They're owned by Genting so they have enough cash, that's for certain.

Contingency fees never used to be allowed, but they changed the regulations a few years ago.

Today, Sue, Grabbit and Runne will be happy to work for Phil with no cash upfront as long as they believe he has a solid case.

I remember the old thread. Amazing they think they don't have to pay. GL Phil!

On a side note, from the poker news article:

They can do no win no fee deals but this lot

http://www.archerfieldpartners.com/main.html

don't look like the lawyer from the Simpsons. He also has a QC (Barrister) already

http://www.39essex.com/members/profile.php?id=144

I doubt they will be doing a no win no fee deal for Ivey and they will not be cheap. The courts can and do award costs against the loser so they will likely bill by the hour and hope Crockfords pay the bill in the end.

beards cost a lot of money

Looks like they're getting a uhhh...
ummm...
you know....

massage

i remember the old thread as well

why did it take him almost a year to file action against them?

"negotiations"

based on barry g stories that PI cares about principle more than anything, PI is armed to teeth overpaying the best lawyers going after the casino

does this mean we can see PI back online in the hs games?

It is pretty scary what they did to him. Unless there is something we don't know. You wonder if there is anything that isn't shady when it comes to poker? Is it possible to have an honest transaction in the game at all (not that this was poker related).

It seems that someone is getting abused by someone everywhere you turn. Good luck Phil.

^ ever heard of ''Polarizing''?

He plays under Polarizing on Full Tilt and was playing numerous games last night.

i know, i meant that he wasn't playing any of the big games like he was 4-5 months ago

It was not poker. As this was in the UK the debt is legally enforceable.

Cliffs: They publicly called Ivey a cheat which calls into question his character, his lifetime achievements as a poker pro and has wide ranging business implications.

Ivey has to do this to maintain his integrity and of course, retrieve the funds that he most likely deserves.

Source?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...S-pay-out.html

Lack of facts ITT.

Casinos in the UK are heavily, heavily regulated in law. They take big bets and pay big wins, standard. Genting know that they can't just nix a gambling debt in the UK without reasonable cause, and without the player seeking recourse to the local authorities.

A reputable UK casino is very unlike to not pay because they don't feel like it... which suggests a casino that suspends winnings has some sort of rationale. I'm not saying that Genting have a good reason to hold onto the money, I'm saying that they KNOW that holding onto it exposes them to high-profile and expensive legal action... and yet they've still held onto it.

You are correct that I don't know if he is guilty or not.

I will offer some conjecture, that to legally withhold the winnings they need specific evidence of cheating. If they had such evidence, I highly doubt that Ivey would pursue a legal case. He would want the story swept under the rug, not brought to the forefront again.

He may well be suing for this too. UK libel laws can be pretty harsh. No first amendment defence here.

Lot of baccarat plays going around lately.

The fact the woman was there makes it sound like this:

http://www.worldgameprotection.com/t...-Players-Love/

Though I don't know if they can not pay for that in the UK.

That could be worth a lot more than the 7.8

They must have something really concrete on this as the PR is awful and I imagine the whales world is a small one

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0..._hp_ref=sports

he should get punitive damages for the stress of having 12m of his money held by them for so long no doubt. i also hope the ALL of the whales hear about this, for their own sake. so shady it makes me sick.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of this lawsuit............
If I recall correctly, it seems they initially refused payment because they were suspicious of some kind of wrongdoing; somebody said they actually and publicly accused PI of cheating....however, the huffington article says the casino never publicly made this accusation........I can see the point that if he really did do something crooked, he wouldn't be suing, would he? On the other hand, if the casino didn't have something on him, why wouldn't they pay him, rather than go through this legal hassle and lose?

if phil wanted to make money gambling/gaming he'd play poker, not cheat the casino. He's the best player in the world let's not forget.... he was there to gamble for high stakes and after losing a bunch (+2m) which he would undoubtedly pay, the casino grants his request to lose more to them. he ended up a winner and the casino steals from him the money he deserves. so greasy and again i hope everyone finds out about this.

cliffs: ivey's time is better spent analyzing his, and other players games. not creating a gambling scheme he's not even good at math. the casino is a cheat.

should of just paid the man. Now your Casino gets bad press because you lost money to a professional gambler a high profile one. You won't pay up. Your now getting sued. You pay for lawyer fees and then you will have to pay back the 7.8 million euros and with some type of penalty. Honestly if i gambled there i would never go back to the place.