Another one bites the dust....

[Rich Goodale]

http://www.golfclubmanagement.net/2014/02/members-vote-to-close-down-prestigious-golf-club/

We are not immune over here in the UK

[BCowan]

''a spokesman said the club had been looking to relocate since the late 1980s''

  I thought you meant that it went under?  It sounds like they wanted to move for awhile. 

[Brent Hutto]

The golf COURSE will be dying the real death. The golf CLUB will go on.

All assuming they get the planning permission they seek to develop the new site...

[Rich Goodale]

Corectomundo, Bret.

Surely the "club" will survive, but only by merging with another one.  At the end of the day, the number of golf courses and golf clubs in the world will have diminished by one, along with (I suspect) a diminution of the number of keen golfers in the world, once the two clubs merge and then naturally contract.

Anybody know anything aboutt Royal Norwich (RIP) achitecturally?

Rich

[Niall C]

Rich

Surely this is good news is it not ?!

This is the type of action I envisaged or suggested in a thread some time back about a lot of older courses not being fit for purpose. Perhaps that's not quite the case here but there is the opportunity to do something top notch in 300 acres of mature parkland, is there not ? Surely better than ripping up a SSSI 

Anyone know who the architect of choice is ?

Niall

[Tony_Muldoon]

Best course in Norwich, home of Alan Partridge, apparently.

http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/productdetails.asp?id=215

[Adrian_Stiff]

Amazing how people can read an article and see something so different...Bites the Dust!!!!!! More like Hits the Jackpot, that is something like a $100,000,000 windfall if they get that....here in the UK this is 90% of golf club dream scenarios.

[Dan Byrnes]

Amazing how people can read an article and see something so different...Bites the Dust!!!!!! More like Hits the Jackpot, that is something like a $100,000,000 windfall if they get that....here in the UK this is 90% of golf club dream scenarios.

Not too many clubs can claim to have enough in the bank to secure a 120 years future.

Dan

[Ally Mcintosh]

True Adrian,

But I see it very differently. If we adhere to the three corners of sustainability - Environmental, economic and social - I think there is nothing more sad than city centre green spaces / golf courses being eaten up by housing.... Those city centre courses have a sense of place, are compact and usually encourage a social scene as older and younger members can walk or bus to the course as opposed to having to drive.

Move the course outside, you generally play on a larger area (meaning more cost and more time), it takes longer to get to... and no one stays around for a drink. Plus development usually goes over the top in the short term leading to long term problems.

Same has happened all over if you ask me. Golf courses moving out of the city is not a good trend.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ally I don't disagree with what you say but when a golf course in the UK is worth up to £100,000,000 you have to vote for what is in the best interests of everyone. To vote against 120 years of security for all the members is like turkeys voting for christmas. Money usually wins.

[Lou_Duran]

But I see it very differently. If we adhere to the three corners of sustainability - Environmental, economic and social - I think there is nothing more sad than city centre green spaces / golf courses being eaten up by housing.... Those city centre courses have a sense of place, are compact and usually encourage a social scene as older and younger members can walk or bus to the course as opposed to having to drive.

Move the course outside, you generally play on a larger area (meaning more cost and more time), it takes longer to get to... and no one stays around for a drink. Plus development usually goes over the top in the short term leading to long term problems.

Same has happened all over if you ask me. Golf courses moving out of the city is not a good trend.

Oh, if life could be held steady in the sweet spot we find ourselves in!  But what about the lad who doesn't have his, and he tires of commuting form the burbs. All he wants is little place in the city center so he can walk to work and have a drink with his mates afterwards without having to worry about getting behind the wheel for the drive home (I know, he can ride his bike or take a bus!).  The folks not included in the sustainability bliss might prefer a fourth leg- reasonable accessibility- be designed into that stool.

Having to live with other people can sometimes be a messy, unpleasant thing.  In SoCal, the beautiful, smart people used the very laudable reason of protecting the fragile environment to prevent development nearby.  Those hoping to share their lifestyle called these folks NIMBYs and attributed very different motives to their position.  It sounds like the members of RN made an informed choice after considerable deliberation.

BTW, I was told recently by a former Irish Jr. champion (and a long time member of Royal County Down) now in the business that golf is experiencing very similar problems in the UK as it is in the U.S.  Golfers are declining and rounds are down.  The opinion is that consolidation is unavoidable and the more orderly the process, the better off Golf will be.  RN may be an excellent example of "sustainability" after all, particularly if the combined clubs are able to secure their financial futures for a long time as a result.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally I don't disagree with what you say but when a golf course in the UK is worth up to £100,000,000 you have to vote for what is in the best interests of everyone. To vote against 120 years of security for all the members is like turkeys voting for christmas. Money usually wins.

