Reed vs Chamblee suit.

[Slab]

Good point, yet even US $750 million is an absurd amount for Reed, even despite his claims in the past to be the best golfer in the world.

I'd understand it a bit more if the country of origin was Iran, as 1.07 billion would be equivalent to US $25,300 . Still a bit too much for Reed, but at least more understandable.

Agree, I think the amounts we typically see in any US court scenarios are pretty much immaterial and always vastly inflated from reality, but I guess they have to put a figure in of some sort so why not reach for the stars. If you win its better to get awarded 10% of 750m than 10% of 75m

 

[SyR]

Agree, I think the amounts we typically see in any US court scenarios are pretty much immaterial and always vastly inflated from reality, but I guess they have to put a figure in of some sort so why not reach for the stars. If you win its better to get awarded 10% of 750m than 10% of 75m

Also the large sums adds pressure for a settlement to be found before it goes to trial.

 

[Oddsocks]

Obviously his signing fee for LIV wasn’t as much as he needed

 

[Barking_Mad]

Not quite so black and white in America - they have a history of this sort of thing!

Not in America where free speech is enshrined in law.

 

[Wilson]

I suspect LIV are financing this, to try and push the narrative that the PGA Tour is bad.

 

[AddisonRoad]

Also, the people behind the university stories about Reed have kept relatively quiet over the stories in the past. Surely they will now be called to testify under oath - could backfire big time.

 

[slowhand]

Not a fan of Reed, but if it gets Chamblee off the TV I am all for it.

Can he name Paul McGinley in the lawsuit as co-defendant?

 

[Newtonuti]

All I'm going to say, is that thank god we don't have the same legal system in the UK. Where you can get sued for aa beyond a joke amount over something massively trivial.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Also, the people behind the university stories about Reed have kept relatively quiet over the stories in the past. Surely they will now be called to testify under oath - could backfire big time.

Should they not be named as co-defendants with Chamblee...?

 

[Deleted member 23344]

Should they not be named as co-defendants with Chamblee...?

Chamblee will perhaps consider calling them as witnesses.

 

[slowhand]

Should they not be named as co-defendants with Chamblee...?

Why? Have they made statements in the public domain that have had a significant detrimental affect on Reed and his livelihood?

 

[Blue in Munich]

Why? Have they made statements in the public domain that have had a significant detrimental affect on Reed and his livelihood?

They gave interviews to golf magazines which formed the basis for articles about Reed's alleged behaviour that I would had a significant effect on how attractive Reed would be to potential sponsors. So yes, potentially they've cost him money.