WSOP syndicate game!

jacQues

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!

Please vote to sign up to the WSOP syndicate game. Rather than having everyone reply and create a huge flipping thread, I made it a poll. Because its a public poll, when you vote your name will show up. Therefore, we'll see who is interested on the top of this thread, in a nice and clean manner. So please don't reply with "Yes, I wanna play" but vote "YES" instead.

Vote "YES" only if you are seriously interested in playing this syndicate game!! This means paying 127 to 250 euro (plus 10 to 15 euro fee for professional dealers if you're playing) and getting a percentage in one or two players or maybe even play the WSOP yourself! Playing is optional, but obviously more fun and a chance to play a $10,000.00 buyin event yourself! The "NO" vote is provided if you already won a seat or simply would feel left out by not voting.

HOW DOES IT WORK?
All syndicate members will sign a form where you declare to agree to the syndicate's rules and fill out your contact details. We'll need those so we know where/how to wire you money if/when the seat winner(s) cashes out. We will then play a game with a very similar structure as the WSOP main event (but not two hour levels :rolleyes:) to determine who will be representing the syndicate. One or two players, named "seat winner(s)", will get 10,000 euro to play. This consists of approximately 8,000 euro buyin and the rest for flight + hotel expenses. The other players will get a percentage of the seat winner(s) winnings.

WHEN AND WHERE?
We will democratically pick a Sunday afternoon to play. The location will be somewhere in or around Dublin. Hopefully a similar location as the last syndicate game we played for the Irish Open. First we need to determine whether its viable. If we get 50+ "YES" votes we'll discuss the next step.

ALL ABOUT NUMBERS
To make this work, we'll need at least 40 people. With more people both the entrance fee and the percentage returned will be smaller. But if we get 80+ players there will be two seats going instead of one, thus doubling everyone's chances of a potential return. Numbers right here:

syndicate size   € e.a.   losers win
40 players       250      1 x 1.79%
50 players       200      1 x 1.43%
60 players       167      1 x 1.19%
70 players       143      1 x 1.01%
80 players       250      2 x 0.89%
90 players       222      2 x 0.79%
100 players      200      2 x 0.71%

jacQues
("YES" hamster)


Small print:

1. Seat winner(s) get 30% from their own winnings, 70% goes towards all other syndicate players (including the other seat winner, if there are two seats).
2. Seat winner(s) may enter into a sponsorship deal for wearing logos etc, at the same division scheme of 30% self / 70% syndicate.
3. Any and all sponsorship deals made after the main event are not part of the syndicate deal and therefore 100% for the seat winner.

Fatboydim

jacQues wrote:

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!



Small print:

1. Seat winner(s) get 30% from their own winnings, 70% goes towards all other syndicate players (including the other seat winner, if there are two seats).
2. Seat winner(s) may enter into a sponsorship deal for wearing logos etc, at the same division scheme of 30% self / 70% syndicate.
3. Any and all sponsorship deals made after the main event are not part of the syndicate deal and therefore 100% for the seat winner.

Was this the same small print you had before? I only ask because the sponsorship doo daa would rule me out.

jacQues

NO

Fatboydim wrote:

Was this the same small print you had before? I only ask because the sponsorship doo daa would rule me out.

There was no small print before AFAIK. Or maybe there was but I didn't notice. Solksjaer?!?

It just seemed right, since there are crazy deals out there. If you make it to the top 27 and don't wear a logo already, you can get up to 100,000 doing a deal. This seems to me like indirect tournament winnings. In other words - it wouldn't be fair to go into a 30%/70% deal and then get 100% on the side. Its not in the syndicate spirit.

If I'm wrong, by all means correct me.

jacQues

5starpool

jacQues wrote:

There was no small print before AFAIK. Or maybe there was but I didn't notice. Solksjaer?!?

It just seemed right, since there are crazy deals out there. If you make it to the top 27 and don't wear a logo already, you can get up to 100,000 doing a deal. This seems to me like indirect tournament winnings. In other words - it wouldn't be fair to go into a 30%/70% deal and then get 100% on the side. Its not in the syndicate spirit.

