7 Players Vs The Wpt

[DanielNegreanu 141]

What I find interesting about the players involved in this suit is that only 3 of them established themselves publically though the WPT: Lederer, Gordon, and Bloch. Otherwise, the other 4 have gained their (TV) notoriety though ESPN and the WSOP events. Are Hachem, Raymer, Ferguson, and Duke doing this in an effort to set precedent for the so-called "limitations" placed forth by ESPN?Either way, I agree, that this will do nothing positive to further promote poker on TV.

Actually, if you really think about it, all of the players have profitted from the WPT since the WPT was responsible for the WSOP's growth.

[mcpickl 0]

Excellent post. It echoes my sentiments for sure. As I said in my v-blog, I could care less who is right or wrong here. Of course the WPT is "sticking it to us" in several ways, but it ain't illegal and as long as the demand is there they can continue to do what they want. The only way to get the WPT to feel the pressure from the players is to get a large group of players to be on the same page. These seven players aren't strong enough to bring down the WPT with a boycott.

hey Daniel,don't you think that the WPT sticking it to you is enough reason to fight? Or at least, enough reason for others to fight even though you disagree with them? Ive heard Lederer say on more than one occasion he appreciates everything the WPT has done for him, he doesn't begrudge them trying to make money, he just thinks they shouldn't be able to use his image on whatever they please.If the WPT decided to add to their player release that by playing in a WPT event, you could not play in a WSOP event, would that be OK? You would still have the right to say I don't like the release so I'm not playing, but that doesn't make it right.Baseball had something a bit similar years ago, where Curt Flood fought against the reserve clause. He stood up because he thought it was unfair that MLB could just send him to any team or city, and he had no say in the matter for his entire career. MLB could have made the same claim others in this thread are making. If you don't like it don't play. There are other baseball leagues you can play in, that pay considerably less than this one, so if you don't like it, go play there. MLB sure did a lot for Curt Floods career, as much or more than the WPT has done for their star players, but they tried to push that too far.It's fine to disagree with the lawsuit, and the players involved in it, but to take it so personally seems a bit much.they feel this issue is big enough to fight for, you don't.just agree to disagreemichael

[BearCanada 0]

I think Daniel was right on when he said in his blog if you don't like the terms then don't play. If the WPT wasn't important that's exactly what these players would do but the fact is thew WPT is important and because they have built themselves and the players up to help make poker what it is today, they want some control of the product they built. I understand the players wanting their fair share but I think it's hard to argue that they aren't. Would there be all the websites, DVD's, Books, endorsements, and the ability for players to brand themselves if it weren't for enterprises like the WPT? I say no. It's greed and it's canabalistic. It's like these players are saying hey WPT you owe me for helping to make poker a massive commercial success and thereby increasing my ability to be very wealthy. Poker players should look at the big professional sports. When players go on strike and say the owners are greedy it rings hollow to those who support the game. Without an audience the money is nowhere near what it is today. Thee WPT deserves a certain level of respect and gratitude from the players. It's sorry when players have an inflated sense of self-importance and don't show gratitude for the opportunity to make great money and live an amazing lifestyle. I know they earn it but I think the WPT has earned their status as well and the ability to say here are our terms. -Bear.

[Jerry 0]

I don't think the 7 players would have sued only for the reasons you have mentioned DN. There has got to be more to it.EDIT* The check you wrote me after the Protege final bounced. So if you could send a new one that'd be great.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

hey Daniel,don't you think that the WPT sticking it to you is enough reason to fight? Or at least, enough reason for others to fight even though you disagree with them? Ive heard Lederer say on more than one occasion he appreciates everything the WPT has done for him, he doesn't begrudge them trying to make money, he just thinks they shouldn't be able to use his image on whatever they please.If the WPT decided to add to their player release that by playing in a WPT event, you could not play in a WSOP event, would that be OK? You would still have the right to say I don't like the release so I'm not playing, but that doesn't make it right.

