***Merged SGL topic thread - Phil/Bryson/DJ/College players/PGA Tour changes*** (*** NO POLITICS ***) (*** TOPIC IS MODERATED ***)

[NoTalentLefty]

Get it while they still make them. You get a free bowl of soup with the hat.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by NoTalentLefty

[bobfoster]

9 hours ago, tacklingdummy said:

 

Shipnuck absolutely knew that statement would create a firestorm and major backlash for Phil given what is going on right now. Again, Shipnuck is profiting off Phil by a writing a book about him. He should have asked permission. Complete backstabbing move. 

Don't fully buy this. Phil has been dealing with the press for what, like, three decades? I've dealt with the press too now and then (and industry events). Have some friends that are reporters. They have the right to publish anything you say to them. So the default is everything is on record, unless the person being interviewed limits that. The interviewee has to (and many often do), say things like "this is off the record", or "this is background (to provide a fuller context to some event), but shouldn't be attributed to me". Reporters virtually always honor this (because they want future interviews - and reporters in any field are soon known by those in the field ... you publish an interview that someone told you is off the record, and you won't get another interview). 

 

This is just understood - and everyone in public life of any kind knows it (especially a guy that has given countless interviews). Reporters do not have to "ask permission" to quote someone (well, they do in places like, for instance, Saudi Arabia ... but not here) - it is up to the person to state what is on and off the record. This was why Shipnuck's response was so forceful. He actually seemed surprised that Phil was pretending not to know how the game is played. 

 

If golf journalists "use" players, then the players also "use" reporters. Is one of the primary ways to keep their name in the public eye, build their brand. Will the guy "profit" from the book on Phil? Yep (though I'm not sure how much - not really seeing a book about Phil selling a half million copies) - but you don't think Phil doesn't love the thought? In fact, was being voluntarily interviewed for the book? How many other professional golfers have bio's written about them?

 

Further, Phil is apparently on some sort of crusade - and one of the primary ways to do that is by ... using reporters. I think (don't know, but think) it likely that Phil was deliberately using that interview as part of his own strategy for his own purposes, it unexpectedly blew up in his face, and he furiously tried to do damage control, first saying the interview shouldn't have been published, then by trying to say The Saudi's were, in fact, terrible, but he was only using them to change the PGA Tour (neither of which convinced all that many people).

 

I'm liking this whole situation less and less as the days pass. 

[dcmidnight]

4 minutes ago, bobfoster said:

Further, Phil is apparently on some sort of crusade - and one of the primary ways to do that is by ... using reporters.

 

Forget the specifics of what he said last night but Brandel told a story about Phil calling him after the Tom Watson blowup and wanted to get a bunch of quotes out there. Brandel said no, that wasn't how he worked. So as the days wore on, Brandel slowly heard the word-for-word quotes leaking out from other reporters that Phil had wanted out there. This is what he does.

 

He also clearly said that if the interviewer or interviewee requests being off the record, they both have to agree. So Phil wouldnt just call up a reporter (who also happened to be writing a book on him) and just assume he was off the record. That defies belief.

[CasualLie]

What is taking Callaway so long to drop him?  They cannot still be debating how this sinking ship is salvageable?  Or is it the Saudi fund is a major shareholder?  Hmmm.....

[bscinstnct]

11 minutes ago, tacklingdummy said:

 

 

Ok, then let people listen to your private conversations and everyone else's private conversations in their homes and then leak them to the public, your work, the people you know, etc and see how that goes over. I'm totally on board with leveling the leaking and surveillance playing field. 

 

 

 

 

Phil shouted “obnoxious greed” from the rooftops.

 

Surveillance? 
 

Phil called the guy and started blabbing with, per AS,  no qualification on the comments being off the record. 

 

Here is AS on the notion that it was a “private conversation “

 

“He knew I was working on a book about him and asked to speak, saying he wanted to discuss media rights and his grievances with the PGA Tour, both of which inevitably lead back to Saudi Arabia. If the subject of a biography phones the author, the content of that conversation is always going to inform the book, unless it is expressly agreed otherwise.”

There was no agreement, Shipnuck said.