If I'm wrong, by all means correct me.

jacQues

If I was going to play this (Which I probably won't) this unlikely eventuality would not make me happy.

jacQues

NO

5starpool wrote:

If I was going to play this (Which I probably won't) this unlikely eventuality would not make me happy.

If you get 500 yo-yos for wearing some logo nobody really cares. But anything big would be like stealing from the syndicate. At least thats how I see this matter. Seat winners play on behalf of the syndicate, so all winnings directly related to the main event should be divided 30/70. If I won the seat and played I wouldn't even consider keeping 100% for such deal, as I don't steal. Any deals done after the main event are separate from the syndicate.

Maybe I'm wrong assuming that such deals are part of winnings. If the general consensus is otherwise, then scrap that rule alltogether. I merely added it because it was common sense (to me at least) and tried to prevent angle-shooting.

jacQues

5starpool

jacQues wrote:

If you get 500 yo-yos for wearing some logo nobody really cares. But anything big would be like stealing from the syndicate. At least thats how I see this matter. Seat winners play on behalf of the syndicate, so all winnings directly related to the main event should be divided 30/70. If I won the seat and played I wouldn't even consider keeping 100% for such deal, as I don't steal. Any deals done after the main event are separate from the syndicate.

Maybe I'm wrong assuming that such deals are part of winnings. If the general consensus is otherwise, then scrap that rule alltogether. I merely added it because it was common sense (to me at least) and tried to prevent angle-shooting.

jacQues

I don't think I have a horse high enough to answer that from.

Flushdraw

jacQues wrote:

If you get 500 yo-yos for wearing some logo nobody really cares. But anything big would be like stealing from the syndicate. At least thats how I see this matter. Seat winners play on behalf of the syndicate, so all winnings directly related to the main event should be divided 30/70. If I won the seat and played I wouldn't even consider keeping 100% for such deal, as I don't steal. Any deals done after the main event are separate from the syndicate.

Maybe I'm wrong assuming that such deals are part of winnings. If the general consensus is otherwise, then scrap that rule alltogether. I merely added it because it was common sense (to me at least) and tried to prevent angle-shooting.

jacQues

Thats a bit harsh Jacques! I dont think any deal/sponsorship made by a player should have anything to do with the syndicate. Lets say for arguments sake that someone like Ollieboy or Daithio decide to play the syndicate game and took it down. Both players have had a huge result in europe, and should they attract any interest from potential sponsors, all earnings from this should be kept for themselves and not split 30/70. I dont think its right for a syndicate member to pay about €200 and expect to cash in on sponsorship too.

myflipflops

NO

Flushdraw wrote:

Lets say for arguments sake that someone like Ollieboy or Daithio decide to play the syndicate game and took it down. Both players have had a huge result in europe, and should they attract any interest from potential sponsors, all earnings from this should be kept for themselves and not split 30/70. I dont think its right for a syndicate member to pay about €200 and expect to cash in on sponsorship too.

as an el random puntero who would like to play this, i think the above is a pretty fair point.

Doc Farrell

NO

actually if Ollieboy plays in the SYNDICATE game then he must accept their rules.
i think Jacques has done a great job here and I'd like to play if its not too much.

Jacques game, Jacques rules!
just who the hell does Ollieboy think he is anyway. Bloody Pup!

LuckyLloyd

I would be of the opinion that any extra earnings from sponsorship deals and the like have nothing to do with the syndicate. Such extra earnings are not directly related to the tournament; the tournament buy - in, or the tournament prizepool. And any player who gets offered such deals would have done the work (i.e. 7 days of gruelling tourney poker) themselves to be in such a position.

I believe that this condition should be removed. When it is - I will vote yes. Well done for taking the initative to organise it by the way.

fabsoul

UnLuckyLloyd wrote:

I would be of the opinion that any extra earnings from sponsorship deals and the like have nothing to do with the syndicate. Such extra earnings are not directly related to the tournament; the tournament buy - in, or the tournament prizepool. And any player who gets offered such deals would have done the work (i.e. 7 days of gruelling tourney poker) themselves to be in such a position.

