LIV Golf Now Closed?

[StuM]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

I'd take that bet. They'll likely be fined somewhat. European Tour players were fined.

Ok, $10.  Bet is whether or not players get fined to rejoin PGAT after the 2023 season.  I bet “No Fine”.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, StuM said:

Ok, $10.  Bet is whether or not players get fined to rejoin PGAT after the 2023 season.  I bet “No Fine”.

Okay. And if we can't come to an agreement on what constitutes a fine… no bet.

You do know that the DPWT players were fined, right?

Also, the PGA Tour typically doesn't disclose fines or disciplinary action.

Doesn't mean they aren't fining players. They get fined for bad timings (slow play), etc.

The link to the article is:

si.com

• The PGA Tour will still be called the PGA Tour, but now commissioner Jay Monahan also oversees LIV Golf, and the PGA Tour remains a partner of the DP World Golf Tour. Monahan has told Al-Rumayyan they will evaluate LIV at the end of the year.

• If Monahan wants to disband LIV, he can. If LIV golfers want to play on the Tour, Monahan and the current PGA Tour leaders have to approve the terms. Monahan has banned them; it is presumed that penalties to return to the Tour will be significant.

https://www.si.com/golf/news/jimmy-dunne-the-architect-of-the-pga-tour-liv-golf-deal-lays-out-the-details

Dunne did not discuss penalties for LIV golfers trying to return to the PGA Tour– or how PGA Tour players who turned down LIV money can now make up the difference. But Monahan has power that he can use as a hammer (with massive fines) and creatively. This year, for example, the Tour is doling out $100 million to its most popular players via its Player Impact Program. Suppose Monahan tells LIV players they can return, but they have to pay a fine and will be ineligible for the PIP for the next 10 years. That would ensure that over the next decade, $1 billion (or more) will go only to players who stayed.

Heyo, @StuM.

[StuM]

25 minutes ago, iacas said:

Okay. And if we can't come to an agreement on what constitutes a fine… no bet.

You do know that the DPWT players were fined, right?

Also, the PGA Tour typically doesn't disclose fines or disciplinary action.

Doesn't mean they aren't fining players. They get fined for bad timings (slow play), etc.

The link to the article is:

si.com

• The PGA Tour will still be called the PGA Tour, but now commissioner Jay Monahan also oversees LIV Golf, and the PGA Tour remains a partner of the DP World Golf Tour. Monahan has told Al-Rumayyan they will evaluate LIV at the end of the year.

• If Monahan wants to disband LIV, he can. If LIV golfers want to play on the Tour, Monahan and the current PGA Tour leaders have to approve the terms. Monahan has banned them; it is presumed that penalties to return to the Tour will be significant.

https://www.si.com/golf/news/jimmy-dunne-the-architect-of-the-pga-tour-liv-golf-deal-lays-out-the-details

Dunne did not discuss penalties for LIV golfers trying to return to the PGA Tour– or how PGA Tour players who turned down LIV money can now make up the difference. But Monahan has power that he can use as a hammer (with massive fines) and creatively. This year, for example, the Tour is doling out $100 million to its most popular players via its Player Impact Program. Suppose Monahan tells LIV players they can return, but they have to pay a fine and will be ineligible for the PIP for the next 10 years. That would ensure that over the next decade, $1 billion (or more) will go only to players who stayed.

Heyo, @StuM.

I could be wrong but weren’t the DP Players fined prior to the merger announcement?

 I will agree any financial consequence is a fine so if ineligible for PIP,  I lose.

Only problem I see is no disclosure if a fine was assessed of not makes it tough.

one thing I will disclose about my gambling abilities, I have none and lose a lot of bets, so odds are good for you.

[iacas]

 

[Hardluckster]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

 

From what I’ve read, there seems to be a distinct possibility that this never comes to fruition  

If that is the case, do both sides agree to drop the litigation and thus the discovery aspect?

[dsc123]

What doesn't make any sense to me is the claim that this merger is driven by the mutual desire to stop the bleeding and fallout from the lawsuits.  

On costs, for example.  Lawsuits are expensive, yes.  But businesses smaller than the PGA Tour are in big lawsuits all the time.  You're telling me the PGA Tour can't afford 2 or 3 lawsuits that have been going on for a year or two?  Not only that, you're telling me they got into these lawsuits and what, were surprised that they'd have to pay their lawyers?  Monahan didn't first ask the lawyers, hey, so what do you think this is going to cost us?  Come on.  

And even if you assume this is, in large part, about the costs of the lawsuits, it means that the CEO decided to file a lawsuit, then a year later came back and said to his organization that the lawsuit he started was bleeding them dry and the only solution was to let the group he sued buy a huge chunk of the organization?   Oh, and in this deal he negotiated, he's in charge of the new company?  That's either some extraordinary incompetence or a breach of his fiduciary duties to the organization or both.    