“Not once in our texts or when we got on the phone did Mickelson request to go off-the-record and I never consented to it; if he had asked, I would have pushed back hard, as this was obviously material I wanted for the book,” Shipnuck wrote. “Mickelson simply called me up and opened a vein. To claim now that the comments were off-the-record is false and duplicitous.”

[jholz]

24 minutes ago, Str8Putt said:

Phil's drama is probably the best thing that's happened to the Tour lately since TW played with Charlie. Look at how much coverage that event got.

Tiger says I'm having a press conference and people get on pins and needles hoping he says he's tee'ing it up. Now you got the causal golfer, casual viewer saying what's going on. I know that guys name. What did he do? Golf needs some stars that can cross outside of just golf

 

The only person I can think of at the moment that's been marketable outside of Tiger is Rickie. If he had more wins he'd be even popular but I still see him on commercials outside of golf coverage, his Rocket Mortgage and Corona  commercials, when he came out he also dressed flashy and attracted a lot of younger kids to dress like that.

 

Rick Shiels had a pod on the SGL he mentioned that he had only watched a little of the last tournament and pretty said take the Saudis controversy  out of it and it was just some other league with a different format he'd be interested in watching. 

 

Yeah man, I can't argue with any of that. But, I'm not trying to.

 

It's all about what you are trying to accomplish and what you think is important.

 

Crossover stars, commercials, and press conferences are about money.

 

I'm talking about golf.

 

It's important to separate the two. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Holy Moses]

Amstel Light dropped Phil

[Hawkeye77]

27 minutes ago, tacklingdummy said:

 

 

Ok, then let people listen to your private conversations and everyone else's private conversations in their homes and then leak them to the public, your work, the people you know, etc and see how that goes over. I'm totally on board with leveling the leaking and surveillance playing field. 

 

 

 

 

It's these kind of repeated and off base sort of statements that really have nothing to do with the issue at hand, but get put out there as just more "whataboutthis".  This has nothing to do with "leaking" or "surveillance".

 

Even in his "apology" Phil doesn't now claim the conversation at issue was off the record and it clearly was not.  Now it is "without his consent" (NO, HIS CONSENT WASN'T NECESSARY) and "out of context" (LOL, THE CONTEXT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF AND IN AN OBVIOUS WAY).

 

He said something he wanted Alan to hear, he knew what he was saying and the relationship he had with the person he was talking to, and sounds like he enjoyed saying it.

 

Problem is he wanted the $$$ and wasn't "gaming" anyone.

 

The rest I see now about people speculating on whatever "stress" or that "problem" Phil may have had is just people falling into his new narrative.  He puts some vague bit out there about 10 years of stress and people fall for it.  And whatever it was, absent a serious financial problem of his own making (which I'm not suggesting there even is) it would have nothing to do with getting in bed with the outfits that wanted to pay him millions --- he wanted millions, now he doesn't get them (or maybe has to give some millions back or owes millions having invested in something related to this on spec, who knows or cares).

 

 

 

 

[bobfoster]

14 hours ago, dcmidnight said:

 

Forget the specifics of what he said last night but Brandel told a story about Phil calling him after the Tom Watson blowup and wanted to get a bunch of quotes out there. Brandel said no, that wasn't how he worked. So as the days wore on, Brandel slowly heard the word-for-word quotes leaking out from other reporters that Phil had wanted out there. This is what he does.

 

He also clearly said that if the interviewer or interviewee requests being off the record, they both have to agree. So Phil wouldnt just call up a reporter (who also happened to be writing a book on him) and just assume he was off the record. That defies belief.

It isn't just Phil that does this - a great number of public figures do. Politicians, CEOs, actors, entertainers ... do it every day. It is part of how the media game is played. Any situation or event, and you get your talking points together, and at least try to call reporters you know and attempt to "frame the narrative", control the message. (Anyone ever wonder why, when some big event occurs, you'll often hear several different news channels all using almost identical words and phrases? This is exactly what Brandel is describing - and it happens every day. He didn't go for it - he has integrity, and doesn't need Phil. But others think it is worth it to mouth the talking points - what they buy is access ... the currency of the media world. That's what Phil did. Pretty normal for someone that plays the media game.)

