Rory Mac sues Horizon

by incontinentia Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:14 am

First topic message reminder :

...apparently he was unhappy with the amount of commission taken by said sports management company, said to be £4.7 million.

This combined with the recent dissolution of 'Wozzilroy', one of sport's foremost power-couples, should ensure that midgetmac's game will stay in the doldrums for some time.

What do you make of Rory's most recent distractions?

by super_realist Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:56 am

What do you think Mac? Do you think he'll disappear or come back?

If I was early 20's and richer than a top footballer I'd probably have my eye off the ball too.
I wouldn't be surprised if McIlroy disappeared, but I wouldn't be surprised if he comes back either, it's looking like the first option at the minute though.

by kwinigolfer Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:06 am

Let's hope they're excellent Mac.
But wouldn't expect such dominance anytime soon.
Right now he's having most of his success with washing machines.

s_r,
Agree that self-deprecating humour is one of the best traits of British character, after all we're all (Englishmen anyway) biting fingernails because of our shameful history with Poland's football, but probably all with a smile on our faces.
Hopefully no Scot can think about football without reminiscing on some of Bertie Auld's or Jimmy Baxter's eccentricities, all with gloom and doom but magnificent silver linings.
Would just say that that might not extend beyond GB boundaries however.

by kwinigolfer Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:17 am

For instance, don't suppose the technologically supreme Americans will see the irony of Fox's broadcast of the England game going from freeze frame to freeze frame (no J.Geils in sight).
If Fox pull this stunt in their upcoming golf coverage they'll be sneered out of town. Pathetic.

by beninho Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:37 am

Speaking of England game. Danny welbeck?? Don't see it myself.

by westisbest Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:54 am

I'll bet you don't care if you offend people.

Don't get how people have no right to be offended if someone insults them/where they're from.

We'll leave it there shall we.
Agree to disagree.

Peace.

by Davie Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:56 am

beninho wrote:Speaking of England game. Danny welbeck?? Don't see it myself.

That goes double for Smalling and Carrick

by kwinigolfer Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:07 am

Welbeck always looks like a boy among men.
Smalling looks like a centre-half at right back.
I like Carrick though, need someone like him and he's the only option right now.
Then again, there's something on here with me advocating for Baines instead of Cole at Euro 2012 so what do I know?

Still in Fox freeze-frame, Martyn Tyler sounds like he's on a radio from a WWII Spitfire.

by beninho Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:11 am

Smalling is no full back. He barely plays centre back so unsure what his position is! Baines is good though not as good as Cole yet. Sturridge is like the kid at school who is good and wants to do everything themselves.

by pedro Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:29 am

McIlroy = the Michael Jackson of golf, just with an afro.

by incontinentia Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:53 pm

I wonder if his pubic head had anything to do with the break up? rumours on social media are that Caroline was pressurising Rors to trim his head-bush and that was a major source of conflict between them. Then again it is social media, and most right-thinking people wouldnt wipe their arses with whats written on these sites.

by **navyblueshorts** Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:54 pm

Davie wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:Just for clarity, can people refrain from using the phrase 'tatty muncher' (or derivatives thereof) in reference to the Irish. It's unnecessary, it's usually deliberately inflammatory for no reason and there have been a number of requests that it be stopped. I would have thought the existence of the word 'Irish' to describe the Irish was useful enough?
Navy .. I've never seen such an edict before. If it's THAT important it should be written into the rules (good luck with that one!)

I never saw any reference to it before or ask for it to be removed. If I hadn't commented on this thread I wouldn't have seen it this time either. Are there any other faux derogative terms I should know about?

Really it's all very silly. To have to put it in red is even sillier

If you say so Davie. Why would you expect to see such an edict? I made no reference to an 'edict'. I said there have been a # of requests not to use that terminology. I certainly didn't say they were necessarily public. Why don't you ask yourself (you can do this as well S_R) why you would choose to use a deliberately inflammatory term, without any prior provocation, as a prefix in a comment? Bizarre at best, daft in all likelihood and xenophobic at worst.
However, the request still stands.

Now, can we stick to topic please?

by super_realist Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:13 pm

Just to clarify the situation.
I do not use the term to be inflammatory or to "persecute", it's merely a playful dig similar to ones I have used in reference to other nations or people, yet I don't see such supercilious and pious reaction.

Ultimately though, if you are offended, so bloody what, it's just a meaningless, purposeless phrase and doesn't give you any rights and it seems to be a very popular thing to be these days, in reality it's no more than a whine.

