Fossilman's Account Hacked?

[yimyammer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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)

[/ QUOTE ]

I was afraid you were going to say this.

You mean Lyle(I keep saying Lyle, but I may have the name wrong, I mean whomever the guys are that started this, Lipscomb or whomever) just rebuffed you guys and wouldn't even give it any consideration?

How was it brought up? Diplomatically or in attack mode?

Or did you have to talk to the WPT attornies? If you had to talk to their attornies, then I don't think you could have ever expected a compromise. My experience with attornies is that they will always give advice that is the most advantageous to their clients (and understandably so). If you couldn't get a face to face meeting with Lyle, who I assume is a decision maker, then I don't think you guys could have ever expected to get anything accomplished.

As each day goes by, it just seems to be getting more and more contentious, which is a real bummer for everyone.

I wish I knew Lyle, I'd be badgering the crap out of him (in the friendliest and most thought provoking way possible) to come up with a solution so everyone could enjoy a beer together and put the whole mess behind them.

As time passes and emotions, pride and egos get inflamed, these situations always seem to get worse, not better.

I'm a big believer in diplomatic confrontation and I don't give up too easily either. I wish there was someone doggedly pursuing this option.

If cooler and more reasonable minds could prevail, I am confident this could be resolved without any litigation.

I hope a mutually beneficial solution can be reached as soon as possible.

[yimyammer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So one last thing with regards to the WSOP contracts vs. the WPT contracts. The WPT has stated that they will happily acknowledge the WSOP contracts as a legitimate substitute for the current contracts they (the WPT) have in place for their own events, so isn't that enough then? If indeed the WSOP contracts are better then the current WPT contracts?

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I know, the WPT has not said this. Daniel said that Lyle said this, but I know of nothing other than that. I doubt we can bind the WPT with those statements. ;-)

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you are saying the WSOP forms would be acceptable, why can't someone in the "7" contact someone from the WPT and ask them to make the change?

Doesn't hurt to ask and if they agree, problem solved, right?

[fatman20]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe you are correct in that the various major sporting associations such as the NFL, NBA, PGA, and the like have certain rights to make use of player's names and images. However, I am pretty sure that in each and ever case the players, through their representatives, have negotiated these releases and agreed to the terms. Thus, to whatever extent the PGA can use the name and image of Tiger Woods, Tiger has agreed to give them this right through the Player's Association for golf, of which Tiger is a member.
Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this may be the point that people are missing. All of the major sports have player unions who have negotiated agreements with their respective league. If poker players want to change what is going on then create a union and bring in as many players as possible. This will then force the WPT to negotiate and do what the players are looking for them to do. I have absolutely no clue about the law but I honestly don't think that a lawsuit is the avenue for the change these 7 are looking for.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
What you say is true, obviously getting those releases changed only really benefits people like themselves, and the few in the future who are lucky enough to get in a similar position. But on the off chance that you or I are ever in that position, I'm sure you wouldn't want them to have the right to sell your name to promote products you don't want to promote, for example.

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think this is going to be your toughest claim to prove ... that in your market there aren't ample other opportunities for you to earn your living doing what you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the counter argument to that would be that it's not that they can't earn a living playing poker, it's that the WPT's agreements with casinos limit the opportunies for competing televised events - which doesn't really have anything to do with Greg and co. being able to make money from playing poker outside of the WPT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good comments ... for my own edification, I went to Wikipedia ... Anti-trust: A business with a monopoly over certain products or services may be in violation of antitrust laws if it has abused its dominant position or market power.

One of the problems that I see with their lawsuit is the definition of the market. I think that is why alot of us originally state, "it isn't like there aren't other options." This is obviously something they know they have to deal with - Greg has a canned response to it, as he should. They know this will be brought up. They are trying to very narrowly define the market ... big buy-in poker tournaments that are televised. I think the judge is going to question this greatly when (1) there are tons of other, non-televised tournaments that they can play in every day, and (2) there are a number of other big buy-in poker tournaments that are televised and open to the public that they can enter. Just because they have to sit out of the 17 WPT events, they have somewhere around 50 WSOP events, including Circuit Events. In other words, WPT will easily be able to show that the Plaintiffs have at least 3 times more big buy-in, televised events than the WPT offers. Most might come in a 45 day period, but who cares?

