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

[StoutKing]

1 hour ago, Chanceman said:

Liv is big in Australia because there is hardly any big time golf there. The Aus Open was won 5 times by Jack and 7 times by Gary but these days you are lucky if Adrian Meronk turns up. So to have Liv play even with their limited roster is pretty much a big event.

I think more golfers would play in those events again if the Aus government didn't tax the crap out of them.  

[Titleist99]

42 minutes ago, StoutKing said:

I think more golfers would play in those events again if the Aus government didn't tax the crap out of them.  

100%......Didn't Gooch complain about  this?😃

[Hawkeye77]

50 minutes ago, StoutKing said:

I think more golfers would play in those events again if the Aus government didn't tax the crap out of them.  

 

U.S. winner would qualify for tax credit on the foreign taxes paid, how that works out in the end I leave up to the CPA, lol, doubt it's much of a "plus", though.  It's the inconvenience of getting there and the small purse that's the biggest issue - $178k to the winner last year - not even big by DP World standards.  That's why appearance fees were high and at times heavily subsidized even by government money.

 

Jack and Gary supported for sure, but part of that was appearance fee (tiny by today's standards) and marketing (IMG McCormack) and one year Jack donated his $5000 appearance back to add to the purse.  It had some prestige then and they helped with that, made for a nice vacation and record setting fishing for Jack and got them out in the world scene, so to speak.  But anymore, it's more nostalgia when people talk about the Australian Open.  

 

Norman caught a lot of flak one year for demanding an appearance fee larger than the total purse of the event - so even among Aussies . . . .

 

If $$$$ is what it takes to get support from even Aussies, let alone other countries, you know the event has had a lot of challenges - Aussie fans love to have golf to see in person, but Aussie sponsors aren't seeing any great opportunity for investment in the event itself.

Edited April 18 by Hawkeye77

[Hawkeye77]

6 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

100%......Didn't Gooch complain about  this?😃

 

Like asking what kinds of cheese the mouse enjoys - doesn't narrow it down much!

[CDM]

4 hours ago, freeze16172002 said:

You realize that LIV has spent billions and has nothing to show for it. They lose billions per year with no chance of ever making a profit. what are LIV's tv ratings? Nice try though

 

True but at the amount they make and the daily number keeps going up, does it matter to them is the question? Everyone seems to hang onto "not making a profit" but that is just a hollow point to defend against them.   

 

Have you ever heard one time they are worried about profit?   I agree you would think in rational world they would be but  I can not find one article stating a concern, only comments are they are in this for the  "long term" term. They have the money to win the war even if they loose some battles along the way.......or as I see it until they get bored dealing with it. 

 

The one thing I am wondering is based on the PGAT ratings this year (all pretty much down) what the 1.5 billion SSG put in is getting them?  Everyone spouts out "its 3 billion" but if you actually drill down on it, it is a 950 million initial investment, up to 1.5 billion based on some aspects not defined, plus an option to to max out at 3 billion.   Have to wait and over time I guess on the other investment aspects.  The one question is where did, what happened to the initial investment of 950 million?  Rumors of where it was going but nothing beyond that?

 

I guess my point is, golf has a CAP as we all know and it sure seems like a lot of money being tossed out by both sides for something that over time has proven to be limited on its growth. 

[CDM]

2 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

U.S. winner would qualify for tax credit on the foreign taxes paid, how that works out in the end I leave up to the CPA, lol, doubt it's much of a "plus", though.  It's the inconvenience of getting there and the small purse that's the biggest issue - $178k to the winner last year - not even big by DP World standards.  That's why appearance fees were high and at times heavily subsidized even by government money.

 

Jack and Gary supported for sure, but part of that was appearance fee (tiny by today's standards) and marketing (IMG McCormack) and one year Jack donated his $5000 appearance back to add to the purse.  It had some prestige then and they helped with that, made for a nice vacation and record setting fishing for Jack and got them out in the world scene, so to speak.  But anymore, it's more nostalgia when people talk about the Australian Open.  

