Players dropping out of the Matchroom/Predator CLP

logical

apart of their 'semi public'
Silver Member
I don't think Chinese has anything to do with it...

I didn't either. China has many evil aspects but it didn't make sense to me to bring that into this discussion.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

gerryf

Well-known member
its common when sponsors put up significant money and dont feel they should give out free advertising. i can understand that.

its a business deal. the players can play with the rules or not. it is their choice.

their own sponsors should have an option to pay to have their emblems on the players shirts.
and matchroom could let them maybe have one small patch that is approved.

if it was my tournament and i was adding money, i wouldnt let a player show up all dressed in ads for my competitors would you.

Absolutely makes sense to me. But it's not clear that anything of the sort was responsible for Gorst, Woodward, and Shane pulling out. They may have just had a hot date that weekend.
 

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
its common when sponsors put up significant money and dont feel they should give out free advertising. i can understand that.

its a business deal. the players can play with the rules or not. it is their choice.

their own sponsors should have an option to pay to have their emblems on the players shirts.
and matchroom could let them maybe have one small patch that is approved.

if it was my tournament and i was adding money, i wouldnt let a player show up all dressed in ads for my competitors would you.
My assumption is those players that dropped out first checked with their main sponsors for their approval, and were refused. It is surprising that all the Euro Mosconi Cup players were approved to play, with the lone exception being Fedor Gorst.
 

CaleAYS

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Where did you see that?
It was discussed yesterday on Billiard Network live chat by Mike Panozzo, Karl Boyes, Darren Appleton, Allison Fisher, and Raj Hundal. The video is on the Billiard Network Facebook page.
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
I remember the days of the tire wars and being a sponsorship whore. One track we ran Goodyears, what worked best on the car, and advertised Goodyear to get contingency money. Another track we ran Firestones and a Firestone decal. Another series we ran Hoosiers on one side since we had to run at least two Hoosiers and a Hoosier decal to get contingency money. We had stacks of decals inches thick with all of the swapping we did! Part of an independent surviving but it sure felt a lot like prostitution.

The title sponsor of an event usually demanded and got their name on every car. After some game playing by teams they specified the size of the signage. They also specified the size of signage for conflicting sponsors. This seemed reasonable then and now. Predator should be able to require badging on every player in the event but they should allow conflicting player sponsors to have advertising too, albeit less obvious.

Reminds me, a friend I drove for sometimes had a tiny Kaiser Aluminum decal on their car in a prominent place. I knew he worked for Kaiser so I asked Jr what the deal was. "Kaiser is sponsoring me." I asked why the decal was so little. "Kaiser doesn't know they are sponsoring me!"

Predator is wrong about this one if opposing sponsors are the major sponsor of a player. They are crapping with the sponsorship deals of the players. Nobody should be able to tell you you can't represent your own sponsor even if you have to represent the event sponsor also.

Hu
 

DieselPete

Active member
This is a challenge that occurs when the title sponsor actually owns the event. If they are merely a title sponsor for an event, they would be limited in terms of what they can control and the means to activate their sponsorship would be limited by the event organizer. The event organizer would likely not give them the latitude to dictate what participants wear, but the organizer might have uniform rules (such as; logos on shirts are limited to 2x4 inches regardless of what those logos are).

When the title sponsor actually owns the event they can create these kind of rules (not only telling participants what they can't wear but also telling them what they MUST wear). Players then have to decide whether that is consistent with their needs, and the needs of the companies that they endorse.

I think the players have to be careful here. Is it a slippery slope to say that if they sacrifice the right to wear the logos of companies that pay them, they will next be told they must wear the event sponsor's logos? And what if Predator went a step further and said that participants must play with a Predator cue?

If Predator has a meaningful activation plan for this event, the viewer should walk away think about Predator and a size-limited logo on a polo shirt from a competing company shouldn't change that.
 

pwd72s

recreational banger
Silver Member
So, what if these payers have contracts with their personal sponsors stating they must play wearing the logo of that sponsor?

