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

[2bGood]

3 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

That is the difference between an independent contractor making their own schedule and one who is under contract with stipulation stating which events they have to play.  Sort of one of the major cruxes of the whole issue at hand here.

Are you saying the PGAT does not have contract with players with stipulations about where/when they have to play?

 

Hint: When they sign on to the PGAT they do sign an agreement with stipulations of how many PGAT events they have to play and where they can't play to keep their card. It is much more flexible than LIV but is still in place. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

3 hours ago, MtlJeff said:

 

I guess the question i would have is, the guys ranked 80-125 year in and year out -- Do we really care if they play professional golf? I have zero against these guys on a personal level of course and i wish them the best. But pro sports is a business, people don't watch the NBA to watch PJ Tucker play hard nosed defense, they want to watch Lebron and Kevin Durant etc

 

So yeah, i feel like maybe there was this ask internally, about number of events, about getting more of that sweet guacamole to the guys in the top 50. This arguably creates a better product too because most of us knucklehead fans are dumb, we just want to see the same names over and over (name recognition at the top of leaderboards tends to lead to better ratings--People like dynasties in basically every sport other than the NFL which is it's own superbeast of a thing)

 

I think the PGA tour would've been a better product if it was ~20 events where all the top dudes played, got paid, and gave us a bunch of tournaments with awesome fields. Maybe all of Q4 could've just been a 3 month Q-school for the 80-125 guys after the top 50 or whatever is locked in

 

I get the impression things like this were kinda rebuffed, which led to LIV getting a bit more bold in what they set out to do. And now the PGA is kinda like "Hey wait a minute, no one said there were no takesies backsies!"

 

I'm trying not to sound like a bad guy here but i don't really care about the 93rd ranked player. Or if he wins a tournament in October. I remember reading Jack Welsh's book about when he was CEO of GE. One of his great strategies was cutting any business they weren't top 3 in to focus on what they were good at. I just kinda wish the PGA tour would do that...LIV seems to be trying to be that, albeit with several well known flaws (they got some work to do too, obviously)

 

Seems like the PGA Tour, as a membership organization, has put together a pretty viable business plan. 

 

The top players all tend to play the same events, you may have noticed. Everyone knows what those events are. Obviously the majors, the Players, WGC events, the Playoff events, Arnold Palmer, Memorial, and a couple others. You know you're getting great strength of field at those tournaments. So you're already getting what you want--a bunch of events with great fields. 

 

The Tour doesn't force their top players to go to the other events, and they don't force you to watch them--and strength of field and purse size reflect that. But obviously the 80-125 members want to compete in those tournaments, and obviously sponsors are still footing the bill for them. And while ratings for those tournaments are lower, obviously people still watch them. 

 

So they're putting on big events for their top members and other events to help the lower members make a living. Seems like a great way to put together a membership organization that is self-sufficient and self-replenishing over time. They satisfy the top players who can have a limited schedule and still keep their cards and make tons of money, and they satisfy the lower-tier members who might have to grind it out a LOT more, but are able to make >$1M/year playing golf for a living. 

 

Many here seem to think that if there were fewer events overall, this means that the top players would suddenly want to play 14 LIV events + 4 majors + 11 other PGA Tour events. No, because they don't want to play 29 events per year. Instead, what it would mean is that the top players would play 14 LIV events + 4 majors and the PGA Tour becomes irrelevant. Has this really improved anything for the fans who currently get 4 majors + the Players + the Playoff / Tour Championship + the API + the Memorial + the WGC events + the Genesis + the WM + a few others which all have pretty solid fields? 

[2bGood]

2 hours ago, Purple Toupee said:

The LIV players who signed a contract have to play all the LIV events.  That’s what they signed up and got paid in advance for.  On weeks where there isn’t an event, they can play wherever they want.  LIV isn’t pretending that they’re independent contractors, but they’re also not telling them what they can do on their off weeks.

 

We actually do not know if the LIV players can play where-ever they want, on off weeks or if LIV is putting restrictions on them outside events. But I assume for now this is true. It is a different deal the PGAT, but still has it restrictions and I imagine some of those restrictions are not known publicly yet - but here some info:

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/liv-golf-pga-tour-contract-11660744567

 

A contract reviewed by The Wall Street Journal includes requirements to wear LIV gear at non-LIV tournaments, restraints on interviews and an agreement to help recruit other golfers to the Saudi-backed upstart.

