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

[NeedsToBeSaid]

Originally Posted by myst63

When it broke on 2+2, it could have been perceived as a payment processing problem. Nothing wrong with that...its not uncommon for companies to have AR/AP 120 days late, or longer.

That's not how the agcc sees it. They revoked FTP's license for what you describe a minor problem. They condemn themselves with their on hand.

I'll post it again. This time read it:

Ground 7

In relation to Vantage Limited:

48. "That pursuant to Section 14(1)(b) of the Alderney eGambling Ordinance, 2009 have
operated otherwise than in accordance your approved internal control system namely by
offering credit to customers in contravention of Section 2.10 of your approved internal
control system by virtue of permitting customers to effect gambling transactions when
you were not in possession of the money deposited by those customers who had utilised
the ACH electronic bank transfer facility and you were aware that no payment processor
had been able to collect the funds."

Vantage Limited


13

49. Documents JS23 demonstrates that section 2.10 of Vantage Limited's internal control
system states that –

"The Company does not offer credit to its customers, therefore no bad debts due to a
default on credit should be incurred".

50. Paragraph 2.3 of the Accountant's Report explains that Vantage Limited had not been
able to identify payment processors who could collect deposits from players. The
Accountant's Report explains that this resulted in customers receiving credit in relation to
their deposits. It is alleged that such credit could then be used for gambling transactions.
However, due to the fact that Vantage Limited had not found any payment processors
who were able to collect the funds, Vantage Limited were unable to collect the payments
made by their customers.

51. Jorn Stark's evidence supports the Accountant's Report on this point (see paragraphs 48
and 49 of Jorn Stark's witness statement dated 28th June 2011 and Jorn Stark's oral
evidence given on the 23rd September 2011).

52. Having considered all of the evidence, the Commissioners are of the opinion that the
acceptance of deposits from customers without any means to collect such payments
constitutes an offer of credit.

53. Document JS21(H) demonstrates the accumulation of such uncollected payments, and
that the offer of such credit, had amounted to approximately $128 million US Dollars (as
termed the "ACH backlog"). The Commissioners understand from the evidence that this
document was provided to the Executive by FTP.

54. The Commissioners on the balance of probabilities find that Vantage Limited has offered
credit to its customers in contravention of section 2.10 of its internal control system.


14

55. As a consequence, Vantage Limited has failed to exercise its eGambling licence and
conduct its business of organizing, promoting or effecting gambling transactions in
accordance with its internal control system as required by section 14(1)(b) of the
Ordinance. It follows that Vantage Limited has contravened a provision of the Ordinance
pursuant to section 12(1)(c) of the Ordinance.

56. The Commissioners therefore find that Ground 7 has been proven in relation to Vantage
Limited.

Also your position is that it's common practice in the gaming industry to not pull deposits for up to 120 days?

[myst63]

I read it, and I understand it...do you?

AGCC didn't like how the transactions were reported and offered as audited results. The accountants spun it as a "payment processing problem" that they wanted to carry in the books...AGCC said no, you basically offered credit when you aren't supposed to.

AGCC had to let it play out to see what FTP was going to do. And the AGCC did their job - revoked the license. To expect AGCC to act on the first month of talk on 2+2 would be irresponsible, due to what is allowed in GAAP. Hence the timeframe.

You should be more pissed at FTP accountants and auditors than AGCC, is all I am saying. The only thing I can find at fault with AGCC is that they didn't go far enough - they should have yanked all licenses and banned any and all entities and individuals associated with FTP from ever getting a license again. However, I believe that they didn't do that, because they felt that the best chance for the players to get their funds back was to leave a back door for someone to come in and save the day. They did the right thing, imo.

[myst63]

Originally Posted by NeedsToBeSaid

Also your position is that it's common practice in the gaming industry to not pull deposits for up to 120 days?

Missed this question - no, thats not my position. It could be that the payment processor takes it right away from the player, but due to AR/AP and GAAP, it is possible that it wouldn't get transferred to FTP for 120 days or more. They would have the transaction on the books, but after reconciling the accounts (which isn't done every day), they would find that they don't have the cash on hand they should. FTP reported it as a problem and AGCC called it out as credit.

