Jump to content


 

Photo

Australian Masters


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#31 macc

macc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 232 posts

Posted 17 November 2017 - 04:30 AM

Jon

 

IMG aren't in charge of the Australian Open. Lagadere are.

I'm not sure exactly why it stayed in Sydney but part of it was Emirates reluctance to leave - but the concession to play in 20 and 22 in Melbourne.

I think it's a pity you can't be bothered to go to 13th Beach - aside from being a really good event down there the Beach Course is one of the best courses in the country. It'd be one of the best two or three courses courses in probably four states.

Recreating the strength of the 70s and 80s would be easier if all our best players played - as they did back then We can't even get Scott and Leishman to Sydney this year - because they amount of money they - and Day/Spieth - want to play blows the budget. In 1979 Aust Open 3 of the 4 major champions played - Seve,Graham and Zoeller plus Norman - played. These days that-3m + in fees.



#32 macc

macc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 232 posts

Posted 17 November 2017 - 04:31 AM

Sorry - that was a mess!


  • RobNewy likes this

#33 Weetbix

Weetbix

    Par in my sight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 41981 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Queensland

Posted 17 November 2017 - 06:48 AM

Lol

Handicap
Best result: 2 over 74 at Hills International on 13 Feb 2016
Eagles: 21/10/16 17th Keysborough, 24/10/16 18th Woodlands, 15/4/18 16th Carbrook
Goal: A round at par or better!
Brisbane Fairways 2015 Club Champion

2018 Nationals 4BBB Champion with Commish
Winner: 2015 Nationals day 5 round at Links Hope Island
Winner: 2016 Nationals day 5 round at Woodlands
Winner: 2017 Nationals day 5 round at Bonnie Doon

​Winner: 2018 Nationals day 2 round at Kooralbyn

​Winner: 2018 Nationals day 3 round at Sanctuary Cove Pines
South East Queensland Golf Group - Treasurer
http://www.brisbanef...ssocialgolf.com - Treasurer


#34 Shanks4ever

Shanks4ever

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3121 posts

Posted 17 November 2017 - 05:27 PM

 

Jon

 

I'm not sure exactly why it stayed in Sydney but part of it was Emirates reluctance to leave - but the concession to play in 20 and 22 in Melbourne.

 

It stayed in Sydney because the NSW government have a contract with Golf Australia (tax payer $), nothing to do with the sponsor. There were 2 "release" years written into the contract.

 

http://www.golf.org....open-home/90853

 

We need to get with the times, embrace Asia, give up One Asia and have all our tournaments co-sanctioned with Asia. Sponsors will get more bang for their buck if events go into Asian living rooms in our time zone.


Edited by Shanks4ever, 17 November 2017 - 05:34 PM.

  • RobNewy likes this

#35 macc

macc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 232 posts

Posted 18 November 2017 - 06:24 AM

Shanks,

 

'Nothing to do with the sponsor"

My guess is Emirates puts in at least as much as the government. It was as much to do with what they wanted as the government. The Vic Govt would have put in as much as the NSW government.

Emirates were already sponsoring the Melbourne Cup and,I think Collingwood and apparently didn't feel they needed anything more in Melbourne.


  • CaNadiAn MiCk likes this

#36 Shanks4ever

Shanks4ever

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3121 posts

Posted 18 November 2017 - 10:12 AM

Shanks,

 

'Nothing to do with the sponsor"

My guess is Emirates puts in at least as much as the government. It was as much to do with what they wanted as the government. The Vic Govt would have put in as much as the NSW government.

Emirates were already sponsoring the Melbourne Cup and,I think Collingwood and apparently didn't feel they needed anything more in Melbourne.

Maybe the Victorian government is spending too much on the grand prix and got outbid by NSW for the golf . :lol:

 

https://blogs.crikey...rix-worth-cost/



#37 macc

macc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 232 posts

Posted 18 November 2017 - 02:58 PM

Shanks,

 

Not sure that's right either. $29m for Presidents Cup and the World Cup that comes with it.

That was after they 'lost' The Open.

The Open is better in Sydney anyway if the evidence of the last 15 years is the standard. Melbourne needs its own big annual event.


  • CaNadiAn MiCk and RobNewy like this

#38 Theguru

Theguru

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 19 November 2017 - 07:13 PM

Macc, do you think perhaps the time is right to give up on appearance money and simply just put every available cent into the prize pool?

This years Oz Open is perhaps a good example of the current system not really working



#39 macc

macc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 232 posts

Posted 20 November 2017 - 06:53 AM

Theguru,

 

Assuming there is around 2m plus going in appearance money, making a 3.5m tournament isn't attracting anybody in the top 50 - unless Scott,Day,Leishman play for nothing.

