Mike Clayton and conflict of interest.

By now you can tell that I don’t think much of many of the changes Mike Clayton made at Peninsula Country Golf Club. A great number of the changes seem rather pointless to me other than serving as change for change’s sake.

It would be really nice to think that the changes Mike Clayton made were truly for the benefit of the club, and that my disagreeing with them is simply a case of an inferior golfing knowledge on my part (or at least a different point of view). However, the sad thing is that a purely self-interest motivation on Mike Clayton’s part cannot be ruled out.

Mike Clayton, through his Golf Design company was acting as both consultant and contractor to the club. This is a clear conflict of interest.

If you want convincing, consider 4^th and 5^th South as just one example. If Mike Clayton had nothing to gain by changing a short par 5 followed by a long par 4 into a long par 4 followed by a short par 5, then his recommendation to make such a change would be above reproach. However, Mike Clayton the consultant, making this suggestion and convincing the club to proceed resulted in Mike Clayton the contractor making a motza on the actual construction work. Nice work if you can get it!

I find it distressing that the Committee either didn’t see this as a conflict of interest, or chose to ignore it. And from what I’ve seen of how the club runs, I’d bet my own motza that their actions in so doing were overwhelmingly influenced by Gary Richardson, Mike Clayton’s good mate.