PDA

View Full Version : UPA Contract Fiasco



Grady
05-19-2003, 10:58 AM
I hate being the one who has to do this!!!!!

If anyone noticed Iíve tried to be really low key for some time now. I waited a few days when this came up to see if anybody would properly address it but since they have not I guess I have to tackle it. In Las Vegas over the last week, Charlie Williams and the UPA presented their membership that were present with a contract. I have been told by a reliable source that he bullied some of the guys by threatening to not allow them to play in Cardiff if they didnít sign. Unfortunately many of the players did sign it, several without even reading it. Here are excerpts from the contract:

Player agrees to compete only in those events that are sanctioned or recognized by the UPA unless the UPA grants a waiver allowing the player to participate in non-sanctioned or non-UPA recognized events. A waiver will only be granted by showing good cause and approval by the UPA board of directors .

Media and marketing rights: For and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein contained and in consideration of the UPAís grant of playing privileges to player, Player hereby grants to the UPA the right and permission to copyright, use, reuse, publish, broadcast, republish and rebroadcast the Playerís appearances in billiard tournaments and in tour events. Player further grants to the UPA the use of his name, signature and likeness in conjunction with said billiard tournaments, tour events and for the purpose of raising funds, which are directed to the promotion of the UPA and itís stated function. This grant includes on air broadcast of said events by network, independent or cable television stations or their affiliates, internet productions, home video reproductions, promotional clips, or other forms of broadcast of billiard tournaments or tour events, as well as marketing of tour event literature to include player pictures and tour posters. Player agrees that all media rights and revenues there from belong to, and are the sole property of the UPA. Player waives any right to inspect or approve such media product, programming and production, regardless of use.

I believe Charlie Williams has abused his position horribly and yes I can certainly prove it. This group, the UPA, is every bit as bad, if not worse than itís predecessors. I donít think I can help any player stupid enough to sign this contract. Jesus Christ, guys, isnít it about time to display some intelligence and gumption?

Listen to me carefully, all you young talented players especially. It should, as it does me, infuriate you to have certain people and organizations making plans and decisions behind closed doors that greatly affect how we make a living. I view the possible marriage of the UPA, the BCA, etc. as the worst tragedy that could befall our great sport.

Later I have some really good ideas for what an organization should be: A credit union, pension benefits and insurance packages. This would be a group that treats the Cliff Joyners, the Eric Durbins, the Tony Watsons and yes the Grady Mathewsí of the pool world fairly. We have a sport that could rival football or basketball or anything else but first we must jettison the current infrastructure and wannabe wise guys and terrible associations. Please donít leave me alone in this very important fight. Grady

Kato
05-19-2003, 11:02 AM
Anyone that signs a document without reading is just plain silly. However, if the membership feels that this is their only way to make $$$$$ then of course they'll sign. Men pro's have always been extremely short sighted.

Kato

eg8r
05-19-2003, 11:53 AM
If you sign something and you don't read it, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

I still cannot imagine why people give up personal rights such as...<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Grady's quote of UPA Contract:</font><hr>Player further grants to the UPA the use of his name, signature and likeness in conjunction with said billiard tournaments, tour events and for the purpose of raising funds, which are directed to the promotion of the UPA and it&amp;#8217;s stated function. <hr /></blockquote> Didn't Jordan get into some trouble awhile back for signing something, and Nike owned his signature?

eg8r

Aboo
05-19-2003, 11:55 AM
It sounds like that contract was modeled after an NBA or NFL contract, where the players get paid for playing, not necessarily for winning. (At least day to day, or game to game).

The marketing portion of the contract sounds reasonable, as long as the individual has the option to persue separate, and individual marketing opportunities, sponsorships, etc...

"Player agrees to compete only in those events that are sanctioned or recognized by the UPA..."
Now THAT is a farce. And certainly they would never try to enforce that. &gt;:( It's not as if they pay said players a salary, or that said players can get hurt in another tourny, there-by causing them to not show for one of theirs... Although, it does kind of sound like they're trying to gaurantee strong showings at their tournaments. But if that's all they needed, they could have worded that a LOT differently. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Tom_In_Cincy
05-19-2003, 12:03 PM
Grady,

All you have to do is let the players see where the money goes. IF its not to them, then its not to their advantage to sign the contract.

Was there anything in the contract to make it void if CW and the UPA doesn't live up to their end of the bargin?

Kato
05-19-2003, 12:09 PM
Grady, in the rest of the contract that we don't see are there any player benefits listed? Surely they GET something and don't just give, give, give.

Kato

cycopath
05-19-2003, 02:24 PM
Are you required to use Charlie's "blood red" ink pen?

Talk about selling your soul to the devil.

Nostroke
05-19-2003, 02:33 PM
Id like to see the whole thing. Does the contract spell out what events are or will be sanctioned/recognized? If not it surely would be crazy to sign something limiting your potential income to who knows what? How many tournaments were sanctioned/recognized in the last year? I can think of only 4 that were officially sanctioned. Anyone have the UPA's website address? The one i have hasnt worked for at least 4 months.

9 Ball Girl
05-19-2003, 02:48 PM
Here ya go: UPA Tour (http://www.upatour.org/)

WaltVA
05-19-2003, 02:49 PM
Try www.upatour.org (http://www.upatour.org) It's working now. Incidentally, the U.S. Open is not on the list of sanctioned tournaments as of now.

Walt in VA

Deeman
05-19-2003, 02:54 PM
Grady,

One more carrot (with no meat) held out to desperate players by people who have little to offer in a vaccum of hollow promises.

Why would people sign something that offers them nothing and asks for something in return? Simply because there is no other game in town so they might as well lock themsleves up with yet another group who pretents to have their best interests at heart. Did they list the sponsors they have lined up to insure a living wage for the players? Did they guarantee a prize fund in their tournaments as they have asked others to do? Did they promise to fill in for the tournaments they don't sanction so a guy has a chance to at least make a few miserable bucks between their promoted events?

Will they withhold support and players from smaller tournaments that can't meet their requirements, making already poor attendance ever worse at existing venues?

Will they take the few professional players who have a chance of making a living out of the "circuit" so no one will get anything except maybe a few more viewers escaping to WWF?

I think an organization is a good idea. However, players have proven a few times that, if they are not businessmen and the market can't/won't support them, they are just using up another acronym, not making players lives more livable. /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

arn3
05-19-2003, 03:13 PM
you're part of the old guard, every man for himself mentality, that is part of why pool is where it is today. the whole history of pool is about guys like you who have fragmented the game by doing your own thing. "organization" is not in your vocabulary. so don't throw out bullsh*t about some IDEAS you have. the game has passed you by.

if pool is to grow, there needs to be organization. EVERY attempt to do so, whether it's CW or someone else, will be met by players like you and independent promoters who have had their way in the past.

my personnal opinion is that the upa will not work. there are too many of YOU GUYS who live in the past. what CW needs is someone with loads of cash to shut you guys up and keep everyone on the same page.

John G
05-19-2003, 08:32 PM
Well aren't you the courageous one. Attack Grady from the shadows. I think I read your post a dozen times trying extract some little tid bit of knowledge, but each time I came up empty. I believe what Grady was pointing out were the deficiencys and the potential for abuse in signing this contract.

He said he had an idea to put something together that would give the players benefits. That in itself is more then what C.W. is offering. Any idea should be heard and given consideration. You pointedly called him "the old guard" and said the game has passed him by. Maybe, maybe not only time will tell that. Your reference tells me that your most probably young. Well junior, the man made a living for 40+ years at the game/sport he loves. Have you made a living, raised a family, suffered through hard times for your sport.

I doubt you have even tried. You probably wouldn't have made a pimple on Grady's neck. It's not that I believe your not entitled to your opinion. We all have opinions and have a right to voice them. It's just that when someone comes on as strong as you did ridiculing another you should have the gonads to stand and be counted for it.

But not you. You hide behind a tag, whereabouts unknown. Hell boy, say what you want and if you feel strong about it say it like a man in the light of day. Have enough pride in yourself to take public credit for what you say, or you keep your bullsh*t to yourself. That's my opinion.

You take care now, John G /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran Crimi
05-19-2003, 09:42 PM
Sounds just like the WPBA Contract which we all gladly sign. It's what makes a players association strong. Good for the UPA and it's players. It's time to stop being short-sighted and look towards building a foundation for the players and their association. It will benefit them in the long-run. An association is only as good as the strength and loyalty of it's players.

Fran

Fran Crimi
05-19-2003, 10:13 PM
Quote Aboo:

""Player agrees to compete only in those events that are sanctioned or recognized by the UPA..."
Now THAT is a farce. And certainly they would never try to enforce that. "



Players can get a waiver to play in non-sanctioned events. It's not like they're forbidden to play anywhere else. The WPBA issues waivers to it's players quite often. The only time it puts it's foot down is when it is clear that the event in question is competitive with the goals and mission of the WPBA. The purpose of such a clause in a contract is to encourage sponsors to invest in their tour. They won't invest if they think they can lure the players away to play in their own event for less money.

That clause is one of the most critical and absolutely must be in a player's contract.

Fran

Alfie
05-19-2003, 10:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Sounds just like the WPBA Contract which we all gladly sign. It's what makes a players association strong. Good for the UPA and it's players. <hr /></blockquote>It looked like WPBA was in dire straits last year with only six tournaments. This years schedule has nine. That's a positive. Eight of those are at casinos (why all the casinos?) Is the WPBA the tournament promoter at any of this years events?

Some people expect UPA to promote their own tour events which would put them in competition with the independents. The UPA wants to work with the independent promoters by getting them to sanction with UPA. Failure to either understand this or agree with it is the source of the UPA dissention on these boards. IMO.

