I don't like having 6 sets of tees either, but if it allows golfers to not ego-boost themselves in to playing a set too far back, then there is something positive to come from it at least.
I would have thought it does the exact opposite. What about feeling "shortchanged"?
None other than Brad Klein played today and made a very positive tweet about his impressions of the course.
I hope to play it next year. Unless the wind is absent, 6329 sounds perfect to get some fun out of the course.
Do the 7428 tees really exist? They are surely part of the hype. Pat Ruddy told me Tigers course record at TEC would stand "for a very long time". When pressed he admitted no one else had ever played the course set up to 7300 yards and that includes the two Irish Opens that Padraig won.
Thank you Brad Klien for waiting to play the course before adopting a view. ;)
I agree Niall. I don't understand the need for six tee boxes. I feel four tee boxes are more than enough.
1. Championship Tee
2. Low Handicap Tee
3. Regular Tee
4. Forward Tee
None other than Brad Klein played today and made a very positive tweet about his impressions of the course.
High praise:
"Wow, just played Trump International Scotland. What could have been overwhelming is subtle, intriguing and compelling. An amazing place."
https://twitter.com/BKleinGolfweek/status/222745698276352000 (https://twitter.com/BKleinGolfweek/status/222745698276352000)
I agree Niall. I don't understand the need for six tee boxes. I feel four tee boxes are more than enough.
1. Championship Tee
2. Low Handicap Tee
3. Regular Tee
4. Forward Tee
"lacks the smallish, chaotic fairway contours that make many links so enticing. Also, too many green surrounds have a manufactured sameness to them, with scooped out depressions and corresponding ridges that lack the randomness I warm to on classic links"Exactly.
I don't understand how the above doesn't conflict with the greatest statements by Joe and Mr. Trump
The above quote subtracts 2-3 points
Sameness especially
Thou shalt not judge that which one has not yet played.
I have treveled the seaside highway many times between Royal Aberdeen( and vastly underrated Murcar) and Cruden Bay and there is no doubt that this is the greatest stretch of (continous) dunesland I have ever seen.
There are tens of golf course sites; all fabulous. Thank goodness someone such as the Donald ,who had the money and cohonies to challenge all the UK's antigrowth establishment hurdles, stepped up and claimed a new site from this marvelous land.
Although possible it should be hard to cock up this site and I am glad to hear it came off necely. Still not sure I care to pay $250 to play this when there is so much good stuff around
Interesting comments from those that have played it. Certainly looks like they've gone for the WOW factor in a big way. Hard not to on a site like that.
Steve
As a matter of interest, how narrow were the fairways at Cruden Bay to be unplayable ?
Niall
I have treveled the seaside highway many times between Royal Aberdeen( and vastly underrated Murcar) and Cruden Bay and there is no doubt that this is the greatest stretch of (continous) dunesland I have ever seen.
It's difficult to imagine how wet and miserable a summer this one has been in Britain & Ireland.
Steve,
Fantastic review. Thank you.
When I listen to someone's thoughts on a place, my attention is drawn not to how effusive their praise is, but how / how strongly they deliver the negatives - that's more instructive to me. Joe's nitpicking paragraphs were a source of alarm (particularly the shaping / flattened / orderly feel to the fairways / green surrounds) but yours much less so. It sounds as if you, Joe and Brad were in close contact during your time there - did you notice any dissenting parties? Also, could you comment on its walkability and can you compare that with other recognisable UK links courses you have played?
Leaving aside unusually soft conditions (presumably it will get firm with time), where would you rank it in your all time favourites?
Cheers,
B.
It sounds as if you, Joe and Brad were in close contact during your time there - did you notice any dissenting parties?
Interesting comments from those that have played it. Certainly looks like they've gone for the WOW factor in a big way. Hard not to on a site like that.
Steve
As a matter of interest, how narrow were the fairways at Cruden Bay to be unplayable ?
Niall
Niall,
The fairways were likely their usual width ( haven't been back here since 2000....played it 2x then), however their maintenance practices seem to have slimmed. Balls struck well enough to find some rough or even the edges of the the bunch were gone instantly. The density there was extreme making the course an exercise only for those willing to bring along a Norden Bombsight. We played it in 25mph and while we loved the architecture ( still fantastic), it became disappointing to strike decent shots that disappeared swiftly. As an aside, Royal Aberdeen, no less known for its narrow fairways, played infinitely better as their light rough and heather borders kept any decent shot in play. They also evidenced a clear gorse and bunch thinning program.....cheers!
It's difficult to imagine how wet and miserable a summer this one has been in Britain & Ireland.
You know Ally, I am sick of hearing thiis.
Here (NE Scotland) the summers have been pretty consistent for the last 8-10 years.
But for some reason we seem to be in denial.
The days of hard fast yellow fairways, I knew as a junior are long gone.
Also, given the fact that Mr Trump wants to host tournaments on the course - where will the spectators go? I for one wouldn't fancy traipsing over some of those dune complexes.
Very exciting news for the golf world, and for Mr. Trump, who I respect greatly as a wonderful steward of the game.
Of course they need six separate tees ...
If this course had another name attached to it, it would be discussed very differently.
There's no way to judge this or any course from afar, least of all from a scorecard.
Any talk of it being the greatest in the world is absurd.
Overall, it's very good as a golf course.
Thou shalt not judge that which one has not yet played.
Criticism about the number of tees, the supposed "lack of ...chaotic fairway contours and greens surrounds" is a wee bit of nitpicking (as Joe himself admits).
This time, Trump is completely believable. His new course is without peer.
I plan to be there on the 23rd.
Brad,
As a fellow links golf lover that: also caddied, champions caddie golf as you do and has always respected you for that, greatly enjoys reading your many written contributions to the game over the years, and often agrees with your take on things... gotta call your 60 compression assessment on the place into question.
10-15 miles an hour...C'MON, that is a zepher sir! Hardly a fair links wind to base an evaluation of links playability...on an absolute BEAST of a track! You are a better golfer than 80% of those that will ever set foot on the place. I've seen you play. That marram grass is savage in its current presentation. I don't need to be there to touch it to see that. You seem to have gotten swept up in Trumposity mania that has infected others.
Notice you didn't dare go near Mr. Arbie's astute observation. What criteria are we using to determine the "correct tees?" Tough windy day, I'll play from 5,500. Easy, I'm back to 6800 +? I'm all for flexible set-up options, but it says something when you're are choosing to play tees according to particular wind conditions. Any links rounds I've ever played, the course had it's set-up for the day...and you give it a go. Isn't that golf?
If one is a la carting their tee game given the conditions, what does that say about the real quality of the course presentation? Caddies aren't even bothering to look for off-line balls. I know what is says for me...cruel links golf for all but the most accomplished or masochistic(of which I've often been accused of embracing). O.K., so we essentially multilated a pristine piece of ground to... MAYBE... host a professional event, even once every x years perhaps a Major, and the rest of the time impale the remainder of those who play it, save the OCCASIONAL tourist board photo day that occurs about as often as Haley's comet comes around. Can't see many wanting to play it multiple times.
The bar on this course was set in the stratosphere! Thanks to the natural beauty that it was CARVED out of, it is stunning, AND seriously flawed as a model on several levels. In any steady wind over 20 MPH, ROUTINE for a links site, this course will kick the ass out of ANY level of player...EVEN from the "right"tees. It needs MAJOR work, on multiple levels of presentation, before it is even close to becoming financially successful, AND in a class with the world's greatest courses.
Cheers,
Kris 8)
I've played in 30-40 mph winds; not many courses are playable like that, but the fairways are 40-70 yards wide for tee shots. And I would judge which tees to play by the width at the point where you hit your average drive. At 6,350 yards my tees were fine and I never faced a carry that, with a reasonable hit of my skill, I couldn't manage.
I love how those who have played the course have been pretty much praised it across the board, while all the criticisms of the course are coming from those who have never set foot on it. Yet another thing that makes this chatboard great! ;)
I love how those who have played the course have been pretty much praised it across the board, while all the criticisms of the course are coming from those who have never set foot on it. Yet another thing that makes this chatboard great! ;)
David,
And I thought I was the only one that noticed that ;D
What if the name was Mike Keiser International Golf Links?
Any changes of opinion?
I'm not suggesting good caddie programs aren't good... I'm just suggesting that they should have nothing to do with whether you think a golf course (not ancillaries) are good...
Ally
What if the name was Mike Keiser International Golf Links?
Any changes of opinion?
But of course that is impossible. Mike Keiser works with the environment and the local people, not against it as was done here.
I'm not suggesting good caddie programs aren't good... I'm just suggesting that they should have nothing to do with whether you think a golf course (not ancillaries) are good...
Ally
Ally:
I will say that I think all the courses at Bandon Dunes are rated higher and more successful financially because there are no golf carts out there distracting from the golf ... I think it is the absence of carts more than the caddies which make it special, because lots of people do walk without a caddie, too.
However, I agree with you that the caddie program itself should have little to no effect on how highly someone rates the golf course. Kris is becoming as single-issue driven as Melvyn ... he needs to get back on his meds.
On the other hand, I know that the issue of lost-ball rough can and will be improved over time, but you can't really think that it's a good thing that all the reviews of the course so far have featured lost ball counts, can you?
And it has also been suggested strong south-easterly winds could cause chaos on the links, dumping "tonnes" of sand across the fairways.Isn't this the ideal maintenance practice on a links course. Wasn't OTM famous for saying "Sand, Honeyman. More Sand!"
Having said that I'm sure there must have been other golf courses that have upset residents and environmentalists. Any other famous examples?How about pretty much every golf course built in the last thirty years. There is an environmental activist protesting against damage at Cabot Links. I am sure that if you tried to build pretty much any of the links courses in 2012 that you would have a battle on your hands. Would St Andrews be better off if there was never any golf courses there? Perhaps from an environmental standpoint but the world we be a lesser place.
If this was a Mike Keiser project the detractors would be singing its praises.
But, suddenly, because it's Trump, there's an unrealistic expectation that his course should be perfect the day it opened.
And because it may not be, there's ridiculous criticism or nit picking on micro issues and a disregard for the macro issues.
If this was a Mike Keiser project the detractors would be singing its praises.
But, suddenly, because it's Trump, there's an unrealistic expectation that his course should be perfect the day it opened.
And because it may not be, there's ridiculous criticism or nit picking on micro issues and a disregard for the macro issues.
But, suddenly, because it's Trump, there's an unrealistic expectation that his course should be perfect the day it opened.
And because it may not be, there's ridiculous criticism or nit picking on micro issues and a disregard for the macro issues.
Patrick, It is this forum's chosen one who suggests things should be perfect, or nearly perfect out of the gate. In fairness the board is following his lead.
But, suddenly, because it's Trump, there's an unrealistic expectation that his course should be perfect the day it opened.
And because it may not be, there's ridiculous criticism or nit picking on micro issues and a disregard for the macro issues.
Patrick, It is this forum's chosen one who suggests things should be perfect, or nearly perfect out of the gate. In fairness the board is following his lead.
I don't believe he suggests it, I believe he says that's what clients, raters, mag editors, etc., demand.
Of course, being a charter member DBB, what I believe may be suspect in itself...
If this was a Mike Keiser project the detractors would be singing its praises.
To me it appears that everyone is calling it a Trump course, even the title of this thread has it so. Just count the number of times "Trump" has been mentioned on this thread vs. "Hawtree" and you'll see what I mean.
Ulrich
Pat, JK well said. And it was being torn to shreds by you, Pat, some years ago when I made an ill-thought-through comment that has made me consider thoroughly what I write and what I say on this site. That is why I've tried to make the commentary to my photo tour as objective as possible.
As far as I know, Pat, we parted on good terms when last we encountered each other - at a filling station in New Haven after playing in an event at Yale!
Mark,
I think it was an ice cream store after we played Yale.
That was a nice day.
But, suddenly, because it's Trump, there's an unrealistic expectation that his course should be perfect the day it opened.
And because it may not be, there's ridiculous criticism or nit picking on micro issues and a disregard for the macro issues.
If this was a Mike Keiser project the detractors would be singing its praises.
Pat,
Isn't it Trump who is declaring this the best golf course in the world (or something similar)?
Who cares what Trump says, he says that about every one of his projects, and no, the expectation should not be that the course is not in need of fine tuning on opening day.
So isn't it Trump who is creating this "unrealistic expectation"?
No
Objective analysis should be the order of the day not reverse, negative hyperbole
Trump's over-the-top persona and hyperbole hasn't earned him much goodwill from people who are put off by such things. Can you really blame them? You claim Trump's boorishness and pomposity is an act for entertainment purposes; well, it's a double-edged sword. It might help him market a TV show but it offends many.
So what ?
Does that mean you're incapable of being objective when it comes to analyzing a Trump golf course b
Patrick
Your comments seem to be more about defending Trump personally, rather than his course, which is fine by me.
Niall,
My comments have nothing to do with Trump or his course, rather, those on this site who have been critical of the course despite never having seen it.
I don't have a problem with Trump. My issues have always centred on the idea of the course being built where it was and the politicians who allowed it to happen.
I understand your objections
Its certainly not about the quality of the course.
But others have been negative about the course without ever seeing it.
Any comments I've made about the course have been in the form of questions as to whether there was any need to use the SSSI land, and such like, addressed to those who had seen the routing which was principally Ally. The reason I spell all that out is your characterising anyone who is not praising this development from the rooftops as being totally anti every thing about the course which as others has pointed out is rubbish.
That's incorrect
My objections are not directed toward those who do not "praise the course to the rooftops" IF they've seen it, rather I object to those who are critical of the course when they've never seen it. There's a vast distinction in the two
But, suddenly, because it's Trump, there's an unrealistic expectation that his course should be perfect the day it opened.
And because it may not be, there's ridiculous criticism or nit picking on micro issues and a disregard for the macro issues.
Patrick, It is this forum's chosen one who suggests things should be perfect, or nearly perfect out of the gate. In fairness the board is following his lead.
But, suddenly, because it's Trump, there's an unrealistic expectation that his course should be perfect the day it opened.
And because it may not be, there's ridiculous criticism or nit picking on micro issues and a disregard for the macro issues.
Patrick, It is this forum's chosen one who suggests things should be perfect, or nearly perfect out of the gate. In fairness the board is following his lead.
Really?
So Coore & Crenshaw got it wrong at Friars Head and Hidden Creek ?
Neither of those course are today as they were on opening day.
How about Sebonack ?
Any changes there after opening day ? ;D
Actions speak louder than words
But, suddenly, because it's Trump, there's an unrealistic expectation that his course should be perfect the day it opened.
And because it may not be, there's ridiculous criticism or nit picking on micro issues and a disregard for the macro issues.
Patrick, It is this forum's chosen one who suggests things should be perfect, or nearly perfect out of the gate. In fairness the board is following his lead.
Really?
So Coore & Crenshaw got it wrong at Friars Head and Hidden Creek ?
Neither of those course are today as they were on opening day.
How about Sebonack ?
Any changes there after opening day ? ;D
Actions speak louder than words
Patrick
But, wouldn't you agree that it is better to get it right the first time than not?
Sean,
The problem with your above statement is you're all acting as if he got it wrong, and he didn't and neither did C & C and Kenny Bakst.
Neither did Crump nor Mackenzie, Ross, AWT, Doak and others.
Tell us, who got it right the first time ?
Who designed a course so perfect that there's never been a subsequent alteration to improve the course ?
Yet, that's what you're asking/demanding from Trump
You guys are all demanding perfection on opening day and that's absurd.
What's also absurd is your implication that if he didn't get it perfect on opening day that it must automatically be deemed a flawed golf course.
Disclaimer - the above comment is not a slight on Trump Aberdeen's owner, architect or the course itself.
Sean I understand that, yet you've never held any other course to that standard, ergo it is a slight on Trump, Hawtree, et. al.
Ciao
Pat,
There is a big difference between perfection and a course that isn't ready to be played in normal links conditions. Mr. Trump did lay down a VERY ambitious schedule and he opened on it. You are giving him a pass on a solid opening presentation, which from accounts of a fair few of those who HAVE played it, IS PENAL.
Kris,
Anyone involved in major project knows and understands "on time and under budget" and all that can go wrong with schedules.
He opened when he said he would. Are you going to criticize him for a timely opening ?
I would imagine that he weighed opening on schedule and deferring the opening date and decided to open on schedule.
Unless we know all of the issues which factored into the decision to open on schedule I don't think we should criticize opening on schedule.
The same comment could probably have been leveled at Eric Bergstol at Bayonne.
The Fescue rough was very penal, but since everything on the site was imported, the course had to be/look "mature" on opening day.
Eventually, the Fescue thinned out and was more manageable, but the reality of the situation demanded that the course look "mature" on opening day.
The nit picking, in the face of favorable reviews from credible sources, seems petty and beyond petty
One can spin or excuse it away anyway you like, but at the end of the day, in the stiffer wind conditions that links courses present, most players are going to get beat up.
But that wasn't the case on opening day, was it ?
It has ZERO to do with Trump for me, it's about the current set-up. C'mon, you are as sharp as anyone on assessing courses, that track, just now, is a BEAR! The caddie staff seems to leave a bit to be desired as well.
I don't doubt that the rough may be too penal, but didn't a number of local posters tell us how wet it's been on site this year ?
Wouldn't Mother Nature dictate growing and playing conditions
Mother Nature has an enormous influence on growing and playing conditions and I don't know that you can dictate conditions on a day in the distant future
I don't think a course should have been built there, but as Tim Martin put it, "that ship has sailed." I LOVE links golf and hope that they get the course right. It takes time.
Agreed
Folks DO have a right to critique a product when it first comes out.
We're not talkin about "rights", we're talking about "reasonableness".
It would appear, that rather than focus on the big issues, the important issues, that focus has been diverted to petty issues.
That... to me...is fair game, ESPECIALLY with the tall claims being bandied about by the principle.
There you go again, focusing on Trump, the person, and not the PRODUCT
I actually have been around the Donald and he has always been decent to folks in my company.
His bombastic nature is hard on the ears and eyes sometimes.
Like a moth to the flame everyone is drawn to reacting to his persona and not the golf course.
He is...who he is.
That's for sure, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water
But, suddenly, because it's Trump, there's an unrealistic expectation that his course should be perfect the day it opened.
And because it may not be, there's ridiculous criticism or nit picking on micro issues and a disregard for the macro issues.
Patrick, It is this forum's chosen one who suggests things should be perfect, or nearly perfect out of the gate. In fairness the board is following his lead.
Really?
So Coore & Crenshaw got it wrong at Friars Head and Hidden Creek ?
Neither of those course are today as they were on opening day.
How about Sebonack ?
Any changes there after opening day ? ;D
Actions speak louder than words
Patrick
But, wouldn't you agree that it is better to get it right the first time than not?
Sean,
The problem with your above statement is you're all acting as if he got it wrong, and he didn't and neither did C & C and Kenny Bakst.
Neither did Crump nor Mackenzie, Ross, AWT, Doak and others.
Tell us, who got it right the first time ?
Who designed a course so perfect that there's never been a subsequent alteration to improve the course ?
Yet, that's what you're asking/demanding from Trump
You guys are all demanding perfection on opening day and that's absurd.
What's also absurd is your implication that if he didn't get it perfect on opening day that it must automatically be deemed a flawed golf course.
Disclaimer - the above comment is not a slight on Trump Aberdeen's owner, architect or the course itself.
Sean I understand that, yet you've never held any other course to that standard, ergo it is a slight on Trump, Hawtree, et. al.
Ciao
But, wouldn't you agree that it is better to get it right the first time than not?
No, there is nothing wrong with my statement. It is brief, on point and accurate.
I've quoted your statement, above, so that we don't deviate from the issue.
Your statement clearly implies that Trump/Hawtree did NOT get it right the first time.
My contention is that courses are not perfect on opening day and your criticisms are more of the nit-picking type, micro rather than macro.
The problem is your interpretation of my statement.
My interpretation is accurate.
I quoted you above.
You stated words to the effect that Trump/Hawtree didn't get it right on opening day.
Read what I wrote.
I am not demanding anything from Hawtree or Trump, least of which perfection. The course looks as good as any other highly regarded modern design recently opened in GB&I. I asked questions about the playability of the course. Many have said that in the conditions experienced, the course was playable for a decent player and that once things are settled the course should become a bit more user friendly. Thats fair enough.
My point simply was that if a course is open for play, I prefer to assess it based on what I see rather than what I am told will happen in the future.
Implying that only a perfect course would meet that standard.
You never answered my question regarding which courses, on opening day, were not in need of amendments.
Would you list just five (5) such courses ?
When I wrote that my comments are not a slight on Trump or Hawtree, I left no room for spiteful interpretation and meant it. While I am less than enamoured with Trump's public persona, I don't know the man, never had any dealings with the man. So far as Hawtree is concerned, I have a lot of time for his work and have said so on several occasions.
Its a shame there are people such as yourself who wantonly accuse folks of malicious intent with little or no evidence, but I spose that is the world we live in.
Me thinks that Brutus doth protest too much.
I asked you, what other course/s met/meets your standard of perfection on opening day ?
To date, you haven't identified any, meaning that you're holding Trump/Hawtree to a different standard, despite your protests to the contrary.
But, suddenly, because it's Trump, there's an unrealistic expectation that his course should be perfect the day it opened.
And because it may not be, there's ridiculous criticism or nit picking on micro issues and a disregard for the macro issues.
Patrick, It is this forum's chosen one who suggests things should be perfect, or nearly perfect out of the gate. In fairness the board is following his lead.
Really?
So Coore & Crenshaw got it wrong at Friars Head and Hidden Creek ?
Neither of those course are today as they were on opening day.
How about Sebonack ?
Any changes there after opening day ? ;D
Actions speak louder than words
But, suddenly, because it's Trump, there's an unrealistic expectation that his course should be perfect the day it opened.
And because it may not be, there's ridiculous criticism or nit picking on micro issues and a disregard for the macro issues.
Patrick, It is this forum's chosen one who suggests things should be perfect, or nearly perfect out of the gate. In fairness the board is following his lead.
Really?
So Coore & Crenshaw got it wrong at Friars Head and Hidden Creek ?
Neither of those course are today as they were on opening day.
How about Sebonack ?
Any changes there after opening day ? ;D
Actions speak louder than words
The other chosen one and as for Sebonack I would assert that nearly all changes were at the behest of the owner and not necessarily viewed as improvements, particularly the 14th green (that from the guy who shaped it under direct supervision of the owner).
Greg,
Aren't ALL changes at the behest of the owner ?
Hard to imagine a change to a golf course that doesn't get the owner's approval.
How about the 16th green ?
Pat, Pat: snap out of it!! We get it! I know you like the wind up but I'm genuinely interested in your initial impressions of the course from the various pics and videos posted. Do you like the look of it? Anything seem a bit off? No doubt it will need tweaks like many of the courses you listed - what course doesn't? I'm not sure I LOVE the look of the course from the pics but it does look pretty impressive - what's your view?
Brian,
My view is that I'd like to play it and that I'll reserve judgement on its merits or demerits until after I've played it.
As to how it looks in the photos, it looks appealing, but, the proof is in the tasting.
It's like seeing photo advertisements depicting a great looking steak with side orders, but, you really won't know what it's like until you go to the restaurant and taste the steak. Ditto golf courses.
Of course the owner must approve and pay for the changes but designers have been known to suggest changes once a course has some miles on it. In the case of Sebonack I should say that some of the changes were not only at the behest of the owner they were his concepts as well, which is obviously his right.
But, suddenly, because it's Trump, there's an unrealistic expectation that his course should be perfect the day it opened.
And because it may not be, there's ridiculous criticism or nit picking on micro issues and a disregard for the macro issues.
Patrick, It is this forum's chosen one who suggests things should be perfect, or nearly perfect out of the gate. In fairness the board is following his lead.
Really?
So Coore & Crenshaw got it wrong at Friars Head and Hidden Creek ?
Neither of those course are today as they were on opening day.
How about Sebonack ?
Any changes there after opening day ? ;D
Actions speak louder than words
The other chosen one and as for Sebonack I would assert that nearly all changes were at the behest of the owner and not necessarily viewed as improvements, particularly the 14th green (that from the guy who shaped it under direct supervision of the owner).
Greg,
Aren't ALL changes at the behest of the owner ?
Hard to imagine a change to a golf course that doesn't get the owner's approval.
How about the 16th green ?
But, wouldn't you agree that it is better to get it right the first time than not?
No, there is nothing wrong with my statement. It is brief, on point and accurate.
I've quoted your statement, above, so that we don't deviate from the issue.
Your statement clearly implies that Trump/Hawtree did NOT get it right the first time.
My contention is that courses are not perfect on opening day and your criticisms are more of the nit-picking type, micro rather than macro.
The problem is your interpretation of my statement.
My interpretation is accurate.
I quoted you above.
You stated words to the effect that Trump/Hawtree didn't get it right on opening day.
Read what I wrote.
I am not demanding anything from Hawtree or Trump, least of which perfection. The course looks as good as any other highly regarded modern design recently opened in GB&I. I asked questions about the playability of the course. Many have said that in the conditions experienced, the course was playable for a decent player and that once things are settled the course should become a bit more user friendly. Thats fair enough.
My point simply was that if a course is open for play, I prefer to assess it based on what I see rather than what I am told will happen in the future.
Implying that only a perfect course would meet that standard.
You never answered my question regarding which courses, on opening day, were not in need of amendments.
Would you list just five (5) such courses ?
When I wrote that my comments are not a slight on Trump or Hawtree, I left no room for spiteful interpretation and meant it. While I am less than enamoured with Trump's public persona, I don't know the man, never had any dealings with the man. So far as Hawtree is concerned, I have a lot of time for his work and have said so on several occasions.
Its a shame there are people such as yourself who wantonly accuse folks of malicious intent with little or no evidence, but I spose that is the world we live in.
Me thinks that Brutus doth protest too much.
I asked you, what other course/s met/meets your standard of perfection on opening day ?
To date, you haven't identified any, meaning that you're holding Trump/Hawtree to a different standard, despite your protests to the contrary.
This is your response?
A flat out lie after I went through the effort of not once, but twice stating that my comments are not a slight on Trump or Hawtree.
I quote you, verbatim, and you tell me that's a lie.
Let me requote you so that there can be no misunderstanding.
But, wouldn't you agree that it is better to get it right the first time than not?
The implication is clear, Trump/Hawtree didn't get it right the first time.
And, that's where I disagree with you.
You want perfection and you deem anything on this course that's less than perfect as a substantive blemish.
Yet, you don't hold other courses to the same standard.
At least you bothered to reread the quote, but I am not sure why because your reading comprehension seems to be of a level incapable of understanding the most basic sentences.
I test pretty well on reading comprehension skills.
Besides, that's my line and you stole it.
How you translate the quote below into an attack on Hawtree or Trump is a marvel of imagination - especially after I specifically wrote it is not.
"attack" My, my but you're getting defensive.
I never stated that your comments were an attack.
What I stated was that you were nit-picking and that you were holding this course to a standard that you didn't hold other courses to.
Take your pick, Cabot Links, Friars Head, Old Macdonald, etc., etc.
I also asked you to name five (5) other courses that you held to the same "perfect" standard on opening day.
You have yet to reply to that request despite repeated requests to do so.
For most people that would have left no room for interpretation, no reading between the lines, no spinning of lies, but then you are a very special case.
Yes, I am special.
But, you failed on numerous occassions to identify courses that you held to the same standard.
Ergo, you do have a bias despite your claims otherwise.
"But, wouldn't you (referring to Ally) agree that it is better to get it right the first time than not?"
Nowhere in that quote do I mention or infer that Hawtree's efforts are lacking.
Of course you did, it's inherent in the quote.
Nowhere previous to this quote in my discussion with Ally do I mention or imply Hawtree's work is lacking.
Of course you implied it.
Let me remind you of how you implied it by requoting you again.
But, wouldn't you agree that it is better to get it right the first time than not?
The inference is clear, they didn't get it right the first time.
How can you deny that inference ?
Nowhere do I demand perfection. These are fabricated aspersions spewed forth by yourself.
Not at all.
It's your own words, quoted above and below that clearly indicate that you're demanding perfection from Trump/Hawtree.
Perfection that you don't demand from anyone else.
Here they are again.
But, wouldn't you agree that it is better to get it right the first time than not?
Again, the implication is clear, that they didn't get it right the first time, that it's a flawed golf course.
You can't deny your own words
I underscored my comment with a forthright disclaimer so my comments couldn't possibly be interpreted in the manner you suggest.
So, you make the following statement:But, wouldn't you agree that it is better to get it right the first time than not?
And then, with the addition of a caveat, disclaim that statement.
Interesting technique and logic you've got there.
Leave it to you to invent meanings which are born of an abject nature.
I didn't invent anything, I just took you at your word. You stated:
But, wouldn't you agree that it is better to get it right the first time than not?
Clearly indicating that they didn't get it right the first time.
Then I asked you, over and over again, to identify other courses that you held to the same standard and you've yet to reply.
Why ?
Because you can't, you've clearly held Trump's course to a different standard.
Where's your identical criticism of Old Macdonald, Cabot Links, Friars Head and Sebonack ?
Once again, for the third time, my comments were not in the least a slight on Hawtree -
Sure they are.
You implied that he didn't get it right the first time.
If that's not a criticism I don't know what is.
You made a statement and now want to disavow that statement.
I understand,..... it was a foolish statement
they were comments of a general nature - purposely not mentioning an archie to make that clear.
Who else designed this course ? Pete Dye, Fazio, C&C ?
Anyone that knows me will tell you its not my style to degrade archies in the manner you suggest.
I didn't suggest it, you stated it. Here's your statement again:
But, wouldn't you agree that it is better to get it right the first time than not?
It would serve you well to refrain from lying, penning deceitful comments, or, as is your common approach, acting in an obtuse manner.
I can understand your attempt to disavow any connection to your quoted words by resorting to obfuscation, claiming that I was "lying" and "penning deceiptful comments", but the FACTS are that YOU made the following statement, indicating that Trump/Hawtree didn't get it right in the first place.
But, wouldn't you agree that it is better to get it right the first time than not?
You can call me every name in the book, it doesn't change your typed words and the implication you made
It doesn't in the least impress nor persuade people to buy your cock-eyed notions.
I think my "cock-eyed notions" concretely supported by your own words are more than persuasive ;D
Mark - I don't understand - a few folks post some unguarded, honest opinions on what they see and the usual jokers like Mucci pile in with the usual divisive nonsense
In other words, "folks" are entitled to their opinions, but I'm not entitled to mine ?
