Play Meter
Issue: 1982 February 01 - Vol 8 Num 3 - Page 16
( ontinued from page 10)
time of the Tournament Spectacular,
"almost all the players were paid off
from the May, 1980 tournament. As
of this tournament, there were only
two or three players who were still
owed money , and they were very
small amounts. All the players were
paid off," Lott' told Play Meter. "He
just didn't pay them off in the time
frame they wou ld have liked, but he
did pay them. And when he didn't
come through in 30 days, he did
come through at least with partial
payments, with 25 or 50 percent
payments."
Yet , despite this terribly com-
promised position, Peppard was
somehow able to keep the company
together , largely because he was
able to keep a lid on exactly how dire
the situation had become.
Atari enters picture
Then , in early 1981 , Atari entered
the picture. Joe Robbins , president
of Atari, approached Peppard with
the idea of having him hold an Atari
world championship tournament.
To Peppard , it was a way out of a
jam.
Peppard told Play M eter, "I very
carefully did not commit this com-
pany (TG I) to another tournament
until we were financially capable of
dealing with it. As much as we
needed a tournament to generate
sale of product , I very carefully
avoided it. But , when Joe Robbins
came to me and said he wanted to do
this, it then gave us the ability to
commit on the tournament. "
P eppard reportedly received
$40,000 up front; and apparently
Atari. in Peppard's words "an-
nounced the ssociation to the
trade ." Still , there was no ign d
contract, only this appar nt verb I
agreem nt betw en th two parties,
which P ppard claims Atari th n
back-pedalled on .
"Atari approached Tournament
Games to organize the Atari World
Championships ," said Peppard, "at a
time when we were rebuilding our
market presence following the dis-
astrous decline in the foosball
market and prior to committing to
any promotional program . A
program was defined and a cost
established through negotiations in
the form of a written proposal.
" Based upon that proposal ,"
Peppard maintains, "Atari sent the
first payment toT ournament Games
and announced the association to
the trade journals. But then prior to
returning a signed agreement , At ari
wavered on their decision , not
16
because of Tournament Games'
involvement but due to a last minute
hesitation about the total cost
associated with a program of this
type . We recognized that for Atari to
withdraw after having announced
the association would have totally
compromised us in the eyes of the
industry and would have destroyed
our rebuilding effort . Thus, we were
forced to renegotiate the contract."
Robbins, then president of Atari
and now president of ADMA (the
manufacturers' association) , has a
slightly different story, in that he
says, if there was any verbal agree-
ment , Peppard was equally responsi -
ble for that arrangement being
ended.
Robbins said, "I have to tell you I
started it (discussions concerning an
Atari Tournament) . But , after I
started it and after meeting with
Peppard and examining what the
situation was with him , I didn't want
to go through with it. When I talked
with him, I could see he was in deep
trouble . I wanted to bail him out in
that I wanted him to run an Atari
tournament, and I thought I could
make him a few bucks. But he
insisted on making At ari part of his
tournament , and I didn 't want to do
that."
Robbins told Play M eter he then
"asked Frank (Ballou z, Atari vice
presiden t/ marketing) not to go
through with it. I told Frank to forget
it. Even after our meeting in Pebble
Beach at the end of March, when we
announced we were going to do it
and we had already given them
$40,000, I told Ballou z to forget the
40 grand and back out , that I didn't
like it ."
So the question of which party was
most responsible for the cancellation ·
of the verbal agreement is left up in
the air. Was it Atari, which had
announced the association to the
industry and thus compromised
Peppard if it were to pull out? Or was
it Peppard, who began to embellish
on his very favorable deal with Atari ,
to the point that the whole
promotion became something Atari
did not want to be involved in?
Actually, the whole thing becomes
a moot question because, according
to Peppard, the two sides then
renegotiated a new agreement which
required Atari to pay TGI $100,000
instead of $240,000 (which, Peppard
claims, was the figure Atari was
committed to in the first agreement).
Apparently at this point, however ,
serious cracks in the Atari/TGI
alliance started to develop, cracks
which resulted eventually in angry
denunciations by both sides after the
tournament collapsed, creating wide
confusion as far as who was to blame
for the Fiasco.
