BCA or ACS - Not Both?

almer said:
Ted Harms currently has teams that are dual sanctioned IN Calgary ,Alberta,BCA and VNEA
Click to expand...

Yep,

Does the word hypocrate come to mind?

And the USPPA and BCA seem to have dual sanctions so I don't know where he gets his information regarding 'dual sanctions'.

I wonder if Canadian Cues Sports is going to become a non-profit organization since it seems to be the mantra spouted by these for-profit league operators. If the ACS and its state organizations are non-profits it seems only reasonable that the CCS should also be non-profit.

As I see it, Mr. Harms is forcing players in Canada to decide which organization to support, BCA or CCS/ACS, before any performance evaluations are available.

Kind of like betting in blackjack without seeing the dealer's up card.

I still haven't heard from John Lewis or Mark Griffin alhtough I can imagine how busy both of them must be.
 
davesyrja said:
Yep,

<<<<snipped>>>>

I still haven't heard from John Lewis or Mark Griffin alhtough I can imagine how busy both of them must be.
Click to expand...

I've got plans to chat with Mr. Griffin next month in Vegas.

Being a member of the USPPA and running USPPA tournaments and preparing to start USPPA/BCA leagues, I am very interested what the BCA will offer USPPA members for the yearly dues.

League play in Sacramento is not as popular as the tournaments. Most leagues are Bar Leagues and no leagues exist in any of the pool rooms that I know of. But, I am going to start one this fall. USPPA for sure, and maybe BCA sanctioned. It all depends on what the BCA will offer the players.

ACA, CCA or whatever the new name of the day is, is not even being considered.

But, if the ACA or CCA... leagues offer the state and league operators a huge slice of the not-for-profit operating funds, I MIGHT BE interested.

It is very difficult for me to believe there are so many state and local league operators of the newly formed ACA willing to work for peanuts. There has to be lots of money NOW, that the BCA isn't taking a cut. Or, will the NEW ACA and CCA be taking that cut NOW?

Let's see. $10 a year dues. Weekly dues from 60,000 members (at say $3 a member x 24 weeks [that's maybe 3 sessions a year] adds up to about

$10x60,000= $600,000
$3 a week x 60,000= $180,000
24 weeks x $180,000= $4,320,000 a year
total = $4,920,000 (no taxes, because it's non-profit)

League operators get paid, State rep gets paid, and of course,, the directors get paid. Now the promoter for the yearly tournament gets paid and the Venue (tournament site) get their share, table vendor gets their share.

Oh wait.. what about the players that want to continue to be part of the league system they originally signed with? Let's say that figure is 50,000.

Now that's a lot less, it's only $492,000. That's mostly going to the state, regional and national payroll. And, it might just cover the VENUE cost of a national tournament for 64 teams in a gym at a community center.

Good Luck ACA.. I wish you well.

Mr. Griffin won't have any problem making a success of an already established league system with a national tournament with $800,000 added.

It's not broke, you CAN't Fix it.

ACA is the unknown player at this table.
 
Excellent post's Dave and Tom!

As far as Bob and I are concerned we trying to stay neutral. Our events are welcome to anyone (pro's excluded sometimes) but we do use the BCA rules as guidelines for play. I am wondering what type rules are going to be used for the new group. Since they are not BCA can they use the same rules?

Bob and I will be in Vegas for a month. May 11 to June 4. I am sure that I will have plenty of news to share with you all while we are there.

I plan to gather a group while we are there to talk about this situation. I will post more about this soon.

Eydie
 
They bloody well better use the same rules in the ACS as the BCA. The last thing this sport needs is yet another rule set to parition the player community even further and confuse the general public.

This game needs to figure out the rules and standardise the game across all the leagues and tours there is.
 
Tom In Cincy said:
Being a member of the USPPA and running USPPA tournaments and preparing to start USPPA/BCA leagues, I am very interested what the BCA will offer USPPA members for the yearly dues.
Click to expand...
On both ACA and BCA.league's websites they say there will be no changes in sanctioning fees. $10 per year per player, no other fees.

