LIV Golf (Saudi PIF), "Mergers," and More

[jshots]

45 minutes ago, iacas said:

@jshots, look, you're so all-over-the-place with your posts, and making so many -worthy comments, that I'm going to ask this of you: In one fairly brief paragraph, what is your point? Please clearly label what you feel is opinion and what you feel is fact.

You don't have to do it, and I can't make you, and I won't punish you if you don't, but I think rather than fracturing away as has happened into a bunch of multi-quotes, it'll help get back to your core statement/belief/whatever.

The PGA Tour is guilty of anti-trust behavior (my opinion). I have no idea if its at the level of being illegal, but regardless of what the law is, I think it ought to be illegal. They are basically using their position/power/monopoly to hamstring a potential competitor. I don't like LIV Golf though.

[jmanbooyaa]

Liv golfs ability to get players and put on a show is actually hurting their argument. 

[Hardluckster]

1 hour ago, Friz said:

The PGA Tour also does not restrict when/where players play outside of PGAT event weeks, those restrictions are only when there is an event they could be playing on Tour.  Yes the PGA Tour has a lot more active weeks, but the restrictive piece in place is actually the same.  LIV would not grant releases to go play in a PGA Tour event during an LIV week if it were allowed, those guys are required to play in all LIV events.  The PGA Tour does not require players to play every single week, but an agreement made by all PGA Tour members states if you want to golf in a particular week, and a PGA Tour event is happening, you need to golf there or get a release to play somewhere else

Thanks for the response, Fritz. I thought that players needed exemptions whenever they played events other than on the PGAT, regardless of whether it was opposite another PGAT tournament. 

57 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yes you are, and there's no problem with that. People are so f***ing scared of "arguing."

You are wrong, on both counts. If you knew me you would know that. 

I'm most certainly not afraid of an argument, although it's an exercise in futility on internet message boards in almost all circumstances.

Now, we could argue about which is more restrictive but I'll refrain from that debate as it would be fruitless. I can see both sides of this 'restrictive' debate and will leave it there. 

[Hardluckster]

I just read a post on another site which claimed that the 15 tourney minimum only applies to golfers who wish to have voting privileges on the PGAT.

Does anyone know if that is indeed accurate?

If that's true, could a player compete in less that 15 events and, if he earned enough points, still maintain their PGAT card for the next season and compete in the FedEx playoffs?

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, jshots said:

They are basically using their position/power/monopoly to hamstring a potential competitor.

They’ve acquired the #2 ranked player in the world and have held three tournaments with previously ranked ( DJ #18) PGAT players. How have they hamstringed LIV exactly?

[turtleback]

 

1 hour ago, imsys0042 said:

 

5 - don’t, dont, don’t (this is for you @Shindig ),  claim it’s for more time with your family like you are somehow deprived like the hoi polli who get a couple of weeks a year and then sue to play more than your sweetheart deal with LIV states for any number of reasons.

 

And:

6 - don’t, dont, don’t claim you need to do this to feed your family.

[Vinsk]

8 minutes ago, turtleback said:

 

And:

6 - don’t, dont, don’t claim you need to do this to feed your family.

Hey, chartering a private jet to Portugal for some fried cuddle fish gets expensive….

[jshots]

36 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

They’ve acquired the #2 ranked player in the world and have held three tournaments with previously ranked ( DJ #18) PGAT players. How have they hamstringed LIV exactly?

They've gotten only a handful of top players, I think that number would be significantly higher if it wasn't for the PGA Tour barring players.

[dennyjones]

23 minutes ago, jshots said:

They've gotten only a handful of top players, I think that number would be significantly higher if it wasn't for the PGA Tour barring players.

Maybe you're just glossing over the part you don't want to understand.   The PGA Tour is made up of the players themselves.   They created their bylaws and all agreed to follow their own rules.   Nobody forced them to join the PGA Tour.   No body forced them to agree to the bylaws of the PGA Tour.  Nobody is forcing them to do anything except follow the bylaws in which they agreed.   

You're like Ant-Man, "You're repeating yourself, you're repeating yourself, you're repeating yourself".    Your argument is getting stale.

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, jshots said:

They've gotten only a handful of top players, I think that number would be significantly higher if it wasn't for the PGA Tour barring players.

They aren’t barring players from going to LIV.

