Oh, you're right. Tells you and everyone what I know about golf, not much, LOL. I couldn't think of what car it was:grin-square:
But you "all" get my point
S.
New Board Members for the WPBA?
- Thread starter Johnnyt
- Start date
Oh, you're right. Tells you and everyone what I know about golf, not much, LOL. I couldn't think of what car it was:grin-square:
But you "all" get my point
S.
Oh, that's easy...
Mark being on the WPBA board gives Mark additional "clout" in the billiards world... As if his being on the BCA Board didn't already give him all he needed... Or any other of his dealings for that matter...
Brian
Poolplaya9...what harm could Mark do to the APA by serving on a board of volunteers to help the WPBA to flourish? If he began a slander campaign release him, sue him for slander etc. I personally dont feel any damage would come from this and in assuming it would hurt the APAs creditibility as a sponsor is silly IMO because most people simply dont care who sponsors what they just want pool! There was no damage to be done to the APA and I believe they know that. If this were in fact based off of all business and the fear that he may damage their market share then yes, maybe they were right in doing so but do you really think the APA thinks Mark being on a board for the WPBA would damage their market share? No..........not in my opinion it was purely personal and a knee jerk reaction frmo the big bully on the block that is acting out in a tantrum in the grocery store because they might not get what they want. It worked this time and mom gave in!
I agree that the call may not have done anything or changed the outcome but it wouldve given the WPBA the ability to be fair and honest with Mark Griffin and Im guessing he wouldve understood. In avoiding the issue totally, they slapped Mark Griffin in the face which is ridiculous when he tries to help this industry as much as he does. It was basic courtesy that wasnt applied and thats my issue with the WPBA. The fact they chose isnt the issue, its how they went about it.
Last but not least.....................I am saying that Pool is suffering and the WPBA is suffering so, to that end, any large organization that is flourishing should have the desire and responsibilty to assist their industry. Amateur pool leagues are fine but many rooms, billiard related companies and tour events are finished so yes, it is time to ban together rather than standing apart regardless of our competitive nature. It isnt the first time its been asked of an industry and it does work when one allows themself to do whats right as opposed to whats selfish in nature. This does not mean I dont expect the APA to cover themselves or to be careful if they have fears but, what market share will they lose in working to grow pool and help the industry? The risk of losing anything is far outweighed and outmeasured by whats to gain IMO.
There will always be different opinions its human nature and business decisions will vary because of the same thing but, basic business courtesy is the same wherever you go. A call shouldve been placed to say this is why we cannot elect you.....he very well may have withdrawn out of respect for that call so they didnt look bad who knows.
The APA did what many expected but when the industry needs a combined effort and companies can only gain by working together because it will increase market share for everyone if they have a viable product or service, it sickens me to be honest that they took such a narrow minded approach and I dont feel it was a true business decision, it was personal and self serving
I agree that the call may not have done anything or changed the outcome but it wouldve given the WPBA the ability to be fair and honest with Mark Griffin and Im guessing he wouldve understood. In avoiding the issue totally, they slapped Mark Griffin in the face which is ridiculous when he tries to help this industry as much as he does. It was basic courtesy that wasnt applied and thats my issue with the WPBA. The fact they chose isnt the issue, its how they went about it.
Last but not least.....................I am saying that Pool is suffering and the WPBA is suffering so, to that end, any large organization that is flourishing should have the desire and responsibilty to assist their industry. Amateur pool leagues are fine but many rooms, billiard related companies and tour events are finished so yes, it is time to ban together rather than standing apart regardless of our competitive nature. It isnt the first time its been asked of an industry and it does work when one allows themself to do whats right as opposed to whats selfish in nature. This does not mean I dont expect the APA to cover themselves or to be careful if they have fears but, what market share will they lose in working to grow pool and help the industry? The risk of losing anything is far outweighed and outmeasured by whats to gain IMO.
There will always be different opinions its human nature and business decisions will vary because of the same thing but, basic business courtesy is the same wherever you go. A call shouldve been placed to say this is why we cannot elect you.....he very well may have withdrawn out of respect for that call so they didnt look bad who knows.
