It's Not All Bad LPGA Sponsorship News
by Ryan Ballengee on Sep 30, 2008 10:43 AM EDT
Email
PrintThe Navistar LPGA Classic may actually have a contract extension for the event!
The pieces of the puzzle are falling into place for the Navistar Classic tournament to be given a contract extension after the current three-year pact runs out next fall. The official announcement should come around the first of the year.
Jonathan Romeo, who has run the tournament the past two years, said Friday that it looks like next year this tournament and the Bell Micro tournament in Mobile will be on back-to-back weekends. That's a crucial element to the overall master plan, which is to use both tournaments as vehicles to recruit industry to Alabama.
The principle players in the future of the tournament -- and perhaps in the economic future of the state -- are Navistar, the truck company that sponsors the Montgomery tournament, and Bell Micro, a $3 billion electronics distribution company whose president, CEO and chairman of the board is Don Bell, who is originally from Montgomery.
With all of the bad news for golf sponsorship pre and post bailout chatter, this is good to hear. Who knew that Alabama was bulletproof?
20 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
fact is...
…these ladies are MOSTLY playing in hopes of a date with the Ballengee-meister (bah-dum-bum) :-)
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
sponsors might switch tours ?
I wonder if any of the PGA Tour sponsors will consider changing to the LPGA tour. Lower cost – and the players are much more willing to go the extra mile with the sponsors and tournaments than the guys.
Similar thing happened to tennis back in the late 70’s and early 80’s when the biggest names were getting their millions in endorsements, not tournament play, so they played a minimum of events. Then technology and huge serves kicked in, and the men’s game got a bit boring – until the last 5 or 6 years when returns caught up and a few guys found out that they didn’t have to stay behind the baseline all day.
The women were playing all the time and they kept the ball in play a little longer – it didn’t matter that the play was brain dead – the ball was in the air and the players were smiling and talking to the public. Sponsors that had backed the men only started switching to the women’s tour – play got a little better…sort of – and TV started showing sweaty, leggy women in super short skirts and tight tops.
Golf is a bit different because the men hit 300+ yard drives and 2-irons that fly over trees from impossible positions – but we’re not far from driver and a wedge golf. The women playing the game are getting VERY attractive, and much better at the game – thanks at least a bit to technology.
How far away are we from seeing sponsors putting cash behind the LPGA and pushing TV to show more women’s golf ?
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
With Biv at the helm
I honestly don’t know. But, does the LPGA Tour want the toxic financial services sponsors of the PGA Tour?
"toxic" ???
now you’re using Britney Spears’ lines ?? :-/
the financial services people will be exhonerated for the most part if and when the facts of this mess come out – that it is the empirial federal government that caused this mess.
Trust me – if the money spends – they’ll take it – and these companies are going to be working very hard to get their good names back.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
For what it's worth
The government is definitely not the sole culprit in all of this. Wall St. deserves a ton of blame for involving itself in unregulated, extremely risks financial instruments like credit default swaps. Yes, providing mixed mandates to Fannie and Freddie helped, but that was just one small piece of the pie.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 1, 2008 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions
no doubt..
…but Wall Street has become the scapegoat. The media has no intention of putting their attention where it belongs – on Washington DC – that might hurt their candidates. Pointing the finger at “the rich” is easy – but it doesn’t solve the problem.
Lenders were forced – by law – to lend money to people who had no means, and in many cases no intention, of paying back those loans. Since the 60’s and LBJ’s screw job on the country – we have poured more than a trillion dollars into welfare – and gotten nothing in return. Recipients are not required to do anything – in fact – they are encouraged by the rules to do nothing.
By the way – where are all these “separation of church and state” people when everything shut down for Rosh Hashana during this crisis ???
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
On welfare
The 1996 welfare reform act did a lot to change what welfare did for people – 24 month max time limits lifetimes, etc. Modifying the Community Reinvestment Act ten years after passage was a big mistake because it ruined the point of the law. (My company helped pass the original version, which didn’t have the same subprime lending mandate in it.)
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 1, 2008 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
like I said..
…the media will never point their finger in the right direction.
That’s cool about your company working on that original version — but what company is that ? You worked for a lobbyist ?
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Our company
is called Enterprise Community Partners. Founded by Jim Rouse – the guy who did a ton of malls in the US. We work on affordable housing issues through grantmaking, providing technical assistance, lending, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, New Markets Tax Credits, mortgages, etc. Policy advocacy is just a small part of what we do.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 1, 2008 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions
private sector ?
are you working on low income housing with funds from the private sector ? or are they doing all this by taking money through the government ?
is ECP a lobbying organization ?
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
The Community Reinvesment Act
compels banks to supply us with capital at slightly below market rates for all of the financing products. In return, they either get tax credits (varying % depending on LIHTC or NMTC) or paid back plus interest. In effect, we act as a middle man for these deals, as well as permanent mortgages and other lending to developers. We also help divert funding that philanthropic foundations want to make for this cause.
So, we do pretty much anything related to housing issues. We have multiple subsidiaries to handle each major function.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 1, 2008 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions
so what happens...
…when the houses don’t sell ? developers and builders have been defaulting on loans because the market fell apart.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Well
banks have to make these investments (it’s a calculation based, I believe, on total deposits or net worth or something), so they are stuck. LIHTC is exclusively for rental developments, and that market is actually pretty decent right now. Also, with the housing boom, a lot of competitors showed up for our dollars. Many of them are disappearing now because they didn’t have the stomach or bank account for the market shift.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 1, 2008 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
if you're interested...
…Andew Wilkow has been talking about this topic and did a very good interview with an economy professor from 1-2 pm today.
We disagree on the CRA – it was originally put into play by Carter (not Clinton – though Clinton added gasoline to the fire by putting his own brand of social engineering and “they’ll love me if I give them money” politics) and started this whole mess by meddling with private business practices. Government took the simple business equation of “profit has to be larger than investment in order to stay in business” and decided that they should step in and add “feelings” into a simple formula, and started giving away money that didn’t belong to them.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Clinton
goofed up CRA. Then Bush added to it. Alone, in the Carter version, it wasn’t that bad.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 1, 2008 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
lol
Carter WAS that bad – he’s not getting any better living back at home in Plains. (the man who’s never met a dictator he didn’t like) :-) Any time the government meddles in private business – bad things happen. Carter opened the door for Clinton.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
This was one thing
Jimmy did right. Maybe among a handful. Government meddling in private business isn’t always a bad thing. Had the government appropriately meddled in regulating credit default swaps, we’d be in better shape. It’s not government’s fault, it’s Government’s fault – the idiots that we elect.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 1, 2008 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
this is true
I’ve been cracking up for 3 days now at all the whining by the Democrats saying that the Republicans are the ones who messed it up — but it’s the Democrats who added billions in pork to the bill – and the democrats are the MAJORITY in congress – they didn’t need the republicans to pass the bill – apparently there were enough democrats who stood up against the earmarks to get the bailout defeated. (I wish I knew who they were – I’d send them a thank you note !)
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Have a golf story tip? Contact editor Charles Boyer and he will follow the story! Thanks!
Related FanPosts on Waggle Room
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