To Peppard's mind Atari had led
him into a situation where he then
committed to a big-money tourna-
ment that involved Tournament
Games product lines before he was
ready for it. And , because of this ,
Peppard claims, At ari had a "recog-
nized and moral commitment that
went beyond the contract. " And
when this "commitment" was pulled,
then (again in Peppard's words) it
' destroyed me and my company at
the same time."
Peppard claims that Atari knew
" we had gone through a corporate
shuffle coming out of the last tourna-
ment. They knew we had bascially
gon belly up , that the bottom line
was that we couldn't have survived
I hat thing (the $400,000 Tournament
Spectac ular} ."
By contrast, Atari said it knewTGI
had problem but was unaware of
exa tl y how dire those problems
were.
Arrangements
So Peppard said he had to
scramble to set up a series of
arrangements which would keep his
company afloat through this next big
tournament. According to Peppard,
one of those arrangements called for
Atari to help him sell tournament
qualifying kits to the operators for
$25 apiece. At that price, and with a
projec ted 5,000 kits sold, Peppard
figured he co uld make tournament
ends meet. But he sold only 600, and
this low sale total , he claimed, was
again At ari's fault. He maintains
Atari had the responsibility of
helping him market the kits .
But Ballouz of Atari argues that
the tournament qualifying kits were
" 100 percent Tournament Soccer's .
"All advertising and marketing of
the kits was to be done by Tourna-
ment Soccer. We did peripheral
advertising," he said. Ballouz claims
that all this is "spelled out in pro-
posals that have been signed by Mr.
Peppard any myself. "
Also , Peppard claims that going
into the event, he had $20,000
guarantees from each of the three
manufacturing companies whose
lines he represented- U.S . Billiards,
Sutra, and Arachnid.
" The guarantee of $20,000 ,"
Peppard told Play M eter, "I looked at
it strictly as an insurance policy from
my manufacturers saying that if I had
troubles with the event , that I was
(Continu don page 18)
PLAY METER , F bruary 1, 1982
time of the Tournament Spectacular,
"almost all the players were paid off
from the May, 1980 tournament. As
of this tournament, there were only
two or three players who were still
owed money , and they were very
small amounts. All the players were
paid off," Lott' told Play Meter. "He
just didn't pay them off in the time
frame they wou ld have liked, but he
did pay them. And when he didn't
come through in 30 days, he did
come through at least with partial
payments, with 25 or 50 percent
payments."
Yet , despite this terribly com-
promised position, Peppard was
somehow able to keep the company
together , largely because he was
able to keep a lid on exactly how dire
the situation had become.
Atari enters picture
Then , in early 1981 , Atari entered
the picture. Joe Robbins , president
of Atari, approached Peppard with
the idea of having him hold an Atari
world championship tournament.
To Peppard , it was a way out of a
jam.
Peppard told Play M eter, "I very
carefully did not commit this com-
pany (TG I) to another tournament
until we were financially capable of
dealing with it. As much as we
needed a tournament to generate
sale of product , I very carefully
avoided it. But , when Joe Robbins
came to me and said he wanted to do
this, it then gave us the ability to
commit on the tournament. "
P eppard reportedly received
$40,000 up front; and apparently
Atari. in Peppard's words "an-
nounced the ssociation to the
trade ." Still , there was no ign d
contract, only this appar nt verb I
agreem nt betw en th two parties,
which P ppard claims Atari th n
back-pedalled on .
"Atari approached Tournament
Games to organize the Atari World
Championships ," said Peppard, "at a
time when we were rebuilding our
market presence following the dis-
astrous decline in the foosball
market and prior to committing to
any promotional program . A
program was defined and a cost
established through negotiations in
the form of a written proposal.
" Based upon that proposal ,"
Peppard maintains, "Atari sent the
first payment toT ournament Games
and announced the association to
the trade journals. But then prior to
returning a signed agreement , At ari
wavered on their decision , not
16
because of Tournament Games'
involvement but due to a last minute
hesitation about the total cost
associated with a program of this
type . We recognized that for Atari to
withdraw after having announced
the association would have totally
compromised us in the eyes of the
industry and would have destroyed
our rebuilding effort . Thus, we were
forced to renegotiate the contract."
