Poker Discussion
|
|
Please help support pocketfives by using our links when choosing to download a new site!
CarbonPoker · Full Tilt · Cake Poker · PokerStars · Ultimate Bet · Players Only · Bodog
Just received the letter from Steve Lipscomb at the W.P.T. and I think it's excellent. I have heard a lot from various pros with a lot more to lose than I have about this release the WPT has us sign. Even to the point of rumors saying no WPT in Aruba, etc. I have signed this release, the release for the UBT, etc, as have virtually all the top pros and top 50 p5s players, and I felt strongly that they were overstating this issue. I hope this letter helps calm the situation and gets everyone back on track.
I'm gonna sign it again in the Bahamas and this letter makes me think even more strongly that I can feel comfortable doing so.
I welcome any comments.
|
|
|
|
I like the part of the letter where he states that the WPT has yet to make money...
What a freaking joke... they have barely any overhead, and they cant turn a profit with this thing.. probably because executives like him drawing too big of a salary.
My 8 month old son could run that company and turn a profit.
The online model they set up is a complete mistake.. they are not taking players from USA.. is the WPT even broadcast in Europe ?? What the hell is the point of opening an online site if your not going to cross market to your best audience ??
How about affiliate marketing.. it seems to me that the completely missed the boat... if they were simply an affiliates to the bigger sites, they arent competition to the players.. they wouldnt have lost their accontant/auditor and the stock would be soaring.. instead of floundering.
I agree with Annie, they should have the right to broadcast the tournaments, not to have the rights to the players images and likeness for what ever economic purpose they choose.
Its obvious Steve knows something is wrong... which is the reason to write the letter. However if he would of offered an olive branch (creating releases to mirror WSOP'S) rather than trying to justify his opinoin.. he would be further ahead by FAR.
Steve.. start listening, and stop talking.
MOTOWN
|
|
|
The agreement by the WPT where the players can be used beyond the marketing of the WPT event they play in seems like a SCAM to me. I agree that it is ( probably ) legal , but you wonder how ethical it is.
As long as the WPT does not try and monopolize the channell for proffessional poker ( ticketmaster comes to mind ) they are of course fee to place this burden on the players that enter the events they promote.
However it seems that with poker so big these days that the players themselves have some power to vote with their feet if a more attractive venue is offered by a compettitor to WPT.
|
|
|
|
DN likes to find issues to whine about....
|
|
|
Thank you for putting in the time to clarify a lot of this. Now we have to apply that knowledge to get specific answers to our concerns. See you soon Annie.
And welcome to Los Angeles, by the way.
Eric.
|
|
|
|
beanie
(United States)
6,274
Posts.
Joined
01-20-2005.
12-23-2005 11:01 PM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
Apparently everyone is going to pretend to boycott PokerStars when in fact they had no intention of going in the first place.
Boycott Tunica and that might get someone's attention. Most people that work for competitor sites don't like playing in these events in the first place.
|
|
|
Beanie...I am interested that you make the assumption that none of us have tried to do anything for the good of everyone and are just selfishly grabbing for what is ours. Chris Ferguson worked for a couple of years with the WPT helping log hands and decide which ones were interesting to show on TV for free. He spent a tremendous number of hours without compensation consulting with the WPT because he understood it was good for the game and Steve kept promising to give back to the players...all the players.
My brother designed the WPT tournament Stuctures for free and organized a boycott of a WPT Champions freeroll demanding that the WPT add money to the prize pools to the benefit of all players who enter events. Steve promised to do so but, as we all know, reneged on this promised. Howard was willing to sacrifice a freeroll in order to benefit all players with money added to WPT events.
We all did a tremedous amount of free press to promote the brand. No demand of compensation...just promting the WPT because we all felt it was good for the game of poker.
Steve promised us that he would give back to the players. He reneged.
The fact that there are no licensing deals that involve all poker players is not our fault. Nothing of that kind has been offered and to get something like that would necessitate a Poker Players Union..which has been tried many times and always failed.
