Tiffany Michelle does the dirt on her sponsor, so they say anyway!!!

Ollieboy

Just goes to show you can never trust a woman.. I think she was way out of line here, she signed a contract with one site and than jump ship in the middle of it to sign a contact with the other. If UB are willing to pay damages to Pokernews fair enough. Its seems this will get nasty between all parties and in the long run I think she'll be the loser.

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2008/07/pokernews-official-statement.htm

BigCityBanker

I think you are mistaken to say that she signed a contract with one and then jumped to another. The contract apparently made no specific reservation on her branding rights

She received backing from Jeff and TonyG, who are the owners of PokerNews, apparently that contract had nothing contained within as to the branding rights of her titties. I linked an article yesterday in the BBV thread written by Dr Pauly on the subject.

Sure, many things may have been implied in the initial agreement between her and her stakees but they were not written into contract. Im pretty sure any contract lawyer would have a good laugh at Jeff and Tony if it proceeds.

ollyk1

ffs Ollie and Pokernews this is business not kindergarten! Backing someone into the World series and taking a cut of their winnings entitles you to just that nothing more. If you want more such as advertising pay for it or be prepared for employees to go elsewhere.

BigCityBanker wrote: »

I think you are mistaken to say that she signed a contract with one and then jumped to another. The contract apparently made no specific reservation on her branding rights

She received backing from Jeff and TonyG, who are the owners of PokerNews, apparently that contract had nothing contained within as to the branding rights of her titties. I linked an article yesterday in the BBV thread written by Dr Pauly on the subject.

Sure, many things may have been implied in the initial agreement between her and her stakees but they were not written into contract. Im pretty sure any contract lawyer would have a good laugh at Jeff and Tony if it proceeds.

I read that article Noel linked and it seemed much more balanced and had the benefit of being from a somewhat neutral party. Poker and business are all about maximising your advantage within the rules why should it be any different because someone is female Ollie?

eagle eye

The only thing that irks me about this is that she signed up with the ultimate cheats.

Ollieboy

ollyk1 wrote: »

ffs Ollie and Pokernews this is business not kindergarten! Backing someone into the World series and taking a cut of their winnings entitles you to just that nothing more. If you want more such as advertising pay for it or be prepared for employees to go elsewhere.




I read that article Noel linked and it seemed much more balanced and had the benefit of being from a somewhat neutral party. Poker and business are all about maximising your advantage within the rules why should it be any different because someone is female Ollie?

Its nothing to do with her been female. But I do remember Gold getting slated for holding on to his winnings, just because someone said they had agreement to split any winnings....Gold in the end did the decent thing and still got slated by the poker community.

I aggree totally with Noel here. Very few legal contracts or personal agreements have any standing. And players should get paid to advertise a site etc.

But if you agree to take someone's money and enter a event, than switch over in the last couple of days because someone waves money in front of you, than that shows a lack of repect to the first person who took you when you were a nobody.

I think Pokernews and the crew area pack of monkeys and I dont have any love for them. To be honest, they still owe me money for pass work done for them.

But lets take the example. Stars give you 1k accommodation when you wear there gear, you make the final table and they reward you with a pro contact. Thats a fair deal. They also pay you 50k if you make the TV table. But a lot of sites wont do this and thats were the problem lies.

If I was in Michelles shoes, I would have done the exact same.

Ollieboy

ollyk1 wrote: »

ffs Ollie and Pokernews this is business not kindergarten! Backing someone into the World series and taking a cut of their winnings entitles you to just that nothing more. If you want more such as advertising pay for it or be prepared for employees to go elsewhere.




I read that article Noel linked and it seemed much more balanced and had the benefit of being from a somewhat neutral party. Poker and business are all about maximising your advantage within the rules why should it be any different because someone is female Ollie?

I did mention in the heading of the thread "So they say"....

Before you get on your horse with me Ollie,.....lol

Ste05

Ollieboy wrote: »

Its nothing to do with her been female. But I do remember Gold getting slated for holding on to his winnings, just because someone said they had agreement to split any winnings....Gold in the end did the decent thing and still got slated by the poker community.

This is completely different.

Ollieboy wrote: »

I aggree totally with Noel here. Very few legal contracts or personal agreements have any standing. And players should get paid to advertise a site etc.

