"A source of mirth in some circles because Woods is reported to drive a Porsche."

A few interesting bits regarding the Tiger/Buick break up, starting with some added information in Greg Bensinger and Michael Buteau's original Bloomberg story.

Sales of Buick vehicles in the U.S. plunged 58 percent to 185,791 units from 1999 to 2007, more than any other GM brand in the period. Sales of the 105-year-old Buick brand peaked in 1984 at 941,611, according to trade publication Automotive News.

The median age of new Buick retail buyers in 2008 was 68 in the U.S., the same as in 1997, said Alexander Edwards, head of the auto research division at the San Diego-based firm. Only about 1 percent of the Buicks sold at retail in 1997 went to consumers 34 or younger, and that share fell to less than half a percent for those sold in 2008, Edwards said.

Lawrence Donegan writing in the Guardian, reminds us that Stevie's going to be carrying a new bag next year.

The deal between GM and Woods, said to be worth more than $10m (£6.6m) a year to the golfer, had endured for almost a decade and become one of the most visible sponsorship arrangements in sport, not least because Woods' golf bag had been transformed into an advertisement for Buick, one of the carmaker's brands.

As part of the deal, the world No1 also took part in television commercials for the budget-priced range of cars - a source of mirth in some circles because Woods is reported to drive a Porsche.

Yes, the PGA Tour has signed deals with every one of its sponsors through at least 2010 -- including the two tournaments sponsored by Buick. But there is far more to these events than the title sponsor, which help put up funds for the purse and get the events on television.

Thankfully, Doug Ferguson says Steiney is on the case.

Steinberg said he would ``expect there to be some exposure on the bag'' when Woods next plays.

``I've got a few ideas, and we're in the process of working through that,'' he said.

And Bob Harig sees this is a bad sign for the PGA Tour:

The actual running of the tournaments is left to local organizing bodies, most of them non-profit organizations that solicit dozens if not hundreds of lower-level sponsorships and must rely on a horde of volunteers to even exist.

While it is not the $7 million or so necessary to be a title sponsor, big money -- often six-figure fees -- is spent on hospitality tents or corporate chalets. Doesn't it seem logical that these companies would cut back, too?