blonde poker forum

Tikays favourite topic on poker425854. if there was a :edit: players association / governing body :edit: who would you want on it? I guess you couldn't have people like Thomas Kremser/John Duthie/Jon Shoreman/etc, ie anyone the players might like to negotiate with.

nominations?

AdamM

thanks

my first nomination is The Camel. says his piece anyway and it's usually on the mark

anyone with experience of being moved in the shortstack.


p.s(serious answer) Me!

 ;iagree; come on Tighty, take up the challange.

I would say Tikay cos everybody likes him.

i agree but he'd never accept it

Poor chap doesn't have the time I don't think.

Ironside seems like a bright chap. He always puts over a good argument.

You can fool some of the people......... rotflmfao


No seriously, he loves a good argument!  :D

Lucy Rokach

Neil Channing

James Browning

Tom Sambrook

just to give a few...tikay's too busy i expect



A full time job though, would be difficult to play full time and do the union (a bit like Shoreman finds it difficult to do both playing a lot and poker in europe)

Deleted……. Sorry I thought you had started a serious thread. I should have known better My mistake…

Irish Dennis, because he has expressed a willingness to do it rather than just talk about it.

From the Vic Structures Thread:

Ok then. I will ask one of my programmers to put up a home page for people to register their interest. If we get the interest then we will do it. What is important is to have a mission statement. What are we trying to avhieve and so on. If anyone wnats to be involved then send me an email.  My address is deniso@kewcomputers.com   Please mark it players union as I get a lot of mail and would not like to miss your mail.

Well no, we do NOT all know what is needed......

With respect, I am NOT in favour, necessarily, of a Players Union - not at all, & I don't believe I have ever said I am, either on 425 or in here. It would serve no puprose, because they would have nobody to negotiate with!

My wish is for a Governing Body, with input from ALL sides of the table - players, Casinos, Promoters, sponsors, TV Companies maybe.

I'm sorry, but if you think a Players Union would work you are whistling in the dark - that's the LAST thing Poker needs. It's a structure to our game, a universal set of rules, some authority, the ability to impose guidelines on player behaviour & sanction penalties, to receive requests for Fessies & insist they are structured properly, set up a "Grading System" (as in Group Races in Horse Racing) , negotiate with TV companies & new Sponsors, & impose upon these people what is needed in the way of sensible structures, proper added money, payment by TV companies for players time & image rights, and a dozen other things, so on & so forth. And from the Sponsors/Casinos TV compsnies angle, the Players would have to give assurances too, this is not a one-sided problem.

Setting up a Players Union would be a complete & utter waste of time. I am afraid, & I don't mean to be rude or abrupt here, but if you think a Players Union is the answer, you simply don't understand the problem.

It's an ASSOCIATION we need. With all parties represented.

perhaps it's my choice of name thats wrong. You've said a group of people to negotiate with the TV / tourney organisors like Golf/Football/tennis/etc I think because it'd be made up of players I called it a union. we'd presumably be looking at an elected body wouldn't we?

I agree with everything TIkay says but how far do you extend this do you have seperate Association for the UK, Europe and the US or do you have a world assoiation that no doubt many of the Americans would want to boss?

I reckon the first thing should be to establish a UK association, with office bearers and also representation from the likes of sponsors, casinos, gaming board etc.  I would suggest there should be a mimimal fee to any player who joins this association in order to keep up the running of the aforementioned

I also think we should have a standard set of rules for all uk clubs so that your not caught on the hop when you visit a new club. 

A union would divide the game. An association is the way forward with everyone talking to each other and working together to achieve the same goals.

From what I have seem of unions, they do nothing of the sort. My father is a branch secretary of Unison and from what he tells me, it's just a bunch of loud mouthed egotistical morons always wanting the last word. Again, I don't mean to be rude, far from it. I'm totally new here. I'm just letting you know that a union might signal the end of this fantastic friendship I can see pumping through this forum.

I agree with tikay. Never met the man, but he talks with wisdom.

I agree Good post,

 But you must have misunderstood the thread as I did, they just want a name of someone to run it, not talk about what the job would entail..

Go figure….

jeez another shitty tone

ffs guys sort it out

 :-X

I'm sorry. I thought you meant the 'old' union, not A union of people as in a fellowship. We do need a voice. Adam, take the stand.

wasnt meant to be an ultra serious thread. just thinking if we were to have a governing body / union / etc who would you likely to see involved.

