PDA

View Full Version : UPA web CRAP "U.S. Open is not endorsed"



Tom_In_Cincy
08-29-2002, 03:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>August 29. 2k2
No Sanctioning
No Endorsement
No Points
U.S. Open is not endorsed
The UPA has officially announced that the 27th Annual U.S. Open in Chesapeake, VA in September will not have any endorsement or sanctioning by the UPA.
The Executive Board of the UPA voted on the matter and UPA Tour Vice President Phil Muller made this announcement on Wednesday 8/28:
"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 9Ball 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. "

What it also means is that no points will be awarded whatsoever. The World rankings which have always been affected by the outcome of the U.S. Open .... will no longer be so. From now on, the UPA will view it as an ordinary Independent Event.

The Next UPA Sanctioned event that WILL however garner points for the Men's Pro Tour is the Lucasi Atlanta Open. The tournament is set for October 23rd through the 27th in Marietta, GA and will be deemed a 2 star point event.

The Atlanta Open tournament will just be the precursor to the SUPERBOWL of the UPATour ..... which will be coming this December to Jacksonville, Florida ......the Predator UPA Pro Tour Championships.
It will be deemed a 3 to 4 star event with an aura of prestige that fans won't want to miss.

end <hr></blockquote>

How stuck up can a 10 month old oganization BE?
Since when does the UPA determine the World Ranking?

What a bunch of crap.

08-29-2002, 04:29 PM
the sport of billiards has had a history of bad organization. they could never get all the players under one umbrella. so the upa, new as it is, with the players it has under its belt, is just as viable as any organization has a right to be.

HOWARD
08-29-2002, 05:53 PM
TOM, I AM NOT WELL INFORMED ABOUT THIS UPA. BUT PLEASE DO NOT HOLD BACK, SAY WHAT YOU FEEL. HAR - ALL I CAN ADD IS THAT IS WHO HAS THE GOLD MAKES THE RULES. - HOWARD

Harold Acosta
08-29-2002, 06:16 PM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 29. 2k2
No Sanctioning
No Endorsement
No Points
U.S. Open is not endorsed
The UPA has officially announced that the 27th Annual U.S. Open in Chesapeake, VA in September will not have any endorsement or sanctioning by the UPA.
The Executive Board of the UPA voted on the matter and UPA Tour Vice President Phil Muller made this announcement on Wednesday 8/28:
"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 9Ball 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. "

What it also means is that no points will be awarded whatsoever. The World rankings which have always been affected by the outcome of the U.S. Open .... will no longer be so. From now on, the UPA will view it as an ordinary Independent Event.

The Next UPA Sanctioned event that WILL however garner points for the Men's Pro Tour is the Lucasi Atlanta Open. The tournament is set for October 23rd through the 27th in Marietta, GA and will be deemed a 2 star point event.

The Atlanta Open tournament will just be the precursor to the SUPERBOWL of the UPATour ..... which will be coming this December to Jacksonville, Florida ......the Predator UPA Pro Tour Championships.
It will be deemed a 3 to 4 star event with an aura of prestige that fans won't want to miss.

end
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is pitiful! What a crock! These people must be on something ilegal!

This press release is probably a late "April Fools" gag!

Tom_In_Cincy
08-29-2002, 06:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: arnie:</font><hr> the sport of billiards has had a history of bad organization. they could never get all the players under one umbrella. so the upa, new as it is, with the players it has under its belt, is just as viable as any organization has a right to be. <hr></blockquote>

I think I would use the word "Volatile" in this particular situation. The UPA is trying to make a statement.. and is only coming across as pompus a$$e$.. acting like they are the supreme force in pool..

08-29-2002, 07:51 PM
there will always be volatility when challenges are made to the staus quo. the issue of $$ and players acting like a$$e$ will always rear its ugly head, especially in pool.

look at the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ being quibbled about in the big sports, and the $ being quibbled about in pool. question is, has BB given the players a reason for them to trust him? from my perspective, there has always been very little trust in the pool world.

Vagabond
08-29-2002, 08:24 PM
Howdy Folks,
I am tired of periodic temper tantrums of UPA.I do not care!
Men`s pro pool was dead long time ago because of it`s member`s unrealistic expectations,short sightedness,mistrust of each other among it`s members and so on and so forth.I feel that these misguided strategies of UPAare definitely going to stunt it`s growth.Get real UPA.Many on this board are not fans of Charlie williams.May be he should step down.
Vagabond

08-29-2002, 10:22 PM
The UPA brings nothing to the table. What have they got? They got a bunch of pros to sign their names on a piece of paper? Hell you could get that by buying most of them a steak dinner. That doesn't mean that they are behind you, or that they will sit out a tournament, or that they won't sign on to the next guy who thinks he created a pro organization.

Until the UPA brings some sponsorship money, they have nothing besides unmitigated gall to think they should be calling the shots on a tournament like the US Open that has been going on since before many of them were born.

Nostroke
08-30-2002, 12:08 AM
Look $40K was promised to be added. It was supposed to in escrow thirty days before the Open. The Berhmans knew this 8 months ago and couldnt come up with the cash. The excuse this time is that the Pay Per view is costing them so much they dont have it. The last Masters tournament, the Berhmans checks bounced and they had an excuse. The last Open, the "Guantranteed" money was suddenly not there and the prizes were cut. They had an excuse. Anyone see a pattern?.

Most succesful businesses would get a short term loan if they had to.


Charlie is trying to protect the players from getting stiffed. How can he do this if the money isnt up? Would u gamble with someone who stiffed you in the past at all? If you were dumb, you MIGHT play if you at least saw that he had the money on him. Charlie doesn't even see that because it isnt there and you want him to sanction the event and hope????. Can you imagine if he did without ever seeiing the money and the players got stiffed again?? What would they say about the UPA leadership then?

I think he made the only move he could.

Still in all im hoping everyone shows (and gets paid) because its a great tournament otherwise.I'd hate to see it lose its stature.

08-30-2002, 02:01 AM
bullcrap. the post on the UPA homepage is extremely unprofessional, and does not outline the reasons the UPA won't sanction the event. instead it is full of bravado and muscle flexing. the message i got as a fan is "hahahahah f-u u.s. open, if barry won't give me what i want i'll show him by being stupid and petty and robbing everyone, including the pool fans and pro players, so that i can show how powerful i am."

look at the wording. this was not a professional statement explaining the reasonaing, this was clearly a personal dig trying to be a bully. for instance what is the difference between awarding no UPA points and awarding absolutely no UPA points whatsoever? bye bye charlie.

i hope osama bin laden (is he on the UPA board? ok uncalled for sorry) doesn't have any plans in the middle of the next u.s. open. dr. d, you ready to head the mens tour, we need a pro who isn't on the tour, as charlie and max (and this phil guy who the hell is he, fire him NOW) can't handle the job.

warren..&lt;-- just want my pool without the bullcrap

Warren_Lushia
08-30-2002, 02:06 AM
sorry, that was me, thought i was automatically logged in via cookies, oops!

warren.

