If they gonna use Joeyrulesall, FTP will never ever get a license.
On the other hand, he just trolls as long as they will give FTP the license.

Somebody talked about speaking with Alderneyin the thread. From what I remember, somebody requested an opportunity to speak about this license request, AGCC didn't say whether it was an objection to the granting of the license or something more neutral or positive, I think they said the hearing could be the result of either. No decision will be made on the license on that date. And I think that's all we know.

Maybe you're right - it just strikes me that most people are pissed at FTP because it balled their money away on high livin' and then couldn't pay out when players wanted their cash back; raising an objection to the only credible rescue package in town isn't gonna' help the chances of the big payout.

Like I said - it's unusual and stinks of lawyers but it's probably nothing to worry too much about. There again, nothing about this circus would surprise me anymore and what's another twist in the story after all this time?

Not sure I agree.

That regulation (paragraphs 2 and 3 in any case) can only be invoked if an objection has been lodged (unless AGCC no longer operates within its own law).

The key wording is in paragraph 1 : "Where the Commission receives any representation ... made as a result of the publication of notices ... which raises any objection to the grant of a ... licence, then do this, do that, yadda, yadda, yadda."

Paragraph 2 even refers to "the person making the objection."

Regulation 30 covers the application approval hearing itself which is a separate affair - that seems to be a private affair too - certainly there's no law suggesting it must be held in public - although any objectors from regulation 23 can be asked to submit further evidence to that hearing.

Unless the AGCC has told you that they have a policy of using those regulations for purposes other than processing objections (which would be ultra vires under the regulation making powers in section 4 of the ordinance itself) then I would be hesitant to conclude that 3rd May is just part of the regular application process.

Just sayin'

Those weren't my words. The AGCC said to someone that the objection does not necessarily mean a complaint or that the person objecting doesn't want the license granted. It's within this thread somewhere.

Sorry, yes you are correct. I agree with what you wrote. I'm not sure I agree with the opinion that the hearing can be anything other than an objection.

My mistake.

Wen we git payed?

next week

I've said it ten thousand times that if they at least acknowledge the limbo withdrawals from black Friday and show they know my correct balance then I would take back everything I said and admit I was wrong. As far as me objecting to a sale that just makes zero sense. I have a significant amount locked up and could really use it. For all those with the lame jokes why don't you direct them at the people they stole our money. Unfortunately most of people making jokes have no real money tied up and live to talk **** on the Internet in mommas basement.

You link to a thread in which you and TDE disagree about the figures. I see no consensus there that stongly contradicts TDE's statement about profit.

In the end you are left with the following facts: between April 2007 and April 2010, FTP distributed about $440M to shareholders. In April of 2010 FTP had net debts to players of over $300M. $440M-$3n0M is around $100M. If you think the real profit is substantially more than $100M, where is that extra profit?

Do we know that the specific $40M in qestion was actually seized? I thought it was merely frozen.

If that $40 is in a foreign bank, then the DoJ won't really have it yet even if it is forfeited to them by the US court. Essentially the US Government trades $40M difficult to obtain dollars in a foreign bank account (plus other assets ofc.) for an $80M check.

All fish care about is how rigged they think the site is. The less rigged - i.e. the luckier they get- the more likely they will play on it. The more rigged - i.e. when their results are truly reflective of their play- the less likely they will play on it.

A slow burn of their money is all they ask for.

Yes income potential of FTP2 several years from now may be signifcantly greater than its poker income, but the assets that GBT will be acquiring don't incude sofftware for sports betting, casino, etc. All that will have to be develped. That will take time and money.

That is one route he may go, but it is not consistent with a plan to make a profit by flipping FTP to an American operator when online poker is licenced in the US. The Tapie history has been more about making money by flipping devalued assets, not by making operating profits. Granted, larger operating profits make the flip price higher, but those additional income sources offer limited appeal to a buyer looking to operate in the US.

