Emily's response???

Sort by date Sort by votes
While the billiards media may prompt a statement from Emily, we don't need assistance in gauging how Matchroom feels about the deplorable actions of the WPA. As for how Matchroom will proceed from here, the management team at Matchroom knows better than to tip its hand at this point.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
iusedtoberich said:
I don't think MR will respond at all. They will continue promoting their own events and simply act as if the WPA does not exist, and not even mention them in any talks/statements. IMO.
Click to expand...
WPA is only doing this because they're scared. The snooker thing is a bit different because there you're talking contract breaching. AFAIK there are no pool players contractually linked to WPA.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
garczar said:
AFAIK there are no pool players contractually linked to WPA.
Click to expand...
I think you are mistaken here. As I understand it, players are required to sign documents in order to participate in WPA sanctioned events. Among other things, this is why the WPA is empowered to drug test under WADA guidelines during a WPA-sanctioned event.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
sjm said:
I think you are mistaken here. As I understand it, players are required to sign documents in order to participate in WPA sanctioned events. Among other things, this is why the WPA is empowered to drug test under WADA guidelines during a WPA-sanctioned event.
Click to expand...
Found this: https://wpapool.com/wpa-player-license-agreement/ looks like a contract to me. Good thing WADA guidelines/testing didn't exist in the 80's 'cause there would have been a lot of failures. ;)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
sjm said:
While the billiards media may prompt a statement from Emily, we don't need assistance in gauging how Matchroom feels about the deplorable actions of the WPA. As for how Matchroom will proceed from here, the management team at Matchroom knows better than to tip its hand at this point.
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with what Matchroom's contract looks like for the pool players? You might want to read the terms before condemning the WPA.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FranCrimi said:
Are you familiar with what Matchroom's contract looks like for the pool players? You might want to read the terms before condemning the WPA.
Click to expand...
Every tour and association I can think of has similar language. But what matters is how and when it is applied. The WPA are not promoters and cannot guarantee the players any amount of opportunities. They also don’t have an existing partnership with a tour or organization that offers guaranteed opportunities.

This ban most certainly jumps the gun because for all we know players will need to focus on Chinese 8 ball next year in order to stay in compliance while making a living.

Matchroom might flex their muscles a bit more in the future, but I highly doubt that will happen before their tour is more established.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FranCrimi said:
Are you familiar with what Matchroom's contract looks like for the pool players? You might want to read the terms before condemning the WPA.
Click to expand...
No, I've never seen it, nor do I have access to it.

In the thread I began on this subject, I included the following:

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I may not have all the facts ...

That said, we are exiting a world in which most of the top male players could, and did, play in both the Matchroom events and the WPA majors and the reason for this change is the action taken by WPA. The recent actions of the WPA are deplorable because they have compromised the ability of male pool professionals to maximize their earnings from tournament play. Our sport has grown demonstrably in the last few years, but WPA, through its actions, has reduced the ability of male professionals to fully participate in that growth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
FranCrimi said:
Are you familiar with what Matchroom's contract looks like for the pool players? You might want to read the terms before condemning the WPA.
Click to expand...
Does Matchroom not allow players to play in Non Matchroom events as long as it doesn't overlap with events that Matchroom produces? The WPA is stating you cannot play in non WPA (sanctionable) events... EVER. That's the difference.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
sjm said:
No, I've never seen it, nor do I have access to it.

In the thread I began on this subject, I included the following:

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I may not have all the facts ...

That said, we are exiting a world in which most of the top male players could, and did, play in both the Matchroom events and the WPA majors and the reason for this change is the action taken by WPA. The recent actions of the WPA are deplorable because they have compromised the ability of male pool professionals to maximize their earnings from tournament play. Our sport has grown demonstrably in the last few years, but WPA, through its actions, has reduced the ability of male professionals to fully participate in that growth.
Click to expand...
Well you aren't privy to whatever attempts the WPA may have made to try to fix the problem with Matchroom, and you're making some very strong assumptions about the negotiation process by declaring the WPA as deplorable, because all you know is that things came to this unfortunate place.

What if the WPA made attempt after attempt to find common ground with refusal after refusal by Matchroom? Who was it who gave Matchroom the right of first refusal for the World 9Ball Championship in perpetuity? Was that not a good enough olive branch to at least show that they were willing to work with the sports production company for the benefit of the sport? What other offers were on the table that may have been refused? You don't know, right? You just assume the WPA is at fault.

I never thought of you as the type to jump to conclusions without knowing the facts. I always though of you as a level-headed voice of reason. I'm rather surprised.
 
Last edited:
Upvote -2 Downvote
FranCrimi said:
Well you aren't privy to whatever attempts the WPA may have made to try to fix the problem with Matchroom, and you're making some very strong assumptions about the negotiation process by declaring the WPA as deplorable, because all you know is that things came to this unfortunate place.

What if the WPA made attempt after attempt to find common ground with refusal after refusal by Matchroom? Who was it who gave Matchroom the right of first refusal for the World 9Ball Championship in perpetuity? Was that not a good enough olive branch to at least show that they were willing to work with the sports production company for the benefit of the sport? What other offers were on the table that may have been refused? You don't know, right? You just assume the WPA is at fault.

I never thought of you as the type to jump to conclusions without knowing the facts. I always though of you as a level-headed voice of reason. I'm rather surprised.
Click to expand...
Yes, I see the WPA as accountable for reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions. You feel that their inability to reconcile with Matchroom excuses their draconian measures and I don't. By not continuing to pursue a middle ground with Matchroom, however long it would take, WPA has compromised the interests of the players. If that sits well with you, it doesn't sit well with me.

Nonetheless, yours is a well-informed opinion and I respect that you've shared it.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
sjm said:
Yes, I see the WPA as accountable for reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions. You feel that their inability to reconcile with Matchroom excuses their draconian measures and I don't. By not continuing to pursue a middle ground with Matchroom, however long it would take, WPA has compromised the interests of the players. If that sits well with you, it doesn't sit well with me.

Nonetheless, yours is a well-informed opinion and I respect that you've shared it.
Click to expand...
Stu, if you want to have an informed opinion rather than emotional, you need to get your hands on Matchroom's player contract and see who's trying to stranglehold who. You're well known and respected in the forums and in our industry and people listen to your opinion and respect it. I think you owe them to get the facts straight before condemning one side or the other with sketchy information at best. It's not your style.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
FranCrimi said:
Stu, if you want to have an informed opinion rather than emotional, you need to get your hands on Matchroom's player contract and see who's trying to stranglehold who. You're well known and respected in the forums and in our industry and people listen to your opinion and respect it. I think you owe them to get the facts straight before condemning one side or the other with sketchy information at best. It's not your style.
Click to expand...
Where can it be read? You keep referring to it and post no links. I've dug pretty deep and have found nada.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
garczar said:
Where can it be read? You keep referring to it and post no links. I've dug pretty deep and have found nada.
Click to expand...
That's right. It's hard to find. It's not public. So without that knowledge, how do you form an opinion as to what's best for the players? How can you encourage them to sign something when you don't even know what it is?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top