SPetty
08-30-2002, 07:01 AM
Am I the only one that sees it this way?:

The UPA was created, and put in place some rules to protect its members. "These are our rules, would you like to join?" If a tournament doesn't abide by these rules that are put in place to protect our members, we won't sanction the tournament. "Yes, I'll join - looks like good rules."

Then a tournament doesn't/can't abide by the rules for whatever reason. The rules hold firm. Standards are kept high. The UPA players are not forbidden to play. They may play, but will play unprotected by the umbrella of the UPA because the good rules that everyone liked when they signed up that were put in place initially are not being adhered to, so the tournament cannot be sanctioned by the UPA.

I don't see why all the CW/UPA bashing is happening. It seems to me he's doing a hard job - upholding the previously agreed to rules that the players supported when joining the UPA. He's not being petty or having a hissy fit - he's simply upholding the high standards that were set for UPA tournament sanctioning.

Do we suddenly think the initial rules put in place by UPA are no good? If the UPA membership agrees, then the rules will likely be changed. But to sanction the tournament that doesn't meet the sanctioning criteria would be breaking the rules that the members agreed to.

I think CW/UPA is unfairly getting a lot of grief for doing a good job at attempting to protect the UPA players and keeping the standards high.

Doctor_D
08-30-2002, 07:12 AM
Good morning:

If I understand the Mission Statement of the UPA correctly, they are a "Players" organization (much like a union) seeking to protect the interests of their members through standard rules and sanctioning requirements. If an event is not sanctioned by the UPA, the members know what to expect and/or not to expect.

However, so as to eliminate speculation, maybe a statement as to why the sanctioning was withdrawn would have been in order.

Dr. D.

rackmup
08-30-2002, 07:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: UPA Spin Doctor:</font><hr>Therefore, the UPA cannot assure its members protection or that any of the player safeguards afforded by UPA sanctioning...<hr></blockquote>

What "protection" or demonstration of the ability to provide "safeguards" has the UPA shown us to date? The group is less than a year old and already assuming the stance of an entrenched governing body!

Egos killed Men's Professional Pool years ago and now, the wounds under the "sanctioning" of the UPA are festering again.

As much as I love the game, this nonsense has to stop somewhere. Personally, I think the WWF would run Pro Pool better than the current buffoons.

Regards,

Ken

Nostroke
08-30-2002, 07:25 AM
See insidepool.com for the reasons.

The money isnt posted. What i suspected has been verified. After the negotiations closed and sanctioning withdrawn, Barry has offered to post a little now and the balance next week or vice versa. i hope there can be some type of compromise but i am not expecting it.

rackmup
08-30-2002, 07:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: UPA Grey Area Guy:</font><hr>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 9Ball Tournament.<hr></blockquote>

"We are unable to reach an agreement..." sort of leaps out at me. What couldn't they agree upon? Everyone is assuming it has something to do with "rules" or placing prize money in escrow. The UPA would do themselves justice (as would the Behrmans) if they made public, the source of friction.

Perhaps it's something as simple as a disagreement on the color of the tablecloths and floral arrangements for the awards banquet. If that's the case, "Martha/Rackmup Tournament Consultants" are available for a nominal fee.

Regards,

Ken

Drake
08-30-2002, 08:07 AM
Everybody has been bashing Charlie for exactly a year now. He tried to get the players paid last year in the so called "Guaranteed" event. Now, hind sight is always 20/20 and everyone made some mistakes last year. Charlie was pushing a bit to hard and Barry probably stopped the whole event. With the exception of Earl crying about his payout and Charlie didn't have it waiting in an envelope when he lost....The UPA has made an excellent effort to advance Men's pool. Brady KNOWS that everyone will play in the OPEN......UPA sanctioned or not. It's a shame because the UPA and OPEN will continue.

Fran Crimi
08-30-2002, 08:26 AM
You are absolutely correct, IMO.

Here's how it works: For a couple of decades, Barry has had a formula in place that for the most part, has worked. The formula is to guarantee a nominal amount and use the gate money to complete the guaranteed amount. However, over the last several years, perhaps due to pressure from players and competing events, I believe Barry has been pressured to raise his guaranteed amount which now made him more dependent on a successful gate. This year, he is now changing the mix of his formula again by adding PPV where he doesn't know how much money he will make (or lose)from that. His old formula has now become compromised and the players do not feel the same sense of confidence that they used to have. Barry is the last of the promoters who has been allowed to get away with not posting guaranteed money. I think the players allowed this out of loyalty to him and the U.S. Open. But the situation is not consistent anymore and the money needs to be there up front in all fairness to the players.

I think the UPA has been more than generous in not pulling it's players from the tournament. Usually under these circumstances it could elect to do that. I see that as a compromise where this year represents a "warning," ro the Berman team, and next year may be a different story.

Also, probably the reason for not publically stating the reason for not sanctioning the event is that there is still a slight chance that things can work out the last minute. My guess is that negotiations came to a dead halt, Barry refused to post the added money and called the UPA's bluff. By not disclosing the details to the public, the UPA is allowing Barry an opportunity to regroup and reconsider.

I hope he does.

Fran

MikeM
08-30-2002, 08:50 AM
My opinion of Charlie and the UPA will always be colored by the way they reacted to the US Open last year. In my eyes the UPA was born out of greed and pettiness. The whole mess surrounding last year's Open would have been much cleaner had the players banded together and said we understand that this is an unprecedented tragedy, something that could not have been foreseen and we will work with the promoter to get through it together. Instead they stood with their arms crossed and said "give us our money!". Very shortsighted and not the way to kick off an organization that supposedly is interested in the long term success of men's professional pool.

I agree with the need for a players organization to protect the interests of the players, but it has to act WITH promoters and not turn it into an adversarial relationship. Promoting pool is not like boxing where there are millions of dollars to fight over. If the players and promoters don't work together men's pool will get nowhere.

And then to top it off, Charlie turns out to be a subpar promoter. If it's true that he still hasn't paid Earl he should step down immediately. Now it appears that they've shitcanned Earl for going public with his grievance. Kind of makes one say "who cares" when they announce they are not sanctioning the US Open.

