Arbitration required regarding staking

[thetank]

he gets 25% of the skills in comp 2 cos thats what he paid for at the start in comp 1.

No he didn't otherwise there wouldn't be any argument. At the start of comp 1 he paid for comp 1 and there was no discussion of comp 2

if he has a problem with giving away free labour in comp 2 then i suggest he doesnt offer 25% of any comp that gives away free seats. i wouldnt judge comp 1 and 2 exclusively.

This is circular logic and makes no sense whatsoever, carries zero persuasive weight.

if the only way a player could get into comp1 was thru backing then why should he take more of the prizepool by isolating the backer out of the value of the seat. 25% carries fwd

Now you've just lost me completely.




To clarify my position, the backer still gets 25% of the cash value of the seat. Just as if a car was won as part of the prize the backer would get 25% of the value of that.

It would be impractical to suggest that the 25% share in the car carries forward though. wtf, is he going to use it on Tuesdays and Wednesdays?

[Swordpoker]

If I agree to get 25% of what you win and you go on to win £1000 in cash plus a seat into a £1000 comp, then I'd be expecting to get £250 cash and 25% of whatever happens in the £1000 comp.

You can only expect to get what you actually agree upon in advance.

[ScottMGee]

To add my 2p's worth, the backer should get 25% of comp 1 and 25% of comp 2.

Reasons
1) the prize includes entrance into comp 2 (not a £550 cash alternative)
2) the player would not have won the seat without the backer's backing
3) you are supposed to be friends and this is the only fair result.

[ariston]

Man how is this difficult.
You bought 25% which means you get 25% of the seat won. Why do people move the goal posts after they win summut. Forget trying to sell back the share just have 25% of the next event, you both must have known this seat was added before the event began and if not who cares.

^^what he said.

Why would anyone want to fall out with someone who has been good enough to back em over a few quid?

[Bongo]

To clarify my position, the backer still gets 25% of the cash value of the seat. Just as if a car was won as part of the prize the backer would get 25% of the value of that.

If you won a car would you expect to pay 25% of the RRP or 25% of the market value?

[thetank]

Lets say market value.

Now how about if I won a car that was in need of some work done to repair its engine.

The market value will be worth more after the repair?
What if I do this myself and it takes about 30 hours?

[GreekStein]

Your mate had 25% of you in that tournament so even if you won your wife in it he should be allowed to have her for 3 months of the year.

Seriously though, to me this is simple. He had 25% of what you won in that tournament so he should have 25% of your action in the next tourney.

[geeforce1]

Lets say market value.

Now how about if I won a car that was in need of some work done to repair its engine.

The market value will be worth more after the repair?
What if I do this myself and it takes about 30 hours?

where u winning this car? distraction?

part of the prize is the next comp, so 'labour' carries on. if the added seat was a suprise bonus then your arguement holds, but if both parties are aware of the full prize and nothing is said before comp 1 then the two competitions can be seen as 1 in terms of work.

but w/e it should never come to this

[david3103]

Your mate had 25% of you in that tournament so even if you won your wife in it he should be allowed to have her for 3 months of the year.

Seriously though, to me this is simple. He had 25% of what you won in that tournament so he should have 25% of your action in the next tourney.

What if the wife isn't his type?

And why three months? Why not just every fourth day - he may not have enough crockery and clothes to get him through the 9 month wait....

[GreekStein]

Your mate had 25% of you in that tournament so even if you won your wife in it he should be allowed to have her for 3 months of the year.

Seriously though, to me this is simple. He had 25% of what you won in that tournament so he should have 25% of your action in the next tourney.

What if the wife isn't his type?

And why three months? Why not just every fourth day - he may not have enough crockery and clothes to get him through the 9 month wait....

Ahhh, right.

In the instance of enough crockery every fourth day is acceptable.

[thetank]

but w/e it should never come to this

We agree on this at least.

if the added seat was a suprise bonus then your arguement holds

They forgot to discuss it beforehand, so for all intents and purposes, that's pretty much the same thing isn't it?

[gatso]

we seem to have completely overlooked what was written in the op. original share was bought at 1.2 so why should the guy have to buy back his action at 1.4?