 

Norman caught a lot of flak one year for demanding an appearance fee larger than the total purse of the event - so even among Aussies . . . .

 

If $$$$ is what it takes to get support from even Aussies, let alone other countries, you know the event has had a lot of challenges - Aussie fans love to have golf to see in person, but Aussie sponsors aren't seeing any great opportunity for investment in the event itself.

 

Great post. 

 

Aussies do love golf and hands down have some the best courses in the world...!  Kingston Heath for the Presidents cup will be a perfect venue for match play...!   We all walked off after playing it how great a match play course it will be

 

The greed all the current players have is the issue.  As it relates to AUS... Greg, Tiger, even Spieth asking for fees.  The money is just not there, as you note.

 

I know Tiger the year he won the AUS Masters at Kinston Heath, the appearance fee he got was a more then the first place check, which he also won 🤣

 

What makes no sense in the comments and I have tried to stay out that conversation is the attacks on LIV about "growing the game". 

 

All the comments stating they are not doing anything too grow the game, but lets be real. 

 

Sure they are not doing a great job it seems BUT LIV is at least going to other countries like AUS where golf has merit and a fan base.  

 

PGAT basically does nothing outside the US. They have 4 events total outside the US and are "co sanctioned".    

 

* Canadian Open, Mexico Open, Puerto Rico Open and Scottish open.  So really only the Scottish open is really much travel and they do it as we know for The Open.....

 

The only people who can grow the game is the players... and the current players don't want to do it...!   

 

There are number of PGAT players from Europe that do go back to support their countries event or the BMW event but that is it. 

 

The US players there is not enough money in those events to get them off the couch...!

 

Not an attack on either tour, it is just a simple fact the players have all gotten so self centered vs game and it was well before LIV.  LIV I guess "forces" the players to go ...... 🤣

 

Jack, Arnie, Gary, etc. traveled all over the world to play...!  That is how the game grew...!   I read somewhere Arnie logged 18,000 HRS flying just for golf.... !   Relate that to a typical work aspect that is almost 9 YEARS of his life in a plane to just play golf..!

 

The current generation would NEVER put that much effort in for the game...or not without getting paid to do it...! 

Edited April 18 by CDM

[jjtour]

17 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

LIV is in scary land 

 

I mean, they signed a lot of big names and nobody cares. 
 

I don’t know when they realize that it’s the brand. The brand, the whole “buying players, the mumble rap, Greg Norman

 

The RBC will get several million viewers on the weekend 

 

I really think that you could take that same exact field, put them in a LIV branded event 

 

And nobody would watch 🤣

 

 

 

You're not wrong. That's essentially what they have tried to do by buying players. I think LIV has wrongly assumed that anyone they sign has the star power of Tiger. Tiger was and still is, must see TV, even for non-golf fans. Everyone else isnt. Scottie maybe is getting to that point, but probably not there yet. It's not about the field size, the teams, the players, the music blaring, none of it. It's golf, it's niche. They are trying to make people pay attention and care, it's not gonna happen until you get a generational talent that creates that bridge to the masses, not just a guy that plays golf really well.

[redfirebird08]

3 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

U.S. winner would qualify for tax credit on the foreign taxes paid, how that works out in the end I leave up to the CPA, lol, doubt it's much of a "plus", though.  It's the inconvenience of getting there and the small purse that's the biggest issue - $178k to the winner last year - not even big by DP World standards.  That's why appearance fees were high and at times heavily subsidized even by government money.

 

Jack and Gary supported for sure, but part of that was appearance fee (tiny by today's standards) and marketing (IMG McCormack) and one year Jack donated his $5000 appearance back to add to the purse.  It had some prestige then and they helped with that, made for a nice vacation and record setting fishing for Jack and got them out in the world scene, so to speak.  But anymore, it's more nostalgia when people talk about the Australian Open.  

 

Norman caught a lot of flak one year for demanding an appearance fee larger than the total purse of the event - so even among Aussies . . . .

