Trump's Turnberry faces logistical hurdles for British Open return
Turnberry is regarded as the most beautiful of the links on the Open rotation, set along the Ayrshire coast in Scotland across from the Ailsa Craig. It last hosted the Open in 2009, before Trump bought the resort.
Mark Darbon, who took over at the R&A this year from Martin Slumbers, said Turnberry had not been taken off the list of potential British Open sites, but transportation and other issues had to be addressed.
'I think we've been extremely clear on our position in respect of Turnberry. We love the golf course but we've got some big logistical challenges there,' he said. 'You see the scale of their setup here and we've got some work to do on the road, rail and accommodation infrastructure around Turnberry.'
Darbon said the R&A met with Eric Trump and other leaders of Trump Golf a few months ago and the talks had been constructive.
'I think they understand clearly where we're coming from. We talked through some of the challenges that we have so we've got a good dialogue with them,' he said.
Slumbers had previously said the R&A would not be going to Turnberry until it was comfortable the topic would be about golf and not the owner.
Turnberry has only hosted the British Open four times, first in 1977 with the famous 'Duel in the Sun' when Tom Watson beat Jack Nicklaus. But the Open is getting bigger, and the roads are limited getting to Turnberry.
There has been speculation Trump, whose golf courses have never hosted a men's major, might ask the British government to intercede in getting the Open back to Turnberry.
'We have an ongoing dialogue with the UK government given that we're a major event that creates significant value into the UK economy,' Darbon said. "We've spoken to them specifically about Turnberry and I think they've made it clear that the decision around where we take our championship rests with us.
'I would find it difficult to predict whether there will be any discussion on The Open if the President is making a visit here.'
Turnberry is not the only Scottish links being ignored by the R&A. Muirfield, located along the Firth of Forth east of Edinburgh, is reputed to be the purest of links courses. Its first Open was in 1892, and there have been 15 others, most recently in 2013 won by Phil Mickelson.
Only St. Andrews has hosted more Opens than Muirfield.
But it has not been back there since 2013 as the R&A has been geared toward taking golf's oldest championship to courses that can hold big crowds. It is expected 278,000 spectators will be at Royal Portrush this week, the second-largest behind St. Andrews. The last Open at Muirfield had 142,000 spectators.
The Open will be at Royal Birkdale next year, and then St. Andrews in 2027. The site for 2028 has not been announced. Muirfield has never gone more than 11 years — except for interruptions from World War I and World War II — between Opens.
'We love the golf course at Muirfield. We're in a discussion with the venue right now,' Darbon said. "There's some things that we need to evolve at Muirfield — the practice ground in particular is a challenge for us with a modern Open and there's some work we need to do with the venue to facilitate some of the infrastructure that we require.
'But it's a good dialogue and we'd love to be back there in the future.'
___
AP golf: https://apnews.com/hub/golf
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'A dreadful idea': Why Wall Street's brightest minds hate the idea of Trump firing Fed Chair Powell
Markets are not on board with Donald Trump's crusade against Fed chair Jerome Powell. Stocks tumbled on reports this week that Trump was ready to fire Powell. Bank CEOs and analysts weighed in on the issue and raised several concerns. Markets do not want the president to mess around with the Fed. This was made clear in April when Donald Trump first threatened to fire Chairman Jerome Powell, and again on Wednesday as investors reacted to reports that Trump was getting ready to oust Powell. After a brief spasm of volatility in Wednesday's trading session, markets recovered after Trump said he wasn't actually about to fire Powell. It's unclear how, when, or if Trump will try to remove the Fed chief from his position, or if such a move would even work to lower interest rates as Trump has said he wants. Yet, Wall Street is certain of one thing: It would be bad for markets. Here's what five top minds on Wall Street had to say about the Trump-Powell feud. Brian Moynihan, Bank of America CEO It's critical for the economy for the Fed to remain independent from politics, Bank of America's Brian Moynihan said. "The Fed is an independent agency, and they're meant to be outside the purview of the executive and Congress," he said, speaking to Bloomberg on Wednesday. "Because if we drop rates too far, inflation may kick up, and then you have to raise them back quickly," he added, when speaking about the issues a new Fed Chair would need to consider. Other administration officials have floated the idea of a shadow Fed