 

I would keep in mind, the PGAT players also signed agreements that stipulated not playing certain events and playing a minimum number of PGAT events to keep tour status. The guys that went to LIV did not like that deal, so they went somewhere else for a deal they liked more. Good for them, but they should leave the PGAT tour behind and focus on their new tour.

Edited August 17, 2022 by 2bGood

[MtlJeff]

33 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Seems like the PGA Tour, as a membership organization, has put together a pretty viable business plan. 

 

The top players all tend to play the same events, you may have noticed. Everyone knows what those events are. Obviously the majors, the Players, WGC events, the Playoff events, Arnold Palmer, Memorial, and a couple others. You know you're getting great strength of field at those tournaments. So you're already getting what you want--a bunch of events with great fields. 

 

The Tour doesn't force their top players to go to the other events, and they don't force you to watch them--and strength of field and purse size reflect that. But obviously the 80-125 members want to compete in those tournaments, and obviously sponsors are still footing the bill for them. And while ratings for those tournaments are lower, obviously people still watch them. 

 

So they're putting on big events for their top members and other events to help the lower members make a living. Seems like a great way to put together a membership organization that is self-sufficient and self-replenishing over time. They satisfy the top players who can have a limited schedule and still keep their cards and make tons of money, and they satisfy the lower-tier members who might have to grind it out a LOT more, but are able to make >$1M/year playing golf for a living. 

 

Many here seem to think that if there were fewer events overall, this means that the top players would suddenly want to play 14 LIV events + 4 majors + 11 other PGA Tour events. No, because they don't want to play 29 events per year. Instead, what it would mean is that the top players would play 14 LIV events + 4 majors and the PGA Tour becomes irrelevant. Has this really improved anything for the fans who currently get 4 majors + the Players + the Playoff / Tour Championship + the API + the Memorial + the WGC events + the Genesis + the WM + a few others which all have pretty solid fields? 

 

I understand top players don't want to play 29 events. Was LIV always going to be 14 events, or would it have been less had they co-existed? Were their contracts always going to require players to play in ALL 14 events, or did they implement that only once things got combative....we don't really know these things do we?

 

I dont disagree with you. There's 15~ good tournaments a year on the PGA tour. And the top players scatter around to play another 5-7 random ones. I'd rather those 6-8 all be the same so we get more good tournaments, that's all

[smashdn]

4 hours ago, MtlJeff said:

 

I guess the question i would have is, the guys ranked 80-125 year in and year out -- Do we really care if they play professional golf? I have zero against these guys on a personal level of course and i wish them the best. But pro sports is a business, people don't watch the NBA to watch PJ Tucker play hard nosed defense, they want to watch Lebron and Kevin Durant etc

 

So yeah, i feel like maybe there was this ask internally, about number of events, about getting more of that sweet guacamole to the guys in the top 50. This arguably creates a better product too because most of us knucklehead fans are dumb, we just want to see the same names over and over (name recognition at the top of leaderboards tends to lead to better ratings--People like dynasties in basically every sport other than the NFL which is it's own superbeast of a thing)

 

I think the PGA tour would've been a better product if it was ~20 events where all the top dudes played, got paid, and gave us a bunch of tournaments with awesome fields. Maybe all of Q4 could've just been a 3 month Q-school for the 80-125 guys after the top 50 or whatever is locked in

 

I get the impression things like this were kinda rebuffed, which led to LIV getting a bit more bold in what they set out to do. And now the PGA is kinda like "Hey wait a minute, no one said there were no takesies backsies!"

 

I'm trying not to sound like a bad guy here but i don't really care about the 93rd ranked player. Or if he wins a tournament in October. I remember reading Jack Welsh's book about when he was CEO of GE. One of his great strategies was cutting any business they weren't top 3 in to focus on what they were good at. I just kinda wish the PGA tour would do that...LIV seems to be trying to be that, albeit with several well known flaws (they got some work to do too, obviously)

 

I think you make a lot of good points here.

 

They keep telling us that the PGA Tour is a member organization.  You had some members that presented some asks or wants or suggestions to those in charge and were shot down.  Some number of those who were asking for changes felt strongly enough about what they wanted they sought it elsewhere.

