Warragul’s golf course sits in a picturesque parkland setting on what used to be the outer edge of town and is now being swallowed up by the town’s gradual continued growth. Indeed, part of the land is attractive enough that if the club were to ever take on a proposed move elsewhere, Council want to purchase a fair chunk of it for a Botanical Gardens. At other points however, the open rolling farmland views have been taken over by rows of uniformly near-identical housing estate abodes complete with their licorice-like strips of roadway striping up and down each slope. Apparently, if they can settle on a good patch of dirt to buy, they have been offered enough cash for their existing one to be turned into more housing so that the club’s future and ability to spend up on a high quality new course are assured.

For the time being, the traditional home is the field of play, and it is a perfectly harmless if at times uninspiring journey. The land undulates in a way that is very appealing in places and allows for better scope than the average club for design and routing quality, and at other points is a little uncomfortably dramatic and the attempt to cross the deep creek at the western end of the property six times in the first eight holes is awkward and to the detriment of some holes. In fact, the front nine all basically heads east/west across the ravine, and the back nine plots its way north/south across the other half of the property, making the routing a little more unimaginable than it perhaps could have been, but then again it has to fit into an adequately sized but not enormous overall space. The clubhouse location at the foot of this gently rolling property is located to allow for a charming end to the round with a cascading finale, whereas #18 is a disappointingly bland downhill par 3 with a green seemingly jutting out of the hill on a ledge. One can see from the back left of the green on #17 that there perhaps used to be a par 4 down through what is now practice fairway to the clubhouse to finish with. I’m not sure if it was to befriend the new houses lining the boundary or to create a practice fairway or what have you, but the resulting change just sticks in your throat a bit.

The course was very dry, enough so to indicate in some places that the club has already determined it will move and so doesn’t want to outlay the highest ongoing sums on the existing patch. However, despite in a couple of places the fairways being reduced to near dust-like condition, the playability and the lies were all fine. It may have been apologetically dry to look at, but it all played soundly and fairly, and enabled firm and fast conditions for golf without being hard and bumpy. So I have no qualms about the fairways. The greens had all been very heavily watered by mid morning, and were a little slow and verging on holding casual water in places. The tees were almost level in places.

Among many of the early holes, the green complexes weren’t so at all. They were green simples. Relatively oval shaped putting surfaces that rose the proverbial inch or two off the fairway, with no imaginative features or bunkering. A few holes showed a bit of leg progressively through the round, with some bunkers and a resulting more complex green construction. The later the round progressed, the better on average the greens were as features, though almost never internally contoured. #9 is two tiered, but no others seem to show any resistance to two putting from anywhere inside 30-40 feet. It is once again hard to be really critical of what one finds in regional towns (here it is Jack, the “perfectly acceptable country craphole” analogy of yours), especially as $17.50 is the full whack green fee, and our foursome paid half that with the Golf Course Guide. But unlike some others in this boat, I think there is even less effort to maintain interest here than at most other serviceable rural courses. The maintenance is never really poor, but I’d reckon that I would be kept more interested than here if I played the likes of Garfield instead, which is shorter but more complex in its construction and nuances. That said, if I lived in Warragul, my home club at least until the move would be Trafalgar.

The first hole winds uphill to a bland green, followed by the first crossing of the ravine on #2. Although the green looks a long way away, the hole is topographically a V shape, where one simply knocks it down the hill and then pitches up to the green. Cut into and jutting out of the slope, the green therefore like many on country tracks in a hill has a steep front bank and a high steep bank over the back.

The dogleg right #3 makes better use of the vista overlooking the deep creek. The tee shot below is quite terrifying I imagine for the lesser golfer, with a carry of around 150m just to reach the starting point of the fairway even on the conservative line.

#3 tee.

Once in the fairway, the slight left to right camber sets up the need for a careful shot in to the smallish and uneventful green. The vistas however have made it the first signs of some interest so far.

#3 behind green.

The shortish par 4 #4 is also more attractive looking, and heads back over the ravine over a lesser carry and gently up the rise to a green perched a tad to the right and fronted by the first bunker we’ve seen. The slightly steeper green slope from back to front is also a welcome change from the flatter saucers we’ve putted on thus far. This hole becomes the first of many short par 4s. Barring two or three holes, every par 4 here is under 330ish metres.

