Trump's Aberdeen Episode

[Niall C]

Patrick

He may have fooled us all but when the camera's stop rolling is he going to retract some of the questionable decisions he's foisted on his consultants ? Will the gca get the course he wants or will he have to live with design decisions made by Donald for the benefit of his TV show ? You may be right, maybe he worked out the scritpt with his professional team before going on air so that he gave them what they wanted but somehow I doubt that.

If this course does turn it to be good it will likely be despite Mr Trump rather than because of him. But thats just my opinion.

Niall

[jeffwarne]

Bob Huntley,

You know that I respect you and your opinions, but, you're missing a critical point.

It's "showtime", he's on, he's performing.

Do you think that "The Apprentice" would have been popular if he was a nondescript milktoast.

The guy knows how to promote and he produces quality projects, in his buildings, TV shows and Golf Clubs.

He's also very, very smart.

Like Don King, his hairstyle is part of his persona.

He can be a very funny, very personable individual, but, he's not on TV to act like the normal every day citizen or golfer.

It's an act and he's fooled you all.

the Donald will provide a great service to the Aberdeen area, just as he's done here in the US.
For those who buy into his act (or as Patrick says "aren't fooled") and join his club,
he will gather all the _________s (like minded individuals) in one spot-which will make the other clubs better or worse, based on your opinion of him.
Win -win I'd say.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

He may have fooled us all but when the camera's stop rolling is he going to retract some of the questionable decisions he's foisted on his consultants ?

Which ones ?
Could you list the questionable decisions for me.
I haven't seen the show.[/b]


Will the gca get the course he wants or will he have to live with design decisions made by Donald for the benefit of his TV show ?


Tom Doak didn't get the course he wanted at Sebonack.  He had to live with Mike Pascucci's decisions.  So what ?
I would imagine that the same could be said of almost every archictect and developer.
When you take the King's schilling, in the ultimate, you do the King's bidding.
You can try to influence and reason with the owner/developer, the guy who's putting up all the money and paying you, but, in the ultimate, he makes the decisions.

If you were the developer would you give everyone unlimited artistic license ?
Would you give the architect carte blanche ?[/b]

You may be right, maybe he worked out the scritpt with his professional team before going on air so that he gave them what they wanted but somehow I doubt that.

I think very little is scripted, but, everyone knows the cast of characters before they say, "action"/b]

If this course does turn it to be good it will likely be despite Mr Trump rather than because of him. But thats just my opinion.

And, if it turns out bad, will that be the architect's fault ?

You can't have it both ways.[/b]

[Adam Clayman]

Adam,

From my walk of the proposed route, I happen to disagree with many of Brad Klein's criticisms.

Ally, Specifically, did you disagree with the comment about the placing of many of the teeing grounds up on, or near the top, of a dune?

[Tim Pitner]

Bob Huntley,

You know that I respect you and your opinions, but, you're missing a critical point.

It's "showtime", he's on, he's performing.

Do you think that "The Apprentice" would have been popular if he was a nondescript milktoast.

The guy knows how to promote and he produces quality projects, in his buildings, TV shows and Golf Clubs.

He's also very, very smart.

Like Don King, his hairstyle is part of his persona.

He can be a very funny, very personable individual, but, he's not on TV to act like the normal every day citizen or golfer.

It's an act and he's fooled you all.

So, he's a monkey acting for the camera?  To what end?  Self-aggrandizement?  Am I supposed to admire that?  You would think a man of his position wouldn't have to, or choose to, prostitute himself in such a manner.

Some people manage to generate wealth, create things, including golf courses, and maintain their dignity and respect for others.  I find them to be more commendable. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob Huntley,

You know that I respect you and your opinions, but, you're missing a critical point.

It's "showtime", he's on, he's performing.

Do you think that "The Apprentice" would have been popular if he was a nondescript milktoast.

The guy knows how to promote and he produces quality projects, in his buildings, TV shows and Golf Clubs.

