You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
so ps's can still supply poker to players outside the "US" for now.
currently ft are being bought out by a european business ... and will be paying out the funds that has been suspended as soon as possible as far as i know anyway.
but i do suspect that it could be a couple weeks possibly months before the issues are resolved because it does look quite messy!
Been following all the news recently .... luckily I never played there but I feel for everyone who's been shafted. And Chris Ferguson was I think the first player I 'looked up to' when I first discovered Hold 'em a few years ago :-/
I'm not impressed with Alderney to be honest. Their statement and reaction is essentially them shrugging their shoulders and saying 'We did everything right, it was those guys who messed you up. Don't call us anymore, we're done, call the police.' From what I can see Alderney have technically and legally done nothing wrong. However I feel morally they should have done more to check on the liquidity available to pay FT's client base. Ring fencing of customer funds from company funds should be an absolute requirement rather than a recommendation. And the matters regarding payment processing just looks very messy. I'm glad other sites registered with Alderney have ringfenced, have separate accounts and as far as I can tell run themselves in a much better fashion.
I also think you have to look at the DOJ. Please correct me if I'm wrong but haven't they frozen some of the FT accounts and have a vast amount of the company's funds? As far as I can tell they are showing no interest at this point of treating the players as anything other than another creditor and of course they fully intend to take their cut first, which looks like being the whole of the pie.
The bulk of the blame lies with someone or some people at the top of FT, but I feel both Alderney and the DOJ could have/can do more for the players. Again as far as I can see neither of the later group have done anything technically or legally wrong. In terms of ethics and good practice I have my reservations.
Feel free to be corrected on any of the above, with so much misinformation/hysteria going around it's quite easy to get the wrong end of the stick.
I'm willing to hold off condemning the man until all the information comes out. Heard both sides of it regarding Ferguson (for instance, in a recent interview Mike Matusow claimed Ferguson gave the majority of his dividends to charity and was offered the money as part of his shareholding rather than was behind a nefarious plot). Amazing to think he'll probably never walk into a cardroom again regardless though. Less so for Lederer as he as been more business than play for quite some time. A lot more to come out over this no doubt.
There is a difference in the responsibilities of a Shareholder and a Director. Directors are responsible and accountable for the operational aspects of a company. Shareholders are not. The roles of the individuals will be crucial in the forthcoming court action. I'm a British Gas shareholder - if they fiddle the tax man I cannot be held responsible.
I'm not impressed with Alderney to be honest. Their statement and reaction is essentially them shrugging their shoulders and saying 'We did everything right, it was those guys who messed you up. Don't call us anymore, we're done, call the police.' From what I can see Alderney have technically and legally done nothing wrong. However I feel morally they should have done more to check on the liquidity available to pay FT's client base. Ring fencing of customer funds from company funds should be an absolute requirement rather than a recommendation. And the matters regarding payment processing just looks very messy. I'm glad other sites registered with Alderney have ringfenced, have separate accounts and as far as I can tell run themselves in a much better fashion.
The AGCC have shown themselves to be toothless tigers. Once the DOJ actions are completed it will be interesting to see if any claims are made against the AGCC by players who had money deposited in a site that was supposedly overseen by them. All sites that come under the jurisdiction of the AGCC are supposed to have ringfenced the players funds as it's a condition of their licence to operate. That may make the AGCC culpable in any losses incurred by players.
I also think you have to look at the DOJ. Please correct me if I'm wrong but haven't they frozen some of the FT accounts and have a vast amount of the company's funds? As far as I can tell they are showing no interest at this point of treating the players as anything other than another creditor and of course they fully intend to take their cut first, which looks like being the whole of the pie.
This is normal practice for government agencies both in the USA and in Britain. Any company that goes into liquidation, or is forced into liquidation, then the state agencies such as Tax, VAT and National Insurance are the number one creditors. Everyone else forms a queue behind them and fight over the scraps.
The bulk of the blame lies with someone or some people at the top of FT, but I feel both Alderney and the DOJ could have/can do more for the players. Again as far as I can see neither of the later group have done anything technically or legally wrong. In terms of ethics and good practice I have my reservations.
This is no different to any company going into receivership. Customers in a holiday firm that goes bust lose their holidays and deposits (unless they have insurance to cover it). Other businesses that supply the liquidated company generally get very little back. The state agencies come first, followed by banks or similar who have joint and several guarantees from the Directors and everyone else takes whatever they are owed as a percentage of what's left.
Feel free to be corrected on any of the above, with so much misinformation/hysteria going around it's quite easy to get the wrong end of the stick.
You understand it correctly Tommy, I'm just pointing out the fact that this is normal practice. Poker players are no different to any customer or supplier in any other business.
Thanks for your reply Elsa. A couple of points in reply.
In regards to Ferguson, I am just appealing for a little calm. In my opinion, if I understand his position in the company correctly, he has at best been negligent. His true involvement and level of knowledge into the operations is yet to be revealed. He cannot use 'I didn't know what they were doing' as an excuse for a clean slate however.
Regarding creditors, the company funds frozen by the DOJ are not being queued up for a tax debt. It's for a potential fine which may be applied as a result of pending legal action. The debt, at this precise time, does not exist to the U.S. Government, it exists to the players and presumably other creditors such as suppliers etc (I think the AGCC are actually on the list as well for some unpaid bills). I'm not up on American Law and have a vain hope this should make a difference. If FT go bust now would this change where the players are in the queue?
Hi Tommy
Last part first - I'm not up on American law either but there will be very similar rules to this country. I don't think it will make any difference to where the players stand. The state creditors always come first. I'm sure there will be tax evasion in the mix somewhere and that's a state matter. Regardless of the amount owed the state will take their dues. Next in line will be preferential creditors - banks etc who have security charges against the company and the directors. Suppliers may take priority if they have any form of security or tenure of assets. Customers ie. the players will be last in line. It may be different in the states but I doubt it.
As I mentioned in the earlier post there is a difference of responsibility in the roles of Directors and Shareholders. Directors are responsible for the day to day running of the company and therefore any debts etc that may be incurred. It would require, for example, the signatures of Directors to open a bank account. Shareholders would normally have no executive control unless they were both Shareholder and Director. With regards to Ferguson, if he was purely a shareholder then yes, the statement that he didn't know what was happening and had no control would be valid. That I'm sure will be something the DOJ will investigate and something his defence will strive for in order to remove his responsibility. As an added complication there is a time limit for ex-directors to be responsible after resignation and a lot will depend on when certain things happened.
As regards the debt not existing to the government I don't know. If there is a suspicion of tax evasion then the assets could be seized to cover that debt. If the assets were seized purely as a measure to ensure any future fines are paid then that may be the norm in the USA. If it is then nothing changes, the government will want their pound of flesh before anyone else. The rest will fight over the scraps. Suppliers will be better placed to get something (assuming there is something left after the state gets it's dues) than individual players. The more information comes to light the worse the players position appears to be.
At the end you mention what would happen if FT went bust now. My understanding is that they are. Any company which cannot fulfill it's financial obligations and service it's debts, the Directors have by law to place the company in administration. FT appears to be in that position and has ceased trading. There may be offshoots that have sprung up but they are separate entities. Every company is a separate entity in it's own right. The different companies may have the same board of Directors but a Limited company in the UK and an Incorporated company in the states are separate entities. As far as I can see the original FT set-up is bust.
I don't think the doj has any interest in the players at all.
The money was frozen/confiscated as the proceeds of crime,e.g. money laundering.
If a drug dealer is busted they do not give any money confiscated to the addicts he sold the drugs to.