Ryan, of course the club is the ultimate decision-maker (or maybe more accurately, consent-giver), but folks (particularly those who have been on the ground over both courses at RPGC) are entitled to their view on the sense (or otherwise) of what may be in the R&A's suggestion pipeline.
To the extent the R&A would wish to use 17 & 18 Dunluce for tented village purposes, I can understand that given logistics / proximity to road / main entrance - it also gives the option to use the adjoining 1&2 on the Valley as well for tents, hostility etc should that be needed. I have more difficulty in understanding why the Valley course could not provide the required two additional holes without much adjustment, either on as 'as is' basis (5/6 and 9/10 have both been mentioned), or, if more length is required, by a creative solution within the existing course infrastructure such as Jamie Pyper's interesting proposed additional holes above. Like Sean and others, I have difficulty seeing how two new holes over to the right of Dunluce 6, coming back to Dunluce 7 tee, would work - particularly in the context of the press suggestion that Valley 5 &6 would not be affected. I think many - RPGC members, GCA.com'ers and otherwise - would be very sad if either course was permanently altered for these (or any) purposes.
Jamie, your suggestion of those two 'new' holes is growing on me - and would get punters down into a part of the property giving significant room for spectator movement, bars, food etc. Any insight from the AGM? Per press reports the elephant in the room was largely ignored by the sound of things.
Mark C, money obviously is a factor but isnt the be-all and end-all. I think most Irish (and especially northern) golf fans (and a lot of the public as a whole) would be delighted to see the event back at RPGC for its own sake.