Help Needed - BCA Industry Poll

[MikeJanis]

You are talking about their annual membership fee resources, I assume. Yeah, I can understand that money wouldn't add up to enough being left over from their usual overhead costs and "other commitments" to make a substantial impact to a pro tour. What I'm talking about is seeing them reach into their collective pockets specifically to take a leadership role in a genuine bonafide pro tour -- now that would be a real commitment to the players. Of course if they are trying to support a pro tour just out of existing annual dues, that couldn't possibly offer much.

How big is the billiard industry? I'm not familiar with the statistics -- but the BCA must be. Is it too much to ask them to reach a little deeper into their pockets to support the pro players? All the big questions about why we have had no sustainable pro tour for pool all these years, I lay that issue at the feet of the BCA -- they claim to be the governing body, etc. For some reason, the industry doesn't seem to value the pro players...

Again, as quoted from The BCA's 2005-2006 Audited Financial Reports are appended and available online. http://bca-pool.com/aboutus/reports/06annual_report_audit.pdf page 3

Total Revenue in 2006 = $2,630,941
Total Expenses in 2006 = $2,475,634
Total change in net assets = $155,307

They only made $155,307 in 2006 and in 05 they only made $90,712.

Thats all the BCA made over those 2 years. It's pretty hard to ask them for to much more than they are already doing. Thats why I am just going to ask them to change the way they currently spend the monies that are in the budget.

Digging deeper from the BCA members would be like going to your boss and asking him to give you a raise and take it out of his paycheck.

My plan assumes they will budget again in the future similiar to the way they did in 2006. If this is correct, it leaves XXX per year in the budget to do tournament promotions. Based on this budget that is all I will be asking fot over the 1st 2 years of the new system. My plan increases funding in the 3rd -5th year but stiil only meets the expected growth it will add to the BCA without digging in their other budgeted expensess.

When the system gets rolling thats when the additional sponsorship monies will start rolling in but as I mentioned before, I am not counting on these monies for the 1st 5 years of the tour to maintain. Those monies will go to securing the next 5 years in the cycle and to pay for the operation of the tour.

Mj

 

[1pocket]

Again, as quoted from The BCA's 2005-2006 Audited Financial Reports are appended and available online. http://bca-pool.com/aboutus/reports/06annual_report_audit.pdf page 3

Total Revenue in 2006 = $2,630,941
Total Expenses in 2006 = $2,475,634
Total change in net assets = $155,307

They only made $155,307 in 2006 and in 05 they only made $90,712.

Thats all the BCA made over those 2 years. It's pretty hard to ask them for to much more than they are already doing. Thats why I am just going to ask them to change the way they currently spend the monies that are in the budget.

Digging deeper from the BCA members would be like going to your boss and asking him to give you a raise and take it out of his paycheck.

My plan assumes they will budget again in the future similiar to the way they did in 2006. If this is correct, it leaves XXX per year in the budget to do tournament promotions. Based on this budget that is all I will be asking fot over the 1st 2 years of the new system. My plan increases funding in the 3rd -5th year but stiil only meets the expected growth it will add to the BCA without digging in their other budgeted expensess.

When the system gets rolling thats when the additional sponsorship monies will start rolling in but as I mentioned before, I am not counting on these monies for the 1st 5 years of the tour to maintain. Those monies will go to securing the next 5 years in the cycle and to pay for the operation of the tour.

Mj

Mike, yet doesn't your own tour, and other regional tours, receive added sponsorship money from certain companies (many of which are presumably members of the BCA), that are totally outside of the BCA fee structure? Are you saying these companies would not be interested, or expected to be willing and able, to make an appropriately scaled commitment to a major tour -- especially one with BCA endorsement? You are talking a major tour -- isn't that in their interest, and wouldn't they want to make a major commitment?

 

[MikeJanis]

Mike, yet doesn't your own tour, and other regional tours, receive added sponsorship money from certain companies (many of which are presumably members of the BCA), that are totally outside of the BCA fee structure? Are you saying these companies would not be interested, or expected to be willing and able, to make an appropriately scaled commitment to a major tour -- especially one with BCA endorsement? You are talking a major tour -- isn't that in their interest, and wouldn't they want to make a major commitment?

Didn't say or imply that at all. What I am saying is that their (Other Industry Member) sponsorships will not be relied upon at all to guarantee the success of the tour in the 1st 5 years. It will be needed to continue it after that period but for the 1st five it is not a factor to have successfull events.

