Are Designers on GCA.com subject to a Code of Silence?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I am confused who would in their right mind think the architects have a code of silence. I am not attacking you Mr Morrow, but I am baffled why you would make such a blanket statement. The architects on here discuss projects and courses to their own level of comfort. Obviously Tom Doak, Mike Young and Jeff Brauer among others are extremely candid and open. I am also confused why this course deserves any discussion much less significant architectural discussion. It may be a significant course but I have never heard of it.

[Scott Warren]

But the million-dollar question is, Melvyn, how many times have you yourself been there since the course was re-established?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Melvyn, the more I read your posts, the more confused I am as to your approach to discussions with others. Relax a little, most of us enjoy this site and what we learn and share with others. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mr Bernhardt

I am sorry you missed the few posts on the subject over the last 3 years, perhaps it may be worth a visit to understand my position. In the mean time please read the following links - that is if you are interested      http://jgarrity2.wordpress.com/about/   http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0,28136,2049447,00.html  and also the clubs web site http://askernishgolfclub.com/

Melvyn

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mr Bernhardt

It takes all sorts to make a world go round

Melvyn

[RJ_Daley]

Mel, one wag said; it doesn't take all types, there just are all types... 

Certainly, Scott Warren's question is a fair one.  How many times have you played that course?  How intimately do you know the land and the old course that was neglected, and what can you tell us that was 'learned' from the restoration?  Could a knowledgeable architect discern or see something others have missed?  Do you think any architect would with hold any revelation they might encounter in experiencing Askernish?  I tend to think, not. 

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I can be good at it with little effort.    I seriously don't think that there is all that much to learn about a minimalist project on 'land fit for purpose' as you like to say, where a course was already laid out on a routing by an iconic historical legend, applying principles that Old Tom learned from his own other original links exposure.  Did the process teach anyone in the renewal project anything about construction techniques or how turf grows?  Did it give them any further insight into the game's strategy that they hadn't been exposed to in their other experiences on those 'old sod links'?  Did they learn the ball bounds and bounces on un-irrigated linksy soil with some manner of fescue or velvet bent turf?  We already know most turf can go dormant, whether it is warm season or cool season turf, for the opposite of warm season experiencing too cold and going dormant, or cool being too hot, droughty and surviving, and that can promote some firm and fast ground game action. 

Maybe those GCAs lucky enough to have seen and played Askernish feel it is what they expected, nothing new in construction technique, nothing new in strategy given the land and climate-soil-turf that it is played upon.  And, nothing new in the growth characteristics of the species that comprises the turf sward on that ground in that climate. 

Yet, that doesn't mean many (I imagine I among them) wouldn't love the whole aspect of Askernish links, and sing its praise for the minimalist and common affordability of what the entire modest concept offers those that can travel to experience it. 

My favorite course has a certain proportional similar comparable set of common community development and accessibility, modestly budgeted for construction on land made available at a very cheap price, yet thrillingly well presented golf playing qualities laid out by wise golf savvy construction-designers.  That of course being Wild Horse.  But I think like Askernish, the unique aspects of modest budget, volunteer contributions, and site fit for purpose land are all fortunate and rare aspects that uniquely line up to allow for such uncommonly good yet modestly affordable golf. 

[Mac Plumart]

RJ, I think you bring up some good points and ask some good questions.  I've tried multiple times to get some constructive conversation going on some of the things that I think can/could be learned from Askernish (or Askernish-like courses), but I get next to nothing in return.  I'll post some of my questions/post on here again in hopes of something of value coming out of it...but perhaps it is a dead-end street.


#1--

Here is one thing that has always caught my attention...

One of the biggest costs of golf course construction is irrigation.  Right?

But Askernish cost next to nothing to build.  Right?

I assume it has no fairway irrigation...or very little.

How can that be possible?  Is the land and climate simply that close to ideal for golf?


#2


Melvyn,

If Askernish is the future of golf, could you let us know where to find the available land in the ideal climate in such abundance that it is the game's future to build rustic courses there?

What about the land in Nebraska/Colorado?  Could this type of course be built there?  Long Island?  Northern Michigan?  Oregon?

Also, David M., I played Maidstone late last year...I don't think they had fairway irrigation then...and the course played brilliantly well.

