LIV Tour Discussion Thread (*** NO POLITICS ***)

[betarhoalphadelta]

7 minutes ago, NJBigFish22 said:

I sort of agree with you, that I don’t see them losing, but at what cost?  In my opinion, I see this moving forward in the courts.  At what point after discovery, does the PGAT take too big of a hit from a PR standpoint?  Not sure if the LIV players care about image at this point.  If the Saudi’s are funding this legal challenge, then the PGAT may actually run out of money (not literally), but there has to be a limit?  At what cost are both parties willing to ruin professional golf worldwide?  Are the economic damages meaningless to the players if the outcome is for them to move fully between both, basically sort of like double dipping? Somehow I see a settlement/merger/alliance happening in late December 2023 by the cover of night.

 

If the players are granted their preliminary injunction and are allowed to play in PGAT events, then it is in LIV's interest to drag this out as long as humanly possible. Every day, week, month and year this drags out give them time to attract PGAT players and build their tour. The goal is them having enough of the world's elite golfers on their payroll that even [or especially] if the ruling goes against them, they've already made the PGA Tour obsolete and players will have no desire to leave LIV for the PGAT.

 

If the players are not granted their preliminary injunction, and not allowed to play in PGA Tour events, then it is in the PGA Tour's interest to drag this thing out as long as possible. If the ruling eventually goes against them, more players will join LIV. If they can keep this going long enough that LIV's failure causes MBS to pull the plug, then the PGA Tour might settle with the players out of court to come back to the tour and grant them their cards back, no harm, no foul, as long as they don't take it all the way to a verdict. 

[mokedaddy]

So with Phil being suspended from the Pga tour but not given up his membership, who has his media rights?

 

Edit:  and does that effect liv getting a tv deal if the tour still had those rights of the players that are still members?

Edited August 4, 2022 by mokedaddy

[oikos1]

8 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

But this is not the Tour arbitrarily discriminating and not allowing “top professionals” in their events.

 

The liv is a rival tour. The LIVs success harms the pga tour. The players they hired compete against the tours own tournaments at the same time. They are competing for the same fan revenue. 
 

It’s so obvious that the tour is under no obligation to allow players who are fully committed and paid to play on a rival golf tour to play in their events. 
 

If liv was a couple of events with no conflict that would be different than and 8 event tour (expanding to 14 events) that is a direct competitor. 

I think that is where this gets messy in that there most likely will be multiple suits to come.  Someone pointed out earlier some players may not have fully committed to LIV and are just accepting appearance fees.  We actually don't know anyone's contract and the LIV lawyers may have found ways to word them so as some players do not appear to be fully committed.  The PGA Tour has already shown precedent in allowing golfers from other tours to play on the PGA Tour, so claiming the LIV is a rival tour is only going to hurt their stance as they claim to not be in the business of inhibiting golf around the world.

 

THE PGA TOUR'S PRINCIPAL PURPOSE IS TO SANCTION AND ADMINISTER GOLF TOURNAMENTS AND TO PROMOTE THE COMMON INTERESTS OF TOURING GOLF PROFESSIONALS. THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED BY PROVIDING COMPETITIVE EARNINGS OPPORTUNITIES FOR PAST, CURRENT AND FUTURE MEMBERS OF THE PGA TOUR, CHAMPIONS TOUR AND NATIONWIDE TOUR; PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF THE GAME; AND HELPING GROW THE REACH OF THE GAME IN THE U.S. AND AROUND THE WORLD.

 

And some around here get all giddy when pointing out the hypocrisy of the players.  🤣

[Johnny Upton]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

From the 2019-20 PGA Tour Handbook, foreign players who have a "home tour" with which they are aligned by their country of origin do not require releases to play on their home tours. I.e. Ian Poulter can play on the DP World Tour as much as he wants without a release, but can't play on the Asian Tour unless he asks for a release. Hideki can play as much as he wants on the Japan tour without a release, but would require a release to play a tournament on the Asian Tour (which doesn't include Japan). Bryson DeChambeau can't play on any foreign tour without a release, as he is a US-born player. 

