The 3 Things That Change a Person
My buddy Darin is always telling me that there are three things that change a person: success, failure, and time. And he goes on to say that you don't really know someone until you've seen them through all three of those things. I think it's a good theory.
I was checking out the Poker News and got to see some more about the Jamie Gold case. Seems that his defense is claiming that the 50% deal that he had with Leyser was a "promise to give a gift". Here's the first four paragraphs of the story from PokerPages.
-------------------
2006 World Series of Poker (WSOP) champion Jamie Gold filed a motion last week to dissolve the preliminary injunction preventing Gold from collecting half of his $12 Million Main Event winnings. The injunction was the result of a lawsuit Bruce Crispin Leyser filed shortly after the 2006 WSOP, claiming Gold had verbally agreed to share half of his winnings to compensate Leyser for securing two celebrities to represent Bodog at the WSOP.
Gold`s motion, which was filed at the U.S. District Court of Nevada on Wednesday, November 1, 2006, admits that Gold did promise to compensate Leyser, but as a gift, not as compensation for services which Leyser says he provided to Gold.
The distinction between a gift and compensation is legally important, as compensation for services provided is an enforceable contract, whereas a gift cannot be legally enforced as it is only up to giver whether it is given.
In the motion, Gold completely denied that he promised Leyser a share of his winnings for arranging for two celebrities to represent Bodog. "Gold did not discuss sharing the proceeds from Gold`s participation in the WSOP - let alone agree to do so in exchange for Plaintiff (Leyser) securing celebrities."
Instead, Gold claims that he received his seat to the Main Event from Bodog.com because of his prior tournament experience and an agreement to wear Bodog`s logo during the tournament. As it had nothing to do with securing celebrities for Bodog, Gold says that Leyser`s claim of a deal to secure celebrities for Bodog in exchange for a share of the WSOP winnings is totally inaccurate.
-------------------
All I can think is... really? We're supposed to believe that Bodog hooked Jamie Gold up with a ten thousand dollar seat because they heard he was a player and wanted him to wear their logo. Really?!? I'm sorry man, but that's like the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Ever.
And we're supposed to believe that Jamie Gold is some big player in LA, former agent of huge stars like Felicity... and yet when he has some sort of job to secure celebrities to wear the Bodog logo he has to rely on some Brittish guy he doesn't know that well to hook him up. For free. So the conversation went like this...
"Dude! Thanks for hooking me up with Matthew Lillard and that other celebrity. It was really cool of you doing my job for me so that I could get to play in this tournament. So cool, in fact, that I'm going to do something nice for you if I win. I'm going to give you a gift of exactly half of my winnings. After taxes, though. And there will probably be some paperwork you're going to have fill out if I cash. And then I'm going to give the other half to my dad."
In the story, Jamie said that this guy Leyser started harassing him when he got to the final table... and then IMMEDIATELY filed a lawsuit (with Mark Seif acting as lawyer, it turns out) when Jamie wouldn't give the guy his gift. So I guess the lawsuit got Jamie all pissy and he was like... fine... if you're going to act THAT way, I guess I don't really think you're that cool anymore and I'm not going to fulfill my promise to give a gift. And there's nothing you can do about it because there's nothing on the record that really indicates we ever had a legal contract.
Honestly, this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I can't believe this guy wins $12 million and then stiffs his backer. What a joker. And come on... I understand it has to suck handing some near-stranger $6 million. But would the pill really be easier to swallow if it was less? Nope... I think Jamie would have welched no matter how much he won, but since he won the motherload now it's actually a big enough sum to warrant legal action.
It sucks dishing out a big percentage of a win. Whether it's to players you swapped percentages with, backers, taxes, whatever. It sucks. But there is something that I keep reminding myself everytime I'm put in the situation. It's a little adage I heard one time. The quickest way to get rich is to make other people rich.
The dumbest thing is that now Jamie's reputation really is a little messed up. People aren't going to want to do anything with him. It wouldn't be so bad if he could actually play cards... but this guy is a one-hit wonder. I saw the PPV and anyone else who saw it or spent a few minutes watching the broadcast where you could actually see his cards will school him at the table. The guy is a tellbox. He can't help himself. And you can get away with that in one big tournament. But not two.