Perhaps some of the principles employed at Askernish could be spread through out a broader cross section of the golfing world.

How is Askernish different from the following courses in terms of turf, climate, maintenance requirements and the like:

The Old Course,
NGLA,
Maidstone,
Sand Hills,
Ballyneal,
Pacific  Dunes,
Kingsley


#3


Melvyn,

If Askernish is the future of golf, could you let us know where to find the available land in the ideal climate in such abundance that it is the game's future to build rustic courses there?

What about the land in Nebraska/Colorado?  Could this type of course be built there?  Long Island?  Northern Michigan?  Oregon?

This type of course could be built in Oregon. How much did sheep ranch cost? Is it irrigated? Gearhart Golf Links was unirrigated until 1999 I believe. I think the implications of this is will the customers accept an unirrigated golf course?

Also, David M., I played Maidstone late last year...I don't think they had fairway irrigation then...and the course played brilliantly well.

Perhaps some of the principles employed at Askernish could be spread through out a broader cross section of the golfing world.

How is Askernish different from the following courses in terms of turf, climate, maintenance requirements and the like:

Is it the quantity of play that necessitates irrigation? Or, it is customer requirements?

The Old Course,
NGLA,
Maidstone,
Sand Hills,
Ballyneal,
Pacific  Dunes,
Kingsley


#4


Thanks Garland.  I'd LOVE to talk more in detail about these things.  I keep wondering if less irrigation/no irrigation is possible and why or why not?  Additionally, many other aspects of construction and basic accepted architectural principles are areas I'd love to discuss/get educated on.



#5


When did the maintenance practices start to make everything look artifically lush and green?

As I mentioned, I've got a 1976 copy of the World Atlas of Golf and every course pictures has brown in the grass, bear spots in the fairways, ratty edges of greens.  I don't care if the course in question is Merion, Pinehurst, or Augusta National.  And let me tell you Augusta National 13, looks very different.  The pristine shockingly white sand bunkers are there, but not pristine with shockingly white sand.  The flowering bushes behind the green are not there.  The hole still looks amazing and there is an entire par dedicate on how to play it and 11 and 12, but it looks much more "normal" and natural.

I've heard it said that the average golfer didn't know he could have PGA like conditions on his golf course until Jack Nicklaus told him he could, but it looks like the PGA courses didn't have conditions like we have now either.

How much money is this kind of maintenance sucking out of the clubs/courses?  And how much true benefit is it providing the actually playing of the game?



Cross your fingers, but don't hold your breath.

[Melvyn Morrow]

I now dismiss out of hand anything from Scott Warren, my reason, well what sort of individual does a search on me and my family even my mother, Uncle Etc.

Yes my connection to Old Tom, Hunters and other golfer are fine but my whole family for a blog site. We have just had weeks of Murdock and found what his papers have been doing then to find some sicko on GCA.com, researching my family is just plain out of order. The papers with all this crap have been hacking into people’s lives and phones just sickens me and I will not give these sicko the time of day.

The real question re Askernish which many have missed is what is not going on in the build, Mac seems the only one who seems to notice, but then he has a passion for the game so takes a real interest. As for other currently unused but similar sites, I know of six links that can be used in Scotland, are they remote like Askernish, no. I noticed them while I was doing my research. There must be an addition of close to 12 inland sites that offer some serious golf, again not remote. There are sites, yet with Askernish as I said a few times we have the opportunity to study the type of course that started golf on it worldwide march, to monitor the effect of wear, drainage, in other words the real guts of an original golf course.

Lack of interest, a Conspiracy or ignorance, you call it, but if we fail to understand what we can achieve when we face other different conditions in the future, then make certain where the blame lies.

One worry, which I voiced just a few weeks ago, I was concerned what Tom D might do at Askernish. While I have the uttermost respect for his work I was and I suppose am concerned that he may try and mould parts into what golfer believe they want today, instead of letting them get use to shapes and contours. Imagine it could have been a Redan like feature, but need changing to comply with the modern ease of play as apparently to daunting for the average golfer, now that would have been a crime – so lets hope your changes are nothing like that Tom, but I hope some take my point.

Missed opportunities are what it’s all about, but not my loss it may be yours though.

I will in future again minimise the details and information, as clearly wasted upon a group who believe lists and rating courses are somehow part of Golf Course Architecture.