Do you really begrudge us going out and getting endorsement deals of our own under these circumstances? I doubt Charles Barkely shared any of that nike money or Right guard money with the other players.
Getting individual endorsement deals does not make us bad people. It makes us smart business people. It also does not mean we have not lobbied to get added money to prize pools. It does not mean we have not lobbied to get the elimation of fees from WPT tournaments. It does not mean we have not lobbied against 30 minute blind escalations at WPT final tables because it suits their production schedule. It does not mean we have not worked for free for years to promote their brand because it is good for poker in general.
Do not confuse the fact wthat we get our own business deals with the fact that we all have the interst of poker in general in our hearts. We want everyone to benefit from the poker boom.
The release makes sure that the only benificiaries will be the WPT itself. Sign it and you are allowing them to take advantage of you. Your choice. Me, I choose not to play under these circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
MKGB
(United States)
613
Posts.
Joined
10-31-2005.
12-24-2005 1:26 AM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
First of all I want to say welcome and thank you to Annie for posting on the subject. Second, I want to offer a few other perspectives from a 'have-not' (in fact, I've never played in a WPT event but hope to be able to soon).
Annie mentioned that there is a sentiment that since the WPT made certain players well-known that they owe them now. I can see how what I or others said in that regard could be interpreted that way, but that is not entirely what I meant. What I was trying to say was that part of the WPT's marketing strategy is to show and promote new (and existing) players succeeding in the game and becoming millionaires or very wealthy individuals. Of course the top players don't "owe them" per se, but don't you think that some of the new companies and websites that have emerged to offer these players endorsements are doing so partly bc of how well WPT has done promoting these players in the past? Obviously these players put up their own $$ and created their own outcomes, but in my opinion the WPT has done a pretty good job of showing these players in a good light, and in some (not all) cases it's reasonable to assume that if they didn't do this, then the endorsement opportunities might not exist solely on the result of the tournament. There is certainly a lot of editting and commentary that goes into making Gus Hansen look like a genius and John Stoltzman look like an average guy. Just a thought.
I think beanie correctly identified the fact that this issue (currently) only directly affects roughly 20-50 players. Some of you are proposing that we should care and do something about it now in case we take down a WPT tournament, bc they are trying to lock up our rights. Well, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the WPT to want to be able to promote the success of certain top players through images, t-shirts, posters, books, etc. etc. The players who aren't currently represented by another company, might not see this as such a bad thing (unless some just want to be compensated for it). Like I said above, this WPT free promotion has made certain players attractive to other companies to endorse them.
One solution to the problem might be to give the players a choice. Is it at all possible that there could be two boxes to check below this portion of the release form?? Box 1 could say, I agree to allow WPTE to use my name, image, and the likeness to promote future WPT events and products, and then Box 2 says I do not allow.... In Lipscomb's letter he mentioned how all you have to do if you have concern about your name/image being used is to contact him and he'll try to help. Well, that's noble but it still leaves open too much room for things popping up, not being able to fully satisfy everyone, and potential lawsuits.
I guess my argument is not that the concerned players 'owe' the WPT anything, rather that they should recognize that at the very least, they may have BENEFITTED from the WPT's portrayal of them. Now that they have other endorsements and contracts, they wouldn't be caught dead on a WPT online site or other product (and obviously there are legal ramifications to them if they were used this way at this point). I do think that considering how difficult it is to break into the world of endorsements, that some unknown, emerging players actually need the WPT to market them a little to even have a chance at future endorsements in the first place. If you want to argue that all your endorsements come solely from finishing 1st place in a couple tournaments fine, but I think WPT specifically has done one of the best jobs in the industry at broadcasting and promoting poker players as decent, respectable people worthy of endorsing other poker products or websites. For what it's worth....
|
|
|
You mention the lawsuits. This is one of the ost insidious things Lipscomb said in his letter: "And, it is in the interest of all poker players for the WPT to be focusing its efforts and resources on growing poker into one of the largest sports in the world rather than defending an endless line of frivolous lawsuits." The lawsuits are only frivolous if you sign the release. The lawsuits could only result from the WPT stealing players' likenesses and names for promotion secondary to the TV show itself in the case that the players have not signed the new release.
