-
Topics Being Discussed Right Now on The Sand Trap
-
- 9 replies
- 163 views
-
- 2,610 replies
- 139,250 views
-
- 4,124 replies
- 116,169 views
-
- 7 replies
- 3,111 views
-
- 16 replies
- 3,806 views
-
.thumb.JPG.640dd6f31fe7f6aef91f879119bae1d9.JPG)
-
TST Partners
Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.
Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. -
Popular Now
-
-
Posts
-
By ChetlovesMer ·
“Some players have psychologists, sport phycologists. I smoke.” - Angel Cabrera -
By ChetlovesMer ·
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. -
By iacas ·
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. 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. 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. -
By ChetlovesMer ·
Hogan: "Hey Arnie, it's playing slow today." Arnie: "That's cool. Right now I'm in flavor country." -
By klineka ·
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.
-
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now