#5 is the problem hole that went where it is because that is where it fits. Whilst unloved by many and for good reason, it is perfectly easy to see how when some town planner or local plotted out a course, a hole was up there on the western edge of the property just waiting to be squeezed in to make the rest of the holes where they are across the ravine. Unfortunately, it just doesn’t work. From the tee, the hole looks narrow but reasonably sound, with gentle mounding suppressing the view of what lies beyond. Then, one panics at the thought we’ve just hit driver when we see a ledge drop off to the right and a narrow and uncomfortable funnel of flattish lend leading up to the green. By the time you reach the putting surface, its width is the entire width of the ledge. In theory, it sounds like a perfectly legitimate risk/reward hole. But if so, you have to see it to accept it is a bit of a dog.

#5 from just short of the landing area.

Apparently (as suggested to me by a staffer), Mike Clayton has suggested lengthening #4 to reposition the green into the zone just in front of the #5 tee, and therefore change #5 into a par 3 of fairer note than its incumbent. But given the possibility over the next 5-6 years of the course moving, changes costing more than a few bob are not likely.

#6 is a very short par 4 from near the bottom of the ravine back up to a better than normal green here with right hand side protective bunkering. #7 insists we haven’t had enough of this doubling back over the abyss by heading straight back again, and is the only par 3 in the first 14 holes. Like #2, a ledge green cut in the slope makes for steep front, steep back.

On #8, we say a final goodbye to the possible but not likely Warragul Botanical Gardens Site and its deep creek and back up into the more gently rolling slope of the remainder of the property. I say not likely because Council’s offer is significantly less than that of the other developer. Perhaps if Council’s offer came with other permits and “understandings” in lieu of cash, a good long term wicket could be had by the club! Anyway, the creek has been a bit mishandled in the routing, and #8 is not about to let us forget it. Like with #3, it is a lesser golfer’s nightmare to stand on the tee. Over the depths once again, only this time with one of the more claustrophobically narrow landing zones over a forced carry one could hope not to have to face! The women get an even more raw deal, down the bottom of the hill to the left from the view of the mens’, and out of thick trees in the darkness straight up the steepest part of the slope. The hole winds gradually up, and veers left and widens (thank heavens) near the well located green at the top of the property and near the centre of the whole course.

#8 tee, better get some clubface on this one!

#9 heads from up here down to the bottom again by the roadside, and is (yet another) short par 4. It tries to be a little cleverer than the other holes so far, and I’ll give it its dues for maintaining interest. Down the hill with a service road (inbounds and in play) off to its right and some mounds in the gentle rough on the inside of the dogleg left, it then heads through a narrow neck of fairway alongside the mounds to the flat landed but two tiered green with a bunker protecting the back right (and the cars and passers by).

#9 from the conservative landing zone into the green

#9 from behind the two tiered green looking back

#10 runs up the hill alongside #1, and I can’t help but think they might one day have been switched, as finishing either means crossing behind the other to play the next hole. Like #1, we have now returned to a bland oval shaped featureless green on an otherwise good hole. The par 4 #11 plays gradually down the slight hill to a good green, guarded right by the most thoughtfully constructed looking bunker so far, that naturally seeps off the green surface and down the gentle grade to the next tee. #12 is a par 5 arising gradually up again in the opposite direction and turning a little left right at the end. #13 is a welcome change being a long par 4 of 400m and heads back down again, and like #11, has a little more going for it in that there has been some effort to avoid blandness by having a feature or two along the way. A tongue of very light rough is more aesthetic than threatening, though I imagine when needing to avoid a no-spin second into a green banked in the side of a hill, fairway grass is better to hit from. The green gently sweeps from its left edge at fairway level to being banked on the right.

#14 follows the same direction and traversing the less mature edge of the course (made obvious by the lack of aged trees compared with the dark woods on parts of the front), it bends right to a large and generally unthreatening green. #15 is finally where one plays the second par 3 hole. Personally, I reckon if they wanted to make better use of the land for a more creative routing than they have, then four or five par 3s on the course would have made it more possible than the three they have, and also allowed the flexibility for less disadvantaged or boringly located tee shots on the par 4s and 5s. At least #15 is a good one. A deep trap to the left and shallow less inspiring (but effective in preventing the cowardly bunt up the hill rolling down onto the green) grass bunkers to the right guard the well perched green.

#15, par 3.