I understand that the romantic notion always loses to the short-term financial gain but it is bad for the game.

As you can probably imagine, there have been countless examples in Ireland when housing went through the roof during the Celtic Tiger. A couple are particularly notable:

1. Dun Laoghaire (Colt on 70 acres) was the most sociable club I knew with the clubhouse always busy through every evening. They sold up to build a huge (enormous, even by US standards) facility out in the country with 27 Hawtree holes and a maintenance budget to match. You have to drive there. Nice course, great facilities but lost a little je ne sais quoi...

2. Clontarf (also Colt) tried to also sell up and take on the far superior course out at Portmarnock Links. They'd get a great course, a new clubhouse and each member was due €105,000 from the developer. How can you say no to that?. At the final hurdle, everyone suddenly realised the land wasn't Clontarf's to sell, being on a 99 year lease from the council.

[Ally Mcintosh]

But I see it very differently. If we adhere to the three corners of sustainability - Environmental, economic and social - I think there is nothing more sad than city centre green spaces / golf courses being eaten up by housing.... Those city centre courses have a sense of place, are compact and usually encourage a social scene as older and younger members can walk or bus to the course as opposed to having to drive.

Move the course outside, you generally play on a larger area (meaning more cost and more time), it takes longer to get to... and no one stays around for a drink. Plus development usually goes over the top in the short term leading to long term problems.

Same has happened all over if you ask me. Golf courses moving out of the city is not a good trend.

Oh, if life could be held steady in the sweet spot we find ourselves in!  But what about the lad who doesn't have his, and he tires of commuting form the burbs. All he wants is little place in the city center so he can walk to work and have a drink with his mates afterwards without having to worry about getting behind the wheel for the drive home (I know, he can ride his bike or take a bus!).  The folks not included in the sustainability bliss might prefer a fourth leg- reasonable accessibility- be designed into that stool.

Having to live with other people can sometimes be a messy, unpleasant thing.  In SoCal, the beautiful, smart people used the very laudable reason of protecting the fragile environment to prevent development nearby.  Those hoping to share their lifestyle called these folks NIMBYs and attributed very different motives to their position.  It sounds like the members of RN made an informed choice after considerable deliberation.

BTW, I was told recently by a former Irish Jr. champion (and a long time member of Royal County Down) now in the business that golf is experiencing very similar problems in the UK as it is in the U.S.  Golfers are declining and rounds are down.  The opinion is that consolidation is unavoidable and the more orderly the process, the better off Golf will be.  RN may be an excellent example of "sustainability" after all, particularly if the combined clubs are able to secure their financial futures for a long time as a result.

I don't really understand, Lou...

You seem to be agreeing with me in your first paragraph (for "reasonable accessibility", read "social")

The second paragraph is irrelevant to my point

The third I could agree with - consolidation is needed - But it isn't the city centre courses that are struggling. There are just far too many high cost courses in rural areas away from population catchment areas.

Don't just jump on the use of sustainability as some tree-hugging sentimentality. In Ireland, we built far too many courses for short-term gain with no view to the future. That is reality.

[Brent Hutto]

My own club went through a similar scenario in the late 1950's. They had a large tract of land with a so-so 18-hole golf course built on the site of an early 20th century horse racing track. The state government wanted the in-city land so they swapped them a larger 300 acre parcel out in the boonies plus some cash to build an Ellis Maples 27-holer. That was 1960, course opened in 1962. We're no longer really in the boonies as the area around our club's land was developed as low-density residential in the 70's and 80's.

I suppose it would be cool to have my golf club right here in town a mile and a half from my office. But the old course was really squeezed in there and wouldn't have been a patch on the course we have now. Plus that neighborhood isn't as upscale as it once was (understatement).

[Niall C]

Adrian

Where do you get these numbers from ?

Lou

As Adrian suggests, this isn't about cost cutting but about making the most of a development opportunity. The UK (and Ireland) certainly has been hit hard by the recession however most of the courses here are owned by members clubs rahter than being commercial concerns. In other words there rational is different than the pay and play operator who might be tempted to just sell the course for housing or whatever because it offers a better return on their money, whereas the club will (generally) only sell for a very good reason such as the case here, that will leave them better off.

Niall

[Rich Goodale]

Niall, Ally, Lou et. al, you all have valid points.  I was just trying to think of golf course architecture.  Silly me!

The RN guys condemned an almost untouched James Braid course with Royal connections in exchange for getting to play golf on a 1993, J. Glasgow masterpiece which abuts a Dinosaur theme park.

Of course, if someone offerred £100mm for my home course, and they could get past the feu simple from the estate of the Earl of Morton, and could get planning permission, and I could get a bit of change out of it (all not at all impossible, given the location of my home course), I'd jump at the offer, too.

