The faulty decision process at the Links Trust / R&A and unintended consequences

[Niall C]

In this particular article he talks about startling revelations such as the R&A approaching the Links Trust and engaging Hawtree after they came to the conclusion that they should look at making changes. Well frankly, none of that is startling, its seems an eminently sensible way of going about things. After all, how many of your clients approached you because they hadn't thought of doing something to their course ?!

Niall 

Niall,

Interestingly most of my clients approach me and ask me to have an independent look at their course to tell them what I think rather than tell me what they think.

If they however do come with any views at all on what they would like to do with their course, most of these views tend not to be what we are discussing in terms of change/restoring once I have completed my analysis....

Of course its much easier to just do what the client asks you to do, it saves time and you never lose a client  :-)

Frank

That's exactly as I would expect. It's only natural that a client have their own ideas which they may or may not share. Some clients will take the advice fully on board others may pick and choose what advice they take and some may ignore it altogether. I doubt however that many simply hire an architect to draw the plans as it were and act as project manager. I've only read Huggans rant the once but from what I recollect even he wasn't suggesting that was the case with Hawtree and TOC.

Niall

[Mark Pearce]

Niall,

Are you actully reading what is said here?  Because if you are then you are deliberately misrepresenting it.  No-one has said that the R&A aren't fit to be involved.  Indeed they have to be involved.  But as the source of the decisions as to what is done?  As the party that actually proposes the changes (before consulting an architect)?  I have never said that Hawtree isn't fit to do the work.  Nor, recently, has anyone else.  But shouldn't he be involved to a greater degree than just making changes he is told to make?  Shouldn't he be more than the "detail man"?  Do you think it's acceptable that the LInks Trust, holding, as they do, the links on TRust for the people of St Andrews, should agree to changes proposed by the R&A (and not an architect) without considering how the holes to be changed had actually played in recent Opens?  Are you really not appalled when Loudon, asked about the statistics for a hole that has been changed comments that perhaps that information should have been considered?

I'm sorry but this process was fundamentally flawed.  Worse, Dawson has at the very best, been economical with the truth as to the process.  Huggan may have an aganda against the R&A and the Trust but there's enough in that article and Dawson and the Trust's own statements to seriously question the process.  All of that without mentioning the fact that this was announced the (working) day before work started.  Let's be clear.  The Old Course is a public course.  It is held by the Links Trust on trust for the people.  This is not the same as if these changes were on a private course, even if the course in question was not the most important course in the history of the game.  The trustees owe a duty to the beneficiaries of the trust to ensure that decisions about the course are properly considered with the benefit to the beneficiaries in mind.  Loudon's comments in this article raise a very serious doubt as to whether that duty was properly performed.

[Rich Goodale]

Just to be clear, Mark, the Links Trust is a legal entity which representsall the people in Fife--not just the faux ecossaise(e) of St. Andrews.  Even Fat Baldy Drummer and Me are included!

[Mark Bourgeois]

Just to be clear, Mark, the Links Trust is a legal entity which representsall the people in Fife--not just the faux ecossaise(e) of St. Andrews.  Even Fat Baldy Drummer and Me are included!

That's correct. Subsequent to the 1974 Act the polity of Scotland changed and an amendment was enacted to make the people of Fife the owners.

So add Rich and MB to the list of the disenfranchised!

[Rich Goodale]

Just to be clear, Mark, the Links Trust is a legal entity which representsall the people in Fife--not just the faux ecossaise(e) of St. Andrews.  Even Fat Baldy Drummer and Me are included!

That's correct. Subsequent to the 1974 Act the polity of Scotland changed and an amendment was enacted to make the people of Fife the owners.

So add Rich and MB to the list of the disenfranchised!

Actually, Mark, it was not until 1996 (when the newly created Fife Council took over the responsibility for the Links Trust from the North East Fife District Council) that FBD and I became enfranchised (sic) vis a vis the Links Trust.  Where are Monty Python, now that we really need them....

