The Jeanette Lee Calcutta Scandal

JB Cases said:
Don't want to comment on THIS situation but just on calcuttas in general. When a someone PURCHASES a player in a calcutta they do not own that player. The player can quit at anytime, dump you, get frustrated, have a seizure or any number of things that prevent them from playing the best that they can.
Click to expand...


Oh ,Really ?

I thought that If I bought some budweisers for a chic in the night club she was expected to stay with me whole night.U mean to say that she can go round the club and talk to other guys? Dang ,the values are changing fast in this society.
 
Pardon me but...I don't believe a word of it. I've spoken to several different people who were there (hunted around after I heard about this) and this story is VERY flawed....It's a shame people feel the desire to insult others just because they made a mistake. I'm not going to name names or tell the 4 different accounts (that all were the same) that contradict this, I'll just leave it as.... If he had posted this on the site himself, there is a chance I would've given the first Red REP I have ever given. It would've been for slander.
 
CLOlson - post him up, ok?

clolson said:
^^yep, her 'side' of the story is up, lol.
Click to expand...

edited for forgetting tompnation's account was the OP, not clolson's. Apologies.

Matt
 
Last edited:
KoolKat9Lives said:
I guess that's funny to you, that after the sh*t-storm here started by someone anonymous via proxy that she should post her account of things???

Hey CL Olson - why don't you ask "the buyer", your best friend, to post under your account asap? Either allow him access to your account, or ask him to read the threads and send you his response so you can paste it in?

Seems like common sense to me (IF I'd have gotten a raw deal, I'd be all over it).
Click to expand...

Did you read the original post in this thread?
 
KoolKat9Lives said:
It seems like threads like this almost always have mostly ifs and butts until @ post 143 when the smoke clears because we finally get enuf facts, like tooth extraction, to make the informed deductions.
Click to expand...

In that case I can't wait until post #143!
 
punter said:
Did you read the original post in this thread?
Click to expand...

Dammit. Yeah I did, but I messed up and forgot that he did get his word in. I genuinely apologize for that oversight and will edit my posts.

Thanks for the catch punter.

Matt
 
KoolKat9Lives said:
Dammit. Yeah I did, but I messed up and forgot that he did get his word in. I genuinely apologize for that oversight and will edit my posts.

Thanks for the catch punter.

Matt
Click to expand...

No problem, Matt. There are two or three threads on this subject, it's kind of hard to keep it straight.
 
SUPERSTAR said:
On this i have to disagree.

So i go and hop in the car and drive out to a tournament, and play in it, and someone on the sidelines has me in the calcutta.

So your saying that the money i've already invested isn't good enough, but now that the money someone else invests, someone i don't have any obligation to or business dealings with, NOW also has some say in what i am or am not allowed to do?

What type of garbage is this?

I mean, i can fully understand your "DUMP" point, if i didn't invest a dime of my money, and was getting a free ride from a backer, but that's not the issue at hand.

It is not even CLOSE to being the same.

If i'm spending my money on me, i can go to the moon if i want in the middle of the tournament.
If your trying to coattail on my investment and make some cash of your own OFF OF MY OWN INVESTMENT, your completely out of your mind if you think i owe you.

You can cry morals all you want and it's not going to make a difference.

Unless there was a written contract before the tournament started, and there were witnesses, and a notary public on the scene to make sure that there was a binding contract between the 2 parties involved, the player can do whatever the heck they want, WHENEVER they want.

Your definition of DUMP is flawed.
Click to expand...

she didnt quit the tournament because of an emergency, injury or even because she wanted to...she did it to spite someone (if this is in fact how it all went down). now where i come from that is down right sorry morals. and yes the principal is the same as dumping.
 
Ironman317 said:
she didnt quit the tournament because of an emergency, injury or even because she wanted to...she did it to spite someone (if this is in fact how it all went down). now where i come from that is down right sorry morals. and yes the principal is the same as dumping.
Click to expand...


NOPE. Not even close.

And she is allowed to do what she wants.
WITH THAT, if she wants to quit for spite, she can quit for spite.
If she wants to quit for revenge, then she can quit for revenge.
If she wants to quit for WHATEVER REASON, she can.

