Phil Ivey statement on Full Tilt Poker payouts

Jbutcher77 said:

The guy is FT. He's one of the top 4 or 5 owners of FT. He's just trying to cover his ass and get out of being sued. He owes everyone money.

Why do you think he's not playing any WSOP. He knows people are after him. Someone already almost kicked Juanda's ass.

Click to expand...

First thing, he isn't an "owner" as if someone owns a company, sure he has a stake in FT like many of the others, but he has a bigger stake. Shares or whatever you want to call it.

I don't see how you say he's trying to cover his own ass, why or how can he be sued? It's just like someone who has a 0.5% stake in a company, it doesn't mean they get sued. It's the actual directors and CEO's who will get sued, the people who have been indicated for example. Phil Ivey was never one of those people, or he would of been charged with all the illegal activities that went on wouldent he? It's those people who should be hunted, not the figure heads..

It's like saying if pokerstars didn't pay out, would people be gunning for poker star pros?

lol @ someone already kicked Juandas ass, where and why was this?

Poker Orifice said:

Thanks for the updated info. Big huge sigh..... fk u Phil Ivey!

Click to expand...

.On top of that they have many more owners who they paid out very aggressively (*cough* Phil Ivey *cough*),
I wonder how much some of them were making? .. obv mirrions... but how many mirrions?


I'm surprised your out for Phil Ivey PO!

As for robo, not sure what he means "cough cough Phil Ivey" being paid out along with "many" other owners. I'm not sure he even know what an owner is.

I can't see Phil Ivey or any other being paid out or he wouldn't of wrote this statement, would he?

As I stated, of course some of these players including Phil Ivey earned money from FT with stakes they had in FT, but I think that's irrelevant and think they stand to lose more than the average customer.

ramdeebam said:

First thing, he isn't an "owner" as if someone owns a company, sure he has a stake in FT like many of the others, but he has a bigger stake. Shares or whatever you want to call it.

I don't see how you say he's trying to cover his own ass, why or how can he be sued? It's just like someone who has a 0.5% stake in a company, it doesn't mean they get sued. It's the actual directors and CEO's who will get sued, the people who have been indicated for example. Phil Ivey was never one of those people, or he would of been charged with all the illegal activities that went on wouldent he? It's those people who should be hunted, not the figure heads..

It's like saying if pokerstars didn't pay out, would people be gunning for poker star pros?

lol @ someone already kicked Juandas ass, where and why was this?

Click to expand...

James Bord after the first wsop event. Juanda had to be escorted out because he was waiting for him in the parking lot. It was over FT. Surprised you didn't see it. It's all over online.

Also Ivey is worried about the DOJ that's why he's doing this. I have a feeling this is his move to try and distance himself from FT.

You're telling me that the DOJ isn't going to look into this guy's finances now? Especially with all the stuff coming out about how crooked FT was selling 100% rake back accounts to anyone that had the $.

Jbutcher77 said:

James Bord after the first WSOP event. Juanda had to be escorted out because he was waiting for him in the parking lot. It was over FT. Surprised you didn't see it. It's all over online.

Also Ivey is worried about the DOJ that's why he's doing this. I have a feeling this is his move to try and distance himself from FT.

You're telling me that the DOJ isn't going to look into this guy's finances now? Especially with all the stuff coming out about how crooked FT was selling 100% rake back accounts to anyone that had the $.

Click to expand...

I didn't hear about that no. What has that got to do with Juanda with whats happened to FT? It's like every single pro would be hunted now, how ridiculous does it sound and how idiotic these people who are "waiting" for these people are. Just read about James Bord, what an idiot he is though, I mean what difference does Juanda have and him calling him personally a "thieving *****" is just lol. He obviously just wanted to be in the lime light, get a little bit of fame for his "out burst" It makes absolute NO sense for him doing this to him.

I'm still not sure why Phil Ivey would be worried about the DOJ, at the end of the day he is just a normal player like the rest of us, of course as the number one figure head in poker. This shouldn't give them a reason to look into him just because he had big shares in FT, he's clearly disappointed by FT actions as when you see the DOJ have let them now pay out U.S players, they haven't actually done so. All the majority of monies is invested elsewhere as far as I'm aware so that's why they can't release the funds, I'm sure this applies to Phil Ivey,Tom Dwan, Patrick Antionus etc who most likely have the biggest amounts of money on there.

