Jump to content


Phil Gordon Makes A Good Point About The Wpt Lawsuit, Don't Be Bias, Read


  • Please log in to reply
147 replies to this topic

#41 WowThats

WowThats

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 312 posts

Posted 08 August 2006 - 12:26 PM

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.

#42 hungerfan

hungerfan

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 08 August 2006 - 12:29 PM

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

#43 GoStags92

GoStags92

    Mongo only pawn... in game of life.

  • Members
  • 1,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV
  • Interests:Most things interest me
  • Favorite Poker Game:NLH, Limit HE

Posted 08 August 2006 - 12:33 PM

View Postxtxoxpxd, on Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 12:52 PM, said:

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 others
Free Agency has ruined the game...no matter what the sport.
"Nothing says 'do me' like a set of pearly white teeth!"
- Olly

#44 dudeunothatdude

dudeunothatdude

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:NL holdem

Posted 08 August 2006 - 12:38 PM

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.

#45 ford14

ford14

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 204 posts
  • Location:MN/SD border

Posted 08 August 2006 - 12:43 PM

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?

#46 DanielSon

DanielSon

    Senator Bill Frist's Page

  • Members
  • 1,066 posts

Posted 08 August 2006 - 12:46 PM

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...
Daniel Negreanu's Self Appointed Son

#47 HulkHogan

HulkHogan

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 25 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:NL HE

Posted 08 August 2006 - 12:48 PM

View Postdudeunothatdude, on Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 2:38 PM, said:

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.

#48 jowest

jowest

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 613 posts

Posted 08 August 2006 - 12:51 PM

View Postdudeunothatdude, on Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 1:38 PM, said:

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.
if you are anywhere near Portland Oregon click here: http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...showtopic=64932

#49 cap gusto

cap gusto

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 104 posts
  • Location:Gainesville, Florida

Posted 08 August 2006 - 12:51 PM

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.

#50 milbucksfans

milbucksfans

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 106 posts
  • Location:Milwaukee, WI

Posted 08 August 2006 - 12:54 PM

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.

#51 bbz_Ghost

bbz_Ghost

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 20 posts
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV, USA
  • Interests:Computers, poker, hypnosis, consumer electronics, music, movies...
  • Favorite Poker Game:Texas Hold'em

Posted 08 August 2006 - 12:54 PM

What gets me is how so many people keep saying "suing the people that made them rich and famous."Sorry, but the people that make poker players rich and famous are (drumroll please)...Other poker players that pony up buy-ins to tournaments that make up the prize pool, unless you're talking about some big damn freeroll that's sponsored by some corporate lackeys. It would be nice if people would give credit where the credit is due: poker players put money in other poker player's pockets, 'nuff said.I think I understand the gist of the lawsuit, and I'm not going to start rattling off at the mouth (whoa, me?) but I'd say it's best left to the people involved in it firsthand. Sure, we can read the releases, we can read the debates, the arguments, even the litigation paperwork itself, but in the end we're still not going to understand the full ramifications of how this thing is going to play out.Basically as I get it, they (the players) are pissed that the WPT release (the one I read that supposed isn't going to be changed) gives the WPT the "universal" right to use the player's images, faces, representations, voices, etc any damned way they choose.Now, someone explain this to me like I'm a 6 year old, but if you get a legal document in front of you and you read it from start to finish and note all the stuff in between, and you read they can use you like a "sockpuppet" (sorry, had to do it) for their own nefarious purposes, and you then proceed to sign that document, doesn't that bind you to it?Sure, you can read it beforehand and complain about it, but at that point you say Yay or you say Nay and go on about your business. Either accept it or not accept it. The issue at hand now is that this group of 7 has stepped up "for the betterment of poker players everywhere" and is now taking the forefront of this supposed litigation thing - and I might be mistaken here but I think that's Daniel's issue with it:Who asked these people to step up in the first place? Wouldn't it be better for each player as an individual to just read the release and say, "Take this and wipe your *** with it, Mr. <insert WPT official's name here>" ?I agree with Daniel on one aspect: in the end, this is going to be bad for poker overall since it's attracting negative publicity. And screw the old maxim that "Bad press is better than no press at all" because in this case, it's negative all the way around and over and under and back around again.Just my $.02... and change...bb
"There are two things that are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not really sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

#52 milbucksfans

milbucksfans

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 106 posts
  • Location:Milwaukee, WI

Posted 08 August 2006 - 12:57 PM

View Postford14, on Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 12:43 PM, said:

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?
I'm not certain, but I believe the contract has been altered within the last year or so to add the ominous language. I'm sure someone will be very quick to correct that if I'm wrong.

