the USGA strikes again, this time with Lexus

« **on:** January 26, 2007, 01:08:46 PM »

Geoff S's website has the gory details about their latest partner with the car company as the USGA contiunes down it's mistake-filled path

« **Reply #1 on:** January 26, 2007, 01:46:25 PM »

I hate to wade into this type of thread, but would you care to expand on that viewpoint at all? And, if you don't mind, please tell us what exactly you would do differently. Thanks.

« **Reply #2 on:** January 26, 2007, 01:46:52 PM »

This is my "comment" on GeoffShac's website;

"I don't really know what to say or to think about a USGA and Lexus partnerhship, I really don't. I mean that sincerely.

I guess if I really thought about it I would've realized it was inevitable at some point for even the USGA. But somehow, I guess in the back of my mind I never thought the USGA would do something like this.

But why would I think that with the way the world is evolving? I'm on the Pennsylvania Golf Association and last year we voted to partner with Toyota of PA as the title sponsor of our events.

I believe I ran that meeting and I remember saying to the board that if Joe Dey could hear this conversation, this resolution and this vote he would just flip in his grave.

But the Board wanted to do it and the thinking was real simple---the contribution from Toyota would definitely allow us to offer better tournaments to our Pa golfers for less money.

But I don't know---it still seems odd. I guess I'm just getting too old and I remember the old days, the way it was and the way everybody in amateur golf thought back then and it sure wasn't like this----title sponsors for amateur golf tournaments.

I'm glad this is all about to end for me---this year will be my last in amateur golf administration after over twenty years in it.

It's obviously a new world and a new world coming and just like some of the old farts of my Dad's era who didn't want to accept my future---there are just perhaps a few too many things these days I just don't entirely understand or agree with. But I sure can see the benefit in trying to offer our players the best we can for the best price to them."

« **Reply #3 on:** January 26, 2007, 01:49:41 PM »

just my opinion, but i don't think they need to be chasing all this money around, esp when all they do is sit on most of it

bad enought they do it, then they pick a luxury car company to boot....yea, lots of golfers can identify with that brand

and I know the R&A does it with Rolex, but I don't like that either and that precedent doesn't make it ok for the USGA to do it

obviously you disagree JES, whicdh is fine by me...just my 2 cents

« **Reply #4 on:** January 26, 2007, 01:56:37 PM »

Quote from: Paul Thomas on January 26, 2007, 01:49:41 PM

just my opinion, but i don't think they need to be chasing all this money around, esp when all they do is sit on most of it

bad enought they do it, then they pick a luxury car company to boot....yea, lots of golfers can identify with that brand

and I know the R&A does it with Rolex, but I don't like that either and that precedent doesn't make it ok for the USGA to do it

obviously you disagree JES, whicdh is fine by me...just my 2 cents

I know that some consider USGA bashing to be de rigeur in these parts, but this strikes me as a remarkably uninformed opinion. I don't know how much work you've done with associations, but these types of relationships are commonly done and they seldom present any conflicts. And it's hardly a stretch to think that a luxury car maker would be an appropriate partner with an association that promotes golf, which just happens to be played by many people with a fair amount of disposable income to spend on luxury cars.

« **Reply #5 on:** January 26, 2007, 01:59:15 PM »

I think it's fantastic! Heck, it's twenty O seven, and the days of sponsor free ANYTHING are long gone!

The pro's are walking billboards, the tournaments are show cases for the manufacturers and the big sponsors, so good for the USGA for having the balls to "milk it" for all they can.

« **Reply #6 on:** January 26, 2007, 02:03:12 PM »

I guess Ford won't be sponsoring much after $12.7B losses in '06... But, they have Mickelson... "built Ford tough"

« **Reply #7 on:** January 26, 2007, 02:04:48 PM »

Quote from: RJ_Daley on January 26, 2007, 02:03:12 PM

I guess Ford won't be sponsoring much after $12.7B losses in '06... But, they have Mickelson... "built Ford tough"

Mickelson's next product should be Kramer's famous "Bro", aka the "mansierre". He has the perfect pair to promote a male breasts harness.