And then there's the idea that something harmful would come out of discovery.  So again, we'd have to believe that these executives started lawsuits, not realizing there would be discovery, then realized they'd be embarrassed, and went back to their organizations and said, hey, my mistake, time for the organization to bend over otherwise I'll be embarrassed.  Or maybe its that discovery was going to cause them to lose the case.  Sure, that could make sense.  Until you tell me the solution to losing an antitrust case is to merge with your competitor.  Huh?

I know that the PGA Tour only filed one of the lawsuits and the others were filed against the Tour and they didn't really have a say in that.  But much of this still holds.  The Tour still went ahead and filed a lawsuit it says it couldn't afford when already entangled in one.  And we have two orgs suing each other and then saying they have no choice but to merge (or whatever you want to call it) because....they sued each other?  

New information could certainly change any of this.  We don't know a lot.  But based on what we do know, it doesn't pass the sniff test for me.  I think its more likely that Monahan and YAR decided this was an explanation the players and the public would accept without questioning.  Everyone will say, oh yeah, lawyers are expensive, risks, discovery, yada yada, IANAL, makes sense okay.   And you see a lot of the players saying that.  

I realize its not some great revelation to suggest that this deal was driven by business reasons.  Maybe this was really just the Michael Scott Paper company deal--PIF wasn't going to stop, so the tour could either fight them forever or let them in.  But a lot of the players are saying its mainly about the litigation costs and I think that's a pretext to cover up the real reasons.    

 

 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Hardluckster said:

From what I’ve read, there seems to be a distinct possibility that this never comes to fruition  

If that is the case, do both sides agree to drop the litigation and thus the discovery aspect?

I think once the lawsuits are dropped, they’re dropped. They could re-file but they can’t just say hey never mind.

[klineka]

45 minutes ago, dsc123 said:

What doesn't make any sense to me is the claim that this merger is driven by the mutual desire to stop the bleeding and fallout from the lawsuits.  

On costs, for example.  Lawsuits are expensive, yes.  But businesses smaller than the PGA Tour are in big lawsuits all the time.  You're telling me the PGA Tour can't afford 2 or 3 lawsuits that have been going on for a year or two?  Not only that, you're telling me they got into these lawsuits and what, were surprised that they'd have to pay their lawyers?  Monahan didn't first ask the lawyers, hey, so what do you think this is going to cost us?  Come on.  

But most of the the time those smaller businesses aren't in lawsuits against another "business" who has a blank check funding their side. To the tune of BILLIONS of dollars at their disposal.

I think you're underestimating how much money these lawsuits were costing the PGA Tour. The costs were expected to reach well into the tens of millions of dollars for each side. 

The PIF probably could have bled the PGA Tour dry of cash if they really wanted to by dragging those multiple lawsuits out over multiple more years, especially considering that the PGA Tour was going to have to come up with money from somewhere to pay for the substantial increases in purses for the designated events. I highly doubt every designated event sponsor was going to be willing to double their investment for essentially the same product.

Especially since the PGA Tour is a 501(c) (6) non-profit organization there's limits as to exactly where their funding can come from. 

So I don't necessarily think it was a mutual desire to stop the bleeding of cash from the lawsuits, but rather the PGA Tour's desire to stop the bleeding of cash. I think the Saudi's/PIF were fine to continue to bleed cash until they ultimately got what they wanted.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, dsc123 said:

On costs, for example.  Lawsuits are expensive, yes.  But businesses smaller than the PGA Tour are in big lawsuits all the time.  You're telling me the PGA Tour can't afford 2 or 3 lawsuits that have been going on for a year or two?

Yes. I think it's possible that they didn't realize it might literally cost them $200M. They could have stuck it out for $50M, but $200M was too much.

1 hour ago, dsc123 said:

And then there's the idea that something harmful would come out of discovery.

I think that side of it was more from the Saudi side. They filed to not have discovery include certain government things, but lost that one. So, though they filed originally, they didn't know that discovery would be so broad.

1 hour ago, dsc123 said:

The Tour still went ahead and filed a lawsuit it says it couldn't afford when already entangled in one.

They're effectively the same lawsuit, though. It's the same court battle. It's a counter-suit, not an entirely different lawsuit. IANAL, but I think that matters. Same judge, etc. Not a doubling of costs or anything.

[ChetlovesMer]

1 hour ago, dsc123 said:

What doesn't make any sense to me is the claim that this merger is driven by the mutual desire to stop the bleeding and fallout from the lawsuits.  

On costs, for example.  Lawsuits are expensive, yes.  But businesses smaller than the PGA Tour are in big lawsuits all the time.  You're telling me the PGA Tour can't afford 2 or 3 lawsuits that have been going on for a year or two?  Not only that, you're telling me they got into these lawsuits and what, were surprised that they'd have to pay their lawyers?  Monahan didn't first ask the lawyers, hey, so what do you think this is going to cost us?  Come on.  

