The Open Championship

First topic message reminder :

Congratulations to Henrik Stenson!

GPB wrote:

beninho wrote:Troon 2004 - 176,410 - Troon 2016 - 173,134.

They call that Saturday at the Waste Management Phoenix Open.

https://wmphoenixopen.com/waste-management-phoenix-open-sets-single-day-attendance-record-189722/

Well done...

Davie wrote:No really - not even our electorate is THAT stupid

Sure about that?

If Trump stood as a Tory, he would win easily.

Trump isn't elected yet!

All he's done so far is introduce his missus who promptly read part of Michelle Obama's speech to the 2008 Democrat Convention.
Mrs Drumpf clearly as much of a dimwit as her old man.

I do have some sympathy for melania (with the caveat that you should know marrying Trump is destined to end in your own humiliation) as I doubt any of us would cope all that well being thrown into the most difficult political sphere in the world unexpectedly. She clearly didn't write the speech and was no doubt just worried about speaking to millions of people on TV and thousands in person.

In her situation can anyone one here truthfully claim that they would have had the wherewithal to fact check the speech? Pretty shocking that Trump would through a family member under the bus like that, although not surprising.

Mac - I heard that her next speech is a retraction and here's how it starts ... "Four score and seven years ago I had a dream a mistake like this would be made ..."

Err Davie, in case you hadn't noticed, we've just had a referendum won by a team following Trump's playbook. Talk about stealing other people's material well the leave campaign have nicked all of his best material

Farage, Boris, Salmond. There's plenty to take from. And it's not like only 40% vote, like in the US.

raycastleunited wrote:Come on Super, unless you live there, St Andrews is pretty remote. Planes, train and automobiles to get there.

Compare it to Muirfield just outside Edinburgh, or Birkdale and Hoylake close to Liverpool. Although Sandwich is a little place there's a direct train from London.

Hardly, I don't live there and don't find it remote.
If you fly into Edinburgh, it's a 40 minute train to Leuchars and a 10 minute taxi, hardly taxing. Park and ride in St.Andrews is a doddle.

I really don't see it being any less convenient than Carnoustie, Troon, Turnberry or Muirfield.
If all you are complaining about is there is no railway station, big bloody deal, there's one 10 minutes in a taxi away. Are you really moaning over 10 minutes?

Saying that, I wouldn't cross the road to see an Open at St.Andrews again, but it's not hard to get to, it really isn't.

When it came to rebuilding Hampden or Wembley, did anyone suggest St Andrews, Carnoustie or Troon as convenient or accessible locations? History has left us with these awkward locations for the Open.

Maybe the R&A should build a stadium links course in the Thames estuary, with massive stands and 200,000 capacity, and preserve the heritage of these old courses.

McLaren wrote:I do have some sympathy for melania (with the caveat that you should know marrying Trump is destined to end in your own humiliation) as I doubt any of us would cope all that well being thrown into the most difficult political sphere in the world unexpectedly.  She clearly didn't write the speech and was no doubt just worried about speaking to millions of people on TV and thousands in person.

Mac, it's easy to feel sympathy if you haven't read the speech. If you actually read the plagiarised content you will understand why she is being mocked. She has no shame.

Quite right ray,
Mac may be right that "she clearly didn't write the speech" but the trouble is she stated quite clearly to NBC TV that she did.
Idiots.
Maybe Boris the Spider will try the same trick.

Ray, I have seen the plagiarised bits but I am not sure how she could have been expected to have checked for plagiarism? I did not know that she had made a public declaration that she wrote it when she didn't, and that really was a bit dumb on her part.

raycastleunited wrote:

McLaren wrote:I do have some sympathy for melania (with the caveat that you should know marrying Trump is destined to end in your own humiliation) as I doubt any of us would cope all that well being thrown into the most difficult political sphere in the world unexpectedly.  She clearly didn't write the speech and was no doubt just worried about speaking to millions of people on TV and thousands in person.

Mac, it's easy to feel sympathy if you haven't read the speech. If you actually read the plagiarised content you will understand why she is being mocked. She has no shame.

Indeed, If I was due to make such a speech as she had to, I think I would have had the wit to watch the previous one and see if there was any tips I could take from that. Clearly she didn't do that as she might have noticed the speech was virtually mirrored.

She's clearly just a plank. No sympathy can be given her way

I think you'd make a cracking first lady, super.

raycastleunited wrote:When it came to rebuilding Hampden or Wembley, did anyone suggest St Andrews, Carnoustie or Troon as convenient or accessible locations? History has left us with these awkward locations for the Open.