Chair, an incoming central bank chief announced before the end of Powell's term, who could indicate to markets what to expect after Powell is gone. Trump, meanwhile, was reportedly considering announcing a new Fed Chair as soon as this fall, an unprecedented move that could be read as trying to undermine Powell's influence over markets. Jamie Dimon, JPMorganChase CEO The JPMorgan boss also said it was critical for the central bank to maintain its independence on Tuesday, before reports of Trump speaking to lawmakers began to circulate. "The president said he's not going to try to remove Jay Powell," Dimon said after JPMorgan reported its earnings for the quarter. "The independence of the Fed is absolutely critical, and not just for the current Fed chairman, who I respect, but for the next Fed chairman." "Playing around with the Fed can often have adverse consequences, absolutely opposite of what you might be hoping for," Dimon later added, referring to the idea that hotter inflation could call for higher interest rates in the future. Roger Altman, Evercore founder and former Deputy Treasury Secretary It's doubtful whether Trump was truly planning on firing Powell in the first place. But, if the president were seriously thinking about it, that would be "among the worst ideas," Altman said, speaking to CNBC on Wednesday. "It's a dreadful idea. And President Trump would severely regret that," he said. Historically, economies with a politically controlled central bank have struggled when compared to economies where the central bank remains independent, Altman said. He pointed to the "stark" difference between nations with independent policymakers and nations like Turkey and Argentina. It's also unclear whether Trump could succeed in removing Powell from the Fed. Powell could be unwilling to leave if Trump were to fire him, meaning the issue could escalate to the courts, Altman speculated. The Supreme Court this year already said that it was not legal for the president to fire the head of the central bank. "I think it would be a failed effort to oust him, and I think President Trump is too smart to go down that road. He probably likes trolling Chairman Powell, but I don't think he really plans to do this," Altman said. David Solomon, Goldman Sachs CEO Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon also underscored the importance of the Fed remaining independent from politics. "With respect to monetary policy, I think central bank independence, Fed independence, is very important, and it's something we should fight to preserve," Solomon said, speaking to CNBC on Wednesday. Solomon added that he believed there was a "reasonable" chance the Fed would cut interest rates once or twice this year, though he wasn't certain. Inflation looks to be on the right track, which should give the central bank room to cut rates, but the impact of tariffs still needs to be seen, he said. Deutsche Bank If Trump were to move forward with firing Powell, the volatility in markets could be far greater than what investors saw on Wednesday, when reports of Trump speaking to lawmakers originally surfaced, Jim Reid, an analyst at Deutsche Bank, wrote on Thursday. US stocks sold off sharply as investors digested the news, but reversed course after Trump downplayed the likelihood he would fire Powell. Treasury yields, a reflection of interest rate expectations in the economy, also surged, while the US dollar weakened against other currencies, like the euro. "If you wanted to make a very crude calculation about what the immediate impact would be if he did fire Powell, you could multiply these numbers by four," analysts said, speculating the 10-year Treasury yield could rise as much as 20 basis points, while the 30-year yield could rise as much as 45 basis points. The US dollar could also fall nearly 6% against the euro, the bank estimated. Trump firing Powell is also unlikely to lead to lower rates, as the Fed needs to come to a consensus before changing the set interest rate level, economists wrote in a separate note on Wednesday. The event could also raise concerns about the Fed's credibility, which could create "considerable risks to price stability," they added. Read the original article on Business Insider Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Foreign holdings of US Treasuries rise in May despite China drop