 

If $$$$ is what it takes to get support from even Aussies, let alone other countries, you know the event has had a lot of challenges - Aussie fans love to have golf to see in person, but Aussie sponsors aren't seeing any great opportunity for investment in the event itself.

 

That story on Norman is jawdropping. What a hypocrite. 

[Hawkeye77]

3 minutes ago, redfirebird08 said:

 

That story on Norman is jawdropping. What a hypocrite. 

It was many years ago he came under fire from some of the established golf veterans, etc. in Australia for turning his back on them.  In fairness, he supported . . . until he didn't, but wasn't shy about wanting to get paid to show up.  He demanded and got $225,000 (taxpayer money) in '96 for the Ford Open (and I goofed, he wanted equal to the total purse of the event) - and he wasn't shy about saying it was all about the money - he'd just played an event in Perth but said if he wasn't paid to stick around he was happy to head home to Florida for his birthday and family.  

 

It wasn't an isolated incident for Norman and appearance fees in his homeland by any means.  I can't fault him in one sense for taking anything he could get, but at the same time enjoyed being regarded as an Australian golf hero when he returned to play there.

[scotee]

OK, I doubt she actually said this but funny as L nevertheless.

 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, jjtour said:

 

You're not wrong. That's essentially what they have tried to do by buying players. I think LIV has wrongly assumed that anyone they sign has the star power of Tiger. Tiger was and still is, must see TV, even for non-golf fans. Everyone else isnt. Scottie maybe is getting to that point, but probably not there yet. It's not about the field size, the teams, the players, the music blaring, none of it. It's golf, it's niche. They are trying to make people pay attention and care, it's not gonna happen until you get a generational talent that creates that bridge to the masses, not just a guy that plays golf really well.

 

And I think what made Tiger "Tiger" wasn't just being a generational talent, but it was also who he was and what he represented. Golf was the sport of the upper class (and mostly white). It's what the leisure class does to pass the time. Golf was the reason your doctor didn't take appointments on Wednesdays. Golf wasn't "cool". 

 

But then you have a black kid from LA, of modest upbringing, who not only shows up on tour and just starts laying waste to everything in his path? He showed the world that golf was more than just the thing rich stodgy white guys played. He disrupted the game by being who and what he was AND being better than literally everyone else. He became a force for golf much like Michael Jordan was for basketball. He wasn't just good at the game. He made golf cool. 

 

No matter how well Scottie plays, he's never going to do that. He's a young gun who looks (and acts) like a 45 year old accountant. He's the kind of golfer that golf fans admire, not the kind of golfer that redefines the game and bridges the gap beyond golf. 

 

For anyone else to do what Tiger did, they have to do what Tiger did: break the mold. Scottie Scheffler *IS* the mold. 

[notsohard]

7 hours ago, One Putter said:

 

The US Ryder Cup team that had LIV players on it and was drummed by the non-LIV Euro team? Those Ryder Cup guys?

Spieth, Thomas, Harman, Burns etc etc..Yes, those guys. 

[jjtour]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

And I think what made Tiger "Tiger" wasn't just being a generational talent, but it was also who he was and what he represented. Golf was the sport of the upper class (and mostly white). It's what the leisure class does to pass the time. Golf was the reason your doctor didn't take appointments on Wednesdays. Golf wasn't "cool". 

 

But then you have a black kid from LA, of modest upbringing, who not only shows up on tour and just starts laying waste to everything in his path? He showed the world that golf was more than just the thing rich stodgy white guys played. He disrupted the game by being who and what he was AND being better than literally everyone else. He became a force for golf much like Michael Jordan was for basketball. He wasn't just good at the game. He made golf cool. 

 

No matter how well Scottie plays, he's never going to do that. He's a young gun who looks (and acts) like a 45 year old accountant. He's the kind of golfer that golf fans admire, not the kind of golfer that redefines the game and bridges the gap beyond golf. 