 

That is why I don't really understand the vitriol thrown the LIV guys way by the PGAT players.  If you consistently asked your employer for something, and didn't get it, and you really felt strongly about it, it is only a matter of time before you bolt.  "No hard feelings but I am going over here to get what I have been after."

 

@RichieHunt posted about the feelings of the PGAT guys (my words > ) "resenting the approach that they LIV guys took in terms of not being transparent about why they left."  The feeling that, "Hey, you guys left for the money, just say you did and I would respect that decision a lot more."

 

Though on the other hand I can see that a statement basically, "I'm a golf mercenary and go where the money is," would get guys crushed in the media.  Even the PGAT is "cautious" about putting the money thing out front and center.  We no longer have the "Money List" but instead Fed Ex Cup Points.  It is "Order of Merit" not who made the most cash.  We all know why they play (or the biggest part of why) we just don't tend to think it tasteful to put it out there so they sort of hide it.

[smashdn]

6 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

I understand top players don't want to play 29 events. Was LIV always going to be 14 events, or would it have been less had they co-existed? Were their contracts always going to require players to play in ALL 14 events, or did they implement that only once things got combative....we don't really know these things do we?

 

I dont disagree with you. There's 15~ good tournaments a year on the PGA tour. And the top players scatter around to play another 5-7 random ones. I'd rather those 6-8 all be the same so we get more good tournaments, that's all

 

I thought it was supposed to be similar to the WGC type events.  But also the league feel and teams aspect.  The league I would think dictates you have the same players (as much as practicable) at each event.  The team aspect (which I could take or leave) has I think mutated(?)/morphed/evolved as a result of attempting to make it something you can grow an allegiance to or even perhaps market to a corporate entity.

 

Also, my understanding (always subject to being wrong) was that it was originally supposed to be like a "champions league" (football/soccer) type deal where the top players (by LIV's criteria I suppose) are invited to play in these smaller field, shorter length events.  The idea being, these are the best players in the world competing around the globe in a condensed, high stakes, match/event.  It was going to be played in places the tours don't typically go to, both geographically and to clubs/courses where maybe logistically they can't hold a full-bore, full-field and spectator event.  Under those premises LIV wouldn't be bad from my perspective.  Admittedly though that takes acceptance and cooperation with the various professional tours, chiefly DP and PGAT.  They however did not and here we are.

[mitchl]

35 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

I understand top players don't want to play 29 events. Was LIV always going to be 14 events, or would it have been less had they co-existed? Were their contracts always going to require players to play in ALL 14 events, or did they implement that only once things got combative....we don't really know these things do we?

 

I dont disagree with you. There's 15~ good tournaments a year on the PGA tour. And the top players scatter around to play another 5-7 random ones. I'd rather those 6-8 all be the same so we get more good tournaments, that's all

 

What we know is that Graeme was the first batch to sign, when it was still 8 events this year, 10 next year, and then more after… and he had to break his agreement to play the Irish Open… and he is committed to playing all events.
we also know that the judge said “the LIV contract is way more restrictive than the PGA dreamed of being”. — or some such was her language.

[DrunkCaddy]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

 

We actually do not know if the LIV players can play where-ever they want, on off weeks or if LIV is putting restrictions on them outside events. But I assume for now this is true. It is a different deal the PGAT, but still has it restrictions and I imagine some of those restrictions are not known publicly yet - but here some info:

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/liv-golf-pga-tour-contract-11660744567

 

 

I wonder if Cam Smith will be able to collect the $1M bonus for winning a major if he moves over to LIV this year after the Fed Ex Cup?

[mitchl]

1 hour ago, 2bGood said:

Are you saying the PGAT does not have contract with players with stipulations about where/when they have to play?

 

Hint: When they sign on to the PGAT they do sign an agreement with stipulations of how many PGAT events they have to play and where they can't play to keep their card. It is much more flexible than LIV but is still in place. 

 

The PGA requires you to play 15 PGAT events (and I think majors may count as one, even though they aren’t PGAT).   But it does not require a player to play certain events - the reason you see the same big names play is because there are only 10-15 of the top tier or high middle tier PGAT events, so they all want to play there.     

Some players are playing 20 or more events to increase their ranking, increase their points, increase the odds that they will have a card the next year.   That’s why Perez was likely playing as much as he was, he probably couldn’t keep his card if he only played 20 events per year.

[bscinstnct]

The most annoying thing about the liv is that 

 

The pga tour could do the same thing.