To those interested, if you decide to go to South Uist, I do hope you will enjoy the experience, but do seek assistance from Ralph or one of his Team re information on the course.

Melvyn
 

[Scott Warren]

You haven't visited Askernish since the course was re-established, have you Melvyn?

[Garland Bayley]

Melvyn,

Do you know Tom Doak's history? How he went to Scotland for a year to study golf courses while in grad school? I would suggest that he is most likely the person to have most internalized the lessons of Askernish even before having been there. Those lessons must exist to a certain extent at TOC at St. Andrews, at North Berwick, etc. He has even written here about considering doing what many believe to be his greatest course, Pacific Dunes, without irrigation, but didn't believe it could be sustained in the Oregon summer climate.

Part of the beauty of Pacific Dunes is that he pretty much used the land as he found it, land fit for a purpose. In doing so he ended up with things you don't see in most recent golf courses, back to back par 3s. Only two non par 4s on the front nine. Only two par 4s on the back nine.

Perhaps the "Code of Silence" is simply that all others have been trumped by Tom.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Garland

I was not being disrespectful to Tom D, in fact I agree out of all the new designers I have come across we seem share many of the same goals. Having said that, my point on Askernish related to the minor changes Tom suggested which was based upon what the market expects rather than let the market understand the nature of the course. Changes made to appeal to the public at large is what I believe was the reason behind these mods. However have we allowed enough time for the new golfers to Askernish to face these differences before making the changes, have we been too quick in anticipating the tastes of golfer venturing to South Uist.

I do not know, yet when these modifications are complete we will never know but I suppose we must bow to the knowledge and experience of a quality modern designer. And why not, he just happens to have that badge of honour in his first name ‘Tom’. My understanding of golf history the name ‘Tom’ seem to convey respectability and the badge of knowing what one is doing when playing and designing golf courses, so while I have the odd concern, I feel it has been done in all good faith.

Nevertheless, the very point of undertaking the changes takes away a little of what makes Askernish so attractive to golfers. Would another designer suggest cart/cart tracks to improve numbers? Would Askernish even consider the idea of compromising their course for more revenue?  – whatever. But I do not have any fears in that direction. After all it’s the golf that’s the attraction, playing effectively a 19th Century traditional links course right out of the pages of history.

Melvyn
 

[Tom_Doak]

Mac:

Some of your questions about irrigation are germane, but some of your knowledge of the climate in various regions of America (or the world) is certainly lacking.

To actually build a course in the modern era without ANY fairway irrigation would be a very bold step.  There are places where it's possible -- the west coasts of Scotland and Ireland would be among them -- once the course was established.  But assuming it wasn't already populated with links turf, establishment of the grasses and grow-in would be a complete crapshoot.  It could take two years, or it could take four, as it did in olden days.  But in the interim, the business plan would be in suspended animation, and you would be well advised to keep people away rather than trying to attract publicity, in fear the course would get a negative reputation before it had a chance to become established.

In that respect, a contrast between Machrihanish Dunes and Askernish would be a useful discussion.  I have not seen Machrihanish Dunes, and don't know if they were allowed to install fairway irrigation or not.  But by making its grand opening early when the course was still struggling with maintenance issues, they set a negative feedback loop which is still ongoing.  Askernish was perhaps spared from this because (a) it was so remote that only true believers made the trip in the beginning, and (b) as a strictly localized and low-budget restoration project, not promoting a modern designer, there were lower expectations, whereas Machrihanish Dunes came out swinging and telling the world how great it was, leading to questioning of the business plan.


What you are absolutely RIGHT to question is THE INTENSITY of irrigation designs on courses new and old.  I would guess that irrigation budgets of new golf courses have grown 50% faster in my 30 years in the business, than overall construction budgets have grown.  This was mostly a decision made by outsiders -- developers who were more interested in "instant maturity" for their housing sales than for golf, who were unwilling to wait a while for the roughs to grow in since those areas were their sales targets' back yards.

Somehow, though, that logic infected the golf business as a whole.  Golf people swallowed the irrigation industry's argument that "more = better" and rationalized that more efficient irrigation saves water -- probably because a lot of people in the golf business thought that as costs escalated, their earnings would rise with the tide. 

