Trump buys Doonbeg

[Patrick_Mucci]

Trump has been great for golf, that's undeniable.

The question is do you want to court or divorce him

I would narrow that statement to say that he has been great for high end golf. I don't see him supporting any grass roots efforts other than the Tiger Woods Foundation which he did through his foundation:

Mike,

So you don't think his project at the foot of the Whitestone for New York City is a low end project ?  ?  ?

Trump isn't obligated to support "grass root" movements.

What have you, Ran, me or any of us done for "grass root" movements in golf.
I've long felt that encouraging and supporting caddy programs was a "grass root" movement.

Your remark is akin to criticizing a  guy who supports and contributes significantly to cancer research because he doesn't contribute to Alzheimer's research.

The notion that he or anyone must assume the mantle of the savior of golf or "grass root" golf is absurd.

The guy has been great for golf

 

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/trump-least-charitable-billionaire-109247

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ryan,

Trump has been great for golf, that's undeniable.

Apparently it is


No John, it's not.

Like the husband seeking the divorce, you're  just looking for anything to criticize about the guy, irrespective of whether it's unrelated to golf.

Trumps a pauper next to the likes of Gates, Bloomberg and the others mentioned.
And, Trump will never run for President or any office where you have to certify your net worth.

[Jon Wiggett]

Ryan,

Trump has been great for golf, that's undeniable.

Apparently it is


No John, it's not.

Like the husband seeking the divorce, you're  just looking for anything to criticize about the guy, irrespective of whether it's unrelated to golf.

Trumps a pauper next to the likes of Gates, Bloomberg and the others mentioned.
And, Trump will never run for President or any office where you have to certify your net worth.

Putrick,

I am amazed you could misread what I wrote as I was clearly agreeing with you. Apparently it is undeniable.

I happen to think that he is interested in Golf as a game and not just for money making. That he can combine both is great for him even if he sometimes make goofs when he says something.

Jon

[Adam Lawrence]

Hmmm, Trump has certainly done great damage to the reputation of the golf industry in the UK. Built a very good golf course, but reinforced the image of the game as environmentally damaging, only for the wealthy and overbearing. We can argue about the net impact, but to say he has no downside is certainly not true on this side of the pond.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ryan,

Trump has been great for golf, that's undeniable.

Apparently it is


No John, it's not.

Like the husband seeking the divorce, you're  just looking for anything to criticize about the guy, irrespective of whether it's unrelated to golf.

Trumps a pauper next to the likes of Gates, Bloomberg and the others mentioned.
And, Trump will never run for President or any office where you have to certify your net worth.

Putrick,

I am amazed you could misread what I wrote as I was clearly agreeing with you. Apparently it is undeniable.

Jon, that's why I'm the "moron in chief"
I did misread your reply

I happen to think that he is interested in Golf as a game and not just for money making.
That he can combine both is great for him even if he sometimes make goofs when he says something.

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hmmm, Trump has certainly done great damage to the reputation of the golf industry in the UK.

How so ?
And exactly what reputation was that ?

Built a very good golf course,

 but reinforced the image of the game as environmentally damaging,

How so ?
Why don't we hear more about how TOC, Troon, Prestwick and others are environmentally damaging, or do old established course get an exemption ?

only for the wealthy and overbearing.

So all golfers who play his new course are deemed to be "overbearing" ?

Is Bandon, Streamsong, Pinehurst and Kohler only for the wealthy ?

Is someone not entitled to recapture their investment in a project or are they obligated to lose millions to make you and others happy as well as a repeat client ?

I'm curious, other than for a charitable cause, could you name a course built in the last two decades where the developer spent millions to acquire land and create a course and considerable sums to maintain the course, and then priced their green fees at $ 10 a round ?  U.S. or U.K, either one.
]


We can argue about the net impact, but to say he has no downside is certainly not true on this side of the pond.

NET, cite how he hasn't been good for GOLF in the U.K., and, please dispense with the personality nonsense.

[Mike Sweeney]

Pat Mucci  in small

MIKE SWEENEY in BIG

Mike,

So you don't think his project at the foot of the Whitestone for New York City is a low end project ?  ?  ?

PAT THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST EXPENSIVE PROJECT IN THE HISTORY OF GOLF. CLEARLY NOT TRUMPS FAULT, BUT IT WILL BE THE MOST EXPENSIVE PUBLIC COURSE, EXCEPT FOR MAYBE POUND RIDGE IN THE NYC AREA. I UNDERSTAND THAT GRADUATION FROM SOUND BEND UNIVERSITY MAKES YOU FORGET YOUR ROOTS

Trump isn't obligated to support "grass root" movements.

