so basically the GBT deal except instead of the 1/4 on day 1 they had it at $100. And nobody knows what percentage after that.

GBT was $100 total. I| am saying take the balance and divide it by 4 with each quater paid out every 60 days. And unlike the GBT deal, there is no requirement to play poker. say a player had a balance of $200.
day 1: $50 unlocked to play poker with

day 60: they are allowed to withdraw the $50 and of course any money above that amount that they won. Say the player won $200, well they could withdraw some, none or all of it. no longer restricted.

day 61: another $50 is released that they can gamble with

day 120: they are allowed to withdraw the $50.

and so on.

You know how stars can show your cash with some in tournment dollars and some in cash. FTP2 would do the same but call some say old balance untill it cleared

I am shocked. A FTP shareholder/boardmember who lies? That is impossible.

GBT proposed a plan that would have resulted in immediate reinstatement of all ROW player balances, with a right to withdraw those funds over time, based on the size of the player balance and the extent of the player’s playing activity on the re-launched site. All players would have been permitted complete withdrawal of their balances, regardless of whether they played on the site, by a date certain, and 94.9% of ROW players would have been fully repaid on day 1. DOJ ultimately insisted on full repayment with right of withdrawal within 90 days for all players– a surprise demand made in the 11th hour, after months of good-faith negotiations by GBT.


they were to be given their COMPLETE balance but only allowed to withdraw $100!--the REST was in stages--but whole balance available on the site

thats what I thought untill someone corrected me. Only $100 was being released to play with. there was heavy playing requirements to get the rest released. Read some of the last 30-40 posts.

And it was not a 11th hour demand from DOJ. DOJ since day has indicate they want all players paided vback in full. GBT offer was you had to play poker to unlock your balance

Nonsense I'd like to hear. This IS the nonsense/rumor/idiocy thread, after all.

I mean this person(s) lying in general is one thing, but telling a friend (Matt) that it's all but done except x, y, & z and have those things be "complete nonsense" dosn't make sense.

Although the shareholder could simply be getting bad info somehow, which they think is true, then telling people and kinda unconsciously be lying about it.

But how does telling Matt it's done except w/e help them at all? No reason to lie at this point imo, given how bad FTP/FTP people look already.

Matt,(thanks for coming into this thread) your blog stated:

"At the time of me writing this one major shareholder has specifically told me to my face, “It is a done deal with PokerStars and was supposed to be completed last week but had to be pushed pack for …. blah blah blah.”. I hope he is correct. But unfortunately in my mind it is only hope and nothing else"

I have a few questions for you.

1. Do you have any money stuck on FT?
2. Do you find this major shareholder credible? if so, why would he lie to you?

(unless you specifically asked him about the rumors and he was deflecting with his blah blah blah answer)

Unless it's from Matusow. Then, maybe no thanks...

Otherwise, unless Glantz was sworn to secrecy, it'd be nice to judge for ourselves.

Because it is in their nature, to lie and cheat.

Take Mr. Ivey.
According to HSDB he won $19 million playing online.
That wasn't enough.
He was payed millions as a sponsored player.
That wasn't enough.
He received $40 million in dividends payed out of our ballances.
That wasn't enough.
He took a loan of about $5 million payed out of our ballances.
That wasn't enough.
After draining FTP and there was nothing left, he sued FTP for $150 million.

I have a lot of money on FTP, but I won it, I didn't have to work for it.
There are people who work hard for their money and are struggling to pay the bills. The only way to forget their sorrows is when they deposited maybe $100 and play the micro games. Even that money wasn't save because Mr. Ivey and his friends robbed every last penny out of the company.

Yes, they even lie to their friends. They don't know the difference between lying and telling the truth, between honesty and cheating.

Exactly my point. Bitar's return is part of the process of moving FTP assets and liabilities through the DOJ and onto a 3rd party, namely PokerStars. There are a number of practical and legal reasons as to why Bitar would prefer to be in the US if and when this occurs. The only reason not to come was the criminal charge.

But the DOJ didn't even allow him to surrender, arrested him coming off the plane with a superseding indictment, and opposed bail. This very strongly suggests that the criminal case consequences of his return were not negotiated in any way in advance of his return.