 

However, the LIV tour is completely different. The Handbook says that no releases will be granted for events in North America. 5 of 8 LIV events were scheduled for North America. The Handbook says that only 3 releases will be granted for each player, with the potential for an additional release for each (5) PGA Tour tournaments a player participates in above 15. The LIV tour in 2022 is 8 events, moving to 14 in 2023. And LIV's designed format for a 48-man limited field with TEAM PLAY capacity is intended not to have random PGAT members cycling through, each one only playing in 3 events per year. The goal is to have 12 stable teams of 4 players each (future expansion to 6 players with 4 chosen for each event) who play in EVERY event on the LIV circuit. 

 

So in order to appease LIV, the PGA Tour would be forced to violate their own handbook by granting releases for North American tournaments, and would be forced to violate their own handbook by granting FAR more releases than the (3) they currently allow. 

 

This is why the lawsuit doesn't claim that the North American provision is unlawful. It's why the lawsuit doesn't claim that the limit on 3 events is unlawful. It claims that the entire Conflicting Event release requirement is unlawful. They're saying the PGA Tournament can't require a player to ask for permission to play elsewhere, any time, for any reason. 

 

The players were suspended after they teed off in London.  Now by that time they probably had signed LIV long term deals that changes the equation, but the Talor Gooch claims are pretty interesting.   He stated he only wanted to play in London, but was told he would be suspended permanently.  He then chose to take a longer term deal:

 

https://twitter.com/LIVGolfLawsuit/status/1555160317822267392?s=20&t=JpEaTneLIUEHy7jjuBoZuQ

[jplroper]

  I'm friends with alot of Lawyers and they have helped me out from time to time, so I 'd like to be listed as not bagging on the lawyers, when you need them you're glad they are there.  Beyond that as a building contractor[feel free to make fun of my job] we have employees and also use sub contractors, some of who have gone onto running their owns companies or working for others, I'm on good terms with those people, using them or referring people to them, I feel it is commendable that people want to own their own companies. There are only 2 exceptions to this 1, they are bad at their job, or 2 they bag on their previous employer and try to line up their own jobs while still working for the original contractor. Fully aware that plenty of guys are doing side jobs, but there is a difference[in my opinion], if its work the company either doesn't do or doesn't have time for, fine. Those people are not being detrimental to the company while cashing company checks. greg norman is doing what you would expect, blowing off about his tours greatness, others guys [phil] are in the other camp of sabotaging from the inside, using PGA Tour time to promote their side show. Nothing legal here just my thoughts on things .

[maowv]

41 minutes ago, lowndes said:

Great post - what are your thoughts on potential damages?  The complaint read more like a complaint from LIV than the actual players who filed the complaint.  For example, the complaint mentions that the PGA Tours actions raised the cost of entry by requiring LIV to pay massive signing bonuses.  That is a benefit to the players suing.
 

I personally am going to be surprised if the PGA Tour loses whenever this is ultimately resolved in 10 years or so but at the end of the day just don’t see the economic damages for the players.

Regarding damages, that's going to be a sticky hurdle for the players who (per media reports) are being paid more this year than they have ever made in any year of their careers. Damages in civil court largely fall under Compensatory Damages and are designed to compensate somebody for what they lost due to the fault of another. Well, Phil (for example) didn't lose a dollar this year if his LIV money reports are accurate. And while they may want to claim they would have made $x dollars by playing in additional PGA Tour events, that is a speculative argument at best and a very difficult evidentiary hurdle because no one can claim how much money they would make next month. Again, using Phil as an example, all current evidence says he misses the cut at the next PGA Tour event should he be permitted to play. But even that is speculative because it isn't based on anything that has yet to occur. The strongest argument for the PGA Tour to defeat a claim for damages is that there is no guaranteed money on the PGA Tour, so you aren't being denied anything that you had a right to expect to receive. Maybe, maybe not. Speculation and speculative evidence is largely prohibited in courts. (Caveat, I am not licensed to practice law in California so am making general statements only).

