Clubhouse Story

We’ve now got planning permission for the clubhouse development. It’s an important stage but just a stage in the process.

Discussions started about renewing/refurbishing the clubhouse about twenty years ago, well before I became a member. This suggests:

- there really are problems that need to be dealt with, and

- despite that we’ve managed to cope so they haven’t been that urgent; we have the time to get it right.

After the centenary and the course purchase a development committee was formed; the first priority was the new greenkeepers’ shed; the second the clubhouse and a plan incorporating lots of good ideas was drawn up; unfortunately the cost was estimated at well over £1m and so the plan was dropped. The need to deal with the inadequacies of the structure, kitchen, heating, wiring, plumbing meant we started to plan again about four years ago. This post sets out, for the record, what we’ve done and why.

Initially we a) asked what members thought; b) chose a firm of architects; c) carried out a structural survey; and d) held a forum with members to get detailed views. All this informed a design brief for the architects and we gradually refined the plans to those which were put forward and endorsed at the second forum. The key decision was not the design itself: instead it was to deal with the inevitable high cost by saying we would first agree the plan and then only start once we had dealt with the financing rather than – as before – give up, and we would phase it if necessary.

The plan, with an estimated cost, was presented and endorsed at a second forum and we then went for planning permission. After some interesting discussions with the conservation officer about the sightlines, window details and the way that the existing extension blends into the landscape (?) we got planning permission. As the notice in the clubhouse and on the website states, we will now get a detailed specification (hopefully complete by February) and then put them out to tender (during March). If there are no surprises we’ll present the final plan, the costs and the financing plan to another forum and an EGM. We’ve wondered whether to have just one meeting, but decided to have both so that any concerns can be picked up and dealt with at the forum.

You might remember that the plan lends itself to minimum disruption. We aim to start work in October and be complete for the beginning of the following year’s season. The nature of the work means that we should be without a kitchen for only about four to six weeks, in the early part of the year.

We’ve had positive feedback from a number of members about donations, tee sponsorships and loans to help finance the project; we also plan to offer a limited number of life memberships. Ian Brown and I are talking to those who’ve offered some of the larger amounts so we can prepare a detailed package. We expect to do this in Spring and – subject to the project being approved - would hope to ask for money in late summer to be ready for the start of building. We have also prepared a tee sponsorship package similar to the one used for the Centenary but which would last for three years.

The final thing we’ve done this year is a full repainting of the clubhouse repairing much of the badly damaged woodwork. The previous work was not done to such a high quality and we decided to do it now so we could repair the woodwork and prevent it from needing replacement at a later date, at a high cost. We’ve phased the quality: the work at the back of the clubhouse, which will be affected by the development project, has been done with a two to three year time frame in mind. Also – how many of you have noticed that one window in the dining room has been replaced with a double glazed unit? This was done to test how easily that can be done: the answer is quite easily and all the windows at the front will eventually be double glazed. 

 

The plan for next year in summary is:

- Get detailed drawings: February

- Tender: March

- Finalise loan, life membership and tee sponsorship arrangements: April

- Forum/EGM: May/June

- Appoint builders: July

- Collect funds: August

- Start work: October

All this assumes there are no surprises and that members continue to endorse the project. The main caveat is financial: if we are not confident about the financial arrangements then we will delay the project until it can easily be afforded. This year has not been an easy one financially, principally because of the weather; we hope to be profitable but not by as much as the budget or last year. The cash we generated has been used to buy some machinery which should benefit the course – a grinder and a turf iron – and to pay for professional fees which form a necessary part of the development. We should have as much in October next year as we expected for the start of the project but we will watch finances carefully and if next year is also a bad one for visitor income then we may delay. One thing we will not do is risk not investing in the course because of the clubhouse.

Four years ago a common question I was asked is “why are we doing anything?” Now most members I speak to recognise that we have to improve the clubhouse and the most frequent question I’m asked is “when are we starting?”. I hope the above gives a clue.

Turkey Trot Blues

Now the Turkey Trot is over half way through it’s a good time to reflect on the results to date.

