Ryan Moore with Ping irons (merged)

[Bucken77]

[quote name='practicetee' timestamp='1288409014' post='2765929']
[quote name='ScratchiT' timestamp='1288394109' post='2765615']
[quote name='Fornesto' timestamp='1288393191' post='2765595']
[quote name='ScratchiT' timestamp='1288302555' post='2763921']
If anyone should have any questions regarding the recent observation of Ryan Moore not playing Scratch irons please call me directly at 248-885-6511.
[/quote]

is it something that you can't reveal here/now? if so, WHY?
[/quote]

No. I could post it. Is there a reason you can't call me? I just want to be up front with people and not hide behind GolfWRX.
[/quote]


It looks pretty bad when a company can't effectively communicate. Do Scratch a favor and hire someone to handle PR or take a Communications course. You could have ended all speculation and crazy rumors being started by one definitive answer quickly form one person. You are simply making the whole company look immature. If you want to be considered someday among Mizuno, Titleist or any other mainstream company, maybe you should start acting like it.
[/quote]

Maybe I don't read this forum enough but who exactly are the members here who are reps for Mizuno, Titleist, etc....How many times have these reps posted their direct number so that anyone can talk to them about any questions they had about a forum thread? If I have questions about Mizuno who do I PM here? I do know who I PM if I have questions about Scratch equipment. That would be the owner of the company. Heck I've pestered the guy for about a year now asking for a job and he still responds to every one of my PM's in a very friendly manner.

[SPY ZINGER]

I think some guys are missing point other guys are trying to make. It's one thing for a contracted staffer to tinker with clubs. I really feel it's a completely different issue when you have a staffer and OWNER of a company playing other clubs in tournament golf. It really raises a lot of questions about Moore's truthfulness during all of his press coverage and interviews he did relating to his relationship with Scratch and his reasons for forming the partnership he did. IMO, it says a lot about the equipment as well. I don't care if the guy likes to tinker, if you are a staffer and OWNER of a company, you do not put another manufacturers clubs in play. It just speaks volumes about the quality and performance of the brand. Just a bafoon move.

[hogans71]

[quote name='SPY ZINGER' timestamp='1288447656' post='2766227']
I think some guys are missing point other guys are trying to make. It's one thing for a contracted staffer to tinker with clubs. I really feel it's a completely different issue when you have a staffer and OWNER of a company playing other clubs in tournament golf. It really raises a lot of questions about Moore's truthfulness during all of his press coverage and interviews he did relating to his relationship with Scratch and his reasons for forming the partnership he did. IMO, it says a lot about the equipment as well. I don't care if the guy likes to tinker, if you are a staffer and OWNER of a company, you do not put another manufacturers clubs in play. It just speaks volumes about the quality and performance of the brand. Just a bafoon move.
[/quote]

My sentiments exactly....


Although Dizz, appreciate your insight. Good post...

[Dizz]

[quote name='SPY ZINGER' timestamp='1288447656' post='2766227']
I think some guys are missing point other guys are trying to make. It's one thing for a contracted staffer to tinker with clubs. I really feel it's a completely different issue when you have a staffer and OWNER of a company playing other clubs in tournament golf. It really raises a lot of questions about Moore's truthfulness during all of his press coverage and interviews he did relating to his relationship with Scratch and his reasons for forming the partnership he did. IMO, it says a lot about the equipment as well. I don't care if the guy likes to tinker, if you are a staffer and OWNER of a company, you do not put another manufacturers clubs in play. It just speaks volumes about the quality and performance of the brand. Just a bafoon move.
[/quote]

I guess what does "owner" mean to you? If you own 1% of the company and make zero decisions and don't have any responsibilities associated with said company are you really an owner?

[Swoosh-Thud]

Scratch makes good stuff. I've hit their irons, but I bought Miuras. I have 3 of their wedges, but Vegas are in my bag.

Tour Pros on staff for TM [i]et al [/i]are paid to play their drivers/irons/ball,etc etc etc, yet they have _______ irons etc.

