New Board Members for the WPBA?

[allen_jr]

I always thought Allen Hopkins would be the best candidate for any endeavor like this. He not only has the know-how to make things happen, but he's a player himself. I trust Allen.

aw shucks, gee, thanks I'll pass the message along...

I have some interesting thoughts on this, but it is probably best if I keep my mouth shut in this situation....

 

[Majic]

In many ways I agree with your thought. BUT, the purpose of most people involved with pool is to make it grow. The APA's position will only continue to further fracture the industry.

They are bullies and I think this move will only show that too more people.

My goals are to make pool stronger. The WPBA has unfortunately allowed themselves to be 'owned' by a very selfish organization. I feel other sponsors will not look towards the WPBA if this is how they allow their business to be manipulated.

This is all unfortunate and unnecessary. Anyone that wants to continue this discussion (or give up more info on the meting in Lincoln City, please contact me at markg@playbca.com or 702-835-2000.

This probably is not the end of this----

Mark Griffin




""I will agree with you It is what it is. The APA can pull sponsorship for whatever reason at anytime. Thats their perogative and if they object to how things are being handled, then they SHOULD leave. I am not APA supporter , but if the APA feels that way then the WPBA should either look for other sponorship or support their long standing partnership they have with the APA.""

So whats stopping you from sharing your thoughts with the WPBA now? Why wait to be elected to the board to offer your ideas?

 

[Mark Griffin]

wpba election

Majic-

I appreciate you concept BUT there seems to be a big disconnect between WPBA and me - not caused by me.

I would offer my ideas - and only ran for the WPBA board to see if I could help BUT their sponsors have shown they want nothing to do with me or my ideas.

You did see that they publicly said if I was elected to the board they would withdraw their financial support, right?

So how do you propose I help the WPBA with a straight jacket on?

I think they have shown they do not want to work in conjunction with me.

If you want to continue this discussion, please contact me directly.

Mark Griffin
markg@playbca.com

 

[Roy Steffensen]

Mark, as a minimum you should have been allowed to respond to the letter. Then again, that letter should never had been read at all...

IF this is true, I've lost a lot of respect for the WPBA. This basically means that a company "owns" WPBA, telling them what to do and what not to do. This in itself can of course be a good thing, it depends on what kind of ideas the APA has, but for me personally, I wouldn't enjoy being part of a board that has a non-elected outsider deciding what to do and not to do.

What will happen if the newly elected board wants to do something that APA doesn't like? Will they need approval from the APA? Will the APA write a new letter saying that they will end their sponsorship agreement?

How much is APA sponsoring the WPBA? What else do they do, except putting up cash? Do they have a member in the board?

How much does it really cost to get a veto in the WPBA?

 

[Majic]

Majic-

I appreciate you concept BUT there seems to be a big disconnect between WPBA and me - not caused by me.

I would offer my ideas - and only ran for the WPBA board to see if I could help BUT their sponsors have shown they want nothing to do with me or my ideas.

You did see that they publicly said if I was elected to the board they would withdraw their financial support, right?

So how do you propose I help the WPBA with a straight jacket on?

I think they have shown they do not want to work in conjunction with me.

If you want to continue this discussion, please contact me directly.

Mark Griffin
markg@playbca.com

Good luck with you pursuit. I don't care to carry on with this further in private after all this is a forum. But i'll stop here.

 

[sunnyday]

There's more dirt under the surface...

It is what it is. The APA can pull sponsorship for whatever reason at anytime. Thats their perogative and if they object to how things are being handled, then they SHOULD leave. I am not APA supporter , but if the APA feels that way then the WPBA should either look for other sponorship or support their long standing partnership they have with the APA.

Majic,

You're right to a degree. Of course APA or anyone sponsor can pull out their support for their own reasons, but what happened here is a little different.