Sort of a "do you wish to be hanged or do you prefer the firing squad?"

Just speculation on my part, but this could well be the case.
 

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So, what if these payers have contracts with their personal sponsors stating they must play wearing the logo of that sponsor?

Sort of a "do you wish to be hanged or do you prefer the firing squad?"

Just speculation on my part, but this could well be the case.
Yes, we have to assume that if these players had originally planned to play and then dropped out, it’s because they checked with their sponsors and were not given approval to play under these conditions, without them potentially violating their contract / risk losing their sponsor.
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
So, what if these payers have contracts with their personal sponsors stating they must play wearing the logo of that sponsor?

Sort of a "do you wish to be hanged or do you prefer the firing squad?"

Just speculation on my part, but this could well be the case.


Probably exactly the case of the players dropping out. The event sponsor won't budge and neither will theirs. The player has no option but to not compete in the event since they are Catch 22'ed. I have seen this when sponsors have a real animosity between them.

Hu
 

gerryf

Well-known member
Yes, we have to assume that if these players had originally planned to play and then dropped out, it’s because they checked with their sponsors and were not given approval to play under these conditions, without them potentially violating their contract / risk losing their sponsor.
From the Billiards Network podcast the OP referred to:

Fedor and Shane are sponsored by Cuetec.
Skyler is sponsored by Meucci.
Jason is thinking about pulling out but i don't know who his sponsor is.

The rumor (no one has seen the contract) was that the players had to wear the Predator logo. According to the podcast this isn't unusual, and commonly players are allowed to wear subsidiary patches.

In response to the criticism, Predator changed their logo from a brand logo to an event logo, but the new logo didn't meet with approval. Apparently it said "Predator CLP", rather than "Predator Championship League Pool", and it wasn't clear that it was an event logo.

Common reaction on the podcast was that this was an 'everyone lose' scenario, and it's in Predator/Matchroom's interest to get this resolved. They want the top players there, and the top players want to be there.

We'll see..
 

pwd72s

recreational banger
Silver Member
Probably exactly the case of the players dropping out. The event sponsor won't budge and neither will theirs. The player has no option but to not compete in the event since they are Catch 22'ed. I have seen this when sponsors have a real animosity between them.

Hu
If so, can't blame the players...personal sponsors giving a known...predator only offering the opportunity to a payout on prize money. Gorst & SVB are cuetec, Woodward is Meucci, if I'm not mistaken.

What makes it silly is that I doubt many amateurs select their equipment based on what the pros use. I mean, who could think buying a cue that the pros use will suddenly have them playing like the pro?
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This is a challenge that occurs when the title sponsor actually owns the event. If they are merely a title sponsor for an event, they would be limited in terms of what they can control and the means to activate their sponsorship would be limited by the event organizer. The event organizer would likely not give them the latitude to dictate what participants wear, but the organizer might have uniform rules (such as; logos on shirts are limited to 2x4 inches regardless of what those logos are).

When the title sponsor actually owns the event they can create these kind of rules (not only telling participants what they can't wear but also telling them what they MUST wear). Players then have to decide whether that is consistent with their needs, and the needs of the companies that they endorse.

I think the players have to be careful here. Is it a slippery slope to say that if they sacrifice the right to wear the logos of companies that pay them, they will next be told they must wear the event sponsor's logos? And what if Predator went a step further and said that participants must play with a Predator cue?

If Predator has a meaningful activation plan for this event, the viewer should walk away think about Predator and a size-limited logo on a polo shirt from a competing company shouldn't change that.
Where are these rules you reference and has Pool agreed to them?

L...O...L.
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If so, can't blame the players...personal sponsors giving a known...predator only offering the opportunity to a payout on prize money. Gorst & SVB are cuetec, Woodward is Meucci, if I'm not mistaken.

