LIV Golf

[rksquire]

The build-up to the 'flagship' event is being dominated by LIV chatter, it's only benefitting LIV and really they'd have been better off saying very little.... the whole thing is a mess of contradictions and posturing. Rahm & Fitzpatrick clearly not happy with the new PGAT proposals. McIlroy, who fleets in and out of his open & the flagship events as he pleases and is Monahan's puppet & seemingly complicit in what will ultimately be the demise of the DPWT is 'sick to his stomach' that the greedy golfers who went for the money now want to play some DPWT. The irony of his $18m bonus in a 30 man field, upcoming PIP payment, and waning support for the DPWT is clearly lost on him. Donald not ruling out the LIV guys playing Ryder Cup. Garcia having the b*lls to insert himself into, and pat on the back!, Monahan's conversations. The chatter of how lowly ranked players who play 20 DPWT events are missing out due to the LIV's guys presence - whilst also ignoring the fact the big European PGAT players are similarly guilty (FWIW, both the LIV & PGAT guys satisfy the criteria so should be there, if they desire to be so - isn't that the point? There's a pathway there to be followed and the lowly guys know what they're getting into. I'm sure Couples would say, if you want to be there, earn it). And then Westwood having his digs. Pelley being present in body only - has there ever been a more pointless chief? A new event for Ryder Cup preparation, at which the 'main' attractions will be allowed to avoid due to commitments to the PGAT!

Unsavoury as it is, I wish the DPWT would grow a backbone and rail against LIV and the PGAT. Dump the strategic alliance and co-sanctioned events. Demand the big stalwarts earn their membership (if they are so worried about 'golf', why would they object?) by playing a minimum number of events. Don't give away the emerging talent. I'm absolutely serious that I think the DPWT could position itself fantastically well, like the scene from Love Actually, by Pelley telling Monahan that the DPWT will not be bullied and be prepared to be much stronger. It won't happen, but it's now accepted LIV aren't going anywhere in the immediate future and their fields are getting stronger, but they also need another playground and it won't be the PGAT; it could be the DPWT and an arrangement between the two (with access to the 'money' and the ranking points) would see the PGAT weaken further. For the DPWT, having the greedy players would increase interest, increase general attendance, attract bigger sponsorships - putting it on a much more secure footing. As it is, 10 players probably in the top 30 Dubai rankings (the actual top 20 is dominated by players already with cards) could get PGAT cards.... there's a reason why players ranked 200 and worse play 20 events a year.

The build-up is ugly. Hopefully the golf will be better.

 

[pokerjoke]

Players fuelling the fire in regards to the situation are actually making the gap wider between the tours and the players.
It’s also bringing friendships that have been made over years on the tour to the edge.
Martin Kaymer who was and still is a hero to many feels the need to boycott the event,because he doesn’t feel wanted is a poor situation.
Imagine the atmosphere if some of these guys pair up.
Players talking about greed is the worst kind of hypocrisy,especially when your worth over 100 million yourself.

 

[Beezerk]

Players fuelling the fire in regards to the situation are actually making the gap wider between the tours and the players.

Agree, Billy Horschel’s comments haven’t helped with calming things down, yet lots of people are saying it’s the LIV golfers who should pipe down ?

 

[r0wly86]

read an interesting article in the Sydney Herald, not sure if it has been commented on.

The LIV contracts that were seen in the court case, showed that if a player does not play in one of the 14 LIV events then they will be kicked out from the tour and have to repay any money given to them from the tour. Absences for illness and injury are permitted, but anything beyond that comes down to Greg Norman solely, say your child dies you would have to write to Norman to ask to be excused from an event, or risk having to pay back the millions of dollars you were given to join in the first place, if Norman says no then you are screwed

 

[Slab]

Keith Pelley said last week of the LIV players playing this week:

"They will not be given any on course competitive disadvantage – i.e. unfavorable tee times..."

So there are both favorable and unfavorable tee times

Has anyone asked him; if its not the LIV players (& assuming it wont be the ET or PGAT bigger names either) Exactly which players are going to be given these unfavorable tee times and how do they feel about it?

 

[Beezerk]

say your child dies you would have to write to Norman to ask to be excused from an event, or risk having to pay back the millions of dollars you were given to join in the first place, if Norman says no then you are screwed

Really? Do you genuinely believe that would have to happen?
Sounds like sensationalism at its finest there.

 

[r0wly86]

Really? Do you genuinely believe that would have to happen?
Sounds like sensationalism at its finest there.

No it was a an example stretched to show a point. That beyond very narrow exceptions Norman has total power over the players, and the punishment for not playing without permission is extreme. Compare to the PGAT which has a similar number of tournaments that a player must play in, but has many more events in which to complete it. So if a player doesn't want to play a particular even they are free to do so.

 

[Beezerk]

No it was a an example stretched to show a point. That beyond very narrow exceptions Norman has total power over the players, and the punishment for not playing without permission is extreme. Compare to the PGAT which has a similar number of tournaments that a player must play in, but has many more events in which to complete it. So if a player doesn't want to play a particular even they are free to do so.

