The money is not still in your accounts. The money is gone. GBT will have to put its own money (or more likely money it gets from its investors) into your accounts before it can open FTP2 for ROW players. Whether you will be able to immediately withdraw the full amount of your FTP1 balance when FTP2 opens is not yet known.

Given that FTP2 will technically be a new site with new owners and a different geographic scope of opertions, I can see no way the AGCC could legally require US players to be paid by the DoJ before FTP2 can start serving ROW. Also, unless the AGCC announces new rules for all sites it licenses, there will be no requirements for FTP2 to hold player funds in segregated protected accounts. FTP2 will be free to hold player funds in the same account as FTP2's operating funds, if they so choose.

Frankly, I dont even understand on what legal basis the AGCC could require that FTP2 credit ROW players for their FTP1 balances. All they can require is that FTP2 have enough money on hand to cover whatever ROW balances FTP2 decides to credit. Effectively, I expect FTP2 and the AGCC to treat ROW balances as a new customer bonus available exclusievely for FTP1 ROW customers. Whether this bonus will have to be cleared in any way is yet to be seen.

Is it all but certain u.s. players are only going to be getting around ~.50 on the dollar? Or is some of the money owed to us going to come from other places? Obviously 80 million dollars falls way short. I don't know why the poker media has more or less brushed over this.

Whats this about the AGCC actually caring about money being there? The only money they care about is their fees, which get shipped sooner when they ignore potential roadblocks.

The AGCC cannot make rules for FTP2 that are different from those for all the rest of its licensees. Also, they cannot treat FTP2 as special because of FTP1s violations, since FTP2 is a different legal entity. They only way they could make FTP2 keep owed money in an escrow account is if they changed the rules for all their licensees. The last time their head spoke publicly about this, he indicated he didn't think it was a good idea.

This will not be a license condition, unless the AGCC changes its rules for all of its licensees.

The license condition will be that FTP2 must allow withdrawl of whatever amount the account is credited with. There is no rule that says FTP2 must credit your account balance immediately with the full amount of your FTP1 balances. They could choose to credit part of the balance and require you to earn the rest like a bonus. Or they could credit a certain percnetage amount each month over several months. We don't know yet how FTP2 will handle crediting ROW players with their FTP1 balances. Given that GBT doesn't owe FTP1 players anything, Tapie is free to choose whatever method he thinks will maximize profits. This includes immediately crediting ROW player accounts with thw full amount of their FTP1 balances, but this is not the only possible approach that would be compatible with his license terms.

Another interesting question, I check the AGCC site often, as they announce all new licensing applicants, which GBT would have to be as new owners of FTP2.

So far they are not on the new applicant list which the AGCC say they must display all applicants. UNLESS GBT are applying under a different company name!

Any ideas on this fellas?

They didn't even announce the deal yet.

I would assume they take the opportunity to remodel their reward scheme... I think they will get rid of RB as the existance of RB screwed up their flexibility on promotions considerably...

It's time for the NCAA BB Tournament to start. Back in 4 days lol

I don't think they've brushed over it, they just don't know. The DoJ knows and obviously hasn't said anything in a long time.

Considering the size/nature of this ordeal, do you not think that's very feesible?

That's pretty amazing they dont have to segregate, not sure I'd play back there if that was the case. Come to think of it, they're going to have to be very transparent for a while so I can't see them doing it any other way, the players will be exceptionally hot on that one!

The only thing I would say that making players whole is one of FTP1's conditions of sale, or so we're led to believe. And really, who's going to play there if we don't get the funds, how we want them, after such a long wait?

well things can obviously be strongly inferred. 80 million doesn't come close to covering what is owed. So where is the rest coming from? The sky?

I think, if the deal goes through, it's basically a lock that everyone gets 100% of their rolls back.

Way to many lawsuit possibilities if they don't. And I can't imagine FTP2 getting a license anywhere if they could not snap pay back 100% of ROW accounts.

I think it's be stated else where that the DOJ is going to use some of the money that they have seized over the years to pay back US players, at least that's what GBT wanted/said early on, that + the 80M from the sale.

No, it is entirely possible US players will get all or almost all their balances. It is also posible, but unlikely, that US players will see nothing even if the GBT deal goes through.

I would like to think the DoJ would have a hard time justifying using only the money for the sale of asssets to GBT to replay players. If that money is available, then money in bank accounts seized under the same charges should also be available, and then the DoJ would have more than enough to cover the $150M owed to US players.

OTOH, it is possible that none of the assets seized (including those to be sold to GBT) under the original charges can be use to repay players. The DoJ press release that talked about remission discussed payment coming from funds seized relative to the new charges in the amended complaint. That would be whatever money they could seize from the four directors. While the directors probably owe $180-$320M It is not certain they'd be able to actually come up with enough to cover US player balances in full.

I'm confused as to why people think that if GBT does finally strike a deal, they would ever do so without the intention of both USA and ROW players being paid back in full. This thinking makes no sense at all.