Sounds like Moore is being paid via a stake in ownership to play their wedges and wear a hat. If he wanted to be paid $ or with coke & hookers that's up to him. Bottom line is he's fulfilling his obligations.

What about the square groove controversy, Phil (clearly the face of Callaway) was playing Ping Eye 2s. No different at all. He was looking for a competitive edge (though he prefers to be compensated in $). Everyone with a Tour card has the game to win a tournament. It is just very difficult to do so. They are all looking for that edge. That is how they feed their family.

It is not a big deal.

I play the clubs that feel good to me. I don't care that Duvall is no longer with Nike, Rocco has left Callaway, etc etc etc

Oh yeah I forgot how all the posers went out and spent $$$ on Graphite Designs to replace their [i]"underperforming" [/i]WBs a few months ago......

[SPY ZINGER]

[quote name='Dizz' timestamp='1288450400' post='2766274']
[quote name='SPY ZINGER' timestamp='1288447656' post='2766227']
I think some guys are missing point other guys are trying to make. It's one thing for a contracted staffer to tinker with clubs. I really feel it's a completely different issue when you have a staffer and OWNER of a company playing other clubs in tournament golf. It really raises a lot of questions about Moore's truthfulness during all of his press coverage and interviews he did relating to his relationship with Scratch and his reasons for forming the partnership he did. IMO, it says a lot about the equipment as well. I don't care if the guy likes to tinker, if you are a staffer and OWNER of a company, you do not put another manufacturers clubs in play. It just speaks volumes about the quality and performance of the brand. Just a bafoon move.
[/quote]

I guess what does "owner" mean to you? If you own 1% of the company and make zero decisions and don't have any responsibilities associated with said company are you really an owner?
[/quote]
It means he is the face of the company. And the face now says PING.
[i]
"He feels we give him the best opportunity to succeed and we feel that he will help us get our name out there," Ari Techner, president and CEO of Scratch Golf, said. "Having a spokesman out on the PGA Tour, carrying our bag and wearing our logo, being the face of the company, is really going to be important for us. We want to get our name out there. We don't do any traditional advertising. I'm not sure there's anyone else on tour we would have considered. It's really a win-win for everybody."

Techner said terms of the deal have yet to be finalized, but that Moore will have an "active" role with the company.

"It's not about money -- it wasn't going into the year and it isn't now," Mike Moore added. "It's about aligning himself with products that befit his game. ... He has a way that he enjoys looking and a way that he enjoys playing the game. He's a very unique individual and he feels it's important to be true to himself."[/i]

[Arafel]

[quote name='SPY ZINGER' timestamp='1288451136' post='2766287']
[i]
"He feels we give him the best opportunity to succeed and we feel that he will help us get our name out there," Ari Techner, president and CEO of Scratch Golf, said. "Having a spokesman out on the PGA Tour, carrying our bag and wearing our logo, being the face of the company, is really going to be important for us. We want to get our name out there. We don't do any traditional advertising. I'm not sure there's anyone else on tour we would have considered. It's really a win-win for everybody."

Techner said terms of the deal have yet to be finalized, but that Moore will have an "active" role with the company.

"It's not about money -- it wasn't going into the year and it isn't now," Mike Moore added. "It's about aligning himself with products that befit his game. ... He has a way that he enjoys looking and a way that he enjoys playing the game. He's a very unique individual and he feels it's important to be true to himself."[/i]
[/quote]


Ouch!

People seem to keep wanting to overlook that fact that this could be just as much Scratch's fault as it is Ryan's.

Something has changed and it probably isn't good for all parties involved.

