LIV Golf

[Deleted member 15344]

This is from Atul Khosla, the President and COO of Liv Golf, on the contracted money versus prize money argument, that has been jumped on from the courtroom this week.

The contracts were known to the courts - so are the lawyers and courts lying ?

 

[Mel Smooth]

It's strange that the reverse was said to be true within court. After all, I imagine many of the people involved in those court proceedings know a heck of a lot more details than all of us expressing our views on a Golf Monthly forum. Furthermore, they are in a position that they'd have to defend what they say, if any of that is shown to be categorically untrue.

So, any explanations why some very qualified people determined that prize money was taken of contracted money, at least in some cases?

I’ve read somewhere that the topic came under a spell of quick questions across the courtroom, in which there seemed to be an element of confusion as to the payments against contracts.

 

[Mel Smooth]

The contracts were known to the courts - so are the lawyers and courts lying ?

Is the Liv president, and everybody that has denied this issue lying?

The explanation will be that incorrect information was reported from the courtroom.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Is the Liv president, and everybody that has denied this issue lying?

The explanation will be that incorrect information was reported from the courtroom.

Yes I believe the LIV President could be lying

Part of the court proceedings was disclosure was showing the contracts

 

[Swango1980]

I’ve read somewhere that the topic came under a spell of quick questions across the courtroom, in which there seemed to be an element of confusion as to the payments against contracts.

Given that this issue was one of the hot topics before the court case, I'd be surprised that people speaking in court were not prepared. Or, at the very least, lawyers on behalf of LIV players clarified that any statement like this was untrue.

 

[Springveldt]

Is the Liv president, and everybody that has denied this issue lying?

The explanation will be that incorrect information was reported from the courtroom.

Possibly. I’d be very surprised if the lawyer just made it up in court. Something doesn’t smell right to me.

 

[Mel Smooth]

Possibly. I’d be very surprised if the lawyer just made it up in court. Something doesn’t smell right to me.

rksquire has already reported factual mistakes were made in the courtroom. It’s quite feasible that a mistake could have been made on this issue.

 

[Mel Smooth]

Yes I believe the LIV President could be lying

Part of the court proceedings was disclosure was showing the contracts

And Brooks etc, and the third party witnesses that denied Chamblees claims when he made them….?

All lying?

 

[rksquire]

The contracts were known to the courts - so are the lawyers and courts lying ?

Yes (not deliberately) - but also no; the representations were littered with inaccuracies but the initial judgement was not based on any of these inaccuracies. Keyboard legal experts (including myself and a number of blue ticks) pick something up and escalate it to demonstrate it is something that it may, in fact, be not. Let's hope both parties are better prepared.

 

[Swango1980]

And Brooks etc, and the third party witnesses that denied Chamblees claims when he made them….?

All lying?

I remember the players being asked. They were very uncomfortable about answering that question. Possibly because they just didn't want to talk money. But, also possibly because players are on different deals, and LIV want certain things to remain confidential so as not to damage the image (further). Therefore, they didn't want to put their foot in it by saying the wrong thing.

Assuming those are the actual words of the LIV president, it could simply be worded carefully that makes it seem absolutely clear that prize money is given to all players on top of what their sign on fee is, but if challenged in court would be able to squirm his way out of that statement as not being technically false. After all prize money is separate to the contract money, in that if the player does not win any prize money, they still get the contracted amount. Furthermore, any prize money they earn is not literally subtracted from the sign on money already in the bank. It might just mean that they are simply not entitled to prize money at that point.

It has been known that a President of an organisation (or country), and the people working for them, have been known to lie or be very colourful with the truth. So, I wouldn't pin too much confidence on his statement given the contradictory information out there. If LIV truly believe that what was suggested in court is categorically untrue, surely they could just publicly challenge this and ask for the court to correct this "inaccuracy"?

 

[RRidges]

Yes I believe the LIV President could be lying

Part of the court proceedings was disclosure was showing the contracts

I wouldn't suggest he was lying.
But his statement doesn't actually contradict the actual court statement - that winnings, for some players, are offset against contractual 'guarantees'.
Obfuscation is an essential part of an executive's skill set! LIV's arrangements have been particularly, and understandably, kept private.
To me, the fact that LIV's legal team actually mentioned it makes it more likely than not that it is the case. There would be absolutely no reason for him to make that statement otherwise. And the contracts of the 3 claimants were apparently available, at least to the Judge, though may not have had such clauses in them.

 

[Springveldt]

I wouldn't suggest he was lying.
But his statement doesn't actually contradict the actual court statement - that winnings, for some players, are offset against contractual 'guarantees'.
Obfuscation is an essential part of an executive's skill set! LIV's arrangements have been particularly, and understandably, kept private.
To me, the fact that LIV's legal team actually mentioned it makes it more likely than not that it is the case. There would be absolutely no reason for him to make that statement otherwise. And the contracts of the 3 claimants were apparently available, at least to the Judge, though may not have had such clauses in them.

