Pool Chick
It is my opinion that your response is typical of many UPA supporter threads I have read. I still do not understand the mentality where if a player does not agree with UPA methods or procedures, they are stupid, or an enemy of the sport. That is how many supporters like yourself are coming across to me, as well as others. You insinuate that I am grossly misinformed or basing my caution on rumors rather than facts. The problems the UPA has had with sanctioning, the US Open, and the players contract are well documented. In talking directly with other players, the one common denominator is lack of trust. This in no way means that the UPA has done anything wrong. It is the way they are being perceived and received by the players and some fans. The UPA has been very aggressive in their business practices in an effort to bring the Men's Tour further into the spotlight. The UPA is leading the charge and they are going full speed ahead and not looking back. Trouble is, many feel as if they getting run over, left in the dust, screwed over, or sacrificed. This is NOT the UPA's intention at all, but there seems to be a communication breakdown somewhere.
One of the main things I have seen is that many people have posted questions directly to the Tour Officials, who are obviously browsing this and other forums. They have chosen to ignore those questions, while at the same promoting their events, and sending out advertisements for Predator Pro Pool School. They are obviously here, but it seems they do a lot of selling, and not much more.
About the $25
IMO, if a player paid their entry prior to the UPA sanctioning the event, then that player is obligated to pay only the origninal quoted entry fee at the time they paid their entry, and nothing more. Whether they are asking for a dime, a nickel, or $25 does not matter. When the player paid his entry fee, he was issued a receipt, and it should have said "entry paid in full". The UPA has no right to come in "after the fact" and ask for more fees. The fee should only apply to players that pay their entry fee after the date of the UPA sanctioning. When Manlyshot paid the entry fee, it was a nonsanctioned event. They should have declined accepting entries until the sanctioning was official and this problem could have been avoided. Aksing for the $25 fee after the fact is just bad business by all parties involved.
Communication Problems?
As far commuinication, I will say that when I had questions, Mr. Alvarez was more than helpful with me, personally. Others have not been so lucky, but I have not had any probelms. I don't pretend to know why some people are not getting their questions answered.. All I know is that there seems to be a problem with communication and there are players that are taking a few steps back and looking these guys over very carefully. Ignoring this problem will not make it go away. It doesn't matter if these players are seasoned professionals, or young upstarts, their concerns should be addressed by the UPA. Each member should be treated equally. Nobody's membership fee should be worth more or less than the next guy. On the same note, The UPA owes nothing to any player if he/she is not a member of the UPA. Its a two way street. Remember, membership has its advantages.
Hear both sides
You have talked to the UPA several times and you are satisfied with everything they have told you. Talk to some of the players that are unhappy about the issues that are being addressed. Hear both sides of the story. This is not a "Good Guys Vs Bad Guys" scenario. The arguing and posturing are a waste of energy. This is about coming to an agreement that is in everybody's best interests.
The Contract
For many players, they were taken aback by the contract that was presented to them. It was a wake up call for many and sent home the fact that the players need to have proper representation in the writing of the contract. The contract should not be "one size fits all" as players have individual needs that are unique to their skill levels and income levels. Unless "proper" representation is addressed (by proper, I do not mean having a president / player representative that has any interest [financial or otherwise] in the working of the tour) - Until that problem is addressed the players will continue to be less than "United". The tour should designate a person to represent the players, separate from the UPA board. This is the conflict of interest I spoke of in my earlier post. The Players/board members cannot serve two masters. This is what is causing a lot of the problems. The UPA and the players, while "united", are separate entities in the signing of a contract. You work in the law field, you will understand that completely.
Moving Forward
Actually these problems (and the way that the UPA deals with them) are the the very things that will shape it's growth. On the other hand, if the problems are ignored and not dealt with, they could spell the tour's downfall. That would be a shame, as a lot of hard work has been done by a lot of people to get the UPA to where it is now. I wish both sides the best of luck.
