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

[Elmer]

31 minutes ago, Rick Graham said:

If what you say is true, everyone thst puts gas in their car or uses plastics are contributing to saudi blood money, these guys just want to play golf period, and they got offered alot of money to do so, i dont see a problem

Most of us  (myself included) have no choice but to use gas power vehicles.  I have done my best to avoid plastic as well.
But oil and gasoline I am stuck with for likely the rest of my life.
However if I go to an interview I am not going to say " I am just hack golfer on the weekend, so what do I know". I would gladly provide my opinion on 9/11,  jamal khashoggi and SA's involvement. 
But the difference is, I am not a public figure, so no one is asking me.
 

If professional golfers "just wanted to play golf period" they should have stayed at their country club and not gone pro. Interviews are part of being a pro athlete and pro golfer.
The LIV golfers chose to take the money and have to know the questions that come with that.
To play dumb on their part is just disingenuous. 

Imagine if you will any golfer on the tour shows up to the first tee sporting a Nazi swastikas on their hat because they are sponsored by Nazis.
when they do a post round interview and then subsequent interviews, you would expect a question about taking that sponsorship money.
When that golfer responds with "hey I am just a golfer" and "I am just looking to grow the game", is that a legitimate answer?

Edited June 8, 2023 by Elmer

[DeadMan]

PGA Tour board member Jimmy Dunne explains why he got involved in LIV Golf deal

---

Jimmy Dunne reached out to governor of Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund via WhatsApp...

This is something. Wow. 

[colin007]

2 hours ago, jbishop15 said:

To be clear, I'm not asking for Rory to be castigated. I am just disappointed that a person who seemed to have the right idea about all this was either concerned about the wrong things (the future of pro golf) or is can't admit that he doesn't want to fight anymore. 

So what are you looking for him to do? What would you do in his place?

[jbishop15]

10 minutes ago, colin007 said:

So what are you looking for him to do? What would you do in his place?

I'm not looking for him to do anything. I'm disappointed that thing he cared about more was the future of professional golf and not that evil human rights abusers would soon be cutting him checks to sports wash their well-earned reputation as despots.

I don't know what I would do in his place. There aren't a lot of good options. Plenty of ones, though, that are consistent with the man he presented himself to be. I don't think Rory is a bad person. Just not who I thought he was.

I think, if I were in his shoes, I would try to kick the PGA Tour to the curb and start a new Tour. I don't think that will happen, nor am I sure it is feasible. But I think current leadership has failed in creating an interesting entertainment product and has also failed to uphold the morals they say they care about. 

[dsc123]

I'd be really surrpised if any of this goes through.  I think this makes a lot of good points:  

The Saudi-PGA Golf Deal Isn't Going to Happen

---

The merger or alliance between the PGA and the Saudi's LIV Golf is comically illegal, and it will not happen in its current form. Something about this deal smells off.

 

[turtleback]

5 hours ago, mdl said:

Team with Tiger to take all the non LIV players (assume they stay since they’ve shown they just follow the most guaranteed money) and start their own tour?

As attractive as this would be to me, this would be a vast, and vastly expensive undertaking.  And there would still be an issue of eligibility for majors.

4 hours ago, StuM said:

The question for Rory is, does he "Accept" a retention package or does he walk.

 

This is where the rubber meets the road.  The only path where Rory can keep his self respect and still play, IMO, would be to refuse the retention package, because the money he would receive from the retention package would still be what was called blood money, even if it's been laundered through the PGAT.  Then the 'money above all else' crowd will call him stupid for leaving all that money on the table.  If he refuses a retention package he can then rightly say that he is only taking money that he earned by playing, not blood money just given to him.

But what about a guy like Ricki Fowler who reportedly turned down $75 million and stayed loyal to the PGAT but whose game has fallen off.  Will a guy like that even be offered a retention package?

And there is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, Tiger.  I will be incredibly disappointed in him if he takes a retention package.  As I am already incredibly disappointed in Nicklaus for coming out in support of this, IMO, travesty.

1 hour ago, dsc123 said:

I'd be really surrpised if any of this goes through.  I think this makes a lot of good points:  

The Saudi-PGA Golf Deal Isn't Going to Happen

---

The merger or alliance between the PGA and the Saudi's LIV Golf is comically illegal, and it will not happen in its current form. Something about this deal smells off.

