Financial Management

Financial management at Peninsual Country Golf Club is a big topic with lots to discuss, going together with general (mis)managment of the club by the committee. As previously indicated, I intend to cover this topic in some depth in the near future.


For now, I just want to point out the latest example of this. It was absolutely terrific to learn that the club has been ripped off to the tune of what, $100k?, by the previous head chef.


Absolutely great!  Where on earth was the due diligence and financial oversight that ought to have been there? Nowhere to be seen. Gary Richardson, job well done. Really Gary, you're well and truly past your use-by date at the club and it's time to move on.

Accommodation

I read the letter from our Club Captain the other day. He says the club is not making any money on accommodation. That's absolutely great! So that bucket of money we spent renovating and extending the accommodation was wasted.


Just one of numerous examples of gross waste and financial mismanagment at the club. More on this topic at a later time.


However, I guess at least the committee is encouraging debate on the topic of administration and management of the club.

Green Coring

I further interrupt my analysis of Mike Clayton’s changes at Peninsula Country Golf Club for another topical issue. Green coring is a necessary evil in order to maintain the best possible standard of green. I think everybody accepts that.

However, it would be really good if Golf Operations at the club ensured that, as far as possible, scheduled competition rounds are played on the non-cored course. I know we have a custom of rotating the course week by week for regular competitions, but surely it would be sensible to slightly modify this to enable members to play comps on the best available course at the time.

Of course, this comment is made on the assumption that Golf Operations at PCGC hold members interests foremost. I certainly hope it’s not the case that Golf Operations give course access priority to fee paying guests who would otherwise refuse to play on cored greens.

Committee Election

Well, goodness me!  We have four candidates for the three available general committee positions, which means we have to have an actual election - for the first time in many years.

What happened?  Is Gary Richardson a bit off his game?  Very careless Gary – I’m sure you’re used to having full control over the committee. More on that topic another time.

Mike Clayton (7)

18 South.

The new tee area offers a magnificent panorama and setting for the first shot. In fact I think this would have been an outstanding Mike Clayton designed hole if it weren’t for the major flaw of the landing area for the drive. The average mid-handicap player will land the drive just short of the fairway slope that runs from the RH bunker across the fairway to the LH bunker. This means that a well-hit drive with a bit of run on it is almost certain to catch the slope and kick off-line into the LH bunker. There is maybe a 5m gap just to the left of the RH bunker in which to hit the drive so that it doesn’t end up in the LH bunker. Again, way too punitive for an otherwise well struck shot. I think any hole should provide a decent (at least 30m) landing area for a well hit, mostly straight drive.

Mike Clayton (6)

16 South.

There is much debate at the club on the pros and cons of the changes made by Mike Clayton on 16, 17 and 18. Previously, these were a strong par 3, a very strong par 4 and shortish par 5. The strong 16^th and 17^th have effectively been sacrificed in order to have the elevated tee on 18, thereby reducing it to a par 4.

Rather than discussing the merits or otherwise of the changes to these 3 holes as a whole, I’m going to stick to discussing each hole individually. I have no problems with 16; I think it is a good, strong par 5 that generally rewards good shots and punishes bad shots.

17 South.

In its original form, Mike Clayton’s 17^th had a number of flaws. A ridiculous 2-tiered green and insufficient landing area in the back part of the green combined with punitive rough close to the back of the green being the most obvious.

I think any green should offer the chance of being able to putt the ball close to the hole from any part of the green. If you are on the green, it should not be physically impossible to get the ball close to the hole. Very difficult is fine, but impossible is stupid. That goes for 8 South as well.

The recent changes made by the club have not only improved the hole, but demonstrate that Mike Clayton is not the paragon of all things golf at the club that some people seem to think.

Mike Clayton (5)

14 South.

I’ve seen well-struck shots land on the green short and left and then run back down into the deep bunker. I think if you can make good contact and hit a shot that lands on the green, you probably deserve to stay on the green. You certainly don’t deserve to end up in a bunker. That’s a design flaw with this hole.

15 South.

The green on this hole is another design flaw. All but the very longest hitters will be playing a blind 3^rd shot to this green. Wouldn’t be a problem if the green was small, but this very long (from front to back) green gives no depth perception for the approach shot. This means that how close your approach shot is to the pin is again more a test of luck than a test of good golf.