Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Griffin
The APA cancelled the contract saying Diamond was in competition with them (what????) and switched back to Valley tables. If I remember correctly, there is no Diamond League but there is a VNEA league.
markg@playbca.com
I remember thinking that changing back to the Valley tables looked like a big step backwards for APA at the Nationals Event... I thought it was bad decision that only hurt their own image and players. (there are still some great league operators that use the Diamonds because they like their players and only want the best for them - obviously you know this Mark, I'm just telling the others). It had never dawned on me before that Valley Tables was the VNEA league... duh! Guess I just didn't think about it as much as you did, what a transparent, spiteful move on their part.
I remember when a friend of mine was launching a billiards magazine, the APA would not allow it to be distributed at their events because it provided highlights and reports from ALL leagues, not exclusively APA.
Yes, they have some strong and demanding policies. No, I do not think they are bad people. Whatever they have been doing has been working, because they have made themselves into a large, profitable, and powerful organization. I know this debate could go on back and forth for quite a while.
BTW, I really like what Dave Letterman did when he was being blackmailed. Rather than let the guy blackmail him, he stood his ground and refused to cave in. I am not saying the APA blackmailed anyone, they merely acted in their perceived best interest. They have every right to sponsor whomever they wish, and they can notify them of their intent at any time. That's business, and that is their perogative.
I think its best to focus on what was done with the information. I mean absolutely no disrespect whatsoever, but was it ever considered that having Mark up for election might anger the main sponsor, who is a business competitor? I know, and agree, that Mark would be great for the job, but how does the election process work? (I apologize for my naiveness) Who decided that the owner of the main sponsors direct competitor should be up for election? Was that ever considered?
It seems to me that by allowing Mark to be an option (again, no offense Mark, it could anybody in your spot), the WPBA forced the APA to be like, "hey - remember us? We are your main sponsor and you are about to elect our competitor". My point is, the letter should not have HAD to be written. Of course the APA doesn't want the head of its competition on the board.
It's like if you're married (which I'm not) and your wife wants to go away for a private 1-week vacation to the islands with her ex-fiance that she almost married before you. But they're just friends now, right? Assuming you two aren't swingers or anything, this is just a ridiculous question, isn't it? What could be going through your wife's mind to even consider that you might be OK with this? And why should you be forced to have to ultimately put your foot down and say "No, you should not do this, it's just inappropriate"
My point is, I find it odd that the head of the main sponsors competition was even considered. Again, I mean no disrespect Mark, I hope you understand what I'm getting at here...
Can anyone explain the process, maybe that will make things clearer?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well put Allen and while I disagree with the APA having issue with allowing the WPBA to benefit by allowing Mark on board and putting their personal crap in a vault for the betterment of the WPBA and pool as a whole...................I have to say the WPBA did handle this poorly and I also wonder how it became so messy. Even if they allowed Mark to run, wouldnt you think they would have contacted the APA to discuss this before the election and then having the same discussion with Mark before the election? It seems to me that reading a letter at the election was a joke and very unprofessional and unnecessary. Had the WPBA board contacted Mark maybe things would be seen differently at least by Mark. The APA will not change as long as certain people are involved in it.............they have and will likely always be the greedy, self serving, narrow minded group they have always been. Its their choice to do business that way but many wont like that stance or support them and they will lose followers if they dont begin to do something for pool instead of themselves. Support the dang industry and you grow plain and simple! They would fall off of a cliff before taking the hand of another company or competitor in this industry and most definately wouldnt hold out the hand to anyone falling off of that cliff. This is pool ala APA!
Can you imagine how great this sport could be if all people with know how, finances and name recognition would actually work together as opposed to segregating the industry? One can hope but IMO, the APA will be the last one to ever take that step to improve pool.........they are the ones that in the end may very well be the worst thing for pool when all is said and done.
). I'm going to guess that the overwhelming majority of league players have no idea where their weekly fees go and would have no problem giving the BCAPL a percentage. So, why not? I, for one, would much rather help support professional pool with my weekly fees than line the APA's pockets.
