Jamie Gold Responds to $12 M WSOP Lawsuit

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The general public has no idea that poker is even televised

[/ QUOTE ]

I rest my case. LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you lose, or else you don't get outside the poker community very often.

LOL all you want ... out of the 100, how many? Come on lawman, respond or say Uncle. How many?

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

At least 90 people out of 100 know that poker is televised. Now go out on the street and start questioning people to prove to yourself something that anyone with an IQ over 100 already knows. LOL LOL LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

We need to wrap up this thread jack,and I think we both lost sight of what the original discussion was about:

Someone said: "Sure, you're a douche, and hated by a lot of people," (referring to Gold)

I responded with a FYP: "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,"

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

You resonded: "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? ... 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."

I read this and think to myself, I don't think the public in general knows who the world champion is, let alone cares about what he has done or hasn't done.

I responded: "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."

I will agree that the general pulic does know that poker is televised. Not 90% as you believe, but enough to state that I overstated that part of my point. However, I stand by my statement that the general public could care less about what the poker champion does or does not do.

To that end, I stated, "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." After all, they have to know that there is a 2006 ME Champ and who he is to care, yes?

You've not responded to my man-on-the-street question.

So, my final position is: (1) alot of people don't hate Jamie Gold, (2) the general public doesn't know who Jamie Gold is, nor do they care what he may have done with regard to sharing his winnnings, and (3) anyone here at 2p2 who says the general public would care about this is projecting their love and involvement of the game and poker community well beyond its respresentation within the general public.

You may disagree and that is fine. I am done with the dicussion and moving along.

To all, sorry about the threadjack.

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

Although you seem to have been making fun of my post, I tend to agree with you, with a few exceptions. If this whole thing plays out like I think it will, that Gold is angling to save a few million off his deal, he will be hated by a lot of people, but even more won't care. A lot more. He'll have more than enough to play anywhere and anytime he wants, it's not like everyone will get up from the table whenever he sits down. He won't be barred from casinos, he'll just be ill thought of by some in the know. He's from Hollywood, Land of The Broken Deal, do you really think he cares? The only downside to shaving money off his original deal is some possible downside on endorsements, and are those really going to add up to millions less? Depending on his personal goals, which apparently don't include being Poker Ambassador To The World, this seems like a smart move on his part at relatively low financial cost. Slimy, yes, but smart move too.

[TIEdup14]

Didnt Steve Danenman have a similar agreement/backer and paid it with no problems?

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
Didnt Steve Danenman have a similar agreement/backer and paid it with no problems?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Danneman had a backer who paid at least 50% of his entry fee. Since there was an actual payment, the case is a lot more obvious, and Danneman seems like a standup guy anyway.

This all makes no difference in the Gold case though. Lots of people pay up on their debts/obligations, it appears in this case, Gold's "partner" feels as if there was a good chance he wasn't going to be paid, hence the restraining order. Businessmen every day try to renegotiate what they owe, from filing bankruptcy to renegotiating deals after they are done. Slimy yes, but also good business if you know what your doing. Some of the most successful businessmen are also the slimiest.

[NoSoup4U]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the SE tax liability in his case would be negligible. Someone correct me if I'm wrong... IANAL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Medicare is not capped. The SE tax on 12 million would be $360,000.

[Sysvr4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the SE tax liability in his case would be negligible. Someone correct me if I'm wrong... IANAL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Medicare is not capped. The SE tax on 12 million would be $360,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, it's not capped, it's the FICA part that is. That occured to me after I posted...

According to my calculations, after you consider the before AGI deduction for half the SE tax, the total cost of the SE tax is around 275k (assuming he pays tax on the full 12M. That works out to an additional 2.3% tax over his marginal rate, or a roughly 6% increase in the total tax liability itself.

Now, don't get me wrong, 275k is significant, but less so when viewed in through the following tax prism:

a) If he files the sch C he can deduct other gambling related expenses (which he couldn't do filing direct to the other income line). This one alone could easily make the difference depending on his habits.

b) If he files the sch C he can make self-employed retirement account contributions that would allow deductions for which he would otherwise be ineligible

My post was in response to filing a sch C would be the "dumbest thing he could do" statement, and I was (and am) saying that that is not necessarily the case even with the SE tax added in. As with everything else in life, "it depends".

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
Didnt Steve Danenman have a similar agreement/backer and paid it with no problems?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[pineapple888]

[ 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 ]

Exactly. These two are both Hollywood douchebags, and d!ck-swinging lawsuits are completely standard for Hollywood douchebags, over sums far less than those involved here. I used to work in entertainment law, so I know this all too well. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Also, as others have said, I doubt Gold has any concern whatsoever for his standing in the high-stakes poker community, endorsements, etc. He has his cash and simply wants to maximize the amount he gets to keep and he will then tell everyone to f off.

[Toonces]

If Jamie wanted to avoid looking like a tool, he could have made a statement to the media, saying, "I understand Crispin's desire to protect his share of our winnings. I have evey intention of paying out his 50% share, though I am in consultation with my lawyers to determine the most beneficial way to do so."

[tm55417]

[ QUOTE ]

To that end, I stated, "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." After all, they have to know that there is a 2006 ME Champ and who he is to care, yes?

You've not responded to my man-on-the-street question.

So, my final position is: (1) alot of people don't hate Jamie Gold, (2) the general public doesn't know who Jamie Gold is, nor do they care what he may have done with regard to sharing his winnnings, and (3) anyone here at 2p2 who says the general public would care about this is projecting their love and involvement of the game and poker community well beyond its respresentation within the general public.



NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to support NCAces argument a little bit. According to Nielsen Media Research (Publishers of the Nielsen Ratings). At its peak, Poker Television programming at a 2.4 share of American households that owned televisions. Nielsen estimates that there are approximately 110 million households that own televisions. So, a 2.4 share in indicates that 2.64 million households were engaged in watching poker on TV. Which according to Nielson (through some statistical model used by Nielson) translates into approximately 3.43 million people watching poker at its peak.

According to the US Census Bureau, there are 299.5 million people living in the US.

3.43 million out of 299.5 million people have sat down to watch poker at its peak. That is approximately 1.1%.

One could easily make the arguement that only 1 in 100 people might care enough, or have followed this year's WSOP, to know who won. But I would be willing to bet, that not even half of the people who have watched poker at its peak would even care. The numbers support this argument.

[KingGeorgeC]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Endorsement deals don't come from that fact that most people don't know him. Endorsement deals come from that fact that many people have heard of him. If he is of any value to Bodog it's to bring in business. If he ruins his name in poker circles, he hurts is marketability as the face of poker.

When is he scheduled to be on Leno and Letterman?