I disagree completely, all that matters is what was written down, so ALL legal contracts have standing, personal agreements are just that, personal and are completely irrelevant if there is a written agreement in place to cover the same transaction. i.e. Like here.

Ollieboy wrote: »

But if you agree to take someone's money and enter a event, than switch over in the last couple of days because someone waves money in front of you, than that shows a lack of repect to the first person who took you when you were a nobody.

They backed her into the tournament and agreed to split any winnings 33/33/33, they didn't automatically get the rights to any other income that she might get from the tournament, is she meant to be pokernews's slave from now on just because they backed her into a tournament for 10k??

Ollieboy wrote: »

But lets take the example. Stars give you 1k accommodation when you wear there gear, you make the final table and they reward you with a pro contact. Thats a fair deal. They also pay you 50k if you make the TV table. But a lot of sites wont do this and thats were the problem lies.

This is fine, everyone can agree to whatever they want, no-one is forced to accept this 1k AFAIK, and once they do they know what it entails. EDIT: also if a site decides not to do so, again that's their right, but they then give up any claim to you having to wear their gear...

Ollieboy wrote: »

If I was in Michelles shoes, I would have done the exact same.

me too... but I thought you were arguing that what she did was wrong??

Also, incase anyone missed it, here's Pauly's take on what happened... http://taopoker.blogspot.com/ (towards the bottom entitled "2008 WSOP Day 45: Main Event Day 6 - The Battle for Tiffany Michelle's Breasts" - I couldn't find a direct link to the article)

Lurker1977

Jamie Gold's situation was totally different. He was refusing to honour an agreement to split any winnings 50:50 with his business partner, Crispin Leyser and it was likely he would lose anyway

From Wikipedia:
"At a December court hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Roger L. Hunt rejected a motion by Gold's lawyers to lift an injunction set in September on the $6 million still at the tournament host, the Rio casino-hotel, and ordered the frozen funds be moved into an interest-bearing account. Hunt also indicated Leyser likely would win his claim to the $6 million. Gold did a radio interview on Rounders the Poker Show following his Main Event win where he mentioned his deal with Leyser"

Here the problem is that Pokernews believe they are entitled to a cut of any advertising deals she got and this was never part of any contract agreement with pokernews. The only problem I have with what Tiffany Michelle did was to accept sponsership from UB considering all that has occurred previously and what is occurring at the moment. She would have been better off accepting Full Tilt's offer or whispering in PokerStars ear and see what response she got.

CHD

She will fade away anyway.

Dont worry about it guys!

Ste05

Ollieboy wrote: »

I did mention in the heading of the thread "So they say"....

Before you get on your horse with me Ollie,.....lol

Ahhh, I missed this part...

Also, picking UB was such a bad move, she needs to drop them ASAP along with that idiot of a BF (possibly ex??) Hollywood Dave! Complete idiot...

Killme00

Ste05 wrote: »

Also, incase anyone missed it, here's Pauly's take on what happened... http://taopoker.blogspot.com/ (towards the bottom entitled "2008 WSOP Day 45: Main Event Day 6 - The Battle for Tiffany Michelle's Breasts" - I couldn't find a direct link to the article)

Can you paste this here as i cant access tao from work.

Mr.Plough

I would hit that like a champ

Ollieboy

Gold won the event and the next day he was in court. The guy want 1/2 his winnings. Gold had to sort out the tax issues first, before handing the guy his share. 12 million less 30% tax and than a split. As soon as both parties sat down, there was no problem. The only people that made the problem was the lawyers and the media. This came straight from the horse mouth so I have to take it as truth, compare to what everyone else thinks happen. But thats not my point here.

First, I'm only posting a **** thread and linking a interesting story. Why the *** am I getting attack over it. Jeez I'm starting to see why people dont post here anymore.

I'm not a lawyer, but if I live in Ireland win a event in Ireland online to play a main event in Vegas, with a site who are based in some foreign country who have a legal agreement with me. Well which country are you going to fight this case in? also, I played a event and won the ticket. I didnt sign anything, its only a agreement based on terms and conditions. So its wide open to disagreement if the lawyers get there hands on it. But as Noel mention, her agreement had no wording in relation to clothing etc.

If the personal agreement was to sponsor her in and for her to wear Pokernews tops, than she should have stuck to this. Otherwise her word is worth nothing. If anyone took time to see what she was actually wearing, she had both on her. UB and pokernews. By her agreeing to split the winnings, means that she knew there was some sort of agreement in place.

