Can you elaborate? Do you mean that FT will reopen to ROW who will be able to deposit/withdraw whenever they want, but the US players will be promised to get payed "eventually"?

I don't thnik I've been incredibly inactive in the last few days. I am studying for the GREs right now, though, so I'm trying not to spend TOO much time on 2p2.

I don't know why durrrr hasn't been posting regularly on 2p2 or why he hasn't answered those three questions. In my experience with him, he seems to be really busy and hard to get in contact with.

I also haven't bugged him about the three questions because I hate bugging people.

less Frozen money to be returned to FTP by DoJ as generated in ROW so not laundered

less DoJ allowance for phantom funds

plus ten big lobsters for RB

Delay in deal down to banks tracking and handing over money flow info to DoJ IMO

I would assume the DOJ has to have a big part in any of these negotiations, meaning how they will treat frozen assets and their stance on a new owners liability to the fines. I don't see how anyone can make an offer without some bottom line from the DOJ.

one would have to be a bonafide nvg ****** to think the whole thing is a fabrication. whether it goes through or not is a different story.

While this is more than probably true, not all potential investors value the company at the same price. Just imagine the difference between how much you and Kevmod would value the company. And in such complicated cases, there are many other factors than just the price. I'm not totally convinced either that it has been a "fixed" price. The value of the compagny has changed, but so has the the bargaining power between the different actors, the evaluation of the legal uncertainty,...

"Identifying" was not the verb I was hoping for

I think (not sure) Jeff said around 30 days a few days ago on the forums.

Yup..cant find it but 98% that's what was said

Pretty sure he said 30-60 days, but I would think that was the absolute minimum. Doesnt seem unreasonable tbh, and that would be after all conditions of the deal were met.

All the terms and conditions of any deal like this are subject to change until that last minute, and that shouldnt come as any surprise to anyone.
Just have to hope there continues to be a meeting of the minds on all fronts.

GL us.

How likely, based on what you've seen/heard, do you think a deal gets done with the current potential investor?

This is the biggest example of spam on these forums in a long time, and I have no idea why you havent been stopped/banned.

Stop please.

Pretty sure that at some point during the"preperation period" the investors would ~100% commit. If I would have to guess I would guess that it would even be in the early stages of that prep. This is pure speculation though.

I've just been reading through the AGCC application documents and rules etc. From my understanding it isn't possible to transfer a Type 1 Licence. It's therefore, necessary in order for FTP to start offering games again they need a buyer with a Licence. Is this correct and what Ifrah is referring to with his timeline?

From a reading of their Application Faq in best case scenarios this would take 30-60 days assuming the three required parts, Suitability, Fair Games and Adequate Processes are completed in parallel -

Whether or not this would delay payouts I have no idea.

Yes please its like an infomercial ...call in the next 20 minutes we'll double your order

I don't know. That's the truth.

When I said earlier that everyone is trying to make it happen, I wasn't referring only to FTP, I meant the investor as well.

That said, there are some obstacles that have to get ironed out in any deal with FTP right now, which should be no surprise to anyone.

When all is said and done, I'd like to think there is a decent chance for this to happen, so like everyone else, I have my fingers crossed.
For me to say anything different, would just be speculation for now.
Hopefully within these next days, we will have more solid info.

Depends if the ownership of the Licencing company changes or not. The ownership of Pocket kings and Tiltware could change, but leave companies like Filco as they are. They are in essence shell companies solely used for licencing agreements.

This is the most likely situation imo, if this deal goes ahead. This would allow FTP to restart pretty quickly, and allow the new owners to start raking to recoup their investment in the shortest time. They could then set up an new company to handle the licences, and switch licence at a later date.

I just hope the Senior Management at FTP is changed as part of this deal, because without this basic requirement, not much will change in operating practice.

TBH, I'm sceptical about the deal, but as it's been picked up by so many non poker media outlets in France, it has a ring of plausibility to it.

They achieve more readers to their newspaper.

This question is really important in how much we buy Ifrah Story. If it's indeed untransferable, why would the an AGGC verdict be so important. Could you please quote what you base your understanding on? An answer to that question is crucial in understanding what's going on and whether the 2+2 members, ftp players and maybe the potential investors are being misleaded/manipulated.

Ty

Thats pretty impressive, as its just two guys creating email accounts... 160 accounts each in 48 hours show real commitment...

Keep it going if you want, BTW your English is getting better and better. Hope you suceed

I agree that the DOJ has the in rem claim on those assets (baring a new agreement) but although only the DOJ can answer if bankruptcy changes the DOJ's perspective I disagree. Has someone told you from the DOJ that they are invariant on whether FTP is sold or not or is that your opinion?

1. The value of FTP sold > value in bankruptcy
2. There is insufficient money (in FTP) to pay players and DOJ fines, costs..
3. DOJ wishes to max (within constraints) fine from FTP

Therefore, if accept the above I think they'd prefer it sold,the amended civil complaint makes it clear that they allege all the monies have gone to 'FTP Insiders' and little is in the company for players or to pay DOJ fines.

Plus as I mentioned today, IMHO a sale negates any ROW claims or complex multi-jurisdictional issues that arise out of the international nature of FTP's customers and organisation.

P.S. let me thank you (& 2p2) for the special 2p2 Pokercast. I recommend everyone here listen to it although it is 2hrs long, i listened to it in parts.

Hmm, tks - I guess I know where to find parts of potentially relevant legislation. I wouldn't hold any weight in any interpretation I may post as it's just an opinion and usually I post it expecting to be corrected.

From what I remember the AGCC regs ( not the actual law but pretty close I think as you say) are fairly interpretative and there isn't any (public) precedent. Certainly as we know from the conduct of the hearings there is a degree of flexibility.

IIRC there is a rule barring transferring of licences but one could say a sale of the company isn't a transfer it's still with FTP

I asked the other day as I couldn't find anything in them re: directions when something like this does happen. Anyone know?

At the end of the day if a deal goes through the AGCC can say we messed up but at least no players lost money. It still doesn't change the fact that there's been a regulatory failure but reduces their litigation risk and the chance the (UK) Gambling Commission drops them killing their other licencee's revenue.

Quote:

Licences and certificates personal to holder.
9. An eGambling licence or any certificate issued by the Commission under section 7 of this Ordinance is not capable of being assigned and cannot be transferred by the eGambling licensee or certificate holder.

From Page 9 of the Alderney eGambling Ordinance, 2009

EDIT: Also they can't apply for a Temporary Licence as that can only be offered to Foreign Entities and presumably they will get a quicker licence from AGCC so will register with them...

Actually, given that you're posting updates when another 10 people sign, you are spamming. So stop it.

You've linked your petition. Continuing to provide updates that no one is asking for is spamming. Continuing to do so may result in banning and deletion of all your posts, so if you care about your petition, I suggest not talking about it incessantly.

This can come from both the investors or from the AGCC by (supressing the certificates to the high management). I'm not sure why the AGCC hasn't done so yet. My hypothesis, is that there is a lot of formal/legal procedures to be followed to do so in the case of the AGCC.
What's a problem is the lack of transparency/communication by the regulating authority.