JL Calcutta,, Tourney Director

[crawfish]

No, something that is actually offensive Vette. Jeanette would never forfeit under those simple circumstances, period. The woman has gone to tournaments and played with severe and chronic pain over the years. She is no quitter.

She did, however, quit this one.

 

[crawfish]

$-man,
You make excellent and accurate points. I hesitate to post anything further, I doubt it will help; but here goes:

Many here are not comprehending the posts really well (my ridiculously poor writing skills are most likely to blame); let me clarify what has already been posted. JL did NOT say the guy was always rude (evidently he was very polite in the initial discussions); and she did NOT say he was yelling (their disagreement was in soft tones, but impolite, rude, and belligerent nonetheless). She did dislike him enough to withdraw.

So, the "disliked him enough to withdraw." Wow, she sure taught him a lesson. No telling what craziness he said. He was in a poolroom with all the other degenerates and gamblers and cutthroats.

 

[UrackmIcrackm]

yes, like "no you cannot have half of yourself in the calcutta because you've already played several matches", lol.

No, something that is actually offensive Vette. Jeanette would never forfeit under those simple circumstances, period. The woman has gone to tournaments and played with severe and chronic pain over the years. She is no quitter.

There are some on here that have never spent any amount of time with JL or have only seen her on tv or at some autograph session posting their opinions. Like some others on here, I'm not one of those people. I've been around her enough to know that there are some "Prima Donna" issues with JL and can full well believe that the other guys story is pretty much how it happened, just as corvette has stated above. I've been around her enough to see this being the case.

She was all but mortified that the IPT didn't call her and ask her to play on their tour, even though everyone outside of the top UPA players (some agreement was reached with KT & CW IIRC) had to apply. Anyone remember that article? Apparently not. It wasn't her most flattering interview. Like many people that have a public persona and have risen to a certain level of fame, if you will, have the tendency to "expect things to be done for them" or expect that at the very least they'll get what they want. These personalities tend to get genuinely offended that someone dared to not bow to them and their whims.

She was upset but probably not because the guy said something that most would've found offensive but because of the fact that JL finds someone telling her "no" offensive.

He did his part. He walked over to her and offered to let her have half. Once he did that, it was all on her. If she's too busy playing PR for her fans then she shouldn't commit to something that is going to require her to take time out of her busy schedule, like giving the guy $70.

As far as outward appearances go, she is an ambassador to the sport and she does work with a lot of charities, etc, etc, etc. Remember, at the end of the day, everything she does, benefits her too. This is the personality trait that I've observed in my time around JL. It's not a crime and there's plenty of people like that in the world.

I've witnessed too much of JL's personality traits to think it was anything other than her being offended by being told "no". I don't think she was waiting to see how she did but I do think that she thought it was "ok to pay whenever because she's JL". Just my .02 in this sea of threads about the situation.

 

[Poolplaya9]

There are some on here that have never spent any amount of time with JL or have only seen her on tv or at some autograph session posting their opinions. Like some others on here, I'm not one of those people. I've been around her enough to know that there are some "Prima Donna" issues with JL and can full well believe that the other guys story is pretty much how it happened, just as corvette has stated above. I've been around her enough to see this being the case.

She was all but mortified that the IPT didn't call her and ask her to play on their tour, even though everyone outside of the top UPA players (some agreement was reached with KT & CW IIRC) had to apply. Anyone remember that article? Apparently not. It wasn't her most flattering interview. Like many people that have a public persona and have risen to a certain level of fame, if you will, have the tendency to "expect things to be done for them" or expect that at the very least they'll get what they want. These personalities tend to get genuinely offended that someone dared to not bow to them and their whims.

She was upset but probably not because the guy said something that most would've found offensive but because of the fact that JL finds someone telling her "no" offensive.

He did his part. He walked over to her and offered to let her have half. Once he did that, it was all on her. If she's too busy playing PR for her fans then she shouldn't commit to something that is going to require her to take time out of her busy schedule, like giving the guy $70.

As far as outward appearances go, she is an ambassador to the sport and she does work with a lot of charities, etc, etc, etc. Remember, at the end of the day, everything she does, benefits her too. This is the personality trait that I've observed in my time around JL. It's not a crime and there's plenty of people like that in the world.

I've witnessed too much of JL's personality traits to think it was anything other than her being offended by being told "no". I don't think she was waiting to see how she did but I do think that she thought it was "ok to pay whenever because she's JL". Just my .02 in this sea of threads about the situation.