Tom In Cincy said:
It is very difficult for me to believe there are so many state and local league operators of the newly formed ACA willing to work for peanuts. There has to be lots of money NOW, that the BCA isn't taking a cut. Or, will the NEW ACA and CCA be taking that cut NOW?
Click to expand...
Both ACA and BCA.league's nationals are taking $10 per year per player plus any additional entry fees for their respective national tournaments. Some LOs put those fees, transportation, and/or lodging in the dues fed prize funds. Some do not.

Tom In Cincy said:
[snip accounting]
Click to expand...
The nationals get $10/player/year. The rest of the money (dues) are used at the discretion of the local LO.

Tom In Cincy said:
Oh wait.. what about the players that want to continue to be part of the league system they originally signed with?
Click to expand...
I think that, unless there is a clear difference between the two leagues (which there isn't right now), most players will blindly follow their present LO to whichever one he likes. That's what makes them the players and him the LO. A rival local LO would have to emerge and offer a better situation for the players for the other league to be viable in that local area.

It's the local LOs who have the power and the money.
 
Skeezicks said:
<<snipped>>
I think that, unless there is a clear difference between the two leagues (which there isn't right now), most players will blindly follow their present LO to whichever one he likes. That's what makes them the players and him the LO. A rival local LO would have to emerge and offer a better situation for the players for the other league to be viable in that local area.

It's the local LOs who have the power and the money.
Click to expand...

Very good points.

When the current LO conclude their BCA year memberships (May31st) and tell all the players that they will be playing in the ACA league after June 1st, I am sure that if there isn't anything else available, that the players will follow the LO's directions.

But, that would indicate that the players are also satisfied with the current LO. What about the LO's that have less than satified players? It would only take one person (a new LO) to offer the BCA to start the drive for a split in the membership. I am sure that for every current LO, there is at least ONE person that thinks they can do a better job and now has the opportunity to test that theroy. All it takes is some players that agree.

Now there is the 'split'

NOT all LO's will abandon the BCA. In fact the current BCA state and LO's members have an obligation to the BCA until June 1st. The ACA/CCA website only list a few state's former BCA members joining the ACA/CCA.

What about all the rest of the current BCA state and LO that will continue to be sanctioned by the new Mark Griffin BCA League system? Does anyone really think they will "ALL" leave?

Interesting times ahead, for sure. Drama, Drama, Drama
 
(I am editing my own post by replying to it. :confused: )
Skeezicks said:
[...] A rival local LO would have to emerge and offer a better situation for the players for the other league to be viable in that local area.
Click to expand...
or several rival local LOs
 
I have read all of the replies in this thread and I have noticed one thing...everyone here seems to think that the new BCA Pool League System is somehow still a part of the Billiard Congress of America. It is not. It is an independent Sanctioning body that has simply (somehow) purchased the 'BCA' name for a couple of year.

If you sanction through the BCA Pool League System, you will not be a member of the Billiard Congress of America, you will be a member of the BCA Pool League System. Similarly, if you sanction through the ACS you will be a member of the American CueSports Alliance. At least they don't try to lead you to belive that they are the same old organization that you have always belonged to.

The only real differences that I can see in the two organizations is one is non profit and governed by a Board of Directors made up of our (pool playing) peers and the other is concerned with making a profit and governed by a single person.

I hope this will help clear up some things. It probably will provoke more arguements but isn't that why we write to these forums...to discuss these contraversial subjects and maybe learn new things?

thanks for your time...Ken
 
Warning: The above post gave you wrong infornmation!

Ken ...If that is who you really are since you have elected not to give any contact info, you got it all wrong kid.

