Stop trying to make sense.

lol @ the bg hate , he hasnt done anything to deserve as much hate as hes getting, alot of irrational trolling itt .

I'm mostly with you up to this point. A few minor quibbles:

The amount of money in a remission fund will not affect the timing of its availablility. The money will only become available after all related litigation is completed. Litigation against individuals will likely take longer than litigation against the companies. Litigation against owners who have not yet been charged with anything by the DoJ will take longer still.

Eventual partial payment may be of some value to at least some US players.

It is not fair for US players to be the only ones who suffer, but there are reasons why it may happen.

I'll take that to mean what you think they owe. You probably know that it is my postion that AORN non-director owners legally don't owe players anything That could change in the future if new facts come to light. Until it does, I don't think you would find any value in a deal which forces the owners to pay nothing.

My problem with this approach is I don't see how there is any legal avenue currently available that would cause non-director owners to pay anything to players in general. Anything that did become available would almost certainly take even longer than the current DoJ process. For instance, class action lawsuits usually take longer than the most probable current timelines for the DoJ civil suit, and individual members of the class almost always only end up with a fraction of their fair share of a settlement. The lawyers end up with a big fraction.

You've just proven that financial practiality won't be the chief barrier to the sort of payment you'd like to see. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean there will not be other barriers, and ones that might be insurmountable.

I understand your frustration, and think it may be justified. It is related to why I often choose to refer to 'the legal system' rather than 'the justice system'.

I don't think anybody is talking about a deal which pays US players nothing. I would hope that the DoJ wouldn't even try to find some way to disqualify US players in general from being victims qualifying for remission. I'm not sure I understand what is unconscionable about supporting the best deal possible, even when that deal falls short of being ideal. You will note I have suggested a possible way to improve (from the point of view of maximiszing certainty of payment to US players) upon the deal currently on the table.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like it when my negative predictions prove correct. I wasn't happy that the individual defendants were dismissed from the Todd Terry civil suit. I just think it is important to have a realistic appreciation of possible outcomes. I know that speaking unpopular truths is not a path to popularity, but I believe the readers of this site are better served to have a range of informed views, not just popular views.

I think it is highly unlikely that the DoJ will retrieve the full value of the improper distributions from the directors. Given that, I wish it was possible to begin attempts now to recover the remaining amounts from shareholders. I just don't see how that can be legally achieved. Fortunately for you and other US players, I'm not a legal expert, so there may well be something I have overlooked.

It was a toy chip game all along. We just never knew it.

I agree with Barry that it would be nice if all poker players would come clean about the debtor and creditor relationships. For example, it might be nice to know that the two pros at your WPT final table are playing out of the same bankroll.

I am not particularly impressed with Barry "coming clean" in this thread. Seems to be more of a communication management issue than even a reputation save. Why weren't we ALL informed at the time that these loans were made? That's when full disclosure would have been useful. Barry. (Among others.)

I've only been skimming this thread, but let's see what I've picked up.

1. The reputation of the Greenstein name.
2. A shady poker site that stole money from its players.
3. Something about new ownership.
4. PR move.
5. Does/doesn't have good intentions.

I swear we've been through this before.

/troll

Seriously, though... it would seem one should separate moral obligations from legal obligations in this matter. Whether or not Barry is or should be taking a principled stance here, I contend he should fulfill his legal obligation first -- i.e. pay the debt. Then he can find other ways to "make good on his moral obligation" to the player base. (For example, Ivey could use a ghost writer for a forum post. I know THAT has happened before.)

Clearing your markers and cleansing your soul are not mutually exclusive. I'd like Barry to do both. At risk of being shuffled off into the "fan-boy apologist" bin of this thread, I have more faith in him than I do the other Team FT players in that regard.

Oh, and when it comes to protecting one's squeaky-clean image, where the hell is Lindgren's response?

Seems like a question similar to asking why anyone is a mod here (not that I think of myself as a mod, or that I'd make a good mod).

No money stuck on FTP. Never worked for any gambling-related company. I'm recently mostly-retired, have time on my hands, some health and other issues that keep me closer to my computer than I used to be. My background gives me more insight into aspects of the FTP legal and corporate governance issues, and related things like regulatory issues and legislation (and past AP/UB ownership issues) than your average bear. Also, I find the twists and turns of this matter really interesting. I'd like to give back to this community, and I'd like to think that my contributions lead to a better understanding of some of the issues. (I know that not everyone agrees that they do.) If not, at least I am learning a few things for myself.

