Valuing A Sense Of Place: R.I.P. World Challenge At Sherwood
After 14 years at Sherwood Country Club, Tiger Woods' World Challenge event heads east in 2014 for a likely one-year stop at Isleworth. The event is then expected to go elsewhere after that--likely the Bahamas--a factoid an exhausted Woods accidentally noted in his post round press conference Sunday.
;)
On a positive note, the grotesque Tavistock Cup will be retired as a result of this move, while Tiger and his mostly Florida-based friends get a shorter trip to the warm weather golf courses that are never as interesting on television as cool season grass layouts.
Northwestern Mutual, a presenting sponsor in 2012 and title sponsor this year, evidently signaled they are not interested in returning as a sponsor. This was evidenced by the number of thank you's Tiger issued to this year's sponsor: zero. Zilch. Nada.
At his Wednesday press conference, Woods never thanked the sponsor even with Northwestern Mutual execs standing in the room. And this, after Woods put up $4 million of his own money last year because no title sponsor stepped up until Northwestern Mutual took the lesser presenting sponsor role at the last moment.
Even 2013 champion Zach Johnson managed an immediate thank-you to the sponsor in his press conference, giving them a tip of the cap before thanking anyone else, including the foundation, the tournament director or the big man upstairs.
While it's a small point, the lack of public gratitude toward the sponsor by Woods speaks to a point-missing which is awkward at best, potentially fatal at worst, threatening to doom this event upon its move east. Besides showing up the sponsor for not coming back next year, a little praise for the big check writers says to potential suitors for the 2014 title sponsorship: we love our sponsors.
;)
But to a larger point about the end at Sherwood: most golf tournaments and their sponsors are fighting for attention on the over-saturated schedule long for a sense of permanence and continuity--"value creation" in modern day jargon. As Sunday's record crowd of 24,922 displayed, this event has not grown stale. It never hurts that the "place" was the lavish Sherwood, a treat to visit even if it's not a particularly spectator-friendly course. The meticulously-presented grounds and exclusive ambiance provide just two reasons players enjoyed coming here. Pile on stellar player hospitality, easy World Ranking points, a Four Seasons across the freeway offering a healthy player discount, proximity to manufacturers in Carlsbad and potential LA-based corporate clients based and it's no surprise that the event attracts an incredible field.
From an operations standpoint, Sherwood has never been in better condition, there is a wait list to volunteer and the staff has the event on cruise control without it feeling tired.
Yet for reasons only they can grasp, Team Woods felt the time was right (or required) to move the event east. Woods's foundation has reaped over $25 million from the event. They've made an enormous impact on the lives of children in the area, many of whom were in attendance again and enjoying once-in-a-lifetime experiences. But the risk of undermining the "value" they've accrued in southern California apparently is worth an untold greater reward, or perhaps just a better chance of landing enough financial support with Tavistock and an eventual title sponsor.
Should the event not find a title sponsor or fail to find its footing in warmer environs, the successful run at Sherwood will be forever cited as an example where too little value was ascribed to a sense of place and continuity. Especially when the place in question is the tournament founders' home. And especially where, even after this short-sighted move, he will always have a welcome place to play with his friends should he ever decide to come back.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 12:33 AM
Reader Comments (58)
1. What's truly going on behind the scenes, vs. the synthetic muckraking by internet rabble rousers, are often diametric opposites.
2. What's truly going on behind the scenes, vs. the synthetic muckraking by internet rabble rousers, are often diametric opposites. Here's a perfect example for the rabble rousers to chew on.
3. No, but that's not relevant to this example or discussion.
4. What's presented is Captain Andrew Cross's personal attestation to Tiger's gravitas. Andrew is known to be an an honest and honourable man, call him a liar at your own risk.
....looks like Tiger had 2 options for this event in 2014:
1. go to Isleworth with some guaranteed underpinning (amount as yet undetermined) from the Tavistock Group.
or,
2. stay at Sherwood with......what?
Can anyone make a case for filling in the blanks on Option 2?
+1
The point is that no one can explain why Tiger does what he does other than Tiger so what's the point of relating an un-relatable first person account from years ago from someone else when times and tones were totally different. I just don't get it nor do I get Tiger. He is according to GS too smart to keep missing tap-ins and easy up and downs.
I hate no one.