#53 cap gusto

cap gusto

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 104 posts
  • Location:Gainesville, Florida

Posted 08 August 2006 - 12:58 PM

I have seen many people state that the WPT should just change the release form and I completely agree that it needs to be changed. The problem is that even if it were changed today...the lawsuit would still be going ahead.The reason is the already existing signed release forms. I believe that the players are fighting not only for a change to the existing form but for a nullification of the previous forms.

#54 $ STACKED $

$ STACKED $

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 08 August 2006 - 01:14 PM

I wish someone would bring a lawsuit against STACKED and Dan W. of Myelin Media....they're the real criminals!

#55 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 25,327 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 08 August 2006 - 01:15 PM

View Postibuddy, on Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 2:26 PM, said:

interesting chat with Phil Gordon.
One time when I was 16, I was driving around with a couple friends and one of my friends threw a firework into the open window of another vehicle with 16 year olds in it. It was a little black cat or something. Well, then later that night, my best friend called me and said to come down to the [insert local hang out place]. I did, and a when we got out, (I was still with my friends from earlier) a whole gang of people jumped on the car and pulled out the dude that threw the firework and beat the crap out of him. I didn't get beat up, as I was well respected (and huge...6'7"), but I hate my best friend for like 3 years, because he betrayed my trust.... That being said... if you told Phil that you won't say anything and then decided that you would betray his trust because you wanted to be e-cool for 15 minutes, then I hope you get stomach cancer.go away and never post here again.ps... I liked the chat it was interesting...nh.

View PostiZuma, on 20 August 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

napa I was jesus christing suited, you guys just slipped in before me.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

.

#56 FileError404

FileError404

    I Win With The A High - You can't fool me...

  • Members
  • 1,586 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 08 August 2006 - 01:17 PM

View PostDanielNegreanu, on Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 2:53 PM, said:

Right, first of all because selling Bloch bobbleheads would earn the company millions and millions of dollars :club: The WPT has done NOTHING like that... ever! They have NEVER used a players name and likeness inappropriately to sell products. Not once.
Well, wait a while. When they use your image in 3 or 5 or 20 years, right after you've won a big tourney to promote their new poker site (or WPT Cigarettes...), you might change your mind. Just because they never did it doesn't mean they never will. Otherwise why wouldn't they just change the clause? I think you're a little too trusting. Sure, I believe Lipscomb and Berman, too but they won't be around in perpetuity, your signature will.Good luck!

#57 XA_kid

XA_kid

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 64 posts

Posted 08 August 2006 - 01:26 PM

Honestly, while I can see where Daniel is coming from and am annoyed at some comments that have been made by the 7, I do believe that they are right.There's a clause in the contract that grants unlimited usage of a player's personal images.So? It's not like they have used their images to any large extent.But who's to say they aren't going to?It's a mute point because you deal in what-ifs.Fine. Germany passed progressively Anti-Jewish laws that eventually led to the Holocaust during WWII. I am sure that people who looked at the situation went "Ok they put them in Ghettos. I don't think the Germans are going to commit Genocide so we had better stay out of it. No point in getting involved in what-ifs."That may be an extreme example, but it does carry my point. I could understand if the WPT was a freeroll and the players should be able to give up something in return, but they pay $10K every event and upwards and a precentage of that is rake. This is not a free ride for them. And this contract which some people cannot enter into hurts those players because it cuts off a source of income. Chris Ferguson has done very well in the WSOP circuit 10K events and think of the lost income to him since he can't play in WPT events due to his contract with Activision?Why not change the release clause, Lyle Berman, unless you have something to gain in the future?Honestly, while I can see where Daniel is coming from and am annoyed at some comments that have been made by the 7, I do believe that they are right.There's a clause in the contract that grants unlimited usage of a player's personal images.So? It's not like they have used their images to any large extent.But who's to say they aren't going to?It's a mute point because you deal in what-ifs.Fine. Germany passed progressively Anti-Jewish laws that eventually led to the Holocaust during WWII. I am sure that people who looked at the situation went "Ok they put them in Ghettos. I don't think the Germans are going to commit Genocide so we had better stay out of it. No point in getting involved in what-ifs."That may be an extreme example, but it does carry my point. I could understand if the WPT was a freeroll and the players should be able to give up something in return, but they pay $10K every event and upwards and a precentage of that is rake. This is not a free ride for them. And this contract which some people cannot enter into hurts those players because it cuts off a source of income. Chris Ferguson has done very well in the WSOP circuit 10K events and think of the lost income to him since he can't play in WPT events due to his contract with Activision?Why not change the release clause, Lyle Berman, unless you have something to gain in the future?