[HeadonaStick]

[quote name='SPY ZINGER' timestamp='1288451136' post='2766287']
[quote name='Dizz' timestamp='1288450400' post='2766274']
[quote name='SPY ZINGER' timestamp='1288447656' post='2766227']
I think some guys are missing point other guys are trying to make. It's one thing for a contracted staffer to tinker with clubs. I really feel it's a completely different issue when you have a staffer and OWNER of a company playing other clubs in tournament golf. It really raises a lot of questions about Moore's truthfulness during all of his press coverage and interviews he did relating to his relationship with Scratch and his reasons for forming the partnership he did. IMO, it says a lot about the equipment as well. I don't care if the guy likes to tinker, if you are a staffer and OWNER of a company, you do not put another manufacturers clubs in play. It just speaks volumes about the quality and performance of the brand. Just a bafoon move.
[/quote]

I guess what does "owner" mean to you? If you own 1% of the company and make zero decisions and don't have any responsibilities associated with said company are you really an owner?
[/quote]
It means he is the face of the company. And the face now says PING.
[i]
"He feels we give him the best opportunity to succeed and we feel that he will help us get our name out there," Ari Techner, president and CEO of Scratch Golf, said. "Having a spokesman out on the PGA Tour, carrying our bag and wearing our logo, being the face of the company, is really going to be important for us. We want to get our name out there. We don't do any traditional advertising. I'm not sure there's anyone else on tour we would have considered. It's really a win-win for everybody."

Techner said terms of the deal have yet to be finalized, but that Moore will have an "active" role with the company.

"It's not about money -- it wasn't going into the year and it isn't now," Mike Moore added. "It's about aligning himself with products that befit his game. ... He has a way that he enjoys looking and a way that he enjoys playing the game. He's a very unique individual and he feels it's important to be true to himself."[/i]
[/quote]
[i]"Carrying our bag and wearing our logo..."[/i]

[i]"It's about aligning himself with products that befit his game..."[/i]

How is that inconsistent with the current situation?

[Arafel]

[quote name='HeadonaStick' timestamp='1288451559' post='2766296']

How is that inconsistent with the current situation?
[/quote]

Because he is clearly dialing back his commitment to Scratch Golf. When you go from having the majority of your clubs in the bag being Scratch clubs down to having two wedges that looks bad.

You can't just gloss over this. This looks bad for all parties involved. Not just Ryan.

[cardia10]

I am pretty sure that the Scratch owners said his commitment and ownership was only related to their wedges. He wears their logo, carries their bag, plays their wedges and sometimes their putters. What is the big deal? Wanna bet that he won't be playing that set of Pings in a month? Everyone knows Ryan changes clubs like most people change underwear. Everyone here makes it out to be a big deal, but it is pretty common.

[Skydiver22]

[quote name='cardia10' timestamp='1288436081' post='2766131']
Considering I work in the industry, yes, I know how much it costs to make a golf club. For the big companies, with irons, they have more money in shafts, grip, and assembly. They claim the high cost is always RD, but I never knew adding different colored paint and stickers to the club could really be considered RD (see callaway x 24 for example). Clubs can be produced in the US for very close to the same price as overseas, but labor drives up the overall cost. I would feel very confident saying that any large company's cost to produce a set of irons in China is around $100. Read some industry articles on manufacturing and you will get a very good feel for this pricing and how it all works.
[/quote]


So in other words... You are just a shill thats works for a competitor of PING, you are tired of getting killed by the S56 publicity (wins) so you are trying to say its a nasty cast club and he is making a mistake playing them instead of the superior forged Scratch iron... the same one that if I remember right from previous threads was proven to be forged in China as well.

[youngwaldo]

Enough of this RM playing Pings. I say let him play the Ping. Ari just send me his 10 custon sets to me.

Better yet lets give everyone a chance and have a drawing for the 10 sets. NICE!!!

Wk

[cardia10]

I don't work for a golf company at all, just a similar industry. I don't think Scratch hides that their Cast wedges are Cast in China and their Forged irons (they don't make cast irons) and wedges are forged in Japan. Instead of making things up, go by their shop when their forged heads come in. It is quickly obvious that they are from Japan as that is what comes through customs. So what makes the S56 so much better than the last 3 sets of Ping blades (or their loose interpretation of a blade)? I just prefer a company who works on clubs in the US. I have seen Don White working of clubs with his hands, I have also been inside Chinese factories where Chinese children work 16 hours a day on golf clubs along with multiple other consumer products. I'll take Don White's grinding compared to that any day.