He's also very, very smart.

Like Don King, his hairstyle is part of his persona.

He can be a very funny, very personable individual, but, he's not on TV to act like the normal every day citizen or golfer.

It's an act and he's fooled you all.

So, he's a monkey acting for the camera? 

Would you tell me what celebrity doesn't act for the camera.
Perhaps you don't know it but Donald Trump has transitioned from a Real Estate magnate/developer to a celebrity, and Icon with a Brand.[/b]

To what end?

To promote the "Brand"
And, he does a great job of it.[/b]

Self-aggrandizement?

Advertising, promotion, brand recognition.
And, he does a great job at it.[/b]

Am I supposed to admire that? 

I don't think he cares what you admire and don't admire[/b]

You would think a man of his position wouldn't have to, or choose to, prostitute himself in such a manner.

Since when is promoting your products and brands prostitution ?
That's absurd.
Muhammed Ali declared, "I am the greatest, the greatest of all time"
It was his "schick".  Donald's just doing the same thing, and doing it quite well.
You just don't like him.  But, you have to give the Devil his due, he's done a great job at promoting himself and his products.[/b]

Some people manage to generate wealth, create things, including golf courses, and maintain their dignity and respect for others. 
I find them to be more commendable.

Whom are you refering to ?

Do they have TV shows ?

A drop dead gorgeous wife ?

Have they produced educated, refined, successful children ?

Are they recognizable everywhere they go ?

Are they decent golfers ?

He admits, he wasn't the best husband in the world because he was focused on building businesses, but, as a father, he seems to have done quite well judging by how his children turned out.[/b] 

[Brad Wilbur]

After watching most of last night's show (Donald Dementia began), it seems reasonable to say that if a golf course is built there, it is mainly due to the Donald's efforts.  It also seems reasonable to assume one of a dozen or more architects on this site could build a stellar course, without help from him.  If the course turns out to be exceptional, kudos to the architect for negotiating the minefield.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Adam,

From my walk of the proposed route, I happen to disagree with many of Brad Klein's criticisms.

Ally, Specifically, did you disagree with the comment about the placing of many of the teeing grounds up on, or near the top, of a dune?

Adam, yes I did. Or rather I explained that this website was being rather self-critical by deriding these teeing positions.

There will be back tees placed high up on dunes, open to the elements and a bit of a chore on the knees to get to. The course will play very very long from the back and these tees will be for specific use only. On the contrary, Martin Hawtree and Caspar Grauballe spent many, many hours placing the next two sets of tees as close to previous greens as possible with minimal elevation change in the green to tee walk. Exactly what we ask for here.

The site is huge in scale.There will always be some walks but to presume that Donald Trump wants tees placed on dunes and this compromises the whole project is one big presumption.

[Robert Thompson]

I watched the program and had several thoughts:

1) the editing of the firing of Paul O'Connor on the show seemed staged to account for what news accounts at the time detailed. The stories said O'Connor wouldn't berm in the houses that wouldn't sell to Trump and was fired. Clearly this looks bad on Trump -- a lot was made of the hiring of O'Connor from Carnoustie. I have no idea what kind of contract O'Connor signed -- and I bet it had clauses about allowing him to be filmed, but the entire section was edited to come to the conclusion of firing O'Connor. Fundamentally Trump seems to misunderstand the role of the super -- he says at one point that O'Connor needs to get along with people and that "your job hasn't even started." This cuts back and forth to later interviews with Trump -- which may have been filmed weeks later -- justifying his decision to fire O'Connor, and that's interspersed with the remarks about pesticide use by O'Conner -- which Trump argues with for no apparent reason -- and discussion about the "lake," which looked more to me like water that had simply settled in a low area of the property. Anyway, this was pure theatre -- but it made Trump look like a prototypical American bully.
2) I've interviewed Martin Hawtree a couple of times. He has bold architectural ideas, but is meek in conversation. Either he's allowing Trump to bully him on camera and then ignoring him later, or simply staying quiet and doing what he wants to do between visits from Trump. Either way, I can't see how he didn't feel like a whore when Trump thrust money into his pocket. As for the comments about Pine Valley, I've been there twice and don't recall 300-yard fairways. I think Trump's ego makes everything bigger than it really is.
3) I'm tired of the "billion dollar golf resort." The only way this comes out to a billion dollars is if he sells a ton of real estate. Typical Trump hyperbole.