Where you come from, people need to learn that if they want to control a player, either fork it up and pay for everything, or ante up and put themselves in the tournament.

It's HER MONEY, and HER TOURNAMENT that she tossed away.

If she weren't even there, they would have been able to buy her in the first place.

Yes, it sucks to be them, but if they think, or if anyone thinks that they are ENTITLED to have a say in what she does, or anyone that they buy in the calcutta, they are wrong.

You might think it's wrong, but just because you do, DOESN'T make it wrong.
 
See!!!!!!

you see what happens when you let a women into a mans world!!!!!!:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:
 
SUPERSTAR said:
NOPE. Not even close.

And she is allowed to do what she wants.
WITH THAT, if she wants to quit for spite, she can quit for spite.
If she wants to quit for revenge, then she can quit for revenge.
If she wants to quit for WHATEVER REASON, she can.

Where you come from, people need to learn that if they want to control a player, either fork it up and pay for everything, or ante up and put themselves in the tournament.

It's HER MONEY, and HER TOURNAMENT that she tossed away.

If she weren't even there, they would have been able to buy her in the first place.

Yes, it sucks to be them, but if they think, or if anyone thinks that they are ENTITLED to have a say in what she does, or anyone that they buy in the calcutta, they are wrong.

You might think it's wrong, but just because you do, DOESN'T make it wrong.
Click to expand...

i will just let all the reps i have received from post #91 be the judge of what people think it the "right" thing to do. no one said she couldnt quit...but it shows she is shallow and her morals suck!!
 
Unless what someone said to her was life threatening, her actions were her own choice. It was not a professional move at all.
 
Ironman317 said:
i will just let all the reps i have received from post #91 be the judge of what people think it the "right" thing to do. no one said she couldnt quit...but it shows she is shallow and her morals suck!!
Click to expand...


REPS? Who the heck cares about reps?

But anyway, the shallow opinion is just that.
An opinion.

For all we know, she might feel fully justified in doing whatever it is she did.
People are gonna think what they want to think anyway.
Especially, the people who got walked out on. But other then them, who the heck cares?

I sure as hell don't.

If someone goes and buys me in the calcutta and i decide to leave, NO ONE is gonna get all bent and tell me the moral rights and wrongs of my actions.
I am not there for them. I am there for me.

No one has any obligation except to themselves.
Anyone who thinks otherwise, can stake them in the tournament so that there is no question as to who is obligated to who.

Otherwise, the calcuttas can just go the way of the dodo bird.

For all we know, if she hadn't taken a piece of herself, and dropped out of the tournament, say at an earlier point, the people would be complaining that she was too cheap to take a piece and they would be pissed that they spent a boatload on her, and would be complaining that if she knew she was gonna drop out, that she should have given them the heads up so they didn't waste any money.

Just drop the calcuttas altogether, and VOILA!

END OF PROBLEM!
 
SUPERSTAR said:
Just drop the calcuttas altogether, and VOILA!
Click to expand...
There are answers for everything but... I know a lot of players who play pool to make money and sometimes will not play in a tournament if there is no calcutta. Some look at a calcutta as a bad thing and some even get offended or kinda putout/rude when you ask them if they want to buy half back. I have seen tournaments where before it starts the TD asks for a vote on whether or not everyone wants to have one. It is almost always the better players/gamblers if you will or the people wanting some action in the tournament who are not playing that in favor of it. Some people refuse because of lack of money and some refuse because they think it not a good thing and there is nothing wrong with that but if you drop them all together you will most likely lose more players than not.
 
$TAKE HOR$E said:
There are answers for everything but... I know a lot of players who play pool to make money and sometimes will not play in a tournament if there is no calcutta. Some look at a calcutta as a bad thing and some even get offended or kinda putout/rude when you ask them if they want to buy half back. I have seen tournaments where before it starts the TD asks for a vote on whether or not everyone wants to have one. It is almost always the better players/gamblers if you will or the people wanting some action in the tournament who are not playing that in favor of it. Some people refuse because of lack of money and some refuse because they think it not a good thing and there is nothing wrong with that but if you drop them all together you will most likely lose more players than not.
Click to expand...

Less players = easier payday.

F-'em
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top