- all of a sudden your sensibilities are offended by that?
It may be time to leave GCA but if you can see beyond the Mucciness, there is some interesting debate here on the course.
So when someone disagrees with your opinion, or the opinion of others, it's not "Interesting debate", it's "Mucciness" ?
PS: If you look at the threads where all the real venom exist you will see the old familiar names. Not on this thread bar one individual who most wish would not bother contributing outside of his comfort zone but you seem to respect??
Brian, when you've contributed as much to this site, intellectually and financially, as I have, then maybe some will begin to take you seriously
Do you now pretend to speak for the majority of participants on this site ?
Maybe there are reasons why Mark respects me, reasons beyond your ability to comprehend.
Keep whining, it becomes you.
It's like seeing photo advertisements depicting a great looking steak with side orders, but, you really won't know what it's like until you go to the restaurant and taste the steak. Ditto golf courses.A completely ridiculous analogy. The steak photographed will have been one of thirty chosen for any reason other than what it tastes like, it will prepared in a manner to photograph well, and it would have been assembled by a team of people piece by piece and thus bear no relation to what you may eventually get served. It is a simulacrum, nothing more.
Brian, when you've contributed as much to this site, intellectually and financially, as I have, then maybe some will begin to take you seriously.:o :o I've never met Brian, but I reckon his contribution to this site is quite valuable.
It's like seeing photo advertisements depicting a great looking steak with side orders, but, you really won't know what it's like until you go to the restaurant and taste the steak. Ditto golf courses.
A completely ridiculous analogy.
It's a very apt analogy.
You neither know how the steak tastes or the golf course plays.
Only a fool would evaluate the play of a golf course based upon photos.
The steak photographed will have been one of thirty chosen for any reason other than what it tastes like, it will prepared in a manner to photograph well, and it would have been assembled by a team of people piece by piece and thus bear no relation to what you may eventually get served. It is a simulacrum, nothing more.
Photographs of a golf course on the other hand are snapshots of reality, especially when taken by amateurs during a round.
So, the steak wasn't real ? Not part of reality ?
That's as dumb as you can get.
As to the photos of a golf course, so much is dependent upon the angle of the photos.
So much is dependent upon the single perspective that the photographer wants to depict, and certainly very little about the playability can be ascertained by viewing a photo.
Trump Scotland looks like it may have a couple of interesting holes amongst all of the artificial earthmoving in front of the greens, the overblown bunkering on several holes, the manufactured green shaping and an abundance of forced carries.
So that's your expert assessment, the course may have a couple of interesting holes ? ? ?
Amongst the "artificial earthmoving", "overblown bunkering", "manufactured green shaping" and "Abundance of forced carries" ? ? ?
I know several golfers who have a good eye for architecture who have played the course, and they raved about it.
And they did so after playing it for a week, not from looking at a limited number of select photos.
They experienced the ultimate reality, they played it, and found it spectacular.
One fellow stated that he ranks it in his top 5, and he's played most of the better courses.
Another fellow had similar praise, as did the third.
In addition, Brad Klein, whose intellect and opinion I greatly respect, who has seen virtually all of the great courses, gives it high praise.
But you, who has NEVER SEEN IT, claims it suffers from "artificial earthmoving", as if there's any other kind, "overblown bunkering", "manufactured green shaping" and an "abundance of forced carries".
You're a joke, as are your non-reality based opinions.
Only a fool would evaluate the play of a golf course based upon photos.
Only a fool would evaluate the play of a golf course based upon photos.
I do believe a chef could tell a lot from looking at a picture of a steak or meal, especially when the meal in question was prepared by copying from a photograph of another meal.
How much are you willing to bet ?
I'll go one better, I bet you, or a chef, can't tell me how a steak tastes when you're looking at it in the plate in front of you.
The same way I can tell a lot from looking at a picture of a golf course.
And, I'll let you double up.
I'll post a picture of a golf course/hole and I'll bet that you can't tell me much about how it plays.
And, I'll let you triple up, I'll bet you that Mark Ferguson can't tell you how the steak tastes or how the golf course plays.
And if the treehouse liked nutshells we'd be fine with "a lot to be impressed with."
But I care about this too:
"more aerial golf than is the custom with links play"
"connect-the-dots feel between green and next tee is not quite there"
"effectively limiting the impact of wind"
Shaping 7 "not a lot of quirky crumple to them. Biggest limitation here is the repetitive form and appearance of the deep, revetted bunkers."
Greens 7 "Ground-game access on more than half the holes; there’s the occasional overreaching of contours and just not enough room for recovery around greens"
Par 5s "though there’s a bit too much similarity in the bunker complexes 100 yards or so short of each green. The alternatefairway on the 10th makes little sense"
So, the steak wasn't real ? Not part of reality ?Your ignorance is staggering beyond belief Patrick. No doubt you believe the Big Mac you buy actually looks like this:
That's as dumb as you can get.
So much is dependent upon the single perspective that the photographer wants to depict, and certainly very little about the playability can be ascertained by viewing a photo.
So that's your expert assessment, the course may have a couple of interesting holes ? ? ?Yes, it is.
Amongst the "artificial earthmoving", "overblown bunkering", "manufactured green shaping" and "Abundance of forced carries" ? ? ?
One fellow stated that he ranks it in his top 5, and he's played most of the better courses.Then they are either as ignorant as you are, or just as much of a Trump butt boy.
Another fellow had similar praise, as did the third.
I'll go one better, I bet you, or a chef, can't tell me how a steak tastes when you're looking at it in the plate in front of you.I can tell exactly. I can tell by its markings what type of surface it was cooked on. I can tell by its colour exactly how well it was sealed and whether it was done so on too high a heat. I can tell whether it was turned too many times. I can tell by the liquid on its surface how well it was seasoned and whether it was rested long enough before being served. I can tell by the colour of the meat what the animal was fed on, whether it was dry aged or cryovacced and whether it was slaughtered correctly.
And, I'll let you triple up, I'll bet you that Mark Ferguson can't tell you how the steak tastes
You can choose the amount of the wager, with a set minimum.
For what its worth .... it just saddens me that we cant have a discussion on this course and its holes ..... but to me, it just seems pointless and a waste of time.
Welcome to Golf Club Atlas 2012 :-\
I feel embarrassed to have posted a few photos of it if it brings out so much venom in you.
I'll go back to posting pictures of modest 9-hole courses local to me. At least they attract no venom if otherwise they attract no interest.
Brian,
If Mike Keiser had developed this course, the rave reviews from those who've never played it would be legion.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v403/markrowlinson/Trump%20Scotland/P1010101.jpg)
Pat
Who gives a f*ck what you think anymore ?
Lot's of people
Will you ever play the course, so you will then have your own opinion based on what you have seen ?
I certainly hope so
I guess not, so in the meantime you act like a retard and thread f*ck every attempt at a proper discussion on this course.
That's an interesting perspective, you want "proper discussion on this course", but don't take offense to criticism of the course from people who have NEVER seen it. Is that how you define "proper discussion" ? "Discussion by totally uninformed individuals ? In your feeble mind "Proper discussion" equals commentary from people who have never seen the course ? That's one of the most asinine, uneducated responses I've seen on this site. But coming from you it doesn't surprise me.
Does Anyone else Who's never seen the course want to evaluate it ? ? ?
What a joke
There is nobody killing ""frank commentary on golf course architecture"" more than you IMHO
To coin a phrase, I don't give a fuck about your opinions, humble or otherwise.[
But, go ahead and solicit opinions and evaluations from other morons such as yourself, morons who have NEVER SEEN THE COURSE.
then you can have what you consider, "proper discussion"/b]
GROW UP !
WHY ? I'm having too much fun.
And don't forget, you can't cure "dumb", so go have your "proper discussions" with people who have never seen the golf course, people who formulate their critical evaluation and analysis of the course based upon who the developer is.
It's amusing people are being criticised for commenting on a course they have only witnessed through photographs.
Mark,
Now, now, that's a little disingenuous of you.
Your not casually "commenting" on the golf course, you and others are attempting to bash it for reasons unrelated to it's architecture.
Try being honest for a change
This website was founded on pictorial course reviews of golf courses most people had probably never heard of, let alone seen.
No it wasn't.
Who told you that ?
Or is that just another uninformed personal opinion ?
Brian,
If Mike Keiser had developed this course, the rave reviews from those who've never played it would be legion.
Patrick,
if Mike Keiser had developed this site he would probably have done it in a totally different manner.
We'll never know, but I have my doubts that Mike Keiser would have been able to bring the project to fruition.
The fact that Mark Parnisen looked at the site and rejected it says a lot though.
It might be an indication that they thought that they could never be successful in creating a golf course.
And in that case, more praise/credit should be given to Trump.
My views about this project are well known but now that it is here I hope that it is a success.
I don't see how anyone who claims to love golf wouldn't feel the same.
I would imagine that in the next few years certain alterations might happen to improve upon the course as with most new builds :)
Donald Ross spent 26 years doing so at # 2, CBM about 30 years at NGLA, Ken Bakst and Roger Hansen continue to fine tune their great courses, so I can't imagine that this course wouldn't experience ongoing fine tuning to improve it.
Golf courses should be viewed as assets, with some requiring fine tuning in order to pursue the goal of becoming "precious" assets.
From what I've heard from people who played it a number of times, Trump Scotland is well on it's way to being in the latter category.
Jon
Brian,
If Mike Keiser had developed this course, the rave reviews from those who've never played it would be legion.
Patrick,
if Mike Keiser had developed this site he would probably have done it in a totally different manner.
We'll never know, but I have my doubts that Mike Keiser would have been able to bring the project to fruition.
The fact that Mark Parnisen looked at the site and rejected it says a lot though.
It might be an indication that they thought that they could never be successful in creating a golf course.
And in that case, more praise/credit should be given to Trump.
My views about this project are well known but now that it is here I hope that it is a success.
I don't see how anyone who claims to love golf wouldn't feel the same.
I would imagine that in the next few years certain alterations might happen to improve upon the course as with most new builds :)
Donald Ross spent 26 years doing so at # 2, CBM about 30 years at NGLA, Ken Bakst and Roger Hansen continue to fine tune their great courses, so I can't imagine that this course wouldn't experience ongoing fine tuning to improve it.
Golf courses should be viewed as assets, with some requiring fine tuning in order to pursue the goal of becoming "precious" assets.
From what I've heard from people who played it a number of times, Trump Scotland is well on it's way to being in the latter category.
Jon
Pat Mucci,
You are an intelligent man. You have strong and interesting opinions. You are a smart analyst of arguments.
Why do you always ruin debate on this site by being an arsehole?
Mark,
Now, now, that's a little disingenuous of you. You're not casually "commenting" on the golf course, you and others are attempting to bash it for reasons unrelated to it's architecture.
Try being honest for a change.Much like you, I am never anything but.
No it wasn't.
Who told you that ? Or is that just another uninformed personal opinion ?
There is nobody killing ""frank commentary on golf course architecture"" more than you IMHO
To coin a phrase, I don't give a fuck about your opinions (or Rans) , humble or otherwise.[
There is nobody killing ""frank commentary on golf course architecture"" more than you IMHO
To coin a phrase, I don't give a fuck about your opinions (or Rans) , humble or otherwise.[
Nuff Said !
Brian,
You've done better.
You've proven your lack of integrity and lack of honesty by deliberately editing my quote in reply # 202 and trying to pass it off as my written word.
It doesn't get sleazier than that.
Glad you showed your true colors and lack of character for everyone to see.
You did a far better job at revealing your sleazy nature than I could ever hope to do.
Thanks
It amazes me people get into debate with someone who can behave in such an ungentlemanly manner. Such behaviour/language in open forum linking me to my club would soon draw a letter from the club chairman. Agree or disagree but there is no place for "playground" insults in an adult environment.
Mark Chaplin,
I was merely quoting Brian Ewen.
Niall,
Do you think he opened it prematurely in order to catch the end of this year's summer season ?
Co-incidently, I ran into Donald at a wedding we attended last Saturday night.
We were seated next to each other during the ceremony.
After the ceremony and during the reception we discussed the course, and the permitting processes that he had to go through or get around in order to bring the course to fruition.
I sensed a strong committment on his part to do whatever it takes to improve and elevate the course to it's fullest potential.
Whether that takes a few months or a few years didn't seem to matter.
He's committed to improving that course.
I believe that there's a good chance that it will be awarded the Scottish Open and a future Ryder Cup.
As beautiful as Melania looks in photos, she's far more stunning in person.
The terms "Breath taking" and "Riveting" come to mind.
She's both elegant and gorgeous and I would prefer talking to and about her.
I told Donald that I thought alot of the criticism of the course would never have reared it's head had his name been Mike Keiser.
I believe that he agreed.
Niall - other way round: turfed greens and approaches, seeded fairways. Fairways need to mature, but they have stored up pretty long term troubles by overseeing in on or two places (eg ninth fairway) with perennial ryegrass, presumably because they were desperate for coverage before opening day.
I agree the tenth doesn't work - I can see no reason why anyone would ever play for the right fairway, and the bottleneck on the left fairway basically forces you not to hit driver off the tee, odd for a par five.
I don't mind the last, except that tee is much too elevated. You have a 650 yard hole with 18 bunkers, and yet it looks small and insignificant from the tee, because you're so far up.
Lots of good holes though - first green excellent, second hole super, etc. Will be really good when it matures
Adam,
I'd be interested in your take on what long term problems you think they have stored up with seeding perennial ryegrass in places? I presume the plan is at some point to overseed with their fescue mix and kill the ryegrass with rescue?
Adam,
I'd be interested in your take on what long term problems you think they have stored up with seeding perennial ryegrass in places? I presume the plan is at some point to overseed with their fescue mix and kill the ryegrass with rescue?
Ally,
ryegrass doesn't really belong on a links course. Whilst what you say about rescue wouldn't it have been better to get it right in the first place by just waiting for the correct grasses to growin?
Jon
Pat Mucci,
You are an intelligent man. You have strong and interesting opinions. You are a smart analyst of arguments.
Why do you always ruin debate on this site by being an arsehole?
Exactly what would one criticize about Mike Keiser?
Jeff,
You missed the point
Name a course of Keiser that deserved criticism when it opened?
So you're saying that every course was perfect on opening day ?
That there were no valid criticisms or room for improvement ?
What grandiose claims has he made to artificially inflate expectations?
From what I've heard from golfers who have played the course a number of times, it lives up to the "grandiose" claims made by Donald.
I would argue that Donald's course wouldn't get " a lot"(your words) of criticism if:
A. he himself hadn't elevated expectations "the best course in the world.....etc."
Jeff, you and others can't be that obtuse, after all these years, that you don't understand "The Donald's" marketing mantra.
or
B. it was better
If you haven't played it, how can you comment on it's merits ?
What if it is one of the great courses of the world ?
Is it reasonable for you to expect it to be better on opening day ?
As I said to Donald, much of the criticism of the course is masked or redirected criticism of him and his persona, and nothing more.
If the course lives up to the praise it received from the fellows I know, who have played it several times, then, will you and others, admit that you've been nit picking strictly because of Donald rather than the golf course ?
The 10th is the hole that zigzags round a salt marsh and betweeen huge dunes with a split fairway for the tee shot, the right handside part of which is largely redundant. In terms of shot values its two straight shots to the gap between the dunes followed by an approach to a push up tiered green surrounded by more huge dunes. A clear example of more (as in the case of the dunes) not necessarily meaning more if you know what I mean.
I would suggest that it has been opened too early given the greenfee cost and hype. They would have been better advised to wait a year and present a course for which they in keeping with their claims.
Ally,
if the areas were so small then why seed them with an unsuitable strain? Surely they would either have little effect on the play and if they did, they could be sodded. Also from what understand it was the general condition that was poor not small areas seed with rye. I would suggest that it has been opened too early given the greenfee cost and hype. They would have been better advised to wait a year and present a course for which they in keeping with their claims.
Jon
Ally,
if the areas were so small then why seed them with an unsuitable strain? Surely they would either have little effect on the play and if they did, they could be sodded. Also from what understand it was the general condition that was poor not small areas seed with rye. I would suggest that it has been opened too early given the greenfee cost and hype. They would have been better advised to wait a year and present a course for which they in keeping with their claims.
Jon
A year is a lot of revenue for a fairway or two that still needs to take shape.
The areas are clearly not so small that they wouldn't affect play or be an eyesore. And sodding entire areas is not cheap or in keeping with the seeding of the rest of the fairway area. And it's not as though perennial rye is foreign to links courses. It just so happens that it can be dealt with so much quicker and easier now.
I'm not saying it was the best approach but it's one we're looking at also and I'd like to know if there is any significant downside other than the one I mentioned.
Niall - other way round: turfed greens and approaches, seeded fairways. Fairways need to mature, but they have stored up pretty long term troubles by overseeing in on or two places (eg ninth fairway) with perennial ryegrass, presumably because they were desperate for coverage before opening day.
I agree the tenth doesn't work - I can see no reason why anyone would ever play for the right fairway, and the bottleneck on the left fairway basically forces you not to hit driver off the tee, odd for a par five.
I don't mind the last, except that tee is much too elevated. You have a 650 yard hole with 18 bunkers, and yet it looks small and insignificant from the tee, because you're so far up.
Lots of good holes though - first green excellent, second hole super, etc. Will be really good when it matures
Niall,
Do you think he opened it prematurely in order to catch the end of this year's summer season ?
Co-incidently, I ran into Donald at a wedding we attended last Saturday night.
We were seated next to each other during the ceremony.
After the ceremony and during the reception we discussed the course, and the permitting processes that he had to go through or get around in order to bring the course to fruition.
I sensed a strong committment on his part to do whatever it takes to improve and elevate the course to it's fullest potential.
Whether that takes a few months or a few years didn't seem to matter.
He's committed to improving that course.
I believe that there's a good chance that it will be awarded the Scottish Open and a future Ryder Cup.
As beautiful as Melania looks in photos, she's far more stunning in person.
The terms "Breath taking" and "Riveting" come to mind.
She's both elegant and gorgeous and I would prefer talking to and about her.
I told Donald that I thought alot of the criticism of the course would never have reared it's head had his name been Mike Keiser.
I believe that he agreed.
Jon, it's not that I'm trying to justify the use of the method myself... It's that no-one has yet given me reason to justify its non-use... Clearly it's not ideal because it's an aggressive broad leaf grass that isn't how we want our finished playing surface to look or play... But what long term problems would we be storing up rather than the need to eradicate it using artificial methods once the fescue overseeding has taken hold? Each case is indeed different but ever since Adam posted originally, I've been asking a genuine question... If there is no answer worse than that said already then the decision has been made... I'm really just looking for advice...Ally,
if the areas were so small then why seed them with an unsuitable strain? Surely they would either have little effect on the play and if they did, they could be sodded. Also from what understand it was the general condition that was poor not small areas seed with rye. I would suggest that it has been opened too early given the greenfee cost and hype. They would have been better advised to wait a year and present a course for which they in keeping with their claims.
Jon
A year is a lot of revenue for a fairway or two that still needs to take shape.
The areas are clearly not so small that they wouldn't affect play or be an eyesore. And sodding entire areas is not cheap or in keeping with the seeding of the rest of the fairway area. And it's not as though perennial rye is foreign to links courses. It just so happens that it can be dealt with so much quicker and easier now.
I'm not saying it was the best approach but it's one we're looking at also and I'd like to know if there is any significant downside other than the one I mentioned.
Ally,
seems to me your trying to justify using rye grass yourself rather than anything else. You need to take into account your own situation into account, what the money people want/expect and the climate. You do get rye grass on links courses but it is definitely treated as a weed to be eradicated so it seem counterproductive to introduce something like it.
In the case of Trump's course it just seems to me that the amount of hype about how incredible the course will be is not matched by the commitment. The grow-in time has not been long enough and trying to force it through any method will always jump up and bite you in the end. It has been put forward a the 'greatest links ever' and has a price tag to match yet does the product live up to this???
I would also suggest that an organisation that has made such a big deal about the look of its neighbours and possible wind-farms should at least make sure that their own house is in order first. As to the finance I think that the Trump organisation could take the small financial hit.
It would be a shame to tarnish the reputation of such a high profile project as this but the more I see and learn about this project both on and off this site the shoddier it seems to become :'(
Jon
Jon, it's not that I'm trying to justify the use of the method myself... It's that no-one has yet given me reason to justify its non-use... Clearly it's not ideal because it's an aggressive broad leaf grass that isn't how we want our finished playing surface to look or play... But what long term problems would we be storing up rather than the need to eradicate it using artificial methods once the fescue overseeding has taken hold? Each case is indeed different but ever since Adam posted originally, I've been asking a genuine question... If there is no answer worse than that said already then the decision has been made... I'm really just looking for advice...
Ally,That seems reasonable. We're not looking at big areas but they are vital areas to get the course playable... Will investigate some more... Thanks
I just don't think that planting a weed and getting rid of it is logical. Yes, fescue takes time to establish itself but it is playable quite quickly. Having said that the only disadvantage I could see is that the regime needed to establish ryegrass will lead to more desease and a slower establishment of fescue than if you don't use it.
Jon
Thanks Tom... The idea is coming from in-house where frankly they have a much more in-depth knowledge of their grasses and grow-in than I do.... It does seem rather perverse to be seeding areas with a grass you don't want only to eradicate it in the future but the priority is now getting the course open... Unlike bigger budget projects, there is an understanding that the course will still be a work in progress after opening... That said, if the rye will stop a good stand of fescue from taking then it may be less of the percentage choice than I presumed.... Thanks for the help... I'll look into more...Jon, it's not that I'm trying to justify the use of the method myself... It's that no-one has yet given me reason to justify its non-use... Clearly it's not ideal because it's an aggressive broad leaf grass that isn't how we want our finished playing surface to look or play... But what long term problems would we be storing up rather than the need to eradicate it using artificial methods once the fescue overseeding has taken hold? Each case is indeed different but ever since Adam posted originally, I've been asking a genuine question... If there is no answer worse than that said already then the decision has been made... I'm really just looking for advice...
Ally:
Not trying to thread-jack but I hadn't noticed this or that you were trying to do the same thing at Carne.
I'm curious who sold you on the idea, and if anyone has made it work before that you know of, or whether you are the guinea pigs for the idea?
I know that when we've tried to get grass cover with rye because we missed the planting season for bermuda, and then oversow with bermuda afterward, the results were not nearly as good as expected, because the ryegrass competed to the death. I never expected that it could compete with bermuda, but would be surprised if it didn't compete hard with fescue, making it difficult to get a strong enough stand of fescue before eradicating the rye. But I'd love to know if it works!
Was part of your reason to do so that you were trying to save the money that hydromulching the fairways would cost?
Why wait? I'll admit it now.
and yes I'm definitely obtuse if I'm expected to understand his "marketing mantra"
Obviously you are obtuse when it comes to recognizing Trump's marketing methods, which have nothing to do with the alleged statements you cited.
You keep harping on those two alleged statements as if they're the sole and entire focus of the project.
Is that how you evaluate golf courses ?
Obviously you are obtuse when it comes to recognizing Trump's marketing methods, which have nothing to do with the alleged statements you cited.
You keep harping on those two alleged statements as if they're the sole and entire focus of the project.
Alleged, Patrick?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk-MHQE2xPQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=78s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk-MHQE2xPQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=78s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK4R0BRJZTs&feature=player_detailpage#t=35s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK4R0BRJZTs&feature=player_detailpage#t=35s)
I have even gone to the effort to give you a link to the exact time the alleged comments are allegedly being made, but let me guess. Your next response, in green ink, will be that the videos have been doctored by radical lefties that have never worked a day in their lives?
And since I am so obtuse, can you please tell me who is Trump's target market? Given his boorishness and methods so far, I can only surmise it is people like this:
(http://glassrocklife.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/deliverance_banjo_player-300x200.jpg)
Put a POLO logo on the shirt and an oversize baseball cap on that kid....Davis was a child actor???
You don't analyze and evaluate the design, features or play of the course
Correct, but the weather will get the blame ::)
Did this Year's weather have anything to do with the conditions.
Given normal weather patterns, how long before playing conditions are optimal ?
Mark
Who told you I play the banjo ?
Patrick
I'm no expert on grow in periods or conditioning etc but suggest its more to do with giving it time than the weather. Its possible the sanding and turfing have been done relatively recently just before they closed for the winter so maybe he thought no big deal. I won't bore you with the details but while the cost of the round was £120, the cost was partially off-set by savings elsewhere, otherwise I would have been knocking on the door asking for at least a partial refund. I haven't noticed anything in the press about its present condition which surprises me but there you go.
Niall
You don't analyze and evaluate the design, features or play of the course
How many Trump courses have you played Mr Mucci ?
Mark
Who told you I play the banjo ?
Mark,
What does Trump's conduct, bad or good, alleged or actual, have to do with the quality of the golf course ?
Brian,
This may shock you, and I've stated it previously, but I'm not enamored with the Trump course I've played.
More than you !
The fairways might not be Castle Stuart width with attendant light rough flanking but they certainly aren't tight.
Mark,
What does Trump's conduct, bad or good, alleged or actual, have to do with the quality of the golf course ?
Patrick,
Of course it should have nothing to do with it. But if you can't take the ocean away from Pebble, why can you take the Trump away from Trump Scotland?
Brian,
This may shock you, and I've stated it previously, but I'm not enamored with the Trump course I've played.
One ?More than you !
Brian,
That was a typo, it should have been "courses".
I've played more than one.
One ?
As for conditioning, I usually don't worry too much about it unless the course is drastically effected. This is quite rare in my experience, but I still can only base a judgement on what I see. I personally would never presume that things will get better and therefore bump my opinion of a course up. This is how life works, often times there is only one opportunity to impress. It is in instances such as this where I suspect it makes a huge difference if one is comped or if one has paid full whack.
Ciao
As for conditioning, I usually don't worry too much about it unless the course is drastically effected. This is quite rare in my experience, but I still can only base a judgement on what I see. I personally would never presume that things will get better and therefore bump my opinion of a course up. This is how life works, often times there is only one opportunity to impress. It is in instances such as this where I suspect it makes a huge difference if one is comped or if one has paid full whack.
Ciao
Sean,
don't you think at £120 the course should be in near perfect condition.
Jon
don't you think at £120 the course should be in near perfect condition.
How did you find the tight-mown green surrounds transition to the heavy perimeter rough? It looked rather harsh and abrupt in spots judging from the photos I glimpsed. Have they beaten those areas down into submission?
Did you see much play about the course when you were there? Was the staff mainly Scottish?
Time will tell on Trump. This year has been bad, but we have had a few bad years recently. For £120 I would expect better control of the rough than I would from a cheaper course. What in fact is often the case is the opposite is true. This is not nearly as much to do with the weather as it is championship mentality. I am guessing the holes cutting through dunes will always be problematic in terms of rough and awkward lies (meaning even fairly light rough is difficult). It seems to be that way at most other places with holes like this which is why it is welcome relief to break out of high dunes and play on the flat for some holes.
Ciao
The problem I have is it's 150 pounds vs. 80 for a full day ticket at Cruden Bay. My own Trump prejudices aside, unless people who's opinion I really respect start raving about it, I don't know why I'd ever pass up 36 at Cruden Bay for 18 here at essentially 4x the price.
If conditions improve and the course is successful, like Mike Keiser, will Donald introduce additional courses ?
Thanks Brian, in that case its £150 for a golf lesson and a bacon roll, excellent value ::)
If conditions improve and the course is successful, like Mike Keiser, will Donald introduce additional courses ?
Mr Mucci
If you had taken time to look at the project you would know that a second 18 is part of the overall plan.
I know that, but i believe that you and others indicated that the project would not go beyond it's current staus and I solicited the opinions of others who appear to be objective in their assessments.
If conditions improve and the course is successful, like Mike Keiser, will Donald introduce additional courses ?
Mr Mucci
If you had taken time to look at the project you would know that a second 18 is part of the overall plan.
I know that, but i believe that you and others indicated that the project would not go beyond it's current staus and I solicited the opinions of others who appear to be objective in their assessments.
I know that
i believe that you and others indicated that the project would not go beyond it's current staus
Been a lot of hype over the last few months about how Trumps course was a cert, to get the Scottish Open.
Announced today :
2013 - Castle Stuart
2014 - Royal Aberdeen
OUCH !
Been a lot of hype over the last few months about how Trumps course was a cert, to get the Scottish Open.My sources have told me that Trump _doesn't want_ the Scottish Open. But I am surprised not to see an announcement about it going to the Renaissance Club.
Announced today :
2013 - Castle Stuart
2014 - Royal Aberdeen
OUCH !
Been a lot of hype over the last few months about how Trumps course was a cert, to get the Scottish Open.
Announced today :
2013 - Castle Stuart
2014 - Royal Aberdeen
OUCH !
Brian,
Trump wasn't expecting the Scottish Open next year or in 2014.
But I'd wager, getting good odds, that he'll get the Scottish Open and/or the Ryder Cup by 2022.
Trump wasn't expecting the Scottish Open next year or in 2014.
But I'd wager, getting good odds, that he'll get the Scottish Open and/or the Ryder Cup by 2022.[/b][/size][/color]
RC 2022 is certainly supposed to be Trump's goal. He will have to write a big cheque - the squeals of anguish from mainland Europe at the prospect of two visits to Scotland in three rotations will be loud. I haven't got a clue how 40,000 people move round that property following four matches myself.
As I said, I have been told that Trump believes he has bigger fish to fry than a Scottish Open. Gossip says the first big event there will be a WGC tournament.
If the golf course is widely acclaimed as being amongst the top 10 in the UK, would that have any bearing on the selection process or will the selection be solely a financial decision ?
If the golf course is widely acclaimed as being amongst the top 10 in the UK, would that have any bearing on the selection process or will the selection be solely a financial decision ?
If the golf course is widely acclaimed as being amongst the top 10 in the UK, would that have any bearing on the selection process or will the selection be solely a financial decision ?
Patrick - given the recent European Ryder Cup venues, haven't you answered your own question - Celtic Manor, K Club, Belfry. Only Valderrama has any real pedigree.
“Everybody wants to be near our course.”
Brian,
I thought many replying on this thread indicated that Trump would never proceed with building the hotel ?
Seems contrary to their stated claims and that he's continuing with the next phase of the project as planned.
Can the residential phase be far behind ?
To be honest, I don't think most Scots are interested in what Mr. Trump has to say. As I have said all along, subtle is the way to handle this best but I Donald doesn't do subtle.