So $80 million (from Tapie) + $159 million (Subject Poker figure on seized accounts since 2009), or 80 Million + 119 million if the 40 million being forfeited is included in the DOJ seizure figure, would put DOJ at either $239 million or $199 million in the bank. DOJ could pay back U.S. players in full for the ~$150-$160 million estimated and still walk away from this thing with ~ $50-90 million, not bad...

Plus maybe they can get another $50M-60M from Ferguson, Lederer and other directors.

I suggest you read the whole thread to see where these numbers come from.
If you disagree please explain where we went wrong.

I noticed people are not really talking about phantom deposits anymore?
Do you guys think that either FTP or DOJ can retrieve any money from phantom depositors at this point? Obviously, that would help alot to pay out the players.

Phantom deposits are fulltilts own fault. They screwed themselves out of that money. Make the directors pay for miss managing the company.

Full Tilt can recover $9 million in phantom deposits by adjusting phantom depositer accounts (which I assume, but do not know, they already did).

I don't think anyone has heard of any sort of realistic possibility that anything beyond that will be collected.

It's almost like you have no idea how corporations actually work.

Wait... no... it's exactly like that.

Seems pretty doubtful. Pursuing each individual case would be a huge PITA for whoever decided to do it and at this point FTP is trying to put the whole thing behind them and has their own problems, the DOJ has bigger fish to fry, and GBT has no liability or incentive to do it either.

So, even if it was legally possible to do something about the phantom depositors (which isn't a cut and dry question to answer), there's not really anyone out there who's going to bother.

I just feel bad for whoever has to pick up the tab on all the phantom money floating around on FTPs books. Someone could have (and some probably did) make multiple deposits, lose it at the tables, and then disappeared, leaving the phantom money in an honest players account.

One thing is certain: If there's a Pocket Kings job posting for "Senior Accountant" I won't be applying.


A satisfying wish, but it's never going to happen.

They should go after it but I think all they will do is compare it to players owed money and subtract it

I can't wait until Ray Bitar gets his walking papers. He will never find work in poker again and that is a good thing. USA players have had to endure pure hell and at least him out on the street for a little while will let him feel what some players are going through.

Here is the quote I was looking for earlier.

"A spokesman for AGCC explained to PokerStrategy.com that this type of hearing "doesn't necessarily mean that an objection to an applicant has been submitted - any 3rd party representation or opinion about an application will be considered. The purpose of the hearing is for the Commission to receive such opinions."

Yep I purposefully left Party out because they were successful via the strength of advertisement. Party had terrible software (by today's standards) and was number 1 but iirc they also had the biggest advertisement campaign at the time and ipoker was new enough that the software was decent for the time and people weren't used to better software yet. Regardless of whether the software itself is expensive or whether they have to throw millions in advertisement the point is the same it's expensive and not easy to start up a new site.

Those guys are cheaters, don't you think they will find a way to find work in the poker industry again?

You haven't answered my question, but I will try to briefly address yours.

PokerXanadu made a valiant attempt to re-engineer FTP's books. However, all that work was based on a whole series of assumptions and incomplete information. IDK how you can think that thread gives us a reliable picture of FTP's finances.

My question is based on a simpler but more valid method of calulating net profit. Since it is based on only two reasonably reliable assertions, and two significant assumptions, it should lead to a more reliable conclusion about net profit than the method in the other thread.

The first assumption I make is that the value of non-monetary assets in 2010 is about the same as that in 2007. Even if that assumption proves false, it doesn't really affect the argument about whether FTP is a money-printing machine, since retained earnings that have been converted into non-monetary assets are not printed money.

The second assumption is that FTP's cash less liabilities in 2007 was $0. If it was less than that, they were lying when they applied for the AGCC license in the first place and have been scamming us all along. If it was greater than $0, then the net profits since that date need to be reduced by that amount as well.

So I repeat my question: if FTP made substantially more than $100M profit over those four years, where is it?