[Mark Pearce]

Just to be clear, Mark, the Links Trust is a legal entity which representsall the people in Fife--not just the faux ecossaise(e) of St. Andrews.  Even Fat Baldy Drummer and Me are included!

I do apologise.  My copy of the 1974 Act is at home and I was busking.....

[Rich Goodale]

Just to be clear, Mark, the Links Trust is a legal entity which representsall the people in Fife--not just the faux ecossaise(e) of St. Andrews.  Even Fat Baldy Drummer and Me are included!

I do apologise.  My copy of the 1974 Act is at home and I was busking.....

I too have found that busking in the parking lot of Prestwick is a very economical way of getting a game and some Kummel.....

[Niall C]

Mark P

Just had another quick scan of Huggans diatribe. He refers to "a detailed presentation" being made by the R&A to the Links Trust prior to Hawtree being engaged and quotes Louden as saying

“From my perspective, the R&A came to us with what they saw as the ‘big picture’,” says Loudon. “Martin was the detail man.”

Louden doesn't actually say detailed presentation, that seems to be Huggans pejorative spin on it. A more reasonable interpretation might be that the R&A had some concerns and ideas where they thought changes could legitimately be made and discussed the ideas with the Links Trust, and between them decided there was merit in engaging a professional architect for advice. I would then expect, and think it reasonable, for the R&A and/or Links Trust to discuss those concerns with the architect concerned and for that architect to give professional advice. It's about developing a brief, not just telling the architect what his advice should be. All perfectly reasonable.

Of course it might not have gone anything like that but I'm damn sure I'll need better "evidence" than this effort at rabble-rousing by Huggan before I believe that such a fine body of men (nae wummin allowed) such as the R&A and Links Trust have been up to skullduggery.

As for the jibe at not considering the scoring stats at the last Open, well, first its give them a kicking for thinking only of the pro's and then lets give them a kicking for not taking them into consideration. A case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Niall

[Mark Pearce]

As for the jibe at not considering the scoring stats at the last Open, well, first its give them a kicking for thinking only of the pro's and then lets give them a kicking for not taking them into consideration. A case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Brilliant.  Almost Mucci-esque in its apparent reasonableness but inherent faultiness.  It's the Links Trust and Dawson that told us these changes were to keep TOC relevant for the pros.  It's the Links Trust that tells us that they didn't consider the pros scoring in the process.  On the premise that change was neccesary for the reasons given by the Trust, do you think that it would have made sense to consider the professionals' scoring on the holes to be changed?

[Niall C]

Mark

Well not sure about brilliant, but any post that can get perjorative, rabble-rousing and skullduggery in it deserves some sort of commendation I would think. I assume you take my point about Huggans agenda and the spin in his article ? I'm not saying that there hasn't been any malpractice but my starting point is innocent until proved guilty and these trumped up charges by the likes of Huggan appear nothing but hot air. All I've seen so far is those that don't like what's being done attacking the process or even the manner/timing of the press release as a way of trying to somehow invalidate the works thats being done or proposed. I'd much rather be discussing the architecture.

Niall

[Mark Pearce]

Niall,

For sure Huggan has an agenda but having an agenda doesn't neccesarily make him wrong.  However, I come from a position in respect of TOC that if changes are to be made then the decision making process needs to be above reproach, even if the decision can be criticised.  In this case everything we have heard (even before Huggan's article) suggests that the decision making process here was poorly thought out.  The worst thing is that by the way he has tried to mislead as to how the decision was taken Peter Dawson knows it.

[Frank Pont]

It's a shame that we have all grown so wise/cynical that here and elsewhere (in the larger public debate/discourse) Mark's modest and sensible proposal should be so easily ignored/dismissed, or drowned out in all the noise and rhetoric.
Peter

Peter,

you are very right, and sorry the discussion skidded of the road from Mark's proposals, which by the way I quite like.

[Niall C]

Mark

Again innocent until proven guilty. What do you know about the process that leads you to believe that it was flawed, Aside from the fact that you weren't personally asked your opinion ?