I believe that this condition should be removed. When it is - I will vote yes. Well done for taking the initative to organise it by the way.

ditto, plus it should be 50/50 %

pppspecial

can i have some off what ur smokin jacques. it seems to be some good stuff m8. yeah it is ur tourny so do what ever u like but 1 things for sure u wont make the numbers unless u change this very silly rule. and i mean it is silly. seriously its a great idea but its being ruined by this. its going to rule most off the decent tourny players here on boards. players u might have gotten in the first place. now aint that stoopid.
no offence to all those who voted yes im sure ur all good players and some great players but this is just my view.

David Michael

I read it as in getting a logo/deal.. during and for the duration of the WSOP? While at a TV table or something?

jacQues.....?

slegs

NO

jacQues wrote:

If you get 500 yo-yos for wearing some logo nobody really cares. But anything big would be like stealing from the syndicate. At least thats how I see this matter. Seat winners play on behalf of the syndicate, so all winnings directly related to the main event should be divided 30/70. If I won the seat and played I wouldn't even consider keeping 100% for such deal, as I don't steal. Any deals done after the main event are separate from the syndicate.

Maybe I'm wrong assuming that such deals are part of winnings. If the general consensus is otherwise, then scrap that rule alltogether. I merely added it because it was common sense (to me at least) and tried to prevent angle-shooting.

jacQues

i think this rule makes perfect sense...if you are playing for a syndicate the all tournament related winnings including in tournament sponsorship deals should be in scope

Flushdraw

slegs wrote:

i think this rule makes perfect sense...if you are playing for a syndicate the all tournament related winnings including in tournament sponsorship deals should be in scope

If for a arguements sake, you won the ticket and represented the syndicate and got $1000 for wearing a shirt with a logo on it. You think it makes perfectly sense for you to get $300 and then split the other $700 99 ways so they all get $7 each. You really believe that? Even if the sponsorship was $10k, you only get $70 each. I mean think about it ffs. Its a joke

connie147

jacQues wrote:

If you get 500 yo-yos for wearing some logo nobody really cares. But anything big would be like stealing from the syndicate. At least thats how I see this matter. Seat winners play on behalf of the syndicate, so all winnings directly related to the main event should be divided 30/70. If I won the seat and played I wouldn't even consider keeping 100% for such deal, as I don't steal. Any deals done after the main event are separate from the syndicate.

Maybe I'm wrong assuming that such deals are part of winnings. If the general consensus is otherwise, then scrap that rule alltogether. I merely added it because it was common sense (to me at least) and tried to prevent angle-shooting.

jacQues

Cant agree with you here Jacques. Play the tourney and let the winner go and represrent the syndiocate. If he cashes, fantastic both for him and the syndicate members.
But if he's good enough (or cute enough) to organise a sponsorship deal for himself, then thats nobodys business but his own and really has nothing to do with the syndicate(imho).

Doc Farrell

NO

connie147 wrote:

Cant agree with you here Jacques. Play the tourney and let the winner go and represrent the syndiocate. If he cashes, fantastic both for him and the syndicate members.
But if he's good enough (or cute enough) to organise a sponsorship deal for himself, then thats nobodys business but his own and really has nothing to do with the syndicate(imho).

actually it seems that I completely misread it as Connie's view is mine to a tee.

yep, i managed to entirely misunderstand, nice.

