PDA

View Full Version : Barry Behrman's US Open Statement



9 Ball Girl
09-11-2002, 06:35 PM
http://www.azbilliards.com/2000storya.cfm?storynum=396

Nostroke
09-11-2002, 07:08 PM
Well im glad to see that he is saying he is going to post the cash but unfortunately i dont think its enough for the UPA to entertain at this point. The money is still not there and no provision for verification when/if it does get there. It does show however IMO that Barry is worried and his willingness to waive late fees shows that sign-ups must be way behind schedule.

The statement is very amateurish and poorly written and although BB refers to his legal staff, there is no way any decent legal staff could have reviewed it and let it go like that.

Maybe it is a start though and CW can respond with something but I am afraid its a long way to go and not enough time.

Tom_In_Cincy
09-11-2002, 07:13 PM
Sounds to me like the PARTY is "ON"

Money is posted.. UP.. Barry is on a roll.. The PARTY begins in 12 days..

If Earl, Buddy, Nick, Allen, Grady, Cory, Shannon, Johnny Archer, and show up.. that's enough for me..

Tom_In_Cincy
09-11-2002, 07:14 PM
Does this mean you aren't going?

Nostroke
09-11-2002, 07:22 PM
I will definitely go-its a question now of for how long. Normally i go for the full week but if the UPA boycott catches steam i will cut back days accordingly. You are more optimistic than me- i hope you are right and i am wrong. I want to see the field at full strength

Tom_In_Cincy
09-11-2002, 07:37 PM
Let's see.. ummm.. the 27th annual US Open, 1st annual CCB tournament, VACATION, Virginia in September.. (very nice).. meeting all my CCB buddies.. I just might add a few days..

Glad you'll be there NoStroke.. all are welcome.. it is an "OPEN" event..

Vicki
09-11-2002, 08:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Nostroke:</font><hr> ...unfortunately i dont think its enough for the UPA to entertain at this point.<hr></blockquote>

I think Barry made it clear that he wouldn't agree to the UPA or any other organization's contract. I don't think he cares if the UPA sanctions. I don't think he ever cared. I am pretty sure, if you get down to the nitty-gritty, that Barry probably turned the UPA down. I think it's clear that the UPA went to the US Open... not the other way around. They need Barry... Barry doesn't need them.

Vicki

Nostroke
09-11-2002, 08:49 PM
The statement implies he would not agree to any contract "similar in nature" to the one rejected. Who knows what areas were objectionable and what can still be hammered out. If he isnt willing to agree to anything- well then i guess the Open will be less than what it could be.

Anyway If Barry didn't need (want) the UPA Players he wouldn't bother issuing the statement to begin with.

MikeM
09-11-2002, 08:58 PM
The party is definitely on! Way to go Barry. I'll see y'all on the 26th.

MM

Vicki
09-11-2002, 09:13 PM
I am pretty sure the agreement most "similar in nature" would be the one that is being used as the point of reference - the one from the UPA.

How do you think the US Open will be less than what it could be?

I don't think the UPA could have added value to the event. They have not yet added any value to the idustry so far as I can tell. Not that I don't think their intentions are good. They have just handled things poorly so far. No one hopes more than me that the UPA will somehow pull it together and start to get it right for the good of the players, and mostly, for the good of the industry as a whole. I would be more than willing to do whatever I could to support them if I thought that what they were doing was in the best interest of pool. So far, they are doing what is in the best interest of their leader's egos.

As far as Barry needing the UPA players... nearly all of the UPA players are playing in the US Open, as far as I know. Of the one's that supposedly aren't playing, only maybe one has a chance in hell of winning and maybe only a couple others could make it through the rounds on Wednesday.

I don't totally understand your point of view but I certainly respect your right to feel however you feel. I suspect you want pool to succeed so we are really on the same side... Take care!

