Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Poker Discussion > News, Views, and Gossip
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

View Poll Results: ...
Stop at the line and wait until it is clear? 18 13.24%
pull out into the intersection and wait? 118 86.76%
Voters: 136. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #13  
Old 08-07-2006, 03:42 PM
bluesbassman bluesbassman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Arlington, Va
Posts: 1,176
Default Re: Fossilman\'s Account Hacked?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That the WPT might (literally) be the only game in town is not relevant. They should have the right to conduct their business, for better or worse, in any honest manner they wish. The marquee players of course have the right to boycott or even set-up competing tournaments if they (perhaps correctly) conclude they are not getting good value from the WPT.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's one of the main points of the lawsuit, that options in setting up competing tournaments are limited due to agreements that the WPT has with casinos. The fact that the WPT might be the only game in town is therefore extremely relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not relevant because these agreements between the casinos and the WPT are completely voluntary. Players have no "right" to be provided with tournaments in which to play, if nobody wants to provide or host them, or even to provide them with (what they consider to be) favorable terms and structures.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if the WPT simply closed up shop? Would these players then "sue" to make them offer tournaments?


[/ QUOTE ]

Undoubtedly someone would take their place if it was profitable to do so. You're being ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens if nobody did? This is not unfeasible especially given prospect of getting sued by disgruntled players. By your argument, someone should then be forced to provide tournaments. I don't understand the arbitrary distinction between offering bad tournaments and offering no tournaments. Why should the latter be legal, but the former illegal?

[ QUOTE ]
You act like this is breaking some new kind of antitrust ground. (I'm not a lawyer but it sure doesn't sound like it to me.) I don't really see how it would be bad for players if a court told organizations such as the WPT that they cannot prevent the casinos who host their tournaments from hosting other televised tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may not in fact be breaking antitrust ground, which is why I oppose such laws.

It's bad because nobody, including and especially the government, has any right to tell what agreements the casinos may freely make with the WPT and other organizations. Nor does anyone have the right to force the WPT to offer certain terms or tournament structures.
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.