This should give further insight:
http://www.igamingfrance.com/full-ti...e-scenes/26186

found another article on that matter on pocketfives.
http://www.pocketfives.com/articles/...ipated-587150/

One key piece of information that no one has presented is actually how these loans are structured, especially for the FTP owners. Suppose that the loans were secured by the ownership position in the company. Then Mike Matusow and Dayanim could both be telling the truth from their perspective. From Matusow's point of view, he's paid off the claim by surrendering his ownership since that is what secured the loan. GBT argues that the DOJ now "owns" FTP and Matusow has to put up something else (cold hard cash) to secure or pay off the loan.

I'm pretty sure that Matusow had no ownership in FTP. I'm also pretty sure that these loans didn't have any terms besides "Hey.. loan me $x million" "Ok, cool."

If you think FTP loaned money to people with no terms or written agreement you are crazy. Mike can claim he owes nothing because likely FTP breached their deal with him for failure to give him sponsorship money.

I believe Matusow stated in his book that he passed up an opportunity to be part of the group that owned FTP.

Yes, to preserve 500K for sports betting while he was in the hoosegow so he wouldn't go out of his mind from boredom. That's what I recall from CRing the Devil, anyway.

Almost as crazy as to full tilt crediting players accounts with deposits but never withdrawaling the money from their bank right....

Barry,

I tried the same reasoning with Citibank. Here's my letter to them.

"Hi Citibank... I borrowed $400,000 from you...and I'm gonna pay you back... but ONLY if I like how you will disperse the money to other customers.

Yeah that's right. I wanna dictate the terms of the repayment plan.

I KNOW I should mentioned this to you when I "borrowed" the $400,000 in the first place, but then you probably wouldnt have given it to me.. right?"

See how rediculous it sounds when you take yourself out of the equation?

you also took full tilt out of the equation. everyone who has money in citibank can walk into the bank and get it.

And it's not Citibank (the lender) who's asking for the money. It's another bank that may or may not buy Citibank.

I don't understand why Tapie Group can go after accounts receivable, when they don't have any intentions of covering accounts payable

Fair enough. They could have also been "secured" by his contract paying him for representing FTP. From Mike's perspective, the amount he won't get paid could cover the amount he owes. That's wrong, but I can see how Mike thinks that's how it should work. Barry Greenstein, a more sophisticated individual, essentially believes the same thing.

In any event, GBT looks like it is laying the groundwork to back out of the deal. If the deal is that tight that an investment of 20% more kills it, it wasn't a good deal to begin with.

I've hearrd this argument from a numebr of people who owe money, and it's pretty disgusting. It essentially boils down to "These guys paid me way too much money for my services before, using your money to do so. Then they lent me money, using your money to do so. I don't owe them the full amount because they stopped paying me way too much for my services from your money sooner than I would have liked."

That said, I totally understand that psychologically these people are used to the absurd free ride and just generally are pretty used to everyone around them floating massive debts. Doesn't mean that they shouldn't repay their loans, especially when someone else will be buying the debt.

I'm not privy to GBT's calculations, but if they think that FTP isn't worth the deal that's on the table by a huge margin, then they're wrong.

When you talk to these guys, do they understand how loathed they are? Do they get the risk their running of being harassed and shunned pretty much forever? Do they think that this is just going to blow over in a month or two?