I'm still unsure of the 100% rakeback selling to people for dollars, never heard of that? Again though, what reasons would that have to investigate Phil Ivey? I mean for one, like he really cares about rakeback in all honestly and accounts. I'm quite sure he didn't have any sort of input/control over that stuff.

He was merely a big figure head for FT with a big stake in FTP so of course he is going to be angry at how it's all been portrayed and how it makes him look. He's the most respected player in the game and nearly everyone looks up to him, including other big name pros. For him to be labelled as one of the main leaders of FTP and now all this crap has happened it puts him in a very bad light indeed.

I for one, don't blame him for his statement, he needs to be clear to all other players that he has no involvement in the background of what goes on at FTP. It could quite easily come across with him saying nothing that he's hiding something, him distancing himself from them now in my eyes shows he's disgusted with who's/was associated with and how they have treated the American players recently.

Bord v Juanda supposedly had zero to do with FTP/BF.

If what Andrew Robl says is true and I tend to think so - then Phil Ivey is so wrong in doing this but not knowing all the parameters of why he did so one might also believe that he may have gotten ill advice from his lawyers and made a poor judgement.

ramdeebam said:

As for robo, not sure what he means "cough cough Phil Ivey" being paid out along with "many" other owners. I'm not sure he even know what an owner is.

I can't see Phil Ivey or any other being paid out or he wouldn't of wrote this statement, would he?

Click to expand...

Robl was talking about payments made BEFORE Black Friday. A normal / conservative company retains most of its profits to continue operating with and only distributes a small portion to shareholders each year (some don't even pay anything). Robl is alledging Full Tilt paid too much out to those with a stake in the company and that's one of the factors contributing to them now not having money on hand to pay out US players.

I suspect it's something either along those lines or tournament staking makeup that Full Tilt are referring to in their statement.

Jbutcher77 said:

James Bord after the first WSOP event. Juanda had to be escorted out because he was waiting for him in the parking lot. It was over FT. Surprised you didn't see it. It's all over online.

Also Ivey is worried about the DOJ that's why he's doing this. I have a feeling this is his move to try and distance himself from FT.

You're telling me that the DOJ isn't going to look into this guy's finances now? Especially with all the stuff coming out about how crooked FT was selling 100% rake back accounts to anyone that had the $.

Click to expand...

I think the initial reports said it was over Juanda wearing a FT patch. Dwan didn't wear one and didn't get hassled at all.

epic iveeyy...
he don't play in the WSOP? is it true, then i have to delete him in my fantasy poker challenge....
go on ivey, this is the right way

Ram,

You keep saying that Ivey isn't an owner in the company. That is precisely what he is. A share holder, is a part owner of a company, that's the whole point of owning stock. Just because he isn't on the board of directors doesn't mean that he doesn't have a stake in FTP.

I don't have problem with Ivey suing. He is looking out for himself and that is normal and correct. I don't get where people seem to think that he is doing something for the benefit of the poker community. If he wins any money, its going into his pocket, its not going to be used to pay any US players back. He wants out of a contract so he can be free of a clearly damaged brand.

If the US players are ever to get their money back from Tilt it will probably take a class action lawsuit.

alaskabill said:

Ram,

You keep saying that Ivey isn't an owner in the company. That is precisely what he is. A share holder, is a part owner of a company, that's the whole point of owning stock. Just because he isn't on the board of directors doesn't mean that he doesn't have a stake in FTP.

I don't have problem with Ivey suing. He is looking out for himself and that is normal and correct. I don't get where people seem to think that he is doing something for the benefit of the poker community. If he wins any money, its going into his pocket, its not going to be used to pay any US players back. He wants out of a contract so he can be free of a clearly damaged brand.

If the US players are ever to get their money back from Tilt it will probably take a class action lawsuit.

Click to expand...

There is a big difference though, for one we don't know exactly what shares he holds. We hear it's big, but that's just what people say, we don't know the exact figure.

I know he has a stake in FTP, along with other pros there I imagine but there is a big difference between him and the directors and so on in terms of payments being processed and all the back room stuff. I'm sure he doesn't have any control over that.

It's like I could get shares in manchester united football club, be it 0.00001% but I wouldn't class myself as an "owner" and if the shit hit the fan, I along with the many other people with a stake in manchester wouldn't be held responsible for actions outside of their control in terms of not paying out players/shady dealings and so on.

Sure the majority share holder has a say in stuff that happens and the dodgy dealings that happen, but that is for the people who run the show, not Phil Ivey for example.

