Suitable land for golf?

As the amount of suitable sites for golf courses disappears, in fact this may have already happened long ago, should we be starting to utilise sites not previously thought of as golfing land. After all we have come to accept the most unsuitable of sites such as potato fields and clay based soil as places to construct courses. So why not go mental and start building courses on sites previously used for industrial processes.

This has already been tried in the states with courses such as

Chambers bay (formerly a sand-and-gravel quarry) http://www.chambersbaygolf.com/chambersbay.asp?id=232&page=7996

Tobacco Road (old sand quarry) http://www.tobaccoroadgolf.com/golfcourse.html

The new Tom Doak and Bill Coore project in Florida http://www.out-and-back.net/?p=2489


I think these course look great and think it could be the way forward. With so much soil being moved in constructing new courses these days why not do it where you cannot ruin the land and probably need few permits? As trumps project as demonstrated it is no longer acceptable to build on links land in the uk, so we need somewhere to build courses. That is of course assuming we need more courses.

I would love to see or hear of other projects like this and what people make of these courses?

Is there a site you can think of that would be just right for this type of project?

Scotland is awash with golf courses, many of which are struggling to keep financial heads above water.

Besides which, wouldn't such courses require additional ongoing maintenance investment. Not very economical, particularly in these straighened times.

Why not reduce the number ... beginning with Trump's.

gael

I agree the number should be reduced but that does not mean weaker courses cannot be replaced with better ones as the overall number decreases.

Think Trumps course will be fantastic although im not sure i will be forking out the guts of 200 quid to play it on the weekend.

I'm anticipating that the Trump course will probably have deals for Scottish residents similar to that offered by Kingsbarns and Castle Stewart. Whether you agree with the project or not its going to be a great course, perhaps even a ten on the doak scale

Mac, probably a good talking point but riddled with problems.

1) Majority of golf clubs already struggling for members.
2) Not enough greenbelt land for housing as we're over populated.
3) Most suitable land will already have footpaths and bridleways over and through it. Rights of access.
4) Local council's can be a joke to deal with on planning laws/permissions.
5) Former industrial land has it's own issues as much of it has to be left fallow for years if any soil inpregnation has happened with toxic waste.
6) Too many people have already tried to diversify and built so-called golf courses, which turn out to be pathetic. To do a project like this justice the greens would need to be built a couple of years before the course opens. The fairways would need plenty of work and treatments, plus all the rest of the ladscaping, rough, bunkering, hazards, trees taken into consideration. To do it properly someone with plenty of available cash would need to invest in the project for a couple of years without seeing any form of return. Not many people like that around these days.

Green Monkey at Sandy Lane in barbados was carved out of a disused quarry.

Stockley Park in Middlesex was built on the site of an old rubbish tip. This was actually a very well designed layout (Trent Jones Senior) opened in the early 90's. Unfortunately it has been redesigned (vandalised) to accommodate a driving range and i have heard it is now awful.

I think there are plenty of suitable sites left if there is the money to finance the project. Kingsbarns is a classic example, farm fields converted into "links" by importing millions of tons of sand to support the correct grass types. There are also some genuine areas of linksland left but it's quite often protected these days. Adjacent to Saunton golf club there is enough land to build 3 courses. Also a superb area next to Pyle & Kenfig's back 9.

Of course, it all comes down to money and location. Trump's new development is perfect for him as a money making venture because it has Royal Aberdeen and Murcar on it's doorstep meaning the yanks and japs can pop over and play a group of courses all in the same locale.

S_R ... I doubt the locals will be very impressed with his deal. There doesn't seem to be a local 4-ball rate as there is at Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart. Locals will have to pay £120 weekday and £160 weekends. £150 and £200 respectively for the rest of us.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/At-200-a-round-.6833699.jp

doc and gael

You may want to think about the reasons a club would fail. Yes some factors may be related to the local and wider economy but surely as budgets for golf are squeezed then quality becomes even more important. If you do use some of your even more scarce cash then you want to feel it is spent as wisely as possible.

Playing a poor quality course does not offer value for money, and this may be why some of the courses built on unsuitable land are now in trouble.

If anything we need to ensure the next cohort of courses built are of the highest quality so there appeal lasts a little longer. It would be no surprise to see that in 50 years time almost all courses in existence are from either pre 1950 or post 1990's.

The conditions that building on firm ground gives you are crucial to keeping the interest in the game for beginners. Although it may be more expensive to get the conditions right in the first place you have to do it if you want your course to survive in the long term.


