ABP vs. Barry -- A Proposal

UGETTHE6

UGETTHE6

Always
Silver Member
I have a proposal that I think some here may find interesting.

I have a panel of 3 attorneys’ and 1 CEO of a large multi-million dollar corporation that is willing to hear both sides of this argument and make an assessment. All these people are reasonable prudent people who will make a decision based on what is AVAILABLE and fair for both parties.

Otherwise I see no end to this; other than it will eventually lose its hype and die off, players will play the event and things will continue as they have in the past.

Now this panel knows ZERO about professional pool and has had NO information about this dilemma that is lingering in the pool world. They normally do not do this type of stuff, but are willing to make an exception as a favor to me personally; mind you at no cost. Otherwise the two orginizations can pay to have a arbitration hearing.

No one in this organization has ever played pool or seen AZ Billiards Forums or knows anything about this situation. Their decision would be based on fairness and what is practical and available. Obviously if Barry can't post 180K in escrow then that is not a decision they will make, because that decision isn't available.

Ultimately we need a court to settle this, and this 4 person panel must make a majority decision based on the facts, and fairness. This firm is a fraud investigation firm, who deal in trail preparation for fraud investigations and direct investigations. They are entrusted by the state of New York to preform Investigations on behalf of the state, so I would say these are some pretty important people, and they make more money than anyone in pool, so they can't be bought.

These people deal with multi-million dollar accounts and are very prudent people who have the ability to see both sides. And make a determination based on what LIKELY seems fair, NOT that we in the pool world think is fair. Some of us have VERY different outlooks on the situation, yet we all love this game, this event, and want to see it continue.

This is just a mere suggestion, and I would like some input from you all to see if it is even worth me putting together. I will e-mail this proposal to Barry and I will call Johnny Archer if everyone thinks this might be a fair proposal. Because this back and forth is getting no where, in the real world, things like this get settled in court.

Now both sides must agree that no matter the panel’s decision they must adhere to the decision or ultimately face the boycott or a penalty on Barry's behalf, such as the returning champions must pay their entry fee ect... And with the Accu-Stats TV agreement, I don't think anyone wants to see the boycott happen. This TV agreement will be great for the US Open and Pat Fleming at Accu-stats and ultimately it will be all around good for the sport.

You can't sell seats at the US Open advertising amateur players are attending, no one wants to see me play pool, let alone pay to see it!
 
First of all, I admire you for trying to arrange this, and I compliment the businessmen who have offered to assist in this matter at no charge.

Still, I don't think binding arbitration makes sense when pro pool players are, essentially, independent contractors free to try to make a profit as often or as rarely as they choose.

Even if the parties agreed to submit to this, if this were to be done in a way that would make the parties legally bound to the decision reached by the independent panel, such a process will cost money. Who will foot the bill or both the proceedings and for the subsequent enforcement?

If, on the other hand, the matter is settled in a way that the parties are morally and ethically, but not legally, bound to follow the decision of the independent panel, there is no reason to believe that the party getting the worst of it will live by the decision, and there is no reason to believe that public opinion will have any impact on such compliance or non-compliance.

Finally, To my knowledge, no formal contract exists between the ABP and Barry Behrman. I am not a lawyer, and I encourage any lawyers on the forum to comment on or even refute what I've written.
 
Firstly thank you for standing up and being counted, we need more people to do that if and when they can. The leagal side is a nightmare with any arbitration between party's, I know I have dealt with it for years in my business career.

My choice in this situation would be to simply have the two partys formally agree to abide by any commissions findings. A very simple document can be drawn up stating the outcome of those negotiations, signed by the arbitration team and both party's. At the conclusion of that process both party's should also ratify the document verbally and in writing with Press Releases. I would like to see them do this at a joint Press Conference with a handshake at the end.

The only issue I see is simply a numbers game, in my experience arbitration panels are never made up of an even number of members. That is simply to give the greatest chance of a succesful outcome. They are usually made up of 1, 3 or 5 members.