I thought Tikay was on the money by pointing out its the significant difference between us and much better paid games

My original idea, which I posted in the early days of Blonde was to have a/several

"Player's Representatives" who could then sit on a committee alongside Casino/cardroom managers and Sponsors.

I feel that we need a committee in which all the interested parties are represented.

These representatives were to be "Player's Liaison Officers", "Casino/Cardroom Liaison Officers" etc.

I agree with Tikay that going along the Union route is a waste of time

Tikay is correct in wanting a governing body.      ;tk; ;tk; ;tk; ;tk; ;tk;

I have spent a lot of time and money working in an industry that generates huge cash resources for a few select groups. Yet it is an industry that has over 2 million members! Unless poker is to be treated as a commercial venture where there are CLEAR guidelines and regulations supported and governed with the aim of supporting the players as well as the operators then it will not prosper.

There is little or no chance of poker having a voice as long as uneducated, narrow minded politicians and gaming board representatives who are bought off by the larger organisations control what is and is not acceptable.

The only way that poker will be accepted is if it creates a worldwide tour, appoints an official governing body, attracts serious main stream sponsors and secures several years TV rights. Then after 2 years if the tour is successful then it may be able to lobby for an independent review (which is what it will take for poker to have its own rules and guidelines). This will also needs to be supported by several prominent politicians and casinos.

I love poker and have had over 20 years of enjoyment in playing, meeting and working with the people that make it the most fascinating game there is. I only hope that there is enough momentum over the coming years to ensure that a regulatory body that understands poker and its players is formed. I for one would help this happen in any way I could.

Now this thread is getting nearer the mark, with some great, well-reasoned Posts.

Shame the thread is called "Players union" though.....!

So the original question - "who would head it up?" is not relevant, because the question was asked in the context of a Players Union, & a Players Union is clearly not the answer. You can't nominate someone to run something when you don't know what the job entails yet!

I don't want to single out anyone in particular, but I am much heartened by some really insightful Posts in this Thread, particularly on Page Two.

http://www.thehendonmob.com/jesse_jones/letter_to_poker_players.html

hmmm... pro poker players won't contribute to the funding of NHS hospitals... yet u think they can bond together for a common good where self-interest is involved?

More likely - but I think 'Nah' is the most likely answer.

The link that Nemesis posted from Jesse Jones is a good one and reiterates what Tikay was saying.

Tikay, it would be interesting to hear your view on Mr Jones's pitch for the WPA! Personally I am going to support it, it's a good starting point and would be more succesful with the support of the bigger names on Blonde.

Golfers, darts and snooker players are all individualistic and built around a self centred culture much the same as poker, yet they have very powerful, succesful players associations, with a huge say in their individual areas.

id nominate nemesis and mp3 boy to represent blonde on an association as they always contribute well thought out responses to simple to complex issues. has anyone written supporting the hendon mob in their drive to develop an association? surely it would be best to make sure there is only 1 association with lots of weight behind it, but with reps from regional areas such as scotland or uk? this would allow representation of local issues for example the new smoking ban and its impact on the game.  work like this needs committment and determination but i suppose there are lots of folk with a passion who would be willing to take it on.
how would this association be funded?

mad

I think this issue is easily resolved, the government states it wants a ban on smoking in such environments and thats what happens. I don't fancy any associations chances in challenging this.

A single voice, an association representating players interests, working along side other interested parties is something the game needs but it will never lead to one homogenous product, neither should it, whilst governments have differing gaming laws. I also only see any association having a real impact on the professional game as your local smaller games will always be adapted to the wim of the various companies running those games. Therefore any association to most recreational players is of limited or no real interest as it will have no real impact.

The key reason I think an association needs to be formed is that players are frequently being screwed over when it comes to their rights with regards to signing unbelievably onesided unfair media contracts if they happen to do well in a tournement. I understand some tournments require you to sign a waiver prior to the competition starting which is fine as you know what you are getting into but I find it amazing some tournaments they expect to sign one if you qualify for the final televised stages. Well done sir on playing well. I know you paid your own entry fee and qualified for the final, we now require you to sign this form if you want to continue that allows us to exploit your name as we see fit. A tad unreasonable? but hey most players don't care whether their being exploited as long as they get on tv  ::)

This is my view for what it is worth (and I expect to get shot down in flames)

Until poker is reckognised as a game of skill, and players start paying tax. Poker will inevitabely be kept in the dark ages, with ex magistrates and the likes behind the scenes dictating what you can and cannot do. Poker at the moment has a governing body that is so detached from the game itself it is an out and out farce. Decisions from the gaming board or now the Gaming commission take an eternity, usually because they don't even know the terminology that they are employed to govern. Once it has been thrown around a board room for a month, the question they would have been originally asked will always end up a hesitant NO as that is usually the safe answer?

