Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Chris Kane on February 26, 2008, 02:55:46 AM
-
Fin Review article (http://www.afr.com/home/viewer.aspx?EDP://20080226000020350334&magsection=news-news&title=Resort+debts+put+golf+course+in+the+rough&source=/_xmlfeeds/news/feed.xml)
It was bound to happen eventually. Interested to see what the receivers do with it.
-
Dear oh Dear,
The quality of financial journalism in Australia would appear to be little better than that of TGF.
-
Mark, are you suggesting that GCPL is NOT in receivership? What is going on down there?
-
Shane,
I am suggesting that GCPL is comprised of a labyrinthine maze of companies, and that several of those companies were placed in administration last Friday.
But none of those companies are the ones who have title over the Gunnamatta Course and Clubhouse.
The property owned by the companies placed in administration is that of the apartments, the entrance road, and, I would assume, 9 and 10 of Fingal, as well as the apartments at Bass Coast.
-
Mark, administration or receivership?
-
Shane,
Sorry, receivership.
-
The property owned by the companies placed in administration is that of the apartments, the entrance road, and, I would assume, 9 and 10 of Fingal, as well as the apartments at Bass Coast.
Mark the papers were quoting the assets at a value of $100 million and debt at $60million - this doesn't seem quite right :-[
-
I don't understand exactly how the financial work but:
the golf course didn't cost a fortune to built (maybe a fortune to buy the land) and you need a lot of infrastructure cost on the surrounding development to reach 100 millions$...
I don't understand, can somebody explain
thanks.
It would be a great course to lose if it happens... (on the other side, if you have a map of course, you could built it back at low cost after 20 years of farming)...
-
Mark the papers were quoting the assets at a value of $100 million and debt at $60million - this doesn't seem quite right :-[
Shane,
You would know more than anyone else about asset value, but I would surmise that the $100 million includes the potential value of property sales on the three properties for which they have permits in hand?
I asked a director last week if the figure of $50-60 million in debt I had been hearing was true, and he told me it was less than $50 million, so you can take that as you wish. I don't see how they could have built up that level of debt, especially as they got Doak when he was cheap. :)
-
And especially as they never finished paying us the fee we agreed to way back when ...
-
And especially as they never finished paying us the fee we agreed to way back when ...
You're in good company then, apparently Augusta National never finished paying the Good Doctor!
-
Mark,
Sorry to hear about the ongoing saga down there. I hadn't heard anything in a while so I assumed things were working out. I hope you are enjoying the golf season since your injury healed.
-
And especially as they never finished paying us the fee we agreed to way back when ...
I don't know Aussie laws but I asume they are based on the British system which puts you in betweened 'secured' loans and bonds.
What happens the Members?
-
And especially as they never finished paying us the fee we agreed to way back when ...
The course still isn't open yet, Tom, they owe you NUTHIN'. ???
Don't worry, I am sure Renaissance come under the heading of Unsecured Creditors, which the directors assured us would be paid out if their current plans all fall into place.
They really should be acting now,though. With the Aussie dollar at 0.94c to the US dollar, it is unlikely you are going to be this cheap again... ;)
Sorry to hear about the ongoing saga down there. I hadn't heard anything in a while so I assumed things were working out. I hope you enjoying the golf season since your injury healed.
Ed,
Thanks for your sentiments. Hopefully you and David can make it back down here one day and there is still a course I can take you around...
How's the planning for you UK/Ireland trip coming along?
Hope your kids did well in school last year. :)
-
. . . less than $50 million. . . I don't see how they could have built up that level of debt . . .
Those numbers are incomprehensible to me. Are houses being built or has that side of the income speculation equation just dropped off the ledger sheet?
Aside from the heavy debt load, are golfers not coming to play it? It was one of my favorite courses that I played while there. It's great golf.
I wonder if the bank could auction the existing course discreetly from the rest of the property. Would that be an economically viable solution to save the Gunnamatta course?
I can't imagine that it's not an appreciated course, even to the high standards of Mornington golfers. Best of luck.
-
I really hope a rescue package can be found. I walked this course prior to it being available for play and it is way to good to be allowed to go under.
One also has to feel for the members who made the initial financial commitment.
-
Does anyone think the Bussiness Model did not add up for the project.
-
Matthew, I'm still waiting to meet someone who thinks the business model DID add up for this project.
-
Matthew, I'm still waiting to meet someone who thinks the business model DID add up for this project.
Pray tell, with your infinite wisdom and Monash education, which parts of which business model didn't add up?
-
Mark, here are some reasons why it failed:
1. Members were offered a playing right rather than equity in the underlying asset. Not a problem if the project worked, but if the place closes who knows what you'll end up with? Contrast this with club next door, where members actually own their club, which makes it a more attractive purchase.
2. Nothing had been built when the shares went on the market, and there was never indication that the project was proceeding as planned. As each "deadline" was missed, potential members would have become more skeptical about its viability.
3. They were competing with The National for new members. A potential member could go to The National, walk around the completed clubhouse, have lunch then play on one of three completed courses. There was never any doubt that the place would still be there in thirty years. At St Andrews Beach, there was a temporary clubhouse, one course complete (but not opened!) and no certainty that the Fingal or the clubhouse would ever be built. Despite having to share fairways with Brian Walshe, The National was always the prudent option.
4. The market for expensive second-club memberships was arguably saturated by the time St Andrews Beach arrived in mid-2002. Had the project commenced five years earlier, perhaps things might have panned out differently.
5. The corporate memberships, and later turning it into a public course at $80 a game, suggested that things weren't proceeding as planned.
6. Once word got out that GCPL was in serious financial difficulty, no-one would touch them with a forty-foot pole. The adverse publicity in the national media late last year was the final straw - their own fault for not paying staff.
-
Mark, here are some reasons why it failed:
1. Members were offered a playing right rather than equity in the underlying asset. Not a problem if the project worked, but if the place closes who knows what you'll end up with? Contrast this with club next door, where members actually own their club, which makes it a more attractive purchase.
Not sure this had much to do with it. Not all transferable memberships have been of the equity model, and the others have succeeded.
2. Nothing had been built when the shares went on the market, and there was never indication that the project was proceeding as planned. As each "deadline" was missed, potential members would have become more skeptical about its viability.
The first part of the first sentence is incorrect - they had sold over 200 shares by the time I joined in July 2004, when the course was still growing in - it was afterwards, particularly during 2005, when they missed the boat. The rest of the first sentence and the second sentence are correct.
3. They were competing with The National for new members. A potential member could go to The National, walk around the completed clubhouse, have lunch then play on one of three completed courses. There was never any doubt that the place would still be there in thirty years. At St Andrews Beach, there was a temporary clubhouse, one course complete (but not opened!) and no certainty that the Fingal or the clubhouse would ever be built. Despite having to share fairways with Brian Walshe, The National was always the prudent option.
