Jamie Gold Responds to $12 M WSOP Lawsuit

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
People are really quick to jump on Jamie Gold without any real understanding of the facts. I don't have any real understanding of them either, but what I have read gives me no indication that Gold is trying to breach a deal.

My impression of this lawsuit is that Gold is not trying to deny Leyser his share, but is instead trying to structure the division in a way that will reduce their tax liability.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course Gold is trying to breach. Not just trying -- he already has breached by refusing to instruct Harrah's within a reasonable amount of time to release Gold's half to Gold.

And there's no such thing as "structuring the division in a way that will reduce their tax liability." The structure is that Gold gets half and Leyser gets half. There shouldn't be anything more to it than that.

If Gold wants to take a few weeks to form a corporation or whatever -- which will not reduce his tax liability at all -- he is free to do so. It would be stupid, but hey, it's his money. But that doesn't give him the right to hold up the payment to Leyser.

Leyser owned half of Gold. Harrah's should pay Leyser his half. But Harrah's can't do that without either Gold's permission or a court order. So Leyser is getting a court order.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't a lot of this come down to what the oral contract laws are in Nevada? I've always wondered how that worked. If the contract was conceived orally then it can be broken orally right?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you mean by that. "Breaking" contracts is not allowed. If you breach a contract, you get sued.

[ QUOTE ]
So if this thing is going to court I'm sure Gold's big time lawyer is going to use every trick he can to prove 1) the oral contract was not binding or 2) take some spin on it and say he canceled the contract a few days prior to the phone call.

[/ QUOTE ]
A lawyer may try to come up with some reason why the contract was not binding, but I can't think of anything off the top of my head, assuming the story happened as was reported. (I.e., that Gold promised him half in return for getting celebrities to play, and that Leyser actually did get celebrities to play.)

Gold has no right to "cancel" the deal after Leyser got the celebrities.

[ QUOTE ]
This could go a million ways in court. Would some of the lawyers on here mind chiming in about how these oral contracts are usually defended in court, and what the success rate of the defendant winning is.

[/ QUOTE ]
If Gold really contracted to give Leyser half (as established by phone recordings), there's little Gold's attorney will be able to do. Normally, a defendant would argue either that Leyser didn't perform his part of the bargain (although that'd be difficult in this case since Gold actually got the WSOP seat), or that the terms of the deal were different from what the plaintiff is claiming (e.g., he only promised 25%, not 50% -- but this seems unlikely based on what we know so far). Stuff like that.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]

I cannot imagine how this is anything other than a very simple tax situation.

Gold files his 1040 with a Schedule C claiming the entire 12M minus various customary deductions of his trade. He gives Leyser a 1099 for 6M (and, of course, the 6M itself) and deducts that from his gross Schedule C earnings and pays taxes on the (roughly) 6M net left over.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a lot simpler than that. Gold doesn't claim $12M. He claims $6M because that's how much Harrah's pays him, as would be reflected in the information Harrah's provides to the IRS. Harrah's would pay the other $6 million to Leyser.

[MrMon]

I think you're all looking at this in the wrong way. It's more of a strategic move by Gold to save some money by throwing FUD into the mixture.

Look at it this way. You make an oral promise to share 50% of your winnings with a backer. Suddenly, you win a lot more than you thought you would, $12 million. You owe the guy $6 million. But, if you can somehow reduce that, by whatever means, that's a pretty handsome payday. It's an oral agreement, you can claim all sorts of things about terms, conditions, even the existence of the agreement. Gum up the works, and hope the guy makes a deal. If it works, you could save a million or two. If it doesn't, you lose a couple hundred thousand in legal fees.

Sure, you're a douche, and hated by a lot of people, but as a bet, isn't getting 10x on your money a pretty good play? Especially if the endorsement stuff means nothing to you, as you'd rather not do it. People in losing positions do this in business all the time.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're all looking at this in the wrong way. It's more of a strategic move by Gold to save some money by throwing FUD into the mixture.

Look at it this way. You make an oral promise to share 50% of your winnings with a backer. Suddenly, you win a lot more than you thought you would, $12 million. You owe the guy $6 million. But, if you can somehow reduce that, by whatever means, that's a pretty handsome payday. It's an oral agreement, you can claim all sorts of things about terms, conditions, even the existence of the agreement. Gum up the works, and hope the guy makes a deal. If it works, you could save a million or two. If it doesn't, you lose a couple hundred thousand in legal fees.

Sure, you're a douche, and hated by a lot of people, but as a bet, isn't getting 10x on your money a pretty good play? Especially if the endorsement stuff means nothing to you, as you'd rather not do it. People in losing positions do this in business all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that makes sense. LOL You make a deal with a guy, try to screw him, and become an outcast in the professional poker community as someone whose word means nothing, but you may end up saving a million or two. I guess it depends on your priorities, huh?