As with so much to do with golf, the weather has had a big impact – but unlike the rest of the year it’s been positive with most weekends having been calm and dry. This has meant the number of people playing is up on last year, and the number of rounds is about 20% higher. Strangely, though, the average scoring is low, at least until the recent efforts by Hugh Adair which have seen his handicap come down by 6 over two weeks.

Despite the better weather, the average scores have been about 5% lower than last year.

Are we all not as good as last year? Do we need Christmas presents of better equipment? Are the extra rounds being played by worse players ie the good scorers play in all conditions? Perhaps the greens, with the late treatment this year, mean we are putting more? Or maybe we are used to windy conditions so calm weather means we play less well. Who knows? Something to speculate on during the backswing.

This year’s competition has been my first chance to become involved in running a competition and checking cards etc. As a result I’m even more grateful to the people who do this each week during summer. It’s not as easy as it seems particularly as each week people seem to confuse the dates of Saturday or Sunday, forget to put their names on the sheet or on the money envelopes or to put their cards in: there’s always a discrepancy. It is a pain – although I can hardly grumble since the only time I (almost) won a competition in 2012 was the time I forgot both to sign in and sign my card.

Rules

Rules are important for golf. And for golf clubs.  And for competitions between golf clubs. But rules often don’t cover circumstances that arise. Hence the fascinating, if you’re that way inclined, book “Decisions on the Rules ofGolf”. Hence our current review of our rules. And hence our attempt at the recent AGM of the North Northumberland League to deal with a couple of anomalies.

We have been an important part of the North Northumberland League for a number of years, for example winning it five times in the last decade. The matches themselves are usually good to watch, and we usually have many more supporters than the other side. A couple of years ago the League agreed to add a couple of new teams and to split into two divisions. The benefit of two divisions and more teams was that each team in the top league could play home and away, so reducing any home advantage, and the teams were a bit more evenly matched. The disadvantage was that it split the league. And also that no thought was given to how clubs with two teams should operate in terms of team selection and most importantly whether there should be B teams in the top league.

Theoretically, as there are four clubs with B teams (Magdalene Fields, Goswick, Dunstanburgh and Foxton), you could have a eight team division A with just four clubs particpating; even if there are one or two B teams more matches would be played at just one or two clubs giving some form of advantage; even if there are no tactics employed with team selection there is scope for an advantage for clubs with two clubs. Secondly, the rules did not comfortably deal with what happens when – as happened in 2012 - a club does not get a full team out for a particular match – at the moment, the other club is deemed to win 12 – 0.

Keith Whitfield put a lot of work into drafting a new approach for these issues with the most important suggestion being that a club could not have two teams in the top league – as is the case, for example, in the Ladies County Shield. This was an unemotional year to make that suggestion since Foxton’s B team had been relegated and none of the others had been promoted – although Goswick B nearly made it. Unfortunately although the AGM agreed with our proposals to make scores fairer if a club could not get a full team out they did not agree the changes for B teams.

At least the matter has been discussed but it strikes us as bizarre that the league is willing to see a potential concentration of clubs. Hopefully, having raised the matter this year it’ll come up again and common sense will prevail.

Closer to home, Keith together with Angela Peereboom and Mike Robinson have been preparing an update to our rules. This work has been long promised and is nearly complete: the fact is that it’s not easy to come up with a simple, plain English, set of rules to cover how we operate. There’s a number of topics where more than one approach is perfectly reasonable (eg how long should committee members stay on; should we allow proxy voting; what membership categories should we have and which should have voting and ownership rights; should the Ladies group have a separate committee) but we need to suggest an approach to these and then get members’ agreement. We think there are four levels of rules: the rules that govern how the club operates; by-laws that deal with detailed issues; competition rules that deal with how we run golf matters and local rules that apply on the course; all are being considered in this exercise.

Our intention is to send the draft rules (and by laws) to the national body that provides legal advice to golf clubs for comments and advice to make sure everything is covered properly (it should be: we have taken the EGU’s model rules as a guide) and then to send the draft to members, together with a summary of topics where we’d like members’ views. We’ll probably also hold a forum for those who’d like to discuss them – I suspect it won’t be as packed as the clubhouse development forums but of course it’ll be as interesting, at least to those people who attend. Once we are sure they have general acceptance we’ll present them for approval either at an AGM or an EGM.