PLEASE DON'T EXTRAPOLATE. I NEVER SAID HE WAS OBLIGATED. ONLY POINTED OUT WHAT HE HAS DONE.

What have you, Ran, me or any of us done for "grass root" movements in golf.
I've long felt that encouraging and supporting caddy programs was a "grass root" movement.

I HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO A NUMBER OF CADDY PROGRAMS AND HAVE CONTRIBUTED THE MOST TO THE BURKE FUND IN RHODE ISLAND DUE TO MY FONDNESS FOR MY CADDYING DAYS AT NEWPORT COUNTRY CLUB. I HOPE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE RESTORATION OF THE NAVAL ACADEMY GOLF COURSE EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH THE BLUE AND GOLD.

Your remark is akin to criticizing a  guy who supports and contributes significantly to cancer research because he doesn't contribute to Alzheimer's research.

CLARIFICATION AND SPECIFICATION IS NOT CRITICIZING. YOU MADE AN INACCURATE STATEMENT, IMO, AND I NARROWED THE SCOPE OF IT. HOPEFULLY JEFF WARNE WILL FIND OUT YOUR STATUS OF PAT MUCCI BEING ON THE TRUMP PAYROLL NEXT WEEK ON HIS SHOW


The notion that he or anyone must assume the mantle of the savior of golf or "grass root" golf is absurd.

EXTRAPOLATION BY PAT MUCCI

The guy has been great for golf

FOR HIGH END GOLF, AGREED.

[Paul Gray]

Pat,

I've tried to explain this to you before but you refuse to listen. Many older courses work directly with nature organisations to preserve what nature has provided. I've just rejoined the club I grew up at, Hayling, which sits on an SSSI, and can tell you that the club works hand in hand with Natural England to preserve our little bit of the planet. The majority of heather in England is located on golf courses and numerous varieties would now be extinct if it were not for these courses.

Trump is treated differently because his behaviour dictates so. And, unlike you, most of us here have never tried to court his favour. We all appreciate that you're either on the payroll or angling for some reward from the guy but please (and lord only knows this is a pointless request) don't continue to do battle with people you simply don't have the intellectual capacity to outwit.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I've tried to explain this to you before but you refuse to listen. Many older courses work directly with nature organisations to preserve what nature has provided.


How do you preserve what "Nature has provided" when you've already ripped it up and replaced it with greens, tees, fairways and bunkers ?

I've just rejoined the club I grew up at, Hayling, which sits on an SSSI, and can tell you that the club works hand in hand with Natural England to preserve our little bit of the planet. The majority of heather in England is located on golf courses and numerous varieties would now be extinct if it were not for these courses.

Trump is treated differently because his behaviour dictates so.

And his behavior is unique to the U.K. and the world at large.

So, those with similar behavior patterns get a pass from the laws in the U.K. ?
Insteresting theory

And, unlike you, most of us here have never tried to court his favour.


Not surprisingly, you're wrong again, I've never tried to court his favor

We all appreciate that you're either on the payroll or angling for some reward from the guy

I'm neither on his  payroll nor angling for some reward from the guy.
There's nothing he can do to change my life
That you would make such an uninformed, moronic statement is indicative of your ignorance and desperation

but please (and lord only knows this is a pointless request) don't continue to do battle with people you simply don't have the intellectual capacity to outwit.

Since no one on this site qualifies for that distinction, and especially you,  I have no concerns about continuing to do battle.

[Paul Gray]

Apparently Nature England don't grasp the concept of preserving nature as well as Pat does. Interesting idea.

I'm afraid, Pat, that your assumption that the development of a golf course inevitably means destroying nature sums you up. Whilst your grammar continues to shown some signs of improvement, albeit slight, your brain is clearly still stuck in a bygone industrial age where man was seen as being the sole commander of all he saw. Your golf DNA, I'm afraid to say, clearly remains in the later part of the last century and, to boot, has an overwhelming stench of commercial imperialism about it.

Must go now. I'm off to hit a golf ball or three over those dunes my golf club are apparently busy destroying. I'll be sure to check out all of the maintained heather and gorse well I'm there to see just how much damage Nature England have done to it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Apparently Nature England don't grasp the concept of preserving nature as well as Pat does. Interesting idea.

And you want to criticize my grammar ?   That's funny ....... What a joke

I'm afraid, Pat, that your assumption that the development of a golf course inevitably means destroying nature sums you up.

It's indisputable Paul, have someone explain it to you.

Whilst your grammar continues to shown some signs of improvement, albeit slight

Reread your first sentence, then wipe the egg off your face.

your brain is clearly still stuck in a bygone industrial age where man was seen as being the sole commander of all he saw. Your golf DNA, I'm afraid to say, clearly remains in the later part of the last century and, to boot, has an overwhelming stench of commercial imperialism about it.