I’m not aware of anyone dropping out of a LIV tournament yet so we don’t know what will happen, maybe they’ll cut their hands off ?

 

[Swango1980]

read an interesting article in the Sydney Herald, not sure if it has been commented on.

The LIV contracts that were seen in the court case, showed that if a player does not play in one of the 14 LIV events then they will be kicked out from the tour and have to repay any money given to them from the tour. Absences for illness and injury are permitted, but anything beyond that comes down to Greg Norman solely, say your child dies you would have to write to Norman to ask to be excused from an event, or risk having to pay back the millions of dollars you were given to join in the first place, if Norman says no then you are screwed

Not sure what the issue is? I'm sure if something horrific happens in any of their personal lives, GN would happily allow them to miss an event. It is probably exactly why it is worded in such a way, so as not to just be entirely black and white.

At the same time, LIV need to ensure players play in the events as contracted. If Phil Mickleson picked up his £200 million, and then decided he only wanted to play in 2 or 3 events, that is going to make LIV look silly. I'm assuming the contract money was paid up front, rather than instalments after each event?

 

[Slab]

No it was a an example stretched to show a point. That beyond very narrow exceptions Norman has total power over the players, and the punishment for not playing without permission is extreme. Compare to the PGAT which has a similar number of tournaments that a player must play in, but has many more events in which to complete it. So if a player doesn't want to play a particular even they are free to do so.

Which is good... and bad

Players have more choice to plan in their calendars because there are so many events to choose from, but
The Top players are seldom all at the same event because they are spread out over so many events

 

[r0wly86]

Not sure what the issue is? I'm sure if something horrific happens in any of their personal lives, GN would happily allow them to miss an event. It is probably exactly why it is worded in such a way, so as not to just be entirely black and white.

At the same time, LIV need to ensure players play in the events as contracted. If Phil Mickleson picked up his £200 million, and then decided he only wanted to play in 2 or 3 events, that is going to make LIV look silly. I'm assuming the contract money was paid up front, rather than instalments after each event?

It doesn't necessarily have to be major, you could see major reasons not to play be allowed by Norman, however if it is a more minor reason why the person would not want to play the players do not have the ability to choose, or the punishment is enormous

 

[BrianM]

It doesn't necessarily have to be major, you could see major reasons not to play be allowed by Norman, however if it is a more minor reason why the person would not want to play the players do not have the ability to choose, or the punishment is enormous

Have you got a link for this, for context?

 

[r0wly86]

Have you got a link for this, for context?

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/golf/t...f-the-liv-golf-contracts-20220901-p5bejo.html

This is the article, I have only read this and not the contracts

 

[Swango1980]

It doesn't necessarily have to be major, you could see major reasons not to play be allowed by Norman, however if it is a more minor reason why the person would not want to play the players do not have the ability to choose, or the punishment is enormous

It is always subjective, hence the way it is worded. There may be a million reasons GN and LIV would accept for players to miss an event. If GN and LIV decided to heavily penalise any of these players, for a reason many people think are trivial, then it would be disastrous for LIV and their reputation. So, if they decided to take this route, I'm sure they would like to have very convincing reasons. I simply think they are protecting themselves in case a player takes the contracted money, and then just says they can't be bothered playing in an event. Or, if the other Tours had let them play on their events, to ensure no LIV golfer decides that they'd rather play on a PGA Tour event or DP World Tour event instead of the LIV event.

 

[Beezerk]

It is always subjective, hence the way it is worded. There may be a million reasons GN and LIV would accept for players to miss an event. If GN and LIV decided to heavily penalise any of these players, for a reason many people think are trivial, then it would be disastrous for LIV and their reputation. So, if they decided to take this route, I'm sure they would like to have very convincing reasons. I simply think they are protecting themselves in case a player takes the contracted money, and then just says they can't be bothered playing in an event. Or, if the other Tours had let them play on their events, to ensure no LIV golfer decides that they'd rather play on a PGA Tour event or DP World Tour event instead of the LIV event.

But that doesn’t make a good story, it’s amazing how people are spinning things in such a negative way without any real sort of hard facts to back it up. I recall MS getting absolutely demolished by all and sundry on here for something similar.

 

[BubbaP]

I’m not aware of anyone dropping out of a LIV tournament yet so we don’t know what will happen, maybe they’ll cut their hands off ?

Stenson last week?

 

[Mel Smooth]

Stenson last week?

Dropped out with tendonitis - to be fair chopping has hands off would have sorted it, if it’s in his hands.

 

[BrianM]

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/golf/t...f-the-liv-golf-contracts-20220901-p5bejo.html

This is the article, I have only read this and not the contracts

I’m not really sure this is any different to the other tours, accept maybe they have a choice of which tournaments to play because they have a lot more.

 

[RichA]

I have to get permission from my employer before taking compassionate leave. It's normal. It's a strange point to pick up on to attack the LIV contracts.

 

[slowhand]

I have to get permission from my employer before taking compassionate leave. It's normal. It's a strange point to pick up on to attack the LIV contracts.

Not comparable, as I don't think your employer could make you pay back all the wages you had been paid up to that point if you took the leave without permission (you may get fired, though)