 

He makes a lot of good points, but IANAL, so what do I know.  I also think there may be some class action lawsuits from disaffected players.

Edited June 8, 2023 by turtleback

[StuM]

2 minutes ago, turtleback said:

This is where the rubber meets the road.  The only path where Rory can keep his self respect and still play, IMO, would be to refuse the retention package, because the money he would receive from the retention package would still be what was called blood money, even if it's been laundered through the PGAT.  Then the 'money above all else' crowd will call him stupid for leaving all that money on the table.  If he refuses a retention package he can then rightly say that he is only taking money that he earned by playing, not blood money just given to him.

That would be a good "Face Saving Move" and he can afford it, but dang, that would be a tough position to be put in.  Another option he could do is take the money then donate it to a non-profit that supports familes of 9-11 or pushes for women's rights in Saudi Arabia or something of that sort.

[iacas]

8 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Ask Tiger Woods. The man should have retired after that car accident. He thinks he still has fuel in the tank and can make a comeback.

This might be as good a reason as any to retire and play the occasional major.

7 hours ago, TourSpoon said:

I seriously doubt this will be the case, however he did have a predictive tweet about this that was on the money (pun intended). But so did a lot of people that knew that money would win.

It wasn't a tweet, because it was from when he was (rightfully) banned from Twitter. 😛 It was on Truth Social or something.

7 hours ago, TourSpoon said:

He will keep playing imo. This doesn't reflect poorly on him, its on Monahan. Rory will have some awkward moments but he will get through them.

I agree.

7 hours ago, TourSpoon said:

What the sad part is that Monahan invoked the 911 families moral argument when this was always about money and power.

Really dumb to have done that, yeah.

On 6/7/2023 at 5:19 PM, iacas said:

I do as well, but at the same time if you are Rory, what are your options? Retire? I mean, he could. But it’s basically retire, playing only the majors, or continue to play golf.

7 hours ago, turtleback said:

His only real choices are to go along or retire.

Uhhh, yep.

5 hours ago, StuM said:

Now we are seeing a "Merger" and some are saying the LIV players should be fined before letting them back on the PGA TOUR.  I doubt that will happen.

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

5 hours ago, TourSpoon said:

There is another piece to the puzzle...the PGAT retirement package.  Did the LIV guys get wiped clean when they left? 

No. That would have been highly illegal.

4 hours ago, StuM said:

I'm not 100% knowledgeable on the retirement plan but my understanding is a portion of thier winnings get set aside.

Nope. They're given all of their prize money. It's still counted as "deferred income" but they're not taking a cut out of what they earn now and giving it back to them later. (Some of the FedExCup money is more traditional deferred income: they don't get $15M or whatever now.)

You can look it up, but basically:

CUTS-MADE AND BONUS PLANS
Under the PGA Tour's cuts-made plan, a player must make 75 cuts to be 50-percent vested and is fully vested at 150 cuts, according to multiple players. According to the PGA Tour, in 2014-'15, players received $4,500 for each of the first 15 cuts made—$67,500—and $9,000 for each cut made above 15, in addition to prize money. The plan is funded by a variety of revenue streams, including advertising revenue, investments, corporate partners, TPC profits, digital revenue and TV money.

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

The only path where Rory can keep his self respect and still play, IMO, would be to refuse the retention package, because the money he would receive from the retention package would still be what was called blood money, even if it's been laundered through the PGAT.

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. 😄 

[hunterdog]

What I have not heard much of is what does it mean for golf fans like me. I’ve played golf most of my life, public and private, and, other than work and family, golf has been my primary avocation. I have enjoyed watching televised golf, again, for most of my life (though I don’t watch every weekend). Personally, I think the Saudis are evil; prime sponsors of 9/11 and horrible human rights. While I don’t know all the details and don’t think anyone does, what is known that the Saudis have, at a minimum, a huge roll in the future of professional golf. So, is it just expected that televised golf fans like myself will simply overlook the Saudis involvement or do we quit watching televised golf? Is it suck it up or is it quit the game or is there a middle ground?
 

What I am convinced of is that Dunne, Monahan, Yassir, and Norman are out and out liars. So I don’t see any guidance there.

[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.