[Niall C]

Patrick

He may have fooled us all but when the camera's stop rolling is he going to retract some of the questionable decisions he's foisted on his consultants ?

Which ones ?
Could you list the questionable decisions for me.
I haven't seen the show.[/b]


Will the gca get the course he wants or will he have to live with design decisions made by Donald for the benefit of his TV show ?


Tom Doak didn't get the course he wanted at Sebonack.  He had to live with Mike Pascucci's decisions.  So what ?
I would imagine that the same could be said of almost every archictect and developer.
When you take the King's schilling, in the ultimate, you do the King's bidding.
You can try to influence and reason with the owner/developer, the guy who's putting up all the money and paying you, but, in the ultimate, he makes the decisions.

If you were the developer would you give everyone unlimited artistic license ?
Would you give the architect carte blanche ?[/b]

You may be right, maybe he worked out the scritpt with his professional team before going on air so that he gave them what they wanted but somehow I doubt that.

I think very little is scripted, but, everyone knows the cast of characters before they say, "action"/b]

If this course does turn it to be good it will likely be despite Mr Trump rather than because of him. But thats just my opinion.

And, if it turns out bad, will that be the architect's fault ?

You can't have it both ways.[/b]

Patrick

I haven't seen the show either but was referring to Kevin's original post and in particular points 1 & 2 regarding fairway width and the size of the pond and how it affects the strategy of the hole. Thats a couple of issues that CAN have a fundamental bearing on those holes, would you not agree ? I would suggest that those decisions are questionable if he is over-riding what the GCA specifically intended which Kevin seems to be explicitly stating in relation in relation to the pond at least if not the fairway width.

My point regarding whether the gca would get the course he wanted was in response to your last line in your post to Bob Huntley where you refer to it all being an act. Hence my question as to whether having done the TV show and made the decisions on camera for the benefit of the camera whether he then retracted those decisions to allow the gca to get on an design the course without interference. If he didn't retract those decisions then its hardly all an act.

Your well made point that whoever signs the cheques gets the ultimate say is quite apt to this discussion as well as being a universal truth. You go on to sight the example of Doak at Sebonack where he was over ruled on a number of points. My question to you is the course as good as it could have been as a result ? I've never played it and I'm unlikely to either but I seem to recall that Tom D at least had grave reservations about the last being a long par 5.

If I was ever in the fortunate position of being developer, as you suggest, I wouldn't even hire a gca other than as an associate, but then I would be designing the course for myself in the same way as self builders build their own homes. That would be a dream come true.

On the other hand if I was developing the "greatest course" in the world I would get the hell out of the way and let the professionals do their thing. And yes if it turned out bad, it would be the architects fault. If it turns out bad at Balmedie and I'm looking to aportion blame between the guy who has had an extensive career in golf course design, and links design at that, and the enthuiastic amateur client with little or no gca experience but a track record of riding rough shod over subordinates then frankly it's not going to be a dificult decision.

Niall

[Brad Isaacs]

Narcissism reigns supreme, let's hope he just runs for president so he can leave the golf world alone.

[Tony Weiler]

Why don't we wait and see what the finished product looks like before being critical.

Pat,

Dr. Klein walked the proposed route. Don't you think he was fair in his criticisms ?

Adam, where can we find Dr. Klein's criticisms?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

I have to run out, but hope to respond in full this weekend.

It's so hard to say what is fluff for the cameras and what is substantive.

It's also hard to draw any reasonable conclusions since I don't have enough data.

