Conditions to participate in the upcoming U.S. Open

jasonlaus said:
I'm not sure what you last 3 or 4 posters are talking about, eddiethelock posted the response he got from matchroom and there is NO conflict
Click to expand...

we gotta have something to moan about, this is a discussion forum not an agreeing forum. plus there are no tournaments going on right now (thanks for that, matchroom!) so what else is there to discuss
 
skogstokig said:
we gotta have something to moan about, this is a discussion forum not an agreeing forum. plus there are no tournaments going on right now (thanks for that, matchroom!) so what else is there to discuss
Click to expand...
Can't really have a discussion on something that's been clarified/answered though, it is what it is.

I guess we can ignore the clarification and continue complaining, no different than any other thread 👍
 
336Robin said:
You would never know until you did it. Why even make the statement. Very unclear. Someone is going to get swatted and made an example out of.
Click to expand...
It’s fair to ask the question. But as I said in my other post, I am almost certain that it is brand protection. It was a lazy way of saying that players can’t play in a US Open 9 Ball event or anything that is similarly titled. For example, if someone were to start an event called the "United States of America 9 Ball Open Tournament", that would likely be covered under the contract because such a title is trying to echo the "US Open" title. And yes, nothing like that currently exists but it's better to have that in a contract before there is an issue than play damage control if something were to come up. Pool does have a history of rival professional tours and world championships. Similarly, I'm fairly certain WST players have a clause in their contract that they can't play on a competing professional snooker tour even though nothing currently exists.

Hopefully, this is explained better by Matchroom at the players meeting. I really don't think they are trying to run other events and tours out of business because there is nothing to gain from it at all. These tours do not compete with Matchroom for sponsors or TV time. It would be like the UFC trying to run a regional mma promotion out of business.
 
Cameron Smith said:
It’s fair to ask the question. But as I said in my other post, I am almost certain that it is brand protection. It was a lazy way of saying that players can’t play in a US Open 9 Ball event or anything that is similarly titled. For example, if someone were to start an event called the "United States of America 9 Ball Open Tournament", that would likely be covered under the contract because such a title is trying to echo the "US Open" title. And yes, nothing like that currently exists but it's better to have that in a contract before there is an issue than play damage control if something were to come up. Pool does have a history of rival professional tours and world championships. Similarly, I'm fairly certain WST players have a clause in their contract that they can't play on a competing professional snooker tour even though nothing currently exists.

Hopefully, this is explained better by Matchroom at the players meeting. I really don't think they are trying to run other events and tours out of business because there is nothing to gain from it at all. These tours do not compete with Matchroom for sponsors or TV time. It would be like the UFC trying to run a regional mma promotion out of business.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree with you but why issue a statement that doesn't really say what they mean and make things crystal clear.

It looks like an attempt to do exactly what they did and that was instill doubt. They need to clear it up. But I agree the statement does not
appear to be helping them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top