They’re suspending players for violating the policies their peers and predecessors helped to create to govern their Tour.

2 hours ago, jshots said:

The PGA Tour is guilty of anti-trust behavior (my opinion). I have no idea if its at the level of being illegal, but regardless of what the law is, I think it ought to be illegal.

Yeah, okay, it’s as bad as I thought. 🙂

1 hour ago, Hardluckster said:

You are wrong, on both counts. If you knew me you would know that. 

No I’m not.

First, an “argument” is just presenting a side. You’re doing that. You’re arguing your position. Which is fine. Lawyers “argue” their case.

Second, I said “people,” not “you.”

And third, there is no problem with arguing here. Also true. In fact it’s encouraged. Arguing rudely isn’t, but you can argue.

[imsys0042]

52 minutes ago, jshots said:

They've gotten only a handful of top players, I think that number would be significantly higher if it wasn't for the PGA Tour barring players.

I think that’s kind of undermined by the reasons that Tour Pros who won’t jump have given.   They don’t like where the money comes from, they want to chase records and history that is present on the tour.  They support the system that has given them a pretty fabulous lifestyle.  Look if LIV was something like the Match exhibitions several times a year I think it’d be different, but it’s not.   It’s also run by someone with a known vendetta against the Tour.  
 

there’s also a numbers component.  If the argument is that players want an easier schedule and still maintain PGA Tour membership, then this would have been done differently.   But it wasn’t.  LIV had a schedule that would probably prevent pros who “want to spend time with their family” from keeping a PGA tour card or they would have to play even more.   
 

sergio said it best.  He didn’t like a ruling and blatantly stated he was out of there.  so he was jumping tours, not co-mingling them.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Hardluckster said:

I just read a post on another site which claimed that the 15 tourney minimum only applies to golfers who wish to have voting privileges on the PGAT.

Does anyone know if that is indeed accurate?

If that's true, could a player compete in less that 15 events and, if he earned enough points, still maintain their PGAT card for the next season and compete in the FedEx playoffs?

What is the minimum number of PGA Tour events a golfer must play each season?

---

What is the minimum number of PGA Tour events a golfer must play each season? The minimum is pretty low.

I believe that's fairly accurate.

[Friz]

2 hours ago, jshots said:

The PGA Tour is guilty of anti-trust behavior (my opinion). I have no idea if its at the level of being illegal, but regardless of what the law is, I think it ought to be illegal. They are basically using their position/power/monopoly to hamstring a potential competitor. I don't like LIV Golf though.

Counterpoint - the PGA Tour does not have a monopoly.  The current existence of LIV should prove that, they did not prevent a competitor from entering the market, and they're not preventing them from operating.

The PGA Tour is not preventing players from joining LIV.  All they have said is if you join, you can't play here.  They have given every player a choice, and every player can make their own choice about where they want to play.  From a power standpoint, LIV may actually have more power from a business perspective considering their financial power.  Considering antitrust is business law, financial power should be a pretty significant tool for measurement.

They're certainly not hamstringing LIV.  LIV has the financial backing to pretty much make that impossible, and have proven so by signing numerous guys from the PGA Tour, including world #2 Cam Smith.  Those aren't actions a hamstrung organization can take, and once again all players have a choice of where to play.

What it really sounds like is you wish the PGA Tour would allow players to play in both places, but refusal to help a competitor is in no way a violation of antitrust law.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, Friz said:

What it really sounds like is you wish the PGA Tour would allow players to play in both places, but refusal to help a competitor is in no way a violation of antitrust law.

[jshots]

35 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

Maybe you're just glossing over the part you don't want to understand.   The PGA Tour is made up of the players themselves.   They created their bylaws and all agreed to follow their own rules.   Nobody forced them to join the PGA Tour.   No body forced them to agree to the bylaws of the PGA Tour.  Nobody is forcing them to do anything except follow the bylaws in which they agreed.   

You're like Ant-Man, "You're repeating yourself, you're repeating yourself, you're repeating yourself".    Your argument is getting stale.

I'm glossing over the part that I repeated like 15 times? They don't have a choice! How difficult is it to see that? If you want to play professional golf at the highest level in the US, there is ONE SINGLE tour. Where is the choice? "All agreed" is also bullshit and you know it. There is process, a council, a small group that make major decisions, you don't think there are politics and disagreements involved in all of that? I would be surprised if decisions are even a majority opinion for players. They agree because there is no where else to play, because its tradition, its expected that you will play on the PGA Tour if you are the best. PGA Tour is using that limited choice that players have as leverage. 

