Group Bernard Tapie unable to collect money from Ivey, Benyamine, etc. - Page 10 - Poker News

Frenbar · 02-02-2012, 05:41 PM

I'm been saying this all along and I still think the sky will darken with flocks of flying pigs before anyone gets a penny back from FT.

DoTheMath · 02-02-2012, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Johnson

If it wasn't your money to lend in the first place, then YES.

Good point. But in the case of FTP that would seem to make it the repsonsibility of the managment/directors, not the owners, wouldn't it? Or are you saying that the shareholders knew of and approved of the loans?

molinn9 · 02-02-2012, 05:45 PM

Give Ivey some slack, there is a 1 million dollar tourney this summer at wsop he needs to enter plus all those nice high stakes Dice tables casinos open for him. Seriously what a joke this all is what a no respect i have for these degens F... them all.

Rorschy · 02-02-2012, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frenbar

I'm been saying this all along and I still think the sky will darken with flocks of flying pigs before anyone gets a penny back from FT.

Spoiler:

oneonth3run · 02-02-2012, 06:00 PM

Well then, how do we as a community best pressure them to square their debts?

illious · 02-02-2012, 06:01 PM

Let me get this right:

Because players are owed 300-400 million dollars, GBT shouldn't care about 20 million dollars?

I know people want their money back, but come on!

DoTheMath · 02-02-2012, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justfoldpleaseok

are there past balance sheets and income statements to see? im having a hard time believing they were only raking in 30M/year. (profit not revenue) i would love to see what costs they have and revenue generated.

I haven't seen any balance sheets except for Pocket Kings.

I told you how I calculated the profit: take the $440M in distributions over 4 yours, subtract the $300M+ owing to players, and divide by the four years. You get a bit over $30M annually. I am sure they raked a whole lot more than $30M annually, but the losses of seized funds, the nine figures of phantom dposits, the absurd fees they paid US processors, their expensive marketing campaign, the high salaries they paid pros and senior execs, plus all the salaries and rent to run a 750 person operation adds up to a chunk of change. Then there is tax on their gross profits, at least that portion earned by Pocket Kings and the other parts not based in tax holiday locations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by justfoldpleaseok

These numbers are from my ass...I think* low balling it, they made 200K in rev a day, so thats about 75M in rev a year....costs, taxes, all that ****...i mean i cant really guestimate what they had...they were based from BVI werent they? so they were set up in a tax haven and ****. but i dunno, thats just my $0.02

$30M in profit on $75M in revenue would be very good indeed. I expect they were raking more than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by justfoldpleaseok

i just find it funny how at first the big 3 (PS, FTP, UB) were accused of a "ponzi scheme" for 2-3Billion....then it dropped down to 400M and so on and so fourth. IMHO even with losing players and stuff, i dont think it will be as hard as we think to get that 20M or so million in profits. i think 12 months after reopening it is very dooable.

Only FTP was pseudo-accused of being a Ponzi scheme IIRC. The multi-billion amount was the size of the total illegal gambling business of all three companies, not the proceeds of the ponzie scheme portion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by justfoldpleaseok

thats as much as im going to say, i havent seen their financials so all this info ijust hot air out of my ass.

If anyone has any links to their financials, please send, id love to have a look

For hot air out of your ass, I don't think your revenue numbers are that bad. You just seem to be grossly underestimating expenses.

Cardsfan2006 · 02-02-2012, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Johnson

If it wasn't your money to lend in the first place, then YES.

Just stop posting. We already know what you're going to say.

Go Get It · 02-02-2012, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illious

Let me get this right:

Because players are owed 300-400 million dollars, GBT shouldn't care about 20 million dollars?

I know people want their money back, but come on!

Read the article in the OP. I think its more about not having to have separate litigation after the sale of FTP to GBT is complete.

RedManPlus · 02-02-2012, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazillion

Barry's track record and reputation on this forum are impeccable, and as such I really think he needs to be given the benefit of the doubt at least until he has had a chance to respond or more information comes to light.

Barry is a Stone Cold Hustler...
He's been more/less managing/fronting Ivey for years...
And acting Chief Apologist for Ivey's $20,000,000 FTP heist...
I seriously doubt that there's a clear line...
Between the money Ivey stole... and the money BG stole.

Just my theory.

Vanity... thy name is Barry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pREs_OfwYPM

**Professionalpoker** · 02-02-2012, 07:07 PM

In case you haven't seen it...
Response regarding money I owe to Full Tilt
By Barry

harrington1 · 02-02-2012, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frenbar

I'm been saying this all along and I still think the sky will darken with flocks of flying pigs before anyone gets a penny back from FT.

yeh i agree with you , iv written my few hundred bucks off , maybe in a couple of years i may get a cheque fall through the letterbox for maybe half of it if im lucky but i doubt it .

davmcg · 02-02-2012, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

Debts owed to the company are assets of the company. They would have been reported by FTP to GBT (and probably the DoJ) as assets. Given FTP's treatment of other debts owed to it, they were probably valued at their nominal amount. GBT now has reason to think these debts are worth much less than the ~$15M of nominal value. An asset you have to litigate for to realize value is worth less than its nominal value. Therefore GBT probably want to reduce the price they are willing to pay by a similar amount. I doubt Tapie has a preference between the debtors paying up or the price being reduced. Remember that before accounting for recovery of these ~$15M debts, Tapie is only out of pocket $40M to purchase the assets (he pays $80M, buts gets a $40M account). If he was valuing the assets at nominal value, in the end, he was only going to be out of pocket about $25M. I can certainly understand why he wouldn't want to pay full value for those debts if they are unrecoverable. He stands to lose up to 60% of his purchase price. That could be enough to scuttle the deal.

I know that debts are assets. What surprises me is that GBT would have any interest at all in purchasing these particular assets or indeed the $100 million in phantom deposits from US players that were also listed as FTP assets.

The deal as publicised was that GBT paid money and assumed the liability for RoW players and in return got the stuff that makes the poker site work. It seems like rather than actually selling off the assets of the FTP companies, it is the companies themselves that are being sold, hence this issue and also the Ferguson issue. If that is what is happening, there are surely all sorts of risks for GBT.

Almost all money owed to FTP is from US citizens and should be pursued - surely the DoJ is best placed to arrange (outsource) this?

sam monella · 02-02-2012, 07:17 PM

From Cardplayer magazine.

"According to Card Player’s source, Ivey and Lindgren both owe $4 million to the site, while Benyamine and Flack owe $2 million a piece. Matusow and Greenstein owe less."

Nice, glad to see Ivey and Lindgren getting a piece of the pie. Oh and I am sure Flack and Matusow have the funds to pay their debts. What a joke.

LimitLess1 · 02-02-2012, 07:41 PM

Somebody better send Gramma to collect