"And he calls himself a proud Australian.

/

Nick Tabakoff in the Herald Sun looks at Greg Norman's handling of his design office closure and questions about termination pay for his staff.

The ex-employee also said that while the Sydney office had fewer than 15 staff, it was "part of a larger company that employs about 40 people globally".

Norman was at the top of the latest BRW Sports Rich List, earning $15 million last year, largely because of the successful golf course design company.

Fair Work Australia guidelines specify redundancy payments are required to be made to terminated staff of a company with "15 or more employees".

Many Australian companies have historically chosen to pay four weeks' redundancy pay for every year of service, which would have allowed Norman's longest-serving ex-member of staff to be paid 40 weeks' redundancy.

Even baseline new national employment standards provide for a minimum 12-16 weeks' redundancy for staff of companies of 15 staff or more.

But Mr Steven said he received a "letter of termination" delivered in person by company vice-president, Jason McCoy, on April 30 - the day he was made redundant.

"It said I would just get statutory entitlements," he said. "It didn't even state I was being made redundant. It just said my termination was effective immediately."

Congressional Opens To Reviews

/

AP's Ben Nuckols writes about the re-opening of Congressional and its new greens. I thought this was interesting:

Ben Brundred Jr., co-chairman of Congressional's U.S. Open committee, declined to say how much the changes cost. He did say that members paid to rebuild the greens and that all other costs were split between Congressional and the USGA.

Third Open Championship Question: Could The R&A Get More Out Of The Old Course?

/

Okay the Open coverage will be winding down, but another question that's been on my mind involves the topic of course setup.

In my piece for Golf World summing up the Old Course's week, I get into the unnecessary rough throughout the course that eliminates key areas needed to attack certain hole locations. It appears to be a product of three things:

-Someone intentionally narrowing the place down

-Overall overwatering, leading to overspray unintentionally hitting native roughs

-Subtle mowing pattern changes over time

Because of space considerations, I also just mention but not detail the combination of some really edgy hole locations with redundancy of placements over the four days on some holes. The R&A theory on keeping holes bunched in small areas is due to the double greens and the desire to keep players moving. However, even with this situation carried out as planned, players still wait for their peers on the neighboring green.

The 7th (left) and (11th). Imagine swapping the hole locations one day to give players a fresh look? (Click to enlarge)So with that in mind, I'm wondering if the R&A is really getting the most out of the Old Course with their setup? This year things were not helped by a consistent wind direction over four days, but why not throw so major twists into the setup? Say, play the seventh hole to the eleventh green area and move eleven down nearer the seventh (this would require moving the scoreboard).

Or perhaps play the second hole to the sixteenth green one day and the sixteenth to the second? In other words, maximize the looks that players get over four days? After all, if there's any place you should be doing varied day-to-day setup, isn't the Old Course the one?

I did see one stellar mixing up move, when the 5th was played up front all three days, usually 12 to 15 paces from the front. Sunday, the hole was cut 85 paces deep into the green!

So should the R&A do more of that or would players and media howl when they fail to use the "traditional" hole locations?