As for doing the same, if someone offers you big money and the current guy is offering you nothing and as I already mention above, it becomes a legal issue. I did have a option at the speed poker event to wear a different top for 3k, I said no out of respect to PPP. But if it had been 30k, well thats a different story.

As someone else already mention, pity its UB though.

ollyk1

Ollieboy wrote: »

Its nothing to do with her been female.

If I was in Michelles shoes, I would have done the exact same.

In the first line of the original post you said how you couldn't trust a woman and now you are saying you'd do the same yourself. Have you something to tell us? lol only kidding obviously but you are a fierce hard man to have an oul debate with when you keep moving around on these issues. I think you just posted the original thread to get a bit of debate going and our views are probably quite similar but you can't be on both sides in a debate can you?

Personally I agree with the **** pokernews attitude but why oh why did it have to be UB.....

P.S. You and I both love a good high horse Ollie lets not slag each other for that!!

PPS if she doesn't pay out to Tony G and Jeff then she is like Jamie but until then this is in no way similar imho.

Ollieboy

ollyk1 wrote: »

In the first line of the original post you said how you couldn't trust a woman and now you are saying you'd do the same yourself. Have you something to tell us? lol only kidding obviously but you are a fierce hard man to have an oul debate with when you keep moving around on these issues. I think you just posted the original thread to get a bit of debate going and our views are probably quite similar but you can't be on both sides in a debate can you?

Personally I agree with the **** pokernews attitude but why oh why did it have to be UB.....

P.S. You and I both love a good high horse Ollie lets not slag each other for that!!

PPS if she doesn't pay out to Tony G and Jeff then she is like Jamie but until then this is in no way similar imho.

Yeh fair enough, but I comment about been a woman and not trust worthy was only a slag/joke....

But I think it will be the most interesting story from this years WSOP and it will continue for a while. She'll always been known now as the person that did the dirt on a deal. Its the way the media cover it. I suppose thats what Im highlighting. And if you think about it, it was only a matter of time before something like this happen.

I was reading "Swimming with Fish" and about the WSOP final table in 2002, it was a disgrace the way the players were treat, just to make good TV coverage and fill the pockets of ESPN and Harrahs. The players didn't get anything from it and pressure was added at a time of great pressure to win in the first place.

I would love to see player boycott the WSOP, but that will never happen. Players deserve a better deal from events like this and poker sites.

ollyk1

Ollieboy wrote: »

First, I'm only posting a **** thread and linking a interesting story. Why the *** am I getting attack over it. Jeez I'm starting to see why people dont post here anymore.

I don't think anyone is attacking you Ollie. I certainly wasn't. I actually thoughts the thread was dying a bit as it seemed to be languishing so I decided to post my views and I see a few other people did the same but nobody was attacking you the way I read it.

As for people not posting around here so much that is going to happen no matter how much you roll out the welcome mat (not that we shouldn't be civil to each other) having robust debates personally keeps me interested in the site. It certainly doesn't discourage me I would have thought you'd see things quite similarily.

I remember a thread from 2 years ago when a syndicate was hoping to send someone to the wsop and things broke down following a lack of clarity re how to deal with sponsorship arising for the player representing the syndicate. At the time I thought it was a good idea to have agreement in advance about how to deal with such issues but having so many views and opinions made it unworkable to please everyone afair.

Maybe Tony G should have posted here for staking advice considerations in advance to help him avoid the problems he ran into. LOL

YULETIRED

to hell with loyatly ot a friggin poker site...take the dosh girl....It's not like it's a childrens home....




I love to have breakfast at Tiffenys......

Ollieboy

ollyk1 wrote: »

I don't think anyone is attacking you Ollie. I certainly wasn't. I actually thoughts the thread was dying a bit as it seemed to be languishing so I decided to post my views and I see a few other people did the same but nobody was attacking you the way I read it.

As for people not posting around here so much that is going to happen no matter how much you roll out the welcome mat (not that we shouldn't be civil to each other) having robust debates personally keeps me interested in the site. It certainly doesn't discourage me I would have thought you'd see things quite similarily.

I remember a thread from 2 years ago when a syndicate was hoping to send someone to the wsop and things broke down following a lack of clarity re how to deal with sponsorship arising for the player representing the syndicate. At the time I thought it was a good idea to have agreement in advance about how to deal with such issues but having so many views and opinions made it unworkable to please everyone afair.