You statement regarding "The ACS is made up by pool playing peers" is quite debatable. It is made up of group of disgruntled league operators and dismissed BCA personal who were in the situation of loosing their non for profit status with the sale of the BCA. Since you opened up this can of worms, let's talk about the following regarding the perks of being under the non for profit status:

1. All travel including air, hotel, gas, food and incidentals are completely covered for the President, league operators and any staff.

2. Each time your president or league operator comes and goes to any event or to league his/her monies are covered completely. Depending on how involved the person is, they can go as far as write off car payments and other large items.

3. The hotels in which your state tournament is held, give kick backs to the promoters as a norm. Ask where did the kick back go? Into the player fund, added money or directly to the president or league operator pocket.

As a non for profit you as a member have the right to request this information.

Remember now, that it is the players who are donating their money to support all of the above. Being under a non for profit, YOU as the players are paying for all their fun. Did you know you were paying for all of that?

Now, with the sale of the BCA to Mr. Griffin, the money will go back to the players with added money to the nationals and other outlets. Mr. Griffin has no intent to pocket this money or use it on himself. He is a man of his word and will do as he states.

Ask your league operators and presidents to OPEN their books and show you exactly what YOUR money has been spent on in the past. IF they don't let you see the books which are of public knowledge, they have something to hide!

Now skunkboy51 (your name fits your post perfect) did you really "clear things up" or skunk them up. I smell a rat!
 
I've talked with Mark Griffin and have come away from our conversation with the feeling that the BCA league system is in good hands. He was very up front and answered all my questions. Seems like a genuine, sincere, guy.

Contrary to what Ted Harms and others of the CCS/ACS may say, BCA has always allowed dual sanctioning. Here is an excerpt from the BCA's existing sanctioning agreement.

14. A league sanctioned with another recognized national league system other than the BCA may sanction with the BCA (dual sanc-tion) as long as its intention is not to undermine the BCA national league system. In order to ensure that, the applicant for dual sanc-tioning must offer a separate BCA-sanctioned league or division. Leagues with existing dual sanctioning may continue sanctioning annually with no restrictions on a consecutive year basis only. The BCA League & Program Department will continue to reserve the right to accept dual sanctioning from any league it feels is sanctioning with BCA for the express purpose of offering its players extra benefits, and not for the purpose of undermining an existing BCA league within its area of administration.

I predict that Mark Griffin will have no problem with dual sanctioning, even if the league is also sanctioned with the CCS/ACS.

The real question here is, will the CCS/ACS continue to DISALLOW dual sanctioning while trumpeting that this is in the best interest of the players? It seems to me it is only in the best interest of the CCS/ACS - they could care less about the players.

They are also still insisting that non-profit is better. I only have two words. El Toro Poopoo! Maybe thats 3 words. Any of you know of an "efficient non-profit"? (oxymoron) Non-profits are a great way to avoid paying taxes while gobbling up revenue by excessive costs for administrative, travel, and accomodation. Oh yah, there are also the endless, pointless meetings.
 
skunkboy51 said:
I have read all of the replies in this thread and I have noticed one thing...everyone here seems to think that the new BCA Pool League System is somehow still a part of the Billiard Congress of America. It is not. It is an independent Sanctioning body that has simply (somehow) purchased the 'BCA' name for a couple of year.

If you sanction through the BCA Pool League System, you will not be a member of the Billiard Congress of America, you will be a member of the BCA Pool League System. Similarly, if you sanction through the ACS you will be a member of the American CueSports Alliance. At least they don't try to lead you to belive that they are the same old organization that you have always belonged to.

The only real differences that I can see in the two organizations is one is non profit and governed by a Board of Directors made up of our (pool playing) peers and the other is concerned with making a profit and governed by a single person.

I hope this will help clear up some things. It probably will provoke more arguements but isn't that why we write to these forums...to discuss these contraversial subjects and maybe learn new things?

thanks for your time...Ken
Click to expand...
I wonder how you feel these poor league operators make a living?The ones i know do nothing but run pool leagues,father mother and son.These people are far from poor and have done nothing but run pool leagues.If they are leaving BCA for CCS it is only to make more money.
 