My brain continues to function at levels far above yours.
And, other than Mother Nature, manis the sole commander of all he surveys.

Must go now. I'm off to hit a golf ball or three over those dunes my golf club are apparently busy destroying. I'll be sure to check out all of the maintained heather and gorse well I'm there to see just how much damage Nature England have done to it.

Good, and when you get home you can evaluate how the building you live in has disrupted nature
Or, is "nature" only applicable to those natural features that you deem inviolate ?  .

[Paul Gray]

England Nature is made up of a collective of individuals acting as a sole entity.....

And my concerns regarding your brain did not relate to how your neurotransmitters were functioning but, rather, to what century they were operating in.

Anyway, you tell me it's indisputable that the development of a golf course destroys nature and suggest I ask someone to explain it to me. For the benefit of me and many others here, I invite you to explain just how you feel Donald Trump has destroyed nature.

Just shout if you need any more rope.

[Bill Gayne]

Apparently Nature England don't grasp the concept of preserving nature as well as Pat does. Interesting idea.

And you want to criticize my grammar ?   That's funny ....... What a joke

Classic

[Bill Gayne]

It gets windy in West Clare so DT better keep his hat on.

[Patrick_Mucci]

England Nature is made up of a collective of individuals acting as a sole entity.....

And my concerns regarding your brain did not relate to how your neurotransmitters were functioning but, rather, to what century they were operating in.

Anyway, you tell me it's indisputable that the development of a golf course destroys nature and suggest I ask someone to explain it to me. For the benefit of me and many others here, I invite you to explain just how you feel Donald Trump has destroyed nature.

EVERY golf course INHERENTLY destroys nature, unless you feel that the creation of artificial deep bunkers are just a part of the natural evolutionary process

Just shout if you need any more rope.

[Sean_A]

Golf courses may destroy some nature and other courses help nature to flourish.  If the right sites are chosen, the courses built with care and maintained with the environment in mind, golf needn't be a net drag on nature. Its tough to do, but to a large degree its as much about lowered expectations as anything else.   

However, the real point of the Trump deal is some plots of nature can be considered more valuable than other plots of nature and some links land is more valuable than other links land.  There isn't much bloody point in saying its okay ransack unique links land today because they did 100 years ago.  At some point, and I don't know when that is, people will have to adopt a hands off policy.  Because we can build roads and airports to reach every corner of the earth and take the suburbs to the stars doesn't mean we ought to.

All that said, I wonder to what degree (if at all) that the reputation of golf course maintenance is worse than the reality?  Yes, I am sure a huge percentage of clubs cause more damage to the environment than they really ought to, but I wonder if the rep isn't much worse than the reality.  I have said it before, but I think it will behoove the fancy private clubs to start thinking about the positive environmental PR.  The time may well be coming when resources such as water will not be so readily available for clubs - even at a premium.  Hosting a hallf dozen charity events every year may soon not be seen as contributing enough to the local area.  If the shit hit the fan, I wonder how many private clubs actually have a positive reputation as s boon for the community to te point of offsetting any possible environmental damage or "waste" of natural resources.  Its a funny ole world where it seems the richer the rich become, the more to the left society seems to move. 

Ciao   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Golf courses may destroy some nature and other courses help nature to flourish.  If the right sites are chosen, the courses built with care and maintained with the environment in mind, golf needn't be a net drag on nature. Its tough to do, but to a large degree its as much about lowered expectations as anything else.   

Sean,

I'd mostly agree, but we can't look at a course with a biased eye, one largely dependent upon who the developer, architect or ultimate user are. 

However, the real point of the Trump deal is some plots of nature can be considered more valuable than other plots of nature and some links land is more valuable than other links land.  There isn't much bloody point in saying its okay ransack unique links land today because they did 100 years ago. 

The moment you used the word "ransack" you tainted and biased the discussion, predisposing everyone to a negative impression of any form of development.

At some point, and I don't know when that is, people will have to adopt a hands off policy. 
Because we can build roads and airports to reach every corner of the earth and take the suburbs to the stars doesn't mean we ought to.

I think that depends upon the degree that you believe in man inhabiting the planet under appropriate/acceptable living conditions


All that said, I wonder to what degree (if at all) that the reputation of golf course maintenance is worse than the reality?  Yes, I am sure a huge percentage of clubs cause more damage to the environment than they really ought to,

Why do you say that ?
What evidence do you have to support that claim

but I wonder if the rep isn't much worse than the reality. 