Thoughts?

Nostroke
05-20-2003, 12:08 AM
Actually i think the WPBA has less this year than last. They are listing the "Amateurs", plus the Mohegan Sun and the BCA tournament on their "schedule". I think these are more like "recognized events" but i could be wrong. There was/is no Valley Forge or NY event this year and i think that's a big minus.

I see that the UPA site doesnt show the Derby City Classic or the Sands Regency (2) events as sanctioned or recognized either but there are some additions from last year. If they are going to get these (DCC etc) , OR waiver them along wth the US Open then that part of the contract seems OK to me. NO real downside and a pretty good foundation to get something good started. Going to be interesting for sure.

05-20-2003, 12:09 AM
The excerpts you posted are pretty standard.

BUT, they say the devil is in the details. I think the potential for disaster is there, just depends on how the rules are implemented (i.e. exemptions for playing in non-UPA sanctioned events).

Personally, I think Charlie is way too young and inexperienced to be in the position he's trying to take on. Not to mention the stories of greed I've been hearing regarding his methods.

I think that a better approach would be a "commission" of several insiders of the pool world including promoters, industry leaders, and players. This commission should sign a commissioner similar to MLB's commissioners of years past.

Rich R.
05-20-2003, 04:31 AM
Just thinking out loud, but, could this be an early step in UPA trying to stop players from playing in the U.S. Open and the Derby City Classic, as well as other major events?
I don't think it would be beyond CW's ego to attempt to force UPA approval on these events.

If the UPA tries to flex its muscles, it may improve the organization or it may lead the UPA to a quick end.

Voodoo Daddy
05-20-2003, 04:37 AM
TAP, TAP, TAP...well said.

Ken
05-20-2003, 05:41 AM
Fran, there is a major difference between the WPBA and the UPA. There are no major tournaments that are in competition with the WPBA. About the only reason not to grant a waiver to a WPBA member is if someone wanted to bypass a WPBA event in favor of another event. The WPBA is a viable tour giving value to its members. The UPA has virtually nothing to offer its members.

The big difference is the major open events that don't want anything to do with the UPA. Charlie, on the other hand, wants to take those ovents over. It's fine for the promotor to put up his money but CW wants that money and complete control of the events.

Those contract provisions work well in the WPBA because there's no conflict. Just imagine what happens the next time a promotor decides not to go along with UPA sanctioning. CW has already called for a boycott at least once. Now he has a contract that mandates participation in a boycott. It's obvious that he will use that provision since he's already abused his power in the past.

The UPA is a farce and maybe this is what will get the players to recognize the Little Dictator for what he truly is.
KenCT

Fran Crimi
05-20-2003, 06:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote shoop:</font><hr> The excerpts you posted are pretty standard.

BUT, they say the devil is in the details. I think the potential for disaster is there, just depends on how the rules are implemented (i.e. exemptions for playing in non-UPA sanctioned events).

Personally, I think Charlie is way too young and inexperienced to be in the position he's trying to take on. Not to mention the stories of greed I've been hearing regarding his methods.

I think that a better approach would be a "commission" of several insiders of the pool world including promoters, industry leaders, and players. This commission should sign a commissioner similar to MLB's commissioners of years past. <hr /></blockquote>

I think you're exactly right in that it will all come down to how the administration implements the rules. While Charlie may be the founder and spokesperson at this particular time, remember that there is a board of directors in place. Each board member, including Charlie, has one vote and regarding important decisions, and the majority will rule. Also, I'm sure that once the organization gets established there will be elections where players will be able to vote in future boards of directors.

Fran

Nostroke
05-20-2003, 07:11 AM
Im guessing CW will eventually "recognize" the US OPen and DCC, if not sanction the DCC. He had to learn from the Open last year. I think that is why we now have the "recognize" language in there. He won't be on the hook as far as players getting paid but they will be allowed to play and as far as getting points towards ranking, that remains to be seen?

Fran Crimi
05-20-2003, 07:14 AM
Ken, I can understand your frustration with Charlie, however, remember that the UPA is a newly established organization and Charlie is not slated as it's dictator. He's simply it's founder and the one probably doing most of the work at this time. The WPBA had similar growing pains in it's early years with presidents who seemed to run the whole show, and often to the disagreement of it's players and the public, but that changed over time. The UPA will have to be a democratic organization with elections if it is going to work, which seems to be the direction it's headed. I wouldn't be too quick to condemn it based on one person's actions. It's a much needed organization.

As far as already established events, I'm sure you remember that the U.S. Open used to have a women's division. It's not as if there were no established events when the WPBA began forming it's sanctioning criteria. Even though it's fairly new, the BCA event is not a tour event and yet they had no problem in meeting the sanctioning crieteria for both the WPBA and UPA this year.

No doubt, with the formation of a players association, some sacrifices will have to be made and it won't sit well with the general public on some occasions. Planning for the future involves some sacrifices in the present, including negative public opinion. There's really no way around that sometimes.

Fran

9 Ball Girl
05-20-2003, 07:41 AM
My 2 cents regarding the UPA and the US Open:

First off, the UPA is a fairly new organization. I'm sure that CW and the board members and all of the other powers that be want to promote this sport efficiently and positively. The image of pool that a lot of folks have out their is negative, and we all know that. You can't knock CW over the head with this because I'm sure that we all want to see pool in a positive light too.

As we all know, Barry Behrman has had his troubles and humans aren't perfect, but perhaps the UPA doesn't want to associate themselves as a whole because of the image tarnishing thing. I'm sure the players can still go and play as we saw some of them there last year but I think the sanctioning thing will be iffy. It's almost like when you go for a job interview and you're asked if you been in jail, drugs, the whole rigamaro and the company won't hire you because you might tarnish their image. Anyway, this is just my opinion and it's probably worth 1 cent and not 2. I myself sincerely hope that the UPA can come to some sort of resolution because I'd love to see all those guys down in VA this year.

Fran Crimi
05-20-2003, 07:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Alfie:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Sounds just like the WPBA Contract which we all gladly sign. It's what makes a players association strong. Good for the UPA and it's players. <hr /></blockquote>It looked like WPBA was in dire straits last year with only six tournaments. This years schedule has nine. That's a positive. Eight of those are at casinos (why all the casinos?) Is the WPBA the tournament promoter at any of this years events?

Some people expect UPA to promote their own tour events which would put them in competition with the independents. The UPA wants to work with the independent promoters by getting them to sanction with UPA. Failure to either understand this or agree with it is the source of the UPA dissention on these boards. IMO.

Thoughts? <hr /></blockquote>


Since ESPN only allows us a certain number of hours per year, we're trying to figure out a way to incorporate non-televised events into our schedule without losing money and without lowering the prize fund. Sponsors are unwilling to pay the same sponsorship fees for non-televised events that they do for televised ones. Can't blame them for that. We used to have 10-12 events a year and the non-televised ones nearly broke the organization, because we had do dip into our own funds to make up the prize money we couldn't raise from sponsors. While the players would like to see more events, they understand that lowering the prize money would only result in more expenses for them. It's unfair to put that kind of pressure on players by forcing them to attend 10 or 12 events for tour points (if they miss events it costs them valuable tour points) and tell them it will cost them more out of pocket and they will get less in return. The current admin. is working on a solution to this problem.

As for the casinos, they are ready, willing and able to fork out sponsorship money for events. However, they are only interested in the televised ones because they want the publicity for their casino. To them, it's cheap advertising. Hotels and pool rooms aren't interested in being a site sponsor at this time because they aren't willing to pay the site sponsor fee needed for us to mantain our prize fund.

No, the WPBA does not solely sponsor or promote any of our events. It is a collaborative effort with our sponsors.

Fran

Rich R.
05-20-2003, 08:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> While the players would like to see more events, they understand that lowering the prize money would only result in more expenses for them. It's unfair to put that kind of pressure on players by forcing them to attend 10 or 12 events for tour points (if they miss events it costs them valuable tour points) and tell them it will cost them more out of pocket and they will get less in return. <hr /></blockquote>
Fran, would it be possible to have two types of tournaments. For example, have the Classic, televised, events, with the higher prize money and tour points involved, and have some type of secondary, non-televised, events, with lower prize money and no tour points or a modified point system.
With a limited number of big sponsors, with big money, the secondary events may allow the hotels and pool rooms to hold events. It would also give the ladies a chance at some additional income.

I'm sure there are other problems with this suggestion, I'm just thinking out loud. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
My feeling is that more events, over all, may create more interest, and sponsorship, for the large events. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Ken
05-20-2003, 08:32 AM
Fran, the WPBA has a tour. It provides something for its members.

As far as I can tell the UPA has only one event. That's no tour. All the sanctioned and non-sanctioned events are open and the UPA membership gets you very little except seeding if you're lucky and then you might draw Earl.

Now with this new contract it's clear they are going to have more events. These events will be scheduled at the same time as the open events that Charlie has trouble getting sanctioned. He will then force all his members to attend some little single elimination 5 day event for peanuts while they miss the big events.

They might have a board but I think the board will go along with Charlie's plan to squeeze the promotors. This will be very bad for men's pool. He tried to schedule a competing event for last year's Open. This year, with that contract, there's no doubt what he has in mind. He's out to ruin any promotor who doesn't play by his rules.

I'd love to be proven wrong and see him do something for the good of men's pool but he has a track record and he's clearly been going in the other direction. If he had his way there would have been no pay-per-view of the Open. Charlie would have gotten his hands on that money first.
KenCT

Nostroke
05-20-2003, 08:52 AM
Thanks Fran. That clears up a lot for me relative to the number of tournaments, TV etc but it seems a bit negative that ESPN severely limits the WPBA when as i understand it, you are paying for the air time.

