Players dropping out of the Matchroom/Predator CLP

[maha]

BB,,,, his real earn was 15 dollars cash but his expected earn which is really what he did earn, was 5 dollars.
because if they kept flipping more times he would earn his average of 5 dollars after some amount of time. or at least it would approach that figure closely.

in way look at your earning from a job. you get a paycheck for 1000 dollars. but you have to pay tax later on it so you really earned say 700 dollars. so your expected earn on that job is 700.

you might say i made 1000. but would you also say that if they took out the taxes right away. then you would say you earned 700.

the other reasoning here as most have put it would be you earned 1000 dollars, but at the end of the year you wouldnt have 52,000 you would have 70% of it. which is what you really earned.

 

[9ballhasbeen]

And the poster of Fedor Gorst demonstrates why it is beyond ridiculous to expect/demand that players wear a competing logo that clearly implies, and is meant to imply, an endorsement of that brand.

What if Cuetec comes back and says, "To play in our event you must wear OUR logo on a polo we provide," and then they hand the players a shirt with a logo the size of a billboard running across the whole chest, with a matching one on the back? Do the Predator players wear that or appropriately refuse to? And are the fans then left with Predator players in one series of events and Cuetec players in another set of events?

I hear what you are saying and agree. At the end of the day, if I was a professional pool player, I would want control over what was on my shirt. Where is the WPA or the BCA or EPBF on this? Real leadership is shown when people do the right thing, not the easy thing.

 

[alstl]

And the poster of Fedor Gorst demonstrates why it is beyond ridiculous to expect/demand that players wear a competing logo that clearly implies, and is meant to imply, an endorsement of that brand.

What if Cuetec comes back and says, "To play in our event you must wear OUR logo on a polo we provide," and then they hand the players a shirt with a logo the size of a billboard running across the whole chest, with a matching one on the back? Do the Predator players wear that or appropriately refuse to? And are the fans then left with Predator players in one series of events and Cuetec players in another set of events?

It was intended as a joke. There is no cuetec tour that I'm aware of. My wife doesn't get my jokes either and we have been married for 46 years.

 

[Black-Balled]

BB,,,, his real earn was 15 dollars cash but his expected earn which is really what he did earn, was 5 dollars.
because if they kept flipping more times he would earn his average of 5 dollars after some amount of time. or at least it would approach that figure closely.

in way look at your earning from a job. you get a paycheck for 1000 dollars. but you have to pay tax later on it so you really earned say 700 dollars. so your expected earn on that job is 700.

you might say i made 1000. but would you also say that if they took out the taxes right away. then you would say you earned 700.

the other reasoning here as most have put it would be you earned 1000 dollars, but at the end of the year you wouldnt have 52,000 you would have 70% of it. which is what you really earned.

I appreciate you humoring the matter...

Your initial scenario was a singular flip and anyway, there is no guarantee the initial loser will ever win one, should the flips continue.

I don't find the paycheck analogy accurate, as there are separate transactions occurring: the earning and the subsequent tax obligation that follows.

The contention the loser of the flip paid 10 but only lost 5 is like saying you will take 2 tries to shoot the impossible in the hole, knowing the mark thinks you are shooting it with a cue ball... then you shoot the impossible one straight in with your cue. Good luck buying lunch with that currency.

 

[gerryf]

I hear what you are saying and agree. At the end of the day, if I was a professional pool player, I would want control over what was on my shirt. Where is the WPA or the BCA or EPBF on this? Real leadership is shown when people do the right thing, not the easy thing.

Isn't that exactly what happened? The match sponsor set advertising rules, some players didn't like them and said they wouldn't play in the tournament. Other players said they would. Isn't that the professional pool players exhibiting control over what is on their shirt?

I don't know that anyone is the bad guy here.

You can't expect the sponsor to not care about player advertising. You can't expect the players to not care what kind of brand advertising they're wearing.

They'll either come to an arrangement or they won't. If they can, then some players will play in their tournaments. If they can't, then some players won't appear in some tournaments.

I think this blew up as an issue because there was not a lot of time between the announcement of the rules, the withdrawal of four players, and their pretty quick replacement. I noticed that the current roster was on the web site the day the OP made his post.

 

[DieselPete]

A controlling document like this one from the PGA Tour (2017-18) is needed. It would help avoid this mess with provisions like:

1) Defining an appropriate size, shape, permissible location on the clothing and a maximum total number of logos on the clothing for all sponsorships.

2) Create a list of categories under which sponsorship is not allowed (in the case of the PGA Tour it is tobacco, spirits, beer and wine, casinos and gambling (they can use the name of a resort but not the word casino, so Foxwoods Resort is fine, Foxwoods Casino is not). Pool could have a completely different list and might very well allow casinos.

3) The PGA Tour, to protect the deal with FedEx (The FedEx Cup), banned sponsorship deals with direct competitors such as DHL and UPS. That is more tenable than a cue maker banning sponsorships from other cue makers because the players don't "use" a DHL product to make their living, like a pool player uses his/her preferred cue and equipment.