Maybe the R&A should build a stadium links course in the Thames estuary, with massive stands and 200,000 capacity, and preserve the heritage of these old courses.

Boris' airport would be in the way, or so loud we couldn't hear all the southerners asking for (pie and) mashed potato on every drive.

It would just be good if one of these ridiculous situations the Trump camp gets itself in actually damaged the Donalds chances. Sadly his pea brained supporters just keep lapping it up no matter how terrible he is.

raycastleunited wrote:Watching the Open it felt a little quieter than usual, and the grandstands often looked empty. Just had a look and attendance figures confirm this: only 173,000 for the week so way down on 237,000 last year. Ok that was a little skewed by the Monday finish, but for comparison 2014 attendance was 203,000.

I'm sure some people on here will want to blame Sky, but I don't think you can. Have the R&A done something wrong, or is Troon just too awkward?

When you add together the ticket, programmes, souvenirs, food and drink, on average each spectator must spend over £100 a day. Losing 64,000 spectators has got to hurt. No wonder Troon has to wait longer to host Opens, I imagine it will be a longer wait for the next one too.

Troon isn't awkward really. The trains to and from Glasgow are pretty good. And there's quite a lot of space for the crowds because you can see all the holes from both sides. If the numbers are down, it's because of the stratospheric entrance prices that the R&A insist on charging. And it doesn't end there - the on course catering is generally poor in standard and very expensive. And I know people say it compares with a Wimbledon ticket or a Cup Final ticket, bit that isn't the point. There's no limit on how many tickets that the R&A issues, and the cost of providing the facility (which is very low to the R&A) has to be linked to the price charged for admission.

Turnberry is quite remote, and usually sees the lowest attendance.

Just worth mentioning that even in my lifetime, St Andrews did have a station. It closed in 1965 I think, taking the railway sheds and coal yard with it.

And Turnberry had a station too.

I wonder if the weather has any say in the attendance figures? This week looked ok, but it wasn't fantastic either.

I doubt the R&A cares too much about footfall. The money to be made is selling TV rights and the associated "official partner" stuff.

Super

They sold for the TV rights for peanuts. I think sky only pay about £10 million a year.

McLaren wrote:Super

They sold for the TV rights for peanuts.  I think sky only pay about £10 million a year.

And how much do you think they make out of spectators after the cost of putting up stands, staff costs, security, admin, buses, policing etc? Not much.

£15m a year by the way. Not much in football terms, but good money for the old farts at the R&A to replace their service bells in the clubhouse.

I would imagine that the R&A might also make a % in regards to who else Sky sells pictures to, e.g America, Asia etc and also the money coming in from sponsors like Nikon, Rolex etc.

Super

I think there were news stories going around saying that sky would pay up to £15m but given the BBC pulled out it is unlikely sky went to their max.

I agree that the profit from people turning up is probably not massive but it is also the case that the Open is considered an expensive ticket. Only the wealthier people I know are able to afford days out at the Open. After train fares, entry fee's, possibly accommodation and other costs it is a very expensive experience.

Mac, What are you on about "wealthier" people. Do you live in Dickensian/Corbynite Britain or something? Anyone with a normal job can afford a day out at the Open if they want one.

Have you ever been to a golf tournament of any type? It's hardly the Barbour Jacket and Hunter welly brigade is it? It's normal, average people.

If "working class" people can afford Sky Subscriptions and Football Season tickets they can afford a day out at The Open should they wish. You really do live in a world where you think events are "not for the likes of us" and that there is some sort of conspiratorial discrimination going on.

A day out at the Open is no different from a day out at any other sporting event, and those are attended in their tens of thousands by people of average means. You don't need to be wealthy.

A day out for you at your beloved Old Trafford is probably no more expensive for you than a day at The Open. Is it just wealthier people who go to football, Olympics, tennis, rugby etc? Of course it isn't.

McLaren wrote:Ray, I have seen the plagiarised bits but I am not sure how she could have been expected to have checked for plagiarism?  I did not know that she had made a public declaration that she wrote it when she didn't, and that really was a bit dumb on her part.

And it's not like she's talking rocket science is it? I guess these phrases are among the most corpulated in US politics. You will hardly find anybody affiliated with US politics who hasn't said something like that at some point of time. The banality is striking.