I think it may depend upon who you Talkto

I have said it before, but I think it will behoove the fancy private clubs to start thinking about the positive environmental PR. 
Why did you choose to select "fancy private clubs" again tainting the discussion and predisposing the reader to believe that "they" are the offenders ?

The time may well be coming when resources such as water will not be so readily available for clubs - even at a premium. 
Hosting a hallf dozen charity events every year may soon not be seen as contributing enough to the local area. 
If the shit hit the fan, I wonder how many private clubs actually have a positive reputation as s boon for the community to te point of offsetting any possible environmental damage or "waste" of natural resources. 

Once again, you've chosen to select private clubs as the egregious offenders.

Tell us, what "possible environmental damage or "waste" of natural resources" are you referencing in terms of offsetting their positive reputation to the community ?  Why do you continually paint private clubs as villains to the exclusion of all others ?

Its a funny ole world where it seems the richer the rich become, the more to the left society seems to move. 

Oh, now I get it, it's about envying and demonizing those in society who work hard, are productive and successful.

Why didn't you say so in the first place instead of beating around the bush ?.

 

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

many golf courses in the UK have become SSSIs (protected status) because they actually have preserved/created a natural habitat of such note as to be worth protecting so your claim that they always destroy is clearly wrong. There are of course some misguided cases where a golf development is allowed to destroy parts of a SSSI that is true.

I find it ironic that whilst taking such a misguided position as you are on this thread you are also one of the most ardent supporters of just such a project that has had a negative impact on a SSSI even though you a) have never visited the site in question & b) clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Jon

[Sean_A]

Pat

I chose fancy private clubs because they are the pervceived encalve of the rich at the perceived expense of our natural resources. As I say, the entire reputation of what golf is, the damage it causes to the environment and the drain on natural resources is probably as much about perception as reality.  Of course, private clubs can continue to wallow in negative publicity, but I don't think its in their long term best interest.  If progress is being made toward preserving or enhancing the environment and toward reduction of natural resource usage, I think clubs sgould should start documenting it with a mind toward publicizing that information.  It could stand them in good stead if hard(er) times come along. Right now, guys like you do not in any way help create a positive image for golf.  Your lot have your head stuck in the sand and figure money will solve any problems.  That may well be very true, but what if it isn't the case?

Ciao

 

[jeffwarne]

Anyone seen today's news on what's proposed off the coast of Doonbeg?
story on Irishgolfdesk

Tomorrow could be interesting

[Jon Wiggett]

Jeff,

this is one monumental mistake if it is correct. It would have been very easy for the Trump Organisation to find out if any planning applications were being drawn up for a wind farm. I wonder if he was assured that it would never happen.

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

many golf courses in the UK have become SSSIs (protected status) because they actually have preserved/created a natural habitat of such note as to be worth protecting so your claim that they always destroy is clearly wrong.

Jon,

My claim that they always destroy nature is clearly 100 % accurate..
That they may try to improve things AFTER they're built is another matter.


There are of course some misguided cases where a golf development is allowed to destroy parts of a SSSI that is true.

I didn't know that non-SSSI land wasn't part of "nature".
When did that happen ?
I always thought that raw land or things occurring in their natural state were.......part of nature

I find it ironic that whilst taking such a misguided position as you are on this thread you are also one of the most ardent supporters of just such a project that has had a negative impact on a SSSI even though you a) have never visited the site in question & b) clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

My position is far from misguided.
"Nature" is a universal, not a selected piece of property, and any man made structure whether a golf course, race track or home destroys/damages/alters the land it occupies, in it's natural form.

Your home and your workplace have destroyed nature, yet you don't object to the creation of either, nor do you object to their continued existence.

The real issue is the balance between accomodating man's needs and preserving nature.

Or, do you believe that London and Glasgow should never have been built ?

So the issue comes down to the "selection" or "classification" of nature.

Obviously, the land your home sits on was deemed to be of little worth, in terms of preserving, hence it was ruled suitable for home construction.
The same can be said about all man made items in current times.

The issue at hand is the "classification" of the land, or nature.
Sub-issues are, "who does the classifying" and "how legitimate is the classification"

There's a reason that our legal system has a prosecutor, a defender, a judge and a jury.
It's a balanced approach to a non-scientific process.

In today's world I would venture to say that Western Gailes, Troon, Prestwick, Turnberry, TOC and others couldn't be built in their present form.
I'm sure that environmental activists would object to their creation, just as some have at Trump.

But, hundreds of years later, have the above courses destroyed nature ?
Have they been so harmful to nature that their existence outweighs man's desire to create a field of play on those respective sites ?