[myst63]

Take a personal example. You go to the casino, hit the cage with your Visa and take out $1000. Casino gives you $1000, and waits for Visa to pay them the $1000 you have. 30 days go by, you don't make a payment...60 days go by, you pay. Meanwhile, you played with $1000 from the casino that advanced from a promise to pay from Visa. Of course Visa covered it from their cash, because you are on their books as paying them 30-60 days later. There is a whole world around credit facilities that would be involved in all of this that could have resulted in a chain reaction that caused FTP to cook the books. Given the problems processing payments for US players, it wouldn't surprise me that it was upwards of the 120+ days to process the payment completely to everyone in the chain.

edit - FWIW, the payment delays would have gotten worse since the US banned the banks and credit cards from processing payments, about 2 years ago? The DoJ could have been investigating FTP years ago to see how the payment chain would react and how the funds would be reported and/or be dispersed amongst FTP principals...I think the DoJ was involved way before the payment processors funds were seized. It's probably been 4-5 years that the DoJ would have been involved building the case, is my guess.

[NeedsToBeSaid]

Originally Posted by myst63

I read it, and I understand it...do you?

AGCC didn't like how the transactions were reported and offered as audited results. The accountants spun it as a "payment processing problem" that they wanted to carry in the books...AGCC said no, you basically offered credit when you aren't supposed to.

AGCC had to let it play out to see what FTP was going to do. And the AGCC did their job - revoked the license. To expect AGCC to act on the first month of talk on 2+2 would be irresponsible, due to what is allowed in GAAP. Hence the timeframe.

This isn't an accounting issue. It's against the regs to give loans. People are reporting that deposits weren't being processed. So your position is that a regulator should wait for FTP to lie to them before stepping in to protect consumers?

You should be more pissed at FTP accountants and auditors than AGCC, is all I am saying.

Where did I say I didn't want those people hanged, drawn, and quartered too? The AGCC needs to be shut. The individuals in charge investigated for their negligent behavior.

Missed this question - no, thats not my position. It could be that the payment processor takes it right away from the player, but due to AR/AP and GAAP, it is possible that it wouldn't get transferred to FTP for 120 days or more. They would have the transaction on the books, but after reconciling the accounts (which isn't done every day), they would find that they don't have the cash on hand they should. FTP reported it as a problem and AGCC called it out as credit.

There was no payment processor. I'm not saying that the agcc should look at books. Pick up the phone and ask someone what the problem is. "So I'm seeing reports that you're not processing US deposits. Why? What are you doing about it? You know that it's against the license to give loans to players, right? What is the name of the processor you have? What is their phone number?" You seem to think that a regulators job is just to catch fraud after it occurs. No, it's primarily to prevent fraud. No credit for stepping in when ftp has $6m left. Thanks but I don't need FTP paying for that kind of protection with my money.

[NeedsToBeSaid]

Originally Posted by myst63

Take a personal example. You go to the casino, hit the cage with your Visa and take out $1000. Casino gives you $1000, and waits for Visa to pay them the $1000 you have. 30 days go by, you don't make a payment...60 days go by, you pay. Meanwhile, you played with $1000 from the casino that advanced from a promise to pay from Visa. Of course Visa covered it from their cash, because you are on their books as paying them 30-60 days later. There is a whole world around credit facilities that would be involved in all of this that could have resulted in a chain reaction that caused FTP to cook the books. Given the problems processing payments for US players, it wouldn't surprise me that it was upwards of the 120+ days to process the payment completely to everyone in the chain.

It's not about the cash problem. It's against the license to allow players to play on credit. The AGCC has ruled this is what FTP did. There are no facts available to them today on this matter that weren't there ten months ago. If you don't like that way of looking at it, take it up with the AGCC

[NexusWR]

Originally Posted by Hairy Chinese Kid

Mark Hateley was a massive coke head when he managed Hull City (I remember standing on the terraces watching him moaning at the rest of the team).

I bet he took the money! The ****.

He scored in a 2-2 draw

[myst63]

I've tried to explain it to you, but you are missing my points. We will have to agree to disagree.

With respect to corporations, you can't catch a "crime in progress" related to accounting fraud. You can only go back and untangle the mess after its happened. It's unfortunate, but thats the way it works.

I hope that you get what you are owed, and that you do get satisfaction with the procescutions in the future.