Super

Even you must be a little excited by that Doak project?

Gael, considering the quality of the course, what do expect to get it for? a fiver? Yes, its a little dear but probably reflected in the course, at least they get a discount.

Mac, I purposely don't click on anything related to Doak, you should know that.

super

Then just look at the Bill Coore course, I promise you it is an interesting project.

McLaren wrote:doc and gael

You may want to think about the reasons a club would fail. Yes some factors may be related to the local and wider economy but surely as budgets for golf are squeezed then quality becomes even more important. If you do use some of your even more scarce cash then you want to feel it is spent as wisely as possible.

Playing a poor quality course does not offer value for money, and this may be why some of the courses built on unsuitable land are now in trouble.

If anything we need to ensure the next cohort of courses built are of the highest quality so there appeal lasts a little longer. It would be no surprise to see that in 50 years time almost all courses in existence are from either pre 1950 or post 1990's.

The conditions that building on firm ground gives you are crucial to keeping the interest in the game for beginners. Although it may be more expensive to get the conditions right in the first place you have to do it if you want your course to survive in the long term.

I can only speak about what I've experienced at my (links) club but it seems to me there has been far too much agronomist interference during the course of the last 25 years or so. Our greens are now too soft and, subsequently, vulnerable to desease. Instead of having firm surfaces akin to pure silk from early March thru' to the back end of October, which I used to enjoy back then, we increasingly rarely experience this. Add shaped approaches which are also regularly doused with water retaining agents and you end up with something that is, well ... not a true links experience.

S_R ... sarcasm aside, whilst I appreciate Trump has to recoup the cost of building the course, nevertheless, given he's claimed that "93%" of the local population has supported his project, I would have though it not unreasonable for him to have introduced a similar package to the one Parsinen introduced at Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart. I think it's a slap in the face to those locals who, as far as I'm concerned, deserve nothing less!

Incidentally, given the course hasn't yet been played, isn't it a little premature to wax lyrical about it?

Going back to mac at the top old sand/gravel workings are perfect from a drainage POV.Corby GC was built in a hole basically left from iron ore workings.Hawtree design and really quite good only £12-15.
Stockley was put together by Hillingdon Council who incredibly had ideas about something called the Ryder Cup at the time.we had a 606 day out there few years back and it was quite good bit typically scruffy

Gael, if the extra price is reflected in the quality then I'm not surprised it's expensive.
Just because you are local I don't see why you should expect a reduction, it's nice to get one, and would be a nice touch, but Trump doesn't owe the locals cheap golf.
I'm sure the locals of Loch Lomond don't get preferential rates despite their proximity.

In terms of the course, the website makes it look very good indeed, though of course that no more qualifies me to say it actually will be than anyone else saying it looks rubbish.

I think Laleham in Surrey was built on old gravel works.

Doc. Re. Comment on council planning regs. You will have to trust me on this but I have seen dozens of applications for plans for golf courses and ranges and every application I have have seen has been badly flawed. So it is not the Cooncils, it is the aplicants to blame.
A good example was the guy who wanted to build a range next to Bristol Airport. I sat in on the first meeting and after the guy presented [in a very patronising manner] I asked if he planned to open in the evening.
I trust you will all know where I'm going, if not here's a clue~ lights. You should have seen his face when the penny dropped.

Mac~ good pics.

Doon - The company I work for did own a big quarry in Laleham and I know there are lots of old quarries in that area. The club I was at for 24 years is over the road from a massive quarry in Wick near Bristol. The course itself is clay based and doesn't drain particularly well.

Good story about Bristol Airport. There is a course right next to it called Tall Pines. On one of the holes you tee off right along the boundary to the airport. It can be a bit noisey!

super_realist wrote:Gael, if the extra price is reflected in the quality then I'm not surprised it's expensive.
Just because you are local I don't see why you should expect a reduction, it's nice to get one, and would be a nice touch, but Trump doesn't owe the locals cheap golf.
I'm sure the locals of Loch Lomond don't get preferential rates despite their proximity.

In terms of the course, the website makes it look very good indeed, though of course that no more qualifies me to say it actually will be than anyone else saying it looks rubbish.

Loch Lomond went bust!

Simple economics apply here. Better to have a reduced amount of cash on a regular basis than no cash at all. Besides which, the number of cheap 4-balls doled out can always be regulated.

Gael
It is what I used to call the £10 round.
If clubs charged £10 a round for everyone who played most would be in a better financial state.