Aboo
05-20-2003, 08:52 AM
It MIGHT be acceptable. If the guidlines and/or rules for receiving a waiver were clearly laid out in the contract and there were a LOT of events that were scheduled, publicized and sanctioned.

From what it sounds like though... their are very few events, the rules for the waivers are very "up in the air" and again, from what I see, it is reasonable for the players to be very suspicious about signing such a contract under those conditions.

Drake
05-20-2003, 09:03 AM
Charlie has good intentions for the tour players. BUT, I believe that the deciding factor on UPA will be this year's OPEN. If Brady steps in and acts as a mediator between Charlie and Barry....The UPA Tour might turn into a really great thing for Men's Pool. We'll have to wait and see.

Ross
05-20-2003, 10:01 AM
A lot of people are attributing evil motives to the UPA (basically Charlie) for not sanctioning the Open last year. ("He's out to kill the independent promoters", "He wants to take it all for himself", ...) I don't think the facts support these interpretations.

The UPA was born in 2001 as a response to unhappiness at the US Open over the mid-tourney reduction in the "guaranteed" prize fund. Some argued that 9/11 hurt the tourney and was unforseeable, and that the prize reduction was justified. Others argued that since the funds were advertized as "guaranteed" and not as dependent on gate receipts, that the tourney had an obligation to pay as promised. In any case the midtourney reduction in payout was the initiating event in the creation of the UPA . The prime purpose of the UPA was to create a players "union" that would have some clout to make sure that "guaranteed" tourney prize money was truly guaranteed. To this end, the UPA made a decision to require tournaments to put prize money in escrow 30 days before the tourney.

Now let's see what happened at the 2002 Open. Early on the UPA and Berman came to an agreement. Berman agreed to put the money in escrow 30 days before the event, and the UPA agreed to sanction the US Open. However, Berman was not able to meet the ageed upon deadline, and then the UPA followed through and pulled their sanction. I don't see how the UPA can be faulted for this, given their initial decision to require the funds in escrow. Charlie then called for a (half-hearted) boycott. And boycotts or walkouts are where unions get their clout. It is hard for me to see how this sequence of events could be interpreted as evidence that the UPA's motivation was to kill the Open.

At this point in the men's game the escrow requirement may not be realistic. Most promoters aren't wealthy, sponsorship is weak, and the money just isn't there prior to tourney gate receipts. And in fact, the UPA dropped the escrow requirement for Brady Berman's spring 2003 tournament. Sure enough, history repeated itself, and due probably to Brady's overly optimistic business plan, there was not enough money at the end and many players got stiffed. (I don't know whether they've since been paid.) So the rationale for wanting prize funds in escrow remains very valid.

Now there are plenty arguments that could be made about Charlie's personal style being abrasive. And I think the initial "rules" for UPA sanctioning were a bit idiotic (way too much micromanagement) and the website was amateurish (basic grammatical errors, poorly organized, not regularly updated, etc.). But I don't think the facts support any conclusion that the UPA exists so Charlie can take over the playing field. He may or may not be power hungry, but creating a players union that is organized enough to boycott tournaments and thereby give the players more bargaining power is not a sin and is probably necessary. If the "union" ends up asking for more than promoters can realistically provide, then it will ultimately fail. But the contract mentioned above does not seem out of line. As others have mentioned, it will be how the contract is used that will tell the tale.

Deeman
05-20-2003, 01:08 PM
Ross,

You make many good and proper points. I guess this is more an issue for the players than anyone. I just don't see where the players have, as perceived by the media and the commercial billiard interests, much clout even in numbers to change the industry. It is almost as if all the professional players stopped playing, the manufacturers would say, "So what? We don't need them anyway!" For many of the fans in America seeing a top flight player is a hit or miss thing at best, unless they live in a media center. Since TV coverage is so miserly, people don't miss what they don't see on a regular basis. Not one group, with the possible exception of the Women's Tour, has come out with a workable plan. Most seem to built on other people's events anyway.

I wish Charlie could do something for the sport and the players at the top. I hope he does. If he has shown the players a business plan that supports them and empowers them to build tournaments revenues and prize funds, more power to him and the UPA. It just seems the few tournament organizers that are left don't seem to have a lot of margin to play with anyway. Making it harder to put on a tournament might not insure we have any left to see if the very few are frightened off. After all, if there was money to be made from tournaments, there would be a lot more people sponsoring them.

Just my thoughts....

Ken
05-20-2003, 02:18 PM
I don't see that there was the argument that you suggest. It is a fact that 9/11 adversely affected the gate receipts for the Open. Barry didn't have the added money so it's a fact that the guarantee was no good. The argument was about what should have been done. Barry could have stopped the tournament, paid all his expenses, given out a partial refund of what was left and gone back to Q-Masters to rake in the profits from everyone who couldn't leave town. He would have lost no money and the players would have been out at least a quarter million dollars. Instead he did what he could to salvage the event. Good for him.

Unions had there place back when filthy rich industrialists were exploiting workers with long hours, low pay and an early death due to unsafe conditions. I don't see Barry getting rich promoting pool and exploiting the players.

Most promoters are taking a big gamble by providing tournaments. Those tournaments are what the UPA is trying to eliminate. They can eliminate tournaments but I don't see how that will benefit players. At this time the UPA has nothing to offer the promoters. When Charlie can go up to someone and offer to provide him with a product that will make them all some money then the UPA will be doing something useful for its members.

The UPA is producing nothing. It is going to existing events and trying to horn in. It is essentially a protection racket where if you give them $1,000 and mortgage your house they will give you a sanction. Otherwise you will get a boycott. Someone needs to familiarize Charlie with the RICO Act.
KenCT

Fran Crimi
05-20-2003, 03:11 PM
Yes, you're right. We've got to get them in the mentality that they could do away with a log-rolling contest every now and then. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

We've got a few things in the works...looks like things are looking better with our relationship with them.

Fran

Fran Crimi
05-20-2003, 03:14 PM
Rich, your suggestion is definitely one the WPBA is considering. Modified or no tour points will have to be the way to go, though. I can't give too much away but in addition to your suggestion there are a few other ideas they are considering. I'm sure they'll come up with a good solution because this current administration has announced that they are absolutely determined to tackle that problem.

Fran

Ross
05-20-2003, 03:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman:</font><hr> Ross,

......
I just don't see where the players have, as perceived by the media and the commercial billiard interests, much clout even in numbers to change the industry. It is almost as if all the professional players stopped playing, the manufacturers would say, "So what? We don't need them anyway!" For many of the fans in America seeing a top flight player is a hit or miss thing at best, unless they live in a media center. Since TV coverage is so miserly, people don't miss what they don't see on a regular basis. Not one group, with the possible exception of the Women's Tour, has come out with a workable plan.
...

I wish Charlie could do something for the sport and the players at the top. I hope he does.
...
<hr /></blockquote>

Deeman,

I agree with pretty much everything you say. The secret to success is to somehow greatly increase television exposure. The big money comes from sponsors and sponsors aren't interested in unknowns.

The WPBA, by paying for ESPN coverage, has greatly increased the recognition factor for the top women and for women's pool. What is TV exposure worth? Well, look at the Aiken kid from American Idol. In two months he went from a nobody to a highly marketable money-making celebrity because of massive TV exposure. Or more relevantly, look at the top snooker players in the UK. They get a lot of TV coverage and are genuine celebrities, making many times what US pool players make.

Of course it is a chicken-and-egg dilemma. How do you get TV exposure without being a celebrity and how do you become a celebrity without TV exposure? Well, you try to create a TV-friendly marketable product and you try to find some way to get it on the air. The WPBA pushes their players to dress attractively for the camera, Hopkins trys to create a marketable format with his all-offense, winner takes all 7-ball contests, and Barry Hearn brings in the nationalistic element with the Mosconi cup. Also it helps to work out strategic alliances like the WPBA and Turning Stone Casino or 7-ball and the ESPN Zone, to help defray the costs.

I think if the UPA really wants to help, one of their first priorities should be to try to increase TV exposure by talking with TV insiders and by developing ideas for a marketable TV product. That is where the real money is. If they don't- well, you can't squeeze blood out of turnip. And the UPA won't be able to get money out of independent promoters that are scraping by themselves and have too little bait to lure big sponsors.

But my initial point was that is that the evidence doesn't suggest that the UPA or Charlie's goal is, or ever was, to wipe out independent promoters. I think their goal has been to give the players more leverage with promoters and to create a men's pool organization with some clout. They will make mistakes along the way. Ultimately they will figure it out and succeed, or not. If they hope to succeed, they had better put their collective heads together and come up with some creative ideas to get publicity for this sport. Only time will tell...

Ross
05-20-2003, 04:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> I don't see that there was the argument that you suggest. It is a fact that 9/11 adversely affected the gate receipts for the Open. Barry didn't have the added money so it's a fact that the guarantee was no good. The argument was about what should have been done. Barry could have stopped the tournament, paid all his expenses, given out a partial refund of what was left and gone back to Q-Masters to rake in the profits from everyone who couldn't leave town. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> His other (professional, honorable) choice was to somehow scrape together the money to pay the prize fund that he had advertised as guaranteed. And that is what the UPA ultimately pressured him into doing. At the 2002 Open, Barry paid a lot (all?) of the money to the players that he still owed from the 2001 Open.