 

And that's exactly the point. Phil knows full well how the world of media operates. In fact, has in the past used the press (or tried to) in pretty sophisticated ways (this is not some 20 year old playing in his first PGA event, talking into a microphone for the first time and unintentionally blurting things out). He can't suddenly pretend ignorance, and say he was caught off guard and shocked - I tell you shocked! - that when he called a guy writing a book about him  and started going on and on specifically about golf tours, that his words might be published.

 

I mean, c'mon. You can't play chess like a Grandmaster, and then suddenly - when it suits your purposes - pretend you don't know that a rook moves horizontal and vertical, and a bishop moves diagonal.

Edited February 24, 2022 by bobfoster

[4thand11]

Well I'll say this all this controversy is making me want to read the Shipnuck book more.  If they were smart they'd push up the release date to capitalize on the publicity.

 

I think what this all boils down to is Phil has big problems with the Tour.  He obviously thinks players are taken advantage of and not fairly compensated.  So he thought he'd make big waves by saying "look I'll even play for a murderous and hateful regime in order to shake up the Tour".  But it backfired on him.  All it really did was remind people that Phil has done some shady things and has associated with some shady characters, for money.

 

I will admit he's been acting odd lately.  Even after his epic PGA win he seemed oddly joyless.

 

 

[jerebear21]

the feel good of his last major just got washed down the toilet.  Good luck to him on his future endeavors. 

[dcmidnight]

5 minutes ago, 4thand11 said:

Well I'll say this all this controversy is making me want to read the Shipnuck book more.  If they were smart they'd push up the release date to capitalize on the publicity.

Agreed - although to be fair I have no idea how publishing works. Do they really spend another...three plus months just doing final edits on the book? Especially for the Kindle version - seems like something you could pop out there as soon as it was ready.

 

Between this book and the chapter in Billy Walters book on Phil - it seems unlikely this is going to get better for him.

[bscinstnct]

23 minutes ago, Holy Moses said:

Amstel Light dropped Phil

 

This is turrible 

Man, those comments to AS did him in. 
 

The other stuff was bad but he could have survived it. 
 

AS himself is going to feel the gravity of the fact that his publication of PMs comments have had such massive consequences for a golf legend and the sport itself. 
 

But, that’s his job.

 

I hope Phil will recover eventually. 
 

I really think as long as he hasn’t signed with the SGL, and he can survive perhaps a long suspension, and he really looks to mend fences, he can stay on the tour. 

[Holy Moses]

11 minutes ago, 4thand11 said:

Well I'll say this all this controversy is making me want to read the Shipnuck book more.  If they were smart they'd push up the release date to capitalize on the publicity.

 

I think what this all boils down to is Phil has big problems with the Tour.  He obviously thinks players are taken advantage of and not fairly compensated.  So he thought he'd make big waves by saying "look I'll even play for a murderous and hateful regime in order to shake up the Tour".  But it backfired on him.  All it really did was remind people that Phil has done some shady things and has associated with some shady characters, for money.

 

I will admit he's been acting odd lately.  Even after his epic PGA win he seemed oddly joyless.

 

 

Alan said there is a glue and paper shortage and they can’t move up the release date

[golfandfishing]

I fell a couple pages behind here, but anyone saying Shipnuck was wrong and Phil was “off the record” is bananas. They aren’t friends, Shipnuck is an author writing a book about Phil and also a partner at a golf news website. There is ZERO reason for Phil to call him and speak “off the record”, there is no circumstance that Phil initiates a conversation with him about the SGL that is meant to be a personal or private conversation. They weren’t talking about their kid’s soccer game, a birthday party and oh by the way Alan I’m about to take a zillion dollars from the scary mf’ers and burn down the pga tour on my way out. Also - does your wife like Starbucks? Mine does too. Ok buddy nice talking to you, see you at the Y for basketball on Wednesday. 
 

Absolutely absurd to think Phil called a guy writing a book about him to talk about major plans to harm the pga tour and think it was off the record. Ridiculous. 

[tacklingdummy]

23 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

It's these kind of repeated and off base sort of statements that really have nothing to do with the issue at hand, but get put out there as just more "whataboutthis".  This has nothing to do with "leaking" or "surveillance".

