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.
|
|
|
|
|
steely
(United States)
1,773
Posts.
Joined
03-14-2005.
12-26-2005 8:14 AM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
|
Very interesting point, JSB. Even a scrubini NFL player is still an NFL player and is part of the players' union, has an agent, etc. Amateur poker players have no leverage. It's somewhere in between a professional athlete and an American Idol contestant. A good friend of mine was on a major reality show and the releases were so broad, she had to beg them to give her the right to include her experiences from the show in her own autobiography (in the unlikely event it were to be published).
Maybe an amateur could sign the contract and later claim it's an "adhesion" contract. The inequality of bargaining power is startling! I won a satellite and I am PLAYING in Atlantis. Period. I might still play if the contract required me to wear a silkscreen t-shirt with beanie's face on it. (Maybe.) So they have us over a barrel, and that possibly puts the contract into question.
Also I agree with whoever said that you will still have future endorsement leverage -- if a really personable or appealing player (say, Adam Small of the West Virginia Smalls) won the WSOP or the WPT Tour Championship, sponsors would want him or her and they would want him or her to be actively involved, not just use his image against his/her actual (as opposed to contractual) will.
NET NET: I'm signing. It's not ideal. I might not if I was part of FTP or whatever. I think Nike will still end up paying me if I win in Paradise Island.
Annie, you're awesome for posting -- thanks for your insights.
|
|
|
|
I'm going to, that's a fact.
|
|
|
|
|
steely
(United States)
1,773
Posts.
Joined
03-14-2005.
12-26-2005 9:18 AM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
|
see my post above. I may sign in huge, florid letters a la John Hancock with a parenthetical that says "using the whole fist there, Steve?"
|
|
|
|
What a thoughtless response. The chances are that I will never face a negative consequence of signing that agreement at PCA. However, it is still an unfair agreement and reflects unfair/unethical practices by the WPT. A small minority of players will be affected. But that doesn't mean it is ok.
|
|
|
What fame? What fortune?
The fact is that if you sign that release you become a tainted brand. You no longer own exclusive rights to your own name, words, image or likeness.
The very best that you have to market is a diluted and compromised interest in any value that your name, image, likeness or words may have once had.
Furthermore, you may find yourself in court, being sued by both the WPT and whomever you sold rights to. Both could portray themselves as victims of your duplicity.
Tell me about that fame and fortune thing again....
|
|
|
Beanie-- I think what Annie and others are saying is that right now even piss poor poker players, like you and I, probably are not affected by this agreement. However, if we sign the release now, and 2 years from now we read a couple of books and get real good at poker, we may win a major event. At that point, they will be able to use your (because I will never be good at poker) image however they want. I think everyone just needs to think about the "new" poker world. The dynamics are changing every day. Pro Players have agents just like the NBA, NHL, NFL, etc.. Everyone just needs to think about what they are doing and realize that if you win a major tourney and a company wants to use your image...you have a RIGHT to be compensated....sign this release and you may be screwed!!!
Just my opinions.....
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
beanie
(United States)
6,274
Posts.
Joined
01-20-2005.
12-27-2005 1:53 AM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
Fame and fortune is not guaranteed to you, it is something you must earn. The people that will continue to play WPT events will do so for the value in the tournaments and likely wouldn't be concerned with branding issues until it is actually an issue.
I can't imagine anyone is actually for signing the release but your options are limited if you want to play their event.
|
|
|
Exactly. Fame and fortune is a parlay.
First you have to win in order to create brand identification, and then you have to successfully market your brand.
Having clear title to your brand is a big help on the marketing end. You don't really have that clear title once you sign such an overly broad release.
Would you write a mortgage on a property with a big ol' lien against it?
|
|
|
|
Annie,
Your perspective is completely different than 99.9% of the people that post on this site or play poker. I'm not saying your perspective or beanie's is wrong they are just different. I can understand both perspectives. You want to protect your ability to make a very good living on your image, very understandable. Beanie is saying his chances are slim of getting in a position to ever cash in on endorsements even if he wins a single WPT event. If he wins he'll pocket a million or more so that's pretty good compensation.