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, you're a douche, and hated by a lot of nerdy poker geeks on 2+2 who are so small a number it doesn't mean a thing to you, but as a bet, isn't getting 10x on your money a pretty good play? Especially if the endorsement stuff means nothing to you, as you'd rather not do it. People in losing positions do this in business all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP ... the idea that anyone outside a small, small, miniscule number of 2p2rs even have an opinion, let alone hate, is idiotic.

NCAces

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure, you're a douche, and hated by a lot of nerdy poker geeks on 2+2 who are so small a number it doesn't mean a thing to you, but as a bet, isn't getting 10x on your money a pretty good play? Especially if the endorsement stuff means nothing to you, as you'd rather not do it. People in losing positions do this in business all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP ... the idea that anyone outside a small, small, miniscule number of 2p2rs even have an opinion, let alone hate, is idiotic.

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think that professional poker players, and the public in general, would have a negative opinion of a guy who doesn't pay people the money that he owes them? The top poker pros make huge prop bets and loan/borrow huge sums of money from each other on a daily basis based on nothing but their word. Do you honestly think that somebody like Doyle Brunson would have anything to do with a player whose word means nothing?

What's idiotic is to think that nobody besides people in this forum would care about a world champion who tries to screw people that he owes money to.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't think that professional poker players, and the public in general, would have a negative opinion of a guy who doesn't pay people the money that he owes them?

[/ QUOTE ]

The general public has no idea that poker is even televised, has no idea there is a WSOP, and could absolutely care less about what the poker champion does or does not do. The extent to which people on this forum exaggerate the level of the general public's knowledge of, or interest in, televised poker is astonishing. If I did a "man on the street" survey and asked, "who is the 2006 WSOP Main Event champion?" I'd be lucky if 1 out of 100 people could give me the answer. Even after the FT airs, I will be lucky to get 1 out 100.

You are projecting ... just because you (and I) spend/waste an inordinate amount of our time here, doesn't make it a mainstream activity that many people know about or care about.

[ QUOTE ]
What's idiotic is to think that nobody besides people in this forum would care about a world champion who tries to screw people that he owes money to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which brings me to my second point ... how exactly do you know that the world champion is trying to screw people? Think before you answer, because conjecture (notwithstanding that we are in the NVG forum) is not what I am looking for. There have been a number of good posts here explaining both Gold's and Leyser's actions that don't point to anyone trying to screw the other.

For the record, I have defended Gold since days before the FT when the haters were irrationally dumping all over him. And, while I continue to defend him now by asking people to state facts, not conjecture, if it turns out that he is trying to screw people I will be very disappointed and the first to say that my gut feeling trust in him was misplaced. Money -- lots of money -- causes people to do crazy things, but I will reserve judgment until all the facts are out.

That is why I think it is idiotic.

NCACes

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't think that professional poker players, and the public in general, would have a negative opinion of a guy who doesn't pay people the money that he owes them?

[/ QUOTE ]

The general public has no idea that poker is even televised, has no idea there is a WSOP, and could absolutely care less about what the poker champion does or does not do. The extent to which people on this forum exaggerate the level of the general public's knowledge of, or interest in, televised poker is astonishing. If I did a "man on the street" survey and asked, "who is the 2006 WSOP Main Event champion?" I'd be lucky if 1 out of 100 people could give me the answer. Even after the FT airs, I will be lucky to get 1 out 100.

You are projecting ... just because you (and I) spend/waste an inordinate amount of our time here, doesn't make it a mainstream activity that many people know about or care about.

[ QUOTE ]
What's idiotic is to think that nobody besides people in this forum would care about a world champion who tries to screw people that he owes money to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which brings me to my second point ... how exactly do you know that the world champion is trying to screw people? Think before you answer, because conjecture (notwithstanding that we are in the NVG forum) is not what I am looking for. There have been a number of good posts here explaining both Gold's and Leyser's actions that don't point to anyone trying to screw the other.

For the record, I have defended Gold since days before the FT when the haters were irrationally dumping all over him. And, while I continue to defend him now by asking people to state facts, not conjecture, if it turns out that he is trying to screw people I will be very disappointed and the first to say that my gut feeling trust in him was misplaced. Money -- lots of money -- causes people to do crazy things, but I will reserve judgment until all the facts are out.

That is why I think it is idiotic.

NCACes

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to get off your high, holier-than-though horse, counselor. This is a gossip forum. If gossip irritates you, then perhaps you should stop reading this forum.

The fact that you claim that the general public does not even know that poker is televised speaks to the credibility, or lack thereof, of your other assertions.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Which brings me to my second point ... how exactly do you know that the world champion is trying to screw people? Think before you answer, because conjecture (notwithstanding that we are in the NVG forum) is not what I am looking for.

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems to be a fact that Gold promised Leyser 50%. It also seems to be a fact that Gold hasn't yet instructed the Rio to release Lesyer's half to Leyser. If those two apparent facts are true (do you have reason to doubt them?), then Gold is not "trying to" screw Leyser -- he is screwing Leyser. He's already breached their deal.