Many people have the impression that prizemoney distribution is about to be altered so that those who miss the cut will still be able to turn a profit. This is not the case: the discussions taking place are aimed merely at trying to reduce the losses incurred by those missing the cut - rather a different scenario.

The cost of playing a full season on the tour is around £50,000, and this burden is, in theory, borne by each individual player. While this is not a huge problem to those players already established or those with significant sponsorship contracts already in place, to a young player setting out on his career this can be a daunting figure indeed.

In Bernard Gallacher's day much of the tour was played from the back of a car and with the security of a club job in the background. Nowadays the combination of the requirements of travelling to such distant venues as Australia, South Africa, Asia and the Middle East, along with the much-increased standard of competition, do not allow for such security.

Those who argue that increases in prizemoney have more than made up for this increase in expenses have a valid point. But this is little consolation to the youngster who doesn't hale from the rarefied air of the likes of the Wentworth Estate. The reality is that while the expenses of those at the top of the pile have actually reduced (those players making the most money usually have their expenses paid and, indeed, are often paid just to show up), for the rank and file and the youngsters costs have increased markedly.

The object of the initiative to which you refer in your article is to alleviate expenses across the board to try to create a more level playing field.

The circumstance that currently exists in golf is almost unique, and, far from being a radical suggestion that it should change, it would seem radical not to change it. After all, can you imagine Alex Ferguson presenting some of his team with a bill for their flights and accommodation after every away match in Europe while picking up the bill for Beckham and Cole? Or the Ashes team heading off to Australia at a cost to most of them of £30,000 a head for their expenses, except, of course, for the opening batsman and opening bowler who would travel free of charge? It would surely be considered normal business practice that the expenses of all should be covered, and the profits then divvied up according to performance.

In football and cricket these profits accrue via contracts, and in golf and tennis through prize money. Far from creating a soft underbelly, such a change in distribution should allow for a greater flow of young talent from all sides of the financial road, and not, as exists now, with the scale tipped heavily in favour of those from the "right backgrounds".

That the likes of Andrew Chandler should express concern about such a shift is hardly surprising, for he is hardly in a position of neutrality: clearly, as a manager, he takes a percentage of the incomes of his clients and so wouldn't like to see those incomes diminished. His assertion that the tour lives off the back of the top 15 players is a handy one indeed, as the greater the percentage of the pot they receive, the more money is in it for their managers. There is no money for agents or managers in a reduction of the playing expenses of their clients.

The likes of Chandler and Gallacher express arguments that are so full of contradiction they barely warrant consideration. They speak of the need for incentive and competition and then champion a status quo that stunts and inhibits the very competition they claim to support. Any first year economics student will tell you that competition is at its most efficient and productive on a level playing field. What exists now is a playing field heavily tilted in favour of the incumbents, with the result being that competition is hindered rather than encouraged.

By introducing a system whereby the playing costs are reduced across the board, rather than just in the upper echelons, standards in general should be raised. And all of this can be achieved by a redistribution of less than 10 per cent of most of the tournament purses, surely a small price to pay for a greater equality of opportunity.

If Bernard Gallacher sees this as at odds with his vision for the direction the tour, then I for one will be delighted if his resignation from the board is accepted.