Cliff Joyner

[MFB]

Lets just have a Calcutta on line. lol

I think it should be a player auction instead.

 

[JAM]

Diane, I think you've put forth some great ideas relating to getting Cliff in the IPT qualifiers.

Just a suggestion. There are some qualifiers occurring BEFORE the IPT qualifier in which the entry fees are much less, i.e., $200 as opposed to $2,000. If you call up to Chelmsford, MA and/or Hard Times in CA, they may be able to provide some info.

This would be one way for Cliff to get his $2,000 entry fee. By playing in some of the mini qualifiers, if he wins one of those, he's in like Flynn.

Hope this helps! Cliff Joyner is a legend around my neck of the woods and is heralded as one of the BEST one-pocket machines ever to exist. I sure do wish him the best of luck!

JAM

 

[Diane]

Diane, I think you've put forth some great ideas relating to getting Cliff in the IPT qualifiers.

Just a suggestion. There are some qualifiers occurring BEFORE the IPT qualifier in which the entry fees are much less, i.e., $200 as opposed to $2,000. If you call up to Chelmsford, MA and/or Hard Times in CA, they may be able to provide some info.

This would be one way for Cliff to get his $2,000 entry fee. By playing in some of the mini qualifiers, if he wins one of those, he's in like Flynn.

Hope this helps! Cliff Joyner is a legend around my neck of the woods and is heralded as one of the BEST one-pocket machines ever to exist. I sure do wish him the best of luck!

JAM

Thanks for your support JAM!

I know their are backers out there that would love to do this...the forum is just an engine to get the info out there! It never hurts to try!

 

[Eric.]

You have a very valid point! This is not for anyone that is looking for a long term investment plan...it's really more of helping a top player over a hurdle to possible great success. I'm know there were a few golfers that went through the same thing. Backers tend to get involved because they can't play at a high level and they also have a tendancy to like to gamble. Players do it obviously for the love of the game; it's a hard way to make an easy living!
This is the first time pool has had any serious money involved!

Even for a short term investment plan, this ain't the best deal around. All I was saying is that if there were some way to make the risk/reward more equitable, not necessarily 50/50, between the players/backers then there might be more people jumping in.

Like I said, the age old conundrum.


Eric >looking for my own friend with 'who cares' money

 

[Eric.]

How bout this...

Here's another idea:

Let's call Cliff our "AZ Billiards/IPT player". Let's ask for donations from the forum members. Let's make the contract between Cliff and all contributing members. Let's make the donation a "set" $100 or so and all contributors get a percentage of the split from the winnings. Let's negotiate a (IMO) more equitable split of the winnings. Will this work?


Eric >buy some shares of Joyner, Inc.?

 

[frankncali]

Is this a sponsorship for the entire year for just for the Qualifier?

If its for the year then am I thinking right with the following...
Sponsor Cliff for the Qs with entry and expenses and once
he qualifies keep sponsoring him with expenses and entries then
at the end of the year the remainder after expenses were
taken out would be a 65-35 split for Cliff.

Just wanting to make sure I have this straight. I am in no way
able to do this for Cliff but think that its not a bad deal.

I dont believe that this years minimum is worth 100K. I think that is next year. Is this just for 06 or for 06 and 07.
I would think its a very worthwhile investment if its for 06 and 07. Afterall
even according to IPT the 07 scehdule is almost done but this years is
proving tough to find suitable venues on short notice.

I could easily see Cliff keeping his card if he were on the IPT this year full time.

With Cliff there are always rumors about various things. I legit question is
whether he would be able to stay on tour in the limelight and if the money
paid to him would make it to him.

I wish Cliff and any others in Cliffs position good luck in finding sponsorship.
It seems like a really good opportunity for a Cue Maker.

BTW-- is the Diane thats friends with Posey and Garland? If so how are they doing?

 

[nfty9er]

Dang me. Sorry I thought someone said they were "really" one and the same.

 

[JAM]

Thanks for your support JAM!

I know their are backers out there that would love to do this...the forum is just an engine to get the info out there! It never hurts to try!

The clock is ticking:
Hard Times Billiards, Los Angeles (Bellflower), CA - February 17-19, 2006
Country Club Billiards, Boston (Chelmsford), MA - February 24-26, 2006

I do know a fellow around D.C. way who is CRAZY about pool and does sometimes have a little extra "who cares?" money. I will give him a call and see if he's interested. He's mentioned Cliff's name on numerous occasions. Matter of fact, I think he tried to sneak Cliff in over there at Hot Shots pool room in Baltimore about 3 or 4 years ago.

I will PM you immediately, yea or nay, as soon as he returns my call.

JAM

 

[Mike Templeton]

just think it is cheap and heartless in a sense.........but that i my opinion.....hey anyone want to sponser me????

I also want to know why you feel that it is cheap and heartless. Efren has a sponsor. So does Archer, Souquet, Earl, Allison, and almost every other pro player on tour. Are they cheap and heartless? I think not.