Nostroke
09-11-2002, 10:37 PM
If Barry doesnt agree to something,as you feel he won't, some players will not show and that will make it less than it could be. Thats all im saying. Im not predicting a disaster. I just don't know

I have to agree that the published boycotters/not playing list is not terribly impressive and not growing exponentially either. Furthermore its padded with many who were'nt playing anyway which seems a bit desperate.

The only view i have really had is that the UPA had legitimate concerns with regard to the money and understand CW wanting to see the post-up and given his position, he couldnt sanction it when it wasn't there. It's hard for me to understand how many seem to think that I am a creep for thinking that.

Anyway I am glad that the tone is a lot more civil on this topic lately and your suspicions are right- I do want pool to succeed and for me it has succeeded. I want it to succeed commercially on a much wider scale as well but that doesn't mean I would bet on that any time soon, given the history. There is so much to overcome and we have not made the turn yet.

Ok Im tired Vicki-Goin to bed-Take care

ted harris
09-11-2002, 10:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>
The money is still not there and no provision for verification when/if it does get there. It does show however IMO that Barry is worried and his willingness to waive late fees shows that sign-ups must be way behind schedule.
<hr></blockquote>
Maybe it just shows that BB has the willingness to work with the UPA players to work through this. If he is willing to protect the prize fund by putting it in escrow as per the requirements of the UPA, should it matter that it did not meet their deadline. It clearly states on the UPA website that deadlines can be waived. Sounds to me like a man trying very hard to appease everone involved. The letter clearly states that they will not sign the UPA agreement. Doesn't sound like worry or fear to me.

Nostroke
09-11-2002, 10:50 PM
I have said before that if Barry Posted (verifiably etc.) the 30 day rule should be waived. But he hasnt posted yet and he will have to at least offer to show the post to the UPA once he does post. If that much happens,I'm guessing we have a fair chance it can be resolved. Im glad to see this movement.

Vicki
09-12-2002, 11:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Nostroke:</font><hr>
The only view i have really had is that the UPA had legitimate concerns with regard to the money and understand CW wanting to see the post-up and given his position, he couldnt sanction it when it wasn't there. It's hard for me to understand how many seem to think that I am a creep for thinking that.

<hr></blockquote>

I don't think you are a creep for thinking that. I agree that the UPA could not sanction the event without the money being posted. It would have been terrible for the credibility of the UPA if somehow all of the money was not there when it came time to pay the players. But they really blew their credibility anyway with their unprofessionalism. The horrible posts and press releases, the crap with giving Earl the boot, the lists of "players" not attending the Open - which, like you siad, was not exactly a who's who of pool... doesn't bode well for them. I am very interested to see what happens to the UPA over the next several months. What ever good they were trying to do has been completely overshadowed by how badly they have behaved. If they had just said that the US Open was not going to be sanctioned because they had been unable to come to an agreement with the promoters, and left it at that, they would be lightyears ahead of where they are today. As far as I am concerned - they blew it. It's impossible to establish credibility. Who is going to agree to work with them in the future? Certainly no one who is an established tournament promoter.

Vicki

09-12-2002, 11:26 AM
This tournament has been going for many many years. The UPA is the new guy on the block. Its an OPEN tournament. An independent event. Not a UPA tour stop. The UPA has no authority and therefore no responsibility(liability)concerning any other organization. I really don't see how it(US Open) needs to be sanctioned by the UPA, World Pool Association, Assian Pool Association, or the local PTA. The opportunity to play is OPEN to all who wish to go for the gusto. Not limited to association players (either pro or amateur) and therefore not subject to any outside pool organizations prerequisites. If players in any of the organizations are not allowed to play in this event because it would invalidate their membership in that organization, then they should base their participation on that consequence.
Just this final thought. What is the benefit (value$ added) to the US Open Tournament-an independent event- to be sanctioned by ANY organization, and what exactly does the US Open have to give up to get this unwanted, outside approval?