I am not entirely sure they were competing with The National. I don't think too many, if any,of the prospective members myself and several other members took around joined The National. Having to share fairways with Brian or me... that's a much more difficult decision to make. Given that the share price of both has fallen significantly, it's a matter of conjecture as to which prospect is more worrisome.
4. The market for expensive second-club memberships was arguably saturated by the time St Andrews Beach arrived in mid-2002. Had the project commenced five years earlier, perhaps things might have panned out differently.
Perhaps. But The National has probably transferred 400-500 shares since 2002, and Sandhurst has been quite successful.
5. The corporate memberships, and later turning it into a public course at $80 a game, suggested that things weren't proceeding as planned.
The corporate memberships didn't do that, but allowing the public did. The corporate membership was a good idea not fully thought through and marketed incorrectly.
6. Once word got out that GCPL was in serious financial difficulty, no-one would touch them with a forty-foot pole. The adverse publicity in the national media late last year was the final straw - their own fault for not paying staff.
Yes - but it was 2005, when they only sold 18 memberships with a completed golf course that did the damage.
Those may or may not be reasons. By business model I was assuming you were critiquing the underlying financials of how much it would cost to run the place, and the number of rounds necessary to achieve that.
-
Those may or may not be reasons. By business model I was assuming you were critiquing the underlying financials of how much it would cost to run the place, and the number of rounds necessary to achieve that.
Mark, while the numbers have have added up, they proved unrealistic. Do we agree on that?
What reasons do you give for the failure?
-
No matter how sound your plan, you will likely not succeed if those placed in positions of responsibility act in a fashion that is at best questionable, at worse criminal, which is how most of the stories read.
I feel for you, Mark, and I hope the situation is resolved in some sort of reasonable fashion.
-
Mark, while the numbers have have added up, they proved unrealistic. Do we agree on that?
What reasons do you give for the failure?
Chris,
I am not sure that the numbers were unrealistic. I would imagine that they were spending somewhere around $600,000 perhaps to maintain the golf course, which is a lot less than other clubs, but given that it was in terrific condition when John Geary and his boys were the operators, it is not that different from the figure quoted in the prospectus.
Obviously it was a stress to work on that budget, but even allowing for a couple of hundred thousand extra, that was still around the GCPL figures.
The administration figure was quite low compared to the breakdown I have seen in annual reports from Sandbelt clubs, but then a lot of the back room administration was done at head office, who would have done it all - payroll, accounts etc - for all three clubs, who each contributed to that cost.
There are many reasons, all with some degree of validity for things not working out. George touches on one below.
I suppose the basic problem was that they promised a no fees model reliant on income from a second course and hotel , and by the time Gunnamatta was ready for play in Feb 2005, there had to be signs of both being under construction by then or soon after, which there wasn't.
As I said before, they had sold around 200 shares when the place was a pile of dirt, and less than 20 in the year it was a complete golf course.
There was also a bust up, for reasons unknown, with Inform, who designed and were to build the first lot of apartments starting at the beginning of 2005. This delayed the start of construction on that aspect of the development until 2006, with a new, mostly unsatisfactory in house design that did nothing to encourage people to purchase them.
Since a lot of finance was tied in with the purchase of apartments, delaying for a year or more was a crucial and critical happenstance.
George:
Thanks for your sentiments. When you make it down to Barnbougle, first round's on me. :)
-
Any update on this? Some suggestion of a creditors/shareholders meeting held this week to determine the path forward. What happened?
-
Intereting quote from Graeme Grant - ex- super at Kingston Heath - in the Golfer Newspaper this week.
Paraphrasing it was something like ' I joined because I met Tom Doak when I was at KH and I thought he would design a great course - but he did not.There are too many blind shots and the walks are too long between green and tee'
We don't need to trawl over old ground but I there are a lot of blind shots if you drive into the wrong place - and not so many if you drive into the right place.
The tee to green walks have been commented on but they have never seemed to be an issue for me - aside from the walk to the clubhouse from the 18th green - which is a final memory.
-
Any update on this? Some suggestion of a creditors/shareholders meeting held this week to determine the path forward. What happened?
What exactly do you want to know?
-
Mark,
Did you go to the meeting today?
If so, what happened?
-
Mike,
Yes, I went.
The situation is that secured creditors holding various mortgages over the four titles at St Andrews Beach are owed $21 million. GCPL also a owe a further $21 million to secured creditors for their other developments, as well as around $2 million for leasing finance, and around $15 million to unsecured creditors.
There are four titles over St Andrews Beach. NAB hold two of them, over relatively inconsequential parts of the property.
The title containing 9 and 10 Fingal, apartments, current and future clubhouse site and apartments, practice facilities, and approximately half of 1 and 18 of Gunnamatta is held by Capitol Finance, who are owed around $9 million I think. There is a very real possibility that section may revert to a market garden.
The other title containing the rest of Gunnamatta and Fingal has three mortgages over it held by RMBJ, Westpac and Stirling finance. It has been valued at around $7-8 million for use as farmland, since there are no permits for building.
A potential purchaser can secure the entire parcel by paying $21 million - less than that and it becomes complicated, as each secured creditor will argue over how much each of their mortgage is worth.
Alternatively, the title containing nearly all of the two courses could be secured for around $8 million, which would satisfy the three mortgage holders.
The development goes on the market next week, and there has been strong interest already. I understand Amstel :) may still be in the picture, are some South-East Asian interests. I believe the directors of GCPL are also working on trading out and taking back control, but that is obviously pie in the sky stuff.
The $500 they have asked us to pay is put into a trust account, so if the course does not remain open, or a member does not bring down enough guests, it will be refunded. Unless the administrator receives a reasonable amount of interest in the next week, the course may be closed within the next two weeks, as the money trickling in is not enough to cover expenses, and GCPL don't have any assets that can be sold.
Graeme Grant was quite vocal at the meeting, as a budget put forward by the administrators showed course maintenance costs of approx. $61000 per month, and he queried about how that could be so given the season.
Mick Gatto was a popular topic of conversation amongst many. :o
-
GCPL is comprised of a labyrinthine maze of companies, and that several of those companies were placed in administration last Friday.
But none of those companies are the ones who have title over the Gunnamatta Course and Clubhouse.
The property owned by the companies placed in administration is that of the apartments, the entrance road, and, I would assume, 9 and 10 of Fingal, as well as the apartments at Bass Coast.
There are four titles over St Andrews Beach.
The title containing the rest of Gunnamatta and Fingal has three mortgages over it held by RMBJ, Westpac and Stirling finance. It has been valued at around $7-8 million for use as farmland, since there are no permits for building.
A potential purchaser can secure the entire parcel by paying $21 million - less than that and it becomes complicated, as each secured creditor will argue over how much each of their mortgage is worth.
Alternatively, the title containing nearly all of the two courses could be secured for around $8 million, which would satisfy the three mortgage holders.
