It will be interesting to see how the whole thing plays out in the judical system if it gets that far. I find it odd that they claim players money return could be facilitated faster if Ivey returns substantial money owing to them. Any business that relies on money coming in from one individual to right the ship is odd indeed. The money should be there. Claiming that if Ivey returns owed money, it would speed up the process is a low blow IMO, designed for PR reasons Posted by AMYBR
that is it... it is clearly obvious that they do not have the money to pay out and simply just looking for reasons to stall the whole process by claiming if ivey did this that and the other players would start to get paid back..... yet would this statement of been made if ivey himself had not made a statement ie FTP outing ivey in regards to owing them money definitely not this is simply just FTP looking for reasons to stall and not look any worse then they already do by passing some if not the majority of the blame onto ivey by claiming they offered him to help pay back he declined.. what do they mean by this what exactly can he do to help pay back other than putting his own money up
It will be interesting to see how the whole thing plays out in the judical system if it gets that far. I find it odd that they claim players money return could be facilitated faster if Ivey returns substantial money owing to them. Any business that relies on money coming in from one individual to right the ship is odd indeed. The money should be there. Claiming that if Ivey returns owed money, it would speed up the process is a low blow IMO, designed for PR reasons Posted by AMYBR
This is going to get very messy.
Full Tilt were/are regulated by our friends The Alderney GCC. Those are the people who provide licences based on a number of criteria. One of those criteria is that they ensure protection of customers funds. Still it's good to know that as a result of the DoJ and FBI investigations, the Alderney GCC have announced that they are going to launch their own investigation. We can all sleep soundly in our beds with that news then. They have just published their 2010 accounts and they enjoyed another good year. They might consider updating the RNG certificate for Sky with some of the profits, it was last checked in September 2009.
In Response to Re: Phil Ivey statement RE DOJ.... : that is it... it is clearly obvious that they do not have the money to pay out and simply just looking for reasons to stall the whole process by claiming if ivey did this that and the other players would start to get paid back..... yet would this statement of been made if ivey himself had not made a statement ie FTP outing ivey in regards to owing them money definitely not this is simply just FTP looking for reasons to stall and not look any worse then they already do by passing some if not the majority of the blame onto ivey by claiming they offered him to help pay back he declined.. what do they mean by this what exactly can he do to help pay back other than putting his own money up Posted by delaney09
In Response to Re: Phil Ivey statement RE DOJ.... : This is going to get very messy. Full Tilt were/are regulated by our friends The Alderney GCC. Those are the people who provide licences based on a number of criteria. One of those criteria is that they ensure protection of customers funds. Still it's good to know that as a result of the DoJ and FBI investigations, the Alderney GCC are going to launch their own investigation. We can all sleep soundly in our beds with that news then. They have just published their 2010 accounts and they enjoyed another good year. They might consider updating the RNG certificate for Sky with some of the profits, it was last checked in September 2009. Posted by elsadog
do alderney GCC also regulate PS ?? if so their player funds clearly are put into seperate accounts from their business funds or whatever they wish to call it if that is the case i find it so hard to believe that FTP can get away with not having these players fund in seperate accounts and yet supposedly blowing all of players funds on their ridiculously confusing marketing campaigns that clearly arent that much of a success....