MM

ted harris
08-30-2002, 09:11 AM
I would like to pose a question to you. If you gambled with a guy, and he lost twenty, thirty, forty thousand to you every time he stepped up for 27 years, and then one day he says he's a little short, what are you gonna do, start screaming and hollering about how you got screwed, or give the guy a "walking stick?" Smart move. Meantime, the next time he shows up to play with the biggest bankroll in the U.S. and is willing to lose it to you again, AND pay you the money he air barrelled you for! Well, this ain't gambling, and he told them about it as soon as he realized that his operation was in jeopardy.
What's Barry to do?
Fact is, the show is on again, and the majority of the guys that got "screwed" are going to be participating again, because Barry Behrman has put in his TIME, EFFORT, and MONEY!
How much time, effort , and money is required by the UPA for Barry Behrman to get a break?
Come on UPA, how about a little compassion &amp; understanding, and maybe the pool fans will show you a little understanding too?
This publicity is not good for pool. Isn't that what this is about?

Drake
08-30-2002, 09:21 AM
My understanding of Earls's situation was that he demanded to get paid right after he lost....and then he complained how little he got paid. Charlie WILL make mistakes and he will learn from them. AS FAR AS LAST YEAR'S OPEN, THE WHOLE EVENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CANCELLED!!! Every other type of game stopped for the week out of respect....why didn't pool??

stickman
08-30-2002, 09:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Also, probably the reason for not publically stating the reason for not sanctioning the event is that there is still a slight chance that things can work out the last minute. My guess is that negotiations came to a dead halt, Barry refused to post the added money and called the UPA's bluff. By not disclosing the details to the public, the UPA is allowing Barry an opportunity to regroup and reconsider.

I hope he does.

Fran <hr></blockquote>

Fran, you've hit upon my best solution to this dilemma. I don't criticize the board. No doubt, there decision is the correct one for now. I do however think they could submit the proposition to the membership, once the conditions were met, provided it is done in a reasonable time frame prior to the event. This IS the US OPEN, one of the most prestigious events in the history of pool. The board has my sympathy for having been thrust into this position. I don't think that the decision was an act of arrogance. I hope that consideration will be given once the satisfactory arrangements are met, but if not, I can appreciate the difficulty with which the board is faced.

Nostroke
08-30-2002, 09:52 AM
Lets reverse that. The Open has made hundreds of thousands if not millions for the Berhmans but the one time the Gate wasn't what was expected, people got stiffed.

If your in business you know that sometimes you make money and sometimes you lose but that you still KEEP YOUR WORD if you want to stay in business. If you dont have the assets to so this, you are not a good businessman or you are blowing your cash elsewhere.

The money is advertised as "guaranteed" but its not if it's contingent on a profit being made by the promoter.

The Promotors know that they have appeared shakey the last couple of years given the Masters disaster and other events. A solvent D grade business person would have made sure that every T was crossed ensuring that confidence was restored to the event and to himself. Why didn't they do that? I can guess but i wont speculate here.

Now they seem to be depending on Pay Per View Money that they have no idea will even be there. Pool cant draw an audience on Free TV. No one loves pool more than I. I have great seats on the 50 yd line (since April) but the reality is IMHO that the rest of the world doesn't care and the PPV has no chance of being profitable.

Finally, an individual can and maybe should take a chance that he will be paid, but a PLAYERS Organization cannot sanction or encourage players to do that.

Scott Lee
08-30-2002, 10:00 AM
Ken...Part of the "we couldn't come to an agreement" was Barry's balking at paying the $90K still owed from last year's Open. He was given the chance to pay $30K a year, for the next three years. It is my understanding that he chose not to accept that payment plan, choosing instead to remain aloof about how and when the money would be eventually paid to the players owed. I agree that CW/UPA seems to be somewhat petty and bullying in it's language, but the underlying reasons concern payment guarantees for what was stiffed last year, as well as what is SUPPOSED to be paid this year. I hope the tournament goes off well too, but I suspect there will be many fewer players this year, what with the bad press and ill will generated at the last U.S. Open.

Scott Lee

Doctor_D
08-30-2002, 10:03 AM
Good afternoon:

In the absence of "Cash in the Bank", the guaranteed purse, there is always the option of posting a Negotiable, Assignable, Irrevocable Letter of Credit or the posting of a Performance Bond to cover the guaranteed amount. On behalf of my client in the telecommunications sector, a sector where pre-payments are required for voice traffic termination and/or orginination from our customers, I will routinely accept a Negotiable, Assignable, Irrevocable letter of credit if the customer does not wish to tie up $20,000.00, $30,000.00 or $50,000.00 in a pre-payment. Who knows, this might prove to be an option for the Open and the UPA because the Letter of Credit will automatically become payable as a demand note as of a specific date and/or circunstance should the "Cash" not be provided as required.

Dr. D.

Scott Lee
08-30-2002, 10:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: MikeM:</font><hr> My opinion of Charlie and the UPA will always be colored by the way they reacted to the US Open last year.

And then to top it off, Charlie turns out to be a subpar promoter. If it's true that he still hasn't paid Earl he should step down immediately. Now it appears that they've shitcanned Earl for going public with his grievance. Kind of makes one say "who cares" when they announce they are not sanctioning the US Open.

MM <hr></blockquote>

Mike...I agree with you. I just spent the whole day yesterday working with one of the players in Charlie's last event...the one in the Mall. This player told me how poorly the event had been organized, and how bad the equipment was...and had pictures to prove it! There were no table lights mounted over the tables. Instead, the players were expected to "see" the balls with the low light being put off by the ceiling lights 15 feet above the tables. LOL Sounds pretty sad to me.

Scott Lee

Tom_In_Cincy
08-30-2002, 10:43 AM
CW is doing the best he can at a most difficult job. TRUE.

But that doesn't mean I have to agree with him or say that he is doing a good job.

The UPA and CW have lost a lot of respect with the path they are taking. If they want to enforce the rules they have chosen to follow, then there are more politically correct ways to voice the concerns. This is my point.. why try to discredit a source of income like the US Open publically?

The US Open will be televised and the UPA will not be a part of this. The UPA will not have an opportunity to show some class. The UPA will not be able to show the Pool world what they publish on their website is true. They sanctioned the US Open until just this week. They should have waited until all rules were met to sanction. Bad practice, I hope they learn from this.

I also hope the UPA will follow their own rules at each of their own events. WHO will make sure this is done?

Retardo
08-30-2002, 11:11 AM
You can only get a letter of credit if you are a good risk. In the past few years Barry has gone from three poolrooms to one, has lost his Brunswick dealership, has been arrested, has failed to pay promised and guaranteed money and has bounced checks like they were superballs. I am sure banks know of many more less public incidents. The chance of him getting a bank to risk a nickel on his word is something less than ZERO!!