From the earlier post.
1pocket, you seem to be missing the point. The system does not rely on additional industry funding. The hopes would be to gain it but again, it does not need it to guarantee its success for the 1ST 5 years. If the system is to continue after the 1ST 5 years at that point it would be needed.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with me or the Viking Tour which I founded so I will update you. The Viking Tour relies on industry sponsorship and has since it's inception in 1994. Since that time we have had hundreds of different co-sponsors that have donated millions of dollars in product sponsorships which has enabled us to become the largest longest running Open regional Tour in the country. We use these sponsorships to compensate the room owners for putting up the money to host events with guaranteed money added to the events for the players.
This system has worked as well as can be expected for the type of sponsorships we have and looks like it will continue to grow for years to come.

Now back to the concept system. To kick start the system I will be asking the BCA to guarantee a minimal amount of funding which would guarantee monies added to events (Not Regional Tour Events) but 6-10 professional events per year for the next 5 years. These monies will guarantee that the system move in a forward direction without relying upon additional industry support while we explore new ways of funding the tour to continue its success into the future. Of course I have laid out several ways this would be possible but they are unknown factors and can not be relied upon until they are in place and functioning.

Now, lets get you up to speed on the funding from the BCA. Regardless of how you look at it the funding from the BCA comes directly from the Industry giants and otherwise. Most of the monies that the BCA has and makes comes from within the industry through memberships, trade shows and advertising. This concept will additionally help those BCA members that already sponsor tours or events on their own and streamline their monies into a more effective system that will benefit a greater number of them than if they were to do it independantly of each other. Thus by doing this we can all work together for the purpose of furtheirng the gwowth of cuesports here in the US.

For the BCA and all of its members this is a win, win situation. This system will enhance the longterm goals of the BCA by inspiring new members and coordinating the monies it already spends in other seperate methods to producde these effects in a more effecient manner while at the same time breathing new life into the organization and bringing it to new heights in the industry. Mj




Mj

 

[1pocket]

Didn't say or imply that at all. What I am saying is that their (Other Industry Member) sponsorships will not be relied upon at all to guarantee the success of the tour in the 1st 5 years. It will be needed to continue it after that period but for the 1st five it is not a factor to have successfull events.
Mj

So you are defining "success" as a "major" tour that doesn't call upon the industry to provide even the kind of added support that your own tour has relied on for all these years?? Those poor, poor pool and billiard industries It's hard for me to feel very sympathetic when I've seen independent guys like Jay Helfert for example, or Grady Mathews, Fred Whalen, and the late Richie Florence, and many others today, go so deep to try to make something happen for players.

Personally, I do not see how the world will ever recognize as "successful" a professional tour that does not get SUBSTANTIAL $$$ support from the very industries that profit on our sport. How can a major tour have major credibility without major support from the industry?? For example, why should outside industries (like beverages) or even the media, want to climb on board professional pool in a big way, if they see the pool and billiard industry itself so reticent to commit themselves in a big way? To me, that is the one big hurdle that professional pool has faced over these last umpteenth years, and to me, it is the industry, with the BCA as the 'point', that have failed pool because they have not had the courage or commitment to take professional pool to the level it deserves. In my humble opinion, the BCA has been 'ducking' the professional players for years...

That is "my point," and I'm sticking to it

 

[MikeJanis]

So you are defining "success" as a "major" tour that doesn't call upon the industry to provide even the kind of added support that your own tour has relied on for all these years?? Those poor, poor pool and billiard industries It's hard for me to feel very sympathetic when I've seen independent guys like Jay Helfert for example, or Grady Mathews, Fred Whalen, and the late Richie Florence, and many others today, go so deep to try to make something happen for players.

Personally, I do not see how the world will ever recognize as "successful" a professional tour that does not get SUBSTANTIAL $$$ support from the very industries that profit on our sport. How can a major tour have major credibility without major support from the industry?? For example, why should outside industries (like beverages) or even the media, want to climb on board professional pool in a big way, if they see the pool and billiard industry itself so reticent to commit themselves in a big way? To me, that is the one big hurdle that professional pool has faced over these last umpteenth years, and to me, it is the industry, with the BCA as the 'point', that have failed pool because they have not had the courage or commitment to take professional pool to the level it deserves. In my humble opinion, the BCA has been 'ducking' the professional players for years...