Maybe Tony G should have posted here for staking advice considerations in advance to help him avoid the problems he ran into. LOL

I think there's a big difference between sponsorship and been chosen as a player to represent someone or take there action, compare to someone winning a ticket on the site.

The person that wins the ticket as no reason to wear the sites clothes and its unfair that sites try to force this on players without given them some sort of payment in kind.

But if a player is sponsor and you have a deal to split winnings, well thats different. If she agrees there's a deal, than she should also split the sponsorship contract that she's after signing and any money she gets for wearing there brand during the WSOP. I'm sure her legal/agent never thought about this. But she wouldn't have got the opportunity to make this deal in the first place if nobody had sponsor her.

So in summary, what she done is not nice and unfair to her backers. she should have discussed it with them and agree to compensate them in some way before agreeing to the UB deal. I'm sure they would have let her do the deal and given her great coverage and everybody been happy.

Except me, because I'm not sponsorhip...lol and I'm not a woman, yet!

Ste05

Ollieboy wrote: »

Gold won the event and the next day he was in court. The guy want 1/2 his winnings. Gold had to sort out the tax issues first, before handing the guy his share. 12 million less 30% tax and than a split. As soon as both parties sat down, there was no problem. The only people that made the problem was the lawyers and the media. This came straight from the horse mouth so I have to take it as truth, compare to what everyone else thinks happen. But thats not my point here.

This is what he said 6 months after the event after he had already completely and truly ruined his reputation... it's seriously not even remotely close or comparable to this situation...

Ollieboy wrote: »

First, I'm only posting a **** thread and linking a interesting story. Why the *** am I getting attack over it. Jeez I'm starting to see why people dont post here anymore.

Slightly over dramatic much?? Hundreds of people post here... so it's obviously not putting too many people off...

Ollieboy wrote: »

I'm not a lawyer, but if I live in Ireland win a event in Ireland online to play a main event in Vegas, with a site who are based in some foreign country who have a legal agreement with me. Well which country are you going to fight this case in? also, I played a event and won the ticket. I didnt sign anything, its only a agreement based on terms and conditions. So its wide open to disagreement if the lawyers get there hands on it. But as Noel mention, her agreement had no wording in relation to clothing etc.

Again this is completely different to what happened here, she didn't win a satellite on a Site, she was backed in by 2 business acquaintances/ friends/ employers... as you say her agreement had no wording relating to clothing so where is the debate??

Ollieboy wrote: »

If the personal agreement was to sponsor her in and for her to wear Pokernews tops, than she should have stuck to this. Otherwise her word is worth nothing. If anyone took time to see what she was actually wearing, she had both on her. UB and pokernews. By her agreeing to split the winnings, means that she knew there was some sort of agreement in place.

It wasn't. The agreement was to split any winnings 3 ways...

Also if you look reallllly closely you'll see she actually has 3 logo's on her top, Pokernews, UB and her agents company "Suited Connections"

Ollieboy wrote: »

As for doing the same, if someone offers you big money and the current guy is offering you nothing and as I already mention above, it becomes a legal issue. I did have a option at the speed poker event to wear a different top for 3k, I said no out of respect to PPP. But if it had been 30k, well thats a different story.

Again different situation completely, you were working under the T&C's of the satellite you won, she is working under the written staking agreement, that says nothing about clothing. If you wore someone elses gear in breach of the T&C's you agreed to, even if it was for $1m you'd be in breach of the T&C's and PPP would have had a case against you. What jurisdiction this would be in is another kettle of fish, but basically irrelevant to the generality of this discussion. (But in your case it would have been pretty clear it was in Ireland)

Ollieboy wrote: »

But I think it will be the most interesting story from this years WSOP and it will continue for a while. She'll always been known now as the person that did the dirt on a deal. Its the way the media cover it. I suppose thats what Im highlighting. And if you think about it, it was only a matter of time before something like this happen.

Are you basing how the "media" are covering this all based on the Pokernews statement??

ollyk1

Ollieboy wrote: »

Yeh fair enough, but I comment about been a woman and not trust worthy was only a slag/joke....

But I think it will be the most interesting story from this years WSOP and it will continue for a while. She'll always been known now as the person that did the dirt on a deal. Its the way the media cover it. I suppose thats what Im highlighting. And if you think about it, it was only a matter of time before something like this happen.