i also read a lawsuit yesterday from back in '09 for someone suing FTP which named all the owners (or at least %age owners of FTP) which clearly listed Phil Ivey, Gus Hansen, Patrik antonius, Mike Matusow (who claims he had the opportunity to have a %age but declined it) Howard Lederer, Chris Ferguson, Ray Bitar, Erik Seidel, allen cunningham, and a few more who i can not remember. But yet if this is all in black and white in another lawsuit why is it only Ray Bitar who has been Indicted and not all of these people, and if that is the case in that Phil Ivey is still based as one of the owners/shareholders within FTP would that not be like suing himself lol? this whole FTP has got way worse then what it should of done if they had simply just gone the right routes about things
In Response to Re: Phil Ivey statement RE DOJ.... : ?do alderney GCC also regulate PS ? if so their player funds clearly are put into seperate accounts from their business funds or whatever they wish to call it if that is the case i find it so hard to believe that FTP can get away with not having these players fund in seperate accounts and yet supposedly blowing all of players funds on their ridiculously confusing marketing campaigns that clearly arent that much of a success.... i also read a lawsuit yesterday from back in '09 for someone suing FTP which named all the owners (or at least %age owners of FTP) which clearly listed Phil Ivey, Gus Hansen, Patrik antonius, Mike Matusow (who claims he had the opportunity to have a %age but declined it) Howard Lederer, Chris Ferguson, Ray Bitar, Erik Seidel, allen cunningham, and a few more who i can not remember. But yet if this is all in black and white in another lawsuit why is it only Ray Bitar who has been Indicted and not all of these people, and if that is the case in that Phil Ivey is still based as one of the owners/shareholders within FTP would that not be like suing himself lol? this whole FTP has got way worse then what it should of done if they had simply just gone the right routes about things Posted by delaney09
In Response to Re: Phil Ivey statement RE DOJ.... : do alderney GCC also regulate PS ? No PS are regulated in the Isle of Man. Posted by elsadog
ahh right obviously the IOM have stricter policies then the AGCC in that they actually ensure that there are seperate accounts for both player funds and marketing/daytoday business funds where as AGCC dont seem to be paying much attention in regards to FTP that is anyways
In Response to Re: Phil Ivey statement RE DOJ.... : do alderney GCC also regulate PS ?? if so their player funds clearly are put into seperate accounts from their business funds or whatever they wish to call it if that is the case i find it so hard to believe that FTP can get away with not having these players fund in seperate accounts and yet supposedly blowing all of players funds on their ridiculously confusing marketing campaigns that clearly arent that much of a success.... i also read a lawsuit yesterday from back in '09 for someone suing FTP which named all the owners (or at least %age owners of FTP) which clearly listed Phil Ivey, Gus Hansen, Patrik antonius, Mike Matusow (who claims he had the opportunity to have a %age but declined it) Howard Lederer, Chris Ferguson, Ray Bitar, Erik Seidel, allen cunningham, and a few more who i can not remember. But yet if this is all in black and white in another lawsuit why is it only Ray Bitar who has been Indicted and not all of these people, and if that is the case in that Phil Ivey is still based as one of the owners/shareholders within FTP would that not be like suing himself lol? this whole FTP has got way worse then what it should of done if they had simply just gone the right routes about things Posted by delaney09
If you look on pg 1 of this thread I asked the question in relation to what exactly is Ivey's business relationship to FT, as I was aware of the elements mentioned in your post.
I never goy an answer though and its very hard to source on t'interweb as you put in Ivey/FT the first 20,000 hits are Advert pitches
In Response to Re: Phil Ivey statement RE DOJ.... : If you look on pg 1 of this thread I asked the question in relation to what exactly is Ivey's business relationship to FT, as I was aware of the elements mentioned in your post. I never goy an answer though and its very hard to source on t'interweb as you put in Ivey/FT the first 20,000 hits are Advert pitches Posted by AMYBR
Ivey is/was a shareholder within FTP as were/are other players that much i do know ( meaning each owned a certain % some owning more than others.. is alleged that ivey was/is the 3rd largest shareholder within ftp after only I can assume Lederer/Ferguson, Lederer/Bitar, Ferguson/Bitar)
I don't think you will find that sort of information on the internet as i am pretty sure they do not out that sort of information publicly, ie the owners,shareholders etc etc.
I did however as stated in previous post read in a previous lawsuit from '09 that Ivey along with others back then is still or was a big part of FTP's owners/majority shareholders which by his statement possibly means he is no longer a big part of the company which could suggest he sold the part that he did own to Bitar to make him a majority shareholder and therefore the outright owner of FTP but that is just my 2 pennys worth i could be completely wrong, and probably am.
