Jump to content

A Message To Daniel


Recommended Posts

The government isn't going to go after online poker because of this lawsuit.Did anyone notice that they went after online poker BEFORE this lawsuit?Than why would this lawsuit change squat?
Politicians, especially in an election year like the one that we are in, panders to public opinion. The GOP is trying to stay in power, and on of the ways they have done it in the past is by having a message of "morals". If this lawsuit gets negative press because it turns into a mudslinging contest, then I could see, and would actually expect, some senators to take this up as a cause and ban online poker. I could see Santorum, Talent, and/or DeWine doing this as they are fighting for their poltiical lives.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Politicians, especially in an election year like the one that we are in, panders to public opinion. The GOP is trying to stay in power, and on of the ways they have done it in the past is by having a message of "morals". If this lawsuit gets negative press because it turns into a mudslinging contest, then I could see, and would actually expect, some senators to take this up as a cause and ban online poker. I could see Santorum, Talent, and/or DeWine doing this as they are fighting for their poltiical lives.
This statement has merit. I agree with you Sean
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no knowledge of the way in which the American legal system works, but i can't help but side with the '7'. I would imagine that if any one of us entered a WPT event, won it, then 3 months later saw ourselves on a billboard advertising some cheap product, we would be somewhat put out. And, if anyone says "if that person didn't want to risk that happening then they shouldn't have signed the contract", then please also tell me where else they could play instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not so sure about that.I don't know if they have a system for it or not. Maybe they do. But I still don't agree with it. I don't see why it should be turbo once you hit the final table.
If they want it to be turbo they can....it's their tournament isn't it??p.s. Howie, I still haven't received your call about the FullTilt Blind structures....you can text me if you'd rather.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think your arguments have been shown to have no legal merit whatsoever in previous threads please don't continue down that same road.
No, they have not. People say my claims have no merit, and when I ask them to back that up with facts they NEVER have.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see both sides:A-H doesn't want the WPT selling Howard Lederer bobblehead vibrators.B-I'd have no f'ing clue who Howard Lederer is if it weren't for the WPT.As long as I can keep playing Crazy Pineapple online, I don't care what happens unless I can make money from it.Is there a site taking any action on the outcome?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no knowledge of the way in which the American legal system works, but i can't help but side with the '7'. I would imagine that if any one of us entered a WPT event, won it, then 3 months later saw ourselves on a billboard advertising some cheap product, we would be somewhat put out. And, if anyone says "if that person didn't want to risk that happening then they shouldn't have signed the contract", then please also tell me where else they could play instead.
It wouldn't trouble me in the least.I'd be on a beach count my $2 million B) Wah, wah I've won $2 million wah, wah my pictures on a billboard wah, wah lifes so tough
Link to post
Share on other sites
If they want it to be turbo they can....it's their tournament isn't it??p.s. Howie, I still haven't received your call about the FullTilt Blind structures....you can text me if you'd rather.
If they have a preset rule that says they're going to do that, then yes. But if they decide at whim, then no.Still waiting to hear if that's actually the case though. I don't know for sure.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can certainly see both sides of this. Daniels point that he had posted in another thread regarding how players shouldn't be that concerned with the fact that the WPT retains there likeness because the WPT hasn't done anything in this realm yet is a little off base to me. I've paid house insurance for five years and have never had a claim but I pay it just in case. I think it would be foolish to leave this provision in the WPT release when its easy to see how it could lead to problems in the future. Being proactive on the issue seems like a smart move. These players started boycotting the WPT quite sometime ago so its highly likely that multiple attempts to resolve this situation have been taken but didn't go anywhere. Whether you agree with them or not I think it admirable that these players are willing to step up and risk there money/time/reputations for a cause that they truely believe in. It certainly seems like horrible timing to file this suit considering the online gaming issue but I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear that that was the plan. This is an issue that the WPT has known was coming for a long time and they certainly need to be held at least somewhat accountable for not making greater strides to rectify this problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what I take issue with. I have read the WPT release, as well as drawn up many such releases in conjunction with a lawyer as I produce films. I have no fame to speak of, but the contract is so broad I'm not sure I would sign it just on principle.This is my other concern. If the WPTE is ever sold, the new controlling entity need not stay true to the spirit of the current WPTE owners. They will have free reign to do whatever they choose.The WPT contracts are terrible and need to be changed, but I am no lawyer so I do not know if this lawsuit is the best way to go about it. I hope it all works out.
These are very important points which all seven of us feel need to be resolved.
Link to post
Share on other sites
These are very important points which all seven of us feel need to be resolved.
GREAT...the Professor of poker just told Cfinnn she was right.As if winning a seat into the main event wasn't enough.There will be NO LIVING with her now. :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Howard, why haven't the seven of you tried to form a players union?The law is very powerful if you there was a players union with a couple thousand members, then the WPT would have to listen to you. A union is afforded rights that seven players by themselves are not.