Hi Doon. I think Parsinen currently charges the locals £200 for a 4-ball at Castle Stuart. It may not be 4 x £156 but if the tee-time is not likely to be utilised by visitors, then £200 is not be sneezed at.

Gael, it was you who stated they are getting a discount. It isn't for you to say if that discount is too much or too little. I'm sure they've done their sums, and also it's not Trumps responsibility to create a cheap pay and play for locals. They can go and play Hazelhead or Kings Links if they want that.
The simple fact is there will be no shortage of Yanks and Japs willing to pay the green fee and caddy fees on top just as they do at Kingsbarns and Castle Stewart, not to mention that Aberdonians are amongst the wealthiest people in the UK.

Doon, many clubs simply couldn't afford to charge as little as £10 a round, their costs exceed the potential revenue.

If a course is struggling at £50 a round, it doesn't follow that by halving the price would lead to an increase in demand of 100%.

There must be a balance between Doon's £10 round, and the £200 that some courses are charging. I have paid £200 - or even more - to play at a few courses, but I didn't really enjoy it very much. I won't do it again.

For any course being built now, the owner had better have pretty deep pockets. With the number of courses available, and an economic recession, it could be 20 years before a new course opening in 2011 shows any return. I remember a guy who worked for Crown Golf telling me that the first two owners of a private golf course development always went bust, and only the third (or subsequent) had any chance of making money.

SR, halving the green fee not leading to a doubling of demand is an excellent point, but demand doesn't always have to double. If more people show up, they spend more in the bar, more on food, and the pro might sell a few more balls.

Much in favour of using brownfield sites for any purpose if it means ploughing under one more acre of unspoiled land.
Liberty National (site of 2012 Barclays) is also built on reclaimed land and I forwarded once before a link to Old Works Golf Club, in Annaconda, Montana.
Not exactly what Mac is talking about but East Lake in Atlanta, an old Donald Ross course, was in danger of being overrun by the projects that had gradually begun to infest the surrounding area. Some imagination, leadership and money and now it's been fully restored to its Ross glory and the permanent site (until Finchem gets a better offer) of The Tour Championship.
The neighbourhood is now flourishing; nothing wrong with developing golf facilities in Downtown areas.

I agree George, but he's trying to build one of the worlds finest courses. If it was you (with a business hat on), would you feel the need to give locals a heavily discounted rate simply because they are local? Do the locals of Wentworth or Muirfield get a heavy discount simply because of where they live?

This is a course that's intended to be a cut above Kingsbarns and Castle Stewart so it's no surprise that the locals discount still seems pretty dear.

Brownfield sites in the USA are typically very different to brownfield sites in the UK - they are usually a lot bigger. There are a lot of sites in the UK that would be ideal for golf course development BUT they just aren't big enough. Also, there's a pressing need for new housing developments in the UK, so housing developers tend to get first option on old industrial sites - and the return from building houses is better and faster than golf courses.

S_R ... whether or not Trump's course will turn out to be better doesn't alter the fact that it aint cheap to build a brand new course from scratch anywhere!

Which is the more expensive: turning farmland into links or stabilising a dune with turf and marram grass? They both sound equally expensive to me and yet, Parsinen has managed to accommodate the locals whereas Trump is only interested in serving the rich and offering what can only be described at best a token offer to the local population.

"return from building houses is better and faster than golf courses"; better in every respect, agreed, so long as there is green recreational/parkland space to buffer the development.
Was using the East Lake example as a symbol of how a well-managed sports facility can enhance a community.

Gael, I haven't said it is cheap, in fact it's probably the most expensive course to build anywhere in the history of the UK.
I've got no problem with Trump's development, I think people have more problem with Trump, his arrogance and his ridiculous hair. He's a ruthless businessman and he's bound to offend a few people, still I don't see why people think he owes the locals cheap golf.
Parsinen are still charging quite a bit for rounds on their courses, and regardless of what you say Trump is still giving a discount, it's just not as cheap for 18 holes on his new course as Kingsbarns and Castle Stewart are. What's your problem. You've already said you don't know what the course is like. If it's 3 times better than either of those two, then it's better value for money.

Re £10 rounds.
If the golf is cheap then, as George says, there will be a greater spend on food and drink which has a far higher profit margin.
Most courses in the UK are empty after 3pm at weekends so there is plenty of opportunity to raise extra fees.

Agree strongly with Gael that the UK has more than enough golf courses.
I look at the East Lothian coast and begin to wonder how they will all survive after the Edinburgh banks have shrunk.

