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%

11-04-2011 , 06:04 AM
Oh, and I completely ignored that DOJ fines are often over five or ten years or whatever. That obviously changes things a lot. (h/t to tamiller)
11-04-2011 , 06:04 AM
Even if ftp fails for . The entire investment will not be lost! Ftp should still have around,15000 users active at all times. Roughly 1/3 of what was post bf, pre agcc licensing issues
11-04-2011 , 07:30 AM
great post noah.
11-04-2011 , 07:57 AM
I'm a neophyte regarding business but, any chance Tapie plans to offer a casino and/or sportsbook? Could that possibly raise his ROI?
11-04-2011 , 08:43 AM
It's kind of amusing some posts of claims of predictions turning out correct e.t.c - it's akin to saying "LOL I knew he had AK" instead of using ranges of outcomes

The civil Court documents also give a deadline for claims by FTP by the 14th, so not too long to wait for press releases e.t.c of more details imho.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahSD
If you open NVG and click on the post count number that's next to the thread, you can get the stats. (More relevantly, you can click on the numbers there and see every post by a specific poster in a thread really easily. That's really nice for catching up on long threads quickly.)

Hat tip to Joe Tall for showing me that at some point.
Bump. Thanks h/t extended, FML didn't know one could do this.

Just to add a note to the analysis posted by noahSD. There is also the fact that the GTP strategy requires certain risks to be a potentially very good deal. If it wasn't for the current uncertainty and risk which has lowered the valuation (relative to pre-BF) then FTP most likely would never have been for sale at a reduced price.

Then there are the small probability but high payoff scenarios e.g synergies with land based casinos, ISPT and other ventures, sportsbetting and casinos, US legalisation and as I oft mention given Macau outpacing of LV, teh opening up of the huge Pacific Rim markets.

So I would say the investors actively embrace some of the risks - "buy on the cannons, sell on the trumpets" as Nathan Rothschild famously said.
11-04-2011 , 09:25 AM
Update cliffs daily pls.
11-04-2011 , 09:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Mack
I'm a neophyte regarding business but, any chance Tapie plans to offer a casino and/or sportsbook? Could that possibly raise his ROI?
Ive said that a few times. I think its highly likely
11-04-2011 , 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToDeepToFold
LOL
The only person who those points have any value to is the player who collected them.... will i explain why?
OK
You and the rest of the 'pay me my points' crew fail to realise that the value you have placed on them was set by a now irrelevant company.
'My points are worth $6000 in cash or tourney buyins blablablabla'

They are only worth what the new company says they are worth and as the new company did not get any rake while these points where being collected how much do you think they will value them?????????? I'll take a guess and say $0

Points are not cash in an account balance they where a reward for paying rake to a compnay which had set a value on them. That company will have no input into how the new FTP sets up its bonuses and so any discussion about getting points back is COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS...


I hope i have explained this in a way that you can understand.

Its actually not ridiculous at all and will be a determining factor in whether people return to FT or not.

If you are a potential RoW player returning to FT to grind again and they just told you that your ftp balance was reset to zero and you lose every benefit you accumulated, would you still play at FT?

I can't imagine the majority of people coming back to FT if all the levels/points they achieved just got wiped out(assuming people care about Iron Man or ftp stuff).

If GBT decides that ftp's need to be honored for RoW to keep their players from going elsewhere, then its likely to assume they'll be honored for USA as well.
11-04-2011 , 10:51 AM
NoahSD, as usual, pwns.

Noah.
11-04-2011 , 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866
I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise, if the DOJ remits account balances, then by definition they aren't 'paying' you they are just returning to you that which was stolen by Bitar et al.


Since this thread has devolved somewhat into an argument over who was right, I'd like to nominate Diamond Flush from Subject Poker as he was the one optimist who recognized all the pitfalls involved in this deal yet advised us not to lose hope.

Most of the other optimists just seemed to be making a 'sick read', but DF actually put all the parties on a range (albeit with more information than the rest of us).
Thanks, I think
In the end, it really doesn't matter who was right or wrong..the important thing is that ppl get paid, everything else is secondary.
From the beginning, I have tried really hard to be objective unless I see proof of otherwise. I even sort of gave AGCC a pass until such time that there is/was proof that that they were either negligent or complicit. While the jury is still out there, I was totally on board for outing them for lying to cover their asses.
I have said, and still say, that this is not a normal company acquisition obv. These negotiations are very delicate and can change on an hourly basis, and probably do.
There is plenty of speculation going on here, which is fine, as long as you realize that's all it is. The real story will be when everyone has signed on the dotted line and we are told payments are immenent.

