John Schmidt BANNED from Viking Tour

[pooltchr]

Mike,
You may want to reconsider. As a tournament director, I think you have a greater obligation to the players than to the railbirds. If this had been a side bet, and a player forfieted, would you have made the same decision? The calcutta shouldn't be part of the tour...it should be a completely separate issue.
If I go to the US Open, and put some money on a player, and he decides to go over to Q-Masters to play a money match and misses his match in the tourney, do you think someone is going to do anything about my loss?
A Calcutta is nothing more than a wager, and if you place the bet on someone who may or may not be dependable, that's your choice, and you need to be prepared to live with the results, whatever they may be.
You should support your players, not the fans. Who ultimately generates income for your tour?
Just another way of looking at things.
Steve

 

[macguy]

The way I understand the situation to be is this... An opportunity arose for John to play on an exclusive golf course with some influencial people. John asked if Mike could accomodate him by making sure his match started later in the day. Mike said he would not do that. The decision was up to John but John was not told of the consequences. John thought that he would forfeit the 1st match & have to play from the one loss side. He did not know until he got to the pool room later in the day that he would be banned. Had he known that, he probably would've made a different decision. Sometimes things like this come up where a player is forced to choose and because it's a double elimination tournament, they choose to forfeit & play from the one loss side. John is not the 1st player to make this decision at a pool tournament and doesn't deserve to be burned at the stake for it.

I don't understand the incredible obligation Mr. Janis thinks the players owe him? Does he provide free entry for some players or cover their expenses? They don't owe him anything other then their entry fee. If a player feel ill or has an urgent call from home and has to leave, they need to ask his permission, give me a break. After this, any player who permits their name to be in the calcutta is nuts.

 

[Rodney]

Why can`t they just take the $400.00 out of the calcutta fund and give the buyer his money back ?

Seems like the only logical thing to do. While it doesn't make John look good, he did nothing wrong except donate his money to the tournament.

Unless there is more to it.

 

[john schmidt]

hers the deal

i dont know exactly what mike does but i think the reason he protects the calcutta people is because the reason they have calcuttas is they keep 10 percent for running it so when big name players show up who go for huge amounts thats good for the td and mike wants the bidders to feel like they can bid huge on us and he can tell us what to do just another way that us players are taken advantage of,

 

[macguy]

i dont know exactly what mike does but i think the reason he protects the calcutta people is because the reason they have calcuttas is they keep 10 percent for running it so when big name players show up who go for huge amounts thats good for the td and mike wants the bidders to feel like they can bid huge on us and he can tell us what to do just another way that us players are taken advantage of,

Wow, so in effect he is running a gambling enterprise and taking a cut. That's not legal in any state.

 

[mocbc]

Calcutta

A player must enter himself, for a fee, in the calcutta. If he fails to show he forfeits his entry fee. The bidder should not be held responsible.

 

[ScottW]

I've only met Mike recently (in Atlanta, and before I even joined up on this forum! heh), and he seemed like a good guy to me the few times I've spoken with him face-to-face since then. That's all I've got to go on.

I'd wait 'til he weighs in with his side of the tale before making judgments either way. As he's a regular on this site, I'm sure it'll be soon, now that his tournament is wrapped up (or nearly so) and he has time to post.

 

[billiardspro]

well for one john didnt have to buy any of him self in the calcutta so he shouldnt have owed anything to this guy that bought him...
2. if john did buy some of himself he would have owed him 200 not 400...
3.i feel this all falls on mike janis if john didnt show for the tourny the calcutta bid should have been canceled and the guy should have gotten his 400 back anyways....you cant buy a guy in the calcutta if he isnt there...

 

[MikeJanis]

Get the record straight...........

This is a brief explanation of the facts...............

1st of all, we do not do Calcutta's on the Viking Tour, we do Player Auctions. A Player AUCTION is a seperate entry fee based on the players ability as determined by his or her peers which is distributed through a parallel prize fund at the event.

2nd the story posted by Tims and followed up by John was not the entire story but really makes ZERO difference.

Finally, the event in question was the Southern Classic Open which was a huge success that drew many top players and spectators and that is what the fine is about.

Simply put, the event was a professional calibur event with $20,000 added. The spectators paid a fee at the gate and expected to see their favorite players competing. The Viking Tours fine is based on the players level of professionalisn, ability and sportsmanship that was predetermined by the players peers which is directly proportioned to the players entry fee of the player auction. Additionally, the Viking Tour enforces the fine but does not profit by fining players. We give the fine back to the individual or corporation that posted the entry fee for the player to make sure that there is absolutely no thought of the tour banning players for profit and no sense of improprieties on our part.

On the Viking Tour all banned players will remain banned until their fines are paid or otherwise stated.

The Player Auction at the Viking Tour events is not mandatory and all players have a choice to not enter the seperate prize fund. However, if they do the player must adhere to our rules.

Respectfully,

 

[dogginda9]

A player must enter himself, for a fee, in the calcutta. If he fails to show he forfeits his entry fee. The bidder should not be held responsible.

Say what? Me thinks that you are smoking something.

 

[Timberly]

2nd the story posted by Tims and followed up by John was not the entire story but really makes ZERO difference.

Someone asked what John's side of the story was and I told it the way John told me. If I had heard it from someone other than you or John, I wouldn't have posted. If I said something incorrect then I apologize. If the story is different than that, you've got your chance to share your side of the story if you choose to do so. I have no ill will towards you or John. I just simply stated the story that was relayed to me by one of the parties involved.