The WPT is a business and they have to think about maximizing profits. Harrah's is a thousand times the villain the WPT is but for some bizarre reason the group has no issue with them. I'm all for fighting for what's right, but there has to be something to fight for? I just don't get why they are singling out the WPT, the one group they owe their livelyhood to. The one group that made them what they are today. The one group that gave them an opportunity to make residual income in the first place. That's a fact. If the WPT asked the players to play exclusivley on their tour, and their tour alone, then I'm certain that a large group of players would boycott and they'd quickly change their tune. That's an interesting hypothetical, but it doesn't relate to what's truly happening with the WPT. The WPT does NOT have the right to "steal" the players images. It reserves the right to use footage from THEIR show! I think they should have every right to do that. How in the world should the players have the right to say, no, you can't put me in a commercial to promote next weeks show. Do you realize how difficult it would be to do things without getting the players consent first? The release is broad to ensure that they don't have to deal with so many petty lawsuits. The WPT has done NOTHING to steal a player's image and use it against their will. The WSOP has.

[insano 0]

The WPT is a business and they have to think about maximizing profits. Harrah's is a thousand times the villain the WPT is but for some bizarre reason the group has no issue with them. I'm all for fighting for what's right, but there has to be something to fight for? I just don't get why they are singling out the WPT, the one group they owe their livelyhood to. The one group that made them what they are today. The one group that gave them an opportunity to make residual income in the first place. That's a fact. If the WPT asked the players to play exclusivley on their tour, and their tour alone, then I'm certain that a large group of players would boycott and they'd quickly change their tune. That's an interesting hypothetical, but it doesn't relate to what's truly happening with the WPT. The WPT does NOT have the right to "steal" the players images. It reserves the right to use footage from THEIR show! I think they should have every right to do that. How in the world should the players have the right to say, no, you can't put me in a commercial to promote next weeks show. Do you realize how difficult it would be to do things without getting the players consent first? The release is broad to ensure that they don't have to deal with so many petty lawsuits. The WPT has done NOTHING to steal a player's image and use it against their will. The WSOP has.

Did you have any confrontations with any of the 7 at the WSOP? It seems (Raymer at least) they may have an axe to grind with you for being so publicly against their suit?

[DanielNegreanu 141]

I think Daniel was right on when he said in his blog if you don't like the terms then don't play. If the WPT wasn't important that's exactly what these players would do but the fact is thew WPT is important and because they have built themselves and the players up to help make poker what it is today, they want some control of the product they built. I understand the players wanting their fair share but I think it's hard to argue that they aren't. Would there be all the websites, DVD's, Books, endorsements, and the ability for players to brand themselves if it weren't for enterprises like the WPT? I say no. It's greed and it's canabalistic. It's like these players are saying hey WPT you owe me for helping to make poker a massive commercial success and thereby increasing my ability to be very wealthy. Poker players should look at the big professional sports. When players go on strike and say the owners are greedy it rings hollow to those who support the game. Without an audience the money is nowhere near what it is today. Thee WPT deserves a certain level of respect and gratitude from the players. It's sorry when players have an inflated sense of self-importance and don't show gratitude for the opportunity to make great money and live an amazing lifestyle. I know they earn it but I think the WPT has earned their status as well and the ability to say here are our terms. -Bear.

You are absolutely right. I agree with the sentiment that it comes from an inflated sense of self-importance. All of the players should feel a sense of immense gratitude toward the WPT for even taking the chance on the show. They gave us all a stage to shine, which for many of us, turned into opportunities to make residual income. I don't agree with all of the ways the WPT conducts business, but I can tell you this, I'm extremely grateful to Lyle Berman and Steve Lipscomb for being pioneers of a new poker world.

[GoStags92 0]

Actually, if you really think about it, all of the players have profitted from the WPT since the WPT was responsible for the WSOP's growth.

I see your point. The WPT made poker on TV the thing, which enhanced the coverage of the 2003 WSOP, which in turn grew the level of excitement even more. After that WSOP, WPT events grew even bigger in size. A pretty nice cycle if you ask me.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Did you have any confrontations with any of the 7 at the WSOP? It seems (Raymer at least) they may have an axe to grind with you for being so publicly against their suit?