You got this one exactly right. I don't think anybody would be taking the player's side here if it was "Joe Shmoe B player" instead of Jeanette Lee. It seems that what offended her so much is that the she got treated the same as everybody else would have been in this situation, instead of as a celebrity complete with special exceptions and treatment as she was expecting. Nobody else would expect to be able to pay for their half near the end of the tournament, so why should she? Not to mention that the buyer denies that he even agreed to let her have half to begin with.

 

[UrackmIcrackm]

Not to mention that the buyer denies that he even agreed to let her have half to begin with.

I think it's only fair to keep things as straight as possible. The buyer did offer her the chance to buy half.

Here's the snippet from his side of the story, as told through his friend.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=132726

Anybody who knows anything about tournament pool knows that if a player does not buy themselves in the calcutta then THEY must find the person who bought them and BUY half themselves from the buyer. Knowing that she always has people hounding her for pictures and autographs, I go find her. I introduce myself, as she sits at a table trying to download a popular poker website, and tell her its 70 bucks for half of herself. She responds verbatim "Let me see how big the pot is...I will let you know." We bs'd for about 5 more minutes and i went back to my seat. The tournament begins and everybody starts playing , and woofing, and carrying on as players usually do. I don't give much more thought about it.

 

[cincyman]

You got this one exactly right. I don't think anybody would be taking the player's side here if it was "Joe Shmoe B player" instead of Jeanette Lee. It seems that what offended her so much is that the she got treated the same as everybody else would have been in this situation, instead of as a celebrity complete with special exceptions and treatment as she was expecting. Nobody else would expect to be able to pay for their half near the end of the tournament, so why should she? Not to mention that the buyer denies that he even agreed to let her have half to begin with.

AGAIN for the Millionth time ,,,, read carefully AS A BUYER YOU HAVE TO LET THE PLAYER BUY HALF IF THEY WANT IT.... YOU DO NOT HAVE THE OPTION FROM THE GET GO OF KEEPING IT ALL... AS A BUYER..

So that was never an option. That has nothing to do with this situation.:thumbup:

 

[crawfish]

AGAIN for the Millionth time ,,,, read carefully AS A BUYER YOU HAVE TO LET THE PLAYER BUY HALF IF THEY WANT IT.... YOU DO NOT HAVE THE OPTION FROM THE GET GO OF KEEPING IT ALL... AS A BUYER..

So that was never an option. That has nothing to do with this situation.:thumbup:

For the second time. Not after the first ball is hit. In some calcuttas here, you are not obligated at ALL to let the player buy half.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I think it's only fair to keep things as straight as possible. The buyer did offer her the chance to buy half.

Here's the snippet from his side of the story, as told through his friend.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=132726

Thanks for clarification. I was aware of that and discussed it in a previous post. The buyer went above and beyond IMO by seeking her out and offering her half before the tournament started, and both sides are in agreement that Jeanette did not agree to buy herself at that point. Where they disagree, and what I was referring to, was what happened when the tournament director contacted the buyer later after the tournament was already in progress. The buyer maintains that he did not make any agreement to let her have half at that point, and Jeanette says (even though she wasn't present) that he did (and the tournament director failed to confirm one way or the other in his PC version of events).

The point I was trying to make was that even if Jeanette is correct that the buyer did tell the "go between" that she could have half, the expectation would be that you are going to be paid when they finish the match they are in and before their next one. I don't know of anybody that expects to be able to pay a stranger hours later towards the end of the tournament, and it seems that she was upset at being held to the same standards as everyone else. If the player were Joe Shmoe Nobody instead of JL, I don't think anybody would be seeing it in favor of the late asking, and even later paying, player.

Maybe I'm wrong and I'm just not aware that the tradition in some places is that players can pay for their half whenever they feel like it. :grin-square:

 

[Poolplaya9]

AGAIN for the Millionth time ,,,, read carefully AS A BUYER YOU HAVE TO LET THE PLAYER BUY HALF IF THEY WANT IT.... YOU DO NOT HAVE THE OPTION FROM THE GET GO OF KEEPING IT ALL... AS A BUYER..

So that was never an option. That has nothing to do with this situation.:thumbup:

Read carefully: After the brackets are drawn, or at the latest after the first ball is hit (depending on local custom), a player no longer has the right to buy half of themselves. You are correct in that the player always has the right to buy half of themselves up until then. Any exceptions to the above are extremely rare and would be "house rules" that are out of the norm.