Does it not just depend on where you live, to whether its affordable to go to the Open. £60per day, plus flights, plus hotels, plus travel to and from the course, makes it pretty expensive. Its OK for some, but not others.

We should stop trying to compare what is affordable to whoever earns the least in the UK. Why should we expect everything to be affordable to all?

For example, if you are so poor you can't afford to go to The Open, you can attend the Dunhill for free for the first few days.
Seniors, Challenger and Ladies tournaments also cost nothing.

You could also say if you were a Man U "fan" like Mac claims to be the cost of a ticket, flight, hotel, travel etc would also be "expensive".

Going to see a golf tournament is no more expensive to going to see any sport that you don't live local to.

If you want to attend a golf tournament in the UK you can.

super_realist wrote:We should stop trying to compare what is affordable to whoever earns the least in the UK. Why should we expect everything to be affordable to all?

For example, if you are so poor you can't afford to go to The Open, you can attend the Dunhill for free for the first few days.
Seniors, Challenger and Ladies tournaments also cost nothing.

You could also say if you were a Man U "fan" like Mac claims to be the cost of a ticket, flight, hotel, travel etc would also be "expensive".

Going to see a golf tournament is no more expensive to going to see any sport that you don't live local to.

If you want to attend a golf tournament in the UK you can.

I don't think we were, just trying to understand why attendances are down. You sound like the buffoon Boris.

super_realist wrote:

If you want to attend a golf tournament in the UK you can.

Especially if your only outgoings are an internet connection and your right hand.

Mac is trying to say that only the "wealthy" people he knows can afford to go to the golf. Would love to know what he thinks is "wealthy"

Attendances are most likely down to weather and waning of interest in golf rather than cost.

It's not like the Open has increased prices to any great degree.

super_realist wrote:Mac is trying to say that only the "wealthy" people he knows can afford to go to the golf. Would love to know what he thinks is "wealthy"

Attendances are most likely down to weather and waning of interest in golf rather than cost.

It's not like the Open has increased prices to any great degree.

I see austerity has passed you by...

MontysMerkin wrote:

super_realist wrote:

If you want to attend a golf tournament in the UK you can.

Especially if your only outgoings are an internet connection and your right hand.

I wouldn't be surprised if Mac steals his internet connection from a neighbours open connection. Just as he allegedly illegally streams SKY

Super, if it helps it would probably have been more accurate to use "better off" instead of "wealthier".

It is £80 per day plus £15 for parking, that is a pretty expensive day out for most people before travel and other expenses are taken into account. Spending that money doesn't have to bring someone to brink of being broke to make it too expensive it just has to sit within a price range where people trying to run a family and household have to think twice about whether that is a good use of funds.

You are single and childless with no mortgage and little outgoings, do you really think you can judge what is expensive from that perspective?

I don’t say that there isn’t poverty. But there also seems to be an inverse correlation between social class and the number of unnecessary flat screens, TV subscriptions, cell phones, play stations and other gadgets you have. Plus of course the number of cigarettes you smoke. Maybe that’s what mac refers to.

Mac, how much is a day at Arsenal, Man United or Chelsea?

Of course I can judge what is expensive or not, because believe it or not Mac, not everyone who goes to the Open is a penniless parent with four screaming brats around living on the breadline, which seems to be what you think is some sort of baseline.

Lots of things are more "within reach" of the "better off" So bloody what? It doesn't make it a bad thing for a sporting event to be priced at what some might consider a premium.

I would rather like an Aston Martin, but it's beyond my means, so I'm not going to complain it is too expensive am I? I just accept I can't afford one.

For your information Mac, if you booked before 31 May, the ticket price is £60 for adults and £25 for under 16-21 year olds and is actually FREE for anyone UNDER 16. Not exactly prohibitive is it Mac?

£60/25 seems pretty good value for an event which lasts from 06:30-7pm anyway. Certainly better value for money than seeing 22 tossers run around a pitch for 90 mins.

Similarly you could book tickets for your travel in advance and also receive discounts.

Do Football clubs let in under 16's for free? Not many.


That seems pretty bloody reasonable to me. Not sure how cheap you actually expect them to make it. Please also remember, sporting events are not a charity. They are not a benevolent service to help those who you consider poor to attend sporting events, but given the deductions for being 21 and under, seems they are doing better than some sports.

It's also a once in a year event, not 19 weeks a year like home matches of your local EPL team.

Here's an idea, given that you know WHEN and WHERE The Open will be YEARS in advance, put a few quid away every week. Not difficult is it?