Mark,
The two quotes from you appear to conflict with one another. Could you please explain which is correct (or how both could be?)
Are there any GCPL entities that are not in administration / receivership?
What is the likley prognosis for the shareholder / members?
It would be a real shame if the course were to close or revert back to farm land.
Shane
-
I played there a fortnight ago, and the place looks superb. Will be a real shame if it shuts, never to reopen again.
Paul Daley's Golf Architecture Vol 3 is selling for $15 in the clubhouse.
-
Shane,
Sorry, the first quote was a mistake. Back in February, the GCPL companies involved in the development of the title containing 9 and 10 Fingal, half of Gunnamatta 1 and 18 etc, were placed in receivership by Capitol Finance.
GCPL placed the rest of the maze of companies involved in the development into administration a few weeks back.
The second quote from last night is correct.
The confusion over the bold section "But none of those companies are the ones who have title over the Gunnamatta Course and Clubhouse."is because we had always been told that the Gunnamatta Course and potential clubhouse were on their own title, when, in fact, they are not, as explained on Wednesday.
Everything associated with St Andrews Beach and Bass Coast Resort is in receivership/administration. At this stage, Kennedy Bay is not.
Prognosis? I guess if it reverts back to farmland we would expect a discount on veggies, but I won't be holding my breath.
-
There was also a bust up, for reasons unknown, with Inform, who designed and were to build the first lot of apartments starting at the beginning of 2005. This delayed the start of construction on that aspect of the development until 2006, with a new, mostly unsatisfactory in house design that did nothing to encourage people to purchase them.
The Gunnamatta course was wonderful but driving onto the property I was shocked at the design of the apartments. I think you would be hard pressed to design apartments that were less inviting for golf course living. With all that land available why would someone want to live right on top of their neighbor? It was like urban living on a golf course.
(http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b279/dkelly1770/apartment.jpg)
-
http://business.theage.com.au/administrators-tee-up-st-andrews/20080410-25cf.html
I am interested in Mark's opinion on the quality of journalism in this piece.
-
There was also a bust up, for reasons unknown, with Inform, who designed and were to build the first lot of apartments starting at the beginning of 2005. This delayed the start of construction on that aspect of the development until 2006, with a new, mostly unsatisfactory in house design that did nothing to encourage people to purchase them.
The Gunnamatta course was wonderful but driving onto the property I was shocked at the design of the apartments. I think you would be hard pressed to design apartments that were less inviting for golf course living. With all that land available why would someone want to live right on top of their neighbor? It was like urban living on a golf course.
(http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b279/dkelly1770/apartment.jpg)
David,
There were original plans to subdivide the land for housing, but there was no way to get a permit through council and other avenues, hence the apartments.
I haven't been in them, and apparently they are quite well done, but they look absolutely horrific, and you are right, for the price - $500,000 to $600,000 - you would expect something better, and perhaps a little less neighbourly.
http://business.theage.com.au/administrators-tee-up-st-andrews/20080410-25cf.html
I am interested in Mark's opinion on the quality of journalism in this piece.
Cliched, inaccurate drivel.
When you can't even get the first ten words of a piece correct, you are in very dire straits indeed.
-
The tee to green walks have been commented on but they have never seemed to be an issue for me
I think it is valid to list the tee to green walks as a negative of the course (the walk to the 3rd, 6th, 11th, 14th, and 16th tees would all be over 100m) , however I am not sure they could ever be considered a valid criticism of the architect as I struggle to see how 18 (36) holes could have been routed other wise.
-
Dave,
I think that is right - and there are some very short walks as well.
1 -2, 3-4, 4-5,6-7, 7-8, 8-9, 9-10,, 11-12,13-14 and 16-17.
-
Intereting quote from Graeme Grant - ex- super at Kingston Heath - in the Golfer Newspaper this week.
Paraphrasing it was something like ' I joined because I met Tom Doak when I was at KH and I thought he would design a great course - but he did not.There are too many blind shots and the walks are too long between green and tee'
Mike, its an interesting debate - did the golf course end up being an asset or a liability (as Graeme Grant is suggesting). It is without question the most polarising golf course in Victoria. There are people I respect who absolutely hate it. Others think its fantastic.
IMO, if "great" was the measure of success, then its a failure, but I don't think the golf course had to be great for the project to work. The business model failed, not the course.
-
Heck, the golf course was rated in the top ten in Australia the year it was finished -- I almost said "opened" but technically, it has never opened! That's a failure?
I'm not sure if it was the business model that failed, either. I think it is the clients themselves. They got a bad reputation for their financial dealings, and from then on no one trusted them enough to join the place.
-
Chris,
Its a similar question to the ' Was Greg Norman a great player?'
It depends on the definition of great - obviously.
Arguably Royal Melbourne is the only truly great course in Australia - if the top 10 or 15 in the world is the measure of great.
For me the golf course is not the problem.
-
It depends on the definition of great - obviously.
Arguably Royal Melbourne is the only truly great course in Australia - if the top 10 or 15 in the world is the measure of great.
Mike, I was using your definition of great - at a global level. In the Australian context, it sits somewhere between "great" and "near great"!!
-
I'm not sure if it was the business model that failed, either. I think it is the clients themselves. They got a bad reputation for their financial dealings, and from then on no one trusted them enough to join the place.
Tom, what financial dealings gave them the bad reputation?
Matthew
-
Tom, what financial dealings gave them the bad reputation?
Matthew
Matt,
The fact that they are $59 million in debt without having built much more than 2 1/2 golf courses would be first indication?
At least The National has a clubhouse and other facilities to go along with their 2 1/2 courses.
-
Mark, I know they're in huge debt, have wronged many many people, and they have run things very poorly to say the least. I asked my question because Tom posted the folowing -
I'm not sure if it was the business model that failed, either. I think it is the clients themselves. They got a bad reputation for their financial dealings, and from then on no one trusted them enough to join the place.
Tom's post seems to imply that dealings PRIOR to the drive for members led to GCPL having a bad reputation. Which in turn cost them credibility. Or have I misread Tom's post?
MM
-
The business model failed, not the course.
This again. The business model was not the reason it failed. A very small percentage of the many prospective members I took around at the club's behest in 2005 were querying the business model.
Most wanted to know why the clubhouse and second course hadn't been built yet, and weren't about to join until there was much more development. It was simply a golf course on the ground, with no other amenities, and the Three Stooges simply refused to listen to anyone about such matters.
A lot of construction finance was involved with the sale of apartments - the bust up with Inform led to a fatal delay that meant nothing happened for over a year. If the bust up hadn't of happened, there would have been finance to construct the clubhouse, Fingal course and perhaps other elements of the development.
The constant rumours of its impending demise from a certain member of The National didn't help, either.
For me the golf course is not the problem.