I spoke briefly with Andy Bloch before his face got beet red and said, "There is no use talking to you!!!!" I spoke with Chris Ferguson later that night, and he told me,"By taking the position you take Daniel, you are against the players." I was supposed to talk to Howard also but haven't had a chance. I don't speak with Annie and don't think any good could come out of a conversation there. Phil Gordon, I just don't think we live in the same world as far as what we think the world owes us. Joe Hashem, is one that surprises me in a big way! He's new to the poker world and I'm not so sure how involved he is in the suit aside from putting his name to it. As for Raymer, after his comments I don't think I'd want to have anything to do with him. He called me a tool and a sock puppet for the WPT. He was also "glad to see me bust" from the WSOP main event. I'm not going to bother with that guy. I could give you a list of at least 30 names of high profile players who all agree that the 7 who are suing aren't doing what's in the best interest of poker. I find it a little bizarre frankly that they claim to be doing a service for all players. Oh really? What about what they are doing will improve Can Kim Hua's life? How about Hung La, is he all gung ho about the lawsuit as well? What about the lawsuit will "protect" Hung?

[mcpickl 0]

I spoke briefly with Andy Bloch before his face got beet red and said, "There is no use talking to you!!!!" I spoke with Chris Ferguson later that night, and he told me,"By taking the position you take Daniel, you are against the players." I was supposed to talk to Howard also but haven't had a chance. I don't speak with Annie and don't think any good could come out of a conversation there. Phil Gordon, I just don't think we live in the same world as far as what we think the world owes us. Joe Hashem, is one that surprises me in a big way! He's new to the poker world and I'm not so sure how involved he is in the suit aside from putting his name to it. As for Raymer, after his comments I don't think I'd want to have anything to do with him. He called me a tool and a sock puppet for the WPT. He was also "glad to see me bust" from the WSOP main event. I'm not going to bother with that guy. I could give you a list of at least 30 names of high profile players who all agree that the 7 who are suing aren't doing what's in the best interest of poker. I find it a little bizarre frankly that they claim to be doing a service for all players. Oh really? What about what they are doing will improve Can Kim Hua's life? How about Hung La, is he all gung ho about the lawsuit as well? What about the lawsuit will "protect" Hung?

that was certainly uncalled for, and somewhat surprising from Greg. Ive met him a couple times and he came off like a real class act. these guys must be getting quite a bit of pressure from this lawsuit and are cracking.

[DanielSon 0]

that was certainly uncalled for, and somewhat surprising from Greg. Ive met him a couple times and he came off like a real class act. these guys must be getting quite a bit of pressure from this lawsuit and are cracking.

Matusow taught Raymer how to talk smack at the 2004 WSOP remember? lol

[zsta2k6 0]

The WPT does NOT have the right to "steal" the players images. It reserves the right to use footage from THEIR show! I think they should have every right to do that. How in the world should the players have the right to say, no, you can't put me in a commercial to promote next weeks show. Do you realize how difficult it would be to do things without getting the players consent first? The release is broad to ensure that they don't have to deal with so many petty lawsuits. The WPT has done NOTHING to steal a player's image and use it against their will. The WSOP has.

If I'm not mistaken, the lawsuit is about a clause in the WPT release that would allow WPTE to use a players likeness in any WPT product they want, not just promotion of the show/dvd releases of the show. The way the WPT release is currently worded, the next WPT video game could be WPT 2k7 featuring Daniel Negreanu and you would have no recourse of action, they could sell chipsets with your likeness on the chips, they could start selling DN shirts, glasses, boxers, thongs, etc. but as long as they are a WPT product, there isnt anything you could do about it.I havent read anything saying the players in the lawsuit dont want to be used for promotional material for the show itself, it's the extraneous items outside of the show that the release mentions the suit takes issue with. If I final tabled a WPT event, I wouldnt want them making zsta2k6 thongs.I see where you are coming from, and you are correct about the WPT never taking advantage of this clause in their release, but with them losing more money every year, I wouldnt put it past a declining business to try to pull something like the aformentioned merchandise. I really dont see how you could take your current stance, especially seeing you are one of the most recognizable players in poker. You have much more trust than I my friend, much more.