 

Lowndes, I agree with your assessment. The Complaint reads more like a Complaint of LIV Golf vs. PGA Tour, and in essence that is exactly what it is. The 11 players are being used by Norman's crew as pawns to fight the LIV fight for them.

Edited August 4, 2022 by maowv

[GrandStranded]

22 hours ago, aus10KC said:

 

Both Cam and Hideki would probably have an LIV even in their respective home countries. I know Cam has complained about not being able to play in the Australian Open previously, not sure what would stop him this time? Hero World Challenge? When Tiger calls you answer, lol. 

Why would Cam have to answer? (Unless Tiger can get him a big $$$$ Nike deal)

[bladehunter]

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

What could potentially happen in the future has no bearing in my ability or inability to be entertained by the current product in its current form and presentation.  It is very cut and dry for me.  Is it worth watching for me now.  If it is a certainty it all implodes two years from now it will not effect my decision to watch the Boston event one bit.  I watch it for the golf.  I don't care about the social implications or the power struggle between the tours or who has the moral high ground.  More golf is more better.

I suppose.  I certainly respect your right to opinion.  
 

I guess I just can’t help but know that more now may mean less in perpetuity.  I think when you have kids these thoughts become automatic.  Like I say to myself “ will my kid be able to watch a 72 hole tournament in 15 years “?
Or will it be like wcw wrestling was in the 80s.  A team of face painted , steroid  rangers facing off vs a team of guys dressed like Canadian Mounties in a 13 hole 4 man team scramble , on a 3600 yard course with a shot clock.  . I mean it’s not at all out of the realm of possibility.   Somebody has to throw a flag on the play.  

[oikos1]

Last one for a while, but interesting article:

 

https://golf.com/news/phil-mickelson-lawsuit-vs-pga-tour-revelations/

 

 

 

 

According to the lawsuit, DeChambeau was “forced to publicly profess loyalty to the PGA Tour.” How, exactly? That will be something we look forward to learning in further proceedings. Notably, DeChambeau was also allegedly sanctioned by the PGA Tour for “talking to other Tour members about the positive experience he had had with LIV Golf.”

 

That's a surprising accusation.

 

[NJBigFish22]

2 minutes ago, maowv said:

Regarding damages, that's going to be a sticky hurdle for the players who (per media reports) are being paid more this year than they have ever made in any year of their careers. Damages in civil court largely fall under Compensatory Damages and are designed to compensate somebody for what they lost due to the fault of another. Well, Phil (for example) didn't lose a dollar this year if his LIV money reports are accurate. And while they may want to claim they would have made $x dollars by playing in additional PGA Tour events, that is a speculative argument at best and very difficult evidentiary hurdle because no one can claim how much money they would make next month. Again, using Phil s a example, all current evidence says he misses the cut at the next PGA Tour event should he be permitted to play. But even that is speculative because it isn't based on anything that has yet to occur. The strongest argument for the PGA Tour to defeat a claim for damages is that there is no guaranteed money on the PGA Tour, so you aren't being denied anything that you had a right to expect to receive. Maybe, maybe not. Speculation and speculative evidence is largely prohibited in courts. (Caveat, I am not licensed to practice law in California so am making general statements only).

 

Lowndes, I agree with your assessment. The Complaint reads more like a Complaint of LIV Golf vs. PGA Tour, and in essence that is exactly what it is. The 11 players are being used by Norman's crew as pawns to fight the LIV fight for them.

Both great posts.  I do have 1 question for you.  How can you say Phil didn’t lose any money?  If he lost endorsement money, that is quantifiable, and if lost because of the PGAT telling/pressuring (if proven) his sponsors to drop him, I don’t see how that didn’t cause harm, even if he signed for $100-200 M after the fact.

[Krt22]

4 minutes ago, maowv said:

 

 

Lowndes, I agree with your assessment. The Complaint reads more like a Complaint of LIV Golf vs. PGA Tour, and in essence that is exactly what it is. The 11 players are being used by Norman's crew as pawns to fight the LIV fight for them.