Still, if some oversensitive, over reacting pedant insists it synthetically "offends" them and the moderators insist I desist from using such playful terms then I suppose I must.

by MustPuttBetter Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:15 pm

Danny Welbeck regardless of what you think of his ability has scored 8 goals in 20 games for England and is still only 22. That's a goal every 2.5 games. Rooney averages a goal every 2.3 and apart from that we have no one better. So he delivers, to be fair to the guy. Say he goes on to collect 100 caps, as many players who start around his age do now, and scores at the same rate, he'll have 40 england goals which is hardly poor.

WestIsBest - only ever seems to come onto the golf board to have a bit of a dig at Super and then run off back to the film quizzes. Bit of a crush?

And, on topic, as many have said, i'd be surprised if Rory has much grounds to sue. I suspect he is unhappy at the amount of commission or probably more likely just the way they looked after him.
If he really has binned off the mrs, and that seems up for debate still?, i can see him coming back as strong as ever. It's always seemed all talent - rather than one of hese guys who have to work at it - for him so don't see a ropey spell having diminished that

by westisbest Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:33 pm

MustPuttBetter wrote:Danny Welbeck regardless of what you think of his ability has scored 8 goals in 20 games for England and is still only 22. That's a goal every 2.5 games. Rooney averages a goal every 2.3 and apart from that we have no one better. So he delivers, to be fair to the guy. Say he goes on to collect 100 caps, as many players who start around his age do now, and scores at the same rate, he'll have 40 england goals which is hardly poor.

WestIsBest - only ever seems to come onto the golf board to have a bit of a dig at Super and then run off back to the film quizzes. Bit of a crush?And, on topic, as many have said, i'd be surprised if Rory has much grounds to sue. I suspect he is unhappy at the amount of commission or probably more likely just the way they looked after him.
If he really has binned off the mrs, and that seems up for debate still?, i can see him coming back as strong as ever. It's always seemed all talent - rather than one of hese guys who have to work at it - for him so don't see a ropey spell having diminished that

How do you know where I run off to.
Stalking me?

.

by Aruglia Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:14 pm

super_realist wrote:Just to clarify the situation.
I do not use the term to be inflammatory or to "persecute", it's merely a playful dig similar to ones I have used in reference to other nations or people, yet I don't see such supercilious and pious reaction.

Ultimately though, if you are offended, so bloody what, it's just a meaningless, purposeless phrase and doesn't give you any rights and it seems to be a very popular thing to be these days, in reality it's no more than a whine.

Still, if some oversensitive, over reacting pedant insists it synthetically "offends" them and the moderators insist I desist from using such playful terms then I suppose I must.

Rubbish. You have a history on this forum of making making fun of the potato famine and of using the potato famine to make fun of Irish people. So in order to continue, you presumably invented the phrase "tatty muncher"(or perhaps garnered it from your Bernard Manning dvd collection?) as some sort of euphemism for your rather xenophobic views. And now you have the nerve to come across as the hard-done-by poster trying to have soem innocent banter. Gimme a break. Also, would you care to clarify what you meant in an earlier post by "rather embarrassing history of "the emerald isle""? And the sad thing is that when you were posting all the anti-Irish guff, you were pretty much supported by a lot of the regulars here. And any Irish person who took offence was over "over-sensative" and can't take a joke. So I hope that actually clarifies things.

by incontinentia Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:27 pm

Well said Aruglia. The ironic thing is that super seems massively offended by other people getting offended. He should take a leaf out of his own book imo.

by super_realist Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:28 pm

Aruglia,
It IS harmless banter, and the over-reaction of those complaining about a silly two word phrase shows just how much they cannot take a joke and by how much they over-react to something with which they only have the most tenuous of links. Bit like a Scotsman being offended by mention of Culloden.
For the record I poke fun at plenty of groups, so I'm not singling out the Irish.
If you are "offended" boo bloody hoo. Get over yourself. Haven't you got anything more serious in your life to be concerned with?

by MustPuttBetter Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:28 pm

westisbest wrote:How do you know where I run off to.
Stalking me?

.

It really isn't tricky to have a look at the topics you post on, bless your little cottons

Your 3 contribtuions to the golf board -

- There's today's waffle on this thread
- There was one last month in the D4S Anything goes where you said to Super "Thank god your not in charge of us all then" and "You dont mean anything to me so I wont worry" - that one really sounded like you were hurt Crying or Very sad

- Then there was the one on the golf/sex ratio thread where in response to Mac's picture, you said "McLaren, thats how I picture sr"

That is the beginning and end to your contribution to the golf forum. Ironic that you should bring up stalking considering the above. Comments?

by super_realist Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:30 pm

incontinentia wrote:Well said Aruglia. The ironic thing is that super seems massively offended by other people getting offended. He should take a leaf out of his own book imo.

