Patrick Reed at it again (*** NO LIV DISCUSSIONS/REFERENCES ***)

[mat562]

10 minutes ago, tungstenplug said:

This particular attorney has a reputation for filing lawsuits he has no intention of winning. Instead, it is an opportunity to obtain information to be used for another purpose. Anytime you can subpoena old data/conversations/records and then subsequently ask people questions under oath, there is a likelihood that some kind of bombshell will come out

 

In my opinion, this lawsuit is simply an attempt to obtain information proving collusion between the PGA Tour and the Golf Channel / golf media in general. That would go a long way in helping prove the PGA Tour actively tried to shun LIV Golf from the competitive landscape, and would help LIV's case in the larger lawsuit they are actually trying to win

 

In other words, this P. Reed lawsuit is a pawn in the broader LIV Players vs. PGA Tour lawsuit already filed, which is not scheduled to be tried until at least mid-2023

 

Multiple lawsuits are used as a way to drain parties' finances as well, of which one side in this case has a distinct advantage

 

 

Ding Ding! We have a winner!

[carrier street]

5 minutes ago, tungstenplug said:

 

In my opinion, this lawsuit is simply an attempt to obtain information proving collusion between the PGA Tour and the Golf Channel / golf media in general. That would go a long way in helping prove the PGA Tour actively tried to shun LIV Golf from the competitive landscape, and would help LIV's case in the larger lawsuit they are actually trying to win

 

 

I mean, of course they collude with one another. The PGA Tour often refers to its "media partners" and they have a multi-billion dollar contract between them. Golf Channel (and the other networks with media rights) protecting that investment by being actively anti-LIV isn't "collusion" in the anti-trust sense. Golf Channel is under no obligation to cover anything they don't want to, or to cover the things they choose to in a certain way (although, again, all those dollars are going to steer the coverage). They could have a daily show called "Why LIV is Stupid and Their Players Suck" if they so choose. 

 

But I agree with you, no one thinks this is going anywhere. It's a PR move to suck some of the oxygen from the Fed Ex Cup.

[farmer]

Patrick should have added 250M to the suit for defamation and made it a nice, round 1B.  It would have gotten some non-golf attention, and attention is all the suit is about.  It will never be in an actual courtroom.

[caniac6]

Someone just needs to stick Reed’s head in the toilet. Not very mature, but probably very satisfying.

[2bGood]

5 hours ago, aus10KC said:

 

Pro Golfers Men throughout history have been notoriously drunks, degenerates or philanderers. Not all by any means but many will check one of those boxes if not all of them (Daly). 

 

 

Fixed it for you. 

[CaseyC]

Not sure if this has been posted yet

 

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

[jdl]

33 minutes ago, farmer said:

Patrick should have added 250M to the suit for defamation and made it a nice, round 1B.  It would have gotten some non-golf attention, and attention is all the suit is about.  It will never be in an actual courtroom.

[2bGood]

9 hours ago, the bishop said:

Since Reed objects to being labeled a cheat, I'd like to hear him under oath explain his actions at the Hero World Challenge.

 

It would be fun to watch if it got to court. Reed would have to prove a per quad claim. I am interested in which statement(s). He is going to claims are false, and then he would have to prove that those statements are what damaged his reputation, not all the other stuff he has done and said, or has been said about him.

 

Here the steps he would to prove:

 

1. Reed needs to prove there was a false statement (opinions can not be included, you can share any opinion you want "I believe Reed is a cheater"). An important distinction is Reed needs to prove the statement made was false, but Chamblee does not need to prove it was true. 

2. The statement need to be about Patrick Reed specifically (should not be tough to prove this).

3. Statement has to be made to a third party (easy to prove)

4. Reed has to prove his reputation was damaged BY THE SPECIFIC STATEMENT in #1. (This will be very tough to do as it can't be the opinions that were shared, it can not be true items that were shared, it has to be isolated to the (if any) false statement made - and how they alone damaged his reputation. 

5. Reed has to show a direct link between the statement and tangible damages (should not be tough if made it through the other hurdles.)

6. Reed has to prove the statements were made with malice or negligence. (has a chance here).

 

If Reed can't win on all 6 points he loses. I don't think he gets past point 1. 

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by 2bGood

[carrier street]

2 minutes ago, CaseyC said:

Not sure if this has been posted yet

 

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 saw this, and I want to get real law dorky with it: There was a story the other day how they hired a PR firm (through subsidiaries) that didn't register under FARA. Do players helping to recruit other players? Norman does for sure. What about Kushner out there trying to get them a broadcast deal? 

[FootWedge16]

5 hours ago, aus10KC said:

 

Pro Golfers Humans throughout history have been notoriously drunks, degenerates or philanderers. Not all by any means but many will check one of those boxes if not all of them (Daly). 

 

 

 

Fixed that for ya, boss

Edited August 17, 2022 by FootWedge16
Well, looks like someone else fixed it for you first.

[aus10KC]

@FootWedge16 @2bGood

 

Can't argue against that correction. 

[kmbean]

1 hour ago, caniac6 said:

Someone just needs to stick Reed’s head in the toilet. Not very mature, but probably very satisfying.

+ atomic wedgie 

[bscinstnct]

Case dismissed!

