Venetian CEO Poker Tournament Main Event Furor - Page 15

OPportunist · #**141** 07-12-2007, 07:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, in this structure the company is getting the tax benefit of the tax deduction, but the players' money is being used to fund it.

I would bet money that Ms. Gomez' child, or someone' else's high up at this organization was ill, thus the decision that it is fair to force poker player's that may not have much money to contribute 5% of their buy-in to this cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to bet on their reasoning, I think the tax benefit is a safer wager than the sick child scenario (and just a amateurish business approach is the most likely). Please post lines on all three.

Spook · #**142** 07-12-2007, 07:42 PM

Well at least the money is going to charity.

Rottersod · #**143** 07-12-2007, 07:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well at least the money is going to charity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but it came directly from the announced prize pool of $2500. If the CEO Poker Tour had really been honest about it they would have announced it as a $2050 + $450 + 100 event ands the players would have been able to know right away that they were playing for $2050 x the number of players. The way they did it was smarmy and not at all above board.

PokeReader · #**144** 07-12-2007, 07:57 PM

With a female in charge of the company, and putting the success of the company clearly put at risk by increasing costs by a whooping 5%, this screams personal involvement to me. Even after this debacle she is only discussing moving future donations to a pass through structure which will not necessarily change the overall cost to players. What she should be doing is pursue this as a personal charity pursuit, and only combine it with her business as a one hundred percent charity event. There should be no percentage of the profits of a new business going to a charity.

Josem · #**145** 07-12-2007, 08:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
With a female in charge of the company

[/ QUOTE ]

Without addressing the other obvious flaws in your post (it can be perfectly profitable and reasonable for businesses to contribute to charity, as a huge number do) this opening is just blatantly offensive and ignorant.

Slim Pickens · #**146** 07-12-2007, 08:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
With a female in charge of the company...

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope your next craigslist date kicks you in the nuts with pointy shoes.

Cornell Fiji · #**147** 07-12-2007, 09:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
With a female in charge of the company, and putting the success of the company clearly put at risk by increasing costs by a whooping 5%, this screams personal involvement to me. Even after this debacle she is only discussing moving future donations to a pass through structure which will not necessarily change the overall cost to players. What she should be doing is pursue this as a personal charity pursuit, and only combine it with her business as a one hundred percent charity event. There should be no percentage of the profits of a new business going to a charity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also find this comment pretty disgusting on all levels.

PokeReader · #**148** 07-12-2007, 09:07 PM

Contributing 5% of your costs off the top cannot possibly be profitable. I apologize if this seemed sexist, but I was just responding to the person that thought is was done for tax reasons. For me she seemed so dedicated to it, that it seemed personal. I was not saying it in a derrogatory way, just that women are more likely to combine personal and private lives this way.

P.S I am female.

5_year_old_bully · #**149** 07-12-2007, 09:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
P.S I am female.

[/ QUOTE ]

=

=

Video Clip, i guess it shouldn't be watched at work

PokeReader · #**150** 07-12-2007, 09:38 PM

Could we possibly refocus on the issues at hand? They said they posted here to address to document changes but didn't, and haven't addressed any of the other questions. Since the tournament was posted as 2500+100, that should have been binding. The fact that it might have been partially posted in places the players didn't have access to is irrevant.