I would also point out that I don't think they are going to be able to show that because 17 Casinos and sister properties can't have other televised tournaments that they are in some way damaged. The Trump properties alone would enable the "Platiniffs 7" to hold their own televised tournaments. With all the card rooms in CA that aren't tied down, not to mention the international casinos, anyone who had a good business plan right now could start televised tournaments. There are just too many places in Vegas and elsewhere that aren't tied down due to these agreements.

I think that the WPT should amend their over-reaching agreement. And that is exactly what the Plaintiffs are trying to do ... exert pressure that will result in a settlement. But, I think they have a tough row to hoe.

NCAces

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
honestly..people would probably consider Hellmuth a better NL tourney player that greenstein and there is probably a lot of validity to it

You have a hard time arguing against a guy who has 10 bracelets all from holdem tournaments.

Now when you get to other forms of poker it becomes a lot more debatable and greenstein probably has the edge but since the WSOP is now the WSONLHOLDEM, Hellmuth would be considered better more than likely

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it doesn't matter that Hellmuth plays a ton more tournies than Greenstein. Do you think that might account for the difference in their # of bracelets.

[mattnxtc]

i didnt do any statistically analysis of this...its just a pretty basic look at them...i do think if we looked at hellmuts rate of cashes at nl tournaments compared to others he would be pretty high up there...but i dont plan to do any analysis so thats up to u

[thedarknight]

[ QUOTE ]
Moneymaker created the whole....turn $40 bucks into a million reality.

The WPT had nothing to do with it.

The only good thing to come out of the WPT was Shana Hiatt.

Another network would have sprung up and created a WPT type show...its how TV works. WPT was just lucky to spring up as the poker boom was beginning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Charlie,
you never stop with the most worthless posts, do you? I was hoping you keep your heinous comments in the Sporting Events...unfortunately not.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no "right" to play in big buy-in open poker tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how exactly do YOU define "open"?

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Moneymaker created the whole....turn $40 bucks into a million reality.

The WPT had nothing to do with it.

The only good thing to come out of the WPT was Shana Hiatt.

Another network would have sprung up and created a WPT type show...its how TV works. WPT was just lucky to spring up as the poker boom was beginning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Charlie,
you never stop with the most worthless posts, do you? I was hoping you keep your heinous comments in the Sporting Events...unfortunately not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dark, don't take your anger out on me just because Patrik Antonius shot down your advances.

Good luck...and I'de say your better off trying the Blue Oyster Bar to meet people.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
i would put it this way - some poker players think the release the WPT makes players sign is unfair, and want it changed, the WPT has refused, and certain players who can afford to chose to file a lawsuit because the WPTs agreements with casinos that host their tournaments limit competition with the WPT, thus limiting the options of players who don't want to give the WPT rights to their names beyond a reasonable point

[/ QUOTE ]

.....After 235 or so posts in this thread, a very nice, succinct summation of the issue I'd say.

From reading all of the posts, it’s clear that there is a wide diversity of opinions surrounding this issue. Although all are certainly entitled to hold any opinion they so choose, it is probably wisest to focus on the key points of the lawsuit in order to assess its’ validity.

That will happen as the legal action proceeds.

I will add a couple of anecdotal opinions to this thread surrounding some of the comments made.

Having been the plaintiff in a major anti-trust lawsuit, I can tell you that being part of something like that is a fascinating learning experience. I say this to those who’ve made some overly simplistic judgments surrounding both tactics and strategy surrounding this legal action. Simply put....if you haven’t been there, you probably don’t understand the dynamics of what happens in the real world of litigation.

Most of you probably don’t know any of the suitors. I’d bet quite a large sum that if you did, and had the opportunity to sit down with them and discuss their position in detail, that you would be hard pressed to disagree with its’ legitimacy.

I have the benefit of knowing two of them......Greg and Andy.

Both are class acts. Both are attorneys. Both have very high personal ethical standards.

These are not the kind of folks who file frivolous lawsuits.

We can all debate the merits of the case here on 2+2 from a distance, and that’s fine.

Let’s not forget, however, that the meat of this case will most likely occur beyond our view.