I'm glad to see some responses. Unforetunately, you have all missed the point I tried to make. Once again my point was that the new 'BCA Pool League System' is a name only and is not in any way, shape or form associated with the Billiard Congress of America. That league system will be gone on May 31, 2004.

Mr. Rudman has pointed out that I did not list any personal contact information...I think everyone can read your reponse, no need for private threats. He also points out that the non profit organization will 'bleed' the funds right out from under the players noses. There may be some truth in what he is saying, I'm sure their will be some expense money to be paid but I seriously doubt anyone will get a new car out of the deal. He is correct that (our) state tournament does get kick backs from the hotel, drinks, food and other vendors but we also add big buck every year. This year we added $21000 to the purse. We have, as well as I'm sure every association of this type has, a Finance Committee to oversee the spending of the players' money. None of our board members or officers recieve any sort of salary or other compensation for their hard work to keep this asoociation running.

Mr. Syrja quoted a BCA rule regarding Dual Sanctioning. Remember, that is a 'BCA' rule not a Mark Griffin rule. Mr. Griffin may well adopt that particular rule as did the ACS (check their website). As a matter of fact, the ACS rule is almost verbatum the BCA rule. The ACS will allow dual sanctioning under the same circumstances as the BCA previously did. The CCS may be an entirely different thing. I believe the CCS is a sanctioning body in Cananda that is associated with the ACS, but not controlled by the ACS. Mr. Harms may have some slightly different plans for his league system...you'll have to ask him. And please, Mr. Syrja, remember it is the 'BCA Pool League System' and not the 'BCA'...they are completely different organizations.

As for 'almer'; I think he has simply misread something that I wrote. I don't believe I ever used the word "poor" in my post. An honest mistake.

Looking forward to the next wave of responses...I hope they are to the points that I have made and not some tangent.

L8R...Ken (my real name)
 
Ken,

Ted Harms at CCS has confirmed the following points.

1. He will not sanction any league that is sanctioned with BCA Pool Leagues.

2. He has an agreement with the ACS that they will not sanction any Canadian Leagues.

3. Members of the CCS are eligible to play in the ACS national tournament.

Here are my opinions on this matter:

It seems obvious to me that CCS is the agent of ACS in Canada. My search failed to turn up a non-profit registration for CCS. Seems a for-profit organization is OK after all.

Could all this BS about non-profits being the only way to fly be due to some BCA State organizations having money in the coffers that the ACS is trying to get control of?

I expect Ted will try use his previous practice of having his leagues dual sanctioned BCA/VNEA as an excuse to now sanction them CCS/VNEA under a grandfather provision.

As a Canadian Pool Player I think this sucks! The ACS obviously supports Ted Harms and therefore does NOT support dual sanctioning.

Ted's special $3.00 per player registration that he got from the BCA when John Lewis was in control is coming to an end. Wonder if ACS is giving him the same special deal?

As to the BCA League System allowing dual sanctioning. I got $100 that says they do. Any takers?
 
Does Canada and America have the same guidelines for non for profit?

I wouldn't think so, so I am wondering how can both can work on the same guidelines?

Just a thought?

Eydie
 
Bob Romano said:
Does Canada and America have the same guidelines for non for profit?

I wouldn't think so, so I am wondering how can both can work on the same guidelines?

Just a thought?

Eydie
Click to expand...

Eydie,

While the guidelines may not be identical, Canada certainly has rules governing non-profits. It has been at least 20 years since I was involved in one, but I expect the concept is very similar in the US and Canada. After all, we both have "British Common Law" as the basis for many of our precedents. The exception being Quebec, which, I believe, uses the "Code Napoleon".
 
Although this post was done at MNBilliards.com, it does state some things that are pertinent to this discussion.

