John McHenry

IITYWYBMAD

GreeBo wrote: »

.....

There certainly seem to be some boardroom irregularities around sharing of the proposals etc, but dont really see how that impact McHenry.

There's no onus on the chairman of a board to bring "proposals" to the board members, that's why companies employ CEO's, COO's, and FD's.

However, there's more to the article than "they stole my idea/invention"

If we take the article as its reads, it appears that Pelly was stalling McHenry, through the board. i.e. telling McHenry that the board needed more info, where not interested, hadn't time to discuss it,etc... so it was a stalling technique.

As an aside, you cannot IP an idea. I think McHenry is/was trying to demonstrate that he had an invention, which on the face of it he did. The format of Golf Warriors (which I was not aware of) is over complicated, but not that dissimilar to the concept trialed last year on the ET, which does have a simplified version of Golf Warriors.

There's also the ethical element to this, and again basing my comments on the article alone, it would appear that Pelly and by default the ET behaved in an unethical way.

The 30k offer, of what some would call hush money, only serves to reinforce that and I'm sure the legal dept of the ET are no strangers to law suits and threats, but I would also be of the belief that they don't try and offer a monetary settlement in most or all cases.

GreeBo

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

There's no onus on the chairman of a board to bring "proposals" to the board members, that's why companies employ CEO's, COO's, and FD's.

I didnt say there was. I was referring to the presentations that were individually addressed yet not received.

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

However, there's more to the article than "they stole my idea/invention"

If we take the article as its reads, it appears that Pelly was stalling McHenry, through the board. i.e. telling McHenry that the board needed more info, where not interested, hadn't time to discuss it,etc... so it was a stalling technique.

I dont see anything that proves that, an article essentially written for McHenry isnt likely to be the most unbiased.

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

As an aside, you cannot IP an idea. I think McHenry is/was trying to demonstrate that he had an invention, which on the face of it he did. The format of Golf Warriors (which I was not aware of) is over complicated, but not that dissimilar to the concept trialed last year on the ET, which does have a simplified version of Golf Warriors.

Is it a simplified version of Golf Warriors or is it a game played over 6 holes?
Where do you draw the line on what idea is based on another one?

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

There's also the ethical element to this, and again basing my comments on the article alone, it would appear that Pelly and by default the ET behaved in an unethical way.

The 30k offer, of what some would call hush money, only serves to reinforce that and I'm sure the legal dept of the ET are no strangers to law suits and threats, but I would also be of the belief that they don't try and offer a monetary settlement in most or all cases.

OR, the 30K was recognition for a guy who had spent a lot of time and money on something that he shouldnt have so they were giving him a dig out, based on the honour of the game when they clearly didnt have to, but the guy is bitter that his idea didnt make him a millionaire and hence we get this article.

slave1

Without sounding too harsh he came across to me as overtly business naive (bringing an unprotected idea/concept to a major player) and has nothing to complain about, he should have done due diligence in leaving the K club for Moyvalley earlier in his life and didn't learn his lesson

PokeHerKing

slave1 wrote:

Without sounding too harsh he came across to me as overtly business naive (bringing an unprotected idea/concept to a major player) and has nothing to complain about, he should have done due diligence in leaving the K club for Moyvalley earlier in his life and didn't learn his lesson

I'd completely agree with that and don't think it's in anyway harsh.

I still think solely based on the article that Pelley and ET took his idea, repackaged it slightly and dropped his name from the credits.

IITYWYBMAD

GreeBo wrote: »

I didnt say there was. I was referring to the presentations that were individually addressed yet not received.

The 'packages' your referring to included a copy of a solicitors letter and a presentation on the idea, as a means of asserting ownership. You mentioned "boardroom irregularities around sharing of the proposals". The proposal had moved off the table at that stage, and this was moving into the area of legal ownership.

They are not irregularities, and there is no onus on the CEO to discuss any proposals with any board, if he does not deem them fit to discuss. The article actually recognises this, through the quoting of a board member. There may be an issue with withholding mail from the intended recipient, but again this is not an issue for any board.

GreeBo wrote: »

I dont see anything that proves that, an article essentially written for McHenry isnt likely to be the most unbiased.

Where did I say that there is anything that proves this????

I specifically said "If we take the article as its reads"....

GreeBo wrote: »

Is it a simplified version of Golf Warriors or is it a game played over 6 holes?
Where do you draw the line on what idea is based on another one?

I suspect that that will be for a court to ultimately decide. I'm certainly not getting into the minutia of what was McHenry's idea and how it is/is not a part of the trial last year.

GreeBo wrote: »

OR, the 30K was recognition for a guy who had spent a lot of time and money on something that he shouldnt have so they were giving him a dig out, based on the honour of the game when they clearly didnt have to, but the guy is bitter that his idea didnt make him a millionaire and hence we get this article.

"giving him a dig out"?? Your either naive or having a laugh.

you can't protect a concept or idea.

the only way would be to copyright the name of it and his name was crap anyway.

MisterAnarchy

Kimmage really need to learn to get to the point in his articles ,most of that article is complete waffle.

Niles Crane

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Kimmage really need to learn to get to the point in his articles ,most of that article is complete waffle.

It was way way too long and to be honest he's quite a poor writer in my opinion most of what he's written in the Sindo in the last while left you more confused and unsure of what the big issue is because there was far too much filler in the pieces.

For someone who is a better writer it wouldn't be an issue as they could manage to do a colorful piece with a seriousness to it but Kimmage just isn't a great writer and he'd be better off writing shorter to the point pieces without much style than what he's been attempting with a lot of his pieces recently.

Raisins

Seve OB wrote: »

But I think we found out in the end that the moral of the story is that within the heart of the Professional Tour administration, there is no honour, in the game of honour.

Whatever about the rest, a child writing a 6th class essay wouldn’t make that argument.

The tour on that side of things is a business as it has to be they don’t go around calling shots on themselves in a business sense. What does it even mean? Do tour executives go around to sponsors saying listen golf is a game of honour so you I have to admit nobody watches the Eurasia cup.

That tag line made me realise that Kimmage didn’t have any material to show his idea has been “stolen”. If he thought he’d make millions from the tour as a gesture of goodwill then he was foolish.

FixdePitchmark

Raisins wrote: »

Whatever about the rest, a child writing a 6th class essay wouldn’t make that argument.

The tour on that side of things is a business as it has to be they don’t go around calling shots on themselves in a business sense. What does it even mean? Do tour executives go around to sponsors saying listen golf is a game of honour so you I have to admit nobody watches the Eurasia cup.

That tag line made me realise that Kimmage didn’t have any material to show his idea has been “stolen”. If he thought he’d make millions from the tour as a gesture of goodwill then he was foolish.

Also if he had a case would he be crying his eyes out to Kimmage ?

I actually like Kimmage myself - I like a bit of train of thought, meandering writing.

But over the last few years - he has run with gut feeling and little else on many issues.

On a few radio shows and a few articles he has come across as a bit of a spoilt child - increasingly egotistical and totally incapable of any reasonable opposition to his argument.

Takes one to know one. He would be a good poster on this forum.

prawnsambo

Raisins wrote: »

The tour on that side of things is a business as it has to be they don’t go around calling shots on themselves in a business sense. What does it even mean? Do tour executives go around to sponsors saying listen golf is a game of honour so you I have to admit nobody watches the Eurasia cup.

I'm not sure even if there is any likelihood of someone coming up with an idea for a format of golf and not falling foul of the governing body.

GreeBo

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm not sure even if there is any likelihood of someone coming up with an idea for a format of golf and not falling foul of the governing body.

He should bring his Golf Warriors idea to the PGA, then if it takes off over there the ET can't do squat to him.
If they try to say he took their idea, they will just be proving they took the idea from him in the first place!

callaway92

John's favourite tournament is on at the moment.

I will say this - European Tour have absolutely been pumping the Marketing into this year's version. I have a good feeling from their POV that it'll be successful in the coming years.

Young_gunner

just read up on this, whatever about honour, surely there's such a thing as business ethics?

if McHenry can prove the idea was his conception (through emails and other correspondance etc.), surely he can sue the ET?

callaway92

Young_gunner wrote: »

just read up on this, whatever about honour, surely there's such a thing as business ethics?

if McHenry can prove the idea was his conception (through emails and other correspondance etc.), surely he can sue the ET?

They’ve changed up the format enough at this stage to have made it their own I would say.