« **Reply #8 on:** January 26, 2007, 02:10:04 PM »

Quote from: Terry Lavin on January 26, 2007, 01:56:37 PM

Quote from: Paul Thomas on January 26, 2007, 01:49:41 PM
just my opinion, but i don't think they need to be chasing all this money around, esp when all they do is sit on most of it

bad enought they do it, then they pick a luxury car company to boot....yea, lots of golfers can identify with that brand

and I know the R&A does it with Rolex, but I don't like that either and that precedent doesn't make it ok for the USGA to do it

obviously you disagree JES, whicdh is fine by me...just my 2 cents

I know that some consider USGA bashing to be de rigeur in these parts, but this strikes me as a remarkably uninformed opinion. I don't know how much work you've done with associations, but these types of relationships are commonly done and they seldom present any conflicts. And it's hardly a stretch to think that a luxury car maker would be an appropriate partner with an association that promotes golf, which just happens to be played by many people with a fair amount of disposable income to spend on luxury cars.

I've done little work with associations, but it still seems tacky to me and goes against the idea that the USGA represents all golfers

and just because everyone else is taking corporate dollars doesn't mean the USGA has to

doesn't it bother you that the USGA has tens of millions - hundreds? - of dollars that it does nothing with?

« **Reply #9 on:** January 26, 2007, 02:12:21 PM »

I'm not only a USGA member, but a Lexus owner/driver! I have a '95 Lexus that I bought for $7500 and now has 148,000 miles on it; I only need to drive it for 6 more years until my kids get out of college!

So I am THE exact demographic that the USGA is going after, apparently! In the world of golf, I rule!

(BTW, when my Lexus is in the shop, I just switch over to my '79 Toyota pickup with 244,000 miles on it. Regardless of what I drive, my club requests that I park as close to the dumpster as possible. Such is the life of luxury that I lead...)

« **Reply #10 on:** January 26, 2007, 02:20:57 PM »

Quote from: Paul Thomas on January 26, 2007, 01:49:41 PM

just my opinion, but i don't think they need to be chasing all this money around, esp when all they do is sit on most of it

bad enought they do it, then they pick a luxury car company to boot....yea, lots of golfers can identify with that brand

and I know the R&A does it with Rolex, but I don't like that either and that precedent doesn't make it ok for the USGA to do it

obviously you disagree JES, whicdh is fine by me...just my 2 cents

This has come up before on this site. Y'all have to remember, yes, Rolex is plastered on every tee during the Open, but, there are no tv advertising deals because there are no ads! Which do you think is better for the viewer?

I am no supporter of the USGA even though I find myself a member due to my father's sense of humour. However, I don't see what the problem is with getting corporate partners. Its more money in the coffers to upgrade those terrible classic courses they bring the US Open to each year.

Ciao

« **Reply #11 on:** January 26, 2007, 02:26:17 PM »

Quote from: Paul Thomas on January 26, 2007, 02:10:04 PM

Quote from: Terry Lavin on January 26, 2007, 01:56:37 PM
Quote from: Paul Thomas on January 26, 2007, 01:49:41 PM
just my opinion, but i don't think they need to be chasing all this money around, esp when all they do is sit on most of it

bad enought they do it, then they pick a luxury car company to boot....yea, lots of golfers can identify with that brand

and I know the R&A does it with Rolex, but I don't like that either and that precedent doesn't make it ok for the USGA to do it

obviously you disagree JES, whicdh is fine by me...just my 2 cents

I know that some consider USGA bashing to be de rigeur in these parts, but this strikes me as a remarkably uninformed opinion. I don't know how much work you've done with associations, but these types of relationships are commonly done and they seldom present any conflicts. And it's hardly a stretch to think that a luxury car maker would be an appropriate partner with an association that promotes golf, which just happens to be played by many people with a fair amount of disposable income to spend on luxury cars.

I've done little work with associations, but it still seems tacky to me and goes against the idea that the USGA represents all golfers

and just because everyone else is taking corporate dollars doesn't mean the USGA has to

doesn't it bother you that the USGA has tens of millions - hundreds? - of dollars that it does nothing with?

If I didn't know better, I'd say you must be joking, but I'm sure you aren't. The USGA does have an enormous amount of money, but it's not doing "nothing" as you cavalierly state; it is invested and they use the interest income to fund their charitable work. And, no, it doesn't bother me that they use their money to invest to make more money that is then used for charity. If they want to enter into corporate sponsorships to further defray their operating expenses and therefore increase their charitable endeavors, that is not only appropriate, but it is eminently responsible.

« **Reply #12 on:** January 26, 2007, 02:31:36 PM »

If you ever get a chance to work with the USGA you will find that they employ some of the finest people in golf. I'm sure that a portion of this money will be used to fund salaries and heath care.