I strongly encourage ALL interested parties to contact me. I will be very availoable at the Vegas event. I will listen to your suggestions and answer your questions. Keep in mind, John Lewis and company ran the BCA for 14 years. Any problems he left behind I wil correct.

But there will be no favorites and no special treatment. All leagues will pay the same (No more $3.00 memberships to special people-who charged $18 to his members/no more $25,000 checks sent to Ted Harms for the CCS - a for profit entitiy!!) - there will be no more exclusive regions (like Jim Ruder and the Northeast United States). Pay special attention to those that are really pushing the ACS. There are a lot out "special interests" out there.

The whole push of the ACS argument is basically illogical. Most large sport groups are For Profit. (see post on our website: bcapoolleague.com).

Determine what is REALLY best for the PLAYERS. Not what someone says is best for them. Please pay special attention to the ACS position on Dual sanctioning. They state they are adopting the BCA position and then go beyond the accepted definition of dual-sanctioning. They change the definition and call it the BCA position.

Hope this finds everyone doing good at pool. Happy Reading and see you in Vegas.


(this is in response to some posts at MNBilliards .com that address the player's money etc.)

[The BCA league system has lost money every year except the last 2 or so. You make it sound like the players dues supported the financial needs of the BCA. On the contrary, the Trade side of BCA supported the leagues (to the tune of MANY thousands of dollars). Again, this was under John Lewis's watch. Also, this shows the weakness of the "non-profit" argument. How is it supported when losing money??

There seems to be several States that have large amounts of money. That is the players money. On the other hand, the BCA national league system had no money. You make it sound like I "took" the players money. Not True.

But, IF there is a raid on the state organizations treasury, that IS STEALING. Randy and other officers (from MN) have seriously discussed and advocated the concept of "hi-jacking" the WIBCA (and other states) and transferring the whole organization (including the PLAYER"S MONEY)to the ACS organization. They have also considered loaning around $20,000.00 from each of several State funds to the ACS!! That is misuse of what the funds were for. Those funds belong to the players and operators of Wisconsin. If I was a member, I would be concerned.

All members of the state organizations should be aware of such intentions. That money needs to stay where it is or be distributed back to the actual members of the organization. If ACS wants state organizations - they have every right to have them - they need to start a new organization.

The ACS keeps saying they are doing things for the players. Yet they keep trying to disenfranchise players. Read the NEW ACS dual sanctioning policy. They try to pass it off as being the same as the BCA. That is NOT true. They are not trying to make things better for the players. They are trying to get control of the players. That is not necessarily better for the players. Players should be able to make their own choices. I will be explaining our polci on Dual Sanctioning in the near future. Or you can go the the BCA website and read it. (bca-pool go to "play" then "league" then "sanction" - page 2 paragraph #14) . Read the differences carefully. It is a HUGE difference.

I DO NOT WANT THE PLAYER'S MONEY OR THE MONEY HELD IN STATE ORGANIZATIONS. THAT BELONGS TO THE OPERATORS AND PLAYERS OF EACH STATE.

I will listen to the players and encourage everyone to get in contact with me in Vegas.

Respectfully,

Mark Griffin
812-987-1461
 
Tom,

Diamond Billiards on Folsom near Maether Rd has some league involvement. They have a team and I think they play league games in there once in a while. I believe the rest of the teams are bar teams.



Tom In Cincy said:
I've got plans to chat with Mr. Griffin next month in Vegas.

Being a member of the USPPA and running USPPA tournaments and preparing to start USPPA/BCA leagues, I am very interested what the BCA will offer USPPA members for the yearly dues.

League play in Sacramento is not as popular as the tournaments. Most leagues are Bar Leagues and no leagues exist in any of the pool rooms that I know of. But, I am going to start one this fall. USPPA for sure, and maybe BCA sanctioned. It all depends on what the BCA will offer the players.

ACA, CCA or whatever the new name of the day is, is not even being considered.

But, if the ACA or CCA... leagues offer the state and league operators a huge slice of the not-for-profit operating funds, I MIGHT BE interested.