 

For anyone else to do what Tiger did, they have to do what Tiger did: break the mold. Scottie Scheffler *IS* the mold. 

 

You said it better than me. Exactly right, Tiger was transcendant. The rest of these guys just arent. Like you said they are more in the mold of "upper class country club golfer"

[notsohard]

3 hours ago, redfirebird08 said:

 

That story on Norman is jawdropping. What a hypocrite. 

That's an old story in Australia. They teach it in all the university curriculum under macro economics fraud. Then we send them to the USA to live and become citizens there, never to return to the land of milk and honey. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

23 minutes ago, notsohard said:

That's an old story in Australia. They teach it in all the university curriculum under macro economics fraud. Then we send them to the USA to live and become citizens there, never to return to the land of milk and honey. 

 

I always thought Australia was the land where literally everything in nature is trying to kill you. Sort of like Florida, but with a cool accent. 

Edited April 18 by betarhoalphadelta

[Mcfly]

12 hours ago, freeze16172002 said:

You realize that LIV has spent billions and has nothing to show for it. They lose billions per year with no chance of ever making a profit. what are LIV's tv ratings? Nice try though

I don’t disagree. There are approximately 20-25 people in our “golf group”, all ages 65 and up.  All retired, all play at least four times per week, usually more, and all have played since before high school.  Maybe our sample skews the curve, but none of us watch more than a few minutes of PGA tour per week, and even less LIV.  The point is professional men’s golf, regardless of which tour, isn’t a compelling product compared to years past, and the perception, real or imagined of PGA tour players telling us how good they are (see “The best golf is played here” commercial) doesn’t help.  If you have to tell people how good you are, chances are the main one you’re trying to convince is yourself.  

[bcjim]

1 hour ago, Mcfly said:

I don’t disagree. There are approximately 20-25 people in our “golf group”, all ages 65 and up.  All retired, all play at least four times per week, usually more, and all have played since before high school.  Maybe our sample skews the curve, but none of us watch more than a few minutes of PGA tour per week, and even less LIV.  The point is professional men’s golf, regardless of which tour, isn’t a compelling product compared to years past, and the perception, real or imagined of PGA tour players telling us how good they are (see “The best golf is played here” commercial) doesn’t help.  If you have to tell people how good you are, chances are the main one you’re trying to convince is yourself.  

I don't "watch" much either but I do pay attention to PGA Tour golf and I do "watch" some of it. If its raining, if I have a beer at the club, if its unusually compelling, etc, I watch. But even of I don't watch, I AM interested.

 

I watch zero liv and will never watch. Or look into results. Or search it on twitter or IG or whatever. AK moved my liv needle from 0.0 to 1.0 out of a 100.0.  I have no interest in Liv golf.

 

Also, the tour had a similar commercial years ago. Well before liv was even though about.

[baitdragger]

6 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

And I think what made Tiger "Tiger" wasn't just being a generational talent, but it was also who he was and what he represented. Golf was the sport of the upper class (and mostly white). It's what the leisure class does to pass the time. Golf was the reason your doctor didn't take appointments on Wednesdays. Golf wasn't "cool". 

 

But then you have a black kid from LA, of modest upbringing, who not only shows up on tour and just starts laying waste to everything in his path? He showed the world that golf was more than just the thing rich stodgy white guys played. He disrupted the game by being who and what he was AND being better than literally everyone else. He became a force for golf much like Michael Jordan was for basketball. He wasn't just good at the game. He made golf cool. 

 

No matter how well Scottie plays, he's never going to do that. He's a young gun who looks (and acts) like a 45 year old accountant. He's the kind of golfer that golf fans admire, not the kind of golfer that redefines the game and bridges the gap beyond golf. 

 

For anyone else to do what Tiger did, they have to do what Tiger did: break the mold. Scottie Scheffler *IS* the mold. 

