WPT Responds to Players' Lawsuit

[bruceypants]

[ QUOTE ]
"For example, Full Tilt Poker, a website started by Plaintiffs Chris Ferguson and Howard Lederer and with which at least two other Plaintiffs are affiliated, already competes unfairly against WPTE by using the tremendous revenues it obtains from promoting online gambling in the United States and accepting online bets from persons located in the United States – activities declared by the US Department of Justice as illegal under existing law – to subsidize the poker programming it offers television networks. WPTE, on the other hand, complies with the letter and spirit of the law as currently interpreted by the DOJ and employs numerous safeguards to ensure no one in the United States can place a bet on its online poker website, leaving websites like Full Tilt Poker (and its owners Chris Ferguson and Howard Lederer) to reap these illicit profits."

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy smokes! This thing is going to get nasty. I hope Jesus and Howard are willing to risk everything (i.e, clean criminal record, all their monies, etc.) to get those releases changed.

[True North]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"For example, Full Tilt Poker, a website started by Plaintiffs Chris Ferguson and Howard Lederer and with which at least two other Plaintiffs are affiliated, already competes unfairly against WPTE by using the tremendous revenues it obtains from promoting online gambling in the United States and accepting online bets from persons located in the United States – activities declared by the US Department of Justice as illegal under existing law – to subsidize the poker programming it offers television networks. WPTE, on the other hand, complies with the letter and spirit of the law as currently interpreted by the DOJ and employs numerous safeguards to ensure no one in the United States can place a bet on its online poker website, leaving websites like Full Tilt Poker (and its owners Chris Ferguson and Howard Lederer) to reap these illicit profits."

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy smokes! This thing is going to get nasty. I hope Jesus and Howard are willing to risk everything (i.e, clean criminal record, all their monies, etc.) to get those releases changed.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not as bad as it looks (granted, it LOOKS really bad). Just because the DoJ thinks something is illegal doesn't mean it is. I'm still waiting for someone with deep enough pockets to try and challenge their view...should be interesting.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not as bad as it looks

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Ranch:

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, Phil Gordon recently made a statement that is extremely naive...he said something to the effect of "Our lawyers would not have taken this case unless they thought we were right". Not so Mr. Gordon. If the lawyers truly believed in your case they would have taken the case on a contingency, whereby they only get paid if they win.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with you. We've had the same attorney for almost 20 years and I guarantee if we got involved in a legal dispute he would advise me if I was wrong (in his opinion) and then not to proceed with a suit. While many attorneys are "hired guns," the best ones are not. They give you good accurate advice and only have you proceed if your chances of success are legitimate.

best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

True to a degree. However, if after reviewing their advice you told them you wanted to go forward anyway, so long as they felt it was not a frivilous lawsuit, they would agree to represent you. As an attorney, I did that all the time. All I can do is (1) give my clients advice and hope they take it, and (2) represent their side of the issue as best I can if they don't. I provide the legal opinion, it is up to my client to make the business decision. That is what we have here ... legal and business decisions being made.

By the way, sounds like you are the type of client that many lawyers would want ... one who actaully listens to their advice.

NCAces

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why the WPTE would go in this direction. The WPTE needs on-line poker and on-line poker needs televised poker (Moneymaker ect...) to continue to reach the masses.

If I can't play poker on-line in my home, my interest in poker is diminished. Over time I become less interested in televised poker and for me poker takes the same route as fantasy football has.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you expect them to do? They are the ones being sued and they have to hit back with everything they have. It isn't like the Plaintiff's weren't told by the Defendant's lawyers (and hopefully their own) that this would happen. Hell, Danny Boy clued us in that this was going to happen. If the Plaintiff's thought the Defendant's were bluffing, they just got called.

WPTE obviously believes that the way they run their company and show is legal and the best way to do that. We can all argue whether it is the best way to run their business or not, but ultimately that is their decision to make. As to raising this issue, be assured that they are as smart as all of us here and have considered the damage their statements could do. Right or wrong, they have chosen to make them.

This is what happens when two parties like this get into a lawsuit. Nothing new here.

NCAces

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why the WPTE would go in this direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

WPTE is BUILDING its own VERTICALLY-INTEGRATED poker business, which includes an ONLINE POKER WEBSITE
that operates outside the US, and a MOBILE PHONE REAL MONEY POKER business outside the US.

WPTE now competes DIRECTLY against other online poker companies around the world.