I have a friendly challenge with a friend at Toro to find me an example of a course which upgraded its irrigation system and actually uses less total water than before.  I am pretty sure that savings are exaggerated, and that any savings are applied to watering an even larger area of the course.

[Tom_Doak]

 my point on Askernish related to the minor changes Tom suggested which was based upon what the market expects rather than let the market understand the nature of the course. Changes made to appeal to the public at large is what I believe was the reason behind these mods. However have we allowed enough time for the new golfers to Askernish to face these differences before making the changes, have we been too quick in anticipating the tastes of golfer venturing to South Uist.

Melvyn:

You may be right about this.  We are all quick to judge, and this basic judgment was made by Mike Keiser (who funded the minor changes to the course).  Mr. Keiser would have suggested more changes than what were made ... I concentrated on certain holes which I thought were most important to the acceptance of the course. 

Mike is not as much of a golf purist as I am [or certainly as you are]; however, he probably has more business sense than both of us combined.  The problem with "not letting the market understand the nature of the course" is that the market isn't going there in great enough numbers to sustain it.  Even I have only been there once, and I don't know that you've been any more than that!  The story of its revival is a great one but it appeals to a limited audience, and indeed that story was undermining the story of what a great course it is.  This I recognized because it took me ten years to figure out that the story of my own firm was not that we could build a course for less money, but that we could build great courses.

Next time I am back to Scotland, we shall play golf.  I'll even make time to get to Bridge of Allan, if you will make time for a tour of The Renaissance Club.

P.S.  I saw a magazine ranking when I was in the UK this past week which had Askernish as the #72 course in Scotland ... fifty places lower than my own course.  I can comfortably insist they have that part wrong, though hopefully our changes to The Renaissance will allow it to gain in people's minds.  We spent five years getting permits to build two tees in the dunes ... I think I agree with Ralph Thompson that sometimes it is a great advantage to be able to play dumb with the watchdogs!

[JC Jones]

Mac:

Some of your questions about irrigation are germane, but some of your knowledge of the climate in various regions of America (or the world) is certainly lacking.

To actually build a course in the modern era without ANY fairway irrigation would be a very bold step.  There are places where it's possible -- the west coasts of Scotland and Ireland would be among them -- once the course was established.  But assuming it wasn't already populated with links turf, establishment of the grasses and grow-in would be a complete crapshoot.  It could take two years, or it could take four, as it did in olden days.  But in the interim, the business plan would be in suspended animation, and you would be well advised to keep people away rather than trying to attract publicity, in fear the course would get a negative reputation before it had a chance to become established.

In that respect, a contrast between Machrihanish Dunes and Askernish would be a useful discussion.  I have not seen Machrihanish Dunes, and don't know if they were allowed to install fairway irrigation or not.  But by making its grand opening early when the course was still struggling with maintenance issues, they set a negative feedback loop which is still ongoing.  Askernish was perhaps spared from this because (a) it was so remote that only true believers made the trip in the beginning, and (b) as a strictly localized and low-budget restoration project, not promoting a modern designer, there were lower expectations, whereas Machrihanish Dunes came out swinging and telling the world how great it was, leading to questioning of the business plan.


What you are absolutely RIGHT to question is THE INTENSITY of irrigation designs on courses new and old.  I would guess that irrigation budgets of new golf courses have grown 50% faster in my 30 years in the business, than overall construction budgets have grown.  This was mostly a decision made by outsiders -- developers who were more interested in "instant maturity" for their housing sales than for golf, who were unwilling to wait a while for the roughs to grow in since those areas were their sales targets' back yards.

Somehow, though, that logic infected the golf business as a whole.  Golf people swallowed the irrigation industry's argument that "more = better" and rationalized that more efficient irrigation saves water -- probably because a lot of people in the golf business thought that as costs escalated, their earnings would rise with the tide. 

I have a friendly challenge with a friend at Toro to find me an example of a course which upgraded its irrigation system and actually uses less total water than before.  I am pretty sure that savings are exaggerated, and that any savings are applied to watering an even larger area of the course.

Very interesting, Tom; though narrow in approach.  Would it be more accurate to say that people swallowed the industrial economist's argument that "more=better" and rationalized that more efficient X is always the answer?  Isn't it just a societal issue manifesting itself in irrigation and several other aspects of the golf business?

