None of us here knows the full truth, so anything we say is primarily speculation. But I agree that there must be something that Crockfords is clinging to as a reason to not pay the man. They wouldn't simply welch on a payment. As to whether or not their reasoning is valid is another issue and will be up to the court to decide. Hopefully someone will share the juicy details with the public.
One comment from the Daily Mail article that caught my eye is:
Quote:
Mr Ivey, a divorcé, assured Crockfords bosses that he would play for a serious amount of time...
If he pulled a hit-and-run, and it appears they were worried he would do just that, then maybe they felt he violated a time commitment to them (or X number of hands). Unless it was in writing, though, that shouldn't hold up in court, but I could see how they would be disappointed that he didn't give the house a chance to win their money back.
On a side note, when did Ivey win £10 million in a Vegas tournament as mentioned in the article? Are they mistakenly referring to the Corporation's win against Beal as a tournament win?