Mike,
Much as it pains me to admit, Chris is correct in one instance. The course does polarise people. A significant proportion of the prospective members I took around - maybe 30%? - hated the course. Of course, a few of these were people who thought Metropolitan was a better course than Royal Melbourne, but still...
Although I disagree with Graeme Grant's assessment, his views are an accurate representation of what people didn't like about the course.
One of the other reasons was the overwhelming difficulty of certain shots and holes. An obviously difficult course like National Moonah may have a couple of easier moments, which leave a player thinking he has conquered the beast. On a short, wide course perceived to be easy, but which isn't if you don't have your wits about you, the half dozen or so difficult shots simply lead to a struggle they didn't understand why they were having.
It's a course that demands a very good short game to score well on, and the average player simply doesn't have one, concerned as they are with 460CC, MOI and such.
Mark, I know they're in huge debt, have wronged many many people, and they have run things very poorly to say the least. I asked my question because Tom posted the folowing -
I'm not sure if it was the business model that failed, either. I think it is the clients themselves. They got a bad reputation for their financial dealings, and from then on no one trusted them enough to join the place.
Tom's post seems to imply that dealings PRIOR to the drive for members led to GCPL having a bad reputation. Which in turn cost them credibility. Or have I misread Tom's post?
MM
Matt,
No, I sort of read it that way too. I wonder what he knows...
As I have reiterated in previous posts, it was 2005 that killed them. They had a great course - albeit one that a reasonable number of people didn't like - open, but nothing else. There was no way anyone was going join until significant other development took place. I don't believe there was that much negative talk around then, at least in the wider community, but by 2006 there definitely was.
For all intent and purposes, although St Andrews Beach was not the success at this stage it had been hoped, the current situation is not due to the relative lack of success in that project so far.
The land at St Andrews Beach was one of the few assets they had, which they used to raise finance for their other projects. Kennedy Bay, for instance, was losing $400-500,000 per year. They spent millions building Bass Coast, were warned there wasn't the water supply to enable it to work, went ahead and built it, then watched it blow into the ocean. Then had to spend more money again last year to finish 9 holes.
A proposed development at Taggerty took substantial time and money. No development was happening at either Kennedy Bay or Bass Coast, and to complete the development required significantly more capital from the lenders, as last year's financial report stated in fine print.
From what research I gathered, many of the contractors involved at St Andrews Beach - aside from Tom Doak and the course staff, obviously - were paid, if not all of their fees, the vast majority of it.
The other projects killed St Andrews Beach more than St Andrews Beach suffered a fatal wound.
-
Mark, I think Matt is talking about the $50k membership model, which when you can join The National for about $35k less (and get 3 courses, built clubhouse etc etc) was always going to struggle.
Where are you going to join when the place folds? Do you hold any hope of seeing a return on what you paid to buy into the place?
-
Mark,
I understand the course polarizes people - and in that sense it is a problem with people who were probably never going to join anyway.
I think it would have garnered more love if it had been oversown with fescue - in line with the original plans. The success of that program at The Moonah Course is unquestioned.
I suspect those who didn't like holes like 3 and 13 like their golf to be very predictable - like it is at Metropolitan. (not to be read as a criticism of Metro - there is just very little quirky stuff there)
-
Mark, I think Matt is talking about the $50k membership model, which when you can join The National for about $35k less (and get 3 courses, built clubhouse etc etc) was always going to struggle.
Shane,
The directors shot themselves in the foot with the prospectus by stating that the shares would rise to $55,000 upon opening the course, and were afraid - or so I have been told - that if they changed the share offering, people would be able to get out of the deal.
They originally came up with the $50,000 price when The National's shares hit $35,000, figuring it was a no-brainer to pay $50,000 and have no fees, than pay $35,000 plus $3000 a year for time immemorial. They, of course had no idea The National's shares would fall so far so quickly. :) Clearly, people had been expecting Brian Walshe to vacate The National, and when he didn't, panic set in. Just as clearly, they didn't join St Ab because I was there, so a whole generation has been lost to the game.
Where are you going to join when the place folds? Do you hold any hope of seeing a return on what you paid to buy into the place?
I still hold out some hope that it won't become a market garden. If it remains a golf club, I have always said that a new owner would allow us to stay as members without having to join again - but paying annual subs - because the market simply would not invest in the project if they didn't. You have to doubt whether there is much of a market for shares in a golf club that far away now, given the increases in petrol and increasing demands on time in the lst few years, and especially given the current economic climate.
If it doesn't, or if I decide I can't be bothered, I will probably head for Settler's Run if it is a decent track. Much closer to home, and it undoubtedly has really, really big greens to provide lots of strategic options. Have you seen it?
As to a return, I have a definite plan for getting it back. I just have to work out the details first.
Mark,
I understand the course polarizes people - and in that sense it is a problem with people who were probably never going to join anyway.
Mike,
That's probably a fair point, and I also think that if the Fingal had been constructed, offering a slightly different experience - three par fives that aren't blind, and three par threes that aren't woods or hybrids for most players - that would have been enough to get a lot of the people who were hesitating in, especially if Gunnamatta had been oversown.
I suspect those who didn't like holes like 3 and 13 like their golf to be very predictable - like it is at Metropolitan. (not to be read as a criticism of Metro - there is just very little quirky stuff there)
It was always fascinating for me to compare the differing reactions of the people I took around. It always tended to be the better players who hated holes like 3,4, 10 and 13, generally because they felt the greens to be unfair, with the drive on 13 being far too harsh.
Average players didn' t like the blind shots, the long shots required into the par threes, and the fact that the ball seemingly never ended up where it should have once it hit the ground, which is pretty much a standard complaint of average players everywhere, I guess.
One of the other members who I played with always insisted the walk from 18 back up to the clubhouse cost them a ton of members.
-
Mark, does that definite plan involve Mick Gatto?
-
They originally came up with the $50,000 price when The National's shares hit $35,000, figuring it was a no-brainer to pay $50,000 and have no fees, than pay $35,000 plus $3000 a year for time immemorial. They, of course had no idea The National's shares would fall so far so quickly. :) Clearly, people had been expecting Brian Walshe to vacate The National, and when he didn't, panic set in. Just as clearly, they didn't join St Ab because I was there, so a whole generation has been lost to the game.
Mark, there is a fundamental difference between the shares at The National and those which were sold at St Andrews Beach. Members at The National own a share of the underlying asset, while St Andrews Beach was in effect a playing right. It is an apples to oranges comparison.
The project can't have been helped by that maniac who was posting under a series of aliases on iseekgolf.com a few years ago. You told me that you know him. I'd be interested in hearing in his views on his own contribution to the demise of his club (he was true believer, after all).
-
Mark, does that definite plan involve Mick Gatto?
Chris,
No, it doesn't. It involves duct tape and a blowtorch.