To be honest, I don't think most Scots are interested in what Mr. Trump has to say. As I have said all along, subtle is the way to handle this best but I Donald doesn't do subtle.
Jon,
If most Scots aren't interested why is he getting headlines ?
To be honest, I don't think most Scots are interested in what Mr. Trump has to say. As I have said all along, subtle is the way to handle this best but I Donald doesn't do subtle.
Jon,
If most Scots aren't interested why is he getting headlines ?
Patrick,
where were these headlines in the scottish newspapers that you talk of. All I have found are a few small pieces inside the papers.
Jon,
So now you're saying that Trump and his project flew under the radar, that hardly anyone was aware of it, save for a few small pieces inside the papers ?
Please.
If you'll go back through this thread you'll find plenty of references to newspaper articles that made headlines.
Patrick,
I was refering to his latest outbursts.
You didn't say that, you were open ended in your comment.
Also Patrick where did I say 'hardly anyone was aware of it'?.
You implied same by stating that only a few small pieces could be found inside of the papers, indicating that it wasn't headline news
Jon,
All I know is that Trump got done what few could accomplish.
Patrick,
I was refering to his latest outbursts.
You didn't say that, you were open ended in your comment.
With your incredible ability to e able to deduce so much that is not said you should have had no problem realising my comments are about his latest statement ;)
Also Patrick where did I say 'hardly anyone was aware of it'?.
You implied same by stating that only a few small pieces could be found inside of the papers, indicating that it wasn't headline news
Patrick, the FACT that it wasn't on the front page of any Scottish paper I saw (or you have) means it was not headline news. That I pointed out this FACT does not infer that hardly anyone was aware of the Trump project is.
Brian,
I thought many replying on this thread indicated that Trump would never proceed with building the hotel ?
Seems contrary to their stated claims and that he's continuing with the next phase of the project as planned.
Can the residential phase be far behind ?
Patrick
Far be it for me to interject in your friendly banter with Brian, but those that gave an opinion on this thread, and others, that Trump wouldn't go ahead with the hotel (of which I wasn't one BTW) were stating an opinion. When Donald said he wasn't going ahead, surely he was stating his intent which is a good bit more fundamental to the whole saga. So, in your opinion Patrick, when Donald said he wasn't going to go ahead with the hotel/residential element of the development while the wind turbine development was still a live prospect (which I believe it still is) was he lying through his teeth knowing fine well he would be going ahead with the hotel etc in any case or does he know something about the wind turbine project that we don't (such as that it won't make a blind bit of difference to either the views or have an economic impact on Donalds development) ?
As you're someone who's son has met the Donald, your views are eagerly awaited.
Niall
Patrick
Far be it for me to interject in your friendly banter with Brian, but those that gave an opinion on this thread, and others, that Trump wouldn't go ahead with the hotel (of which I wasn't one BTW) were stating an opinion.
When Donald said he wasn't going ahead, surely he was stating his intent which is a good bit more fundamental to the whole saga.
Niall, that's called a ploy, not a measure of true intent.
So, in your opinion Patrick, when Donald said he wasn't going to go ahead with the hotel/residential element of the development while the wind turbine development was still a live prospect (which I believe it still is) was he lying through his teeth knowing fine well he would be going ahead with the hotel etc in any case or does he know something about the wind turbine project that we don't (such as that it won't make a blind bit of difference to either the views or have an economic impact on Donalds development) ?
Niall, with New York City so close by, people in this neck of the woods don't take "The Donald's" spoken word as the Gospel.
He's prone to making statements to further his position, statements which aren't a reflection of his very practical minded objective.
It's a combination of bluffing, bullying and leveraging.
It's worked very well for him.
As you're someone who's son has met the Donald, your views are eagerly awaited.
i've met him a number of times and spoke with him about this project as recently as two weeks ago.
What many aren't aware of is his passion for golf and his golf projects.
He's very enthusiastic about this project and is emotionally invested in this project.
He wants it to succeed, he wants it to be great course and facility.
What's wrong with that ?
Niall
Patrick,
I am very impressed with Donald Trump's business sense to date but I think he would have been better showing his enthusiasm for golf rather than brashly calling anyone who disagreed with him a hater of Scotland. Calling the RSPB a group dedicated to killing birds is not going to help him. These bodies can cause real problems as he will probably find out and his organisation has upset quite a few bodies to date.
Jon,
He is who he is.
You're not going to get the leopard to change his spots.
His M.O. Has produced good results for HIM
Patrick
I'm with you, you're very tackfully saying that Donald was lying when he said he wouldn't develop further unless the wind turbine project was scrapped. Yes, it is a game of bluff and a not unknown business tactic, however you only get away with it once hence Wee Eck calling him out on the wind turbine issue.
Niall,
Business is not necessarily a social tea environment.
I don't look at it as lying, I look at it as trying to mislead the opposition.
Business negotiations are inherently filled with opposing sides misrepresenting or concealing their ultimate position.
Just look at the disgrace going on in Washington these days where all sides and all parties are bluffing, lying, misrepresenting and concealing their ultimate positions.
Hell, go to a bar and listen to what guys are saying to the women they're trying to pick up
Why single Trump out, if not for his persona ?
That's his style.
Being in the same media market with him you get used to it ;D
To those not familiar with it, I can see how you'd be horrified ;D
Patrick
I'm with you, you're very tackfully saying that Donald was lying when he said he wouldn't develop further unless the wind turbine project was scrapped. Yes, it is a game of bluff and a not unknown business tactic, however you only get away with it once hence Wee Eck calling him out on the wind turbine issue.
Niall,
I don't look at it as lying, I look at it as trying to mislead the opposition.
Business negotiations are inherently filled with opposing sides misrepresenting or concealing their ultimate position.
Just look at the disgrace going on in Washington these days where all sides and all parties are bluffing, lying, misrepresenting and concealing their ultimate positions.
Why single Trump out, if not for his persona ?
That's his style.
To those not familiar with it, I can see how you'd be horrified ;D
I am beginning to wonder how the Trump Organisation ever has any success. They hit out at one of the most iconic firms in Scotland whilst not realising that it was the Scottish Public that voted for the winner.The ignorance is astonishing.
Jon
I am beginning to wonder how the Trump Organisation ever has any success.
Jon, how can you "wonder", they have a long established track record for successful projects.
It's certainly not luck, it's the result of an entepreneurial, dynamic, intelligent businessman who tends to be very polarizing in the public's eye, but, that's not where he operates.
I never, and I mean never ever thought he'd get the permitting for his course in Bedminster.
Others familiar with that area, and the politics in that area, thought likewise.
But, to my/our amazement, the guy did it.
He does it time and time again.
So, when a guy has repeated successes, how can you wonder ?
He must be doing something right, over and over and over again.
They hit out at one of the most iconic firms in Scotland whilst not realising that it was the Scottish Public that voted for the winner.
He has his opinion of his image and what's important to him.
Success for him is not winning a popularity contest, it's developing a successful product, which apparently, he's well on his way to doing.
You have to learn to dismiss your personal feelings toward him and analyze the specific project absent his presence/image/bravado.
Jon
Patrick,
I fail to see how you continue to constantly and immediately defend the man.
Jeff, I'm not defending the man so much as I'm defending the project.
All of you experts said that he wouldn't proceed with the next phase, the one concerning the building of a hotel.
Well, you were all wrong.
Misrepresenting his position (actually that IS lying),
Not when you're negotiating with adversaries in business.
Take unions when they threaten striking when they have no intention of doing so.
Ditto for businesses and lockouts.
If someone in a negotiation says, well, if you don't do this, I'll do that, that doesn't make them a liar if they never meant it.
It's just a negotiating ploy.
How many women have said, if you don't marry me, I"m breaking up with you, or I'll start dating, when they never meant it, they were just trying to get the man to commit to a more serious relationship or marriage.
The demonizing of Trump because he uses the bluff as a business tactic is absurd.
It's all theatre and that you don't see that surprises me.
pointing out the "disgrace in Washington", and stating that it's less horrifying if "you're familiar with it".....
What Trump does or what Trump has created is a choice, you can either visit and use his facility or elect not to.
With respect to Washington, they were elected to perform their constitutional duties, things like create budgets, and not bankrupt the country, they are elected officials with fiduciary responsibilities to their constituents. Trump is under no such obligation
are the best you can come up with?
Your arguments grow thinnner.
Only because they're over your head and you don't like Trump
What's next? Other people have committed worse atrocities so he's ok by comparison?
So, you, who are without sin, are casting the first stone ?
Please, spare me the indignation.
If the project is successful, and I hope it is, for residents and visitors alike, almost everyone benefits.
With respect to his dealings with some locals, I don't know enough about ALL of the details to draw a firm conclusion, but, I do know that very few projects come to fruition without someone being rubbed the wrong way. I tend to look at the project's net benefit in a global sense.
As to bluffing, I'll guarantee that you and almost everybody else on this site has used the same tactic in their lives.
Did you read the recent article yesterday with the choice multiple quotes/tweets from Trump describing his uncoopertive neighbor?
Was he mistweeted? :o :o ;D ;D ;)
No, I didn't, but, I also learned, a long while ago, not to believe everything I read.
There are plenty of people successfully conducting business ethically, morally, and considerately of those also occupying the same or nearby space.
and no doubt they occasionally don't extract the last drop of blood out of a negotiation,........ yet somehow they soldier on.
Doesn't that depend upon the opposition they meet ?
It's such a black eye on golf, in the home of golf, in a sport that doesn't really need any more black eyes.
and yes, I really will be OK if I never play Trump Scotland.
Jeff, Trump DOESN'T care if you ever play his course in Scotland.
If it's as good as people say, if he's built a terrific course, they will come.
But, I'll ask my question another way.
Do you want to see the project fail ?
Do you want to see people put out of work ?
Would that make you happy ?
The ignorance is astonishing.
Just from the photos, I think his golf course looks excellent. I'd love to play it. How much did it cost to build?
I think some of the golf courses in the west of Ireland and probably in Scotland are a great antidote to these kinds of developments. Would it be true that you have to think a bit more about design when you don't have the money to move mountains?
Patrick,
I do not wish for Trump Scotland to fail,although having seem it all play out I sure wish another developer would've been involved.
Jeff,
I honestly believe that another developer never would have gotten this project off the ground and through the permitting obstacles.
Trump's conduct is an embarrassment to the US and golf.
I'm confident you can see that.
I haven't condoned his behavior, only his results on this project
You are right that most of what is written is driivel, but these tweets were from Trump so he's producing the drivel.
I understand your angst and disapproval concerning his conduct.
I also understand egos and childlike behavior.
He's a public figure and has adopted and promoted a persona that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
But, bottom line, he appears to have developed a terrific golf course/project.
And for that, the world of golf should be the better for it.
Time will tell
Stay well, but don't stay bitter, it's not healthy.
Patrick, you said:
"......And for that, the world of golf should be the better for it."
Is the world of golf really better when our selfish wishes ride roughshod over local communities? Would you really see it that way if you lived right next to the course and you were routinely the victim of Trump's actions?
Paul,
How familiar you are with "Eminent Domain", and "The Acquisition of Right of Way" ?
Does the name P. J. Clarke mean anything to you ?
It seems to me, admittedly not knowing ALL the facts, that the community was behind the project.
Are you of the position that if just one individual is disenfranchised that a project should be terminated, irrespective of it's benefit ?
I appreciate this topic has already been round and round but the default position of many on this site frequently seems to be one of apathy where the bigger picture is concerned. :'(
It seemed to me that this topic/project drew passionate responses, hardly a sign of apathy
Patrick, you said:
"......And for that, the world of golf should be the better for it."
Is the world of golf really better when our selfish wishes ride roughshod over local communities? Would you really see it that way if you lived right next to the course and you were routinely the victim of Trump's actions?
Paul,
How familiar you are with "Eminent Domain", and "The Acquisition of Right of Way" ?
Does the name P. J. Clarke mean anything to you ?
It seems to me, admittedly not knowing ALL the facts, that the community was behind the project.
Are you of the position that if just one individual is disenfranchised that a project should be terminated, irrespective of it's benefit ?
I appreciate this topic has already been round and round but the default position of many on this site frequently seems to be one of apathy where the bigger picture is concerned. :'(
It seemed to me that this topic/project drew passionate responses, hardly a sign of apathy
the vast majority of the residence in immediate proximity to this project were very much against the project
Jon,
That's an enormous "qualifier"
How many residents are "in immediate proximity" ? 5 ? 10 ? 20 ?
Of those "in immediate proximity" how many were in favor and how many opposed ?
and if there were to be a pole of the Scottish population I recon far more would be against than for it
How would you know the results of a poll BEFORE it's taken ? Unless you're predisposed to the results.
as shown by the recipient of a recent award.
That's just one voice
As for "The Acquisition of Right of Way" there is a right to roam law here in Scotland and that includes over golf courses, private or not.
That's irrelevant. Paul asked a question and I responded to it by citing "eminent domain" and "AROW" as examples where similar situations and results occur.
With respect to AROW, it's Eminent Domain that's the mechanism or vehicle for that process
Jon
the vast majority of the residence in immediate proximity to this project were very much against the project
Jon,
That's an enormous "qualifier"
How many residents are "in immediate proximity" ? 5 ? 10 ? 20 ?
Of those "in immediate proximity" how many were in favor and how many opposed ?
Patrick,
I reckon its about 25 people bordering the project. I know they are against it and have yet to hear anyone say it is a good thing
Also you state "It seems to me, admittedly not knowing ALL the facts, that the community was behind the project". How do you know this?
and if there were to be a pole of the Scottish population I recon far more would be against than for it
How would you know the results of a poll BEFORE it's taken ? Unless you're predisposed to the results.
as shown by the recipient of a recent award.
That's just one voice
You surprise and disappoint me Patrick :'( You appear to be as poorly informed as Mr. Trump. The prise was not awarded by 'one voice' but was voted on by the public here in Scotland. So if the most well known opponent of the Trump project is voted as been the 'top Scot' by the SCOTTISH PUBLIC I would suppose the SCOTTISH PUBLIC might also vote against the Trump project
As for "The Acquisition of Right of Way" there is a right to roam law here in Scotland and that includes over golf courses, private or not.
That's irrelevant. Paul asked a question and I responded to it by citing "eminent domain" and "AROW" as examples where similar situations and results occur.
With respect to AROW, it's Eminent Domain that's the mechanism or vehicle for that process
to do what? With compulsory purchase (eminent domain) you can also stop a right of way 'The Acquisition of Right of Way' which prevents the use of an established public right of way under certain circumstances. This has not been the case at the Trump project where the right to roam allows you to cross the course as you like except going on to the greens or interfering with play.
Jon
the vast majority of the residence in immediate proximity to this project were very much against the project
Jon,
That's an enormous "qualifier"
How many residents are "in immediate proximity" ? 5 ? 10 ? 20 ?
Of those "in immediate proximity" how many were in favor and how many opposed ?
Patrick,
I reckon its about 25 people bordering the project. I know they are against it and have yet to hear anyone say it is a good thing
25 people hardly represent "The community"
That's just a small faction of the community.
Also you state "It seems to me, admittedly not knowing ALL the facts, that the community was behind the project".
How do you know this?
Because "The Community" approved the project.
and if there were to be a pole of the Scottish population I recon far more would be against than for it
How would you know the results of a poll BEFORE it's taken ? Unless you're predisposed to the results.
as shown by the recipient of a recent award.
That's just one voice
You surprise and disappoint me Patrick :'( You appear to be as poorly informed as Mr. Trump. The prise was not awarded by 'one voice' but was voted on by the public here in Scotland. So if the most well known opponent of the Trump project is voted as been the 'top Scot' by the SCOTTISH PUBLIC I would suppose the SCOTTISH PUBLIC might also vote against the Trump project
It's the vote to approve or disapprove the initiation of the project that counts, even if the vote is undertaken by the elected or appointed officials.
As for "The Acquisition of Right of Way" there is a right to roam law here in Scotland and that includes over golf courses, private or not.
That's irrelevant. Paul asked a question and I responded to it by citing "eminent domain" and "AROW" as examples where similar situations and results occur.
With respect to AROW, it's Eminent Domain that's the mechanism or vehicle for that process
to do what? With compulsory purchase (eminent domain) you can also stop a right of way 'The Acquisition of Right of Way' which prevents the use of an established public right of way under certain circumstances. This has not been the case at the Trump project where the right to roam allows you to cross the course as you like except going on to the greens or interfering with play.
We're referencing the acquisition of LAND/PROPERTY for a project, not walking rights.
Stay in context.
Patrick
One correction, the "Community", as you term it, did not approve the project. The "Community", as represented by the Local Authority, did not give Trump planning permission. The Scottish government approved the application after the Local Authority refused planning permission.
Ciao
Sean
The "community" can be defined in many ways. The 20-25 people who live in closest proximity to the links? The Lib Dem/Green minority rump of the Local Council who controlled the planning committee? The ~300,000 people living in Aberdeenshire who seem to overwhelmingly support the project? The 5 million+ people of Scotland who are now represented by the Scottish National Party government?
Knowing Aberdeenshire and Scotland probably a wee bit better than you do, I'll go with the government and the people of Aberdeenshire rather than with Michael Forbes nd his groupies on this site...
Rich
Knowing Aberdeenshire and Scotland probably a wee bit better than you do, I'll go with the government and the people of Aberdeenshire rather than with Michael Forbes nd his groupies on this site...
Rich
Sean
The ~300,000 people living in Aberdeenshire who seem to overwhelmingly support the project?
Rich, got to call you out on this one. Please show the poll where the 300,000 people living in Aberdeenshire voted their support for this project.
The 5 million+ people of Scotland who are now represented by the Scottish National Party government?
If this were true then why are we having the referendum in 2014? following your logic the Scottish National Party government could decide this. But of course this is not the case. There was no vote in the scottish parliament which is the body elected as the peoples representatives though this does not mean that they represent public opinion. It was the Scottish Executive which approved it without a vote overturning the decision of the local planning committee. Not very democratic
Rich
Jon,
That's your convoluted conclusion.
My experience at clubs, limited to 50+ years, has proved my statement to be accurate.
Still, one must look to the benefits for the majority even if a minority will not fare as well.
Patrick,QuoteStill, one must look to the benefits for the majority even if a minority will not fare as well.
Totally out of context and all, but you're sounding positively socialist. Think of this as applied to taxation and social policy. ;)
Bryan,
Initially I had a sentence referencing our tax policy, but eliminated it to stay on topic.
_________________________
Re the hotel part of the grand project, what the heck are they going to do with a 450 room luxury hotel in the winter?
You'll have to ask the "Donald".
But, construction and servicing of that hotel will produce a lot of jobs
Or, even the summer?
Have you ever seen the hotel at Turnberry ? Glen Eagles ?
How many rooms do you need to fill up one or even two courses for a day, assuming some of the rounds are local or day trippers?
I don't know, but, I think the Japanese, when they bought the hotel at Turnberry, spent another $ 60,000,000 on a spa and related activities
I suppose the equestrian stuff and spas might attract some too, when they're built, but 450 rooms seems like a lot.
Perhaps they have the "convention" trade in mind, along with "Major" golf events.
But, why would you care if the hotel has 450, 250 or 150 rooms ?
Patrick,
Your points are fair and well made, but I can't see that we're going to fundamentally agree here.
I have no objection in principle to 'eminent domain' by either the private or public sectors, but I don't agree with its threatened use in this case. The homes in question never needed to be a problem to the development of the course. The fundamental reason Trump wanted them moved was because he regarded them as 'eyesores.'
From his perspective, as a developer of a world class golf course, hotel and residences, he might be right.
Such arrogance and, dare I say it without it being misinterpreted, lack of class, repulses me. It's solely a personal judgement for all of us but I can't see me happily playing a course where so much effort had been made to remove the natural landscape and, make no mistake, a crofter's cottage or two is far more a part of the landscape in that part of the world than any large building Trump could dream up.
I don't disagree with you that it's solely a personal judgement, but, it's his judgement and he's the developer.
As we're both aware, no poll has been carried out. However, it does seem to me and, like you, I'm really just trying to sniff the air here, the local community is broadly against the project.
Paul, I would think that it might be premature to make that judgement.
Let's wait until the project is fully operational and then let's see what the local community thinks.
Nobody wants a factory in their backyard, but, when 500 or 1,000 local people gain employment, views tend to change.
And surely it's for them to decide what they want, rather than be told it's for their own good. And besides, I hope you'd agree that the wishes of those most directly affected should carry more weight than the wishes of others.
I understand and agree that the wishes of those most directly affected have to be weighted.
But, then I think of those most directly affected at Chernobyl, the "first responders'.
They knew that they were doomed, but, they sacrificed their lives for the good of others.
While the analogy may seem extreme/severe, sometimes you have to take a step back and take a more global view of a situation.
Let's say that my house was worth $ 250,000 and that Trump offered me $ 100,000.
Obviously, he wouldn't make an aquisition.
On the other hand, if he offered me $ 500,000 I couldn't complain that he was being ruthless in his negotiations
If, hypothetically, I lived near you and was offered, along with many others, money and jewels from a third party to turn a blind eye to your house being bulldozed, would you really shake my hand and say "fair enough, it was for the greater good."?
Wouldn't the answer to that question depend upon "fair market value" and how much more than fair market value I was paid for my house.
I'm reminded of the scene from "Heaven Can Wait" where the owner of the L.A. Rams is sullen and depressed when talking to an associate after he's sold the franchise. He says words to the effect, "that SOB stole if from me." And the other guy says, "how'd he do that". And the former owner says, "I asked him for X Gazzillion dollars and he paid it to me"
So, one has to ask, did the homeowner receive fair market value and then some ?
If so, I have a hard time being sympathetic, even though I understand "sentimental value" in addition to FMV.
If he received less than FMV, then that's a wrong that should be righted or never allowed to have happened in the first place.
Presumably not, and you'd be right not to, because you're feelings should have been afforded far greater weight than mine.
But, take it a step further. Let's say that my house is being bulldozed for a proton beam therapy facility, where none exists for a thousand miles around. Then what. Again, I'm not equating a golf resort with a cancer research/treatment facility, but, I think you can see that it's not such a simple black and white situation.
To broaden the point slightly, there's been much conjecture about the potential benefits to the Scottish economy as a whole. Truth is none of us really knows but it seems a reasonable assertion that much of the money taken at Trump will be money which would have been spent regardless at another Scottish venue.
I don't agree with that.
The guy has a history of producing and running great facilities. Ones that attract outsiders.
And, you're confining yourself to money pouring into the local economy once the project is built, not all the money inurring to the local community during construction, which is significant.
Someone might put Trump on their list of courses to play on a golf holiday but, in a great many cases, it will be instead of another venue, rather than as well as.
That's not the vibe I'm getting from those along the East Coast, from Florida to Boston.
So Trump in itself is hardly likely to be of any great significance to the national coffers in Scotland, given that there are one or two hundred other worthwhile courses anyway.
We disagree.
Have you ever been to a Trump golf course, hotel or highrise residence ?
Nonetheless, let's assume for now that tourism is greatly increased, at what point do we brush everything else under the carpet for the sake of short/mid term financial gain.
Again, your predisposition has overstated the issue.
It's NOT "everything else", it's a singular issue, "Eminent Domain"
I raise this point without even beginning on the environmental issues concerned because, frankly, I'm an economist by design and not an expert on nature.
I can't speak to the environment issues either, but, have the courses at St Andrews harmed the environment ?
Have any of the links courses, existing for centuries, harmed the environment ?
You can't have it both ways, you can't promote links golf on one hand, and ignore the environmental impact, if there is one, and then, jump all over poor defenseless Donald, for environmental issues, understanding what some claim is a unique aspect of the environment in that area.
As for the tweets, sadly I honestly believe Trump and Alan Sugar were both personally responsible for that rather childish spat.
Sometimes adults behave like children ........ without knowing it.
Btw, I was completely unaware of the P.J. Clarke's case. A brief search online led me to more advertising than anything else. I presume it was small business vs big business?
It was a great little bar/restaurant, famous for its food/patrons/atmosphere.
It's right on the corner of 3rd Ave and E 55th, where they wanted to build a huge skyscraper, but, they wouldn't sell out, completely, so, they built the huge skyscraper around the bar/restaurant. Although I think they might have sold the top two of the four stories of the building.
It's still there and I occassionally stop in for a bite when I visit MSKCC. on 53rd st.
We seem to expect squeaky clean perfection from everybody else, but, not from ourselves.
I hope the project enjoys success, although, with the economy, I think it will take alot of time.
Patrick,QuoteStill, one must look to the benefits for the majority even if a minority will not fare as well.
Totally out of context and all, but you're sounding positively socialist. Think of this as applied to taxation and social policy. ;)
Bryan,
Initially I had a sentence referencing our tax policy, but eliminated it to stay on topic.
_________________________
Re the hotel part of the grand project, what the heck are they going to do with a 450 room luxury hotel in the winter?
You'll have to ask the "Donald".
But, construction and servicing of that hotel will produce a lot of jobs
No doubt some good, others not so good.
Or, even the summer?
Have you ever seen the hotel at Turnberry ? Glen Eagles ?
Yes, if you mean this quaint little 207 room hotel. Actually stayed there before the Japanese reno. A little creaky at the time and, less than half the size of Trump's proposed hotel.
(http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee260/350dtm/P1010109.jpg)
How many rooms do you need to fill up one or even two courses for a day, assuming some of the rounds are local or day trippers?
I don't know, but, I think the Japanese, when they bought the hotel at Turnberry, spent another $ 60,000,000 on a spa and related activities
I suppose the equestrian stuff and spas might attract some too, when they're built, but 450 rooms seems like a lot.
Perhaps they have the "convention" trade in mind, along with "Major" golf events.
I guess they could end up cannibalizing from the existing convention centre and hotels a few miles south of Menie in north Aberdeen.
But, why would you care if the hotel has 450, 250 or 150 rooms ?
I don't "care". But I am curious how it will fit in and whether it will turn out to be financially successful. It just sounds like a lot of rooms to me, but then I'm not a business tycoon like Trump.
Patrick,
Crofter's cottages might quite reasonably be seen as eyesores? Really Patrick?
Paul,
It's not what you or I might see as eyesores, it's what Trump perceives as eyesores.
He's the developer and in the ultimate, responsible for the product produced.
I fear the predicted impasse has indeed been reached and I will at least rest easy thinking that I might in some small way have given you some food for thought.
I completely understand your position, and I hope you understand mine, a portion of which is that neither of our opinions matter, Trump will and has done what he wanted to do in order to produce the product he envisioned
The one thing I will pick you up on is your apparent assertion that some kind of negative juxtaposition inevitably will exist between golf and nature.
I can assure you that many links and heathland courses over here are responsible for preserving natural habitats which would otherwise have vanished long ago, the locations of native heather being a prime example.
I'm not so sure that preservation and environmental issues aren't a more recent concern.
I doubt such efforts existed in the 1700's, 1800's and early part of the 1900's.
I can't honestly comment on Scotland per se, although Castle Stuart stands out as a new development where all parties are more than satisfied, but English Nature frequently work WITH golf clubs to ensure our golfing lands remain environmentally sound.
Were the circumstances, the fact base identical at Castle Stuart and Trump ?
I don't know the answer, but, I suspect that they weren't.
I'm not quite sure where you were off to with your suggestion that 'you can't have it both ways.'
Some of the anti-Trump issues were focused on the linksland and the damage/disruption that a golf course would cause.
Does it cause that damage/disruption only at sites where Trump is involved ?
You can, it's called working with nature. By doing so there's nothing to ignore. Again, I refer you to Castle Stuart.
Did TOC work with nature ? Prestwick ? Turnberry, Troon ?
C'mon.
OK, one more point, you do realise Trump wouldn't have rested until P.J. Clarke's was rubble, right?
I think I'm more familiar with PJ Clarke's holdout and Trump than you and I'd disagree.
Trump might have offered him more, but, if the owner wouldn't sell, you'd have the same situation you have today.
Happy hunting.
I don't hunt, I think it's cruel to animals
Patrick,
I've read almost all of your posts on Trump, his motives, and what the potential impact will be for all of his nastiness.
I could only muster one thought. Don't ever, ever get involved with counterinsurgency and trying to win a people, you would suck at it.
Ben, I'm not trying to win the hearts and minds of those participating on this thread.
As to your assessment of my capabilities, you don't have the slightest clue when it comes to my ability to persuade.
Suffice it to say that when I had to convince a membership to renovate/redesign a golf course and spend millions to do so, the vote was about 80 % in favor of the project.
Which reminds me, I am SOOO glad Trump isn't anywhere near Iraq or Afghanistan.
Trump is very bright, and very results oriented.
I doubt he would have taken more than eleven (11) years to achieve his objective in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Your problem is that you know nothing about Trump, his intelligence, his work ethic and his drive, choosing instead to demean his abilities because you're not enamored with his personality.
Patrick,
I've read almost all of your posts on Trump, his motives, and what the potential impact will be for all of his nastiness.
I could only muster one thought. Don't ever, ever get involved with counterinsurgency and trying to win a people, you would suck at it.
Ben, I'm not trying to win the hearts and minds of those participating on this thread.
As to your assessment of my capabilities, you don't have the slightest clue when it comes to my ability to persuade.
Suffice it to say that when I had to convince a membership to renovate/redesign a golf course and spend millions to do so, the vote was about 80 % in favor of the project.
Which reminds me, I am SOOO glad Trump isn't anywhere near Iraq or Afghanistan.
Trump is very bright, and very results oriented.
I doubt he would have taken more than eleven (11) years to achieve his objective in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Your problem is that you know nothing about Trump, his intelligence, his work ethic and his drive, choosing instead to demean his abilities because you're not enamored with his personality.
Patrick,
I've read almost all of your posts on Trump, his motives, and what the potential impact will be for all of his nastiness.
I could only muster one thought.
Don't ever, ever get involved with counterinsurgency and trying to win a people, you would suck at it.
Patrick,
There's no need to be defensive.
Let me see if I understand something.
You tell me that I "would suck at it"
And I offer reasons why I wouldn't and you label me as being "defensive"
Should I not defend myself against a bogus allegation ?
My post is in no way indicative of you or Donald Trump's ability to produce "results."
Of course it is, you just told me that my ability to produce favorable results would "suck"
It is only my perception that neither you or him care "how you play the game," as long as you win.
Then your abilities to perceive are sorely lacking.
A lot of people I know have met you and would say that I'm wrong about that perception.
Count me as being in their camp.