We all know that Jeanette she did not agree to buy half of herself before the tournament started (all parties agree on this, even Jeanette). So when the third party contacted the buyer after the tournament started saying that Jeanette wanted half, he was under no obligation whatsoever to agree to it.

 

[Williebetmore]

......it seems that she was upset at being held to the same standards as everyone else.

PP9,
Nothing could be further from the truth. This part of your assertion is very far off base (though you are free to call whomever you wish a liar). As JL stated, she also believes that things should have been settled earlier, and that the buyer had no obligation to sell (though his initial agreement to do so puzzled all involved) at the late dates discussed.

The "standards" you describe were not the issue, JL seems quite in agreement with all of the "sacred principles of Calcutta etiquette" discussed so far (and surely wishes she hadn't waited so long to do so). Surely, though, people are allowed to negotiate around these holy principles if they so desire; and in my opinion neither buyer or seller should be faulted for negotiating whenever they choose. JMO.

Also in my opinion, I think slavery was abolished a few years ago; and I think any player is free to walk at any time, for any reason. I personally wouldn't pocket one ball for a backer/buyer/bettor that was as rude to me (but I am obviously not as Christian and forgiving as the very polite posters who propose continuing on in such circumstances).

 

[PoolBum]

I'm amazed so many people don't see what's really going on here.

This whole controversy is obviously just a well-orchestrated bunch of hype designed to promote another TAR MATCH!!

"Calcutta Grudge Match!"

Well done. The DVD's would sell like hot cakes.

 

[tucson9ball]

The only way Jeanette gets my vote if Im on a jury is 1) the buyer told her it was ok to pay him later and they agreed prior to the tourney that she had half. and 2) the buyer acted like a total jerk AND didn't honor any ageement they had.

I see nothing in the TD's response that implies or alludes to either of these, so verdict is for the plaintiff in the ammount of $140.

Next Case please.

Hear ye hear ye, this court is adjourned.:thumbup:

 

[tucson9ball]

PP9,
Nothing could be further from the truth. This part of your assertion is very far off base (though you are free to call whomever you wish a liar). As JL stated, she also believes that things should have been settled earlier, and that the buyer had no obligation to sell (though his initial agreement to do so puzzled all involved) at the late dates discussed.

The "standards" you describe were not the issue, JL seems quite in agreement with all of the "sacred principles of Calcutta etiquette" discussed so far (and surely wishes she hadn't waited so long to do so). Surely, though, people are allowed to negotiate around these holy principles if they so desire; and in my opinion neither buyer or seller should be faulted for negotiating whenever they choose. JMO.

Also in my opinion, I think slavery was abolished a few years ago; and I think any player is free to walk at any time, for any reason. I personally wouldn't pocket one ball for a backer/buyer/bettor that was as rude to me (but I am obviously not as Christian and forgiving as the very polite posters who propose continuing on in such circumstances).

Willie, you are a close friend of Jeanette and obviously a lil bias on this topic. I'm sure I would tend to take sides with my friend also, if this were to happen to one of them.
You have stated your opinion many times and if I were you I would just let it go. Nothing has been done to her reputation and she remains an ambassador for the sport of pool. Just leave it at that and walk away. The more you post on here, it will keep eating at you.
There was a miscommunication between these two and let it go as just that, a miscommunication. JMHO

 

[Williebetmore]

Willie, you are a close friend of Jeanette and obviously a lil bias on this topic. I'm sure I would tend to take sides with my friend also, if this were to happen to one of them.
You have stated your opinion many times and if I were you I would just let it go. Nothing has been done to her reputation and she remains an ambassador for the sport of pool. Just leave it at that and walk away. The more you post on here, it will keep eating at you.
There was a miscommunication between these two and let it go as just that, a miscommunication. JMHO

Very sound advice Dr. 9-Ball, I am going to TRY to follow it.

 

[DRW]

calcutta

Hear ye hear ye, this court is adjourned.:thumbup:

Whats anyone from Tucson know about a Calcutta any way?
Scotch at pockets tomorrow.

 

[cincyman]

For the second time. Not after the first ball is hit. In some calcuttas here, you are not obligated at ALL to let the player buy half.

DUDE i got it, In every calcutta BEFORE the first ball is hit (which i know and assumed was common knowledge you have to give the person you bought the option. i guarantee if the player was never allowed to buy half, he would never make a ball

 

[cincyman]

Read carefully: After the brackets are drawn, or at the latest after the first ball is hit (depending on local custom), a player no longer has the right to buy half of themselves. You are correct in that the player always has the right to buy half of themselves up until then. Any exceptions to the above are extremely rare and would be "house rules" that are out of the norm.