By Gertrude Chavez-Dreyfuss NEW YORK (Reuters) -Foreign holdings of U.S. Treasuries increased in May to top $9 trillion for a third straight month, data from the Treasury Department showed on Thursday, with buyers, other than China, flocking back in after tariff turmoil led to outflows in April. Holdings of U.S. Treasuries rose to $9.045 trillion, up from April's level of $9.013 trillion, and up 11.2% from a year earlier. In March, Treasuries held by foreigners hit a record $9.049 trillion. On a transaction basis, foreigners bought $146 billion worth of U.S. Treasuries in May, compared with an outflow of $40.8 billion in April as President Donald Trump's back-and-forth tariff policy roiled markets. Tariffs were announced on April 2, causing a tumble in equities and the dollar and massive volatility in U.S. Treasuries. Treasury debt buying by foreigners in May was the largest since August 2022. China, the third largest Treasuries holder, further reduced its holdings to $756.3 billion in May, the lowest since February 2009 when the country's stock of Treasuries dropped to $744.2 billion. Its holdings declined for a fourth straight month and were far below their peak of more than $1.3 trillion between 2012 and 2016. The world's second largest economy has been selling Treasuries to bolster its currency, the yuan. Analysts said a slowing Chinese economy, post-COVID industrial challenges, and trade barriers have reduced China's dollar inflows from exports. Japan remained the largest non-U.S. holder of Treasuries, with a record $1.135 trillion in May. UK investors, the second largest owner of U.S. government debt, raised their pool of Treasuries to an all-time peak of $809.4 billion, up from $807.7 billion in April. The UK overtook China as the second largest non-U.S. holder of Treasuries in March. The UK is typically viewed as a custody country, which is generally a proxy for hedge fund investments. Other countries used by hedge funds for custody services include the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas. In May, Canadians increased their Treasuries holdings to $430.1 billion from $368.4 billion. That was a turnaround from April when they were the biggest sellers of U.S. government debt as Trump hit Canada with tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles. Foreign investors also poured back into U.S. equities, with massive inflows of $114.3 billion in May, from an outflow of $18.8 billion in April. Data also showed the net capital inflow into the United States totaled $311.1 billion in May, compared with an outflow of $14.6 billion in April. The May inflow was the largest since September 2024. After including adjustments, such as estimated foreign portfolio acquisitions of U.S. stocks through stock swaps, overall net foreign inflows into long-term securities hit a record $259.4 billion in May. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
26 minutes ago
- Forbes
Conflict With Pakistan Undermines India's Geoeconomic Fortunes
Pakistan India Military Crisis Conflict as a geopolitical conflict between the Pakistanis and Indian ... More nations as a South Asia security crisis due to political territorial dispute diplomatic standoff. The world's fastest growing economy faces serious headwinds because of its worsening conflict with its western neighbor. While it did not last more than 87 hours, the May 2025 war between India and Pakistan underscored the fragility of the security environment in South Asia. Already faced with serious constraints this conflict places further limits on Indian ability to take some of the bite out of China's manufacturing dominance. U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that he leveraged trade as a tool to prevent a wider war between the two sides, however, his administration will need to engage in sustained diplomacy to create the conditions in which India can focus on significantly enhancing its industrial capacity. During a meeting on July 14 with North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump reiterated that Washington averted a war between New Delhi and Islamabad that could have gone nuclear had the fighting continued for another week, reminding the world that both Asian nations have nuclear weapons. Trump said he used trade to stop the escalating conflict from spiraling out of control by telling both sides that 'we're not going to talk to you about trade unless you get this thing settled.' Then, on July 16 Trump told reporters that his administration was "very close" to finalizing a trade deal with India as talks between American and Indian officials are underway. The negotiators hope to reach an interim deal by the extended Aug 1 deadline when the Trump White House has said reciprocal tariffs on India would be increased from the current 10% baseline to 27%. It will likely be sometime in the fall that the Americans and the Indians clinch a deal. Such an agreement with its strategic South Asian ally is of course part of the Trump administration's efforts to reset American global trade relations. However, the United States sees India as integral to its highest foreign policy priority, i.e., the imperative to counter China. The Indian role in America's China strategy has two different dimensions: military and economic. China Containing U.S-India Military Alignment The military angle has received a great deal of attention for the better part of the past decade. Washington's November 2017 decision to revive the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) was designed to bring India into the security architecture of the Western Pacific together with allies Japan and Australia. Likewise, the May 2018 move by the Department of Defense to include the Indian Ocean