It is very difficult for me to believe there are so many state and local league operators of the newly formed ACA willing to work for peanuts. There has to be lots of money NOW, that the BCA isn't taking a cut. Or, will the NEW ACA and CCA be taking that cut NOW?

Let's see. $10 a year dues. Weekly dues from 60,000 members (at say $3 a member x 24 weeks [that's maybe 3 sessions a year] adds up to about

$10x60,000= $600,000
$3 a week x 60,000= $180,000
24 weeks x $180,000= $4,320,000 a year
total = $4,920,000 (no taxes, because it's non-profit)

League operators get paid, State rep gets paid, and of course,, the directors get paid. Now the promoter for the yearly tournament gets paid and the Venue (tournament site) get their share, table vendor gets their share.

Oh wait.. what about the players that want to continue to be part of the league system they originally signed with? Let's say that figure is 50,000.

Now that's a lot less, it's only $492,000. That's mostly going to the state, regional and national payroll. And, it might just cover the VENUE cost of a national tournament for 64 teams in a gym at a community center.

Good Luck ACA.. I wish you well.

Mr. Griffin won't have any problem making a success of an already established league system with a national tournament with $800,000 added.

It's not broke, you CAN't Fix it.

ACA is the unknown player at this table.
Click to expand...
 
Well, all I can say is that it's going to be pretty fucking shitty not to be able to party with the Canadians next year. I hope they'll be happy with a smaller tournament, less vendors in another spot.

I hope the players rebel and tell the CCS to shove it. The Vegas Tournament is one awesome event and disgruntled, misinformed League Ops are trying to take that away from their players.

OR, READ THIS ALL YOU CANADIAN AND AMERICAN LEAGUE OPS, OR IT'S GOING TO BE A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY FOR NEW PEOPLE TO STEP UP AND CREATE NEW BCA LEAGUES. HOW DO YOU DO?

:-) GOING TO VEGAS TO PARTY WITH MY BUDS.
 
instroke said:
Well, all I can say is that it's going to be pretty fucking shitty not to be able to party with the Canadians next year. I hope they'll be happy with a smaller tournament, less vendors in another spot.

I hope the players rebel and tell the CCS to shove it. The Vegas Tournament is one awesome event and disgruntled, misinformed League Ops are trying to take that away from their players.

OR, READ THIS ALL YOU CANADIAN AND AMERICAN LEAGUE OPS, OR IT'S GOING TO BE A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY FOR NEW PEOPLE TO STEP UP AND CREATE NEW BCA LEAGUES. HOW DO YOU DO?

:-) GOING TO VEGAS TO PARTY WITH MY BUDS.
Click to expand...
In most places in Canada there are people ready to take over Bca as long as it stays pretty much the same as it is now.TED HARMS has a big BCA western event planned for this week in Calgary singles,teams, scoth doubles,so this will be a chance to ask him these questions.
 
History of BCA & Cross sanctioning

To answer a few questions and dispell some bad feelings people are getting I'll throw in my knowledge on the subject.

In the mid 90's, John Lewis, the BCA league program director wanted the ability to cross sanction League operators who were VNEA Charter holders, to more quickly expand the league membership. At that time the West Coast Proprietors representative to the BCA Board of Directors was Arlene Stuart (also my league operator). She was adamuntly against cross sanctioning with any league system that did not offer the same ability to sanction a league as the BCA. That VNEA and TAP and APA charter holder held unfair advantages over BCA Charter holders. To be a VNEA Charter holder you had to be a wholesale vender of VNEA products. APA charter holders have specific territories they pay for and are protected by the National organization, no two APA charters can exist in the same area (the same is for TAP). Only the USPPA had the same open criteria as the BCA league system. The year after Arlene resigned cross sanctioning of APA, TAP and VNEA charter holders was allowed (keep in mind that this is in the USA only, Canada has a different set of rules). The stipulation was that if you played 11 weeks in an APA league those nights of play could not count towards qualifying for the BCA; you must have separate nights of league play under the BCA charter to qualify for the national event. It would be up to other BCA charterholders in the area of the Cross sanctioned operators to police this and inform the National BCA office of any known cheating of the system. I fought this issue as Arlene's League representative at the annual league meeting in Las Vegas and as a league operator in later years. But it fel mostly on deaf ears, or raised arguments of having the BCA grant sanctions.

