Jump to content


 

Photo

Appearance Money


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 judgesmails

judgesmails

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7281 posts

Posted 16 October 2002 - 06:26 PM

I was listning to the Guy who runs the Hieneken Classic on the radio last night, his name escapes me at the moment (Ted Herbert I think), and he was suggesting that Appearance money only be given to Major Winners to play in Australia, Norman, Beem, Daly all included but Allenby, Appleby, Baddeley, Scott, Kenny Perry, Charles Howell and co not included. His theory was that if you win a major tournament then you are in such elite company you deserve the extra cash to play and that way every player in the field would know who is getting paid and why. He also added that if this were to be the case then ALL the great Aussie players, Allenby, Appleby, Baddeley, Scott, Laycock, Hughes, Senden, Lonard to name just a few MUST support the Tour downunder as well regardless of whether or not they get paid to show up or not. I think this is a great idea and the better calibre of home bred player we attract back to Australia to play these events, the more likely we are to get, for want of a better description, 2nd string top line players like Howell, Perry, Sutherland, Kuchar, Dummy spitting bad boy Pat Perez, Sluman, gay, DiMarco...Guys who are in the mix consistently and winners or near winners of PGA Tour Events to come over here and play for free, just because the field is strong, meaning the crowds are strong, meaning sponsorship is strong, meaning prizemoney is worthwhile and every one knows the calibre of the courses is beyond reproach...how can anyone lose???

It's a great idea, all it needs is good management and above all else, the support of the Top Australian Players!

Do you Guys have an opinion?



#2 Ben

Ben

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3715 posts

Posted 16 October 2002 - 06:44 PM

I am totally against appearance fees smile.gif I think they should be scrapped all togeather.

Cheers

Ben



#3 cazandpaul

cazandpaul

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts

Posted 17 October 2002 - 02:58 AM

Agreed Ben - I believe the players have a responsibility to the GAME that has made them what they are.

It is good to see most of the top class Aussies coming home to support our tour - shame to see the Shark not playing the Open (Toyota v Holden - maybe they should play it at Bathurst?

Regards

Paul



#4 Ben

Ben

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3715 posts

Posted 17 October 2002 - 03:58 AM

Paul,

If you really want to read something sadder than appearance fees check this out:

http://www.freegolfinfo.com/forum/topic.as...?TOPIC_ID=18478

And you wonder why a new driver costs $1200!?!

Cheers

Ben



#5 judgesmails

judgesmails

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7281 posts

Posted 17 October 2002 - 11:36 PM

Just as we thought we miht get the best Aussie players back here, the number 1 player decides to chase the big bucks in South Africa at, i'm guessing, The Sun City Challenge. C'mon Robbie, we want you here mate!



#6 cazandpaul

cazandpaul

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts

Posted 18 October 2002 - 02:08 AM

Ben - thanks for the link.

There is a lot we don't know about - wouldn't it be nice not to have to save for ever to get a good set of clubs?

Regards

Paul



#7 jeanmc

jeanmc

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12114 posts

Posted 18 October 2002 - 09:12 AM

ben...

the link is great...at least now I know what FGI is...(still don have a clue what BLING is... biggrin.gif )

I think this will always be an ongoing debate...OEM vs Comp...Exp vs Cheap...

It's true in that I doubt we'll ever see the day that we see a our pro carry TM/Callaway 'knock-offs' etc etc...but this makes the game affordable to a wider range of ppl...and I guess it's a good thing when more and more ppl are getting into it...OR MAYBE NOT...will this mean course fees will also go up??? sad.gif

anywayz, I can't bring myself to actually use them...let alone trial them...
I think it's the fact that they're working off the OEM's R&D...and selling them as either 'knock-offs' or...worse still...as the original stuff...NOT all companies do this...I know...but some do...

I may be wrong in the facts, and if so..please enlighten us all...I think we should all be entitled to know...

Mw.



#8 Ben

Ben

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3715 posts

Posted 18 October 2002 - 04:25 PM

Hi Mau,

I agree to an extent with the debate that they are using the OEM's ideas etc etc, but non of the stuff that I use / support breaks any patent laws. That said, lets look at a few other areas of life where clones are accepted and very common smile.gif

1. Personal Computers. How many people these day buy IBM brand name computers and not a clone? I don't think I need to expand on how that all started smile.gif

2. Perfumes. You've got you're Avon's, LeReve's, MaryKay and Amway's of the world that all have 'inspired by' flavours of perfumes.

3. 3rd party car parts. I wasn't going to pay Subaru $300 for a set of brake pads when I could pay Bendix $80 for the same thing. Same as the clutch plate in my WRX which would've been $1200 from Subaru or a 3rd Party (copy wink.gif ) for $600.

