Black Friday and the aftermath: Online Poker Implications

[DungBeetle]

LOL - is this Bernard Tapie, the former squeaky clean owner of Marseille football club??   

[TightEnd]

LOL - is this Bernard Tapie, the former squeaky clean owner of Marseille football club??   

Yes. see about 30 pages ago 

[doubleup]

Here is a lol that shows how pathetic our government is.

The EU is consulting on the online gaming market.  The UK responded as did pokerstars

In response to this question -

What are the main advantages/difficulties associated with the coexistence in the EU of differing national systems of, and practices for, the licensing of on-line gambling services?

from the uk govt

Advantages:
Consumers benefit because they experience the same protections. The regulatory authority
has access to information on which to regulate the market (including conducting
investigations).

Disadvantages:
For operators, however, this means an increase in costs of obtaining multiple licences and
being regulated by multiple regulators who each have different standards.

Solution:
Given the wide variation in cultural approaches to gambling, we are not convinced that EU wide
harmonisation is both workable and desirable. Multiple licences are, therefore, an
inevitable result but we believe the disadvantages and obstacles to intra-community trade can
be minimised if all operators providing facilities for gambling to a particular Member State’s
consumers should be subject solely to the jurisdiction of that Member State. Our reforms will
ensure consistency and a level playing field amongst operators, as those based outside the UK
will be subject to identical regulatory standards and requirements as those based in the UK.


from pokerstars

In summary, it is PokerStars' position that the existing fragmented regulatory landscape in the Internal Market, results in the following adverse consequences:

1. Differing levels of protection for players;
2. Difficulty in amassing sufficient liquidity on ring-fenced national platforms, encouraging players to seek unregulated alternatives (which may be less safe);
3. Higher operator costs due to compliance and the loss of "economy of scale" advantages, resulting in reduced profitability for operators, and higher costs for players;
4. Efforts, money and time spent on legal proceedings as a result of inconsistencies and uncertainties;
5. Loss of income for media and advertising industry as a result of inconsistent regulatory restrictions; etc.

PokerStars supports standardization of the regulatory regimes accross the Internal Market, on the basis of a well based analysis and understanding of the needs of consumers, opertaros, satellite industries and regulators, as well as an in depth familiarity with the unique characteristics of the online gaming industry. We support harmonization of technical standards, and other forms of cross-border cooperation to remove unnecessary and unjustified barriers to market access.


One of these responses is nonsensical drivel.


links if anyone is interested

https://circabc.europa.eu/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/3e95d819-1cb6-4194-ab18-7963cb956578/PokerStars.pdf

https://circabc.europa.eu/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/0acc630c-ac09-4a95-95a2-1d642409e9e3/UK_Government%20Department%20for%20Culture%2c%20Media%20and%20Sport.pdf

[TightEnd]

http://www.pokerlistings.com/blog/why-lederer-and-ferguson-maybe-took-your-money

[mulhuzz]

Here is a lol that shows how pathetic our government is.

The EU is consulting on the online gaming market.  The UK responded as did pokerstars

In response to this question -

What are the main advantages/difficulties associated with the coexistence in the EU of differing national systems of, and practices for, the licensing of on-line gambling services?

from the uk govt

Advantages:
Consumers benefit because they experience the same protections. The regulatory authority
has access to information on which to regulate the market (including conducting
investigations).

Disadvantages:
For operators, however, this means an increase in costs of obtaining multiple licences and
being regulated by multiple regulators who each have different standards.

Solution:
Given the wide variation in cultural approaches to gambling, we are not convinced that EU wide
harmonisation is both workable and desirable. Multiple licences are, therefore, an
inevitable result but we believe the disadvantages and obstacles to intra-community trade can
be minimised if all operators providing facilities for gambling to a particular Member State’s
consumers should be subject solely to the jurisdiction of that Member State. Our reforms will
ensure consistency and a level playing field amongst operators, as those based outside the UK
will be subject to identical regulatory standards and requirements as those based in the UK.


from pokerstars

In summary, it is PokerStars' position that the existing fragmented regulatory landscape in the Internal Market, results in the following adverse consequences:

1. Differing levels of protection for players;
2. Difficulty in amassing sufficient liquidity on ring-fenced national platforms, encouraging players to seek unregulated alternatives (which may be less safe);
3. Higher operator costs due to compliance and the loss of "economy of scale" advantages, resulting in reduced profitability for operators, and higher costs for players;
4. Efforts, money and time spent on legal proceedings as a result of inconsistencies and uncertainties;
5. Loss of income for media and advertising industry as a result of inconsistent regulatory restrictions; etc.

PokerStars supports standardization of the regulatory regimes accross the Internal Market, on the basis of a well based analysis and understanding of the needs of consumers, opertaros, satellite industries and regulators, as well as an in depth familiarity with the unique characteristics of the online gaming industry. We support harmonization of technical standards, and other forms of cross-border cooperation to remove unnecessary and unjustified barriers to market access.