As I have mentioned previously in other posts I am more than willing to help where I can. If anybody thinks my services can be of use I am prepared to travel and assist in the process.

The bottom line is that the Open will go on but for it's longer term future prosperity it would be better that the ABP were present. The ABP is also aware I'm sure that their own prosperity must be, at least to some extent, reliant upon a positive resolution here.
 
Mediation might be a better course of action. What has been happening is positional negotiating where one wins and one loses. If no agreement is made both parties are going to lose.
 
Bigkahuna said:
Mediation might be a better course of action. What has been happening is positional negotiating where one wins and one loses. If no agreement is made both parties are going to lose.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, it now appears that both sides may be so entrenched in their positions that is going to difficult to resolve between themselves. I truely hope that is not the case and that talks between them in the very near future (this week hoefully) can find some common ground.
 
Georgia Boy said:
I completely agree, it now appears that both sides may be so entrenched in their positions that is going to difficult to resolve between themselves. I truely hope that is not the case and that talks between them in the very near future (this week hoefully) can find some common ground.
Click to expand...

Mediation would put emotions aside to focus on the issues. Nobody is right or wrong here.

BTW I just posted your signature line on FB. That is funny as sh*t!
 
Lawyers who know nothing about pool, that should turn out well. Since when does a boycott between pool players and a tournament need to be settled in court. You start dragging state investigating lawyers in this it is going to end up more of a mess then it is. The best bet for a mediator is Mark Griffin, someone who cares about the sport and is a successful business man, not a state sanctioned investigating attorney.
 
Bigkahuna said:
Mediation would put emotions aside to focus on the issues. Nobody is right or wrong here.

BTW I just posted your signature line on FB. That is funny as sh*t!
Click to expand...

I think you are absolutely right, the trouble is the two party's involved don't see it that way, they both believe they are right and therefore emotions are running high. That is why some form of mediation is probably going to be the best, quickest and most palatable way forward.

Winston Churchill was awesome and probably the last person to be able to get away with saying the things that he did. There are so many out there that you could pick a new one for every day of the year. It's also amazing how many of them are still relevant today.
 
1. The Show must go on...and it will.

B. The ABP is a small minority of the likely participant pool. Not only does it not speak for the majority of participants, it has no real power over its own members to encourage (read: direct) any future action by them.

First off: Barry is not going to truly open his books and that would prevent any true assessment of the financial reality of his situation.

We all love pool, especially the most prestigious event we have, domestically.
Sadly, our discussions are largely irrelevant to the matter and its resolution.

I'd like to begin with a statement acknowledging that I do sound like a naysayer, but I believe the issues that have caused the ABP's boycott are not going to be resolved with any large-scale success in the short-term future, and certainly not by attempting to strong-arm a single Promoter.

The Players need to have a real organization that represents their interests is a realistic manner. They need to realize that there will be a long growth period that won't provide short -term perfection.

The Promoters need to realize a realistic money schedule, not one that depends on last minute influx of cash to meet payouts advertised.
 
Bigkahuna said:
Mediation might be a better course of action. What has been happening is positional negotiating where one wins and one loses. If no agreement is made both parties are going to lose.
Click to expand...

This is getting ridiculous - arbitration, tribunals, It is really simple.

You walk into a restaurant and you are given a menu.
It shows only chicken dishes but you fancy a steak.
Do you call the owner and tell him then insist that he changes his menu to accommodate you. He tells you that he (and most of his customers) like it the way it is.

You tell your friends and they say that you should get someone who likes chicken and steak to intervene and arbitrate whether the restaurant should offer this choice.

Your friends then decide to boycott the restaurant because they cannot get steak.

The analogy is there. Barry has proffered his menu and the players can select from it or decline.

The restaurant owner is the one who knows what business he wants to be in. It is not some intervening third party to make that judgement.
 
pro9dg said:
This is getting ridiculous - arbitration, tribunals, It is really simple.