Robbins, then president of Atari
and now president of ADMA (the
manufacturers' association) , has a
slightly different story, in that he
says, if there was any verbal agree-
ment , Peppard was equally responsi -
ble for that arrangement being
ended.
Robbins said, "I have to tell you I
started it (discussions concerning an
Atari Tournament) . But , after I
started it and after meeting with
Peppard and examining what the
situation was with him , I didn't want
to go through with it. When I talked
with him, I could see he was in deep
trouble . I wanted to bail him out in
that I wanted him to run an Atari
tournament, and I thought I could
make him a few bucks. But he
insisted on making At ari part of his
tournament , and I didn 't want to do
that."
Robbins told Play M eter he then
"asked Frank (Ballou z, Atari vice
presiden t/ marketing) not to go
through with it. I told Frank to forget
it. Even after our meeting in Pebble
Beach at the end of March, when we
announced we were going to do it
and we had already given them
$40,000, I told Ballou z to forget the
40 grand and back out , that I didn't
like it ."
So the question of which party was
most responsible for the cancellation ·
of the verbal agreement is left up in
the air. Was it Atari, which had
announced the association to the
industry and thus compromised
Peppard if it were to pull out? Or was
it Peppard, who began to embellish
on his very favorable deal with Atari ,
to the point that the whole
promotion became something Atari
did not want to be involved in?
Actually, the whole thing becomes
a moot question because, according
to Peppard, the two sides then
renegotiated a new agreement which
required Atari to pay TGI $100,000
instead of $240,000 (which, Peppard
claims, was the figure Atari was
committed to in the first agreement).
Apparently at this point, however ,
serious cracks in the Atari/TGI
alliance started to develop, cracks
which resulted eventually in angry
denunciations by both sides after the
tournament collapsed, creating wide
confusion as far as who was to blame
for the Fiasco.
To Peppard's mind Atari had led
him into a situation where he then
committed to a big-money tourna-
ment that involved Tournament
Games product lines before he was
ready for it. And , because of this ,
Peppard claims, At ari had a "recog-
nized and moral commitment that
went beyond the contract. " And
when this "commitment" was pulled,
then (again in Peppard's words) it
' destroyed me and my company at
the same time."
Peppard claims that Atari knew
" we had gone through a corporate
shuffle coming out of the last tourna-
ment. They knew we had bascially
gon belly up , that the bottom line
was that we couldn't have survived
I hat thing (the $400,000 Tournament
Spectac ular} ."
By contrast, Atari said it knewTGI
had problem but was unaware of
exa tl y how dire those problems
were.
Arrangements
So Peppard said he had to
scramble to set up a series of
arrangements which would keep his
company afloat through this next big
tournament. According to Peppard,
one of those arrangements called for
Atari to help him sell tournament
qualifying kits to the operators for
$25 apiece. At that price, and with a
projec ted 5,000 kits sold, Peppard
figured he co uld make tournament
ends meet. But he sold only 600, and
this low sale total , he claimed, was
again At ari's fault. He maintains
Atari had the responsibility of
helping him market the kits .
But Ballouz of Atari argues that
the tournament qualifying kits were
" 100 percent Tournament Soccer's .
"All advertising and marketing of
the kits was to be done by Tourna-
ment Soccer. We did peripheral
advertising," he said. Ballouz claims
that all this is "spelled out in pro-
posals that have been signed by Mr.
Peppard any myself. "
Also , Peppard claims that going
into the event, he had $20,000
guarantees from each of the three
manufacturing companies whose
lines he represented- U.S . Billiards,
Sutra, and Arachnid.
" The guarantee of $20,000 ,"
Peppard told Play M eter, "I looked at
it strictly as an insurance policy from
my manufacturers saying that if I had
troubles with the event , that I was
(Continu don page 18)
PLAY METER , F bruary 1, 1982
Future scanning projects are planned by the International Arcade Museum Library (IAML).