 

Take the top-50, have them play in 15 events a year, pay them the lions share of tour revenue, since they would generate 80% of it

 

And pay everybody else peanuts. The peanuts would still play their butts off trying to make it to the top 50.

 

And the top-10/20 guys would all make 20-30MM a year like the liv pays

 

But the pga tour is trying to support an entire “ecosystem” to enable a merit based comp system where the #100 guy can still make 1MM. 
 

But now, who knows, to keep the top guys, they may need to just funnel more the the top and the kfc and lower ranked guys will suffer. 
 

How nice for the liv to just come along and try to pick off the best guys. It’s disgusting to have to see but, business is business, so just gotta fight it out. 

[doctorbloor]

6 hours ago, MtlJeff said:

 

I guess the question i would have is, the guys ranked 80-125 year in and year out -- Do we really care if they play professional golf? I have zero against these guys on a personal level of course and i wish them the best. But pro sports is a business, people don't watch the NBA to watch PJ Tucker play hard nosed defense, they want to watch Lebron and Kevin Durant etc

 

So yeah, i feel like maybe there was this ask internally, about number of events, about getting more of that sweet guacamole to the guys in the top 50. This arguably creates a better product too because most of us knucklehead fans are dumb, we just want to see the same names over and over (name recognition at the top of leaderboards tends to lead to better ratings--People like dynasties in basically every sport other than the NFL which is it's own superbeast of a thing)

 

I think the PGA tour would've been a better product if it was ~20 events where all the top dudes played, got paid, and gave us a bunch of tournaments with awesome fields. Maybe all of Q4 could've just been a 3 month Q-school for the 80-125 guys after the top 50 or whatever is locked in

 

I get the impression things like this were kinda rebuffed, which led to LIV getting a bit more bold in what they set out to do. And now the PGA is kinda like "Hey wait a minute, no one said there were no takesies backsies!"

 

I'm trying not to sound like a bad guy here but i don't really care about the 93rd ranked player. Or if he wins a tournament in October. I remember reading Jack Welsh's book about when he was CEO of GE. One of his great strategies was cutting any business they weren't top 3 in to focus on what they were good at. I just kinda wish the PGA tour would do that...LIV seems to be trying to be that, albeit with several well known flaws (they got some work to do too, obviously)

Couple thoughts:

 

You're not a bad guy, but there's nothing dull about watching guys fighting to keep their cards, sponsorships, etc. during the final events of the season.  DJ misses a putt to win a tournament, eh, too bad.  His Scrooge McDuck vault is a little emptier than it might have been.  Guys trying to keep their cards don't have that luxury.  Those events count, and for me it's pretty engaging viewing.

 

The other thing I suspect, and I don't have any real knowledge into the economic engine driving the PGAT, is that those guys aren't just detritus, but necessary to maintain full fields week after week, to keep the sponsorship and advertising dollars, etc. coming in while top-ranked guys play to the minimum of tour requirements.  Cut tournaments -> cut your revenues and purses.

[Simpsonia]

6 hours ago, MtlJeff said:

 

I guess the question i would have is, the guys ranked 80-125 year in and year out -- Do we really care if they play professional golf? I have zero against these guys on a personal level of course and i wish them the best. But pro sports is a business, people don't watch the NBA to watch PJ Tucker play hard nosed defense, they want to watch Lebron and Kevin Durant etc

 

So yeah, i feel like maybe there was this ask internally, about number of events, about getting more of that sweet guacamole to the guys in the top 50. This arguably creates a better product too because most of us knucklehead fans are dumb, we just want to see the same names over and over (name recognition at the top of leaderboards tends to lead to better ratings--People like dynasties in basically every sport other than the NFL which is it's own superbeast of a thing)

 

I think the PGA tour would've been a better product if it was ~20 events where all the top dudes played, got paid, and gave us a bunch of tournaments with awesome fields. Maybe all of Q4 could've just been a 3 month Q-school for the 80-125 guys after the top 50 or whatever is locked in

 

I get the impression things like this were kinda rebuffed, which led to LIV getting a bit more bold in what they set out to do. And now the PGA is kinda like "Hey wait a minute, no one said there were no takesies backsies!"

