no one knows for certain about anything your write. there are no facts that are available to us that should lead anyone to reasonably conclude anything about "who is seeing what, and who gets what"

other than that Tapie is giving the DOJ 40 million, and he's officially forfeiting 40 million that DOJ has seized. (whether or not 40 million forfeited to DOJ represents all the DOJ has seized from FTP on or before BF is totally unclear)
At this point, I don't event think it's a certainty that S:P article on how much was seized on BF is accurate.

don't listen to anything else.

"The government does contend, however, that Claimant could have another bite at an apple – though clearly a much more bitter fruit – through the remission and mitigation process. With all due respect to Congress, which created the process, and the Attorney General, who administers it, it must be pointed out that, in practice, remission and mitigation are virtually worthless remedies, as there are no standards for granting or denying such applications and the statute places exclusive and sole discretion in the hands of the Attorney General, a party to the litigation. In more than two decades of forfeiture practice, this office has never seen a petition for remission or mitigation granted. Perhaps that is partly why, as the government acknowledges, the availability of remission and mitigation has been found by the Second Circuit not to constitute an adequate remedy at law."



That's pretty brutal.

Surely this is a level. If not, I dont have any idea wtf you are bothering to post it for.

Whether I admit to having seen both documents will make no difference to someone who thinks the documents don't exist to begin with.
On the off chance someone new here is tempted to fall into whatever conspiracy theory you are hatching, I will confirm for the last time that the documents referred to do exist, exactly as I said they do.
They are not the same document ffs. The first was signed by FTP and GBT, the second was signed by DOJ and GBT, just as I reported it.

This will be the last time I will take even a moment of my time to reply to such nonsense. While you have shown that you have brief moments of lucid thought, those appear to becoming even more far outweighed by the kind of nonsense you posted here.

diamond flush, has there been any recent news with regards to US players? or is the "US players are screwed" mind set just a bunch of speculation? mind giving your two cents with regards to US players being paid by the DoJ?

it's total speculation.

no one knows anything.

It's more like a conspiracy theory than speculation, since it's true that the DOJ could deny remission if they chose to do so, but to believe they would choose to do so you have to believe they are more interested in looting money than they are in seeking justice.

I'll guess at some answers, but many of your questions have no certain answers at this time.

No idea how long FTP / GBT negotiation will take We don't even know what they have to negotiate about. It looks like GBT will be buying FTP assets from the DoJ, so what's there to talk about with FTP? Perhaps how much they have to bribe the shareholders to agree to a civil setlement with the DoJ?* Seems unlikely to me, but I don't really know.

*Let me rephrase that to "what ownership interest non-Director shareolders of FTP will retain in the new company".

Why give any money to FTP shareholders if the DoJ owns everything? This only happens if FTP shareholders have something to gain by delaying a deal with the DoJ.

If you mean no FTP / DoJ agreement, then the case goes to trial. Many months later there is a judgment. If you mean a FTP / GBT agreement then GBT can still deal with the DoJ after DoJ gets forfeiture.

Wihout a settlement between the DoJ and FTP, the assets don't go anywhere until the case is tried. This will take a long time.

There are reports that about 100 peope are still working at Pocket Kings. I have no idea how accurate these reports are.

Yes it could be a long time. I think the notion that FTP2 could be up and runnng before Christmas is extremely overoptimistic. Before we heard from Jeff Ifrah that GBT and FTP hadn't really been talking much, and before there was doubt raised about whether the DoJ has actully agreed to any deal with GBT, I had thought end of February might be a reasonable target date. Now, not so much.

Anyone to contact Jeff on what's coming next?

Any timeline?

I'm reasonably confident that if the DoJ signs an agreement, they will stick to the terms of the agreement. Have you seen any reliable report that the DoJ has signed the agreement announced last week by GBT? The first reports I remember say that GBT has signed, and that the DoJ has refused to comment. The S: P report says the DoJ has signed, but neither of the quotes they provide confirms this, though they both imply it. S: P gets things right more often than others covering the story, so I think it is quite likely that the DoJ has signed, but I'd like to see some confirmation, in the form of a statement from the DoJ and/or an image of the signed agreement. The DoJ has promptly confirmed previous agreements in this case via Press Releases available on their website. I find their continued silence on this a bit troubling. I raise this nitpick because I discovered that the term "letter agreement", which is how the the document is described, often but not always means an document committing only one party.

Furthermore, you have to look at what the DoJ actually agrees to do. We don't have the actual text of any agreement. The wording of terms supposed to be in the agreement has varied between reports. The justfication for assumptions about agreement contents seems to include the notion that the agreement will reflect principles discussed in earlier unrelated talks. However negotiations have a way of changing terms from what one side originally envisaged.

"Pay players" is not the same thing as "Pay players their complete balance as it stood on April 15." "Be responsible for paying players" means even less than "pay players".

So, while I think the DoJ will honour any agreement they sign, I don't think you should conclude at this time that the DoJ has agreed to pay US players their complete account balances.

The lack of a DOJ statement is likely due to the fact that this agreement is contingent on a Tapie/FT agreement and FT shareholder approval. It seems unlikely that the DOJ would release a statement discussing an uncompleted deal (uncompleted in the sense that it is meaningless absent further agreements). Additionally, any statement released now would probably raise more questions than answers. The DOJ still has to work out with Full Tilt how all of this will work, etc.

DOJ is likely just saving themselves the trouble of fielding tons of questions that they don't yet have answers to.

Agreed that nobody knows if we'll get the whole balance, but I think it would look really bad for the DOJ if they acknowledge that players are owed money, yet keep a portion of the victim's money for themselves (Assuming they have seized/frozen over the estimated $150 million owed to U.S. players.)

All we know as a fact, is that Ifrah said none of the people he has spoken with at Full Tilt indicated they would do a deal paying back less than 100% of the balances.

yeah don't exactly see why anyone would expect DOJ to have any statement until Tapie/FTP have executed every provision in their agreements with them.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...-bernard-tapie

Ifrah just snap responded this to me:

"The negotiations are starting in earnest now. I hope that we can wrap them up quickly, but I honestly cannot predict an estimate or timeline right now. Please check back with me Wednesday morning and I will let you know what I know then. Ok?"

You continue to misunderstand my motives. For some reason, when I ask whether you have seen the document for the second agreement, you, for some unaccountable reason, assume I think that neither document actually exists. That's ridiculous. I have no such doubts. I think both documents exist.

Perhaps true, but totally irrelevant.

I have no doubt they exist, and can't for the life of me imagine why any one would seriously doubt they exist. I am not going to suggest any conspiracy theory.

Thank you. The wording you used to identify the first document seemed ambiguous to me. When you described it as "the actual agreement that was referred to at the time", I wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding you to have been referring to an eventual agreement that the second document turned out to be.

Please identify the alleged nonsense.


I made a small number of assertions:

1. That early reports described the letter agreement as signed by GBT.
2. That those reports did not say that the DoJ had signed the agreement.
3. That the term "letter agreement" includes a one-sided document with only one party agreeing to anything.
4. That such a form of letter agreement does not constitute a contract.
5. That such a form of letter agreement does not bind another party.
6. That if this was the type of letter agreement referred to by the GBT release, then there wasn't an actual deal, but rather that GBT has made certain commitments.

What part of that is nonsense? Each of those assertions can be easily verified. The only nonsense is your inference that I think that one or the other document doesn't exist, or any inference you may have drawn that I have concluded that the letter agreement announced by GBT is definitely nothing more than a one-sided document.


I also asked three simple questions:

1. Were the two references I bolded made to two separate agreements?
2. Can you confirm you have not actually seen the text of the agreement announced last week?
3. Can you confirm whether the DoJ signed last week's agreement?

You answered the first question. You have not answered the other two.

Your unwarranted personal insults directed towards me seem to be based on a total misreading of what I am doing. I would suggest you stop trying to infer my intentions. It doesn't seem to be helping you. I remain hopeful you will eventually overcome this animus you seem to have, and will realize I am only seeking the truth about the FTP case. I remain convinced that you are one of the best sources of facts out there.

Same ole same ole..........

Wouldnt that seem to indicate that a vote has already possibly taken place?

Maybe.

Morphy

Jeff has inferred that the shareholders are were not privy to the details of the DOJ-GBT agreement. He went as far as to say that FTP had no say in plans for player repayment, but that this would change once DOJ begins negotiating the forfeiture of FTP with FTP.

What the hell is there left to negotiate? Seems like only one line for FTP now.

Here's to progress week, gl everyone

what's the point of forfeiting FTP if you can't get guarantees in writing that US players get paid back (in full???) with money that

(a) forfeitures of money that is specifically seized on BF that relate to companies that FTP is a parent to or of
(b) or settlements of (a)
(c) or contingencies where DOJ has collected x money but x != US player balance?
(d) a specific trustee appointed to handle remission?


there's a lot of **** to negotiate here, and in my view, this part is more tumultuous than the one that DOJ and Tapie engaged in, which primarily dealt with money exchanged.

here bitar et al. are basically signing away their company, and you'd be damn sure that they'll fight for every bit of control possible as to the aftermath that they can.

Unlikely. Usually you come to terms on an agreement and THEN vote on those terms.

what's problem?
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...-bernard-tapie

I think this is meaningless. Them not denying is basically confirming. They probably would just rather not make a statement about it until FTP is officially sold.

Progress would be awesome news but it's a very short work week here in the United States due to the Thanksgiving holiday on Thursday. I wouldn't be surprised if little gets accomplished.



ya ya in before big news is released tomorrow (hopefully anyway).... lol


agreed. ^