Frank/Peter

Thanks for dragging the discussion back to architecture. To be honest I agree with Adam, why would anyone play at a quite definite angle away from a relatively short hole with a fair amount of fairway to land on and instead attempt a carry over rough to a not very deep landing area with a wall/OB behind...........and for what benefit  ?

Niall

[Sean_A]

Niall

Given the importance of TOC in the history of golf, I would think the problem with the process for alterations is that nobody seems to know what it is. Is it really as basic as Dawson making a pitch to the Links Trust followed up with a quick consultative process with neighbouring clubs?  If this is the case, why not make it public knowledge in the form of a written document accessible by the public?  Furthermore, and this is coming from someone who doesn't mind the changes at least on 17, given the importance of TOC's place in golf, do you think it wise for a lot more consultation to take place?  I know I would feel a lot better knowing TOC can't be altered on the whim of a few chaps holding temporary power over TOC.  As myself and many others have said previously, a slower, more thoughtful and inclusive approach to the process of altering TOC is very much warranted.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

The debate about the recent modifications at TOC have caused me to ponder the future of The Open at TOC.

The first 12 Opens were held at Prestwick. The next 19 alternated between Prestwick, St Andrews and Musselburgh. After that Muirfield, Royal St Georges and then Royal Liverpool at Hoylake and Royal Cinque Ports at Deal all joined in prior to WWI.

Prestwick's last Open was in 1925 while Musselburgh dropped-off the rota after 1889.

Given modern clubs and balls and player physique, plus congestion/speed of play issues over the first two days, does TOC warrant holding any more Opens? I feel a dagger being pushed into my back at the mere mention of this. Is that cry's of "Heresy, heresy!" that I can already hear being shouted from the rooftops of Yee Olde Grey Toooon? "Heresy, heresy, heresy!".

Okay, The Open at St Andrews has particularly unique atmosphere and is a huge, huge R&A etc cash cow. But does The Open at St Andrews actually have to be held on TOC?

Musselburgh and Prestwick and later on others dropped off the rota as they were no longer seen to be quite up the task asked of them, some returned decades later, but some have still never returned and may never. Has time finally caught up with TOC as far as The Open is concerned?

So, a 'thinking out of the box' suggestion, why not have a composite course at St Andrews for The Open?  Say start at the TOC's 1st, finish on the TOC's 18th, and include at the very least the 11th, 16th plus the 17th from TOC and use already existing holes from a combination of the Eden, the Jubilee and the New courses to form a composite 18.

The Open would still be at St Andrews so particularly unique atmosphere would still be maintained and the R&A's etc cash cow would also be preserved. The Champion Golfer of the Year would still be able to putt out on TOC's 18th and receive the Claret Jug in front of the venerable clubhouse and have his photo taken sitting on the Swilken Bridge but we should have had a more challenging test of golf for the elite to find The Chapion. Using the total area of the four courses should mean more space for more spectators (so maybe even more £$£ through the turnstyles) and the congestion/speed of play issues over the first two days should be alleviated. A win-win? Or a loss-loss?

I feel that dagger digging deeper.

All the best.

[Bill Brightly]

Niall

Given the importance of TOC in the history of golf, I would think the problem with the process for alterations is that nobody seems to know what it is. Is it really as basic as Dawson making a pitch to the Links Trust followed up with a quick consultative process with neighbouring clubs?  If this is the case, why not make it public knowledge in the form of a written document accessible by the public?  Furthermore, and this is coming from someone who doesn't mind the changes at least on 17, given the importance of TOC's place in golf, do you think it wise for a lot more consultation to take place?  I know I would feel a lot better knowing TOC can't be altered on the whim of a few chaps holding temporary power over TOC.  As myself and many others have said previously, a slower, more thoughtful and inclusive approach to the process of altering TOC is very much warranted.

Ciao

Sean, the process employed at TOC to make course renovations varies little from dramatic changes made by powerful people to a countless number of classic courses over the years. Mr. Dawson's initial comments told the story. Only the significance of the venue makes this unique.

[Mark Pearce]

Bill,

Which publicly owned courses do you have in mind?