So, germane to the issue regarding Predator, a rule for Predator-branded events could be:

While players are permitted to have endorsement deals with competing cue manufacturers and to use those cues in Predator events, their logos may not be present on the player's clothing while he/she is "on the floor" either for practice or competition at Predator events. (Basically, say that they CAN'T wear the logo of the competitor, but don't try to mandate what they MUST wear). That is more in line with the PGA keeping competing brands out of the public eye to support FedEx but players certainly aren't mandated to wear FedEx logos on their clothes.

https://qualifying.pgatourhq.com/static-assets/uploads/2017-18-player-endorsement-policy.pdf

 

[DieselPete]

It was intended as a joke. There is no cuetec tour that I'm aware of. My wife doesn't get my jokes either and we have been married for 46 years.

Sorry, I did understand that. I felt that you made a good point though, as a joke or not. If tournaments in any sport go down this road (you must wear our logo and give implied endorsement, and a player's sponsors refuse to allow him to participate in those events) we would have a division in tournaments for pool, golf, tennis, bowling... it is an unhealthy direction for any sport, really.

 

[Black-Balled]

A controlling document like this one from the PGA Tour (2017-18) is needed. It would help avoid this mess with provisions like:

1) Defining an appropriate size, shape, permissible location on the clothing and a maximum total number of logos on the clothing for all sponsorships.

2) Create a list of categories under which sponsorship is not allowed (in the case of the PGA Tour it is tobacco, spirits, beer and wine, casinos and gambling (they can use the name of a resort but not the word casino, so Foxwoods Resort is fine, Foxwoods Casino is not). Pool could have a completely different list and might very well allow casinos.

3) The PGA Tour, to protect the deal with FedEx (The FedEx Cup), banned sponsorship deals with direct competitors such as DHL and UPS. That is more tenable than a cue maker banning sponsorships from other cue makers because the players don't "use" a DHL product to make their living, like a pool player uses his/her preferred cue and equipment.

So, germane to the issue regarding Predator, a rule for Predator-branded events could be:

While players are permitted to have endorsement deals with competing cue manufacturers and to use those cues in Predator events, their logos may not be present on the player's clothing while he/she is "on the floor" either for practice or competition at Predator events. (Basically, say that they CAN'T wear the logo of the competitor, but don't try to mandate what they MUST wear). That is more in line with the PGA keeping competing brands out of the public eye to support FedEx but players certainly aren't mandated to wear FedEx logos on their clothes.

https://qualifying.pgatourhq.com/static-assets/uploads/2017-18-player-endorsement-policy.pdf

That seems more restrictive that the situation at hand and less likely to bring the players to the event...which is the goal of our (ignorant of the facts actually in play) discussion.

 

[skip100]

That seems more restrictive that the situation at hand and less likely to bring the players to the event...which is the goal of our (ignorant of the facts actually in play) discussion.

The difference is that 1) they grandfathered in existing UPS players and 2) UPS is only one of dozens or even hundreds of major, big-time sponsors spending real money in golf.

It's more like players sponsored by Callaway not being able to wear Callaway gear or play with Callaway clubs because TaylorMade is sponsoring a PGA Tour event. Which would never happen.

 

[gerryf]

A controlling document like this one from the PGA Tour (2017-18) is needed. It would help avoid this mess with provisions like:

Matchroom and Predator have considerable experience managing events. Who do you think they don't already have this in hand?

No one has seen the contract they sent to the players, but four of them didn't like the use of a Predator CLP event logo, and i assume (?) it's because the event logo pretty prominently looked like just a Predator logo with some words attached.

 

[BRussell]

I don’t know who’s right or wrong here, but how about we stop plastering advertising and logos over every available space including actual HUMAN BEINGS. We‘ve gotten too accepting of ads popping up over our web pages, interrupting our entertainment, sending us emails, calling and texting us, and tracking our every move, just so we can save a few dollars. Put the banners up around the venue, but how ‘bout let’s not treat people as walking advertising space.

 

[Scott Lee]

I don’t know who’s right or wrong here, but how about we stop plastering advertising and logos over every available space including actual HUMAN BEINGS. We‘ve gotten too accepting of ads popping up over our web pages, interrupting our entertainment, sending us emails, calling and texting us, and tracking our every move, just so we can save a few dollars. Put the banners up around the venue, but how ‘bout let’s not treat people as walking advertising space.

Tell that to the Nascar drivers making millions every year (where almost every square inch of their cars and uniforms are covered with sponsor patches)! LOL

Scott Lee
2019 PBIA Instructor of the Year
Director, SPF National Pool School Tour

 

[MitchAlsup]

I don’t know who’s right or wrong here, but how about we stop plastering advertising and logos over every available space including actual HUMAN BEINGS. We‘ve gotten too accepting of ads popping up over our web pages, interrupting our entertainment, sending us emails, calling and texting us, and tracking our every move, just so we can save a few dollars. Put the banners up around the venue, but how ‘bout let’s not treat people as walking advertising space.