The APA did what many expected but when the industry needs a combined effort and companies can only gain by working together because it will increase market share for everyone if they have a viable product or service, it sickens me to be honest that they took such a narrow minded approach and I dont feel it was a true business decision, it was personal and self serving
Last edited:
Too bad... here is someone just trying to help without lining his pocket and getting stomped out by the "Giant" in the industry who's sole purpose it to fatten their pocket...
I'm shocked
S.
Poolplaya9 - this is certainly not the first time (nor probably the last) that the APA has used (or attempted to use) their "influence" (or flat out threats) for their own benefit and to the detriment of a 3rd party.
miplayerstour said:
First, let me again make it real clear that from what I know about Mark, I don't personally believe he would intentionally do anything to harm the APA if he were on the board. I believe that to the best of his ability he would attempt to keep the conflict of interest from being an issue.
That being said, you asked what he could do if he were so inclined. It's obvious that he could cause at least a little harm if he wanted to. No, he probably couldn't cause the failure of their company or even anything real major, but he could probably do things like cut down on their exposure just slightly here and there, which would have at least a little impact.
He would obviously not be able to tout the APA as the best pool league out there, which is what you generally are supposed to do for your sponsor. And how can the WPBA be taken seriously when they plug their sponsor by telling everybody to "join the APA, it's the best league, yada yada yada", all the while their sponsor's main rival is sitting on their board. Who could take them seriously and believe their plugs in that case?
As I mentioned previously, it would probably 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 bit of a slap in the face to your sponsor, and one that all the public gets to see. Nobody would be able to take the WPBA serious when they plugged the APA.
Yes, I believe that the APA truly is concerned, and whether or not you or me or anyone else feels that is a rationale concern really doesn't matter. Everybody must act based on their own beliefs. For the record, I do also feel it is probably a bit of a strong arm tactic as well, but I don't really see a problem with leveraging your company as best you can. That's what all companies do in whatever way they can, as they should, as long as it is within the law. It's called competition.miplayerstour said:
I still agree with you that they should have called just as a courtesy, but it isn't an important issue to continue to harp on because it just wouldn't have changed a thing. It wouldn't have changed the APA's position, and I don't think it would have even really changed how Mark felt either. It would have been a nice gesture, but in truth it probably wouldn't have accomplished a thing for anybody.miplayerstour said:
I agree that it is nice when companies try to help the industry or their competitors. What I disagree with is with the notion that they have an obligation to do so, and especially if you are expecting them to put that before their own well being.miplayerstour said:
What you are forgetting is that these are not charities. These are private companies whose primary goal is to make as much money as possible, just as it should be. When your primary goal is to help the industry, you set up a charity, or some other non profit entity. These company's loyalty is to themselves first (and their shareholders if any), and they have to first do what is best for their company IMO.
I may choose not to reply any further on this topic, as I initially just wanted to throw another opinion out there as some food for thought, not get into a circular pissing contest with anyone.
I'm pretty sure that is not all they do. If it was I would see no need to have anyone but players on the board. I think they produce their own events and pay for television production costs, among other things.
One thing to note is that there are no major individual professional sports that are not owned by corporations, not that I know of anyway. So outside control is a given if you go the same route as other sports have. That is something I that I hope pool can avoid. Pool should only be run by the players, imo.
no pissing match here I assure you it is only people debating a topic that will always have many viewpoints, its healthy and what helps to create new ideas and change.
I agree with much of what you said however, I also believe that companies do have an obligation at some point to give back to the industry that they grew from when it made them what they are. I know they are protecting their interest but, if the best interest of pool will actually help them gain more in the end because more people are drawn to pool and the loss of a few people because of potential minor tactics that may or may not happen wouldnt be as much as the positive results in creating more pool players which generates more business for pool leagues and businesses. My only true issues here are that it was obviously out of business courtesy and courtesy only - handled improperly but also that the largest league system should have some desire to promote pool and the industry regardless of whos on the board. There is plenty for everyone and I doubt enough damage could be done to hurt them significantly but the good that could be generated would have an impact. Even for profit companies at some point have to recognize long term benefits from potential decisions if they are teaming up with a competitor.............it happens alot and it can work.