[Bucken77]

[quote name='Swoosh-Thud' timestamp='1288450794' post='2766280']
Scratch makes good stuff. I've hit their irons, but I bought Miuras. I have 3 of their wedges, but Vegas are in my bag.

Tour Pros on staff for TM [i]et al [/i]are paid to play their drivers/irons/ball,etc etc etc, yet they have _______ irons etc.

Sounds like Moore is being paid via a stake in ownership to play their wedges and wear a hat. If he wanted to be paid $ or with coke & hookers that's up to him. Bottom line is he's fulfilling his obligations.

What about the square groove controversy, Phil (clearly the face of Callaway) was playing Ping Eye 2s. No different at all. He was looking for a competitive edge (though he prefers to be compensated in $). Everyone with a Tour card has the game to win a tournament. It is just very difficult to do so. They are all looking for that edge. That is how they feed their family.

It is not a big deal.

I play the clubs that feel good to me. I don't care that Duvall is no longer with Nike, Rocco has left Callaway, etc etc etc

Oh yeah I forgot how all the posers went out and spent $$ on Graphite Designs to replace their [i]"underperforming" [/i]WBs a few months ago......
[/quote]

I think in Phil's case he was just trying to call the PGA out and I would say he also had the backing of Callaway with that after the PGA wouldn't give any of their wedges clearance.

[cardia10]

By the way, why are you on me about anything? I just like a company that is public and open. I could care less where Ping makes their cast clubs. To me, people either love or hate Pings from birth, their is no growing into. Nothing wrong with it, it just takes a special person to be able to look down at that topline.

I just find it odd that anyone wants to argue about some pro who is being paid to play a set of irons this week. What does it even matter? If he likes the Ping's, I'm sure Scratch could make him a set with the same characteristics with his preferred customization. Did Ping stamp the lofts on these for him? Not that it matters, but he could get confused with seeing numbers on the bottoms of his clubs. Is a Ping PW a Scratch 8 Iron?

[Dizz]

[quote name='cardia10' timestamp='1288454437' post='2766348']
By the way, why are you on me about anything? I just like a company that is public and open. I could care less where Ping makes their cast clubs. To me, people either love or hate Pings from birth,. Nothing wrong with it, it just takes a special person to be able to look down at that topline.

I just find it odd that anyone wants to argue about some pro who is being paid to play a set of irons this week. What does it even matter? If he likes the Ping's, I'm sure Scratch could make him a set with the same characteristics with his preferred customization. Did Ping stamp the lofts on these for him? Not that it matters, but he could get confused with seeing numbers on the bottoms of his clubs. Is a Ping PW a Scratch 8 Iron?
[/quote]

I'm done posting in this thread because some people just don't get it. But I agree with you and I laughed at the same time. I have never been into big girls but I have looked down at a big topline a few times.

[OneBowTie]

[quote name='cardia10' timestamp='1288454197' post='2766342']
I don't work for a golf company at all, just a similar industry. I don't think Scratch hides that their Cast wedges are Cast in China and their Forged irons (they don't make cast irons) and wedges are forged in Japan. Instead of making things up, go by their shop when their forged heads come in. It is quickly obvious that they are from Japan as that is what comes through customs. So what makes the S56 so much better than the last 3 sets of Ping blades (or their loose interpretation of a blade)? I just prefer a company who works on clubs in the US. I have seen Don White working of clubs with his hands,
[/quote]

I don't know about all this talk or implication that ping is cheap and scratch is the gold standard today....... I mean, you do realize that the whole thread started because the face of scratch golf put down the irons he is most associated with to play those cheap pings..... which he is not under contract to play......

But more importantly, lets be real...... Ping has withstood the test of time.... they owned and operated their own foundry years ago..... but like many companys, they realized that in order for them to stay in business and stay competitive in the business.... they had to change.....operational costs being one of them..... and hats off to them, they have managed to roll through all the economic challenges that have closed the door for many other long standing former golf companies.