Sorry, I don't post much anymore because I fear that anything I say will appear to have come from S:P, possibly giving it more weight than it deserves, instead of it being my own thoughts. But I promise, we will report as soon as facts are verified.

Obviously my mantra is "Patience is hard"
11-04-2011 , 11:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by D2D
Interesting indeed! It does seem like the DOJ is actually supporting your take on things so you should be feeling smug. But I would like to disctuss some of the rationals a bit further if you don't mind as I find some of the implications quite fascinating.

First, it seems like if you follow the logic outlined in their argument it is next to impossible for somone to actually ownership interest in any money not in their physical possions... I mean even if you place it in a safety deposit box, how is that clearly different that if you simply place it in a larger safe broken up into numbered compartments (each representing an individual account) that a bank employe can go get the possesions from on your behalf. With that in mind I must say I feel that the court erred in the Gold Crowne case.
Is it possible that in the case of a safety deposit box, a bailment does exists, because you expect to get back exactly that cash or gold bar, or bearer bond that you put into the safety deposit box?

Quote:
Originally Posted by D2D
It certainly seems like you cannot have a bailor/bailee relation where cash is involved without actually keeping tabs on the serial #'s of the bills in questions, hence actually asking you to care about something you have no logical reason to care about precisely because of the nature of the property involved. And given that over 90% of the cash in circulation no longer even has any physical form whatsoever, it seems like a rather antiquated limitation of this relationship, and furthermore it seems like it would make it rather dificult to establish any sort of trust where money is the main object that is being overseen and still maintain that you have a legal interest in it.
Yeah. I am not to happy with the state of what is claimed by the DJ to be settled law in the US.

Another example is the question of whether a foreign-hosted and foreign-owned website is doing business in the location of the customer. Why does it make more sense that the website moves to the cusomer, than it does to say that the custmer moved to where the website is? I am reasonably certain that some other countries' laws take a different view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D2D
Then as to the matter of a constructive trust not being in effect, I think that the overal argumnet is rather weak, and to the extent to which it holds, it mainly pertains to the funds siezed by the DOJ and applies to a much lesser extend to funds in the posseion of company owners. But I won't go into details over this now as it's mainly stuff we've already debated.
I woudl like to hear more of your reasoning as to why the DoJ argument denying a constructive trust is weak. Also, I don't think it fails to apply to funds still in the posession of the companies. The core argument seemed to be similar to the one that denied a bailment - an inability to trace a particular asset. I have to say that I thought the argument felt weak, but I am unable to develop a good counterargument for lack of knowledge of the legal intricacies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D2D
Though I do think this is all obviously done in the interest of the gov keeping said funds, and I would have much rather that they argued that since FTP never made a claim that those funds belonged to players prior to BF, they implicitly aknowledged the siezed funds were from company assets while player funds were still safe and secure in segragated accounts as players were led to belive... and that those funds were later raided to offset the siezed accouns (and more), thereby actually aiding the players in going after their funds instead of offering even the slightest cover to the owners.
I think the players' loss of ownership upon deposit is the most solid point in law. The principles applied are obvious. The argument against a constructive trust seems the weakest to me. It seems to be an argument of technicalities rather than principles.
11-04-2011 , 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by exoendo
dothemath thank you for your contributions in this thread.
YVW
11-04-2011 , 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamiller866
Remission by definition isn't income (it's remittance of that which is yours) so the IRS shouldn't be any more of a concern than it already was (pay your taxes!), which I'm quite confident the HS crushers like Jungle have been doing all along.
I don't know how the IRS works, but here in Canada something that can get the taxman interested is when they become aware of assets that are inconsistent with your reported income. Sure, the remission payment is payment of what is yours, but how did it come to be yours?