 

[sixpack]

The way I understand the situation to be is this... An opportunity arose for John to play on an exclusive golf course with some influencial people. John asked if Mike could accomodate him by making sure his match started later in the day. Mike said he would not do that. The decision was up to John but John was not told of the consequences. John thought that he would forfeit the 1st match & have to play from the one loss side. He did not know until he got to the pool room later in the day that he would be banned. Had he known that, he probably would've made a different decision. Sometimes things like this come up where a player is forced to choose and because it's a double elimination tournament, they choose to forfeit & play from the one loss side. John is not the 1st player to make this decision at a pool tournament and doesn't deserve to be burned at the stake for it.

That's a good point. He was technically still alive in the tourney. If the TD prevented him from competing when he still had a chance, then I think the TD owes the money.

HOWEVER, he is perfectly within his rights to ban him from the tour. I've seen people bring up employment law several times when discussing player/tour relationships. IMO it's invalid in this case. Since the players pay him to play, you could as easily argue that he works for them or that he provides a service for which they collectively pay for (i.e. accounting and distribution of funds). Most likely they would all be considered independent contractors-all equal.

Since he works for them as much as they work for him, and slavery is illegal, he can choose who he will or won't work for just as much as they can choose which tournaments to attend...and he can base his decision on whatever factors he wants, including whether or not a player is in good standing with other parties.

Cheers,
RC

 

[vagabond]

so what makes you and mike janis think you own me because you put up 400.what if you john schmidt

In another thread recently I mentioned that when one wins the tournament he is NOT morally or legally obligated to the guy who bought the player in the calcutta and is NOT at all obligated to pay any TIP to the buyer in the calcutta.John, stay strong and do what u think is right.

 

[vagabond]

This is a brief explanation of the facts...............

1st of all, we do not do Calcutta's on the Viking Tour, we do Player Auctions. A Player AUCTION is a seperate entry fee based on the players ability as determined by his or her peers which is distributed through a parallel prize fund at the event.

Respectfully,

I am unable to comprehend the definition of Player Auction.Can u please explain & educate me?

 

[!Smorgass Bored]

vagabond axed:
I am unable to comprehend the definition of Player Auction.Can u please explain & educate me?

Another question,equally important is, what was John's score on the golf course ?

 

[BRKNRUN]

This is a brief explanation of the facts...............

1st of all, we do not do Calcutta's on the Viking Tour, we do Player Auctions. A Player AUCTION is a seperate entry fee based on the players ability as determined by his or her peers which is distributed through a parallel prize fund at the event.

Respectfully,

Do you know Leo Getts...You sure know how to "play around in the grey areas"

I have a couple questions that hopefully someone can answer, cause Arizona is now getting some decent fields for open events. We can not have calcuttas here.

1) If the abouve describes a AUCTION, then what is the definition of CALCUTTA and how are they different?

2) Who pays the separate entry fee determined by the peers? Is it the peer that determined the price?

 

[jay helfert]

has gambling been legalized in Georgia?

banning someone for not committing an illegal act appears odd to me

Pretty weak to defend the guy for not showing up for his match. I know that as an occasional backer of pool players, if they missed a match we had a problem.

 

[Jimmy M.]

Calcuttas ln -s /black/eye/on/the/pool/scene/reputation

Isn't this sh*t illegal in most states?! I have to find that 4 page legal paper that the late John McChesney had a full lawyers department do on this matter. It is illegal in most states!

Barbara

"Late" John McChesney??? I hadn't heard that.

P.S. Your use of unix commands as well as C-style comparison operators (as in '==') makes me think that at least one person might have found the humor in my title!

 

[cueman]

The way I understand the situation to be is this... An opportunity arose for John to play on an exclusive golf course with some influencial people. John asked if Mike could accomodate him by making sure his match started later in the day. Mike said he would not do that. The decision was up to John but John was not told of the consequences. John thought that he would forfeit the 1st match & have to play from the one loss side. He did not know until he got to the pool room later in the day that he would be banned. Had he known that, he probably would've made a different decision. Sometimes things like this come up where a player is forced to choose and because it's a double elimination tournament, they choose to forfeit & play from the one loss side. John is not the 1st player to make this decision at a pool tournament and doesn't deserve to be burned at the stake for it.

It was not only mentioned at this Viking event. But at the week long 3 tournament event at the pool room, it was also mentioned at the players meeting that if we did not show up for our match we would would have to pay back any Auction money before we could play again. He does allow you to keep your name from being bid on if you like, but then you go into the field. Not sure how Mike would deal with that if you did not show. But I am sure John went in one of the blind bids anyway. I do think you should be able to keep your name totally out of the auction if you are going to face a penalty. I once saw a guy refuse to play the finals of another tour event because he had bought the other guy in the tournament, and did not buy half of himself. It upset those who had bought him.

 

[jay helfert]

This is a cunningly worded statement, and I hope people realize that this has put John in a situation where he looks bad if he responds or not. I think it would be prudent for all to hear John's side of the story and then make your judgement about the situation.

I must add, players like John receive so much more bad press because they play good and people want to play like him which results in a need to bring him down one way or another (consciously or subconsciously). Take a player like Efren and everyone thinks he's a god and so they don't feel as threatened by his playing ability because he's at a supposedly unattainable level. He seems to get much less of this type of attention in spite of the fact that he is no perfect angel.

Way off base here. Efren gets respect for his game and the fact that he is an honest man, who always gives 100%.