« **Reply #13 on:** January 26, 2007, 02:39:02 PM »

Quote from: Terry Lavin on January 26, 2007, 01:56:37 PM

I know that some consider USGA bashing to be de rigeur in these parts, but this strikes me as a remarkably uninformed opinion. I don't know how much work you've done with associations, but these types of relationships are commonly done and they seldom present any conflicts.

My experience, I'll admit, is limited to associations with net assets (assets minus liabilities) of less than the $200 million figure that the USGA reported as of November 2005. I don't think anyone is necessarily worried about conflicts but rather a sign that with this move

1. The USGA has introduced overt commercialism into the previously green grounds of its championships

2. Removed a point of differentiation between its championships and those of other sports, from USTA tennis to the BCS championships

3. Potentially/probably opened the gates for more sub-sponsorships ("the Monday Playoff Sponsored by Cialis", "the Rules Discussion with David Fay Sponsored by Goldman Sachs")

4. The benefits for the USGA, as announced by Walter Driver seem to be all about Lexus and very little about the mission of the USGA...you read this and tell me if you see it differently:

Quote

"The obvious fit is that the USGA will now be able to offer Lexus vehicles and provide the players with an enhanced experience at selected USGA national championships while Lexus gets to showcase its product line at the very top events in golf—the USGA national championships," said USGA President Walter Driver.

5. How much money does the USGA need? Unclear to this member - at what point will the endowment become enough to fund the Association's programs and the greater good of the game (with a margin of safety) without generating surpluses that only serve to increase the endowment?

« **Reply #14 on:** January 26, 2007, 02:51:48 PM »

Kevin,

It is completely acceptable for a member (you) to feel entitled to understand exactly what your benefits are from this type of a relationship. Surely you don't think the only reason the USGA entered into it is for the courtesy cars at their events...do you?

No, I cannot answer the obvious question of...well than what is it? But I can ask, would it be beneficial to you if a certain level of membership were offered free of charge at some point due to these corporate relationships?

« **Reply #15 on:** January 26, 2007, 02:53:55 PM »

I guess I don't get the business proposition here.

What does a Lexus sponsorship get the USGA that the $250,000,000 in train ridin' American cash in the USGA coffers doesn't get them?

Bob

« **Reply #16 on:** January 26, 2007, 02:55:57 PM »

Why do colleges need huge endowments...What do they do with all that money..

« **Reply #17 on:** January 26, 2007, 02:57:16 PM »

Quote from: JES II on January 26, 2007, 02:51:48 PM

Surely you don't think the only reason the USGA entered into it is for the courtesy cars at their events...do you?

Of course not - it was for the money unless we are now in some sort of parallel universe.

Quote

But I can ask, would it be beneficial to you if a certain level of membership were offered free of charge at some point due to these corporate relationships?

Nothing is ever free.

« **Reply #18 on:** January 26, 2007, 03:05:38 PM »

College endowments support vast numbers of scholarships, salaries, labs, libraries, food operations, athletic progams, security, art museums and programs and the extraordianry costs of running various campuses for thousands of students, faculty and employees.

The USGA does very few of those things. Yet they have more cash in the bank than all but a handful of colleges.

More money should not be high on their list of things that need fixing.

Bob

« **Reply #19 on:** January 26, 2007, 03:23:33 PM »

Quote from: BCrosby on January 26, 2007, 03:05:38 PM

College endowments support vast numbers of scholarships, salaries, labs, libraries, food operations, athletic progams, security, art museums and programs and the extraordianry costs of running various campuses for thousands of students, faculty and employees.

The USGA does very few of those things. Yet they have more cash in the bank than all but a handful of colleges.

More money should not be high on their list of things that need fixing.

Bob

What is this, a socialist diatribe? They shouldn't be looking to raise more money? We could have a pleasant conversation about their priorities and how you and I might differ with them, but I just don't understand the objection to financial prudence. There are problems with endorsements from time to time, including the recently reported problems with the American Diabetes Association entering into deals with companies that make sugary foods, but "the official car of the USGA" doesn't really raise any hairs on my head.

« **Reply #20 on:** January 26, 2007, 03:28:31 PM »

Bob,

Why would the announcement of this agreement cause you to assume they have ceased pursuit of all other endeavors?

Kevin,

Just because I am curious, let's say the USGA actually thought of that as an initiative and made their par club membership free and discounted all other levels based on revenue generated by a relationship such as the Lexus or AMEX deals...what would be your cost?

