The Tiger Woods mess must be tearing up Cliffs Communities founder Jim Anthony in both a commercial and personal sense.  CNBC reported yesterday it was not able to reach Cliffs spokespersons for comment about the community’s marketing video that features Woods  pitching the course and community at High Carolina.

        “With a wife and two kids,” Woods says in the video, “your perspective in life changes.  I want to have my kids experience something like this…because your priorities start changing and evolving once you have a family and I want to come up here as often as I possibly can.”

        Anthony hired Woods, a great golfer but unproven designer, for a

reported $20 million to carve out the course at High Carolina, the latest Cliffs community.  Even before Tiger turned himself into red meat for the tabloids, $20 million seemed to many industry observers like an over-the-top bet.  It may be too early to make any decisions about what Anthony should do, but it is not too early to start laying the groundwork for a decision.  And that process should start with 30 Cliffs customers.

        No one but Tiger, Anthony and a select other few know the details of the contract, but we have to assume payments were not all front loaded for a project that will take years.  And it is unreasonable to assume that Anthony and his lawyers might have suggested a “moral turpitude” clause in the contract with the (then) squeaky-clean golf star, or that Tiger’s lawyers would have let him consider one.  The moral turpitude clause, of course, is pretty standard in contracts between athletes and team owners; it protects the owner in the event one of his players embarrasses the organization through some ugly transgression.  Serial adultery fits the standard definition of “moral turpitude.”

The Chapel at Cliffs at Glassy

        If Tiger’s reputation does not recover fully, you have to wonder if Anthony will cut his losses and save $10 million or however much he hasn’t paid yet if High Carolina is tarnished.  Who owns the blueprints, we wonder, in the event that the tabloid spectacle proves too much for Woods or Anthony to go ahead with the project?  Woods certainly doesn’t need the money and may not want more exposure outside the well-guarded and friendly confines of the ropes at Augusta or wherever he chooses to play.

        With only about 30 lots spoken for at High Carolina, The Cliffs has made back a mere $40 million of the reported $160 million it paid for the

land and Tiger’s design fee.  Whether Joe Designer or Tiger finishes High Carolina, you wonder from whence will come the dozens more buyers Anthony needs to justify the development and Tiger’s huge design fee.  The market nationwide for multi-million dollar properties, let alone club initiation fees in the six-figure range, has shrunk to almost nothing.

        Tiger’s mortal failings must be at least as big a burden for Anthony as the financial hit he faces.  The developer has a reputation in the western Carolinas for high moral principles.  Look no farther than The Cliffs at Glassy to understand that he puts his faith where his money is.  At Glassy, he commissioned the building of a chapel on a perfect piece of property at the highest point in the community, with a commanding 50-mile view of mountains and valley, perhaps the best mountain views in the entire state.  Anthony probably could have sold the lot for $3 million or more.  That is how good the view is and, one assumes, how strong the developer’s religious convictions are.

        With the construction of the chapel, Anthony chose between his religious and moral convictions and his commercial interests.  He faces a similar choice in deciding what to do about Tiger’s relationship with High Carolina.  The advice here is for him to look to those 30 High Carolina property owners for guidance.  They are a small enough group that he can call them all in a couple of days.  He should share his feelings about Tiger as a way to draw them out about their own.  He will learn after 30 conversations what options he has with them, and their collective voice will imply how potential buyers will feel. 

        The customer, after all, is always right.

 

Tom Jackson's design for The Cliffs at Glassy Golf Club is one of six courses in the Cliffs Communities.

        I wonder if anyone was watching the Chevron World Challenge yesterday when Lee Westwood had a putt to tie Jim Furyk and force a playoff.  Westwood had made a mediocre approach shot to the 18th green, and his ball nestled up against the thick grass just beyond the fringe.  He selected a wedge in order to belly the ball toward the hole, but when he took his chipping stance, the very edge of his right heel was above the very edge of a sprinkler head.  He claimed successfully to the attending official that the sprinkler affected his normal stance and that he was entitled to relief.  He was permitted to drop the ball within a club length.  When he did so, the ball bounced a little back toward the edge of the fringe, and he wound up with essentially the same lie he had previously, but within a club length.  The ball was in play.

        But what happened next is the source of some confusion (for me, at least).  Westwood selected another club, his putter, for the following stroke.  It was my understanding that the USGA rules that permit a drop in that situation also require that the stance and club be the same as assumed with the previous lie lest a player "unfairly" improve his condition.  I've searched throughout the Internet and can't find any mention of this requirement, so maybe I am dreaming (although I did see an unofficial reference to the ruling:  "The player should determine the nearest point of relief using the club she expects to play her next stroke.  Then she may use any club to measure the one club length area in which to drop the ball."  Not exactly conclusive of my recollection of the rules, but it implies that the club and stance that provided the relief should be the club and stance that is used for the next shot.

        I have a call into the USGA for an opinion and will report back here.  However, if one of our readers has access to a rule book or knows the ruling, I would appreciate hearing about it in the meantime.

        UPDATE:  WITHIN A HALF HOUR OF POSTING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I RECEIVED A CALL FROM A RULES OFFICIAL AT THE USGA.  (HOW'S THAT FOR SERVICE?)  HE SAID THAT WESTWOOD WAS ENTITLED TO CHANGE CLUBS AND HIS STANCE AFTER THE DROP.  HE USED ANOTHER EXAMPLE TO EXPLAIN.  IF A RIGHT-HANDED PLAYER ASSUMES A LEFT-HANDED STANCE IN ORDER TO STAND ON A CART PATH FOR THE PURPOSE OF GAINING RELIEF, THE PLAYER MAY MAKE HIS NEXT SWING RIGHT-HANDED AFTER RELIEF IS GRANTED.  CASE CLOSED.