APA made a statement, more like an ultimatum to WPBA voting members (before voting took place) if they voted Mark Griffin into the board committee, then they will pull their sponsorship from WPBA. I don't know about you, but to me, it seems quite unprofessional and black mail -ish.

Of course, the sad reality is that if APA washed their hands with WPBA, it would cripple the tour to the point where it maybe a matter of time for them to just fade away.

I know you think Mark G. can still offer his advice, but do you think after this threat by APA, WPBA would have balls to even make an eye contact with Mark G?

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if WPBA members won't be "Allowed" to compete in any future event that is associated with Mark G.

S.

 

[Majic]

Majic,



At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if WPBA members won't be "Allowed" to compete in any future event that is associated with Mark G.

S.

So what is really going on here. Obviously there is more to this than we know here.

 

[akaTrigger]

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if WPBA members won't be "Allowed" to compete in any future event that is associated with Mark G.

S.

If that happens, I will be extremely disappointed....

 

[Blackjack]

If that happens, I will be extremely disappointed....

It wouldn't surprise me if it happened. Pool can't handle progress, therefore the people within "the bubble" must invent a way to prevent it -or- interfere with it. Just keep pushing forward, Mark. You are changing the world of pool for the better, and we appreciate all that you do.

 

[Mowem down]

Disappointed....

If that happens, I will be extremely disappointed....

I would think you would be "sick" already. Can you beleave the spot J. Lee is in. My word, If I was her when this news hit my ear, me and the good old APA would have been having talk. She dont need their money and In my opinion is doing them a hugh service, I dont care how much their paying her their getting the best of it. Then they attack (threaten) the tour shes been playing on for how many years........ WOW...

 

[Poolplaya9]

From all that I know of Mr Griffin, I am a fan. Consider this scenario though.

What if Coca Cola was a major sponsor of the WPBA. Then along comes the owner of Pepsi (Cokes main competitor and arch rival) and puts his name in the hat to be on the WPBA board. So then Coca Cola sends word to the WPBA that if the owner of Pepsi gets elected to the board, then they would feel the need to pull their sponsorship because of the obvious conflict of interest.

Does this scenario make anyone feel differently? Do you see where Coca Cola is coming from, or do you still just see them as being totally out of line?

As far as the WPBA goes, the sad fact was that they were really stuck between a rock and a hard place. If Mr Griffin got elected and they suddenly lost the APA as a sponsor, it would probably cause the total collapse of the WPBA. At the very least it would cripple them severely, and they are already on shaky legs to begin with. And if they did "allow" Mr Griffin to get elected, it's not exactly like he would be able to step in and fill the sponsorship gap left by the APA because then there would be a major conflict of interest of having one of your own board members also being a major sponsor. So the WPBA was stuck and it seems like there was really only one choice they could make unfortunately.

Not trying to take any sides here, just throwing it all out for thought.

 

[miplayerstour]

Its a good example however, I still maintain that if coca cola and pepsi knew the end of the soft drink era were near, they would work together knowing that they both could have market share and still function as they always have. It couldve been a conversation about how Mark would use his seat on the board and would it hurt the APA or could he set aside that part of it and just help the WPBA period! The consideration wasnt given to Mark and thats bad business. Competition is healthy in business and there is room for more than one league system in this country so what was the loss or risk to the APA if Mark were elected? Mark in only one of the board, he alone couldnt mandate change and hurt the APA. The APA was short sighted IMO and rather than think of the WPBA and the industry they thought of themselves and their needs which to be honest, I feel is wrong given their standing in the pool industry. Like it or not, once you get to a certain level of notariety in any industry, you become the model for others to follow...........a role model for lack of a better phrase and if this is what pools role models are like, no wonder its suffering so horribly.

I know the WPBA made a decision based on survival but, they shouldve had the courtesy to call Mark and discuss this with him prior to reading that letter to everyone it was handled poorly to say the least but I do understand them trying to stay alive and hanging onto what they have with the APA.

