Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
FTP Discussion Thread (Everything but big new news goes here. Cliffs in OP) FTP Discussion Thread (Everything but big new news goes here. Cliffs in OP)
View Poll Results: Do you want the AGCC to regulate the new FTP?
Yes
1,156 56.58%
No
887 43.42%

07-01-2012 , 10:54 AM
Do I read this correctly. They ask for an extension of 1 week?
07-01-2012 , 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman

One thing people need to realize is that online poker was not and is not nearly as profitable as people think. Some people here still think that stars is sitting on billions. Online poker has never been the hyper successful cash machine people think. They are picking up nickles and dimes.
Show your work
07-01-2012 , 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicarius
Do I read this correctly. They ask for an extension of 1 week?
Yes. One week only. Wonder if that means they are extremely confident it will get done NEXT WEEK?
07-01-2012 , 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle03
What does this meam exactly? Something this week? The week after?
07-01-2012 , 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle03
Yes. One week only. Wonder if that means they are extremely confident it will get done NEXT WEEK?
or maybe its more like when you havent done a school assignment the whole semester

and then you ask if you can turn it in late

and they give you a week
07-01-2012 , 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VarianceMinefield
or maybe its more like when you havent done a school assignment the whole semester

and then you ask if you can turn it in late

and they give you a week
Well, maybe, but DOJ sought the extensions on motions to dismiss (and as a result everything else) which primarily benefits the defense attorneys.

As others have said, they work on these simultaneously with settlement negotiations. That being said, it looks like DOJ did defense attorneys a favor, by not requiring them to potentially, unnecessarily, finalize and file their motions to dismiss when they believe they are less than a week away from settling the case.

I feel like DOJ implying it will take less than a week to wrap this up is the most legit and best news we've gotten yet.

Other lawyers take?
07-01-2012 , 11:14 AM
Where are they implying it will take less than a week to wrap it up? They still can file another extend motion and another and another and so on. Whether it's granted is a nother story. It's probably more like they haven't done much and are trying to cram it now. Not to mention this still could have absolutely nothing to do with players getting paid, just ps getting immunity.
07-01-2012 , 11:26 AM
Obviously they pushed the deadline back to coincide with the WSOP ME.
07-01-2012 , 11:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle03
Well, maybe, but DOJ sought the extensions on motions to dismiss (and as a result everything else) which primarily benefits the defense attorneys.

As others have said, they work on these simultaneously with settlement negotiations. That being said, it looks like DOJ did defense attorneys a favor, by not requiring them to potentially, unnecessarily, finalize and file their motions to dismiss when they believe they are less than a week away from settling the case.

I feel like DOJ implying it will take less than a week to wrap this up is the most legit and best news we've gotten yet.

Other lawyers take?
No different than on June 2, (when I posted the below @ #28296) except the time period of enhanced probability is now extended:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gioco
I think the period just before July 2, 2012 is a time of enhanced possibility for settlement and, particularly so for the period just after, if just before July 2 you see a flurry of pleadings begging for an extension of that date.
It's much more probable than any random day but still less than 50%. I received a bit of criticism for my prediction at that time but I remain of the opinion that the time period just prior to the filing of answers et al. is one of enhanced probability of settlement.
07-01-2012 , 11:42 AM
That is interesting they postponed for a week. Maybe those involved are busy with the wsop n such
07-01-2012 , 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilwhaldo
Where are they implying it will take less than a week to wrap it up? They still can file another extend motion and another and another and so on. Whether it's granted is a nother story. It's probably more like they haven't done much and are trying to cram it now. Not to mention this still could have absolutely nothing to do with players getting paid, just ps getting immunity.
The implication is from the fact that they only asked for a week. If they thought it would take longer they would have asked for longer, rather than annoying the Judge again in one week and asking for another extension.
07-01-2012 , 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by black_friday
That is interesting they postponed for a week. Maybe those involved are busy with the wsop n such
No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gioco
No different than on June 2, (when I posted the below @ #28296) except the time period of enhanced probability is now extended:

It's much more probable than any random day but still less than 50%. I received a bit of criticism for my prediction at that time but I remain of the opinion that the time period just prior to the filing of answers et al. is one of enhanced probability of settlement.
What is/was your reasoning?
07-01-2012 , 12:51 PM
Today's online WSJ has a detailed article about the events surrounding Black Friday and the current rumors about a Full Tilt acquisition by Pokerstars. It's behind a paywall and I can't post the entire article due to copyright but here's a relevant snippet about the potential acquisition:

How is Full Tilt apparently worth $750 million?

With massive liabilities to its own customers, no licence to operate and serious allegations of fraud made against it by the DoJ, Full Tilt would not appear to have any value. Therefore, it was surprising to hear in April 2012 of an offer to purchase Full Tilt valuing the company at $750 million.
...
However, we believe that the value of $750 million for Full Tilt is not fair market value. This is because the offer is from a specific buyer, PokerStars (one of the other Poker Companies), and is in the context of an apparent deal with the DoJ to settle the actions against PokerStars. As such, the value of $750 million is better defined as the 'special value' of Full Tilt to a specific buyer, namely to PokerStars.