#16 is another of the slightly better holes, easing up and to the left on this subtly concave edge of the plot and ending with its green located in one of the better green sites on the grounds. Though the bunkers sweep off the green slope on the naturally lower side as looks the logical thing to do, it does mean they are on the same side as the ideal angle of approach from the shorter route down the left side of the fairway. That said, in this case it allows the left half player to play further away from them and less worrying straight up the slope than he on the right side and with the suggestive side hill camber of the land almost directing him instinctively towards them. Angles at play can mean a lot more than simply what side the bunkers are on. Am I giving the hole too much credit here? Probably, but it played as I’ve written.

#16 second shot from the left half of the fairway

#16 green from the left and short of the green

#17 simply climbs the remainder of the slope up to the right to enable us to get to #18 tee, and ends with a green plonked in front of the defining tree line at the top. The rise from the fairway to the green is a little greater than on other back nine holes and makes for reasonable variation if not great design. Finally, the walk to a slightly disappointing finishing hole reveals the clubhouse once again and a thought of what opportunities were missed out here. Straight down the hill to a bland green with a pair of bunkers edging it, it is no momentous way to finish the round. Well away from the clubhouse precinct, it therefore has less need than other closing holes seem to feel to put on a nice frock or at least tempt the visitor gazing out the window into being inspired to play the course.

I’ve not set out to be harsh here on Warragul, and I’m not poisonous towards it in my words here intentionally. When one lives in a regional area, one joins the club, mixes with the people and has a good time doing so. That said, some clubs try harder than others to make the actual golf a very pleasant journey without having to spend a fortune on the place, or at least to make it clever enough to make use of what they have. Warragul has achieved less of this than many other clubs have, without being down among the bottom of the pile. The club was welcoming and the pro shop a large and well stocked outlet with a long term loyal pro. If you are playing out this way on the Princes Highway, either make it to Trafalgar (awesome, trust me) or if that is too far, turn off earlier and play the delightful Garfield.

Interesting review and interesting news on a possible move as well.

It is strange but I enjoyed playing the older (and quirkier) front nine more than the newer back nine. As you say, the fifth is perhaps the best known hole on the course (for all the wrong reasons).

It is worth noting that the old clubhouse was in fact at the top of the hill in the middle of the course (between the present 10th green and 11th tee. Most of the awkwardness in the looping of the course can be traced to the new clubhouse near the road. You can still see traces of the old back nine (a few tees and greens) as well near the top of the hill.

The back nine has the better bunkering. Bland holes, and a boring second half overall but on the front, there is just a pervasive desire for the criss crossing to end and to be able to simply get out of there. I don't often feel that on a golf course.

The front nine would make for excellent Matchplay, whilst the back would be ho-hum in that respect. Reverse them for a tournament I would consider doing.

I was down that way recently visiting the "in-laws". They are members at a near by Club but I had a game at Warragul. Seems to me they have tried hard with what they have but there are big rumours everywhere down there about the "internal" rumblings there. Seems the "drinkers" have out voted the "golfers" and a messy situation has arisen whereby the drinkers have control and all work on the course has stopped while the boys get themselves some better drinking facilities. Its more like a "social" club these days - not a golf Club according to what I am told.
Two Chairmen in two years (both golfers) have been beaten in acrimonious elections in the past couple of years by a non-golfer. Its one of the few Clubs around who give $20 social members the same voting rights as the $450 golf members - and any Club silly enough to allow that gets what it deserves and apparently they have.
I reckon that any move by the Club is a long shot - after all the "drinkers" would have to drive to a new course out of town instead of walking to the current location. Not likely according to my sources.
A bloke I played with told me that many members are very sorry that they put pokies in because the money certainly didnt buy happiness.

Stan

Your information is very good - and accurate! I will post a detailed reply later as to my thoughts about the place.

A 2500 word review of Warragul! I look forward to your 3000 word writeup on Pakenham.

tithers, your productivity has been low of late, but I see you've ramped up the quality now (pictures). Good stuff and thanks.