I admire scratch, they have come into a already over saturated golf club industry and found a way to make a niche in the market...... but please, don't act like ping is some upstart cracker jack company producing cheap or inferior products.

[cardia10]

Never said Ping was the only cheap company out there. Nor are they inferior, but I am saying that their profit margins are HUGE. That is something they could have never done with American procudtion. I am saying that many companies have sacrificed quality for the pursuit of the dollar. Ping isn't to blame, I really blaming it on the greed of the American public. Everyone wants cheaper and better and the only way for us to do this was to go overseas. I think it is very admirable that Scratch is bringing production back to the US.

I wouldn't really call Ryan the face of Scratch, if I were them, I would lean more on Christie Kerr, being that she always hovers around number 1 in the world. Lots of people own lots of companies but don't use their products. Do you think that Colonel Sanders only ate at Kentucky Fried Chicken? Sometimes we all need something different. For another perspective on this, ask Tiger.

[HeadonaStick]

[quote name='JASONR5' timestamp='1288451960' post='2766302']
[quote name='HeadonaStick' timestamp='1288451559' post='2766296']

How is that inconsistent with the current situation?
[/quote]

Because he is clearly dialing back his commitment to Scratch Golf. When you go from having the majority of your clubs in the bag being Scratch clubs down to having two wedges that looks bad.

You can't just gloss over this. This looks bad for all parties involved. Not just Ryan.
[/quote]
He started his relationship with Scratch with only wedges. He tried out the clubs. He won with the clubs. He's always been flaky about his clubs. BFD.

If you want drama, I'm okay with that. Just realize that's all it is, false drama.

[pastorhall]

[quote name='spacecowboy' timestamp='1288313748' post='2764211']
Why is everbody so worked up about a picture of John Belushi playing PIngs?
[/quote]

Now that is very funny!!!

[SpinMill75]

[quote name='hogans71' timestamp='1288411195' post='2765981']
I find it humorous the ones who run to the defense of Scratch the most are the ones suggesting that, "Who cares? Nobody will know what he's playing anyway! Only here will their be such a stink about his apparent defection..."

Or, "RM is a noted club hoe. So what if he switches??"


It seems to me that those here on this site are the ones who actively push the Scratch brand- so it can't be both ways. The press (relatively speaking) will be just as negative as it will be positive for them, regardless of who knows. There is no sugarcoating it whatsoever.

All I know is that the one "marquee" guy they had decides to bail and play another brand. Believe what you want, but from a marketing standpoint, this stinks to high heaven and yes, is akin to Tiger Woods walking out with a bag of Callaway gear- albeit on a MUCH smaller scale...

We all believe what we want to believe I suppose. The fact that Scratch has not come out with a statement here, on a site where they find their most ardent of supporters speaks volumes to me however and if I had a vested interest in this company would find it most troubling...
[/quote]

Come on Hogans, lets get real.

When I said , RM is a noted club hoe. So what if he switches??" Does that indicate I "push" Scratch on this site???

Besides my putter, my entire bag is from the PING WRX dept. I was just stating what I think. With that said, have you ever hit a Scratch iron or wedge? Besides PING and some of the smaller companies out there who specialize in small batch, customized irons ( yes that includes Scratch) there are not many companies that offer fitting, building and custom work. If you have noted, most of the members on this site are into custom golf clubs - ex. paintfill, custom bends, lofts, shafts, etc.
So, is it such a shock to see people on this site attracted to Scratch? They offer all that when they build clubs....so does PING, Muira, Fourteen, etc.

Does it look "bad" that RM is not playing a whole bag of Scratch irons....maybe. But as stated, [b]its not in his contract to do so[/b].

I think its like a race car driver who is sponsored by Goodyear Tires. He has a contract to race with Goodyear Tires, he has Goodyear stickers on his car, wears a Goodyear hat all the works. Does it matter that he is racing in a Dodge car when he used to run a Ford?