GBT is going to want to sell FTP's software to a US B&M in a regulated US market, which we all know is already a reality in Nevada, trending in other states, and talked more ad more about on a federal level as well. Therefore, this asset alone (imagine the profitability in the US of a site that has FTP's software but is trusted and regulated by the Nevada Gaming Commission) is worth so much more than the $150 Million currently owed in US player balances. I'm positive the leasing of the FTP software is a large component of GBT's business plan moving forward with FTP2 (remember FTP is not a US B&M so it won't be able to operate within the US for some time, even if there is regulation). I could not see a scenario in which the DOJ would allow this if they hadn't put up the money to make US players whole. Therefore, GBT will make the investment now of $150mil, which they will easily recoup over time even in a haphazard patchwork of State regulation in the US.

And as for ROW, I think all reasonable minds can agree that no one will play there if they don't have their balance fully restored to them, and new people won't come if they hear the same. So they will get paid too. That's pretty simple.

So, ASSUMING that a deal is actually cut, I don't see a scenario where everyone is not given immediate access to their entire balance tied-up on the site.

So all in all I am optimistic.

I would expect them to be using a separate corporation for this venture. I would also expect that they would not make a formal application until the deal goes through, but be involved in informal discussions beforehand.

People have said this but it’s not confirmed.

FTP2 represents a very small fraction of the gambling business licensed by the AGCC. OTOH it probably constitutes the majority of public news coverage of the AGCC. OTOOH, not a lot of that news coverage is mainstream.

André Wilsenach, the Executive Director of the AGCC, has made public comments indicating he is unconvinced of the advantage of requiring segregated accounts. I would expect that those of the AGCC's licensees which do not currently have segregated ccounts would object to the costs of having to change their banking arrangements. While I would like to see the AGCC change its rules to require protected segregated accounts for player funds, I'm not holding my breath.

FTP2 may choose to segregate player funds. It is an option under the license. Remember that FTP seems to have lied to players about having player funds segregated. The AGCC does not do a good job of ensuring that what the site tells players is accurate. FTP2 being licensed by the AGCC, which does not require player funds to be segregated and protected is one of several reasons I will not be playing at FTP2.

Don't delude yourself. People said the same thing about AP/UB after the cheating scandals there. The good behaviour that many people presumed would follow never really happened.

We don't now what "making whole" will look like. It may well be that all balances are immediately credited in full and available for withdrawl, but there are other options which might satisfy the terms of the agreement. Tapie will choose whichever option he believes delivers the best balance between immediate cost and future revenue.

grunching here and i haven't followed that closely ... i find it hard to believe tapie can start FTP and pay out all players. isn't alot of the $$$$$ gone? and i'd say no way tapie just pays it out and hopes to collect from the FTP former owners and those people who took advantage of processing errors

While I agree that it is likely that GBT is looking at the possibility of profiting from using the FTP software in a future regulated US market, I see several problems with your analysis.

The DoJ isn't going to be responsible for deciding who gets to operate. The DoJ cannot realistically expect to make a deal now contingent on regulation that may never come. Most importantly, the published description of the deal that has been announced clearly has the DoJ, not GBT, responsible for compensating US players.

I believe you can find people in this very thread who say they would play on FTP2 if they got a paritial return on their balances, and perhaps even some who would play there just because of the software.

Why would a new player refuse to play on FTP2 if FTP2 failed to pay off a debt owed by an entirely different company? It is not the same site.

You really think that nobody would play there if Tapie only released a quarter of the balances each month for four months, or if he released 50% up front but required the remaining 50% to be earned like a bonus? I'm sure that would deter some players, but I think many ROW people who were foolish enough to have money on FTP1 in the first place would continue to have money on FTP2 under such conditions. And those who made careful risk analyses and concluded it would be worthwhile to maintain a balance on FTP1 might be able to find a way to make an account on FTP2 profitable under such terms.

thanks for the clarification DoTheMath

While uninformed people have indeed said this, the DoJ has never said it publicly. The only public statement the DoJ has made about sources for compensation referred to ongoing efforts to recover money they didn't already have.

It is far from a lock that US players get 100%. Remission regulations allow the DoJ to deduct distribution expnses from whatever money they have for compensation.

FTP2 should be able to get a licence anywhere without any promise to pay any ROW players any of their FTP1 balances. FTP2 does not owe FTP1 players any money.

Who is going to get sued, by whom? It is not at all clear that under any European law FTP2 will owe any money to FTP1 players even if they buy FTP1 assets. There are all sorts of good reasons for GBT to honour FTP1 debts to ROW players, but being legally required to do so merely by opening a site is not one of them. Wanting to avoid the hassle of successsfully defending against meritless lawsuits may be a reason.

Yeah, foreign companies are generally totally terrified of a couple of grinders filing a suit in a U.S. court.

Good luck with that.