Of course that is a ridiculous question for you to answer but you did tee it up for me quite nicely 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I think you are right in that irrigation systems are more efficient, but most clubs end up watering more, or more often and useage doesn't go down.

The other trend is the upsizing of mainlines to provide 2X the normal water required, simply to assure that the course can be grown in in 12 weeks.  In theory, that pipe capacity should never be used again, or only in summers like this one, assuming they have an unlimited supply of water, but sometimes systems are continued to be run at full bore.

I asked an irrigation designer why he piped a system in the NE to deliver over 50 million gallons a year when they were limited by regulation to 16 million gallons?  It was designed to water everywhere on the worst night ever.  The concept of slight browing seems to have gone the way of the dodo bird.  They seem to believe that the max amount of water MUST be delivered in six hours a night, so the extended water window has gone away, too.  

Used to be you would water in 8 hours, and extend to 12 on hot nights.  Not perfect, but some compromise is necessary, IMHO.  The annual debt service on the last $200,000 of irrigation would cover the number of rounds lost by closing the course early a few days a year.

[Don_Mahaffey]

The idea that an irrigation system with wall to wall tight spacing, oversized mainlines to maximize water availability and minimize water windows, and all the control bells and whistles is more “efficient” is a statement I have a hard time understanding or agreeing with. Yes, you can move a lot of water in a short time period, so maybe that is efficient, but maybe not when you consider that requires larger pumps, larger pipe, more heads, ….more of everything.

I think the mistake we sometimes make when these sorts of discussions come up here is to single out one facet of golf construction or maintenance, in this case irrigation. It’s an easy target as like TD mentions the cost of a new system has raised more then other construction costs. But, I wonder if sometimes that’s not the result of how and where we build our courses. When we decide to build a course in an arid area on rock and cap it with sand, we’re going to need more irrigation. When we create an artificial growing medium that is designed to be free draining, we’re going to need more irrigation. If there is one lesson I’ve learned, the hard way, that I wish I could somehow ingrain into every young turf student, don’t screw with the native soil unless you absolutely have to and even then be gentle. The drawback to modern turf science is we think we can repair any soil with the right additives. And we can, for the most part, in time, but the way we make up for that time is with more additives and water is the main one. The other part of that is modern turf science also teaches us to go down a road of fertility, chemical, and irrigation dependence when managing those disturbed soils, but that’s another story. Bottom line, the amount of water needed to establish and maintain a high quality golf turf is going to be higher when you’re growing turf in a non native soil. That’s a generalization for sure, but I believe correct in most cases. Its one reason I hold the great routers in such high regard. They move less earth which means we can care for their courses with fewer inputs in most cases.

I do believe we can do a better job in the industry by designing more site specific systems. We do see too much standardization with systems in the mid-west designed as if the course was in the desert, but that should be very easy to address.

Melvin, you’re wrong about golf industry professionals not having interest in learning about a course like Askernish. Most of us really do love golf and are always trying to learn more about how we can do better work. For me, I have great interest in the holistic approach to greenkeeping and how to incorporate some of the lessons of low input courses like Askernish into modern America greenkeeping. Just because we may not work exactly the same as they do there, or exactly as you think we should, doesn’t mean we’re not interested.
 

[Mac Plumart]

Awesome stuff guys!! 

I know I just learned a bunch (and re-inforced past learning) in a quick spurt of time.

Sincerely...thanks!!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

Thanks, yes love to talk and have a tour.

Don

Of courses I am wrong about the lack of interest and conspiracy, but take away a few posts, and then this thread is now getting interesting. Honest comments some of note. Great stuff.

Also thanks to Mac and my nutty big brother Garland

Melvyn

[Mac Plumart]

Don, Tom...anyone...educate me on this one here...

What would happen on this turf if you just mowed it tight to the ground and turned it into a fairway?  Would it be playable? 

[Tom_Doak]

Mac:

The natural pasture grasses that are on site at Dismal River are a bit coarse for turning into good fairways.

We are trying to decide whether to mow them down on some holes and just slit-seed into them, or whether we have to kill the existing grasses and reduce them to dirt so we can smooth out a lot of the little pockets in the ground from years of cattle grazing etc.  I'm not talking about smoothing the big contours here, just eliminating pockmarks the size of a silver dollar (or a computer mouse) that would make it hard to achieve tight turf without years of topdressing and overseeding. 