I'm not remotely offended. I simply can't understand why you would find something so disparate and trivial to be "offensive".
I'm not offended by anything.

by MustPuttBetter Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:32 pm

Even Westy's man crush?

by westisbest Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:34 pm

MustPuttBetter wrote:
westisbest wrote:How do you know where I run off to.
Stalking me?

.
It really isn't tricky to have a look at the topics you post on, bless your little cottons

Your 3 contribtuions to the golf board -

- There's today's waffle on this thread
- There was one last month in the D4S Anything goes where you said to Super "Thank god your not in charge of us all then" and "You dont mean anything to me so I wont worry" - that one really sounded like you were hurt
- Then there was the one on the golf/sex ratio thread where in response to Mac's picture, you said "McLaren, thats how I picture sr"

That is the beginning and end to your contribution to the golf forum. Ironic that you should bring up stalking considering the above. Comments?

Ok, no need need to get carried away.

Only having a debate with SR.

Was'nt anything to do with you bud.

Anyway no worries.

by MustPuttBetter Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:41 pm

No problem with you Westy, just making an observation.
Don't forget this is a forum and your messages are not private. Each to their own

by westisbest Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:50 pm

Hey if I have a man crush, thats my issue:)
What this is'nt private, damn.

Its all good Mustputtbetter.

by incontinentia Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:47 pm

super_realist wrote:
incontinentia wrote:Well said Aruglia. The ironic thing is that super seems massively offended by other people getting offended. He should take a leaf out of his own book imo.
I'm not remotely offended. I simply can't understand why you would find something so disparate and trivial to be "offensive".
I'm not offended by anything.

It's not trivial you pox. Was the holocaust trivial? Because the famine was our holocaust. I'm not discussing this with you any more because we keep going around in circles. And you can't accept you're wrong. Lets get back to pube head.

by super_realist Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:01 pm

Inco, get it in perspective. The "famine" isn't even close to being in living memory as the holocaust is, and was far far far far worse.
It ended over 160 years ago. You can't possibly claim to have any links at all with it, except very very very distant lineage.

I doubt that anyone from any country really knows of any relatives,ancestors etc from that time or cares too much what happened to them or what they were up to, but because you have an Irish background you feel a "duty" to be offended by references about it when you are something like 8-10 generations at best apart from it.
So people died in Ireland because of a famine, big bloody deal, it happened all over the world, disease, war etc, what makes you a special case where you can be "offended"?
So perhaps at an absolute push your Great X 6 Grandparents may have been affected. It really is synthetic tenuous offence at its worst.

By the way, did you see Dave Gorman last night? He made a reference to the "unmentionable event" (very funny it was too). Perhaps you'd better get your pen and paper out and write a strongly worded letter as you fight back the (crocodile) tears.

by JAS Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:13 pm

Aruglia wrote:
super_realist wrote:Just to clarify the situation.
I do not use the term to be inflammatory or to "persecute", it's merely a playful dig similar to ones I have used in reference to other nations or people, yet I don't see such supercilious and pious reaction.

Ultimately though, if you are offended, so bloody what, it's just a meaningless, purposeless phrase and doesn't give you any rights and it seems to be a very popular thing to be these days, in reality it's no more than a whine.

Still, if some oversensitive, over reacting pedant insists it synthetically "offends" them and the moderators insist I desist from using such playful terms then I suppose I must.
Rubbish. Um no pretty much hits the nail on the head.

You have a history on this forum of making making fun of the potato famine and of using the potato famine to make fun of Irish people. Um no...Super has a history of poking fun at ANYONE who takes things too seriously
So in order to continue, you presumably invented the phrase "tatty muncher"(or perhaps garnered it from your Bernard Manning dvd collection?) as some sort of euphemism for your rather xenophobic views. I think you're reading way way way too much into what he says and I don't think for a single second he invented the phrase that refers to root vegetable chewers.

And now you have the nerve to come across as the hard-done-by poster trying to have soem innocent banter. Gimme a break.

