last moment and totally change the parameters. Which is exactly what you did. Sean and Bryan were quite clear that they were not discussing courses only built in the last 10 years in the NY metro area.  Did you honestly miss that even though you were fully and clearly engaged in the discussion, or is this yet more intellectual dishonesty?

Stop trying to divert attention from the fact that you lied and I called you on it and you haven't had the character to admit you lied.

The world knows that land costs for clubs built 80 years ago  have nothing to do with this discussion.  The discussion is contexted in recent times because that's when the distance issue exploded, that's just common sense, something you're lacking in this thread.[/color]

Quote

You supported Sean and his contentions relative to costs, including the notion that maintainance costs on longer golf courses are not responsible for driving up the cost to play golf.

I supported the idea that you changed the subject at the last minute regarding land acquisition costs from a global discussion to one that suddenyl only included courses in a tiny, highly expensive area and suddenly only within a tiny time window.  

Not at all, I was clear to indicate that land costs in remote areas are less than in densely populated areas.

What you fail to grasp is that it doesn't matter what the cost per acre is, be it $ 500,000 per acre or $ 1,000 per acre.  
If a club has to buy 15-25 extra acres to design and build a longer golf course, that's going to negatively impact the cost of golf.   Now do you get it, more length = more land = more costs.[/color]

Please show where I supported anything specifically regarding maintenance costs. If you fail to do so, is that another mistake from you or yet more intellectual dishonesty?

Quote

I asked you to cite where I stated that the acquisition costs for Sebonack were average, as you alleged.  
Why have you failed in that mission ?

Huh? I gave you quote after quote that showed that the subject was, and what you changed it from. You suddenly and dishonestly changed it to 'NY metro' and 'last 10 years.'  Your use of Sebonack was your means for doing so and an attempt on your part to use Sebonack's numbers as some type of justifying baseline.  

Did you ever say the specific sentence 'Sebonack is average'?
[size=4x]
Not that I am aware [/size]

FINALLY, an admission that you were wrong, that you lied when you alleged that I did state that.  Thanks.[/color]

...........but that is not the point--it was your use of the course and its costs.

Of course it's to the point.
You can't go making false allegations to make your point, and when caught in a lie, say, oh, it was nothing.

False in one ..... false in many.
It speaks to intellectual dishonesty.[/color]

Quote

As to my remarks, they're also simple to explain.
I indicated that I'm not going back to blade irons and persimmon woods in competitions.

No, that is blatant lie.  This is what you actually did say:
"I'm not about to use clubs 20-40 years old and not get invited back again because I'm no longer competitive."

"I guess that's why I'm playing Pings I got in 1985, a putter I acquired in the 1960's, a Taylor driver I got about 5 years ago and a Titleist 3-wood I bought at about the same time."

False in one ..... false in many.
It speaks to intellectual dishonesty.

Not at all.
You're getting so desperate,
I first played with Pings in 1985 but didn't get my first set until 1986, so, I was off by a year in my 20-40 year reference.
The inference was clear, I wasn't going back to my blades and persimmon clubs.  You're the only one who doesn't get it.[/color]

Quote

Bandon is a destination golf resort, a hotel complex, not a local club supported solely by it's members.
This discussion had nothing to do with hotel/resort golf courses, something you conveniently overlooked.

This is what you said when it was convenient for you:
I think it has more to do with what the market will bear as much as anything.
Hmm, isn't that exactly what Patrick said about Bandon Dunes when Bryan brought it up?
NO
And:
Or is it what the market will bear?
Both
So, not only did you lie just now when you said the discussion had nothing to do with Bandon, you lied about your response as well. Clearly, the discussion was about Bandon at least for a little, and you yourself were discussing it, and clearly you did say something about what the market would bear in relation to Bandon Dunes. And yet you said 'no', you didn't. How odd.

The discussion was never about Bandon or resort/hotels
And, everyone understands that as well.[/color]

False in two ..... false in many.
It speaks to intellectual dishonesty.

False in three ..... false in many.
It speaks to intellectual dishonesty.


You deliberately lied.
You deliberately misrepresented.
You can protest as much as you want,
You're the liar, not me.[/color]

Quote

Please show where I supported anything specifically regarding maintenance costs. If you fail to do so, is that another mistake from you or yet more intellectual dishonesty?

I take it from your repeated silence on this that we are agreed that you made this up out of whole cloth i.e. you lied?


You were ardent in your support of everything that Sean and Bryan argued, and that included maintainance costs.

You chose to lie down with dogs and you woke up with fleas.
[/color]

False in four..... false in many.
It speaks to intellectual dishonesty.

Quote

However, it's undeniable, longer courses require more land and more maintainance, and that drives up costs.
That you and Sean deny that is pure ignorance.

I like forward to you showing specifically where I said a longer course does not require more land. I like forward to you showing specifically where I said a longer course does not require more maintenance. If you can't, and we both know you can't, then yes, you will have blatantly lied yet again.
I can't speak for Sean, but I don't recall him saying a longer course does not require more land exactly--should we add those to your ever-growing list of prevarications?

If that was the case, this discussion would never have occured.  Go back and reread what Sean had to say.[/color]

False in five..... false in many.
It speaks to intellectual dishonesty.

False in six..... false in many.
It speaks to intellectual dishonesty.

False in seven....false in many
It speaks to intellectual dishonesty.