Yeah, because all golfers in Lothian are bankers.

I don't think people will necessarily spend much more on drinks either. I'd still go in for drinks (or not) regardless of the price of the round. I've never heard anyone say "I can't afford a drink because the round was too expensive" or "I'll drink and eat more because the round was cheap"

Lot's of courses up my way offer special "twilight" deals yet the courses are still very quiet at that time, it doesn't seem to be as appealing as you might think.

I think we are indeed awash with courses, but if someone is going to build something which is world class such as Castle Stewart, Kingsbarns or WIggy Trumps if it lives up to billing then there is usually rightly room made for them.
What we don't necessarily need are more Ballumbie Castles, Forrester Parks, Drumoigs or Swantsons.

SR
A lot of the corporate stuff and membership at the better EL courses came from the banks. I would imagine a few will not be renewing their subs.

Not surprisingly the ratio between green fee and food/drink is linked to the cost of the green fee.
The other fact is that the visiting golfer spends, more likely to visit Pro Shop and have a meal as there will probably be a longer journey time.

I don't think it's as cut and dried as you make out.
I'm just as thirsty/hungry regardless of how much I've paid for the course.

super_realist wrote:Yeah, because all golfers in Lothian are bankers.

I don't think people will necessarily spend much more on drinks either. I'd still go in for drinks (or not) regardless of the price of the round. I've never heard anyone say "I can't afford a drink because the round was too expensive" or "I'll drink and eat more because the round was cheap"

I agree. What I meant was that if you have 50 visitors showing up who all spend £10 on beer and pies after they've finished, that's a lot better than 25 spending £10.

I think that some bright spark will soon start airline type pricing for green fees. There'll be (say) 20 places available - typically for an 11.00am start on weekday mornings - at perhaps £30. If you want to start at 9.00am then there's 10 places available, at maybe £50. Weekend mornings could be £80. When those places are booked, then the rate doubles - and so on. The only reason that this hasn't happened yet is that golf club staff probably aren't smart enough to be able to manage it, and airlines have a website to hide behind when you discover that the bloke sitting next to you on the plane only paid £5 versus your £250.

Might be a good idea George, theres a lot of dead times on a golf course.

Kwini,

you mentioned Liberty National which was built on reclaimed land but just down the road is a place called Bayonne which was a rubbish dump and was transformed into a great golf course.

Whereas Liberty National is relatively flat the guy that built Bayonne used refuse from NYC (which he was paid to take) to build huge great dunes to give it the feel of a real links with a backdrop of Manhattan and the Statue of Liberty.

This is a great example of making the most of a great piece of land that would never have been thought of for a golf course.

The £10 per round point of view only demonstrates that there is an abundance of golf courses around the UK. I don't think anyone has to travel further than 30-minutes away from home to find a course.

So why develop more and more? Municipal's have been badly neglected in the main as council finances are squeezed. These courses (If any good) should be sold off to private investors. Then there are the farmer type people who are struggling, and decide to diversify their land by either making fields into holiday villages (Depending upon location) or building a golf course. The golf course solution needs looking at properly, not just being allowed to get on with it, as these places end up being a joke.

But the big factor within this whole subject, is that there are still plenty of golf clubs around, where they still charge a joining fee, and have that exclusive feel about the place. So they charge whatever they want, and still have waiting lists because there will always be a market for something a bit more exclusive. Plenty of people like to brag that they're members of ..... So Loch Lomond, Trumps new project and others will be built and most of us would willingly pay for the pleasure as a one-off to play them. These places will make a profit, and the newer places seem to be linked to housing developments and gated communities. Theres one particular place near to me in Cheshire, where the course (And a very good one) is empty almost every day through the week, but Joe Public can't turn up and pay and play. The only reason I know about it is because I played an open event there earlier this summer.