I was reading "Swimming with Fish" and about the WSOP final table in 2002, it was a disgrace the way the players were treat, just to make good TV coverage and fill the pockets of ESPN and Harrahs. The players didn't get anything from it and pressure was added at a time of great pressure to win in the first place.

I would love to see player boycott the WSOP, but that will never happen. Players deserve a better deal from events like this and poker sites.

hey instead of this interesting topic languishing with 2 posts its now got two pages (and no I don't need someone pointing out I could have more threads per page if I so wished) so we must be doing okay Ollie.

Having witnessed the wsop for the first time this year (and only in a very small way at that) it struck me how it was very much the same as any other big tournie except for the scale. Its the players that make it the BIG event that it is and just like the SE not listening to its customers eventually things will have to change or people will just walk away.


My exact comments upon seeing the WSOP was " Its no different then the Irish Open except that was better craic".*



* I expect to receive monies from PPP for pimping their tournies asap!

Ste05

Ollieboy wrote: »

But if a player is sponsor and you have a deal to split winnings, well thats different. If she agrees there's a deal, than she should also split the sponsorship contract that she's after signing and any money she gets for wearing there brand during the WSOP. I'm sure her legal/agent never thought about this. But she wouldn't have got the opportunity to make this deal in the first place if nobody had sponsor her.

Emmm, what?? This would have been at the forefront of her agents mind, unless her agent is a complete idiot, EDIT: I'd assume the first question she was asked was "Are you signed up exclusively to Pokernews?"

H8GHOTI

Ste05 wrote: »

Emmm, what?? This would have been at the forefront of her agents mind, unless her agent is a complete idiot.

UB don't half attract some bad publicity, f***in hell.

Anyone any idea how much she got? HawkEye was offered 20k, from Full Tilt, and with her being the last female and everything I'd say she got a good bit more than that.

Earlier in the tournament he wasn't wearing any Party Poker clothes even though he qualified on their site. It was only the last two days. As far as I could see he didn't have to wear them and it was just his choice.

What's the story with that? Does every site differ? I know Sky Poker gave away 4 packages and in their T&C it said you had to wear their branded clothing.

Ste05

Also Pokernews are such idiots... they really need to hire some people with half a brain before making official statements...

Tiffany was bought into the event by PokerNews and had a signed player contract with PokerNews Ltd. We believe, that based on advice from her agent that the contract may have loopholes; she went and made a deal with an online gaming operator that completely contradicted the trust that we had put in her, both as an employee and as a sponsored player. As an organization we felt completely sabotaged by Tiffany, her agent and Ultimate Bet.

In fact, PokerNews was looking forward to and expected a large number of sponsorship offers from the world's biggest poker rooms – Tiffany's career was about to explode and we could not have been more proud for her. Therefore, we are incredibly disappointed with Tiffany and her agent's lack of respect and professionalism. We are currently seeking legal council on this entire situation and potential damages to PokerNews.

So they basically admit the contract had loopholes... :rolleyes: and it's plainly obvious they haven't sought legal advice because then they would have used the correct homonym for Legal Counsel. Or else they hired someone completely incompetent which I suppose is certainly within the realms of possibilities based on how much they butcher basically every live report.

mdwexford

Not taking the money would have been stupid, why show loyalty to some poker site who wont give a toss about you in 2 weeks time. Take as much money as you can when you get a chance imo, morals are over-rated.

Gillybean72

mdwexford wrote: »

Not taking the money would have been stupid, why show loyalty to some poker site who wont give a toss about you in 2 weeks time. Take as much money as you can when you get a chance imo, morals are over-rated.

I agree here..

I keep reading this thread as Tiffancy MITCHELL sheesh, I dont even watch Eastenders or the TV and I keep misreading the name lol :pac:

califano

Gillcarr1972 wrote: »

I agree here..

I keep reading this thread as Tiffancy MITCHELL sheesh, I dont even watch Eastenders or the TV and I keep misreading the name lol :pac:

Its called subliminal messaging or in other words flushdraw888 talking in his sleep.