SPetty
08-30-2002, 11:19 AM
Not that this adds anything or needs to be said, but...

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr>If they want to enforce the rules they have chosen to follow, then there are more politically correct ways to voice the concerns. This is my point.. why try to discredit a source of income like the US Open publically?<hr></blockquote>Yes.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr>The UPA will not have an opportunity to show some class. The UPA will not be able to show the Pool world what they publish on their website is true. They sanctioned the US Open until just this week. They should have waited until all rules were met to sanction. Bad practice, I hope they learn from this. <hr></blockquote>Yes.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr>I also hope the UPA will follow their own rules at each of their own events. <hr></blockquote>Yes.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr>WHO will make sure this is done? <hr></blockquote>Maybe they could hire the WPBA board. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

08-30-2002, 12:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Fran Crimi:</font><hr> You are absolutely correct, IMO.

Here's how it works: For a couple of decades, Barry has had a formula in place that for the most part, has worked. The formula is to guarantee a nominal amount and use the gate money to complete the guaranteed amount. However, over the last several years, perhaps due to pressure from players and competing events, I believe Barry has been pressured to raise his guaranteed amount which now made him more dependent on a successful gate. This year, he is now changing the mix of his formula again by adding PPV where he doesn't know how much money he will make (or lose)from that. His old formula has now become compromised and the players do not feel the same sense of confidence that they used to have. Barry is the last of the promoters who has been allowed to get away with not posting guaranteed money. I think the players allowed this out of loyalty to him and the U.S. Open. But the situation is not consistent anymore and the money needs to be there up front in all fairness to the players.

I think the UPA has been more than generous in not pulling it's players from the tournament. Usually under these circumstances it could elect to do that. I see that as a compromise where this year represents a "warning," ro the Berman team, and next year may be a different story.

Also, probably the reason for not publically stating the reason for not sanctioning the event is that there is still a slight chance that things can work out the last minute. My guess is that negotiations came to a dead halt, Barry refused to post the added money and called the UPA's bluff. By not disclosing the details to the public, the UPA is allowing Barry an opportunity to regroup and reconsider.

I hope he does.

Fran <hr></blockquote>

I hope Barry pretends the UPA doesn't even exist and continues to concentrate on putting on the one mens event that can be counted on to take place each year. Until the UPA proves itself as a viable organization that can actually produce a tour with repeating dates into the second year they should be the last of Barrys worries. Barry obviously knows how to put on a world class event and if he isn't having a good belly laugh out of this he should be. The UPA is still in diapers and I think they just drop a load..... /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

jjinfla
08-30-2002, 12:34 PM
Then there is always the option of Brady filing for bankruptcy and then no one will get paid. And Brady can blame CW for the poor turnout of players and fans. Which can be true. In my mind Brady has too many unknowns to deal with in the Open. Sure he gets $500 from each player. But he has no idea how many players will show up. 100, 200, 256? If he has 200 players then he collects $100,000. Sounds like a lot but if he has to pay out $125,000 in prizes (just as an example) then where does he get the other $25,000? Plus the tables and hall are not given to him for free. Plus security. Plus paying his help. Maybe another $25,000 to $50,000. So now he has to cover $75,000 on top of player fees. Maybe he gets that from sponsors and fans. But if he does then he has just broken even. He has just worked all year to set up the event and makes no money. The only way he can make money is from money from spoonsors and paid seat by the fans in excess of his total costs. If the pros can't draw fans willing to pay for admission then it isn't Brady's fault. It is the pro's fault. And what are the so called pros in the UPA doing? They are bad mouthing Brady and the Open, through their elected? BOD. Instead of attracting fans, they are chasing them away. If I was running it I would cut the prize money in half and give the pros a cut of the gate. The more fans the pros attracted the more money they would get. But people better go to this Open because it may be the very last of its kind. I wonder how many pros have signed up so far and how many spectator seats have been paid for. It seems strange that Brady hasn't posted how many players have sent in their applications. Jake

AzHousePro
08-30-2002, 12:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Scott Lee:</font><hr> Ken...Part of the "we couldn't come to an agreement" was Barry's balking at paying the $90K still owed from last year's Open. He was given the chance to pay $30K a year, for the next three years. <hr></blockquote>


Scott, I am curious as to where the $90K number came from? I have spoke to Barry a couple times on this whole situation and 90K was never a number that was discussed.

Mike

AzHousePro
08-30-2002, 12:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Nostroke:</font><hr> Now they seem to be depending on Pay Per View Money that they have no idea will even be there. <hr></blockquote>

The PPV will be repeated a number of times after the event so final buy rates won't even be known until months after the open is over. What could they be "depending on Pay per View money" for?

Mike

08-30-2002, 12:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Scott Lee:</font><hr> Ken...Part of the "we couldn't come to an agreement" was Barry's balking at paying the $90K still owed from last year's Open. He was given the chance to pay $30K a year, for the next three years. It is my understanding that he chose not to accept that payment plan, choosing instead to remain aloof about how and when the money would be eventually paid to the players owed. I agree that CW/UPA seems to be somewhat petty and bullying in it's language, but the underlying reasons concern payment guarantees for what was stiffed last year, as well as what is SUPPOSED to be paid this year. I hope the tournament goes off well too, but I suspect there will be many fewer players this year, what with the bad press and ill will generated at the last U.S. Open.

Scott Lee <hr></blockquote>

Where did these figures come from? /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif or maybe your calculator may need new batteries.

They came up about $30k + short last year and now would like to repay approximately $10K of the shortness,but they have to attend the event in order to receive this tidbit.

The UPA was created for a reason,to protect the players' best interests.Whether CW is doing a good job or not,how would you like win what you think is $40k then magically turns into $30K because the promoter didn't do as well as expected.

9-11 was not entirely at fault for the last Opens' shortfall.Players were getting paid late as well as poor business decisions being made long before the Taliban were a factor.jmho

Hopefully everything will turn out ok but sadly we'll have to see the results after the event has been completed and not before as the UPA would have preferred.BS

AzHousePro
08-30-2002, 12:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Drake:</font><hr> AS FAR AS LAST YEAR'S OPEN, THE WHOLE EVENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CANCELLED!!! Every other type of game stopped for the week out of respect....why didn't pool?? <hr></blockquote>

I do not agree with you on this one. There is not enough money in pool to be able to stop an event the size of the US Open in midstream and expect all the players to be able to just pop into Virginia a few weeks later when everything calmed down.

What would have happened to the players and fans if Barry had just walked in on Tuesday and cancelled? "Thanks for coming everybody, I know you have already paid for your rooms for the entire week and your return plane tickets aren't until next week, but the tourney is off. Everybody needs to leave now. I'll let you know when you can pay airfare and hotel expenses to come out again".