Mark, there is a fundamental difference between the shares at The National and those which were sold at St Andrews Beach. Members at The National own a share of the underlying asset, while St Andrews Beach was in effect a playing right. It is an apples to oranges comparison.
I know you like to push this particular barrow, and I understand your point of view, but I don't believe having a share that was part ownership would have fundamentally altered how many people would have joined.
There was substantial interest in the club through early 2005, but none of them would commit until further development took place. If they were concerned about playing right versus ownership, they would have gone to The National first, and I don't believe many, if any, did that.
Trust me, it was not having a clubhouse that cost them significant share sales, as well as other basic amenities such as proper walking tracks, on course toilets - lack of which cost them any hope of female purchasers - and practice facilities. It was simply a golf course amongst a paddock.
Owning a playing right only hasn't hurt The Heritage, Sanctuary Lakes and The Sands.
The project can't have been helped by that maniac who was posting under a series of aliases on iseekgolf.com a few years ago.
You can't be serious. ISG had the credibility Zimbabwe's electoral commission currently does.
However, if you still believe it to be true, I hope you plan on reprimanding Bulstrode, Jarrod, Cisco Kid and Specky Magee for the damage they caused.
You told me that you know him. I'd be interested in hearing his views on his own contribution to the demise of his club (he was true believer, after all).
How do you know it was a he?
-
However, if you still believe it to be true, I hope you plan on reprimanding Bulstrode, Jarrod, Cisco Kid and Specky Magee for the damage they caused.
They weren't members of the club, so I doubt they're as disappointed about recent events as I'm sure your workmate is.
How do you know it was a he?
Well you did refer to the person as a "he". Have you changed your mind, or you don't know him after all?
Owning a playing right only hasn't hurt The Heritage, Sanctuary Lakes and The Sands.
Those clubs were built by large developers, who had the cash required to complete the facilities. I know I'd feel much safer handing over my money to them than to GCPL, who at the time had one other (incomplete) facility. There was never any reason to believe that the course wouldn't be there 10-15 years after opening. The same cannot be said for St Andrews Beach.
-
Mark, Is this report from the Herald Sun accurate?:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23533183-2862,00.html
-
I had a good look at the proposal when it first came out as I was pretty convinced that a new Doak course would produce something special against some of the other courses that had been built down there. I dont think I was wrong about the course.
However the proposal didnt stack up for me. One early salesman kept telling me to buy it through my super fund (which couldnt be done) and that unnerved me. But on one "walk around with Tom and meet the directors" day I just couldnt trust the directors who were far too smooth for me. But worse than that, on reading the prospectus, I was being asked to buy a share in an "intangible".
Chris is correct in saying that, against the National, there was just no substantive equity in that share.
All that is in hindsight and in saying it I feel very sorry for Mark and many others who are going to lose money by investing in one of the top 10 courses in the Country. This is a great shame and the actions of those people who are responsible is shameful. And I dont think any of that crap on Iseekgolf had anything to do with it.
-
Mark, Is this report from the Herald Sun accurate?:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23533183-2862,00.html
Shane,
One or two sentences may be correct, but for the most part, the piece is nonsensical rubbish. The Herald-Sun really should stop recruiting journalists from Dolly.
Unless I am reading it incorrectly, it seems to suggest only 100 people are going to do their dough?
The administrator did suggest last week that if enough members didn't cough up the $500, the course will probably close in the next couple of weeks, however. Given that a great number of members are lucky to play once or twice a year, I am surprised that a hundred members forked over the extra money, even if it is in a trust account.
One early salesman kept telling me to buy it through my super fund (which couldnt be done) and that unnerved me.
Probably a totally different kettle of fish, but several members at the meeting last week were anxious to know that after the place is sold, when they would receive a letter from the administrator saying it had all been wound up, because they wanted to claim it as a tax deduction?
-
Mark, Is this report from the Herald Sun accurate?:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23533183-2862,00.html
Shane,
One or two sentences may be correct, but for the most part, the piece is nonsensical rubbish. The Herald-Sun really should stop recruiting journalists from Dolly.
Unless I am reading it incorrectly, it seems to suggest only 100 people are going to do their dough?
The administrator did suggest last week that if enough members didn't cough up the $500, the course will probably close in the next couple of weeks, however. Given that a great number of members are lucky to play once or twice a year, I am surprised that a hundred members forked over the extra money, even if it is in a trust account.
One early salesman kept telling me to buy it through my super fund (which couldnt be done) and that unnerved me.
Probably a totally different kettle of fish, but several members at the meeting last week were anxious to know that after the place is sold, when they would receive a letter from the administrator saying it had all been wound up, because they wanted to claim it as a tax deduction?
I read that as suggesting 100 shareholders would lose $50,000, and the rest would lose a lesser amount (presumably because they bought in for less).
It's a bit rich calling it a 'resort'
-
St Andrews Beach has closed it's doors with "members" playing their last rounds yesterday(Sunday).
The news even made it onto the evening ABC news service in Melbourne.
The saddest part is that there have been at least 4 groups "Attempt" to broker a deal to purchase the course over the past 9 months.
There is still some belief that a group of National members are waiting for the fire sale to purchase the course as their own private club.
-
There is still some belief that a group of National members are waiting for the fire sale to purchase the course as their own private club.
Andrew, any indication of whether they will allow the riff-raff to keep playing there once they buy it?
-
Shane
Sorry, they are being quite secretive.
They were all foundation members at the National and preferred it when it was much quieter down there. They would prefer to be able to walk on at any time and play so it seems that only limited guest play.
Financially they are not concerned about being profitable.
Sorry i missed you when you were at Yarra last time. When you come in again drop into the shop.
Andrew
-
St Andrews Beach has closed it's doors with "members" playing their last rounds yesterday(Sunday).
The news even made it onto the evening ABC news service in Melbourne.
The saddest part is that there have been at least 4 groups "Attempt" to broker a deal to purchase the course over the past 9 months.
There is still some belief that a group of National members are waiting for the fire sale to purchase the course as their own private club.
How many clubs in Australia have even been successful with the equity model? The only clubs I am aware of that issue shares that can be resold are Elanora and the National... I am sure there are others but they are in the distinct minority.
I don't think it's a membership model people in Australia are comfortable with. Most golfers would rather pay $10-15k admission fee instead of worrying about whether their $50k investment was keeping up with inflation... Your golf club is where you go to stop worrying about that kind of stuff.
-
Anthony
The vast majority of traditional courses are joining fee based with annual fees.
A large percentage of newly built courses are on the equity model with mixed success. A new Norman course settlers run on Melbournes outer south east is by all reports an enoyable course, opened second half of last year and have alreday looked at other options with membership take up slow.
Nearly all new courses / clubs with equity have been built with housing.
The real challenge for clubs here are your 2nd and 3rd tier clubs. There have been a number of pay for play courses built in and around Melbourne and a great number of 25 - 35 year olds prefer that option rather than joining a club they can afford to join.