Yeah we can bet dollars to donuts if they had to pay their own legal fees, this suit may have never come to fruition

[dfeldss]

19 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Lol shorts are just silly looking. I don’t truly care if someone wants to wear them. I own some too. But pro players shouldn’t need to wear them.  Baseball players don’t wear shorts, neither do football players. And they do far more strenuous activity in the 95 plus heat. 
 

I’m not a teetotaler - I just don’t see how you can drink in the aforementioned 95 degree heat and remain focused on the activity at hand.  I think too many go to the course to do other things.  I go to play for score.  Not for show ,  Not listen to music. Not drink and not really to socialize.  Although I will socialize  to be polite - if confronted with it.  😅.  
 

gambling is a pathway to get to paid. It goes directly with my purpose for being on the course .  Shoot a score. Get paid. That’s fun. All other stuff cost money.  Isn’t fun and doesn’t interest me. I just wish more wanted to actually play golf. And watch pro golf for that matter. Seems like everyone wants a party.  

 

Gotta hide those chicken legs, old man?

[smashdn]

20 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

That's a surprising accusation.

 

Does a lawyer trot that out there if he hasn't consulted with BDC and evaluated what proof he has to back that up?  Does he put that in there if that contention is not provable?

 

^Those are genuine legal questions to someone with knowledge.  Is this a throw it out there and see if we can get it to stick type document or is this more measured and only in there if it has backing?

[bscinstnct]

This could be the most interesting part,

 

According to the complaint, Augusta National had representatives present at an “emergency meeting” of the PGA Tour Advisory Council, which took place directly following the initial announcement of LIV Golf’s first field. The filing alleges that Fred Ridley himself “personally instructed a number of participants in the 2022 Masters not to play in the LIV Golf Invitational Series.” The suit also claims that Ridley declined a request from Greg Norman to meet to discuss the LIV business model. (For what it’s worth, Ridley said at the 2022 Masters that Augusta National “did not disinvite” Mickelson from this year’s tournament.)

 

https://golf.com/news/phil-mickelson-lawsuit-vs-pga-tour-revelations/?amp=1

 

 

All eyes on how Augusta and the other majors treat the liv going forward. 

[maowv]

25 minutes ago, NJBigFish22 said:

Both great posts.  I do have 1 question for you.  How can you say Phil didn’t lose any money?  If he lost endorsement money, that is quantifiable, and if lost because of the PGAT telling/pressuring (if proven) his sponsors to drop him, I don’t see how that didn’t cause harm, even if he signed for $100-200 M after the fact.

 

That is a possible avenue for Phil to explore but likely one that he would find unsuccessful since he published his own account that he spoke with his sponsors and agreed to "pause their relationship." He didn't want to be publicly fired, I get that but he did announce to the world a voluntary parting of company and if I'm against him in a deposition then I give him multiple opportunities to admit that fact or declare under oath that he is a liar.

 

I often think of, or say things, that I don't particularly like to hear but that is the reality of the civil litigation world. It's dark, dirty and nasty. I suspect this is going to become worthy of a second bucket of popcorn soon enough.

Edited August 4, 2022 by maowv

[Johnny Upton]

23 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Last one for a while, but interesting article:

 

https://golf.com/news/phil-mickelson-lawsuit-vs-pga-tour-revelations/

 

 

 

 

According to the lawsuit, DeChambeau was “forced to publicly profess loyalty to the PGA Tour.” How, exactly? That will be something we look forward to learning in further proceedings. Notably, DeChambeau was also allegedly sanctioned by the PGA Tour for “talking to other Tour members about the positive experience he had had with LIV Golf.”

 

That's a surprising accusation.

 

 

I thought at the time that those statements by him and DJ, looked like captives reading a prepared statement.  Never bought it for a second.

[mahonie]

36 minutes ago, mokedaddy said:

So with Phil being suspended from the Pga tour but not given up his membership, who has his media rights?

