PDA

View Full Version : 2003 US Open



Buckster_uk
07-27-2003, 10:11 AM
Is this event still going ahead?

I am really confused about the situation with the UPA and its players, are no players from the UPA playing in this event or what?

I would love some definate information on the event and the UPA.

Thanks

rackmup
07-27-2003, 10:17 AM
Of course the "event will go on". UPA players are not prohibited from playing in the event but will not benefit form their UPA member "status" (whatever that might be.)

See below:

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote UPA President, George Lord :</font><hr>

UPA does NOT sanction the US Open Event.
Hardy, VA July 21, 2003

"The UPA exists to serve its membership. A principle means of serving our players is to improve and promote the image and general interest in pool.

The UPA is of the opinion that sanctioning a tournament promoted by Mr. Behrman is inconsistent with this fundamental objective.

In addition, Mr. Behrman has peremptorily refused to accept certain conditions of a standard UPA sanctioning contract.

For these reasons, the UPA cannot sanction the US Open.

Due to the perceived importance of this event, the UPA will grant waivers to those members who feel they must play in this event. However, the UPA cannot offer to any member competing in the event any of the assurances that would normally follow from UPA sanctioning."

George Lord
UPA Board of Directors
<hr /></blockquote>

The US OPEN will go on for as long as the Berhman's choose to host it, no matter what upstart organizations (like the UPA) try to do to compete with or stop it.

IMO, the UPA's actions are deplorable.

Regards,

Ken (believes Kato will win this year's Open. Yes, I said KATO.)

rackmup
07-27-2003, 10:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote What UPA Board Member Lord SAID:</font><hr>
UPA does NOT sanction the US Open Event.
Hardy, VA July 21, 2003

"The UPA exists to serve its membership. A principle means of serving our players and our ego is to improve and promote the image and general interest in pool.

The UPA is of the opinion that sanctioning a tournament promoted by Mr. Behrman is inconsistent with this fundamental objective.

In addition, Mr. Behrman has peremptorily refused to accept certain conditions of a standard UPA sanctioning contract.

For these reasons, the UPA cannot sanction the US Open.

Due to the perceived importance of this event, the UPA will grant waivers to those members who feel they must play in this event. However, the UPA cannot offer to any member competing in the event any of the assurances that would normally follow from UPA sanctioning."

George Lord
UPA Board of Directors
<hr /></blockquote>

And what UPA Board Member Lord MEANT:

[ QUOTE ]
UPA does NOT sanction the US Open Event because we don't like Barry Berhman.
Hardy, VA July 21, 2003

"The UPA exists to serve its membership and it's own ego. A principle means of serving our players and our over-fed egos is to improve and promote the image and general interest in pool, of which we have done nothing yet except tell others what we won't do, promote, endorse, etc.

The UPA is of the lopsided and ridiculous opinion that sanctioning a tournament promoted by Mr. Behrman is inconsistent with this fundamental objective even though through thick and thin, good and bad times, Mr. Behrman has seen to it that the single most important 9-Ball tournament on US soil has continued to thrive in spite of twits like us.

In addition, Mr. Behrman has peremptorily (we don't know what that word means but we heard big words would make an impact on those who read them) refused to accept certain conditions (our conditions and if you don't like them, we'll "take our ball and go home") of a standard UPA sanctioning contract (which hasn't been needed in the past successful US OPEN tournaments and really isn't needed now but we felt like throwing our minimal weight around).

For these silly and selfish reasons, the UPA cannot sanction the US Open or spread, in person, our propoganda against the Berhmans').

Due to our self-conceived, gratuitous importance of the UPA, the UPA will grant waivers (see, we really aren't bad guys) to those members who feel they want to play in this event. However, the UPA cannot offer to any member competing in the event any of the assurances that would normally follow from UPA sanctioning which are really useless and not needed as Mr. Berhman has always come through on his promises, even if they were delayed at times."

George "I want to be the Lord of Pool Players Everywhere" Lord
UPA Board of Directors<hr /></blockquote>

Ahh yes...the UPA: Less fun than a barrel of infectious biting monkeys.