This is an entirely untrue statement of the law. You're missing one major point about unions -- they provided certain protections under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act for "employees." Poker players are not employees of the WPT, or (with the exception of some house players, I suppose) of any casino for that matter. Federal labor law just doesn't haphazardly protect whoever wants to form a union, and not everyone can form a union. Indeed, I would argue that because poker players are independent contractors, they legally cannot form a union. Thus, they are limited to putting together a loosely-tied advocacy group (which they have done) that gets no special protection under the law. Thus, your repeated (in this thread and others) suggestion that poker players form a union cannot happen. The reason that poker players are entirely separate from baseball players, actors, etc. is that poker players receive no wages at all from the WPT -- thus, not an employee. All of the money is put up entirely by the players themselves.Also, with regard to your claim that since there's a contract, it must be enforceable, go find your Black's Law Dictionary and look up adesion (contract of), unconscionable and "declaratory judgment." It'll make you look much better when you post your legal expertise in this forum.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The WPT could easily exclude those rights from the package should they decide to sell. I honestly don't think they are that valuable in the first place. As I scan through mags like Card Player, the obvious choice to use poker players as endorsers, I see no, not one, ad with a players likeness endorsing anything but the online sites they play for.Really, what are the chances of some product bidding for poker player endorsements?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Howard,I assume that your group has had extensive discussions with the WPT and their lawyers about your concerns? It seems to me that the "universe" clause is ridiculous and the WPT would likely be prepared to modify that clause significantly. I am just wondering if there were any proposals made prior to the issuing of the claim? From your previous posts, it seems your claim ( I have not read the pleadings) is seeking a declaration that the release is unfair and invalid, as well as compensatory damages? I would assume that unless there are provable damages in relation to loss of marketability etc. the damages would relate to lost earnings or winnings from the tournaments that you have not been able to play in for the last year or so? If that is the case, I would be interested to hear how you intend to prove the quantum of those damages? I assume you will need to call expert evidence, likely from a poker expert and an economist?I have not yet come to a conclusion as to who is "right" in this dispute, but it is certainly very interesting, and hopefully, the resolution will, in fact, work in favour of all WPT players. I wish you the best of luck.Black99

Link to post
Share on other sites
Politicians, especially in an election year like the one that we are in, panders to public opinion. The GOP is trying to stay in power, and on of the ways they have done it in the past is by having a message of "morals". If this lawsuit gets negative press because it turns into a mudslinging contest, then I could see, and would actually expect, some senators to take this up as a cause and ban online poker. I could see Santorum, Talent, and/or DeWine doing this as they are fighting for their poltiical lives.
With what political group? The Christian fundamentalist? What will be their agenda?Vote for me because poker players are making money online? But we're going to ignore the pornography that makes up half the profits of the internet? The people that would be happy if online poker was shut down are not going to vote Democrat anyway.Quit worrying about the online poker ban, when party poker etc. ponies up the dough, gives the IRS their cut, and 'shows their appreciation' to some select members of Congress, this issue will go away.The focus group that cares about this is nothing vote-wise. Politicians are into this issue for money and money only. That's why they went after Microsoft, not for votes, for money.There are no coat tails here to win votes, none.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the release needing some changes or at least some more clarity on some murky clauses. But the anti-trust against them for having exclusive deals with MGM\Mirage is going too far. Its private property and they have the right to allow certain customers in while not letting others step foot inside. Exclusive deals in business happen all the time. If you look at sports arenas they make exclusive deals with soft drink and beer companys so others cant sell there products there. If I owned a basketball team could I just go up to Madison Square Gardens and just tell them you have to have me as a tenant or I will sue you? I think not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are three major issues. First, the number of tournaments is limited by the agreements between the WPT and the host casinos. Not sure I understand this one but I'm guessing that the WPT is trying to protect their investment by limiting the # of big events at the major casinos (e.g. Bellagio, Foxwoods, Commerce etc). Too much dilution would weaken the prestige of the WPT major events. Same reason why you don't hold two events at Wimbledon or Augusta each year. Not sure why the seven are against this...Second, the release and the broad rights the WPT feels like it should have in terms of our name and likeness are completely unfair, particularly considering they don’t pay for those. We have no choice in the matter. I'd have to side with the seven on this one from everything that I read. It sounds like the WPT agrees that they wouldn't mis-use the name/likeness of the players so why not change the release?As someone else mentioned, companies can be sold so verbal declarations aren't worth anything; only what is stated in the contract/release.If you don't sign, then you can't play at many of the most prestigious events with the main exception of the WSOP.And finally the structures of the final tables. These are all fixed in all WPT events and that’s a big problem because you have these great tournaments that have taken four or five days to get down to six players and then it’s over in four hours. That’s a real shame.From a skill level, I agree with the seven. However, the WPT is in the entertainment business and is a public company that is losing money. Their stock has been hammered and they need to do everything they can to make a profit.I wouldn't agree that a crap shoot final table structure gains more TV eyes but I'm not privy to their market research. Maybe the casual fan on