In the pictures I saw of RM, even though he is playing PING irons.....he still looks like a Scratch poster boy for now and thats just fine by me.

[J13]

RM is a club ho, end of story. Once a ho always a ho.

[OneBowTie]

[quote name='cardia10' timestamp='1288456339' post='2766389']
Never said Ping was the only cheap company out there. Nor are they inferior, but I am saying that their profit margins are HUGE. That is something they could have never done with American procudtion. I am saying that many companies have sacrificed quality for the pursuit of the dollar. Ping isn't to blame, I really blaming it on the greed of the American public. Everyone wants cheaper and better and the only way for us to do this was to go overseas. I think it is very admirable that Scratch is bringing production back to the US.

I wouldn't really call Ryan the face of Scratch, if I were them, I would lean more on Christie Kerr, being that she always hovers around number 1 in the world. Lots of people own lots of companies but don't use their products. Do you think that Colonel Sanders only ate at Kentucky Fried Chicken? Sometimes we all need something different. For another perspective on this, ask Tiger.
[/quote]

So what bothers you ...... that PIng, and the other strong golf companies made the only decision that was viable for them to stay in the business and be profitable.....

Now when you say scratch is bringing production back to the US.... what do you mean, I thought you admitted they get their product from Japan and elsewhere......so in a sense you mean your glad they are like alot of the other golf companys and assemble their stuff in the US.

I thought I read recently where Kerr was using different wedges then scratch...... have to check that out.

I fully understand that if you own a restraunt, you are going to have to eat other peoples food sometimes, thats kinda easy..... I don't think that is apples to apples

Look, I can clearly read where Scratch had prior announced RM as their FACE and as come on board as a owner..... that implies much more then he would be a contracted wedge player, I get that, you seem to have a grasp on things, you don't get that impression from scratches ealier announcements????

I get that things change.... and it looks like the role of RM and scratch is changing, I can except that, but on this board with all the fanboys who hung their hat and so forth on RM as being true blue to scratch.... this is big news if no where else then right here on this board......

[Arafel]

[quote name='HeadonaStick' timestamp='1288456372' post='2766390']
[quote name='JASONR5' timestamp='1288451960' post='2766302']
[quote name='HeadonaStick' timestamp='1288451559' post='2766296']
How is that inconsistent with the current situation?
[/quote]

Because he is clearly dialing back his commitment to Scratch Golf. When you go from having the majority of your clubs in the bag being Scratch clubs down to having two wedges that looks bad.

You can't just gloss over this. This looks bad for all parties involved. Not just Ryan.
[/quote]
He started his relationship with Scratch with only wedges. He tried out the clubs. He won with the clubs. He's always been flaky about his clubs. BFD.

If you want drama, I'm okay with that. Just realize that's all it is, false drama.
[/quote]

If this is no big deal why do you keep posting in here. This thread is seven pages long because it kind of is a big deal and not just false drama.

You can't have it both ways and talk about how huge it was to have a PGA player own and endorse a small company like Scratch and then say it isn't a big deal when that endorsement is withdrawn or diminished significantly.

You ARE just trying to gloss over this. I'm sorry but this is a big deal for a small company like Scratch. How big? We will see in the coming months.

It could turn out that Ryan is just a flake. I have my doubts though.

[Arafel]

Also I would like to add that a lot Scratch supporters seem to be coming at this from the point of view that this doesn't change the quality of Scratch's products. I would agree.

I am just making the observation that something significant has changed internally at Scratch and this is a possible symptom of that.

Not drama, just observations.

[OneBowTie]

[quote name='JASONR5' timestamp='1288458025' post='2766427']
Also I would like to add that a lot Scratch supporters seem to be coming at this from the point of view that this doesn't change the quality of their products. I would agree.

I am just making the observation that something significant has changed internally at Scratch and this is a possible symptom of that.

Not drama, just observations.
[/quote]

I couldnt agree more...... I never thought from the beginning that RM had anything to do with day to day operations.... just as I have never bought into that storyline about RM that he actually passed up big bucks to play "what he wanted"..... my guess is now that he feels he has more value then anything that has ever been offered to him in the way of endorsements, and if he is actually offered "big bucks" he will take them.