[JnkPoker 0]

Lol.. love it how they all say they do it for ALL players.. yeaaa right.. in their own dreamworld for fks sake. Suprised me too that Greg called DN all that.. so stupid.Go daniel I agree 100% with u.

[personacom 0]

I must be missing something here. Isn't the real issue here that if you have an exclusive agreement with another poker entity that the WPT release could conflict with that, especially if the WPT can use your image in video games and other things related to the WPT?Isn't that the issue that the 7 really really have problem with? If I have an exclusive agreement for my image/personality with PlayboyPokerEnterprises, and PPE has paid me handsomely for the right to my image, it seems that my deal is diluted if WPT can create me in a game simply because I played a WPT tournament.I preface this all by saying I have not seen the new WPT release, but it seems to me that this is where the conflict comes into play... And I agree that this probably puts a focus where we don't want a focus right now.... it is too bad that the players can't all be unified on this one way or the other...PC

[SeanPhillippi 0]

I spoke briefly with Andy Bloch before his face got beet red and said, "There is no use talking to you!!!!" I spoke with Chris Ferguson later that night, and he told me,"By taking the position you take Daniel, you are against the players." I was supposed to talk to Howard also but haven't had a chance. I don't speak with Annie and don't think any good could come out of a conversation there. Phil Gordon, I just don't think we live in the same world as far as what we think the world owes us. Joe Hashem, is one that surprises me in a big way! He's new to the poker world and I'm not so sure how involved he is in the suit aside from putting his name to it. As for Raymer, after his comments I don't think I'd want to have anything to do with him. He called me a tool and a sock puppet for the WPT. He was also "glad to see me bust" from the WSOP main event. I'm not going to bother with that guy. I could give you a list of at least 30 names of high profile players who all agree that the 7 who are suing aren't doing what's in the best interest of poker. I find it a little bizarre frankly that they claim to be doing a service for all players. Oh really? What about what they are doing will improve Can Kim Hua's life? How about Hung La, is he all gung ho about the lawsuit as well? What about the lawsuit will "protect" Hung?

Forming a players union is definitely going to be the most successful route for poker players to take. This lawsuit can do nothing but make poker look bad. The players have no shot at winning it and have nothing to gain from bringing the lawsuit.If the players form a union, then they can make substantive changes. The WSOP and WPT would have to collectively bargain with a players union by law. If they refuse to do so, or do not collectively bargain in good faith, they would be breaking the law and would open themselves up to liability. A union could also get thousands of members, which in turn would make the WSOP and WPT take notice and would force them to deal with the problems that the seven players are complaining about.A union could also be a median where player who have legitimate gripes could go. They could be an intermediary between the player and the WSOP and WPT for major issues. I am sure there are a thousand issues where players get the short end of the stick and a union could probably fix many of them.Also, a players union could be a force in the political arena as well. Harry Reid is a U.S. Senator from Nevada, and he is also the minority leader of the senate. A union could be used to lobby lawmakers like Reid to get them to assist in passing common sense laws when it comes to poker.There would be thousands of people, not just top professionals but also home game players from across the world, that would join such a union. A union would charge something like $25 in dues for a year, and in turn you would get an “official” union members card (which would probably cost less than a dollar to make and send out). I am sure people would join just to be a part of the same union as professional players like Doyle Brunson and DN. Tens of thousands of players would join, which would give the proposed union some real teeth.A union, much like what the NBA, MLB, and NFL gave, makes so much sense that I am shocked that someone isn’t trying to make this happen.Daniel, is the PPA an official union? If it isn’t, then why isn’t it? Why hasn’t someone stepped up to the plate and taken the lead on this?It sickens me that such a great game like poker is probably going to be dragged through the mud. This lawsuit can only bring bad things. Forming a union, as long as the people organizing it play their cards right, could bring nothing but good press. It could be spun as poker players coming out of the shadows (like it is portrayed in Tilt and Rounders) and cleaning itself up by the players coming together to address all of the issues poker faces on and off the felt.I cannot stand ego getting in the way of progress, and I just feel like that is what is happening with the lawsuit.