In the case of FTP, it is quite likely that one branch of the government is going to have access not only to your account baance but your complete transaction hstory. From that, caluclating net winning is trivially easy. All of this is going to be in a database, so the number of records isn't going to be a big deterrent to looking for people who are net winners. Now if that database is keyed with SSN, or if it can be merged with a database that conects SSN to player accounts, then it will not be difficlt for the IRS to flag winners and check their past tax returns to see if the winning have been reported.

The only questions are is the IRS going to bother, and is there some sort of privacy protection that would bar the IRS from examining these records?
11-04-2011 , 12:08 PM
A few points I see that have not been mentioned in any compilations of FTP's value are as follows,

1. At some point it was mentioned that FTP had purchased/invested in 1-10 banks in Utah I believe for about $10 million (each?). These were probably where the DOJ seized some money as it was on US soil.

2. There was also some talk of an Australian offshore processor charging FTP up to 35% of US deposits to complete the transactions.

Both of these costs (whatever they are) were both taken off the top of any profits and affect the overall value of the ROW player base to Tapie.
11-04-2011 , 12:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoTheMath
I don't know how the IRS works, but here in Canada something that can get the taxman interested is when they become aware of assets that are inconsistent with your reported income. Sure, the remission payment is payment of what is yours, but how did it come to be yours?

In the case of FTP, it is quite likely that one branch of the government is going to have access not only to your account baance but your complete transaction hstory. From that, caluclating net winning is trivially easy. All of this is going to be in a database, so the number of records isn't going to be a big deterrent to looking for people who are net winners. Now if that database is keyed with SSN, or if it can be merged with a database that conects SSN to player accounts, then it will not be difficlt for the IRS to flag winners and check their past tax returns to see if the winning have been reported.

The only questions are is the IRS going to bother, and is there some sort of privacy protection that would bar the IRS from examining these records?
I don't want to go on a tangent with this tax stuff, but just because you are a net winner on FT does not mean that is your full tax obligation. You could have easily had net losses on other sites during those given years. The only thing that will prove your overall tax obligation is your official record of your sessions for each reporting year compared against the tax returns you filed. There is also the possibility that you had other gambling losses to offset against your gains (I make my wife save every damned waisted lottery ticket that she insists on buying since we file jointly).

My point, once again, is you should only be worried if you have not been reporting your taxes honestly. And even if you haven't, the average middling bankroll probably has nothing to worry about.
11-04-2011 , 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamond_Flush
Thanks, I think
In the end, it really doesn't matter who was right or wrong..the important thing is that ppl get paid, everything else is secondary.
From the beginning, I have tried really hard to be objective unless I see proof of otherwise. I even sort of gave AGCC a pass until such time that there is/was proof that that they were either negligent or complicit. While the jury is still out there, I was totally on board for outing them for lying to cover their asses.
I have said, and still say, that this is not a normal company acquisition obv. These negotiations are very delicate and can change on an hourly basis, and probably do.
There is plenty of speculation going on here, which is fine, as long as you realize that's all it is. The real story will be when everyone has signed on the dotted line and we are told payments are immenent.

Sorry, I don't post much anymore because I fear that anything I say will appear to have come from S:P, possibly giving it more weight than it deserves, instead of it being my own thoughts. But I promise, we will report as soon as facts are verified.

Obviously my mantra is "Patience is hard"
Maybe Subject Poker guys should each get one of those non-patented RPMshill type accounts and post some of your own speculation.
11-04-2011 , 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iluvtheflush
If the DOJ is handling the US payouts what is going to happen to all the accounts of people who have no idea that there is even a settlement. I have lots of friends who played for fun and once it got shut down they gave up on the money. They aren't members of 2+2 and have moved on from online poker. They don't have large sums of money on there. Would the DOJ just put this money into some account like they keep old paychecks,settlements that where never collected? I know several people that i'm sure their info that was on their FTP account isn't up to date. The DOJ would have almost no way of being able to contact them. Then they could just let all the leftover money sit in a interest bearing account and profit off of not giving back that money. Then when these people find out later that the money is available the Gov. will make them jump through hoops to get the money.

To me this is the only reason the DOJ would want to handle the US payouts themselves. They know that a decent % of the money would never be claimed.
If they believe that players are owed money (and they say they do), why can't the DoJ want US players to be paid? If the DoJ was really interested in maximizing their $ take, as opposed to maximizing the number of completed victories over high-profile criminals, why would they settle for pennies on the dollar regarding the $1B fine? Why would they allow any money at all to go to players rather than make payment of the full fine be their priority?