Ollieboy

Ste05 wrote: »

This is what he said 6 months after the event after he had already completely and truly ruined his reputation... it's seriously not even remotely close or comparable to this situation...
Slightly over dramatic much?? Hundreds of people post here... so it's obviously not putting too many people off...
Again this is completely different to what happened here, she didn't win a satellite on a Site, she was backed in by 2 business acquaintances/ friends/ employers... as you say her agreement had no wording relating to clothing so where is the debate??
It wasn't. The agreement was to split any winnings 3 ways...

Also if you look reallllly closely you'll see she actually has 3 logo's on her top, Pokernews, UB and her agents company "Suited Connections"

Again different situation completely, you were working under the T&C's of the satellite you won, she is working under the written staking agreement, that says nothing about clothing. If you wore someone elses gear in breach of the T&C's you agreed to, even if it was for $1m you'd be in breach of the T&C's and PPP would have had a case against you. What jurisdiction this would be in is another kettle of fish, but basically irrelevant to the generality of this discussion. (But in your case it would have been pretty clear it was in Ireland)

Are you basing how the "media" are covering this all based on the Pokernews statement??

lol. Sure by the sound of it, you must have been there, seen as you seem to know all the facts, which I greatly doubt.

And Yes, the media can make and break you as they wish...The media world is very small and seen you know everything, you will be aware that a lot of players have a interest in a lot of poker reporting sites etc. The poker community is very small so one source wanting to turn on you, can cause a negative image to be create. I've personally met Gold and you couldn't meet a nicer guy. What ESPN did to him in there coverage was a disgrace and the way he and the other guy handle the deal afterwards was poor, but only because other people got involved. I.E. lawyers. Dont tell me you always think lawyers are right. Sure they can't even get a proper answer for the enquires in Dublin castle after 10 years and costing the Irish taxpayer millions.

YULETIRED

why not do a poll to see who would take the money?.....I'd take the money...and twice on Sunday.

Ollieboy

Ste05 wrote: »

Slightly over dramatic much?? Hundreds of people post here... so it's obviously not putting too many people off...

Don't know how you can make this statement, has you should know more than most people how many regular posters have left or stop posting on this forum. I know and understand why and starting to agree with them more and more each day.

Ste05

Ollieboy wrote: »

lol. Sure by the sound of it, you must have been there, seen as you seem to know all the facts, which I greatly doubt.

No, but I'd have ALOT more faith in what Pauly has to say on the subject then what is contained in the Pokernews "statement" have you read his blog entry??

Ollieboy wrote: »

And Yes, the media can make and break you as they wish...The media world is very small and seen you know everything, you will be aware that a lot of players have a interest in a lot of poker reporting sites etc. The poker community is very small so one source wanting to turn on you, can cause a negative image to be create. I've personally met Gold and you couldn't meet a nicer guy. What ESPN did to him in there coverage was a disgrace and the way he and the other guy handle the deal afterwards was poor, but only because other people got involved. I.E. lawyers. Dont tell me you always think lawyers are right. Sure they can't even get a proper answer for the enquires in Dublin castle after 10 years and costing the Irish taxpayer millions.

what happened to Gold was his own fault because he thought his knowledge as an agent would be able to handle the situation. It had nothing to do with ESPN, I don't even remember them even reporting about the problems with Gold and Leyser (was that his name?). I'm sure he's a lovely chap, but that still doesn't mean he fcuked himself by making bad decisions. Also most lawyers are completely lazy and are basically idiots, I deal with them every day so I should know. As for the goings on in Dublin castle, blame lawyers if you want, but it's certainly not (edit: solely) their fault, they are just working within the parameters they have been given and the answers and cooperation they are provided with by witnesses.

Also Re: "the media" in Poker it's NOT just Pokernews. How about we wait to see how other media sources not directly involved in the dispute report it? Or do you believe everything you read on Pokernews??

Ste05

Ollieboy wrote: »

Don't know how you can make this statement, has you should know more than most people how many regular posters have left or stop posting on this forum. I know and understand why and starting to agree with them more and more each day.

There's not as many as people make out, but times change, the forum evolves or plateau's, people grow up and get bored with Poker, it's just the evolution/ circle of life of any forum IMO. If people can't handle a little robust debate then they're probably not really cut out for an internet forum.

connie147

mdwexford wrote: »

Not taking the money would have been stupid, why show loyalty to some poker site who wont give a toss about you in 2 weeks time. Take as much money as you can when you get a chance imo, morals are over-rated.