 

Edit:  and does that effect liv getting a tv deal if the tour still had those rights of the players that are still members?

I think that is one of the big issues...the PGA Tour 'owns' the image rights of all PGA Tour members as I understand it. If Phil wants to use any video footage or stills of him playing in a PGA Tour event, he has to pay the PGA Tour for the privilege, if I understand it correctly. How that impacts future TV deals I'm not sure. If they keep free-streaming on YouTube, does it matter?

[mitchl]

18 minutes ago, NJBigFish22 said:

Both great posts.  I do have 1 question for you.  How can you say Phil didn’t lose any money?  If he lost endorsement money, that is quantifiable, and if lost because of the PGAT telling/pressuring (if proven) his sponsors to drop him, I don’t see how that didn’t cause harm, even if he signed for $100-200 M after the fact.

if the PGA Tour pressured any of these companies to drop Phil, then the Tour is run by total morons.   Phil lit a phire with his comments to Shipnuck which rattled everyone and it was clear from that point that he needed to be dumped.   It was such an easy call for KPMG and Workday to dump Phil that it likely did not even take a day to decide.   
 

Norman has even said that if not for Phil’s words, the start up would have been sooner and had more top pros ready to sign.

 

these sponsorships are dependent in him playing on the Tour and being visible.   When he went into hiding, he was not fulfilling his obligations to his sponsors then either.

[smashdn]

24 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I suppose.  I certainly respect your right to opinion.  
 

I guess I just can’t help but know that more now may mean less in perpetuity.  I think when you have kids these thoughts become automatic.  Like I say to myself “ will my kid be able to watch a 72 hole tournament in 15 years “?
Or will it be like wcw wrestling was in the 80s.  A team of face painted , steroid  rangers facing off vs a team of guys dressed like Canadian Mounties in a 13 hole 4 man team scramble , on a 3600 yard course with a shot clock.  . I mean it’s not at all out of the realm of possibility.   Somebody has to throw a flag on the play.  

 

If there is demand to watch, sponsor and players to play in them, why would there not be?  I don't see LIV as destroying golf or tournament golf, I see them exposing the issues with and actions of the PGAT model.  And I really don't like characterizing it as "destroying" though GN obviously has an axe to grind.  I think more in terms of "this is a different product for both the players and the viewers, if it is desirable it will flourish, if it is not, it will fail."  Same goes for the PGAT in the vein of, "the viewer base is aging, there will be new viewers to replace the older ones that are attracted to the PGAT product, or they will not."  I hope they both fly high on their own merits and provide the golf entertainment consumer variety.  I hope that both tours can co-exist and the majors and WGC's will grow stronger as that might be the only times we see the very best compete against one another, and I am fine with that.

 

30 years ago the best players in Europe played in Europe.  The best US players were on the PGAT.  For the Majors and Ryder Cups they came together.  Both coexisted in their niche.  LIV is just another niche within the professional golf world.

[the bishop]

8 minutes ago, mahonie said:

I think that is one of the big issues...the PGA Tour 'owns' the image rights of all PGA Tour members as I understand it. If Phil wants to use any video footage or stills of him playing in a PGA Tour event, he has to pay the PGA Tour for the privilege, if I understand it correctly. How that impacts future TV deals I'm not sure. If they keep free-streaming on YouTube, does it matter?

The demand for images and video of Phil shooting a million must be huge.  That guy can't play dead right now.

Edited August 4, 2022 by the bishop

[Dutch1008]

44 minutes ago, mokedaddy said:

So with Phil being suspended from the Pga tour but not given up his membership, who has his media rights?

 

Edit:  and does that effect liv getting a tv deal if the tour still had those rights of the players that are still members?

The tour doesn't own Phil's media rights. They own the rights of their tournaments. Phil could hire a camera crew to follow him around Del Mar tomorrow and sell that footage to whomever he likes. This is no different than any professional sports league. Tom Brady couldn't cut a highlight tape of his best games and sell a DVD on his TB12 website. The NFL owns those game highlights. 