It's sort of like a bill coming out of Congress.
Unless you sit in on the committee hearings, you really don't know what went on, you only see the finished bill.

And, I think that's the way most golf courses are presented, in their final form, absent the nitty-gritty details behind every situation and every decision.

In the ultimate, the final product will speak for itself, and then, people can drill down to try to see why certain holes or features ended up the way they did, and what holes and/or features didn't make the cut.

As to Dr Klein's criticism's, maybe they were on target, maybe they're off target.
I can't comment because I didn't see the show, am unfamiliar with the property and project and don't know the content of the criticisms.

As a side note, I prefer # 18 at Sebonack as a par 5.

It doesn't mean that Nicklaus and Doak were wrong, nor does it mean that Mike Pascucci was right.

But, I think Mike Pascucci's override of Jack' and Tom's position was the right decision.

Perhaps the same will be said of Donald Trump.

Who knows more about golf, Donald Trump or Mike Pascucci ?  ?  ?  (;  (;  (;

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

For the record, on the 18th at Sebonack, we changed it to a par five after I decided that I agreed with Mr. Pascucci's thoughts on the choice, and after verifying that we did indeed have enough room to put #18 green as far back as it needed to be.  He didn't "override" both me and Jack there.  Mr. Nicklaus and I agreed at the beginning that we would both be happy with any final decisions so as not to put Michael in position to break the ties, and for the most part, that worked well.

The one hole where Mr. Pascucci has overridden both me and Jack is the design of the new 14th green.  Let me know how that one is working out.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What was the perceived problem with the old 14th green ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

For the record, on the 18th at Sebonack, we changed it to a par five after I decided that I agreed with Mr. Pascucci's thoughts on the choice, and after verifying that we did indeed have enough room to put #18 green as far back as it needed to be.  He didn't "override" both me and Jack there.  Mr. Nicklaus and I agreed at the beginning that we would both be happy with any final decisions so as not to put Michael in position to break the ties, and for the most part, that worked well.

In reading "Building Sebonack" on page 178, it states: "While Jack and Tom originally wanted this hole to be a demanding par 4 along the bluff of the bay, Michael was determined to finish with a par 5."

On the surface, that sounds like an override to me.(;[/b]

The one hole where Mr. Pascucci has overridden both me and Jack is the design of the new 14th green.  
Let me know how that one is working out.

What's the difference in the green you and Jack wanted and the green that was built ?[/b]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I watched the show tonight and boy are you guys off base.

The firing of the superintendent was a result of everyone else on the project saying they couldn't get along with him.
And, there's not a tee, fairway or green that's been grassed yet.
So, if they can't get along with him at the pre-grassing stage, how would the relationships work out when the course was grassed.
If you have 40 staff members who are unhappy with another staff member, it would seem reasonable to eliminate that staff member from the team.

I thought Donald was very considerate.
He took him aside, told him of the problem he was having with the other staff members, the complaints, and told him to smarten up and get along with everyone.

If an employee has a short coming, isn't that the way to deal with them ?
Take them aside, explain the problem and tell them to correct it.

Then, when asked about killing weeds without killing a strain of grass, the super kept on saying that he could kill the weeds and not kill the grass if he got the dosage right.  Trump basically said, of course, that's our goal, why wouldn't you get the dosage right.
I didn't understand why the superintendent kept on inserting that caveat.  It conveyed imcompetence.

The firing took place because the other staff members couldn't tolerate the superintendent, to the degree that it was poisoning the team effort.

I thought Donald was terrific, promoting the project as he does best.
He even had a hard time acknowledging that his son came up with a good idea, before he did.
But, he eventually conceded the point.

Berming and hiding the houses is a great idea.

What really gets me is how everyone praised Tom Doak for building very generous fairways, but, Donald Trump does it and he gets roasted.  Give me a break.

I hope it turns out to be a great golf course, for everyone.

[Adam Clayman]

Tony, Here's the quote I recall and the thread.

