| |
Main
Date: 30 Sep 2006 14:19:57
From: Daisy
Subject: PGA vindictive
|
Why was Michael Campbell reduced to only being allowed to enter only
10 PGA tour events (including the World championships and the British
Open) for FIVE years? This ruling was handed down by Lord Finchim
two years before Michael won the US Open.
Sponsors would surely want to have him in the fields that he has had
to decline.
I see from a news item that MIchael will appeal the ruling soon. I
think it was terribly vindictive when one considers that he and his
family tried to work out something in the USA for a period of time,
but were unable to settle of where to live and where the children
would go to school.
Oh yes, I know, Americans have to fit their lifestyles around their
golf, but this sort of behaviour does not give the PGA a good look.
Daisy
Carthage demands an explanation for this insolence!
|
|
| |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 22:51:24
From: sfb
Subject: Re: PGA vindictive
|
I suggest you ask Michael Campbell as he, by apparently his own choice, is
not a member of the PGA Tour. The Masters, US Open, Open,and PGA
Championship are not PGA Tour events so Finchim's ruling would have no
effect on entering those tournaments. They include the results, but do not
run the events.
"Daisy" <DaisyL@emailaccount.com > wrote in message
news:8qkrh2p8gudtt9rqg05ggid4itidlorm33@4ax.com...
> Why was Michael Campbell reduced to only being allowed to enter only
> 10 PGA tour events (including the World championships and the British
> Open) for FIVE years? This ruling was handed down by Lord Finchim
> two years before Michael won the US Open.
>
> Sponsors would surely want to have him in the fields that he has had
> to decline.
>
> I see from a news item that MIchael will appeal the ruling soon. I
> think it was terribly vindictive when one considers that he and his
> family tried to work out something in the USA for a period of time,
> but were unable to settle of where to live and where the children
> would go to school.
>
> Oh yes, I know, Americans have to fit their lifestyles around their
> golf, but this sort of behaviour does not give the PGA a good look.
>
> Daisy
>
> Carthage demands an explanation for this insolence!
|
| | |
Date: 30 Sep 2006 13:41:47
From: Crispin Roche
Subject: Re: PGA vindictive
|
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:51:24 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:
>I suggest you ask Michael Campbell as he, by apparently his own choice, is
>not a member of the PGA Tour. The Masters, US Open, Open,and PGA
>Championship are not PGA Tour events so Finchim's ruling would have no
>effect on entering those tournaments. They include the results, but do not
>run the events.
>
Perhaps you should read a bit about Michael Campbell and his arguement
with Finchem. The Masters, the US Open, the Open and the PGA
Championship may not be PGA Tour events but they are included in
Finchem's ruling. In fact the WGC events are also not run by the
USPGA Tour either (although they are jointly sanctioned by each of the
five major golf tours) but they too are covered by Finchem's ruling.
Crispin Roche
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Sep 2006 10:12:23
From: sfb
Subject: Re: PGA vindictive
|
I did find an article at
http://www.golftoday.co.uk/news/yeartodate/news06/michael_campbell_2.html
and my suggestion that the fault lies with Campbell remains valid. Michael
Campbell wants all the privileges of being a Tour member without fulfilling
the responsibilities of being a Tour member.
Finchem isn't the bad guy as he has a responsibility to his members to
enforce the rules since the PGA Tour is run by the players.
Mr. Roche, do you by any chance own and operate a bank? I really would like
a "Michael Campbell Account" where I could write unlimited checks without
the need to make make deposits.
"Crispin Roche" <crispin.roche@ntlworld.com > wrote in message
news:f5ssh21ad2orqoqve3oee77cph1r5m52ke@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:51:24 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>I suggest you ask Michael Campbell as he, by apparently his own choice, is
>>not a member of the PGA Tour. The Masters, US Open, Open,and PGA
>>Championship are not PGA Tour events so Finchim's ruling would have no
>>effect on entering those tournaments. They include the results, but do not
>>run the events.