That is "my point," and I'm sticking to it

Steve, you are seriously misunderstanding the situation.

In the past many tours pro or otherwise have relied upon sponsorships from the industry to keep them afloat. If they lost 1 or 2 big sponsors they were unable to sustain the operations of the tour. For those reasons this system does not RELY upon those industry sponsorships to continue operation for five years. When they (Industry Sponsorships) come they will be and added value but they are not needed for the absolute continuance of the tour system through the first five years.


If people keep looking for that Golden Goose Sponsor to get Pro Pool going again here in the US with a true system, we will continue to have what is currently there and has been over the past 6-7 years. A lot of hope but nothing for the future.



Mj

 

[1pocket]

Steve, you are seriously misunderstanding the situation.

In the past many tours pro or otherwise have relied upon sponsorships from the industry to keep them afloat. If they lost 1 or 2 big sponsors they were unable to sustain the operations of the tour. For those reasons this system does not RELY upon those industry sponsorships to continue operation for five years. When they (Industry Sponsorships) come they will be and added value but they are not needed for the absolute continuance of the tour system through the first five years.

If people keep looking for that Golden Goose Sponsor to get Pro Pool going again here in the US with a true system, we will continue to have what is currently there and has been over the past 6-7 years. A lot of hope but nothing for the future.

Mj

Obviously we have a difference of opinion about what should be expected from the major pool industry association -- the BCA -- an organization that also claims to be the governing body of pool, regarding support for a professional tour. However, I'm pretty sure my difference of opinion does not constitute a "misunderstanding" on my part. In my world, I look for people (or organizations) to earn respect and leadership designation. You have earned my respect, Mike, for your own tour. An opportunity certainly exists for the BCA, as it has for years and years and years, to show some real 'heart' in spear-heading a pro tour, but frankly what you are describing so far does not meet my definition of leadership of the scale I would hope for from an industry of this size.

This is what you posted below:

Given the reality of the situation I will be asking for a substantial contribution over a 5 year period but compared to what it could be it is a modest sum per year. Just enough to get things rolling on the right track.

This does not sound like "leadership" on the part of the BCA to me...

I'm not looking for a "golden goose", I'm just looking for the chief gander to make a commitment to his flock


That's my point and I'm sticking to it

 

[MikeJanis]

Obviously we have a difference of opinion about what should be expected from the major pool industry association -- the BCA -- an organization that also claims to be the governing body of pool, regarding support for a professional tour. However, I'm pretty sure my difference of opinion does not constitute a "misunderstanding" on my part. In my world, I look for people (or organizations) to earn respect and leadership designation. You have earned my respect, Mike, for your own tour. An opportunity certainly exists for the BCA, as it has for years and years and years, to show some real 'heart' in spear-heading a pro tour, but frankly what you are describing so far does not meet my definition of leadership of the scale I would hope for from an industry of this size.

This is what you posted below:This does not sound like "leadership" on the part of the BCA to me...

I'm not looking for a "golden goose", I'm just looking for the chief gander to make a commitment to his flock


That's my point and I'm sticking to it

OK, I see your points. However, as you say "I'm just looking for the chief gander to make a commitment to his flock" I do not see how this applies to the BCA. In the last annual report from the BCA I saw not 1 single professional player member of the BCA. Hence, there is NO FLOCK to take care of.

Now, the UPA has a flock of professional player members, maybe you should look to chief gander over there to take care of them and pull money out of his pocket to take care of his flock.

In fact, this is at the top of the UPA website: http://www.upatour.com/

The United States Professional Poolplayers Association
The Governing Body of Men's Professional Pool

Look for youself, it says it right there.

I'm pretty sure the UPA had a plan just like you want me to have based on sponsorships from within and outside the industry and to count on them to make a tour system work. Look how effective they have been with it

Get back to me on this.

Mj

 

[1pocket]

OK, I see your points. However, as you say "I'm just looking for the chief gander to make a commitment to his flock" I do not see how this applies to the BCA. In the last annual report from the BCA I saw not 1 single professional player member of the BCA. Hence, there is NO FLOCK to take care of.

Now, the UPA has a flock of professional player members, maybe you should look to chief gander over there to take care of them and pull money out of his pocket to take care of his flock.

In fact, this is at the top of the UPA website: http://www.upatour.com/

The United States Professional Poolplayers Association
The Governing Body of Men's Professional Pool

Look for youself, it says it right there.

