Disgust at St Andrews' snub to Jack Nicklaus

Expressing his disgust at St Andrews' snub to Jack Nicklaus I have no doubt that the vast majority of the citizens of St Andrews are absolutely aghast at their Community Council's decision not to confer Honorary Citizenship on Jack Nicklaus when he visits 'the Auld Grey Toon' next month to make his final appearance in the Open Championship. Certainly, they should be because the decision to deny him that honour is not just incomprehensible, but an outrageous slur on a man who is one of the greatest ambassadors the game of golf has ever known. Nicklaus, of course, has already been honoured by other bodies in St Andrews. He became an honorary member of the St Andrews Golf Club in 1978, an honorary doctor of St Andrews Universary in 1984 and an honorary member of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club in 1990. Surely, though, that should not preclude him from being recognised by the town itself. The Community Council, we are told, decided against conferring Honorary Citizenship on Nicklaus on the grounds that he did not qualify as 'somebody who has done something for St Andrews over a long period of time.' That, as far as I am concerned, is one of the most erroneous utterances I have heard since the hapless Decca A&R man, Dick Rowe, chose not to sign up The Beatles on the grounds that 'groups with guitars are out'. What's more, it appears I am by no means alone in harbouring this view. Former R&A secretary, Sir Michael Bonallack, felt so aggrieved by the decision that he wrote to the local paper, The Courier, in protest. Keith McCartney, former chairman of the council, and the man who put forward Nicklaus' name, said the community had 'missed out on a unique opportunity to honour the world's greatest golfer in the Home of Golf.' Even the current chairman, Donald Macgregor, appeared nonplussed. "I think the matter is most unfortunate and embarrassing," he admitted. "The Council should be looking at these matters afresh." Sadly, however, as I write, nothing has been done to overturn the original decision, leaving it to me, and numerous others no doubt, to point out how foolish the Community Council has been. Over the years, Nicklaus has been a frequent, hugely popular, visitor to St Andrews. During that time, he has won two Opens over the Old Course - in 1970 and 1978 - and on each occasion he visited he conducted himself impeccably, both in victory and defeat. Nicklaus epitomises all that is best in the game of golf but that is not the reason why he deserves to be made a freeman of the burgh of St Andrews. The real reason is that, contrary to what some of the misguided Community Councillors seem to believe, he has 'done something for St Andrews over a long period of time', namely to swell the coffers of local businesses through his exploits and general good grace. Last month, the R&A held its annual Open media day, and during the proceedings chief executive Peter Dawson estimated that St Andrews and the surrounding area would benefit to the tune of around £60-£70 million as a direct result of staging this year's championship. Add to that all that other income accruing from previous Opens in 1970, 1978, 1984, 1990, 1995 and 2000 and you have a sum which, quite literally, has transformed the local economy. Nicklaus, of course, cannot be considered solely responsible for creating this windfall but, alongside the likes of Arnold Palmer and Lee Trevino, he did help to popularise the championship at a time when its profile was slipping, paving the way for a modern age in which it is recognised as one of the truly great sporting events. Without Nicklaus, and his contemporaries, Tiger Woods, Vijay Singh, Ernie Els et al would not be competing this year for a £4 million prize purse. Local hoteliers, restaurateurs and shopkeepers would not be looking forward to an influx of around 200,000 extra potential customers. The profile of the town the St Andrews Community Council purports to represent would be much lower than it is. As a Scot, a golfing aficionado and a lover of St Andrews, I share Bonallack's view that the local Community Council should reconsider its decision. But, perhaps, if they remain unconvinced, they might consider canvassing the views of the local populace. After all, they are the people who voted the committee members in to their exalted position, and could just as easily vote them out.