What I Would Like to See From the PPA (and 2+2)

[hollaballa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However as noted above, those persons need to clearly state who they are representing, instead of trying to maintain the fiction that a writer for CP magazine isn't a representative of CP. Thus I would think Allyson Jaffrey Schulman, who is also an attorney, would be a legitimate member of the board, as she does have something to contribute, and also will clearly be seen as a rep of CP, and thus indirectly the sites that advertise with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allyson Jaffrey Schulman seems to have more conflicts on interest than the other board members I previously mentioned. Her business is not to further the needs of poker players, she is there to further the business of Card Player. Lets be honest, without the online poker room industry Card Player loses over 3/4's of its advertising revenue, at this point it's operations may be in jeopardy (I don't claim to have insider knowledge, my statement is only an assumption based on my extensive knowledge of the publishing and poker industries). Her statements and articles to date make her appear to be a bad person to represent the PPA, she is taking a myopic approach to the issue which will backfire in the eyes of congressmen. To borrow a broken campaign promise, we need a uniter not a divider - Allyson Jaffrey Schulman comes across as the ultimate divider for this cause. Now this doesnt mean that her intentions are not good, nor does it mean I dislike her or her opinions; but it does mean her unique position does not make her the proper representative of the Poker PLAYERS Organization. If the PPA choses to change it's name to the Online Poker Room Lobbying Organization and change its mission to protecting the rights of Online Poker Rooms to operate in the USA then she would make an ideal board member, her mission would therefore match perfectly. As it currently stands, I see a conflict of interest. This is my opinion, hopefully my opinion will be shared by others.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

TT, I totally understand what you're saying, but it's a little bit of a catch 22 I think.

I'm not a big fan of the Shulman's, but even so, Allyn has her livelihood on the line here. Would you rather have someone fighting for you who's a recreational $1/2 NL player, or someone who's livelihood is on the line?

Cardplayer makes most of it's money through affiliate income. They've made a ton of money, thus, they have a ton of money to put towards the PPA. I don't know that they are doing that, but I would suspect they are.

I think the reality of the situation is this. It's going to take a TON of money to get a poker carve out. Alfonse D'Amato doesn't work for cheap.

Thus, the fight for poker is going to have to be done by a small group of companies who have a lot of funds. Those would be the Cardplayer, Pokerstars, etc of the world.

If we want poker to be legal, I think that's how it's going to have to be. Complaining about the PPA "not being represented by the players" is wasted effort IMO.

The goal is the same...correct?

I don't think it's feasible for a "group" soley made up of players to organize and be as effective as the PPA has been.

a 160,000 member group trying to be controlled by 160,000 people is just a mess.

Fortune 500 companies don't operate that way. Everyone may have a vote, but the people with the biggest investment have the biggest say so. That's how the PPA is operating it appears, and I have no problem with that. I think its the only way it will work.

Additionally, as I've pointed out before, it sadly seems that people aren't going to be happy with the PPA no matter what.

They've made great strides, but people will still complain. "I don't like this board member", "they aren't doing enough at the state level", "D'Amato is a bum", etc, etc.

This is the reason no poker organization could survive in the past. Hopefully, the PPA will keep getting the funding to continue and the peanut gallory will fade away.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]

Put together your ideal, sayyyyy, 12 person board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Start with respected individuals such as Professor I. Nelson Rose and work your way backwards. Alfonse D'Amato was an excellent choice, this is the caliber we should be aiming for. The board needs to be a mix of celebrity players with a clean record who attract the "wow" factor, and noted industry thinkers who fight for the rights of players and would be respected by the members of congress that we are trying to sway. Does anyone really think that Schulman would be respected by congress? Does congress care who Linda Johnson is? And why is Jan Fischer on the board, she is Linda John's partner... thats ridiculous!