But that's what your posts and Trump's tactics indicate.
No, that's what your flawed ability to perceive leads you to believe
And trust me, in a local level insurgency, it matters more how you accomplish the mission rather than actually accomplishing the mission.
The flaw in your statement is that you've qualified your method for accomplishing the mission as being successful, when in fact your method may have failed.
Hey, it's always better to win an issue with a 99-1 vote rather than a 66-33 or 51-49 vote.
The question is, will your method pass the test of time once you withdraw.
Trump's very intelligent and pragmatic. I have no doubt that if he were a military commander with authority that he'd make prudent decisions.
I don't think another developer could have brought this project to fruition, others may feel differently.
You just don't like his persona
Ben,
I don't know what's fact and what's fiction on ALL of the issues and I suspect that I'm not alone.
But, if you start defending him, I might start attacking him ;D
I will leave this topic alone soon, or so I keep promising myself!
Just two points, really, just two:
1) The historic fact that courses have preserved nature is something of a happy accident.
Or, it just might be that golf courses don't inherently harm nature and not just a random consequence of good fortune.
That fact, however, does nothing to diminish our responsibilities going forward.
We live, or some of us at least, in a more enlightened age environmentally and can therefore not use the past as a defence for our future actions.
So how has Trump not put forth the effort to "preserve nature" in the design and building of his golf course.
2) Ben nailed something when he referred to Trump only being concerned with winning and not caring about how the game was played.
First, Ben doesn't have a clue when it comes to Trump and his "only" concerns.
Your generally disposition seems to me to be to praise the success of such an approach and point out that he's the developer and can ultimately do what he wants.
That's your interpretation.
The circumstances are simple.
Trump wanted to build a world class golf course.
He determined the site, obtained the approvals and had the course designed and built.
He accomplished his goal.
From HIS perspective do you think he wanted to spend millions of his money and have the project terminated due to an unforseen impediment ?
Do you think he said or considered the following:
Let's see, I think I'll spend 40, 50 or 80 million and just walk away if there's the slightest problem.
For better or worse, he hasn't been successful because he accepted the other guys position.
This kind of imperialism (the fact that we British governed a third of the globe with a similarly arrogant mentality hasn't gone without note) is nothing to be proud of.
So if anyone's feelings are hurt, if anyone gets the short end of the stick, any and all development should stop ?
Trawling the planet and basically saying "hey, I'm here, this is how I do things, deal with it" is no way to behave in a supposedly civilised society.
Did Trump break any laws ?
Did he conform to the permitting process ?
Did he build to code ?
Did he conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?
It doesn't matter whether its Donald Trump, me, you or anyone else doing it.
To give a far smaller scale example, the British masses still have an ugly habit of adopting this attitude when abroad (something of a throwback to the days of empire) and it equally stinks.
I don't agree with that.
It was the British spirit that helped civilize the world.
Btw, as I strongly suspect you realise, the 'happy hunting' reference was not meant literally.
Your suspicions are correct.
I knew what you meant, I was just kidding you.
I will leave this topic alone soon, or so I keep promising myself!
Just two points, really, just two:
1) The historic fact that courses have preserved nature is something of a happy accident.
Or, it just might be that golf courses don't inherently harm nature and not just a random consequence of good fortune.
That fact, however, does nothing to diminish our responsibilities going forward.
We live, or some of us at least, in a more enlightened age environmentally and can therefore not use the past as a defence for our future actions.
So how has Trump not put forth the effort to "preserve nature" in the design and building of his golf course.
Are you serious with this question? Even if you believe the work carried out was justified to fain having no knowledge of the damage is really quite laughable
2) Ben nailed something when he referred to Trump only being concerned with winning and not caring about how the game was played.
First, Ben doesn't have a clue when it comes to Trump and his "only" concerns.
But didn't you say the same thing?
Your generally disposition seems to me to be to praise the success of such an approach and point out that he's the developer and can ultimately do what he wants.
That's your interpretation.
The circumstances are simple.
Trump wanted to build a world class golf course.
He determined the site, obtained the approvals and had the course designed and built.
He accomplished his goal.
From HIS perspective do you think he wanted to spend millions of his money and have the project terminated due to an unforeseen impediment ?
Do you think he said or considered the following:
Let's see, I think I'll spend 40, 50 or 80 million and just walk away if there's the slightest problem.
For better or worse, he hasn't been successful because he accepted the other guys position.
This kind of imperialism (the fact that we British governed a third of the globe with a similarly arrogant mentality hasn't gone without note) is nothing to be proud of.
So if anyone's feelings are hurt, if anyone gets the short end of the stick, any and all development should stop ?
Trawling the planet and basically saying "hey, I'm here, this is how I do things, deal with it" is no way to behave in a supposedly civilised society.
Did Trump break any laws ?
Did he conform to the permitting process ? No
Did he build to code ?No
Did he conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?No
It doesn't matter whether its Donald Trump, me, you or anyone else doing it.
To give a far smaller scale example, the British masses still have an ugly habit of adopting this attitude when abroad (something of a throwback to the days of empire) and it equally stinks.
I don't agree with that.
It was the British spirit that helped civilize the world.
Btw, as I strongly suspect you realise, the 'happy hunting' reference was not meant literally.
Your suspicions are correct.
I knew what you meant, I was just kidding you.
[/i]
Are you serious with this question?
Even if you believe the work carried out was justified to fain having no knowledge of the damage is really quite laughable
[/b]
So how has Trump not put forth the effort to "preserve nature" in the design and building of his golf course.
[/i]
But didn't you say the same thing?
[/i]
Did he conform to the permitting process ?
Did he build to code ?
Did he conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?
Patrick,
We'd need membership at the same golf club and an enormous amount of time in the 19th to move this on any further and, frankly, I wouldn't wish us upon the rest of the members! Now that gets me thinking; maybe I could seek membership at Trump International and bore people out of visiting, or at least revisiting! Actually, unless I had any great desire to ambush people from behind sand dunes, why bother with membership? I could just set myself up in the clubhouse with a massive hip flask of a certain banned Scottish whisky, claim squatters rights and preach from there.
Paul,
I thought that's what we've been doing all along ;D
Maybe Donald could get a Compulsory Purchase Order on me. ;D
Famous last words, and not words I can absolutely promise to stick to, but I'm out. Nonetheless Patrick, it's been fun.
Agreed.
I hope the project enjoys enormous success and that everyone benefits from the golf, hotel and residential components
I had heard that the golf course has already secured a major event and that more may be in the wings.
I wish the project and all those associated with it, well
Jon,
You asked:Quote[/i]
Are you serious with this question?
Even if you believe the work carried out was justified to fain having no knowledge of the damage is really quite laughable
Yes, I'm serious with the question, so I'll repeat it and you can answer it.Quote[/b]
So how has Trump not put forth the effort to "preserve nature" in the design and building of his golf course.
Destroying parts of a shifting dune for example.
Then you asked:Quote[/i]
But didn't you say the same thing?
NO, I didn't.
I am sure I read it on one of the many threads Patrick. I will have a look later if you insist
Then, I asked the following questions:Quote[/i]
Did he conform to the permitting process ?
Did he build to code ?
Did he conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?
You answered "NO" to every one of them.
Would you therefore detail, how, where and when he didn't conform to the permitting process, how, where and when he didn't build to code and how, when and where he didn't conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?
The first one that comes to mind is the removal, transport and storage of sand. Another was the erection of earth dams. There are plenty more but I think that suffices
Thanks
Jon,
You asked:Quote[/i]
Are you serious with this question?
Even if you believe the work carried out was justified to fain having no knowledge of the damage is really quite laughable
Yes, I'm serious with the question, so I'll repeat it and you can answer it.Quote[/b]
So how has Trump not put forth the effort to "preserve nature" in the design and building of his golf course.
Destroying parts of a shifting dune for example.
What parts ?
Didn't he get permission to construct a golf course in very specific and limited areas ?
Did his work go beyond his specifically permitted areas ?
Or did he confine his work to the permitted areas ?
Then you asked:Quote[/i]
But didn't you say the same thing?
NO, I didn't.
I am sure I read it on one of the many threads Patrick. I will have a look later if you insist
OK, I'd appreciate seeing the citation.
Then, I asked the following questions:Quote[/i]
Did he conform to the permitting process ?
Did he build to code ?
Did he conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?
You answered "NO" to every one of them.
Would you therefore detail, how, where and when he didn't conform to the permitting process, how, where and when he didn't build to code and how, when and where he didn't conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?
The first one that comes to mind is the removal, transport and storage of sand.
And you're making the claim that he removed, transported and stored sand without approvals.
Can you provide concrete documentation supporting each allegation contained in your claim ?
Another was the erection of earth dams.
Would you provide the documents supporting the allegation that he erected earthen dams with permitting approval ?
There are plenty more but I think that suffices
Please list them for us.
We can investigate whether there's supporting documentation to veryify your claim at a later date.
Thanks
Thanks
Can you provide concrete documentation supporting each allegation contained in your claim ?
We can investigate whether there's supporting documentation to veryify your claim at a later date.
PatrickQuoteCan you provide concrete documentation supporting each allegation contained in your claim ?QuoteWe can investigate whether there's supporting documentation to veryify your claim at a later date.
It is clear you are a trump fan, but surely you are not a birther as well? ;)
It's not that I'm a "Trump fan" as much as I'm a defender against allegations that would appear to be false.
On the other issue, I've presented my birth certificate every time I was requested to do so.... without undue delay.
Ditto my school transcripts. ;D
If you check out the scottish natural heritage website they mention that they must be informed of any work to be carried out on an sssi.
The Scottish Natural Heritage ? Isn't that the same organization that opposes the wind turbine project ?
Let's see, Trump opposes the project and he's demonized, but, the SNH opposes the project and they're the protectors of the land.
And you and others don't see the hypocrisy ? ? ?
http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/protected-areas/national-designations/sssis/sssi-management/
It would also seem that they need to provide approval for the work to go ahead.
In the next document it is pretty clear they think the level of impact on the sssi would be high and that without alterations the project should not have gone ahead.
That's just their opinion.
And we know that others, in a position of authority, dismissed their opinion and approved the project.
We know that the project went ahead with the blessings of the Scottish Government.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/216107/0057821.pdf
If the plans for the course were not altered after this consultation then any of the work Jon mentioned would be causing great harm to the environment.
That's blatantly false and you know it.
I want you and Jon to document where Trump was in violation and cited for failure to obtain or adhere to permits.
From their own press release
"Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has written to Aberdeenshire Council advising them
that part of the proposed development at Menie would, in its view, seriously damage
an important nature conservation site and sand dune habitats. The extensive
, assessment by SNH details damage to Foveran Links Site of Special Scientific
interest (SSSI)."
That's their opinion, an opinion not shared by those in authority in the Scottish Government who voted to proceed with the project, subject to permitting approvals. Trump received the legal approvals and proceeded with the project as planned and approved.
So unless you doubt the knowledge and skills of those working at SNH,
I don't necessarily doubt their knowledge or skill, in much the same manner that I don't necessarily doubt the knowledge and skill of the CCC, it's their perspective, motives and bias that I might disagree with.
it is hard to see how any amount of work could "preserve nature" in the design and building of his golf course, no matter how much effort was made.
Evidently the governing/ruling bodies disagreed with you since they declared/ruled that the project should go forth.
I asked for concrete documentation from Jon and is all I get is hollow accusations on matters past.
Jon,
You asked:Quote[/i]
Are you serious with this question?
Even if you believe the work carried out was justified to fain having no knowledge of the damage is really quite laughable
Yes, I'm serious with the question, so I'll repeat it and you can answer it.Quote[/b]
So how has Trump not put forth the effort to "preserve nature" in the design and building of his golf course.
Destroying parts of a shifting dune for example.
What parts ?
Didn't he get permission to construct a golf course in very specific and limited areas ?
Did his work go beyond his specifically permitted areas ?
Or did he confine his work to the permitted areas ?
(CAPS FOR CLARITY NOT SHOUTING ;D) YOUR QUESTION WAS NEVER 'DID HE HAVE PERMISSION' BUT RATHER 'So how has Trump not put forth the effort to "preserve nature" in the design and building of his golf course'
Then you asked:Quote[/i]
But didn't you say the same thing?
NO, I didn't.
I am sure I read it on one of the many threads Patrick. I will have a look later if you insist
OK, I'd appreciate seeing the citation.
Then, I asked the following questions:Quote[/i]
Did he conform to the permitting process ?
Did he build to code ?
Did he conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?
You answered "NO" to every one of them.
Would you therefore detail, how, where and when he didn't conform to the permitting process, how, where and when he didn't build to code and how, when and where he didn't conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?
The first one that comes to mind is the removal, transport and storage of sand.
And you're making the claim that he removed, transported and stored sand without approvals.
Can you provide concrete documentation supporting each allegation contained in your claim ?
NO PATRICK, IT IS NOT WHAT BUT HOW AS YOU WELL KNOW
Another was the erection of earth dams.
Would you provide the documents supporting the allegation that he erected earthen dams with permitting approval ?
I SUSPECT IT IS A TYPO ON YOUR PART. I CAN NOT PROVIDE THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF HIS PERMISSION TO BUILD THE EARTH DAMS AS IT DOES NOT EXIST
There are plenty more but I think that suffices
Please list them for us.
We can investigate whether there's supporting documentation to veryify your claim at a later date.
Thanks
Thanks
Jon,
Your inability to cite where Trump violated permits and broke Scotttish laws is proof enough for me.
Jon,
Your inability to cite where Trump violated permits and broke Scotttish laws is proof enough for me.
I have said where I believe he violated the permit.
Oh, so now it's where you believe, not where the Scottish Authorities who oversee these matters believe.
Now you are trying to say that because I can not prove where Trump broke the law it proves your argument.
You claimed he broke the law.
I said, "prove it"
You can't prove it and admit so.
Of course that proves my argument
Can you point out where did I say he broke Scottish laws?
Of course I can.
You sure have a short memory.
I asked you:
Did he conform to the permitting process ?
You said, "NO"
I asked you:
Did he build to code ?
You said, "NO"
I asked you:
Did he conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?
You said, "NO"
Now I don't know how they judge things in your neck of the woods, but you just declared and told us that he didn't conform to the permitting process, that he didn't build to code and that he didn't conform to Scottish rules and regulations. Where I come from that means he broke the law.
Are you that obtuse that you don't understand your own words, or is it that your dislike for Trump has blinded your judgement and ability to discern
what breaking rules and regulations means ?
To be honest it is a waste of time trying to discuss anything with you as you are unable to accept even the most provable of facts if it does not fit you view of the world.
What a joke.
The waste of time is that you can't remember what you typed.
The waste of time is that you contradict yourself.
One moment you tell us that Trump broke the law and in the next you ask where you said that.
The waste of time is that you made allegations and when asked to document them, you can't, and then you declare that I won't accept the facts, when you've been unable to produce them.
You're not a waste of time, you're a joke and it's on us for paying any attention to your unsubstantiated accusations.
Now I don't know how they judge things in your neck of the woods, but you just declared and told us that he didn't conform to the permitting process, that he didn't build to code and that he didn't conform to Scottish rules and regulations. Where I come from that means he broke the law.
I don't look at it as lying, I look at it as trying to mislead the opposition.
You're not a waste of time, you're a joke and it's on us for paying any attention to your unsubstantiated accusations.
[/b][/size][/color]
There was a time - many, many years ago - when this thread actually discussed the course.
Quote
Now I don't know how they judge things in your neck of the woods, but you just declared and told us that he didn't conform to the permitting process, that he didn't build to code and that he didn't conform to Scottish rules and regulations.
Where I come from that means he broke the law.Quote
I don't look at it as lying, I look at it as trying to mislead the opposition.
Donal, there are some shows on TV called "Pawn Stars", "Cajun Pawn Stars" and "Hardcore Pawn Stars"
In each episode, the seller says, "I can't take less than X". The buyer says, "I can't pay more than Y"
In the end, they shift off of X and Y to other dollar amounts.
The buyer takes less and the seller pays more.
Were they lying or just negotiating ?
When you buy something, do you always pay what you're asked to pay, or do you negotiate ?
Trump's just negotiating, that's what he does and he does it fairly well.
Where exactly do you come from ??? :D
I come from a place where I don't blindly pay what the list price is.
I also come from a place where people are able to clearly distinguish between violations of the rules, regulations and laws and posturing and bluffing during negotiations.
If I look up the word "naive" in the dictionary, am I going to find your picture ? ;D
Patrick,
permitting clauses, Building Rules & Regs for landscape construction are not technically part of the Criminal Law here.
So you're stating that in Scotland you can violate the building rules and regulations with impunity, that there's no fear of being cited, no punishment for violating those rules and regulations. Well, if there's no sanctions for violating them, why have them ?
What I really think is that you don't know what you're talking about.
Please cite the rules and regulations that Trump broke.
Rules and regulations are not the same as law.
Tell us how they differ and what the consequences are for violating rules and regulations.
Hard to believe that there's no sanctions for violating regulations.
By the way, why didn't you rise up in arms when the Scottish Natural Heritage objected to the Wind Turbines, just like Trump did ?
You're not a waste of time, you're a joke and it's on us for paying any attention to your unsubstantiated accusations.
[/b][/size][/color]
Temper, temper Patrick. Try not to get so wound up, its not as if you are being taken seriously the way you debate ;)
Jon, believe me, I'm neither wound up nor having a fit of temper, I'm just enjoying myself. ;D
Pat
How many courses have you played in Scotland?
Half a dozen or so.
Please list the top 10+, in relative order, that you'd like to play if you were to go in the next several years.
I couldn't give you relative order since my "play list" would be geographically/accomodations driven.
But, I'd like to playL
Carnoustie
Machrihanish
Dornoch
Nairn
Aberdeen
Boat of Garten
Cruden Bay
Muirfield
Trump
Brora
Mussleburgh
Kingsbarn
Will you play them all realistically?
Realistically, I won't play any of them.
Patrick,
Glad I not offended you ;D
I suggest you look up the difference between rule and law in the dictionary and you will find they are not technically the same although you can be sanctioned for breaking either.
Jon, how convenient of you to forget about "Regulations", which I specifically cited.
Since you brought up the dictionary, let me offer a few definitions.
'Regulation" A rule, ordinance, or law by which conduct is regulated."
"Rule" An authoritative regulation for action.
Government; reign; control
a regulation or guide established by a court, governing court practice and procedure
a declaration order, etc. made by a judge or court in deciding a specific question or point of law
a legal principal or maxim
I asked, did he conform to Scottish rules and regulations and you responded "NO"
So which rules and regulations did he break ?
Please cite them.
Before you carry on throwing mud around could you answer the question you seem desperate to avoid answering (and it is obvious why)
The earthen dams that were constructed around the old coastguard's station were not part of any agreement either in or out of the planning.
How do you know ?
And how do you know that he didn't obtain subsequent approval ?
Was he cited for any violation ?
As such they are non permitted development and therefore not allowed as part of the building regs.
Once again, both the fact base and the allegations you make are strictly your interpretation.
Was he cited for any violation ?
IF not, then one has to question your fact base, your allegations and your conclusions.
This proves my point so either find where they are allowed in the planning permission or simply admit what most here already know, that you are wrong.
Only in your mind, nothing you've stated proves your point.
You should have been able to post the citations you allege he received for violating his permits, codes, rules and regulations.
Yet, you've failed to produce a single document supporting and substantiating your claims.
And you think that proves you right ? ? ?
Solid play list you have.
Wish I'd embarked upon it years ago.
Patrick,
Thanks for the reply which shows that rule, regulation and law are not the same thing though related ;D.
Next time a friend of yours gets audited by the IRS, tell them that the IRS regulations aren't the same thing as the LAW.
Also, please provide your friend with your mailing address so that he can keep in touch from Leavenworth.
For proof of the construction of the earthen dams I suggest you look at the many photos, film clips and statement in the newspaper as to their existence. I of course have seen them myself when visiting last month so I know they exist. Of course you can still carry on denying their existence if this keeps your world on an even keel.
Jon, have you seen either the permits allowing for their construction or the citations issued due to failure to comply ?
How can you devine the legal status of the earthenworks ? ? ?
The reason that I can not find any documentation about them being illegal is here in Scotland we do not usually include any of the things that go under 'non permitted development and it would surprise me if they did in your part of the world.
Then how can you make unsubstantiated allegations ?
As such the non existence of the earthen dams in the planning permission is proof that they were not permitted.
NO, it's not.
That's an absurd conclusion, one totally absent logic.
You are aware that plans get amended/altered after their initial creation and submission, no ? ? ?
It is more than possible that such infringements have been noted to the developer but such things are not so often made public being looked up on as oversights.
Are you saying that the local, regional and national Scottish Authorities were complicit in a cover up ?
That the SNH and other opponents remained silent regarding these alleged transgressions ?
It would only be after repeated warnings about non compliance that any court action would be taken so there would clearly be no realistic expectancy of a court case at the moment.
Baloney, or Bologna, depending how you like it.
With the high profile nature of this project you can bet your last dollar that the scrutiny placed on every phase of the project was intense and that any violations would have been reported to the authorities and the press.
The facts are earthen dams exist. They are not in the planning permission. They are therefore non permitted development which is non compliance with the planning permission.
John, only a moron, even a nice polite moron knows that your "chain of logic" is deeply flawed.
Plan and work order changes are almost inevitable in any and every project.
To declare that earthenworks not reflected in the original plans are proof of a violation is absurd.
It ignores the fact that many plans are altered after approvals.
This is not a breach of the law Patrick but a non compliance of the building regs.
No it's not.
You don't know if the earthenworks were approved.
You seem to know that Trump wasn't cited for any violation regarding those earthenworks, ergo, by your logic, he had permission. ;D
The developer therefore needs to either get the planning permission amended to include the earthen dams or remove them so as to comply with the planning permission.
You don't know if he did that, choosing instead to declare that he didn't.
Absent any citation for the violation you allege occured, a prudent man would have to conclude that he sought and received approvals.
If the developer fails to do either then he will be served with a 'notice of compliance' which if not complied with will then lead to a prosecution.
OK, so where's the "notice of compliance" documentation.
Surely that has to be part of the public record.
If there is none, again, the prudent man rule would dictate that he sought and received approvals
It is the non compliance with the 'notice of compliance' which breaks the law not the building of the earthen dams which is a breach of planning permission.
Either way, documented citations have to be issued.
WHERE ARE THEY ?
If none exist, he must have sought and received approval.
As you have not been able to answer the very clear and easy question my point is proved 8)
Some advice.
1 What ever you do, do not attempt to defend yourself in any civil or criminal matter, even a traffic ticket.
2 Seek the aid of an attorney.
3 Take some courses in "logic" at your local university.
Patrick,
Thanks for the reply which shows that rule, regulation and law are not the same thing though related ;D.
Next time a friend of yours gets audited by the IRS, tell them that the IRS regulations aren't the same thing as the LAW.
Also, please provide your friend with your mailing address so that he can keep in touch from Leavenworth.
Patrick, there is no IRS in Scotland.
For proof of the construction of the earthen dams I suggest you look at the many photos, film clips and statement in the newspaper as to their existence. I of course have seen them myself when visiting last month so I know they exist. Of course you can still carry on denying their existence if this keeps your world on an even keel.
Jon, have you seen either the permits allowing for their construction or the citations issued due to failure to comply ?
How can you devine the legal status of the earthenworks ? ? ?
To answer your first question, they are not contained within the planning permission document including amendments. As to the second part, this shows your obvious lack of knowledge about what you are trying to discuss. Here in Scotland any work not detailed within the approved planning permission which is outside of permitted development (both of these are documents available for viewing by the general public which I suggest you do so as to be a little better informed) would be considered as 'non permissible'. When such is discovered by th planning authorities the developer will firstly be made aware of the issue and given time to rectify by altering to comply with the permission or to submit an amendment to the approved plans. This is a process that can take some while and even then any written compliance notice would not become a document of public interest and so not be made public.
As to how do you define the legal status of the earthworks, I don't have to,. Why would I?
The reason that I can not find any documentation about them being illegal is here in Scotland we do not usually include any of the things that go under 'non permitted development and it would surprise me if they did in your part of the world.
Then how can you make unsubstantiated allegations ?
As such the non existence of the earthen dams in the planning permission is proof that they were not permitted.
NO, it's not.
That's an absurd conclusion, one totally absent logic.
You are aware that plans get amended/altered after their initial creation and submission, no ? ? ?
So find the amendment Patrick. I doubt you can however as it does not exist ;)
It is more than possible that such infringements have been noted to the developer but such things are not so often made public being looked up on as oversights.
Are you saying that the local, regional and national Scottish Authorities were complicit in a cover up ?
That the SNH and other opponents remained silent regarding these alleged transgressions ?
No
It would only be after repeated warnings about non compliance that any court action would be taken so there would clearly be no realistic expectancy of a court case at the moment.
Baloney, or Bologna, depending how you like it.
With the high profile nature of this project you can bet your last dollar that the scrutiny placed on every phase of the project was intense and that any violations would have been reported to the authorities and the press.
Indeed, they have been featured in the press and even on the telly
The facts are earthen dams exist. They are not in the planning permission. They are therefore non permitted development which is non compliance with the planning permission.
John, only a moron, even a nice polite moron knows that your "chain of logic" is deeply flawed.
Plan and work order changes are almost inevitable in any and every project.
To declare that earthenworks not reflected in the original plans are proof of a violation is absurd.
It ignores the fact that many plans are altered after approvals.
Patrice, read my previous statement. I do not mention 'original' just 'planning permission'. As I have said many time if they are in the planning permission find them
This is not a breach of the law Patrick but a non compliance of the building regs.
No it's not.
You don't know if the earthenworks were approved.
You seem to know that Trump wasn't cited for any violation regarding those earthenworks, ergo, by your logic, he had permission. ;D
Patrick, if it is not in the planning permission then it is not permitted what is so difficult to understand.
The developer therefore needs to either get the planning permission amended to include the earthen dams or remove them so as to comply with the planning permission.
You don't know if he did that, choosing instead to declare that he didn't.
Absent any citation for the violation you allege occured, a prudent man would have to conclude that he sought and received approvals.
No, a prudent man would know that there had not been sufficient time for it to have reached the court process stage and therefore come into the public realm.
If the developer fails to do either then he will be served with a 'notice of compliance' which if not complied with will then lead to a prosecution.
OK, so where's the "notice of compliance" documentation.Not so far along
Surely that has to be part of the public record.No, it would not be on public record. Only if it were the SE as developer would this be the case
If there is none, again, the prudent man rule would dictate that he sought and received approvals
If he had and received approval then there would be an amendment to the planning permission which there is not. The prudent man would therefore conclude he had yet to get such
It is the non compliance with the 'notice of compliance' which breaks the law not the building of the earthen dams which is a breach of planning permission.
Either way, documented citations have to be issued.
WHERE ARE THEY ?
If none exist, he must have sought and received approval.
As you have not been able to answer the very clear and easy question my point is proved 8)
Some advice.
1 What ever you do, do not attempt to defend yourself in any civil or criminal matter, even a traffic ticket.
2 Seek the aid of an attorney.
3 Take some courses in "logic" at your local university.
Patrick,
Thanks for the reply which shows that rule, regulation and law are not the same thing though related ;D.
Next time a friend of yours gets audited by the IRS, tell them that the IRS regulations aren't the same thing as the LAW.
Also, please provide your friend with your mailing address so that he can keep in touch from Leavenworth.
Patrick, there is no IRS in Scotland.
I'm well aware of that, but, I thought, with your participation on this site, that you might have some friends in the U.S.
I guess not. ;D
For proof of the construction of the earthen dams I suggest you look at the many photos, film clips and statement in the newspaper as to their existence. I of course have seen them myself when visiting last month so I know they exist. Of course you can still carry on denying their existence if this keeps your world on an even keel.
Jon, have you seen either the permits allowing for their construction or the citations issued due to failure to comply ?
How can you devine the legal status of the earthenworks ? ? ?
To answer your first question, they are not contained within the planning permission document including amendments. As to the second part, this shows your obvious lack of knowledge about what you are trying to discuss. Here in Scotland any work not detailed within the approved planning permission which is outside of permitted development (both of these are documents available for viewing by the general public which I suggest you do so as to be a little better informed) would be considered as 'non permissible'. When such is discovered by th planning authorities the developer will firstly be made aware of the issue and given time to rectify by altering to comply with the permission or to submit an amendment to the approved plans. This is a process that can take some while and even then any written compliance notice would not become a document of public interest and so not be made public.
Then how can you unequivically declare that he broke rules, regulations or laws.
You don't know all of the facts and details, yet you've drawn an absolute conclusion.
I asked you to document where he had been cited for any violation, and surely, the media and anti-Trump coalition would have jumped all over any breach on his part. Yet, you can't produce a single document.
As to how do you define the legal status of the earthworks, I don't have to,. Why would I?
The reason that I can not find any documentation about them being illegal is here in Scotland we do not usually include any of the things that go under 'non permitted development and it would surprise me if they did in your part of the world.
Then how can you make unsubstantiated allegations ?
As such the non existence of the earthen dams in the planning permission is proof that they were not permitted.
NO, it's not.
That's an absurd conclusion, one totally absent logic.
You are aware that plans get amended/altered after their initial creation and submission, no ? ? ?
So find the amendment Patrick. I doubt you can however as it does not exist ;)
I don't have to, I'm not the one who unequivically declared that he failed to conform to the permits, and that he violated Scottish laws, rules and regulations, you did, so the burden of proof is on you to prove your allegations.
It is more than possible that such infringements have been noted to the developer but such things are not so often made public being looked up on as oversights.
Are you saying that the local, regional and national Scottish Authorities were complicit in a cover up ?
That the SNH and other opponents remained silent regarding these alleged transgressions ?
No
Then produce the citations.
It would only be after repeated warnings about non compliance that any court action would be taken so there would clearly be no realistic expectancy of a court case at the moment.
Baloney, or Bologna, depending how you like it.
With the high profile nature of this project you can bet your last dollar that the scrutiny placed on every phase of the project was intense and that any violations would have been reported to the authorities and the press.
Indeed, they have been featured in the press and even on the telly
Then the citations for his alleged violations should be easily obtainable by you.
Yet, you've failed to produce a single document.
The facts are earthen dams exist. They are not in the planning permission. They are therefore non permitted development which is non compliance with the planning permission.
John, only a moron, even a nice polite moron knows that your "chain of logic" is deeply flawed.
Plan and work order changes are almost inevitable in any and every project.