Regards,

Ken (Thinks the UPA ought to be ashamed of itself. And, my mother, of me.)

Barbara
07-27-2003, 10:46 AM
ROTFLMAO!!!

And TAP TAP TAP!!!!

Barbara

Tom_In_Cincy
07-27-2003, 11:04 AM
To Ken (aka 2nd place in Fl Challenge match)

I do believe you meant to say BARRY Berhmen NOT Brady.. but maybe you did mean BRADY just to stir things up or see who is paying attention.

Brady has been working very hard with coordinating the last two US Opens But Barry has been getting all the PRESS and Credit.

Fran Crimi
07-27-2003, 11:12 AM
Ken, I'm not sure why you're doing this. I'm not pro or con UPA. I'm doing what I think I'm supposed to be doing which is observing their progress and seeing how they're moving forward.

I thought I saw some good things and an effort on their part to compromise. Last year they wanted the money in escrow. OK, they didn't get it, and they didn't sanction the event.

This year they offered a compromise, which is rather than the money in escrow, a contractual agreement where Barry Behrman promises to pay what he advertises. Apparently he didn't go for that either. As far as the other thing that the UPA demands for sanctioning, which is that all participants become members of the UPA, that's old hat and Barry agreed to that with the PBTA 10 years ago, so that's not an issue.

So, what it appears to comes down to, is the issue of promising in writing, to pay the money that is promised to the players.

So, because the UPA issues a statement to it's members saying it can't offer it's members the guarantees it would by sanctioning, they're a bunch of ego maniacs with bad intentions?

They're granting waivers to their players. What more are they supposed to do?

Fran

rackmup
07-27-2003, 11:16 AM
Yes, I meant Barry. And, while Brady has been doing a lot of the work, it is still Barry's "baby" and Brady will inherit all of the "baggage" regardless of how hard he works in front of or behind the scenes.

If an organization wants to "help promote the sport" as the UPA indicates it does, success doesn't start with "mud-slinging" and character assassination.

The UPA got off on the wrong foot and has continued to stumble in it's quest for respectability. Those involved in this "mugging" of the Berhmans' should look hard in the mirror one morning and ask:

"Do I, the UPA, really care about the future of the sport of pool or more about getting the congratulatory finger pointed at me?"

I think we all know the answer to that one. In case you don't, I've included a multiple choice question below:

<ul type="square"> "Do I care about the future of the sport of Pool?

Not at all.
No.
Nope.
Yes, if there's something in it for me.
[/list]

Regards,

Ken

rackmup
07-27-2003, 11:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran:</font><hr> I'm not pro or con UPA. <hr /></blockquote>

Neither am I. I'm "con" in the way in which they choose to do things.

It's the way the UPA goes about gaining what they perceive to be "best for the players" and how they choose to feed that information to us.

Have they ever told of the "good" the Berhmans' have done for the sport of 9-ball? Have they ever said one positive thing about Barry? It's more like the Republicans versus the Democrats at election time.

If a player is concerned about not getting paid, which has happened in the past yet they still show up the following year (for the most part) says something in the Berhman's favor: The players do believe they will get their due.

If a player doesn't think he will see his money, then I assume as adults with minds of their own, they will choose not to participate.

While I agree with the need for a "Sanctioning Body", I despise the need to berate someone simply because they cannot/will not conform to your rules.

The UPA won't be there this year but I'll tell you what will be:

<ul type="square">
A full player field. Plenty of spectators. The Berhmans. An overall satisfied representation from all the above. [/list]

Regards,

Ken (not saying the UPA is bad but definitely not saying they are good.)

Tom_In_Cincy
07-27-2003, 11:25 AM
Fran,
My take on the UPA is somewhat negative. IMO the UPA should be WORKING with promorters to ensure players are in attendence for a great tournament. This would result in a larger gate, more profit for the Promoter, better money for the players and a repeatable quality event for the FANS.

So far, the UPA has just made demands. I don't see the UPA working with tournament promoters in a business fashion. IMO there is too much public bantering (see this month's BD editorial about the UPA).