I have known Cliff for many years, and I agree with Diane that he has paid his dues and deserves a shot at the IPT.

Mike

 

[Diane]

Is this a sponsorship for the entire year for just for the Qualifier?

If its for the year then am I thinking right with the following...
Sponsor Cliff for the Qs with entry and expenses and once
he qualifies keep sponsoring him with expenses and entries then
at the end of the year the remainder after expenses were
taken out would be a 65-35 split for Cliff.

Just wanting to make sure I have this straight. I am in no way
able to do this for Cliff but think that its not a bad deal.

I dont believe that this years minimum is worth 100K. I think that is next year. Is this just for 06 or for 06 and 07.
I would think its a very worthwhile investment if its for 06 and 07. Afterall
even according to IPT the 07 scehdule is almost done but this years is
proving tough to find suitable venues on short notice.

I could easily see Cliff keeping his card if he were on the IPT this year full time.

With Cliff there are always rumors about various things. I legit question is
whether he would be able to stay on tour in the limelight and if the money
paid to him would make it to him.

I wish Cliff and any others in Cliffs position good luck in finding sponsorship.
It seems like a really good opportunity for a Cue Maker.

BTW-- is the Diane thats friends with Posey and Garland? If so how are they doing?

Yes, I am friends with those two nuts! I talked to Posey about a month ago and he is still having health problems. Glad you reminded me, I need to give him a ring.
I am just going by what Deno announced in Marietta that the tour card was worth at least $100,000/year. And yes, the split would be after all expenses were taken out for the year.
Like I said, it's not for everyone, but I know others are getting sponsors/backers for these events, so why not Cliff?

 

[Ktown D]

just think it is cheap and heartless in a sense.........but that i my opinion.....hey anyone want to sponser me????

Buy yourself some chap-stick and go back to kissing Shane's ass. Nobody wants your opinion.

 

[sixpack]

I hope this doesn't turn into another player bash but I want to play Devil's advocate...


This is the age old poolplayer/backer scenario. The only problem is that the backer assumes all the risk. He is the "investor". Now, if this were say, selling Real Estate or trading stocks/bonds, etc, the poolplayer would earn a commission or small percentage of the total pot. That would mean that the player would earn something like a 5% or 10% commission. The difference is that in Pool, most players feel that they are entitled to a 50/50 split or somewhere close to half of the winnings and none of the loses. That is a good deal for the player because he/she doesn't take on any risk, other than not getting paid.

So, other than just doing it to feel like you're part of the action (and there's nothing wrong with people that wanna do that), why would you want to do a business deal like that?!


Eric >inquiring mind

Pro golfers who are starting out do this all the time. In fact, Rich Beem won a major while still splitting with his sponsors. They made out pretty good.

IMO the players are taking a MUCH bigger risk than the sponsors and so should get a higher percentage. The sponsor's are only giving up money, the players are giving up their life. They also have the talent. Almost anybody has $4000, but almost nobody could turn that into $100,000 or more playing pool.

This is more like horse breeding than investing, you can make a big score with a little investment up front, but there is a good chance you'll lose it. If you are not willing to risk that money, this obviously isn't a good investment for you. Keep with the government T-bills and you'll be fine.

Cheers,
RC

 

[thebestpoolroom]

On the banners up at The Pool Room in Marietta, GA, where the last qualifier was held a bit over a week ago, they read "$13,000 minimum" - nowhere near $100k.

I met Cliff briefly while attending that tournament - he's a hell of a shot and seemed like a good guy, as much as I can judge from 10 seconds of conversation.

HI SCOTT,

THE BANNER SAYS 13K FOR 2006. WHAT DIANE IS SAYING IS THE 2007 YEAR WHERE PLAYERS ARE GUARANTEED 100K.

JOHN

 

[time_is_now]

I also want to know why you feel that it is cheap and heartless. Efren has a sponsor. So does Archer, Souquet, Earl, Allison, and almost every other pro player on tour. Are they cheap and heartless? I think not.

I have known Cliff for many years, and I agree with Diane that he has paid his dues and deserves a shot at the IPT.

Mike

lacking confidence perhpas says it better........who in their right mind would give up 40k...113k @ 35%........if they didn't have confidence in them self therefor IMO it is a cheap move.........moreso it is heartless in the sense of having someone else ask people to sponsor him..........the idea of one having a sponsor in itself isn't heartless or cheap but the idea of asking everyone to sponsor him is........by the way i hope he makes it

 

[Eric.]

IMO the players are taking a MUCH bigger risk than the sponsors and so should get a higher percentage. The sponsor's are only giving up money, the players are giving up their life. They also have the talent. Almost anybody has $4000, but almost nobody could turn that into $100,000 or more playing pool.

This is more like horse breeding than investing, you can make a big score with a little investment up front, but there is a good chance you'll lose it. If you are not willing to risk that money, this obviously isn't a good investment for you. Keep with the government T-bills and you'll be fine.