To declare that earthenworks not reflected in the original plans are proof of a violation is absurd.
It ignores the fact that many plans are altered after approvals.
Patrice, read my previous statement. I do not mention 'original' just 'planning permission'.
As I have said many time if they are in the planning permission find them
Again, the burden of proof is on you.
You claimed that he didn't adhere to the permitting process, and that he violated Scottish rules and regulations.
So, produce the documented evidence.
This is not a breach of the law Patrick but a non compliance of the building regs.
No it's not.
You don't know if the earthenworks were approved.
You seem to know that Trump wasn't cited for any violation regarding those earthenworks, ergo, by your logic, he had permission. ;D
Patrick, if it is not in the planning permission then it is not permitted what is so difficult to understand.
The failure to recognize subsequent agreements on your part.
The developer therefore needs to either get the planning permission amended to include the earthen dams or remove them so as to comply with the planning permission.
You don't know if he did that, choosing instead to declare that he didn't.
Absent any citation for the violation you allege occured, a prudent man would have to conclude that he sought and received approvals.
No, a prudent man would know that there had not been sufficient time for it to have reached the court process stage and therefore come into the public realm.
Nonsense, with all the anti-Trump vitriol, you can bet, if he was in violation that the anti-Trump coalitiion, media and politicians would have fast tracked that process for the specific purpose of putting a halt to the project they so bitterly opposed.
If the developer fails to do either then he will be served with a 'notice of compliance' which if not complied with will then lead to a prosecution.
OK, so where's the "notice of compliance" documentation.Not so far along
In other words, it doesn't exist, ergo, no breach on Trump's part
Surely that has to be part of the public record.No, it would not be on public record. Only if it were the SE as developer would this be the case
So, you're going to sit there and tell us that any breach on Trump's part, for which he was cited, has been kept secret by the Scottish Government and the Government employees, especially those who are sympathetic to the anti-Trump coalition. That NO ONE leaked it to the media or the anti-Trump forces.
Jon, time to sign up for that refresher course in human nature and logic
If there is none, again, the prudent man rule would dictate that he sought and received approvals
If he had and received approval then there would be an amendment to the planning permission which there is not.
How do you know the entirety of the scope of agreements related to this project.
How do you know that there are no work order permits that you're not aware of ?
The prudent man would therefore conclude he had yet to get such
It is the non compliance with the 'notice of compliance' which breaks the law not the building of the earthen dams which is a breach of planning permission.
Either way, documented citations have to be issued.
WHERE ARE THEY ?
If none exist, he must have sought and received approval.
As you have not been able to answer the very clear and easy question my point is proved 8)
Some advice.
1 What ever you do, do not attempt to defend yourself in any civil or criminal matter, even a traffic ticket.
2 Seek the aid of an attorney.
3 Take some courses in "logic" at your local university.
It is clear that you are under the illusion that this is all covered by US laws.
Only a fool could draw that conclusion
Here in Scotland we have an older and some say more refined law.
According to you, individuals or entities can violate Scottish Law, Rules and regulations and not be cited for it.
That hardly sounds refined.
Why have laws, rules and regulations if they're not enforced.
Oh, that's right, you said it takes time.
So, when do you think the citations will reach the courts, in 2038 ?
Please try to make sure your posts stay relevant to Scottish laws, rules and regulations.
I have, it seems that you're the one totally unfamiliar with the laws, rules and regulations of the land.
Finally Patrick, either find the relevant section in the planning permission or stop flogging the dead donkey.
The burden of proof is on you.
You unequivacally declared that he didn't adhere to the permits, that he violated Scottish rules and regulations.
You made the allegations, hence, you have to substantiate them through documentation, not me.
I await the publication of the documents.
Admitting you are wrong is surely not so hard is it?
I wouldn't know, I've never had to do it. ;D
Jon
Patrick,
your last sentence says it all. You really don't have a clue do you. It is amazing that you think you are such an expert on Scottish law and the requirements of planning for golf developments in Scotland but are neither anything to do with the Scottish legal system nor have you ever developed a golf course here.
your ignorance is only exceeded by your ego.
Jon, this is simple.
I asked you:
Did he conform to the permitting process ?
You said, "NO"
I asked you:
Did he build to code ?
You said, "NO"
I asked you:
Did he conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?
You said, "NO"
I then asked you to provide documented evidence to support your allegations.
You can't, but claim you're right.
Tell us, who's being arrogant and ignorant ?
"Next time a friend of yours gets audited by the IRS, tell them that the IRS regulations aren't the same thing as the LAW.
Also, please provide your friend with your mailing address so that he can keep in touch from Leavenworth."
Uhh Patrick, I know a lot of people (assuming corporations are people, my friend) who get audited by the IRS (I call them "clients") and I tell them, the IRS and the occasional judge all the time that regulations aren't the same thing as law. They are issued pursuant to law (legal authorization) and, unless challenged in certain ways, are binding, but just how binding and how challenge-able usually depends upon the law they are issued pursuant and what kind of regulations they are (look up "Chevron deference" or pay me a bunch an hour) ;D
Jeff,
You can tell the IRS and the judge that the regulations aren't the same thing as law until you're blue in the face.
Wesley Snipes, a famous movie actor, is now serving time in prison due to his failure to adhere to IRS regulations.
I hope you didn't represent him. ;D
Patrick,
I have more than adequately answered your questions but you don't realise it due to your inability to accept answers you don't like by simply re-asking the question over and over again.
NO, you didn't adequately answer any questions.
You categorically declared that Trump had violated permitting, rules and regulations.
I asked you to present substantiating documentation.
You haven't been able to do so to date.
Ergo, your allegations are unsubstantiated and my questions remain unanswered.
Your assertion is that if there is no documentation for something then it is legal and if something is illegal the would be documentation for it to prove its illegality is frankly laughable.
That's not my assertion.
That's your convoluted interpretation formulated to deliberately mislead and justify your inability to document any violations.
You see, there's something over here that we call "Due Process" and making an allegation, especially one involving criminal behavior, requires substantiating evidence. You have been unable to provide substantiating evidence and want us to accept your allegations as fact.
I'm not prepared to do so.
If Mark Chaplin and others have such low standards for burden of proof when it comes to allegations, that's their perogative.
You have also been unable to answer my questions and failed to produce any evidence to support you assertion that said earthen dams are legal. Such written evidence would exist if they were, so produce it.
I don't have to.
That's the oldest, dumbest ploy in the books.
YOU made the allegation that Trump was in violation of the permits, rules and regulations, ergo, the burden of proof is squarely and solely on your shoulders, not mine.
You overlook the fact that you are arguing from a position of ignorance in both theoretical and practical experience in both fields we are discussing.
My argument is based on the facts presented, and prudent man logic.
Your argument is a witch hunt based on baseless allegations.
Hasn't it dawned on you that none of your supporters, none of the people objecting to this project have been able to produce the documentation.
No leaks from government or those involved with the project.
Doesn't that make you pause and wonder.
You made an allegation absent any documented facts.
And, arrogantly and ignorantly, you're going to stand behind your reckless behavior.
If Trump violated any permits, rules and regulations he should be held accountable.
But, if he didn't, then those making reckless allegations should also be held accountable.
I may take a while to get back to you on that as I have to check the libel and defamation laws in Scotland
I suggest you accept defeat gracefully.
Evidently you have no regard for "Due Process" and think you're entitled to make reckless, unsubstantiated allegations.
I believe in "Due Process"
Let's say that a disgruntled ex-wife/girlfriend made the allegation that you're a child molester or sexual predator, should we accept their allegation without substantiation, like you want us to accept yours ?
Of course we both know you won't but hey, that's your problem not mine.
It's not my problem, it's your problem since you made the unsubstantiated allegation, just like the hypothetical ex-wife/girlfriend.
Jon if 8 GCAs & Superintendents provided proof of sand splash affecting greens yet dear Patrick couldn't see it over 50 years with his own eyes I doubt he'll bow down to a little tiff over Scottish law.
Mark,
8 GCA's and Superintendents did not provide proof of sand splash changing the contours of greens.
And, the language used above, "affecting" greens is hardly the same.
I look at Jon's example with the same disdain and enlightened suspicion that I looked at Mike Nifong's allegations.
Doesn't it surprise you that none of the anti-Trump coalition has been able to produce documented evidence that Trump violated permits, rules and regulations ?
It surprises me.
But, let's say that next week, someone finds documentation revealing that there were specific violations relating to permits, rules and regulations.
Let's say for example that they had to do with discharge and/or debris.
Certainly Trump should be fined or whatever the appropriate penalty is deemed to be.
But, that doesn't change the fact that Jon was totally unaware of those violations when he made his allegations, and that's wrong.
Jon may dislike Trump, Jon may disapprove of the project, but certainly he should retain his integrity and his sense of fair play and not make unsubstantiated allegations.
I don't think that's too much to ask of anyone, do you ?
All good fun though!
True, true. ;D
how many firms have you represented before the IRS?
Jon, you're probably not aware of it, but, the IRS also deals with individuals.
And, I've been before the IRS, up to the Appelate Division, on Corporate and individual matters.
My experience with the IRS is exponentially greater than yours.
What experience have you had with Scottish Planning application? (Already asked this once and had no answer which means none I guess)
How many golf courses have you developed in Scotland? (Already asked this once and had no answer which means none I guess)
Neither question has anything to do with you substantiating, vis a vis documentation, your wild and reckless allegations.
Please, produce the documented evidence that supports your allegations.
You think you know better about subjects than people with better qualification, knowledge and experience (if indeed you have any of these).
You're certainly not one of those people with better qualifications, knowledge and experience in the area of golf course construction/alteration, permitting, rules and regulations, so I have little to fear in the way of reliable contradiction from you.
That's called delusional Patrick, you should get some counselling ;)
I have, I've gone to sex addiction counseling six times, but, the only results I got were a lot of new dates. ;D
Just keep the gems coming, I laughed so hard at your last few posts it hurt;D
When you fail to substantiate your allegations with cold hard facts, I guess laughter is your last resort and refuge.
You're certainly not one of those people with better qualifications, knowledge and experience in the area of golf course construction/alteration, permitting, rules and regulations, so I have little to fear in the way of reliable contradiction from you.[/b][/size][/color]
Patrick, when talking about Scotland, I most certainly am.
Though it doesn't surprise me with your delusions of always being right you have had quite a few run ins with the IRS ;)
Paul,
all good points but unfortunately wasted on Patrick
Jeff, don't bother wasting your time discussing things with Patrick. Don't you know he is always right about everything. I had believed up until now that although outspoken on things he didn't really understand he was open to learning from others with a better knowledge on certain points. I was sadly mistaken. He knows Sottish planning, laws & regulation better than anyone on the planet and as for US Tax laws he is emerging as the top dog, at least in his own universe ;D
Jon
Patrick,
I said I couldn't make any promises.
Thanks for the ongoing entertainment.
Taking on the lawyer and the architect now and asking the architect to produce evidence of thin air. Marvellous.
Lack of evidence didn't stop Jon from making his allegations out of thin air, did it ?
So if a breach occurs and, to date, no action has been taken, has it yet to happen?
The problem with your example is that it makes the underlying assumption that a breach HAS occurred, when in this case you don't know if a breach has occurred, you only know that Jon has made an allegation of three separate breaches and can't substantiate any of them with documented evidence.
Tree falls, woods, etc. I had no idea when signing up to this site I would be entering the world of pseudo-metaphyiscs. ;)
Obviously Ran has suspended the common sense requirement necessary to participate on this site ;D
Pat,
Snipes was convicted under or for violating a regulation? Are you sure it wasn't something like willful failure to file under section 7203 of the code (i.e., law) or some other criminal tax statute (fraudulent claim for refund or failure to provide info)? If he was convicted under a regulation, I would say he would have been a lot better off with me (I recall learning somewhere that Jerry Kluger is with the criminal division of the IRS or DOJ, so he would be better if he wasn't "on the other side") :D
Jeff,
Jerry was with the DOJ.
You know the intricate relationship between laws, regulations and rules, all of which can subject a violator to civil and criminal prosecution and/or penalties.
Jeff
He knows Sottish planning, laws & regulation better than anyone on the planet and as for US Tax laws he is emerging as the top dog, at least in his own universe ;D
Jon,
I never claimed being "top dog in U.S. Tax laws", that's your attempt to take the spotlight off of you.
I never claimed to know "Scottish planning, laws & regulation better than anyone on the planet", That again is an attempt to divert attention away from your failings.
One fact remains incontravertible, namely that you made allegations that Trump violated permits, rules and regulations,
and that to date, you've failed to produce a single iota of documented evidence supporting your allegations.
You're the one with egg on his face.
No matter how many times you attempt to divert and deflect the focus, the fact that you made those allegations absent documented substantiation will remain THE issue.
I would ask others to look, with enlightened suspicion, at any other allegations you might make.
Jon,
I asked you if Trump had violated any permits, rules and regulations.
YOU stated that he had on all three counts.
I asked you to substantiate your allegations by providing concrete documentation confirming same.
You have failed to provide ANY documentation to support your allegations.
Any questions asked of me are irrelevant and not germane to the issue.
I can understand your desire to divert and deflect attention from your inability to provide documentation supporting your allegations, as it's the only tactic you have left.
The decent or ethical thing to do would be to admit that you misspoke, that you made allegations absent any supporting documentation and that you retract your allegations pending the production of supporting documentation.
Patrick - documentary evidence is your stock answer.
Isn't that the preferred method for verifying Jon's allegations ?
Isn't that the prudent/academic/legal method for substantiation ?
You say it because you know it cannot be produced.
How would I know that it can't be produced ?
Haven't you and Jon ever heard of Scotland's Freedom of Information Acts which became law in 2000 and 2002.
I know it doesn't cover every agency, like the DOD, but, c'mon guys, you can't be that ignorant of your own laws.
Or, are you saying that no such violations occurred, therefore, no citations were issued, therefore documentation that doesn't exist can't be produced ? ;D Now that makes sense.
As to why I say, "produce the documentation, I say it for the simple reason that it's the only equitable and prudent way to prove the veracity of Jon's allegations, allegations he made without any supporting documentation at the time he made those allegations.
Remember, Jon did not have any supporting documentation at his disposal at the time he made his allegations
If I kept on asking you to publish the Board minutes and accounts for one of your clubs you'd rightly tell me to bugger off.
There's a significant difference between public records and private documents, and I'm sure that you know that.
So, your analogy, like Jon's logic is deeply flawed to the core.
Anyway what's the IRS? This is Scotland we are talking about, when did you last step foot in Scotland? Please provide copy of pages of your passport to prove it ;)
OK, I'll photo them, scan them and send them to someone who knows how to post photos on GCA.com.
By the way, I was probably in Scotland before both you and Jon were in Scotland ;D
Same old, same old ;D
Patrick, I think your record is stuck
Jon,
I think it's more like you're tongue tied and hog tied by your inability to substantiate your allegations.
That's okay, almost everyone makes mistakes ;D
go and read the planning permission with all relevant updates and you will find that they have not been approved.
What makes you think that subsequent approval wasn't obtained seperately ?
The document is far to long to scan and post but feel free to find where they have been approved and post that little section.
It can't be so long if it is an addition.
You could also dig up the news paper reports on their approval after all such a high profile project would have this sort of thing printed in the press as you rightly said.
Newspapers rarely print such mundane items as permits, but, a citation, now that would make headlines.
Oh no, of course you don't have to do you.
That's correct, I didn't make the allegation, you did.
Of course the reason you say this is because you know they have not been approved and you can't back up your allegations that they must have been.
That's not my allegation.
My allegation is that you made an allegation absent substantiating documented evidence.
To date, you've failed to produce any documentation
Same old, same old, Patrick
ps. still no immigration stamp for entering Scotland posted.
Guess you have never been here otherwise you could prove it with the entry stamp ;D
OR, I could prove it through substantiated third party documented evidence, just what I've requested of you.
One only has to view an article and photo of me taken in 1952 at Prestwick, which appeared, I believe, in the "London Daily Mail".
I'd say that those two items evidence my initial entry into Scotland, probably before you were born. ;D
One only has to view an article and photo of me taken in 1952 at Prestwick, which appeared, I believe, in the "London Daily Mail".
I'd say that those two items evidence my initial entry into Scotland, probably before you were born.
One only has to view an article and photo of me taken in 1952 at Prestwick, which appeared, I believe, in the "London Daily Mail".
I'd say that those two items evidence my initial entry into Scotland, probably before you were born.
Patrick, you're on very shaky ground pointing to something in the Daily Mail to show the truth of anything!
So it's your belief that they photoshopped the railroad station and clubhouse in 1952 ?
You argue that the only prudent method to prove any breach is to provide evidence that the relevant bodies have taken action concerning said breach.
Is the alternative to let every allegation stand unchallenged, without any requirement to produce documented evidence supporting the allegation ?
Isn't that reminiscent of the Salem Witch Trials ?
Whilst I made light of it in my last post, this rationale leads to the completely illogical conclusion that if no action has been taken then no breach has occurred.
You're making the assumption that a breach has occurred and that's the flaw in and failing of your logic.
You don't know whether or not a breach has occurred, and absent that knowledge, the mere making of allegation doesn't grant validity to the charge. The burden of proof lies with the one making the allegation.
The only way to settle this matter is to directly compare the permissions granted, including any amendments, with the work physically undertaken, ignoring whether or not action relating to breaches has been taken, is pending, has been brush under the carpet or is lost in space!
That's not the only way to settle the matter.
Why haven't the local legal experts on Scottish Law, who were unaware of the two Freedom of Information Acts, sought the information regarding violations and citations, vis a vis the FOIA ?
This is supposedly a website for vaguely intelligent people that can easily see through the bullshit. It's not a court case and your not the accused so please try to stop pursuing the not-enough-evidence-to-convict-me argument.
But, it is a court case, in terms of public opinion and the production of facts.
One can't go recklessly making unsubstantiated allegations.
When someone accuses another of criminal conduct it ceases being idle chatter.
Just today, Trump won a defamation lawsuit against someone who made false claims against another of his projects.
Trump was awarded $ 5,000,000.
I would imagine that accusing him of breaking the law, absent documented proof, places the accuser on thin ice.
I await your next long winded attempt at sidestepping Occum's Razor. And I quote "The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power." So far, based upon initial consent and the physical landscape, we have evidence of the 'simpler theory,' maybe now you could produce the 'greater explanatory power' in the form of an amendment to consent.
There is no documented evidence to support Jon's allegation.
No production of any citation, fines or remediation requirements.
Zero, Zilch, Nada.
Why is it that all of the anti-Trump participants can't produce a single document substantiating any of the three allegations Jon made ?
PS: And as for the Daily Mail.......referencing that rag won't win too much support from anyone other than the flog 'em and hang 'em brigade.
And you and Chris would be the experts on that publication in 1952 ?
Just curious, what are your dates of birth ?
I'd like to place your criticism in context of where you were in 1952.
Oh wait, we're not passing on the editorial content, but the appearance of an article on the British Amateur, accompanied by a photo.
Do you think they politicized golf and the coverage of the 1952 British Amateur ?
I don't mind having battle of wits, but, it's becoming more and more apparent that I'm dueling with unarmed men..
I don't mind having battle of wits, but, it's becoming more and more apparent that I'm dueling with unarmed men..
Absent the smiley's it's hard to decipher intent.So you really thought that I was alleging a conspiracy at the Daily Mail in 1952, to enable you to win a shallow debating point on Golfclubatlas.com in 2012? ;D
PS: And as for the Daily Mail.......referencing that rag won't win too much support from anyone other than the flog 'em and hang 'em brigade.
Just for clarity Patrick, as Chris has also said, I had assumed you wouldn't actually think I was trying to score a point regarding the Daily Mail in 1952. I'll now take it as read that you've been to Britain once, although I think I'm being something of a soft touch in this respect. ;D
What a wonderful world we live in. Patrick and I are actually using the same argument (Patrick will of course deny this ;)) Me about earthen dams and Patrick, about his alleged :D visit to Scotland.
You got to laugh ::)
Jon
ps. Patrick, better check if the Mail didn't hack you voicemail back in '52. If they did that might be proof :)
Jon,
You might also check the list of competitors in the 1952 British Amateur and see if the name "Pat Mucci" comes up ;D
You might also check the list of competitors in the 1952 British Amateur and see if the name "Pat Mucci" comes up ;D[/b][/size]How can we be sure that the Pat Mucci who played in the 1952 Amateur wasn't your father? ;D By all accounts he was a fantastic player.
You might also check the list of competitors in the 1952 British Amateur and see if the name "Pat Mucci" comes up ;D[/b][/size]How can we be sure that the Pat Mucci who played in the 1952 Amateur wasn't your father? ;D By all accounts he was a fantastic player.
Jon,
Haven't searched for my 1952 passport, but while the print on the page of my 1992 entry visa is faded and difficult to read, it's stamped: "10 OCT 1992 Glasgow (A)"
It also states, "Leave to Enter for _ months. Employment Prohibited"
As I said, it's faded and difficult to read, but, I'll photo it, scan it and have it sent to someone who can post it.
I hope you're as diligently working on getting those citations as I am in providing my documentation ;D.
There's another stamp dated "Jan 25 1995", but I can't remember where that was, and the stamp isn't clear.
It must have been in a warm sunny climate and I must have had one hell of a good time.
Jon,
Well................ We're waiting
Donal,
Hundreds would be preferable.
No consecutive serial numbers please
Does that mean you played in the Amateur as a 10 year old?Exactly the question that sprang to my mind. What a talent!
How do we know the pages with the entry stamp are from the same passport as the photo? ;)
You'll just have to accept them as you would have me accept the phantom citations you were asked to produce. ;D
Why try to give the impression that you played in the 1952 Am and then post something that says you would have only been 10 at the time thus making your earlier insinuation ludicrous! :D
I never implied that I played in the 1952 British Amateur at Prestwick, that's what you inferred.
I merely asked you to look up the list of competitors in the 1952 Amateur to see if you could find the name, "Pat Mucci"
Just another corroborating piece of evidence regarding my being in Scotland, before you were in Scotland.
There are numerous posts on a variety of threads relating my experiences as a 10 year old accompanying my dad when he played in the 1952 British and French Amateurs. In addition, I mentioned the photo and article about me that appeared in the papers.
I should have known, that based upon your research skills to date, that would be unable to find and post that article and photo, which, unlike the phantom citations, is a matter of record.
I guess I'll have to do it for you.
Have you also forgotten the "Ice Man" ? The former King of England, Edward, Duke of Windsor, buying me ice for my Coke and then walking arm in arm with me as we watched my dad play ? ? ?
My father had "movie star" good looks, was charming and a great dresser, did you think that my mom was going to let him go to London and Paris alone while she stayed home with a 10 and 2 year old ? She was smarter than that, so off to Scotland I went.
Sailed on the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth.
I think someone even produced those ship manifests in another thread.
Read, .....more third party corroborating documented evidence.
Why don't you, like David Moriarty, find and post them.
I'm providing Multiple source, Redundant documentation, which is the same standard you'll be held to. ;D
Have you used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the phantom documents ?
What's taking you so long ? ? ?
Where are the alleged citations ?
As I have proven there is no permission for previously discussed earthen dams why do you still refuse to either prove me wrong or accept I am right? ;D
Because allegations don't constitute proof.
You need to provide corroborating third party documentation from multiple sources, just like you required of me ;D
Most importantly, why no opinion on the big question bizarre or quirky? ::)
I found Prestwick to be on the quirky side.
I find you and the "Marks" to be on the bizarre side.
Hope that helps
How do we know the pages with the entry stamp are from the same passport as the photo? ;)
You'll just have to accept them as you would have me accept the phantom citations you were asked to produce. ;D
Why try to give the impression that you played in the 1952 Am and then post something that says you would have only been 10 at the time thus making your earlier insinuation ludicrous! :D
I never implied that I played in the 1952 British Amateur at Prestwick, that's what you inferred.
I merely asked you to look up the list of competitors in the 1952 Amateur to see if you could find the name, "Pat Mucci"
Just another corroborating piece of evidence regarding my being in Scotland, before you were in Scotland.
There are numerous posts on a variety of threads relating my experiences as a 10 year old accompanying my dad when he played in the 1952 British and French Amateurs. In addition, I mentioned the photo and article about me that appeared in the papers.
I should have known, that based upon your research skills to date, that would be unable to find and post that article and photo, which, unlike the phantom citations, is a matter of record.
I guess I'll have to do it for you.
Have you also forgotten the "Ice Man" ? The former King of England, Edward, Duke of Windsor, buying me ice for my Coke and then walking arm in arm with me as we watched my dad play ? ? ?
My father had "movie star" good looks, was charming and a great dresser, did you think that my mom was going to let him go to London and Paris alone while she stayed home with a 10 and 2 year old ? She was smarter than that, so off to Scotland I went.
Sailed on the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth.
I think someone even produced those ship manifests in another thread.
Read, .....more third party corroborating documented evidence.
Why don't you, like David Moriarty, find and post them.
I'm providing Multiple source, Redundant documentation, which is the same standard you'll be held to. ;D
Have you used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the phantom documents ?
What's taking you so long ? ? ?
Where are the alleged citations ?
As I have proven there is no permission for previously discussed earthen dams why do you still refuse to either prove me wrong or accept I am right? ;D
Because allegations don't constitute proof.
You need to provide corroborating third party documentation from multiple sources, just like you required of me ;D
Most importantly, why no opinion on the big question bizarre or quirky? ::)
I found Prestwick to be on the quirky side.
I find you and the "Marks" to be on the bizarre side.
Hope that helps
What a weird world you live in Patrick. You never implied it? only you seem to believe that.
No, I never implied it.
In dozen's of threads I've stated that I'm 70, which made me 10 in 1952.
Only a moron, someone without a memory, or someone with an agenda could think otherwise. ;D
I have only ever implied there was no permission for the earthen dams based on there being no permission ;)
You didn't imply it, you alleged it, in written form, based upon your limited knowledge of the project.
You have being unable to prove your assertion that there must have been permission ;D
That's not my assertion.
I was clear.
You alleged violations, of permitting, rules and regulations.
I asked you to document the violations.
You're unable to do so.
Ergo, your allegation has no supporting documentation proving any violations.
You have been the only one harping on about citations.
That's correct.
If violations occured, with the incredibly high degree of scrutiny and opposition this project has been under, there would be documented evidence if said, alleged violations occurred.
I've merely asked you to post copies of those citations to prove your case.
Absent documented evidence, you have no case.
Like I said. My case proved unless you can disprove them.
Not by any logical or legal standard.
The burden of proof is on you since you made the allegation.
It's not up to me to disprove your allegation.
ie,
The nonsensical negative exercise, where you say "Sasquatch/Yeti lives", I say "prove it". You say, "prove that he doesn't" is one of
the oldest bogus arguments in the world
In case you're not familiar with Sasquatch/Yeti.
I'll give you another example.
A guy says to his friend, "your wife's cheating on you" The friend says, "prove it". The guy says, "prove that she's not"
Again, bogus logic by any standard, even those as low as the "Marks" ;D
Same old, same old, Patrick
You're 100 % correct.
I'm not letting you get away with making allegations absent documented proof.
And I shall continue to be the "same old, same old Patrick" ;Duntil you produce the documentation, or admit that you mispoke.
A guy says to his friend, "your wife's cheating on you" The friend says, "prove it". The guy says, "prove that she's not"
Do we or do we not accept that the earthen dams exist? If we do, the relevant addition to add to your little example is that the first guy now pulls out a porn mag and produces pictures of the wife which leave nothing to the imagination.
So now who has to prove what? ;)
I'm honestly at a complete loss to understand why I'm engaging in this little surreal episode but I have a couple of good friends thats happen to be psychologists and will be seeking clarity asap. ;D
A guy says to his friend, "your wife's cheating on you" The friend says, "prove it". The guy says, "prove that she's not"
Do we or do we not accept that the earthen dams exist? If we do, the relevant addition to add to your little example is that the first guy now pulls out a porn mag and produces pictures of the wife which leave nothing to the imagination.
So now who has to prove what? ;)
I'm honestly at a complete loss to understand why I'm engaging in this little surreal episode but I have a couple of good friends thats happen to be a psychologists and will be seeking clarity asap. ;D
Paul,
the problem Patrick has is that if the if he accepts that the earthen dams exist then they need to have permission which they don't. He cannot find that permission because it does not exist so has to concoct an elaborate smoke screen to try and hide the fact that his position is untenable. His problem is further compounded by the fact that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
oh, and Patrick would argue that the porn mag was showing his wife working as a professional model so she was in fact not cheating ;) Warped I know but it goes with the territory
Jon
Do we or do we not accept that the earthen dams exist?
Paul,
I've not had the opportunity to see and inspect them, so I can't attest to their physical location, structure, etc., etc..
I'll take Jon's word for it that he's seen a berm, but beyond that I'd need more details
If we do, the relevant addition to add to your little example is that the first guy now pulls out a porn mag and produces pictures of the wife which leave nothing to the imagination.
Now Paul, How do you know that they weren't photo shopped ?
Remember, Jon had his doubts as to whether my Passport photo and Entry Stamp in Glassgow were from the same passport
So now who has to prove what? ;)
Jon still has to produce copies of the citations and now he has to prove that those pictures in the magazine you were reading were photo shopped.
I'm honestly at a complete loss to understand why I'm engaging in this little surreal episode but I have a couple of good friends thats happen to be a psychologists and will be seeking clarity asap. ;D
Might I suggest that you take Jon and the "Marks" with you so that you can get a group discount.
the problem Patrick has is that if the if he accepts that the earthen dams exist then they need to have permission which they don't.
Not necessarily.
Often, implied consent can be a factor.
What were these earthen dams holding back, water, air, views ?
Maybe they were a legitimate substitute for fences.
He cannot find that permission because it does not exist so has to concoct an elaborate smoke screen to try and hide the fact that his position is untenable.
I don't need to locate the permits since I wasn't the one making the allegations.
The burden of proof remains in your court.
You made the allegations, now you have to substantiate them.
His problem is further compounded by the fact that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
What's wrong with that?
It's never stopped you and the "Marks" ;D
You didn't even know about the Freedom of Information Acts of 2000 and 2002.
oh, and Patrick would argue that the porn mag was showing his wife working as a professional model so she was in fact not cheating ;)
You've got it backwards.
She was a porn star, that's where we met, we were cast in the same film.
But, after me, well........ everyone paled by comparison, so we got married.