I don't really get the argument going on.

Top level sport in the UK is overpriced, but has been for ages. The money that football,cricket, golf, F1 get from Sky, should go towards bringing the actual costs down, but it doesn't. Though I think that the premier league is trying to bring in £20 away tickets.

But no one is forced to watch it, sport just plays on loyalties, especially in Football.

£60 for a day at the golf is expensive, £120 for the British GP is expensive, £50 for football is expensive.

super_realist wrote:Mac, how much is a day at Arsenal, Man United or Chelsea?

Of course I can judge what is expensive or not, because believe it or not Mac, not everyone who goes to the Open is a penniless parent with four screaming brats around living on the breadline, which seems to be what you think is some sort of baseline.

Lots of things are more "within reach" of the "better off" So bloody what? It doesn't make it a bad thing for a sporting event to be priced at what some might consider a premium.

I would rather like an Aston Martin, but it's beyond my means, so I'm not going to complain it is too expensive am I? I just accept I can't afford one.

For your information Mac, if you booked before 31 May, the ticket price is £60 for adults and £25 for under 16-21 year olds and is actually FREE for anyone UNDER 16. Not exactly prohibitive is it Mac?

£60/25 seems pretty good value for an event which lasts from 06:30-7pm anyway. Certainly better value for money than seeing 22 tossers run around a pitch for 90 mins.

Similarly you could book tickets for your travel in advance and also receive discounts.

Do Football clubs let in under 16's for free? Not many.


That seems pretty bloody reasonable to me. Not sure how cheap you actually expect them to make it. Please also remember, sporting events are not a charity. They are not a benevolent service to help those who you consider poor to attend sporting events, but given the deductions for being 21 and under, seems they are doing better than some sports.

It's also a once in a year event, not 19 weeks a year like home matches of your local EPL team.

Here's an idea, given that you know WHEN and WHERE The Open will be YEARS in advance, put a few quid away every week. Not difficult is it?

Ahh the indignation of the unaffected. Love it.

Come on, stop being so pathetic. If someone wants to go to the golf, how many people can't afford to put away £3 per week to make sure they can go to Birkdale next year? Exactly what proportion of the population is that ticket price excluding? Hardly any. What do you want the ticket price to be? £1?

It's really not that expensive. Could it be cheaper? Could just about everything in the world be cheaper? Probably, but it's not a charity.

Events don't exist on the basis that everyone in society ought to be able to afford it. It's not bloody Soviet Russia.

super_realist wrote:Come on, stop being so pathetic. If someone wants to go to the golf, how many people can't afford to put away £3 per week to make sure they can go to Birkdale next year? Exactly what proportion of the population is that ticket price excluding? Hardly any. What do you want the ticket price to be? £1?

It's really not that expensive. Could it be cheaper? Could just about everything in the world be cheaper? Probably, but it's not a charity.

Events don't exist on the basis that everyone in society ought to be able to afford it. It's not bloody Soviet Russia.

Calm down my dear, it's too hot, you'll blow a gasket!
Your assessment of how everyone else in the country lives is all very interesting but I would suggest that many people cannot afford to put £3 a week away to travel to the Open.
I don't care what the ticket price is - it was a discussion about why the numbers are down. And some have put their views forward which you then rubbished without offering considered alternatives. As is your wont.

Of course it’s supply and demand. But if you judge by the over inflated prize money in golf and the salaries of football players you have to conclude that the ticket prices are too high as they inevitably contribute to support such system. I’m sure golfers and footballers would do the same job for one fifth of the money. I’m not arguing for a communist system, but whether you objectively can conclude that the tickets are too expensive. And they are. But nothing wrong with that, it’s just a shame.

MontysMerkin wrote:

super_realist wrote:Come on, stop being so pathetic. If someone wants to go to the golf, how many people can't afford to put away £3 per week to make sure they can go to Birkdale next year? Exactly what proportion of the population is that ticket price excluding? Hardly any. What do you want the ticket price to be? £1?

It's really not that expensive. Could it be cheaper? Could just about everything in the world be cheaper? Probably, but it's not a charity.

Events don't exist on the basis that everyone in society ought to be able to afford it. It's not bloody Soviet Russia.

Calm down my dear, it's too hot, you'll blow a gasket!
Your assessment of how everyone else in the country lives is all very interesting but I would suggest that many people cannot afford to put £3 a week away to travel to the Open.
I don't care what the ticket price is - it was a discussion about why the numbers are down. And some have put their views forward which you then rubbished without offering considered alternatives. As is your wont.