Poker players should march to Downing street and demand to pay tax on winnings, that would really confuse the government :D but in return take the onous away from the gaming commission and demand THEIR OWN governing body. From which all legal games would follow suit in standardised rules, payout structures, voices being heard in TV Produced comps, internet, prize pools, sponsership..........the list is far too big to carry on.

After all these problems only arise because the government can see an industry (a multi billlion pound industry) that they cannot get their hands on, and that pisses them off.

Cardrooms are a subsidery of casinos (at the mo), why on earth did the gaming commission give casino's a licence to take 10% reg fee? who gets that? Casino's laid cardrooms on to encourage people through the door to spend all their extra dosh on the magic roundabout. And it worked!! why have they given casino's the right to charge you for that privilige? In effect you already paying tax. So why not demand that it is done properly. For all those newer players that have only been playing for less than 5 years, casinos used to lay poker comps on all the time, dealer dealt etc for no extra charge and the casino's were happy then......what changed?

In another breath poker is also recreational, so why penalise the recreational player and what defines recreation? This can be done one of two ways,
have a ceiling on a taxable comp i.e. £100 comp or above has the winners taxed (as an example) or have a threshold of earnings through poker winnings before tax is paid.

From grass roots level it pisses me off to see people claiming dole, having "earnt" enough money through poker to sustain a very healthy lifestyle.

Everything is relative, i.e. the difference between cigarettes and cannabis, cigarettes are governed because you pay tax on them and cannabis is tolerated but not legal, and their are some really dodgy geezers earning a lot more going down the cannabis route and this is not governed? Policed yes but governed no. Much like poker.

How would the tv company's resist to film a demonstration outside number 10 of people wanting to pay tax to get their OWN voices heard?

Revolution my brothers!!

gotta stop smoking this shit :D

I have just taken a look at the Jesse Jones piece, & he seems to have it spot on. I support his initiative, but the devil is in the detail in these things, so I'd want to see the nuts & bolts of how it works. I make this point because........

18 months ago, a similar type of body to the Jesse Jones Proposal was set up, & I was invited to jon it. The "invite" was supported by many of today's "top" players. But...the voting was to be "weighted" - a Top Pro got 3 votes to everyone else's one! That's crazy. I accept that the top players have different aims than us foot soldiers, different needs too, but I just cant buy into a weighted vote deal. It's about ALL poker players, & there are a damn site more foot soldiers than big names.

It's the guy who goes down to Gala Notts for the £10 Rebuy, just as much as the touring Pros, who need a Governing Body, to manage the game at all levels. Football has the same rules at all levels, ditto cricket, etc etc. That's what we need.

But from what I can see of the Jesse Jones initiative, it is spot on, subject to detail.

Just re-visiting ths thead, I don't necessarily think any of the 3 names Adam mentioned are unsuitable as Members of the body - repsentation would be essential from all sides of the table. Duthie in particular impresses me greatly. Shrewd man. Jon Shoreman too, but he is essentially a commercial animal - very good at it too, maybe the best, but I'm not sure he could be even-handed, as he has fingers in so many pies. Big TK, yup, another worthy guy, & he'd cerrtainly be useful fom the "Rules" side.

Im not saying there's anything wrong with those guys, far from it. but if they're the people running the tourneys, dont players need someone to represent their view in talks with the afore mentioned guys?

Yes Adam - ALL sides would need to be represented, & these people would need to be active in the game.

Each Member of the Board/Committee/Association would specialise in their own specific area of responsibility, & the "couinter" is the other Members, again representing "their" side of the game.

Fior example, you'd need a Rules man, a player, a Promotor, a TV Exec, a Lawyer/Solicitor, a Gaming Commission Liasion Officer, an Entrepenaur, a Casino Executive, Online man, someone from "Responsible Gambling",Administrator,  etc etc. (The list is not intended to be complete). They'd all take soundings from their "own" area & bring it to the table.

That's my view, anyway.