Comparing poker to the NBA or NFL is not really a good comparison though. In football if all the biggest name pro's boycotted it would have a huge impact on the game. If the big poker pro's boycott how many would that be? 100? Maybe 200? People care if Tom Brady or Peyton Manning aren't playing but to be quite honest most people don't care if Annie Duke or Daniel Negraneau don't play. It's always nice to see top pro's at the final table but it doesn't keep me from watching if they don't. Many people that watch don't even play poker or at least not seriously like people on this forum. For them it's like watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. They like watching because they see most players as an average Joe who's got a shot at winning the lottery. They hype up the fact that these guys won their entry online for $10 or $40 or $100 or whatever and that's what's appealing to people. Not that some big poker pro who bought in for $10k (who they already see as rich in the first place) and now has a shot at yet another million. The appeal of the show is the regular guy/gal who has a shot at a million and the appeal is not in the top poker pro who is already seen as being well off. Especially when they see all of you say (just like every other big athlete/entertainer who makes big $) "It's not about the money, it's about winning the tournament". Now, I have to admit that Greenstein may be the only one who can really say that, but that's it. It's ALWAYS about the money and none of us are stupid.
The downfall of the WPT won't be if top pros boycott their tournaments. The downfall of the WPT will be how far they push their competition with the online poker sites. Let's face it the only reason there are so many people in their tournaments is because they satellite in from online poker sites. If online poker sites stop running satellites into WPT events then their attendance will plummet. At least 3 or 4 WPT events wouldn't even exist without the online sites and maybe even more than that.
Annie if I were you and the big pro's I would not be coming to the average player to boycott signing the agreement. You will get little support from the guy who satellited in for $50 and will be more than happy to sign for his/her chance at a million or even just cashing would make them happy because it's all profit. It would be nice to think everyone won't sign the agreement but that won't happen. The only place you have any leverage at all is with UB or Full Tilt or any of the others that have pro's they endorse. If they stop running satellite’s to these events then the WPT is in trouble. That's the bottom line. Until then I'll be happy to enter these satellite's for $10, $20, $50, or $100 at my chance to be the next WPT champion. I'll worry about the licensing issues if I get there. Also, you could get the other pro's together and start your own circuit and make it player friendly. If players are really being treated that badly seems like they would flock to another circuit that's more friendly to them.
So I'm not saying you don't have a legitment complaint, it's just that the approach your taking won't work.
|
|
|
Where did she ask anyone to boycott? Her exact words were:
"
| 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. | "
|
|
|
|
|
beanie
(United States)
6,274
Posts.
Joined
01-20-2005.
12-27-2005 1:00 PM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
What is the loan to value ratio?
This dead horse needs to be put to pasture. I am not pro release by any measure.
|
|
|
You missed the point completely. She says she's not asking people to boycott but asking them not to sign the release. What's the difference? If you don't sign the release are you allowed to play in the tournament? It's the same as a boycott. I'm not saying that people should sign the document or that she's wrong in her point. I'm just saying that she is going the wrong route to change this. You will never get enough people to not sign the agreement to change it.
A poker union will probably never fly either. You have way too many recreational players that don't do this for a living but still play these tournaments. Like someone else said it's not like other entertainment/sporting/games that have unions because you have essentially amateurs that play along side pros. Also, who is going to pay any union dues who only plays in a WPT event once in awhile? The whole poker union/association thing is a pie in the sky deal that will never work and people should stop talking about it. As soon as you unionize it the dead money will be scared away and then you have what you had before the craze started: Small, tough fields.
The only way to make this really work is to get cooperation from the online sites that feed the WPT their players. The other way is to start a curcuit that caters to the players. You could have your major leagues and your minor leagues like sports do. The minor leagues are for the masses and those trying to make the major league and you could still have big money involved. The major leagues are if you qualify through the minor leagues (like the PGA, Tennis, Pro Bull Riders, etc.) or earn exemptions and when you get there the majority or all of the winnings is proved by the sponsorship, TV contracts, smaller entry fees, etc. Those would be the best of the best slugging it out in major tournies. If their agreement is really that bad for all the players then it should be easy to attract players to a new curcuit and if you got ESPN or FOX or even a major network (I mean good Lord they show all kinds of garbage reality shows why not poker?) and a big online poker site to run satellites it would kick the WPT's butt.