Yep, it could mean something along the lines of for example Talor Gooch got $30M (no idea how much he actually got btw and this is all guesswork in case anyone claims I'm trying to spread lies...) to play on LIV. $15M was a signing bonus which is the "contractual money" but also got a $15M "loan" up front that any winnings will pay back. Technically he is still getting is winnings but is paying back a non-contractual loan.

Or the lawyer could have screwed up and everyone on LIV gets every penny they win as "new" money.

There have been a few murmurings about players not getting the new money so maybe the LIV president is playing a word game. I guess we will probably never find out.

 

[Swango1980]

I wouldn't suggest he was lying.
But his statement doesn't actually contradict the actual court statement - that winnings, for some players, are offset against contractual 'guarantees'.
Obfuscation is an essential part of an executive's skill set! LIV's arrangements have been particularly, and understandably, kept private.
To me, the fact that LIV's legal team actually mentioned it makes it more likely than not that it is the case. There would be absolutely no reason for him to make that statement otherwise. And the contracts of the 3 claimants were apparently available, at least to the Judge, though may not have had such clauses in them.

It is interesting that we all seem to know how much money certain players were given to play on LIV. We know Mickleson got $200 million. We know Tiger was offered closer to a billion. Yet, the actual small details of what they are getting is being kept very private seemingly, or the wording of their contracts.

It is as though LIV are only too happy for these huge sign on fees to made public (and the players probably need to agree to this as one of the conditions), so that these huge sums will get other big players thinking about joining themselves. Maybe it also makes them feel legitimate, having all this money to splash around. However, they don't want the other details of these contracts to be known, simply because it isn't quite as lucrative as it sounds (still hugely lucrative, but not to the extent that all the players are just having more and more cash thrown at them every time they tee up in a tournament)

 

[RRidges]

It is interesting that we all seem to know how much money certain players were given to play on LIV. We know Mickleson got $200 million. We know Tiger was offered closer to a billion. Yet, the actual small details of what they are getting is being kept very private seemingly, or the wording of their contracts.

It is as though LIV are only too happy for these huge sign on fees to made public (and the players probably need to agree to this as one of the conditions), so that these huge sums will get other big players thinking about joining themselves. Maybe it also makes them feel legitimate, having all this money to splash around. However, they don't want the other details of these contracts to be known, simply because it isn't quite as lucrative as it sounds (still hugely lucrative, but not to the extent that all the players are just having more and more cash thrown at them every time they tee up in a tournament)

I'm uncertain about whether 'we know' any of the real figures - and I'm not particularly interested.
But there are certainly sufficient hesitations in interviews from LIV players and obfuscation (I've been waiting for an opportunity to use that word) to make me suspect that there's some chicanery going on. The bombardment of Twitter with 'insights' by a bunch of unknown users that could well be bots is a practice that grates with me.
I don't think Fred Couples is particularly enamoured with LIV or Norman either. https://golf.com/news/fred-couples-liv-roast-targets-tour-critics-greg-norman/

 

[Deleted member 29109]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1557786457347063808

 

[woofers]

This is from Atul Khosla, the President and COO of Liv Golf, on the contracted money versus prize money argument, that has been jumped on from the courtroom this week.

Ha, very clever and clear as mud. If “that’s all there is to it” the statement would clear any ambiguity and say “This issue is simple, we’ve addressed it before. Prize money is of course separate from signing on fees, and I can clarify for you that prize money is not subtracted from any other payments”. Instead he chooses to use the words “contractual monies that players earn” and “players contractual earnings”…..whatever they are ?

 

[Jigger]

Surely thats in addition to the main subscription?

To sky (£22) yes but not on top of other sports.

 

[Mel Smooth]

Ha, very clever and clear as mud. If “that’s all there is to it” the statement would clear any ambiguity and say “This issue is simple, we’ve addressed it before. Prize money is of course separate from signing on fees, and I can clarify for you that prize money is not subtracted from any other payments”. Instead he chooses to use the words “contractual monies that players earn” and “players contractual earnings”…..whatever they are ?

I think it's pretty clear myself, "Prize money is not subtracted from contractual earnings"

Prize money = well, prize money
Contractual earnings = Payments for signing contracts to join LIV

Then there's the blindingly obvious fact that if it was all a cover up, and the players are being deducted prize money from their cotracted payemnts, would be a pretty difficult "lie" to keep hidden from the public.


I've seen loads of players, and people connected with LIV deny this to be the case, and conversely I've seen Brandel Chamblee making the claim (crackpot as far as LIV is concerned), and what looks like a mis-understanding in a court room.

 

[Barking_Mad]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1557786457347063808

Savage burn from the judge.

 

[Barking_Mad]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1557840250638057473