The other online poker companies have also changed the TV poker business in the US market from a "rights fee" business into a "time buy" business, by offering to pay big money to the TV networks for blocks of TV time.

Because the likes of Mansion, Party, UB, and Full Tilt are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars every week to buy TV time from U.S. TV networks, the U.S. TV networks no longer have to pay cash for rights to TV poker products.

As a result, WPTE has had great difficulty trying to sell the U.S. TV rights to the 2nd season of the PPT because WPTE wants to stick to the old "rights fee" model in which TV networks pay CASH up front to producers such as WPTE.

WPTE is alleging that Full Tilt and other online poker businesses are using "illegal" profits from taking online poker action from U.S. customers in order to conspire with TV networks to prevent WPTE from being able to seek traditional TV "rights fees" for its PPT product.

[/ QUOTE ]

And most importantly, none of the above has ANYTHING to do with this lawsuit. It is the WPT trying to make this stuff an issue, not us. It is another example of their ethics in action, an example of "dirty pool", if you will. And this is all I can say on the subject of this thread, so please don't ask.

Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[olivert]

[ QUOTE ]

And most importantly, none of the above has ANYTHING to do with this lawsuit. It is the WPT trying to make this stuff an issue, not us. It is another example of their ethics in action, an example of "dirty pool", if you will. And this is all I can say on the subject of this thread, so please don't ask.



[/ QUOTE ]

One would be extremely naive to think that WPTE would not file a countersuit, using the "conspiracy in restraint of trade" provision in the Sherman Antitrust Act, against 5 of the 7 players (Lederer, Ferguson, Gordon, Bloch, and Duke), their "software" and/or "marketing" companies (i.e. TiltWare), the rival event promoters (i.e. Hollybrook Regency), and those TV networks which are currently feasting on time buy TV poker money (i.e. FSN, CBS).

The counter-allegation would be something like the following: the 5 players and their "software" and "marketing" companies used "illegal" profits from online poker wagering action taken from US-based customers in order to CONSPIRE with the event promoters and TV networks to FIX THE RIGHTS FEE of TV poker products at LESS THAN ZERO (i.e. "time buy"), thereby RESTRAINING the ability of WPTE to conduct its traditional TV business of seeking cash from the TV networks for the rights to WPTE TV poker products.

WPTE has chosen both a "mutually-assured destruction" (MAD) and a "scorched-earth" approach in this battle.

WPTE is currently flush with cash and short-term T-Bills (over $35 million on its books) from the TV rights fee to the first season of the PPT, which WPTE had forced The Travel Channel to pay in order to settle a similar lawsuit which alleged that The Travel Channel interfered with WPTE's negotiations with ESPN.

WPTE has a big enough war chest to drag this out into a war of attrition, tying up WPTE's opponents with legal manuevers in the US market, while WPTE and its ally MGM MIRAGE, which itself is allied with Macau gaming king pin Stanley Ho, attempt to seek total control of the poker market in China.

By the time the lawsuits go to trial, the industry will likely be completely different, with bigger fish to fry among all participants.

[wheatrich]

Fact--a lot of their players are there via online sat--so why would they sue them? They apparently think so highly of themselves that they think that everyone will drop whatever poker site they are currently playing on and jump ship over there. We all know this will NOT happen.

If they go that route I envision the following scenario. No more qualifiers to WPT events on various sites and when nobody jumps over to their poker site, the less attendance (due to less online sats and perhaps even sponsored pros won't be able to be there if a countersuit happens) even less pros considering they need the pros for ratings boosts) and less $ eventually cripples them to a point where they lose the "war" between them and the wsop. They have the ammo to fight but what in the heck war are they trying to win?

I believe the WPT would be a lot better off trying to get as many people playing their events as possible rather than just trying to alienate everyone.

I thought the WPT had some wagering online poker thing... so why in the world would they bring up the "illegal" online activity of others? That can't be a good idea...

[Kevmath]

WPT's online poker site is available to just about everyone BUT the US market. Lipscomb certainly thinks he's the main reason for the popularity of poker, which would explain why they'd be on the offensive in the lawsuit against them. If you go to worldpokertour.com, their slogan on the front page is "Live the Dream". They certainly seem happy to have the amateurs or lesser known pros win, no matter how bad the ratings become.

[wheatrich]

thank you for updating my information regarding the wptonline site.

I already knew about the rest though.