Tithers,

Nice review. I know a little bit about the place – being close to my place of residence. The local Council will not buy that land. Warragul is in dire need of a third railway crossing and with estimates for that around the $10 million mark I can’t see the Shire forking out between $12m and $15m for 110 acres of residential land.
A private developer may do so but the Club would need to get every bit of $12 million in order to purchase a new150 acres ($3m), design and build a course ($5), irrigate it ($1), build a Clubhouse ($2) and allow for other obvious contingencies. And that may even be underestimating it. Also Tatts wouldn’t allow the Club to move the gaming machines out of the town so they would need to somehow keep the current Clubhouse.
Having said that, Warragul has more than its fair share of “this is the greatest course outside of Melbourne” members so it would be difficult (but not impossible) to see members voting for a change... It also has more than its fair share of know alls who would love to sketch out the plans for a new course – and save all those design fees!
In respect of the fifth – Clayton says it is one of the worst three holes he has ever seen. I can’t dispute that but is definitely a shocker. But the Club has many members only too willing to tell you it is a hole that “makes you think” which is more a sad reflection on their knowledge of the great golf architecture in the world than anything else. It gives even the knowledgeable locals almost no chance of executing a decent shot off the tee and most good scores on the hole are a result of pure luck. At this time of year it is normally played with an iron to the left 20% of the fairway (OOB side) and with hope that it doesn’t roll too far right – you have an excellent photo of how bad it is. Clayton’s suggestion is a good one – but one that was rejected by a group of disaffected members who doggedly opposed that and many other suggestions he came up with.
Clayton did a master plan for the Club about 8 or 9 years ago and the previous Board began to implement it with the assistance of the Poker Machine money. They made good progress until both the fall in gaming revenue and the amazing need by some members for more drinking facilities! In fact two of the current seven person Board (including the Chairman) are not even golfers so one can imagine where their priorities lie.
You have described each of the holes well. I believe that #17 almost rivals #5 as the worst. It is a blind second shot (especially so in winter) for most golfers to a small flat green with a large greenside valley on the right. It has a row of pines located about 3 feet from the back of the green so is almost impossible at timesto judge where to hit. Clayton originally also suggested it become a par three but this was also rejected by some of the aforementioned members.
#15 is the best par three but badly in need of reconstruction with the bunker holding plenty of water in winter. The course badly lacks a small par 3 and the suggestion over on #5 would have rectified this.
The best holes are #1 and #13 – medium par 4’s. You are correct in thinking that #1 and #10 have been swapped – they were about 2 years ago. All the other par 4's are so short they require no more than a half wedge second for even the average player
About 5 new tees have been built in recent years but that program has now stopped. At least the new ones face the fairways - most others are incorrectly aligned.
A dam was constructed some years back and irrigation supplied to #1, #3, #9, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17 and #18. As you mentioned this program has also stopped. And that was not because of any posible move. Legend couch was also sprigged on to about 5 holes but that has also stopped
The only bunker you mentioned which had some interest was built by Clayton on #11 as a “test” bunker to show the members what was possible. It worked a treat but priorities lay elsewhere. Sadly that program has also stopped.
The previous Boards began a judicious tree removal program but that also stopped after protests by members about the destruction of such beautiful specimens. The main problem is that they have such big trees and such narrow fairways. I should add that the Club has an excellent Superintendent who has worked some minor miracles with what country he has at his disposal.
The Clubhouse is excellent with dining and gaming facilities and easily the best around – maybe that is where the priority is.
You are also correct about Trafalgar – easily the best course in the district. I know you like Maffra (as I do) and Sale is the other one worth a visit if in Gippsland.
Drouin, Morwell and sadly Warragul are at the lower end of the field in Gippsland.

Specky,

Could the sell the exiting course to a delveloper, keep the clubhouse to appease the pisshead members and Tatts, and move to a new site on the edge of tow with a new course? And at the same time restructure the membership so that the drinkers have no influence over the golf club and vice versa?

Jack,

Keeping the Clubhouse where it is is almost the only way it would work. It would mean two Clubhouses but one would be generating a fair income. The land as an overall package would be worth less without the 5 or 6 acres currently used up by the current building, carpark etc.

Finding siutable land would be difficult but not impossible. I know which area is ideal but if its not for sale (and it isnt) the price would be very high. Good farming land in the area is worth upwards of $8,000 to $10,000 per acre as it is.

As for the Constitutional change? Cant see the current Chairman supporting that one if he isnt a golfer himself.

QUOTE: speckymagee @ Jan 9 2006, 07:08 PM

Nice review. I know a little bit about the place – being close to my place of residence. The local Council will not buy that land. Warragul is in dire need of a third railway crossing and with estimates for that around the $10 million mark I can’t see the Shire forking out between $12m and $15m for 110 acres of residential land.
A private developer may do so but the Club would need to get every bit of $12 million in order to purchase a new150 acres ($3m), design and build a course ($5), irrigate it ($1), build a Clubhouse ($2) and allow for other obvious contingencies. And that may even be underestimating it. Also Tatts wouldn’t allow the Club to move the gaming machines out of the town so they would need to somehow keep the current Clubhouse.