I'd really kinda like to see the next lawsuit, Gold vs. Gold, where Jamie gets sued by his dad.
I was checking out the Poker News and got to see some more about the Jamie Gold case. Seems that his defense is claiming that the 50% deal that he had with Leyser was a "promise to give a gift". Here's the first four paragraphs of the story from PokerPages.
2006 World Series of Poker (WSOP) champion Jamie Gold filed a motion last week to dissolve the preliminary injunction preventing Gold from collecting half of his $12 Million Main Event winnings. The injunction was the result of a lawsuit Bruce Crispin Leyser filed shortly after the 2006 WSOP, claiming Gold had verbally agreed to share half of his winnings to compensate Leyser for securing two celebrities to represent Bodog at the WSOP.
Gold`s motion, which was filed at the U.S. District Court of Nevada on Wednesday, November 1, 2006, admits that Gold did promise to compensate Leyser, but as a gift, not as compensation for services which Leyser says he provided to Gold.
The distinction between a gift and compensation is legally important, as compensation for services provided is an enforceable contract, whereas a gift cannot be legally enforced as it is only up to giver whether it is given.
In the motion, Gold completely denied that he promised Leyser a share of his winnings for arranging for two celebrities to represent Bodog. "Gold did not discuss sharing the proceeds from Gold`s participation in the WSOP - let alone agree to do so in exchange for Plaintiff (Leyser) securing celebrities."
Instead, Gold claims that he received his seat to the Main Event from Bodog.com because of his prior tournament experience and an agreement to wear Bodog`s logo during the tournament. As it had nothing to do with securing celebrities for Bodog, Gold says that Leyser`s claim of a deal to secure celebrities for Bodog in exchange for a share of the WSOP winnings is totally inaccurate.
All I can think is... really? We're supposed to believe that Bodog hooked Jamie Gold up with a ten thousand dollar seat because they heard he was a player and wanted him to wear their logo. Really?!? I'm sorry man, but that's like the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Ever.
And we're supposed to believe that Jamie Gold is some big player in LA, former agent of huge stars like Felicity... and yet when he has some sort of job to secure celebrities to wear the Bodog logo he has to rely on some Brittish guy he doesn't know that well to hook him up. For free. So the conversation went like this...
"Dude! Thanks for hooking me up with Matthew Lillard and that other celebrity. It was really cool of you doing my job for me so that I could get to play in this tournament. So cool, in fact, that I'm going to do something nice for you if I win. I'm going to give you a gift of exactly half of my winnings. After taxes, though. And there will probably be some paperwork you're going to have fill out if I cash. And then I'm going to give the other half to my dad."
In the story, Jamie said that this guy Leyser started harassing him when he got to the final table... and then IMMEDIATELY filed a lawsuit (with Mark Seif acting as lawyer, it turns out) when Jamie wouldn't give the guy his gift. So I guess the lawsuit got Jamie all pissy and he was like... fine... if you're going to act THAT way, I guess I don't really think you're that cool anymore and I'm not going to fulfill my promise to give a gift. And there's nothing you can do about it because there's nothing on the record that really indicates we ever had a legal contract.
Honestly, this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I can't believe this guy wins $12 million and then stiffs his backer. What a joker. And come on... I understand it has to suck handing some near-stranger $6 million. But would the pill really be easier to swallow if it was less? Nope... I think Jamie would have welched no matter how much he won, but since he won the motherload now it's actually a big enough sum to warrant legal action.
It sucks dishing out a big percentage of a win. Whether it's to players you swapped percentages with, backers, taxes, whatever. It sucks. But there is something that I keep reminding myself everytime I'm put in the situation. It's a little adage I heard one time. The quickest way to get rich is to make other people rich.
The dumbest thing is that now Jamie's reputation really is a little messed up. People aren't going to want to do anything with him. It wouldn't be so bad if he could actually play cards... but this guy is a one-hit wonder. I saw the PPV and anyone else who saw it or spent a few minutes watching the broadcast where you could actually see his cards will school him at the table. The guy is a tellbox. He can't help himself. And you can get away with that in one big tournament. But not two.
I'd really kinda like to see the next lawsuit, Gold vs. Gold, where Jamie gets sued by his dad.
posted by Dutch Boyd at
09:05
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home