Also, would you care to clarify what you meant in an earlier post by "rather embarrassing history of "the emerald isle""? Must admit I don't know where that one's going. At a rough guess maybe it's tearing lumps out of each other in the name of religion (not a scenario unique to Ireland tho)
And the sad thing is that when you were posting all the anti-Irish guff, you were pretty much supported by a lot of the regulars here. And any Irish person who took offence was over "over-sensative" and can't take a joke. It's not sad that there are some other people on the board who don't hold the same opinions, prejudicies & perspectives as yourself. Thank goodness there is diversity and freedom to express ones opinion. Or would you rather stifle free speech and move on to thought control and Stalinist totalitarianism??

So I hope that actually clarifies things. Yes indeed it pretty much proves conclusively that you cant take a joke and that you ARE oversensitive

by super_realist Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:22 pm

JAS, it's a tuber, not a root vegetable Run

As regard to the embarrassing history I'll give you:
Violence
Terrorism
Antiquated abortion rules,
Religious nutjobs (leading to....)
Anti social religious divides.
Marching.
The Irish economy

shall I go on? Every country has got an embarrassing history though, only most are mature enough to laugh at them and not take themselves too seriously or treat a 160 year old event as if it was yesterday and act like said event makes them unique in it's suffering. Why would it be off limits anyway? People make jokes about awful events all the time.

By the way, what happened to the Leprechaun icon?

by hend085 Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:33 pm

so Rory Mcilroys is gonna sue Horizon is he? any thoughts?

by super_realist Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:39 pm

SOunds more like a naive threat Hendo. I think it will fizzle out and he'll try to get his faltering career back on track.

He needs to screw the nut if he wants to be a top player once again.

by Aruglia Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:40 pm

super_realist wrote:Aruglia,
It IS harmless banter, and the over-reaction of those complaining about a silly two word phrase shows just how much they cannot take a joke and by how much they over-react to something with which they only have the most tenuous of links. Bit like a Scotsman being offended by mention of Culloden.
For the record I poke fun at plenty of groups, so I'm not singling out the Irish.
If you are "offended" boo bloody hoo. Get over yourself. Haven't you got anything more serious in your life to be concerned with?

I'm not offended. Just thought it was worth giving some background to your stupid and seemingly innocuous tatty muncher phrase.

by super_realist Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:47 pm

You think I'd never heard of the potato famine? and why should it be immune from a very gentle joke?

Anyway, McIlroy 2014. Sink or Swim. Nine Chins will be hoping he sinks I imagine.

by **navyblueshorts** Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:51 pm

What did I say about 'on topic'? Stick to McIlroy and his spat with Horizon please. If you want to argue the toss about derogatory terminology etc, please do it via PM.

by hend085 Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:53 pm

apparently Conor Ridge made a donation of 140k to UNICEF on Mcilroys behalf and he went mad over it. Apparently he even had the donation returned. If this is kind of the advise his new guys are giving him he would be better off without his dad et al.

by Roller_Coaster Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:54 pm

hend085 wrote:so Rory Mcilroys is gonna sue Horizon is he? any thoughts?

Yeah - apparently so. Guess he'll lose.

The (reported) £31,000 per day he's on should soften the blow though.

Personally hope he gets back to hitting those balls like we know he can. Problem is on course Rory has never been as interesting <or useful to a forum as a topic> as off course Rory

by gaelgowfer Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:08 am

So then, does this mean I can't call navyblueshorts a sassenach? Whistle

by JAS Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:23 am

No matter how good you are, off course distractions are the last thing you need. Must admit it's not the kind of thing I thought McIlroy would get sucked into. When he hit his purple patch, it was like he didn't have a care in the world (and probably didn't). A year or two on and Poopie is coming at him from all directions, much of it from his own making.

I think there's too much going on off course now for him to simply revert to the carefree kid he once was. What he needs now is to get a solid reliable team around him who understand what he wants/needs and shield him from distractions... a lot easier said than done.

Have Nike expressed a view on this yet? I'd say they have a vested interest in him returning to top form. There must be rumblings in the Nike boardroom about just how poorly the first year has gone....another year like this one and they most certainly wont be happy.

by super_realist Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:31 am

Don't know about that JAS, NIke sponsor a right load of knackers whose form goes up and down.
Casey, Fisher (Oli and Ross), Dyson, etc

by gaelgowfer Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:36 am

Have Nike expressed a view on this yet? I'd say they have a vested interest in him returning to top form. There must be rumblings in the Nike boardroom about just how poorly the first year has gone....another year like this one and they most certainly wont be happy.