If the UPA would just work more with the promoters rather than the current 'strong arm' tactics, maybe, just maybe, there is a chance for the all to work out rather quickly.

It is my hope that the UPA and the independant promoters can develop a tour that can bring the FANS the best quality of the Professional Pool Players possible. If this can happen repeatably, TV and big Sponsers will show up.

More Fans, More Tournaments, More Money, More Exposure, More Money.. Then TV.. and MORE MONEY..

Qtec
07-27-2003, 11:27 AM
Poeple go to the US Open to see the best players.

If the UPA had some kind of solidarity they could have boycotted the tournament .

Next year , when the sponsers know that the top players are not coming ,there would be less prize money and stature of the tournament would diminish.That is their power.

They should be above board and the issue's should be discussed in the open . The whole setup of pro pool has to be resolved .
Compromise instead of blackmail would be a step in the right direction. From what I have read here and on other forums , the credibility of the UPA is at an all time low . This 'waiver 'decision has publicly show that they are not even in control of their own members , nevermind US pro pool.

Dont you think tho that the pro pool players should try looking further than the end of their cue's.


Q

Fran Crimi
07-27-2003, 11:33 AM
Ken,

And that's exactly what the UPA is saying...you're adults and you make your decisions for yourselves, which is why we're granting you waivers, but we have an obligation to tell you as your association that we can't guarantee the results.

To me, they're also saying that they recognize the tradition and the popularity of the event. But I'd be really pissed off at my association if they gave it their seal of approval and I didn't get paid. In fact, I may want to demand payment from my association because they guaranteed the event to me.

They HAVE to do that, Ken. That doesn't make them the bad guys for doing that.

Fran

bolo
07-27-2003, 11:54 AM
Quote
"So far, the UPA has just made demands."
I would say requesting the money be in escrow is not unreasonable.
Quote
"If the UPA would just work more with the promoters rather than the current 'strong arm' tactics, maybe, just maybe, there is a chance for the all to work out rather quickly."
They can't play both sides, they either represent the players interests or they don't. The players never have any say in how tournaments are done, their whole history has been that of whores.

Ken
07-27-2003, 12:06 PM
Fren,
The "revised" Player Contract states that "Player will not play in non-UPA sanctioned events that conflict with the UPA unless the UPA grants Player a waiver". Thus, you can plainly see that a waiver is not needed to play in the U.S. Open since it does not "conflict with" a UPA event. The statement that they will grant waivers is simply a lie designed to make them look like good guys.

The contract does not permit them to grant a waiver in this situation because one is not needed. I have trouble believing any statement from an organization that clearly lies in its press releases.

It's a self-serving statement conveying no true information except the implication that they will not schedule a conflicting event. That's all they had to say and even that was not necessary because the most recent schedule given to the players has no event that conflicts with the Open. Every player who has read the contract already knew he was free to play in the Open.

The UPA is a few people acting like 10 year olds who have formed a club and are now deciding what everyone else has to do to participate in their club.
KenCT

bolo
07-27-2003, 12:08 PM
Quote
"If a player is concerned about not getting paid, which has happened in the past yet they still show up the following year (for the most part) says something in the Berhman's favor: "

Not really, they have to take what they can get, not because they want to. Would you go to work on a day to day basis and never know what to expect at your job. Your job description changes from one day to the next and you have no other choice because it is the only job available. Just try to be objective. Barry wants to put on big tournaments with big advertised prize funds that don't exist, he is gambling, they depend on the successful outcome of the tournament. That is fine, but if things don't go well, all they are asking is a guarantee they are not part of his roll of the dice. They are not asking for a bigger cut of the pie if he is very successful, more power to him, they just want to get paid what was promised. Not too much to ask and odd he would not put it in writing if that is the case.

rackmup
07-27-2003, 12:09 PM
I am a member of several professional organizations, some that I pay money to belong to, and others that I am a member of simply by my professional association.

None of them tell me what to do, attempt to sway me one-way-or-the-other or prohibit me from doing, as I want to do (as long as my conduct is within the law and in accordance with my professional licensing.) I do not need the granting of waivers to go on about the business of doing what is best, either for my profession or me.