Lester
09-12-2002, 11:29 AM
Vicki, I agree with you. And Nostroke, your not a creep. CW has a duty to look out for his members. And for whatever the reason that's not met go on his website and announce that the UPA is not sanctioning the event. The problem I and many others have is that the UPA announced this in a public forum,(possibly as a way to force renegotiation) and then when this apparently didn't work, called for a boycott of the event. An event that has went off successfully for 26 years. America's premier pool event. The UPA would rather ruin the event with bad press and player boycotts just to gain credibility. Quite a few pool players I know have decided to forgo the Open because of the BS, and just attend the Derby. I think it's deplorable that the U.S.Open (the premier american pool event for the last quarter century) should be sullied in such a way. And for what?
I'm sorry if I got carried away. ***Lester***

09-12-2002, 12:56 PM
That is the most sensible posting I have ever seen on this site.
Mike, Let us have some more of your wisdom.

Vicki
09-12-2002, 01:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Mike ierney:</font><hr> ... Just this final thought. What is the benefit (value$ added) to the US Open Tournament-an independent event- to be sanctioned by ANY organization, and what exactly does the US Open have to give up to get this unwanted, outside approval? <hr></blockquote>

The UPA advertises that they add value to the event if it is sanctioned by the UPA because they will help to advertise the event. They produce professional fliers and advertise the event on the website. The UPA memeber players earn points for their participation and for winning/placing in the event. That is supposed to create more participation from their players. There is a list of benefits on the UPA website. If they were a credible, respected organization those things would be valuable but here we are and that's not the case. As far as what the US Open has to give up... well, it seems that the UPA wants a considerable amount of control. They ask for access to the escrowed added money and entry fees. I am not entirely sure that they could dictate the format of the event but I know that they eventually expect tournaments to conform to their format requirements. I suspect that there were other demands with regard to the money that the UPA feels is still owed from last year. The way I understand it is that Charlie wanted to be responsible for deciding how and how much and which players were reimbursed for the $ shortage - the one that all the players agreed to because of the terror attacks that occured the same week as last year's Open. The other option besides shorting the payout was to cancel or postpone the tournament. I don't recall anyone wanting to cancel or postpone. Even the NY players were offered a return of their entry fees to be able to leave and go home if they wanted to go. They all stayed.

I have every expectation that this year will be a success like every other year that the Behrman's have hosted the US Open. Even last year was a success when you look at the bigger picture. Consider the outpouring of support for the victims of the attacks. Ginky raised a huge sum of money to donate to the fireman's widow's funds. Earl Strickland donated $500 of his personal money to that collection. The Behrman's made a considerable personal donation, too, as I recall. That well built young woman came to sing our country's most patriotic song before each evening's matches and all the men were mesmerized watching her chest heave as she laid her head back and belted out the high notes! lol It was really a good place to be durring a very difficult and frightening time. Every year I am impressed at the details that go into this production. For example, there are flags for all of the countries represented at the Open. Very small but visually exciting and extremely thoughtful. It is by far the best pool event in America!

Ken
09-12-2002, 01:42 PM
I believe I once read on the UPA site that they require a $1,000 fee for sanctioning. That seems to have disappeared from the site. They also require that at least 32 of their members be permitted to play and that seeding be by their rankings. Of course that means their members have the best chance to win the money even a "B" player who went 2 and out in their only event.

They will provide some advertising. Judging from their website where they can't even spell the names of their members correctly I don't see that as being worth the $1,000.

They insist that they have access to all the prize money. That can only mean that they intent to grab it themselves and decide how to distribute it. In other words they want you to put on an event and give them total control of it.

If you pay them enough extra some of the pros will come early to provide an appearance and maybe they will sign things if you pay them enough.

They will blacklist certain tournaments if you don't go to them for sanctioning. How they pick those events from the thousands that don't want anything to do with them escapes me.

They have a business model that is severely flawed and they don't have the smarts to change it
KenCT