We all know that Jeanette she did not agree to buy half of herself before the tournament started (all parties agree on this, even Jeanette). So when the third party contacted the buyer after the tournament started saying that Jeanette wanted half, he was under no obligation whatsoever to agree to it.

I know, i know, after the first ball is hit no chance.. its not an option unless you wanted to be nice which we know no pool player is gonna do that, and especially a railbird who cant run 2:thumbup:

 

[Poolplaya9]

PP9,
Nothing could be further from the truth. This part of your assertion is very far off base (though you are free to call whomever you wish a liar). As JL stated, she also believes that things should have been settled earlier, and that the buyer had no obligation to sell (though his initial agreement to do so puzzled all involved) at the late dates discussed.

The "standards" you describe were not the issue, JL seems quite in agreement with all of the "sacred principles of Calcutta etiquette" discussed so far (and surely wishes she hadn't waited so long to do so). Surely, though, people are allowed to negotiate around these holy principles if they so desire; and in my opinion neither buyer or seller should be faulted for negotiating whenever they choose. JMO.

Also in my opinion, I think slavery was abolished a few years ago; and I think any player is free to walk at any time, for any reason. I personally wouldn't pocket one ball for a backer/buyer/bettor that was as rude to me (but I am obviously not as Christian and forgiving as the very polite posters who propose continuing on in such circumstances).

I don't know that I have called anyone a liar. I also have not commented at all about the fact that Jeanette chose to quit, so I assume that part of your post was not directed to me.

As for the rest, I don't understand what a minority are finding so difficult. The buyer went to Jeanette before the tournament to see if she wanted half, and she wanted to think about it. She decides she wants half after the tournament has already started and sends a third party to go ask the buyer. According to the buyer, he did not agree to let her have half at this point. If that is the case, then as soon as he made that clear to her when she asked later she should have just said "ok I didn't realize you didn't agree to it" and that should have been the end of it. There should never have been any discussion after that to begin with for her to have ever even had a chance to be "offended."

And if her version is what actually happened and he had agreed to give her half several hours earlier, as soon as he said well you never came and paid me so the agreement is off, she should have just said "yeah I should have paid you right away but I was hoping you would still let me have the half anyway but I understand" and that should have been the end of it. There should never have been any discussion after that to begin with for her to have ever even had a chance to be "offended."

It sounds like after he informed her that there was no deal (whether it was because he never agreed to it or because she never paid) she continued to argue anyway when she had no grounds to argue. Wouldn't you expect him to get irritated if she is being pushy about it and just won't drop it? I'm not sure that the buyer ever said anything to her that was insulting or offensive (according to every witness that has weighed in including the TD, he didn't), but if he did, didn't it occur only because she was out of line by continuing to argue and force a conversation that never should have occured in the first place? What part am I missing?

 

[jasonlaus]

I don't know that I have called anyone a liar. I also have not commented at all about the fact that Jeanette chose to quit, so I assume that part of your post was not directed to me.

As for the rest, I don't understand what a minority are finding so difficult. The buyer went to Jeanette before the tournament to see if she wanted half, and she wanted to think about it. She decides she wants half after the tournament has already started and sends a third party to go ask the buyer. According to the buyer, he did not agree to let her have half at this point. If that is the case, then as soon as he made that clear to her when she asked later she should have just said "ok I didn't realize you didn't agree to it" and that should have been the end of it. There should never have been any discussion after that to begin with for her to have ever even had a chance to be "offended."

And if her version is what actually happened and he had agreed to give her half several hours earlier, as soon as he said well you never came and paid me so the agreement is off, she should have just said "yeah I should have paid you right away but I was hoping you would still let me have the half anyway but I understand" and that should have been the end of it. There should never have been any discussion after that to begin with for her to have ever even had a chance to be "offended."

It sounds like after he informed her that there was no deal (whether it was because he never agreed to it or because she never paid) she continued to argue anyway when she had no grounds to argue. Wouldn't you expect him to get irritated if she is being pushy about it and just won't drop it? I'm not sure that the buyer ever said anything to her that was insulting or offensive (according to every witness that has weighed in including the TD, he didn't), but if he did, didn't it occur only because she was out of line by continuing to argue and force a conversation that never should have occured in the first place? What part am I missing?

Yeah, what he said.
It's very simple.... when bidding ends TD says "player" do you want half? YES or NO, end of story, next case.

 

[J$Cincy]

questioning JL's rep over..........

$70.......... ..........