 

That's one of the things Phil is complaining about. He thinks he should be able to sell his PGAT highlights as NFTs. Similar to what the NBA did with NBA Top Shot. I have no idea how the NBA split the revenue of Top Shot with players. Perhaps someone can enlighten. Regardless, the NFT market has pretty much deflated so Phil's assertion that the PGAT is sitting on billions is pretty fanciful.    

[smashdn]

2 minutes ago, the bishop said:

The demand for images and video of Phil, wearing sponsor logos, shooting a million must be huge.  That guy can't play dead right now.

 

You got to take into account the bolded part.  Right now he has no/few sponsors but there are still images of him out there with the logos.  Head over to golf.com or golf digest and see how many tour player pictures there are.  Mess load of logos.

 

Does a company care (within reason) if their logo is being seen?  Brings up the scene in Monyeball about getting on base.

[bladehunter]

33 minutes ago, dfeldss said:

 

Gotta hide those chicken legs, old man?

I’ll have you to know that Phil got the phrase “ calves of adonis “ from me !  

[golfer07840]

5 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

 

 

Agreed with the above... A few notes:

 

• This absolutely feels like so much is written from the POV of LIV Golf despite LIV not actually being a party to the lawsuit. It will be hard to show significant damages to the players for violating the Conflicting Event and Media Rights releases, given that they deliberately chose to leave and not only have received large guaranteed money contracts, but in only 3 events have won significant purse or team winnings too. 
• The one area that has teeth is the Media Rights issue. Conceivably, this has caused LIV serious harm because no broadcaster wants to touch it if they might get sued by the PGAT for airing content they don't have the rights to. However, again this is confusing because it is LIV Golf, not the players who left, who are harmed by this inability to secure broadcasters, and LIV Golf is not a party to the lawsuit. 
• The goal for LIV Golf is to pull the teeth out of PGAT restrictions because they know they have difficulty competing in an "us vs them" choice of being 100% LIV or 100% PGAT. LIV was forced into these large guaranteed contracts (per the filing) because they had to compensate players greatly for taking a risk with LIV. However to rely on the players in this case would require showing damages. Many of these players (Perez, Phil) have publicly badmouthed how badly the PGAT mistreats them. Others have said that they want to play less golf for more money. They've all publicly professed how happy they are with LIV. It will be interesting in depositions when they're asked why they want to now play more golf, for less money, on a tour which mistreats them and made them so miserable that they left?
• The filing is long on accusations of collusion and the PGAT "threatening" or "leaning on" other parties to do their bidding, and short on evidence. My thought is that they want to stir up the media pot, hope to get to discovery, and actually find out whether there is evidence to support these accusations. 

 

And a couple random thoughts:

 

• Gooch apparently said recently that he only intended to play one tournament and was absolutely shocked that the tour suspended him, but once they did, he was forced to be all-in on LIV. In the filing, it was clear that Davis Love III told him he'd be suspended and then another Tour official told him via text that he'd be banned for life. So it's not like he went into this blind, as he represented to the media.
• GN makes it sound like he's beating top players back with sticks who all want to join LIV and it's a closed shop for 2023... But at the same time the filing makes it clear that the threat of suspensions/bans for players is what drove LIV to be forced into paying large guaranteed contracts, and that it is making players unlikely or unwilling to leave. So it sounds like that was BS from GN. Which is what we all believed anyway, but the filing definitely takes the wind out of that statement from GN. 

 

That's my $0.02 anyway. 

 

The goal here is to get a preliminary injunction and get those players into the FEC, which will embolden more players (who think they can now get away with it legally) to jump ship for the rest of the fall while this all gets sorted out. Therefore, even if LIV ultimately loses this lawsuit, if they can actually get a short-term win by getting these players back into the FEC, it can help them become established enough to get a critical mass of top-shelf players on board. 

 

Also remember, I am not a lawyer lol 😉 

 

 

No, but I'm betting you could play one on TV.  