 

35 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yeah, okay, it’s as bad as I thought. 🙂

Yall acting like I'm making idiotic arguments when all the stuff I'm talking about has happened frequently in other sports leagues and its literally the exact argument that the LIV players are making right now in court. That they had no meaningful choice in pursuing professional golf.

 

9 minutes ago, Friz said:

Counterpoint - the PGA Tour does not have a monopoly.  The current existence of LIV should prove that, they did not prevent a competitor from entering the market, and they're not preventing them from operating.

What it really sounds like is you wish the PGA Tour would allow players to play in both places, but refusal to help a competitor is in no way a violation of antitrust law.

I see that completely differently - the fact that it is taking an insane amount of wealth from the Saudis to be able to establish a different league is evidence that they do have a monopoly. They haven't outright prevented a competitor from operating but are absolutely taking direct action that limits the competitors ability to establish themselves.

It isn't just refusal to help though, they have taken direct action that is limiting competition.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, jshots said:

They don't have a choice! How difficult is it to see that?

It's difficult to see… because they do have a choice. A current PGA Tour member has the choice to:

• remain a PGA Tour member in good standing.
• leave the PGA Tour and play for LIV.
• play neither Tour.
• play the Korn Ferry Tour, or a mini tour, or join a PGA section and play section events. Or go play the Asian Tour, or the Japan Tour…

Choices are still choices even if they come with repercussions.

3 minutes ago, jshots said:

If you want to play professional golf at the highest level in the US, there is ONE SINGLE tour.

By definition, because you said "at the highest level," and that's still the PGA Tour. But if you want to make a lot of money, and play what many feel is exhibition golf in the U.S., there's a second choice: LIV.

If you want to play the highest level of baseball in the U.S., there's one league. If you want to play the highest level of football in the U.S., there's one league. If you want to play the highest level of hockey in the U.S. (and Canada, but the Tour also plays in Mexico, Canada, Scotland this year, etc.), there's one league. If you want to play the highest level of basketball in the U.S., there's one league.

So…

3 minutes ago, jshots said:

"All agreed" is also bullshit and you know it.

No, they all agreed to the rules and regulations in accepting their Tour membership… or they wouldn't be a member of the PGA Tour. Pretty simple.

3 minutes ago, jshots said:

They agree because there is no where else to play

There are a ton of other places to play. They're just not as lucrative (until recently) or prestigious as the PGA Tour.

Stop saying things that are clearly false. It's a really bad argument.

3 minutes ago, jshots said:

PGA Tour is using that limited choice that players have as leverage.

Ummm, so?

3 minutes ago, jshots said:

Yall acting like I'm making idiotic arguments

Ya kinda are.

3 minutes ago, jshots said:

That they had no meaningful choice in pursuing professional golf.

… at the highest level. And so what? There are no other choices but the NFL, NHL, MLB, and NBA.

You seem to be arguing as if the PGA Tour should encourage and even help their competition. That's an idiotic argument, to use your own words.

3 minutes ago, jshots said:

I see that completely differently - the fact that it is taking an insane amount of wealth from the Saudis to be able to establish a different league is evidence that they do have a monopoly.

Oh boy.

So if I wanted to start a competitor to McDonald's, it'd take an insane amount of money. Does McDonald's have a monopoly on fast food? No.

3 minutes ago, jshots said:

They haven't outright prevented a competitor from operating

You should have stopped there.

3 minutes ago, jshots said:

but are absolutely taking direct action that limits the competitors ability to establish themselves.

3 minutes ago, jshots said:

It isn't just refusal to help though, they have taken direct action that is limiting competition.

As every reasonably well run business could and should.

FFS, man.

[turtleback]

34 minutes ago, jshots said:

It isn't just refusal to help though, they have taken direct action that is limiting competition.

Just curious, what do you do for a living?

[jshots]

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

As every reasonably well run business could and should.

FFS, man.

You are arguing that anti competition practices are a good thing... talk about  worthy comments

I guess it boils down to that disagreement then. I think they are bad, and the FTC tends to agree.

 

5 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Just curious, what do you do for a living?

Software engineer why?