#58 Tiltinagain

Tiltinagain

    Every village has it's idiot. Welcome to our village.

  • Members
  • 6,027 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nor Cal
  • Interests:Poker, gun dog training, fishing, upland hunting, not dying from Lymphoma. Not necessarily in that order.
  • Favorite Poker Game:Liquor in the front. Poker in the rear

Posted 08 August 2006 - 01:26 PM

View Postcap gusto, on Tuesday, August 8th, 2006, 1:58 PM, said:

I have seen many people state that the WPT should just change the release form and I completely agree that it needs to be changed. The problem is that even if it were changed today...the lawsuit would still be going ahead.The reason is the already existing signed release forms. I believe that the players are fighting not only for a change to the existing form but for a nullification of the previous forms.
So what Daniel has been saying is correct. The players had no problem signing the waivers in the past, before they became celebraties (sp) but now that there's been this huge poker boom and there's money to be made by selling and/or endorsing items with their name and/or likeness on them, they want out of the deal. Look, I agree that it seems like the "logical" way to end this is for the WPT to stop including the offending release(s) from their agreements, especially if they really don't plan to do anything with them, but why should they be forced to if they don't want to? The WPT is a business no different from any other. They are there to make a profit. Period. Like with any business, if you don't like they way they do things you don't have to use their service or buy their products. Period. How can there be an anti-trust issue when there is no monopoly? The WPT made an agreement with a gaming property to televise it's tourneys exclusively, for which I'm sure the gaming property was paid. That's just ONE property! As DN had said, there are plenty of properties in Vegas, and around the country, that have no such exclusivity agreement and are thus free to hold and telecast any tournament they choose. McDonalds has an exclusive agreement to sell only Coke, Taco Bell can only sell Pepsi products. These kinds of deals are done in business all the time and this lawsuit will do nothing to change that. If this is really such a big issue for the "poker community" why then are other pro players not running to the podium to back these 7? Howcome DN can name 30 top pro's that think this is a bad lawsuit and should be dropped and there's only 7 moderately successful "pro's" (I don't consider Raymer or Hachem pro's just because they won enough money in one tourney to quit their jobs, but that's another debate) that are for it? Even Phil can only say "www.wptlawsuit.com" when pressed for answers. Why is that? Why didn't he counter anything DN said with facts rather than just saying "he's not being overly intelligent on this issue" etc... Then give the facts to make us more intelligent because just reading your lawsuit and the back and forth with the editorial page still makes you look like a sure fire loser of $200,000. And lastly, they're lawyers Phil. They took the lawsuit because you're paying them to. Period

View PostJubilantLankyLad, on 23 October 2015 - 04:24 PM, said:

Go to hell, brvy.

View Postfrautotenkinder, on 22 May 2014 - 09:20 PM, said:

I am not comfortable with vaginas and lunch meats being in the same metaphor. Anything besides saying or implying that is an improvement.



speedz99 said:

Fine...when god dies, I'll be ok with people being upset on facebook.


#59 bbz_Ghost

bbz_Ghost

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 20 posts
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV, USA
  • Interests:Computers, poker, hypnosis, consumer electronics, music, movies...
  • Favorite Poker Game:Texas Hold'em

Posted 08 August 2006 - 01:32 PM

If Phil is one of the litigants, he might have been warned or simply instructed to not talk about the case because it's in process, who knows. Or he could be covering his own you-know-what.Pepsi owns Taco Bell, by the way. Seems like a damned good reason to not sell Coke products, right? :)bb
"There are two things that are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not really sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

#60 Suited_Up

Suited_Up

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 25,723 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago
  • Interests:Poker and Sports

Posted 08 August 2006 - 01:38 PM

Am I wrong, or isn't there another part to this lawsuit having to do with MGM/Mirage and WPT's exclusivity deal?If there is a 2nd part, I think this is simple.The part discussed by Gordon.... it makes sense from his point of view. I see what DN is saying, but better safe than sorry as far as the terms of the release go. Although I don't see why WPT would have to change it if they don't want to. They're a company, and get players voluntarily, and unless there are laws against putting certain things into release forms, then I don't know how much of a case there is. I'm not an expert so I won't say. But I do see why it should be changed.But as for the 2nd part. That is ridiculous and should never see the light of day. There are plenty of casino's all over the place for other tournaments to take place. I also noticed that Phil didn't bring that part up. Which is why I think either, it's a much weaker case, or maybe not existent anymore. I haven't followed closely enough to tell you which one.
-Kurt




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users