the travel channel likes it that way and more eyes means more ad dollars.Since the WPT is a public company, they have to answer to their shareholders so from that standpoint, they've done a terrible job over the past few years.The key is to obviously find some middle ground where the players gain more benefits and the WPT stops bleeding red ink and turns to profit. I can see how this lawsuit helps the players but I don't see the benefit to WPT shareholders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am undecided about whether or not I think this is really Howard. If in fact it is, I would like to say that this is the way I would expect him to post. Come into the forum and post a respectful plea for Daniel to get ahold of him so they can talk. There would be much less tension in the air if everyone involved acted with such class.I am not making a statement on the merits of the case. I am not qualified to do that. Yet, I read things that the op has posted and can now see some of the points posted as being valid. I also agree that the timing in relation to all that is going on may not be the best.My sincere hope is that this is truly Howard L and that Daniel will get in touch with him and they can have a respectful meeting of the minds and at least agree to disagree without either side trashing the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, some people around here really need to grow up.I have read this board for a long time, and it has gotten so bad, that I usually just skim strategy and usually never post. But the level of disrespect being thrown around is ridiculous, and frankly, if I were Daniel, I would be a little upset.Someone like Howard Lederer comes on here wanting to have an honest conversation and is actually willing to field questions about what the '7''s reasons are pertaining to a lawsuit--a lawsuit that has generated a billion threads in the last 2 days-- and a lot of people have nothing better to do but come on here and make jabs at him and be rude for no reason other than to pad your stupid post count or to make yourself look cool. Its not.Same goes for the crap last week with Jennifer Harmon.Some of you need a reality check. Seriously. Look in the mirror and realize that you spent all day on a forum bashing people for no reason, or wishing kidney failure on someone, etc. etc. Its stupid and downright cruel. Some things are funny and there are a time and place for them, but this ain't it.I would urge everyone who has no idea what the hell they are talking about (approx. 99 percent of us) to sit back and let players like Sean or others that have interesting perspectives chime in. Calling Howard names, or his sister names, or Greg Raymer fat, or any of that other crap, just because you are siding with Daniel on an issue is stupid. These people aren't your enemies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Howard,I assume that your group has had extensive discussions with the WPT and their lawyers about your concerns? It seems to me that the "universe" clause is ridiculous and the WPT would likely be prepared to modify that clause significantly. I am just wondering if there were any proposals made prior to the issuing of the claim? From your previous posts, it seems your claim ( I have not read the pleadings) is seeking a declaration that the release is unfair and invalid, as well as compensatory damages? I would assume that unless there are provable damages in relation to loss of marketability etc. the damages would relate to lost earnings or winnings from the tournaments that you have not been able to play in for the last year or so? If that is the case, I would be interested to hear how you intend to prove the quantum of those damages? I assume you will need to call expert evidence, likely from a poker expert and an economist?I have not yet come to a conclusion as to who is "right" in this dispute, but it is certainly very interesting, and hopefully, the resolution will, in fact, work in favour of all WPT players. I wish you the best of luck.Black99
We have had a number of meetings with the WPT and to be honest they are very ignornant and naive about the issue until we brought up the lawsuit. The lawsuit was a last effort and we would not get involved in it if we felt we did not stand a chance. Even if we lose at least the issue did not got get seen to. in response to a post i saw a while back about our reputation been destroyed regardless. I dont agree with this. However if it must, it must. I know this is a wild comparison but Galileo's reputation was destroyed when he accused the Church of wrongful claims.With regards to our strategic plan i am afraid i cannot go into that. I am sorry this will be my last post as i have other business. There were some excellent points and hopefully Daniel can change his views after reading this if he does so. The main point of this was to make sure this ordeal does not turn sour.
Link to post
Share on other sites
With what political group? The Christian fundamentalist? What will be their agenda?Vote for me because poker players are making money online? But we're going to ignore the pornography that makes up half the profits of the internet? The people that would be happy if online poker was shut down are not going to vote Democrat anyway.Quit worrying about the online poker ban, when party poker etc. ponies up the dough, gives the IRS their cut, and 'shows their appreciation' to some select members of Congress, this issue will go away.The focus group that cares about this is nothing vote-wise. Politicians are into this issue for money and money only. That's why they went after Microsoft, not for votes, for money.There are no coat tails here to win votes, none.
"The people that would be happy if online poker was shut down are not going to vote Democrat anyway."This is exactly my point. The GOP might take this up as an issue because they people that are against it is their base. The GOP needs to get their people to vote. GOTV efforts are the most important for anyone running for office. They could use this issue to energize their base and get their people to go and vote this November.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"The people that would be happy if online poker was shut down are not going to vote Democrat anyway."This is exactly my point. The GOP might take this up as an issue because they people that are against it is their base. The GOP needs to get their people to vote. GOTV efforts are the most important for anyone running for office. They could use this issue to energize their base and get their people to go and vote this November.
While there is a war going on and a threat from Iran?The elections will be a remake of Churchill vs Chamberlin '38Poker will never come up on any politicians campaigns, not one.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...