IMO, players have a right to expect to be paid whatever prize money a tournament lists as guaranteed. If the prize will be dependent on gate receipts, that is fine, but it is then the promoters responsibility to say that up front so players can make an informed choice before deciding to enter the tournament.
</font color>

Unions had there place back when filthy rich industrialists were exploiting workers with long hours, low pay and an early death due to unsafe conditions. I don't see Barry getting rich promoting pool and exploiting the players.

<font color="blue"> I don't see him getting rich either. But he is a bit irresponsible at times at making sure he can follow through with his promises. Remember, the 2001 Open is not the only time he hasn't had the money to pay the players at the end of the tournament.

Look, I like the guy and I think he has done 100 times more for pool than Charlie. He has a lot of chutzpah and brings a lot of vision and energy to the pool world (as do Grady, Hopkins, Ewa, Jennette, and others). He advertises big payout tournaments hoping that proceeds will pay expenses. The lure of the big payout gets most of the best players there which in turn brings in a big audience. But live by the sword - die by the sword. If you are going to go out on a financial limb in hopes of a big success which will pay off, then you got to pay the piper if something happens and it goes bust. He was trying to weasel out of his promise, and Charlie took a lot of heat for saying that was unacceptable.

</font color>

Most promoters are taking a big gamble by providing tournaments.

<font color="blue"> Very true. They could reduce their risk significantly by stating up front the formula for determining payout based on gate receipts. Players could go in knowing that if no one shows up, their prize money will be reduced. Maybe that would even get the players to do more to actively promote the sport by chatting up spectators, setting up autograph signing times, putting on a bit of a show if that is their talent, etc.</font color>

Those tournaments are what the UPA is trying to eliminate.

<font color="blue">There is no evidence of this that I know of. The UPA planned on sanctioning the Open and even had an agreement from Barry to do so. It was only when Barry didn't meet his part of the bargain that the UPA withdrew their sanction. The UPA believed that requiring prize money be put in escrow was necessary to avoid repeats of past non-payment debacles (and not with just Barry). The UPA may have been unrealistic with this requirement, but it doesn't suggest evil intent on the UPA's part. </font color>

They can eliminate tournaments but I don't see how that will benefit players. At this time the UPA has nothing to offer the promoters. When Charlie can go up to someone and offer to provide him with a product that will make them all some money then the UPA will be doing something useful for its members.
<font color="blue"> I pretty much agree that the UPA is not doing much for promoters. And if it doesn't get better at that end, the pickings will be pretty slim for players and promoters alike.</font color>

The UPA is producing nothing.
<font color="blue"> Well, it can be argued that it got some players paid money owed to them, and established the principle that it is not OK to renege on guaranteed prize money. It also produced the (overpriced?) pool schools that whitewolf and bluewolf enjoyed /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif and that made some money for the participating pros. </font color>
It is going to existing events and trying to horn in. It is essentially a protection racket where if you give them $1,000 and mortgage your house they will give you a sanction. Otherwise you will get a boycott.
<font color="blue">Does the UPA require tournaments to pay them to be sanctioned? The money that is to be put into escrow does not go to the UPA, it goes to the players. Their website mentions no fees for sponsoring a tournament. Check it out - it is the one still populated by gross typographical and grammatical errors. </font color>

Someone needs to familiarize Charlie with the RICO Act.
KenCT <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue"> Or at least some PR and business skills. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

cueball1950
05-20-2003, 08:11 PM
Well i would also like to read the rest of it. But i have an uneasy feeling that charlie/UPA are going to try to force Barry's hand to let them sdanction the open. Or this contract will penalize the players that do belong and do play in the Open. If i remember correctly the old organization tried to get all the players to sign, which most did. I know of one player who did not and won a world 14.1 tournament. It was such a shame cuz all the member players boycotted it cuz the organization putting it in refused to pay an outrageous sanctioning fee to the players org. so they boycotted. I firmly believe what 1 promoter once told me. there can only be 1 person in charge to succeed. then the buck stops with him and only him....Mike

cueball1950
05-20-2003, 08:18 PM
One more thing.... Does this also stop the players from competing this weekend in New Bedford Mass Joss tour final. Since it is 20k added and not sanctioned or recognized......mike

Ralph S.
05-21-2003, 07:18 AM
I have just read through the aproximately 40 replies to this initial post and this is what I gather from the responses in correlation to Grady's post.

The vast majority are still going on about the Open/UPA saga. I think they are missing a major point of what Grady was attempting to convey. If you re-read the post, it covers in large portion and detail about marketing rights.

I see some good in it but not all. It sounds to me that the players are being forced to give up their rights to use their own likeness for other promotions and endorsemnt deals which could possibly make them some income aside from tourney winnings. A likeness is and should be up to the owner to use at their own will and discretion, the owner being the player themselves.

It sounds like to me that the players are being forced to give up their identity and likeness for the UPA only. I could see a blanket agreement to help with promotion of sanctioned events, but to strip the players of the right to use their own likeness for their own personal gain is ludicrous.

As for the U.S. Open, I personally feel it should remain an independant event as it is one of the longest running events in pool and is known world-wide.

These are just my thoughts and interpretaions.

Ken
05-21-2003, 07:45 AM
Mike, I doubt that the New Bedford event will be on CW's hit list. It's also possible that he has not gotten everyone to sign the contract yet. I think he is getting all his ducks in a row to go after the Open in September.

Remember last year he tried to have a competing tournament and when he couldn't put that together he called for a boycott. The boycott was a joke, but this year he is forcing everyone to agree in advence that they will boycott if told to do so. He also has plenty of time to set up another tournament to compete with the Open, so if negotiations fail his tournament can mysteriously appear.

This seems to me it might be extortion. The original website called for a $1,000 sanctioning fee. If Barry won't pay that and meet all the other requirements, CW can cause him considerable financial harm. This has all the elements of a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act violation. He's formed a union of members who ask for money from promoters in order to avoid a possible boycott. This involves interstate and international commerce and is therefore within the purview of RICO.

It might seem a bit of a stretch to suggest that the government might bring criminal charges. The fact is, however, that RICO is not just for the government anymore. Anyone can start a civil suit under RICO. The act is commonly used against unions and every pro who signs that contract could end up in court to defend himself. This could make Dr. D's lawsuit look like penny ante. Charlie is playing with fire here. The fact that he tried it last year is public record and if he succeeds this year the UPA could be in for big trouble.

Joey Green Eyes is facing a maximum sentence of 138 years imprisonment, a fine of $2,250,000, and 3 year supervised release under a RICO action. It's that supervised release time that really hurts.
KenCT

BillyRinNC
05-21-2003, 08:45 AM
To sign an agreement you have to agree with the contents. Some contents are protective to the organization and players. But does this in any way hurt the players ability to earn a living playing their game? If NO, there is not a problem signing it.

What do the players think of this agreement and its flexability? Will they promote another boycot of the Open this year? Will they use it as a bully tool for use against its own players? Does this deny players the right to make money on their own likenesses? Are there enough venues to make a living? Can you trust the promoters?

There are too many unanswered questions for one to have a good feeling about signing this agreement. Grady, thanks for bringing this to our attention! More players like Earl should respond that are not in UPA.

Ross
05-21-2003, 09:48 AM
Ken,

I have three questions for you.

First, do you dispute any of the following?

1. The UPA and Barry came to an agreement whereby the 2002 Open WOULD be UPA sanctioned.
2. Barry did not fulfill his end of the bargain.
3. AFTER Barry reneged on his agreement, the UPA pulled its sanctioning.

Second question:

If you agree with the above facts, how are they consistent with the UPA "being out to kill the Open." Aren't they more consistent with the UPA being out to ensure that prize money is delivered as promised?

Third question:

How is it that you see Charlie and the UPA as the bad guys totally responsible for this fiasco, and Barry as this poor innocent victim? Isn't Barry partly to blame for promising more than he could deliver? Repeatedly? (Remember the 2002 Masters, where prize money was not there at the end of the tournament?) Isn't it misleading to advertise in bold letters that prize money is guaranteed when in fact it is dependent on gate receipts?

Maybe you are right - Charlie's calling in life is to get the Open. Maybe Barry reminds him of his long-hated father. But I still have not seen any facts that support this interpretation. Do you know something that hasn't been discussed here? Please enlighten me if you do!

Ken
05-21-2003, 10:23 AM
Ross, You're buying into the red herring about the UPA just wanting to get the players their money. Your recitation of the facts is probably correct. Barry put money into the pay-per-view and wasn't able to meet the UPA's requirements. I doubt that he could have come up with the money anyway.

As far as being out to do harm to the Open, that's also a fact as it was done openly last year. Sure that is not the main goal. The UPA had insisted on impossible conditions that Barry could not meet and then they set out to ruin the event. That's simply a fact. Electing not to be sanctioned should not be an excuse to bring financial ruin to someone. He can do that all by himself.

I think that you know that Charlie founded the UPA to fight Barry. Sure, that's not the only reason given. He's fighting for the players. Sure.

He's misusing the players in this battle. The money often is not available up front. The players are the show. If their presence is not enough to bring the money in it's time they recognize that it's just the nature of the business.

You just love that "guaranteed" part don't you? Sure it's wrong but if the players won't come without it saying "guaranteed" then they are not taking responsibility for the lack of popularity of their chosen profession. A player has a delay in getting a few hundred dollars and the promoter loses $50,000 and you're blaming the promoter.

I was at the 2002 Masters and never thought it would work. Players take a vacation to go to the Open. They're not going to do that again for the Masters. That's not hard to figure out. It was a mistake and the promoter lost more money. That's just another indication that the players can't provide a profitable show. They need to work with and not against the promoters to make the industry viable. The UPA is providing next to nothing and demanding everything.