Jesus Wept

NO

agree with the Lloyd, flushdraw, Connie, etc

The Clamper

NO

Its Amazing That No Matter What Someone Orgainses, There Will Always Be Those Who Look For Faults

Generally, Its The People That Organise Zilch Themselves That Have The Loudest Voice In This Regard

To Me This Looks Like A Guy Trying To Set Something Up For Players To Get A Chance To Play In Vegas Or To At Least Get A Slice Of The Man In Form

Sponsorship For The Syndicate Is How It Was Posted And If You Dont Want To Participate, Then Dont Play Or Invest, Very Simple

If You Want To Organise An Event Using Your Own Rules, Then Post It Here And Do The Work Yourself Instead Of Constantly Criticising The Efforts Of Others

There Is A Poll, Vote No If You Dont Want To Participate Or Disagree With The Post

A Comprimise Could Be That The Winner Wears A Syndicate Logo, Thereby Negating The Likelyhood Of Being Approached By Another Sponsor
Print All The Names Of The Syndicate On The Shirt, Now There Would Be No Room For Sponsors

LuckyLloyd

The Clamper wrote:

Its Amazing That No Matter What Someone Orgainses, There Will Always Be Those Who Look For Faults

Generally, Its The People That Organise Zilch Themselves That Have The Loudest Voice In This Regard

To Me This Looks Like A Guy Trying To Set Something Up For Players To Get A Chance To Play In Vegas Or To At Least Get A Slice Of The Man In Form

Sponsorship For The Syndicate Is How It Was Posted And If You Dont Want To Participate, Then Dont Play Or Invest, Very Simple

If You Want To Organise An Event Using Your Own Rules, Then Post It Here And Do The Work Yourself Instead Of Constantly Criticising The Efforts Of Others

There Is A Poll, Vote No If You Dont Want To Participate Or Disagree With The Post

A Comprimise Could Be That The Winner Wears A Syndicate Logo, Thereby Negating The Likelyhood Of Being Approached By Another Sponsor
Print All The Names Of The Syndicate On The Shirt, Now There Would Be No Room For Sponsors

Well it amazes me how unflexible some of the people who organise things are about their plans. If you post things on a public forum, expect people who frequent that public forum to give their opinion. And in this case, the voicing of opinions is justified as it is coming from people who would like a specific change before they participate. If Jacques insists on sticking with his original idea that is perfectly fine. I just won't be involved.

Make sure you don't fall of your horse sir - it could be quite sore if you did.

cardshark202

Please refrain from posting on this forum if you are going to capitalise every word/letter. Thank you.

StraddleFor6

The Clamper wrote:

Its Amazing That No Matter What Someone Orgainses, There Will Always Be Those Who Look For Faults

Generally, Its The People That Organise Zilch Themselves That Have The Loudest Voice In This Regard

To Me This Looks Like A Guy Trying To Set Something Up For Players To Get A Chance To Play In Vegas Or To At Least Get A Slice Of The Man In Form

Sponsorship For The Syndicate Is How It Was Posted And If You Dont Want To Participate, Then Dont Play Or Invest, Very Simple

If You Want To Organise An Event Using Your Own Rules, Then Post It Here And Do The Work Yourself Instead Of Constantly Criticising The Efforts Of Others

There Is A Poll, Vote No If You Dont Want To Participate Or Disagree With The Post

A Comprimise Could Be That The Winner Wears A Syndicate Logo, Thereby Negating The Likelyhood Of Being Approached By Another Sponsor
Print All The Names Of The Syndicate On The Shirt, Now There Would Be No Room For Sponsors

This is so horrible to read. Why did you do that?


Jacques, this is an excellent idea. Fair play for putting the time into it.
That rule will have to go though. Too many people don't like it.

ArmaniJeanss

NO

For an advertiser the Unique Selling Point of the syndicate would increase the amount of money they would be willing be pay to get a player 'logo-ed up'.

Could you imagine what say, PaddyPower Marketing would do with the syndicate concept.

'50 strangers who became friends through paddypowerpoker.com (the bestest poker site in the universe etc) nominated young Gholimoli to play on their behalf in the WSOP. Now he is in the last 30 of the richest event in the world' etc etc These 50 people from all walks of life could have their lives changed thanks to PaddyPower' etc etc.

So because of this I think it would be fair that any direct sponsorship should be split along the same lines as prize money.

