FTP Discussion Thread (Everything but big new news goes here. Cliffs in OP)

[three_dee]

Originally Posted by SGT RJ

Just a friendly reminder to spell all your words in full and allow the profanity filter to do its job.

Spelling **** as fk sort of defeats the purpose of having a filter in the first place.

What is the point of having a filter in the first place?

[Gim_Mick]

so is the origin of the loans/debt well known?

More specifically, Barry's 400k, was it loaned to him by Chris? Howard? Ray? out of personal accounts? Did it come from accounts that were there to collect rake (therefore NOT players money), or did it come directly from player accounts?

Obviously same question for Ivey's loans? and in addition for Ivey, could the terms of his loan be... "here is 4m, we will just withhold your endorsement check for the next 5 months to cover the loan"?

Point being, or question being, do we know the origin and terms of these loans? And wouldn't that be key into knowing who if anyone has a valid claim to recoup the debt?

[2Pretty2Lose]

Originally Posted by Gim_Mick

so is the origin of the loans/debt well known?

More specifically, Barry's 400k, was it loaned to him by Chris? Howard? Ray? out of personal accounts? Did it come from accounts that were there to collect rake (therefore NOT players money), or did it come directly from player accounts?

all the money is/was co-mingled, theoretically it came from rake accounts but we all know thats bs now. Not sure if youre saying Chris, Howard or Ray personally loaned him money either, but if that was the case it shouldnt be on the books as a receivable to FTP, it would be a debt owed to them personally. If youre saying they are the ones who simply approved the loan then what difference does that make of who approved FTP to give him the loan?

[Bubbleblower]

Originally Posted by pineapple888

Edit: Actually the one "real" issue might be that FTP's records are so screwed up (or outright false) that there is potential that the debts listed might not be debts at all.

But now they are.

Probably they used to be salaries they didn't need to pay taxes over, that were never supposed to be paid back (24% was already written off).
GBT no doubt realises this very well.
Some of these pro's will end up on their payroll and be branded the good guys.

[Gim_Mick]

Originally Posted by 2Pretty2Lose

all the money is/was co-mingled, theoretically it came from rake accounts but we all know thats bs now. Not sure if youre saying Chris, Howard or Ray personally loaned him money either, but if that was the case it shouldnt be on the books as a receivable to FTP, it would be a debt owed to them personally. If youre saying they are the ones who simply approved the loan then what difference does that make of who approved FTP to give him the loan?

I am not "saying" that, I am "asking" that... We know that all the pros, online and live loan each other money. My question was do we know that all of these outstanding loans are actually owed to FTP, or could some of them be from individuals...

The second part is just as important... Do we know the terms? Was it to be paid back directly? or recouped via endoresment fees? Do we know when Ivey stopped receiving his 900k per month? If Ivey has another year on his contract and FTP wasnt making payments after April, but they were still solvent... does he still owe the 4m back? Or does it act as payment to him?

[2Pretty2Lose]

doubt there were any real terms, most of these loans have been outstanding for a very long time. Layne Flack for example is outstanding since 2007 i thought i read (and if that is true then LOL @ Tapie believing hes ever collecting on that). Matusows debt seems to be so old he doesnt even remember owing money. If there were terms, it surely doesnt seem to be documented anywhere.

[SGT RJ]

Originally Posted by seniorservice

Well you guys could just get rid of the ****ing filter, everyone knows what word we both just typed out anyway.

Originally Posted by three_dee

What is the point of having a filter in the first place?

Seriously? The site owners want a filter, so there's a filter. The mods have zero input into this, we are just supposed to make sure people don't use their cute little methods of getting around the filter.

Basically if you do circumvent it in NVG and I catch it, you're looking at the post being edited, being straight up deleted, and/or being infracted, depending on the severity of the offense or how often the poster tends to do it.

My personal opinion on the filter is irrelevant. I cleaned up a few posts where people circumvented the filter, so I made a friendly post to remind people of the rule and ask them politely to heed it. Not as an invite for whiny little bitches to rip on me for enforcing the filter in the first place.

[matxe]

Originally Posted by SGT RJ

My personal opinion on the filter is irrelevant. I cleaned up a few posts where people circumvented the filter, so I made a friendly post to remind people of the rule and ask them politely to heed it. Not as an invite for whiny little bitches to rip on me for enforcing the filter in the first place.

