That's a good question. My guess he will pick and choose his tournaments carefully to minimize his exposure to hecklers, plus make demands for extra security with the organizers. The Masters, for example, has a lot of experience dealing with protesters and crowd control. So I would think that tournament would be fairly safe for him to compete at without being harassed.RCAnismo wrote:I was just discussing this with my g/f. What's it going to be like when he does choose to get back on the green? You think he's going to get heckled?
I hope so.Bubba1 wrote:
According to MSNBC, Tiger's groupies wont have to wait long. They are predicting he will play in the Masters in April.
AZhitman wrote:So, he's cost us up to $12 BILLION with his shenanigans.
I'll consider the source. You're clearly clueless.UpStar wrote: Like I said earlier.......that was your choice. If you invested in Tag,Nike,AT&T, etc... and you are feeling the pinch of Tigers mistake...then sell your shares.
Real investors are smarter than that It’s hardly an issue for most Americans. Like I said, HE DOESN"T OWE US ANYTHING.
You should be ashamed for saying such a thing
Please do not get upset, but you really should think long and hard before you post. I don’t want to shift the conversation to the Johnson suicide, but your quote needs some attention. Her last name was Johnson and rather she liked it or not….she represented the company. I’m sure her folks explained that to her on a number of occasions. Listen! If your kids act a fool in the streets and they carry your last name……guess who they represent when they end up in jail or on the news? YOU! They represent YOU! Oh…Referring to me as clueless and pathetic is not effective and shows that you are loosing. Let’s see if you can move your point without using offensive elementary expressions in the future. Now, just to stay on topic….that whole $12Billion lost by these companies is by far one of the most over inflated figures ever. Only Two economics professors at the University of California made claims of a $12B lost and were later up-staged for their remarks.Look:http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/b...11361 my fav:"However, Waggle Room took a much closer look at the figures, and decided that the UC professors' study was completely, utterly wrong -- that in fact Woods' sponsors have earned $1.5 billion since the accident. That link is must-reading for those interested in the financial side of this story, but in sum -- the "losses" were paper losses, not actual cash, and Woods' impact on the sponsors is minimal because so little of their overall value is tied to Woods." Did you see the “UTTERLY WRONG” part?AZhitman wrote:
You're clearly clueless.
She didn't promote J&J products, wasn't the "public face" of the company, and they're not paying for her "performance".
if it weren't so pathetic.
atleast we agree on somethingAZhitman wrote:Still the greatest golfer to ever play the game, no question.
I think the real financial impact of the Tiger scandal/hiatus cannot yet be determined. The depth of the impact might be influenced more by the nature of Woods individual endorsements. For example, I would think AT&T would fare better than Nike due to the fact AT&T has no actual products in Tiger's name. Nike, on the other hand, has much more at risk with millions invested in Tiger Woods specialty product lines, from clothing, to clubs and accessories. The longer Tiger stays out of golf, or if the flow o' Ho's grows, Nike could easily be stuck with devalued, or slow selling merchandise. Now if Nike were savvy, they might think about taking advantage of Tiger's newly revealed image and offer a new line of Tiger Woods golf gloves , "ribbed for her pleasure" , or perhaps Tiger Condoms ("for that special hole in one").elwesso wrote:I read the study, and I understand what their doing...
They're basing their numbers for 13 days after the incident, which at the time of their writing is the best they could do... How often do you value the earnings (or losses) of a company off a time span of less than 2 weeks? If your mutual fund drops 3% over 2 weeks, are you sweating bullets?
I think that study, while informative, is quite anecdotal in proving that everyone lost all this money... Coincidental or not to the event that transpired, a company's stock can recover 3% in a matter of weeks...
Also, the biggest point in the study is that its a RELATIVE loss, which means that those people's stock price could have stayed relatively stable, while competing firms stock price went up, causing a NET EFFECT loss... A relative loss is kind of stupid in my opinion, because hindsight is always 20/20... What they're saying (if I'm understanding this correctly), is that if Nike's stock stayed the same but relatively reebok's stock when up 4%, then its a net effective loss of 4% on the Nike stockholders... Doesn't that seem a little fishy to you? Yes, I lost that much money had I invested in reebok instead of Nike, but effectively I did not lose any of MY MONEY because the stock price stayed the same!
Let me quote the last line of the study
Overall, I think that the majority of any claimed losses or cancellations in contracts has less to do with the scandal, and more to do with his "indefinite departure" from golf... Of course the "scandal" is a factor, but if a golfer ain't playing golf anymore, why would a company support them and pay them millions of dollars per month?
thats f en funny bubba HAHA ASHLEYMADISON....tom would definitly not approveBubba1 wrote:
Winning an NBA championship the next year and a scoring title (?) tends to help hardcore NBA fans forget about his pesky rape allegations.