PGA better start looking for the next hot thing.   Agree with above and SS ain’t it.    Boring as hell to watch, I tuned out for the back 9 as apparently most of America did.   The PGA has lost Tiger (he’s never coming back, sorry 2019 was his last year of competitive golf) and most everyone else went to Liv to drop off the face of TV earth.  So the PGA is betting all their chips on Rory (who can’t find a trophy) and SS who no ones who tunes into a TV cares about as evident by the 20% drop.

 

The PGA has more to worry about than the big bad Liv mean man right now.  And post Covid golf numbers are dropping again, I’ve seen deals on local courses fall through lately where they would have sold in 2021 at 2x the ask.    

[bekgolf]

The Masters chose to not have an active app this year.  Coverage could be watched via their webpage but anything else needed to be streamed from a subscription service. 

 

It had to of accounted for some of the drop in viewership this year.  There was no way I was signing up for espn+ or another + service just to watch the Masters on my tv, I was able to watch on my laptop and cast to the tv.  Others probably watched something else since the Masters made it difficult to watch compared to years past.

 

SS put on a great show.  It's too bad that it was not available to everyone.

 

 

[redfirebird08]

4 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

The Masters chose to not have an active app this year.  Coverage could be watched via their webpage but anything else needed to be streamed from a subscription service. 

 

It had to of accounted for some of the drop in viewership this year.  There was no way I was signing up for espn+ or another + service just to watch the Masters on my tv, I was able to watch on my laptop and cast to the tv.  Others probably watched something else since the Masters made it difficult to watch compared to years past.

 

SS put on a great show.  It's too bad that it was not available to everyone.

 

 

I was able to stream for free via the Masters app on my Apple TV box as well as my iPhone & iPad. 

[bekgolf]

2 minutes ago, redfirebird08 said:

I was able to stream for free via the Masters app on my Apple TV box as well as my iPhone & iPad. 

 

That's good to hear, my roku had an app but all it did was direct me to a + service.  I was still able to watch via the webpage and I appreciate that the Masters does that.  I don't have cable or satellite and I'm on the bubble for receiving ota, sometimes it's there and sometimes it isn't.

[Hawkeye77]

7 hours ago, scotee said:

OK, I doubt she actually said this but funny as L nevertheless.

 

 

G Mac would kill for her rumored Nike deal!

[redfirebird08]

Just now, bekgolf said:

 

That's good to hear, my roku had an app but all it did was direct me to a + service.  I was still able to watch via the webpage and I appreciate that the Masters does that.  I don't have cable or satellite and I'm on the bubble for receiving ota, sometimes it's there and sometimes it isn't.

I have a couple Roku devices around my house. The solution for me was to use the Masters app on my phone and send an AirPlay stream from the iPhone to Roku box. It worked pretty damn good, though I wish they would just give us an app for Roku. 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

5 minutes ago, redfirebird08 said:

I have a couple Roku devices around my house. The solution for me was to use the Masters app on my phone and send an AirPlay stream from the iPhone to Roku box. It worked pretty damn good, though I wish they would just give us an app for Roku. 

Same here just with android to Chromecast TV. Worked great! 

 

Masters app and coverage is second to none. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, baitdragger said:

Agree with above and SS ain’t it.    Boring as hell to watch, I tuned out for the back 9 as apparently most of America did.  

   

The problem with the back 9 at Augusta wasn't Scottie. It was that everybody else folded down the stretch. 

[baitdragger]

7 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

The problem with the back 9 at Augusta wasn't Scottie. It was that everybody else folded down the stretch. 

sure that’s one thought.

 

however had the same field folded exactly as it happened and oh let’s say instead of Scottie in the lead, oh let’s pick a golfer….um…Tiger Woods was in the lead instead, by the exact same amount and each of the last 9 holes played out exactly the same, how do you think TV viewership would have trended???

 

millions of folks would have just turned off the TV and said I don’t care about watching Tiger win??

 

 

 

 

[freeze16172002]

19 hours ago, CDM said:

 

True but at the amount they make and the daily number keeps going up, does it matter to them is the question? Everyone seems to hang onto "not making a profit" but that is just a hollow point to defend against them.   

