Without the US Open 9 ball event...

Or maybe start some, What If threads.
Oh, I forgot, he almost does that now.

Ok, I'll start him off. What if the ABP does show up for the Open but they forget their cues.
What would they do?

What if, Barry tells the ABP to pound sand and they do. After that they get serious sand in the sphincter irratation syndrome and can't play pool for 4 months. Is it Barry's fault? And if it is, how much money does Barry owe them?

What if, the entire players list boycott the Open. Barry holds it anyway and it is a screaming success. Barry then proceeds to ban the ABP player list for 5 years. What would they do?

One thing would happen. We would have 5 long years of ABP threads on AZ.
 
Last edited:
No single tournaments absence would make a considerable dent in the winnings of anyone except the top finishers. Pros need to nickle and dime (hundred and thoursand?) their way to a reasonable yearly gross income. Every tournament is important and there are few that pay $40,000 for first prize these days.
 
I disagree with your conclusion.

Using your numbers, the players made $787,000 as a group, but surely, each of them had $25,000 in expenses, so their net income is more likely to be $537,000.

Without the US Open, they made $714,000 and, in my estimaiton, about $464,000 after expenses.

As a group, their net income would have been 14% less without the US Open, and, at this level of income, that's a big hit.
 
justnum said:
Risk is not worth the investment.

If they don't go they save on expenses and lose out on a chance on a big pay day.

If they go and win but payment is delayed, then they have a cash flow problem. The cash flow problem effects their ability to attend other events.


The problem has been they thought the risk was worth the payoff. But in reality it wasn't.

The time spent waiting for the money is an opportunity loss at another event. I am assuming a player only holds enough cash reserves to budget by event and not yearly.

It is difficult to believe the players haven't identified this problem earlier.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a prime opportunity for an enterprising individual- buy Barry's debt at a reduced amount and pay the owed player on the spot.

IIRC, Chohan made hizzelf a nice little chunk doing just this in Norfolk.
 
sjm said:
I disagree with your conclusion.

Using your numbers, the players made $787,000 as a group, but surely, each of them had $25,000 in expenses, so their net income is more likely to be $537,000.

Without the US Open, they made $714,000 and, in my estimaiton, about $464,000 after expenses.

As a group, their net income would have been 14% less without the US Open, and, at this level of income, that's a big hit.
Click to expand...

I agree. Johnnyt
 
justnum said:
Black-Balled solved the ABP-Barry dispute.

Barry needs to find a backer to pay off the prize winner and then Barry can pay the backer on a payment plan.

This solution works. But is there a loanshark that will want to do business with Barry?

(Its called brainstorming, tossing ideas around until one arises that might work, and Black-Balled's idea works.)
Click to expand...

You really enjoy making Barry's business sound illegitimate, but in fact, it is not.

If Barry's account of things is accurate, then the slow turnaround of his receivables is the reason he cannot pay prize money promptly.

Barry doesn't need a loan shark, but instead a bank. If a businessman walks into a bank and pledges clearly identifiable and verifiable short-term receivables as collateral on a loan, odds are he/she walks out with a loan.

Barry's view, however, is that he does not owe it to the players to do this, and that's where the dispute lies.
 
Haha! I have always been a jeanyus.

The players 'determining they can do w/ out 14%' is, to me, further proof that Barry is being singled out. They sure as %#* are gonna need to be out more than 14%, if they truly want to be non-discrimanatory in their boycotting of slow-paying events.

Reminds me of:
Casual Observer said:
(Sponsors)...have finally decided against investing in ...players that, as a whole (with obvious exceptions), have demonstrated an amazing ability (for decades) to strangle whatever golden goose they happen upon, then search the carcass’s pockets for loose change.
Click to expand...

and

Tom In Cincy said:
UPA = Charlie Williams in 2001 (same month as the infamous 911 incident)

This is what I remember about the UPA;

Barry Berhman had just announced that because of the lack of gate money, the 2001 US Open 9 Ball tournament was going to lose money and that the players were not getting the full amount that had been promised.

Charlie Williams called for a player's meeting and discussed a 'union' or player Org. to prevent this type of promoter crap of promising one thing and delivering another. Escrows were talked about and 'garunteed' money was defined. Promoters were going to have to do it the UPA way or NO WAY.

Lots of Pros agreed and decided to pay up. Charlie decided to start his own tour and was immediately sanctioned by the UPA. Other promoters were trying to promote tournaments, but the UPA kept demanding the promoters abide by the UPA sanctioning requirements or no UPA players will play. Does Strong Arm sound familiar?

Charlie got out of the UPA and formed Dragon Promotions. The UPA had a board runing the show. Then Rodney Morris ran the UPA and now it is in Arizona as a League system run by Frankie Alverez.

Unsportsmanlike behavior stands out like a sore thumb. Only a very few players fall under this category.
Click to expand...
 
justnum said:
Risk is not worth the investment.

If they don't go they save on expenses and lose out on a chance on a big pay day.

If they go and win but payment is delayed, then they have a cash flow problem. The cash flow problem effects their ability to attend other events.


The problem has been they thought the risk was worth the payoff. But in reality it wasn't.

The time spent waiting for the money is an opportunity loss at another event. I am assuming a player only holds enough cash reserves to budget by event and not yearly.

It is difficult to believe the players haven't identified this problem earlier.
Click to expand...

Your argument is irrational and your logic is flawed. Other than that, your spelling is superb! :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top