I'm sure once Tiger resumes his golfing and wins another tournament, fans like Upstar will resume their adoration. Personally I think "Ashley Madison.com" should seek Tiger out as a spokesman.
Thats true.. He is a public figure, so his actions, most indefinitely will have re precautions on the stock holders. But, maybe stock holders need to invest in companies with a less negatively media driven market. For example; nike stands by its endorsements to tiger, why? because regardless of the act(excluding in moral) nike targets young people, who dont care about politics, but the sport. Wearing a nike shoe is still wearing a nike shoe, unlike his watch brand which drop him, because after all, for wants to wear a watch endorsed by someone who likes a side with thier main course.(wife vs mistress)AZhitman wrote:Update:
Looks like some of the people ni this thread need to go back and re-evaluate what they've said.
See, here's the deasl: While his private life IS his business, he's responsible to a whole other group of people: Shareholders.
If you own a mutual fund, chances are it holds stock in Nike and all the other companies he endorses.
So, he's cost us up to $12 BILLION with his shenanigans.
If you're Joe Public, I don't pay your salary (unless you're a government employee). But athletes are paid through ticket sales, andorsements, and sponsors, and that money comes from us, the general public (and golf fans).
So he DOES bear some responsibility to the public. Who do you think made him all those millions of dollars?
I disagree 100% with UpStar on this point.
Don't flatter yourself. Nothing you could post would make me "upset".UpStar wrote:Please do not get upset
Really?UpStar wrote: Her last name was Johnson and rather she liked it or not….she represented the company.
And I'm sure Earl Woods is turning over in his grave.UpStar wrote: I’m sure her folks explained that to her on a number of occasions. Listen! If your kids act a fool in the streets and they carry your last name……guess who they represent when they end up in jail or on the news? YOU! They represent YOU!
What the hell is a "waggle room"? Sounds like a reliable source to me.UpStar wrote: "However, Waggle Room took a much closer look at the figures, and decided that the UC professors' study was completely, utterly wrong -- that in fact Woods' sponsors have earned $1.5 billion since the accident.
Let's see what you say when your accountant tells you that your 401K value's losses were paper losses, not actual cash.UpStar wrote: The "losses" were paper losses, not actual cash,
Don't hold your breath. That would be a PR nightmare, an unnecessary exposure to legal liability, and an idiotic thing to do. If you're waiting for that as your "proof", you'll never get it.UpStar wrote: The money lost talk is garbage until I see or hear Accenture, AT&T, Electronic Arts, Proctor and Gamble, Nike and PepsiCo come forward and announce that they've lost X amount of dollars due to Tiger Woods and his relations with numerous women. My At&T stock has yet to announce any PR’s stating a lose due to this media madness.
Someone needs to send Tiger a video of some guy slipping his wife the ol' driver.Bubba1 wrote:Actually, Nike might now be happy to keep Tiger on after Elin smacked him upside his head with a club.
It would be even greater if it was Phil Mickelson getting caught "mid-stroke" with her. Of course, Phil would claim he was seeking tips from the one person who could beat Tiger with a golf club.AZhitman wrote:
Someone needs to send Tiger a video of some guy slipping his wife the ol' driver.
So true, I could see EA rolling out a "Leisure Suit Tiger"game.AZhitman wrote:That's just good business, given their demographic.
Remember, these are the same people who are entertained by GTA and such.
I worship no man. As for him being with men... I doubt that, but the media will say anything right now just to be saying it. Don’t believe everything you read, especially if it’s from two professors from California.Bubba1 wrote:So, If it turns out to be true, I'm curious if that would impact Upstar's worship of Mr. Woods.
Could you please elaborate on the two professors from California??UpStar wrote:I worship no man. As for him being with men... I doubt that, but the media will say anything right now just to be saying it. Don’t believe everything you read, especially if it’s from two professors from California.
This Tiger Woods talk is getting old. You boys have fun with it.
Modified by UpStar at 5:39 PM 1/7/2010
Interestingly, the consequences for such allegations would be pretty severe in a civil case IF the woman who said them didn't have some corroborating evidence that she's not shared yet...UpStar wrote: As for him being with men... I doubt that, but the media will say anything right now just to be saying it. Don’t believe everything you read,
UpStar wrote: especially if it’s from two professors from California.
Are you taking your clubs and going home? Who's gonna defend Tiger's good name? Who's going to speak against these mean and nasty rumors?UpStar wrote:This Tiger Woods talk is getting old. You boys have fun with it.
UpStar wrote: welcome back tiger! go get that green jacket
QUOTE]
Hey I think I'm psychic. look what I just found...Bubba1 wrote:
. Now if Nike were savvy, they might think about taking advantage of Tiger's newly revealed image and offer a new line of Tiger Woods golf gloves , "ribbed for her pleasure" , or perhaps Tiger Condoms ("for that special hole in one").