Jesus Wept

NO

The Clamper wrote:

Its Amazing That No Matter What Someone Orgainses, There Will Always Be Those Who Look For Faults

Generally, Its The People That Organise Zilch Themselves That Have The Loudest Voice In This Regard

To Me This Looks Like A Guy Trying To Set Something Up For Players To Get A Chance To Play In Vegas Or To At Least Get A Slice Of The Man In Form

Sponsorship For The Syndicate Is How It Was Posted And If You Dont Want To Participate, Then Dont Play Or Invest, Very Simple

If You Want To Organise An Event Using Your Own Rules, Then Post It Here And Do The Work Yourself Instead Of Constantly Criticising The Efforts Of Others

There Is A Poll, Vote No If You Dont Want To Participate Or Disagree With The Post

A Comprimise Could Be That The Winner Wears A Syndicate Logo, Thereby Negating The Likelyhood Of Being Approached By Another Sponsor
Print All The Names Of The Syndicate On The Shirt, Now There Would Be No Room For Sponsors

Is this the most pointless post of the day?!

No one was complaining, we were fine tuning. It has already been acknowledged as a good idea, and good organisation on behalf of the OP.

The Clamper wrote:

A Comprimise Could Be That The Winner Wears A Syndicate Logo, Thereby Negating The Likelyhood Of Being Approached By Another Sponsor
Print All The Names Of The Syndicate On The Shirt, Now There Would Be No Room For Sponsors

:eek: :eek:

This would benefit nobody! lol, how is that a compromise? It's useless to all involved.

oh... some guy in vegas has my name on his shirt, along with 49 others. er?

The Clamper wrote:

'50 strangers who became friends through paddypowerpoker.com (the bestest poker site in the universe etc) nominated young Gholimoli to play on their behalf in the WSOP. Now he is in the last 30 of the richest event in the world' etc etc These 50 people from all walks of life could have their lives changed thanks to PaddyPower' etc etc.

So because of this I think it would be fair that any direct sponsorship should be split along the same lines as prize money.

no offense, but god that sounds like tripe, I wouldn't want to sell my soul like that!

THANKS TO PADDY POWER FOR CHANGING MY LIFE! :eek:

Goodluck2me

I think that the syndicate have sent a player to the WSOP - therefore they deserve their share fo the prize money from the event.

However - the individual has got himself through the event himself and through canny, coy or cunning managed to get himself a sponsor. This would be done on their own bat with no input/effect from/on the syndicate and imo its only fair that they recieve nothing from that. likewise if during the event the player gets to the final table and Pokerstars decide to pay him into every EPT/WPT in the next season the sydicate shouldnt be getting 70% from everythin there either.

I will nto be participating either way i just thought id add my 2c to an ever increasing pile of money.

cooker3

goodluck2me wrote:

I think that the syndicate have sent a player to the WSOP - therefore they deserve their share fo the prize money from the event.

However - the individual has got himself through the event himself and through canny, coy or cunning managed to get himself a sponsor. This would be done on their own bat with no input/effect from/on the syndicate and imo its only fair that they recieve nothing from that. likewise if during the event the player gets to the final table and Pokerstars decide to pay him into every EPT/WPT in the next season the sydicate shouldnt be getting 70% from everythin there either.

I will nto be participating either way i just thought id add my 2c to an ever increasing pile of money.

I agree with this completely, if you get sponsorship then it should 100% yours imo

Wreck

NO

cooker3 wrote:

I agree with this completely, if you get sponsorship then it should 100% yours imo

QFT.

Fatboydim

Sorry not to have got back to this sooner. I asked because I have specific concerns. [Don't have to go into here]

But I feel it's also worth pointing some things out here. A sponsored player would sign a contract between himself and the sponsor. That is a legally binding contract. The contract will ask for certain commitments from that player. Be in Helsinki on Friday. Photo shoot in LA on Monday. Sign autographs here. Play this event. Do an interview here... Go there... Blah! Blah! Blah! That player could not be expected to sign a part of his life away for only 30% of the deal it's just not on. Even my agent only charges 10%. -

Now if that's the rules and people are willing to play under those rules - fair enough they know what they are getting into. If the rule stays I couldn't take part.