Also in the 90's with help, blessing and sanctionaing of the BCA many State organizations, the Northwest Regional Association (Oregon Washington Idaho) and Provical Associations were started. All of them in the US are non-profit corporations modeled after the BCA. When it became known that the BCA intended to Sell the League System many league operators were infuriated by the BCA Board. The BCA expected all the Associations and operators to accept the Boards decision and do whatever the buyer of the system wanted us to do. Problem, the APA was one of those bidders. No one wanted to be a part of that. Some BCA operators would be forced out of business or the APA would be in violation of their territorial charters and open to litigation. The heads of all the various Associations came together to protest the sale and offered an alturnative to the Board. Asking that they create a league committe made up of league operators to oversee the league along with an annual payment to the BCA from the league system. When the APA and other for profit existing league entities withdrew their offers for the BCA League system the State associations thought it was over and that we might have an opportunity to work with the BCA Board.

The Board sold the League system to Mark Griffin for an undisclosed amount. Hence we have Mark's BCA League (sometime in the next three years to be renamed) and the ACS.

Now (in the US) as a league operator I can sanction with the BCA or the ACS or Both, under the stipulation that nights played can only count towards santioning for one league at a time. The State Associations don't have the same luxury. The bylaws of the associations stipulate sanctioning with the BCA. That they are non-profit associations. All Association bylaws had to be presented to and approved by the BCA before the BCA would sanction them. Associations now have to decide who to sanction with. The Northwest Association that I am a board member of will be voting on this issue June 13th. Most of the league operators want to wait and see right now, they don't want to limit their players options. I think in an altruistic sense most would like to see the ACS become a majority spin off but they also want what will be best for their players needs, which will keep their players in their leagues. If we decide to stay with the BCA we again can subject ourselves to an ownership change. If we join the ACS we get a seat on the Board of Directors and something that will not be sold.
[You will have to verify this next pargraph with Ted Harms.] I think it is this delema that Mr Harms is relaying. He has started the CCS and any tournaments that the CCS sanctions will most likely be for CCS members only (ie BCA, TAP, CPA members will not be eligable to play in that tournament unless they are also CCS members). This does not mean that CCS league operators cannot also be BCA league operators. It would seem rather hypocritical of Mr. Harms (who is a VNEA and BCA Charterholder) to deny cross sanctioning but stranger things have happened.

By the way no one in the Northwest Regional Association is paid for their services to the organization. With one exception, our league secretary, who handles over 1900 entries to the two events,verifies eligability, balances the league accounts, writes out the tournament checks and mails tax statements to those who earn over $600 at our events (hopefully we will vote to pay her $500 this year). We charge a $10 per year membership fee which goes to added money and tournament operating expenses. We paid out over $110,000 this year at our two tournaments. It took us ten years to get this big. And I am very proud of my 7 years with this organization.

Of the 20 plus league operators that make up the Northwest association (unlike APA and TAP operators) most charge minimal fees to cover operating costs, one I know charges nothing and bears all operating expenses out of his own pocket. Though this may not be the norm for league operators around north america, the division between the ACS and the BCA may reside along long term interests in promoting the sport and it's positive aspects and moving away from the greed and hustling attitudes that have mard the sport in the eyes of the general public.

I'll save the reasons behind the BCA selling the League system for others threads-

See the ACS and BCA POOL LEAGUE web pages for further info- a good article came out in the NW pool paper "On the Break" where John Lewis is interviewed.

Craig Arnold
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top