When she asks me if I miss my single days I tell her,....... only when I think of them ;D
Jon,
You have to ask yourself the following question:
With the incredibly high profile nature of this project, the intense opposition to the project at the local level galvanized by Trump's persona, along with the environmental activists who were critical of the project, and the media's scrutiny of the project, if there were any violations, especially highly visible violations, how would it be possible that they would have gone unreported to the appropriate authorities ?
Jon,
You have to ask yourself the following question:
With the incredibly high profile nature of this project, the intense opposition to the project at the local level galvanized by Trump's persona, along with the environmental activists who were critical of the project, and the media's scrutiny of the project, if there were any violations, especially highly visible violations, how would it be possible that they would have gone unreported to the appropriate authorities ?
Patrick,
how do you know that they haven't been?
It's logical to conclude so since none of the activist parties have come forward and announced the filing of a complaint, which would bring the issue to the public's eye and hasten the remediation process
Most of your argument is based on the fact such a transgression would be hit with a citation.
Why wouldn't it ?
If there's such intense opposition and such intense scrutiny, why wouldn't an obvious and egregious violation be cited ?
However, if you were familiar with the Scottish Planning System (as I am) you would realise that it is far too early for a citation to be issued.
So, if an obvious and egregious violation has occurred and been reported, the Scottish Planning System does nothing to immediately remediate the violation ? They sit on it, allowing it to continue or get worse ? If toxic pollutants were being introduced to the aquifer and complaints were filed, they would deem it "too early" to do anything ? ? ? They would just continue to sit back and do nothing, allowing the situation, damage and harm to continue to get worse ?
Does that sound logical to you ? Or does it sound like malfeasance ? ? ?
And, wouldn't there be a public outcry demanding action. ?
Wouldn't the media be excoriating the Scottish Planning System and those officials responsible for negligent conduct ? ? ?
It just doesn't pass the most basic of tests despite your claim of familiarity
Jon
Jon,
You have to ask yourself the following question:
With the incredibly high profile nature of this project, the intense opposition to the project at the local level galvanized by Trump's persona, along with the environmental activists who were critical of the project, and the media's scrutiny of the project, if there were any violations, especially highly visible violations, how would it be possible that they would have gone unreported to the appropriate authorities ?
Patrick,
how do you know that they haven't been?
It's logical to conclude so since none of the activist parties have come forward and announced the filing of a complaint, which would bring the issue to the public's eye and hasten the remediation process
Most of your argument is based on the fact such a transgression would be hit with a citation.
Why wouldn't it ?
If there's such intense opposition and such intense scrutiny, why wouldn't an obvious and egregious violation be cited ?
However, if you were familiar with the Scottish Planning System (as I am) you would realise that it is far too early for a citation to be issued.
So, if an obvious and egregious violation has occurred and been reported, the Scottish Planning System does nothing to immediately remediate the violation ? They sit on it, allowing it to continue or get worse ? If toxic pollutants were being introduced to the aquifer and complaints were filed, they would deem it "too early" to do anything ? ? ? They would just continue to sit back and do nothing, allowing the situation, damage and harm to continue to get worse ?
No Patrick of course they wouldn't in the same way that a mass murderer is not given bail whilst someone been done for a parking violation would not require bail. Are you really expecting anyone to take your level of argument and logic seriously?
Does that sound logical to you ? Or does it sound like malfeasance ? ? ?
And, wouldn't there be a public outcry demanding action. ?
Wouldn't the media be excoriating the Scottish Planning System and those officials responsible for negligent conduct ? ? ?
It just doesn't pass the most basic of tests despite your claim of familiarity
Jon
The fact remains there is no sign of 5000 promised jobs and Trump has thrown his teddies in the corner over a wind farm, thinking he can change national policy.
Mark, I thought they had announced commencement of the next phase, the construction of the hotel ?
Will it be built on site or prefabed and flown/trucked in ?
His methods and personality are clearly more suited to the US market.
Do you deny the merits of the golf course ?
Did he not create a superior product ?
No Patrick of course they wouldn't in the same way that a mass murderer is not given bail whilst someone been done for a parking violation would not require bail.
Talk about not being taken seriously, now you want to equate the horrendous felony crime of mass murder to a parking ticket ?
Environmental violations and permitting issues, while not equivalent to mass murder status, are serious offenses, especially in the context of the local opposition to this project and the polarizing nature of the developer.
Newton's Third Law of Motion would seem to dictate that the discovery and numerous and passionate reporting of violations of the permits, rules and regulations to the Scottish Planning System would mandate a rapid and equal response from the Scottish Planning System.
How do you explain their silence ?
Oh, that's right, you said that they don't rush anything, that they take their time.
And, given that you indicate that they move at a snails pace, when would you expect a response in this particular case.
Doesn't it also seem logical that the longer they wait, after the reporting date of the violations, that the more harm is done, or, that their silence may be tantamount to tacit approval ? Or, that no violation occured.
Could you cite the date that the berm/dam was created, so that we can understand the chronology of the event and how long the clock has been ticking at the Scottish Planning System. Thanks
Are you really expecting anyone to take your level of argument and logic seriously?
Yes, I'm expecting non-interested, non-biased reasoned individuals to examine the facts presented and apply prudent man logic in order to formulate their opinions.
your argument lacks any basis of reason, balance or understanding of the system.
You continue to make allegations absent the production of documented evidence and then claim that my argument/s lack/s any basis of reason ?
Common sense alone would indicate otherwise
Quite honestly your last reply has plumbed the depths of ignorance and stupidity that even you have failed to reach until this moment.
You may not like my challenges of your three allegations, but, the foundation of those challenges are built upon prudent man logic.
This forum is supposed to be a place where reasonable and open minded people discuss GCA related topics with the idea of sharing their knowledge and opinions as well as hopefully learning new points and ideas.
My observation is that you're not very open minded when it comes to this topic/project and Trump.
You clearly have none of the former attributes to offer nor the ability/desire for the latter.
Rather than make general accusations, please point out the specific flaws in my reasoning.
Quite honestly I am fed up of your pathetic circular drivel and will not bother with it any longer.
I can understand your frustration at not being able to substantiate your allegations and my dogged pursuit of requesting that you produce the documentation to support your allegations, it must be very annoying not to be able to document your claims.
I produced supporting documentation, to prudent men, which excludes you and the "Marks", that I was in Scotland in October of 1992.
All I'm asking you to do is to provide supporting documentation verifying your allegations.
That's not an unreasonable request, especially today, given the access to the internet.
You sad, sad, man!!!
Actually, I'm in rather high spirits and have always had a positive attitude.
But, no amount of name calling will divert me from requesting that you provide substantiating documentation to support your allegations.
Alternatively, you could state that you spoke out of turn since perhaps all of the facts weren't known at the time you made your allegationl.
I thought they had announced commencement of the next phase, the construction of the hotel ?
I thought they had announced commencement of the next phase, the construction of the hotel ?
Jeez Patrick, if Trump hires five thousand people to build a hotel, then he'll be selling to place at a knock down price to James Packer in no time at all. :)
Mark,
I couldn't tell you the number of jobs created in the construction and operation of the hotel, but, I seem to detect a desire on the part of some to see this project fail and I can't understand that.
The hostility, the open and underlying resentment toward the project seem beyond strange.
My observations are that Trump produces good products with superior service, so why wouldn't everyone embrace the project ?
The days of standing in rigid opposition are over, the project is in the ground and operational, so why the continued negative vibe.
I would think that everyone would want the project to succeed beyond expectations.
Maybe someone can explain it to me.
Everyone benefits if the project does well.
Who benefits if it fails ?
Mark,
I couldn't tell you the number of jobs created in the construction and operation of the hotel, but, I seem to detect a desire on the part of some to see this project fail and I can't understand that.
The hostility, the open and underlying resentment toward the project seem beyond strange.
My observations are that Trump produces good products with superior service, so why wouldn't everyone embrace the project ?
The days of standing in rigid opposition are over, the project is in the ground and operational, so why the continued negative vibe.
I would think that everyone would want the project to succeed beyond expectations.
Maybe someone can explain it to me.
Everyone benefits if the project does well.
Who benefits if it fails ? [/b][/size][/color]
For Patrick's next trick he'll be defending the NRA and the tobacco industry.
Paul, like many your focus is misguided. You join the ranks of those who miss the mark regarding the recent tragic event in Newtown.
The primary focus should be on "mental illness" not the instrument of destruction.
On the same day a deranged man attacked and stabbed 22 children at a school in China.
Should China ban all knives or any sharp instrument.
What instruments did the 9-11 terrorists use ?
Should we ban all box cutters ?
No mentally stable person would kill their mother, 26 innocents, and themselves.
One of the problems we face in dealing with mental illness is the barrier the privacy laws create, especially once someone attains 18.
The ability to recognize the symptoms and then intervene should be the primary focus.
Even with youngsters under 18, where drug and alcohol use are a concern, parents encounter impediments with regard to recognition and intervention.
As to tobacco, you must be a Johnny come lately.
I've been an anti-smoking advocate all of my life.
Your absurd, incredibly idiotic comparison between Trump's enterprise in Scotland and recent events in Newtown and the tobacco industry leads me to believe that you're "limited". You also fail to understand the historical context of the tobacco industry, but that doesn't surprise me.
After all, both employ people so where's the problem?
The problem is your brain, or rather your lack of one
I assume Trump will be getting bonus points if local girls start selling their bodies to wealthy tourists?
Please tell us that some moron has broken into your computer and is posting under your name.
So now you're claiming that no local girls in Scotland are currently selling their bodies ?? ?
Please get your computer password protected because this moron is making you look like a total dunce, incapable of intelligent thought.
I will have to side with Trump on one point. After several weeks driving through remote areas of Ireland, Scotland and England, it is quite startling to see monstrous wind turbines sprouting up in the middle of nowhere. I reckon he has a point there. A mushroom cloud would be more inviting...
Mark,
The first time I ever saw those turbines I was driving from Los Angeles to Palm Springs and came upon a wind farm.
I was surprised by their enormous size. They were huge. But, they were in a relatively barren/remote area.
As to Trump's objection, it should be noted that the SNH objects to them as well.
Here's a quote from the esteemed Ran Morrissett, describing Mike Keiser.
...every shot comes under Mike’s microscope and any unwanted distractions (power lines, roads, etc.) become hidden. Mike strives for a clean, uncluttered environment in which to recreate and enjoy the game. Anything less is unsatisfactory.
Evidently Mike Keiser and Trump are in perfect harmony regarding extraneous clutter and distractions, yet I haven't noticed any criticisms of Mike Keiser or his views when it comes to objectionable objects
The only man made object that made me more uncomfortable were the containment vessels I saw as I was driving from Los Angeles to San Luis Obispo, at the nuclear power plant at Diablo Canyon. They were ominous, almost evil looking.
Trump is a shameless self promoter.
That's a given.
The unfortunate part is that on many of his projects he doesn't have to engage in over the top promotion.
He has a good track record in producing a good product with superior service.
Most understand his promotional efforts and discount/disregard the excess baggage he piles on.
It does him no favours amongst many here, but I guess he operates on the proviso that there is no such thing as bad publicity, and in a crowded marketplace, his products are obviously known about. I guess it's just a taste thing in the end.
No question about it, he rubs many the wrong way.
The funny thing is that in person, he's different, he's articulate, funny and personable.
Although, he's been known to get carried away every now and then.
But, he loves golf and takes pride in his golf properties.
I think he wants his course in Scotland to be the gem in his collection.
Given the mindless drunken morons who seem to be increasingly taking over the UK these days,
Trump is almost a breath of fresh air. But £200 is still far too much to pay for a round of golf...
What do the destination courses in the immediate area charge ?
Like many resorts, are there different green fees depending upon whether or not you stay at the hotel ?
It may be that he doesn't understand the market, but, that would surprise me.
People I know, who have played the course, rave about it, so evidently he's succeeded in crafting an exception golf course on the site.
I know that when I spoke to him about the course, he lit up and was very anxious to talk about it.
I don't think there's any denying his interest in golf and golf courses and in producing an exceptional product.
So, why not see what he can accomplish with the project before criticizing everything ?
This thread became moronic a long time ago and therefore I had wrongly assumed you would read my comments in the manner in which they were intended.
Paul,
Unlike Kreskin, I cannot determine your intent, I can only judge by the words you type.
Nonetheless, your argument about mental health is well made but yet again side steps the issue. Of course you'd have to be mentally unstable to kill 26 innocent children, but that doesn't excuse leniency on gun ownership.
There is no leniency when it comes to gun ownership.
Applications for gun ownership go through a process whereby the State Police in the State of application, and I believe, the FBI, check the applicants backround. The guns used were not owned by the deranged person who committed those horrible acts.
Last I looked, criminals, especially felons, don't subject themselves to the application process and the scrutiny that accompanies it.
With an open border, it's almost impossible to stop the flow of illegal weapons into the U.S.
I'd love to be able to change the mindset in North Korea but, in the meantime,
I'll remain of the opinion that selling nuclear arms to them might not be the smartest of moves.
Uh Oh, that moron must have obtained your password again. You'd better reset it.
Now you're equating Trump's actions to those of North Korea.
The absurdity of your analogies is mind boggling.
And as for the local girls, what illogical nonsense led you to conclude that as some girls already prostitute themselves any escalation of such behaviour should be disregarded.
That's either your's or that moron who broke into your computer's demented opinion.
If anything, the only thing that might happen is an increase in price, which would be good for the local economy ;D
I'm begining to question your IQ.
So, if a company relocates their National, European or World Headquarters in the same town, you would object based upon belief that it would result in an increase in prostituion, based upon the increase in well to do executive/visitors to the facility. That's one of the all time dumbest comments I've ever read on this site.
That's about as sane as suggesting that once the holocaust began its proliferation was irrelevant.
Now your equating Trump with Hitler and the SS ?
Paul, the more you type these absurdities, the more you look like an absolute fool, absent any decency and intelligence.
But, you're certainly free to continue to incriminate yourself and be the fool.
Yes yes Patrick, extreme I know but you and subtle don't seem good companions, hence the hyperbolic examples.
I'm pretty astute, so I'd appreciate it if you could cite where you were subtle, because I don't think I'm the only one who missed it.
Destination resort??
Where's the hotel??
Mark,
You're being ridiculous.
The course just opened......and, many have stated that it opened prematurely, so why would you ask such an obviously stupid question ?
It just demonstrates your bias.
And why didn't you ask the same question about Streamsong ?
In April next year the Ailsa course at Turnberry is £120 for non-residents, needless to say they have held an Open or two and are a world top 100 course.
While that's true, isn't there more competition in the nearby area for Turnberry ?
Trump Scotland is £195 during the same period, obviously non-resident rate as there isn't anywhere to stay.
It's also Trump's first year of operation.
I would imagine that they'll adjust the green fee as the market dictates.
Some feel that the green fees at Pebble Beach are outrageous, but some how they seem able to sustain them.
Time will tell.
But again, why the bitter, negative attitude ?
Patrick you mentioned resorts and different fees for residents and I was pointinting out there isn't a resort or residents.
We know the hotel isn't built yet, but that doesn't mean that they haven't created a structure for green fees once it's operational
If that makes me ridiculous I stick my hands up and agree fact is ridiculous.
It does make you ridiculous because you're aware of the plans for a resort hotel and that the hotel isn't operational yet
Hasn't Pebble Beach hosted a few US Opens and has a pedigree as long as your arm? I believe people queue up to play there.
So all courses that haven't hosted Opens and all new course are automatically deemed unworthy by you ?
All those course lacking a "pedigree" are to be dismissed as pretenders to the throne ?
That's rather elitist isn't it ?
My objection to Mr Trump is the way he has treated the locals.
I understand that.
No one has challenged your feelings on that issue.
But, it's over and the golf course is operational and it's in everyone's best interest if the project succeeds.
He was startled they wouldn't take his cash and bugger off into the distance.
Because of that his people made life very difficult for a few local people and that is simply wrong
I'm not familiar with the staffing at the project, but when you say, "his people", are they Scots or aliens whom he moved/transferred to the project site ?
Patrick,
Keep sinking my friend. I don't believe for one second that you're genuinely questioning my IQ, but you keep throwing the mud.
Paul,
Your absurd, reckless analogies speak volumes.
If anyone's image is sinking it's yours.
What intelligent man would write what you wrote ?
I never like to see a grown man cry but the ridicule you bring on yourself does amuse me. :-*
Anyone who wrote what you wrote who thinks that ridicule is directed at anyone other than themselves is either in denial or delusional.
Your written words are an embarrassment.
It can get lonely at times up here on the moral high ground but the view is amazing! ;)
I'm leaning toward delusional ;D
Patrick,
Keep sinking my friend. I don't believe for one second that you're genuinely questioning my IQ, but you keep throwing the mud.
Paul,
Your absurd, reckless analogies speak volumes.
If anyone's image is sinking it's yours. - Really? And yet it's your support base which currently numbers just one.
What intelligent man would write what you wrote ? - I would.
I never like to see a grown man cry but the ridicule you bring on yourself does amuse me. :-*
Anyone who wrote what you wrote who thinks that ridicule is directed at anyone other than themselves is either in denial or delusional. - If I'd known you earlier I would have airmailed over a mirror for Christmas.
Your written words are an embarrassment. - They certainly are to you.
It can get lonely at times up here on the moral high ground but the view is amazing! ;)
I'm leaning toward delusional ;D YOU already leant towards delusional a long time ago. ;D
Patrick,
Keep sinking my friend. I don't believe for one second that you're genuinely questioning my IQ, but you keep throwing the mud.
Paul,
Your absurd, reckless analogies speak volumes.
If anyone's image is sinking it's yours. - Really? And yet it's your support base which currently numbers just one.would you care to wager on that ? Name your bet
What intelligent man would write what you wrote ? - I would.
As I said, "delusional", hence your response doesn't surprise anyone.
I never like to see a grown man cry but the ridicule you bring on yourself does amuse me. :-*
Anyone who wrote what you wrote who thinks that ridicule is directed at anyone other than themselves is either in denial or delusional. - If I'd known you earlier I would have airmailed over a mirror for Christmas.
I can understand how you'd get tired at looking at yourself
Your written words are an embarrassment. - They certainly are to you.
And to legions of others.
It can get lonely at times up here on the moral high ground but the view is amazing! ;)
I'm leaning toward delusional ;D YOU already leant towards delusional a long time ago. ;D
Yes, but Only for a day or two of wild carrying ons, then I quickly reverted to normalcy ;D
While you my friend are hopelessly mired in it
Patrick,
With the exception of someone doing some admin for you and putting a scanned copy of your passport on here, no one has actively said anything on this thread to defend you since Chris DeNigris on the 13th of this month. Since then there have been no fewer than 104 posts (admittedly many from you) and, again, not a single backing from anyone.
Paul,
I didn't think that the thread was about me, I thought it was about Trump and the Trump International Golf Links.
Why would I need defending
But, let's examine your statistics.
Whomever claimed that statistics lie or lying with statistics, might want to analyze your paragraph above.
Since Chris's post, only 16 people have posted, including someone who posted my passport, so, we're down to 15 people.
I'm one of those, so without me, 14 people have posted.
Of those 14, I'd say that 10 made neutral posts with regard to Trump's actions/project.
That leaves 4 people, you, Jon W, Mark C and Sean A with contrarian opinions, hardly a referendum.
Between us five, we made 89 posts of the 104 posts you cited.
So, because you and three others disagree with me, your logic dictates that I'm wrong and you're right ? ? ?
As I indicated, you need to change your computer password as those hackers are at it again..
I seriously doubt that you are completely friendless, but the tide is only flowing one way. You can stamp your feet and throw your toys out of the pram for as long as you like but it won't change a thing.
Only four guys are in opposition ? And, Sean's post was more informative based rather than position oriented.
So, as tides go, I think I can withstand this one.
I'll be enjoying a little something called Christmas as from now so, all joking aside, I wish you the very merriest of Christmases.
By the way, the same to you and everyone else, have a Merry Christmas with your family and friends.
I learnt a long time ago that the moment your foe occupies any more of your time than absolutely necessary they achieve a tiny victory.
With this in mind, I do hope you can let this go for a couple of days. ;D Guess I'll find out in due course.
As I type, there's a knock at my door. My Grandson is here, so I'm off too.
My present to you this Christmas is a new password: THGIRSTAP
Enjoy the holiday ;D
Since Chris's post, only 16 people have posted, including someone who posted my passport, so, we're down to 15 people.Patrick, how unlike you to change the facts to suit your position. :P
I'm one of those, so without me, 14 people have posted.
Of those 14, I'd say that 10 made neutral posts with regard to Trump's actions/project.
That leaves 4 people, you, Jon W, Mark C and Sean A with contrarian opinions, hardly a referendum.
Between us five, we made 89 posts of the 104 posts you cited.
[/size] [/i][/u]Since Chris's post, only 16 people have posted, including someone who posted my passport, so, we're down to 15 people.Patrick, how unlike you to change the facts to suit your position. :P
I'm one of those, so without me, 14 people have posted.
Of those 14, I'd say that 10 made neutral posts with regard to Trump's actions/project.
That leaves 4 people, you, Jon W, Mark C and Sean A with contrarian opinions, hardly a referendum.
Between us five, we made 89 posts of the 104 posts you cited.
How is my post which you interpreted as alleging a conspiracy at the Daily Mail sixty years ago to protect you, a neutral post? ;D
Chris,
Try to read my posts more carefully.
Please note, and I quote.[/b]
Quote: of those 14, I'd say that 10 made neutral posts with regard to Trump's action/project"
There is nothing about a golf course that pisses me off more than when the rough swallows my 'slightly-errant' golf balls. The next biggest aggravation is long, uphill approach shots (say, 190-yards plus) to blind, green surfaces.
Paul, like many your focus is misguided. You join the ranks of those who miss the mark regarding the recent tragic event in Newtown.Patrick,
The primary focus should be on "mental illness" not the instrument of destruction.
On the same day a deranged man attacked and stabbed 22 children at a school in China.
Should China ban all knives or any sharp instrument.
Trump said £100 million hotel development is on hold until the decision on whether the nearby 11-turbine offshore wind farm proposal is approved is made.
Never, ever, trust any press reports to do with budgets for large construction projects.There are too many nuances with the numbers and it is too easy to spin things any which way.
I've spent my whole working career watching budgets for projects I'm working on being misrepresented in order to create an angle.
Never, ever, trust any press reports to do with budgets for large construction projects.There are too many nuances with the numbers and it is too easy to spin things any which way.
I've spent my whole working career watching budgets for projects I'm working on being misrepresented in order to create an angle.
Never, ever, trust any press reports to do with budgets for large construction projects.There are too many nuances with the numbers and it is too easy to spin things any which way.
I've spent my whole working career watching budgets for projects I'm working on being misrepresented in order to create an angle.
That's because the previously-discussed 400 room hotel is now to be a hundred and odd.
The Trump organisation has been opposing the offshore windfarm development along the lines of 'it'll spoil the view the hotel". Does this mean that the windfarm isn't going ahead or has Trump changed his tune a bit?
All the best.
The Trump organisation has been opposing the offshore windfarm development along the lines of 'it'll spoil the view the hotel". Does this mean that the windfarm isn't going ahead or has Trump changed his tune a bit?
All the best.
No decision has yet been taken on planning consent for the wind farm. The consortium behind it filed an application recently relating to onshore works necessary for it to go ahead - that will be the first key test.
The Trump Organization stated very clearly when it released the updated news about the hotel that nothing will proceed unless and until the wind farm is thrown out.
Paul- what kind of air do you blow? ???
Why do you assume that the "tourists" are apathetic? Is it just because they don't agree with you on TI? Maybe you don't give them enough credit, eh?
Since you're so critical, what did you think of the course when you played it?
Of course Trump is posturing/reevaluating/negotiating, etc. It's what business people do when confronted with opposition and difficult obstacles and challenges. They don't typically pack up and go home. Obviously much to your chagrin in this case.
This story has several more chapters to be written- let's see what happens. Again, it probably would be a good thing if all affected parties came to a reasonable solution and the project went ahead and it became a rousing success-both for Trump and for the locals.
Brian's pasted press release has an obvious anti-Trump bias and is misleading on many points. It's purpose is to imply a massive backlash against Trump International and to influence public opinion. I'm not saying it's wrong to do that-both sides play that way- but it's always good to be informed.
Paul- what kind of air do you blow? ???
Why do you assume that the "tourists" are apathetic? Is it just because they don't agree with you on TI? Maybe you don't give them enough credit, eh?
Since you're so critical, what did you think of the course when you played it?
Of course Trump is posturing/reevaluating/negotiating, etc. It's what business people do when confronted with opposition and difficult obstacles and challenges. They don't typically pack up and go home. Obviously much to your chagrin in this case.
This story has several more chapters to be written- let's see what happens. Again, it probably would be a good thing if all affected parties came to a reasonable solution and the project went ahead and it became a rousing success-both for Trump and for the locals.
Brian's pasted press release has an obvious anti-Trump bias and is misleading on many points. It's purpose is to imply a massive backlash against Trump International and to influence public opinion. I'm not saying it's wrong to do that-both sides play that way- but it's always good to be informed.
Paul- what kind of air do you blow? ???
Why do you assume that the "tourists" are apathetic? Is it just because they don't agree with you on TI? Maybe you don't give them enough credit, eh?
Since you're so critical, what did you think of the course when you played it?
Of course Trump is posturing/reevaluating/negotiating, etc. It's what business people do when confronted with opposition and difficult obstacles and challenges. They don't typically pack up and go home. Obviously much to your chagrin in this case.
This story has several more chapters to be written- let's see what happens. Again, it probably would be a good thing if all affected parties came to a reasonable solution and the project went ahead and it became a rousing success-both for Trump and for the locals.
Brian's pasted press release has an obvious anti-Trump bias and is misleading on many points. It's purpose is to imply a massive backlash against Trump International and to influence public opinion. I'm not saying it's wrong to do that-both sides play that way- but it's always good to be informed.
Chris, I'm not sure the journalists at the Scotsman would be happy with your characterisation of their output as a 'press release'!
Chris,Mark,
Which part of Scotland do you live in?
Since you're so critical, what did you think of the course when you played it?
I'm not. Which is why I avoid making statements about the views of the US population.Chris,Mark,
Which part of Scotland do you live in?
What part of the US are you from?
I'm not. Which is why I avoid making statements about the views of the US population.Chris,Mark,
Which part of Scotland do you live in?
What part of the US are you from?
I'm not. Which is why I avoid making statements about the views of the US population.Chris,Mark,
Which part of Scotland do you live in?
What part of the US are you from?
I'm not. Which is why I avoid making statements about the views of the US population.Chris,Mark,
Which part of Scotland do you live in?
What part of the US are you from?
;D
Earlier in this 'debate' Chris instructed me on what the angle of the filmmakers were. A film that he had difficulty admitting he hadn't actually seen.
Chris is there any reason why you are such a shill for the Donald?
Paul- what kind of air do you blow? ???
Why do you assume that the "tourists" are apathetic? Is it just because they don't agree with you on TI? Maybe you don't give them enough credit, eh?
Since you're so critical, what did you think of the course when you played it?
Of course Trump is posturing/reevaluating/negotiating, etc. It's what business people do when confronted with opposition and difficult obstacles and challenges. They don't typically pack up and go home. Obviously much to your chagrin in this case.
This story has several more chapters to be written- let's see what happens. Again, it probably would be a good thing if all affected parties came to a reasonable solution and the project went ahead and it became a rousing success-both for Trump and for the locals.
Brian's pasted press release has an obvious anti-Trump bias and is misleading on many points. It's purpose is to imply a massive backlash against Trump International and to influence public opinion. I'm not saying it's wrong to do that-both sides play that way- but it's always good to be informed.
Chris, I'm not sure the journalists at the Scotsman would be happy with your characterisation of their output as a 'press release'!
Adam,
I'm not sure why the journalists at the Scotsman should be happy to publish a piece so obviously biased and misleading. Go figure.
Brian's pasted press release has an obvious anti-Trump bias and is misleading on many points.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/11-000-sign-petition-for-inquiry-into-trump-project-1-2829353
11,000 sign petition for inquiry into Trump project
Published on Monday 11 March 2013
A PETITION calling for a public inquiry into the handling of Donald Trump’s controversial golf project on the North Sea coast has attracted more than 11,000 signatures, exceeding its organisers’ expectations.
David Milne, an opponent of the scheme at Menie, north of Aberdeen, said he had hoped for 2,000 signatures. The petition is being lodged at the Scottish Parliament today, two weeks earlier than planned.
Mr Milne said: “There’s clearly a growing appetite to get to the bottom of this fiasco, and to make sure no other community anywhere in Scotland ever has to face down the combination of a bullying developer and officials determined to see them get their way.
“This is not a party political matter – it’s a systematic failure. At Holyrood and locally we have seen successive administrations of various colours cosy up to Mr Trump.
“It is now up to the MSPs who sit on the Public Petitions Committee to choose: do they want to find out what went wrong and ensure it never does again, or do they want to guarantee the whole story is never even told.
“I am confident that they will listen to the public and do the right thing, and I look forward to having an opportunity to discuss these issues with them in person.”
Mr Milne, a 48-year-old independent health and safety consultant who lives near Trump’s golf complex, claims that some bodies, including Aberdeenshire Council and the Scottish Government, were involved in breaches of planning regulations before Mr Trump was given the green light to construct his links course.
If Mr Milne’s petition is successful, it would see a comprehensive inquiry established into local and national government involvement with the Trump organisation. The timescale would cover former first minister Jack McConnell’s Labour-led Scottish Executive, Alex Salmond’s SNP government and Aberdeenshire Council, which was controlled at the time by Liberal Democrats.
Earlier he said: “We have had to be patient to get to this stage, but we are calling for a full public inquiry into what happened and we want the full facts to emerge. Now, we are hoping that many other Scots will share our concerns over the background to how Trump was allowed to build this course.”
The planning application for the golf complex was initially rejected by a local authority committee, causing turmoil among councillors, and was controversially called in by the Scottish Government.
The First Minister became MSP for the area in 2007. The plan was subsequently rubber-stamped by the council, then approved by Finance Secretary John Swinney in November 2008.
No-one from the Trump organisation responded to phone calls last night. However, last month Sarah Malone, the executive vice-president of Trump International, spoke about the petition.
She said: “The project has already gone through years of scrutiny and debate during a lengthy planning process, including a public inquiry in the full media spotlight. Mr Milne needs to move on. He attempted this before and it failed, because there is no basis for it.
