SAM_Hard8 50 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 There is no "smoking gun." These players overvalue their self worth to the WPT in a big way. The WPT doesn't need them one bit frankly. If they never played in another WPT event I don't think the WPT would suffer one bit.There's the rub. They benefit exponentially more because of the existence of the WSOP then the WSOP benefits from them.BTW I love his Little Green Book Link to post Share on other sites
umop-apisdn 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Right, first of all because selling Bloch bobbleheads would earn the company millions and millions of dollars ... There is no "smoking gun." These players overvalue their self worth to the WPT in a big way. The WPT doesn't need them one bit frankly. If they never played in another WPT event I don't think the WPT would suffer one bit.Maybe not bobbleheads... but that WPT azz cream sounds like a sure-fire winner...As for boycotting poker tournaments - good point, makes me wonder why some would attempt to use a boycott of the WSOP to get the changes they demand made. Link to post Share on other sites
eYank 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Phil should go back to what he does best, not winning bracelets.ownedbut he makes the point of the WPT using his name for **** cream, but when they used daniels face for an ad, they took it down right away, he is probably just mad Link to post Share on other sites
Batch 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 lol.....................sailor moon good eyeall around i think there are balls that are being tasted all over this threadthen why don't they just get rid of the release Link to post Share on other sites
HulkHogan 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Right, first of all because selling Bloch bobbleheads would earn the company millions and millions of dollars The WPT has done NOTHING like that... ever! They have NEVER used a players name and likeness inappropriately to sell products. Not once.The fact that WPT has never exploited the player for marketing or commercial value is not a guarantee that it never will happen. Maybe the current management of WPT are good people and will not do such a thing, but what if WPT is taken over by someone with different views?I´m pretty sure DN wouldn´t be too happy to see his face on a number of products he do not like, and getting no money for it either. Because it seems like the release says that WPT can do whatever they want to with the images and names of the players.And if WPT are not going to do this, if they will not exploit the players and use their image to sell products other than the TV-show itself... what is the problem? Just change the release, if the WPT are not foing to exploit the clauses there are no reason for the clauses to be there.And what if the release and the conditions are illegal? Shouldn´t WPT be forced into following the law? It is a good thing that the courts get to take a look at the contracts players sign, if there is nothing wrong with it; fine. Then the 7 players have lost some money and WPT and DN is happy. If WPT should lose the suit it shows that WPT was wrong and the 7 players were right for suing... BTW, sorry for the poor grammar Link to post Share on other sites
JMnsto 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 To an outsider it seems like Daniel sees this as more of a moral issue rather than a legal issue. He has repeadetly pointed out that sueing the people who made them rich and famous is - not only immoral - but also bad for the players involved and poker in general. This may be true. However he has only vaguely referred to some discussions with his lawyers when it comes to the actual legal issue. I don't know how thorough his investigations have been, but if WPT BROKE THE LAW, then it just isn't acceptable nevermind what they have accomplished. Imho.But it may well be that this isn't a simple true/false issue according to law. It may be that either side could win this case. It may be up to the lawyers. But what do I know.It would be nice to know what the 7 players did to avoid the law suit and how WPT replied. It could really shed some light on this feud.ps. sorry about my English. It's not my native tongue. Link to post Share on other sites
WowThats 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 My personal opinion the players should be compensated for the use of their image, voice and marketing of such.On the other sideAs a consumer I would not be induced to purchase anything any poker player endorsed ever. Link to post Share on other sites
Batch 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 then why don't they just get rid of the releaseI would love it if they put out a line of Negreanu pink speedos and a very metro clothing line with wpt logos all over em and see what danny boy thinks then. Tear up the release allready. Link to post Share on other sites
Aardhart 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 It annoys me to no end that Gordon, Bloch, and co. contuniously use that, "How would you feel if they made a bobblehead with your image on it and didn't pay you!" ... The WPT has done NOTHING like that... ever! They have NEVER used a players name and likeness inappropriately to sell products. Not once.What about the allegation in paras. 57 & 58?http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...showtopic=70141There is no "smoking gun."Yes there is. There is the release itself that Lyle has refused to modify.The WPT doesn't need them one bit frankly. If they never played in another WPT event I don't think the WPT would suffer one bit.This is precisely right, but I don't think the 7 disagree with you. Other methods of pressure have failed. That's why they filed the lawsuit. As I read on another blog: "I heard a story, confirmed by Ron Rose, that Lyle had a meeting in 2004/5 with all the winners of the inaugural season of the WPT. He walked into the meeting late, and his first statement was (pretty much) that 'the WPT could get 6 monkeys for the TV final table and the WPT would be just as successful.' (or something close enough to that.)" http://extempore.livejournal.com/156155.ht...547899#t3547899Is there any defensible reason for Lyle's insistence on a release that EVERYBODY thinks is overbroad? Link to post Share on other sites