 

I'm trying not to sound like a bad guy here but i don't really care about the 93rd ranked player. Or if he wins a tournament in October. I remember reading Jack Welsh's book about when he was CEO of GE. One of his great strategies was cutting any business they weren't top 3 in to focus on what they were good at. I just kinda wish the PGA tour would do that...LIV seems to be trying to be that, albeit with several well known flaws (they got some work to do too, obviously)

 

I mean you or I might not care to watch some of the smaller events, but without them, there is no PGA Tour as we know it. Collegiate/Amateur golf is just not developed enough to feed a competitive and thriving professional PGA Tour league on its own. Players need development, they need opportunities to compete and hone their game, and make a living while doing it. That's what those events, and KFT, etc are for. They're for the guys like Tony Finau who needed time to develop and mature his game to make it into the top 20. Guys like Brooks Koepka who grinded through the KFT. But those guys can't survive in professional golf without opportunities to make a living before they make it big in the PGAT. So without those, the PGAT becomes mostly a bunch of rich kids whose parents can support their dreams (even moreso than it already is), while the rest go back to work at a car dealership (to paraphrase Jack).

Edited August 17, 2022 by Simpsonia

[MtlJeff]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

I thought it was supposed to be similar to the WGC type events.  But also the league feel and teams aspect.  The league I would think dictates you have the same players (as much as practicable) at each event.  The team aspect (which I could take or leave) has I think mutated(?)/morphed/evolved as a result of attempting to make it something you can grow an allegiance to or even perhaps market to a corporate entity.

 

Also, my understanding (always subject to being wrong) was that it was originally supposed to be like a "champions league" (football/soccer) type deal where the top players (by LIV's criteria I suppose) are invited to play in these smaller field, shorter length events.  The idea being, these are the best players in the world competing around the globe in a condensed, high stakes, match/event.  It was going to be played in places the tours don't typically go to, both geographically and to clubs/courses where maybe logistically they can't hold a full-bore, full-field and spectator event.  Under those premises LIV wouldn't be bad from my perspective.  Admittedly though that takes acceptance and cooperation with the various professional tours, chiefly DP and PGAT.  They however did not and here we are.

 

OK this was kinda my understanding too and i pretty much agree, if it shook up like that , this to me would have been pretty cool in my books. It's too bad it didn't work out....and here we are as you say

 

1 hour ago, mitchl said:

 

What we know is that Graeme was the first batch to sign, when it was still 8 events this year, 10 next year, and then more after… and he had to break his agreement to play the Irish Open… and he is committed to playing all events.
we also know that the judge said “the LIV contract is way more restrictive than the PGA dreamed of being”. — or some such was her language.

 

OK, that was kind of what i thought too. That it originally wasn't 14. I wonder when it was 8-10 how flexible they would have been with DJ, Koepka etc had there been more of a live and let live attitude.

 

I understand that now the LIV contracts are very stern in the language that you have to play every event. While the language might be more restrictive than the PGA contracts--The PGA did also suspend anyone who plays a single LIV event. So it would also seem contracts or not their views towards LIV participation are also very strict.

[Dutch1008]

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

That is why I don't really understand the vitriol thrown the LIV guys way by the PGAT players.  If you consistently asked your employer for something, and didn't get it, and you really felt strongly about it, it is only a matter of time before you bolt.  "No hard feelings but I am going over here to get what I have been after."

Most of the comments I've heard from PGAT players has been some rendition of, "We're still friends, everybody is free to make their own choices but don't try to double dip, just go play your new tour and leave ours alone". 

 

I don't think that qualifies as vitriol but YMMV. 

[Foreleft]

I heard from an acquaintance that Greg Norman had dinner with Jim Justice, Gov of WV and owner of the Greenbrier two weeks ago.  Greenbrier held a tour event for several years.  

[mitchl]

1 hour ago, Foreleft said:

I heard from an acquaintance that Greg Norman had dinner with Jim Justice, Gov of WV and owner of the Greenbrier two weeks ago.  Greenbrier held a tour event for several years.  

 

I am sure he is having many meetings with people over golf courses.  That would be a good get.

Why did the PGA stop going to the Greenbrier?   And the course is called The Old White TPC.   Did the PGA and Greenbrier have a falling out over the name change from Old White to Old White TPC?   I had thought that the PGA probably bought it, but it is not part of the TPC group.

And - when LIV made the PReed family vacation promo video, that was at the Greenbrier.   That video was quite the production, and it had to have full rights from the Greenbrier --- almost looked like an ad for the Greenbrier, so it could have had sponsorship $$ going to LIV, or it could have been the first part of a partnership.