[qyayqi 11]

Excellent post. It echoes my sentiments for sure. As I said in my v-blog, I could care less who is right or wrong here. Of course the WPT is "sticking it to us" in several ways, but it ain't illegal and as long as the demand is there they can continue to do what they want. The only way to get the WPT to feel the pressure from the players is to get a large group of players to be on the same page. These seven players aren't strong enough to bring down the WPT with a boycott.

if they're sticking it to you and you do nothing, they will continue to stick it to you. this is a cornerstone of capitalism and the semi-benevolent plutocracy that is north america. the lawsuit has put a spotlight on the issue to have it discussed, and brings forward the idea of a players' union. the more that poker assumes a proper business model and gets mainstreamed, the better it is for all. it doesn't have to be a dirty little secret. (just don't tell my mother that i play, she'll dis-own me.)i still don't think that the lawsuit will have much of an effect on joe average poker player. most will never hear about it, and the legal result will not directly affect any of us. but it is a significant step toward the recognition that players have rights. and they should, being the ones that supply their own paycheques via the buy-ins.

[silkyjonson 1]

I think it may be a little unfair to call the 7 the ungrateful seven. Lets not forget that they paid their own way into the WPt tournaments. And yes the WPT did do a lot for poker and did raise the status of the game and top pros like DN to a level that could not have been achieved without it. With that being said it should not be confused that the WPT's sole motivation was it's own profit, just like any other corporation the WPT is going to act in its own best interest, and because of that the players must act in their own best interest and fight for their rights.Im sure there are lots of people on this forum that work in a factory or a large corporation or know someone that does. It would be easy to say that the people that work in that factory owe their income and support to that company, but it would also be fair to say that, that factory owes those people for the work they've done and the profits in which they have helped to produce. Because of that it is more than fair for the workers to fight for a proper wage and benefits in proportion to the success of that corporation. I am not speaking on what this could do in terms of negative publicity (as I really dont know anything in that area) but I am trying to say that I believe that the players should have the right to put a fight if they think that the WPT is overstepping its boundaries. Bottom line I don't think that the players owe the WPT anything, the players are a huge part of the WPT's success, the two were synergistic and needed each other. Im purely speaking in terms of morals and what I believe is right, in terms of the legality I have no clue about the case or what the case involves, but I do think that poker players in general should wait to see what develops and not jump done Raymer and Co.'s throats.Although I do agree with Daniel that they may be going about this in the wrong way or at the wrong time, but I think that there motives are in the interest of poker players and I do respect their initiative to fight.

[Marchione 0]

EDIT* The check you wrote me after the Protege final bounced. So if you could send a new one that'd be great.maybe poker players are not making as much as we think

[mrdannyg 274]

It doesn't matter whether we agree or not because this is a matter of fact and not opinion. It is a fact that the seven players do not have a legal basis for their lawsuit.

As llou described, it is absolutely not a fact here. The players allowed the WPT to use their images. However any law implies reasonability tests (i don't know the correct term). It is easy to say that we disagree on whether or not the WPT's usage of the player's images was reasonable, given what they signed.I disagree that it was reasonable, since the usage of their images was different than how images were used by other, similar companies, such as the WSOP. I believe it is more reasonable to expect that my image, if i were a player, would be used in the same fashion as we both know it had been used in the past, rather than as much as possible, to the very letter of a standard release form.

Actually, if you really think about it, all of the players have profitted from the WPT since the WPT was responsible for the WSOP's growth.

You've made this point several times, and seem to base a lot off of it, even though it is far from proven. Most would argue that the WSOP exploded with the Moneymaker phenomenon. The growth of the WSOP during the time of the WPT cannot be denied, but it is clearly a symbiotic relationship. I think most people would consider that the WPT benefited more from the WSOP than vice versa, though it would be tough to definitively say one way or the other. To simply state that the WPT has been responsible for the WSOP's recent extreme growth seems ludicrous. Even more so, since the WPT has not been particularly profitable.