Keep saying "guaranteed" because it's all you've got. What a horrible offense. Guaranteeing money that you don't have yet. You can ignore the true state of the business. Either that or figure out how the UPA can help instead of hurt the business.

There are people who are trying to make pool-playing a viable business and the Open pay-per-view was part of that. Charlie is a thorn in their side and is working against them. It's a sad situation and his attempt to intimidate the promoters is working against the very players he claims to want to help. As long as his schools make money a few will benefit.
KenCT

eg8r
05-21-2003, 10:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You just love that "guaranteed" part don't you? Sure it's wrong but if the players won't come without it saying "guaranteed" then they are not taking responsibility for the lack of popularity of their chosen profession. A player has a delay in getting a few hundred dollars and the promoter loses $50,000 and you're blaming the promoter <hr /></blockquote>
A delay of a few hundred dollars. Ha, if IIRC it was a lot more than a couple hundred dollars. I am having trouble following you Ken...Lets say, you won the open and were supposed to receive $30k for first place. At this point Barry comes up puts his arm around your shoulders and says, "Look Ken this is what is happening. You decided to join a sport in which the fans do not care about the pros. Since they did not show up, we did not have the gate fees to help pay you winnings. We are only going to give you 15k. I am sure you are fine with this because it is your fault the fans did not come. I know I said gauranteed in the ads, and I am sure you understand that is not what was meant. " I bet you would be steaming mad.

I think the quote above is a bunch of bull. Lets put it another way, here is a judge talking to you, "Ken, now that the jurors are off to deliberate I just wanted to tell you. I gaurantee you will not be found guilty. I absolutely gaurantee this, you will be a free man." In walks the jurors, they pronouce you guilty and you will be going to jail for life without parole. "The judge looks at you and puts his hands in the air and says, "Sorry, I did not expect that one juror to feel that way. And by the way, if you were just a little more popular they jurors would never have came to that verdict."

[ QUOTE ]
Keep saying "guaranteed" because it's all you've got. What a horrible offense. Guaranteeing money that you don't have yet. You can ignore the true state of the business. Either that or figure out how the UPA can help instead of hurt the business. <hr /></blockquote> I just went through a strike a few weeks back here at work. The company I work for is currently at a point where if the workers do not come to work everyday then the costs to produce our product are going to go through the roof, and we could lose a giant government contract. Well, the machinists decided to still go on strike, eventhough the chance to ruin the company was evident. Well, they did go on strike and held out for 2 weeks until the company met their demands. We started off schedule but since the guys were so happy to be back at work they have worked extra to make up (this was part of the deal to come back to work). This is similar to what Charlie proposed last year to the players. The Open did not meet the demands, lets strike. If the players wanted to play that is fine, just like the union people here at work could have crossed the strike lines and went back to work.

I can tell that you are worried about your friend Barry, but if Barry wants to be in business then he needs to carry a dictionary with him when making the flyers and advertisements. In any other sport do you see the premiere event withhold the athletes pay after it was gauranteed? No, Barry screwed up, and you feel sorry for him. That is all well and good, but it is time to grow up and live with the consequences.

I by no means support CW in any capacity, I do however support the players. If what the UPA does help the players get paid on time then it is for the best. If we lose a great pool promoter in the process, I think that is a worthy sacrifice to continuing improvement of the sport. I am not saying that I want Barry or the US Open to be done away with, I am just saying that now is the time to correct his business affairs and do the right thing. God knows he has had problems doing this in his personal life.

eg8r

Rich R.
05-21-2003, 11:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Lets say, you won the open and were supposed to receive $30k for first place. At this point Barry comes up puts his arm around your shoulders and says, "Look Ken this is what is happening. You decided to join a sport in which the fans do not care about the pros. Since they did not show up, we did not have the gate fees to help pay you winnings. We are only going to give you 15k. I am sure you are fine with this because it is your fault the fans did not come. I know I said gauranteed in the ads, and I am sure you understand that is not what was meant. " I bet you would be steaming mad.<hr /></blockquote>
eg8r, let's be a little more accurate here. In your example, what Barry would have said to Ken is, "Look Ken, on one of the early days of the tournament, some terrorists hijacked two large airliners and crashed them into two of the largest buildings in New York. As a result, thousands of people were killed and airports all across the country were closed down. People couldn't get to this tournament if they wanted to. So, instead of canceling the tournament, which was underway, and you getting nothing, I decided to continue the tournament and pay you as much as I could and take a very large financial hit myself. I will also try to pay you the balance due, as soon as I can."

I'm not taking sides here. I believe both sides have to get their stuff together to make this all work, in the long run. I just believe there were extenuating circumstances in your example.

05-21-2003, 11:25 AM
"God knows he has had problems doing this in his personal life."

That was just wrong to say. Should stick with the subject matter and not commented on his personal life. Was definately uncalled for.

Fran Crimi
05-21-2003, 11:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ralph S.:</font><hr> I have just read through the aproximately 40 replies to this initial post and this is what I gather from the responses in correlation to Grady's post.

The vast majority are still going on about the Open/UPA saga. I think they are missing a major point of what Grady was attempting to convey. If you re-read the post, it covers in large portion and detail about marketing rights.

I see some good in it but not all. It sounds to me that the players are being forced to give up their rights to use their own likeness for other promotions and endorsemnt deals which could possibly make them some income aside from tourney winnings. A likeness is and should be up to the owner to use at their own will and discretion, the owner being the player themselves.

It sounds like to me that the players are being forced to give up their identity and likeness for the UPA only. I could see a blanket agreement to help with promotion of sanctioned events, but to strip the players of the right to use their own likeness for their own personal gain is ludicrous.

As for the U.S. Open, I personally feel it should remain an independant event as it is one of the longest running events in pool and is known world-wide.

These are just my thoughts and interpretaions. <hr /></blockquote>


Ralph, I don't think most people understand how these types of contracts work. The player isn't giving up their life when they sign one of these. The marketing rights clause isn't really a big deal. Not yet. If the UPA were to restrict themselves to only tour events then they would have to constantly ask permission to promote their association using a picture of a player on each occasion. No one is going to get rich right now off of players pictures and video clips, including the UPA. The contracts are signed annually by the players and if things really pick up to a point where the players feel the UPA is racking in such big money as a result of marketing itself based on players pics and videos, then that issue can always be addressed the following year when the contracts are up for renewal.

We've been doing this for over a decade and really, it's no big deal. You have to allow your association some leeway in order to promote itself for it to grow and eventually prosper.

Fran

Ken
05-21-2003, 11:30 AM
All your arguments are from the past. I said Barry did wrong and now I'm his "friend"? The players got most if not all their money and Barry lost a small fortune. Isn't that enough to make you and Charlie happy?

Can't anyone recognize what the UPA is doing to the future of pool? I can't believe that this has degenerated into an argument about known facts from long ago. Why not bring up Mackey to prove your point too. We all know what happened at the Open although some of you refuse to consider ALL the facts.

I'm trying to point out what potential for abuse exists now in regard to events that are going to happen in the future. You're so obsessed with the "guaranteed" that you can't recognize what the UPA is trying to do. You can live in the past and bury your head in the sand. I give up.

There's plenty of pool around here for me to watch. I'll go watch Grady's tournament and be pleased not to see any evidence of the UPA and Charlie the Dragon. If he does show up to play that's when I'll sleep. I'll have plenty of time. I'll leave this by suggesting you start watching what he does and not what he says.
KenCT

eg8r
05-21-2003, 11:38 AM
I am sorry you feel this way, but I think it is totally fine to say. If the man cannot get his personal matters in check who is to say he will run his business straight. It all starts at home. I surely, sincerely hope he is straightening all of this out because I think pool will be lost without having him around.

eg8r

arn3
05-21-2003, 11:43 AM
the "anonymity" issue is a loaded waste of time because every post should be taken for what it is,,merely an opinion that stands equal to others. i can tell by your post that you're at least level-headed enough to understand THAT.
and you should at least be able to understand this...

1. what does raising a family have anything to do with trying to create a viable organization of players.

2. grady has had decades, make that eons, to formulate a plan to organize. but all he ever does is whine and complain on these boards. this is all just hot air.

3. take a look at pool today. take a look at pool 20 years ago. the landscape is as bleak as ever.

4. grady complains that how certain people "are trying to make plans that affect how we make our living,,,". what living? the living where many talented young players leave the game because there is no future? the living where everyone scrapes by with only the money in their pocket? you mean THAT living.

5. he says "We have a sport that could rival football or basketball or anything else,,,". clearly this man lives of some planet other than here on earth. before grady even thinks about player organization, he better makes sure he's on terra firma.

6. while williams has actually gone out and TRIED to do something, grady remains here at ccb, whining and crying. there's nothing preventing grady from going out RIGHT NOW and following through with his plans. so what is he waiting for, what has he been waiting for these past FOUR decades.

as for williams "bullying" players to sign. it is quite clear the players can't decide their own destiny. THEY'RE HORRIBLE AT IT. just look around you see how aimless their goals are. somewhere, sometime, today or tomorrow, someone will HAVE TO take these players by the hand and lead them. you don't think the each player will all of a sudden become enlightened and do it themselves, do you?

eg8r
05-21-2003, 11:44 AM
Thanks Rich, however I was not trying to be inaccurate. If you will re-read the example directly after reading the quote from Ken, you will see why there was no mention of the terrorist attacks. I was making up an example based on the quote from Ken. Ken brought up the responsibility of the players for the fan base.

To continue in the accuracy, don't forget the plane that hit the Pentagon or the one that flew into the ground.

