Bob Chapman,
My club in NJ hosted a Senior Women's Amateur, and you're right it isn't a large budget item, but it still operates at a loss for the USGA, as I would imagine most, if not all of their other competitions do.
The US OPEN is the only event that makes a profit, and in that context, it supports/subsidizes all of the other competitions.
With respect to the Russian Tea Room building on 57th street,
if they buy it for $ 16,000,000 and sell it five or ten years from now for $ 28,000,000 would you say they mispent the money ? And, if they sell it in five or ten years for
$ 12,000,000, and write off the lose against gains, is that so bad ? This issue seems to be much ado about nothing.
TEPaul,
You may recall, after the Ping lawsuit, the USGA saw that they had rather shallow pockets and began capital campaigns, associate programs, etc.,etc., to build up a sizeable cash reserve. Prudent investment is only beneficial if you've got the money to invest, which they acquired as indicated above. However, these last three years haven't been kind to most, and I would think that the USGA is not immune.
When they had no money they couldn't take an aggresive position with the manufacturers. They recognized that, and accumulated substantial assets, and you can't take them to task for successfully meeting their goals, especially if you and others want them to take on the manufacturers in court, which can be a little costly.
P.S. This professional and courtly manner is rather bland,
boring in fact. Let's go back to calling each other
names. What do we care if others "DON"T GET IT" ?