A Huge Thank You from CueSports International (CSI)!

[robsnotes4u]

Skylar doesn't have a boss. He's his own boss who happens to have at least one investor. And CSI using their Mosconi Cup points event as leverage is a very unethical business practice.

If Skylar is his own boss then he can make the choice without asking his backer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BRussell]

Bullying?
What happened was not bullying. CSI guaranteed $30,000 to be added to the US Open events and we had to pay a live stream crew of seven (7) people for 11 days. We recover some (definitely not all) of that money through sponsorships, VIP seats, and live stream revenue. Additionally, our sponsors pay for exposure. A competing PPV stream scheduled directly on top of our two challenge matches would limit their exposure and make them less likely to be a sponsor in future years. Without sponsors, there are either no events or smaller prize funds in the future – both of which are bad for the players. Our position was simple and logical…if you intentionally harm us or our sponsors, you may not be welcome to play in our events. That’s not bullying…that’s accountability for your choices.

There also seems to be some notion that people have a right to play in various independent events produced by individual businesses. That is untrue. Like most businesses, the entities that provide the funding have the right to refuse service to anyone. Although we want everyone to participate and have equal opportunity at our events, we are not required to service someone who intentionally harms us, our sponsors, or our other members. This holds true for someone who organizes a competing live stream directly on top of ours or someone who publically attacks us on social media. They have the absolute right to do those things and we have the absolute right to not do business with them. Again, that’s not bullying…that’s accepting the consequences of your actions.

It's not true that businesses have an absolute right to refuse service to anyone or do these other kinds of things. The Civil Rights Act of 50 years ago, for example, would make it illegal for you to refuse someone based on their race or religion, for example. I know that's not the issue here, but I think it's important to point out that there are exceptions. It can also be illegal to engage in anti-competitive practices. I'm sure the Justice Dept. isn't going to waste their time looking at CSI, but that doesn't mean there's an "absolute right" to threaten people who do business with competitors. Many companies - including sporting organizations - have been slapped hard for shady business practices that most people would call bullying.

Furthermore, when companies do engage in bullying - even if it's all perfectly legal bullying - the public, the players, and the sponsors won't like it very much. Losing sponsors and the public are also consequences of your actions.

 

[david(tx)]

It's not true that businesses have an absolute right to refuse service to anyone or do these other kinds of things. The Civil Rights Act of 50 years ago, for example, would make it illegal for you to refuse someone based on their race or religion, for example. I know that's not the issue here, but I think it's important to point out that there are exceptions. It can also be illegal to engage in anti-competitive practices. I'm sure the Justice Dept. isn't going to waste their time looking at CSI, but that doesn't mean there's an "absolute right" to threaten people who do business with competitors. Many companies - including sporting organizations - have been slapped hard for shady business practices that most people would call bullying.

Furthermore, when companies do engage in bullying - even if it's all perfectly legal bullying - the public, the players, and the sponsors won't like it very much. Losing sponsors and the public are also consequences of your actions.

It can also be illegal to engage in anti-competitive practices

This only applies to trade , if the NFL made players sign exclusive contracts with the league it wouldn't be anti competitive , which is what happened before the league mergers , and players can't use league property to endorse products . The WPBA forbid women players from playing in non WPBA events or else they wouldn't be allowed to play in WPBA events .

Pool players are independent contractors . Try to get into a club or restaurant with a dress code , it is discretionary , and we have the right to free association.

 

[RBC]

That is fine, but if they want to play like that there is no way their events should be used for picking Mosconi Cup positions, world rankings, or anything else that has effects beyond their own events.

It was not just their own event they had to threaten Sky with, they used points for events they do not run or own to work with, and that should not be the case.

Celtic

I think you may have some things mixed up here.

Mosconi cup points are independent of WPA points. They are assigned and distributed by Luke Riches of Matchroom Sports.

While CSI does have the ability, and the right, to choose not to allow a player to participate in their events. I don't believe they have the right to exclude a player from participating in other events such as Turning Stone, and others.


Royce

 

[Celtic]

Why, because you said so? You can have an opinion and so can I, they both do not carry any weight in the decision, nor should they.

The way companies conduct their business carries huge weight at the end of the day. Companies that fail to realize that early on tend to figure it out the hard way in time.

 

[(((Satori)))]

Ozzy sounds like the perfect fit for the CSI organization. I dont like them and I dont like him. I will not support them ever.

 

[robsnotes4u]

The way companies conduct their business carries huge weight at the end of the day. Companies that fail to realize that early on tend to figure it out the hard way in time.