 

Even in his "apology" Phil doesn't now claim the conversation at issue was off the record and it clearly was not.  Now it is "without his consent" (NO, HIS CONSENT WASN'T NECESSARY) and "out of context" (LOL, THE CONTEXT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF AND IN AN OBVIOUS WAY).

 

He said something he wanted Alan to hear, he knew what he was saying and the relationship he had with the person he was talking to, and sounds like he enjoyed saying it.

 

Problem is he wanted the $$$ and wasn't "gaming" anyone.

 

The rest I see now about people speculating on whatever "stress" or that "problem" Phil may have had is just people falling into his new narrative.  He puts some vague bit out there about 10 years of stress and people fall for it.  And whatever it was, absent a serious financial problem of his own making (which I'm not suggesting there even is) it would have nothing to do with getting in bed with the outfits that wanted to pay him millions --- he wanted millions, now he doesn't get them (or maybe has to give some millions back or owes millions having invested in something related to this on spec, who knows or cares).

 

 

 

 

 

45 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Phil shouted “obnoxious greed” from the rooftops.

 

Surveillance? 
 

Phil called the guy and started blabbing with, per AS,  no qualification on the comments being off the record. 

 

Here is AS on the notion that it was a “private conversation “

 

“He knew I was working on a book about him and asked to speak, saying he wanted to discuss media rights and his grievances with the PGA Tour, both of which inevitably lead back to Saudi Arabia. If the subject of a biography phones the author, the content of that conversation is always going to inform the book, unless it is expressly agreed otherwise.”

There was no agreement, Shipnuck said.

“Not once in our texts or when we got on the phone did Mickelson request to go off-the-record and I never consented to it; if he had asked, I would have pushed back hard, as this was obviously material I wanted for the book,” Shipnuck wrote. “Mickelson simply called me up and opened a vein. To claim now that the comments were off-the-record is false and duplicitous.”

 

56 minutes ago, bobfoster said:

Don't fully buy this. Phil has been dealing with the press for what, like, three decades? I've dealt with the press too now and then (and industry events). Have some friends that are reporters. They have the right to publish anything you say to them. So the default is everything is on record, unless the person being interviewed limits that. The interviewee has to (and many often do), say things like "this is off the record", or "this is background (to provide a fuller context to some event), but shouldn't be attributed to me". Reporters virtually always honor this (because they want future interviews - and reporters in any field are soon known by those in the field ... you publish an interview that someone told you is off the record, and you won't get another interview). 

 

This is just understood - and everyone in public life of any kind knows it (especially a guy that has given countless interviews). Reporters do not have to "ask permission" to quote someone (well, they do in places like, for instance, Saudi Arabia ... but not here) - it is up to the person to state what is on and off the record. This was why Shipnuck's response was so forceful. He actually seemed surprised that Phil was pretending not to know how the game is played. 

 

If golf journalists "use" players, then the players also "use" reporters. Is one of the primary ways to keep their name in the public eye, build their brand. Will the guy "profit" from the book on Phil? Yep (though I'm not sure how much - not really seeing a book about Phil selling a half million copies) - but you don't think Phil doesn't love the thought? In fact, was being voluntarily interviewed for the book? How many other professional golfers have bio's written about them?

 

Further, Phil is apparently on some sort of crusade - and one of the primary ways to do that is by ... using reporters. I think (don't know, but think) it likely that Phil was deliberately using that interview as part of his own strategy for his own purposes, it unexpectedly blew up in his face, and he furiously tried to do damage control, first saying the interview shouldn't have been published, then by trying to say The Saudi's were, in fact, terrible, but he was only using them to change the PGA Tour (neither of which convinced all that many people).

 

I'm liking this whole situation less and less as the days pass. 

 

 

I come from a background in real estate and medical field, there are ton of laws that are enforced to protect client confidentiality with regards to conversations and private client information. It seems none of those laws are applicable with journalism.  Shipnuck only released the statement because he knew he would profit greatly off it. He knew it would cause a firestorm and boost publicity for the book he is writing about Phil. That is what makes it extremely shady and unethical at best in my book. Journalism is not a respectable profession in the least.

 

 

[maowv]

Late last year I posted a question on the "Tour & Pre-Release" board asking if anyone had any information if Callaway was going to release a new PM 3.0 grind wedge.

 

Thanks Phil for giving me a definitive answer.