 

Have you ever heard one time they are worried about profit?   I agree you would think in rational world they would be but  I can not find one article stating a concern, only comments are they are in this for the  "long term" term. They have the money to win the war even if they loose some battles along the way.......or as I see it until they get bored dealing with it. 

 

The one thing I am wondering is based on the PGAT ratings this year (all pretty much down) what the 1.5 billion SSG put in is getting them?  Everyone spouts out "its 3 billion" but if you actually drill down on it, it is a 950 million initial investment, up to 1.5 billion based on some aspects not defined, plus an option to to max out at 3 billion.   Have to wait and over time I guess on the other investment aspects.  The one question is where did, what happened to the initial investment of 950 million?  Rumors of where it was going but nothing beyond that?

 

I guess my point is, golf has a CAP as we all know and it sure seems like a lot of money being tossed out by both sides for something that over time has proven to be limited on its growth. 

what amount do they make? Hint they make nothing and always will make nothing. What are the numbers that you know, they just spent 100's of millions on Rahm and Hatton, are their rising numbers covering that? If not they are losing more this year then the previous years...In your opinion they are willing to lose billions, have no ratings and zero crediability indefinately

[Hawkeye77]

9 hours ago, baitdragger said:

And post Covid golf numbers are dropping again, I’ve seen deals on local courses fall through lately where they would have sold in 2021 at 2x the ask.    

No - golf numbers up again and in many ways in record fashion in 2023, ad hoc observations at a couple courses notwithstanding, lol. 

Edited April 19 by Hawkeye77

[bscinstnct]

19 hours ago, CDM said:

 

True but at the amount they make and the daily number keeps going up, does it matter to them is the question? Everyone seems to hang onto "not making a profit" but that is just a hollow point to defend against them.   

 

Have you ever heard one time they are worried about profit?   I agree you would think in rational world they would be but  I can not find one article stating a concern, only comments are they are in this for the  "long term" term. They have the money to win the war even if they loose some battles along the way.......or as I see it until they get bored dealing with it. 

 

The one thing I am wondering is based on the PGAT ratings this year (all pretty much down) what the 1.5 billion SSG put in is getting them?  Everyone spouts out "its 3 billion" but if you actually drill down on it, it is a 950 million initial investment, up to 1.5 billion based on some aspects not defined, plus an option to to max out at 3 billion.   Have to wait and over time I guess on the other investment aspects.  The one question is where did, what happened to the initial investment of 950 million?  Rumors of where it was going but nothing beyond that?

 

I guess my point is, golf has a CAP as we all know and it sure seems like a lot of money being tossed out by both sides for something that over time has proven to be limited on its growth. 

 

Not needing to make a profit is the 

 

reason for LIVs total failure

 

Clearly the objectives are to be successful in terms of fan interest. I mean, if not, then they have succeeded 🤣

 

But if the goal was to have success as measured by growing a fan base, each year they fail more.

 

The more they spend the worse they fail!

 

Had they set out with strict milestones on measurement of success vis a vis their balance sheet, they would be far more successful 

 

 

Edited April 19 by bscinstnct

[Hawkeye77]

2 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Not needing to make a profit is the 

 

reason for LIVs total failure

 

Clearly the objectives are to be successful in terms of fan interest. I mean, if not, then they have succeeded 🤣

 

But if the goal was to have success as measured by growing a fan base, each year they fail more.

 

The more they spend the worse they fail!

 

Had they set out with strict milestones on measurement of success vis a vis their balance sheet, they would be far more successful 

 

 

I don’t even agree the goal was to have a fan base - IMO the goal was to have mass and/or quick poaching of the best players in the world and figuring the rest of whatever the end game was other than destroying the Tour would take care of itself. Overestimated defections by a very wide margin, no real plan or care about exposure, silly “competition” model.

 

Kind of proves the silly barstool notions of let ‘em wear shorts and play loud music and party it up are and have been stupid.