The traditional sand belt clubs in Melbourne, Royal Melb, KIngston Heath, Victoria, Commonwealth, Yarra Yarra, Peninsula and Huntingdale all have very healthy waiting lists even with large joining fees by Australian standards.
Andrew
-
Andrew,
Which is why the traditional clubs should buy it!!
It seems there are at least three groups who want to buy the course - and then build the Fingal.
Someone will be playing golf there before Christmas - so long as the local, market gardeners don't buy it and use the irrigation system to plant lettuce.
-
Someone will be playing golf there before Christmas -
Mike,
Hopefully, you are not the riff-raff that classy gentleman Shane Gurnett, esquire, is referring to, then?
-
Someone will be playing golf there before Christmas -
Mike,
Hopefully, you are not the riff-raff that classy gentleman Shane Gurnett, esquire, is referring to, then?
I doubt Clayton ever pays any greens fees Mark..
-
Mark, did St Andrews Beach have any reciprocal playing rights locally that you can use until you find out what has happened to your shareholding?
-
Mark,
What did you make of the GCPL spokesman on ABC TV News last Sunday saying that one of the principal reasons St Andrews Beach has gone into liquidation was the lack of rain at their new San Remo course. This in turn delayed the completion and take up of membership there which ultimately caused the demise of StAB.
Buck passing if I have ever heard it.
-
Shane;
Yes. At The Bass Coast Resort. :D :D
Danny;
I didn't see the news on Sunday, although a friend told me about it. I think it was Crozier? He has a PhD in buck passing to go with a post-Doctorate in speaking out of your arse.
They - GCPL - were warned against constructing Bass Coast several years ago when they only had town water supply to irrigate it, but arrogantly went ahead anyway, and then watched $3-4 million in construction costs blow into the ocean. Imagine the cost that ended up being four years later with interest etc added onto it?
St Andrews Beach went into liquidation because it was their only source of cash flow, and it went on renting expensive premises in Hawthorn, gross overstaffing, exorbitant directors' fees, high legal fees because of all those unpaid contractors suing them ;) and development costs at the aborted Taggerty project.
-
Shane;
Yes. At The Bass Coast Resort. :D :D
Are you saying that the kind souls at The National have not offered to help out their homeless brothers with a few games to ease the pain?
-
Although the course is not open for play currently, it is in wonderful condition. Greens are stimping about 8, and the tees, as well as greens, fringes and approaches are all showing signs of regular mowing and preparation. Fairway grasses largely look dormant. The occasional weed is peeking through the fairway but even they are few and far between.
The course looks better presented than Barnbougle did when it opened, albeit unofficially. Course furniture (tee markers, holes, flags etc) have been removed, but the grass is being tended to. Wonder who is paying for it? Maybe there's some hope for the course to see more play in future?
MM
-
This place sold yet?
-
This place sold yet?
Slight differnce of opinion between what the secured creditors are determined to get for it, and what the offers were during the tender process.
-
I don't know what to say about the greatest architect of our day leading the world in both courses built and courses closed.
-
I don't know what to say about the greatest architect of our day leading the world in both courses built and courses closed.
When he's hot he's hot, and when he's not he's not?
-
John: There's a simple explanation: I've been willing to take on jobs with marginal financial backing, provided there was the potential to build a great course. If I hadn't been, you never would have seen St. Andrews Beach -- or Barnbougle Dunes, or Ballyneal.
The desire to build a great course usually entails a significant amount of risk.
Ironically, Beechtree was not one of those projects. It has always been well backed ... it just turns out there is the potential for greater return from a housing development in that location today.
-
Mark, forgive my ignorance, but will the course stay open, just under different owners? Or will it get ploughed up? Or do you not know at this point?
I did not have the stamina to make it to the end of the Doak thread, but SAB sure deserved a whole lot better than it was offered there. I will always remember my visit fondly, and hope it is not the last round i play there.
When are you coming North to see us and refresh your memories of golf in the UK?
-
Edit: Nevermind.....
-
That’s a refreshing attitude & one that should be more common amongst the top architects of the world, although I’m sure it leaves you out of pocket from time to time.
Even if St Andrew’s Beach never reopens, I’m glad to have had the opportunity to play it, as it was an excellent course. It is better that it was built, even if it fails, than for it never to be built.
-
It is better that it was built, even if it fails, than for it never to be built.
Those who supported the project financially, only to lose their money, would probably disagree with you.
-
Mark, forgive my ignorance, but will the course stay open, just under different owners? Or will it get ploughed up? Or do you not know at this point?
Philip,
The most likely scenario is that it will stay open as a golf course with different owners. There are at least two groups dead keen on developing the project further. We had all hoped it would have been settled by now, as it is coming into some glorious, albeit typically changeable Spring weather, and I believe it will take some time for the course to get back to its previous self.
Or perhaps the same owners. I understand that the former dickheads in charge have put together a proposal to take the development back out of administration, and the administrator has a duty to give them 60 days or so to do this.
When are you coming North to see us and refresh your memories of golf in the UK?
Philip, you have no idea how much I am chomping at the bit to get back to the UK, and watch you bludgeon a ball again :) I hope to get back by this time next year.
It is better that it was built, even if it fails, than for it never to be built.
Those who supported the project financially, only to lose their money, would probably disagree with you.
Yes, we would.
-
It is better that it was built, even if it fails, than for it never to be built.
Those who supported the project financially, only to lose their money, would probably disagree with you.
Yes, I do understand that & I would be extremely angry if that happened to me, but so many poor golf courses are built with little (or no) consideration given to the course as long as it returns a good income.
-
Investing in St AB ($50k upfront, no more to pay :P) was always a high risk play for a potentially fantastic return if it all went according to plan. Sadly, for whatever reason it hasn't worked out that way. It's a shame because the course was of a very high standard and in my view the best of the bunch down that way.
Mark, what expectation do you (and presumably all the other "members") have for your playing rights in the future? Is there any hope of playing gofl there again as a member without kicking in another bunch of cash?
Shane.
-
Mark, what expectation do you (and presumably all the other "members") have for your playing rights in the future? Is there any hope of playing gofl there again as a member without kicking in another bunch of cash?
Shane.
Shane,
I don't think we will have to kick in any more money in the form of purchasing another share or entry fees, but there will be subs involved when someone purchases the place.
However, if the impasse between what the secured creditors want for the development, and what the prospective purchasers have offered, continues, I have wondered whether the members may chip in to make up the difference, in return for equity.
-
But Mark, after having tipped $50k of your hard earned down the drain already, why put your hand in your pocket for another $10-20k or whatever it takes just to go through potentially the whole pain and misery again? You'd be better off spending the coin at the National where you already have 3 courses and the added bonus of a clubhouse thrown in for free. Surely only a fool would make the same mistake twice over.
That is of course assuming that the new owners would want to have anything to do with the old members anyway.
