Fossilman's Account Hacked?

[mattnxtc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If anybody doesnt think that there is a bunch of greed on these 7's part then they are a bit naive.

With player like Hachem involved do you really think its about anything else? They can attempt to spin it however they want but with the timing of this they are completely spitting in the faces of all the other players they pretend to be protecting.

I find it interesting that with half of the 7 on the PPA board that they are taking time away from actually defending poker to fight this nonsense case. If they really cared about the other players and not about lining their own wallets they would be in Washington fighting for the players. Instead they are going to court for some stupid issue.

More likely i think they are tryin to cover themselves in case the online bill passes. If it does they can say bye bye to their endorsements and all that will be left is the WPT for major year round tournaments which if they are people of principle (which i doubt) they will have to avoid them which will cost them even more money.

Seriously if you want to take on the WPT thats fine. But doing it now just makes the 7 look like selfish jerks

[/ QUOTE ]


Umm.. Selfish for wanting to protect themselves from being a WPT slave for the rest of their lives?

Donk.

[/ QUOTE ]

and thats fine to feel that way...but right now there are much more pressing issues out there. Those beloved sites that they rep. are about to be banned and as DN pointed out it will be back to smaller sized tournaments and far less money from endorsements and so forth. If they are naive to think that the fact that they are all endorsed by sites who want better sponsorship at these tournaments isnt going to come up then they really need to sit and think about that.

If they were really after all the players best interests they would build a big enough group of the pros to actually get something done (ala players unions or boycotts that are actually meaningful). Lets be honest, those 7 have boycotted the WPT and it hasnt hurt the ratings.

As Dn posed in his blog...where are the examples of misuse by the WPT? You want a rallying point for the players...show the examples of misconduct and im sure you can get a large group that would want to see changes made...
until then it just looks liek a group who are greedy and hurting the overall picture of poker

[JoaoPinto]

In particular, the Complaint alleges that the casinos have agreed with WPTE that they will not host any non-WPT televised poker tournaments

Does this apply to every single casino on the planet?

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
Why couldn't all of you and sit down and try to arrive at a solution speaking man to man to man that is in the best interest of the game of poker for all players?

Was there no way you could have sat down with Lyle & Co. and said come on bro, let’s work through this without dragging everything through the courts.

That, in my humble opinion, would have been the most beneficial for all.

[/ QUOTE ]
We agree, it would have been the best way. However, we tried that, and the only word we ever got from the WPT was "NO". They simply refused to amend the release, improve the final table structure, or make any other changes of more than very minor significance. We tried the nice way, and now it is time to go to court, or give up. We don't like to quit.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[West]

matt, what you are saying is all a bunch of misdirection. "other issues" (so?) "if they were really after all the players best interests they would build a big enough group of the pros to actually get something done" (seems like the seven of them works just fine for the purpose of their lawsuit) "As Dn posed in his blog...where are the examples of misuse by the WPT?" (this is beside the point...why should players have to give them the right to misuse their/our names in the first place?)

"until then it just looks liek a group who are greedy and hurting the overall picture of poker"

Then why doesn't the WPT just "call their bluff" and edit the release forms? Why do they need to the right to misuse something if they're not going to misuse it??

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
greg, if you are going to court, I wouldn't be posting anything on here. I'm guessing the WPT lawyers are all over this thread. Don't feed them.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is good advice. However, with the exception of the negative comments towards Daniel that I made originally and should have kept inside, I have only been making comments that echo the public statements already made by myself and the other Plaintiffs. Thus, I am not saying anything that could be used against us in the lawsuit.

While saying nothing is the safest route, we also don't want all the buzz on the internet to only come from Daniel and other people sympathetic to the WPT. We would love to have all poker players, rather than just most of you, on our side.

And I honestly do believe that most players support us. Those who are dreaming up all these hypothetical harms that will befall online poker or other aspects of the poker world are being overly dramatic. If we win this lawsuit, the WPT will have to stop taking advantage of poker players. If we lose, things will remain as they are. I do not see anything more than the most remote and ephemeral possibility of anything negative happening to those on the sidelines of this case.

[ QUOTE ]
gl, I hope you win.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
In particular, the Complaint alleges that the casinos have agreed with WPTE that they will not host any non-WPT televised poker tournaments

Does this apply to every single casino on the planet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably the gist of the case and antitrust law. Does it matter? Should the WPT have a right to have such stipulations in agreements with casinos at all? How many casinos do their agreements apply to? Should they be able to have such an agreement with a single casino, but not many? Where do you draw the lines?

Again, it sounds to me like if they would just change their releases, none of this needs to be debated (at least for now).

Seems to me that this lawsuit is very analogous to professional sports and the way that congress has always wielded an "antitrust hammer" which they occasionally make thinly veiled threats with (e.g., do something about steroids or we're going to reexamine your antitrust exemption status), or something along those lines.

[ScottHoward]

tell me if i have this basically right about the lawsuit:
poker players signed a release that they knew would allow a company to make money off them, and now some of the poker players are mad?

[mattnxtc]

West
A few things:

1. Why does the WPT need to change?
Answer: they dont...7 people are upset over something...7 of which (not being mean) havent done a lot for the WPT anyways. So why should the WPT even care? Now you come back with a large group of 100 of the top pros with demands for changes and see what happens. The prospect of tournaments with no pros will make the WPT open its eyes. Then it would actually be workin for the best interest of the players, not for 7 sponsored players who sponsors probably dont want thier images used.

2. Call their bluff? that makes no sense. how would giving into the players call their bluff...Honestly if somebody came to me acting the way these 7 did i would deny them this right merely out of the principle of the way these players have handled the situation. I think its a good ego check for these 7 to realize poker is fine and thriving without them at these tournaments.

3. If there was abuse then there would be cause for a big rally call that would get all the players on board. If there are instances of abuse, bringing it to the forefront will surely bring more big name players on board which could have been used to gain leverage over the WPT. But as far as i know there isnt any abuse. So we have 7 players firing a preemptive lawsuit instead of taking the time to build a nice coalition to seek changes. With the WSOP I know that after the problems it had last year they formed a group of pros to supply input to improve the tournament. Why not try this?

There are so many better options than suing and its a shame those werent aggressively pursued

[trying2learn]

[ QUOTE ]
We would love to have all poker players, rather than just most of you, on our side.


[/ QUOTE ]

this is the first time i've posted on this issue anywhere, though i've read about it here, on DN's forum, as well as on Paul P's blog.

the quote above is what scares me the most. DN says he's talked to many players who are against...Greg says he would like all instead of most to be with them.

i don't have a side...mostly because i don't understand enough of the ramifications. that said, i find it odd that both sides are proclaiming to speak for most of the players when it doesn't seem very clear to be the case one way or the other.

[SonnyJay]

[ QUOTE ]
If the WPT was the only game in town, I could see the validity of your complaint. However, you have a choice to not sign their contract AND play elsewhere. How is that a monopoly? Not only are there alternative tournaments, some would argue there are superior alternatives - ie.. WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can engage in activities that violate antitrust law without being "the only game in town".

You can engage in activities that violate antitrust law without turning a huge (if any) profit.

I'm not a lawyer and any deep legal analysis I'd provide would be worthless, but a lot of fundamental principles of the law are being misrepresented here.

-SonnyJay