I have a problem with associations that limit someone to participation/earnings opportunities to just to those arenas where my association would be involved.

The UPA should be working with the promoters instead of trying to force their rules and views down others throats. It is my opinion that is the approach of the UPA.

The bottom line is this: We (those of us here at the CCB) are for the most part, amateur players who enjoy the talents of the pros (yourself included). It has long been the beliefs of those here (and other Billiards forums) that the UPA has not represented the sport in a positive way but more with a "strong-armed" effort at gaining their wishes.

Should that matter? You bet it should. We pay the admission at the gate, we buy the t-shirts, and we eat the concession foods and drink the over-priced beverages at these events. We patronize the vendors and buy their wares. Without the fans, no sport would survive. Without the whole-hearted support of the sport's associations and representatives, the entire sport suffers.

Bad attendance, Marquee player absence, arguing, mud slinging and the like are a greater detriment to the game than any of the games past happenings.

The definition of "Improve":
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Webster's:</font><hr>


improve

SYLLABICATION: imĚprove
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: m-prv KEY
VERB: Inflected forms: imĚproved, imĚprovĚing, imĚproves

TRANSITIVE VERB:
1. To raise to a more desirable or more excellent quality or condition; make better.
2. To increase the productivity or value of (land or property).
3. To put to good use; use profitably.<hr /></blockquote>



I do not believe the UPA has adhered to the definition of the word. But then again, at least they are trying to do something "positive for the sport of Professional pool" (something that very few are doing.) It just seems to me (and others) they are going about it in a wrong and unprofessional way.

I would be interested to hear the opinions of Professional UPA members about what they really think of the organization and the true benefits they have actually seen by virtue of their alliance with the UPA. This will not happen however, out of possible expulsion from the group for speaking against the organization. I would be equally interested in hearing the reasons why other Professional players have chosen not to align with the UPA.

Fran, the truth of the matter is simple: It doesn't matter what I think of the UPA. I'm a "nobody" in the equation. What does matter is when there are a bunch of us "nobodies" that disagree with the way our sport is represented by a group or groups that proclaim to "care" yet have done nothing more than complain, belittle and groan.

Regards and in respect of your professional opinion,

Ken

rackmup
07-27-2003, 12:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bolo:</font><hr> Not really, they have to take what they can get, not because they want to. <hr /></blockquote>

Not true. These are grown men and they can do whatever they wish. Most of these players can make more money in the practice rooms or on the road than they can if they win an event. Mere participation in the Open isn't of benefit to most. Winning and the exposure that winning brings is the only true benefit.

The majority of participants walk away with nothing but stories to tell and experiences to share. A few reap the financial benefits of their success and the ensuing endorsements/bonuses and recognition that fades with next year's winner.

We do what we want to do because that is our nature and our right. No one, not the Berhmans or the UPA dictates to anyone what they will do.

Only a small percentage of the players at the Open play full time. Others have those typical jobs that we labor at each day and yes, we go to work because we have to, not because we want to.

The story about players not getting paid is one that is an isolated incident at the Open. It hasn't happened every year like some would make it sound. No one is without mistakes in their professional and personal lives. Continually pointing out those errors serves no positive purpose to anyone except the finger-pointer.

Regards,

Ken

bolo
07-27-2003, 12:44 PM
That reminds me of the line from Animal House when they tell Flounder, "You f***ed up. you trusted us". I guess you are right it is the players fault if they trust him, forget about putting anything in writing.

stevelomako
07-27-2003, 02:31 PM
I've been reading these comments regarding the UPA and Barry Berhman for quite awhile now and it's really getting old. There's a line drawn in the sand and people are on each side, both with valid points.

Let me add a few for each side......

The UPA wants to have a tour for professional players, the only way to do it is to try to get a bunch of tournaments together so they can have a ranking system, something to show any sponsers .

Barry has a little tournament that's been going on for quite a long time now, which means he's one of the parties that they need.

UPA wants to guarantee that it's members get paid anything that is promised (hmmm, kind of like the UAW). Nothing wrong with that so far.