>>
>
> Perhaps you should read a bit about Michael Campbell and his arguement
> with Finchem. The Masters, the US Open, the Open and the PGA
> Championship may not be PGA Tour events but they are included in
> Finchem's ruling. In fact the WGC events are also not run by the
> USPGA Tour either (although they are jointly sanctioned by each of the
> five major golf tours) but they too are covered by Finchem's ruling.
>
> Crispin Roche
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Sep 2006 10:03:30
From: sfb
Subject: Re: PGA vindictive
|
URL?
"Crispin Roche" <crispin.roche@ntlworld.com > wrote in message
news:f5ssh21ad2orqoqve3oee77cph1r5m52ke@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:51:24 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
>>I suggest you ask Michael Campbell as he, by apparently his own choice, is
>>not a member of the PGA Tour. The Masters, US Open, Open,and PGA
>>Championship are not PGA Tour events so Finchim's ruling would have no
>>effect on entering those tournaments. They include the results, but do not
>>run the events.
>>
>
> Perhaps you should read a bit about Michael Campbell and his arguement
> with Finchem. The Masters, the US Open, the Open and the PGA
> Championship may not be PGA Tour events but they are included in
> Finchem's ruling. In fact the WGC events are also not run by the
> USPGA Tour either (although they are jointly sanctioned by each of the
> five major golf tours) but they too are covered by Finchem's ruling.
>
> Crispin Roche
|
| |
Date: 30 Sep 2006 09:02:13
From:
Subject: Re: PGA vindictive
|
sfb wrote:
> I did find an article at
> http://www.golftoday.co.uk/news/yeartodate/news06/michael_campbell_2.html
> and my suggestion that the fault lies with Campbell remains valid. Michael
> Campbell wants all the privileges of being a Tour member without fulfilling
> the responsibilities of being a Tour member.
>
> Finchem isn't the bad guy as he has a responsibility to his members to
> enforce the rules since the PGA Tour is run by the players.
>
> Mr. Roche, do you by any chance own and operate a bank? I really would like
> a "Michael Campbell Account" where I could write unlimited checks without
> the need to make make deposits.
Seems a bit harsh on Crispin: all he did was to correct your mistake in
very clear terms. He didn't even take Campbell-Finchem sides. Surely an
acknowledgement of your error, and gracious thanks for the correction,
would be more appropriate than constructing this strawman.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Sep 2006 18:19:56
From: sfb
Subject: Re: PGA vindictive
|
Look at the original post. Crispin took Campbell's side from the get go.
PS: I'm not mistaken. Campbell need only join the PGA Tour and abide by the
rules.
<sugnaboris@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1159632133.806581.176820@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> sfb wrote:
>> I did find an article at
>> http://www.golftoday.co.uk/news/yeartodate/news06/michael_campbell_2.html
>> and my suggestion that the fault lies with Campbell remains valid.
>> Michael
>> Campbell wants all the privileges of being a Tour member without
>> fulfilling
>> the responsibilities of being a Tour member.
>>
>> Finchem isn't the bad guy as he has a responsibility to his members to
>> enforce the rules since the PGA Tour is run by the players.
>>
>> Mr. Roche, do you by any chance own and operate a bank? I really would
>> like
>> a "Michael Campbell Account" where I could write unlimited checks without
>> the need to make make deposits.
>
> Seems a bit harsh on Crispin: all he did was to correct your mistake in
> very clear terms. He didn't even take Campbell-Finchem sides. Surely an
> acknowledgement of your error, and gracious thanks for the correction,
> would be more appropriate than constructing this strawman.
>
|
| | |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 10:52:47
From: Daisy
Subject: Re: PGA vindictive
|
On 30 Sep 2006 09:02:13 -0700, sugnaboris@gmail.com wrote:
>
>sfb wrote:
>> I did find an article at
>> http://www.golftoday.co.uk/news/yeartodate/news06/michael_campbell_2.html
>> and my suggestion that the fault lies with Campbell remains valid. Michael
>> Campbell wants all the privileges of being a Tour member without fulfilling
>> the responsibilities of being a Tour member.
>>
>> Finchem isn't the bad guy as he has a responsibility to his members to
>> enforce the rules since the PGA Tour is run by the players.
>>
>> Mr. Roche, do you by any chance own and operate a bank? I really would like
>> a "Michael Campbell Account" where I could write unlimited checks without
>> the need to make make deposits.
