Interesting development - $3000 pay to caddy from a $1.3 million winners check? (MOD EDIT - NO POLIT

[ebrasmus21]

Plaid shorts guy is as big a ****** as Gilly. That’s saying something.

 

 

Onwards we march towards sweet, sweet justice.

[kcsf]

Brandel Chamblee, "paid a minimum of $5,000." https://www.golfchan...nyones-business

 

Typical Brandel. Writes 1k words that could be summed up in 4. "I need more evidence."

[Mr. Grumpy]

Brandel Chamblee, "paid a minimum of $5,000." https://www.golfchan...nyones-business

 

Wow,,I usually run the other way when Brandel steps in, but it's a well written piece of which I agree with.

[Dpavs]

Brandel Chamblee, "paid a minimum of $5,000." https://www.golfchan...nyones-business

 

Wow,,I usually run the other way when Brandel steps in, but it's a well written piece of which I agree with.

 

I actually found the article to be filled with pointless conjecture, supposition and speculation... there was not one new fact that I could see. Absent any concrete facts, while we all have opinions of course, Brandel's is no better than anyone else's in this case... he would just like you to believe it is.

[Schley]

Late to this thread and won't spend the weekend reading it all, however even in the scientific method for decision making you:

 

1. define the problem

2. collect information

 

You don't make a decision until you get the information, this is what we call jumping to a conclusion; you are skipping steps and I think we have some information, but not enough IMO.

 

However, in the meantime we have hypothetical scenarios, where "if true" would be our opinion and think are just as valid because it seems the truth is somewhere between 3k and < 10%.

 

"if true" scenarios

Scenario 1: Agreed on compensation before tournament for flat rate, which doesn't include any bonus.

My take: Clear and nothing unethical about not living up to it, however without building in any bonus that is negotiating from a position of strength with the caddie having no leverage, he will accept whatever is offered. Kuchar is cheap in this scenario and exploiting the caddie without any hope of a bonus, where the real $ would be.

 

Scenario 2: Didn't agree on compensation before, Kuchar gave 3k or 5k.

My take: Not the proper way to start the week as at least scenario 1 all terms are clear, albeit with the caddie exploited. VERY cheap move on Kuchar's part as the caddie helped him perform to his best, but was not rewarded anywhere near commensurate with what was deserved. I think fair would be a percentage up to an including 10%, atlhough IMO the floor would be 5% of the winnings for a victory.

 

Scenario 3: Agreed on compensation before. Kuchar gave more than 5k.

My take: He does get some small amount of respect back for giving more than what was agreed, but as stated in Scenario 2 the floor I think that was fair is 5%. It seems very unlikely this was the case.

 

In summary as Brandel said: we need more information for our judgements. Although the above scenarios are still valid IMO as one of them are close to the truth.

[puresurfr]

Watching golf yesterday and today on the Golf Channel and saw Tony Romo doing the Sketcher ads. Is this a changing of the guard ?

[Gnomesteel]

New reporting from Bamberger on the topic...

https://www.golf.com/news/2019/02/12/they-can-keep-their-money-kuchars-fill-in-caddie-breaks-silence-over-pay-dispute/

 

TL;DR

They agreed to $3k plus an unspecified bonus before the tournament. Kuchar gave him $5k in cash after the win. When El Tucan asked for more they offered an additional $15k and he declined saying “No thank you. They can keep their money.”

 

——

 

This is a really bad look for Kuchar. For the life of me I can’t understand why he’d short him.

 

[Dpavs]

New reporting from Bamberger on the topic...

https://www.golf.com...er-pay-dispute/

 

TL;DR

They agreed to $3k plus an unspecified bonus before the tournament. Kuchar gave him $5k in cash after the win. When El Tucan asked for more they offered an additional $15k and he declined saying “No thank you. They can keep their money.”

 

——

 

This is a really bad look for Kuchar. For the life of me I can’t understand why he’d short him.

 

I just read this also... If you do the math at 20K, Kuchar offered just a tad over 1.5%, Ortiz thought that 50K was more fair, which would have been around 3.86% . In this scenario it would seem to me that "El Tucan" is proposing something much more reasonable and fair than what Kuchar eventually offered him. It would have made sense to me for Matt to have offered to settle the issue at 40K'ish would be be around 3%. That very well might have put an amicable end to it.

 

It's not smart thinking on Kuch's part to allow this to continue to stew imo.

[ablewalker]

The $20,000 offered is more than fair for a local Caddy.

[FairwaysToHeaven]

i don't think 20k would be considered shorting him, although its a bad look that kuchar had to be asked. but 20k would've been more reasonable.

 

this is definitely a bad look on kuchars end. there's nothing i can say that hasn't been said in 50 pages other than now that the specifics are out it makes kuchar look incredibly cheap. 40k is nearly 3%. again...i don't know what the correct amount is other than i know that 5k isn't it.

[Atrayn]

Just saw this....now it's 50k and an apology

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/pro-golfer-kuchar-agrees-to-pay-mexican-caddie-50000-following-criticism-2019-02-16?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo