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

[soberD]

1 hour ago, Christosterone said:

You didn’t watch golf during the tiger era because you want to “see guys hungry?”
 

Tiger was the most hungry, winning-obsessed golfer to ever play with only Jack and Lord Byron in the same conversation related to hunger for winning every single time they teed it up.

 

-chris 

 

 

-chris

 

Agreed.  Watching Tiger play was like watching MJ play.  Stepping on throats regardless if it's the finals/major or a Thursday in Ohio somewhere.

[aus10KC]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Supposedly Phil was invited and welcome at the Masters this year, according to Fred Ridley's public statements, which I have not heard Phil dispute. DJ's suspension allegedly was for a personal behavior violation involving the use of illegal substances. 

 

IMHO the PGA/LIV fight is different. The Masters may not want to get involved in the battle between tours. That said, right now OWGR will take care of itself--it's unlikely any LIV players without eligibility from either being a previous Masters winner or a recent major tournament win will meet the Masters invitation eligibility standards as they fall out of OWGR. 

 

To refuse to invite players who have eligibility due to previous Masters wins or recent major tournament wins because of a spat between tours seems petty and beneath them. For everyone else, the lack of OWGR points (and very limited OWGR point earning options if LIV does start being awarded points given their format) will work itself out and they won't meet the eligibility standards for an invitation anyway. 

 

There are other ways of getting into the Masters besides former winner, OWGR. Being top 4 in the US Open for example, a LIV player could qualify for that. 

 

https://www.augusta.com/masters/qualifications

 

It will be interesting what ANGC does with it's qualifications for invites, along with the other majors too. 

[szaino]

17 hours ago, MaineMariner said:

I haven't had the time to read any of the pleadings, but generally "irreparable harm" in the context of injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order means "if you don't grant our temporary measure now, what we're seeking in the main lawsuit will become moot by the time the main lawsuit is resolved."

 

So basically, the LIV guys are saying that (1) they should be allowed to play in the FedEx playoffs, and (2) by the time their lawsuit winds its way through the court system, the FedEx playoffs will be over. The "irreparable harm" would come to the LIV guys in the sense that once those playoffs are over, they're over. If their main lawsuit succeeds, there's no way for them to go back in time and play in the FedEx Cup playoffs.

 

You didn't watch the hearing.

 

To address your point, the LIV players made an economic decision on how much it would take for them to jump. And, this decision was made based upon a calculation which included what they would lose out on from the PGA tour.  The LIV players' attorney admitted this in court- nail in the coffin for irreparable harm.

[Zitlow]

19 hours ago, EastTNGolfer said:

Well that's why I said I hope they get wrecked because I really don't care about their market share. I care about watching Golf and watching everyone that I like play in the same tournament. I'm not pro PGA or Pro LIV. I'm Pro watching good golf and at this moment the PGA tour is the one that seems to be hindering that.

 

I pretty much agree, several of my favorite players are playing on the LIV and I like LIV  format. Other than big events the PGAT has turned into a snooze fest for me. 

[Potatohead]

3 minutes ago, Zitlow said:

 

I pretty much agree, several of my favorite players are playing on the LIV and I like LIV  format. Other than big events the PGAT has turned into a snooze fest for me. 

 

How is this the Tour's fault, though? I find the stance of being angry at the PGAT over all this to be extremely odd. 

 

[lowndes]

15 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

You're a lawyer, and I'm an engineer, so I'd love your opinion on this...

 

I think the Competing Events requirement is very likely to be upheld. But I think the media rights might be on shaky ground. 

 

Reasoning:

 

1. The Competing Events requirement only imposes restrictions on a player's activity. If a player violates that rule and become subject to punishment from the Tour, that is between the player and the Tour. A third party who hosts the competing event is not a party to the PGA Tour guidelines and thus has no liability for allowing a player into their tournament despite the PGA Tour not granting a release. 
2. The Media Rights requirement imposes restrictions on that third party hosting a "golf program" or tournament (and any third parties broadcasting that tournament). If the PGA Tour owns the media rights of the golfer, then a broadcaster becomes liable in the sense that they can't broadcast the player, because the player can't legally give them permission to rights the player doesn't own. Given that LIV, nor a potential broadcaster, are not signatories to the PGA Tour's membership agreement, I don't see how they can legally be liable for violating it. But they would be liable if the PGA Tour sued them for trying to broadcast a player whose rights are owned by the PGA Tour, right? 
3. The Media Rights requirement is legally superfluous in the sense that a player has to be granted a release for a Competing Event. Perhaps "Competing Event" needs to be expanded to include anything considered a "golf program" that might be broadcast opposite a PGA Tour event, and not just tournaments, but if you have to request permission to participate, then there doesn't need to be an additional ownership of your media rights when you're not participating in PGA Tour events. Pooled media rights for the purposes of PGA Tour tournaments/events would be unaffected if you removed the Media Rights release requirement, so it's not like the PGA Tour couldn't still negotiate mega-million dollar broadcast agreements for their own tournaments. They just couldn't hold third parties liable if a player violates their guidelines and that third party broadcasts the player. 

 

Thoughts? 

 

Good points - and while I'm a lawyer I'm a fairly specialized corporate attorney so my opinion isn't any more valid than yours as an engineer (or anybody else's opinion) other than I might know how to look up  people who actually do know what they are talking about on these points quicker, etc.

 

The media rights issue I think will be upheld. Based on what I read in the court filings it is the whole premise of what started the PGA Tour.  It is what funds the PGA Tour.  The fact that we can bundle our rights and sell them for more than we could do so separately.  This is what players agree to when they sign up to be a part of the PGA Tour.  One can argue this isn't necessary if they want (although my personal belief is that it is necessary to maximize revenue) but it is the way the PGA Tour has been structured and players know that when signing on.

 

What would damages look like?  It doesn't matter that LIV golf isn't party to any such agreement.  To the extent they are selling media rights to which they do not own then they can be found liable.  That is why I think the only way that problem is solved in the near term is if players actually do resign from the PGA Tour.  Then they no longer are subject to the media rights policy.

[jdl]

58 minutes ago, Potatohead said:

One thing I am finding hard to imagine is that if Cam is certain to go to LIV, and the tour knows that, why they are allowing him to play in the FedEx cup. Legal advice to let him play until his announcement is official? Sponsors/FedEx asking them to let him play?

 

That part to me is interesting and I don't quite understand it. 

 

 

I don't think he's actually violated the tour policy yet and with the impending trial you don't want to give the other side that kind of ammo.

 

Bubba's already signed and been announced, not suspend yet as he has yet to play on LIV because he's still rehabbing from injury. And he's costing another player a chance to earn his tour card. See this thread:

 

 

[ahenderX]

2 hours ago, soberD said:

 

Agreed.  Watching Tiger play was like watching MJ play.  Stepping on throats regardless if it's the finals/major or a Thursday in Ohio somewhere.

Tiger's 143 tournaments in a row without missing a cut says it all. To me, it is what separates him from Nicklaus as the greatest of all time.

Edited August 10, 2022 by ahenderX

[GolfGrouch]

The "LIV" in LIV Golf represents the roman numerals for 54 because there are only 54 holes in these exhibition golf events.  However, if you could determine the acronym for "LIV" to best represent LIV Golf what would it be?

[CDM]

19 minutes ago, szaino said:

 

You didn't watch the hearing.

 

To address your point, the LIV players made an economic decision on how much it would take for them to jump. And, this decision was made based upon a calculation which included what they would lose out on from the PGA tour.  The LIV players' attorney admitted this in court- nail in the coffin for irreparable harm.

 

It's just not you but same statement over and over,  but It was really only 3 players of those who were qualified to play  in FEDEX cup events that requested it. Some are still eligible but did not request it? 

 

Side note:  3 players is less then the number of players the PGAT "released" to play in the Saudi Event.The PGAT granted them to play as we all know and yet the PGAT knew for years prior to LIV starting up officially that SA was backing LIV.... then why would you release them to begin with?  

 

Interesting is a number of players for LIV are not on the lawsuit. Those players I assume don't care and are happy with what they got at this point going forward.  PLUS as noted in many post it is probably to much effort given they want more "time off" as we all know the actual lawsuit will take forever, probably years given the focus is on Anti-trust / Anticompetitive laws.

[woodriff]

I’ve a feeling that some of the lower tier LIV players are back channelling with the PGA tour. No facts, just a feeling. And if I were the PGA tour I’d soften some of my stance with those players. 
 

The difficulty remains to understand the LIV landscape every player seemingly has a different contract than others. Those contracts based upon popularity and performance. 
Perhaps we’ll know upon discovery that players ranked 1-5 have one contract, players 5-10 another, down to #20-48. 

 

[jdl]

19 minutes ago, GolfGrouch said:

The "LIV" in LIV Golf represents the roman numerals for 54 because there are only 54 holes in these exhibition golf events.  However, if you could determine the acronym for "LIV" to best represent LIV Golf what would it be?

NET - Norman's Exhibition Tour

Edited August 10, 2022 by jdl

[bullie76]

44 minutes ago, Zitlow said:

 

I pretty much agree, several of my favorite players are playing on the LIV and I like LIV  format. Other than big events the PGAT has turned into a snooze fest for me. 

To each their own. I like real tournaments where players earn their money..... not an exhibition where players have guaranteed money. 

[Holy Moses]

Will Bardwell with a good summary of yesterday’s decision 

 

 

 

 

 

[beckk10]

48 minutes ago, Zitlow said:

 

I pretty much agree, several of my favorite players are playing on the LIV and I like LIV  format. Other than big events the PGAT has turned into a snooze fest for me. 

Can not agree with a PGA tour snooze fest. The buildup to the back nine each Sunday is unmatched. The LIV will never replicate this with the shotgun start and only 3 rounds. Enjoy watching a few good players and guys putt who are +8? I've tried LIV each event and can't stand it more than 10 minutes. 

[Potatohead]

36 minutes ago, jdl said:

I don't think he's actually violated the tour policy yet and with the impending trial you don't want to give the other side that kind of ammo.

 

Bubba's already signed and been announced, not suspend yet as he has yet to play on LIV because he's still rehabbing from injury. And he's costing another player a chance to earn his tour card. See this thread:

 

 

 

 

Well in that case I think they have been advised that they cannot suspend until the other players actually hit a shot. 

 

It's too bad for #201 but if Bubba was not there (and I agree he shouldn't be), another guy would be 201. Someone always is. 

 

 

[bscinstnct]

1 hour ago, aus10KC said:

 

There are other ways of getting into the Masters besides former winner, OWGR. Being top 4 in the US Open for example, a LIV player could qualify for that. 

 

https://www.augusta.com/masters/qualifications

 

It will be interesting what ANGC does with it's qualifications for invites, along with the other majors too. 

 

It’s interesting.

 

I wouldn’t be that surprised if Augusta just banned them all. 
 

It wouldn’t impact the masters at all as far as interest level. 
 

According to the lawsuit,

 

“Augusta National representatives threatened to disinvite players from The Masters if they joined LIV Golf.

 

“In addition, Augusta National Chairman Fred Ridley personally instructed a number of participants in the 2022 Masters not to play in the LIV Golf Invitational Series.

 

 

So, seems clear Augusta is not a fan. The Masters and pga tour are significant partners. Liv is hurting the tour. So, I can see how the masters would tell the liv guys to take a hike. 

Edited August 10, 2022 by bscinstnct

[Htk084]

Will be really really interesting to see the batch of players to go after the fedex cup and presidents cup

Edited August 10, 2022 by Htk084

[Htk084]

1 hour ago, Zitlow said:

 

I pretty much agree, several of my favorite players are playing on the LIV and I like LIV  format. Other than big events the PGAT has turned into a snooze fest for me. 

absolutely agree.  I love the players on liv!

[MtlJeff]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

I don’t know Jeff. I’m 42. And I absolutely get what he’s saying.  Ive always had the attitude that “ it’s just money. I’ll make more if need be. “.   
 

 

a pretty good cinema line crossed my ears last night. Something like this “ you’ve spent a Long time knowing that death was immanent. So you never thought of tomorrow… so you were busy living  today.  now you’ve realized you’re not going to die soon.  And you have no idea how to think. Or how to live with that assumption…..worry of not knowing when is worse than death “. 
 

 

i think that drives some either way.  What good is $100 million to the guy who’s dying tomorrow?  But.  What does the guy who lives too long do to survive ? 
 

i don’t  personally think that the tiger types ever expect long life. 

 

I think there's a couple of ways some people look at making "more" money

1) I need it to live and pay my bills, and i need more of it to do that

2) Money offered to me by an organization is a representation of the value they put on me. How much i have already is irrelevant in that case

 

An extreme example of #2 would be your company telling you since you've been an Exec VP for 10 years and made millions, they will just stop paying you. I'm sure other companies would start looking much more appealing then, you'd be insulted even. Despite the fact you dont "need" more money

 

I don't think we're so different, i'm the same age as you and i live pretty within myself. @bscinstnct would also appreciate that i routinely tell my company "being the best at my job is more important to me than money"--And that's true. But to an extent, i won't let them pay me half or even 70% of the market price etc.

 

My previous company tried that. My 20yr old self, contextless, would've taken 35yr old jeff's pay. But 35yr old Jeff didn't like hearing "we don't think you're worth what you think you are". I don't know that i needed more money, but it hurts your ego a bit sometimes to know it's out there and the company you're with won't give it to you

 

 

[Holy Moses]

19 minutes ago, Htk084 said:

Will be really really interesting to see the batch of players to go after the fedex cup and presidents cup

There’s only a few unsavory ones left. Most have already gone.

[jt2gt]

43 minutes ago, Holy Moses said:

Will Bardwell with a good summary of yesterday’s decision 

 

Yes, decent perspective from a lawyer and correct about procedure, but not a lawyer in this area so who knows what will happen.  If the only thing the Judge faults the tour for is Jay's arbitrary decisions, not sure that will go anywhere.  

 

 

 

[deathbymuffin]

3 hours ago, khalespace said:

If LIV broadcast is given away for almost free, I bet some networks like MTV, History Chanel will pick it up.

In that case, I can't wait for the inevitable LIV Golf/Forged in Fire collaboration, where amateur bladesmiths hand forge irons that will be played in a LIV Tour event.  The players won't mind since they've already been compensated for their participation in the exhibition.  Maybe even set up a makeshift forge at the course, so LIV fans can watch the irons of their favorite LIV characters being made in person.

[Htk084]

18 minutes ago, Holy Moses said:

There’s only a few unsavory ones left. Most have already gone.

how many do you figure are left.  There’s going to be at least 8 guys go after the fedex cup 

[cristphoto]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

You're a lawyer, and I'm an engineer, so I'd love your opinion on this...

 

I think the Competing Events requirement is very likely to be upheld. But I think the media rights might be on shaky ground. 

 

 

Thoughts? 

 

What if LIV scheduled their tournaments on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday?  Would that then be considered competing with the PGA Tour? 

[mitchl]

1 hour ago, CDM said:

 

It's just not you but same statement over and over,  but It was really only 3 players of those who were qualified to play  in FEDEX cup events that requested it. Some are still eligible but did not request it? 

 

Side note:  3 players is less then the number of players the PGAT "released" to play in the Saudi Event.The PGAT granted them to play as we all know and yet the PGAT knew for years prior to LIV starting up officially that SA was backing LIV.... then why would you release them to begin with?  

 

Interesting is a number of players for LIV are not on the lawsuit. Those players I assume don't care and are happy with what they got at this point going forward.  PLUS as noted in many post it is probably to much effort given they want more "time off" as we all know the actual lawsuit will take forever, probably years given the focus is on Anti-trust / Anticompetitive laws.

 

 

There were 6 additional player who had the points for the FedEx Cup but did not ask for an injunction.   Either they better understood they were suspended, or didn’t want to fight, or just wanted to stay at home.   For whatever their reason, they did not want to go to court.

 

Likewise, there are a number of suspended golfers who are not part of the lawsuit against the PGA Tour.   And Carlos Ortiz who was one of those who sued, has now withdrawn himself from the case.    Could be a myriad of reasons they didn’t want to be involved, from as simple as they didn’t want to do additional bridge burning with the Tour, or sue their friends on Tour.   Or it could be they don’t want their contracts to be reviewed in court.

 

As for the reason the PGA Tour granted the exception for the SA/Dubai tournaments - the Handbook states that they don’t grant the releases when up against events (I assume they mean certain events) - and they don’t grant releases for North American Events.    So by that standard, LIV London would be denied because it was going against the Canadian Open which is one of the more important PGA events with a tough Strength of Field.   The other two LIV events so far have been in America and would be denied for that reason alone.  The Saudi Arabian tournament was not in North America and not against a significant tournament (it was the ATT Pro Am)

[Holy Moses]

3 hours ago, khalespace said:

If LIV broadcast is given away for almost free, I bet some networks like MTV, History Chanel will pick it up.

LIV tried to pay Fox to put it on, but they have said no so far

[Holy Moses]

19 minutes ago, Htk084 said:

how many do you figure are left.  There’s going to be at least 8 guys go after the fedex cup 

I’m talking about the Reeds, DeChambeaus, Bubbas, and Phils of the PGA Tour

[00steven]

 

Edited August 10, 2022 by 00steven

[bladehunter]

43 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

I think there's a couple of ways some people look at making "more" money

1) I need it to live and pay my bills, and i need more of it to do that

2) Money offered to me by an organization is a representation of the value they put on me. How much i have already is irrelevant in that case

 

An extreme example of #2 would be your company telling you since you've been an Exec VP for 10 years and made millions, they will just stop paying you. I'm sure other companies would start looking much more appealing then, you'd be insulted even. Despite the fact you dont "need" more money

 

I don't think we're so different, i'm the same age as you and i live pretty within myself. @bscinstnct would also appreciate that i routinely tell my company "being the best at my job is more important to me than money"--And that's true. But to an extent, i won't let them pay me half or even 70% of the market price etc.

 

My previous company tried that. My 20yr old self, contextless, would've taken 35yr old jeff's pay. But 35yr old Jeff didn't like hearing "we don't think you're worth what you think you are". I don't know that i needed more money, but it hurts your ego a bit sometimes to know it's out there and the company you're with won't give it to you

 

 

Thanks for entertaining my reply. 
 

yes. That is a perspective I hadn’t considered. Mostly because I haven’t had a boss in 22 years …..but I can see that. Especially in a competitive corporate job where results are tangible.  
 

and in thinking back , I guess I can see 21 year old jacks flaws too. I certainly worked for Pennys while trying to get my business afloat.  Pennys and long hours.  42 year old jack isn’t capable of 7 day work weeks 10 hours or so a day. And certainly not for the same pay.   So point taken.