[Mark Pearce]

Niall,

What I know about the process is this:

a) there was no public consultation;
b) there was, allegedly, a consultation with local clubs but the R&A/Links Trust won't tell us what it was and of the members of those clubs who I know, or who have been asked, no-one was aware of this taking place.  The lack of a clear explanation (and the inconsistency with which R&A/Links Trust describe it) suggests it was informal and lacking in any rigour.
c) we have been told that the exercise was driven by the need to make the course relevant for the Open but Euan Loudon admits there was no consideration of actual Open scoring.

Each of these is, in my view, a valid reason to criticise the process.  We can be reasonably confident from the various public pronunciations that there are other faults in the process.  All of which criticism would have been avoided had the decision making process, as Mark suggested in the OP, been open to a proper period of public consultation

[Niall C]

Mark,

In response to your points using the same lettering;

a) so what. There is no obligation either legally or morally for them to do so. Indeed given they have a duty under the act of parliament to manage the links in the proper manner it could be argued that to pander to a public consultation would be a dereliction of duty. Let me add also that if you think a public consultation would bring any reasoned response from the public you're deluding yourself. What it would bring forward is pressure groups who's voice is invariably louder than the ordinary public.

b) see above with regards being obliged to letting your pals into the discussions. Without wishing to have to read Huggans piece again, I believe from memory Louden referred to meeting with the clubs.

c) when I read that bit in Huggans article I thought of the few ocassions in my life when I've ended up sitting beside the nutter on the bus or got cornered at a party by some angry or opiniated person and you end up agreeing with whatever nonsense they spout for an easy life. I picture Louden being in that position with Huggan stood in front of him foaming at the mouth.

Ignoring whether Louden agreed with Huggan just to appease him, let me ask what relevance the stroke average for the hole actually has in the decision process. The hole is hard and always has been. The bunker is the focus of the whole strategy for the hole. The decision to reshape the contours to make the bunker gather more reinforces the integrity and established strategy. Explain to me why, when you're looking at it at that fundamental level why you would need to know the stroke average at the last Open ?

I think if the critics were more honest they would admit that due process has been done, its just that due process didn't give them what they wanted.

Niall   

[Jud_T]

Niall,

That's exactly the point.  Real due process would have likely given us exactly what we want.

[Rich Goodale]

Niall,

That's exactly the point.  Real due process would have likely given us exactly what we want.

Yes, Jud.

And pigs will fly....(insert smiley pippa the piggy face here)

[Mark Pearce]

Niall,

If there had been real due process they would be happy to be open about it.   Your response to point a) is arrant nonsense, as is your response to point b) with the added bonus of failing to read properly, whatever these "meetings" were they weren't with any representative group of these clubs, or the Trust would be saying.  As to c) if you have that little confidence in Louden then you clearly don't think he's up to the job.  I'd prefer to think that he gave honest answers to honest questions.

[Niall C]

Niall,

That's exactly the point.  Real due process would have likely given us exactly what we want.

Jud

Please define

1 - due process and how this would work in this instance

2 - who the "we" is you refer to

3 - and what you think the "we" actually wants

Thanks

Niall

[Niall C]

Niall,

If there had been real due process they would be happy to be open about it.   Your response to point a) is arrant nonsense, as is your response to point b) with the added bonus of failing to read properly, whatever these "meetings" were they weren't with any representative group of these clubs, or the Trust would be saying.  As to c) if you have that little confidence in Louden then you clearly don't think he's up to the job.  I'd prefer to think that he gave honest answers to honest questions.

Mark

I suspect we differ on what represents due process. As I recall the management structure/procedures in the annual report of the Links Trust that someone provided a link to in an earlier thread, there is no legal requirement stated or inferred that the Links Trust should hold a public consultation. Indeed I think any reasonable interpretation of the Links Trusts obligations under the act or their constitution would probably preclude a public consultation since they are there to manage, not hold popularity contests. The document makes quite interesting reading and gives a good insight as to how the courses are managed. If you have any information on what was done contrary to the stated procedures, I'd be pleased to hear it.

With regards to my comment on Louden, you miss state my position.

Niall 

[Tags:]

Tags: