Sky Poker Tour

[AndrewT]

As I Know It said, Stars do a deal for the hotel accommodation. The cost of this is not included in the package. If you agree to wear the Stars gear, they give you the hotel - they're essentially paying you for you to do something. Therefore, it is a contract (certainly moral, dunno if it's actually legally enforceable, certainly not if the player is American, as Stars aren't going near a US court any time soon).

Now, with the Sky deal, it appears to me that the whole cost of the package (flights, hotel and buyin) come out of the player buyins (£1100 buy-in, one in ten qualifying). Therefore Sky aren't actually offering anything for the gear.

If they instead ran a £1100 sit and go, with a cash prize, you could fly to Vegas, stay in a hotel for two weeks, play the WSOP and wear what you wanted.

If the buyin to the final tournament was $1000, with one in ten qualifying, then Sky could offer the hotel and flights as extras, which the player could accept in return for wearing the gear.

As it stands, any extras Sky provide (a couple of meals, the chance to listen to Tikay's train stories) might well be worth wearing one of their T-shirts whilst playing, but it would not be worth having to turn down anyone offering something extra for the final stages. You could also argue that simply by being there and being interviewed/having TV cameras watching you, you were providing a service to Sky.

[I KNOW IT]

As I Know It said, Stars do a deal for the hotel accommodation. The cost of this is not included in the package. If you agree to wear the Stars gear, they give you the hotel - they're essentially paying you for you to do something. Therefore, it is a contract (certainly moral, dunno if it's actually legally enforceable, certainly not if the player is American, as Stars aren't going near a US court any time soon).

Now, with the Sky deal, it appears to me that the whole cost of the package (flights, hotel and buyin) come out of the player buyins (£1100 buy-in, one in ten qualifying). Therefore Sky aren't actually offering anything for the gear.

If they instead ran a £1100 sit and go, with a cash prize, you could fly to Vegas, stay in a hotel for two weeks, play the WSOP and wear what you wanted.

If the buyin to the final tournament was $1000, with one in ten qualifying, then Sky could offer the hotel and flights as extras, which the player could accept in return for wearing the gear.

As it stands, any extras Sky provide (a couple of meals, the chance to listen to Tikay's train stories) might well be worth wearing one of their T-shirts whilst playing, but it would not be worth having to turn down anyone offering something extra for the final stages. You could also argue that simply by being there and being interviewed/having TV cameras watching you, you were providing a service to Sky.

This is exactly what I meant
.Are Sky actually offering anything extra as a incentive to wear their clothing which is not being funded by the players initial buy in?
"noted" Dinner with Tikay is worth a couple of bob granted

Tbh I think 99% of players if got to the latter stages of wsop main event would take the $60k offered by the sites for wearing a polo shirt and cap and think sod the consequences

[lazaroonie]

having just played one of the "quarter final" satellites for this viva las vegas, i now know what the added value is....

[Dingdell]

As I Know It said, Stars do a deal for the hotel accommodation. The cost of this is not included in the package. If you agree to wear the Stars gear, they give you the hotel - they're essentially paying you for you to do something. Therefore, it is a contract (certainly moral, dunno if it's actually legally enforceable, certainly not if the player is American, as Stars aren't going near a US court any time soon).

Now, with the Sky deal, it appears to me that the whole cost of the package (flights, hotel and buyin) come out of the player buyins (£1100 buy-in, one in ten qualifying). Therefore Sky aren't actually offering anything for the gear.

If they instead ran a £1100 sit and go, with a cash prize, you could fly to Vegas, stay in a hotel for two weeks, play the WSOP and wear what you wanted.

If the buyin to the final tournament was $1000, with one in ten qualifying, then Sky could offer the hotel and flights as extras, which the player could accept in return for wearing the gear.

As it stands, any extras Sky provide (a couple of meals, the chance to listen to Tikay's train stories) might well be worth wearing one of their T-shirts whilst playing, but it would not be worth having to turn down anyone offering something extra for the final stages. You could also argue that simply by being there and being interviewed/having TV cameras watching you, you were providing a service to Sky.

This is exactly what I meant
.Are Sky actually offering anything extra as a incentive to wear their clothing which is not being funded by the players initial buy in?
"noted" Dinner with Tikay is worth a couple of bob grantedTbh I think 99% of players if got to the latter stages of wsop main event would take the $60k offered by the sites for wearing a polo shirt and cap and think sod the consequences

Sod that! I think Tikay would have to give me the couple of bob and skip the dinner tbh!