That's the same dilemma that Askernish faces, and they are about the only course in the last 50 years to take the long and slow approach to fixing the problem, mostly because they didn't have the money to do it the other way.  The down side is that it takes years before you can present your best face to potential customers, and the market makes judgments much too quickly for that.

[Adam Lawrence]

I think, though I wouldn't 100 per cent swear to it, that the same applied at Machrihanish Dunes, although in their case the issue was not cash but regulation. If I remember correctly, only tees, greens and surrounds were fully seeded, the rest was mow-out and overseed.

[Jeff_Brauer]

That sounds like a bit of regulation run amok to me.  Why permit a site, but impose restrictions that may make it unuseable for its intended purpose (presuming the native grasses cannot be made into fw?)

At Dismal River, its also a tough call, and even though Erin Hills supposedly slit seeded, the question becomes do you prepare the seedbed all at once, or do it over ten years time with heavy topdressing?  I can see the merit in just stripping the grass, preparing the seedbed with gentle floating, and seeding in a mix.  It just seems to fall under the category of "doing it right the first time."  Of course, if seeding was commencing right now, it would be a tough time to grow grass in!  Always some risk in taking a site down to bare soil, but less in the sand hills than elsewhere.

[Adam Lawrence]

I have to say that I completely disagree, in respect of Machrihanish Dunes, Jeff. There is no way that property - which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and heavily protected, like virtually every remaining dune system in the UK (and Europe for that matter) - was going to be permitted for golf course construction in the normal fashion. It's true that Trump got his permission on another protected dune system, but he did so because of his own high profile and by blinding the politicians with the supposed amount of investment he was putting in the area.

There are lots of beautiful duneland properties around the British Isles and northern Europe, and it's hard not to see the potential for golf in them. If there's ever to be more golf built on these sites, it will have to be done alongside the environmental lobby, not in conflict with it. And that means embracing a lower impact model of construction.

A hundred years ago, how would our forefathers have built a golf course on a property like that? They would have refined it, bit by bit, over many seasons, improving the turf, changing the layout as they went. Maybe, for these special properties, if we were more prepared to think the same way, we would get somewhere?

I would like to see more links golf built, and I think that's the only way it will happen.

[Tom_Doak]

I have to say that I completely disagree, in respect of Machrihanish Dunes, Jeff. There is no way that property - which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and heavily protected, like virtually every remaining dune system in the UK (and Europe for that matter) - was going to be permitted for golf course construction in the normal fashion. It's true that Trump got his permission on another protected dune system, but he did so because of his own high profile and by blinding the politicians with the supposed amount of investment he was putting in the area.

There are lots of beautiful duneland properties around the British Isles and northern Europe, and it's hard not to see the potential for golf in them. If there's ever to be more golf built on these sites, it will have to be done alongside the environmental lobby, not in conflict with it. And that means embracing a lower impact model of construction.

A hundred years ago, how would our forefathers have built a golf course on a property like that? They would have refined it, bit by bit, over many seasons, improving the turf, changing the layout as they went. Maybe, for these special properties, if we were more prepared to think the same way, we would get somewhere?

I would like to see more links golf built, and I think that's the only way it will happen.

Adam:

That's an interesting take.  However, I do question whether the strict definition of "low-impact" applied to Machrihanish Dunes [no soil disturbance except for 7 acres of greens] is really necessary?  If we take the other approach at Dismal River, and all we do is to expose the soil and do finish work and re-seed it, is that really so different environmentally -- especially if your definition of what's good for the environment is the same 100-year horizon you just suggested?

The one thing I can say is that while many golf course architects would love to work on a project like Machrihanish Dunes or Askernish -- assuming there's enough money in it to pay them -- not many golf course DEVELOPERS would dare take on such a project.  Perhaps the key facet of Askernish is that nobody was trying to make any money off it, and it was developed by and for the locals.  That's so rare in this day and age, I can't even think of another example.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Our forefathers would have had, subject to the profile of the club/course and flexible budget, relayed thousands of yards of new turf. Of course the average new clubs did not have the funds but the councils and a few other clubs certainly did have access to money. I am of courses referring to work pre 1899.

Melvyn