Specky,

Council are apparently now after a small portion of the land only, of around 30 odd acres, with the remainder going to the residential developer. And they have offered peanuts for it, which is why they won't get it. Is there really this magic developer who has offered heaps? Word is around $18m.

QUOTE: ttitheridge @ Jan 7 2006, 09:20 AM

One can see from the back left of the green on #17 that there perhaps used to be a par 4 down through what is now practice fairway to the clubhouse to finish with. I’m not sure if it was to befriend the new houses lining the boundary or to create a practice fairway or what have you, but the resulting change just sticks in your throat a bit.

There was a long downhill par 5 running along the boundary fence toward the clubhouse, and a par 4 coming back up the hill in the same direction, and was the 6th and 7th holes.

In the early 60's the first hole was a 170yd par 3 in the area adjacent to the current 11th hole. This later became a practice fairway when the current 11th hole was the 1st Hole.

The current 14th and 15th holes are obviously new, so pretty much 14 of the holes are unchanged for 45 years at least except for tree removal. Like most older golf courses they have become shorter over the years even though the grass is greener and the trees are thickening.

The original 18th hole (now the 8th) was an interesting challenge as it is impossible to reach or hit over the dogleg. Many long hitters would hit down the other fairway (away from the dogleg), to open up the green and reach with a fairway wood, rather than try to snap hook a 5 iron the regulation way. That may now be impossible if trees have grown enough I suppose.

I didnt think the 5th hole was that bad, but then again it may have been lengthened as i dont remember it being that long. My dad was one of the best golfers there in the 60's and I only remember him talking about todays 2nd hole being an issue as it was too difficult to get the ball up enough to hold the green from a downhill lie. So when it was a dry they would lay up to the top of the hill.

By the looks of the aerial picture on their website http://www.warragulcountryc... the course seems to have lost a lot of character by the removal of the old 6 & 7 holes and the associated tree's (there was a lot) and the new holes look rather featureless. I was pretty happy with the layout of the course as I had played it, probably more so with the better blend of routing and a much better finishing hole.

John Toyne has been the pro there for over 40 years - must be getting close to setting some sort of record.

QUOTE: marktheblake @ Jan 15 2006, 10:44 PM

There was a long downhill par 5 running along the boundary fence toward the clubhouse, and a par 4 coming back up the hill in the same direction, and was the 6th and 7th holes.

Other way round Mark - the par 5 seventh was along the fence, the sixth down to the road (current Clubhouse)

Toyne was employed by the Club in 1996. He had not been there for at least 15 years before that. They had a series of other professionals.

QUOTE: ttitheridge @ Jan 15 2006, 06:22 PM

Specky,

Council are apparently now after a small portion of the land only, of around 30 odd acres, with the remainder going to the residential developer. And they have offered peanuts for it, which is why they won't get it. Is there really this magic developer who has offered heaps? Word is around $18m.

Will check that one out.

John Toyne was also there in the 70s. He did his apprenticeship under Lyndsay Newlyn at Ballarat and pegged me as a Titheridge the moment he laid eyes on me. I think Warragul was his first post or not long after. Did he take a long sabatical perhaps?

QUOTE: ttitheridge @ Jan 16 2006, 09:13 AM

John Toyne was also there in the 70s. He did his apprenticeship under Lyndsay Newlyn at Ballarat and pegged me as a Titheridge the moment he laid eyes on me. I think Warragul was his first post or not long after. Did he take a long sabatical perhaps?

You are correct that he was there in the seventies. He departed in the late seventies and was the pro at Yallourn and Traralgon and a few others I think. He had a shop in the main area of Warragul in the early nineties (whilst the Club didnt have a pro) and then asked if they would build a new proshop for him and he went back when it was built.

QUOTE: speckymagee @ Jan 16 2006, 07:45 AM

Other way round Mark - the par 5 seventh was along the fence, the sixth down to the road (current Clubhouse)

Toyne was employed by the Club in 1996. He had not been there for at least 15 years before that. They had a series of other professionals.
Will check that one out.

Yeah I'll go with that. I have a newspaper article dated 1963 that shows 7th is the par 5. Dunno how long the it was exactly, but some bloke reached it with a 7 iron. Not bad for a uphill par 5 with that old gear.