At the end of the day, I don't believe for one minute Ivey had any real control in all the crap that has happened, so people gunning for him I think is just stupid.

ramdeebam said:

There is a big difference though, for one we don't know exactly what shares he holds. We hear it's big, but that's just what people say, we don't know the exact figure.

I know he has a stake in FTP, along with other pros there I imagine but there is a big difference between him and the directors and so on in terms of payments being processed and all the back room stuff. I'm sure he doesn't have any control over that.

It's like I could get shares in manchester united football club, be it 0.00001% but I wouldn't class myself as an "owner" and if the shit hit the fan, I along with the many other people with a stake in manchester wouldn't be held responsible for actions outside of their control in terms of not paying out players/shady dealings and so on.

Sure the majority share holder has a say in stuff that happens and the dodgy dealings that happen, but that is for the people who run the show, not Phil Ivey for example.

At the end of the day, I don't believe for one minute Ivey had any real control in all the crap that has happened, so people gunning for him I think is just stupid.

Click to expand...

Look, I don't hate Ivey and as for people "gunning" for anyone, yes that is stupid. Let the legal system do its work. As for Ivey's ownership stake, umm he has a private jet and a seemingly bottomless bankroll given all his craps playing and insanely high prop bets. I think its safe to say, that he probably has a bigger stake in Tilt than you are giving him credit for. Clearly he wasn't involved in the day to day operations but if he did have a large piece of the company than you could argue that it was negligent of him to not take a bigger role in management.

I suspect that as the lawsuit plays out, along with the DOJ we will find out a lot of interesting details about who owns what. Again, I don't hate Ivey, I just don't get the hero worship. He is not doing this for the US players, he is doing this to further his career and his bankroll. That's reasonable but not heroic.

alaskabill said:

He is not doing this for the US players, he is doing this to further his career and his bankroll. That's reasonable but not heroic.

Click to expand...

Oh look. The absence of hyperbole.

Just to nitpick if Ivey has an "ownership" stake in any company it's in Tiltware (the software provider) and not Full Tilt itself. Yes, Tiltware only exists to provide services to one client and they're inextricably linked but technically they're still different companies.

arahel_jazz said:

I think the initial reports said it was over Juanda wearing a FT patch. Dwan didn't wear one and didn't get hassled at all.

Click to expand...

Apparently Dwan turned up wearing one then took it off at some point during the day: http://taopoker.blogspot.com/2011/06/2011-wsop-day-2-iveys-hippodrome-and.html (see Event #3 summary)

ramdeebam said:

There is a big difference though, for one we don't know exactly what shares he holds. We hear it's big, but that's just what people say, we don't know the exact figure.

I know he has a stake in FTP, along with other pros there I imagine but there is a big difference between him and the directors and so on in terms of payments being processed and all the back room stuff. I'm sure he doesn't have any control over that.

It's like I could get shares in manchester united football club, be it 0.00001% but I wouldn't class myself as an "owner" and if the shit hit the fan, I along with the many other people with a stake in manchester wouldn't be held responsible for actions outside of their control in terms of not paying out players/shady dealings and so on.
This ^ doesn't even remotely compare imo - - seems kinda nonsensical imo.
Sure the majority share holder has a say in stuff that happens and the dodgy dealings that happen, but that is for the people who run the show, not Phil Ivey for example.

Click to expand...

idk.... perhaps time will tell

I've heard that Ivey is actually doing this to make sure that players DO NOT get their money back. He's suing in NV and knows, or his legal team knows, it's bullshit because all of FT is outside of the US. He's only doing this to make sure that no one gets their money because FT doesn't have it...and trying to look like a hero in the process...also trying to make sure FT is pretty much worthless as a company so it might be able to be taken over.

Basically Ivey's not against FT...he's trying to not pay out the money by doing this because it's a total BS suit that will never go anywhere, but will cause FT to fail and make sure no one ever gets money that isn't even there to begin with.

Dwan seems to be honest as he says if he is ok with giving all of his money to the players. Just from what I've been hearing.

Jbutcher77 said:

I've heard that Ivey is actually doing this to make sure that players DO NOT get their money back. He's suing in NV and knows, or his legal team knows, it's bullshit because all of FT is outside of the US. He's only doing this to make sure that no one gets their money because FT doesn't have it...and trying to look like a hero in the process...also trying to make sure FT is pretty much worthless as a company so it might be able to be taken over.

Basically Ivey's not against FT...he's trying to not pay out the money by doing this because it's a total BS suit that will never go anywhere, but will cause FT to fail and make sure no one ever gets money that isn't even there to begin with.