I dont agree, buy maybe I'm a bit naive. Pokernews paid her entry for the tournament probably when no one else was interested in doing so. I doubt at that that stage that they expected much of a return on their investment. Morals are not over rated, its just that the majotity of people chose now to neglect them. Maybe loyalty is a better word. She is/was also a pokernews employee. If UB had been asked to put her into the tournament before it starterd, what would their answer have been? Pokernews put their faith in her(and their money), she should have shown some loyalty imho.

Connie

mdwexford

connie147 wrote: »

I dont agree, buy maybe I'm a bit naive. Pokernews paid her entry for the tournament probably when no one else was interested in doing so. I doubt at that that stage that they expected much of a return on their investment. Morals are not over rated, its just that the majotity of people chose now to neglect them. Maybe loyalty is a better word. She is/was also a pokernews employee. If UB had been asked to put her into the tournament before it starterd, what would their answer have been? Pokernews put their faith in her(and their money), she should have shown some loyalty imho.

Connie

Tony G and Jeff Lisandro bought her into the tournament as far as i know and agreed any monies won would be divided 3 ways. I dont see how this stops her from agreeing to wear an Ultimate Bet patch in addition to a Poker News one at all. Its not even like they are businesses which are competing against each other or anything. I dont see what the big deal over it is tbh.

Ollieboy

Ste05 wrote: »

No, but I'd have ALOT more faith in what Pauly has to say on the subject then what is contained in the Pokernews "statement" have you read his blog entry??

what happened to Gold was his own fault because he thought his knowledge as an agent would be able to handle the situation. It had nothing to do with ESPN, I don't even remember them even reporting about the problems with Gold and Leyser (was that his name?). I'm sure he's a lovely chap, but that still doesn't mean he fcuked himself by making bad decisions. Also most lawyers are completely lazy and are basically idiots, I deal with them every day so I should know. As for the goings on in Dublin castle, blame lawyers if you want, but it's certainly not (edit: solely) their fault, they are just working within the parameters they have been given and the answers and cooperation they are provided with by witnesses.

Also Re: "the media" in Poker it's NOT just Pokernews. How about we wait to see how other media sources not directly involved in the dispute report it? Or do you believe everything you read on Pokernews??

I dont believe anything I read anywhere. Like anyone, you should read it and see what makes sense to you out of the story.

mewso

Pokernews are obviously pissed off and it's very easy to veil this in an "official statement" on your own site. This was the same guy who created the official Tiffany Michelle thread on 2+2.

This is like alot of things in life. Regardless of what I would do I can't blame TM for doing what she did as if there were loopholes in this so called contract then it's not her fault. She has an agent who will get the best deal she can for her client. While I wouldn't take money from the scum that is UB it's her decision as much as it is Phil Hellmuths or Annie Dukes.

This is becoming the familiar scene now at the WSOP. Money grabbing whores from every angle and the stench from this event is worse every year. This 3 month wait is the biggest stinker of them all.

DubTony

Ollieboy wrote: »

.

First, I'm only posting a **** thread and linking a interesting story. Why the *** am I getting attack over it. Jeez I'm starting to see why people dont post here anymore.

Because the mega threads around here the last few days have all been nicey nicey and everyone's feeling a bit tetchy, and you just happened to be the guy who popped his head up first and anyway, you're a ...... eh

Goodluck2me

Ollieboy wrote: »

First, I'm only posting a **** thread and linking a interesting story. Why the *** am I getting attack over it. Jeez I'm starting to see why people dont post here anymore.

I'm not a lawyer, but if I live in Ireland win a event in Ireland online to play a main event in Vegas, with a site who are based in some foreign country who have a legal agreement with me. Well which country are you going to fight this case in?

.

Firstly, lol.

secondly, it's where the heart of the contract lies.

Ollieboy wrote: »

Don't know how you can make this statement, has you should know more than most people how many regular posters have left or stop posting on this forum. I know and understand why and starting to agree with them more and more each day.

You're such a drama queen. oh and a poor speller. There is said it!

30something

Wimmin ........

Can't live with 'em

Can't kill 'em

phantom_lord

At least the the ub scandal will get more publicity because of this.

DeVore

I dont think she should have to be PN's slave because they put her in a tournie. They were after all in for 2/3rds of her winnings... that said, I think she should have given them first refusal and/or a cut of the proceeds (since she wouldnt be in the tournie to get a sponsorship without them).