I've walked the routing. Each hole is more exhausting to traverse than the last. He's got 18 awe inspiring holes w/o relief, w/o rhythm, w/o let up.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46332.0.html


Patrick, Do you think Tom builds wide fairways just because?

The scale of this Aberdeen property, if we are to believe the Donald, is huge. Or, in Donald's parlance "Uge"

The size and scale of the features should mimmic that scale, shouldn't it?

The line about Bandon Dunes dunes, is priceless. He uttered the same sentiment in the previous episode. Rather nice of him to give Mr. Keiser some air.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Incidentally, if you go to the website:

http://www.trumpgolfscotland.com/Default.aspx?p=DynamicModule&pageid=308648&ssid=196900&vnf=1

you can see some photos of the 10th hole (no's 27 & 30) where the green site is visible and the natural water in the background.

There is a lot of water on the site (see photos 16 & 28 for examples). It will be how they capture that and what they do with it that will be interesting. If they want to spend a lot of money, they could get rid of it all. If they don't, they will be leaving some.

Adam, you refer back to Brad Klein's words without noting my response which you asked me to make. In this case however, he may be right that there will be 18 awe-inspiring holes with no let-up (although I believe there will be at least one short par-4 on the front nine). I disgaree that there will be no rhythm though. The routing seemed to flow well to me and the back nine moved through the property beautifully I thought.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, Do you think Tom builds wide fairways just because?-color=green]

I can't speak for Tom, but, something tells me that there's an element of "instinct" when it comes to features, including wide fairways.
As Bill Coore told us at my GCA.com get together at Hidden Creek, "I walk a property/hole until it feels like "golf"".
As to wide fairways, be they Doak's or Trump's there comes a point when increased width produces diminishing returns, strategically.
And, I wouldn't doubt that some of Doak's and Trump's fairways may have reached that point.  And at that point, the additional width might be for the aesthetic and/or the scale.[/color]

The scale of this Aberdeen property, if we are to believe the Donald, is huge. Or, in Donald's parlance "Uge"

The size and scale of the features should mimmic that scale, shouldn't it?

Generally, but, not necessarily, specifically.  It depends upon the site/hole specific terrain.
As an example, the fairways at Sebonack are generous for the first few holes, then, there's a pretty tight tee shot, a feeling of confinement on a hole.  This is a departure from the general scale, but, it adds an element of variety.

Why do YOU want to dictate what Trump and Hawtree should do ?
And, if it doesn't match your tenets, why are you judging him and the project negatively when you haven't seen the finished product yet ?[/b]

The line about Bandon Dunes dunes, is priceless. He uttered the same sentiment in the previous episode. Rather nice of him to give Mr. Keiser some air.

You don't get it.
He's promoting.
Do you think that the vast majority of golfers would know the distinction between Bandon, Whistlilng Straits and Pinehurst ?
Many have heard of Bandon, but, aren't intimately familiar with the courses and features.
They just know it's a destination golf resort in Oregon.
Trump is telling a "market" an "audience" that his project in Scotland will be far better, he's doing what he does best.... promoting.

What surpises me about the 1,400 acres is why he didn't route 36 holes ?
Build 18, but route/plan another 18 for some time in the future.

The show seemed to indicate that there was ample room, so why not adopt the Keiser/Tufts model and build your first course but have a second course already on the drawing board.  The Keiser/Tufts model is probably THE correct model if you want to attract the destination golfer, especially if you want to attract them for more than a day.   For a destination golfer, the more courses, the more likely they are to make the journey and extend their stay.[/b]

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

Regarding Sebonack, I won't bother arguing with you any more.  I was there, you weren't.  Quoting the book on the matter is pretty silly when you consider who published the book ... haven't you ever heard the phrase that "history is written by the winners" ?