This 'special value' is confirmed by the reports that of the $750 million that PokerStars will reportedly pay to 'acquire' Full Tilt, around $300 million will be used to pay back the US Full Tilt players, whilst the DoJ will take the rest in settlement with PokerStars.

Article link: http://professional.wsj.com/article/...e871000b5.html
07-01-2012 , 12:56 PM
Everytime i'm reading in this thread, i'm thinking about this conan scene, anyone feel the same?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0xh9aClr3Y
07-01-2012 , 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocket_zeros
Today's online WSJ has a detailed article about the events surrounding Black Friday and the current rumors about a Full Tilt acquisition by Pokerstars. It's behind a paywall and I can't post the entire article due to copyright but here's a relevant snippet about the potential acquisition:

How is Full Tilt apparently worth $750 million?

With massive liabilities to its own customers, no licence to operate and serious allegations of fraud made against it by the DoJ, Full Tilt would not appear to have any value. Therefore, it was surprising to hear in April 2012 of an offer to purchase Full Tilt valuing the company at $750 million.
...
However, we believe that the value of $750 million for Full Tilt is not fair market value. This is because the offer is from a specific buyer, PokerStars (one of the other Poker Companies), and is in the context of an apparent deal with the DoJ to settle the actions against PokerStars. As such, the value of $750 million is better defined as the 'special value' of Full Tilt to a specific buyer, namely to PokerStars.

This 'special value' is confirmed by the reports that of the $750 million that PokerStars will reportedly pay to 'acquire' Full Tilt, around $300 million will be used to pay back the US Full Tilt players, whilst the DoJ will take the rest in settlement with PokerStars.

Article link: http://professional.wsj.com/article/...e871000b5.html
Article available in full here: http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/18...ality+or+bluff
07-01-2012 , 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle03
What is/was your reasoning?
While there are many variables that are, and will remain, unknown to us, such as the attitudes of parties, practice of counsel (some attorneys will never settle an action until their pre-trial motions have been heard and decided) and facts, known and later discovered, that make each action unique, there are certain procedural mileposts at which actions settle more frequently than any random day during the life of the action. One of those points is just prior to, and after, the filing of answers et al. Others are: after a decision on all pre-trial motions, the period following the completion of discovery, just prior to, and after, a final pre-trial conference and just before trial is to commence. This list is not comprehensive and could be completely without merit because of an unknown like the attitude of a party to the action.
07-01-2012 , 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gioco
While there are many variables that are, and will remain, unknown to us, such as the attitudes of parties, practice of counsel (some attorneys will never settle an action until their pre-trial motions have been heard and decided) and facts, known and later discovered, that make each action unique, there are certain procedural mileposts at which actions settle more frequently than any random day during the life of the action. One of those points is just prior to, and after, the filing of answers et al. Others are: after a decision on all pre-trial motions, the period following the completion of discovery, just prior to, and after, a final pre-trial conference and just before trial is to commence. This list is not comprehensive and could be completely without merit because of an unknown like the attitude of a party to the action.
Thanks. Guy with the ___Lundgren name said July 2nd as well. I wonder if he is using your same reasoning or if he thinks he has an insider and just doesn't want to play by the new insider rules.

A one-week extension seems pretty short, though. Especially given the length of previous extensions in this case. What do you read into the length of the extension?
07-01-2012 , 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle03
Thanks. Guy with the ___Lundgren name said July 2nd as well. I wonder if he is using your same reasoning or if he thinks he has an insider and just doesn't want to play by the new insider rules.

A one-week extension seems pretty short, though. Especially given the length of previous extensions in this case. What do you read into the length of the extension?
I think the length of the requested extension is significant. If the parties thought they needed two weeks they would have asked for that. They probably think that in a week they will have it settled or know they won't for sometime. It is not without possibility that they will request another extension if they get really, really close, and settlement seems certain, but haven't quite finished. An additional extension would probably be the last.
07-01-2012 , 02:39 PM
Here we go again, about to get my hopes up for the 100th time.
07-01-2012 , 02:45 PM
LEZZGOOOOO

or something
07-01-2012 , 03:36 PM
so the upcoming week is the one?
07-01-2012 , 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizzle03
Thanks. Guy with the ___Lundgren name said July 2nd as well. I wonder if he is using your same reasoning or if he thinks he has an insider and just doesn't want to play by the new insider rules.
Yeah, that dude has posted stuff like we are getting paid and the July 2nd stuff. If you check his posting history it seems he has some insider knowledge. Possibly Edog buddy since his screenname is Lundgren and he knew or at least claimed that Lindgren sold 1% of FTP for 10 million at one point in 2010. Doesn't seem too consistent with a troll since he gives just small doses of info and doesn't try to beat everyone over their head that he has insider info.

Of course, it sounds like FTP shareholders would have no clue on the negotiations so his insider knowledge if true would have to stem from somewhere else.
07-01-2012 , 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stosh
Here we go again, about to get my hopes up for the 100th time.
LOL. So true.
07-01-2012 , 04:21 PM
Starting to get excited about this thread again.... then my heart will be ripped out....
07-01-2012 , 04:26 PM
This is exciting stuff. Hopefully this will be a great week.

      
m