In Response to Re: Phil Ivey statement RE DOJ.... : Ivey is/was a shareholder within FTP as were/are other players that much i do know ( meaning each owned a certain % some owning more than others.. is alleged that ivey was/is the 3rd largest shareholder within ftp after only I can assume Lederer/Ferguson, Lederer/Bitar, Ferguson/Bitar) I don't think you will find that sort of information on the internet as i am pretty sure they do not out that sort of information publicly, ie the owners,shareholders etc etc. I did however as stated in previous post read in a previous lawsuit from '09 that Ivey along with others back then is still or was a big part of FTP's owners/majority shareholders which by his statement possibly means he is no longer a big part of the company which could suggest he sold the part that he did own to Bitar to make him a majority shareholder and therefore the outright owner of FTP but that is just my 2 pennys worth i could be completely wrong, and probably am. Posted by delaney09
Thanks. I was aware of some of the elements of this. I always wondered as to elements of conflict of interest with some of the red pros as I've played some pretty large MTT's on FT with many of the people you list as shareholders.
Hmm... either way, if it goes to a court of law the exposure/details could be very interesting for all of us.
In Response to Re: Phil Ivey statement RE DOJ.... : Thanks. I was aware of some of the elements of this. I always wondered as to elements of conflict of interest with some of the red pros as I've played some pretty large MTT's on FT with many of the people you list as shareholders. Hmm... either way, if it goes to a court of law the exposure/details could be very interesting for all of us. Posted by AMYBR
yeah the red pros are very different to Ivey Dwan Hansen Antonius and a few others ( ivey etc are Team Full Tilt ) most of them have some sort of %age within FTP afaik apart from Dwan who i believe is just apart of team full tilt where as the red pro's literally know as much as anyone who has kept up with the whole thing only difference is they represent FTP where as the team full tilt know alot more then they are letting on to know
In Response to Re: Phil Ivey statement RE DOJ.... : This is going to get very messy. Full Tilt were/are regulated by our friends The Alderney GCC. Those are the people who provide licences based on a number of criteria. One of those criteria is that they ensure protection of customers funds. Still it's good to know that as a result of the DoJ and FBI investigations, the Alderney GCC have announced that they are going to launch their own investigation. We can all sleep soundly in our beds with that news then. They have just published their 2010 accounts and they enjoyed another good year. They might consider updating the RNG certificate for Sky with some of the profits, it was last checked in September 2009. Posted by elsadog
Leaving aside the RNG line we've all gone over before and concentrating on the FT issue:
At risk at defending the site, FT did have in their T & C's that customer funds are held with company funds. Did Alderney GCC require this to be ring-fenced? Or is just having the amount at anyone time on the company books meeting their criteria for protection?
Comments
i also read a lawsuit yesterday from back in '09 for someone suing FTP which named all the owners (or at least %age owners of FTP) which clearly listed Phil Ivey, Gus Hansen, Patrik antonius, Mike Matusow (who claims he had the opportunity to have a %age but declined it) Howard Lederer, Chris Ferguson, Ray Bitar, Erik Seidel, allen cunningham, and a few more who i can not remember. But yet if this is all in black and white in another lawsuit why is it only Ray Bitar who has been Indicted and not all of these people, and if that is the case in that Phil Ivey is still based as one of the owners/shareholders within FTP would that not be like suing himself lol? this whole FTP has got way worse then what it should of done if they had simply just gone the right routes about things
If you look on pg 1 of this thread I asked the question in relation to what exactly is Ivey's business relationship to FT, as I was aware of the elements mentioned in your post.
I never goy an answer though and its very hard to source on t'interweb as you put in Ivey/FT the first 20,000 hits are Advert pitches
I don't think you will find that sort of information on the internet as i am pretty sure they do not out that sort of information publicly, ie the owners,shareholders etc etc.
I did however as stated in previous post read in a previous lawsuit from '09 that Ivey along with others back then is still or was a big part of FTP's owners/majority shareholders which by his statement possibly means he is no longer a big part of the company which could suggest he sold the part that he did own to Bitar to make him a majority shareholder and therefore the outright owner of FTP but that is just my 2 pennys worth i could be completely wrong, and probably am.
Hmm... either way, if it goes to a court of law the exposure/details could be very interesting for all of us.
At risk at defending the site, FT did have in their T & C's that customer funds are held with company funds. Did Alderney GCC require this to be ring-fenced? Or is just having the amount at anyone time on the company books meeting their criteria for protection?