 

For what it's worth, the morning sports talk radio show I sometimes listened to was really laying into the "Sponsors paying more than double in order to increase the purse sizes. But felt like they were getting exactly the same thing for now twice the money." aspect. 

They believe the economics were all thrown out of whack, when the LIV threw huge checks at guys. The PGAT went to their sponsors with an effort to double the purse sizes, in order to keep pace with the whacky amount of money being tossed around. It sounded like at first the sponsors played ball, but then after rethinking it, they realized fattening the purses did nothing to help them sell more cars, watches, booze what-ever. 

So, perhaps combined that with the lawsuits.

Edited June 9, 2023 by ChetlovesMer
spelling

[saevel25]

Yea, the sponsor model might be broken. If the PGAT was using sponsors as the way to pay their players.

Other sports have huge TV deals. Not sure how the PGAT does it. It might be tournament based. It seems like golf coverage is all over the place. 

How the NFL Makes Money: TV, Tickets, and Sponsorships (investopedia.com)

Maybe the PGAT needs to restructure their revenue model. If that means lowering tournament prize pool, then that will just foreshadow the downfall of LIV as a successful way to do business. With out a huge TV deal, they are just burning money on a failed venture because they overestimated the value of their product. 

Edited June 9, 2023 by saevel25

[StuM]

1 hour ago, dsc123 said:

Not only that, you're telling me they got into these lawsuits and what, were surprised that they'd have to pay their lawyers?  Monahan didn't first ask the lawyers, hey, so what do you think this is going to cost us?  Come on.  

There may be some logic.  They may have known the potential costs but hoped to thwart the LIV in the court of public opinion.  But now, upon reassessment, they decide their strategy is not working and now it may be time to end the financial bleed.

[Hardluckster]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I think once the lawsuits are dropped, they’re dropped. They could re-file but they can’t just say hey never mind.

Have they been dropped? I know that both sides agreed to drop them but didn't realize that had actually taken place already. 

[ChetlovesMer]

4 minutes ago, StuM said:

There may be some logic.  They may have known the potential costs but hoped to thwart the LIV in the court of public opinion.  But now, upon reassessment, they decide their strategy is not working and now it may be time to end the financial bleed.

[iacas]

49 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Yea, the sponsor model might be broken. If the PGAT was using sponsors as the way to pay their players.

Other sports have huge TV deals. Not sure how the PGAT does it. It might be tournament based. It seems like golf coverage is all over the place. 

How the NFL Makes Money: TV, Tickets, and Sponsorships (investopedia.com)

Maybe the PGAT needs to restructure their revenue model. If that means lowering tournament prize pool, then that will just foreshadow the downfall of LIV as a successful way to do business. With out a huge TV deal, they are just burning money on a failed venture because they overestimated the value of their product. 

They have a very large TV deal.

[turtleback]

 

23 hours ago, iacas said:

Whoa whoa whoa. No to that.

Rory's self-respect is his to determine. You get to have your opinion of Rory, but you don't get to tell him (or us) what his opinion of himself is. 😄 

Pedantic nonsense.

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Pedantic nonsense.

No. Literally the definition.

[chspeed]

8 hours ago, dsc123 said:

What doesn't make any sense to me is the claim that this merger is driven by the mutual desire to stop the bleeding and fallout from the lawsuits.  

On costs, for example.  Lawsuits are expensive, yes.  But businesses smaller than the PGA Tour are in big lawsuits all the time.  You're telling me the PGA Tour can't afford 2 or 3 lawsuits that have been going on for a year or two?  Not only that, you're telling me they got into these lawsuits and what, were surprised that they'd have to pay their lawyers?  Monahan didn't first ask the lawyers, hey, so what do you think this is going to cost us?  Come on.  

I agree. I'd be surprised if the lawyer bills were a significant part of this decision.

7 hours ago, iacas said:

Yes. I think it's possible that they didn't realize it might literally cost them $200M. They could have stuck it out for $50M, but $200M was too much.

Are these numbers public, or is this hypothetical?

7 hours ago, klineka said:

I think you're underestimating how much money these lawsuits were costing the PGA Tour. The costs were expected to reach well into the tens of millions of dollars for each side. 

Still, tens of millions is nothing for a business that has $200-$300M in reserves and is fighting to protect their entity.

 

7 hours ago, klineka said:

The PIF probably could have bled the PGA Tour dry of cash if they really wanted to by dragging those multiple lawsuits out over multiple more years, especially considering that the PGA Tour was going to have to come up with money from somewhere to pay for the substantial increases in purses for the designated events. I highly doubt every designated event sponsor was going to be willing to double their investment for essentially the same product.

Agree that these lawsuits would have/still might drag on forever. I think the real financial issue was probably around the fact that PGAT couldn't compete with the purses. The sponsors were all about backing the PGAT - until they got they new invoices, at which point they balked. Players got itchy, saying they want the LIV money, and the PGAT had little choice. Ironically, I'm willing to bet that those crazy LIV purses will go down now that LIV won.