His being at scratch or not being at scratch will have zero effect on scratch quality, or cause no assembly changes at all.

[Pepperturbo]

You all talk about holding stock as "ownership"; most of the time that's not how the word is used when it comes to awarding of stock in a contract.

I am "guessing" Scratch is a closed corporation like mine are; a limited number of registered stock holders that have "voting" rights. Level of company influence is directly tied to the "classification" of stock certificates (voting or not), percentage held in relation to total number of shares issued at incorporation and listed in the corporation's charter.

Typically the closed corporation founder(s) (me) holds the vast majority (controlling interest) of voting stock, followed by key investors and officer positions; leaving what's left to be designated as the Board of Directors sees fit; and where I see deferred contractual stock as payment in contacts fitting it...

The holder has limited (likely designated) influence to go with their limited stock asset on their P&L that normally (not always) is only sold back to the company at market value. Most contractual agreements where blocks of stock are offered as deferred compensation it's also stipulated how long it must be held, and conditions of sale. These types of contracts are prevalent in corporate America, sports organizations as well as entertainment and non-profit.

[OneBowTie]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1288458311' post='2766436']
You all talk about holding stock as "ownership"; most of the time that's not how the word is used when it comes to awarding of stock in a contract.

I am "guessing" Scratch is a closed corporation like mine are; a limited number of registered stock holders that have "voting" rights. Level of company influence is directly tied to the "classification" of stock certificates (voting or not), percentage held in relation to total number of shares issued at incorporation and listed in the corporation's charter.

Typically closed corporation founders hold the vast majority (controlling interest) of voting stock, followed by key investors and officer positions; leaving what's left to be designated as the Board of Directors sees fit; and where I see deferred contractual stock as payment contacts fitting it...

To the holder has limited (likely designated) influence to go with their limited stock asset on their P&L that normally (not always) is only sold back to the company at market value. Most contractual agreements where blocks of stock are offered as deferred compensation it's also stipulated how long it must be held, and conditions of sale. These types of contracts are prevalent in corporate America, sports organizations as well as entertainment and non-profit.
[/quote]

Ah glad your back and not done as you previously posted.

So are your talking s corp, sub s corp or what..... what if its LLC;)

Who really cares what the corporate setup with scratch is..... they- being scratch made the announement that RM was coming on board as a active role playing owner,that he would be the "face" of scratch golf, not us. So we don't care if he has voting, class A, B or any stock. We don't care if he sits on the board or not. The interest in this thread isn't about corporate structure, but what has happened to cause RM to switch irons after having the best year of his career, and after the way he was being pitched by SCRATCH as their FACE of the company, to him now being just a bag, cap, and wedge contracted player.

You can try to turn this into a corporate structure thing all you want.... bottom line, something has changed..... if nothing else, from RM no longer being a "owner" to him being a contracted wedge player, and all this info being provided by Scratch owners and reps themselves. The "face" of scratch golf is currently playing Ping irons.

[Arafel]

[quote name='OneBowTie' timestamp='1288458977' post='2766445']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1288458311' post='2766436']
You all talk about holding stock as "ownership"; most of the time that's not how the word is used when it comes to awarding of stock in a contract.

I am "guessing" Scratch is a closed corporation like mine are; a limited number of registered stock holders that have "voting" rights. Level of company influence is directly tied to the "classification" of stock certificates (voting or not), percentage held in relation to total number of shares issued at incorporation and listed in the corporation's charter.

Typically closed corporation founders hold the vast majority (controlling interest) of voting stock, followed by key investors and officer positions; leaving what's left to be designated as the Board of Directors sees fit; and where I see deferred contractual stock as payment contacts fitting it...