I just think pool is in need of this and who better to show it can be done than the APA and the BCAPL together? There is a higher goal and obligation here and it isnt just to shareholders, this industry is suffering........again, this is just another opinion and is in no way a pissing match just a discussion between people with different ideas. Nothing personal or negative against any poster in this forum. There is always a way to compromise and meet in the middle..........maybe someday pool will be so lucky to have two industry leaders recognize this and achieve it.
I assure you that not agreeing with my opinion doesnt make you wrong, you simply differ from my point of view and thats how great ideas are dreamed up and implimented.
I agree with much of what you said however, I also believe that companies do have an obligation at some point to give back to the industry that they grew from when it made them what they are. I know they are protecting their interest but, if the best interest of pool will actually help them gain more in the end because more people are drawn to pool and the loss of a few people because of potential minor tactics that may or may not happen wouldnt be as much as the positive results in creating more pool players which generates more business for pool leagues and businesses. My only true issues here are that it was obviously out of business courtesy and courtesy only - handled improperly but also that the largest league system should have some desire to promote pool and the industry regardless of whos on the board. There is plenty for everyone and I doubt enough damage could be done to hurt them significantly but the good that could be generated would have an impact. Even for profit companies at some point have to recognize long term benefits from potential decisions if they are teaming up with a competitor.............it happens alot and it can work.
I just think pool is in need of this and who better to show it can be done than the APA and the BCAPL together? There is a higher goal and obligation here and it isnt just to shareholders, this industry is suffering........again, this is just another opinion and is in no way a pissing match just a discussion between people with different ideas. Nothing personal or negative against any poster in this forum. There is always a way to compromise and meet in the middle..........maybe someday pool will be so lucky to have two industry leaders recognize this and achieve it.
I assure you that not agreeing with my opinion doesnt make you wrong, you simply differ from my point of view and thats how great ideas are dreamed up and implimented.
Last edited:
I do believe that MG and RP were on the BCA board together when it decided to sell and MG ended up the owner. I have to believe that there is more to this than we the public know. Pool is never going to be big time unless all the parties in the industry work together, and this scenario is a good example of why pool is not big time.
Hmmm, Majic, you dirty dog:grin-square::grin-square::grin-square: ding-ding-ding! You are the winner!!!!
Once a long time ago, MG and RP were both serving as a board members for BCA - the Billiard Congress of America.
MG was a pool room owner, not a pool league owner and RP was always APA. And it was brought up by a "Board Member" that BCA should be a trade association and not compete in the league business
Wonder whom?MG advised against this and advised BCA board to keep the league, but majority voters decided that BCA should be only a trading association.
When deciding what to do with the league, someone just wanted to walk away with BCA league ... I think it was someone named John??? L??? Hmm, the names escapes me...
MG bought the league from BCA not because he wanted to be in a league business but didn't want it just given away.
So, now that BCA doesn't have it's league to generate it's revenue, it looks like they are almost fading away from being the power house and protectors of the sport. It seems like their fund diminish every year with less presence and impact.
I wonder if anyone saw this coming...I think at least 2 people did
S.
wpba election
Majic -you are correct that Renee Poehlman was on the BCA board when they decided to sell the leagues. In fact the APA was one of the MAIN reason the leagues were sold. (Terry Bell had made a pitch for the BCA to sell the leagues because they were in competition with the BCA's own members).
I was also on the board - and argued that the BCA should NOT sell the leagues. I was outvoted. Then I decided to try to acquire the leagues because I did not want them to disappear.
The day I made the formal, final agreement to acqurie the leagues (April 1, 2004), I saw Terry Bell, Larry Hubert, and Renee at the BCA trade show. I said can we work together - even suggesting that all the leagues go together and buy ads in the various pool and other publications saying "PLAY POOL & HAVE FUN" (or similar). And say 'sponsored by the leagues (list them in order of size so APA would get first billing' etc. This would help grow the leagues.