In other words, the new release is what would create the frivolous lawsuits...not protect against them. Without the new release the lawsuits would not be frivolous and, in fact, the players' would win them.
We all agree that using our image to promote the show is fine. Use us in commercials. Use us in clips during the show. Edit us to make us look fabulous even when we are not. We don't care. That is all fine with us and good for poker and good for us. We are all grateful beyond words for that promtion and opportunity.
But would you really be happy with your face on a WPT slot machine? Would you really be happy if they used your image to endorse their online site? Would you really be happy if they put your face on an xbox game? All withut compensation or approval? I would think not.
Promote the show. Make us all look good. Put us in commercials. Awesome! Don't steal our licensing rights. This is how it works in all other sports and media. Tom Brady is used in NFL broadcasts. His image is used to promote the broadcast in commercials. The NFL makes him a star. He then sells his licensing rights to Nike or Reebok or Coke or whatever and everyone benefits. The NFL does not own those rights. They do not get the money from Coke for selling his image. They make money from the broadcast contracts and ticket sales and he promotes the broadcast and ticket sales. His xbox rights are his own. Is that unfair or silly? I personally don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
beanie
(United States)
6,274
Posts.
Joined
01-20-2005.
12-24-2005 2:39 AM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
I don't begrudge you anything. I think you deserve it all and I hope you guys get what you want.
I just don't see where this is everyone's fight and I don't think a boycott will work. I admire the fact that you will stand up for your convictions. Its just that the rest of us have nothing to lose, our images are worthless and we play these events for the value not the promotional value.
I guess I don't really know what you want. Do you want us all to not play WPT events? I really don't see that happening. That is all I am saying.
I think you misinterpreted something I said. What Howard and Chris did for the WPT was indeed good for poker when I mentioned they were initially represented by the WPT I mentioned this in the context that they eventually moved on when the market dictated that made sense. Basic business decision. I don't personally think Howard or Chris are themselves the "Old boy network" I was speaking of either.
|
|
|
|
Beanie--I am not advocating a boycott. i am saying i won't sign the new release and that if you were to read the release you would be prudent not to sign it also. i believe everyone has the right to make their own choices. I just want people to understand the dangers of signing the release so that they can make an informed decision. I have made my decision and would never ask that anyone follow my lead. They should follow their own hearts and their own choice about putting themselves in the legal situation the release demands.
|
|
|
|
I agree with all of what Annie Duke has said, it is unfair to all of the players, not just a select few. Nobody knows who will be the next star and that is why everyone should care.. In this case some very well known players are not going to play in the next event. Will this put enough pressure on the WPT, to change the issues that are not fair to all players? I don't think so, because the WPT knows they can make new stars. I do have an idea where the players could make them change their policy overnight. Approach the final six players in an event and inform them what the issues are and what is at stake. Then get them to sabotage the final table. Tell them to go all in on the first hand and keep doing it until the game is over. The WPT won't have a show to air and they will be up a creek without a paddle. Let the WPT know that this might continue to happen, if they don't change their policies. I believe the WPT would instantly cave in to the players pressure. Now to get this done, the average guy might want some extra payment, but many of the players are multimillionares and I'm sure they would not have a problem raising the funds. What is the old saying, "there are wars and rumors of wars" ? Well the players could warn the WPT in advance, that they heard rumors that this might happen in their blogs, this in itself might be enough to get the job done.
|
|
|
It all comes down to what you consider to be a good gamble. And, whether you want to take the odds or lay the odds.
The WPT, by using the kind of unrestricted release it does is gambling that ( at least ) some of the players will do something that creates value for the WPT, and the WPT will be able to make money from using or remarketing that player's name, image and likeness. ( Takes the odds )
The player, by signing that unrestricted release is gambling that, nope, he aint nevah gonna do nuthin that the WPT could ever make money from. He also gambles that, should he be wrong, and somehow become a valuable commodity, whatever use the WPT makes of those rights will not have any negative impact on him. ( Lays the odds )
Think about that for a moment. People are spending upwards of $10,000.00 per event while betting that they will never win. Betting that they will never become noteworthy. Betting that their name, image and likeness will never have any value.