I also believe that it is not either sides own fault.

eg8r

eg8r
05-21-2003, 11:55 AM
Ken you have stated that my arguments are from the past. Fine, but is that not what you learn from, past events. Surely you cannot change the future until something has already happened. This is besides the point, for some reason you feel you have only expressed forward thinking, explain why your arugements included the past but you seperate yourself from the others that include the past.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> Remember last year he tried to have a competing tournament and when he couldn't put that together he called for a boycott. <hr /></blockquote> Here you are referring to the past in an effort to prove it might happen again, or better yet, your interpretation of CW's intention.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> Barry put money into the pay-per-view and wasn't able to meet the UPA's requirements. I doubt that he could have come up with the money anyway.
<hr /></blockquote> Here you took a step back into the past. Much the same as everyone else, somehow you still feel your intentions were different than ours.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> As far as being out to do harm to the Open, that's also a fact as it was done openly last year. <hr /></blockquote> Here again you live in the past.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> The UPA had insisted on impossible conditions that Barry could not meet and then they set out to ruin the event. <hr /></blockquote>My goodness I could keep going. All you have done is state past events.

Do not act like your defense is any better than anyone elses because of examples from the past. You seem to be quicker at bringing them up than anyone.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> You can live in the past and bury your head in the sand. I give up.
<hr /></blockquote>
Where is your head buried, given the above quotes, I think you are in the sand with the rest of us.

I am not saying you are right or wrong and neither am I saying I am right or wrong. All I am saying is that you are assuming quite loudly and expecting everyone to fall in line with your thinking. I would like to see you take CW to court citing the RICO act when this is all done.

eg8r

05-21-2003, 11:55 AM
I know a few people whose personal life has gone to hell because they put every minute into the job they did. So talking about the man's personal life isn't relative to the topic. It's his business and his alone, not for anyone to read on a message board.

eg8r
05-21-2003, 12:04 PM
Wrong again. What about the people that live near his house and have to worry about gambling and drugs next door. I don't think they care one iota about his pool business. He got caught and we all read about it in the news (I read it from an online news source).

I was not talking about cheating on his wife or any of that, just the other stuff from the news. If you are a criminal on your own time, then there is a good chance you are a criminal at work also. Not in every instance is this true, it is just a nice general rule that I agree with. If you want your personal business kept personal, then by all means don't get caught and thrown in jail, at that point it is no longer your own business.

Now I am just joking, but your sn rhymes with Hillary, and she surely wished her and her husbands business was kept quiet also.

eg8r

arn3
05-21-2003, 12:17 PM
your initial arguement above strikes the same chord as all others i have heard. at the core of your arguement, you are basically comfortable with the status quo. everyone who has a problem with the upa talks as if there is something good in the present pool situation that should be preserved, and that the upa is turning things topsey-turvey.

well, the situation in pool today, and for decades, has been bad. surely we all see this. and to me, there is nothing in pool that should be immune to a total revamping.

Ross
05-21-2003, 01:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr>
A player has a delay in getting a few hundred dollars and the promoter loses $50,000 and you're blaming the promoter.
<hr /></blockquote>

Actually, Barry reduced the money added by $30,800, not a "few hundred." He reduced Corey Deuel's payout by $10,000, Immonen's by $5000, Parica's by $3000, Strickland's by $2000, and so on down the line. A portion of this "owed money" (Barry's own words) was paid a year later.

OK, enough about the past. I actually am in agreement with you Ken that the UPA needs to do more to help independent promoters and to promote the sport, especially by trying to get some TV exposure. Just "enforcing standards" will not work if there is no money being made by anyone. And the US Open is the best tournament we have, with the largest payout for the players, so Charlie should be figuring out how to make it a success.

pooltchr
05-21-2003, 02:04 PM
Alright, I have read all of the thread and have to put in my .02 worth. If you look at sports in general, there is an organization (MLB, NFL, NBA, etc.) made up of the team owners who hire the players to put on the events and sell tickets. This seems to work pretty well for them. NASCAR is a great example of how to set up a number of organized events, get the players to participate, promote the races and sell tickets. Men's pool could benefit from looking at how other sports are structured. It seems as if we have everyone trying to do everything. One sanctioning body like NASCAR, several promoters like track owners, and the players like the drivers. Granted they had RJR behind them, but 20 years ago NASCAR was a small sport in the South, and look at it today. Maybe we can learn from someone elses success????????????????

Rod
05-21-2003, 04:21 PM
Grady,
Except for a couple of posts I'd say there is a lot of waisted ink. A workable solution in print is the answer, not pointing fingers. I have no solution so I refrain from a comment.

Rod

Ken
05-21-2003, 06:05 PM
Rod, this whole thing can be distilled down to one question: Would Charlie the Dragon tell UPA members to boycott the U. S. Open?

This ranks right up there with the great questions of history:

Will the sun rise tomorrow?
Is the Pope a Catholic?
Does a bear sit in the woods?

And you're right about the wasted ink.
KenCT

Ross
05-21-2003, 08:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rod:</font><hr> Grady,
Except for a couple of posts I'd say there is a lot of waisted ink. A workable solution in print is the answer, not pointing fingers. I have no solution so I refrain from a comment.

Rod <hr /></blockquote>

Rod, I resemble that remark! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

And what ink? Are you printing this out? lol


I do think that the significance of this contract depends entirely on the intent of the UPA. Grady and others presented the contract as primae facie evidence of evil intent. On the other hand, Fran pointed out this is pretty standard stuff for a players organization. Rights to likenesses, etc. are needed for marketing purposes. And an agreement to give the org some power in deciding which events its members will support is necessary to have any bargaining clout.

So I think an accurate understanding of the history of the UPA's actions and what they says about the goals of the UPA is germane to this discussion and not a "waist." But then I thought Jenna would get trounced by Matthew in Survivor- Amazon, so what the hell do I know?

cueball1950
05-21-2003, 08:20 PM
you called charlie's call for a boycott half-hearted.If this is true then answer this question.. Why did charlie show up at the open last year and ask all the players personally not to play. This after the players meeting and he even went to the pool hall. I was there and talked to several top players who laughed when they talked about charlie trying to get them not to play in the open last year. Yes both Barry and Brady are having some problems. But i still think Charlie wants to control all of the mens tournaments. I saw this same thing happen to the old organization run by Don mackey. He told all promoters. Either pay me a sanctioning fee or my players will not compete. as evident at the world open 14.12 tournament. it was held in chicago i think. no players from his organization played. Just a couple of americans and alot of foreigners. Thankfully an american won it. I believe the american player was barred from the tour cuz he would not sign an exclusive contract. anyway,, like another top pro told me in NYC at the last 14.1 open when asked what happened to the mens pro tour. simple answer he told me. it just self destructed. what more can i say. If he calls for a boycott this year of the open and he hurts it in anyway. Then barry berhman should take some type of legal action. cuz this is headed down the same road. Either pay me for sanctioning or my players won't play. Exactly what Mr Mackey tried to do...Just my thoughts.........Mike
PS......LAST YEAR I WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST BASHERS OF CHARLIE WILLIAMS. I GAVE UP CUZ HE WOULD NOT COME HERE AND ANSWER A FEW QUESTIONS I ASKED OUT IN THE OPEN. HE HAD SOMEONE EMAIL ME AN ANSWER TO ONE OF MY QUESTIONS. HE POSTS THINGS ON HERE AND THEN DON'T ANSWER ANY WUESTIONS HIMSELF

eg8r
05-22-2003, 05:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If he calls for a boycott this year of the open and he hurts it in anyway. Then barry berhman should take some type of legal action. <hr /></blockquote> What exactly do you think he would sue for? I just don't think there is anything illegal about doing this. I do not like it, and if the players want to still play I surely hope he gives them an exemption.

[ QUOTE ]
LAST YEAR I WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST BASHERS OF CHARLIE WILLIAMS. I GAVE UP CUZ HE WOULD NOT COME HERE AND ANSWER A FEW QUESTIONS I ASKED OUT IN THE OPEN. HE HAD SOMEONE EMAIL ME AN ANSWER TO ONE OF MY QUESTIONS. HE POSTS THINGS ON HERE AND THEN DON'T ANSWER ANY WUESTIONS HIMSELF <hr /></blockquote> Mike I am in the same boat with you here. For some reason the board admin fall asleep everytime Charlie shows up and spams the board. I am not too sure anyone cares whether he does it or not, but they seem to be on the ball when bw tries to sell a cue.

eg8r

Billy
05-22-2003, 07:50 AM
in my opinion the players need to represented and protected regardless ...

and if someone other than the UPA,PBT,or ? can do a better job then let them step forward and do something about it,talk can be cheap

concerning specifically the US Open?

what's the big deal over a sanctioning fee? pay the grand (or whatever it is), post the added money in advance, then all are hopefully happy and the party continues ...

personal question:how many times would you play pool with a player who made a habit of stiffing you?

jmo

L.S. Dennis
05-22-2003, 09:00 AM
This does smell a lot like the old PBT, and we all know what happend there. I think Grady's right on this, what's the old adage: Learn from history or you're doomed to repeat it! (or something like that).

My someone should contact CJ Wiley and bring back the PCA!

John G
05-22-2003, 12:54 PM
I disagree, I think anonymity becomes an issue anytime someone belittles or insults another. It's far to easy be harsh when one is invisible in cyber-space. Personally I firmly believe the attacker should identify them self and take responsibility for thier words. And I in no way intended to imply your opinion was invalid. quite the opposite.

But let's set that aside. As to the status of pool, Your right, it's as bleak as ever. My personal belief is that the real issues are never addressed. The question is what got us here and why can't we get out. Often it's said gambling but nearly everyone gambles. Most people don't give a damn if we gamble, in fact quite the opposite, people like to watch high stakes action. Look at poker and its popularity with even the non poker playing public.