[Titleist99]

I just want to know if the nondisclosure contracts of the players who brought the complaint will become public knowledge.....

[bladehunter]

13 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

If there is demand to watch, sponsor and players to play in them, why would there not be?  I don't see LIV as destroying golf or tournament golf, I see them exposing the issues with and actions of the PGAT model.  And I really don't like characterizing it as "destroying" though GN obviously has an axe to grind.  I think more in terms of "this is a different product for both the players and the viewers, if it is desirable it will flourish, if it is not, it will fail."  Same goes for the PGAT in the vein of, "the viewer base is aging, there will be new viewers to replace the older ones that are attracted to the PGAT product, or they will not."  I hope they both fly high on their own merits and provide the golf entertainment consumer variety.  I hope that both tours can co-exist and the majors and WGC's will grow stronger as that might be the only times we see the very best compete against one another, and I am fine with that.

 

30 years ago the best players in Europe played in Europe.  The best US players were on the PGAT.  For the Majors and Ryder Cups they came together.  Both coexisted in their niche.  LIV is just another niche within the professional golf world.

Lol.  I’m not trying to bust your chops. But why did you have to mention old Greg. The golf super villain of the last 29-30 years. 
 

that's reason enough to not want to see it succeed.  How about we call a compromise?  
 

of the powers that be excommunicate Greg from LIV totally.  I’ll never say another negative word about it.  The very idea of him getting revenge after 30 years of hate is really  too much for me in itself.  Davis love said it well. 
 

greg never once had time to be on the pga tours advisory board. Never once showed up to meetings etc.  he wanted t do his own thing.  Fine.  But then all of the sudden When  his relevance faded , he started to want to change things through shady Chanel’s.  Just can’t do it.  None of this ever happens if Greg isn’t the squeaky wheel pushing and angling for it.  The guy is the anti-golf in my opinion.  
 

Fun fact - Wonder if he knows that the great white isn’t the worlds top apex predator anymore ??   Pga tour should have some shirts  printed up with orcas eating a great white.   
 

dead serious they have now documented extensively that orcas kill sharks for their livers.  And a pair of orcas ran off or killed all the “ air jaws “ great whites from South Africa’s mussle bay.  Useless fact. I know.  

[Dutch1008]

6 minutes ago, smashdn said:

Does a company care (within reason) if their logo is being seen?  Brings up the scene in Monyeball about getting on base.

I think they care a lot. The middle tier of tour pros look like stock cars. Logo on the front of the hat, different logos on each side. Logo on the breast pocket of  the shirt, another on the collar. Multiple logos on their bags. 

 

I'd venture to guess that a tour pro truly knows he's made the big time when he signs a big exclusive with an apparel company and no longer has to look like a walking billboard. Tiger/Rory/Etc with Nike, all the TaylorMade guys previously being exclusively adidas. Adam Scott with Uniqlo.   

[Ronnie Mundt]

3 hours ago, physasst said:

Exactly. My employer has language in our contract that prevents me from working for a competing healthcare organization at the same time. I knew that signing up. NOW, if you didn't sign that, or were never made aware, that would be a different matter, but I think every player on the PGAT signed with the understanding that they were to abide by tour guidelines. 

Your employer.

[bladehunter]

2 minutes ago, Ronnie Mundt said:

Your employer.

Still doesn’t mean anything. I’m a completely self employed shop.  I once Signed a contract that said i wouldn’t disclose the original owner , status or any photographs of a car I was restoring.  Not until after a specific date that was after an unveiling by the current owner.   So it really only matters what the contact stipulates. Employee or separate entity really doesn’t matter. You can still be contracted to not compete or to ask permission before competing. . 

[Dutch1008]

3 minutes ago, Ronnie Mundt said:

Your employer.

I've hired consultants for a number of different projects where the engagement letter specifically said that they could not work with a competing business during the term of the engagement. This is very common. 

 

Go take a look at the marketing and advertising space. If you're the agency of record for Ford, you better believe you're restricted from working with GM or Chevy. This stuff happens all the time.