What kind of black eye would that have been?

Mike

MikeM
08-30-2002, 01:11 PM
What if, as has been suggested, Barry cancelled the US Open last year? IMHO he had every right to do so in light of what had happened. That $40K becomes 0. He went on with the show and asked the players to help absorb some of the hit. Again, IMO, the players should have done so, for the good of the game long term. That would have been the classy thing to do. Instead they have whined like little babies all year over the money they were owed. Yes, it was advertised as guaranteed, but whether you want to believe it or not 9/11 was what kept people at home that weekend. Industries all across America relaxed their rules and let people slide on things like rental car return policies and hotel reservation cancellation policies etc.. Why couldn't the UPA have been flexible as well?

MM

08-30-2002, 01:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Drake:</font><hr> AS FAR AS LAST YEAR'S OPEN, THE WHOLE EVENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CANCELLED!!! Every other type of game stopped for the week out of respect....why didn't pool?? <hr></blockquote>

Easy for you to say 'armchair quarterback' since you didn't have a dime invested.

The event was in progress and into it's third day when they hit us or does that matter?BS

Nostroke
08-30-2002, 01:20 PM
The bulk of viewership will be for the live event as you know. Those Numbers will be known immediately and projections easily made for the repeats. He is allegedly short now because he invested in PPV. What will he say if it flops and he has lost that money?

Anyway the main point is he knew he had to post. Given past events he should have moved heaven and earth to make sure he posted but he chose not to or his finacial situation is so weak, he couldnt post. Either way, no way could the UPA sanction it and that is his fault, not Charlie's. I am just glad they haven't called for a boycott.

PS-Mike in case you missed it, i apologized for accusing you of dogging the Peoria coverage when in fact it was clearly the fault of my browser or ISP or something else on my side. I have told you many times that i don't know how you do it and that i will likely be the first to join if you ever have that "membership" portion of AZB!!

ted harris
08-30-2002, 01:24 PM
Have they ever made public those numbers? You know, as well as everyone else knows, most of the players are holding on to their money until the last possible second.

ted harris
08-30-2002, 01:40 PM
I am no lawyer, but I do not think they could even mention the word boycott, as there may be legal ramifications. I am also sure that the reason they have not told the membership they cannot participate is because;
1. They may lose members
2. Legality
Hence, I do not think that the UPA is allowing UPA members to play in the US Open for totally selfless reasons. There may be no choice. They are protecting their arses, and getting paid in the process.
In other words, they are playing both sides of the fence. Seem a little hypocritical?

Nostroke
08-30-2002, 02:26 PM
Your right- I am sure they couldnt legally prevent players from playing but they could easily suggest that they not play. I was using the term (boycott) loosely. From the official terse statements, it's clear that both sides are not looking to burn any bridges.

Is the UPA'S straddle a little hypocritical for a players oganization? Probably but I do think that Charlie recognizes the status of the US Open and isn't looking to denigrate it. I dont think his only motivation is selfishness.

Still he knows a full fight could badly hurt the UPA but conversely he can't cave-in. He would be saying his organization's principles are of no importance and that would be saying there is no reason for his organization. Charlie was in a difficult situation and i understand why he had to do what he did.

Many feel that the Open is bigger than any Player Organization. This is true but it doesn't mean that you ignore reasonable requirements of that Organization just because you can! (as some would suggest). Barry was on notice for months and months and rather than complying with a perfectly logical and reasonable request decided to throw his weight around. A bigger man wouldn't do that.

Drake
08-30-2002, 02:37 PM
So, Now I'm the bad guy for saying the OPEN should have been canceled last year. Is it strange to anybody else that not one other event was played that week?? Maybe canceling IS kind of aggresive. They should have taken one day off and played extra matches on the following days. This is just my opinion. BTW, I'm not an armchair quarterback.....I had a fair showing at Derby. I tied for 25th in nine ball.

Vicki
08-30-2002, 02:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Vagabond:</font><hr> Howdy Folks,
I am tired of periodic temper tantrums of UPA.I do not care!
Men`s pro pool was dead long time ago because of it`s member`s unrealistic expectations,short sightedness,mistrust of each other among it`s members and so on and so forth.I feel that these misguided strategies of UPAare definitely going to stunt it`s growth.Get real UPA.Many on this board are not fans of Charlie williams.May be he should step down.
Vagabond <hr></blockquote>

You really hit on some great points in this post. Especially the part about misguided strategies. Last year at the US Open Charlie Williams got up and made an announcement to the fans about supporting Barry Berhman in this desparate time and then in his next breath turned to the players and trashed the man for shorting the payout. Meanwhile, I don't know any business that functioned as usual after the 9-11 disaster. Charlie spoke openly to fans, players and other industry people about the payout situation - something that should have been kept strictly between the players and Barry. Charlie had no reason to post on CCB that the UPA would not be sanctioning the US Open. What possible good does that serve?! This CCB forum is for individual pool fans/players. It NEVER needed to be made a public press release. He should have sent a letter/e-mail/phone call to the players and anyone else who was directly effected by the decision not to sanction. The public press release was a deliberate attempt to trash Barry and the US Open. The arrogance in the tone of the press release is further evidence that his only intention is to cause trouble for the Behrmans. Saying that they aren't sanctioning - and further saying that they are not endorsing... what's that!!!??? This is so deliberate and unprofessional I wouldn't be suprised if the Behrman's decide to sue the UPA for loss of business or defimation of character!

Everyone seems to forget that the US Open ran without a hitch for 25 years!!! No problems with the payouts for 25 years. He didn't have any problems until the Master's last year when there was very low spectator turn out. Then the 9-11 situation caused Barry to take a second severe financial hit. Whether or not you like Barry Behrman, the fact is that he has paid more money to pool players than anyone else. He has seen the Camel Tour and the Pro Billiards Tour come and go and he's still having tournaments and advancing pool... Did I hear that the US Open will be on Pay-Per-View?

How about all the companies that have financial interest in the success of the US Open? Has CW considered them? Vendors who will be renting booth space, sponsors of the event and sponsors of the players... The US Open isn't just Barry Behrman.

I second the motion to have Charlie step down.

-Vicki

Nostroke
08-30-2002, 02:49 PM
No way it could have been cancelled. The event was underway and players were there from all over the world. Just send the Players back to Asia, Europe etc?

As a monday morning quarterback, i'd say they should have polled the players on what they wanted to do as far as a delay and go with it, I would have voted to play on (not that i was in it of course).

Ross
08-30-2002, 03:03 PM
I think some are putting Charlie in a lose/lose situation. His job is create a more professional environment for the pros, but when he refuses to sanction a tournament that does not meet those requirements, he is criticized for it.