When most speak of gambling related to pool they are really refering to hustling which is just another word for stealing. To many of us are guilty of feeding that dog. The reality is "hustling" is a dinosaur. It's dead, but we as pool players perpetuate the notion it's alive and well. How stupid can we be.

"Hustling" the connotation brings up stiffed hotel and restaurant bills. Unpaid gambling debts, playing on air. Cheating by withholding ones true speed. What sponser wants to be associated with that. We need accountabiblty. The signing of a contract transfering ones rights to another or an organisation doesn't bring accountability. It simply transfers the mischief.

We need first an organisation that is willing to accept responsibility for the actions of the players and willing to assign stiff penaltys when there are infractions. We should model this after the P.G.A. . In the beginning they had many of the same image problems that we have. That's why they formed the P.G.A. so that vendors and sponsers would be assured they would not be stiffed or embarrased. That only qualified people would be allowed to compete and represent the game at large.

I believe this could be accomplished rather quickly because the players don't have to agree. All we need is a unified consensus among the ruling bodies. If your a bad boy or girl you don't play anywhere before and until you've cleaned up your act and made retrobution. I know it sounds simplistic and there is the issue of qualifcation. Who would be allowed to play in what and where. but these would be only minor wrinkles if and when we can get a consistant policy shared and implemented by the different ruling bodies. I have some other ideas how this could be done but frankly I lack the energy and/or the enthusiasim. We do need the the energy of the young but it must be balanced by experience. It's absurd, we have a talent pool second to none and here we are allowing ourselves to be treated as bums.

Regards, John G

Fran Crimi
05-22-2003, 03:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote L.S. Dennis:</font><hr> This does smell a lot like the old PBT, and we all know what happend there. I think Grady's right on this, what's the old adage: Learn from history or you're doomed to repeat it! (or something like that).

My someone should contact CJ Wiley and bring back the PCA! <hr /></blockquote>

Correct me if I'm wrong, Dennis, because it's been awhile, but I thought the beginning of end of the PBT was when players didn't get paid their prize money for a tournament they played because the last minute a sponsor renaged on the deal. The prize money should have been in escrow but it wasn't. It wasn't until a long time after that, after the law suit was won against RJ Reynolds that the players finally did get paid. But by then things had completely fallen apart.

The PCA made a huge mistake as well. Remember the whole insurance issue? First they came up with the great idea to take out a million dollar insurance policy to award to whoever could run 10 (I think) racks in a row. That was a great publicity idea. But then they went and ruined the whole thing by letting players rack for themselves. Did they honestly think they'd get away with that? It sure looks like they tried to scam the insurance company and it all came back to bite them. They're lucky they didn't get convicted of fraud. No one ever racked for themselves before or after that in a pro event.

Actually, it seems to me that the UPA is learning from the past rather than repeating it.

Just my opinion, of course. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Fran

jjinfla
05-22-2003, 06:10 PM
Quote Fran: Even though it's fairly new, the BCA event is not a tour event and yet they had no problem in meeting the sanctioning crieteria for both the WPBA and UPA this year.
_______

If you go to http://upatour.org you will see the contract that Allen Hopkins signed for the Gabriel's 9-ball Las Vegas Open. Does not say much, nor does it really put any limits on Allen Hopkins Productions, and only costs the players $25 to join UPA without signing their contract.
Then read the next contract.

This same thread is on AZBilliards and Mike stated that the UPA contract is identical to the WPBA contract and he has copies of both.

And so far the US Open is not sanctioned by the UPA. So it is beginning to look like another fiasco in September. With Charlie and his loyal members all boycotting the US Open. According to the contracts everyone who plays in the US Open must be a member of the UPA. I just can't see Behrman agreeing to that. I wonder if Sponsors will put up with their player not participating in the US Open again. Seems to me the player is worthless to the sponsor if he is not before the public's eye. And being known as a boycotter is not the kind of publicity that a sponsor wants. I wonder if the company who sponsors CW will put up with him not playing in the US Open again. But then I seem to recall receiving an e-mail from them saying that they were not all that interested in the US Open. Jake

Nostroke
05-22-2003, 07:44 PM
WOW i never knew that Fran and all along im thinking it was the insurance company who was scamming. One minor thing- The US open did have rack your own about 4 years ago for one year.

L.S. Dennis
05-22-2003, 07:58 PM
Fran,

You're correct it was a 10 rack run that was supposed to get you the million and nobody really thought it was going to be done,(at least not so soon!) Then Earl went and ran 11 almost immediately, and the insurance company balked thinking this was something too easy and they were 'hoodwinked'. I don't remember the issue of the rack your own as for them not wanting to pay but I could be wrong.

However since then and currently more and more professional and amature tournaments are going to the rack your own format and once again Earl was involved in that. If I not mistaken that's why the Sands began this format and have it to this day.

I'll deferr to your knowledge regarding the last death quivers of the PBT and the payment of monies owed to the players. I frankly don't remember, there was so much dissention going on in those times and that's the memory that everyone was left with. This thing has the feeling of that but hopefully I'm wrong and time will tell. If I not mistaken the WPBA weren't too happy with Mackey and company either, didn't they pull out early on?

Anyway let's hope for the best!
Dennis

Ken
05-22-2003, 08:19 PM
Earl racked his own for a while like about 5 or 6 racks and when it became apparent he might get the million a neutral racker took over. I think he finally got to 11 and racked about half. The insurance company tried to weasel out by saying he didn't run all the racks. Some were nines on the break and some were combos on the nine. He didn't always make all the balls so he didn't run all the racks. I heard he finally got about half the money but don't believe everything you hear.

Earlier posts stated that Earl was playing Nick Mannino in one of C. J. Wylie's events.

I doubt there was any scam but the insurance company wasn't happy.

There was a thread on this at AzBilliards:

http://azbilliards.com/vbulletin/upload/showthread.php?s=&amp;threadid=285&amp;highlight=stricklan d+and+racks

For those who miss Fast Larry, He's there too. He's on his best behavior. Bet that doesn't last long.

KenCT

Fran Crimi
05-22-2003, 09:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> Earl racked his own for a while like about 5 or 6 racks and when it became apparent he might get the million a neutral racker took over.
KenCT <hr /></blockquote>

Exactly. The fact that it was switched to a neutral racker half-way through the run was an indication that they had insurance concerns about that. Otherwise, why switch?

Fran

Fran Crimi
05-22-2003, 09:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote L.S. Dennis:</font><hr> Fran,

If I not mistaken the WPBA weren't too happy with Mackey and company either, didn't they pull out early on?

Anyway let's hope for the best!
Dennis <hr /></blockquote>


Yes, I was on the PBTA Board of Directors at that time representing the WPBA's interests. Things got pretty ugly between the men and the women. I remember reading our statement of resignation at that memorable final board meeting, and after I was done, Don Mackey yelled, "The WPBA can't resign, because we're kicking them out!" Haha. OK. Whatever.

Dennis, believe me, I was there and from what I'm seeing of the UPA, it's a far cry from the old days of the PBTA.

Fran

cueball1950
05-22-2003, 09:49 PM
all i am trying to say in this post is that to force a promoter to pay a sanctioning fee before he will let the players play or give a player an exception in not right. it does in some way amount to blackmail. i was at the open last year when CW kept asking all the players to boycott. even after the players meeting and the draw. I think CW is trying to do what Don Mackey tried to do. Don mackey even stated at the old BC OPEN 9 Ball tournament that he has control of all the players and if you want his players to come. then pay me. It sounds like a monopoly to me. and momopolies are illegal in this country. I was going to join as a non touring player at one time. I asked Cw where all the membership dues goes and where does all the sanctioning fees go to. all he had to do was to say to promote the game and the UPA. i would have been satisfied with that answer and so would alot of other people. i asked these questions in an open forum where he lurks and does post and never got a response. So i asked what he was trying to hide. still no response. I think if you are joining any organization you have a right to ask these questions. If just to make sure that the money is being used right and not lining some one's pocket. like i said. i used to be one of his biggest detractors. but i gave up cuz he just feels that he has to answer to no one. he said the board is who he answers to. but come on. HE IS THE BOARD. .....Mike

Fran Crimi
05-22-2003, 09:49 PM
Jake, I think that dropping their escrow requirement is a clear indication that they're willing to work with the promoters. It's risky business to drop that but they will have signed contracts. Unfortunately, the signed contracts won't put the money in their players' pockets at the event if the sponsor renages. It would have to go to legal proceedings to collect the money. That seems to me that they're trying to work together with promoters here.

So they want $25 memberships in exchange for sanctioning. Does that make them evil? And I see they're willing to issue waivers to the local players.

You have to understand that these guys are trying to put an entire tour together. That's altogether different from a promoter who wants to run one event a year.

Fran

arn3
05-23-2003, 02:23 AM
the hustling/gambling image is still valid because a large portion of the general population still feel that way about pool. pool doesn't work because it is boring to watch. ask any non player. it's on a par with darts. the USA is a big sport country, so pool will gain in the international markets where they have nothing else to do. i think it's a waste of time to build a maket here in the US. i think the US should piggy back on the asia/european market. they already get good tv coverage, pool stars are well known in other countries, institutions are more willing to throw money into pool. coca cola europe sponsors jasmine ouschan.

the immediate problem of organization is that the players have no motive to organize. as we speak, i can tell you that there are upa players who will play in a non sanctioned event upcoming in queens, new york. the impossible task for charlie is to convince players to give up for the greater good. this will never happen, unless an angel throws in millions to organize all the splinter groups and players.

the players will only organize if they can see, in cold hard cash, that THEY HAVE MORE TO LOSE if they DON'T organize. right now, there is no such incentive. i really think the only reason most of them signed with the upa is because,,,why not? which is not much of a commitment.
money talks.

here's a tiny anecdote to think about that, i think, that reflects the situation in US/world pool. i am vague on the details but it goes something like this. remember last year, i think, when earl embarassed a japanese player about using a jump cue? i can't remember the tournament. asia or cardiff??? well, earl was flagged and told don't do it again or else. he acted like a choir boy the rest of the tournament. an example of giving in when faced with the possibility of having "something to lose".


