Mel Smooth
Hacker
There no longer needs to be.
The PGAT will never embrace global dynamic expansion, plenty of room for LIV to operate in that area.
Can men's pro golf reconcile & what might it look like?
- Thread starter BubbaP
- Start date
There no longer needs to be.
The PGAT will never embrace global dynamic expansion, plenty of room for LIV to operate in that area.
BubbaP
Occasional Player of Golf
No fan of him, but rare for him to be criticising in that direction (perhaps his contract expired 
).
Could well be an opportunity for DPWT over next couple of years if they navigate well
).
Brandel Chamblee Calls Out PGA Tour’s Shift Toward LIV Golf Model Following Strict Policy Changes
Newer things are in store for the PGA Tour. But are they headed in the right direction? Brandel Chamblee doesn't think so.
www.essentiallysports.com
Could well be an opportunity for DPWT over next couple of years if they navigate well
BubbaP
Occasional Player of Golf
Two leagues, five majors, 41 events: Gary McCord's vision for pro golf
More than 40 years after spearheading what became the all-exempt tour, Gary McCord has brainstormed a new business model
golfweek-eu.usatoday.com
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
Sounds horrific and again based in the us
Two leagues, five majors, 41 events: Gary McCord's vision for pro golf
More than 40 years after spearheading what became the all-exempt tour, Gary McCord has brainstormed a new business model
Mel Smooth
Hacker
Some very useful information here for those that are interested from the JCA Golf Report X account.
They looked at the recently submitted accounts of the PGA Tour, and assess them using Chat GPT.
If you don't want to read it all, and there is quite a lot, it calculates that the PGAT is essentially getting about a 3% return on their investment at the moment, which is obviously not a lot, and probably not enough to sustain continued investment.
There are multiple scenarios in which this ROI can be increased, some of which include aligning with the PIF and taking some investment from them, or trying to remove LIV from the golfing landscape. I've got a feeling that at the moment, the latter is their favoured choice - so if you were already tired of the golf world being fractured, buckle up.
Just keep a mindful eye on how the media paint this ever evolving story out for you.....
"In summary, all the financial moves that the PGA Tour has done in its fight with LIV Golf have put them highly dependent on any of the following four things: getting rid of LIV Golf, a need for increased TV rights, a PIF investment which makes both sides happy (difficult to achieve), or any other PE investment. The easier and less risky thing would have been to reach an agreement with PIF and merge with LIV Golf, which would have likely re-rate the combined business to a $15–20B valuation at the time and given them a huge future upside. But egos and thirst for controlling power in pro golf have so far prevailed."
They looked at the recently submitted accounts of the PGA Tour, and assess them using Chat GPT.
If you don't want to read it all, and there is quite a lot, it calculates that the PGAT is essentially getting about a 3% return on their investment at the moment, which is obviously not a lot, and probably not enough to sustain continued investment.
There are multiple scenarios in which this ROI can be increased, some of which include aligning with the PIF and taking some investment from them, or trying to remove LIV from the golfing landscape. I've got a feeling that at the moment, the latter is their favoured choice - so if you were already tired of the golf world being fractured, buckle up.
Just keep a mindful eye on how the media paint this ever evolving story out for you.....
"In summary, all the financial moves that the PGA Tour has done in its fight with LIV Golf have put them highly dependent on any of the following four things: getting rid of LIV Golf, a need for increased TV rights, a PIF investment which makes both sides happy (difficult to achieve), or any other PE investment. The easier and less risky thing would have been to reach an agreement with PIF and merge with LIV Golf, which would have likely re-rate the combined business to a $15–20B valuation at the time and given them a huge future upside. But egos and thirst for controlling power in pro golf have so far prevailed."
Last edited:
The Squirrel
Well-known member
Not really a comment on the golf world or conclusions; more on garbage journalism.
ChatGPT doesn't have even the slightest bit of value in seriously assessing any financial structure more complicated than a sole trader.
Good way for a "journalist" to quickly generate an article on something they don't understand or can't be bothered to work on; but the actual content will be pure trash.
If you don't believe me, ask ChatGPT some mildly complex analysis questions in whatever area you yourself have expert knowledge in. Its answers will be in beautifully scripted English, read convincingly to the untrained, but...
Mel Smooth
Hacker
Saw this on another account earlier.
Good lord.
Good lord.
Mel Smooth
Hacker
This is an interesting article - although there's a bit of reading between the lines required - essentially Rolapp wants some money from the biggest events in golf - the majors and The Ryder Cup, as compensation for those events using PGA tour players.
The private equity guys are probably already pushing hard to get as much of 'the money' as they can....
read.nxtbook.com
The private equity guys are probably already pushing hard to get as much of 'the money' as they can....
Nuge col
read.nxtbook.com
Neilds
Assistant Pro
Can't beat a bit of "reading between the lines" dressed up as factsThis is an interesting article - although there's a bit of reading between the lines required - essentially Rolapp wants some money from the biggest events in golf - the majors and The Ryder Cup, as compensation for those events using PGA tour players.
The private equity guys are probably already pushing hard to get as much of 'the money' as they can....
Nuge col
Mel Smooth
Hacker
Can't beat a bit of "reading between the lines" dressed up as facts
Not sure what your point is. It’s clear from the article that is what the author is reporting.
If that’s what your implying, fair enough
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
This is the “offending” paragraph and what the reporting is “reading between the lines”
The governing bodies of the majors and RC aren’t going to “compensate” any tour financially
Why would they
Neilds
Assistant Pro
If it is that clear, then why did you say that there was some reading between the lines required?Not sure what your point is. It’s clear from the article that is what the author is reporting.
If that’s what your implying, fair enough
Mel Smooth
Hacker
What does the PGAT have that those events need?
Mel Smooth
Hacker
If it is that clear, then why did you say that there was some reading between the lines required?
Because there are other issues that can be raised that aren’t stated clearly in the article.
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
The majors and Ryder Cup stand alone from the tours ( use of tours )
What issues ?
Lucifer MorningStar
Well-known member
I mean I know I’m not the sharpest tool in the box but I’m not seeing anything between the lines stating or implying the Majors or RC should be compensating the Tour.
Working together more closely and commercially doesn’t mean the Tour should be compensated. It’s a hell of a leap to assume it means that unless you’re wanting to create some sort of rift for conversation sake.
Working more closely could literally mean better communication, finding ways for more players to be involved, cross event involvement so the Tour can better plan around the majors to ensure maximum participation in the events building upto them instead of big names pulling out saving themselves for majors etc, which in turn is better commercially for the tour as they lose revenue through gates and broadcasting when big names drop out.
But like I said maybe I’m just a bit thick as I don’t see that meaning at all and the whole reading between the lines is usually a cop out for someone trying to get their point across as fact rather than complete fiction
Working together more closely and commercially doesn’t mean the Tour should be compensated. It’s a hell of a leap to assume it means that unless you’re wanting to create some sort of rift for conversation sake.
Working more closely could literally mean better communication, finding ways for more players to be involved, cross event involvement so the Tour can better plan around the majors to ensure maximum participation in the events building upto them instead of big names pulling out saving themselves for majors etc, which in turn is better commercially for the tour as they lose revenue through gates and broadcasting when big names drop out.
But like I said maybe I’m just a bit thick as I don’t see that meaning at all and the whole reading between the lines is usually a cop out for someone trying to get their point across as fact rather than complete fiction
