Jeanette Lee's version - it's different

[ShootingRazbone]

I'm betting that Tompnation is sitting at his keyboard right now typing out HIS version of "the story".

I agree with your assessment. Why not throw down the $70 and get "her friend" the TD to hook her up when Tompnation shows up after the page?

Ray

The post you answered this to and this post are the smartest things anyone has said in this whole ungodly thread. This is exactly what I have been thinking since post #1.

 

[sjm]

I nominate Ironman317 for AZB Attorney General.

 

[Bigjohn]

I remember when we met in Atlanta, I was overcome by a most alluring aroma as you stood from the bar...

This room smells like cat food and ass.

 

[wahcheck]

nope

Why not just have everyone who sides with JL and everyone who sides with Mr Calcutta fight it out in a giant rumble.

Whoever's side wins was right.

Mabey TAR will stream it.

I won't fight for either one, because according to what I've read, they were both wrong.

 

[corvette1340]

Put that in my face and I'm willing to bet you'll be eating it before the first ball is hit.

like anyone is gonna buy you, lol.

 

[Mowem down]

........................................

Holy crap !!!!! is that the biggest damn turkey leg you ever saw or what.=)


And they said Dwarfs were a mythical creatures.........


I told SVB to lay off the steroids......


Im thinking thats the short arm of the law in that house......


Is there any good reason this thread is still breathing. Shes a deva hes a woman beater its over can we get back too somthing important like I dont know whos got the best 6 rail aiming system....

Well crap the pitchure didnt come with his quote...I think its on page 5or 6

 

[supergreenman]

like anyone is gonna buy you, lol.

A very valid point.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Calcutta Contract

This is an agreement contract between _________________(player) and __________________(buyer) for the purpsoe of the calcutta held on _________,____20___.

By signing this legally binding contract, I ____________(player) promise to purchase half of myself and to play my best until the end of this tournament. The only terms that will allow me to not honor this contract are sickness or injury. Any other reasons, such as spite, will constitute a breach of contract and I _____________(player) will payback the full amount invested on me in the calcutta to ________________________(buyer). Also, by signing this contract, I am entitled to half of the money received from my performance in this tournament.


_______________________________ ________________________________
player signature buyer signature

This is good, but you need to throw in some provisions for the player, that they are able to not abide by the contract, if certain terms apply. Like the buyer being a douche bag and riding the players every move or getting bent out of shape over a missed shot or any other behavior that brings stress into the situation, and can potentially throw the player off their game or anger them.
The buyer is to sit the F down, and shut the F up and let the player be.

Otherwise, the contract is void.

 

[Williebetmore]

This is good, but you need to throw in some provisions for the player, that they are able to not abide by the contract, if certain terms apply. Like the buyer being a douche bag and riding the players every move or getting bent out of shape over a missed shot or any other behavior that brings stress into the situation, and can potentially throw the player off their game or anger them.
The buyer is to sit the F down, and shut the F up and let the player be.

Otherwise, the contract is void.

S-Star,
You, my man, are a fricking legal genius. Kudo's.


It would actually be interesting to get the take of some female pool players about their willingness to continue to play for someone who had been so hostile and impolite to them...it might be different for the females. There is a physical intimidation aspect for females in such situations that many of the posters may not have initially considered.

In addition, I also am struck by the extremely Christian tones of many of the posters (not you, your tone is exactly correct). Their criticism seems so aggressive that it is hard to imagine them just kindly turning the other cheek and playing for someone who insulted them. I would love to hear some examples of such passive behavior (it doesn't seem to fit well with the tones of their other posts, but I have an open mind).

I think your thoughts on the matter are more representative of the board as a whole. JMO.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

S-Star,
You, my man, are a fricking legal genius. Kudo's.
actually, i did destroy the analytical and logical sections on the LSATs a long time ago.

