blonde poker forum

Hiya everyone.

With the massive growth of poker still errupting and following on from recent issues raised about different rulings and clocks at various venues. ( I for one would always wish to thank and congratulate Grosvenor for the festivals that they put on ) Is it time to consider as to wether a "Ruling Body" should be introduced to draw up guideline definitive rules and represent players in negotiations with such things as TV rights etc . Everything thing else that I can think of that has any sort of following/public appeal i.e darts etc has a Governing Body to ensure a level playing field and the interests of the participents.

This could be set up quite easily if players joined together .

Now why didnt I think of that  ;goodvevil; lol

(Apologies - it is my warped sense of humour)

Please see my Post in this matter on THIS thread.....

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=8518.0

But I'm glad Andy has highlighte Grosvenor's contribution to the domestic Poker Ciorcuit - we would be an a right hole without them.

Are you talking about a UK governing body, or a worldwide governing body?

Or both?

Do any other countries have a poker governing body that anyone is aware of?

For now, my view is a UK Body. You have to start somewhere. Make a success of it, & the others follow, & before you know where you are, bingo, you form an alliance, & it's sorted.

it's going to take someone to get things started. someone who has the interest of poker players in general at heart. someone well connected and respected with influence in all areas of the game. someone with contacts in the media maybe. someone known to TDs and casinos

any ideas

Yes me, does it pay £50k per annum and do i get a company car?


ok, so 1 out of 2 isnt bad  :)


oh dear - so 1 out of 3  :(


ok, i'm guessing you mean "known" in a good way so i'm looking at 1 out of 4 :'(

maybe best if my name not be added to any shortlists!!

I have no ideas for anyone who meets those criteria that isn't interested in pursuing their own financial gain. You'll be hard pushed to find anyone within poker who doesn't meet these criteria who isn't interested in cashing in.

If there is a regulatory organisation, so long as at their AGM, they vote for everyone to move the shortstack I'll be happy. :)   ;scarymoment;

It seems to me that a big issue here is that people are concerned that as an organisation a governing body might be making money out of them... so what ?? if a body is doing a good job and promoting the game and getting competitions actually sponsored where players are getting more prize monies than the current situation where we must be the only group of individuals that turn up.. pay our entry fee... get told what structure our competition may be.. organised round a final table and play a game that is being televised on ever more chanels worldwide. I dont think the dart players turn up at lakeside all pay an entry then splt the money across the prize fund like we do.. how about snooker... do Steve Davis etc all turn up at the Crucible pay an entry fee and then ply their trade for the cameras for nothing ? I dont think so.

If the right person put themselves up for this role I would be prepard to pay an annual subscription and wouldnt give a damn if they was earning a living from it.. thats the way of the world surely

EXCELLENT Post Andy.

Bernie Ecclestone made a mint by running F1, but boy oh boy, the Drivers benefitted big time, & the sport is run properly, to a structure.

If you want a talented guy to run it, he's gonna want paying. The "Chairman/President/whatever would be a businessman, but most of the others would be part-timers from the various factions of the Poker Industry.

Andy Pyrah's name comes to mind - very bright, focused, hard-working, articulate guy.

I don’t think putting a person in this job is the way to go.

 Surly you would need it to be a council, committee etc. where certain aspects would have to be put up for a vote. Universal rules, structures Etc.

 I have no problem with them making money; however, I think one person alone doing this job would be open to all types of corruption. Don King springs to mind, I know that is why this said person would have to be picked, chosen by the players, I just think it would be better to have several people on this board with both party’s interests at heart.

It would HAVE to be several people, because ALL sides of the Industry have to be present if it is to work.

 ;iagree;

When I say it should be non-profit making, I don't mean that the people who work there in an administrative capacity or democractically appointed representatatives shouldn't be paid a fair wage. It's a big job and would require a reasonable salary to get competent people interested. If 50k is what the job demands, 50k is what the job should pay.

Every single sporting governing body that is approved by the sports council in this country is non-profit distributing. That does not mean to say they don't pay out appropriately sized wages. There is no reason for a poker governing body to be any different.

If they are trying to turn as much profit as possible though, to line the initial investors pockets, it's a possibility that they would have the cash bottom line, and not the interests of the game or the players as their top priority. This is why I'm against the idea of a profit turning governing body and why I wouldn't pay any annual dues to join such an organisation out of general principle.

The problem is that the formation of such a body would require a sizeable initial investment, nobody would be willing to commit funds unless there was the possibility of turning a profit futher down the line. This is why I doubt such a project would ever get off the ground. (Without money from the government, which just ain't going to happen.)

On a smaller scale, perhaps a poker players union is a viable option?

No - with whom would they negotiate? We already know the players never get listened to. Mainly because they put their case so badly, to be fair. So many of them think the way to win an argument is to shout & holler & get angry, a method which would never win an argument in a month of Sundays.

With whomever it is said governing body would be negotiating with.


An organized player's union could put a case forward with one, considered, calm voice. It would carry much more weight than individual complaints and in the abscence of a governing body, seems, to me, better than nothing.

I would use the same point you just made to argue in favour of having an organized players union. On the back of which a more permanent governing body may eventually form.