Im all about businesses doing what they must to stay afloat and grow but, the APA was in no way going to be hurt by having Mark become a board member. It wouldve only given additional benefit to them by being a sponsor of a flourishing WPBA rather than a withering WPBA but again, they were short sighted and didnt think it through.

 

[btoneill]

APA is a sponsor (ie. an advertiser). They get something out of the relationship. Advertisers traditionally pick where they are going to send their money based on the return they get from it, and APA must feel they get something from sponsoring the WPBA. Reebok is the offical clothing partner of the NFL. Do you think Reebok would drop that sponsorship if the founder (and largest owner) of Nike, Philip Knight, were to purchase an NFL franchise (which would give him voting rights)? Hell no.

Brunswick is a sponsor of the WPBA, and as far as I've heard they didn't write a letter against Mark due to his affiliation with Diamond. We also have Mueller and Pool Dawg both as sponsors of the WPBA, wow, they compete for selling stuff, oh now, how can this happen? How could they both decide to be sponors and not drop out because a competitor to them is also a sponsor?

I think it's just plain silly that a non-for-profit association doesn't vote in a board member because a sponsor says so.

Just plain silliness IMHO....

Brian

 

[miplayerstour]

Can I get an AMEN!!!!!

Tap tap tap

apa is a sponsor (ie. An advertiser). They get something out of the relationship. Advertisers traditionally pick where they are going to send their money based on the return they get from it, and apa must feel they get something from sponsoring the wpba. Reebok is the offical clothing partner of the nfl. Do you think reebok would drop that sponsorship if the founder (and largest owner) of nike, philip knight, were to purchase an nfl franchise (which would give him voting rights)? Hell no.

Brunswick is a sponsor of the wpba, and as far as i've heard they didn't write a letter against mark due to his affiliation with diamond. We also have mueller and pool dawg both as sponsors of the wpba, wow, they compete for selling stuff, oh now, how can this happen? How could they both decide to be sponors and not drop out because a competitor to them is also a sponsor?

I think it's just plain silly that a non-for-profit association doesn't vote in a board member because a sponsor says so.

Just plain silliness imho....

Brian

 

[Poolplaya9]

Its a good example however, I still maintain that if coca cola and pepsi knew the end of the soft drink era were near, they would work together knowing that they both could have market share and still function as they always have.

You point implies that the pool league market is nearing an end, and that simply isn't true. Both the soft drink market and the pool league market are doing fine and are not on their last legs, so I don't see any validity to whatever point you were trying to make.

It couldve been a conversation about how Mark would use his seat on the board and would it hurt the APA or could he set aside that part of it and just help the WPBA period!

Let's say he could convince the WPBA that he wouldn't be of any harm to the APA. Do you think the APA was going to be convinced? That's ultimately all that mattered here.

Just for the record, from what I know of Mark, I personally believe that he would have been professional enough to not let the conflict of interest be an issue, but again, what assurance does the APA have of that? And a better question than that is, why would they want to take that risk when there really isn't anything for them to gain from it but there is lots to lose?

Competition is healthy in business and there is room for more than one league system in this country so what was the loss or risk to the APA if Mark were elected?

Competition is healthy for the consumer, but it is not so healthy for the competing companies. Any and all competition eats away at your own bottom line. Why would any company want to help another company to potentially be even more competitive?

Mark in only one of the board, he alone couldnt mandate change and hurt the APA.

Again, how does the APA know that for sure, and why on earth would they even want to take that risk when they have little or nothing to gain and plenty to lose?

The APA was short sighted IMO and rather than think of the WPBA and the industry they thought of themselves and their needs which to be honest, I feel is wrong given their standing in the pool industry.

It's wrong for a company to put their own needs first? I think you are thinking more of charities rather than companies.

I know the WPBA made a decision based on survival but, they shouldve had the courtesy to call Mark and discuss this with him prior to reading that letter to everyone it was handled poorly to say the least but I do understand them trying to stay alive and hanging onto what they have with the APA.