It would actually be interesting to get the take of some female pool players about their willingness to continue to play for someone who had been so hostile and impolite to them...it might be different for the females. There is a physical intimidation aspect for females in such situations that many of the posters may not have initially considered.

In addition, I also am struck by the extremely Christian tones of many of the posters (not you, your tone is exactly correct). Their criticism seems so aggressive that it is hard to imagine them just kindly turning the other cheek and playing for someone who insulted them. I would love to hear some examples of such passive behavior (it doesn't seem to fit well with the tones of their other posts, but I have an open mind).

I think your thoughts on the matter are more representative of the board as a whole. JMO.

You always have to look at both sides.

I just have my views from my experiences. I have seen both the good and bad of calcuttas.
That being said, i think that the introduction of calcuttas has the potential to alter the outcomes of tournaments, which is not a good thing in my opinion.

You effectively change the whole tournament format, from being a 1 man vs the room scenario, to a "team" scenario, and sometimes, those teams are not good at collaborating together. Or imagine when a scumbag guy you HATE, who knows you hate him, buys you in a tournament. (seen that happen enough times)

But ultimately, there is nothing that the player can do that is going to affect the "performance" of the buyer. It is a done deal, and they buyer can go do handstands, or go hang out on the toilet for an hour, or go pitch quarters in the parking lot.
But there is PLENTY that the buyer can do, to affect (for better or worse) the performance of the player, and i think that too many times, the buyer, either just doesn't realize it, or is just too ignorant or stupid to understand it, and they think that they make all the rules simply because they purchased someone. Like they actually OWN the player. And that's just wrong.

Bottom line is, if there were no calcuttas, you would have no problems of this nature. End of story.
Problems only happen when the calcuttas are introduced.

And, the majority of calcuttas aren't done for the players or the buyers. Most of the time, they are done, so the guy or girl doing them, can take a cut and make their 10% for simply announcing some crap over the microphone.

 

[CreeDo]

lol I don't think you need a sworn affidavit. I don't think you see 'spite' used in legal boilerplate either.

In this situation, putting a contract in front of someone is insulting and implying that you don't think their word or money is good enough. If you're concerned enough to bring the contract, just demand that all money changes hands right then and there or no deal. If it's not the money you're concerned about, but whether or not they will dump the tournament... well that's a risk you're going to take with anyone. Look what happened at the barbox championships last night, two guys got a little pissy with each other and one of them breaks down his cue and walks out. If that guy had signed a contract but was determined to quit, he could miss balls until he's officially out of it (not saying that person is dumping, just that they would normally be breaking down their cue but they have this silly contract to get out of, so they have to get 'creative'). Or he could fake a family emergency. Try proving either one to a judge if it ever got that far.

Really, why would you buy a player you're suspicious of in the first place?

 

[Neil]

...............

 

[crawfish]

I can only speak for myself here... I NEVER play for someone that bought me in a calcutta. I give 100% for my family and my pride. I figure that whoever bought me in the calcutta gets to go along for the ride.

I've had people run me way up and people that I don't care for buy me. It doesn't affect my play. As far as a confrontation, I try not to get in them. Especially when at a tournament. In J.L.'s case, she set herself up for the confrontation, and then wasn't mentally prepared to deal with it. I'm sure that if she could, she would do things differently on a 'do over', but, we don't get 'do overs'. All we get is 'next times'.

If the buyer insulted me, yes, it would bother me. But there is no way I would forfeit just to spite them. I might lose the next match with my thoughts being pre-occupied, but I would still give it my best shot. I would still do my best to do my best. Hurting myself to get revenge on someone else just seems rather foolish.

I just can't rep you again.

 

[JoeyA]

You always have to look at both sides.

I just have my views from my experiences. I have seen both the good and bad of calcuttas.
That being said, i think that the introduction of calcuttas has the potential to alter the outcomes of tournaments, which is not a good thing in my opinion.

