Quote:
Originally Posted by giftofgab
barry admitted he borrowed the money. Why shouldnt he have to pay it back regardless of how tapie uses the money
Because he doesn't owe the money to the Tapie Group. He owes it to Full Tilt. This obligation (BG -> Full Tilt) would be considered an asset on the company's books, assuming they actually kept books as opposed to Bitar writing things in crayons on cocktail napkins. But since TG hasn't actually acquired FT (and its assets) yet, it has no business laying its hands on any of these debts.
Basically what TG is doing is offering to forgive a portion of BG's debt to FT in exchange for sending them money, even though TG doesn't actually have the legal right to forgive this debt at this point. From BG's perspective it would be a little risky because if the acquisition of FT by BG falls through for whatever reason (*ahem Chris Ferguson*), BG would have gotten nothing in exchange for whatever % of this debt he gives to BG. This risk may be small, but it's there.
And of course there's the ethical point that BG makes that this money belongs to the players and not TG. There's also a financial aspect to this point. Let's say TG is willing cut Barry a deal where they'd forgive 25% of his debt if he pays TG directly. TG then acquires FT and negotiates a deal with the DOJ where the US players end up collecting only 50 cents on the dollar (because there isn't enough to go around). Who wins and who loses here? Barry wins because he extinguishes a $400k debt for only $300k. TG wins because it gets $300k that it wouldn't have collected if it acquired FT with this debt outstanding (I'm assuming here that the DOJ will require that all debts outstanding to FT will, if collected, go into the DOJ player payout pool). Who loses? The players, as usual.
BG is absolutely in the right here. Until such time as the contours of the arrangement to pay out the players are clear, neither he nor anyone who owes money to FT should give it to the Tapie Group.