I think a courtesy call would have been nice, but ultimately what good would it have done? All that mattered is what the APA's position was, and that wasn't going to change just because Mark promised the WPBA that the conflict of interest wasn't going to be an issue.

Im all about businesses doing what they must to stay afloat and grow but, the APA was in no way going to be hurt by having Mark become a board member.

You might be right, but again, what assurance does the APA have of that? They didn't have much if anything to gain by taking that risk, but they do have a lot to lose. Again, do you really think that Coke would have been ok with the owner of Pepsi being on the board of an organization that they were the major sponsor of? Not much upside, but lots of potential downside.

It wouldve only given additional benefit to them by being a sponsor of a flourishing WPBA rather than a withering WPBA but again, they were short sighted and didnt think it through.

I kind of disagree. I think it could cheapen the APA's sponsorship in the public's eye if the WPBA allows the owner of the APA's main competitor to be on their board. It is very similar to if a pro were sponsored by one cue company, yet they openly played with a cue from a different company. It's a slap in the face to your sponsor, and one that all the public gets to see.

The bottom line is that I believe that Mark would have been wonderful for the WPBA, but unfortunately as the owner of the main competitor to one of if not the largest WPBA sponsor, it just isn't feasable, which sucks.

But I just don't see how anybody could be expected to do anything differently than what they have. The APA made the only logical decision to be made. The WPBA made the only logical decision to be made. In protesting the whole thing, Mr Griffin is doing what is most logical on his end. It just sucks that a guy that could have been such an asset to the WPBA just happens to own the main competitor to the WPBA's main sponsor, but it's just one of those things, and it's nobody's fault. Everyone took the obvious best course of action for themselves and did the only thing that made any sense to do. At least that's my take on it with the knowledge at hand.

 

[sunnyday]

From all that I know of Mr Griffin, I am a fan. Consider this scenario though.

What if Coca Cola was a major sponsor of the WPBA. Then along comes the owner of Pepsi (Cokes main competitor and arch rival) and puts his name in the hat to be on the WPBA board. So then Coca Cola sends word to the WPBA that if the owner of Pepsi gets elected to the board, then they would feel the need to pull their sponsorship because of the obvious conflict of interest.

Does this scenario make anyone feel differently? Do you see where Coca Cola is coming from, or do you still just see them as being totally out of line?

As far as the WPBA goes, the sad fact was that they were really stuck between a rock and a hard place. If Mr Griffin got elected and they suddenly lost the APA as a sponsor, it would probably cause the total collapse of the WPBA. At the very least it would cripple them severely, and they are already on shaky legs to begin with. And if they did "allow" Mr Griffin to get elected, it's not exactly like he would be able to step in and fill the sponsorship gap left by the APA because then there would be a major conflict of interest of having one of your own board members also being a major sponsor. So the WPBA was stuck and it seems like there was really only one choice they could make unfortunately.

Not trying to take any sides here, just throwing it all out for thought.

Do you really feel APA had the right to do what they did to WPBA because they sponsor them?

They treated WPBA like puppets and took away their choice to vote freely!

You have your scenario, but I can't help but to feel what APA did was morally wrong.

APA sponsors WPBA and get their advertisement off of them, but they don't own them - this is modern day slavery!!!

I will give you a scenario:

TIGER WOODS - he is sponsored by Nike ... you think they would threat to drop him because his father (Tiger's #1 adviser) wore a Adidas hat that was given to him for free? ** WPBA is non-profit org. and the board committee is a free service.

Tiger was sponsored by Chrysler ... if he bought his wife (love of his life) a Bentley, Mercedes and BMW - because he could afford to and that's what she wanted - DO YOU THINK Chrysler would pull their sponsorship and stop running their commercial with Tiger in it?

You tell me.

S.