You walk into a restaurant and you are given a menu.
It shows only chicken dishes but you fancy a steak.
Do you call the owner and tell him then insist that he changes his menu to accommodate you. He tells you that he (and most of his customers) like it the way it is.

You tell your friends and they say that you should get someone who likes chicken and steak to intervene and arbitrate whether the restaurant should offer this choice.

Your friends then decide to boycott the restaurant because they cannot get steak.

The analogy is there. Barry has proffered his menu and the players can select from it or decline.

The restaurant owner is the one who knows what business he wants to be in. It is not some intervening third party to make that judgement.
Click to expand...

You're right. This whole thing seems to be getting carried away. I love your analogy! :rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1:
 
sjm said:
First of all, I admire you for trying to arrange this, and I compliment the businessmen who have offered to assist in this matter at no charge.

Still, I don't think binding arbitration makes sense when pro pool players are, essentially, independent contractors free to try to make a profit as often or as rarely as they choose.

Even if the parties agreed to submit to this, if this were to be done in a way that would make the parties legally bound to the decision reached by the independent panel, such a process will cost money. Who will foot the bill or both the proceedings and for the subsequent enforcement?

If, on the other hand, the matter is settled in a way that the parties are morally and ethically, but not legally, bound to follow the decision of the independent panel, there is no reason to believe that the party getting the worst of it will live by the decision, and there is no reason to believe that public opinion will have any impact on such compliance or non-compliance.

Finally, To my knowledge, no formal contract exists between the ABP and Barry Behrman. I am not a lawyer, and I encourage any lawyers on the forum to comment on or even refute what I've written.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, S. I think there is another possibility here, and that lies with Shannon. If Barry truly means that she is his partner in this, then maybe he would be willing to relinquish his spot at the negotiating table to her. At the least, that would prove that she really is his partner like he claims, and I think her cooler head could help diffuse the situation.
 
pro9dg said:
This is getting ridiculous - arbitration, tribunals, It is really simple.

You walk into a restaurant and you are given a menu.
It shows only chicken dishes but you fancy a steak.
Do you call the owner and tell him then insist that he changes his menu to accommodate you. He tells you that he (and most of his customers) like it the way it is.

You tell your friends and they say that you should get someone who likes chicken and steak to intervene and arbitrate whether the restaurant should offer this choice.

Your friends then decide to boycott the restaurant because they cannot get steak.

The analogy is there. Barry has proffered his menu and the players can select from it or decline.

The restaurant owner is the one who knows what business he wants to be in. It is not some intervening third party to make that judgement.
Click to expand...

Doug I hope you are right and that they can resolve this between them, however the size of the ego's involved is an issue. They also both believe they are right and that's a real stumbling block. They need to be there and Barry needs them there, let's hope common sense prevails, but I am not too hopeful currently.

Your restaurant analogy is pretty awesome, let me know where that Chicken only restaurant is in Chichester and I'll talk with them next time I'm over there :thumbup:
 
pro9dg said:
This is getting ridiculous - arbitration, tribunals, It is really simple.

You walk into a restaurant and you are given a menu.
It shows only chicken dishes but you fancy a steak.
Do you call the owner and tell him then insist that he changes his menu to accommodate you. He tells you that he (and most of his customers) like it the way it is.

You tell your friends and they say that you should get someone who likes chicken and steak to intervene and arbitrate whether the restaurant should offer this choice.

Your friends then decide to boycott the restaurant because they cannot get steak.

The analogy is there. Barry has proffered his menu and the players can select from it or decline.

The restaurant owner is the one who knows what business he wants to be in. It is not some intervening third party to make that judgement.
Click to expand...

Doug, you're too funny.

How about this analogy: You walk into a restaurant, wanting a nice juicy steak. The menu says chicken only. You settle for chicken because you're hungry. The owner says you have to pay for it before you eat because he has to pay the chef to cook it. You say OK, you understand, so you pay.