But I also think you should consider that it might hinder any player from actually getting a deal. I'm not sure any sponsor will want to sign a contract with a syndicate.

phantom_lord

surely he means the group gets 70% if the player gets paid to wear a logo or something. not that the group gets 70% of the type of deal raymer or Joe Hachem have with stars.

jacQues

NO

Fatboydim wrote:

A sponsored player would sign a contract between himself and the sponsor. That is a legally binding contract. The contract will ask for certain commitments from that player. Be in Helsinki on Friday. Photo shoot in LA on Monday. Sign autographs here. Play this event. Do an interview here... Go there... Blah! Blah! Blah! That player could not be expected to sign a part of his life away for only 30% of the deal it's just not on. Even my agent only charges 10%. -

Now if that's the rules and people are willing to play under those rules - fair enough they know what they are getting into. If the rule stays I couldn't take part.

But I also think you should consider that it might hinder any player from actually getting a deal. I'm not sure any sponsor will want to sign a contract with a syndicate.

I had a few sponsorship deals in my life when playing tournaments, rather nice ones too. But there was never a cash payout involved. Well, except for making the final WSOP table (didn't happen ). The other deals I had did not involve anything like you say, but then again they were for games other than poker. Games where there are no professionals simply because there is no prizemoney involved. "I am a world champion!" "Great, what did you win." "Well, a trophy and some games..."

My logical reasoning was that you get the sponsorship deal because you are playing. And you are playing because of the syndicate. The syndicate clearly states that all tournament winnings will be split 30/70. Sponsorship for wearing a logo are tournament winnings as no special actions are required.

What you are saying is new to me, surprises me and would indeed change matters. What I am wondering is whether those special actions you need to do are because of wearing a logo or because of your results. What I mean is this: if you sign such contract before the tournament is finished then this rule needs to be scrapped. Simply because you are correct. Extra work is not part of the syndicate. Only work for/during the main event itself.

Note that if you sign such contract after the tournament (because of your results), then this doesn't apply to the syndicate. See rule 3 in the original post.

jacQues
(ruling hamster)

cooker3

phantom_lord wrote:

surely he means the group gets 70% if the player gets paid to wear a logo or something. not that the group gets 70% of the type of deal raymer or Joe Hachem have with stars.

I assume he does mean that and if someone wears a logo during the event then any money made from that should be kept by whoever is playing imo.
In my mind anyway the syndicated share should be for prize money only.

5starpool

I think the fact that any potential sponsorship deal would be different depending on the player invloved matters. If, for example, a person with a good track record and some great results were to represent the syndicate, they would more than likely attract a better (or any at all) sponsorship deal than a person who has never played a major event before, and this would be down to them rather than the syndicate.

I think it is mostly irrelevant, and unless a player gets into the last few tables there is unlikely to be anything on offer anyhow.

Fatboydim

Of course JacQues there are many ifs and buts. But what you're dealing with here is ultmately the entertainment industry. You would not believe some of the stuff that goes into contracts. There could even be merchandising ... T-shirts, mugs - you name it. - Now this is all very very unlikely but not impossible. If the syndicate player is doing well and is in the kind of position Jamie Gold was in last year coming up to the final tables then there are limitless possibilities. I don't really think the syndicate can really expect a return on this... In the same way I'm sure that Andy's backers didn't expect a cut of his logo deal.

But if the syndicate are happy with the rule then that's fine... I'll just have to rule myself out and wish you all the best.

5pin5

NO

i am playing this .but i think any money the player gets other than prize money he should get to keep it

slegs

NO

Flushdraw wrote:

If for a arguements sake, you won the ticket and represented the syndicate and got $1000 for wearing a shirt with a logo on it. You think it makes perfectly sense for you to get $300 and then split the other $700 99 ways so they all get $7 each. You really believe that? Even if the sponsorship was $10k, you only get $70 each. I mean think about it ffs. Its a joke

Point taken...