One of these responses is nonsensical drivel.


links if anyone is interested

https://circabc.europa.eu/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/3e95d819-1cb6-4194-ab18-7963cb956578/PokerStars.pdf

https://circabc.europa.eu/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/0acc630c-ac09-4a95-95a2-1d642409e9e3/UK_Government%20Department%20for%20Culture%2c%20Media%20and%20Sport.pdf

you can read the PokerStrategy.com response here:

http://www.pokerstrategy.com/news/world-of-poker/PokerStrategy.com-s-Draft-Regarding-EU-Green-Paper-on-Online-Gambling_49683/

[TightEnd]

Companies Comprising Full Tilt Poker Claim the Money in Seized Bank Accounts

Jonathan Harris, Chris Ferguson’s attorney, filed quite a few motions on November 14th with the United States District Court (Southern District of New York). One of the motions included allowing the attorney Ian J. Imrich to participate pro hac vice. This essentially means that even though Imrich doesn’t have the license to participate in cases in the state where the trial is going to be held, he will be granted special permission to do so. The attorney is a part of the Los Angeles based Law Office run by Ian J. Imrich.

Harris States Mr. Imrich to be Appropriate for the Case

Harris stated that Mr. Imrich is an attorney with good skills and has been found by Harris to be the appropriate person to handle the case. Imrich has experience in practicing under the federal law and is well aware of the rules.

Four Documents Signed by Chris Ferguson have been Submitted

Chris Ferguson signed and submitted a total of 4 documents to the court. One of the documents mentioned a set of laws that were invoked earlier this year. It has been claimed in the document that Filco Ltd, the defendant, has the right to funds in certain accounts. Two bank accounts were listed out. The document concluded that the stated facts were verified by Chris Ferguson.

The second document asserted claims similar to the first one. The companies mentioned in the document were Kolyma Corporation A.V.V and Vantage LTD. The document stated that the companies are entitled to claim the funds seized by the DOJ (Department of Justice). Quite a few bank accounts which the DOJ seized were also listed.

Similar to the first two, the other documents had similar claims. However, documents mentioning Pocket Kings Ltd. and Tiltware LLC were different. For Tiltware LLC., Chris Ferguson laid claims to quite a few bank accounts. $196,553,080 was the amount claimed. In case of Pocket Kings Ltd., 11 bank accounts were mentioned. The cash amount to be claimed was not stated.

Kolyma and Vantage Claim their Seized Funds

Companies associated with Full Tilt Poker claimed that the money in accounts seized by the DOJ belong to the companies legally. Some are funds deposited by players of Full Tilt Poker. These have to be transferred to Kolyma and Vantage accounts. On the other hand, some funds were deposited by Kolyma and Vantage. The funds were about to be transferred to players’ accounts when the seizure took place.

[doubleup]

you can read the PokerStrategy.com response here:

http://www.pokerstrategy.com/news/world-of-poker/PokerStrategy.com-s-Draft-Regarding-EU-Green-Paper-on-Online-Gambling_49683/

I actually noticed that, I also noticed that it looks like Ladbrokes and WilliamHill couldn't be bothered - their shareholders should tell their management to gtfo.

[mulhuzz]

One of the motions included allowing the attorney Ian J. Imrich to participate pro hac vice. This essentially means that even though Imrich doesn’t have the license to participate in cases in the state where the trial is going to be held, he will be granted special permission to do so. The attorney is a part of the Los Angeles based Law Office run by Ian J. Imrich.

don't see how this is relevant to much. it's v v standard.

[mulhuzz]

FTP confirmed sold.

reported by ps.com here:

http://www.pokerstrategy.com/news/world-of-poker/Breaking-News:-Full-Tilt-Poker-Sale-Complete_53852/

[T8MML]

Now owned by a former bankrupt whose done time for fraud - that's ok then!

[paulhouk03]

Now owned by a former bankrupt whose done time for fraud - that's ok then!

just hope he just gives me my monies back##

dont give a fuck whats hes done never gonna play on that site again

[pleno1]

cantr believe people arent making a bigger deal out of this tbh!

[Longy]

cantr believe people arent making a bigger deal out of this tbh!

I will be excited when the site, is (a) Paying people back (b) Dealing poker hands.

Tbh the poker community has been knocked so badly in the last year, that until we see concrete actions by the new owners, it is hard not to be really skeptical.

[Graham C]

Now owned by a former bankrupt whose done time for fraud - that's ok then!

just hope he just gives me my monies back##

dont give a fuck whats hes done never gonna play on that site again

This for me.  Can't see what is to be achieved by buying it.  If he gives everyone their money back, it's all being withdrawn and no one is going to play there again, if we don't get our money back, we're not playing there again anyway.  Going to have to offer some sick promos to get people playing on Tilt again in my opinion.

[boldie]

Now owned by a former bankrupt whose done time for fraud - that's ok then!

just hope he just gives me my monies back##

dont give a fuck whats hes done never gonna play on that site again

This for me.  Can't see what is to be achieved by buying it.  If he gives everyone their money back, it's all being withdrawn and no one is going to play there again, if we don't get our money back, we're not playing there again anyway.  Going to have to offer some sick promos to get people playing on Tilt again in my opinion.

Plenty people will flock back to FT...people still played at UB as well.