Regarding your last statement about Trump's master plan vs. Bandon's ... there was always going to be a second course at Bandon Dunes, but we never started work on routing it until the first golf course was completely constructed.  The same is true of courses #3 and #4.  Mr. Keiser's approach to planning is not at all the way you're taught to do it in school -- that's why you have a four-course resort with four clubhouses, as inefficient as that is.  And yet, I believe that has been one of the keys to the success of the whole place.  At any given time, the ONLY consideration is how to make the course being built at that time as good as it can possibly be.  Mike has taken that approach because if the last course isn't as good as it could possibly be, he'll probably never build another; but if the last course IS as good as it could be, and there's still more demand, then that's a happy problem and you will just figure it out when you plan the next course.  It's been amazingly serendipitous that is has all worked out so well.  Mr. Trump can only dream that his project will work out as well.

[Robert Thompson]

Patrick: With all due respect, your remarks come across as remarkably naive. I assume you have no idea how one edits a television program to provide a certain perspective.

Paul O'Connor was a high-profile hiring by Trump's people. His firing generated a lot of coverage as well -- though media accounts indicated it had nothing to do with the issues shown on the program. Since his firing happened months ago, it was pretty clear to me that the program was edited to justify Trump's position. Clever editing can lead the viewer to a conclusion that might not actually be backed by facts.

Do you think Patrick that O'Connor was fired because he suggested they "fill in parts of a lake," suggested that the right pesticide mix might be troublesome, and that people, "didn't get along with him?"

Here's the newspaper account of O'Connor's firing:

http://blogs.findlaw.co.uk/solicitor/2010/11/donald-trump-greenkeeper-to-sue-for-wrongful-dismissal.html

Note that while O'Connor's lawyer says he "never acted unprofessionally or improperly," Trump's program went to some lengths to show the exact opposite. The show was a justification for Trump's actions -- though what was shown on camera was pretty weak.

At the very least someone in Trump's organization hired the wrong guy if that's the case. And since O'Connor came from a high-profile job (Carnoustie), I'd assume someone in Trump's organization checked him out before offering him the gig. Hell, if someone asked me in Toronto what super to hire, I'd have suggestions and then ask around among clubs to see if that individual's reputation was as it appeared. Maybe no one in Trump's organization did that -- I don't know.  If that's the case, wouldn't they have known about O'Connor's difficulty in "getting along with people?" BTW, newspaper accounts say Trump hired O'Connor personally.

It is clear you've had a great experience personally with Trump. That's great. However, it is also clear that the television program had an agenda -- make the superintendent look bad to justify firing him, even if he was really fired for something that was never shown or discussed on the show, which I think is more likely the case.

Regardless, I think firing someone on a television program shows Trump's desire for self-promotion overtakes any sense of decency the man might have. Off camera he might be a really good person, just like some on the Internet are really decent sorts when they are ranting and raving on posting boards. I think people should be judged on all of their actions -- not just the ones they want to be judged by. In this regard I found Trump's trashing of O'Connor to be difficult to watch and very unfortunate.

And maybe O'Connor got exactly what he deserved. Anyone who joins Trump's organization, by the looks of his telelvision appearances, knows of The Donald's penchant for apparently random acts. They know they will be part of the circus that surrounds Trump and that they are living some Truman Show-like existence. Maybe O'Connor liked the cameras and longed for the recognition that comes with working in Trump's spotlight. Maybe he should have seen the end coming when he took the job. I still don't think it matters -- there was something tawdry, nasty and unseemly about the way the whole show came together. And only Trump can take responsibility for that.

I watched the show tonight and boy are you guys off base.

The firing of the superintendent was a result of everyone else on the project saying they couldn't get along with him.
And, there's not a tee, fairway or green that's been grassed yet.
So, if they can't get along with him at the pre-grassing stage, how would the relationships work out when the course was grassed.
If you have 40 staff members who are unhappy with another staff member, it would seem reasonable to eliminate that staff member from the team.

I thought Donald was very considerate.
He took him aside, told him of the problem he was having with the other staff members, the complaints, and told him to smarten up and get along with everyone.