“The championship course is now established and drawing thousands of golfers from around the world and creating business opportunities and much-needed jobs.”
Trump is now locked in a heated battle to stop an offshore wind farm being built within sight of his golf course.
A planning application for the wind farm was submitted to Marine Scotland – which manages Scotland’s seas – in August 2011 for the development just over a mile away from Trump’s golf resort at Menie.
Trump said £100 million hotel development is on hold until the decision on whether the nearby 11-turbine offshore wind farm proposal is approved is made.
Tony, the vast majority of the citizenry in Aberdeenshire, including most of the Council and the Chamber of Commerce were all in favor of the Trump proposal before what some consider a "rogue" committee councilor went against the majority of the local council-quite likely for political reasons- and caused the proposal to be rejected.Magnificent. We know that the Chamber and Chamber of Commerce were in favour. As to the vast majority of citizenry, how do we know this? By the way, I'm not suggesting they weren't in favour. For what it's worth the relatively small sample of Aberdonians I spoke to before the decision were pretty much all in favour.
Sean,
With all due respect- You're wrong. And just a little condescending as well.
As I have suggested to you and others with an interest in this several times before- please read the very detailed and informative Report to Scottish Ministers. Granted, it's 295 pages but unlike most of what you and several others have consistently and erroneously put out as fact- it actually provides all the background information, references, supporting detail and all the varying points of view from all the involved parties.
I'm not really a Trump-lover. I agree with Adam that there's a whole host of valid reasons why some folks are less than enamored with the man, myth and legend that is DT.
I just don't like propaganda and mis-information. Read the Report- if you're going to be so opinionated on the subject you should at least base your opinions on something factual. It's something you should make some time for.
Sean,
With all due respect- You're wrong. And just a little condescending as well.
As I have suggested to you and others with an interest in this several times before- please read the very detailed and informative Report to Scottish Ministers. Granted, it's 295 pages but unlike most of what you and several others have consistently and erroneously put out as fact- it actually provides all the background information, references, supporting detail and all the varying points of view from all the involved parties.
I'm not really a Trump-lover. I agree with Adam that there's a whole host of valid reasons why some folks are less than enamored with the man, myth and legend that is DT.
I just don't like propaganda and mis-information. Read the Report- if you're going to be so opinionated on the subject you should at least base your opinions on something factual. It's something you should make some time for.
Chris
I have been wrong many times in my life. Care to suggest exactly where I am wrong in my last statement?
Ciao
ChrisSean,
With all due respect- You're wrong. And just a little condescending as well.
As I have suggested to you and others with an interest in this several times before- please read the very detailed and informative Report to Scottish Ministers. Granted, it's 295 pages but unlike most of what you and several others have consistently and erroneously put out as fact- it actually provides all the background information, references, supporting detail and all the varying points of view from all the involved parties.
I'm not really a Trump-lover. I agree with Adam that there's a whole host of valid reasons why some folks are less than enamored with the man, myth and legend that is DT.
I just don't like propaganda and mis-information. Read the Report- if you're going to be so opinionated on the subject you should at least base your opinions on something factual. It's something you should make some time for.
Chris
I have been wrong many times in my life. Care to suggest exactly where I am wrong in my last statement?
Ciao
Sean,
Please read the report. It will hopefully then be clear to you where you and many others have been mistaken. We can then discuss what's in the actual report if you'd like.
One thing intrigues me though, I know that some here have played the course but has anyone played Trump Aberdeen yet who has actually paid for the experience out of their own pocket - ie no freebee's?
Niall,
Here is the link to the report. It's very informative.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/212607/0067709.pdf
Let me know what you think.
Any members of Cruden Bay or Royal Aberdeen know how your numbers are stacking up? I'm interested to know if Trump Scotland is bringing more business to the area or spreading the existing trade thinner.
Jim you are quite right, I'm sure most of the locals will pay it once when a deal comes along, however it is extremely difficult to create a great club. The one thing cash cannot create is history, walking around old clubs provide a treasure trove of history.I still remember hitting my ball from the side of the Viking burial mound at Cruden Bay. Didn't work out too well for me. Curse of the Viking Burial Mound...? just saying. Talk about history.
I am one of those crazy guys who paid to play and for the record, I'm a rater.
Regarding CB and RA members playing at Trump on a regular basis, I highly doubt that. I played both last summer, loved them both (CB over RA) and wouldn't spend much time at Trump if I was a member at either. Here's where I go into the club vs course rant. There are plenty of good courses but it is hard to put together a good club. Once you have it, you know it and hate it leave. The people make the club, the camaraderie, the belonging to an organization where you can play the game you love with great friends. Doubt that would happen at Trump.
So the Sebonack's, Friars Head's, Hidden Creek's and Bayonne's of the world will be failures ?
What differentiates them from Trump Bedminster or Trump Palm Beach ?
Thomas Dai,
So the above clubs can never possess "history" ?
Sebonack, Friars Head, Hidden Creek and Bayonne are doomed because their recent introduction prevents them from possessing a "history"
What if Trump Scotland is awarded the Dunhill, Scottish Open or British Open in the years ahead ?
Will that begin to create the "history" you say is lacking ?
How can any new club, Bandon, Pacific Dunes, Sand Hills and others possess "history"
Is Sand Hills a failure because it can't possess "history" ?
Pat,
Why the reference to architecture and course ratings? Golf CLUB is currently the discussion point, not Golf COURSE.
Paul,
You can't be that obtuse, or can you.
How can a new club acquire instant "history" or "tradition" with it's course or it's membership ?
It can't.
And to look down one's nose because the club, course and membership are "new" when compared to established clubs is about as moronic as you can get.
Forgive me, I'm not very good at understanding green writing so I'd be obliged if you could please re-phrase your post as I've attempted to read it through several times and am still not sure exactly what is the point you're trying to get at, although I imagine there's maybe a valid point somewhere within your words.
Pat,
Why the reference to architecture and course ratings? Golf CLUB is currently the discussion point, not Golf COURSE.
Paul,
You can't be that obtuse, or can you.
How can a new club acquire instant "history" or "tradition" with it's course or it's membership ?
It can't.
And to look down one's nose because the club, course and membership are "new" when compared to established clubs is about as moronic as you can get.
Pat,
Why the reference to architecture and course ratings? Golf CLUB is currently the discussion point, not Golf COURSE.
Paul, Pat,
Your conversation highlights to me that what we are dealing with here is a culture clash. Historically we simply don't have experience here of these sort of top end resort courses with any sort of "club" attached. Our private clubs tend, on the whole, to be very golf driven and to have frequent competition. This is, I think, particularly the case in Scotland. I'd agree that the typical Scottish club golfer, particularly one that would be able and willing to join one of the smarter private clubs would probably be happier joining RA or CB than Trump. However, I do think there is a steady increase in golfers who don't feel as drawn to the traditional model, who don't see regular medals as that important but who want to be able to play a good course but value facilities too, who are more willing to join somewhere like Trump. Other clubs that seem to cater to this market would include Archerfield, Renaissance and Close House. Do Castle Stuart and Kingsbarns have memberships?
Paul,
Your use of the phrase, "No amount of money thrown at the problem will change that" puts into context your distaste for Trump and opposition to his efforts.
That was never in dispute. ;D
You also fail to understand what Mark Pearce suggested, that this is a different model, a new hybrid type of golf entity.
I'm fully aware of this. I've simply pointed out a couple of shortcomings in it.
Doral offers a similar model although Doral has multiple courses, which is a considerable advantage.
Now you're on to something. The development of the second course could well provide far greater scope for the hybrid model to succeed.
I wonder if Seaview, Pebble Beach, Spyglass and other resorts offer "club" membership, and if so, how that fared.
Your department, not mine. I'm not qualified to comment. Yes, yes, I hear you already. ;D
Pat your reply 546 lists a load of high end private clubs, no real comparison with a pay and play with a small membership tag on. Sebonack created history with the first $1m joining fee!
My list of clubs had to do with establishing "history", not pay and play, which I cited with Pebble Beach and others.
Mark, actually other clubs offered 1 M joining fees long before Sebonack
I do love how some people try and create history with the "1st annual" or even the "2nd annual" whatever.
Sebonack has been awarded the U.S. Women's Open, that's a step in the right direction when it comes to establishing "history"
How else do you establish "history" if you don't host events ?
New courses have to start somewhere
Niall,
Any guess as to the size of the memberships at Turnberry and Gleneagles.
With multiple courses, Gleneagles would seem at an advantage.
It makes sense to attract local members who would enjoy greater utilization patterns versus the tourists.
I would also imagine the the course/club would benefit since the feedback from the local members would probably be more "on target" consistently, than a fleeting tourist's feedback.
Adam
It was indeed you that advised me that the greens, green surrounds and approaches were seeded and the rest turfed. Given the contrast, why didn't they seed the whole course ? I can understand that they might want to use turf to get immediate stability in terms of wind blow and what have you but if that was the case why not do the whole course that way ?
Ally
I didn't find the walks too strenous for a modern course either but then if you didn't have a caddy you might waste a bit of time trying to find the right tee on each hole.
Niall
I really find it hard to believe there are no other dunes that are bigger.
Brian
Don't encourage him. We've got few enough wild tracts of land with Donald reducing that number even further.
Jon
Ran's piece on Fraserburgh reminded me of the dunes there which look every bit as big as those at Balmedie International, the difference being that the Fraserburgh course doesn't have a tee on top of them ::)
Niall
Brian
Don't encourage him. We've got few enough wild tracts of land with Donald reducing that number even further.
Jon
Ran's piece on Fraserburgh reminded me of the dunes there which look every bit as big as those at Balmedie International, the difference being that the Fraserburgh course doesn't have a tee on top of them ::)
Niall
Niall, you're stretching it a bit comparing the Fraserburgh dunes to those at Balmedie Links.... You know you are....
Although I can think of one or two courses in Ireland that certainly have dunes that compare in size, I can't think of any in England or Scotland...
Brian
Don't encourage him. We've got few enough wild tracts of land with Donald reducing that number even further.
Jon
Ran's piece on Fraserburgh reminded me of the dunes there which look every bit as big as those at Balmedie International, the difference being that the Fraserburgh course doesn't have a tee on top of them ::)
Niall
Niall, you're stretching it a bit comparing the Fraserburgh dunes to those at Balmedie Links.... You know you are....
Although I can think of one or two courses in Ireland that certainly have dunes that compare in size, I can't think of any in England or Scotland...
Ally,
Donald talked about biggest in the world which is stretching reality to the extreme even by his impressive standards.
Jon
Mike,
hope you are doing well. The article looks more like a general advertising piece than a serious piece of journalism. I guess it is aimed at the US market as the magazine does not appear on the newsagent's shelves here in Scotland.
Ally,
They maybe amongst the largest dunes with a golf course running through them but that is not what was claimed. I see Donald's biggest fan is backing you though, rara skirt, pompoms and all ;)
Jon
Assuming the goal is factual accuracy, it's a stupid quote.
I don't think the goal is factual accuracy. And I don't think there's anything stupid about the quote. In fact, I think today's responses on GCA prove that it's not a stupid quote at all.
These fellows are so hung up on "The Donald" that they parse and pounce on his every word.
Why do you object to the creation of two very good golf courses ?
Why do you object to the creation of two very good golf courses ?
With that quote Pat you're in no position to question anybody else's memory.
Perhaps you should reread the entire thread!
And as for your claim that you've focused on the product, you've endlessly defended the man as an individual.
Paul,
If you'll reread the thread I think you'll see that it was you and your fellow morons that diverted the thread from the golf course to "The Donald", not me.
As to defending him, had you not diverted the thread and attacked him, there'd be no reason for me to chime in.
Maybe Trump should buy The Sun and back Cameron. That usually gets results.
You must be living south of the border ;D
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/trump-golf-course-damaging-environment-claims-rspb.21425182
Trump golf course damaging environment, claims RSPB
Tuesday 25 June 2013
Donald Trump's controversial Scottish golf course has been criticised in a new report by the RSPB for damaging the environment.
The wildlife charity's State of the Nature report, launched by naturalist and TV presenter Sir David Attenborough, singled out Trump International Golf Links at the Menie Estae, Aberdeenshire, for harming nature in the area.
The development has been criticised for its impact on the Foveran Links, a local Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
Aedán Smith, head of planning and development at the RSPB, said the area was one of very few specialist environments north of the Border for scientific research.
The report, written by 25 wildlife organisations found 60% of species studied, declined over recent decades and one in 10 species is under threat of disappearing from our shores.
It said: "Sand dunes and shingle areas have little value for agriculture, but are prime sites for tourist developments.
"Such developments often result in the loss of rare invertebrates, lichens and the rich orchid populations of wet sun slacks.
"What wildlife does survive is often left marooned on dune islands in a sea of development. Building work also interferes with the dynamics of dune systems."
The Trump International course near Balmedie was singled out in the report, because part of it was built on the Foveran Links SSSI.
The report said: "In recent years, damaging developments have been given the green light at Sovereign Harbour in East Sussex, Foveran Links SSSI Aberdeenshire and Carlyon Bay in Cornwall."
Trump's executive vice-president, George Sorial, said: "To date we are the only ones that have studied, preserved and actively managed that site, threatened by years of shooting birds, erosion and ongoing urban pressure.
"The dunes have now been preserved for generations to enjoy with 95% of the SSSI untouched.
"The RSPB should spend some time studying the facts and should actually visit the site before publishing such nonsense and fiction."
Ally
Whether or not the RSPB have been back to quantify the damage to wildlife and habitat resulting from the Balmedie development doesn't undermine the general point being made or make the assumption that the development has overall been detrimental to wildlife and habitat given experience elsewhere a wrong one. Its stating the bleedin obvious really. George Soriel is doing his job, I appreciate that, but what he says is nonsense.
I also note that the piece came from the Herald which long ago gave up on journalism and now seem to routinely print PR unedited. Given the way this one has been topped and tailed it wouldn't surprise me if it came from the Trump Org, after all to some there's no type of publicity thats bad publicity.
Niall
http://www.trumpgolfscotland.com/files/Trump%20Open%20Conditions%20of%20Entry%20and%20Play%202013.pdf
"If you want to use a trolley you have to take one of theirs? Bizarre."
Adam L. -
I am afraid that is similar to what you find at some private golf clubs in the U.S. While a number of private clubs are now allowing trolleys (3-wheel push carts) to be used, these clubs have their own fleet of trolleys and the members are expected (required!) to use them if they do not want to carry. Some clubs provide the trolleys gratis, other clubs charge a nominal fee.
DT
http://www.trumpgolfscotland.com/files/Trump%20Open%20Conditions%20of%20Entry%20and%20Play%202013.pdf
If you want to use a trolley you have to take one of theirs? Bizarre.
Both the TV programme and the Independant article are aimed at giving Salmond a kicking. Not really to do with Trump, he's just incidental to the real intent. All to do with next years independence vote.
Pat - whilst 200 people maybe happy to have work, but the permissions were bulldozered through on the back of the economic benefits which haven't materialised. The damage may come when another developer in another part of the country has a sound plan but the powers that be will be extremely sceptical to believe anything another golf developer says. And rightly so.
Mark, that's a hypothetical argument, the fact is that 200 jobs have been created and now he's building another 18 hole course which will create more jobs.
If night follows day, a hotel should follow completion of the second course.
And with the hotel, more jobs.
To a degree, it reminds me of Streamsong a few thousand miles removed.
What I don't understand is, if he's continuing with the project as planned, what's the beef ?
Even 200 full time jobs seems excessive for an 18 hole course and temporary clubhouse.
I'm guessing they need an extensive security set up, which isn't really golf.
A job is a job and a job is better than no job.
I don't understand why there's resistance and animosity when the guy has created a great golf course, is creating another and has created jobs where none previously existed.
What am I missing ?
So an 18-hole Men's Open at Trump on 21st Sept. £100.00 plus another £97.50 if you fancy a practice round. Must play off 12 hcp or less and can't use your own trolley/electric trolley. Interesting. Curious to know what the entry will be like, especially as the Royal Aberdeen Men's Open is the next day, and that's already full, and has been full for ages.
Thomas,
Try paying $ 195+ to play Pound Ridge.
Then, maybe you'll be appreciative of the cost to play Trump
As to the 200 jobs being created, like when? Let's just assume 10 men/women to maintain the current course, plus 10 in the clubhouse/admin, plus 15 working on the new course.
I'd be surprised if there's a green crew of less than 20 at a private club in the Met NYC area.
I'm not familiar with green crews in Scotland, but 10 seems on the light to ultra-light side to me.
Don't know the scale of the clubhouse, but, there's not a private/resort clubhouse in the Met NYC area that employs less than 20.
15 to build a golf course ?
Seems light, but, I'm not familiar with golf course construction in that neck of the woods.
How many were on the crew that built the first course ?
That leaves 165. Presumably they must all be security staff and spin doctors.
Or maybe your assumptions deliberately skewed the outcome !
All the best
Pat you clearly aren't familiar with Scottish golf, 10 green staff is heavy, very heavy.
Mark, you clearly aren't familiar with Trump, 10 green staff is light, very light. ;D
Both the TV programme and the Independant article are aimed at giving Salmond a kicking. Not really to do with Trump, he's just incidental to the real intent. All to do with next years independence vote.
Niall,
Is this the Panorama programme that showed on BBC1 tonight?.... Forgot to record it and we don't get iplayer over here unfortunately... Did anyone see it?
Mark, that's a hypothetical argument, the fact is that 200 jobs have been created and now he's building another 18 hole course which will create more jobs.
Pat you still don't understand it.
There was massive opposition to the scheme, Scotland isn't exactly short of golf courses,
I don't know about metro NYC nor do I care.
Mark, you still don't understand it.
The course has been built and is operational.
It's up and running.
Don't you think whining about it's creation is a waste of time ?
I cannot imagine a metro NYC senator taking up parliamentary time and lobbying to have all sorts of laws and regulations ignored or amended to put 200 jobs in a state forest.
Yikes, are you in for a surprise ;D
Haven't you heard about the bridges to nowhere in the U.S. ?
Elected officials were hook winked and seduced into approving the scheme.
I think you're being polite.
Elected officials don't get elected because they're naive, easily hood winked and seduced.
They're pretty shrewd characters, not the innocents that you portray.
Which politicians went the extra mile to ensure Streamsong was build.
Don't know the details or the local, regional or state politics, but I'd be surprised if politicians didn't help expedite the project.
How many world class courses are there within 100 miles of Streamsong?
There are a number of excellent courses within 100 miles of Streamsong.
He may have built a good or even great golf course but Scotland has loads of them, the difference is they live in harmony with nature and the locals.
Nonsense.
As Duncan pointed out, Trumps efforts are no different than the efforts of his predecessors.
They don't bully the small guy or build 20' high earth walls around their houses to remove an "eyesore".
That's got nothing to do with the quality of the golf course or the amount of jobs created.
Many a course berms or trees what they consider unsightly objects.
The homeowner had a choice.
He chose to remain.
PJ Clarke's in NYC did the same.
How do the 200 people employed by the project feel about the homeowner ?
If Mike Keiser were the developer the decibel level would be much lower.
But again, the course has been built and is operational and the second course is in the works.
How long will the whining continue ?
Pat you still don't understand it. There was massive opposition to the scheme,
Pat you still don't understand it. There was massive opposition to the scheme,
Mark,
Simply not true... A significant majority of the local population were enthusiastically for the "scheme".
Throughout the 19th century areas of links were appropriated for golf throughout the British Isles. Was adequate compensation ever paid to the sheep farmers displaced or was any thought whatsoever given to possible environmental consequences?
Of course not! The local bigwig and his acoloytes fancied a golf course on common land and so built one. They then built a fence around it to keep out the riff-raff.
Pat you still don't understand it. There was massive opposition to the scheme,
Mark,
Simply not true... A significant majority of the local population were enthusiastically for the "scheme".
That is my memory of it too. I remember debates here on GCA to the effect that even though the great masses of people wanted the project to move ahead, the council (?) rightly held the power to ignore their wishes and nix it all.
Though many in the golfing world were positive for this project I am not sure it was a significant majority indeed the vast majority of the Aberdonians I spoke with were against it.Throughout the 19th century areas of links were appropriated for golf throughout the British Isles. Was adequate compensation ever paid to the sheep farmers displaced or was any thought whatsoever given to possible environmental consequences?
Of course not! The local bigwig and his acoloytes fancied a golf course on common land and so built one. They then built a fence around it to keep out the riff-raff.
From my understanding, this common ground had been set aside as untouchable because environmental groups lobbied government for that. i.e. the exact situation you ascribe to local bigwigs and golf already existed there: (heavily) restricted use due to a special interest group getting in bed with government.
Pat you still don't understand it. There was massive opposition to the scheme,
Mark,
Simply not true... A significant majority of the local population were enthusiastically for the "scheme". The minority opposition was mostly environmental groups. Virtually all other groups (especially business and commerce) were all for the development. Including, as has been pointed out several times, a majority of the local council folk.
And all the economic studies were thoroughly and independently vetted- by multiple entities.
Sure, Donald is a bombastic bully and he and his team certainly have made a boatload of mis-steps and mistakes...but to continue to imply/state that he somehow hoodwinked the local population is totally disingenuous.
Pat you still don't understand it. There was massive opposition to the scheme,
Mark,
Simply not true... A significant majority of the local population were enthusiastically for the "scheme". The minority opposition was mostly environmental groups. Virtually all other groups (especially business and commerce) were all for the development. Including, as has been pointed out several times, a majority of the local council folk.
And all the economic studies were thoroughly and independently vetted- by multiple entities.
Sure, Donald is a bombastic bully and he and his team certainly have made a boatload of mis-steps and mistakes...but to continue to imply/state that he somehow hoodwinked the local population is totally disingenuous.
Chris
To use your own words, simply not true. There were many polls and petitions showing support for either side. To conclude that a definite majority supported the scheme, suggests bias on your part. I know how property development works as you may do, and I think it is fair to say that he conned a lot of the population who didn't realise his employment numbers were spurious. That's what the politicians and planners are for, they should be asking the appropriate questions but instead signed up for the fiction of 6,000 or 7,000 jobs depending on which Trump PR they were listening to at the time.
Niall
Just because things haven't progressed as envisioned (there's been a bit of an economic issue since the scheme's inception :() doesn't mean that the plan wasn't sound to begin with. Things happen and circumstances change the course of events.
I never saw a single poll which concluded "A significant majority of the local population were enthusiastically for the "scheme"."
I never saw any independent numbers detailing the economic impact Trump's project would have.
Chris
Unfortunately, the facts are that Trump has to date failed to deliver anything close to his plan or the promised economic benefit.
I know its small beer, but the thing which gets me the most about this deal is Trump's vindictive pettiness. Milne doesn't want to sell his property. The property is protected - regardless of the aesthetic merits it may or not possess. I don't think the house is that bad at all. Its not my first choice of design, but in the setting it looks fine. For Trump to plant horrible trees in front of that property (to eliminate the best asset of the house - namely the views) indicates what the man is about. Indeed, the trees are so bad that from the course the situation looks much worse than if it were just a house there. Pathetic. Personally, I don't think planning should allow this sort of behaviour because it simply doesn't make any planning sense for a site which is meant to be shifting dunes (no trees) and in front of a house which is meant to have a view of the sea - that is why it was built as a coast guard station. Not only that, the fencing and trees are ugly. What is Trump thinking with this sort of behaviour. If the locals were smart they should put a huge billboard outside of Trump's turn-in asking golfers to make sure to pay attention to what Trump has done. Any neighbour behaving like Trump has should be more than embarrassed and the politicians who supported Trump should now be on his ass to behave properly.
Ciao
Just because things haven't progressed as envisioned (there's been a bit of an economic issue since the scheme's inception :() doesn't mean that the plan wasn't sound to begin with. Things happen and circumstances change the course of events.
Oh but if only the Left would apply the same standards and rigor of proof to their forecasts and hypotheses! Let's see, by now we should all be frozen or fried, starved or dying of obesity, wiped out by disease, drowned by rising seas, glowing in the dark, in possession of extra appendages, etc. Instead, the population keeps on growing, life expectancy is increasing, vast numbers of people- billions- pulled out of subsistence poverty. I don't mean to be sacrilegious, but maybe Mother Nature likes capitalism? Golf most surely does!I never saw a single poll which concluded "A significant majority of the local population were enthusiastically for the "scheme"."
I never saw any independent numbers detailing the economic impact Trump's project would have.
We see what we want (google confirmation bias and selective perception). I remember a number of articles showing large majorities supporting the project AND various analysis/forecasts of substantial positive economic impact. Of course, the proof will be in the pudding. My only wish in these types of matters is that we hold ALL our government officials and agenda-driven "public good" activists to the same standards as we want to hold the private sector. We do tend to do a very thorough job of holding the politicos' feet to the fire when they're of the opposite party, but somehow hold our wrath and our tongue with birds of the same feather.
Niall,
The only significant opposition to the scheme came from the environmental groups and the "I hate Trump" crowd-which included the small number of locals that were personally inconvenienced by the actual development.
I think we could really do with a top-class hotel though.
I think we could really do with a top-class hotel though.
I don't know Aberdeen at all, but I always doubted Trump would build a top-class hotel in the middle of an economic downturn, especially in an area not noted for tourism. The wind turbines seem like a smokescreen to let him back out of something I think he never intended in the first place.
I never looked at the surveys in any detail, but I clearly remember reports that a big majority of locals supported the Trump project; and the small minority who didn't were some environmentalists and a local government council. The gist of some arguments here on GCA back then was whether the council of a few people should impose their desires on the wishes of the masses.
Chris
As I'm pointing out to you, your statement regarding the nature of the opposition isn't based on factual accounts, nor is your suggestion that a majority support the scheme based on any facts. 27 pages in and you haven't cottoned on to that. Suggest that maybe you come over and ask the locals, and people elsewhere in Scotland what they think and I guarantee you will get a wide divergence of answers which would leave you general characterisations and supposed factual statements looking pretty stupid.
Niall
Chris
As I'm pointing out to you, your statement regarding the nature of the opposition isn't based on factual accounts, nor is your suggestion that a majority support the scheme based on any facts. 27 pages in and you haven't cottoned on to that. Suggest that maybe you come over and ask the locals, and people elsewhere in Scotland what they think and I guarantee you will get a wide divergence of answers which would leave you general characterisations and supposed factual statements looking pretty stupid.
Niall
Niall,
There’s a really good public document- The Report to Scottish Ministers- a complete documentation of the entire review process from when the Trump application was called in. It’s a comprehensive and impartial rendering of all the events. All of the statements I’ve made regarding the support and opposition, the economic reports and analysis…and even the effects on the SSSI- are clearly and objectively detailed in the report in very thorough fashion. It’s all there.
So please feel free to dispute the official public record and the actual facts…and please provide facts and source documentation in your analysis. Most of the rest of the commentary seems to be devolving into gossip, heresay and agenda driven opinion.
Jim I wonder what the local/national support would have been if Trump had said there will be 200 jobs after 2 years?
The one thing that gets me about this whole project is Trump goes on about dedicating the project to his mother who loved Scotland so much. So why does he treat a small number of people so badly? The whole ethos of rural life in Scotland is living in harmony with the land, not adding trees and berms to screw the neighbours view.
The one area that has continued to do well is the Aberdeen area, and the reason for that is that Aberdeen is the oil capital of Europe. The economy is built almost entirely on oil, and with the price of oil continuing to be at an all time high there is strong demand for everything from qualified staff, business premises, housing and hotels. I've no doubt that the houses and hotel will get built but he's maybe having to redo the numbers and design.
He treats people so badly because he is an asshole.
Jim,
You don't know what you're talking about.
At one time I thought the same, but, after talking to dozens of employees from numerous Trump sites, just the opposite came to light.
To the person they all stated that they enjoyed working for Trump and that they were treated properly.
He was more than willing to turn to eminent domain, as he has in the past, to get his way.
Why wouldn't any developer do the same ?
Surely you're familiar with "Kelo vs City of New London", a revolutionary case regarding development.
That said, the course sounds fantastic, and will probably get better with time. Strictly as a lover of great golf courses, would love to see a second course there.
Can't understand why anyone wouldn't
You know - many people have had a go on here at the 18th for being over bunkered (there are 18 in total).... But combine those first two together to give a large diagonal bunker and vary the shapes / sizes of a few nearer the green and I think the hole would look really well. More to the point, I thought it played really well. The bunkers governed choices - isn't that what we all like?
You know - many people have had a go on here at the 18th for being over bunkered (there are 18 in total).... But combine those first two together to give a large diagonal bunker and vary the shapes / sizes of a few nearer the green and I think the hole would look really well. More to the point, I thought it played really well. The bunkers governed choices - isn't that what we all like?
Ally
Its not only the bunkers.
I think the mega bunkering is too similar in look to a few other par 5s. The length of the hole is overbearing. The second & third play uphill, often into wind. After that slog one is not even close to the house. IMO, something has gone badly amiss for daily play. I can, however, see that this setup fits into holding a large event with stands to the rear of the green.
Ciao
Shame the junior event, even though it's cheaper, isn't for 18-holes. 9-holes seems a bit mean, especially when it says in the small print that it's for juniors of 16 and under when most junior events are 18 and under. Are they really trying to encourage juniors or just doing a bit of PR?Great points. I'm afraid I looked at that, initially thought it was great and was on the verge of asking my 17 year old son if he was interested and then read the small print.
The expectation that the course should be perfect on opening day is unreasonable
The expectation that the course should be perfect on opening day is unreasonable
Patrick:
The suggestion that Donald Trump does not have very high expectations of the people who work for him is pretty funny, I will have to hand it to you for that.
Tom,
I'm puzzled, when did I say that Trump doesn't expect performance from his employees ?
Hardly anyone expects perfection, but the idea that many things will probably have to be changed in the first few years of a course's life is pretty unreasonable, too. I know that none of my clients want to have to pay for big changes.
Sebonack made a significant change to the 16th hole shortly after opening.
I also don't know what gave you the impression that I indicated that "many things" would have to be changed, when I stated that the "fine tuning" process would probably be no different than at many other courses, such as Sebonack, Friars Head and Hidden Creek.
It's one thing to make "wholesale" changes versus "fine tuning", "substantive" changes versus "tweaking"
Niall,
would you consider filling in half the bunkers before altering the shape of many of the remaining on a course as fine tuning?
NO
Did they fill in half he bunkers before altering the shape of many of the remaining bunkers, as you recommend ?
I didn't know that Trump had retained your architectural services.