LOL!

[Gim_Mick]

apparently "whiny little bitches" makes it through the filter

[Zenzor]

Originally Posted by Bubbleblower

Some of these pro's will end up on their payroll and be branded the good guys.

I don't know. Every pro associated with FTP is now forever associated with a bankrupt company that stole players money. Poker sites sponsor pros not only to advertise the company but also to use their reputation as a tool to instill trust and confidence in potential customers. Black Friday has tainted the reputation and consumer confidence building ability of FTP pros, and I'm not sure whether or not sponsoring the same pros as FTP is beneficial for the new brand of the takeover company.

[billysbones]

Originally Posted by SGT RJ

Seriously? The site owners want a filter, so there's a filter. The mods have zero input into this, we are just supposed to make sure people don't use their cute little methods of getting around the filter.

Basically if you do circumvent it in NVG and I catch it, you're looking at the post being edited, being straight up deleted, and/or being infracted, depending on the severity of the offense or how often the poster tends to do it.

My personal opinion on the filter is irrelevant. I cleaned up a few posts where people circumvented the filter, so I made a friendly post to remind people of the rule and ask them politely to heed it. Not as an invite for whiny little bitches to rip on me for enforcing the filter in the first place.

****ing **** ******* **** **** bollocks
Just checking

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by CaptainRunGood

Sorry if this has been addressed already, but if the deal doesn't go through with B.T., would US players still be payed out by the DOJ since they are already in possession of some of the funds?

If the deal does not go through, the DoJ will get less money, and any remission they pay will be spread between all qualifying players, not just US players. In this case, it is highly unlikely there'd be enough $ to pay players their full balances.

[AlphaScorpii]

Odds that FTP will be up and running before BF's "1st anniversity"?

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by hansolobp

...
Somehow related questions: would GBT be somehow prohibited / excluded to acquire even less of FTP1´s assets as is in discussion right now (such as only the software, only the customer database or maybe brand rights, ...) for lower prices if the current proposed deal falls through?

Those idiot "pros" with debts should realize that their debts won´t vanish into thin air in such a scenario, right?

Will the already approved "forfeiture" of FTP1 assets to the DOJ be still valid if the current proposed deal with GBT falls through?

It may be outside the scope of the current letter agreement with the DoJ for GTB to acquire fewer assets. We don't really know. If so, I don't see why they couldn't try to negotiate a different agreement if the current one falls through. Court deadlines for an answer to the charges might become an issue. OTOH, perhaps the current deal allows for reduction in price, and/or exclusion of certain assets from the deal, depending on the results of due diligence.

Perhaps the pros believe the DoJ won't try to collect. Perhaps such debts are unenforceable under applicable US laws. There is some reason to believe the DoJ agreed to let GBT try to collect assets they thought it would be difficult for the DoJ to collect: gambling debts, certain foreign bank accounts.

If by "already approved" you mean by shareholder appproval, we don't know whether any forfeiture approval was conditional on it being part of the GBT deal. I speculate that the shareholders have not yet approved a settlement agreement with the DoJ, for the simple reason that the negotiation of that deal does not yet seem to be complete.

[pineapple888]

Originally Posted by Bene Gesserit

Am I wrong somehow here? Do these uncollected debts actully make the price for FTP (for Tapie) go down or not? If you haven't got them or can't likely collect, they are not really FTP assets. If they were collected by FTP the company value would be higher?? Kind of like the PDs if collected!

This would seem to make the purchase cheaper and easier, but IDK what the hell is going on here!

The problem seems to be that all parties involved have already agreed on the general terms of the deal. If "bad" assets now turn up, it might not just be a matter of Tapie getting the DOJ, etc. to agree on a new price, because they have their own agendas (e.g. repaying players) or maybe did better due diligence and there was no real agreement in principle in the first place.

Personally I find it very strange that Tapie has just now realized "ZOMG the $20M (or whatever) on the books as loans to individuals might not be fully collectible!1!1!!!!!". As others have said, the entire issue might just be a strawman to enable them to call the whole thing off. But whatever. When the dust settles, the deal will either complete or it won't, and I'll either get some money back or I won't.