[freddi22cl]

not sure if this was posted, if so apologies. Chamblee's  take on the apology...'.doesnt -hold-any punches'  kinda-guy;

 

“The statement was six paragraphs,” Chamblee said in a Golf Channel interview. The first paragraph was about him pretending to be a victim. The second paragraph was about him pretending to be an activist. The third and fourth paragraphs were spin damage control about him getting paid either now or certainly in the future, when you consider he wrote the Saudi operating agreement for this tour.

“The last two paragraphs were him reminding everyone that he’s a good guy.”

Edited February 23, 2022 by freddi22cl

[CaseyC]

For those who believe AS was wrong.

 

What do you think Phil was trying to accomplish by calling AS and saying what he said?

[chigolfer1]

1 hour ago, dcmidnight said:

 

Forget the specifics of what he said last night but Brandel told a story about Phil calling him after the Tom Watson blowup and wanted to get a bunch of quotes out there. Brandel said no, that wasn't how he worked. So as the days wore on, Brandel slowly heard the word-for-word quotes leaking out from other reporters that Phil had wanted out there. This is what he does.

 

He also clearly said that if the interviewer or interviewee requests being off the record, they both have to agree. So Phil wouldnt just call up a reporter (who also happened to be writing a book on him) and just assume he was off the record. That defies belief.

Yes, that's how reporting works as far as something being off the record.  Pathetic that Phil would try to use that as an excuse and blame the reporter

[BlackDiamondPar5]

Have we seen an athlete do this much damage to his career since Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg?🤣

[SavageCy]

30 minutes ago, tacklingdummy said:

 

 

 

 

I come from a background in real estate and medical field, there are ton of laws that are enforced to protect client confidentiality with regards to conversations and private client information. It seems none of those laws are applicable with journalism.  Shipnuck only released the statement because he knew he would profit greatly off it. He knew it would cause a firestorm and boost publicity for the book he is writing about Phil. That is what makes it extremely shady and unethical at best in my book. Journalism is not a respectable profession in the least.

 

 

You're comparing apples to oranges. Regulated industries don't operate the same as guy writing about guy playing golf. Journalism isn't about making friends. It's not summer camp.

Edited February 23, 2022 by SavageCy
More to say

[Rweaves6]

It goes to show you how difficult it is to bring down a large institution such as the PGA tour. Perhaps another perspective on this is the astounding confidence (or arrogance and cockiness) one would need to think they could pull it off. 
 

I can’t help but think Phil has been mentored on the matter a large part by Greg Norman. Norman was outspoken 30+ years ago about the Tour, in fact he was saying nearly identical things then about the Tour that Phil is saying now. He’s also been trying to set up a break away world tour ever since. Unless I’m mistaken, the World Match play and other World events came from the Tour vs Norman battles. Just like how there will be new changes to the Tour that come from the Phil saga. 
 

Like Norman before him, I think Mr Mickelson is finding out that they both would have been better served having first names like Jack, Big Cat, Bobby, Ben, or Arnie to have any chance of taking on Goliath. Even then it would be a monumental fight. And yet none of those greats probably ever fathomed it. Instead they built their legacy on the back of Goliath. 

Edited February 23, 2022 by Rweaves6

[jmck]

27 minutes ago, tacklingdummy said:

 

 

 

 

I come from a background in real estate and medical field, there are ton of laws that are enforced to protect client confidentiality with regards to conversations and private client information. It seems none of those laws are applicable with journalism.  Shipnuck only released the statement because he knew he would profit greatly off it. He knew it would cause a firestorm and boost publicity for the book he is writing about Phil. That is what makes it extremely shady and unethical at best in my book. Journalism is not a respectable profession in the least.

 

 

PHIL IS NOT SHIPNUCK’S CLIENT.

 

My goodness dude, I am begging you, please, please, just once try making a post without a massive false equivalency in it.

[me05501]

19 minutes ago, tacklingdummy said:

 

I come from a background in real estate and medical field, there are ton of laws that are enforced to protect client confidentiality with regards to conversations and private client information. It seems none of those laws are applicable with journalism.  Shipnuck only released the statement because he knew he would profit greatly off it. He knew it would cause a firestorm and boost publicity for the book he is writing about Phil. That is what makes it extremely shady and unethical at best in my book. Journalism is not a respectable profession in the least.