Dwan seems to be honest as he says if he is ok with giving all of his money to the players. Just from what I've been hearing.

Click to expand...

Where and from whom did you hear?

Jbutcher77 said:

I've heard that Ivey is actually doing this to make sure that players DO NOT get their money back. He's suing in NV and knows, or his legal team knows, it's bullshit because all of FT is outside of the US.

Click to expand...

*facepalm*

Read the suit. He's suing Tiltware, an American company IIRC, not Full Tilt. Like I said above the two companies are very closely linked but they're still separate entities.

baudib1 said:

IVEY IS THE STONE-COLD IMMORTAL NUTS WITH CHERRY ON TOP!

Click to expand...

Where's the like button?

OzExorcist said:

*facepalm*

Read the suit. He's suing Tiltware, an American company IIRC, not Full Tilt. Like I said above the two companies are very closely linked but they're still separate entities.

Click to expand...

Explain how Ivey suing FT, to put 150 mil in his pocket, helps americans get their money?

At least someone like Dwan is saying take the money I have tied up and give it to the players.

This guy is looking out for #1, which I suppose most would do, but when you combine with the fact that the guy is FT...it's just funny.

Even if Ivey's not some dick...this still ensures that no one will ever see their money. No one's going to loan FT money now.

Jbutcher77 said:

Explain how Ivey suing FT, to put 150 mil in his pocket, helps americans get their money?

At least someone like Dwan is saying take the money I have tied up and give it to the players.

This guy is looking out for #1, which I suppose most would do, but when you combine with the fact that the guy is FT...it's just funny.

Even if Ivey's not some dick...this still ensures that no one will ever see their money. No one's going to loan FT money now.

Click to expand...

I was only responding to your point about the suit being "bullshit because all of FT is outside of the US" - he's not suing Full Tilt (which has always been overseas), he's suing Tiltware. Tiltware was originally formed in Los Angeles and while their head offices have since moved to ireland they had to answer the Clonie Gowen case as well as several others filed in the USA.

On your other points I agree, Ivey's lawsuit isn't going to help anyone get their money and obviously he's looking out for himself.

Upper shelf. Some people have integrity and some can't even figure out where to start. Follow Phil's lead, you will never be disappointed.

OzExorcist said:

I was only responding to your point about the suit being "bullshit because all of FT is outside of the US" - he's not suing Full Tilt (which has always been overseas), he's suing Tiltware. Tiltware was originally formed in Los Angeles and while their head offices have since moved to Ireland they had to answer the Clonie Gowen case as well as several others filed in the USA.

On your other points I agree, Ivey's lawsuit isn't going to help anyone get their money and obviously he's looking out for himself.

Click to expand...

You have to look at the bigger picture though. Tiltware has no assets so it makes no sense to sue them...and by no assets I mean it's worth. Sue a software co. for a co. that's worth what? Maybe 80-100 mil...MAYBE...and probably will be worth 0 soon...it doesn't make sense. You don't sue the software co. if you're looking for 150 mil because they have no assets.

Jbutcher77 said:

You have to look at the bigger picture though. Tiltware has no assets so it makes no sense to sue them...and by no assets I mean it's worth. Sue a software co. for a co. that's worth what? Maybe 80-100 mil...MAYBE...and probably will be worth 0 soon...it doesn't make sense. You don't sue the software co. if you're looking for 150 mil because they have no assets.

Click to expand...

...but you do if this is really about getting released from your endorsement contract, not money, and it's the software company that holds the contract.

Anyone who believes Phil Ivey expects a $150 million settlement on this case is dreaming - in fact, I'd be surprised if he actually expects any monetary settlement at all. It's just a negotiating point.

I might be going off on a different point altogether here but this whole Ivey vs FT thing; the way it may hurt not just American cash outs but cash outs for everyone, points out one thing to me.

Which is that maybe closing them down is the right thing to do?

It seems to me that a poker site should not be tying up player money in such a way that a player can not have access to it.

The money I win and keep on any poker site does not come from the site but from other players... they should only have access to the rake. All other money should only be kept in trust.

Gov't regulation could ensure this and I for one would welcome it.

As for Ivey... Ivey does what Ivey wants. While I consider him perhaps the best poker player ever, I've never seen anything from him to indicate he cares about anyone aside from himself.

When I first read his "letter" I thought, "Wow, maybe I was wrong about Ivey" but having mulled it over I changed my mind. I think he is doing more harm than good and his only focus is on what's best for him in this situation.