I'm sure that some would argue that they have and that others would argue that they haven't.
I'm in the camp that would argue that heir existence is justified and that the balance has been well served as the damage to the raw sites is of an acceptable degree.

Now, if we suppose for a second that Western Gailes or Prestwick or TOC didn't exist as golf courses, and that Trump had just bought that land and was going to build, exactly what's there now, you know that you and others would be whining like stuck pigs about the project, how he'd be destroying the land, etc., etc.

Yet, we know, that the creation of those course didn't significantly disturb the balance between man's needs and the desire to preserve nature.

How can you be so sure that 100 years from now the same can't be said of Trump Belemedie ?



Jon

[Paul Gray]

Hilarious.

You can't improve something if you've already destroyed it.

It really is too easy.

My only concern is that in years to come peope will reread this accuse the enlightened individuals of 'Pat baiting,' much in the same way as we now frown upon cruelty to animals. I suppose there's nothing big or clever about baiting a moron.

[BCowan]

Pat

I chose fancy private clubs because they are the pervceived encalve of the rich at the perceived expense of our natural resources.
Why do you play courses that don't fit your image and then bash them?
 As I say, the entire reputation of what golf is, the damage it causes to the environment and the drain on natural resources is probably as much about perception as reality.You sound like a Czar!  Proof, Dr Hurzdan says that is not the case, homeowners are the ones that over fertilize their lawns.

  Of course, private clubs can continue to wallow in negative publicity, but I don't think its in their long term best interest. 
So you like the idea of a ''Controlled Media'' determining PC outlook! U sound like Hugo Chavez.
If progress is being made toward preserving or enhancing the environment and toward reduction of natural resource usage, I think clubs sgould should start documenting it with a mind toward publicizing that information.  It could stand them in good stead if hard(er) times come along.Their hard times are a result of your line of thinking!  Individuals known as inventors will figure out how to maint. courses with less cost.

 Right now, guys like you do not in any way help create a positive image for golf.  Your lot have your head stuck in the sand and figure money will solve any problems.  That may well be very true, but what if it isn't the case?

Ciao

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

I chose fancy private clubs because they are the pervceived encalve of the rich at the perceived expense of our natural resources.

By whom ?  Biased people such as yourself ?

As I say, the entire reputation of what golf is, the damage it causes to the environment and the drain on natural resources is probably as much about perception as reality. 

Or, it could be the extremist views of a select minority.

Or, it could be the envious view of someone who doesn't belong to a club

Of course, private clubs can continue to wallow in negative publicity,

I see, we're back to class warfare again.
What "negative publicity"
From what I glean, from reading the New York Times, Star Ledger, New York Post and Wall Street Journal everyday, is that I don't come across any negative publicity about golf clubs, even private clubs which you describe as enclaves of the rich.
Who do you think you're kidding with your denigrating description ?  A description borne of your position in academia and the views that typically come with it.

but I don't think its in their long term best interest. 

How would you know how private clubs govern or perceive themselves ?

If progress is being made toward preserving or enhancing the environment and toward reduction of natural resource usage, I think clubs sgould should start documenting it with a mind toward publicizing that information. 

Your use of the word "IF" in the beginning of the sentence above tells me that you don't have a clue about the internal affairs of private clubs.
You don't have a clue with respect to their views of the golf course, their property and the surrounds.

What you've done is condemn and disparage private clubs based upon your own ignorance

It could stand them in good stead if hard(er) times come along.

Here's a clue for you.   "Harder times" are here and they've been here for more than a few years

Right now, guys like you do not in any way help create a positive image for golf. 

What the fuck do you know, about golf, private clubs or me.
You're a dweeb from academia with no real world experience in the realm of private golf clubs.

Your lot have your head stuck in the sand and figure money will solve any problems. 

That shows how little you know.
Where do you come up with this unadulterated horseshit
I've stated, numerous times, that throwing money at a problem rarely solves it.
Just go ask Obama how his "stimulus" package worked.

Private clubs, no matter their wealth or the wealth of their members don't throw money at a problem.
They exercise due diligence to ascertain the exact nature of the problem and it's causes, analyze the problem in terms of viable solutions, then move forward to resolve the problem.

But you wouldn't know that because you have ZERO experience in serving on the boards of private clubs.
So instead, you choose to demonize private clubs and engage in class warfare, based upon your limited to non-existent experience in governing private clubs

That may well be very true, but what if it isn't the case?

What you don't understand is that there will always be people like you, resentful and envious of private clubs, who seek to denigrate them and their memberships.   You wouldn't know this, but the biggest offenders in terms of the environment are often government agencies.

Stop with the class warfare and stop pretending you're Italian with "Ciao"  

Ciao