The point is we have serious business to do if we ever expect to get a carve out, and as it currently stands its not looking good. If the PPA doesn't put its best foot forward and attract the right people for its board of directors we don't stand a chance in hell in getting this prohibition overturned.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[KotOD]

Nelson Rose is a terrible choice, in my opinion. He has no reason to fight for poker players.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
If we want poker to be legal, I think that's how it's going to have to be. Complaining about the PPA "not being represented by the players" is wasted effort IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congress will not take the lobbying power of an organization that represents THE PEOPLE seriously. Congress won't take the lobbying power of an organization that was created by Party Poker to represent the industry by masquerading as an organization to represent the people seriously.

Getting a carve out is serious business. We need the right people representing us the right way or it will never happen. IMHO anyone who doesn't stand up and question how the PPA operates at this stage is actually hurting the game of poker, not helping it. BluffThis!! will go down in history as a person who helped archive the end goal, don't you want to do the same?

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
Nelson Rose is a terrible choice, in my opinion. He has no reason to fight for poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Show me your reasons why. A blind statement like that is pointless without facts to back it up.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
Congress won't take the lobbying power of an organization that was created by Party Poker to represent the industry by masquerading as an organization to represent the people seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is certainly why paying members matter. The more that the PPA has, the more clout they have.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nelson Rose is a terrible choice, in my opinion. He has no reason to fight for poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Show me your reasons why. A blind statement like that is pointless without facts to back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

What interest does he have in poker? He's a gambling law professor with his own business that runs deep into all forms of gambling. he has no vested interest in poker specifically.

If anything, he would more likely be against a specific carveout for personal and business reasons.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nelson Rose is a terrible choice, in my opinion. He has no reason to fight for poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Show me your reasons why. A blind statement like that is pointless without facts to back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

What interest does he have in poker? He's a gambling law professor with his own business that runs deep into all forms of gambling. he has no vested interest in poker specifically.

If anything, he would more likely be against a specific carveout for personal and business reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to investigate him some more, he is pro carve out and he has argued that as written the existing law is doomed.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[BluffTHIS!]

TT,

I don't think it is fair to cast any rep from CP as unfitting to be on the board of the PPA just because they have their own interests. They do in fact reflect the interests of a lot of their subscribers who are poker players, even if those interests are going to be skewed toward either online only or online plus B&M tourney players. So as long as they don't have more than one seat, and the majority of the board represents those players who have an equal interest in B&M cash games as in online poker or tourneys, then the subset of poker players their own interests represent deserves a seat at the table. After all, if the board were balanced now, I doubt many would be complaining a whole lot about 1 or 2 members who had conflicts of interests with magazines or online poker sites, when the majority didn't.


Now I would like to address another matter brought up in the PPA ad thread. And that is that it is *terrible* for PPA to either take the position, or be viewed as taking the position, that the IUGEA is so well written that it along with other legislation makes it illegal for any online sites to continue to do business with US players, contrary to the legal positions taken by many private sites. This is nothing other than allowing themselves to be a stooge for party poker. In fact if anything, the PPA should *totally* distance itself from any contacts with party poker and remain neutral on the exact scope of the IUGEA (and this brings up the interesting point that an ad that maintains it is illegal for all sites to do business with US players runs contrary to the legal opinions of Ms. Schulman in CP who is on the PPA board).

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nelson Rose is a terrible choice, in my opinion. He has no reason to fight for poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Show me your reasons why. A blind statement like that is pointless without facts to back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

What interest does he have in poker? He's a gambling law professor with his own business that runs deep into all forms of gambling. he has no vested interest in poker specifically.

If anything, he would more likely be against a specific carveout for personal and business reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to investigate him some more, he is pro carve out and he has argued that as written the existing law is doomed.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, he has no reason to fight for it other than taking a paycheck. He's not harmed at all by the implementation of the law, nor the enforcement of the law. His business goes on. That might be okay when you need someone doing the dirty work like Senator Pothole, but it doesn't make for a viable long-term plan.