10% are against
10% are for
80% don't give a shit

Always worry about the 80%, as they are your bread and butter. They are the ones you train for and care about.

We fire customers every month, and are very successful. The fact is, the ones we fire will ***** and complain. Their acquaintances know they complain about everything, therefore, it carries no weight.

You are a ten percenter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Celtic]

Celtic

I think you may have some things mixed up here.

Mosconi cup points are independent of WPA points. They are assigned and distributed by Luke Riches of Matchroom Sports.

While CSI does have the ability, and the right, to choose not to allow a player to participate in their events. I don't believe they have the right to exclude a player from participating in other events such as Turning Stone, and others.


Royce

The US OPEN 8-ball and 10-ball were both MC points events.

 

[(((Satori)))]

Its about time now where Griffin throws another fit and claims he is done with pro pool because he never makes any money from pro pool anyways. Meanwhile...

 

[Celtic]

10% are against
10% are for
80% don't give a shit

Always worry about the 80%, as they are your bread and butter. They are the ones you train for and care about.

We fire customers every month, and are very successful. The fact is, the ones we fire will ***** and complain. Their acquaintances know they complain about everything, therefore, it carries no weight.

You are a ten percenter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are a large percentage of 10 percenters on this thread who are not too happy with this tactic.

And I hate to burst your little power trip stance, but you don't "fire" customers, you can refuse them service in certain circumstances, but their "loss" is not the same as someone losing a job. Baring a solid customer that actually spends a lot of money on your product would be idiotic, but that is your business model go nuts...

 

[JD_Hogg]

Skylar doesn't have a boss. He's his own boss who happens to have at least one investor. And CSI using their Mosconi Cup points event as leverage is a very unethical business practice.

Then sky can tell csi to go to hell and work for his backer.. unethical is a stretch imo... It's called ensurin ur employees get paid..

 

[BeiberLvr]

Why the Silence?
As some of you may have noticed, I no longer engage in opinion or debate on this forum. I only use it to provide information about our events and to answer legitimate questions. The sad reality is that there are a few people here that do nothing but attack and spread negativity. I often joke with Mark Griffin that we could publish the cure for cancer here and get repeatedly attacked.

I don’t respond to these often ridiculous posts for two very simple reasons. First, I have a company to run and important work to do. I have a responsibility to Mark Griffin, our employees, our members, and our sponsors. Responding to every silly accusation or comment would divert me from the real work to be done. Secondly, reacting to these people gives them and their comments some form of legitimacy. As you can see in a few of the comments in this thread, there are some people here that will constantly criticize your every action. There are even some who lodge personal attacks without knowing me or any of the information that goes into my decisions. I really don’t mind because I’m an adult and it comes with the job. I usually just chuckle and get back to work. As an adult and a professional, I refuse to engage on that basis.

There also seems to be some notion that the details of every action, decision, or negotiation in the pool industry should be posted for public consumption. That notion is false and should be rejected by any rational person.

So, in the future, when you see negative comments, accusations, or personal attacks against me or CSI, you will see no reaction. Silence is not an admission of guilt. Again, I have far better things to do with my limited time. With that said, I will always try to answer legitimate questions and respond to serious and civil posts.

A Little Background
Against my better judgment, I will explain what happened in this situation and it will be the last time I ever do so on the AZBilliards forum. Before I do, it may be helpful to understand a little background. Ray Hansen and I have been friends since 2011. He helped me tremendously when I was setting up the live stream for The Action Pool Tour on the east coast. He spend a lot of his valuable time on the phone explaining what I needed and how to make it work. He even mailed me a few computer components that I lacked. He did this and never asked for anything in return.

Oscar and I have been friends since 2013. I could tell immediately that he was a good person raised in a great family. He rarely has anything negative to say and he is doing great things on the west coast. The effort he has put into the Mezz West State Tour surpasses anything I have done with The Action Pool Tour. I think I did a good job but he is doing a great job. I admire what he is doing so when he asked me for help in setting up the Mezz West State Tour live stream, I didn’t hesitate. He needed a Ustream channel which was previously free but now cost a minimum of $200/month. Coincidentally, I had a spare Ustream channel that I used for testing purposes. Rather than watching him buy one and take that money from his players, I gave him my channel free of charge. I was happy to help a good person who really cares about the game.

So, What Really Happened?
Oscar Dominguez and Skyler Woodward had agreed to play their match on July 22 and 23 beginning at 4pm each day and then asked Ray Hansen to stream it via PPV. I assume that Ray and the two players would split the PPV revenue in some fashion – as is usually the case. Neither of the three parties knew that we had already scheduled and announced The Kamui Challenge and The Tiger Challenge for July 22 and 23 beginning at 5pm each day.