If the payments to US players come as remission, the DoJ has a duty to notify all victims. However, when the number of victims is large, they can fulfill this duty by publishing a notice, rather than sending the notice to each victm individually. If they go this route, is likely that some US players will never find out that they could apply to get their money back.
11-04-2011 , 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnWithTheShow
So ridiculous to think the US players are gonna get paid back. The new FTP will live on, stiff the Americans and blame it all on the DOJ. This was the plan from the start.

Never forget the shareholders looted the company. This is why there is no money to pay anyone back.
who is this really?
11-04-2011 , 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoTheMath
I don't know how the IRS works, but here in Canada something that can get the taxman interested is when they become aware of assets that are inconsistent with your reported income. Sure, the remission payment is payment of what is yours, but how did it come to be yours?

In the case of FTP, it is quite likely that one branch of the government is going to have access not only to your account baance but your complete transaction hstory. From that, caluclating net winning is trivially easy. All of this is going to be in a database, so the number of records isn't going to be a big deterrent to looking for people who are net winners. Now if that database is keyed with SSN, or if it can be merged with a database that conects SSN to player accounts, then it will not be difficlt for the IRS to flag winners and check their past tax returns to see if the winning have been reported.

The only questions are is the IRS going to bother, and is there some sort of privacy protection that would bar the IRS from examining these records?
I believe that the DOJ almost has no choice but to turn a blind eye to to the net winner issue, because if they calculate winning they would be somewhat obligated as members of the court to also vet immediate issues such as legal debt, whether payment of remission is appropriate to someone who benefited from the activity which provoked the forfeiture, customers getting more out of a fraudulent scheme than they put in, etc.

If the DOJ investigates winnings, I feel that it's not the IRS we should be worried about, but rather whether or not US players are going to get paid at all.

I don't think the DOJ wants to open that Pandora box, as they seem to have structured the agreement specifically in a way to avoid addressing those issues.
11-04-2011 , 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antneye
I don't want to go on a tangent with this tax stuff, but just because you are a net winner on FT does not mean that is your full tax obligation. You could have easily had net losses on other sites during those given years. The only thing that will prove your overall tax obligation is your official record of your sessions for each reporting year compared against the tax returns you filed. There is also the possibility that you had other gambling losses to offset against your gains (I make my wife save every damned waisted lottery ticket that she insists on buying since we file jointly).
Everything you say is correct. However, if you have not been reporting any gambling income at all, and the IRS discovers that you have a record of winning money at FTP, they could audit, and the onus will be on you to show that you were a net loser over all sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by antneye
My point, once again, is you should only be worried if you have not been reporting your taxes honestly. And even if you haven't, the average middling bankroll probably has nothing to worry about.
Again, generally correct. However, being audited, even when you really owe nothing, can still be a pain and, depending on the scope of your income, may cost you money in the form of accountant's fees or lost time from work. However, I should stress that I think that, even in the unlikley event that the IRS does take an interest in the FTP account information, only larger-scale tax cheaters should have any significant worries.
11-04-2011 , 12:44 PM
Thank you for this very detailed history.
11-04-2011 , 12:47 PM
I think if If the AGCC allows FullTiltPoker again, we can get our bankroll.
11-04-2011 , 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackfriday415
We should all question FTPs profitability bc of the fact the owners weren't willing to reinvest to save the company b4 disaster struck. At a time when it would have only cost them US player balances + settling with doj...
we've been over this.

1) they could have invested/lost a lot of the money in the stock market/other ventures

2) they could have bought a house, cars/ paid for schooling of their kids. Just because they received that money doesn't mean they have it all liquid just sitting around. Many probably wouldn't have wanted to uproot their family lives by selling their house and a lot of their possessions.

3) If they think there is a possibility of someone from the outside injecting capital, they would obviously be inclined to see how that plays out first.

4) For all we know, maybe they will give some back. time will tell.
11-04-2011 , 12:54 PM
Lol @ everyone speculating about the IRS. If u pay your taxes your fine. If not then I hope u get screwed if they get ahold of your stuff.

99.9 % the IRS won't see this stuff though. I'll be right on this just like my contact was right about FTP 93% value 2 weeks ago.

      
m