JMnsto 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 BTW, sorry for the poor grammar ps. sorry about my English. It's not my native tongue. We foreigners sure suck. Link to post Share on other sites
M101A1-105 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 I say lock it up and lets move on to the next topic. How many left in the ME? Who's going to win? With what hand? Link to post Share on other sites
HulkHogan 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 To an outsider it seems like Daniel sees this as more of a moral issue rather than a legal issue. He has repeadetly pointed out that sueing the people who made them rich and famous is - not only immoral - but also bad for the players involved and poker in general.Yeah, by using DNs logic he should stop bashing the US government as they are/were responsible for creating the Internet, which he has made good money from... Link to post Share on other sites
M101A1-105 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Yeah, by using DNs logic he should stop bashing the US government as they are/were responsible for creating the Internet, which he has made good money from...Al Gore invented that, didn't he? Link to post Share on other sites
kaosgirl 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 There is no "smoking gun." These players overvalue their self worth to the WPT in a big way. The WPT doesn't need them one bit frankly. If they never played in another WPT event I don't think the WPT would suffer one bit.Just guessing here, but that could be why they're talking to antitrust lawyers rather than just boycotting the events to make their point. Antitrust suits are all about situations where "they" dont need "you" as much as you need Them. Link to post Share on other sites
Kei 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Just guessing here, but that could be why they're talking to antitrust lawyers rather than just boycotting the events to make their point. Antitrust suits are all about situations where "they" dont need "you" as much as you need Them.Good point.Original antitrust lawsuits, and subsuquent lawsuits, were about corporations that abused the power they held. They knew that their customers needed them far more than they needed their customers, and therefore they could push the limits of what they're allowed to do.Saying that the WPT doesn't need the players only helps to reinforce the Seven's argument. Link to post Share on other sites
WowThats 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 As long as the WPT (or competing company's) poker events will be televised poker players will want their 15 minutes... Sponsor company's do not need any endorsements. Link to post Share on other sites
hungerfan 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 I am waiting for the Cage Match Event to take place. I would put money down to watch fight.The 7 vs another 6 + Daniel. The 6 others could wear mask so we don't know who they are and they could all beat the crap out of each other until someone wins. Once the dust cleared from the carnage we could all go back to playing poker and having fun.Ed Link to post Share on other sites
GoStags92 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Phil Gordon: our lawyers are not dumbasses - - they are the best antitrust legal counsel in the business, they won free agency for NFL, NBA, MLB, and othersFree Agency has ruined the game...no matter what the sport. Link to post Share on other sites
dudeunothatdude 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 There is one thing I do not understand about this lawsuit. The seven constantly compare poker to the NFL, NBA, etc. However, while the players in these leauges sign contracts to play for the leauge and a specific team, poker players are not required to play in a specific tournament or even play for the WPT, WSOP, EPT, etc. There participation is optional, while if a player refuses to take the field he most likely will be cut and therefore not paid. Phil Gordon says that he has the same team of lawyers which helped develop free agency. I believe however that these two issues are not related. These players cannot be traded, forced to switch teams, or be cut. Their participation in any tournament is optional no one requires them to do anything. I also believe tho, that this entire lawsuit is being blown out of proportion, but it is necessary for players to stand up for what they believe...i guess. Link to post Share on other sites
ford14 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Am I the only one wondering why it's just an issue now? I'm assuming the WPT has used the same release since it's inception, and I know that Bloch, Gordon, Lederer, etc. have had to sign those releases in the past, as they've played in events. Those releases, if nothing has changed, allows the WPT to use their image and likeness in perpetuity. If these players had already signed these releases and then signed other endorsement deals in the meantime that conflict with the wording of the WPT release, wouldn't the endorsement contract be the conflicting document, rather than the WPT release? Link to post Share on other sites