I do agree that the press release could have been better worded. However, I don't understand how people can be critical of the UPA for not sanctioning an event that did not meet the stated UPA requirements for sanctioning. The organization would lose all credibility if it did otherwise.

Also, some seem to be worried that the UPA action will hurt the Open. I don't think that will happen. The UPA did not call for a boycott, so I imagine all of the big names will still be there. As far as hurting the Open's reputation with the public - well, I think only pool nuts like me and the other CCB/AZB posters have even heard of the UPA. The only ramification for the Open is that UPA will follow through with ignoring the tournament for their points ranking system. That amounts to a small slap on the wrist which the UPA was required to adminster by their own stated rules.

Finally, I don't see this as an attack on Barry or the Open, nor does it mean that members of the UPA don't appreciate Barry's efforts. It is simply setting a precedent - if a tournament wants UPA sanctioning then it will have to meet UPA standards.

I, for one, applaud the UPA for not backing down. Now if they would just get more feedback on their press releases before they send them out.

Vicki
08-30-2002, 03:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Ross:</font><hr> I think some are putting Charlie in a lose/lose situation. His job is create a more professional environment for the pros, but when he refuses to sanction a tournament that does not meet those requirements, he is criticized for it. <hr></blockquote>

If Charlie's job is to create a more professional environment for the pros then why is he releasing statements to the public like the one that was sent??? Why was that made public at all? Why was it made public on the CCB forum (before it appeared on their own website)? Why didn't it only go to the people who needed to know? Charlie is putting Charlie in a lose/lose situation. The UPA doesn;t have to sanction any event that doesn't meet it's criteria but it doesn't have to make rude public statements about it. Statements that CAN hurt the event and it's sponsors and promoters. It seems to me that it would be in the UPA's interest to work with the US Open and resolve the issues. This is going to be a pay-per-view event and that is HUGE! I can appreciate what you are saying about respecting the UPA taking a stand and not backing down but I would personally have more respect for an organization taking a positive position and stopping at nothing to resolve the issues. Instead, the UPA has handled this very poorly and any respect or credibility they could have earned has gone right down the toilet.

Vicki

AzHousePro
08-30-2002, 03:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Nostroke:</font><hr> PS-Mike in case you missed it, i apologized for accusing you of dogging the Peoria coverage when in fact it was clearly the fault of my browser or ISP or something else on my side. I have told you many times that i don't know how you do it and that i will likely be the first to join if you ever have that "membership" portion of AZB!! <hr></blockquote>

You mean you didn't get the email about that?? All the 'members' got up-to-date brackets and the 'others' had to wait a day. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

Seriously, that members idea may happen sooner than you think. But if it does, all the regular stuff would remain free.

Mike

Drake
08-30-2002, 03:54 PM
Sounds Good! Sign me up. Mike is the Man.

Tom_In_Cincy
08-30-2002, 08:56 PM
There were a lot of people and players at the US Open that were STUCK there.. No planes were allow to fly for a few days afterwards.. Remember?

lots of people could not leave..

jjinfla
08-30-2002, 09:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Drake:</font><hr> So, Now I'm the bad guy for saying the OPEN should have been canceled last year. Is it strange to anybody else that not one other event was played that week?? <hr></blockquote>
I was in Vegas Sep 11th and believe me nothing was cancelled, with the exception of a few conventions on the 12th and 13th because people couldn't fly in. Attendance was down because people were leaving by car. The people there still played the slots and went to the shows. Jake

Warren_Lushia
08-30-2002, 11:00 PM
right on vikki. its one thing to decide not to sanction, its another to try an publicly denounce an event in the manner they did.

when charlie and max took the initiative to start the UPA i was happy. he gave it a try, now its time to step down. this is what i have seen from the UPA lately:

by most accounts the first UPA (the pennisula) event was a giant failure. it was not well attended, the players were not happy with the payout or equipment, the vendors lost money.

charlie has been said to be a poor promoter from several sides. i never hear this about mike janis or mike zuglan, do you?

the UPA kicked out earl strickland, and judging by the date they quoted, it was because on that date earl posted to the azbilliards forum that he was not happy with the payout amount or timeliness. love him or hate him, earl has every right to state his opinion, and charlie posts there too. apparently charlie also decided not to pay earl all together.

this latest fiasco with the u.s. open. the statement released by the UPA was very unprofessional. maybe barry was being a pain in the a$$ i don't know, but the latest statement from the UPA and publicity of the announcement was appalling.

check out the latest issue of inside pool, and see some of charlie's comments. he was quoted as saying something to the effect that the double elimination race to 11 format of the u.s. open was something the UPA could "live with" for now, but they would take away some of their star ratings, and that beginning in 2004, all UPA sanctioned events will have to follow the format mandated by the UPA. i guess this means single elimination race to 15. who the hell is charlie to tell how the u.s. open should be run?!?! the event is as old as he is.

i read the requirements for UPA sanctioning. i'm not an expert, but some of the requirements seemed out there to me.

charlie, oops, the UPA need to realize they are only as strong as the players they represent. i think he is a well-liked man on the tour and his friends may be cutting him some slack. but when charlie makes things even worse for the players than they are now, how many are going to stand behind him? i don't see the UPA making any progress what so ever, do you?

i think the UPA should adopt a new motto called "we all lose". the players lose, the fans lose, the vendors lose, the industry loses. well done.

warren..

cueball1950
08-30-2002, 11:34 PM
All Charlie is trying to do is Rule The Pool World. The old association from what i understand Guaranredd the purses. Is he doing that also. I do not know the answer. Does anyone out there know. And if he is. Where is the money coming from. Is he charging a Sanctioning fee for the UPA? the old ORG. charged a sanctioning fee that i believe paid for an insurance policy that guaranteed the purses. And what Board is this. Everyone knows that whatever Charlie says the board does. After all, is he not the founder.? Why did'nt Charlie sign the Post. he is the founder after all.. I once asked a Pro that everybody on here knows of and he is a several time world champ. What ever happened to the mens tour. His answer. They SELF DESTRYCTED. Had enough. going to bed..........mike

Nostroke
08-30-2002, 11:48 PM
where is this denouncement or rude statement you are referring to? The only official statement i have seen said they are withdrawing sanctioning and therefore cannot guaranteee that UPA safeguards would be in effect? How much more mild could it be?

Vicki
08-31-2002, 01:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Nostroke:</font><hr> where is this denouncement or rude statement you are referring to?


How much more mild could it be? <hr></blockquote>

I think he is feeding off of my post when he used that language. I was referring to the following:

"...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 9Ball Tournament..."

