players association / governing body

[dik9]

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 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

[madasahatstand]

this would allow representation of local issues for example the new smoking ban and its impact on the game. 


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.

i wasnt suggesting that law can be changed to fight the smoking ban issue. in fact, im in favour of it. i was trying to say that representation of local issues could be discussed and their impact on the game. maybe smoking was a bad choice as an example.

[tikay]

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.

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.

[tikay]

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?

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.

[AdamM]

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?

[tikay]

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.