Golf for all is a reality as theres plenty of places to play and we'll all have our favourites. Some new develpoments will be allowed, and it then depends upon the developer as to what level he builds and what his target audience is. Doing it the right way means a new course will not be played for a couple of years and that takes a serious long term investor. So the chances are that it will be a more exclusive development probably linked to new housing, where golf club membership can be part of the deal, they then just build themselves a big fence and wave at us pleb's

De Vere are a classic example of the way the leisure industry works. The norm is for Devere to buy some old property, and redevelop the buildings into a hotel/spa and the adjoining land developed into a golf course. Wherever possible De Vere like to have enough land to build 2 courses, so that corporate packages and residents can play, whilst members play course 2. There are a few good examples of this, and marriot are doing the same. It's the leisure industry who take the long view with these places, but even they are struggling at the moment. De Vere are in trouble financially and can't do what they've always done. My own course was opened 6-years ago by a private enthusiast, who spent a fortune developing it and with Hawtree who designed it. Just over the road there's a De Vere hotel and championship course, and they tried to buy our club, so that the membership of Wychwood park could use ours and leave their course for hotel guests and corporate users etc. our guy held out and subsequently the hotel is not doing as well as it should, because guests struggle to play and the membership are jarred off as they need to book a couple of weks in advance to get a game. Each day the tees are blocked to members at certain times. So its not ideal for them or for us, even though in one vilaage there are 2 top quality courses. The only way I belive the situation will be resolved, is that at some stage De Vere will take our club over, or another investor will take over the hotel and both courses from De Vere.

S_R, if there were a competiton for leading point-misser of the year, you'd be the number one contender.

I dunno, on the one hand we've got one poster who thinks the end justifies the means because, in his opinion, Trump's act of vandalism will be transformed in to be a world class venue (sounding more and more like DT mouthpiece S_R) which, at the risk of repeating myself, no-one has yet played! And, on the other hand, we have another poster who thinks poorly maintained municipal courses should be hand over to "private investors" (to do what exactly, Doc?).

Strewth!

TM2K

Thanks for the bayonne info, I was going to include it as an example in my original post but could not find the exact details of its construction. It seems there are many more examples of courses built on former industrial sites in the US compared to the UK. Have you played this course or any of the other sites like this already mentioned?



As mentioned the sites available in the UK may be too small for an 18 hole course but surely there are plenty sites that could accommodate par three/short courses or 9 holers? What better way to grow the game than well designed, cheap, accessible and well located courses for all levels?

This could be the perfect type of project to expand golf in urban areas.

Doc: With regards to the 30minute drive rule, don't think that could be more accurate, within 30minutes of my house in any direction I could play anyone of 15 courses. Not all great but many are real championsip course standard.

With regards to selling off to private investors I can see the advantages and disavantages of this for exmaple there are 3 municiple course's.

2 of which the councils sold off to private investors. 1 of these course's has severely prospered, added an additional par 3 course and what they call a long 9 course. Invested in the range upgrading all facilities, brought the course upto a superb standard built a new clubhouse with gym and are now having to turn away some bookings as they are inundated..

Flip side of that coin, the other course that was sold off to another collective of private investors, has seen a rapid decline in the course and clubhouse, bunkers that are more like war torn bunkers than sand traps. Fairways like marsh land due to not bringing irrigation upto scratch and rough like elephant country because apparently that helps show the difference between fairways and rough! it now only tend to get complete hackers out for a beer whilst playing in their vests on the course.

The other course that has stayed under the council, is much like the first course they sold off, going from strength to strength, they have invested in the course, currently building a new range and turning the old par 3 course into a long 9. the main 18 is now in such good condition it holds the regional open which was previously held at an Open qulaifying course, they have enabled season ticket membership that also gives use of several gyms in the area to.

So it all depends on who the guy pulling the purse strings is, whether he is working for the council and knows what attracts golfers or a private investor of similar ilk is really irrelevant as long as it's done right.

As for trumps course, looking at the plans looks like a corker to me and I for one will pay the £200 to play there, anythings is better than TOC dire start and finishing holes.

Simple economics will always dictate there will be course or anything for that matter not everyone can afford to play/buy, does that then mean we have to start living like communists to make everyone be able to afford the same things.. No...

gael: There are plenty of municipal tracks that could be very good, if they were looked after and managed correctly. many of these places have had no investment put into them for years and are cabbage patches. Anyone can go there and play and do so in many cases without paying, hence them being chewed up and greens worse than my back lawn. Whats wrong with sorting some of these places out instead of building more courses? Or do you see the muni courses being redeveloped for housing

The whole idea of municipal courses was to make golf available to people, who couldn't afford to join a private club. Those days have gone and a different model needs to be introduced where quality golf can be had at a reasonable price. There are fewer people each year joining golf clubs, and there are more and more golfers who have not rejoined and have decided to pay and play rather than shell out subscriptions, even in monthly batches.

TM2K,

Thanks! I knew there was one such example, couldn't remember the name!