basin under the remit of its old Pacific Command (renamed as the Indo-Pacific Command) was aimed at further integrating India into its strategic plans vis-a-vis China. The Chinese response has been to ensure that India is tied down on its northern Himalayan flank as illustrated by the June 2020 border clash between Chinese and Indian forces in which both sides lost soldiers. In this way, New Delhi has fewer resources for its military modernization efforts needed to become an effective American partner in the Asian maritime space. China is sustaining pressure on India with a huge military buildup on the border. Meanwhile, Beijing is a key ally of Pakistan, which relies on Chinese military hardware for 81 percent of its defense needs, a 30 percent spike in just the past decade The Americans understand that it will take several years before the Indian military will be able to assume the desired role, which isn't a major problem. Despite making significant advances in the past five years, China is still far from being a serious military competitor to the United States. That said, Beijing does pose an immediate threat in the economic and technological spheres. America, therefore, must reduce its dependency on China's manufacturing output, which is where the U.S. has been hoping the Indians would be able to play a key role. Compounding of Legacy Factors Inhibiting India's Industrial Potential Given its large market, young work force, and increasing investments in infrastructure development India has great potential. However, New Delhi must address a number of chronic systemic issues that prevent the world's fourth largest economy ($4.19 trillion by nominal gross domestic product) from becoming a competitive manufacturing destination. These include but are not limited to: infrastructure deficiencies (both in terms of transportation and reliable and cost-effective power supply), complex regulatory environment and bureaucratic roadblocks, and legal barriers and political hurdles to land acquisition. In addition, a very small percentage of the labor pool of the world's most populous nation consists of skilled industrial workers. India also suffers from underdeveloped supply chains needed for components. Furthermore, among Asian manufacturing nations, India is the least integrated into the global value chains. In order to truly unlock its manufacturing potential the Indian government will need to prioritize infrastructure modernization, regulatory reform, labor skilling, and global integration. Despite all this, the World Bank considered India the world's fastest growing economy in 2024. These economic growing pains have multifaceted impacts. What renders the above circumstances an even bigger challenge is the conflict with Pakistan. The Indian government has said that all future terrorist attacks from Pakistan-based groups will be treated as an act of war, which means the fighting we saw in early May could become the norm. Further aggravating the situation is India's move to suspend the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, which is a river-sharing agreement between the two neighbors. What this evolving situation does is scares away foreign investors who are highly sensitive to disruptions to supply chains and exports amid geopolitical uncertainty. There is also the matter of vulnerability to infrastructure and production areas close to the Pakistani border in northern and western India. Airspace closures and restrictions on access to ports is another key related risk. An atmosphere of regional conflict means Indian spending will be geared towards national defense needs. In essence, a redirection of scarce resources that ought to be invested to rectify longstanding structural problems holding India back from the path towards emerging as a serious alternative to China's manufacturing prowess. Moreover, Indian diplomatic bandwidth is also consumed by the need for conflict management as opposed to engagements that could enhance the country's factory firepower. From the American perspective an India focused on conflict with Pakistan undermines the U.S. need to reduce exposure to China. In fact, India embroiled in conflict with Pakistan works to the Chinese advantage. It helps Beijing keep Washington within its economic orbit. In the meantime the Chinese continue to develop their military capabilities to eventually challenge American global dominance. The Trump White House must thus move beyond tactical level diplomatic moves that can at best produce ceasefires as the one that took place between New Delhi and Islamabad on May 10. Certainly, the United States does not have the ability to resolve the nearly 80-year old South Asian rivalry. But what it can do is to engage in strategic mediation between the two sides that can produce long-term calm in the region, which can allow India to focus on geoeconomic competition with China. Such a move also has the potential to help Pakistan address its own chronic economic and financial problems and thus reduce its alignment with China.