[jayboogie 0]

This lawsuit is plain and simply bad for poker as a whole. It's funny how the lawsuit is being made generally by a group of players who are known more either as 1 hit wonders or through endorsements/commentary of poker rather than actual poker results. I think it's pretty obvious that this group of players has their own best interests in mind with this case and not the general poker population. The WPT is a business and of course they're going to look after their own bottom line before they worry about what the players think. They're a business and are entitled to do what they feel is best for their business whether the players like it or not. The fact of the matter is the WPT started the rush of poker being on television. The WSOP was never really televised much until the WPT came along and showed that poker on television could draw a solid audience especially with the hole card cams. Don't get it twisted, the WSOP would not be the type of televised event it is today without the WPT starting it all off.The average poker player does not earn residual income from poker, we do not earn a dime from endorsements or anything like that. So how does the lawsuit benefit your average poker player? It's only going to be bad, because both sides will slander the other in order to win the case. In the end, all this does is put poker in a bad light to the general public and it's the last thing we need with online poker being already under the microscope. The WPT rules are clearly stated before the tournament and they are not altered, everybody plays the event knowing full well the structure involved. Unlike the WSOP, there has not been the same amount of controversy regarding controversial decisions made by floorstaff and tournament directors. If you do not like the WPT rules, you have the option not to play. As has been said before the way to go about making changes is to form some sort of players union where everyone gets their say, not through a lawsuit that puts poker in a bad light and is only beneficial to name players who received residual income through poker.

[pokergeekinaz 0]

I totally agree with Daniel on this. This is just another ridculous lawsuit like so many others that get filed. Though at least 3 of them have played at a WPT TV final table (Lederer and Bloch in season 1 and Gordon winning at Bay 101), so Daniel's Survivor reference in one of his v-blogs doesn't really work here. As for the players themselves, Bloch just seems to be out of his mind (see his antics at the HORSE event as proof), Ferguson seems to be getting a bit of an ego from all of his popularity, Lederer is probably the most level headed of the group and would likely listen to Daniel more than anyone else. His sister, on the other hand, seems like a complete ditz (but could someone explain to me why Duke and Daniel don't speak to each other). Gordon, like Chris, is getting the ego issue as well. Joe Hachem seems to be level headed as well, but isn't as experienced. Maybe he got talked into joining the lawsuit by someone like Raymer.Speaking of Raymer, am I the only one who wants to start pelting him with fossils? Talk about unprofessional and classless. He could've had a civil discussion with Daniel on this. Instead, he talks **** in an online forum and in a chat room, acting like a child with his name calling. WTF? I don't blame Daniel for saying what he said in his v-blog about it and wouldn't have blamed him for saying more. Honestly, I have more respect for Phil Hellmuth as a person than I do for Raymer after all of this. And unlike Daniel, I'll be rooting for Raymer to go broke in tournaments until he shows that he's grown up.

[El Guapo 8]

Daniel,Have you confirmed that Raymer said the things that the OP put in his post from Poker Stars? That could have easily been faked or altered from a session that he was playing.I am not saying it is fake, but sounds a little childish verbage from a lawyer. I know it is basically quick type chat. I just cannot picture someone like Raymer using that vernacular (not that I know him, just what I see on TV).

[thatguy 0]

Daniel,Have you confirmed that Raymer said the things that the OP put in his post from Poker Stars? That could have easily been faked or altered from a session that he was playing.I am not saying it is fake, but sounds a little childish verbage from a lawyer. I know it is basically quick type chat. I just cannot picture someone like Raymer using that vernacular (not that I know him, just what I see on TV).

Greg admitted to it on the twoplustwo forums.

[ColeSLaw 0]

The name/likeness claim has no merit what so ever. To have a legally binding contract you just need three things, and I know quite a bit about contact law. Those three things are offer, acceptance, and consideration. That’s all you need to have a valid contract.

With all due respect, in this case contract law intersects with restraint of trade and assignment of rights and becomes a lot more complicated. Add to that antitrust law, and these are complex legal issues. The result is far from certain.While everyone is entitled to their opinion, simplistic legal analysis is not very valuable to the discussion in my opinion.

[El Guapo 8]

Thx, read that after I posted. Still think all the verbal jabbing is pretty weird.