Right, this could be a huge problem. For example, I myself am confused about whether I am defending or critiquing her. I hope she is able to correctly interpret my interpretation of her interpretation of Howard's misinterpretations.

Mods: imho it would be better to restart an overall ftp thread. Then we could just talk speculate about what will happen next week when she finishes.

Is it supposed to be a 7 part series again? I am forgetting if I saw that somewhere...

This.

MicroRoller, I think you're taking what HL is saying in this scenario way too literally. He's pretty clearly intimating that members were more focused on punishing whoever was responsible for the disaster than fixing the problem in a timely manner...and this would also imply that punishing whoever is culpable does not fix the problem, so I think that makes your larger point irrelevant to this instance.

Tamiller and 1938ford: could you two please find some other aspect of this to disagree on, or at least discuss? I've found your discussions with each other to be the most fun and informative parts of this thread...
thanks!

I hope that all the waiting and curiosity will be rewarded with new information and insight, but I have to admit I am more than a little pessimistic that will happen. What do you all think?

Seems unrealistic to think the **** will turn to gold

I was pretty pleased/content with the first three or so, but they've gotten progressively worse and have turned into a lot of speculation and conjecture.

I think she will deliver the goods

I am dissapoint

I am waiting for 7 and then I will read them all at once and post my thoughts in the DF thread.

some context would be nice. what is the diamondflush series?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...files-1252877/

R*R I hear what you are saying, this thread may be redundant but I was genuinely asking if people really believe she is going to deliver on the claims/ promises she originally asserted or if they, like me, have lost faith in her ability to do so. If mods find this thread unecessary, they will lock or move I am sure.

He's not intimating that. He says it flat out. If you have a narrow view of the problem, that there's a giant hole in the books then doing anything but trying to fill that hole is counter productive. If you take a wider view of the problem that the company is run by thieves and incompetents that destroyed the company then you can take corrective action. Even according to Lederer, Bitar continued to steal over $2mill from the company post black friday when he agreed to reduce his salary to $70k/mo but instead continued to receive $200k+/mo.

There were over 20 members of the company, many of which wanted to get involved to help the company. Part of what they wanted to do was determine what went wrong. Why not let them try to figure out what happened? Other people could work on the other aspects of the problem in tangent. Lederer makes it sound like he almost singlehandedly got players paid so he didn't need their help. Let them do what they wanted to do.

My main point is that identifying the problem is problem solving 101. That's not irrelevant, that's just a fact.

I don't think we're going to hear anything satisfying from anyone until more legal matters are resolved. Bitar seems to be quite selfish. Once he makes a deal I think things might get more interesting.

I have no problem with this thread. It is actually a good speculative topic as far as speculation goes.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. My point is that according to Lederer, that wasn't what was going on.

The validity/honesty of HL's comments is a different discussion.

Microroller, I've read a lot of your posts and thoughts on the issue and have always been impressed with your positions, so let me ask you this... If what you just said is true, why did DF imply that HL was going to regret ducking her and further claim that she had new info which was going to shed all sorts of light onto the issue of FTP and its demise? I know you can't read someone's mind (or ever truly know their motivations/ intentions), but it seems to me that she made some bold claims with very little to back them up thus far. So why even make them and get this small corner of the poker world all worked up? What purpose is served by doing so?

I wasn't initially replying to the discussion you were having about what HL said and what DF interpreted it as. I was replying to this comment.

It was in the context of that discussion but I was only responding to that one point.

I do not know if this is copyrighted but I will say it anyway.

I don't know.

I guess I can use it as the usage is different. I believe there is a difference between saying you don't know if you will be hit by a car in the future and saying you don't know if you were hit by a car yesterday.

What do you all think?

I don't know. I thought she was going to come out with more direct evidence to show HL was lying and not the same 'these are facts but you just have to take my word on it'. Not having that type of evidence makes her bark lack bite. I don't think now is the right time to come forward with that sort of evidence though.