 

 

It seems that way because it is that way, and for good reasons. 

 

Journalism by its nature is for the public. For that reason the standards of privacy and sharing of information are different than other professions. 

 

Professional journalism standards are that "on/off record" and "on background" status is determined BEFORE any interview or statement is accepted by the reporter. The reporter is under no obligation to let a subject invoke such status retroactively. That can only happen when both parties agree to change the status of an interview after the fact. 

 

It is not unethical to share details about the information you've collected from subjects, and journalists are free to disclose that information however they want. Obviously if they just tweeted out everything they knew there wouldn't be much reason to read their magazine pieces or books, but it is super common for writers to tease details about their upcoming books to fuel interest in the project. 

 

Shipnuck is relatively unique among golf writers in that he is a real professional journalist. He has said that his responsibility is to the public. He released information that the public was interested in at this moment in time. That's not shady, unethical or unprofessional. 

[Greg_B]

50 minutes ago, dcmidnight said:

Agreed - although to be fair I have no idea how publishing works. Do they really spend another...three plus months just doing final edits on the book? Especially for the Kindle version - seems like something you could pop out there as soon as it was ready.

 

Between this book and the chapter in Billy Walters book on Phil - it seems unlikely this is going to get better for him.

 

Shipnuck addressed this in his podcast on Firepit Collective yesterday. He said that there is a pandemic-related shortage of paper and printing capacity now and that book publishers are all backlogged for months. He would like it to be out there ASAP but it was (as of early this week at least) an impossibility given those issues. He also said that while it could go out in elctronic form, publishers want to sell the paper version either first or at least simultaneously with the electronic version. I don't know anything about the publishing business so I can't argue the point.

[Stocksandbonds89]

Gone are the days were guys used to just play a good round, smile and wave at the camera. It's the social media look at me and what I think about everything era now. Why can't we just watch sports anymore? 

[CaseyC]

40 minutes ago, tacklingdummy said:

 

 

 

 

I come from a background in real estate and medical field, there are ton of laws that are enforced to protect client confidentiality with regards to conversations and private client information. It seems none of those laws are applicable with journalism.  Shipnuck only released the statement because he knew he would profit greatly off it. He knew it would cause a firestorm and boost publicity for the book he is writing about Phil. That is what makes it extremely shady and unethical at best in my book. Journalism is not a respectable profession in the least.

 

 

 

If a client reveals to you a structural defect in a building, can he claim it is "off the record" ?

[Greg_B]

11 hours ago, tacklingdummy said:

 

I already read that before I commented. That is Shipnuck's side of the story. I could understand if there was a written contract that said anything discussed with Shipnuck was "on the record", but that is something that can't be confirmed. This "on the record and off the record" journalism stuff seems to be their unwritten rules on anything goes. That is why I have no respect for the media and journalists (paparazzi) anymore. I still think it is a backstabbing move given he is profiting off Phil and writing a book about Phil.

 

 

You need to listen to the podcast Shipnuck did with Matt Ginella. He said he decided last year that he wanted to do a book about Phil. He contacted Phil, told him his plans, and asked if he wanted to be a participant. After some time considering it, Phil declined. That's when the book became an unauthorized biography. In November, Phil contacted him because he had something he wanted to say, and that's when the quotes that caused everything to blow up were said. Shipnuck's take on whether they were on the record is well-known now. None of us will ever know for sure because we weren't there, but I believe Shipnuck on this. If you have ever dealt with journalists (I have), that is how they work. You talk to them, it is on the record unless and until you say otherwise. Alan has been in the business a long time and has a good reputation. He doesn't go around looking for trouble.

[tacklingdummy]

1 hour ago, jmck said:

PHIL IS NOT SHIPNUCK’S CLIENT.

 

My goodness dude, I am begging you, please, please, just once try making a post without a massive false equivalency in it.

 

Your statement is complete conjecture. There very well can be a contract between them as Shipnuck is writing a book about Phil which would have a lot of legal provisions. Show me the proof that they do not have a contract regarding the book.

 

Nice use of capitals to try to make your point more seems more meaningful.  😜

 

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by tacklingdummy