I'd quite like a Private Jet, but I'm not going to barrack Learjet to make one that fits in with my budget.

If you can't afford £3 a week over the course of the year, that's not the responsibility of any sporting event to cater for it, just because a very small minority of people allegedly can't afford £3 and who also want to attend the Open, doesn't mean the R&A have to provide a ticket type pertaining to that miniscule minority.

How have I not considered alternatives? I said it lower attendances most likely WASN'T price related seeing as they haven't changed appreciably from times when attendances were HIGHER. I've also suggested it is more likely that the reasons for a reduction in attendance is down to a waning interest in the game of golf AND poor weather.  Seems far more likely than people not having a spare £2-£3 a week doesn't it?

Pedro, How do you know the tickets are too expensive? Have you asked the R&A how much it costs to set up an Open? The four days of competition is only what you see. Have you asked them how much they make profit comes in after costs? Have you asked them how much it costs to run the numerous qualifying events and try and grow the game in other parts of the world?

Personally, I can't stand the R&A as a bunch of individuals, but in regards to a comparison with football clubs, it's a bit more of an altruistic organisation in that its loyalties are to the game of golf, not paying individuals or shareholders. The money from Open's goes back into the game at many levels that you might not realise.

Could it do a similar job if you cut the ticket price by two thirds? Maybe, maybe not.

Super you are losing track of the argument. Someone suggested that the price of an open ticket might be a reason for lower attendance, and you rubbished this idea saying it would be ridiculous if someone couldn't afford the ticket price.

I have responded to your accusation that ticket price has no baring on attendance figures by pointing out that people with other responsibilities might see a day at the open as an expense not worth having.

McLaren wrote:Super you are losing track of the argument.  Someone suggested that the price of an open ticket might be a reason for lower attendance, and you rubbished this idea saying it would be ridiculous if someone couldn't afford the ticket price.

I have responded to your accusation that ticket price has no baring on attendance figures by pointing out that people with other responsibilities might see a day at the open as an expense not worth having.

I haven't missed the point at all Mac, as if you'd bother to read my posts you'd notice that I said that the ticket pricing hasn't changed appreciably since attendance was higher, vis a vis, attendance drop is less likely to be about price.

Personally, I wouldn't spend my own money going either, as I'd rather be playing golf than watching it, perhaps Golf as a spectacle is just a bit boring and not enough people have an interest in it to maintain exactly the same attendance year on year.

Troon 2016 attendance was 98.1% of that of 2004, a mere 3276 difference over 4 days. Is that really worth digging into too closely?

Even if all of those were full paying people on the door, that's only a loss of £262,000.

Troon attendance may have been 98% of 2004, but it was 85% of 2014 and only 73% of 2015.

What's the capacity of a golf course? It's a big place, if Phoenix manages 200,000 a day you could fit in 100,000 a day at an Open venue, say 500,000 over the week. In this context, basic supply and demand indicates that the tickets are over-priced.

Maybe £80 sounds like comparable value with Wimbledon, the Lords test, a premier league match at Stamford Bridge or the Emirates. But 10 million people can hop on a tube and get to those events within an hour. If you want to get people out to Troon you need to bring prices down to increase the catchment area.

It's not about saving up £3 a week for an annual visit to the golf, it's clear the Open is perceived as poor value for money because of the high associated costs of travel, not to mention lengthy travel time.

beninho wrote:£120 for the British GP is expensive,

A friend of mine paid £750 for him and his wife on the Sunday, seats opposite finishing line. Included parking.

raycastleunited wrote:Troon attendance may have been 98% of 2004, but it was 85% of 2014 and only 73% of 2015.

Maybe £80 sounds like comparable value with Wimbledon, the Lords test, a premier league match at Stamford Bridge or the Emirates. But 10 million people can hop on a tube and get to those events within an hour. If you want to get people out to Troon you need to bring prices down to increase the catchment area.

It's not about saving up £3 a week for an annual visit to the golf, it's clear the Open is perceived as poor value for money because of the high associated costs of travel, not to mention lengthy travel time.

Glasgow is one of the UK's biggest cities, and it's less than an hour from there to Troon by train.

The Open is perceived as poor value for money because it IS poor value for money. At most venues you can't even park close by, and go back to the car if you need to. It's a half hour queue and bus ride from Muirfield to the car park, in spite of the monstrous field to the south of the course sitting empty except for a few TV trucks.