Edited August 17, 2022 by mitchl

[CDM]

3 hours ago, mitchl said:

 

The PGA requires you to play 15 PGAT events (and I think majors may count as one, even though they aren’t PGAT).   But it does not require a player to play certain events - the reason you see the same big names play is because there are only 10-15 of the top tier or high middle tier PGAT events, so they all want to play there.     

Some players are playing 20 or more events to increase their ranking, increase their points, increase the odds that they will have a card the next year.   That’s why Perez was likely playing as much as he was, he probably couldn’t keep his card if he only played 20 events per year.

 Dead on.  Reason the PGAT should of done a deal.  We as fans would of got 15-20 solid PGAT events...then LIV big money events and the Majors.  A fan aspect that was a perfect setup.

 

Plus LIV was going outside the US so we could see other course and locations....not just in the US.  

[mitchl]

2 hours ago, MtlJeff said:

I understand that now the LIV contracts are very stern in the language that you have to play every event. While the language might be more restrictive than the PGA contracts--The PGA did also suspend anyone who plays a single LIV event. So it would also seem contracts or not their views towards LIV participation are also very strict.

 

I really don't see the PGA's limitation on playing outside tournaments as strict.   That's pretty standard stuff that you can't moonlight for a competitor without permission/waiver in many contracts.   And in this case, it's a direct threat to the livelihood of any PGA player who doesn't make the switch, and there were only 48 slots available.

After looking at the article, it did answer one big suspicion that I had - regarding why you don't see any interviews with LIV players... they are to refrain from interviews without permission from LIV.   Do any of the players have a social media presence now at all?   I know Phil went dark when he ate both feet earlier this year, but it seems like none of them are visible outside the events.

[idrive]

"According to the Wall Street Journal, players are contractually obligated to wear LIV apparel, even when playing in non-LIV events, they agree to help recruit other players to join LIV Golf when requested by the league, and they’re told to refrain from giving exclusive interviews without approval from the league. Additionally, players need approval for most of the logos they wear."

 

Not sure I'd like to work under those types of restrictions. 

 

Really curious what the "penalties" for breaking these rules are.

[me05501]

IMO what is often forgotten is that the model LIV is pursuing would not have been possible at all if it wasn’t for the other merit-based tours around the world. Without those tours there wouldn’t be “name” players or a way to identify them. 
 

Secondly, it seems clear that the strategy they’ve used to launch LIV has a short lifespan. They won’t always be offering life-changing upfront money. They had to do that to get a toehold, but assuming it survives 3-5 years it’s highly unlikely that they’ll be offering a dozen more ten-figure checks every year. It’ll just be another place to play, likely for more money, likely with smaller fields. But the lottery winner type inducements can’t last.

[tiderider]

3 hours ago, Foreleft said:

I heard from an acquaintance that Greg Norman had dinner with Jim Justice, Gov of WV and owner of the Greenbrier two weeks ago.  Greenbrier held a tour event for several years.  

g'brier's interest has been in the news for a few weeks, now ... if not more ... 

Edited August 18, 2022 by tiderider

[farmer]

If there is eventually to be some merging of LIV and PGAT, with LIV being the big money events, LIV is going to be forced to rethink their tournament system.  The drama of watching contenders coming down the stretch cannot be matched in a 54 hole, shotgun start format.

[mosesgolf]

10 hours ago, Purple Toupee said:

So no more amateurs at the Masters?  The Opens are only open to professionals?

 

I don’t think you thought this through.

Ya got me. Should've worded as all professionals must be in good standing with respective pro tours. 

[Al Thompson]

2 hours ago, me05501 said:

IMO what is often forgotten is that the model LIV is pursuing would not have been possible at all if it wasn’t for the other merit-based tours around the world. Without those tours there wouldn’t be “name” players or a way to identify them. 
 

Secondly, it seems clear that the strategy they’ve used to launch LIV has a short lifespan. They won’t always be offering life-changing upfront money. They had to do that to get a toehold, but assuming it survives 3-5 years it’s highly unlikely that they’ll be offering a dozen more ten-figure checks every year. It’ll just be another place to play, likely for more money, likely with smaller fields. But the lottery winner type inducements can’t last.

 

I found these stories on LIV Golf quite informative and a very good analysis.  