"...What it also means is that no points will be awarded whatsoever. The World rankings which have always been affected by the outcome of the U.S. Open .... will no longer be so. From now on, the UPA will view it as an ordinary Independent Event..."

In particular, the words "nor endorsing" "whatsoever" "Ordinary Indepentent Event"

All of this is intended to add emphasis and stress negativity. Bottom line is that it didn't need to be released to the public at all - especially on the Billiard Digest Bulletin Board which is the part I consider rude (rude, I realize, is an understatement).

To answer how much more mild it could have been... It just plain and simple should never have been done this way at all. Period. It sould have stayed within the industry and gone directly to the players, promoters, vendors, and sponsors - not to the general public.

Warren_Lushia
08-31-2002, 01:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Nostroke:</font><hr> where is this denouncement or rude statement you are referring to? The only official statement i have seen said they are withdrawing sanctioning and therefore cannot guaranteee that UPA safeguards would be in effect? How much more mild could it be? <hr></blockquote>

jeezum criminy crow, WAKE UP dude! firstly the statement is (or at the very least was) on the UPA homepage. secondly, and most importantly, and i'm only gonna say this once, READ THE FREAKING QUOTE FROM THE FIRST POST STARTING THIS THREAD. if your just reading random things, why even participate in the discussion?!?!?!!? especially if your not even gonna waste the 20 or 30 seconds to read the first post, then why are you even talking? your posts on this thread now make a bit more sense realizing you don't even know what is being discussed. good grief. now i'm never gonna take anything you say seriously. do you always do this?!

warren..&lt;-- beginning to think alot of people aint reading the whole story

Vicki
08-31-2002, 01:47 AM
Warren,

I agree with you completely. I don't see the UPA making progress. Quite the opposite really. They are shooting themselves in the balls - not to mention the players, vendors, promoters, and sponsors. Lots of people have financial interest in the success of the US Open. The UPA is screwing with a lot of people's wallets. Someone else gave 1,000 to 1 that the UPA is gone within a year. No bet. Truthfully, I don't give them that long. CW is too arrogant to step down and he will send it to the crapper in no time.

Yea, how about what happened with Earl. I am shocked that no one else is seriously p.o.'ed about that. I can't for the life of me understand where these folks get off sending a letter like that to Earl. I really like Earl. He's the John McEnroe of pool. I know everyone complains about his antics but they all rush to get 50 yard line seats to watch his matches. I never get tired of watching him play. Sometimes he is a little abrasive, even for my taste, but he never fails to entertain. He is one of the greatest players in all of history and I really believe he had a right to speak his mind. I am sure his heart did not break with he got resigned from the UPA. lol

Vicki

Nostroke
08-31-2002, 08:53 AM
Everything after and including "what this also means" was not part of the official release dude.

Yes i always do this. YOU should not take anything i say seriously- please feel free to ignore all my posts in the future.

08-31-2002, 10:05 AM
If all the players play anyway whether the UPA sanctions an event or not, then what precise purpose is the UPA serving? Maybe they should simply publish a two page guideline, "Good Practices for Professional Pool Tournaments" make it available for free to all pool promoters and disband?

Warren_Lushia
08-31-2002, 10:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Nostroke:</font><hr> Everything after and including "what this also means" was not part of the official release dude.

Yes i always do this. YOU should not take anything i say seriously- please feel free to ignore all my posts in the future. <hr></blockquote>

dude, get a dell. oops, i've been watching too much tv. read the original post please. now hear this, TOM COPIED AND PASTED THAT DIRECTLY FROM THE UPA "TOUR" HOMEPAGE WHEN INITIATING THIS THREAD. that is what we are discussing. by all means please verify this for yourself, then get back to us. thanks.

warren..&lt;-- i apologize for being rude, but sometimes people frustrate me

Scott Lee
08-31-2002, 11:28 AM
Mike...This is second hand info for me. I was told that figure by the VA player that I spent all day Thursday working with. He is in the UPA, and said that number came from Charlie. I think it included ALL monies owed, not just to UPA members, but I am not sure.

Scott Lee

08-31-2002, 12:26 PM
This is really sad. Although I believe that Charlie has good intentions, he sure is going about it the wrong way. Can you imagine, for example, the PGA Tour telling the USGA that it will not sanction or endorse the US OPEN Golf Tournament? Charlie should be smart enough to realize that a fledgling (less-than-a-year-old) organization run by a guy just a bit above the voting age in this country is NOT BIGGER than the game. Until Charlie grows up and realizes that all this posturing is not doing the game any good (and worse - makes people think that he's only after this for himself), pool will continue to suffer.

08-31-2002, 03:37 PM
“I hope to get the contact resolved as soon as possible,” said Behrman. “There are still issues to be discussed. As for the main issues, I have no problem having the guaranteed added money ($40,000) in escrow 30 days out. As for last year’s prize fund, I’m willing to put $10,000 in a fund for the 24 players who didn’t get the full payout last year, but that’s as much as I can do.”
-Billiards Digest August Issue page 12

I believe that Barry verbally agreed to the UPA terms and then later defaulted on the main issues. You have to give credit to the UPA for sticking to their guns.

Tom_In_Cincy
08-31-2002, 07:48 PM
I certainly DON'T have to give the UPA any credit. They are a paper organization trying to become something they are not capable. There is NO WAY that the UPA will promote a tour of "slapped together" tournaments and think that these tournaments will be considered better than what the US Open has been in the last 26 years. NO WAY.

The Pro tournament in the MALL was a FLOP. Sparce attendence and bad playing conditions.

I would venture a guess that the "major" sponsers that the UPA is depending on for support might just pull their backing out after the last few days of Slamming the US OPEN.. a tournament that the UPA's sponsers endorse with lots of MONEY.

Warren_Lushia
08-31-2002, 09:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr> “I hope to get the contact resolved as soon as possible,” said Behrman. “There are still issues to be discussed. As for the main issues, I have no problem having the guaranteed added money ($40,000) in escrow 30 days out. As for last year’s prize fund, I’m willing to put $10,000 in a fund for the 24 players who didn’t get the full payout last year, but that’s as much as I can do.”
-Billiards Digest August Issue page 12

I believe that Barry verbally agreed to the UPA terms and then later defaulted on the main issues. You have to give credit to the UPA for sticking to their guns. <hr></blockquote>

hello jeffroa/lisa love/anonymous, i have some questions for you:

do you feel that your opinion is far more insightful and important than every single other person that uses these forums? is that why you posted THE SAME DAMN THING over and over here and on azbilliards?

why are you posting things everyone knows isn't true, like why efren isn't playing in the open? everybody and their mother knows efren and bustamante are playing in the asian games stupid.

why are you posting pretending to be someone named jeff roa spreading lies, then posting as a girl name lisa love saying you won't be going to the open cause you think mika immonen is "hot" ?!?!

is it just a coincidence that your posting from the university of central florida, in ORLANDO?! seems to me someone awfully close to this story also lives in orlando. i hope charlie didn't put you up to this.

in one of your numerous posts saying the same exact thing over and over, you titled it as "proof". then you say "i think". how does what "you think" happened constitute proof?!

inquiring minds want to know.

warren..