There's probably other reasons too.

I tend to put a fair amount of energy into things I find interesting, and have the luxury of being able to choose to do so.

I think it´s pretty obvious he´s talking about Flack and Benyamine. There´s no chance Flack has 2 Mill. net cash. Same for Benyamine, but there´s a chance he might pay it off in the long run assuming he gets favorable backing deals.

Ivey MUST have the money, assuming he didn´t lose all of it due to playing craps/bad divorce/bad business (there´s a chance obviously lol).

I know nothing about Lindgren´s financial situation, but he seems like the most likely candidate to actually have the money to pay up (which doesn´t mean he actually will). He made lots of money pre FTP, earned 8 figures in dividends from FTP, ran a staking staple etc. He also married Erika Schoenberg. You don´t get the chance to to that if you don´t have money (misogonistc commentary of the day, but whatever lol).

So if I'm understanding correctly, BG borrowed money from some of the higher ups at FTP who loaned him cash from the pile that was operational funds + player deposits. It gets marked down as a debt, he then plays on the site, all cool.

Fast forward five years, the higher ups at FTP who loaned him the cash have not asked for their loan back(?), but are now being forced to sell their company due to a long list of ridiculous shenanigans that sees them in deep **** with the law.

The company who are looking to buy the company try to exert some leverage on the company they are looking to buy's debtors, thusly asking that outstanding debts be paid directly to them prior to the acquisition of the company, or else they won't buy said company.

My question therefore is this, why would you pay back money you owe to one company to an entirely different company who in essence have nothing to do with the company you owe money to?

Why would you even escrow such a large sum of money when the company you do owe the money to are happy with the repayment arrangements it stands, seemingly only to satisfy the whim of a baying mob?

While Barry's loan may came out of player funds (easily given how FTP paid out millions to Ivey, etc in endorsements and huge "equity" payouts to the other name pros/investors), only FTP can be blamed for theft of player funds, not Barry.

(To Barry's credit, had he known FTP was insolvent, he may have never requested the money, who knows.)

Stop saying this, it's pure subjective.

How do you know they were EVER profitable? From the way it sounds they out-spent their earnings frequently and all funds were in one big pool. They even took a hit in 2009 and 2010 by the DOJ*.


*I believe there was a seizure of ~114mil or so back in 2010 as well but there are so many articles about BF I could not find them for this reply.

gamblers cant go legit. barry could have wiped a live debt or anything else in the gambling world off paper.

he borrowed money on paper, he owes.

buyout for 125k imo

If the fund is not full, then the fund must collect all claims before payment. This will likely add 6m to a year to the process.

Yeah like how could I not support some value for some people? Honestly, **** that.

Then why should US players support a deal where there is no evidence that it is best for them simply for the benefit of RoW players and the owners of FT? There has been no information released about these negotiations from the DoJ. While I respect Noah's position on the DoJ, we shouldn't stake our future on the idea that the DoJ has the best interests of American players at heart.

I pointed out that directors have more then enough for your benefit.

Right now there is no guarantee that US players will receive a dime. Even if they do it will likely be years from now. What difference does it make if I receive 40% two years from now or 20% three years from now? It makes no difference to me. I'd gladly take the risk in exchange for a small increase in timely, full payment.

lol may be justified.

No one has any idea what the best deal possible is. The DoJ has leverage on the directors of this company. No deal should be completed until they are dealt with and put up the money owed, which they have. The current situation maximizes pressure on these people. It should also be made clear to the individual owners that it is the position of the DoJ that they are in possession of stolen property. They are welcome to fight this in court as per your recommendations or they can put this matter to rest for a small amount. If players are paid in full, they have nothing to worry about. If not, they will spend the next decade looking over their shoulders. The player's lawyers also need to expedite the discovery process w.r.t. PK. Despite your doubts, I'm confident these documents will give the players leverage over both owners and directors by allowing them to amend the civil lawsuit.