-
But Mark, after having tipped $50k of your hard earned down the drain already, why put your hand in your pocket for another $10-20k or whatever it takes just to go through potentially the whole pain and misery again?
I have to put my hand in my pocket for another club anyway - obviously you would have a close look at whomever the new oweners were, what you were offered in return, and what their plans where.
You'd be better off spending the coin at the National where you already have 3 courses and the added bonus of a clubhouse thrown in for free.
Nothing could lead me to joining The National. Once Matt Mollica leaves, I can easily see the land being sold for ordnance practice due to the sudden departure of members who won't have anyone decent to play with.
And The National's clubhouse isn't much of a bonus, especially as it looks out over The Ocean Course.
That is of course assuming that the new owners would want to have anything to do with the old members anyway
Why wouldn't they? Do you think they will be able to find another 500 people in Melbourne to pay the bills?
-
I have just started reading this thread...how sad it all seems.
I have only seen the array of marvelous pictures of the course, and uit certainly is on my "to play' list...I only hope it is still there to play.
Mark..is The National in trouble as well?
sorry if that appears an ignorant question....
-
The National is not in trouble at all Michael.
Through the last few years, it has maintained a financial membership of approx 2000, and has also been able to move from a position of 7mil debt (borrowings for design and construction of a new clubhouse, and 2 new courses) to a position where it is now in surplus.
The issue for some (Mark and others) is that Tom's course at St Andrews Beach may be viewed as superior to anything The National may provide. One course at The National is disappointing, despite being conditioned beautifully. The other two courses are very good, and could provide years of challenging and enjoyable golf.
MM
-
That is of course assuming that the new owners would want to have anything to do with the old members anyway.
Shane, the 500 people (Mark's figure) who were got sucked in the first time round would be a snake-oil salesman's wet dream!
-
Mark..is The National in trouble as well?
Michael,
The National is in trouble only insofar as the the cost of petrol has risen so dramtically here the last couple of years, the members struggle to afford a decent red with their foie gras these days.
In actuality, it is a very professional club with a very good member culture. Given that a couple of dunderheads who ran St Andrews Beach were long-time members there, I struggle to understand how they got it so wrong.
-
In actuality, it is a very professional club with a very good member culture. Given that a couple of dunderheads who ran St Andrews Beach were long-time members there, I struggle to understand how they got it so wrong.
They could have built the clubhouse first perhaps?
Why not join Long Island. They have no joining fee at the moment, just pay as you go membership. Its a decent course with some good holes and always in good condition.
-
In actuality, it is a very professional club with a very good member culture. Given that a couple of dunderheads who ran St Andrews Beach were long-time members there, I struggle to understand how they got it so wrong.
They could have built the clubhouse first perhaps?
So you are saying that enormous chicken shed at The National makes their culture? I would have said it was far more, and far less important things.
Why not join Long Island. They have no joining fee at the moment, just pay as you go membership. Its a decent course with some good holes and always in good condition.
I would rather join Woodlands and keep Justin on his toes.
And is Long Island your first choice if Commonwealth disappeared?
-
And is Long Island your first choice if Commonwealth disappeared?
Mark, that's hardly a fair question. Shane has never had to consider where he'd join if Commonwealth disappeared - as it won't disappear.
-
Mark, you appear to have lost not just your money but your mind as well! :P Commonwealth isnt going anywhere old sport.
And who says Woodlands would have you anyway? They have enough trouble makers there already..
-
If you were to leave Commonwealth however Shane, (hypothetically speaking of course), where would you like to go and play? I think that's what Mark's asking really...
MM
-
The rumour mill is awash wish suggestions that a sale has taken place, and that the course will be back in play soon. Anyone have anymore details?
-
I have not heard anything, officially or unofficially, regarding a sale of the course.
I did hear from a young fellow who climbed the fence to walk the course a couple of months ago. He said the fairways and greens were still in excellent shape ... the bunkers and roughs very rough. So if they do open it, it shouldn't take too much work to get it back up to a decent standard.
-
Tom, I spoke to the co-designer of the course at Portsea yesterday; almost the first thing he said to me was "I walked St Andrews Beach this morning, they could play the Australian Open there tomorrow if they wanted to!"
-
I did walk the course yesterday and the course looks fantastic.The bunkers have not been maintained and so look brilliant - windblown and rugged and real hazards.I would leave them alone pretty much when the course reopens.
There is no one around and the front gate is locked but its easy to jump the fence by the maintenance shed. It is a wonder there are not people jumping the fence and playing.The two guys cutting the fairways did not look too bothered about us walking around.
It's amazing how well two guys can maintain a course.
-
It's amazing how well two guys can maintain a course.
Mike, yes, especially when there are no pesky golfers!
-
Fingers crossed that the course can be reopened soon. I have only walked the place but it is at the top of my must plays in Australia.
-
So if they do open it, it shouldn't take too much work to get it back up to a decent standard.
Probably about a week's worth to get it back up to the standard you last saw it in. :)
"...they could play the Australian Open there tomorrow if they wanted to!"
But would anyone drive that far to watch it?
The rumour mill is awash wish suggestions that a sale has taken place, and that the course will be back in play soon. Anyone have anymore details?
Lloyd Williams has bought it. Capital is getting too much traffic, so another two more courses should ease the load significantly.
Fingal 9 and 10 will be re-routed to make rook for a helipad.
-
Chris,
I very much hope St Andrews Beach can be brought to life again. It was a joy to play, far more so for me than Tom's other two projects in your neck of the woods.
Really look forward to returning to Melbourne and the Mornington Peninsula before too long. Not sure there is a better destination for golf. I just loved it.
-
*Update*
Re-opens this week as a public course (with carts!). Details here:
http://www.standrewsbeachgolf.com.au/
No mention of what happened to the previous members or what future development will proceed. Great to see it open for play once again.
-
*Update*
Re-opens this week as a public course (with carts!). Details here:
http://www.standrewsbeachgolf.com.au/
No mention of what happened to the previous members or what future development will proceed. Great to see it open for play once again.
So finally the idiots in charge of the two main titles have pissed off all the potential purchasers, and with no more charging over the horizon, it becomes a public track (again).
How undignified.
-
Mark, were the members aware of what was going on of late? Where do they stand as of now?
Shane.
-
Shane,
First I knew was the resurrection of this post.
Where they stand? Given that the price the mortgage holders want for their two titles vastly exceeds what all four are worth, and that they have managed to piss off a large array of suitors, the place is gone. The only saving grace is that it won't end up with the National members who have bid for it.
It will be interesting to see how long it remains open. There have been numerous times in the previous year or so it was going to be opened for public play, but then a new buyer came sniffing around so the mortgage holders backed off.
The fact it is opening would suggest that there isn't anyone interested in the property. $70 a round is too steep in this market given the additional time and cost of getting down there.
