IMPORTANT - CAP Euro Event Changes

[Pinababy69]

I was under the distinct impression and honestly believed that CAP was being completed removed from any involvement with the iGB events. My view was that the name change that happend nearly a year ago now represented the reality of what was happening in terms of relationship changes behind the scenes, and I had many discussions that seemed to confirm to me that was the case.

Fast forward to around a month ago. I started hearing rumors that were inconsistent with my understanding of the situation, and then also noticed CAP was listed as a sponsor of the iGB London conference and the GPWA was not listed anywhere.

In response to this information, which was all new to me, I sent an e-mail message to Alex Pratt on December 23rd which, in part, said the following:

Please understand that although this message was written in a very calm fashion, I felt deceived that the signs pointed to real financial involvement on the part of CAP. However, I knew Alex was on holiday for his honeymoon at the time, so I did not expect to receive a response right away. I did finally receive a response from Alex very shortly after he returned on January 3rd.

I sent several e-mail messages to Alex over the next couple days expressing dismay that the situation was so different than I viewed I had been lead to believe. And I also made it very clear to Alex that I viewed that he needed to publicly state the current situation. To quote a sentence from one of my e-mail messages to Alex: "I think you need to come clean that there is a business relationship with CAP still and that the nature of that relationship is one where they have a beneficial financial interest in the success of the show."

I did expect Alex would do so, and I was correct about that. In the meantime I had shared internally within our company information that Alex had shared with me. However, my view was that Alex would disclose the information shortly, as I had requested, so I did not view it as appropriate for any of our staff to comment on the matter because I felt Alex would do so and so it was appropriate to let him state the situation.

In this context I was very upset when the information that was shared within our company was used to make public posts about what was happening rather than waiting a little while for the information to be revealed publicly. As a consequence I removed posts made that I viewed as associated with knowledge of this this information.

There was no coverup at all on my part. Just a desire to give Alex a chance to state the situation on the record himself which he subsequently did.

Michael

I appreciate the clarification Michael. I hope you understand that my post was based solely on what I'd read on your forum, and perception is really everything. It certainly appeared that there was a coverup in place...but after reading what you've written...it seems the coverup was on the part of Alex, and not yourself. I do understand wanting to give him the opportunity to come clean himself.

It certainly sounds like you were duped, along with many others, if what you have written is an exact accounting of the facts. If I were you, I would be none too pleased at the way things unfolded. And I hope that you guys can move forward from here, and leave CAP and whatever involvement they may have in these events, far behind. Leopards do NOT change their spots, and in no way do I believe that just because Lou is gone from AMI/CAP...they are all of a sudden an upstanding and ethical organization.

Again, thanks for taking the time to post.

[spearmaster]

Alex said the event would be 100% independent, obviously leading a number of folks in the industry to believe they were not involved with CAP any longer.

Calling them "economical with the truth" only justifies and encourages this sort of deception in the future (and personally, I'm sick of politicians and don't need that type of garbage in our industry as well)

As I have pointed out before, independent means that CAP/Affiliate Media no longer have any influence or say in what happens with the conferences. It does not necessarily mean they no longer derive any benefit.

Let's just go through your definitions below:

1. not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker.

Check.

2. not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman.

Check.

3. not influenced by the thought or action of others: independent research.

Check.

4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.

Check.

5. not relying on another or others for aid or support.

Check.

6. rejecting others' aid or support; refusing to be under obligation to others.

Not check as there is clearly some obligation to share revenue.

9. executed or originating outside a given unit, agency, business, etc.; external: an independent inquiry.

Check.

Since you're removed 7 & 8, I can't comment on those - but as you can see it took until point 6 for you to even get a definition which might fit the case. One can hardly call the statement "100% independent" deliberately misleading, wouldn't you agree?

I repeat again. There is a BIG difference between being "economical" and "deliberately misleading".

Furthermore, no one is defending CAP/Affiliate Media here. You sure you have your guns pointed in the right direction?

[PokerNations]

And how do we know there isn't more "economy" in what we've been told recently?

More than likely, CAP does have some say/influence in these events, in addition to their monetary interest.

I just don't get why you choose to defend these guys by trying to lessen the impact of their deception by saying it's not a 100% deception, but more of a play on words.

The issue is that the use of the phrase 100% independent was meant to make everyone feel like CAP had zero involvement with these events moving forward. That isn't the case and thus it is deception, plain and simple.

Trying to argue semantics is just taking us away from the real issue, CAPs' continued involvement in large industry events that impact programs, affiliates and players.

[spearmaster]

More than likely, CAP does have some say/influence in these events, in addition to their monetary interest.

I highly, highly doubt it.

I just don't get why you choose to defend these guys by trying to lessen the impact of their deception by saying it's not a 100% deception, but more of a play on words.

It's not meant to be a play on words. Just that some people read it differently that others. How is that even deception?