My main point is just to note that nothing is sacred, even on this forum, and if I suspect that many more of our good (or even grea)t courses are going to become housing estates or industrial parks in the not so distant future.

Rich

[Dan Byrnes]

There is certainly something about having the course in the thick of things.  Although its not clear using my area where private golf is struggling what the better location would do to the business.  I assume it would help but not sure how much.

For any of you familiar with the Albany NY area.  Albany CC was once located on what now is the State University at Albany and Colonie G&CC former site is what knows is the Colonie Center shopping mall.

Certainly both of those past locations where more in the thick of the business and job districts and close to significant housing, the new locations now 40-50 years plus old, are more remote which likely impacts business.

Dan

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian

Where do you get these numbers from ?

Lou

As Adrian suggests, this isn't about cost cutting but about making the most of a development opportunity. The UK (and Ireland) certainly has been hit hard by the recession however most of the courses here are owned by members clubs rahter than being commercial concerns. In other words there rational is different than the pay and play operator who might be tempted to just sell the course for housing or whatever because it offers a better return on their money, whereas the club will (generally) only sell for a very good reason such as the case here, that will leave them better off.

Niall

the article said 1000 homes, that seems a reasonable amount for 120 acres and a 9:1 density, assuming houses are £200,000 the land plot is equal to around 30% (Norfolk) of the value in the UK (though the range is 10 (Scotland) to 80 (Some parts of London). So the plot value is £60,000 x 1000 = £600,000 = $100,000,000. Around 2/3rds of clubs are members clubs. leaving 1/3rd (for profit) the 1/3rd will certainly not be turning down £600,000 per acre x 150 acres. The members clubs in many cases may not own the land but have a lease, in which case they have the position that the landowner can offer a deal wherby the club agrees to leave the land in return for cash and can then build another course on land they owned, they can choose to stay and then the years go away and the club goes NLE. If the club own the land which has an intrinsic value of say £2,000,000, they need to decide if to stay as they are or accept a substanial sum and relocate, building better facilities for it's members with financial security. It is a numbers game. Non UK people need to understand that until fairly recently golf course land was worth £2,000 per acre, building land could go to £1,000,000 per scre. currently its probably £8,000 v £600,000.

[Thomas Dai]

This is an extract from the history of Weston Park on the clubs website -

"The Estate was sold to the Benton Family and then onto the Briggs family who further developed the 18 hole parkland golf course and turning the House into an elegant Clubhouse. A large part of the arable areas were returned to deer parkland under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. The creation of Weston Park Golf Club means that people can once more enjoy this beautiful environment. In October 2006 Martin Goymour added Weston Park and the adjoining Norfolk Dinosaur Park to the Goymour family’s portfolio, which includes Banham Zoo and Africa Alive! Investment into the golf course has continued, and although a non-golfer Martin Goymour comments:- “Weston has a certain magic about it. We are benefitting from the attention given to the ground decades ago by others and have the joy of a mature parkland with magnificent specimens of trees that must surely make Weston the best inland parkland course in the county. Whilst golfers enjoy the course it is also home to a wide variety of native animals too – in fact a haven for allcomers”.

So it looks like Weston Park isn't a private member owned golf club. Is Royal Norwich? I imagine it probably is but if so how is the shareholding allocated? I would like to think that this and all the rest of the related detail and implications has been carefully analysed and explained to the members prior to the vote to proceed being taken. Great care is needed and any vested interests unearthed or there's a good chance of tears and recriminations one day down the line.

In addition, a further concern I would have is that the various planning authorities who have to grant permission to redevelop the existing course, build the 9 new holes and new clubhouse might try to place stipulations on the planning permission such that the venue is no longer a 'private members club'. And local politics normally comes into play somewhere within a planning/development scheme.

I hope all the folk at RNGC are fully aware of what they're getting into. Nevertheless, despite my comments above, I wish them good luck and every success.

atb

[Lou_Duran]

I don't really understand, Lou...

You seem to be agreeing with me in your first paragraph (for "reasonable accessibility", read "social")

The second paragraph is irrelevant to my point

The third I could agree with - consolidation is needed - But it isn't the city centre courses that are struggling. There are just far too many high cost courses in rural areas away from population catchment areas.

Don't just jump on the use of sustainability as some tree-hugging sentimentality. In Ireland, we built far too many courses for short-term gain with no view to the future. That is reality.

I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with you, but presenting an alternative perspective.  The "sustainability" movement, at least here in the U.S., includes folks in its tent who are animated by the fervent beliefs that the world is vastly overpopulated, resources are being depleted rapidly (and undemocratically), growth and commerce are bad, and "progress" dictates that much of mankind's consumptive activities be greatly curtailed.  In this context and in the reference I made to SoCal, notions of "accessibility" and "social" are incongruent.  In effect, unless property rights are abolished and lifestyles are allotted without regard to price by those who divine "the public good", this means those who are IN have theirs, those who don't will only gain access at great cost (a primary reason why in 2006 when I lived in Orange County, CA, the median priced home was over 10 times the median income- 2.5X WAS normally a reasonable standard nationally).