Quote

What you fail to grasp is that it doesn't matter what the cost per acre is, be it $ 500,000 per acre or $ 1,000 per acre.  
If a club has to buy 15-25 extra acres to design and build a longer golf course, that's going to negatively impact the cost of golf.  Now do you get it, more length = more land = more costs.

Please show me where I said I failed to grasp that. Please show me where I said more acreage didn't increase cost.  If you can't, and we both know you can't, then yes, you will have blatantly lied yet again.

A large portion of your argument and your support of Sean's position was based upon disagreeing with me when I stated
that added length was resulting in greater acquisition, development and maintainance costs.[/color]

False in eight....false in many
It speaks to intellectual dishonesty.

False in nine....false in many
It speaks to intellectual dishonesty.

You can go on and on.
You DELIBERATELY lied when you stated that I said that the acquisition costs for Sebonack were average..[/color]

UPDATE: Patrick, I went and checked out of curiosity. Not only did Sean not deny that longer courses require more land, he said he was sure it contributed to increased fees. And he said he agreed that there would be increased maintenance costs. So congrats, not only are you dishonest towards me, you have been dishonest in terms of Sean and both his positions and what he said.

Sean finally admited that deep into the discussion.
I stated that added length was responsible for increased costs, costs of acquisition, costs of development and costs to maintain.  If Sean agreed with me, why would there be any debate ?  You've got it wrong again and are merely throwing a temper tantrum because you got caught being intellectually dishonest in a DELIBERATE LIE.[/color]

I will take it from your not forwarding an address that you feel you have not met the criteria of the bet.  We finally have come to some sort of agreement.

Not at all, I outlined the circumstances relating to the bet.
If you agree, let's proceed.
I trust that win or lose we'll both hold up our ends of the wager.[/color]

I don't understand your inference that I am a dog.  

It's an old phrase, used to make a point, don't take it personally.[/color]

Go back and read my posts on page 2.  My insistence that market forces are the primary reason for the outrageous rise in green fees in no way implies that added length to courses is not a factor as well.  I make this quite clear early in the debate when you raise the subject back on page 2 by stating that of course added length adds to the ticket price, but I don't think it to be a major influence.  

That's where we disagree, I maintain that the cost of land, the cost of development, the cost of construction and maintainance costs are the PRIMARY reason for high costs for today's golf courses.

If a golf course built in 2004 costs 50,000,000 don't look for
$ 50 green fees or $ 5,000 initiation fees.[/color]

One of the reasons it is very difficult to tell if added length (extra land costs) is a major reason for the rise in green fees for  quite new clubs is that there were no previous green fees at that club to compare with - the club is new.

On a new club, the extra 15-25 acres isn't the major reason for the high cost of green fees, it's an additional reason as to why they're higher..  For a club that's 80 years old, they've amortized their initial land costs, their additional costs are the associated with the construction and maintainance of the back tees, tees created to offset the impact of distance on the game.   Virtually every club has lengthened itself in the last few decades.  It's an arms race.[/color]

With that in mind, took look at the big picture, we need to look at courses with a bit of a track record in the market.

I know of a golf course that opened in 2002, where the owner stated that his grandchildren will be the first to see a profit.  And, you could call the construction of the golf course a minimlist effort.

Some of the difficulties new courses face are as follows.
If you build them in densely populated areas the cost of land is prohibitive.  If you build them in remote areas the demographic may not be able to support the club.

That's one of the reasons that numerous clubs are offering National Memberships, including old courses like Prairie Dunes, Inverness and others.    And, new courses, including ones on Long Island and New Jersey are persuing that model as well.

The reality is that 7,400 yard golf courses are no longer imaginary, they're real, and they're costly.

Another problem is, look at the top 100 lists.
There's a tendency toward length.
Some draw a direct connection between length, dificulty and popularity.  This fuels the arms race (length) as golf courses vie for members in a shrinking environment.[/color]

As I have said from page 2, IMO, the main reason for the hike in fees across the board is down to what the market will bear.  Sure, as I stated on page 2, added length does add to the cost of green fees, but across the board it is a minor issue compared with charging what the market will bear.  In fact, I would guess that increased maintenance costs (on the pre-lengthened  course if courses were lengthened) and wages have more to do with increased green fees than the cost of added length.  

Sean, listen to me.  I'm familiar with the budget issues at a number of clubs.  The fixed costs are escalating dramatically.

Look at health care costs, fuel costs, taxes, water costs and labor costs.
They're all rising dramatically and the clubs have NO control over them.
The truth of the matter is that most clubs in the Metro NY area have lowered their inititation fees because they're desperate for members and they need bodies to pay the dues, which are intended to cover escalating operating costs.

The same has happened in South Florida.
Clubs were giving away memberships, charging nominal, and in some cases, zero, for initiation fees, clamoring for bodies to help defray operating expenses which continue to climb.
[/color]

I don't think my position has been consistent throughout the thread.  However, if any of what I have written above wasn't made plainly clear on page 2, I apologize.  

No need to apologize.
We had a disagreement on an issue and nothing more.

Some time ago I initiated a thread related to maintainance/architecture and static or shrinking green budgets.   I see the crunch, I see the difficulty clubs are having in attracting members, and I see a changing culture that will affect club's abilities to attract and retain members while remaining financially viable.

I also see some of the clubs that have spent a fortune on acquisition, development and construction costs as having but one viable strategy if they're to turn a profit, and that's an exit strategy that's related to real estate development[/color]