You effectively change the whole tournament format, from being a 1 man vs the room scenario, to a "team" scenario, and sometimes, those teams are not good at collaborating together. Or imagine when a scumbag guy you HATE, who knows you hate him, buys you in a tournament. (seen that happen enough times)

But ultimately, there is nothing that the player can do that is going to affect the "performance" of the buyer. It is a done deal, and they buyer can go do handstands, or go hang out on the toilet for an hour, or go pitch quarters in the parking lot.
But there is PLENTY that the buyer can do, to affect (for better or worse) the performance of the player, and i think that too many times, the buyer, either just doesn't realize it, or is just too ignorant or stupid to understand it, and they think that they make all the rules simply because they purchased someone. Like they actually OWN the player. And that's just wrong.

Bottom line is, if there were no calcuttas, you would have no problems of this nature. End of story.
Problems only happen when the calcuttas are introduced.

And, the majority of calcuttas aren't done for the players or the buyers. Most of the time, they are done, so the guy or girl doing them, can take a cut and make their 10% for simply announcing some crap over the microphone.

I have a confession. Your style of posting never really attracted me in the past. I don't remember which of your posts I might have had some angst with and don't really care to go back, dig them up or figure out which one it might have been. I might have just been in a bad mood. Maybe it was just your avatar. lol

As I continue to read your posts, they are winning me over, not that you or anyon else should give a s**t what I think.

It's not really your posting style as much as it is the way you think. You have given a lot of careful thought to many of these scenarios and you seem to have some of the clearest thought of any of the posters. And for the most part, you don't mind saying what's on your mind.

You also are so incredibly correct about the Calcuttas, it is almost scary.

JoeyA

 

[SUPERSTAR]

I have a confession. Your style of posting never really attracted me in the past. I don't remember which of your posts I might have had some angst with and don't really care to go back, dig them up or figure out which one it might have been. I might have just been in a bad mood. Maybe it was just your avatar. lol
LOL. I'm willing to bet it was something i said. My mouth gets me into all sorts of trouble.

As I continue to read your posts, they are winning me over, not that you or anyon else should give a s**t what I think.

It's not really your posting style as much as it is the way you think. You have given a lot of careful thought to many of these scenarios and you seem to have some of the clearest thought of any of the posters. And for the most part, you don't mind saying what's on your mind.

You also are so incredibly correct about the Calcuttas, it is almost scary.

JoeyA

Thank you thank you.

I promise, i'll go back to being arrogantly belligerent just as soon as this calcutta epiphany goes away.

 

[wincardona]

Right on !

You always have to look at both sides.

I just have my views from my experiences. I have seen both the good and bad of calcuttas.
That being said, i think that the introduction of calcuttas has the potential to alter the outcomes of tournaments, which is not a good thing in my opinion.

You effectively change the whole tournament format, from being a 1 man vs the room scenario, to a "team" scenario, and sometimes, those teams are not good at collaborating together. Or imagine when a scumbag guy you HATE, who knows you hate him, buys you in a tournament. (seen that happen enough times)

But ultimately, there is nothing that the player can do that is going to affect the "performance" of the buyer. It is a done deal, and they buyer can go do handstands, or go hang out on the toilet for an hour, or go pitch quarters in the parking lot.
But there is PLENTY that the buyer can do, to affect (for better or worse) the performance of the player, and i think that too many times, the buyer, either just doesn't realize it, or is just too ignorant or stupid to understand it, and they think that they make all the rules simply because they purchased someone. Like they actually OWN the player. And that's just wrong.

Bottom line is, if there were no calcuttas, you would have no problems of this nature. End of story.
Problems only happen when the calcuttas are introduced.

And, the majority of calcuttas aren't done for the players or the buyers. Most of the time, they are done, so the guy or girl doing them, can take a cut and make their 10% for simply announcing some crap over the microphone.

I agree with JoeyA, that was hilarously accurate and imo also supports the player in this dispute.