Barry doesn't want to put the money up or give any control of his tournament to the UPA, it's his tournament, has been for a long time and nobody is going to tell him how to run it. Anyone would feel like that.

Now the problems...The tournament doesn't make the money he hoped because of a world shaking incident and he can't pay everyone what they have coming right away. Players have no choice but to wait, what else can they do?

The UPA says this is what we want to avoid, the players have to be paid no matter what. That's what they are supposed to do for their members if they are going to represent them (just like the UAW), even if it doesn't look good for them they HAVE to look out for their members.

Remember that! They are a players organization, not a promoters organization.

Barry's side...he pays entry fees for all former winners, he's taken bum checks for entry fees, he's given money to players and not been paid back, (things any other pool room owner or promoter has done also) he should be given a little slack, is he wrong to feel this way?

The UPA's side......but!....you've made alot of money on all the other tournaments even with the things you have done for the players so pay! Not unresonable, they want to look out for their members no matter how it looks.

Now comes Brady Berhman.....the worst thing at the worst time that could happen...does! I'm not going to say anything about this situation except it just added fuel to the fire, the kid got burned and we'll see what happens.

I can understand the feeling on both sides and I've seen this movie before (Richie Florence still owes me money, I knew I would never get it but he was a good guy too and he tried his ass off to do something and almost everybody understood) and we'll just have to see what kind of ending this one has. So I'm going to finish with 2 comments, one for each side:

1-The people that are on Barry's side...put your money where your mouth is and send him something, a dollar, two dollars, five, whatever. Don't pay for cheap seats and try and sit in the V.I.P. section. Don't use someone else's pass, SUPPORT THE TOURNAMENT! Don't try to figure out ways to get around paying for something, pay!

2-The UPA....There's alot of bad history that they are trying to overcome, so if they are going to represent players then they have to look out for them no matter how bad they look, or they need to fail.....and fail fast!

Hoping for the best for everyone involved,
Steve

Drake
07-27-2003, 02:32 PM
I believe that ALL of the UPA players will play except maybe Charlie. The U.S OPEN is probably has the strongest field around right now...some might say the World Pool Championship has a stronger field. SO, Everybody wants win it because it's the OPEN!!!

rackmup
07-27-2003, 02:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote stevelomako:</font><hr> There's a line drawn in the sand and people are on each side, both with valid points <hr /></blockquote>

It's the presence of any "line" that is harmful to the overall scheme of things when it comes to reaching an agreement between two or more parties that ultimately has the same goal.

You make terrific points in regard to it being "Barry's little tournament" (although I don't think the "little" term is correct) and about the UPA and it's members getting "paid anything that is promised (hmmm, kind of like the UAW)." It's hard to argue for Barry's side for anything but paying what is owed.

Although it is far too simplistic, the two sides need to get together and agree upon some mutual ground or agree to go their separate ways.

The biggest problem is that you have pool players wanting to govern pool players. This will always create conflict. You need a separate and outside managing body to perform the task of setting rules, guidelines and protocols without having any "horse in the race" (other than profit for putting up with all the crap professional sports of any flavor doles out) to influence their decisions. Until that is done, I apologize for your being "tired of listening to it", but the debate will only continue to grow and all the while, nothing good for pool will come from it.

Regards,

Ken

bolo
07-27-2003, 03:07 PM
Just the simplest of questions. Would the UPA not be remiss in their responsibilities, if they gave their stamp of approval to a tournament that they knew did not meet their requirements for sanctioning? Just a simple yes or no. That is all that has happened.

rackmup
07-27-2003, 03:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bolo:</font><hr> Would the UPA not be remiss in their responsibilities, if they gave their stamp of approval to a tournament that they knew did not meet their requirements for sanctioning? <hr /></blockquote>

The US OPEN doesn't need the UPA's "stamp of approval." The UPA members do not need "waivers" from the UPA to play in the US OPEN.

It boils down to the UPA wanting involvement with the most recognized 9-ball tournament in the United States and the US OPEN said "we don't need you."

