Ya no idea what the liquidators could do. Plus the money is in the players name, so not like they can make any decisions there. I'm still not 100% sure on how liquidators could speed up any tranfers between sites. I think what battlefield wanted was any money recovered that was goign to the players would be given to cake (once liquidatino was cohmplete). So they wanted a ball park figure about what cake would get (liek wehether they get 50% o% of total money). Cake obviously didn;t want to bailout players if only a small percentage of funds could be recovered. This sounds kinda messy though and probably not legal from a liquidation standpoint

What are liquidators suppose to do? That being said they've done a ****ty job with everything else.

Yep, the same reason they've left the gathering of proof of debt forms open so long, so they can drain away at our funds. In fairness, if I was in their shoes I'd be doing the same I guess but didn't someone mention they charge upwards of $200 per hour? I wonder how much in total they've cost us thus far, and how much more they're aiming to take.

QFT, they should have finished taking proof of debt forms months ago, the ****ing scammers

bump

You would think that they would've accelerated the process by now if there was some force out there that put significant pressure on the liquidators to get the show on the road. Guess there isn't any.

relax, there's a good chance the liquidators don't get a dime for their efforts

Wasn't some law posted a few pages back saying that they have to be at it for 2 years before the courts can step in and tell them to get a move on? So it's not really surprising that they're taking the time, they seem to have the law on their side

Oh really?

bad news...




























I am unable to give you a timeframe as to when your dividend will be declared. As previously advised, it is dependant on how quickly the assets are realised and the investigation is concluded. However, I can confirm that it will not happen this year as many things still need to be resolved.



Regards,



Eudo Hadde
Analyst

FU

Not surprised as they still have not even set a final date for submitting forms (I seem to remember reading somewhere they need to do so publically).

Why can;t they report what the many things are that need to be resolved? Why can;t they be upfront abotu what is going on?

Well, at least it mentions the word "dividend".

I do not believe there are enough funds to cover those whose funds should have been held in trust and will eventually get paid accordingly.

Whose funds do you think should have been held in trust? All the players with money stuck on any of the rooms or only players that meet certain criteria?

I don't think it is normal for a poker room to devote 65% of revenue to affiliates. I suspect the 65% was an issue regardless of what you want to call it.

Putting it another way, 83% of revenues apparently went to pay for network operations (MGS), marketing (subskins), and certain player expenses (rakeback offsets). Was 17% enough to cover everything else?

Note that I say certain player expenses were deducted from rakeback because only successful players can pay deductions. When someone deposits and quickly loses all their money without generating much rake, Tusk pays that deposit fee. Fraudulent players and chargebacks are another huge area of player expenses that Tusk and the skins have to pay out of their own pockets.

It's tempting to think the typcial Tusk customer was a long-term grinder but I wonder how true that was. Very few people win in the long run and the rakeback skins advertised very aggressively. I'm sure a lot of dicey customers signed up.

You make this sound sinister. Microgaming is an industrial services business. The casinos and poker rooms that use it software and network services are their customers. Obviously Microgaming has a vested interest in their success.

everyone and I found out recently that Vanuatu has very unusual and very strict corporate law that holds the directors of a corporation responsible for any shortfalls they may owe.

Wait, what? You're telling us that of all the fake island countries, TUSK was based on the one that happens to have stringent comercial laws? Now that would be something else.

I remember you saying this recently, did anyone get on to you with a similar case or British legislation btw?

From what you've found out,it sounds like we're in a pretty good shape here really since our money has to be held in trust, the directors will be personally responsible if we don't get the full amount and if the liquidators pay anyone before the players, they'll be held responsible for it too.

Have you had much communication with the liquidators?You said they'd been notified that if they paid out anyone before the players, they'd be responsible, did they react or reply to that?

Oh really? Someone should tell that to Ongame then and to a bit lesser extent iPoker.

Actually it's the skins getting around 65% not the affiliates but it's not much difference because the affiliates were getting around 60-61%. That 60-61% for the affiliates though was basically for the affiliates and players not just the affiliates because rakeback was the bonus of this business model.

Ongame does the same thing only to a greater extent if anything. Only substitute their 8x bonuses for rakeback at the Tusk skins. The 8x bonuses for the players combined with the affiliate payments made by their skins are more than equivalent to 60-61% for the affiliates/players of the Tusk skins. Sure a few Ongame sites have gone under and stiffed players mostly because of crooked operators like FutureBet (basically the equivalent of Tusk).

It's not the business model that's broke though. There has to be enough money left for them to make a profit because there are still plenty of Ongame sites using it. So for the millioneth time 60% rakeback did not leave Tusk with to little money and cause them to go under.

bump

FTR some of the skins received more than 65%. 65% seems to be the average give or take a few percent in either direction for the skins under tusk. Why some skins got a better deal is unbeknownst to me.

And yes from what I am hearing rakeback was not a factor (at least not is tusk losing money). And like I have said many times MGS was happy to see battlefield and others leave (in terms of kicking them off).

When you look at www.highstakesdb.com you see another proof that Rednines and Raketherake.net were involved with each other. Usually highstakesdb.com was advertising Rednines all over. It even appeared that the site was being run by Rednines itself. After the Tusk debacle it appears that Raketherake has taken the site over...

Wait, what? WTF does that prove?

That Rednines shot JFK?

This isn't possible. Liquidators get paid before creditors. The only people that get paid before the liquidators are employees. I think we established this about 200 pages ago.

no funds held in trust get paid before liquidators