Yes I like JL an awfully lot, and as a player/person/marketer she's the best we have in our sport period. Janette is clearly a credit to our game, and anyone that doesn't realize that has their head in the sand. She has faults as does everyone else, but she would not throw Brian Gross under the bus when she said that he approached the buyer and confirmed that she wanted to buy half of herself and the buyer agreed. And really that's what this is really about.

 

[supergreenman]

You always have to look at both sides.

I just have my views from my experiences. I have seen both the good and bad of calcuttas.
That being said, i think that the introduction of calcuttas has the potential to alter the outcomes of tournaments, which is not a good thing in my opinion.

You effectively change the whole tournament format, from being a 1 man vs the room scenario, to a "team" scenario, and sometimes, those teams are not good at collaborating together. Or imagine when a scumbag guy you HATE, who knows you hate him, buys you in a tournament. (seen that happen enough times)

But ultimately, there is nothing that the player can do that is going to affect the "performance" of the buyer. It is a done deal, and they buyer can go do handstands, or go hang out on the toilet for an hour, or go pitch quarters in the parking lot.
But there is PLENTY that the buyer can do, to affect (for better or worse) the performance of the player, and i think that too many times, the buyer, either just doesn't realize it, or is just too ignorant or stupid to understand it, and they think that they make all the rules simply because they purchased someone. Like they actually OWN the player. And that's just wrong.

Bottom line is, if there were no calcuttas, you would have no problems of this nature. End of story.
Problems only happen when the calcuttas are introduced.

And, the majority of calcuttas aren't done for the players or the buyers. Most of the time, they are done, so the guy or girl doing them, can take a cut and make their 10% for simply announcing some crap over the microphone.

If I could rep you for this post I would, it really covers everything I can't stand about calcuttas, unfortunatly you must have said something else I agree with strongly in the recent past and I have to spread some rep around prior to giving you more.

I owe you one.

 

[crawfish]

I agree with JoeyA, that was hilarously accurate and imo also supports the player in this dispute.

Yes I like JL an awfully lot, and as a player/person/marketer she's the best we have in our sport period. Janette is clearly a credit to our game, and anyone that doesn't realize that has their head in the sand. She has faults as does everyone else, but she would not throw Brian Gross under the bus when she said that he approached the buyer and confirmed that she wanted to buy half of herself and the buyer agreed. And really that's what this is really about.

But Billy, when did this happen? After winning a couple of matches? That is the REAL dispute. You and I both know if you don't buy in before the first ball is hit, there is no claim to buy half of yourself after that. If the guy is nice enough, maybe. But, he doesn't have to.

 

[JoeyA]

"Quit Pro Spite"

i will definitely use this from now on when i buy someone in a calcutta.


Calcutta Contract

This is an agreement contract between _________________(player) and __________________(buyer) for the purpsoe of the calcutta held on _________,____20___.

By signing this legally binding contract, I ____________(player) promise to purchase half of myself and to play my best until the end of this tournament. The only terms that will allow me to not honor this contract are sickness or injury. Any other reasons, such as spite, will constitute a breach of contract and I _____________(player) will payback the full amount invested on me in the calcutta to ________________________(buyer). Also, by signing this contract, I am entitled to half of the money received from my performance in this tournament.






_______________________________ ________________________________
player signature buyer signature

What? No vigorish for a "Quit Pro Spite"?

JoeyA

 

[wincardona]

An agreement

But Billy, when did this happen? After winning a couple of matches? That is the REAL dispute. You and I both know if you don't buy in before the first ball is hit, there is no claim to buy half of yourself after that. If the guy is nice enough, maybe. But, he doesn't have to.

Lets say that it is true that Brian Gross approached the buyer and said that JL wanted to buy half of herself and he agreed. So this is now not the rules of a calcutta and how it is supposed to be run. This is now about an agreement that two people have, and should be honored. So if this is the way it really came down, then it's clear to me who's at fault.