What makes it silly is that I doubt many amateurs select their equipment based on what the pros use. I mean, who could think buying a cue that the pros use will suddenly have them playing like the pro?
A lot of folks here bought cuetecs after svb signed on.
 

jasonlaus

Rep for Smorg
Gold Member
Silver Member
If so, can't blame the players...personal sponsors giving a known...predator only offering the opportunity to a payout on prize money. Gorst & SVB are cuetec, Woodward is Meucci, if I'm not mistaken.

What makes it silly is that I doubt many amateurs select their equipment based on what the pros use. I mean, who could think buying a cue that the pros use will suddenly have them playing like the pro?
The majority of amateur players pick their cues based on what pros are playing. Why do you think every league player on the planet has a break cue, jump cue, backup jump/break cue, an extension, $20 Chalk, etc.
 

jokrswylde

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
A similar situation occurred recently in mixed martial arts. For years, fighters made the majority of their money on sponsorships. They would put patches on their shorts, walkout tshirts, and banners hung on the side of the cage.

The UFC, in a move to seem more "legit" decided they were going to go with an exclusive apparel sponsor (in this case, Reebok). The fighters were no longer allowed to display sponsor banners, or wear sponsor clothing. Instead Reebok is responsible for all official cloth, and they pay fighters a small supplement based on experience.

Needless to say, the fighters were mostly pissed because they lost a ton of sponsorship money. UFC's stance was along the lines of "you don't see nfl, nba, or mlb, etc. players s with "condom depot" splattered all over their jersey!
 

DieselPete

Active member
Needless to say, the fighters were mostly pissed because they lost a ton of sponsorship money. UFC's stance was along the lines of "you don't see nfl, nba, or mlb, etc. players s with "condom depot" splattered all over their jersey!

Where I would disagree with the UFC is that the analogy is false. Those leagues have unions and bargain collectively and part of the CBA is revenue sharing, so they all benefit from league-wide sponsorship deals for uniforms. UFC fighters, to my knowledge, are not in a union and do not have a negotiating process and probably have little to no say in the percent of total revenue that they are guaranteed.
 

Buzzard II

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Predator cues is part of Predator Group. FYI they are based in Jacksonville, Fl. Yes, they do have manuf. sites in Asia but they are not a Chinese company.
What part of the "People's Republic of China" is in error?

Yes I know about the office in FL. and the Revo's in MA.
 

jokrswylde

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Where I would disagree with the UFC is that the analogy is false. Those leagues have unions and bargain collectively and part of the CBA is revenue sharing, so they all benefit from league-wide sponsorship deals for uniforms. UFC fighters, to my knowledge, are not in a union and do not have a negotiating process and probably have little to no say in the percent of total revenue that they are guaranteed.
Yep, they are considered independent contractors. they have been trying to organize for the past couple of decades....
 

fastone371

Certifiable
Silver Member
The majority of amateur players pick their cues based on what pros are playing. Why do you think every league player on the planet has a break cue, jump cue, backup jump/break cue, an extension, $20 Chalk, etc.
I dont, my player is also my break cue and pigs will fly before I spend $20 on a cube of chalk. :)
I know that I wont buy a stream if some of the players I want to see wont be playing in the tournament, seems to me that Matchroom/Predator stand to lose the most.
 

CaleAYS

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yes in the podcast they said players would have to wear/display the Predator logo and wouldn’t be allowed to wear/display their own sponsors logos.
If a company like Betvictor who sponsors snooker events for example was the title sponsor of the event and the players had to wear a betvictor logo, who cares and I’m sure there would be no issue with the players or their sponsors. But Predator being a cue manufacturer and Matchroom ultimately being the ones forcing players sponsored by rival companies to wear only the Predator logo if they want to play in a Matchroom event is not okay with me at all.
Hopefully they realize this is a mistake and things will get sorted out and all the players will play and their sponsors will be rightfully represented.
 
Top