>
>Seems a bit harsh on Crispin: all he did was to correct your mistake in
>very clear terms. He didn't even take Campbell-Finchem sides. Surely an
>acknowledgement of your error, and gracious thanks for the correction,
>would be more appropriate than constructing this strawman.
My reading of Michael Campbell's stand on this is that Finchem ruled 3
years ago that Michael could only enter 10 USPGA tour events in any
one year for five year. This ruling expires at the end of 2008. The
ruling includes the British Open, the PGA, the US Open, the Masters
and the three annual World Tour events. This makes a total of 7
events, and thus he could only play in 3 events on the PGA tour not
included in this 7. He played in the Mercedes in Hawaii in January,
Bay Hill, and the Players Championship..
When he won the US Open in 2005 he gained a 5-year PGA tour exemption,
but Finchem's ruling has over-ridden this apparently, which is why he
is now in talks with Finchem.
I personally can't see how the PGA tour members are disadvantaged in
any way. From other material I read it seems that many of the tour
players do not support Finchem's stand on a lot of things. Has anyone
read the current US Open winner's comments? But then, I guess, it
all boils down to how many international players now win on the PGA
tour. Must be a bit of a worry.
Especially now that the US Ryder Cup team has suffered yet another
humiliating defeat.
Daisy
Carthage demands an explanation for this insolence!
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Sep 2006 18:23:35
From: sfb
Subject: Re: PGA vindictive
|
PGA Tour exemptions only apply to members so Campbell doesn't have the
exemption until he joins.
The PGA Tour is a membership organization owned and run by the players.
Fichem works for the players. Allowing a non member to bump a member from a
tournament would not be a big winner in the locker room.
"Daisy" <DaisyL@emailaccount.com > wrote in message
news:anoth25ocqvtdjogbi4891uhhstr2tn9f4@4ax.com...
> On 30 Sep 2006 09:02:13 -0700, sugnaboris@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>sfb wrote:
>>> I did find an article at
>>> http://www.golftoday.co.uk/news/yeartodate/news06/michael_campbell_2.html
>>> and my suggestion that the fault lies with Campbell remains valid.
>>> Michael
>>> Campbell wants all the privileges of being a Tour member without
>>> fulfilling
>>> the responsibilities of being a Tour member.
>>>
>>> Finchem isn't the bad guy as he has a responsibility to his members to
>>> enforce the rules since the PGA Tour is run by the players.
>>>
>>> Mr. Roche, do you by any chance own and operate a bank? I really would
>>> like
>>> a "Michael Campbell Account" where I could write unlimited checks
>>> without
>>> the need to make make deposits.
>>
>>Seems a bit harsh on Crispin: all he did was to correct your mistake in
>>very clear terms. He didn't even take Campbell-Finchem sides. Surely an
>>acknowledgement of your error, and gracious thanks for the correction,
>>would be more appropriate than constructing this strawman.
>
> My reading of Michael Campbell's stand on this is that Finchem ruled 3
> years ago that Michael could only enter 10 USPGA tour events in any
> one year for five year. This ruling expires at the end of 2008. The
> ruling includes the British Open, the PGA, the US Open, the Masters
> and the three annual World Tour events. This makes a total of 7
> events, and thus he could only play in 3 events on the PGA tour not
> included in this 7. He played in the Mercedes in Hawaii in January,
> Bay Hill, and the Players Championship..
>
> When he won the US Open in 2005 he gained a 5-year PGA tour exemption,
> but Finchem's ruling has over-ridden this apparently, which is why he
> is now in talks with Finchem.
>
> I personally can't see how the PGA tour members are disadvantaged in
> any way. From other material I read it seems that many of the tour
> players do not support Finchem's stand on a lot of things. Has anyone
> read the current US Open winner's comments? But then, I guess, it
> all boils down to how many international players now win on the PGA
> tour. Must be a bit of a worry.
>
> Especially now that the US Ryder Cup team has suffered yet another
> humiliating defeat.
>
>
> Daisy
>
> Carthage demands an explanation for this insolence!
|
|