This is spoken some much like someone with nothing to lose here. The solution presented appears awful, and basically worthless, for anyone like me

It would also could result in the players getting paid less since the DoJ will have to collect loans from deadbeats, liars, and scumbags. I'm only confident that 1.4m of that money is ever getting paid.

Game's not over there.

Your issue is that you fail to understand the victims of this crime. We are aware of the facts. We trust our own interpretations.

These people will face the justice they deserve.

This is all about punishing the pros that took funds from FTP and put all the online players rolls at risk. The FTP deal will go through, but there will be public payback as Barry has just found out:

GBT:
Laurent Tapie, the managing director of French investment firm Groupe Bernard Tapie,
So the question to all the pros is how much is their rep worth? if they pay their loans back they will be embraced by the poker community. If they ditch it, GBt will make them look like degens publicly, with additional info disclosed in the future.

FTP deal is 100 % certain now.

Read more: http://www.pokernews.com/news/2012/0...012--11928.htm

No this is not correct. I'm sure they are asking for some kind of contract whereby they get paid after the completion of the deal.

No, they won't. Most of the people that took out loans owe far more to the players. If players aren't repaid in full, they will be in the players' sights. Frankly, it's unlikely they will be embraced no matter what they do. Perhaps, not hated would be possible.

Embraced may have not been the right term. You know what I mean tho.

I am surprised at the backlash Barry has gotten for his response. His reasoning seems like he has the best interest of the players who had their money seized at heart. It seems like it would have been in his best interest to accept their deal for less than what he even owed and would have kept his name out of the public as having an unpaid debt. He wants to pay in full but also wants to help players. Give the guy some credit.

Also, reading his poker news interview, it became more clear how he views the loan and that Full Tilt never asked him to repay at any point so he wasn't really worried about it. He mentions how capital is very important in the gambling world and it is common for no interest loans and that it has always counted as going to repay if you acknowledge you owe the money and plan to pay. Being that he knew the owners pretty well I assume from all the years playing together, he never thought it was an issue and they would ask if needed or he would get to it when he was paid back.

For everyone hating on him, if you had a no interest loan that you hadn't been asked to repay, would you immediately pay back? (Everyone who says yes doesn't understand finance because you should always invest it and earn off the money you were loaned)

Pay back the money that you owe damnit
As a non american 20+ having a big chunk of my networth locked up on FullTilt i find your decision making very insulting. You seem to value money lost by americans alot higher. Now whether that is because pissed off americans can have a much bigger inpact on your everyday life, or if it's just the yankee-mindset of you being more valuable i dont know, it's pretty disgusting tho.

Grunch.

I just have to say that using the excuse that someone who has donated to charity cannot possibly be in the wrong on any of these issues is completely ridiculous. I've always had respect for Barry G compared to a lot of other well known poker players but if you owe a debt and don't pay it you are no better than Chino Rheem in my book. You are in a position to help and give more information and all you've done is make a couple vague posts in a thread that you knew would demand way more attention than you have given.

how can u say that?
we are not sure about debts, yet.
what actually can break the deal.
http://www.igamingfrance.com/full-ti...e-scenes/26186

why ? , its not Barry greensteins fault full tilt gave him a loan (which is standard in any gambling venue , casinos etc ) ..he didnt mismanage full tilts money . full tilt owners did . Barry has agreed to pay back his loan , now the question what is the best way he should pay it back ...im not sure why everyone is pissed off at barry .

Not Barry. That's why I said most

+1 save some hate for the pros with the bigger debts that not even made a statement so far.





lol! just downright ridiculous!

Again, I'm basing my opinion on what I've read from other sources, primarily S:P. I could be misremembering, I've already said that upfront. But my current understanding is that FTP was solvent at some time. Whether or not they danced back and forth across the solvent/insolvent line a couple of times, I have no idea. Not only have I not seen the account stuff myself, but I'm not a forensic accountant.

But if you take this view it doesn't really matter anyway. Regardless of FTPs financial situation at the time of the loan, I doubt they informed players like Barry of their financial situation and gave them the money anyway. It seems as if only a few people on the top (and probably the lawyers/accountants) were ever aware of their financial situation and the amount of dividends they were blowing through.

In the real world, this kind of loan only exists between friends or family members (and between the Fed and Wall Street banks).

So yes I would pay it back as soon as I could.