The problem is though that someone has to actually do something about it and not make it sound like the non pro player (most of us do other things for a living no matter how serious we are about poker) should care about the pro players problem. If somehow all online sites were shut down tomorrow I'm still putting food on the table because poker is not my main source of income. It's a very elite/select group that this agreement affects. What are there 15 WPT events every year? So that's what 135 (9x15) people that make it on television if there are no repeat players at a final table? Of those how many would ever be used in an endorsement of any kind? 10 at the very most and probably more like 5 or 6. Yeah, you've got pros like Annie who have never won one that have appeal but there are only a handful of those people as well. Maybe 20 or 30 of those types of people? So we're talking about less 100 people that this agreement really affects. Go ahead and agrue with my numbers but it's not much more than that and is probably less to be honest.
So my point is that they are taking their case to the wrong people. The online poker sites have a lot more skin in the game than does the satellite player. WPT is competing with them and positioning themselves for entry into the US when online poker is legalized here. Go after that aspect and use the online poker sites pool of players to funnel them somewhere else. 1 of 2 things will happen if you do that. One, just the threat of that will make the WPT clean up their act. Two, the new venture will be wildly successful and the WPT will be a non issue and Annie and the other top pros will make a killing and have a huge success and will never have to rely on playing poker as their main source of income.
|
|
|
|
|
jsbyun
(United States)
1,849
Posts.
Joined
02-07-2005.
12-27-2005 2:24 PM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
This reminds me of an American Idol episode. There was a really talented girl in one of the preliminary rounds who already had an agent or attorney with her. They refused to sign the agreement because of the terms therefore the girl was not allowed to advance to the finals.
Patti LaBelle was one of the judges and she tried to convince her to go ahead and sign it and that she was missing a great opportunity.
I guess you could say it's a bit of a catch-22. She didn't want to sign it because if she won and became famous, she would be bound by this 'unfavorable' contract, but on the other hand if she doesn't sign it, the odds are that she will never become famous and it's a moot point.
I think most of the people watching thought the girl was being dumb for not signing the agreement.
|
|
|
Well, since I started all this....
I simply have no choice, and it's a shame. I have always sought and tried to take the advice of the better poker players, especially Annie. I ran over to tell her when I busted out of the PLO final table at the WSOP this year and after I won the tourney at her camp. I took copious notes in her lecture. I can feel in my gut that she is right about this. But, honestly, I cannot forgo the exposure and prize money associated with WPT events that I have satellited into for comparatively little money. My hope in posting this was to urge on the discussion and get others who have more effect (including the general p5s public) involved so this could be solved for me.
I am truly grateful to Annie, Howard, Andy, (and I assume DN to be Negreanu), etc, for applying the pressure necessary to save the little guys like me from the WPT ever using the agreement that I feel compelled to sign.
Eric " Blue" Bloore
|
|
|
That's my point exactly. No one is going to turn down a shot at a million dollars or more when they satellited in for $100 just because they might win and someone might put them on a lunch box without compensation. The pros should not be asking the guy who satellited in to make the biggest sacrifice and not sign the agreement. I mean they can ask but it's not the right place to start. There will always be enough people willing to sign the agreement to make the tournament go and obviously the WPT knows this. The top pros have the most to gain and therefore will have to sacrifice the most to make the game better for all players. A top pro really isn't sacrificing anything by not playing in a WPT tournament either. It's just not enough leverage to force the WPT to change their agreement. You have to take them head on and hit them in their pocket book and that's the only way to get them to change.
Until someone of top caliber is willing to make sacrifices like Curt Flood did in baseball then it will always be this way. Baseball players make a lot of money now but that wasn't always the case and the owners held all the cards. The WPT holds all the cards so to speak and until someone challenges them and hurts them financially then they won't change a thing.
Again, I'm not saying Annie or anyone else is wrong in being mad about the agreement. If I was a sponsered player with marketing appeal I'd be mad too. I would probably make the decision not to play as well. As a nobody poker player there is very little risk in my signing the agreement but a potential huge loss if I don't sign it. Very little downside for the vast majority of those who enter these tournies. Poker players are always figuring odds and the odds are way in your favor to sign the agreement because a high % (99%+) of the time it will not hurt you at all by signing it. Even if I were to win a WPT event it probably wouldn't hurt me because very few 1 time winners from out of nowhere are going to get sponsorship deals. The people (top pros) that have the most to gain or lose have to be the ones to take on the WPT head on.
|
|
|
|
|
PocketFives.com Rankings
|
|
|
|
|
Carbon Poker Sorting Tables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|