Did he just get used up, tired, lazy, or what? I can see how he would need time to be ''off'', but the contrast of this story, and some of the dick ways he acts- man.
And the general public can be reentless and rude, with no regard to a public figure's need to be private. But with the spoils comes the responsibility, and he makes (and has earned) a fortune, and a smile and a handshake, eye to eye contact, and a hello carry more weight than thousands of dollars donated and never missed, to Joe Pubic, who views the donated money as a tax writeoff, and the personal effort as a ifetime memory.
A bit sattered, but I know what I mean....;)
But on the liar part...... You said: "Were you there?"
I presumed your intent was to suggest unless Tom was there in person to attest that the info relayed was accurate, the info could not be relied upon. If I was wrong about your intent, I apologize. Was I?
One thing I think we can all agree on, this internet thing is rife with rabble rousers ;0)
Society expects people of certain status to be philanthropic. Period. There's already thousands of different vehicles and charities that people could channel their money into if they want to, but they don't. Many, like Tiger, create a 'foundation' because it allows them to be charitable, as they are expected to by society, but never really lose control of the money and do it all on their terms, with the maximum benefit to them personally under the tax system. It's their right, no doubt about it. But for someone to think that on one hand someone milks a sponsor, or a client for every last penny, using every angle and bit of leverage possible, but doesn't donate on terms beneficial to themselves from a tax perspective, is delusional.
And just because some guy supposedly had a good experience with Tiger in 2006, that means nothing.
this is just dollars and donuts. tiger isn't going to put up another 4M of his own to keep the tournament at sherwood when someone else is lining up to pay
his unwillingness to thank northwestern was petulant for sure, but his treatment of people / sponsors hasn't changed in awhile so i'm not sure how that's news
i'll miss watching sherwood on tv though. such a cool venue and visually unique. the rocky rocky chaparral and giant interior live oaks aren't anywhere else on tour. not even the gaudy houses ruin the view
Players A & B both have (i) $50,000,000 of income and (ii) a 50% tax rate.
Player A donates $10,000,000 to charity, Player B donates $0 to charity.
Player A --> (50,000,000 - 10,000,000) * .50 = $20,000,000 residual cash after tax.
Player B --> (50,000,000 - 0) * .50 = $25,000,000 cash after tax.
Who is better off?
tournaments without sponsors are....majors. or maybe former tournaments.
Haven't set foot on it in years, but on the TV last week thought it had aged quite nicely. Was I just seduced by good camera angles and nice sunset light? The housing doesn't seem to have gotten out of hand.
So what's the verdict on it now? Is it worth considering the course for something else? A senior event, maybe?
Who is in charge? Why points? One good reason from someone who has some authority.
Again, ''G-Mac'' is the one hit wonder, who rode the freebie to the bar. ''Ranking''--nada--''rank''- si. .
I'm not a tax pro, but I suspect a foundation's structure can return even more dollars - if the celebrity is an officer on the board, or paid or compensated in any way for charitable activities. And if corporations or other entities donate to his foundation, that may affect his bottom line directly or indirectly, by keeping his "brand" before the public eye (Greg Norman?).
Do pro golfers see a great deal of variability in their income? What percentage have a foundation? (And how does that vary with the nationality/residence status of players on the various tours?) How many pro's charitable activities are listed on their tax filing as work done through their own foundation, even when that's not directly evident, and why might that be?
that is ridiculed as a silly season event/
with too many world rankings points/
hosted by a bad guy/
on a course that architecture snobs ridicule/
that was made fun of over its' sponsor issues (well easier to point at Tiger and laugh/
is now the ammunition for more shots at Tiger because he is moving this circus
And yes, when Tiger plays the World challenge he can deduct his rental home, Jet time, etc. as a charitable deduction. but those are deductible as business expenses too, so there's little difference. Like wise Tiger can pay himself a salary--one that hte IRS would deem "reasonable"--and then he'd pay tax on the salary he got from himself. not sure how that saves money.
All a foundation does is allow tiger to make his charitable dollars go farther--because he can give away money that would have gone to the government.
he can also hire staff and do charitable works he wants to do, rather than give money to someone else, like the Red Cross, American Cancer Society, etc. who may or may not have the same charitable goals.
Having said that, if you feel like you can lay out a detailed example using real numbers that supports your case I'd love to see it...but I bet you can't.