« **Reply #21 on:** January 26, 2007, 03:40:26 PM »

Terry -

I would encourage their raising as much new money as they wish. But they have (as my Grandmother used to say) a gracious plenty now. So I don't see the case for adding to those funds if there are strings attached. Why take on the headache?

Perhaps there are fiscal issues at Golf House I don't appreciate. I'm pleased to be educated about them.

I just don't get the logic of the decision. What is the problem being solved that they don't have the wherewithall to solve without corporate sponsorships?

Bob

« **Reply #22 on:** January 26, 2007, 03:43:09 PM »

"My experience, I'll admit, is limited to associations with net assets (assets minus liabilities) of less than the $200 million figure that the USGA reported as of November 2005. I don't think anyone is necessarily worried about conflicts but rather a sign that with this move

1. The USGA has introduced overt commercialism into the previously green grounds of its championships"

Kevin:

I made a post above basically saying I wasn't sure what to think about this Lexus/USGA partnership or deal or whatever it is.

But I think you're #1 above is the very thing that sort of concerns me most and seems odd to me for the USGA. I wasn't even aware of this partnership until this thread and I have no idea what the USGA is getting out of it. What or how much are they getting from this partnership? Do you know? I don't.

At Pa Golf Association we got X dollars from Toyota of Pa and that's to defray our costs so we can offer tournaments to our players at the best possible price to them.

But Pa Golf Association is not the basic overseer and protector of the game of golf in America, the USGA is. At least that's what their mission statement says.

And I always thought the true dividing line in that vein was to simply keep commercialism out of the amateur game no matter what. I thought the idea was that if that is not done then amateurism potentially gets corrupted eventually in the mechanisms of commercialism. Commercialism then has the opportunity to insert leverage, in other words. They have the money and the leverage over this amateur organization or at least that's the theory of keeping commercialism out of the amateur game, isn't it?

But I guess the world is just changing and the USGA feels if the world is changing so much just get on the train and change along with it, and that if they don't they will become an anachronism somewhere down the line.

But there is no way this kind of thing would've happened twenty years ago. Back then it would not have had a chance in hell of even coming up for discussion on the board.

But it probably isn't just a change in the USGA---the world is changing, there's no doubt about it.

« **Reply #23 on:** January 26, 2007, 03:56:22 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on January 26, 2007, 03:43:09 PM

And I always thought the true dividing line in that vein was to simply keep commercialism out of the amateur game no matter what. I thought the idea was that if that is not done then amateurism potentially gets corrupted eventually in the mechanisms of commercialism. Commercialism then has the opportunity to insert leverage, in other words. They have the money and the leverage over this amateur organization or at least that's the theory of keeping commercialism out of the amateur game, isn't it?

Of all the changes in sport the last 50 years, the death of the amateur ideal is the least remarked upon. The only sports where it holds are those where no commercial value has (yet) been found. That's the only reason.

Every other sport has been compromised...many Olympic sports are an absolute money-grabbing joke.

One other thought: all of the "guardians" of the game are compromised, but is ANGC the least compromised, at least as far as they run their tournament? Minimum of ads, no overselling of tickets, low prices at the concessions, healthy contingent of amateurs...

« **Reply #24 on:** January 26, 2007, 03:56:42 PM »

Quote from: JES II on January 26, 2007, 03:28:31 PM

Kevin,

Just because I am curious, let's say the USGA actually thought of that as an initiative and made their par club membership free and discounted all other levels based on revenue generated by a relationship such as the Lexus or AMEX deals...what would be your cost?

My Lexus would cost more, my Amex annual fee would be higher, and my Cialis would cost more. Whoops, skip that last one.

But the only way there would be no (meaning zero-point-zero in an academic and real sense) cost to me would be if I never was a customer or a shareholder of any of the USGA sponsors, because the money for the sponsorship comes ultimately from those groups.

The margins are small, but there is no such thing as a free lunch....or a "free rider" in this case.

News:

PThomas

JESII

TEPaul

PThomas

tlavin

Craig Sweet

RJ_Daley

tlavin

PThomas

A.G._Crockett

Sean_A

tlavin

John Kavanaugh

Kevin_Reilly

JESII

BCrosby

John Kavanaugh

Kevin_Reilly

BCrosby

tlavin

JESII

BCrosby

TEPaul

Mark Bourgeois

Kevin_Reilly