If an employee has a short coming, isn't that the way to deal with them ?
Take them aside, explain the problem and tell them to correct it.

Then, when asked about killing weeds without killing a strain of grass, the super kept on saying that he could kill the weeds and not kill the grass if he got the dosage right.  Trump basically said, of course, that's our goal, why wouldn't you get the dosage right.
I didn't understand why the superintendent kept on inserting that caveat.  It conveyed imcompetence.

The firing took place because the other staff members couldn't tolerate the superintendent, to the degree that it was poisoning the team effort.

I thought Donald was terrific, promoting the project as he does best.
He even had a hard time acknowledging that his son came up with a good idea, before he did.
But, he eventually conceded the point.

Berming and hiding the houses is a great idea.

What really gets me is how everyone praised Tom Doak for building very generous fairways, but, Donald Trump does it and he gets roasted.  Give me a break.

I hope it turns out to be a great golf course, for everyone.

[Adam Clayman]

Ally, I posted the thread because Tony asked where Dr. Klein's comments came from. I didn't mean to leave you out of the loop and that's why I provided the link. I appreciated your clarification on the flow of the forward teeing grounds, and your defense of the design.

It's been my great pleasure to have seen smart changes made to other routings because of consideration for the walk, green to tee. A hike up a big hill too early in the round, or constantly throughout a round, is not to my liking. I admit, I'm hyper sensitive due to physical constraints, but, even if I was healthy, unnecessary walks uphill to take advantage of vistas, has never inspired me as great gca.  I like teeing grounds to occasionally be at grade, accentuating the subtle uphill nature of a hole. I can cite many examples if you'd like.

Patrick,

I'm not judging, and i'm not dictating. I don't know where you get that. I honestly thought we were discussing these aspects, knowing fully that it's mostly speculation. That's why Ally's, and others who have been on site, comment's, are so valuable to the discussion.

As for promoting, I never did understand advertisements that mention their competition by name. And I recognize when someone needs to tear someone or something down to make themselves feel better. I certainly don't have to like it, and am entitled to my opinion, no matter how ignorant However, the size of the dunes is not germane to whether the golf course is going to be great. The notion that his dunes are bigger so therefore better is preposterous. Yes the donald can hyperbolize everything, but in the end, who is going to buy into it? The easy to impress with flawed logic?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I think the difference is that Mike Keiser had a luxury that Trump doesn't have, local support and a permitting process that might not be conducive to future courses.

Metedeconk National in New Jersey is a perfect example of what I alluded to in Scotland.

Due to the initial environmental and permitting problems, the developer, Dick Sambol, did a clever thing, he submitted a 27 hole golf course for permitting, which was eventually approved.  But, then, he only built 18 holes.  Years later, when permitting became even more difficult, he merely cleaned up the previously approved area and grassed the third nine.

Had he originally submitted plans for 18, built them, then years later gone back for permitting for another nine, I very much doubt that he would have been successful.

It would seem as though that would have been a reasonable model for Donald to follow.

Mike Keiser has produced a highly desireable golf destination, adopting the Tufts model.

If but one course existed at Bandon, I couldn't see it sustaining itself vis a vis extended stays.
But, the multi-course model is perfect.
Golfers will travel a long distance and spend 3 or 4 days playing 3 or 4 different courses.
I'm not so sure that golfers will travel a long distance to spend 3 or 4 days playing the same course.

And, if they do, I'm not so sure that they'd go back for repeat play.
Most would go back to Bandon due to the variety in the products.

Hence, I'm surprised, that with all the resistance Trump received, that he didn't submit a second course for permit approval.

[Adam Lawrence]

They did. The planning application covered two eighteen hole courses, as well as the hotel and residential development. Outline planning permission was granted for this back in 2008. Detailed planning consent would be needed before the second course could start construction; given the amount of work that acquiring detailed consent takes, it would not be sensible to undertake this work unless the developer was planning to build the course in the imminent future.