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote John G:</font><hr> ,,,,
We need first an organisation that is willing to accept responsibility for the actions of ,,,We should model this after the P.G.A. . In the beginning they had many of the same image problems that we have. That's why they formed the P.G.A. so that vendors and sponsers would be assured they would not be stiffed or embarrased.
<hr /></blockquote>

Wally_in_Cincy
05-23-2003, 07:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote arn3:</font><hr> ......here's a tiny anecdote to think about that, i think, that reflects the situation in US/world pool. i am vague on the details but it goes something like this. remember last year, i think, when earl embarassed a japanese player about using a jump cue? i can't remember the tournament. asia or cardiff??? well, earl was flagged and told don't do it again or else. he acted like a choir boy the rest of the tournament. an example of giving in when faced with the possibility of having "something to lose".
<hr /></blockquote>

He was playing, I think, a young guy named Kunihiko Takahashi. Takahashi pulled out his jump cue and Earl snidely said "Be a man" So the guy got flustered, put away his jump cue, missed the kick, and lost the match eventually.

mickey2
05-23-2003, 08:11 AM
&gt;the USA is a big sport country, so pool will gain in the international markets where they have nothing else to do.

You may be surprised but imo all over the world people consider their country as a big sport country and the may just favour sports which are not popular in the USA.

&gt;they already get good tv coverage, pool stars are well known in other countries, institutions are more willing to &gt;throw money into pool. coca cola europe sponsors jasmine ouschan

Do you think that the average people know her? Gerda Hofstštter became world champion and average John Doe had no idea about it.
At least in Europe pool 'stars' are not well known and pool coverage is mostly between lousy and non existent.
Ever thought why some Europeans go to the USA to make a living with playing pool?

Snooker in GB is a different story.

Just my opinion,
Mickey2

Ralph S.
05-23-2003, 08:44 AM
I do not remember off the top of my head who said it about the U.S. being the biggest sports country in the world. Who ever did say it needs to pay a little closer attention to actual sporting events. Soccer is the #1 game in the world. It far out distances our #1 sport.

Ralph S.
05-23-2003, 08:49 AM
While I personally am leaning toward the side of anti-UPA, I do believe sanctioning dues shouldnt be as big of a deal as they are being made out to be. We all pay them, be it in our weekly pool, bowling , or golf leagues. Sanctioning dues , if appropriately used should be a moot point.

jjinfla
05-23-2003, 11:22 AM
If I understand the latest contract then in order for an event to be sanctioned by the UPA they must pay $1,000 to the UPA, give the UPA reps a booth and free admission, and everyone who enters the tournament must be a UPA member which they can do by paying a $25 fee AND signing the UPA contract. Will guys like Strickland, Ortman, Reyes, Bustamonte, Davis, etc. sign the contract? If it is sanctioned then Charlie and Mika and whoever else sat out last year will play this year. If not sanctioned then they won't play. Given the choice I would rather see Strickland play rather than Charlie and Mika. Maybe Behrman will explain why he is reluctant to sign the contract. But the UPA sanction does seem like nothing but a modern version of the old protection racket. It would be one thing to demand all these things if the UPA was organizing and running the tournaments but it seems to me that they want to take over organized, well run specific events, and force the promoters to pay them. At least the WPBA can tell their women that if they play in a WPBA event and are able to win their first 5 matches they will be guaranteed to be on TV. That's a heck of an incentive for the women to join the WPBA. What is the incentive to join the UPA? Jake

arn3
05-23-2003, 12:56 PM
mika is god in the phillipines, his name is known by the public in finland, he is nobody in the US. i'll bet jasmine is better known in austria than we think. at least she gets better endorsements than anyone here other than,,,,,,,,,,ellerby. ellerby gets elizabeth arden back in emgland, chen gets some computer chip company.

arn3
05-23-2003, 12:59 PM
the US is a "BIG SPORT" country. there's a difference between that and a BIG sports country.

arn3
05-23-2003, 01:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote jjinfla:</font><hr> ,,,What is the incentive to join the UPA? Jake <hr /></blockquote>

NONE

arn3
05-23-2003, 01:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>
He was playing, I think, a young guy named Kunihiko Takahashi. Takahashi pulled out his jump cue and Earl snidely said "Be a man" So the guy got flustered, put away his jump cue, missed the kick, and lost the match eventually. <hr /></blockquote>

do you remember what tournament?

Wally_in_Cincy
05-23-2003, 01:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote arn3:</font><hr>
do you remember what tournament? <hr /></blockquote>

Sorry. It was the World Pool Championship 2002 at Cardiff. Second round after the round-robin portion. Any other questions? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Rod
05-23-2003, 01:46 PM
Yes, what kind of jump cue did he not use? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

eg8r
05-23-2003, 01:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
but i gave up cuz he just feels that he has to answer to no one. he said the board is who he answers to. but come on. HE IS THE BOARD. <hr /></blockquote> Well, I do not think he is the board, just the newest topic. Grady started all this and he still is yet to come back.

eg8r

eg8r
05-23-2003, 02:29 PM
It had to be a bunjee. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif That is why Earl was scared.

eg8r

arn3
05-23-2003, 04:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Any other questions? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif <hr /></blockquote>

do you subscribe to theory that the universe overlaps itself? if so, do you think the "yugo" or "pinto" will ever make a comeback?

Rod
05-23-2003, 04:31 PM
The universe, well hard to say. Now for the Yugo, Pinto, Corvair and K Cars that's another story all together. Personally I think Bush should have used them to bomb Iraq!

Nostroke
05-23-2003, 11:58 PM
Were u there Wally? Im not saying your wrong but just wondering if you witnessed it.

I was there and neither i nor any of the people i was with saw it go down quite that way although that is the common story. Maybe somehow i/we missed him saying "Be a man".

The way i saw it Earl made a good safe, the crowd applauded but on the way back to his seat he gestured to the crowd by making a "jump motion" indicating that the safe was useless because Takahashi was just going to use his jump cue which he had used earlier. Then he sat down and pointed to his own stick indicating that one should jump with their playing stick or not at all. With this Takahashi slammed his jump cue back in the case, glaring at Earl and clearly rattled. AT THIS POINT, Earl said "oh so your gonna play like a man huh'? Takahashi missed the kick and couldnt make a ball after that.

Basically Takahashi let himself get intimidated by Earl who was still dead out of line as usual with his antics to that point.

I might point out that one or two matches later (the finals) On the opening break Earl made nothing and Bustamente PUSHED OUT TO A JUMP SHOT, which he then made or at least hit USING A JUMP STICK, sending a clear message to Earl that he would not be intimidated. To no avail however as his break was not working that well and he lost anyway.

mickey2
05-24-2003, 12:55 AM
&gt;i'll bet jasmine is better known in austria than we think.

It's simply not true. I don't know about Finland, but I doubt it is much different to Austria. In Austria is and was no media coverage about pool billiard, even when Gerda became world champion.
If it comes to money itís probably even worse in Europe, at the next Euro Tour tournament you can win only 3000 Euro for the first place. But at least there is a somewhat working tour.

arn3
05-24-2003, 04:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mickey2:</font><hr> &gt;i'll bet jasmine is better known in austria than we think.

It's simply not true. I don't know about Finland, but I doubt it is much different to Austria. In Austria is and was no media coverage about pool billiard, even when Gerda became world champion.
If it comes to money itís probably even worse in Europe, at the next Euro Tour tournament you can win only 3000 Euro for the first place. But at least there is a somewhat working tour.
<hr /></blockquote>

that's interesting because i can recall orttman telling me that the payouts were across the board better in germany than in the USA.

it doesn't matter. what i am talking about is endorsement money, not tournament money. endorsement money is how pool will grow. endorsement money is important because it bespeaks the level of percieved OUTSIDE interest in pool. that ouschan gets coca cola, ellerby gets elizabeth arden, and chen gets a computer chip maker, while jeanette gets pool glove, cue stick, and pool table endorsements tells me a lot. it tells me that in europe/asia, someone outside pool is paying attention. jeanette's endorsements are all pool related except for a brief ad for laser eye surgery(big deal), and she has promoted herself better than any american player.

jjinfla
05-24-2003, 05:18 AM
And Annika Sorenstam will receive more from Callaway Golf and Mercedes Benz than all the pool players combined receive. Did you notice how nice she was to the fans? Tossing golf balls to them. That's where the money comes from. And until pool players learn that simple fact they are doomed to mediocrity and low pay. Jake

Ken
05-24-2003, 07:53 AM
Jake, Throwing pool balls at the crowd is something that is usuallly frowned upon. Earl prefers to wave his cue at them. It does raise the interest level of the fans, however.
KenCT~~hopes Earl makes the cut today

Scott Lee
05-24-2003, 11:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote arn3:</font><hr> coca cola europe sponsors jasmine ouschan.
<hr /></blockquote>

You're incorrect here. Jasmine's sponsorship is limited to her LOCAL Coca Cola bottler in the part of Austria she is from. Coca Cola Corporate has NO involvement whatsoever.
It is purely a local decision (abeit a good one) by the local bottler.

Scott Lee