 

Your honor, on what grounds?! We haven’t even started yet!

 

Beady eyes. 

 

.

Edited August 17, 2022 by bscinstnct

[the bishop]

35 minutes ago, CaseyC said:

Not sure if this has been posted yet

 

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

"They also broadly sign away their media rights from LIV events."  Uhhh.....Phil?

[Ferguson]

Nothing gets the WRX forums fired up like a thread about Reed.   

The love to hate MO hard at work. 

 

 

 

 

[carrier street]

6 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

Nothing gets the WRX forums fired up like a thread about Reed.   

The love to hate MO hard at work. 

 

 

 

 

Guilty as charged.

[ahenderX]

The below article was cited in a Washington Post article relating to Patrick Reed's "cheating" lawsuit against Brandel Chamblee and Golf Channel. It's a pretty good summary of Patrick Reed's college career at the University of Georgia and Augusta State and the "problems" he had during his time at each school. The article is dated January 30, 2015.

 

From the Tobacco Road Blues:

 

The Villain: Patrick Reed

 

Washington Post article:

 

Patrick Reed has feuded with Brandel Chamblee for years. Now there’s a lawsuit.

[So_Cal]

20 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

Nothing gets the WRX forums fired up like a thread about Reed.   

The love to hate MO hard at work. 

 

 

 

 

I’m just glad he sided with the Saudis so we don’t have to watch him again

[aenemated]

3 hours ago, DavePelz4 said:

Just saw this on a Matlock rerun...

 

 

Aw snap, the Heavy Hitter! 

[Dpavs]

Just another thread where you have to sit back, sigh and just say you how much you love it here on GolfWRX is all I can say. The stuff you read may not always be informed but it never fails to entertain!

Edited August 17, 2022 by Dpavs

[Konklifer]

3 hours ago, CaseyC said:

Not sure if this has been posted yet

 

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

 

Surely not going to win over an PGA Tour supporters.

[Ezgolfer]

I have to say this thread is funny & awesome with multiple creative comments,getting some laugh after intense battle in the main LIV thread..

 

[Valtiel]

Ugh, I miss when golf related rivalries were related to actual play and not this off course WWE "heel wrestler" stuff, which the tour and golf in general is woefully ill suited for. BDC vs. BK was boring as hell and this isn't shaping up to be any better. The jokes made in this thread are going to be the most entertaining part. 😆

[aenemated]

 

"I have the worst attorneys." - George Bluth P-Reed

[idrive]

Personally, I see a lot of good coming out of this.

 

If this kind of crap doesn't discourage the guys on the fence from joining liv, nothing will.

[CasualLie]

When LIV folds shop, or at best merges a bit into PGAT...and let's just say for arguments sake there will be a negotiation to get everyone back on the same page, what happens when negotiations get down to the finer details?  i.e. individual player status.  Because quite arguably, Patrick Reed has just joined the persona non grata ranks with Phil M. with his shenanigans.  Who is going to vouch for him now?  Did PR get so much money upfront that he has no problem burning every bridge?  The guy is so toxic what sponsor in their right mind wants any part of him? (and yes, that is an invitation to start listing companies with an image so tarnished and desperate that they would even consider tossing some $ PR's way.). Isn't it just a matter of time before even Greg Norman hits the eject button on Reed?

[Dicka]

Truth is normally a pretty good defence. I think Chamblee will be fine.

  

5 hours ago, tungstenplug said:

This particular attorney has a reputation for filing lawsuits he has no intention of winning. Instead, it is an opportunity to obtain information to be used for another purpose. Anytime you can subpoena old data/conversations/records and then subsequently ask people questions under oath, there is a likelihood that some kind of bombshell will come out

 

 

That may well be true under some circumstances, however there is already enough litigation underway where discovery like what most are suggesting will well and truly come out anyway. Not sure I think it's the motivation in Reed's case...he and his orbit are just tools.

 

 

[pearcebarr]

39 minutes ago, CasualLie said:

When LIV folds shop, or at best merges a bit into PGAT...and let's just say for arguments sake there will be a negotiation to get everyone back on the same page, what happens when negotiations get down to the finer details?  i.e. individual player status.  Because quite arguably, Patrick Reed has just joined the persona non grata ranks with Phil M. with his shenanigans.  Who is going to vouch for him now?  Did PR get so much money upfront that he has no problem burning every bridge?  The guy is so toxic what sponsor in their right mind wants any part of him? (and yes, that is an invitation to start listing companies with an image so tarnished and desperate that they would even consider tossing some $ PR's way.). Isn't it just a matter of time before even Greg Norman hits the eject button on Reed?

I genuinely don't think they are entertaining that as a possibility. You always miss the first putt if you are too worried about the comebacker

[PZero]

[CasualLie]

8 minutes ago, Dicka said:

Truth is normally a pretty good defence. I think Chamblee will be fine.

  

 

That may well be true under some circumstances, however there is already enough litigation underway where discovery like what most are suggesting will well and truly come out anyway. Not sure I think it's the motivation in Reed's case...he and his orbit are just tools.

 

 

 

No self-respecting lawyer would stand for any kind of discovery in a case like Reed filed.  There are so many ways to "delay"; and delay for a long time.  I would be betting on a dismissal.