4. Prescription drugs. How big was the debate about the dirty tactics that drug companies use to get doctors do prescribe their drugs? Now when you go and get your scripts you have the choice of a non brand name which does the exact same thing, just a hell of a lot cheaper smile.gif And I'd suggest theres a lot more money spent on R&D in medicine than golf clubs smile.gif

5. Golf. The OEM's copy each other. Have a look at Tigers old Titliest irons and then stick them against a set of his old Mizuno irons. I havn't had a close look at his Nikes (but dam they look fine smile.gif ), but I bet you'd find they look like his old Mizuno's aswell. The Oddessy 2 ball putter is a copy of a putter that came out a number of years ago, but was deemed illegal. The original was illegal because it was deeper than the width of the face, but even after they fixed that it was deemed illegal due to it not looking like a plain club, it kinda stood out... Now a few years down the track and boom, not only do Oddessy copy it, but they *cough* somehow got the USGA to approve the design.

Theres tonnes of stories in golf where this has gone on between the OEM's. But this is what it comes down for me. If you like spending the cash on equipment you can't go wrong. You are always going to get something that is well finished, well made and generally matched with good shafts. If you like to have more control over your equipment and you don't have the cash to spend, then buy a clone, you'll save money and get great results.

I used to be pro OEM. I used to play with Ping I3's and what not.. would never of touched a 'copy'... now because I know what the big companies do I wouldn't touch an OEM again.

Anyway that is my rant smile.gif Its a one off smile.gif

Cheers

Ben



#9 Ben

Ben

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3715 posts

Posted 18 October 2002 - 04:29 PM

Hi Mau,

one other thing. I totally agree with you about the companies that make 'fake' great. Any company who sells fake golf clubs that are copies and branded as a Titliest or what ever should be thrown in the can. They give the golf industry and even worse name than the oem's! smile.gif

Ben



#10 collis_old

collis_old

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 18 October 2002 - 10:15 PM

I know a young pro who has been on the International tour now for a couple of years. I have been told that his basic expenses for travel, accomodation etc. comes to about $80,000 per year. I know he is getting some support from manufacturers but without this he would not be able to compete, luckily he has had a reasonable time out there but his overall winnings have not made him rich, maybe in time he will be lucky. Anyhow the thing is that without this sponsorship we would only see the players who had the money in the first place to enable them to play the game and that would put a lot of prospective young palyers off the game.
And let us not forget that even the amateurs receive sponsorship from the club and ball manufacturers.

:twisted:

Colin



#11 judgesmails

judgesmails

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7281 posts

Posted 18 October 2002 - 11:14 PM

Good points Colin, well made! All the flying, hotels, meals etc must cost the lesser lights heaps, the irony being when you are good enough to make enough money and be able to afford to pay your own way, you would get nearly all of it and more given to you!



#12 Ben

Ben

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3715 posts

Posted 18 October 2002 - 11:28 PM

Hi Colin,

very good points. I dont have a problem with reasonable sponsorship. I'm talking about the obscene amount of cash paid to people like Tiger Woods to play with Nike clubs. But also look at it like this. Turning pro is like being self employed. You gotta spend money on your business if you are going to make it somewhere. It can cost a lot more than 80k a year to start a business. And unlike in golf where you get paid if you make the cut, there are no sales given to businesses if they can't our perform everyone else they are up against. Sports is a high risk job.

Cheers

Ben



#13 cazandpaul

cazandpaul

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts

Posted 19 October 2002 - 06:24 PM

Agreed Ben,

Nobody walks around giving out freebies where I work no matter how good I am at it.

Is'nt there some kind of saying about getting a real job?

Paul



#14 chevychase

chevychase

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1166 posts

Posted 22 October 2002 - 10:58 PM

Sponsorship & appearance money are two different things. I'm happy for guys to get whatever they cam in endorsements. If the market is willing to pay - good luck to them. I agree with both Paul & Ben. The general golf playing/watching public would love to see the Love's the Mickelsons etc out here in Oz. They have a moral obligation to the game to promote the sport world-wide. I also agree with fee for major winners.



#15 jeanmc

jeanmc

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12114 posts

Posted 22 October 2002 - 11:54 PM

chase,
agreed on the point of sponsorship/appearance difference.
club manufacturers need to 'advertise' their brand name, and what beta way to do so then to pay the player's !@#$loads of money...even tour players who are struggling to make a cut gets enough to live on...only problem they have is that they don't have enough of the other 'sidedish' endorsements...

appearance money...I don't know...if there should be a fee for major winners, then why would Mickelson come down, if he's not going to be 'reimbursed' for his troubles...and would you want to pay Sluman to come down, just becoz he has a major title...
prob good idea to scrap a.money...but it'll never happen...

personally...if players don give a crap whether they should play around the world, then to me, is not worth seeing...I'll rather watch them on telly, then to follow them around knowing that they're only here becoz their appearance money is worth more than the total prize.

of moral obligations...I donno...if they don wanna come down, are they lacking in morals? :wink:

Cheers,
Mw.

p.s. even I was given free tickets to see Love III, I'll pass...'attitude problem'... :?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users