 

[sunnyday]

Couldn't have said better

APA is a sponsor (ie. an advertiser). They get something out of the relationship. Advertisers traditionally pick where they are going to send their money based on the return they get from it, and APA must feel they get something from sponsoring the WPBA. Reebok is the offical clothing partner of the NFL. Do you think Reebok would drop that sponsorship if the founder (and largest owner) of Nike, Philip Knight, were to purchase an NFL franchise (which would give him voting rights)? Hell no.

Brunswick is a sponsor of the WPBA, and as far as I've heard they didn't write a letter against Mark due to his affiliation with Diamond. We also have Mueller and Pool Dawg both as sponsors of the WPBA, wow, they compete for selling stuff, oh now, how can this happen? How could they both decide to be sponors and not drop out because a competitor to them is also a sponsor?

I think it's just plain silly that a non-for-profit association doesn't vote in a board member because a sponsor says so.

Just plain silliness IMHO....

Brian

Very well stated - I agree :smile:

S.

 

[btoneill]

Tiger was sponsored by Chrysler ... if he bought his wife (love of his life) a Bentley, Mercedes and BMW - because he could afford to and that's what she wanted - DO YOU THINK Chrysler would pull their sponsorship and stop running their commercial with Tiger in it?

Actually is was Buick that sponsored Tiger. And in-fact Tiger has played in the Mercedes Benz and BMW championships, and has won those events walking around with a golf bag with a huge Buick logo on it.

Just look at Nascar... You see drivers drinking a bottle of Pepsi in the winners circle of the Coca-Cola 600 and drivers drinking Coke in the winners circle of the Pepsi 500...

Brian

 

[sunnyday]

OK, someone please explain to me...

How does Mark Griffin (owner of BCA Pool League) infiltrate and threaten APA as it's competitor by serving as WPBA's board committee?

I must be missing something great here. I thought all the board members (WPBA) did was to decide which Events to sanction (so the women can earn money other then their existing 5 events), who gets Penalized for breaking their rules (remember Jasmin Ouschan?), blah, blah, blah and what is best for WPBA...

Do APA join in the table of "Secrete" meetings of WPBA Board and let them know where they hides their money? "haha" Maybe the account number to their Swiss account? "hehe" OK, I'm baffled here... and a LITTLE annoyed that I don't get it, LOL.

S.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Do you really feel APA had the right to do what they did to WPBA because they sponsor them?

They treated WPBA like puppets and took away their choice to vote freely!

You have your scenario, but I can't help but to feel what APA did was morally wrong.

APA sponsors WPBA and get their advertisement off of them, but they don't own them - this is modern day slavery!!!

I will give you a scenario:

TIGER WOODS - he is sponsored by Nike ... you think they would threat to drop him because his father (Tiger's #1 adviser) wore a Adidas hat that was given to him for free? ** WPBA is non-profit org. and the board committee is a free service.

Tiger was sponsored by Chrysler ... if he bought his wife (love of his life) a Bentley, Mercedes and BMW - because he could afford to and that's what she wanted - DO YOU THINK Chrysler would pull their sponsorship and stop running their commercial with Tiger in it?

You tell me.

S.

I understand what you are saying, but on the flip side, don't you feel a company has a right to withdraw their sponsorship if they feel that their company may be hurt by the conflict of interest or the value of their sponsorship was going to be cheapened?

They didn't make the WPBA do anything. They simply exercised what is their right (in my opinion) to withdraw their sponsorship when they saw a conflict of interest they felt would be detrimental to their company and a cheapening of the value of their sponsorship.

What if it were the other way around and the BCA pool league was the main WPBA sponsor and an owner of the APA was going to be on the board of the WPBA. Yes, you have no right to make the WPBA do anything, but wouldn't you feel like you had the right to end your sponsorship if you felt your company would be hurt by the conflict of interest or the value of your sponsorship was going to be cheapened? Can you really honestly say that you wouldn't feel you had a right to withdraw your sponsorship when you believed your company would be harmed?