When I saw the flyer for their match, I immediately called Ray Hansen. Ray informed me that he was not the organizer so the scheduling was out of his control. He was simply asked to stream it. I then called Oscar. He was completely unaware of the conflict and was very apologetic. After discussing possible solutions to avoid the conflict, Oscar’s girlfriend (Desiree Rivera) proposed a solution. She suggested that the Oscar/Skyler match begin at 2pm each day and take a long break at 5pm when our challenge matches began. This would prevent a situation in which two PPV streams were running simultaneously and people that wanted to watch both could do so. Oscar, Ray, and I all agreed that this was a good solution and would benefit everyone.

Oscar then contacted Skyler to get his approval. A few minutes later, Oscar called me back and said that Skyler’s backer said, “No…the match will be played as originally agreed.” I then contacted Skyler and explained the entire situation to him. He seemed to understand and said that he would speak with his backer and get back with me shortly. A day later, he still had not contacted me so I reached out again. He said that he hadn’t spoken with his backer yet but would do so soon. I expressed the urgency and he seemed to understand. Another day went by and I reached out to him again. He then said that they were not going to move the match up to accommodate us. I explained to him that running two PPV streams would not be good for either of us because we may split the audience rather than giving people the opportunity to watch both. I again asked him and his backer to reconsider so we could work with each other rather than against each other. Again, they said, “No.” I then explained to Skyler that his unwillingness to compromise would damage our live stream viewership, interfere with our ability to recover the cost of paying the players and the stream crew, and hurt our sponsors – Kamui and Tiger. He still said, “No.” Finally, I told him that if he maintained his position to intentionally harm us and our sponsors, we would have to seriously consider whether or not to accept his entry into our events (which he had not yet registered for). He and his backer finally agreed to compromise.

I then informed Oscar and Ray that Skyler agreed. Ray and I agreed that he would encourage his viewers to flip over to our challenge match and we would encourage our viewers to flip over to his later in the evening. We would work with each other rather than compete for the same tiny market of PPV viewers.

Bullying?
What happened was not bullying. CSI guaranteed $30,000 to be added to the US Open events and we had to pay a live stream crew of seven (7) people for 11 days. We recover some (definitely not all) of that money through sponsorships, VIP seats, and live stream revenue. Additionally, our sponsors pay for exposure. A competing PPV stream scheduled directly on top of our two challenge matches would limit their exposure and make them less likely to be a sponsor in future years. Without sponsors, there are either no events or smaller prize funds in the future – both of which are bad for the players. Our position was simple and logical…if you intentionally harm us or our sponsors, you may not be welcome to play in our events. That’s not bullying…that’s accountability for your choices.

There also seems to be some notion that people have a right to play in various independent events produced by individual businesses. That is untrue. Like most businesses, the entities that provide the funding have the right to refuse service to anyone. Although we want everyone to participate and have equal opportunity at our events, we are not required to service someone who intentionally harms us, our sponsors, or our other members. This holds true for someone who organizes a competing live stream directly on top of ours or someone who publically attacks us on social media. They have the absolute right to do those things and we have the absolute right to not do business with them. Again, that’s not bullying…that’s accepting the consequences of your actions.

Final Thoughts
So, there it is. Those are the details. You have the right to agree or disagree. You have the right to continue to post whatever comments you wish. You have the right to publically criticize or attack me or CSI anytime you wish. None of that really bothers me or will deter us from pushing forward and making a real difference in an otherwise tragic industry. This will be the last time that I ever reply on AZBilliards to a “demand for answers” based on a contrived conspiracy by people who contribute nothing but negativity and divisiveness. So, if you ever wonder why there is no response from CSI on this forum, there is your answer.

To all of those good people who make up the silent majority here, I don’t blame you for not posting here and we truly thank you for your support. Thank you.

I don't know where you were born, but this is America.

The greatest God damn country in the world. A country where businesses are allowed to compete with one another.

Last I checked, CSI doesn't own a monopoly on live streaming billiard events.

Worried about another stream "stealing" your viewers? Put out a better product.

 

[BRussell]

It can also be illegal to engage in anti-competitive practices

This only applies to trade , if the NFL made players sign exclusive contracts with the league it wouldn't be anti competitive , which is what happened before the league mergers , and players can't use league property to endorse products . The WPBA forbid women players from playing in non WPBA events or else they wouldn't be allowed to play in WPBA events .

Pool players are independent contractors . Try to get into a club or restaurant with a dress code , it is discretionary , and we have the right to free association.

