Im not thinking that the course that cuts from 125 back to 79 would initially cut their standards although in time they may have to, ultimately losing labour which will result in less frequent cutting which equals not so good. I think the better perceived courses would be the ones best kept rather than best architecture, I dont think great architecture could outwin condition. My main point is if you drop by such a margin or indeed any margin you have to increase more in order to have more income, ie 20,000 rounds at $100 dollars are better than 40,000 rounds at $40. Lets say a course is doing 25,000 rounds at $125, and 30,000 is the break even if it moves to $79 per go, its really hard to generate enough to get back in front. Equally I dont have the solution, you are right what happens though, each course chases the same business and cuts the other one on price, the winner is the one with best value I guess because gof courses are not so easy to compare because we all perceive them very different, its not so much about Lowest price wins its not like we are all selling the same CD, but its not a great scenario and it touches on something we discussed once before when I said some of the better golf courses will have a tougher time.