Mac,

I have been lucky enough to play Bayonne a few times and it never fails to amaze me. It would be a fantastic golf course anywhere but with that backdrop it really is a hidden gem. The story I was told is that the whole project cost $100m to build but they were paid $50m to take a load of refuse from NYC which was then used for mounding and dunes etc.

The guy that built the place is called Eric Bergstol and he owns a few courses in the area. I did hear that he had sold off some of the others but not sure how true that is.

If anyone wants to take a look it's worth watching the video on the website.

http://www.bayonnegolfclub.com/#/home/

Talking about the Trump course, I wonder if anyone has seen this film?

http://www.youvebeentrumped.com/youvebeentrumped.com/THE_MOVIE.html

Gael, if Trumps new course is an act of "vandalism" then so is every other links course in the world. Why not start a retrospective campaign to have TOC returned to it's natural environment.
I don't like Trump much, but if it was Richard Branson or some other more likeable entrepreneur there's no way it would be getting so much opposition. People are more against him than the development. It's only a golf course for heavens sake, he's not building a nuclear reactor or baby boiling unit on site.

Unlike most of the contributors here, I actually have been on the site, and it was rarely used and there's mile upon mile of similar ground between there and the north of Scotland, the opposition is akin to a pointless facebook petition where people who have never been or will never use the dunes are complaining about a change of use. How does it affect them?

I hardly think I'm a DT mouthpiece (or should that be hairpiece) for saying he doesn't owe the locals cut price golf. He's already giving them a discount, what more do you want?, to decide how much YOU should pay to play HIS course?

SR

Do you really think there was the scientific evidence avialable in the 1800's, or earlier, when courses like the TOC, muirfield, prestwick etc were built compared to what Trump had? He built a course knowing the severe damage it would cause to the surrounding ecosystems and natural features, the early golf course builders would have had no concept of the damage that could be done.

To suggest we retrospectively rip up courses built nearly 200 years ago just shows a real lack of understanding.

And yes, given the warnings and information available what Trump has done is most certainly vandalism or worse. Vandalism is the odd bit of graffiti, he has ruined a whole dune system

Mac, it's just a dune, who cares?
Have you ever been up there, there's dunes as far as the eye can see.
All he's done is develop a golf course within a very large dune system. Boo bloody hoo.

You'd be better off saving your faux concern for al the development taking place within flood plains around the UK, rather than cry into your bolinger about a few acres of dune.

Super

I do not drink bolinger, I am more a Comte de Dampierre kind of guy. I do care about the dunes as I love that sort of environment and see no reason for golf to destory another cm2 of it.

Would you not rather see an old industrial site reclaimed rather than someone like trump bulldozing in and ruining our great coastline?

Mac, after Norway and Iceland we've got the second longest coastline in Europe, adding a few links courses to the coastline will barely scratch the surface.
I'd like old industrial sites to be developed as well ,(in fact in my previous employment I was involved in the reclamation of an old landfill site being transformed into a public nature park) , but I won't be crying into my socialist worker or Greenpeace monthly because of a few blades of marram grass being displaced.
People make far too much of Scotland's landscape. I've lived near Menie and it's an incredibly bleak and hostile environment, I don't really see why all these tree huggers and yoghurt knitters are having such a period about it, especially when 99% will never have been there or never will.

George ~ My golf team had a serious discussion about charging 'ryanair' type green fees in 1990. We pulled back as we thought it would be to controversial.


I said everyone pays £10 a round, not just visitors. You can still have a members club but the members will have to pay £10 each time they pay. You would certainly have a larger more reactive membership with that scheme.

Another thought is the £50 tee time.
£100 for tee times between 8am and 10am at weekends.

Mac
It always amuses me that Argyll has a longer coastline than France

Super I dont think you understand how quickly we could loose our great natural environment and actually how little is left.

Also since when was loving the countryside socialist, would you not think it a little more horse and hound?

PS I was glad to see fox hunting with dogs banned.

PPS The only thing I read approaching a newspaper is the economist, before you start throwing guardian comments around.

PPPS Red ed is not red enough for my liking.

Mac, we live in one of the most sparsley populated countries in Europe (Scotland) there is no danger of our "great natural environment" being expunged the way you suggest.

My comments about countryside and socialism was that people jump on environmental issues the way that people jump on socialist ideas because they think it is socially acceptable to be seen to "care".

Did you actually know that precious little of Scotlands landscape is actually "natural". It has virtually all been shaped over time through some anthropogenic influence or other.

As for Red Ed, he's doing a very good job for the conservatives.