George

I think the field you are talking about tends to have some sort of crop in it. Maybe the crop is worth more to the farmer than the R and A will pay them to use it as a car park every 10 years or so.



Does anyone else prefer going to a smaller tour event where you can basically treat it as a pic nic where some golf is watched?

George1507 wrote:

raycastleunited wrote:Troon attendance may have been 98% of 2004, but it was 85% of 2014 and only 73% of 2015.

Maybe £80 sounds like comparable value with Wimbledon, the Lords test, a premier league match at Stamford Bridge or the Emirates. But 10 million people can hop on a tube and get to those events within an hour. If you want to get people out to Troon you need to bring prices down to increase the catchment area.

It's not about saving up £3 a week for an annual visit to the golf, it's clear the Open is perceived as poor value for money because of the high associated costs of travel, not to mention lengthy travel time.

Glasgow is one of the UK's biggest cities, and it's less than an hour from there to Troon by train.

The Open is perceived as poor value for money because it IS poor value for money. At most venues you can't even park close by, and go back to the car if you need to. It's a half hour queue and bus ride from Muirfield to the car park, in spite of the monstrous field to the south of the course sitting empty except for a few TV trucks.

Yep I'd agree, Troon is pretty accessible being a short train ride from Glasgow. It'd be interesting to know the geographical split of the crowd. From my perspective whilst £80 may not seem excessive compared to similar big events, it IS poor value absolute no brainer. If it were say £40 I would guess the weeks attendance figures maybe wouldn't be double but it wouldn't be far off. The thing is they also make money from the merchandising and food and drink so the entrance fee could easily be lower, maybe they don't want it that way, maybe bigger crowds up the cost of stewarding and policing.

I mentioned geographical make up of the crowd earlier, North Ayrshire is steeped in golf so there would be a sizeable pool of golfers to tap into, for those coming further afield there are plenty of hotels....and here's another point, I know the area well and know the normal average price of hotel rooms. Last week most hotels in a 20 mile radius were charging between 4 and 10 (yes effing TEN) times their normal rate. THAT will put non local visitors off in their thousands. Having said that I've no doubt Eastern Fife, Southport, Edinburgh, Dundee & Eastern Kent hotels will do the same. So unless you live within an easily commute it IS prohibitively expensive.

raycastleunited wrote:Troon attendance may have been 98% of 2004, but it was 85% of 2014 and only 73% of 2015.

What's the capacity of a golf course? It's a big place, if Phoenix manages 200,000 a day you could fit in 100,000 a day at an Open venue, say 500,000 over the week. In this context, basic supply and demand indicates that the tickets are over-priced.

Maybe £80 sounds like comparable value with Wimbledon, the Lords test, a premier league match at Stamford Bridge or the Emirates. But 10 million people can hop on a tube and get to those events within an hour. If you want to get people out to Troon you need to bring prices down to increase the catchment area.

It's not about saving up £3 a week for an annual visit to the golf, it's clear the Open is perceived as poor value for money because of the high associated costs of travel, not to mention lengthy travel time.

You can't compare attendance in two different venues.

So what if Troon had fewer attendees than St.Andrews? Why would you expect it to be a constant? The only thing constant between 2015 St.Andrews and Troon WAS the price of the tickets. So if that was the same, there are OTHER REASONS for FEWER PEOPLE. Christ, how hard is that to understand?

Tickets for Troon were SIXTY pounds if you booked them before May 31, just as it was at St.Andrews last year (I had a pass for the week)

Lastly, I don't know if you've ever been to an Open, but space is limited, and whilst Phoenix might be able to cater for 200,000 plus, the likes of TOC, Carnoustie, Muirfield etc certainly are not, not even half of that, Furthermore, the R&A do not intend to have that many people on site, there simply wasn't the SUPPLY, you seem so keen on peddling.

Troon was down just over 3000 people on the last time it held it, I doubt the R&A are overly concerned about that.

Face it, there are plenty other reasons to talk about differences in attendances year on year than simple price, as that seems the only thing which remains fairly constant over time despite fluctuating attendances.

Who says the R&A even want 100k people there a day? They were only projecting 176,000 OVER THE TOURNAMENT. It isn't set up, nor is it intended to cater for 100k per day.

British towns which hold the Open simply aren't designed to have an influx of 100k people per day. The infrastructure comparison with the likes of Phoenix is a completely different setting.