This brings up a question:: What would players do if somebody sponsored a tournament where it was required that all players wear business suits with no visible sponsorship's graphics whatsoever ??

 

[DieselPete]

Matchroom and Predator have considerable experience managing events. Who do you think they don't already have this in hand?

I think they don't already have this in hand because they tried to force players to wear a logo that competes with their established endorsement deals, leading to several of the best players in the world pulling out of their event and a debate taking place in a public forum which has generally left Predator looking kind of bad to a lot of fans.

Any other questions?

 

[Bob Jewett]

This brings up a question:: What would players do if somebody sponsored a tournament where it was required that all players wear business suits with no visible sponsorship's graphics whatsoever ??

That's how tournaments were in the 1970s. To answer your question about current players, if there was a good prize fund, they would play and complain.

 

[MitchAlsup]

Bob, thanks,
But yes I knew that is how they were in the '70s, which is why I ask the question.
my question was how would players react?

I think you are right that they would show up and play,
And I am 100% assured that they would complain........
30% complaining they had to go out and buy a suit because they did not currently own one,
the other 30% complaining that they had to get an old suit dry cleaned......'cause it had not been worn in over a decade.....
and 40% complaining that their sponsor lowered their remuneration because no sponsorship !!

 

[9ballhasbeen]

Isn't that exactly what happened? The match sponsor set advertising rules, some players didn't like them and said they wouldn't play in the tournament. Other players said they would. Isn't that the professional pool players exhibiting control over what is on their shirt?

I don't know that anyone is the bad guy here.

You can't expect the sponsor to not care about player advertising. You can't expect the players to not care what kind of brand advertising they're wearing.

They'll either come to an arrangement or they won't. If they can, then some players will play in their tournaments. If they can't, then some players won't appear in some tournaments.

I think this blew up as an issue because there was not a lot of time between the announcement of the rules, the withdrawal of four players, and their pretty quick replacement. I noticed that the current roster was on the web site the day the OP made his post.

I have been told the initial requirements were written exactly, and I do mean exactly, as follows;

DRESS CODE

• Players will be required to source and wear their own playing jersey for the Event.
• Smart dark trousers and smart dark shoes / black sneakers must be worn
• No waistcoats, ties, jeans, dress shirts shall be allowed.

SPONSOR LOGO

• Players will be entitled to wear a total of x3 sponsor logos on their playing jersey; such sponsors must be worn on the right side chest of the jersey and or sleeve ONLY.
• Players will be required to wear x1 Predator logo (provided by Matchroom) to be worn on left side chest of their playing jersey (with no other logos shown above or below).
• Predator Sponsored Players will be required to wear x1 Arcadia logo (provided by Matchroom) on the bridge arm of the sleeve.
• Conflicting sponsors of the title sponsor: Predator are permitted.
• Logos must not exceed 7.5cm x 5cm (3"x2") or 6 square inches.

 

[MrKnives]

Isn't that exactly what happened? The match sponsor set advertising rules, some players didn't like them and said they wouldn't play in the tournament. Other players said they would. Isn't that the professional pool players exhibiting control over what is on their shirt?

I don't know that anyone is the bad guy here.

You can't expect the sponsor to not care about player advertising. You can't expect the players to not care what kind of brand advertising they're wearing.

They'll either come to an arrangement or they won't. If they can, then some players will play in their tournaments. If they can't, then some players won't appear in some tournaments.

I think this blew up as an issue because there was not a lot of time between the announcement of the rules, the withdrawal of four players, and their pretty quick replacement. I noticed that the current roster was on the web site the day the OP made his post.

I agree with your take. It was quickly announced and apparently they didn’t see or understand the limitations required. They may have learned how to organize an event better as a result of the unwanted drop outs. This very much looks like a tournament also and not a “league” or tour

 

[Jaden]

it is going down the sh==t hole because most cant understand simple concepts that they need to use to function in life effectively.
once you understand it and take a few moments to think about it you will see how so many decisions in life should be made accordingly.

LOL... Where it is translatable, yes... a good illustration of this is driving decisions. It's not about eventuality, it's about potentiality. When you can't possibly know the outcome, the proper choice is the one that has the highest potential reward versus risk.

It's just not translatable to this situation. The highest potentiality for the non-predator sponsored players in this situation is that players lose their sponsors, so playing in it is not the right choice. The highest potentiality for the sponsors is that with so many top players not being willing to play, they aren't able to sustain the tournament and it goes bye bye and they no longer have the venue. Their better bet was to allow the players to wear what they want and put their ads everywhere.

Don't even pretend and lie to yourself that you understand anything better than I do... that's fucking laughable.

Jaden

 

[Black-Balled]

The difference is that 1) they grandfathered in existing UPS players and 2) UPS is only one of dozens or even hundreds of major, big-time sponsors spending real money in golf.

It's more like players sponsored by Callaway not being able to wear Callaway gear or play with Callaway clubs because TaylorMade is sponsoring a PGA Tour event. Which would never happen.

I wasn't talking about golf.

This is Ames, Mr.!!!