The problem this year is Scott and Leishman aren't playing and one view is Scott isn't because Day is and the tournament can't afford both.

Given Scott's unquestioned support (and Jason's distinct lack of it - around 5 events in his more than 10 year career not counting WC and PC. And 3 of them were Web.Com events when he was playing that tour.) it's probably fair to say he's been not treated well.

I think all the top Australians should play for expenses but I can see their point. 'We get nothing while you pay Spieth and presumably others because you can afford to because we get nought.'

 

I'm old enough to remember when the local tour relied on Nagle and Thomson - plus the Big 3 at the Open and Dunlop and Wills tournaments - to stay afloat. Neither took any money and truly had the best interests, and the future of the tour, at heart. You can't say that now. Nor did either have managers telling them what to do.


  • CaNadiAn MiCk likes this

#40 Shanks4ever

Shanks4ever

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3121 posts

Posted 20 November 2017 - 08:36 AM

 

I'm old enough to remember when the local tour relied on Nagle and Thomson - plus the Big 3 at the Open and Dunlop and Wills tournaments - to stay afloat. Neither took any money and truly had the best interests, and the future of the tour, at heart. You can't say that now. Nor did either have managers telling them what to do.

Mac - Packer bankrolled golf in the 70's paying appearance fees or are you talking about the 60's?

 

http://www.golf.org....ear-spoke/76045

 

As you know The Big 3 were the first IMG clients. IMG was at the forefront of appearance fees ensuring McCormack got his 10%.

 

Packer also found other ways to ensure the stars enjoyed themselves and were well rewarded. I recall Nicklaus and Pate were treated to some Marlin fishing. Not so sure the rest of the field were on charter boats or arrived on chartered jets.

 

It was Packer that elevated the event.

 

http://www.smh.com.a...5445562371.html


  • CaNadiAn MiCk likes this

#41 Theguru

Theguru

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 20 November 2017 - 02:22 PM

Seems like the current system has run it's course...there's only 2 top 50 players in the world at this years Oz Open.

Maybe if no appearance money was offered to anyone then Scott and Leishman might have played this year.

$3 mil in the prize pool is awesome money for the local pro's playing who are trying to get a financial buffer to have a dig at qualifying for one of the big tours.

It seems like the appearance money concept is to generate a ROI for the title sponsor. Maybe even a chicken and egg scenario whereby the tournament organisers feel that they need to have big name players in order to get the sponsorship dollars.

Good in theory but now it seems the appearance money going rate has escalated to the point of being non-sustainable.

Imagine what say $50000 for 20th place would do for a young guy trying to make it onto the PGA or Euro tour



#42 macc

macc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 232 posts

Posted 20 November 2017 - 05:16 PM

Shanks.

 

Nicklaus,Palmer and Player came out because they had a lucrative (for the time) club deal with Dunlop/Slazenger. They got royalties on all clubs sold here with their names on them. Devlin too.

I assume they were paid appearance money as well but with total prize money in 1970 of $25,000 it can't have been that much. It was the royalties making it worthwhile.

They heyday of the deal would have been in the 1960s and early 70s when Slazenger were flying and probably selling up to 50% of all clubs sold here. PGF would have had a lot of the rest.

 

Packer sponsored The Open for 4 years - 75-78 and paid them all the same - $6000 plus expenses.They were fantastic fields - the deepest ever to play The Open. It was Jack's favour to Packer and the player's favour to Jack.

When Jack came back in 1982 he put his appearance fee into the prize money. It might have been $250k



#43 Theguru

Theguru

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 20 November 2017 - 06:41 PM

Macc, what do you think of the concept that with no appearance money for anyone more of the top Aussies would play the Oz Open every year?

#44 macc

macc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 232 posts

Posted 20 November 2017 - 07:15 PM

My guess would be with no appearance money none of the top 3 or 4 Australians would play - because there would be still be a big chunk going out to a 'foreigner' and they wouldn't put up with that. Right or wrong.

It's a reality - it's the amount most have a problem with. Is any man worth half a million dollars for a weeks golf?

Tiger drove up incomes for all golf pros - prize money and appearance money. He may have been worth 3m (Masters KH '09) but that number meant those below adjusted their fee in accordance - when they were not worth it.


  • CaNadiAn MiCk likes this

#45 Theguru

Theguru

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 20 November 2017 - 08:05 PM

“ because there would be still be a big chunk going out to a 'foreigner' and they wouldn't put up with that”

I don’t think you understand me Macc, I’m saying no money goes out to anybody, “foreigners” included.
Ie absolutely no justification for an Aussie pro to feel aggrieved that a non-Aussie is getting something they are not




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users