Was it not Dr. Mac who said that good GCA is building courses that should be in a finished state? Gee, some people on this site have strange ideas. Still maybe it is because they have never seen what they are talking about ;)
Jon,
Dr Mac didn't have to worry about permitting and environmental issues.
Dr Mac couldn't have built that golf course in his best day, unless he worked for Trump, and then, he'd be handcuffed by the same constraints.
Niall,
would you consider filling in half the bunkers before altering the shape of many of the remaining on a course as fine tuning?
NO
Wow, you agree, a first for this site. Normally you disagree with everything even when it contradicts an earlier post of yours ;D
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q2/brianewen/Golf/Wow.jpg) (http://s132.photobucket.com/user/brianewen/media/Golf/Wow.jpg.html)
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q2/brianewen/Golf/Wow.jpg) (http://s132.photobucket.com/user/brianewen/media/Golf/Wow.jpg.html)
Brian,
awesome picture.
stunning.
How cool would that hole have been with the green (or much of it) right of (or left as you look at the photo) the pot bunker
(without the pot bunker ;)) ?
as always, I could be wrong simply looking at a (fantastic) photo.
Bryan,
You've played the courses at Streamsong and I'd imagine, a wide variety of courses.
Yes and yes. The conditioning was comparable to Streamsong but with two different swards which is unlike Streamsong. Both were in excellent condition, albeit with different grasses and different climates.
Your post above seems to indicate that you enjoyed your play at Trump's new course and that you found nothing substantive to interfere with your play of the course.
It's always interesting to play new courses. It was cold and wet and windy, so I'm not sure I'd say it was enjoyable. I'm don't understand what you mean about finding "nothing substantive to interfere" with my playing the course? I'll have more comment on playing the course as I find time. All I was trying to say here was that course conditioning and the use of rye grass wasn't the issue I thought it might be given comments I'd seen here and elsewhere. The conditioning of the rye grass is excellent as is the conditioning of the fescue. if you don't mind the transition from rye to fescue around the greens you'll probably like the grass. It struck me as the American quest for perfect conditions unlike the normal links conditions from Cruden Bay to Carnoustie to North Berwick to TOC. There is no real comparison between TIGLS turf and the traditional links turf.
Is that correct ?
Your proposition is too broad and vague to answer with a yes or a no. Can you get more specific?
If by a huge issue, you mean that the fairways are not fescue and therefore are not "true" links, I would not argue that point, but I wouldn't want to leave the impression that there is any conditioning problem at all with the turf such as it is. I think the vast number of golf tourists would come away thinking that the course and the turf is in fantastic condition. For us few around here, the fact that it's not fescue wall-to-wall certainly detracts from the expected links experience.
If by a huge issue, you mean that the fairways are not fescue and therefore are not "true" links, I would not argue that point, but I wouldn't want to leave the impression that there is any conditioning problem at all with the turf such as it is. I think the vast number of golf tourists would come away thinking that the course and the turf is in fantastic condition. For us few around here, the fact that it's not fescue wall-to-wall certainly detracts from the expected links experience.
From what I am hearing locally, the issue is, with the course not playing like a links course, its unlikely to get Mr Trumps wish of a Pro Tournament being held there any time soon.
The expectation that the course should be perfect on opening day is unreasonable
Patrick:
The suggestion that Donald Trump does not have very high expectations of the people who work for him is pretty funny, I will have to hand it to you for that.
Hardly anyone expects perfection, but the idea that many things will probably have to be changed in the first few years of a course's life is pretty unreasonable, too. I know that none of my clients want to have to pay for big changes.
Niall,
would you consider filling in half the bunkers before altering the shape of many of the remaining on a course as fine tuning? Was it not Dr. Mac who said that good GCA is building courses that should be in a finished state? Gee, some people on this site have strange ideas. Still maybe it is because they have never seen what they are talking about ;)
Jon
I see you didn't quote this part of the article regarding Trump:
'We offer a world class service and customers in our hotel, restaurant and golf complex are our number one priority."
So when exactly did he build the hotel ?
Niall
Pat,
No one has passed judgement here, just noted the story and had a bit of fun with it.
God help me for saying it but, either way, it was a lose-lose situation for Trump.
Paul,
I'll grant you that he's an easy target, but, if this was a Marriot or Hilton it wouldn't get half the attention.
Pat,
No one has passed judgement here, just noted the story and had a bit of fun with it.
God help me for saying it but, either way, it was a lose-lose situation for Trump.
Paul,
I'll grant you that he's an easy target, but, if this was a Marriot or Hilton it wouldn't get half the attention.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/golf/scottish-open-phil-mickelson-hails-3837183
“The holes are longer where driver is the play and the bunkers are placed properly for hitting drivers, 3‑woods and long irons off tees.
“Whereas at many of the Open Championship courses we play we end up hitting a lot of irons off tees to try to circumvent or navigate around the bunkering. They don’t have the same modern-day scale."..........
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/golf/scottish-open-phil-mickelson-hails-3837183
“The holes are longer where driver is the play and the bunkers are placed properly for hitting drivers, 3‑woods and long irons off tees.
“Whereas at many of the Open Championship courses we play we end up hitting a lot of irons off tees to try to circumvent or navigate around the bunkering. They don’t have the same modern-day scale."..........
Anyone as confused by that comment as I am?
If you navigate around a bunker with an iron, presumably you simply fly it with a driver. Is Phil suggesting bunkers should not be positioned in such a way so to make players play around them, i.e. strategic bunkering?
Jeff
I think its more fundamentally about Mickelson. He's had a lot of plaudits for being design savvy however in this instance I think he's basically saying design a course round the players rather than the players dealing with what they are presented with. I mean, what would John Low and Stuart Paton think of these comments ?
Niall
Never a good thing when modern monstrosity such as Trump is celebrated because of this (and the scale gets silly big for the rest of us as we still have to walk the holes), rather than facing the 800 lb gorilla in the room.
I've said before, and this really isn't just about Trump, I find wind turbines to be majestic. I suppose our views are shaped by function as well as form. I find the very idea of an ecologically sound energy source sitting by a golf course to be harmonious with its broader surroundings. I imagine an old school industrialist dinosaur would see it differently.
Paul,
I was talking to two fellows yesterday who are heavily involved in the energy business, at a high level.
I asked them about Nuclear energy.
One of their comments was that it's the cheapest energy to produce, once the plant is built, but, a plant hasn't been built in the U.S. in decades.
I then asked how the French have been so successful and why we couldn't emulate their nuclear energy model.
I won't bore you but the answer was essentially NIMBY and POLITICS and REGULATIONS
This is the first time I've agreed with Donald. It is hideous. Why don't they just build them up next to St. Andrews too? ::)
I've said before, and this really isn't just about Trump, I find wind turbines to be majestic. I suppose our views are shaped by function as well as form. I find the very idea of an ecologically sound energy source sitting by a golf course to be harmonious with its broader surroundings. I imagine an old school industrialist dinosaur would see it differently.
Paul,
I was talking to two fellows yesterday who are heavily involved in the energy business, at a high level.
I asked them about Nuclear energy.
One of their comments was that it's the cheapest energy to produce, once the plant is built, but, a plant hasn't been built in the U.S. in decades.
I then asked how the French have been so successful and why we couldn't emulate their nuclear energy model.
I won't bore you but the answer was essentially NIMBY and POLITICS and REGULATIONS
I've said before, and this really isn't just about Trump, I find wind turbines to be majestic. I suppose our views are shaped by function as well as form. I find the very idea of an ecologically sound energy source sitting by a golf course to be harmonious with its broader surroundings. I imagine an old school industrialist dinosaur would see it differently.
Paul,
I was talking to two fellows yesterday who are heavily involved in the energy business, at a high level.
I asked them about Nuclear energy.
One of their comments was that it's the cheapest energy to produce, once the plant is built, but, a plant hasn't been built in the U.S. in decades.
I then asked how the French have been so successful and why we couldn't emulate their nuclear energy model.
I won't bore you but the answer was essentially NIMBY and POLITICS and REGULATIONS
Jeff
I think its more fundamentally about Mickelson. He's had a lot of plaudits for being design savvy however in this instance I think he's basically saying design a course round the players rather than the players dealing with what they are presented with. I mean, what would John Low and Stuart Paton think of these comments ?
Niall
Well I'd also say he's got a PR angle as well. ;) ;D :o ::)
I'm sure when most classic links were originally designed they meant for experts to hit more drivers, no?
Building new tees may lengthen them, but again the scale is off, especially with modern day fairway narrowing.
I mean fairways are 25-50% narrower than they were in the 1920 and the ball goes 10-25% farther.
One reason older players still compete well on a links is the older players can hit their driver and fairways woods the same place the younger ones choose to hit their irons-thus no separation by length and skill.
I think Trump doesn't want to complete the Scotland project for financial reasons, and is using the windmills as a smokescreen.
I think Trump doesn't want to complete the Scotland project for financial reasons, and is using the windmills as a smokescreen.
There tends to be an assumption of logic associated with Trump which ignores his personality.
Megalomaniac - - A megalomaniac is a pathological egotist, that is, someone with a psychological disorder with symptoms like delusions of grandeur and an obsession with power.
Probably the funniest interview I have ever read :D
http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/2014-11/donald-trump-interview
Former Trump head greenkeeper John Bambury has just taken up a new role as courses manager at Ballybunion. I haven't heard yet who is replacing him in Aberdeen.Interesting. Trump doesn't seem to have much success holding on to senior greenkeeping staff.
Probably the funniest interview I have ever read :D
http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/2014-11/donald-trump-interview
Excellent. You can't make this stuff up.
Former Trump head greenkeeper John Bambury has just taken up a new role as courses manager at Ballybunion. I haven't heard yet who is replacing him in Aberdeen.Interesting. Trump doesn't seem to have much success holding on to senior greenkeeping staff.
Trump often comes across as a buffoon, and that interview (as much as I could stomach reading) is no exception. Even so, this thread has run over 30 pages... showing he has accomplished a lot of what he set out to, even here on GCA.
Brian,
what do you mean with not another penny?
You should have linked to them and left it at that. To reproduce all those pics is a pretty egregious copyright theft, made worse by the fact that Kevin is a pro photographer who makes his living from his images.
I have linked to them ???
Brian,
Adam is right here. Those photos are embedded on the site rather than merely linked, No-one is going to visit the photographer's site to view them and their reproduction on GCA is, technically, an infringement of copyright in them unless the copyright owner has agreed to that reproduction. It is one of the worst legal misconnceptions that simply because something is posted on the internet anybody is free to copy it, that simply isn't true.
Jon,
Why? Do you assume you can copy books because you can borrow them from a library?
Mark
Jon,
You are right. A much better question is whether you'd feel free to cut and paste an entire article from, say, a newspaper website. I know some people think that's fair game but it is most certainly copyright infringement. Strictly what Brian has done isn't linking. That is when you simply post a hyperlink, which, when clicked on, takes you to the host site.
Mark
As we're having Trump week on GCA
This will have more effect on future pans than any amount of Golf news.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11553769/BP-sees-massive-shock-for-North-Sea-as-oil-glut-deepens.html
Although I agree with most of you that Mr. Trump ('The next president of the United States!") is a major league a..hole, I don't understand the sour undertone every time this golf course is subject of discussion. I have stated this before and I'm saying it again: it's an unbelievable achievement that a true links course of this quality and magnitude has been developed in Europe at the beginning of the 21st century. Golfers, lovers of links courses and those who are interested in golf course architecture should be over the moon with Trump International Golf Links.
Although I agree with most of you that Mr. Trump ('The next president of the United States!") is a major league a..hole, I don't understand the sour undertone every time this golf course is subject of discussion. I have stated this before and I'm saying it again: it's an unbelievable achievement that a true links course of this quality and magnitude has been developed in Europe at the beginning of the 21st century. Golfers, lovers of links courses and those who are interested in golf course architecture should be over the moon with Trump International Golf Links.
Has anyone told him he needs a caravan park somewhere bordering his course for it to be considered a true links ;D
I suppose this discussion will never come to an end. From the fact that there is so much controversy, one can at least draw the conclusion that the course is not average and boring.
With regard to 'destroying the beauty of the natural site', I dare to say in all objectivity that that's simply not true. The documentary that was made on the construction of the course is biased and one-sided to say the least. In my opinion 'reversibility' is a key factor to determine whether a golf course is well designed and constructed or not. In the case of Trump Links this test is quite simple: if you remove the flagsticks and tee markers and leave the rest to mother nature, you won't see traces of a golf course in a matter of months. Not sure if one can say that with new links courses like Kingsbarns, Castle Course, Caste Stuart et cetera.
Like always, judging the design of the course to a large extent is a matter of taste. I like it a lot and think it is absolutely fantastic.
Donald is probably trying to distance himself from golf a little when possible (which will be difficult for him given he has an ownership interest in so many) purely to avoid the negative stigma some in the media stir up when those running for, or in elected office, are seen to be playing too much golf.
He exuded everything there is about the stereotypic ugky American with cameras rolling at Turnberry yesterday. The comments about the great day and the UK leaving the EEU showed no appreciation of the fact that Scotland voted by a large margin to remain. He didn't understand that the earlier referendum results were based on Scotland wishing assurance the UK would remain in the UK.
He is supposed to go to Doonbeg soon, which is in the Republic. Northern Ireland voted on Brexit in the same direction as Scotland. So they may move toward independence from the U.K.
It is clear that he does not listen to or consult advisors for information. He is oblivious to subtlety and nuance, reaffirming the accuracy of George Will's reference to him as a "bloviating ignoramus."
I visited Aberdeen in 2010 and played Royal Aberdeen, Murcar, and Cruden Bay. I would play all three again. I have no interest in playng his course.
I played Doonbeg in 2009 and have been back to Ireland eight additional times. My interest in returning diminished in 2014 when he picked up the property out of receivership.
I have played over 140 different courses outside of North America and close to 200 diiferent courses in the U.S. in the past ten years. I have not played a Trump course and don't aspire to.
I can recall seeing him on the Golf Channel when they covered a course he was working on in New Jersey. He was insisting it would be better than Pine Valley.
What a colossal jerk he is.
I consider myself fortunate to have found a way to be gone overseas for so much time playing golf. I am hoping the November election doesn't turn me into an expat.
Charles Lund
I would agree with Niall in concept.
Here in the US, its pretty clear that the majority of folks, regardless of party affiliation... are fed up with a system that has failed them for quite awhile now. I certainly don't condone those voting for Trump as he would be a disaster, but I can at least understand the frustration of where they are coming from.
Trump is no doubt a demagogue, but he has tapped into his base very effectively....
I would agree with Niall in concept.
Here in the US, its pretty clear that the majority of folks, regardless of party affiliation... are fed up with a system that has failed them for quite awhile now. I certainly don't condone those voting for Trump as he would be a disaster, but I can at least understand the frustration of where they are coming from.
Trump is no doubt a demagogue, but he has tapped into his base very effectively....
Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your point of view, his base is only about 25% of the population. Virtually everyone else thinks he's an orange turd.
Ian -- I make no comment on Trump's future business prospects, but with respect to his Aberdeen golf course, it has always been abundantly clear that it cannot make money on its own, they have spent too much on it.
The only way he ever gets a return from it is to build the hotel and the houses. That has always been the case, and it must surely have been factored into the business planning.
I was just searching various websites including the courses own one and am struggling to establish what the daily greenfees are at Balmedie these days. I appreciate there are probably several rates depening on time of day and month etc but I wasn't able to find them. Perhaps my searching isn't what it could be or perhaps the figures that once were so readily available arn't anymore.
By the way, are they still operating with 15 min interval tee times and will the course close over the winter as previously?
Atb
There seem to be too many Brits on this site who failed their 11+ vis a vis arithmetic. In order to write off ¬$1 billion in 1995, The Donald must have significant future income in order to utilise this tax "loss," and significantly greater "income" over the past 20 years to have moved from near bankruptcy to biliionairness. Vis a vis his golf adventures, whether he "makes" or "loses" $25 million/year on Drumbeg, Balmedie, Turnberry. etc. over the next decade or two is peanuts to him. He ain't no financial dummy, unlike the other candidates in the current Presidential race......
There seem to be too many Brits on this site who failed their 11+ vis a vis arithmetic. In order to write off ¬$1 billion in 1995, The Donald must have significant future income in order to utilise this tax "loss," and significantly greater "income" over the past 20 years to have moved from near bankruptcy to biliionairness. Vis a vis his golf adventures, whether he "makes" or "loses" $25 million/year on Drumbeg, Balmedie, Turnberry. etc. over the next decade or two is peanuts to him. He ain't no financial dummy, unlike the other candidates in the current Presidential race......
He's leveraged to the ears
So, a thread about a Scottish Golf Course has now been turned into a discussion on US Politics ?
Would it not be better taking it to a forum that discusses such subjects, so you can do it with like minded people ?
Surely those of us, that are sick to the back teeth of having this election shoved down our throats, can get a break from it here, please.
What a sad state of affairs this forum is nowadays :(
So, a thread about a Scottish Golf Course has now been turned into a discussion on US Politics ?
Would it not be better taking it to a forum that discusses such subjects, so you can do it with like minded people ?
Surely those of us, that are sick to the back teeth of having this election shoved down our throats, can get a break from it here, please.
What a sad state of affairs this forum is nowadays :(
When Trump gets trounced on election day he will inevitably revert back to his golf businesses where he can hide from the public behind his private club gates.
Ten years from now, Donald Trump will look a reporter straight in the eye and say, "I never ran for President."
Ten years from now, Donald Trump will look a reporter straight in the eye and say, "I never ran for President.""and I never grabbed a p_ssy." LOL.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any sadder (or weirder) Trump manages to trump himself.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-37642639 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-37642639)
Would be ironic if he ends up paying out compensation for indecent actions ::)
Jon
The "loophole" is not a loophole, it is a legitimate legal deduction. Companies use it all the time and it can only be used to offset future earnings. No different than any other legal deduction
David, interesting that you note there are several elevated tees on holes where there is a difficult drive (carry) and wind direction (was it the prevailing wind?). Kind of like fitting a square peg in a round hole.
David,
do you think that the course as it is should have rather been built elsewhere and that the regular winds were not considered enough in the design? With those elevated tees and greens and it generally playing more through the air, I get the feeling it would be a more effective course on a coast that's less exposed to wind.
For me, at least, it would be a nightmare standing on those tee boxes in high winds. Strategy, if there is any, would be lost because I would struggle enough keeping the ball in play. I guess many others would do so, too?
Cheers
the links in Aberdeen is without doubt and in all objectivity one of the best new golf courses that have been built in recent years.Is it? Really? There aren't very many links that have been built in recent years and whilst there's no doubt it's very good, nothing I have read here suggests to me that it's nearly as good as Kingsbarns or Castle Stuart.
......but you have to give him credit for the contributions he made to golf in Scotland.!
the links in Aberdeen is without doubt and in all objectivity one of the best new golf courses that have been built in recent years.Is it? Really? There aren't very many links that have been built in recent years and whilst there's no doubt it's very good, nothing I have read here suggests to me that it's nearly as good as Kingsbarns or Castle Stuart.
the links in Aberdeen is without doubt and in all objectivity one of the best new golf courses that have been built in recent years.Is it? Really? There aren't very many links that have been built in recent years and whilst there's no doubt it's very good, nothing I have read here suggests to me that it's nearly as good as Kingsbarns or Castle Stuart.
To answer this question we are going to need as comprehensive a list of candidate courses as we can come up with. So, confining ourselves to recently built links (definition of links for the sake of this list: seaside, naturally sandy [a certain amount of mining sand on site and using it to construct holes allowed but no out and out non-sandy sites that were capped], close to the sea, cool season grasses and at least a decent attempt to grow fine links turf i.e. fescue and browntop bents):
Kingsbarns
Castle Stuart
Machrihanish Dunes
Askernish
Trump International
Doonbeg
Carne Kilmore (nine holes)
Budersand
Foehr
Lofoten Links
Parnu Bay
Bandon Dunes
Pacific Dunes
Old Macdonald
Bandon Trails
Chambers Bay
Cabot Links
Cabot Cliffs
Friars Head
Sebonack
Cape Wickham
Ocean Dunes
Barnbougle Dunes
Lost Farm
Tara Iti
So, first: what have I missed? Second, any inclusions anyone feels strongly should not be there? Then we can move forward and try to rank them
Adam
Would you consider the two courses at Turnberry for the list given the amount of work done to each ?
Niall
Yas Links?
Other shoreline courses in the sandy Middle East (true links? faux links?). Even Vietnam?
Covesea.
Atb
Adam - I would not include Bandon Trails... not a Links.the links in Aberdeen is without doubt and in all objectivity one of the best new golf courses that have been built in recent years.Is it? Really? There aren't very many links that have been built in recent years and whilst there's no doubt it's very good, nothing I have read here suggests to me that it's nearly as good as Kingsbarns or Castle Stuart.
To answer this question we are going to need as comprehensive a list of candidate courses as we can come up with. So, confining ourselves to recently built links (definition of links for the sake of this list: seaside, naturally sandy [a certain amount of mining sand on site and using it to construct holes allowed but no out and out non-sandy sites that were capped], close to the sea, cool season grasses and at least a decent attempt to grow fine links turf i.e. fescue and browntop bents):
Kingsbarns
Castle Stuart
Machrihanish Dunes
Askernish
Trump International
Doonbeg
Carne Kilmore (nine holes)
Budersand
Foehr
Lofoten Links
Parnu Bay
Bandon Dunes
Pacific Dunes
Old Macdonald
Bandon Trails
Chambers Bay
Cabot Links
Cabot Cliffs
Friars Head
Sebonack
Cape Wickham
Ocean Dunes
Barnbougle Dunes
Lost Farm
Tara Iti
So, first: what have I missed? Second, any inclusions anyone feels strongly should not be there? Then we can move forward and try to rank them
Brian,
alas the Trump organisation went for a mix including none links grasses to seed the course which was always going to mean it would not play as a links should.
Jon
Brian,
alas the Trump organisation went for a mix including none links grasses to seed the course which was always going to mean it would not play as a links should.
Jon
Not correct. They overseeded with rye when the fescue took longer to come in than expected. That was in the first year of opening. By the end of the second year, presumably through heavy use of Rescue, the rye had been eliminated and the playing sward was basically all fine grasses.
Yep Jon - that’s why I don’t trust it.
Never heard of a national environmental group giving up an SSSI or SAC before. It’s not in their nature at all.
But I have first hand experience to know some of these designations are a little arbitrary. And it seems to me that whilst they undoubtedly lost the fantastic sand dome that was there, the site must still have a large element of fixed dune habitat, which is priority 1 in EU designations.
This thread reeks of politics.
Hoping to play it pre-Buda and see what all the fuss is about.
Are there any hard data from objective sources regarding the local economic effects of the development, seven years on?
Has the economy benefited from the development ? To the extent that there are a few dozen (?) people employed there and it clearly attracts visitors then the economic effect is positive in that respect. However in the context of its location in a major city and the claims made for the prospective benefits of the development, and the damage done to the immediate area, then it has not been a great success and many think, me included, that the price paid in terms of the environment has not been worth it.
Niall
Has the economy benefited from the development ? To the extent that there are a few dozen (?) people employed there and it clearly attracts visitors then the economic effect is positive in that respect. However in the context of its location in a major city and the claims made for the prospective benefits of the development, and the damage done to the immediate area, then it has not been a great success and many think, me included, that the price paid in terms of the environment has not been worth it.
Has the economy benefited from the development ? To the extent that there are a few dozen (?) people employed there and it clearly attracts visitors then the economic effect is positive in that respect. However in the context of its location in a major city and the claims made for the prospective benefits of the development, and the damage done to the immediate area, then it has not been a great success and many think, me included, that the price paid in terms of the environment has not been worth it.
Niall
Can you enumerate said "damage"? If you are looking for me to put a cost to that damage then I wouldn't know where to start, that's not my area of expertise but clearly it has been severely damaged to the extent that it's no clearly longer what it was. I appreciate that you don't see the change as damage but in a world where humans are putting greater emphasis on protecting the environment most people would not agree, and that is not being political.
What price was paid "in terms of the environment"? And whose values get to be considered in making this evaluation? See above
To be fair, I don't think that the development can be declared anything close to a success having fallen well short of what was touted. There is probably plenty of blame to be spread around, but if we applied the same audit standards to public sector spending- projected costs and benefits compared to actual results- we would have much more to whine about without consideration to whose money was being spent. If you are judging the success of the development on what was built against what was planned and the promises made then perhaps not but he still has his consents for the housing and the hotel. He may yet develop them when things are more advantageous. For instance I vaguely recall he was looking to change the conditions on the housing consent so that they wouldn't just be holiday homes. If he got that then they become much more marketable and therefore more valuable.
As for your whinge about public spending, not sure what that has got to do with a private developer getting consent to bespoil an ecologically valuable landscape based on broken promises.
I would like to revisit this subject 10 years from now. My bet is that the existing course will not be returning to nature, but a good chunk of the projected development won't have materialized. Even if Trump goes bust, I'm pretty sure someone would buy the course and keep it going so I think your bet in that respect would be a safe one. As for the rest of the development, I'm sure it will happen over time.
And the Second Course got approval 2 days before.
Not all of the USA trappings. 1/ Unlike most of Trump's US courses, and many other US courses, anyone can play Aberdeen if they're willing to pay the daily rate. There is no gate that opens only for those who've forked over six- or even seven-figure initiation fees. 2/ You don't need to hire a caddy and you're "allowed" to use a trolley.
That’s interesting. Any word on whether he’s actually going to build it straight away?
Not all of the USA trappings. 1/ Unlike most of Trump's US courses, and many other US courses, anyone can play Aberdeen if they're willing to pay the daily rate. There is no gate that opens only for those who've forked over six- or even seven-figure initiation fees. 2/ You don't need to hire a caddy and you're "allowed" to use a trolley.
You are even welcome to just walk the course, if you wish.
That’s interesting. Any word on whether he’s actually going to build it straight away?
No word so far.
And considering the losses the first course is making, you surely ask why would they bother?
But then its all about houses anyway, so ... ?
Serious question, is "welcome" the right word ? Certainly, you are legally entitled to walk the course or at least walk over it but that's not quite the same as being made welcome.
Without making the effort to look at the appropriate thread, am I to take it that the disdain for the Trump course would be the same for the proposed Keiser/ Coore and Crenshaw course?
I’m going to assume a ‘rub and tug’ is a fast-food pulled pork place.
F.
IraSean it was me, not Ira, although Ira is a Bears fan as well. ;D
I certainly wish the course was never built. However, now the damage is done, so it would be a double gut kick if the course failed.
Happy Hockey
I'm skeptical about the financials...
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/donald-trump-build-second-golf-course-scotland-despite-objections-3006952 (https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/donald-trump-build-second-golf-course-scotland-despite-objections-3006952)“Underperforming”
Donald Trump to build second golf course in Scotland despite objections
President Donald Trump's company is to build a second golf course in Aberdeenshire.
By Emma O'Neill/PA
Saturday, 17th October 2020
Plans for a new 18-hole golf course were approved by Aberdeenshire Council on Friday, despite local objections.
The course is to be named MacLeod after Mr Trump's mother, Mary Anne MacLeod - who was born in the Outer Hebrides - and will be built adjacent to the current course on his Menie Estate.
The area of land had already been marked in the local development plan for two 18-hole golf courses, a resort hotel of 450 rooms, with conference centre and spa; 36 "golf villas" and 950 holiday apartments in four blocks; up to 500 houses and community facilities.
The course will share the golf house and related facilities currently serving the Menie course and will provide an additional 141 parking spaces.
However, many locals objected to the application, citing loss of public space and the impact it would have on water supply, private roads and nearby estates.
Sam Lowit, Morningside Avenue, Aberdeen, said: "It is clear that the existing underperforming development is not of benefit to this area, with low attendance figures and ongoing financial losses.
"There is therefore no valid reason to extend or increase this situation and refusal of this application is the only viable route for the local authority to take in this case."
Sepa, the Scottish Environment Protective Agency, also objected to the application, saying the water management plan was inadequate and the environmental management plan was not appropriate.
Aberdeenshire council have been contacted for comment.
https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/aberdeenshire-council-approves-second-course-at-trump-international-golf-links (https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/aberdeenshire-council-approves-second-course-at-trump-international-golf-links)
The only thing better than driving past one course is driving past two.
The only thing better than driving past one course is driving past two.
As long as you tell everyone about it. Wouldn't want to hide your virtuous light under a bushel.
They have planning permission -- and Lou is right, the second course is much less environmentally controversial than the first one was -- but I doubt it will get built any time soon. Without hotel or housing, the resort is a money pit. I can't really see any good reason for increasing the losses in the short term.
OTOH with planning consent for a second course, it may be easier to dispose of the property if it comes to that.
They have planning permission -- and Lou is right, the second course is much less environmentally controversial than the first one was -- but I doubt it will get built any time soon. Without hotel or housing, the resort is a money pit. I can't really see any good reason for increasing the losses in the short term.
OTOH with planning consent for a second course, it may be easier to dispose of the property if it comes to that.
Adam
Is is detailed planning consent or outline?
Ciao
It is full planning permission subject to conditions (which is normal).
Adam - is Martin Hawtree still on board for this one ? The reason I ask is that the application was lodged back in 2015 and IIRC Hawtree was winding down his career at that point.
Niall
Given recents happenings is Trumps potential second course just north of Aberdeen now likely to be in doubt?
Atb
Given recents happenings is Trumps potential second course just north of Aberdeen now likely to be in doubt?
Atb
I think it has always been in doubt. He has planning permission, but that doesn't mean he was ever likely to build it. The resort is shelling money like crazy, why would you add more guaranteed loss-making capacity?
Ian
In fairness (and I don't know why I'm being fair to Trump) it's a lot more than just right wing golfers who play his Scottish courses however clearly there aren't enough of them. As for the Open, the R&A's position isn't really anything new but it's just that it has now become public. If he didn't already know that he wasn't getting the Open then I think he was deluding himself.
Niall
Last I heard Trump had $billion debt against $3billion assets. Even if his assets take a hit in value he has options 👀.Interesting. Source?
Happy Hockey
Last I heard Trump had $billion debt against $3billion assets. Even if his assets take a hit in value he has options .Interesting. Source?
Happy Hockey
Rebuilt in the photos I just saw, Niall.
I saw a picture of 9 fairway (frilly), 18 (all the numerous bunkers frilly) and 17 green (still sod wall).
Here's a before of the 1st hole along with David's after picture.