It does kinda depend on the volumes of money though. If you are talkin about the sums you mention then its trivial but if you are talking about final table of WSOP ME then surely the figures are not trivial anymore. Also when you take into account that the prizepool split between the syndicate can be small also anything that boosts it significantly should be considered

But if the sums for this kind of sponsorship are low then I agree it makes sense to leave out of scope.

jacQues

NO

Guys, guys...

I think we all agree in a way. I feel that I stated my opinion clear. But for those who missed it, here is the new small print: (I cannot edit the first post)

Small print:

1. Seat winner(s) get 30% from their own winnings, 70% goes towards all other syndicate players (including the other seat winner, if there are two seats).
2. Seat winner(s) may enter into a sponsorship deal for wearing logos etc, at the same division scheme of 30% self / 70% syndicate.
3. Sponsorship deals that include actions/work outside the scope of playing in the main event as well as any and all deals made after the main event are not part of the syndicate deal and therefore 100% for the seat winner.
4. The syndicate is limited to the WSOP main event only.

Example 1: The seat winner gets $10,000 and a buy-in for some other big event for wearing a logo. The $10K falls under the 30/70 rule, the buy-in doesn't and is 100% for the seat winner.

Example 2: The seat winner gets $100,000 for wearing a logo and will have to travel to LA, attend a photo-shoot, sign autographs and such. This includes work outside the scope of playing in the main event and therefore is 100% for the seat winner.

Note that if you get 500 Yo-yos for wearing a logo we will not divide 5 yo-yos per syndicate member. No point in that. If its €50+ per member then yes, we will insist on it. There is no way for the syndicate to know the details of sponsorship deals, so we'll rely on the honousty of the seat winner(s).

Hope that that is more clear. If you don't like these rules; don't play.

jacQues

LuckyLloyd

Is that your final position on the matter Jacques?

The Clamper

NO

count me in Jaques

either its a syndicate all the way or it isnt

perhaps the begrudgers will start their own syndicate with only prize money being split

if they get it going and they let me play in this i would enter that too, if only to make up the numbers, after all, a player of my limited ability and calibre shouldnt set his sights too high

either way, is good for me, coz i'm a poker playing nutjob with unrealistic hopes and dreams of some day actually winning a tourney, so what if i have to share it, all the better if you ask me, share my good fortune with as many as possible,,,, sure,,,,, why not?

Wreck

NO

jacQues wrote:

Guys, guys...

I think we all agree in a way. I feel that I stated my opinion clear. But for those who missed it, here is the new small print: (I cannot edit the first post)

Small print:

1. Seat winner(s) get 30% from their own winnings, 70% goes towards all other syndicate players (including the other seat winner, if there are two seats).
2. Seat winner(s) may enter into a sponsorship deal for wearing logos etc, at the same division scheme of 30% self / 70% syndicate.
3. Sponsorship deals that include actions/work outside the scope of playing in the main event as well as any and all deals made after the main event are not part of the syndicate deal and therefore 100% for the seat winner.
4. The syndicate is limited to the WSOP main event only.

Example 1: The seat winner gets $10,000 and a buy-in for some other big event for wearing a logo. The $10K falls under the 30/70 rule, the buy-in doesn't and is 100% for the seat winner.

Example 2: The seat winner gets $100,000 for wearing a logo and will have to travel to LA, attend a photo-shoot, sign autographs and such. This includes work outside the scope of playing in the main event and therefore is 100% for the seat winner.

Note that if you get 500 Yo-yos for wearing a logo we will not divide 5 yo-yos per syndicate member. No point in that. If its €50+ per member then yes, we will insist on it. There is no way for the syndicate to know the details of sponsorship deals, so we'll rely on the honousty of the seat winner(s).

Hope that that is more clear. If you don't like these rules; don't play.

jacQues

No offense intended, but your logic on this matter is flawed. Its been stated a few times why this is so, but you (and some others) just don't seem to get it.

I don't care either way to be honest, as its pretty unlikely whoever gets to go will end up with a sponsorship deal. However, in the interests of even getting enough players together for this syndiacte to happen you should seriously reconsider. So far a number of people have ruled themselves out of this, and I can only assume that the sponsorship issue is the reason behind this, as its the only thing being discussed in this thread.