[myst63]

Originally Posted by NeedsToBeSaid

It's not about the cash problem. It's against the license to allow players to play on credit. The AGCC has ruled this is what FTP did. There are no facts available to them today on this matter that weren't there ten months ago. If you don't like that way of looking at it, take it up with the AGCC

It was not a credit problem until FTP reported an item in their books as "payment processor problems balance owing". Players were playing on credit all along, because of AR/AP and GAAP. How many times have you gone to pay for something and it hasn't shown up on your statement for a while. How many times have you paid a bill and the recipient doesn't get it for a week? Happens all the time. And thats with legal entities you are allowed to deal with! Imagine the delays to FTP because of all the hurdles around US players trying to play. FTP just happen to end up carrying a larger than expected balance on the books that AGCC couldn't ignore, and called it credit after an amount of time.

Maybe AGCC needs to enforce liquidity percentage above and beyond what is being played...like have 100% cash to cover 2 times the bank rolls or something, on deposit in AGCC account.

[NeedsToBeSaid]

Originally Posted by myst63

I've tried to explain it to you, but you are missing my points. We will have to agree to disagree.

With respect to corporations, you can't catch a "crime in progress" related to accounting fraud. You can only go back and untangle the mess after its happened. It's unfortunate, but thats the way it works.

I hope that you get what you are owed, and that you do get satisfaction with the procescutions in the future.

Then I go back to my original point. If they're not doing anything, why are they being paid?

[myst63]

Originally Posted by NeedsToBeSaid

Then I go back to my original point. If they're not doing anything, why are they being paid?

They get paid so the sites can say that there is a third party looking at their internal controls and audited statements on the player's behalf, to make sure everything is kosher. They are not there to be proactive to jump on every rumour, 2+2 thread, opinion, that an individual or group has, UNLESS, there is documented proof that can be provided to them, that the terms of the license have been contravened.

[NeedsToBeSaid]

Originally Posted by myst63

It was not a credit problem until FTP reported an item in their books as "payment processor problems balance owing". Players were playing on credit all along, because of AR/AP and GAAP. How many times have you gone to pay for something and it hasn't shown up on your statement for a while. How many times have you paid a bill and the recipient doesn't get it for a week? Happens all the time. And thats with legal entities you are allowed to deal with! Imagine the delays to FTP because of all the hurdles around US players trying to play. FTP just happen to end up carrying a larger than expected balance on the books that AGCC couldn't ignore, and called it credit after an amount of time.

There wasn't some delay. There was no processor. This wasn't some routine delay. If you print FTP money and there's no processor, you're giving credit that second. FTP should have shutdown echecks immediately and the agcc should have noticed that they didn't have a processor from August '10 until ~March '11. How can you excuse that kind of oversight?

Maybe AGCC needs to enforce liquidity percentage above and beyond what is being played...like have 100% cash to cover 2 times the bank rolls or something, on deposit in AGCC account.

Lots of things could have prevented this or lessen it's impact. They didn't do any of them. Why should they be allowed to continue to regulate sites? Why would any informed person think that their certification means anything? They've stated that they think they did nothing wrong. Therefore, your money is not safe on any site they regulate.

[myst63]

Idle chat on 2+2 about 1000 people not having their deposits processed - not actionable

Player has a withdrawl check bounce - actionable

Did anyone have a check bounce before BF? Did they report it to AGCC?

[NeedsToBeSaid]

Originally Posted by myst63

They get paid so the sites can say that there is a third party looking at their internal controls and audited statements on the player's behalf, to make sure everything is kosher. They are not there to be proactive to jump on every rumour, 2+2 thread, opinion, that an individual or group has, UNLESS, there is documented proof that can be provided to them, that the terms of the license have been contravened.

So once all the money is gone and the business fails, they'll get right on it. Excellent. 400k doesn't buy what it use too I guess.

[NexusWR]

GBT may, however, look for some smaller amount from other sources. For example, the Groupe is considering allowing some current owners of FTP to retain some ownership in the relaunched company in exchange for further investment or forgiveness of debt. If this were to happen, however, Mr. Dayanim is quick to point out that these shares would amount only to a small minority interest at best, and that the owners of such shares would not have votes or say in any decision-making processes or have any link to the management of the company whatsoever. However, such a deal would have to be accepted by any future regulator of Full Tilt.

How can anyone read that and want to play on a new Full Tilt? The people who caused this mess would be enriched by shares in the new FT.

If you choose to play on Full Tilt when old shareholders are still receiving dividend then in my eyes you are either morally bankrupt or dumb.

I really hope this isn't true, those guys should be in jail, not receiving dividend payments from a company they almost ran into the ground.