09-01-2002, 02:49 AM
Yes I live in Orlando
Yes I know Jeff Roa
Yes We play pool
Yes I know Charlie Williams
Yes you a dork that must stalk people in your spare time
You went through all of that trouble just for me?
By the way this is my home computer, (or is it?)

Lisa

Warren_Lushia
09-01-2002, 03:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr>
Yes you a dork that must stalk people in your spare time
You went through all of that trouble just for me?
<hr></blockquote>

sure did sweetie, that's what us dorks do!! /ccboard/images/icons/wink.gif

btw, are you posting from charlie williams' computer, or is the IP address just one of those wacky coinky-dinkies (dork-speak for coincidence)? does charlie have any other minions in his orlando posse we should be warned about?

btw, i look just like mika, in case your wondering /ccboard/images/icons/wink.gif

warren..&lt;-- dork, moron, and stalker!

09-01-2002, 05:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr> “I hope to get the contact resolved as soon as possible,” said Behrman. “There are still issues to be discussed. As for the main issues, I have no problem having the guaranteed added money ($40,000) in escrow 30 days out. As for last year’s prize fund, I’m willing to put $10,000 in a fund for the 24 players who didn’t get the full payout last year, but that’s as much as I can do.”
-Billiards Digest August Issue page 12

I believe that Barry verbally agreed to the UPA terms and then later defaulted on the main issues. You have to give credit to the UPA for sticking to their guns. <hr></blockquote>


I've been trying to catch up on some of the posts. Unlike Charlie, I could easily be "WRONG AGAIN" but it seems like I've read this exact post 3 or 4 times under different threads. And maybe even on a different board.

Vagabond
09-01-2002, 06:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Warren_Lushia:</font><hr> right on vikki. its one thing to decide not to sanction, its another to try an publicly denounce an event in the manner they did.

when charlie and max took the initiative to start the UPA i was happy. he gave it a try, now its time to step down. this is what i have seen from the UPA lately:

by most accounts the first UPA (the pennisula) event was a giant failure. it was not well attended, the players were not happy with the payout or equipment, the vendors lost money.

charlie has been said to be a poor promoter from several sides. i never hear this about mike janis or mike zuglan, do you?

the UPA kicked out earl strickland, and judging by the date they quoted, it was because on that date earl posted to the azbilliards forum that he was not happy with the payout amount or timeliness. love him or hate him, earl has every right to state his opinion, and charlie posts there too. apparently charlie also decided not to pay earl all together.

this latest fiasco with the u.s. open. the statement released by the UPA was very unprofessional. maybe barry was being a pain in the a$$ i don't know, but the latest statement from the UPA and publicity of the announcement was appalling.

check out the latest issue of inside pool, and see some of charlie's comments. he was quoted as saying something to the effect that the double elimination race to 11 format of the u.s. open was something the UPA could "live with" for now, but they would take away some of their star ratings, and that beginning in 2004, all UPA sanctioned events will have to follow the format mandated by the UPA. i guess this means single elimination race to 15. who the hell is charlie to tell how the u.s. open should be run?!?! the event is as old as he is.

i read the requirements for UPA sanctioning. i'm not an expert, but some of the requirements seemed out there to me.

charlie, oops, the UPA need to realize they are only as strong as the players they represent. i think he is a well-liked man on the tour and his friends may be cutting him some slack. but when charlie makes things even worse for the players than they are now, how many are going to stand behind him? i don't see the UPA making any progress what so ever, do you?

i think the UPA should adopt a new motto called "we all lose". the players lose, the fans lose, the vendors lose, the industry loses. well done.

warren.. <hr></blockquote>


Howdy warren,
Do u think that Charlie and UPA last till 1994? cheers
Vagabond

09-01-2002, 06:53 AM
Do I understand this correctly. Charlie Williams has decided not to play in the US Open. And the UPA has decided not to sanction this event. I got the impression Charlie Williams would prefer that players not play in the US Open. I get the impression that most of the pro players would prefer to play in the US Open. And I'll bet Charlie Williams would still be permitted to play in this tournament if for some reason he changed his mind. Who is showing the least class?

bluewolf
09-01-2002, 08:52 AM
personally I think name calling is rather ignorant and immature, like something we did in elementary school. 'but then everybody has a right to be as ignorant as they choose'

bluewolf

jjinfla
09-01-2002, 03:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Nostroke:</font><hr> Everything after and including "what this also means" was not part of the official release dude.

Yes i always do this. YOU should not take anything i say seriously- please feel free to ignore all my posts in the future. <hr></blockquote>

Check upatour.com. It is all right there for you to read. Jake

Nostroke
09-01-2002, 04:37 PM
Check azb for the complete official release which ends with P Muller ? signature where i said it ends. The rest appears to be an explanation of the meaning of that and other unrelated points for UPA members. Do you see that the quote marks end on the upa site where i purport the release ends?

At any rate, even if the rest were part of the release, i dont find it denigrating or (with the exception of the word whatsoever) very rude.

jjinfla
09-02-2002, 06:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Nostroke:</font><hr> Check azb for the complete official release which ends with P Muller ? signature where i said it ends. The rest appears to be an explanation of the meaning of that and other unrelated points for UPA members. Do you see that the quote marks end on the upa site where i purport the release ends? <hr></blockquote>

It is always best to go to the source when quoting someone. Since it appears on the UPA website why would you want to refer to a quote on AZB? If it appears on the UPA website just who do you think put it there? Jake~~~just noticed that UPA stands for United Professional Poolplayers Association. If so, why not UPPA? Was professional just recently added? Or was it always there?

Ken
09-02-2002, 07:47 AM
Why not UPPPA? It's UPA because you don't have to be a professional in order to join. Once you pay the $100 to join you BECOME a professional. It's sort of like getting a doctorate degree by mail order and then posting the certificate on your wall.

Pay the $100 and get seeded even if you are not among the top 500 best pool players.
KenCT

Nostroke
09-02-2002, 09:23 AM
The release is the same at either place but i thought, that at AZB, a news site which was sent the release and showed ONLY the release,as they received it, including the sign-off

Sincerely yours,

Phillip G Muller
Vice President UPA

it would be abundantly clear where the release ended. However I was fooled again.