I am not saying I know for certain, just that the above seems to indicate to me that the FTP civil case and Bitar's criminal case are not being negotiated together.

Skallagrim

Yeah but how long can you toss the dice at the craps tables @ 5 mill a throw and expect the money to last.

I don't see this as a problem.
I'm not sure they need to admit guilt, as opposed to just facts sufficient to support the forfeiture, if anything at all.

If you go down to administrative forfeiture (not applicable for prop. over $500k) it says this needs to be included in the settlement

But it doesn't say it for civil or criminal forfeiture. It says this for a civil forfeiture accompanied by criminal plea agreement, "in the plea agreement, Dmust admit to facts sufficient to support the forfeiture."

A Judge in a criminal case can accept a guilty plea accompanied by a protestation of innocence as long as he inquires into a factual basis for the plea. So if they do not to state facts sufficient to support a forfeiture, couldn't they say "Yes, we offered gambling over internet in the US," "yes, we ran funding through US banks." "Yes, we did X and X agreed upon facts that were alleged" while in no way admitting that any of those activities violated U.S. law.

Also, with a civil forfeiture the D doesn't have to concede facts sufficient to support a forfeiture. That's only for a criminal forfeiture. Because the criminal case is only against the people (Scheinberg, Bitar, etc.), couldn't a company settlement come apart from that and only follow the civil forfeiture procedure where no admission of facts is required?

Nobody knows jack ****, this thread will not change one bit till the cows come home. You are wasting your time and ours posting here. Have a nice day.

I honestly don't know, in B&M licensing, the company can pay gaming fines and admit to mistakes, because the license is tied to the person, not the assets.

If an operator loses his license for rigging gambling equipment e.g., they don't destroy all the equipment, they license a new operator.

Party signed off on this:

But since they voluntarily left the market, no one expects them to have licensing issues, but if PokerStars signed off on the same wording, post UIGEA, it might be a death sentence - depending on the licensing scheme.

My suspicion, based on nothing but rumor, is that PokerStars doesn't want to acknowledge having done anything wrong, yet somehow forfeit a pile of cash, and I don't see a way to structure that type of settlement.

This should probably be added to the OP, really.

Um, hello? This statute deals with fugitives who are outside of the US and you think there is an issue about whether it applies extraterritorially? lol.

Yeah, uh, I made this point myself. But the statute does provide that it applies to people who live outside the US, know of the process against them, and refuse to reenter the US to avoid prosecution. You made the absurd argument that the statute didn't apply to foreign nationals or foreign corporations, and that is just lol.

I don't gamble. I play poker.

Bitar's return and subsequent arrest has done nothing, from what I can see, to help a deal go through. Care to share how it helps the deal go through (because I'm a pessimist and can't see it)? Last time I checked, the deadline came and went and now all parties are taking this thing to court.

I don't believe Ivey won 19 million playing online.. Unless perhaps you say he won 19 million and lost 24 million... That sounds a bit more accurate

When did we start thinking mass withdrawals were an issue?

Obviously stars is expecting a fair amount of immediate withdrawal requests and has the money to cover them.

It's only an issue if you're trying to pull a GBT and buy the company for nothing without actually having to pay anyone.

Kinda off-point, but related, PartyPoker non-prosecution agreement was separate from its founder's pleading gulity. Party Poker founder, Dik**** (that's his real name...), faced 2 years and got 1 year probation because of his serious cooperation, voluntarily returning, etc.

However, at Dik****'s sentencing hearing (2010): So even with Dik**** spilling all of the beans, Devlin-Brown couldn't bring a case against Partypoker's other founders. I know Partypoker didn't violate post-2006 laws, but still, you gotta think Devlin-Brown knows he faces a ton of those same challenges here.

I was thinking more in general terms on how to payout and avoide a rush. It would give a new owner a chance atleast. When BF hit, alot of ROW players withdrew their money from FTP and PS . If PS buys them, then like you said, they have the money to ride it out,

http://www.highstakesdb.com/profiles/Phil-Ivey.aspx

I would like to hear the blah blah and determine if it was nonsense for myself. You cant just hang a piece of steak in front of thousands of angry lions and say "im not going to share with you"

Couldn't stop LMAO...

Howard Lederer on Business Ethics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS7Cv...eature=mh_lolz