Cheers,
RC

RC,

Let me attepmt to turn the light on for you...

There are different levels of risk in all deals. I'm not gonna go into risk/reward, by the sounds of your analogies, the concept might be over your head.

You saying that a player is "giving up his life" by going out and playing is poignant and romantic but just plain @ss goofy. Yes, that's his lively hood, but then again, most of us "give up our life" in one career choice or another. The bottom line is that everyone does what they gotta do for money, to survive. Just because one person does one particular thing for income, doesnt make it more deserving of other people's earned income. Usually (unless you have a gun) the only way you are gonna get someone to part with their income to fund your chance for income is if they also have something to gain in return. BTW, this is the basic "business deal".

I don't know much about Horse breeding but my S.O does. She's shown/bred and won at Nationals, I'm familiar with the nuances. It's not the same as this topic.

*edit-One more thought for the equation; the backer is risking 8k or so to gain $35k. The player is risking $0k to make $65k. In other words, the player has nothing to lose and all to gain...


Eric

 

[Getnbzy]

Maybe, but not in a spelling contest!

Bad news time_is_now. Diane says that.....

 

[Schmohawk]

Just one more guy who bets high. Big Shot Gambler-Huge money player! Hey Jack can you build a custom case for him? Oweseys of course.

 

[time_is_now]

now that is cool

 

[sixpack]

RC,

Let me attepmt to turn the light on for you...

There are different levels of risk in all deals. I'm not gonna go into risk/reward, by the sounds of your analogies, the concept might be over your head.

Doubt if you could really explain it, so it's probably easier to just pretend I wouldn't understand.

You saying that a player is "giving up his life" by going out and playing is poignant and romantic but just plain @ss goofy. Yes, that's his lively hood, but then again, most of us "give up our life" in one career choice or another. The bottom line is that everyone does what they gotta do for money, to survive. Just because one person does one particular thing for income, doesnt make it more deserving of other people's earned income. Usually (unless you have a gun) the only way you are gonna get someone to part with their income to fund your chance for income is if they also have something to gain in return. BTW, this is the basic "business deal".

And some are riskier than others. If you're not up for the risk, don't take it. It's really pretty simple. What I mean is that the player has already given up their life to play pool. They will have no other life while they are playing. They are giving up more than the person putting up the money IN MY OPINION. Like I said, it's shouldn't really be considered an investment, but more of a gamble.

I don't know much about Horse breeding but my S.O does. She's shown/bred and won at Nationals, I'm familiar with the nuances. It's not the same as this topic.


*edit-One more thought for the equation; the backer is risking 8k or so to gain $35k. The player is risking $0k to make $65k. In other words, the player has nothing to lose and all to gain...

Eric

The expected ROI is actually much more complicated than that, but even with the numbers you've suggested, $8K and no time to make $35K is a good return. $0K and working at it full-time to make $65K is a job. The person who invests the $8K will still be able to work their regular job or business, the pool player won't be able to if they want to give it a serious go. The only way the player has all to gain and nothing to lose is if their time is valued at $0.

By the way, while we're on the topic of ridiculous analogies, there is no logical way to compare this to a real estate deal or a stock trading deal where the player would get a commission of 6-15%. Neither party is an 'agent', they are both 'principals' in the deal.

A better analogy if you don't like the one about horse breeding is where someone needs some money to get a newspaper stand started so they take on a silent partner. During the course of the next year, one takes on the financial risk and the other takes on the time, effort and day-to-day responsibilities of the business. Both parties share in the profits or suffer the failures according to the initial agreement.

Cheers,
RC

 

[Eric.]

The expected ROI is actually much more complicated than that, but even with the numbers you've suggested, $8K and no time to make $35K is a good return. $0K and working at it full-time to make $65K is a job. The person who invests the $8K will still be able to work their regular job or business, the pool player won't be able to if they want to give it a serious go. The only way the player has all to gain and nothing to lose is if their time is valued at $0.

Yes, the numbers are more in depth, I'm trying to keep it simple. The idea I'm trying to get across is the Golden Rule- he who has the gold, makes the rules. If you don't think backers deserve a higher return for their larger risk, go argue with your mortgage company about why you have to pay that much interest on your home loan.

By the way, while we're on the topic of ridiculous analogies, there is no logical way to compare this to a real estate deal or a stock trading deal where the player would get a commission of 6-15%. Neither party is an 'agent', they are both 'principals' in the deal.

I agree that both are principals. A better analogy would be the fundamentals of Venture Capital. I'm thinking of the part the VC plays and the part Entrepreneur plays.

A better analogy if you don't like the one about horse breeding is where someone needs some money to get a newspaper stand started so they take on a silent partner. During the course of the next year, one takes on the financial risk and the other takes on the time, effort and day-to-day responsibilities of the business. Both parties share in the profits or suffer the failures according to the initial agreement.

Cheers,
RC

I'm headed out, catch you tomorrow.


Eric