Posted by
Ed Lilly on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 9:31:55 AM
I noticed a small story in yesterday's sports news that indicated The New York Post reported Tiger Woods had bought a house in Southampton, New York, for $65 million. Kind of surprising to me as I believe he is also in the process of relocating from his current home in Florida to a home I think he is having built farther south in Florida. Why would he want to throw down another load of money on property in Southampton at this point?
Turns out maybe he's not. The story this morning:
Tiger Woods did not buy a $65 million waterfront compound in Southampton, New York, as the New York Post reported, the real estate broker who handled the sale said today.
Followed after the string of denials, including from Woods' agent, with this:
“We stand by our story,” Col Allan, the Post's editor-in- chief, said in a statement issued by his publicist, Steven Rubenstein.
So is this a case of Woods having bought the property, but he is not "technically" the buyer as it is owned by another entity he owns and/or controls? Or is there in fact a completely different anonymous buyer as the story this morning seems to indicate? Maybe it's nothing more than a wild rumor about a big celebrity that got out of hand and wound up in the paper, and now the paper doesn't want to climb down from it for some reason. But if the paper had it wrong initially, it seems to me they are making it much worse for themselves by sticking by the story.