The issue is that the use of the phrase 100% independent was meant to make everyone feel like CAP had zero involvement with these events moving forward. That isn't the case and thus it is deception, plain and simple.

Was it? Did you conceive of the phrase before Alex wrote it?

Zero involvement does not necessarily mean deriving no profit.

I was *with* Alex in Macau when this whole thing was going down. No one else involved in this discussion has even MET Alex, I bet. None of you know that Alex is possibly the easiest-going guy you'll ever met, never lifted a finger in anger, don't think I've ever seen him furrow his brow even. And I know he is no bullshitter, certainly he's never done it to me in the years since I've known him.

The first thing I said to him when I saw him is "Is your phone on?" and he said it had been ringing off the hook. He spent most of that night and the next couple of days dealing with the situation, in between some noodles and Bruce Lee slots, and me haranguing him about how he had to cut CAP off to the largest extent possible (but then again I paid for the noodles with my comps, and he won at the slots).

As far as I am concerned, he did so. However, I was not and am not privy to the contract between the two sides, nor are any of us.

Personally, I'd love to see Alex come out and say just how much longer before the existing contract is over - but I highly doubt that will happen - though I'd bet it can't be far off anyhow.

[AussieDave]

Hi All,

Well I've just finished reading this thread which came about by reading the one over at the GPWA. The catalyst being mojo's requested exile.

The only decent reason I could find for anyone attending is Bryan

The reason I am going is for my panel discussion which I feel supersedes any affiliate conflicts/dilemmas/bitch-and-moaning/rogueness etc. since it deals primarily with the players and what they want.

Or have I missed something

However it seems really strange to me that when the AU (Affiliate Union) issue was raised here (and just about everywhere else), the BIG drama was about a founding member financially supporting a known rogue casino group (VCG).

Yet some of the same people who took issue on that count, and were also the loudest in crucifying the AU (who incidentally mojo, chalkie and I had no idea about the VCG connection), are here in this thread and others contradicting their core values, as displayed in their total umbrage for the AU fiasco.

Am I the only one to find this comical, apparently not!

This industry is its own worst enemy.

It seems to me, through every sordid bit of dirt that spews out of this industry, that instead of actions being based on what is the right thing to do, actions are dictated to by industry politics.

Screw integrity the mighty buck rules again

If CAP/Warren/Lou are gaining financial benefit from this event, then who in their right mind would want to line their pockets with cash; directly or indirectly for that matter

I've said it before, too many cliques, hidden agendas and way too many politics rule this industry. Semantics and Spin Dr speak seems to fall easily from some people's tongues depending on the situation at hand.

But hey what would I know...I'm just the village idiot and the AU fall guy



Cheers



Dave

[dominique]

If CAP/Warren/Lou are gaining financial benefit from this event,

Just a fact to keep things straight, I am not voicing any opinions here:

When assets were split, Lou received Effectice Media and Warren received Affiliate Media. Only Affiliate Media has a financial interest in the conferences.

[RobWin]

Zero involvement does not necessarily mean deriving no profit.

LOL...

Attachment 20892

____
____

[PokerNations]

LOL...

Attachment 20892

____
____

Lol, well played. Reminds me of watching the episode of the Daily Show where they had one of the Justice Departments lawyers from the Bush Administration talking about "interrogation techniques" that were essentially "torture" but they were trying to define them as something that was acceptable outside of torture to get around the treaty they signed saying we wouldn't be involved in torture practices.

That's the thing about legal and political stuff, they can twist everything around. They could write a law that says "anyone wearing a pink shirt will be hugged" and then 1,000 pages down in the legal code toss in:

"for the purpose of this law, pink means green, shirt means hat and hugged means shot"

[triple777s]

I asked this over at GPWA with no answer given, so i will ask it here....

When CAP got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.....any contracts that were in place then....should of been null and void? Correct.....If you are in a c ontract with another company and that other company gets caught stealing, lieing, etc.....doesn't that give you a easy and legal out of any binding contracts?

So why didn't Igaming...and anyone else who had contracts with Warren or Lou opt out of these contracts and break free cleanly?

[Casinomeister]

When CAP got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.....any contracts that were in place then....should of been null and void? Correct.....If you are in a c ontract with another company and that other company gets caught stealing, lieing, etc.....doesn't that give you a easy and legal out of any binding contracts?

So why didn't Igaming...and anyone else who had contracts with Warren or Lou opt out of these contracts and break free cleanly?

I don't think it's really that simple. CAP or Affilliate Media did some pretty underhanded and unethical things - business-wise. I don't think this would nullify any contracts, and further, we don't know what these contracts entail, so it's pretty much a moot issue.

All we have here is an event being run by an entity that has a relationship with another (CAP). How deep is this relationship? We can only ponder and speculate. Something to think about in the loo.

And to pose some questions here: is the player affected? How does this all fit into the player's perspective? Do the players care whether or not CAP has a finger in the LAC pie? Do they care whether or not I host a panel with high profile players (and Max) involved?

That's what I want to hear.