WSOP syndicate game!

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.

Wreck

NO

jacQues wrote:

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

jacQues

I actually can't understand why you are persisting with this, as with many others I withdraw from the syndicate. Good luck with it, and I sincerely hope that if you manage to get it together that the winner does well for you all.

JP Poker

NO

Guys I think JacQues has put forward a great idea (the sponsorship clause is causing big problems I know) and has put a lot of work into this.

I hope I am not offending anyone here and I don't want to step on anyone’s toes. I have already offered my support to this game both as a player (very questionable I know) and as TD.

A few of you have sent me PM’s and rang me about this asking me to run the without the sponsorship clause.

I have sent JacQues a PM and he has asked me to take over (I would still for JacQues to be involved if he wants to).

I guess the only question that remains is were, when and how much?

I think some time in June would be best. As with the Irish Open I think same structure as the WSOP itself is best practice.

So 20000 Chips
Maybe 30 Min Blinds.

Saturday or Sunday.

I can get the Red Cow for Sundays will look into getting a GAA hall for a Saturday.

Any suggestion?

ocallagh

I don't want this smallish issue take away from the work jacQues has put into this. It is still a good idea and it will work well. The sponsorship thing is really a personal issue for me. I've seen syndicate things before and IMO you are best avoiding any grey areas if possible. That was the reason I posted in the first place.

It looks like you are going to miss out on a lot of good players because of this issue. It would be beneficial to the syndicate/(team) to remove the sponsorship problem and allow JP to run it IMO. I'd be happy to play in it then (adhering to all other rules jacQues posted)

edit: just saw your post JP. looks good.

The Clamper

NO

if this goes aheasd at this stage i would be amazed, however if it does i am still up for it. why? coz i put my name down and agreed
once i do that, to me thats like giving your word, but then what does having your word mean anything nowadays?

well done for effort Jaques, you may have over sold it a bit when you asked poker players to play in a team


this is an individual sport, not a team effort

poker players are like golfers or chess players or high divers, individualism is the key to all these disciplines and teams dont count for diddly

on the JP game, sure why dont i put my name down for that one too, though i wonder what will the problem be with his rules?

good luck with it and or them, whichever runs or both