In the end of the day, she's in the driving seat because the deal seems clear, entry in return for 2/3rd of her winnings.

DeV.

NickyOD

DeVore wrote: »

I dont think she should have to be PN's slave because they put her in a tournie. They were after all in for 2/3rds of her winnings... that said, I think she should have given them first refusal and/or a cut of the proceeds (since she wouldnt be in the tournie to get a sponsorship without them).

In the end of the day, she's in the driving seat because the deal seems clear, entry in return for 2/3rd of her winnings.

DeV.

In case you missed this from the offical pokernews statement.

"Tiffany was bought into the event by PokerNews and had a signed player contract with PokerNews Ltd."

Nobody said anything about her being a "slave" to pokernews. They gave her a pretty sweet deal and then she got very underhanded imo.

Ste05

read the posts in between the first and last IMO.

Mellor

NickyOD wrote: »

In case you missed this from the offical pokernews statement.

"Tiffany was bought into the event by PokerNews and had a signed player contract with PokerNews Ltd."

Nobody said anything about her being a "slave" to pokernews. They gave her a pretty sweet deal and then she got very underhanded imo.

How exactly was it a sweet deal? PN didn't stake her fully and agree to an equal chop.
Tiffany, Tony G and Jeff each split the entry three ways, and agreed to split the payout three ways. Seams clear.

The main gripe is that she (in error) covered up the pokernews logo with a UB hoodie,
Personally I think she is entitled to any deal offered, but I also think that she should of maintained some sort of loyalty. In thr long run it would of been better for her, this is pretty much what I said to Hawkeye too

NickyOD

Ste05 wrote: »

read the posts in between the first and last IMO.

Nothing worth responding to there IMO.

NickyOD

Mellor wrote: »

How exactly was it a sweet deal? PN didn't stake her fully and agree to an equal chop.
Tiffany, Tony G and Jeff each split the entry three ways, and agreed to split the payout three ways. Seams clear.

The main gripe is that she (in error) covered up the pokernews logo with a UB hoodie,
Personally I think she is entitled to any deal offered, but I also think that she should of maintained some sort of loyalty. In thr long run it would of been better for her, this is pretty much what I said to Hawkeye too

It's a good deal for anyone who can't put up the money themselves to be able to get put into the WSOP. She was also put into several other events.

Where did you find the info the details of the agreement?

Mellor

I take your point from the value of the expierence, but as this is likely going the legal route, I was refering to the monetary basics for it. Its an even value deal, they pay 2/3 they collect 2/3.
The details are from tao paulys blog, while its not a bone fide source, its by far the best available.
For the record, even though she was likely within her contractural rights fo sign up with UB, I think she handled it very badly. At the very least approach PN first ffs.
I don't think we can really say if it was a deal easily refuse without knowing the money involved.

Ste05

NickyOD wrote: »

Nothing worth responding to there IMO.

LOL you don't need to respond to anything, but basically everything you wrote has already been covered by others ... :rolleyes:

"They gave her a pretty sweet deal and then she got very underhanded imo."

She handled it terribly alright and is obviously a few slices short of a full pan signing up with UB knowing full well what their reputation is.

But I wouldn't exactly call it that sweet of a deal. People get backed into these things all the time, they don't sign their life away to their backer should they go deep.

If she had to give away a % of her future earning potential forever or stay signed to Pokernews and never sign up with a company in a different industry (i.e. Pokernews and UB are not competitors) or pay Tony G a % of her earnings forever then it's not really that sweet at all IMO, in fact I'd call it about as sweet as the deal many Eastern European women get when they come over to Ireland and are made work in Strip clubs or worse. But maybe we just have different ideas of what makes a sweet deal...

But we don't know the details of the deal, but from reading Pauly's blog and from reading between the lines of Pokernews' statement it certainly looks like there wasn't any exclusivity agreement.

eoin-dubh

totally acceptable if this was Abi Titmuss...........

BigCityBanker

http://tonyg.pokerworks.com/2008/07/the-integrity-of-poker.html#more-329

tylerdurden94

That was a good read.

Glowingmind

BigCityBanker wrote: »

http://tonyg.pokerworks.com/2008/07/the-integrity-of-poker.html#more-329

I was pretty excited and pumped because I had 35 players in the main event and very high hopes that some of them would do very well and win,

Note to self. Make friends with Tony G, or at the very least trick him into thinking i'm good at poker.