So what did the APA say? Mark, I will never go together with you on this -you are my competition! I responded that video games and TV are OUR competition. It fell on deaf ears. Remember, Diamond was doing the APA national events back then. The APA cancelled the contract saying Diamond was in competition with them (what????) and switched back to Valley tables. If I remember correctly, there is no Diamond League but there is a VNEA league.
It just shows that the APA looks at everyone as competition. That is not a friendly business attitude. (Chevy and Ford work together on a lot of common things - yet are fierce competitors).
So Majic, you keep saying there is more to this than the public knows. I guess there is, but it is one sided. I can work with just about anybody - and have the ability to take off my BCAPL hat when trying to work with the billiard industry. I do not believe the APA can do that.
So the APA will continue to bully their was around the billiard world. But I believe people get tired of that crap. And the WPBA was caught in the crossfire. I think it is terrible that the APA put the WPBA in the position they found themselves. But don't think the APA has any guilty feelings about it.
The best way to get the APA's attention is for all you league players to quit the APA and play in BCAPL or USA Pool Leagues. At least if you support our organization, we will give back.
Sorry for the ranting---(by the way - have you ever seen the APA respond to anything????)
Mark Griffin
markg@playbca.com
Majic -you are correct that Renee Poehlman was on the BCA board when they decided to sell the leagues. In fact the APA was one of the MAIN reason the leagues were sold. (Terry Bell had made a pitch for the BCA to sell the leagues because they were in competition with the BCA's own members).
I was also on the board - and argued that the BCA should NOT sell the leagues. I was outvoted. Then I decided to try to acquire the leagues because I did not want them to disappear.
The day I made the formal, final agreement to acqurie the leagues (April 1, 2004), I saw Terry Bell, Larry Hubert, and Renee at the BCA trade show. I said can we work together - even suggesting that all the leagues go together and buy ads in the various pool and other publications saying "PLAY POOL & HAVE FUN" (or similar). And say 'sponsored by the leagues (list them in order of size so APA would get first billing' etc. This would help grow the leagues.
So what did the APA say? Mark, I will never go together with you on this -you are my competition! I responded that video games and TV are OUR competition. It fell on deaf ears. Remember, Diamond was doing the APA national events back then. The APA cancelled the contract saying Diamond was in competition with them (what????) and switched back to Valley tables. If I remember correctly, there is no Diamond League but there is a VNEA league.
It just shows that the APA looks at everyone as competition. That is not a friendly business attitude. (Chevy and Ford work together on a lot of common things - yet are fierce competitors).
So Majic, you keep saying there is more to this than the public knows. I guess there is, but it is one sided. I can work with just about anybody - and have the ability to take off my BCAPL hat when trying to work with the billiard industry. I do not believe the APA can do that.
So the APA will continue to bully their was around the billiard world. But I believe people get tired of that crap. And the WPBA was caught in the crossfire. I think it is terrible that the APA put the WPBA in the position they found themselves. But don't think the APA has any guilty feelings about it.
The best way to get the APA's attention is for all you league players to quit the APA and play in BCAPL or USA Pool Leagues. At least if you support our organization, we will give back.
Sorry for the ranting---(by the way - have you ever seen the APA respond to anything????)
Mark Griffin
markg@playbca.com
Congrats to you..btw I am on your side !!!
No.
However, if you just keep moving forward for the good of the game, you can enhance their irrelevance ten-fold.
Actually APA league operators have responded in this forum before when issues or questions on their policies/procedures have come up. Seems like on this issue, mums the word.
Also WPBA women that post on this site have also spoken up in the past but at this point, none of them have reached their fingers for the keyboard on this issue.
This assumes that the arch-enemy would have control over the money. In this situation however the APA and the BCAPL have the same goal, or they should have the same goal, that is to grow pool.
