I don't believe these were loans in the same way UB loaned money to people to buy houses. The "loans" were to high stakes regulars. Given the way they had to put money onto the sites i.e.; claiming the deposits are things like golf equipment, etc., it would probably throw up a red flag if say Lindgren wanted to deposit $500,00 and they list a $500,000 transaction for golf equipment or whatever. That's a big money transfer to try and explain to the banks. So instead FTP would just say ok we'll just credit your FTP account with the amount you want to deposit and you can tell us when to take it out to repay the debt. I would think it's more extending lines of credit the way casinos do than actual money loans. I of course could be wrong but this is what would make the most sense. And in that case would it be wrong for the player to accept the line of credit? No it would not. And also you can't hate on Barry for not saying anything until outed because the entire situation is a tricky one to talk about given how things said or not said could effect legal matters. Plus it's also not wrong to say I'm going to wait to pay it back until I know exactly where the money is going. Would you guys rather the money get paid back ASAP and then possibly confiscated and going nowhere or would you rather they wait and make sure what they pay back goes towards something like paying players?

Yes.

Isn't the whole "zero-interest loans to insiders dance" a form of money laundering?

Usually accompanied by a "finder's commission"?

I'm sure you're probably correct about the AGCC regulations, you seem relatively well informed. But those regulations are a joke if they actually allow keeping all the money in one big pot, instead of safely segregating the player deposits.

I guess both enforcement and regulation are a joke over there.

Barry is scum. I bet he would be ecstatic if the deal fell through and he got to keep his 400k. Just pay your debt and stop the act...

#1 Question: Can Barry and others put the cash in an escrow? Something that guarantees the money goes to Full Tilt/Tapie once players are paid in full without actually putting it into FT's coffers?

I think that's a reasonable compromise for everyone.

The ******ation of NVG never ceases to amaze me. Carry on....

BG should start his own segregated account. He can still control it. There may not be any "others".

If he was such a stand up guy he would have already paid up, and would not need to be making the thread in the first place.

The bottom line here is literally the bottom line from his interview with PokerNews:

He doesn't feel he should have to pay back his loan until the shareholders pay back their dividends, his refusal to pay has nothing to do with protecting player interests.

I think this is what Tapie offered him. And he turned it down.

Do you realize he gives away all his tourny earnings to charity? The poker world is full of sleezy, lying degenerates, trash talking slime, outright thieves and lowlifes. The one guy whose character is unquestionable, whose actions prove that he thinks of others, by giving away millions of $s, is getting bashed? In a poker world filled with Chino Rheem's, or etiquette lacking bad sports like Allen Bari, Barry G gets ripped. Its comical.
This is a relatively small sum of money to him and regardless of the size small or large, he has every intention of paying it back. He said he has never not paid back money he has owed and is not going to start here.
He came here and gave thoughtful, honest answers to every main point that was asked or questioned. He even gave shared his thought process as to why he has proceeded the way he has. Ask yourself, why would someone who gives away all his tournament winnings to charitable endeavors, decide to stiff $400,000 or whatever the dollar amount is because no one was looking?

Why not pay it off promptly and not carry the debt around for years? That's what he wrote in his book: if you owe don't wait until the lender hounds you - pay it back when you have the money.

He used to give tourney winnings to charity when it was the minor portion of his income - and of course that was commendable. But that hasn't been the case for awhile.

And it's a little bit easier to give money to charity when you can get $3 million in casino markers.

This thread should have been closed after post #41. He doesn't want to avoid payment; just wants to make sure the appropriate party is paid.

The appropriate party is GBT after the deal is concluded, but Barry doesn't want to pay GBT.

He should be paying of his debt before giving any money to charity.

this ainec

Sigh. Perhaps you should think before you post. Essentially you have butted into a conversation with a complete non-sequiter, twice.

Joe Tall asks "how do we know FTP ever made a profit?" I point out to him that since their current net debt is less than the total distributions, there must have been an operating profit at some time. (And yes, I am glossing over the possiblity of new capital infusion, which was then returned as distributions, because there's no indication of such ever happening, as you yourself say. If it had been an issue I would have referred to "total distributions less return of capital".)

You then pipe up and say that there is a difference between operating profit and profit after distributions and loans. This is a true statement, but so is piping up and saying that the Blue Jays have won more World Series than the Expos ever will. True, but totally irrelevant to the point being discussed. You are opening a different topic but framing it improperly as a contradiction to what I am saying.

Instead of putting it so bluntly, I pointed out that the difference in types of profit is not of material importance to the point I was making (which is that we know FTP once made a profit.)

Your response to that is "Yes, it does make a difference."

No, the fact that "operating profit" is not the same as "profit after distributions and loans" doesn't make a difference to the question of whether we can show whether FTP ever made a profit. It may make a difference to something else that we weren't talking about, but so what? I never said that the difference in meaning of those two types of profit was generally inconsequential.

----

It is pretty well an established fact that FTP looted player funds in order to pay improper distributions (or as a consequence of paying distributions, for those who want to believe they did it only out of stupidity). Most of what I refer to as "current net debt" is the looted player funds. Whether they actually looted player funds to make improper loans is mostly a matter of the timing of those loans. The loans, however, were contrary to AGCC regulations even if they were only made at the time when FTP still covered player funds.

Finally, in the relationship between current net debt, loans made, and total distributions, distributions and loans made have different effects. Distributions increase net debt. Loans made do not (until they have to be written off because they go bad). Loans made merely decrease cash on hand, but they correspondingly increase assets. "Operating profit" is a normal accounting term. "Profit after distributions and loans" is not.

In those posts of mine, I was not disputing whether it was important to know when the looting of player funds began, or when FTP turned into a criminal organization. That was not the subject of the sub-thread. If you want to change the topic of discussion, don't do it by way of a response to a subthread on another matter, especially with an opening sentence that seems to be (but isn't) a direct contradiction of the point of the post you responded to. Start your own sub-thread, or better yet, put it in the containment thread or start a whole new thread, as most appropriate to the topic you wish to discuss.

I'm inclined to agree.

These two statements are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Thought he stopped doing that a while back?

It's entirely possble that what GBT is really doing WRT these loans is something similar to getting the debtors to put the amount of the loan into escrow. It is not unusual at the late stage of due diligence in an acquisition for the prospective purchaser to try to get debtors to go on record acknowledging the debt and committing to pay once the deal is done. Payment plans could be an additional detail in such discussions.

(Credit for this thought goes to poster Gioco, who is a retired lawyer with experience in such matters.)

if what your saying is true and 400k means so little to him, then why hasn't he paid the money back already? It looks like his own actions refute your logic.

Total distributions could have been greater then net-revenue.

Barry would be happy to be broke right now. BrokeLivingJRB has more money than Barry when you factor in debt. He gave money to charity back when he had money but it was a tax right off so it didn't really cost him anything. He hasn't done that in ages and he is one of the biggest losers in the cash games over the last 5 years. You people on here just don't know the truth about these TV pros. You think they all have millions but many of them are busto and Barry has been for years. He owes everyone money not just FTP.

He explained it very clearly. Whether you agree or disagree he laid out the reason why AND rationale behind it making your question redundant.

If he no longer gives his tourny earnings to charity, hardly takes away fact that he did do this.