What's really going on here? Is the player attempting ( via his entry ) to prove that he or she is the best poker player on the planet this week? Or, is the player attempting to prove that he's the biggest donkey? ( "I'm so confident that I suck that I'll put up at least 10k to PROVE it!" ???? )
Signing any agreement that gives another party unrestricted rights to the use and licensing of your name, image and likeness is nothing less than betting that you'll never be dealt Aces for the rest of your life.
|
|
|
|
|
jw
(United States)
193
Posts.
Joined
03-06-2005.
12-24-2005 11:19 AM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
I am following the debate here and a few things seem clear:
1.) The release appears to be too loosely worded.
2.) In the long-run if the top-name pros boycott the WPT events, it will hurt the product, let's face facts, having recognizable names and faces is good for marketing and viewership...personally speaking, part of why I watch is to see how top pros play, maybe I can learn something from their play.
3.) Something else I found interesting in Steve Lipscomb's letter. He claims that the WPT has yet to turn a profit, not true...The WPT earned a profit of 752K for the calendar year ended 12/31/04. That computed to .05 per share (.04 fully diluted). The WPT is expected to turn a loss for the 12 months ended 12/31/05, but what is buried in the SEC filings is that their SG&A expenses are sharply higher due to non-television activities. The following is taken directly from their 10Q for the quarter ended 9/30/05.
"Selling and administrative expenses increased by $5.4 million for the nine months ended October 2, 2005, compared to the nine months ended October 3, 2004. This increase is primarily due to additional headcount costs, product licensing commissions, marketing expenses associated with online gaming and legal and audit fees incurred during the 2005 period associated with business development, increased product licensing revenues, online gaming launch, growth and regulatory compliance costs related to being an independent public company following our initial public offering in the third quarter of 2004."
In other words, they will incur a loss this year due to their investments in developing non-tv lines of business.
What he also left out of his letter is that Mr. Lipscomb and two other officers of WPT enterprises have sold millions of dollars worth of stock during 2005. Mr. Lipscomb has cashed out in excess of $20mm and Robin Moder and Audrey Kania appear to have cashed out for several million each as well.
It seems to me that the credibility of this letter is somewhat shaky here.
|
|
|
|
Ok...here's my 2 cents on this issue. I have only played in one WPT event (Aruba) and have only qualified for one WPT event (the upcoming PCA at Atlantis). If you read the agreement, and I have, the WPT has "qualifiers" by the nutz. It's bad on the surface and Annie brings up some valid points. What's a qualifier supposed to do? Not play? Of course not. But here's the reality. I'm not an attorney, but as an earlier poster stated, in order for their to be a contract there has to be consideration given to both parties. The grey area is "prize money" and "tv exposure". Is this considered "consideration"? If the courts accept this premise then the contract is valid. So what? What value are you to the WPT? They can shop your image to available suitors but your value to them will always be limited without your participation. What good is Nike's deal with Tiger without his participation? The agreement doesn't state that you're a slave to the WPT and their endorsement contracts. Participation is critical to the success of any endorsement. In fact, putting my face on a slot machine (I'm dreaming of course) would most likely enhance my ability to land endorsement deals for myself (wait a minute...on second thought given my appearance, that probably isn't true, lol). With that said, I still would prefer the agreement to be solely for the purpose of promoting the show itself.
|
|
|
|
Is this entire discussion now a mute point in light of the new information from Daniel's blog where he concluded (after thorough discussion with his lawyers, agent, and Steve who apparently clarified some points which were easily misinterpreted in his letter) that signing the WPT waiver will not put any current or future sponsorhsip deals at risk. Annie, does this news change your take on the issue or at the minimum are you going to look deeper into the situation and make some last minute phone calls of your own to see if playing in the Bahamas does indeed put your name at risk?
|
|
|
|
|
PocketFives.com Rankings
|
|
|
|
|
Carbon Poker Sorting Tables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|