[tikay]

As I Know It said, Stars do a deal for the hotel accommodation. The cost of this is not included in the package. If you agree to wear the Stars gear, they give you the hotel - they're essentially paying you for you to do something. Therefore, it is a contract (certainly moral, dunno if it's actually legally enforceable, certainly not if the player is American, as Stars aren't going near a US court any time soon).

Now, with the Sky deal, it appears to me that the whole cost of the package (flights, hotel and buyin) come out of the player buyins (£1100 buy-in, one in ten qualifying). Therefore Sky aren't actually offering anything for the gear.

If they instead ran a £1100 sit and go, with a cash prize, you could fly to Vegas, stay in a hotel for two weeks, play the WSOP and wear what you wanted.

If the buyin to the final tournament was $1000, with one in ten qualifying, then Sky could offer the hotel and flights as extras, which the player could accept in return for wearing the gear.

As it stands, any extras Sky provide (a couple of meals, the chance to listen to Tikay's train stories) might well be worth wearing one of their T-shirts whilst playing, but it would not be worth having to turn down anyone offering something extra for the final stages. You could also argue that simply by being there and being interviewed/having TV cameras watching you, you were providing a service to Sky.

This is exactly what I meant
.Are Sky actually offering anything extra as a incentive to wear their clothing which is not being funded by the players initial buy in?
"noted" Dinner with Tikay is worth a couple of bob grantedTbh I think 99% of players if got to the latter stages of wsop main event would take the $60k offered by the sites for wearing a polo shirt and cap and think sod the consequences

Sod that! I think Tikay would have to give me the couple of bob and skip the dinner tbh!

That's enforceable.

[Jon MW]

...

It's very simple. By agreeing to abide by the T & C's - which you have to, to play the Site, you accept the T & C's. It's a Contract. And if you fail to fulfil a Contract, or break it, there are any number of legal remedies available.

Question for the legally minded.

Are terms and conditions of a competition a contract, enforceable by contract law?

And if they are legally a contract could they not fall foul of being deemed 'unfair' contracts?

[tikay]

Thanks for the feedback guys, especially Byron, Andrew & Craig.

The deal is the deal is the deal, & it's covered by the T & C's. Nobody has to agree to them, unless they wish to qualify on Sky Poker, in which case they have no choice, to be honest. Byron has it spot-on, as to players choices! If players think the 'Stars deal s better, then they'd better go play on 'Stars.

We took 4 players last year, & along with their Guests, I think they got better looked after than any qualifiers from any site. They were very happy, before, during, & after, so were we, & that's the recipe I hope Sky follow this year - personal service, excellent Customer Care, & just enjoy what is, for any regular Sky Poker player, the trip of a lifetime, & the chance to live the dream. Those guys also took centre stage in a 1 hour TV Documentary we made, based around their Vegas experiences, & they absoluely adored that opportunity to be stars in a TV Show which featured them promoinently.
 
I know this - those who qualify on Sky Poker will have a ball, & be better looked after than any others, because we will not take more than we can look after properly on a 1 to 1 basis.

Anyways, we've thrashed this to death, let's move on. Good Luck to anyone who qualifies for Vegas 2009, whatever Site you choose to play & qualify on.

[tikay]

Tony, following on from that explanation, whats to stop any qualifier from breaking the T and C's? I had a look through them just now, and I'm no RobertHM, but I can't see any punishment for breaking them apart from disqualification - which would be a moot point if you've already started the tournament, Sky can't exactly get you thrown out of the WSOP Main Event once it has begun.

And there, in the first sentence, you have it. Someone agrees to abide by legally based T & C's, then says "what's to stop me breaking it"! Sums it up, really.

And no, Sky could not get anyone "thrown out" of the WSOP, nor, I fancy, would they even try.

It's very simple. By agreeing to abide by the T & C's - which you have to, to play the Site, you accept the T & C's. It's a Contract. And if you fail to fulfil a Contract, or break it, there are any number of legal remedies available.

Without reading the whole thread(apologies) are Sky actually giving the winning satelite qualifiers anything for expenses or $$ for wearing their apparell, or is this all in with the package which is funded by the players?
iirc Stars gave hotel accom if you wore their logo

The package includes a Hotel Suite at The Rio, return air tickets for two, expenses/spending money, &n being "Hosted" & wined & dined, (doing the Vegas thing).   

dont get me wrong - if there is added value then I think that is reasonable. nice suite at the rio ?
better look out one of those skypoker shirts in xxxl

Yup, our players will all have Suites at The Rio, but it's not "added value", it's part of the package value.