JAS ... I've been wondering about that too. If he's not careful, he may find himself doing legal battle with Nike as well!

by super_realist Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:36 am

gaelgowfer wrote:
Have Nike expressed a view on this yet? I'd say they have a vested interest in him returning to top form. There must be rumblings in the Nike boardroom about just how poorly the first year has gone....another year like this one and they most certainly wont be happy.
JAS ... I've been wondering about that too. If he's not careful, he may find himself doing legal battle with Nike as well!

They might return him to Titleist as goods not fit for purpose

by hend085 Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:41 am

how much do the likes of Casey and the 2 fishers get paid does anyone know/think? at what point do players get paid?
i cant imagine theres much commercial value for Nike in sponsoring someone in the middle of the pack on the Web.com or Challenge tours

by super_realist Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:50 am

Oli Fisher doesn't deserve a farthing and may not get much more than free gear. Not sure if he's still with Nike but I don't think he could even be ranked as a journeyman given his unremarkable career.

by pedro Thu Oct 17, 2013 1:11 am

super_realist wrote:He needs to screw the nut if he wants to be a top player once again.

Isn't that what he did, but is now leaving her?

by twoeightnine Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:21 am

I would guess that in his Nike contract are quite a few performance related issues so if he continues like this I doubt that he will see too much of the £100m (or whatever it was). Nike seem to me to be pretty loyal to players but I would guess that they are pretty commercially aware.

As for where players get paid or not I can give the example of Tyrrell Hatton who is a second year Challenge Tour player. He is sponsored by Taylormade but at the moment it is limited to providing free clubs, having their bag and nothing more. Currently he's 15th on the CT (top 15 are eligible for a full ET card) with three tournaments to play...no pressure then!

by super_realist Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:29 am

That's fair enough Two, I'm sure they don't expect to be paid at that level, so just getting free gear has got to be good for them.

I imagine Shane Lowry enjoys similar contracts for free products from various fat laden foot manufacturers rather than a fiscal arrangement.

by twoeightnine Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:27 am

s_r. Wouldn't expect it either but used as a point of reference. A friend plays at Olli fisher's club and says that he gets tons of stash. So every time Nike release a new range/season of clothing he has to bin all the old stuff and isn't even allowed to use it when washing the car. From that I would guess that he's not just getting free kit. But then he was expected to do a lot better with his career than he has so would imagine that he managed to get a reasonably good contract based on that potential. But will they renew it?

by kwinigolfer Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:31 am

Don't the equipment and clothing guys sign golfers up for freebies just so's they can have a captive endorser if they make it big, or even make it medium?

289,
Sure caddies do nicely on all the old stuff - I noticed the other day that Doak(not Tom, this guy would break the scale)'s caddie had sponsor's logos on his clobber but his man was logo-free! Definition of being dissed I would think.

by Aruglia Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:53 pm

TweeterAlliss is getting plenty of mileage out of the story.

This is my favourite:
"They made McIlroy sign his contract at a Xmas Party, they apparently made him sign while Santa was handing out the toys to distract him."

by super_realist Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:58 pm

When Nine Chins was stinking the place out for a few years I wonder whether Nike curtailed their payments to him?
I don't think he's any brighter than Pube Head in fact in some senses he's even more stupid, but probably has better advisers behind him.

by Roller_Coaster Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:55 pm

I wonder whether Mr Woods' advisors had him in so tight that even Nike baulked at what it would take to get out when all the others dumped him. I bet they were that keen pre hydrant that they simply opened the book and asked him to write down numbers and terms for them to encapsulate in a document.

Even so, I bet Nike have made more out of him net than he has of them such is his influence.

Who's the bigger earner at Nike out of him and Mr McIlroy? Bet Mr Woods still pulls more $.

by raycastleunited Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:49 pm

I think Nike pays its players based on a multiplier of world ranking points plus a base amount. Probably doesn't cost them too much if a player loses form, apart from the brand image issue.

Nike is a bit different from the other club sponsors in that it usually looks to be the sole on course sponsor of a player. eg Rory can appear in Santander adverts as this is not on the golf course, he wears no Santander logo on course, and the bank isn't competing with Nike. When he was with Titleist he had all sorts of other deals, eg Oakley clothes, Jumeirah logos, etc.

To be fair to Nike I think their players look a lot smarter with no more than a discreet tick (sorry swoosh) on their shirts, instead of a hideous walking billboard like Poulter or Westwood. Makes F1 drivers look subtle.

Plus of course they get loads of free stuff. It's not just the clubs but even the minor details, eg there is a tour pro at my club sponsored by Srixon who has buckets and buckets of brand new z-stars for the practice ground. I'm sure the struggling pro's can make a few quid selling off last season's gear.

by Sponsored content