PDA

View Full Version : US Open Will Not Be UPA Sanctioned



08-28-2002, 10:49 PM
UPA withdraws US Open sanctioning
August 28, 2002

Dear UPA members - patrons - sponsors and fans,

Because we are unable to reach an agreement with Mr. Behrman, the UPA will not
be sanctioning nor endorsing the 27th Annual U.S. Open 9?Ball Tournament.
Therefore, the UPA cannot assure its members protection or that any of the
player safeguards afforded by UPA sanctioning will be in place for this event.

Sincerely,

Philip G. Muller
Vice President UPA

By UPA Tour - August 28, 2002

08-29-2002, 12:17 AM
i would think the us open did not meet any or all of these guidelines. http://www.upatour.com/sanctioning.htm

08-29-2002, 12:57 AM
The U.S. Open has been running fine for like what, almost 30 years? They had a payoff problem one time in the history of the tournament because of a national disaster and people like Charlie Williams want to give them grief. All I know is that the Berhman family has done more for the promotion of pool as a sport than any other family has as far as I'm concerned. Not to mention pool is going to be ppv for the 1st time ever. I applaud the Berhmans for the great service they have done for the world of pool and I hope many more great years will follow. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

08-29-2002, 03:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: UPA Board:</font><hr> UPA withdraws US Open sanctioning
August 28, 2002

Dear UPA members - patrons - sponsors and fans,

Because we are unable to reach an agreement with Mr. Behrman, the UPA will not
be sanctioning nor endorsing the 27th Annual U.S. Open 9?Ball Tournament.
Therefore, the UPA cannot assure its members protection or that any of the
player safeguards afforded by UPA sanctioning will be in place for this event.

Sincerely,

Philip G. Muller
Vice President UPA

By UPA Tour - August 28, 2002



<hr></blockquote>

You've had this tournament listed on your site as sanctioned for many months,the UPA now withdraws their sanctioning three weeks before kick-off ?

Explanations are in order.Thank you in advance.BS

Doctor_D
08-29-2002, 05:25 AM
Good morning:

Regardless of the logistical and/or adminstrative and/or procedural issues applicable to this decision, it is my opinion that this will not bode well for the UPA!

Dr. D.

Lester
08-29-2002, 06:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Doctor_D:</font><hr> Good morning:

Regardless of the logistical and/or adminstrative and/or procedural issues applicable to this decision, it is my opinion that this will not bode well for the UPA!

Dr. D.
<hr></blockquote>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Dr. D., I too believe the UPA just shot itself in the foot. I notice that they stopped short of asking their members to boycott the event. But not sanctioning the U.S.Open in a public forum, belittles their credibility. JMHO ***Lester***

08-29-2002, 07:32 AM
I'm not going to take sides on this issue, since I know virtually none of the supporting facts.

However, I am surprised that many posters seem to think the UPA should blindly sanction the Open. CW is protecting himself and his players here, because if there were payout problems again and it WAS sanctioned, that would not bode well for the UPA.

Again, I don't even know what the points of contention are in this dispute. If it's not a monetary issue, I am sure they will come to terms. If it is a monetary issue, the UPA is just telling its players to enter at their own risk.

I want to mention, though, that I've known the Behrmans (though only very casually) for about five years, and they've always seemed wonderful to me. I've played in the Open three times and only cashed once. I got paid immediately, but it was only $500. Since I will never win the Open, it doesn't really matter to me if Barry can't guarantee paying 100% of the top 8 places or so. But I could see how, to some of the players in the UPA, that would matter quite a bit - since they are expected to be in or near the winner's circle.

Anyway, I just hope the whole thing gets resolved quickly, so we can all have a good time.

- Steve Lipsky

Lester
08-29-2002, 07:53 AM
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Steve, I agree that CW should protect members of the UPA. Sanctioning of any event by the UPA must meet certain requirements. When these requirements aren't met, the UPA can warn their members that the event is not sanctioned by the UPA. However, I feel that when the UPA board posts this statement to a public forum they should include what stipulations they felt the event didn't meet. Now if the event goes off without a hitch, the UPA looks like Chicken Little. I realize that it is better to be safe than sorry, but a simple page announcing this change on their website would have informed their members without causing a "public relations event". JMHO ***Lester***

Ken
08-29-2002, 08:00 AM
The UPA requires the seeding of their top 32 ranked players. Therefore if you pay them $100 and go two and out in Hampton you would be elegible for seeding. The US Open will probably seed only the top 16 based on performance in more than one event. It makes no sense to seed two thirds of the UPA players who don't necessarily represent the best players in the world when they probably only intend to seed the top 16.

The seeding requirement of the UPA is unreasonable and I am glad Barry is not giving in to them. Who needs them?
KenCT

jjinfla
08-29-2002, 09:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: arnie:</font><hr> i would think the us open did not meet any or all of these guidelines. <a target="_blank" href=http://www.upatour.com/sanctioning.htm>http://www.upatour.com/sanctioning.htm</a> <hr></blockquote>

Brady, or any other organization, would have to be a complete idiot to agree to rule #3. And reading the rest of the rules shows me that the UPA will play if they can run everything. LOL. Idiotic. CW showed us he is not qualified at PR and now he is trying to be an attorney writing up these stupid rules? Are the players really that stupid to go along with these rules? I thought the WPBA was bad but this easily surpasses them. Jake~~~now I just might go to the US Open just so I can keep asking the UPA idiots how come they didn't go on strike every time they get ready to shoot.

Alfie
08-29-2002, 12:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: jjinfla:</font><hr> Brady, or any other organization, would have to be a complete idiot to agree to rule #3. And reading the rest of the rules shows me that the UPA will play if they can run everything. LOL. Idiotic. CW showed us he is not qualified at PR and now he is trying to be an attorney writing up these stupid rules? Are the players really that stupid to go along with these rules? I thought the WPBA was bad but this easily surpasses them. Jake~~~now I just might go to the US Open just so I can keep asking the UPA idiots how come they didn't go on strike every time they get ready to shoot. <hr></blockquote> I heard they wouldn't sign your cueball.

08-29-2002, 02:39 PM
UPA board poster, can you elaborate on what precisely this means? Are you recommending or requiring of your UPA player members not to attend? If they do attend, are they risking being blacklisted? Or are you simply stating they cannot be guaranteed the safeguards that you normally may require of promoters (I assume possibly that means having the guaranteed money added in escrow, etc.), but are still welcome to attend at their choice - with no negative consequences as a result of their participation? For our knowledge as fans, can you share with us some names of what top players are members of the UPA? Thank you. - Chris in NC

08-29-2002, 04:35 PM
well,,,the players are stupid. and just as in the past, they will scurry around, jumping at any promising deal. i'm not saying yes or no about this upa thing, but in general, pool players are like mice drowning in water looking for a floating piece of cardboard to jump on.

08-29-2002, 06:24 PM
yep... regardless of everything else the UPA not sanctioning in one of the biggest annual events is not good.

When forming a Union you have to have at least participation from the big tournament holders... maybe the billiard community is not a union town?

Vagabond
08-29-2002, 07:34 PM
Dear UPA Sir,
U do not have a bargaining chip.Men`s pro pool was dead long time ago because of it`s member`s unrealistic expectations,distrust of each other,short sightedness and so on so forth.Not many will sympathize with your position and not many care for Periodic temper tantrums of UPA.Cheers
Vagabond