In regards to RN, I am aware that the club's action with over 80% member approval is motivated by favorable economic reasons, not because of need.  IMO, it is far better to make a move when the club has options than when it has to as a result of economic necessity.  That two clubs are becoming one with better facilities seems to be a good thing, particularly since we can surmise excess capacity while not really knowing the financial conditions of the individuals clubs (not to say anything about possible synergy and operating efficiencies when combined).

To your point about urban living (city center) and Rich's regarding the club's architecture, we are talking about closing an existing parkland course outside the outer loop of the city which seems to market itself on value and history rather than outstanding design.  A Cypress Point in Manhattan it is not.  Going out 10-15 minutes further into the country hardly seems to be a bad proposition if doing so does indeed secure its financial well-being for the next 120 years while improving the golf course.  Me, I would opt for playing in the spacious countryside being distracted by pheasants than cueing to cross a busy road hustling with my trolley trying to dodge speeding cars (albeit small ones, some who appeared to accelerate to make things more interesting) as we did at Liphook (no complaints about the course, a very enjoyable one indeed).

[Adam Lawrence]

This is an extract from the history of Weston Park on the clubs website -

"The Estate was sold to the Benton Family and then onto the Briggs family who further developed the 18 hole parkland golf course and turning the House into an elegant Clubhouse. A large part of the arable areas were returned to deer parkland under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. The creation of Weston Park Golf Club means that people can once more enjoy this beautiful environment. In October 2006 Martin Goymour added Weston Park and the adjoining Norfolk Dinosaur Park to the Goymour family’s portfolio, which includes Banham Zoo and Africa Alive! Investment into the golf course has continued, and although a non-golfer Martin Goymour comments:- “Weston has a certain magic about it. We are benefitting from the attention given to the ground decades ago by others and have the joy of a mature parkland with magnificent specimens of trees that must surely make Weston the best inland parkland course in the county. Whilst golfers enjoy the course it is also home to a wide variety of native animals too – in fact a haven for allcomers”.

So it looks like Weston Park isn't a private member owned golf club. Is Royal Norwich? I imagine it probably is but if so how is the shareholding allocated? I would like to think that this and all the rest of the related detail and implications has been carefully analysed and explained to the members prior to the vote to proceed being taken. Great care is needed and any vested interests unearthed or there's a good chance of tears and recriminations one day down the line.

In addition, a further concern I would have is that the various planning authorities who have to grant permission to redevelop the existing course, build the 9 new holes and new clubhouse might try to place stipulations on the planning permission such that the venue is no longer a 'private members club'. And local politics normally comes into play somewhere within a planning/development scheme.

I hope all the folk at RNGC are fully aware of what they're getting into. Nevertheless, despite my comments above, I wish them good luck and every success.

atb

Goymour is a party to the deal; as part of the package, they will sell the Weston Park site to Royal Norwich. Also, as I understand it, it's not a question of  building another nine holes; the 27 holes will essentially be all new. Ross McMurray of EGD is in charge of the design.

[Mark Chaplin]

The title should be "another one hits the jackpot"

A Surrey course I'm aware of had a very modest book value in the accounts. A track of land was nominally valued but is actually a large number of building plots worth many £m and the course wouldn't be touched. They are unlikely to ever build but the valuations have been changed!

[Ryan Coles]

Lots of Clubs if not looking at completely selling up are developing plots of land. My home club is mid way through such a scheme: http://www.fairwayapartments.co.uk/setting.html. In many ways its a shame the land isn't being developed for golf but I suspect most clubs would do something similar were they not within the green belt.

[Thomas Dai]

Goymour is a party to the deal; as part of the package, they will sell the Weston Park site to Royal Norwich. Also, as I understand it, it's not a question of  building another nine holes; the 27 holes will essentially be all new. Ross McMurray of EGD is in charge of the design.

Interesting stuff Adam.

I wonder where the RNGC members will play in the interim period? They'll have sold their own course so you can't play on it as it's a building site for houses. Can they play on the existing Weston Park course? Well not really if that's being dug up to build 27 new holes. Unless they, and the existing players at Weston Park, are allowed as part of the deal to play on the existing RNGC course there'll be nowhere for them to play until the new 27 are built and opened and that'll take a while.

atb

[Brent Hutto]

I would take 18 months of being an itinerant golfer in exchange for a 1/500th share of a mere 10 million pounds. Gladly.