The Added Value is that we arrange Suites which overlook the railroad track, which runs down to Boulder, & carries Hoover Dam materials. It's a freight-only line, but the trains are of extraordinary length, up to half a mile long, & you get a good chance to study them carefully, as they never excceed 8 or 10 mph. Now THAT'S added value.

[turny]

tony has the structure and chips been decided for the spukpt final yet?

[tikay]

...

It's very simple. By agreeing to abide by the T & C's - which you have to, to play the Site, you accept the T & C's. It's a Contract. And if you fail to fulfil a Contract, or break it, there are any number of legal remedies available.

Question for the legally minded.

Are terms and conditions of a competition a contract, enforceable by contract law?

And if they are legally a contract could they not fall foul of being deemed 'unfair' contracts?

I'm staggered the way poker players think sometimes.

Jon - turn that question on it's head.

If a Poker Site fail to deliver on it's T & C's - does not pay out the winners, or pay it's bills, for example - there'd be uproar. And quite rightly so, Sites are obliged to deliver on their promises & committments. It's part of the Terms & Conditions we agree to when we play on any given Site. (Poker Trillion excepted).

And this cuts both ways.

Nobody has to accept the T & C's of any site.  But if they do accept them (& they have to, to use the Site) they must accept them, just as much as the Site is obliged to deliver it's committments.

It's a two-way street, not a one-way street.

Do we really want to see sites wriggling out of them, as you are suggesting players might be able to?

[tikay]

tony has the structure and chips been decided for the spukpt final yet?

No Paul, not that I'm aware of.

We know pretty much what we want fom the weekend, structure-wise, & it'll be announced in due course, on here, on Sky Poker, & on my Blog.

[Jon MW]

...

It's very simple. By agreeing to abide by the T & C's - which you have to, to play the Site, you accept the T & C's. It's a Contract. And if you fail to fulfil a Contract, or break it, there are any number of legal remedies available.

Question for the legally minded.

Are terms and conditions of a competition a contract, enforceable by contract law?

And if they are legally a contract could they not fall foul of being deemed 'unfair' contracts?

I'm staggered the way poker players think sometimes.

Jon - turn that question on it's head.

...

Do we really want to see sites wriggling out of them, as you are suggesting players might be able to?

No I was asking the question, are they legally definable contracts?

EDIT: because I know a little bit about contract law, but I don't know enough to answer those questions with any certainty. So I was wondering if somebody else did.

[turny]

tony has the structure and chips been decided for the spukpt final yet?

No Paul, not that I'm aware of.

We know pretty much what we want fom the weekend, structure-wise, & it'll be announced in due course, on here, on Sky Poker, & on my Blog.

thanks tony, dont you think it would be better letting the customer know what the structure is etc prior to selling entries? surely it would help people plan there weekend and also whether they want to play the event or not depending if they are happy with the structure or not?

[Dingdell]

...

It's very simple. By agreeing to abide by the T & C's - which you have to, to play the Site, you accept the T & C's. It's a Contract. And if you fail to fulfil a Contract, or break it, there are any number of legal remedies available.

Question for the legally minded.

Are terms and conditions of a competition a contract, enforceable by contract law?

And if they are legally a contract could they not fall foul of being deemed 'unfair' contracts?

I'm staggered the way poker players think sometimes.

Jon - turn that question on it's head.

...

Do we really want to see sites wriggling out of them, as you are suggesting players might be able to?

No I was asking the question, are they legally definable contracts?

Is the Brief around? He might be a better one to ask unless Tikay has unwittingly become legally qualified!

[tikay]

...

It's very simple. By agreeing to abide by the T & C's - which you have to, to play the Site, you accept the T & C's. It's a Contract. And if you fail to fulfil a Contract, or break it, there are any number of legal remedies available.

Question for the legally minded.

Are terms and conditions of a competition a contract, enforceable by contract law?

And if they are legally a contract could they not fall foul of being deemed 'unfair' contracts?

I'm staggered the way poker players think sometimes.

Jon - turn that question on it's head.

...

Do we really want to see sites wriggling out of them, as you are suggesting players might be able to?

No I was asking the question, are they legally definable contracts?

In the sense that any Term & Condition is, yes, I would have thought so. Poker is a hobby for most of us, so this obsession with legalities is something I find quite curious.

If a Site fail to pay out a winner, or give you the Seat you won on that site, could you sue them?