Coupled with the very severe small greens, and I would bet interest wanes quite quickly. It won't last past Christmas.
-
The only saving grace is that it won't end up with the National members who have bid for it.
Why is that a good thing? Isn't it better to have the course open under someone's stewardship than closed for everyone?
I'd rather the Mona Lisa be put in someone's private gallery than run through a shredder...
-
Scott
I think there's a bit of "history" behind those comments ;D
Glad to see it reopened - from memory aren't some of the rates similar to those before it closed ? The twilight one's are new I believe ?
-
Scott
I think there's a bit of "history" behind those comments ;D
Not at all, Kevin. There are a small group of National members who want to buy the place and run it as an exclusive club. We already have two of those in this country, and that is two too many.
And given that some of those members were instrumental in spreading rumours about the viability of the project before construction had even been completed, it would really be taking the piss for them to end up with it. Thankfully, they won't.
I'd rather the Mona Lisa be put in someone's private gallery than run through a shredder...
Even if St Andrew’s Beach never reopens... It is better that it was built, even if it fails, than for it never to be built.
You NSW people sure are a different breed.
-
Great news re the cart path construction, some courses look far too natural without a ribbon of tarmac.
-
*BUMP*
Auction on May 15. Lets hope it find a good home:
http://www.realcommercial.com.au/commercial-real-estate/5639528
-
Interesting that they are advertising that the land for sale includes the potential Fingal course.
Maybe Mike would know better, but I would have thought that was a goner.
-
In case anyone is interested, here is a screenshot of the titles that comprise St Andrews Beach.
(http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj26/fingal_album/StAndrewsBeachTitles.png)
Lot 1 is around 30 acres and was sold about this time last year for approx. $1 million.
It impacts most crucially upon the would-be Fingal on the 6th hole, a short par five over one of the wildest fairways you would ever witness, and the 7th, a very good medium four.
The small lot in the bottom corner right is basically the maintenance facility, the mortgage of which is held by a bank, for which they want approx $500,00, I think.
The two titles up for auction are the main lot, which comprises all of Gunnamatta, and around two-thirds of Fingal, and the second lot alongside it, for which permits for a clubhouse and apartments have been granted, and which also comprises small parts of four holes on Gunnamatta, and two holes of Fingal, as well as the all-important entrance road.
The mortgage holders have been attempting to sell these two main titles since the course closed, but their price has been around one-third more than what numerous parties were willing to pay.
-
Mark - why did they split up the sale of the titles like that?
We were discussing the other day, if or when the Fingal course would ever get built - we summised a few years down the track once some entities start getting a reasonable dollar out of it. I walked the Fingal before construction began, my memories are that it was very interesting land, and it still looks that way from the Gunnamatta course.
Such a poor result for everyone.
-
This is weird. If I were interested to buy this, I'd certainly wanted to know the whole price I'd have to pay. Imagine if I bid successfully on the first lot, but someone else gets the second - pathetic.
Ulrich
-
Urlich, very true, which may be the motivation. Not to allow it to be sold in coherent parcels but co-mingle the assets so it forces an interested party to take it all?
I would have to have a certain outcome that worked. Not knowing the property and just working of the Master Plan, I would only bid on the parcels that have a majority of the golf holes (built and planned) and the SE parcel w/the maintenance. I assume there is access to that via an eastern road. The 2 SE par 3's become a clubhouse site and the conjoined eastern holes become the practice range. 6 & 7 abandoned and a collectiion of the south and eastern plannd holes built to make up the 18. This would leave several pockets for future RE but that would be held off until the rest of the afflicted property was dealt with.
Once it becomes apparant that the parcels could be spilt, and operate independent of each other, the price accepted may go down.
-
It looks like there are two Lot 2s in the schematic...is that the case or a mistake?
-
It looks like there are two Lot 2s in the schematic...is that the case or a mistake?
There are two Lot 2s because there are 2 separate plans of subdivision. The larger lot 2 is on the same plan of subdivision as Lot 1 in the top left corner which Mark says has already been sold.
-
Urlich, very true, which may be the motivation. Not to allow it to be sold in coherent parcels but co-mingle the assets so it forces an interested party to take it all?
Tim,
I think it goes back to the different financial management of the various titles. Different mortgages taken out over different titles etc.
-
Three of the four lots are up for sale - all but the area marked "Lot 1" in the diagram above.
The three were auctioned as if a single unit, although the buyer would have been obliged to sign separate contracts for each.
The auction was held today. There were no bids. They were calling for bids above Aus$7.5m
-
The auction was held today. There were no bids. They were calling for bids above Aus$7.5m
They are dreaming. They should have taken that price two years ago.
-
A press release will come out this weekend announcing that St Andrews beach has been sold!
In the short term it will remain in the current format with pay for play :)
-
A press release will come out this weekend announcing that St Andrews beach has been sold!
Any word on who has bought it, Andrew?
And did they manage to secure the parcel of land that was sold last year?
-
The press release has the following, i have heard a couple of names but nothing concrete
Nearly two months after being passed in at auction the St Andrews Beach Golf Course has been sold and will have new owners from September 1.
The major shareholder, an individual who has a passion for golf has teamed up with a Melbourne based accounting firm, a golf course architect and the current golf course operations management group to complete the sale.
-
Keiser have his hand in another pie?
-
Keiser have his hand in another pie?
It would want to be a deep-dish pie, Garland...
The press release has the following, i have heard a couple of names but nothing concrete
Nearly two months after being passed in at auction the St Andrews Beach Golf Course has been sold and will have new owners from September 1.
The major shareholder, an individual who has a passion for golf has teamed up with a Melbourne based accounting firm, a golf course architect and the current golf course operations management group to complete the sale.
Thanks, Andrew.
Hopefully something good - and permanent - comes out of the whole sorry episode.
-
I believe the individual is based in melbourne
-
I believe the individual is based in melbourne.
I guess Brian Walshe sold all of his Apple stock to fund the purchase, then.
-
A golf course architect?
-
A golf course architect?
My first thought too. Will they make architectural changes to the course?
-
Jim,
Maybe they are hiring an architect to design the Fingal course?
-
I was told that the course was being put up for sale, but have heard nothing from anyone about who has bought it. I can tell you for sure it was not Mike Keiser.
-
but have heard nothing from anyone about who has bought it.
The 2nd Saturday of each month is the 'Tom Doak Back Tee Challenge'.
Did you know that you had an event named after you? You need to copyright your name. ;D
-
not many - if any - architects here in Australia could afford to buy a share in a golf course! It certainly wasn't me. the only one I could think of was Peter Thomson. Or perhaps Tony Cashmore.
-
not many - if any - architects here in Australia could afford to buy a share in a golf course! ...Perhaps Tony Cashmore.
You mean to say there is that much money to be made in screwing up Sandbelt courses?
I am going to have to hang out a shingle.