It may be that CSI can legally exclude Skyler from participating in their events if he participates in competing events (I'm quite certain he hasn't signed a contract to that effect though). And I also believe the PR issue here is the important one, not any legal issue.

But I'm always skeptical when an organization claims an "absolute right" to do something like that, when history is littered with companies that said something similar but lost in the courts. And I'm especially skeptical when Ozzy starts that thought by claiming, as if it's obvious, that any business can "refuse service to anyone," when actually one of the most famous principles in American law is that that is NOT true. I mean, it's like someone is expounding on free speech and begins by saying that of course the government can censor speech it doesn't like. It kinda makes your eyebrows squint through the rest of the passage.

 

[(((Satori)))]

I don't know where you were born, but this is America.

The greatest God damn country in the world. A country where businesses are allowed to compete with one another.

Last I checked, CSI doesn't own a monopoly on live streaming billiard events.

Worried about another stream "stealing" your viewers? Put out a better product.

Tell em!

Put out a better product or move your own damn time slot. Dont pressure Big Trucks stream to work around yours by using your affiliation with the Mosconi Cup as power.

People talk about the low stuff Charlie Williams does but CSI is much worse imo.

 

[cleary]

Then sky can tell csi to go to hell and work for his backer.. unethical is a stretch imo... It's called ensurin ur employees get paid..

You're not getting it... The whole point is that if sky tells them to "go to hell", he takes himself out of the MC points race. They're using that at leverage and yes that's unethical.

 

[robsnotes4u]

There are a large percentage of 10 percenters on this thread who are not too happy with this tactic.



And I hate to burst your little power trip stance, but you don't "fire" customers, you can refuse them service in certain circumstances, but their "loss" is not the same as someone losing a job. Baring a solid customer that actually spends a lot of money on your product would be idiotic, but that is your business model go nuts...

You definitely fire customers. Did I say get rid of good customers? You fire the customers that that are never satisfied, hurt your image and aren't worth the little profit you make sound like the people on here complaining about CSI, 7 foot tables, and this thread.

Here from a very profitable company., Southwest Airlines

One woman who frequently flew on Southwest was constantly disappointed with every aspect of the company's operation. In fact, she became known as the "Pen Pal" because after every flight she wrote in with a complaint.
She didn't like the fact that the company didn't assign seats; she didn't like the absence of a first-class section; she didn't like not having a meal in flight; she didn't like Southwest's boarding procedure; she didn't like the flight attendants' sporty uniforms and the casual atmosphere.
Her last letter, reciting a litany of complaints, momentarily stumped Southwest's customer relations people. They bumped it up to Herb's [Kelleher, CEO of Southwest at the time] desk, with a note: 'This one's yours.'
In sixty seconds Kelleher wrote back and said, 'Dear Mrs. Crabapple, We will miss you. Love, Herb.'"

Y


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robsnotes4u]

You're not getting it... The whole point is that if sky tells them to "go to hell", he takes himself out of the MC points race. They're using that at leverage and yes that's unethical.

A good business uses leverage all the time. So what if Sky wants to play in the Mars open the same weekend as turning stone where the winner is guaranteed to take home $40,000. Would you say turning stone is unethical by offering MC points?

What if the Mars open guarantees $250,000 to the winner. Would they be using leverage? Would that leverage be enough to make him go to the Mars open?

In both instances the player has a choice.

Nothing unethical about it. It is called competition


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[(((Satori)))]

A good business uses leverage all the time. So what if Sky wants to play in the Mars open the same weekend as turning stone where the winner is guaranteed to take home $40,000. Would you say turning stone is unethical by offering MC points?

What if the Mars open guarantees $250,000 to the winner. Would they be using leverage? Would that leverage be enough to make him go to the Mars open?

In both instances the player has a choice.

Nothing unethical about it. It is called competition


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The mafia uses leverage too. Do what we tell you or else...

 

[watchez]

A good business uses leverage all the time. So what if Sky wants to play in the Mars open the same weekend as turning stone where the winner is guaranteed to take home $40,000. Would you say turning stone is unethical by offering MC points?

What if the Mars open guarantees $250,000 to the winner. Would they be using leverage? Would that leverage be enough to make him go to the Mars open?

In both instances the player has a choice.

Nothing unethical about it. It is called competition


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Businesses don't use leverage against their customers. This thread continues to provide all type of utterly stupid statements.

 

[StraightPoolIU]

If matches on 7ft tables generate so much more interest and apppeal to so many more viewers why be concerned about competition from a completely unrelated stream of a 9ft table match?