 

Golf has always had a "tumultuous" past and secondly, the reaction of the professional tours has been counterproductive.  They need to be more proactive instead of reactive and there is a solution there.  

https://bit.ly/LIV-PART1

https://bit.ly/LIV-PART2

 

[Valtiel]

6 hours ago, idrive said:

...they agree to help recruit other players to join LIV Golf when requested by the league...

After last month's outburst i'm guessing Sergio got some sales retraining 😆

[Pat du Golf]

The beginning of the end......for the commish...

 

https://www.outkick.com/rickie-fowler-calls-out-pga-tour-handling-liv-golf/

 

Fun times!!

I told you

[MtlJeff]

11 hours ago, me05501 said:

IMO what is often forgotten is that the model LIV is pursuing would not have been possible at all if it wasn’t for the other merit-based tours around the world. Without those tours there wouldn’t be “name” players or a way to identify them. 
 

Secondly, it seems clear that the strategy they’ve used to launch LIV has a short lifespan. They won’t always be offering life-changing upfront money. They had to do that to get a toehold, but assuming it survives 3-5 years it’s highly unlikely that they’ll be offering a dozen more ten-figure checks every year. It’ll just be another place to play, likely for more money, likely with smaller fields. But the lottery winner type inducements can’t last.

 

it seems to be a bit of a loss leader strategy as you say. Overpay people to get it started and then see where everything stands 3-4 years from now. If ratings and sponsorships are bad, they probably don't want to burn money forever. I kinda wonder if the Cam's and others believe that too so there is a bit of a gold rush to get the 100M-200M contracts.

 

One thing that i've always found a bit funny is the idea that these guys business model is to steal from other tours and that this is awful. I mean, it 100% is right now--I don't disagree with that statement at all, it's what they are doing.

 

I just think, look at LinkedIn. like 95% of jobs require market experience. Where do these companies think people are getting it? Almost the entire moderate to high paying marketplace exists based on taking talent from elsewhere. I've had 2-3 HR headhunters reach out to me in the past month. They know i have a job. When i went to my current job i had 10+ years experience in the same field with someone else. Realistically, almost all of us will do what the LIV guys did at some point (leave a job for a different one that pays more)

[smashdn]

15 hours ago, Dutch1008 said:

Most of the comments I've heard from PGAT players has been some rendition of, "We're still friends, everybody is free to make their own choices but don't try to double dip, just go play your new tour and leave ours alone". 

 

I don't think that qualifies as vitriol but YMMV. 

 

I don't think LIV was supposed to be a stand-alone tour.  Now things are fluid and it may come to that but my understanding was it was supposed to be a complimentary "league" within the very highest levels of professional golf where those selected/qualifying/whatever had an additional outlet for marketing and money-making.

 

I think one gap in the PGAT side of things was a lack of marketing in the new golfing markets of Asia and the Middle East.  You got guys on the backside of their careers that maybe have course design ambitions or other ventures that might be of interest in those markets.  The DPT was there to an extent getting a few of those guys known there.

 

I looked at LIV as a better, more well-funded WGC type thing.

 

I don't know how guys currently look at players who qualify to play in the current WGC's, TOC, majors etc.  Would think it is along that same vein from a principle standpoint but bet it is a lot different in practice.

[Purple Toupee]

12 hours ago, idrive said:

"According to the Wall Street Journal, players are contractually obligated to wear LIV apparel, even when playing in non-LIV events, they agree to help recruit other players to join LIV Golf when requested by the league, and they’re told to refrain from giving exclusive interviews without approval from the league. Additionally, players need approval for most of the logos they wear."

 

Not sure I'd like to work under those types of restrictions. 

 

Really curious what the "penalties" for breaking these rules are.

If someone went through the LIV contracts, and these were the worst things they could find, then these are probably the least restrictive sports contracts in history.

 

Also, the PGAT approves logos as well.

[jdl]

14 hours ago, mitchl said:

Why did the PGA stop going to the Greenbrier?   And the course is called The Old White TPC.   Did the PGA and Greenbrier have a falling out over the name change from Old White to Old White TPC?   I had thought that the PGA probably bought it, but it is not part of the TPC group.
 

The schedule change that moved the playoffs earlier so they'd be completed before the football season meant that the Greenbrier stop got moved to the fall. And that seemed to not sit well with them so there was a mutual agreement to end the event.