It's quite a simple equation. More people who want to play means more league players. If suddenly one million more people take up pool seriously tomorrow and seek leagues to play in then the APA will get the majority of those players simply because the APA already has a system in place for them to compete in as beginning players.
Mr. Griffin would not control the board. He would not be able to force the WPBA into sweetheart deals that are one sided. He would not for example be able to engineer a situation where the WPBA has a tournament in the heart of his major yearly event and the APA were not featured as a sponsor simply by virtue of being on the board. In fact being on the board would probably preclude him from sponsoring the WPBA as it would be a conflict of interest. So from that stand point it would have been a smart move to endorse Mr. Griffin's bid for the board.
The real problem is that now a sponsor is dictating to the WPBA how to conduct it's business. Whether the WPBA membership capitulated or not the letter should not have been presented before the vote as there is no denying that it would certainly be in the minds of the women who are worried about whether there will even be a tour in the coming year.
Where does that stop then? The next sponsor comes along and says you can't have a tournament in that venue or I will pull my sponsorship? You can't sanction that player or I will pull my sponsorship?
How would we have reacted if Cuetec had told the WPBA that if they enacted the top 16 single elimination phase then Cuetec would pull the sponsorship? Obviously it's to Cuetec's advantage that their player Allison Fisher stay on TV more than other players and so a true double elimination format would have given their player more chance to win. We would have been outraged that Cuetec would seek to influence how the WPBA handled their tour in this manner. The above paragraph is completely hypothethical as I have no knowledge of Cuetec or the WPBA beyond what I see and read.
Sad to see the pool world tearing itself apart from within.
Well we can't know why the WPBA members voted the way they did but certainly the threat of losing a major sponsor can be seen as heavy-handed coercion at best.
There would be zero deduction in the value of the sponsorship simply because a competitor was on the board. On the contrary, the competitor would now be working for the APA for free in essence to further their brand since it is to be assumed that all board members volunteered to do their best to help the WPBA thrive. And a thriving WPBA means that sponsor's ads get more impressions among consumers.
Then it would be unethical for the BCAPL to do what the APA did.
What is the conflict of interest? The BCAPL and the APA have exactly the same goal which is to get more members. Pool on television brings more members to pool. The APA as the primary sponsor should be in a great position to profit from a stronger WPBA.
Now, there is however a certain aspect that is a conflict of interest and it's that presumably the board members have access to the details of any sponsorship deals. If true then this is information that Mr. Griffin could use to his advantage when planning his own advertising strategies.
In this case however the WPBA should have rules in place that their board members should not be in direct competition with their sponsors. Nor should they have any board members who are affiliated with any of their sponsors.
Of course. The APA has every right to state the conditions of their sponsorship. They should do this behind closed doors though and settle it with as few people as necessary rather than make public coercive statements to this effect. This is tantamount to blackmail according to the definitions of blackmail found at Wikipedia.
Mr. Griffin,
I applaud you for being so forthright. The APA's goal should be the same as yours, to grow pool for the benefit of everyone involved.
Much luck and success to you sir.
I am not trying to change the topic, maybe someone can start another thread with the answer... but what did the BCA do when they were a powerhouse and protector of the sport? For the size, money, and influence they have/had for years and years, where is professional pool today?
I remember thinking that changing back to the Valley tables looked like a big step backwards for APA at the Nationals Event... I thought it was bad decision that only hurt their own image and players. (there are still some great league operators that use the Diamonds because they like their players and only want the best for them - obviously you know this Mark, I'm just telling the others). It had never dawned on me before that Valley Tables was the VNEA league... duh! Guess I just didn't think about it as much as you did, what a transparent, spiteful move on their part.
I remember when a friend of mine was launching a billiards magazine, the APA would not allow it to be distributed at their events because it provided highlights and reports from ALL leagues, not exclusively APA.
Yes, they have some strong and demanding policies. No, I do not think they are bad people. Whatever they have been doing has been working, because they have made themselves into a large, profitable, and powerful organization. I know this debate could go on back and forth for quite a while.