DanielSon 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Lol I love the point he brings up about the !@* cream billboard. First of all, Daniel is right, the WPT has never done anything close to that, so his point is completely mute. Sure they 'could' do it, but they haven't and there's no need to get up in arms about it unless they actually did do something like this. Second, if I won a WPT tournament and walked outside to see that billboard, I would just smile and know that I'm just paying my dues for what they did with the poker world. Hey I'll do an *** cream commercial right now to get that lawsuit dropped because of how it's going to affect the poker community in a negative way...is an *** cream commercial so hard? Come on phil...just pay your dues...I'll do the *** cream commercial even if they don't drop the lawsuit, I would do it to honor the WPT... Link to post Share on other sites
HulkHogan 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 There is one thing I do not understand about this lawsuit. The seven constantly compare poker to the NFL, NBA, etc. However, while the players in these leauges sign contracts to play for the leauge and a specific team, poker players are not required to play in a specific tournament or even play for the WPT, WSOP, EPT, etc. There participation is optional, while if a player refuses to take the field he most likely will be cut and therefore not paid.Last couple of years there have been some cases where players have challenged the draft eligebilty-rules of the NFL. They did so because they wanted to play in the NFL, but was not satisfied with the rules the league had. Nobody forces them to go to NFL, they can play AFL or Canadian Football in stead, but because NFL is the place to be and where the money is they felt it was worth it to challenge the validity of the NFL rules. The same is kind of the case with "the 7" and the WPT-rules. Link to post Share on other sites
jowest 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 There is one thing I do not understand about this lawsuit. The seven constantly compare poker to the NFL, NBA, etc. However, while the players in these leauges sign contracts to play for the leauge and a specific team, poker players are not required to play in a specific tournament or even play for the WPT, WSOP, EPT, etc. There participation is optional, while if a player refuses to take the field he most likely will be cut and therefore not paid. Phil Gordon says that he has the same team of lawyers which helped develop free agency. I believe however that these two issues are not related. These players cannot be traded, forced to switch teams, or be cut. Their participation in any tournament is optional no one requires them to do anything. I also believe tho, that this entire lawsuit is being blown out of proportion, but it is necessary for players to stand up for what they believe...i guess.welcome to the forums. Please do not take offense to my next comment.Holy crap I have never seen a topic bring more nOObs out of hiding before in my life!!On another note, I highly doubt the 7 are simply bored and needed something to do. I think they genuinly believe they are helping others out. For that I commend them. However, the timing is wrong. It almost seems like the timing was simply to call attention to themselves. Maybe Andy wants to sell more bobbleheads. Who knows.But seriously, if what Lyle (God bless Lyle) says is true why the hell would he not just simply change the damn language in the contract. That is not a tough thing to do. Especially when he admits they will never need to do what the contract would allow. The WPT is losing enough money, why is this so important that they will dump several houndred thousand in legal fees just to keep the existing one. It seems there is way more to this than we can know right now.IMO this wreaks of a pending sale of WPT. I know you are thinking that if they were pending a sale then they would want this to go away. To that I say maybe they need the contracts to stay the same for a reason.Who knows. But I am serious in that I feel this is bad for poker right now simply because of their affiliation with online sites. Link to post Share on other sites
cap gusto 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 I am in agreement with HulkHogan on this. I have seen it repeatedly posted that these players could just opt to not play on the WPT. Even Daniel has said that they play or start optional tournaments at other casinos. The problem with that logic is that the WPT does have the largest fields and is the most recognizable circuit. If the players were to start or play in other tournaments they would automatically be at a severe disadvantage. Link to post Share on other sites
milbucksfans 0 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 If the WPT has never taken advantage of their "in perpetuity throughout the universe" clause, and never intends to, then why have the clause? Why is it even available to them if they don't plan to use it at some point?Isn't that the real issue? Daniel goes to great lengths to explain that there is "no smoking gun", but does there need to be? I can't understand why he would defend the WPT's stance so vehemently with regard to the "player's likeness" clause. If it's written into the contract, it's available. So why is the WPT so adamant about keeping it if they never intend to use it?They're willing to go to court to defend it. One would think there must be an underlying reason. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now