In situations like these there are going to be people that have an interest in keeping quiet and there are going to be people interested in spreading certain information. I believe her articles reflect the agendas of those that have something to say. Half of her posts on subject poker were related to the GBT deal and to me read a lot like GBT's PR statements. Nowhere in those 8 posts do we get told just how bad the GBT deal will be for players. Instead she tells us that it's been confirmed by both the DOJ and FTP that GBT does have the money to complete the deal and that the deal is the best shot for getting players repaid. On here she expressed the same sentiments and even attacked people that had anything negative to say about the GBT deal. After it comes to light how bad the GBT deal would have been she reports the details without addressing any of the previous comments she had made. That made me lose a lot of respsect for her.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bitar tries to roll on others to reduce his jail time and if that happens we'll get to hear more. I'm hoping at some point we get to hear more sides of the story. After the Lederer Files first came out John Juanda was tweeting a bunch of stuff but got quiet after he started being harassed and called a thief by some people including ZBTHorton (also of SubjectPoker). Hopefully in the future we can hear directly from more insiders and get to draw our own conclusions.

Sounds like you were just trolling then.

Your first sentence makes all of the above specious at best.

People who think that way are super common when you're participating in conference calls or round tables or w/e. If that hasn't been your experience, you are either lucky or you haven't participated in very many of them (so lucky either way I guess).

As I noted earlier, I also think the membership had a better overall understanding of what had happened by the time these meetings were taking place. Although this is def speculative, I would say the initial discovery process was already complete and if you disagree then I guess that's part of the reason we are in contention on this.

It was a very carefully couched statement including phrases such as "so overly focused," and "that it distracts from." It would obviously be silly to argue against your point that indentifying the problem is part of the process of finding solutions. The question is one of being able to conduct a meeting in a productive fashion. There are actually some caveats even to that to the extent that sometimes high priority business decisions have to be made on a timeline that doesn't allow for a lengthy investigative process, but I think we've already spent too much time on this. I do agree with your statement that a committe could have been designated for that purpose, and it's perhaps a more meaningful point than the one DF tried to make.

I'm not trolling I just don't agree with you and I find it very suspicious that Lederer stated he didn't care about finding out who was to blame for the problem and it appears he tried to block efforts of those that wanted to find out the details of what happened.

You and Lederer both seem to have have a misunderstanding of what "taking ownership of the problem" means. You're confusing it with taking ownership of the solution. They are not the same thing and many people confuse the two. Sometimes intentionally.

Getting Lederer to assign any blame to Bitar or Coronado was like pulling teeth but he had no problem blaming others for actions he thought were hampering the solution.

Assigning blame, and people taking responsibility for their mistakes is an important part of the process. Just because you find someone at fault doesn't mean you get rid of the person. Mistakes enrich people's experience although sometimes mistakes can't be corrected.

You're making assumptions that the purpose of assigning blame would be to enact retribution and you're assuming that the owners knew more than is claimed that they knew. That last assumption is an exceptionally large leap considering how the BOD and management seemed to keep the owners distanced from the operatins of the company. That distance was built into the founding documents of the company and illustrated in interactions reported between owners and management.

Meh. I'll admit I've never heard anyone talk about "taking ownership of the solution." I do recognize a distinction between accepting fault and taking ownership.

Sure, and I don't see where I ever implied that every person who wants to find out who was responsible for a particular decision is doing so because they want to fire them. I have suggested that there's a particular type of person who tends to see things this way, and that the same type is often an obstacle to conducting a successful business meeting.

Again, no. I'm saying that some people get so caught up on that aspect of things, however, that they stifle one's ability to conduct a business call. Howard describes them as "angry."

Not necessarily. I'm saying they knew enough to know that the sale of the company was a top priority. I think you may be saying that they justifiably wanted to know more so they could make an informed decision as to whether they should allow Howard Ray and Chris to continue to run with the ball, and I wouldn't disagree with that. If that was in fact their stance, however, then Howard's response is still reasonable and it falls on the ownership to make the next move (which apparently they eventually attempted, perhaps a day late and a dollar short).

Muppet-

What are you on about. You think that because in certain business contexts it is a bad idea to do too much rehashing that Howard was right to shut down inquiry? They were actively lying to the AGCC during this time while trying to get a big check. In your esteemed business experience is this a good strategy for a re-cap or sale? This is exactly what spikes deals all the time- targets play games while still trying to get the money fast.

The only term sheet Howard negotiated was for a company doing a concurrent raise out of the ftp offices. They had no i-bank to help in there until August. Seriously? Anyone with any sort of deal experience will tell you this is bush league for a 20m company, let alone 1b.

The fact that you don't recognize this suggests to me that your condescending tone toward Micro is specious at best, venal at worst. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Cliff:

muppet is fake business guy