Tom and Gisele Wait Two Years to Get Accepted Into Country Club Next to Home
The article says that "application was stalled for two years while members debated whether the high-profile couple was a good fit."
What in the hell were they debating? Brady seems to be a model citizen, so it can't be a "crazy athlete" fear. Could it be the immigrant supermodel wife? That would seem absurd, even for the white-bred East Coast set...
http://www.mlive.com/news/us-world/index.ssf/2017/07/tom_brady_gisele_b…
Joe Montana got in right away.
Clutch.
Did you mean Joe Montegna? Joe Montana was a quarterback, you idiot.
Just Dawn.
And Tennille.
Places of that caliber don't need money, so they get off on exclusivity. Just like Cypress, or Pine Valley.
Bob Hope had a joke about how they had a membership drive at Cypress, they drove out 40 members.
Brookline is the site of the greatest and most embarrassing moment in US Ryder Cup history, Justin Leonard's putt.
I played a place last year that also keeps their membership quiet because they don't allow women members, so they don't want to call attention to themselves. I told my wife that it was definitely not my favorite place, and it definitely was not the greatest day I've ever had at a golf course......definitely not......
And I have a friend who's a member of a club locally that doesnt allow women I have a pretty good idea where you might've played.
Why did you both go out of your way to avoid naming the golf club(s) that don't allow women? Seems like the type of place that wouldn't deserve your discretion.
Because I'm not a member of the club and it might not be the same one he's referring to and they might've changed their rules since I played there.
But hey since you asked - Barrington Country Club is the name of the place I was at.
Jacks place in Aurora?
The course I'm talking about used to have a US open qualifier. The USGA told them to allow women members or else they're going to take away the qualifying tournament. The club responded with fine, we don't need your tournament.
It was such a great day, there's a club collective mindset of move quickly. Get to your ball, hit your ball, move. We played 18 in 3.5 hours and we were pushed by the group behind us the entire way, it was heaven.
I thought it was hilarious that Ahuja was trying to get a PGA tournament at Barrington. My buddy worked there, so we got to play it. There's no place to park, and there's zero room for any sort of gallery to stand. He flew Jack in to discuss it with him.
I really cannot fathom why we can't have men-only places and women-only places. Men and women are different. Sometimes men want a place to hang out without women to nag them about making everything perfect the way women want it. Sometimes women want to hang out without a bunch of belching, farting men making stupid comments. If a group of guys or a group of women want to get together and have a place of refuge from the other, that's been the natural thing for almost all of human existence. I wish we could have that without guilt-tripping the crap out of people.
Because segregation is wrong.
No, it's really not, not in the sense of being this automatic determinant of things that are evil and things that are good 100% of the time. As always, a 100% rule that can never be broken is very, very rarely a good idea. (Notice I didn't say never - that would be ironic if you think about it.) It's wrong to tell people of two different races they have to drink from different fountains. It's wrong to tell a qualified applicant they can't work somewhere because the boss only wants men. It's completely acceptable (and always has been) to have guys' night out or gals' night out, and ought to be equally acceptable to formalize that sometimes.
This isnt a "girls night out." This is a privately owned company saying "no guys allowed."
That's wrong.
Your analogy is flawed.
You're perfectly welcome to keep arguing for segregation though. It's pretty hilarious.
Nevermind
Universities routinely refuse to admit students who want to go there. So they segregate against students who aren't great at Math, and they sure as shit don't educate for free.
Universities only admit students who meet certain criteria, and who can pay to be there. Some students meet both of those stipulations, and still don't get accepted. What's the difference?
You are in control of your grades... It is a meritocracy.
Not so much with race or gender, etc.
A private club with private money can do whatever they want. Nobody is stopping somebody from starting a women's only golf club. I have yet to see protests in front of any Curves gym.
Private golf courses are subsidized with tax payer money as they fall under public parks.
The more you know.
Hard to believe every private course receives tax money to keep it operating, local government officials would get booted quick.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-organization-seeks-hefty-tax-break…
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1091&context=…
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2017/06/12/malcolm-gl…
The practice of undervaluing private courses causing a tax break of roughly half is prevalent. The tax burden is then placed on those who can not afford to file grievnces and appeal taxation values on thier property. This an efffectual subsidy.
So your first source is a specific club negotiating with the local government for a tax break, but your own source states they had previously been paying taxes on the government's valuation.
Your second sources pulls together a bunch of sources without mentioning any specifics. For instance, when the paper goes from saying "Most private clubs are nonprofit" to "Many private clubs also receive", that leads me to believe that the majority of clubs are not receiving substantial property tax exemptions.
Your third source seems a tad racist, so I didn't read past the title.
If you compare this to other property tax practices, it appears that golf courses aren't treated any differently. The vast majority of houses in my neighborhood are undervalued with respect to taxation, almost all commercial real estate is depreciated far below its actual market value, resulting in tax breaks. It seems like you may have a grudge against private clubs.
A) Again only the rich owners have the wealth to appeal valuation as I stated before.
B) You're wrong
C) lol USA Today = racist *jerk off motion*
Peoples homes are not undervalued with repsect to taxation. That's a flat out lie. Who do you think the tax burden falls on when wealthy commercial real estate owners get to lobby for lower valuation of thier property? It seems like you may still believe in trickle down economics.
1) Have you ever appealed a tax valuation before? I have, and I won, and I didn't spend any money at all, and I'm not a lawyer.
2) No, you're wrong (wow what a strong argument)
3) "Golf is crack for rich white people"
Of course houses are undervalued with respect to taxation, because in many cases they do not get revalued until they change hands, so people that have lived in a home since it was built 60 years ago are paying way less than their fair share. Trickle down economics isn't even an actual economic theory, so no, I don't believe in it.
So you say you can't argue with stupid, and then you proceed to argue... Someone once said something profound about learning how to read.
"Nevermind. I can't argue"
Public money = subsidy by definiton
Private clubs = segregated by definition.
What are you taling about?
You're on your A game today...
There's a lot to this question that's probably beyond the scope of a MGoPost, but one argument against men's only country clubs is the reality that lots of business deals are unofficially closed on a golf course. I doubt many CEOs and bigwigs join country clubs because of their unabiding (*not inquiring, damn you autocorrect) love of golf. But I do see your point as well. Suffice it to say it's a complicated topic with legitimate arguments both ways but I don't want to detail further and melt down this thread.
I sat next to a British lady that must have been 80 years old in the grandstand at a Ryder Cup once and she would not shut the fuck up about Brookline. "We remember Brookline. Yes we do!"
So if you're reading this, Mavis, screw you. Learn some manners.
Probably 50/50 but I think she gave me her business card? Or some kind of card that described her and had contact information. Mavis was unique. Should see if I can find that card...
The day I worry about something like this is the day someone should old yeller me.
Didn't you read it?
She's old. She's never within earshot.
Finally!
This is an "Upper East Side condo" kind of thing where what the decision makers want is to maintain quiet sanctuary.
To us mere mortals, being rich and famous should open the door to everything. But it actually works against you in some situations. These places don't want all the commotion.
It's likely nothing against Tom and Gisele per se, but concern about all the "hangers on" and noise and fuss that surround people like them.
They have to show they can be "anonymous" when they are at the club.
I had a friend in school who made great tips as a bartender at one of the exclusive courses in Chicago as there were several prominent patrons in particular that always seemed to have new daughters or young female "familly" members that joined them for a drink during the week...and they tipped very well as the wives were amazingly never available to join them "that time".