After you pay, the owner says to come back in a month and it'll be ready.
 
Breaking Bad.................

This is a fine and generous offer but like some others have mentioned, it isn't practical for the reasons already mentioned.

The ABP and Barry Berhman need to seek out someone OR a group of people who understand the promotion side of pool as well as the players side of pool and have them mediate this potential problem AND SOON. Otherwise, when whatever downside comes, the party who doesn't come to the table with fair dinkum on their mind, will be found at fault no matter what their intention was/is.

I don't believe for a minute that the ABP wants to injure Barry Berhman and the U.S. Open 9 Ball Championships but that is exactly what they are going to do if they boycott this event.

I don't believe for a minute that Barry Berhman won't pay the players all of the money they are deserved. Barry's event has a cash flow problem. How that can be resolved to satisfy the needs of the players getting paid is anyone's guess, BUT BARRY has to offer some assurances other than putting the name of this event up as collateral.

If the ABP wants to make an example out of the U.S. Open 9 Ball Championships, they should be prepared to require the rest of the promoters to pony up in advance of every event they participate in.

If Barry is unable to provide better assurances that the players will be paid in a timely manner, he will just have to be satisfied with whatever happens to this event.

I know the type of people that make up the ABP just as well as I know the personna of Barry Berhman (although I know none of them personally) and I can't emphasize enough that both of these parties need to find common ground or both will suffer the consequences.

I've been giving some thought to Mark Griffin and while I still think he is the man for the job, he should not take on this responsibility because if it goes bad, someone will look at him and want to place the blame squarely on his shoulders.
 
FranCrimi said:
Doug, you're too funny.

How about this analogy: You walk into a restaurant, wanting a nice juicy steak. The menu says chicken only. You settle for chicken because you're hungry. The owner says you have to pay for it before you eat because he has to pay the chef to cook it. You say OK, you understand, so you pay.

After you pay, the owner says to come back in a month and it'll be ready.
Click to expand...

Very droll Fran
I would pay him for the chicken then negotiate a free dessert and say I would come back in a month and I would expect a glass of wine free with the meal.
Then I would go down the Fish and Chip Shop - and YOU know how good they are,
 
pro9dg said:
Very droll Fran
I would pay him for the chicken then negotiate a free dessert and say I would come back in a month and I would expect a glass of wine free with the meal.
Then I would go down the Fish and Chip Shop - and YOU know how good they are,
Click to expand...

Doug
Not fair..........do not mention Fish and Chip Shops again until I get a chance to get back over there.

Paul
 
Georgia Boy said:
Doug I hope you are right and that they can resolve this between them, however the size of the ego's involved is an issue. They also both believe they are right and that's a real stumbling block. They need to be there and Barry needs them there, let's hope common sense prevails, but I am not too hopeful currently.

Your restaurant analogy is pretty awesome, let me know where that Chicken only restaurant is in Chichester and I'll talk with them next time I'm over there :thumbup:
Click to expand...

I did go to such a place in Ostend in Belgium. It was called the Coek Coek and served either Chicken or Chicken (and dry bread). So Chicken it was. But next door was another place where they served Fillet American. So I decided to try that one night, It turned out to be raw minced beef and after I had eaten it I discovered that it gave me ringworm.
There must be a hidden message in there somewhere!
 
How bout the US Open being put on and the ABP put on their own tourney's. I also wonder if they have targeted other promoters or just targeted the US Open.

I support the reason for a pro organization, but I do not support bullying.
 
JoeyA said:
The ABP and Barry Berhman need to seek out someone OR a group of people who understand the promotion side of pool as well as the players side of pool and have them mediate this potential problem
Click to expand...

Sorry but I disagree with this statement. The mediator would only need to understand the gravity of the issues. A mediator is often a lawyer but trained to not polarize the two parties on the issues. We use them in real estate disputes and are far far cheaper than attorneys who polarize both parties take a stand and fight for a position while running up billable hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top