To the holder has limited (likely designated) influence to go with their limited stock asset on their P&L that normally (not always) is only sold back to the company at market value. Most contractual agreements where blocks of stock are offered as deferred compensation it's also stipulated how long it must be held, and conditions of sale. These types of contracts are prevalent in corporate America, sports organizations as well as entertainment and non-profit.
[/quote]

Ah glad your back and not done as you previously posted.

So are your talking s corp, sub s corp or what..... what if its LLC;)

[size="3"][b]Who really cares what the corporate setup with scratch is.[/b][/size].... they- being scratch made the announement that RM was coming on board as a active role playing owner,that he would be the "face" of scratch golf, not us. So we don't care if he has voting, class A, B or any stock. We don't care if he sits on the board or not. The interest in this thread isn't about corporate structure, but what has happened to cause RM to switch irons after having the best year of his career, and after the way he was being pitched by SCRATCH as their [size="3"][b]FACE of the company, to him now being just a bag, cap, and wedge contracted player. [/b][/size]

You can try to turn this into a corporate structure thing all you want.... bottom line, something has changed..... if nothing else, from RM no longer being a "owner" to him being a contracted wedge player, and all this info being provided by Scratch owners and reps themselves. [size="3"][b]The "face" of scratch golf is currently playing Ping irons[/b][/size].
[/quote]

Exactly! Damn good summary.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='OneBowTie' timestamp='1288458977' post='2766445']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1288458311' post='2766436']
You all talk about holding stock as "ownership"; most of the time that's not how the word is used when it comes to awarding of stock in a contract.

I am "guessing" Scratch is a closed corporation like mine are; a limited number of registered stock holders that have "voting" rights. Level of company influence is directly tied to the "classification" of stock certificates (voting or not), percentage held in relation to total number of shares issued at incorporation and listed in the corporation's charter.

Typically closed corporation founders hold the vast majority (controlling interest) of voting stock, followed by key investors and officer positions; leaving what's left to be designated as the Board of Directors sees fit; and where I see deferred contractual stock as payment contacts fitting it...

To the holder has limited (likely designated) influence to go with their limited stock asset on their P&L that normally (not always) is only sold back to the company at market value. Most contractual agreements where blocks of stock are offered as deferred compensation it's also stipulated how long it must be held, and conditions of sale. These types of contracts are prevalent in corporate America, sports organizations as well as entertainment and non-profit.
[/quote]

Ah glad your back and not done as you previously posted.

So are your talking s corp, sub s corp or what..... what if its LLC;)

Who really cares what the corporate setup with scratch is..... they- being scratch made the announement that RM was coming on board as a active role playing owner,that he would be the "face" of scratch golf, not us. So we don't care if he has voting, class A, B or any stock. We don't care if he sits on the board or not. The interest in this thread isn't about corporate structure, but what has happened to cause RM to switch irons after having the best year of his career, and after the way he was being pitched by SCRATCH as their FACE of the company, to him now being just a bag, cap, and wedge contracted player.

You can try to turn this into a corporate structure thing all you want.... bottom line, something has changed..... if nothing else, from RM no longer being a "owner" to him being a contracted wedge player, and all this info being provided by Scratch owners and reps themselves. The "face" of scratch golf is currently playing Ping irons.
[/quote]

Its a new day, and raining; and we all know your behavior is set in stone. Sub - S or LLC have little to do with stock holdings or their classification. Sub S is a corporation structure that benefits a one man stock holder; which was the case with one of my companies. It takes the bottom line, net profits and moves it to the owner under investment income category. LLC essentially protects investors by limiting their liability to whats invested the company.

Back to what's set in stone, and what is NOT. Morals, values, even one's religious beliefs are set in stone. But when it comes to companies, what's said and hoped for one month and followed or said 6 or 12 months later can be very different actions, often influenced for different reasons. Active roll is defined by whats stipulated in the contract - NOT what you or others might think. It's way too easy to assume and criticize when people have nothing at stake. Decisions have to be dynamic if staying in business over the long term is a priority. I wasn't changing this into a corporate thing - I was attempting to educate on what constitutes "ownership" when it comes to stock - and contracts. If you want to ignore that, in favor of assuming - fine.