HE OWNS THE COMPANY. HE RECEIVED 40M IN ILLEGAL DIVIDENDS. HE'S NOT SOME SPOKESPERSON FOR THE ****ING MILLIONTH TIME.

I doubt it, in fact, I think it would make it more complicated. Ownership does not necessarily equal control.

ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHO MADE THE DUMB/FRAUDULENT DECISIONS, WHO APPROVED OF THEM, AND WHO KNEW ABOUT THEM.

Ownership shares does not tell us any of this.

Yes, he received them. But did he know they were illegal? The shareholders report said the company was turning a profit. Not that they were in a massive financial hole.

What we should all want to know is which people authorized the dividends and did they know of the financial ****hole FTP was in and authorize them anyway?

Completely false.

QFT.

It's just like if a kid walks into someone's backyard and drowns in their swimming pool, it doesn't matter if the owner was there or not, the owner is responsible.

I completely understand though that shady people prefer to play "it was the one armed man games" though instead of owning up.

It's much more then that. The guy was paid for non existent profits on an investment. That money was stolen directly from the players. Ivey alone has 10% of the players' money. The fact that someone could really post in this thread that he doesn't owe anyone an explanation, while he sits around playing 1m a pop tourneys, is just unreal.

The bolded may or may not be legally true, but do you think morally it's true? I do not.

If I own a pool, and somebody violates my property rights and walks onto my property without my permission and injures themselves/dies how is that my responsibility?

What do you think he should do with that money - RIGHT NOW? If he wanted to give it back, who should he give it to?

What explanation are you looking for?

He should read everything durrr said after bf and copy it exactly.

And if he spent most of it already, because at the time he spent it he thought it was his money, what should he do then?

Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, that pool owner is only liable if they failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the children.

If any of the owners failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger that we all get screwed or otherwise protect us, then yes, they are completely blameworthy. But if information was withheld from them, or outright unavailable, i.e. there was nothing they could do or no way they could have known, then no reasonable person can hold them personally responsible.

Now if we don't get paid back in the future and they refuse to return fraudulently disbursed dividends, then yes, they have some serious personal responsibility and have affirmatively done something wrong. But we're not at that point yet. For the most part, I'd say their hands are tied.

Ivey is an original owner of the company, not just some spokesperson.

Pretty obvious really. Admit his responsibility and his inability to meet it at this time. Agree to work with the players' lawyers to come up with a payment plan.

What ****ing point would that be? How long do people have to continue to live with this **** while ****ing scumbag filth live it up in Vegas before he decides to fulfill his obligation? It's been 14 months. 2 years? 5? 20? **** that ****. **** Ivey. It's lol that you even think there's the slightest chance that he will ever do the right thing. These worthless scum have proven over and over and over that they will never return one cent of money to the players voluntarily.

ORLY? Congratulations Captain Obvious. I never said CF wasn't a part owner. I hate CF/Bitar/HL like I hate Hitler.

The arguments ITT stating that people endorsing the site should get flak for stuff they had no knowledge of is just full blown ******ed. Stop trying to put words in my mouth I never said Capslock Cowboy.

Are you talking about for his $4 million debt to FTP? If so, how do you know that he hasn't?

If you're talking about the dividends, if they sell the company he owes us nothing except for maybe interest on 10% of total player funds that have been unavailable for the past year and 2 months. Should he track down every player and dish out 10%? How exactly would you go about doing that?

You ignore the complexities of everything that is happening here.

If he was at fault, sure he should admit it. He owes money, yes he should pay it - when there is someone to pay it to who can be trusted with it.

How and to who should he pay any money he owes? How has anything that Phil Ivey has done in the past made you do certain that he will not "do the right thing?

SamuraiJon, there's no point in trying to be reasonable itt. Don't waste any more of your time.

You are totally right! I guess every small equity stake in the company means they know all the accounting practices inside and out and knew exactly what was going down at every moment. You absolutely knew what his equity and relationship meant to the company and therefor you have can justify why he should take the heat. Thank you for that insightful comment. You solved the dilemma of who really needs to come forth and speak out! Good job bro!

We should give Clownie Gowen a bunch of **** too because she obviously knew what was going on and claimed she had part ownership! GRAB YOUR PITCHFORK!

Since when is 9% in a billion dollar company a small stake? What is a large stake?

People who argue that stock ownership in a company equals culpability for any misdeeds by that company are seriously misinformed.

Ma Kettle in Backwoods MO, who owns 10 shares of BP does not owe one red cent to pay for spill cleanup out of her dividends. She may end up unhappy, though, when they skip the next dividend.

The folks who had 2 or 3 percent of FTP given to them to sign on are not responsible for the sins of Ray, Chris, and Howard.

Are you honestly telling me that if he wanted to return 40m to playersit couldn't be done? That no one would be willing to help him out with that? The owners have all of the players money. They could have recapitalized the company at any time has DF has repeatedly said. They have chosen not to.

Didn't a court find that Clownie didn't have any proof that she was given % in FTP?

They started the company together. Ivey was a major shareholder in a private partnership from the beginning. His shares were not purchased on some secondary market. How people argue that ftp is like ibm is mind-bogging.

lol interest. This isn't a ****ing loan. The money was stolen. How about he returns it and then gets paid when the company is sold?