BTW, I really like what Dave Letterman did when he was being blackmailed. Rather than let the guy blackmail him, he stood his ground and refused to cave in. I am not saying the APA blackmailed anyone, they merely acted in their perceived best interest. They have every right to sponsor whomever they wish, and they can notify them of their intent at any time. That's business, and that is their perogative.
I think its best to focus on what was done with the information. I mean absolutely no disrespect whatsoever, but was it ever considered that having Mark up for election might anger the main sponsor, who is a business competitor? I know, and agree, that Mark would be great for the job, but how does the election process work? (I apologize for my naiveness) Who decided that the owner of the main sponsors direct competitor should be up for election? Was that ever considered?
It seems to me that by allowing Mark to be an option (again, no offense Mark, it could anybody in your spot), the WPBA forced the APA to be like, "hey - remember us? We are your main sponsor and you are about to elect our competitor". My point is, the letter should not have HAD to be written. Of course the APA doesn't want the head of its competition on the board.
It's like if you're married (which I'm not) and your wife wants to go away for a private 1-week vacation to the islands with her ex-fiance that she almost married before you. But they're just friends now, right? Assuming you two aren't swingers or anything, this is just a ridiculous question, isn't it? What could be going through your wife's mind to even consider that you might be OK with this? And why should you be forced to have to ultimately put your foot down and say "No, you should not do this, it's just inappropriate"
My point is, I find it odd that the head of the main sponsors competition was even considered. Again, I mean no disrespect Mark, I hope you understand what I'm getting at here...
Can anyone explain the process, maybe that will make things clearer?
Hearsay on my end, but the way it was told to me, an employee of the BCA who was thereafter fired gave an unknown entity, with absolutely no existing track record in pool, the authority to be the governing body of men's professional pool.
Neither of them are today affilliated with the men's governing body of professional pool. They benefitted as much as they could to put money in their own pockets and moved on to greener pastures, leaving professional pool by the wayside to fend for itself.
The BCA is a big disappointment. It reminds me of the Wizard of Oz, with nobody knowing who's running the show behind the curtain. One thing for sure, whoever or whatever it is, their contribution to professional pool is noticeably lacking.
Please forgive me for being off topic.
Mark,
I have played in the BCA and APA pool leagues for many years. I paid my weekly dues never knowing where the money went. It was only 5, 6 or (now) 7 bucks a week so it didn't (and doesn't) really matter.
A few years ago I was astounded to learn the the BCAPL collects 0% of the weekly dues (I'm assuming the APA does). As it was explained to me, the only fee collected by the BCAPL was $10 of my $23 yearly dues with the other $10 going to the Western BCA and $3 going to my league operator.
It seems to me that if you collected, even $1, from the weekly fees you could do good things for professional pool (or, maybe buy yourself a pad like Fatboy's). I'm going to guess that the overwhelming majority of league players have no idea where their weekly fees go and would have no problem giving the BCAPL a percentage. So, why not? I, for one, would much rather help support professional pool with my weekly fees than line the APA's pockets.
Please forgive me if any of my information is incorrect.
Sincerely, Ron
Mark,
I have played in the BCA and APA pool leagues for many years. I paid my weekly dues never knowing where the money went. It was only 5, 6 or (now) 7 bucks a week so it didn't (and doesn't) really matter.
A few years ago I was astounded to learn the the BCAPL collects 0% of the weekly dues (I'm assuming the APA does). As it was explained to me, the only fee collected by the BCAPL was $10 of my $23 yearly dues with the other $10 going to the Western BCA and $3 going to my league operator.
It seems to me that if you collected, even $1, from the weekly fees you could do good things for professional pool (or, maybe buy yourself a pad like Fatboy's
). I'm going to guess that the overwhelming majority of league players have no idea where their weekly fees go and would have no problem giving the BCAPL a percentage. So, why not? I, for one, would much rather help support professional pool with my weekly fees than line the APA's pockets.Please forgive me if any of my information is incorrect.
Sincerely, Ron