It also said 1963 was the clubs 44th Open, so the club dates back to at least 1919.

In 1963 the 1st hole was a 180yd par 3, and was a Par 70, out 34, in 36.

Warragul was likely Toynes first club, mum mentioned he was very young when he started, like about 22. My first golf club was made up by John Toyne, a cut down 4 wood with his name on it. My first memory of it was around 70-71 but I know i had for a lot longer than that. Dad left Warragul for Traralgon in 69, so based on all that I figured John Toyne had to have been the Pro there since at least then.

BTW the bloke that does the Warragul website is a lurker here. Found a hidden link to the clubs history.
http://www.warragulcountryc...

also noticed that the current 12th is a double dogleg par 5, it used to be a 320 odd metre par 4 from the same tee, dog leg right when it was the 2nd hole.

I have just been down again to visit the family and was amazed at what I heard.

Apparently the Club has dispensed of the services of Clayton and Sloan and has ditched the masterplan they paid over $30,000 for just 7 or 8 years ago. The new consultant is Paul Glover (is that right?) and there will definitely be no move. The committee is stacked with either non golfers (cant move because the bar will go with it) or people whose houses back on to the course. Therefore no move.

They have decided to ditch the two grass strategy laid out in the masterplan and have killed off a few fairways and are planting 100% Legend Couch. Sloan warned that all couch would cause far too much run on those hills but has been ignored.

But there is more. They have redone the infamous fifth hole. Described by many as one of the top 10 worst in the country the locals have dispensed with the advice to turn it into a par three and have attempted to level it out.

Judge the results for yourself.

Here is Ttitheridge shot of the hole before renovation

Renovations from the 150 metre mark

About 120 out

120 out on the RHS next to the road

About 100 out

Looking back from the green

The road is all the way along the LHS, the fairway about 30 metres wide at the widest and narrows to about 20 meters and a huge fall on the RHS.

Oh dear. Embarassing...but true I believe.

I like the backdrop of the farmhouse to the green. Very rustic.

I was lucky enough to play there a few years ago with the Chairman. Top bloke and very switched on. Sounds like they need him back.

Shocker - Paul Glover must be a main roads engineer right? Definately a hole where a re-routing (or change to a par 3) was necessary.

QUOTE: mothman @ Oct 31 2006, 04:16 PM

Shocker - Paul Glover must be a main roads engineer right? Definately a hole where a re-routing (or change to a par 3) was necessary.

Apparently the Club has dispensed of the services of Clayton and Sloan and has ditched the masterplan they paid over $30,000 for just 7 or 8 years ago. The new consultant is Paul Glover (is that right?)

Paul Glover is a turf consultant who I would assume had nothing to do with redesign of the 5th hole. He was/is the superintendent at Spring Valley under John Sloan so I would assume there was a smooth transition brtween the two rather than the club "dispensing of the services of Clayton and Sloan", atleast on the turf side of things...

QUOTE: Jeffrey @ Oct 31 2006, 08:42 PM

Paul Glover is a turf consultant who I would assume had nothing to do with redesign of the 5th hole. He was/is the superintendent at Spring Valley under John Sloan so I would assume there was a smooth transition brtween the two rather than the club "dispensing of the services of Clayton and Sloan", atleast on the turf side of things...

I spoke to a couple of people who would know and I am told that you are indeed correct and that there was a smooth transition. But the mail is that Paul Glover did suggest the redesign of the fifth.

But more dramatic is that a birdie tells me that the sprigging of new couch on four holes including the fifth has not gone to plan and more than two weeks after the event there is little evidence of any living grass at all. The cool season grasses have been poisoned as part of the new grass policy but there is little couch either and a whole nine has been out of play for over a month now. Seems it will stay out of play for a lot longer yet and the troops are restless.

The same source mentioned a $40,000 figure that has gone west (which I find very hard to believe) if the grass does not grow. Apparently Glover's instructions were not followed.

There is a lot of finger pointing going on and it looks like the inmates are running the asylum!

Is this history repeating itself? Specky, did a former Warragul greenkeeper have difficulty keeping the couch sprigs alive also? And were these modifications designed by committee rather than architect?

Funny that ... the inmate no longer has anything to do with the asylum ... he took his bats and his balls and ran away ... the asylum is a much saner place without him ... and making money again !

Looks like someone walked from the bar to a computer and could still read .

AMAZING.