I'll play either way, I won't be able to go to Vegas this year but it would be nice to have some interest in the event.

ocallagh

I won't play this because of the sponsorship thing. Who knows what terms and conditions will be discussed with the sponsor... There are simply too many unkown variables. What if the player has to sign up for 1 year with the sponsor? What if the player managed to swing a really good deal because they already have a high profile, or because they rake a lot on the sponsors site? What if the player didn't want to wear a shirt to keep their profile low but the syndicate have a 70% say? Keep it simple and purely about the money won from the tournament. It won't be a problem with anyone and you will get a higher turnout for the syndicate.

Ste05

I'll probably also play if this sponsorship thing is dropped.

StraddleFor6

Ste05 wrote:

I'll probably also play if this sponsorship thing is dropped.

.

Jesus Wept

NO

Ste05 wrote:

I'll probably also play if this sponsorship thing is dropped.

StraddleFor6 wrote:

.

I'd like to opt out now unless the sponsorship thing is changed, its very pointless, and it appears to me, that this is the general consensus.

slegs

NO

I agree that the sponsorship clause should be dropped...if only to give this a chance of success

connie147

Not that I think any of us kerryboys would be in with a chance of winning the satt, but Im defo not in favour of limiting the winners chance of doing a sponsorship deal for himself.
I havent voted yet as that sponsorship condition is all important.

ianmc38

Ste05 wrote:

I'll probably also play if this sponsorship thing is dropped.

.

jacQues

NO

ocallagh wrote:

Who knows what terms and conditions will be discussed with the sponsor... There are simply too many unkown variables. What if the player has to sign up for 1 year with the sponsor?

Such a thing would have to be contracted and invariably include work outside the scope of playing in the WSOP main event. As per the rules, this is 100% for the player.

ocallagh wrote:

What if the player managed to swing a really good deal because they already have a high profile, or because they rake a lot on the sponsors site?

Very simple. If that is the case then that player doesn't need the syndicate in the first place. This simply is never going to happen. Either you get the deal because of who you are or not. If you do, you would never agree on playing for 30% anyways. If you don't, you don't.

ocallagh wrote:

What if the player didn't want to wear a shirt to keep their profile low but the syndicate have a 70% say?

The syndicate members have exactly 0% say in how the seat winner(s) play the main event. They only get a percentage of his/her tournament winnings. Wearing a logo (without any extra work) are (indirect) tournament winnings.

The rule isn't made to disable seat winners' abilities if making a sponsorship deal. All and any deals are likely to be 100% for the seat winner. However, just wearing some logo and fetching a nice amount for it (without any extra work) is not fair and against the spirit of the syndicate.

As it is, the only good point for dropping this rule was made by fatboydim. I was unaware of it and acknowledged the difference. Anyone here who would play for the syndicate but pocket money on the side (with no extra work), is disregarding the whole idea of a syndicate. The seat winner(s) play on behalf of the syndicate. Its an "all for one, one for all" thingy. If you get paid for doing something (and nothing more) what you were supposed to do "for all" in the first place, then share it.

If you have a problem with it then you are not a team player...

jacQues

Lazare

It looks like this whole thing is going to be scuppered over a pointless red herring, a situation that has about a 0.1% chance of happening, and even if it does, will only account for a tiny amount of money for those on the rail.

The issue doesn't bother me really, and I'm thinking about playing, what does bother me is the fact that so many quality players have said they won't play if you don't change your mind, and if they're out because of it, I wouldn't be interested either.

Also Jacques, your point about it being akin to stealing is very strange.

LuckyLloyd

jacQues wrote:

If you have a problem with it then you are not a team player...

Correct - why I play poker. Best of luck with this. I hope you get the numbers and that it is a success.

ocallagh

jacQues wrote:

If you have a problem with it then you are not a team player...

jacQues

di you work for tribeca support by any chance?

Gholimoli

im only gonna play if the sponsorship thingy is dropped.