I'm pretty sure the UPA had a plan just like you want me to have based on sponsorships from within and outside the industry and to count on them to make a tour system work. Look how effective they have been with it

Get back to me on this.

Mj

The bit about the gander was just a bad metaphor, of course. But your post certainly does illustrate a sense of divisiveness between the BCA and the professional players, and that is very sad...

Are you saying that the BCA would support a pro tour if only the players would abandon the UPA and become BCA members? Is that the plan? Ooops, I just went to the BCA website, and I could not find any "player" membership category at all! You've got to be kidding me!! Are things worse than I thought, or is their website navigation just too confusing for me to find the "player" category?

Too bad the BCA and UPA couldn't actually work together. Too bad the history of pool is littered with petty infighting between organizations. It would be a good thing if the BCA could rise above that sort of thing -- that would be another way they could gain my respect for their leadership...

 

[MikeJanis]

Are you saying that the BCA would support a pro tour if only the players would abandon the UPA and become BCA members? Is that the plan?

You sure put a twist on that. I am positive I didn't state anything like that and my plan doesn't even mention anything of the sort.

 

[1pocket]

You sure put a twist on that. I am positive I didn't state anything like that and my plan doesn't even mention anything of the sort.

It was a question; maybe I didn't frame it very well, but I brought it up in response to your comment that

"In the last annual report from the BCA I saw not 1 single professional player member of the BCA."

I really was shocked to see that even now, the BCA doesn't seem to have even a token place for pro players to "join", so they can feel like they are a little part of "the governing body of pool." Kinda weakens that claim, imo...

Okay, so we have determined that the BCA's flock is their industry members, and obviously not the players.

Did I twist that ?

 

[MikeJanis]

It was a question; maybe I didn't frame it very well, but I brought it up in response to your comment that

I really was shocked to see that even now, the BCA doesn't seem to have even a token place for pro players to "join", so they can feel like they are a little part of "the governing body of pool." Kinda weakens that claim, imo...

Okay, so we have determined that the BCA's flock is their industry members, and obviously not the players.

Did I twist that ?

Yeah, that's the right twist to the story.

Now, my goal is to change that so it has a better balance between both the players and the industry.

Mj

 

[1pocket]

Yeah, that's the right twist to the story.

Now, my goal is to change that so it has a better balance between both the players and the industry.

Mj

Well, if it is any encouragement to you, after having had this excellent dialogue with you Mike (and I am being serious, not facetious), I've come around a little -- although maybe in a back-handed way. You now have me convinced that the BCA has had such an entrenched pattern of minimal interest in the pro players, for such a long time, that what you are proposing, by damned, is a monumental first step! God speed and good luck to you, Mike. I'm even tempted to put a little money where my mouth is to support your "lobbying" efforts -- what's your paypal addy again?

But please don't let them off too easy; I still think the size of the pool and billiard industry warrants a lot bigger commitment than (what did you say -- something like 200,000 a year?) And I certainly think it is outrageous that the BCA still has no apparent structure in place for significant player input! And please, if I do send you a little money, will you promise me that there won't be any blackballing, or freezing players out of independent tourneys, or any of those other divisive and pressuring tactics of old?

 

[MikeJanis]

Well, if it is any encouragement to you, after having had this excellent dialogue with you Mike (and I am being serious, not facetious), I've come around a little -- although maybe in a back-handed way. You now have me convinced that the BCA has had such an entrenched pattern of minimal interest in the pro players, for such a long time, that what you are proposing, by damned, is a monumental first step! God speed and good luck to you, Mike. I'm even tempted to put a little money where my mouth is to support your "lobbying" efforts -- what's your paypal addy again?

But please don't let them off too easy; I still think the size of the pool and billiard industry warrants a lot bigger commitment than (what did you say -- something like 200,000 a year?) And I certainly think it is outrageous that the BCA still has no apparent structure in place for significant player input! And please, if I do send you a little money, will you promise me that there won't be any blackballing, or freezing players out of independent tourneys, or any of those other divisive and pressuring tactics of old?

Thanks, thanks and my email is vikingtour2@yahoo.com

The structure calls for open competition that anyone can try to compete in. No favoritism or blackballing just a simple structure thats fair for everyone. Again the system is set up to be the foundation so we have something comprehensive over a long period of time to build upon.

Thanks,

Mj