Simple as that. Two groups, face-to-face, both with their agendas, one winning (the Berhmans') and one losing (the UPA has no say in a tournament they wanted "say" in.)

Sorry, I don't know how to give a "yes or no" answer. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Regards,

Ken

bolo
07-27-2003, 05:08 PM
Considering the effort you went to, to avoid answering, I will consider that a yes.

Ken
07-27-2003, 05:50 PM
The UPA would indeed be remiss if they gave sanctioning to a promoter who didn't meet their requirements as presently exist:

1. All players who are not members must pay $25 extra to join.
2. Earl must stay away.
3. The UPA players get seeded and guaranteed entry.

Now I ask you why would any promoter want sanctioning? What do they get in return? Don't tell me their players will attend. The players will go to the Open. The UPA can't even get their players to attend their own events.

Sanctioning is a joke. The UPA should be in the business of organizing their own events. If they are supposedly modeled after the WPBA that is their obligation. Instead they want to form a tour with existing events but they offer nothing to the promoters in return except keeping Earl out. How does that benefit an event?

If you join the UPA to play one tournament you have to agree to play the other sanctioned events and also agree to be subject to a lawsuit compelling your attendance if you don't play. Have fun traveling around the country losing money because that's what will happen to the average player. There's not enough to give everyone a profit.
KenCT

rackmup
07-27-2003, 05:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bolo:</font><hr> Would the UPA not be remiss in their responsibilities... <hr /></blockquote>

Let me help you and this time I'll type slower so it's easier to understand:

N-O.

You cannot be considered remiss when you have no responsibility e.g., any say in the OPEN, in the first place.

Regards,

K-E-N

rackmup
07-27-2003, 05:52 PM
Tap-Tap

bolo
07-27-2003, 06:10 PM
See, that wasn't so hard, you actually answered a question. Of course you had to be sarcastic, but considering, that is probably the best you can do.

rackmup
07-27-2003, 06:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bolo:</font><hr> Of course you had to be sarcastic...<hr /></blockquote>

Now you know what to expect from me. But, I don't mean it in a bad way.

Regards,

Ken (Bolo is new. Everyone else knows I'm sarcastic)

stevelomako
07-27-2003, 11:10 PM
First let me say I really enjoy your comments and sense of humor, too many times in life people can dish it out but not take it and you are definately not one of those people. You are one of the reasons I like this board so much. So without futher ado, my replies.......

The "little tournament" comment was ment for a little humor as we all know it's been one of the biggest for a long time now.

Just so people don't get the wrong idea about me, please reread my post, nowhere does it say I was "tired of listening to it". No apology is necessary in that case.

A separate and outside managing body as in Don Mackey? I really don't think it matters who, as long as they operate in the best interest of who they represent.

You are absolutely right that it is too simplistic, but right or wrong the UPA must, and I repeat, must be for the players as should any players organization that comes along should be. It's when you get people with a Napoleonic complex involved you have a problem.

Thanks and no hard feelings,
Steve (wondering why Ken had no remark after his name for me? I feel neglected.)

rackmup
07-28-2003, 03:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote stevelomako:</font><hr> I've been reading these comments regarding the UPA and Barry Berhman for quite awhile now and it's really getting old.<hr /></blockquote>

I took it to mean the same thing.

I'll still apologize. I apologize.

Regards,

Ken (you say tomato, I say tomato)

p.s.

Thanks for the kind comments.

Wally_in_Cincy
07-28-2003, 06:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote rackmup:</font><hr>
....I would be interested to hear the opinions of Professional UPA members about what they really think of the organization and the true benefits they have actually seen by virtue of their alliance with the UPA. This will not happen however, out of possible expulsion from the group for speaking against the organization....<hr /></blockquote>

Yep. That's what happened to Earl.

I just don't get it. Working with Behrman in a cooperative, rather than an adversarial, relationship would benefit UPA, players, fans, Behrman, everybody.

Wally~~doesn't get it /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

rackmup
07-28-2003, 10:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> Wally~~doesn't get it <hr /></blockquote>

It's okay...neither does the UPA.

Regards,

Ken (defender of all that is right and good with the world including homemade pork tamales)