UB Software Provider Out - The Merry-go-round continues

[fleece_me]

[ QUOTE ]
Excapsa to Sell Assets, Scrap Listing on U.S. Gaming Crackdown

By Keith Campbell

Oct. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Excapsa Software Inc., whose products run gambling Web sites, said it will sell its operating assets, becoming the latest company to withdraw from U.S. online gaming after Congress cracked down on the industry.


[/ QUOTE ]

Make no mistake about this or any other public company "ceasing to do business" in the United States. What is happening is the founders of these companies are re-purchasing the entities that they took public at inflated prices. In this case, Russ Hamilton, Phil H, et all.

The same thing happened with Leisure and Gaming (the VIP Group) and is potentially happening with Sportingbet and WWTS.

The people getting absolutely brutalized here are the shareholders.

It is very sad because the truth of the matter is that all these enterprises were already illegal. Why in the fcsck do they think they were operating in third world countries to begin with? lol.

Very sad fleecing being delivered to shareholders and the people that made the founders of these companies rich. The founders are going to keep getting rich and the shareholders get brutalized.

Link to Bloomberg article (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aFZdS8n5Ejbs)

The only good thing to come of this is we can humor ourselves at the names of the entities re-buying what they already sold at deflated prices. In this case, it is "Blast Off Ltd. of Malta.". Not sure if this is a quickie they rushed through to get incorporated or what.

[BluffTHIS!]

You mean the same story as was related in this Excapsa (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=7639467&an=0&page=0#Post 7639467) thread on this same page below?

[gonebroke]

I hope the exchange these companies are listed on does a full investigation and arrest these SOB's.

[fleece_me]

Well I missed that thread but the larger point I am trying to make is that what we are seeing is a systematic robbing of the shareholders of these places.

Their businesses were already illegal.

Quite frankly, this is the best thing to ever happen for most of these founders. They sold their companies at IPOs at ridiculous multiples and now get them back for pennies on the dollar.

The companies keep on making the big money.

This stuff was already illegal and to see the shenanigans happen now is almost too much to behold.

Truly one of the greatest heists in the history of our time.

[wpr101]

UB = Ultimate Bet right? So the company making their software is shutting down?

[fleece_me]

I agree.

I mean where was the shareholders meetings held to decide to sell the software side of UB back to Russ H?

Where are the declarations from the AIM that these businesses cease trading if they don't get out of the US market?

Where are the declarations from the UK that these companies are breaking the law?

Of course they were all breaking the law. Sports betting has been illegal since 1961 and most of these poker sites are breaking a ton of state gambling laws by operating in each state. Of course there has never been a single state CRIMINAL prosecution of a gambling site so they can operate with impunity.

The whole thing is a scam and a very profitable one at that.

[BluffTHIS!]

So basically you created this thread to say "investing in online poker concerns is rigged" didn't you?

[fleece_me]

[ QUOTE ]
UB = Ultimate Bet right? So the company making their software is shutting down?

[/ QUOTE ]

When UB "went public" only the software company was floated. The poker site itself was not. The software company only had UB and UB affiliates like Devilfish as customers anyway.

What is happening now is the software company (which has nothing to do with any gaming transaction) is being re-bought at an absurd price by the founder of the company.

Compare and contrast this to Cryptologic, potentially in the same boat as Exscapa only worse since they are traded on the NASDAQ. Crypto was up 2% or so today.

The whole thing is a scam. The gaming operators were already breaking the law and Exscapa was just the software arm of UB broken off to cash in while keeping the operations part of UB private.

[repulse]

I read the article and don't quite understand what it means. Can somebody knowledgeable explain what this means for the future of UltimateBet? Thanks.

[BluffTHIS!]

UB's software provider is dumping their gaming software business, so UB either has to start maintaining and upgrading their software themselves, or find new software.

[fleece_me]

[ QUOTE ]
So basically you created this thread to say "investing in online poker concerns is rigged" didn't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Didn't see the other thread. Quit being a nit and behold the awesomeness of the theft that is taking place here.

They took a company public for several hundred million dollars.

Annie Duke and Phil H made 30 million each. Antonio Made 1 million for his 1/4 of 1 percent.

They are buying it back for 10 million.

Get it?

[BluffTHIS!]

Good for them and bad for the suckers who invested.

[fleece_me]

[ QUOTE ]
I read the article and don't quite understand what it means. Can somebody knowledgeable explain what this means for the future of UltimateBet? Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

The founders of UB just dumped 10 million back into the online gambling business.

It is great news for UB players because it is a 10 million dollar commitment to stay in business.

[ QUOTE ]
UB's software provider is dumping their gaming software business, so UB either has to start maintaining and upgrading their software themselves, or find new software.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Who do you think EXCAPSA was? It is and was and always will be UB.

When there is fear, 2 things happen. You can get rich(er) and you can use that fear as an excuse to do otherwise unexcusable things.

Behold the great robbery.

[tmfs]

[ QUOTE ]
I read the article and don't quite understand what it means. Can somebody knowledgeable explain what this means for the future of UltimateBet? Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MagCFO]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree.

I mean where was the shareholders meetings held to decide to sell the software side of UB back to Russ H?

Where are the declarations from the AIM that these businesses cease trading if they don't get out of the US market?

Where are the declarations from the UK that these companies are breaking the law?

Of course they were all breaking the law. Sports betting has been illegal since 1961 and most of these poker sites are breaking a ton of state gambling laws by operating in each state. Of course there has never been a single state CRIMINAL prosecution of a gambling site so they can operate with impunity.

The whole thing is a scam and a very profitable one at that.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you aren't thinking about is the possible shareholder suits that could arise from doing business in the US (where poker is illegal).

If something happens (an executive is arrested by the DOJ) and the stock price tanks, shareholders will sue left and right.

I believe that is the main factor in public companies pulling out.

[fleece_me]

MagCFO, I disagree. When we see Cryptologic pull out and Real Time Gaming relocate from United States soil then I will believe you. As a shareholder I want to see them continue to do business here and I don't care who goes to jail as long as they stay in business. This isnt about lawsuits this is about pulling a damn good move at the perfect time.

Also note that the biggest provider of sportsbook software is a company called ASI. They are also located stateside.

This was a perfect opportunity to have a burglary and that is exactly what happened.

You can see how a regulated, ethical software company conducts itself by watching cryptologic.

[schlucky1]

WTF, I just read half of this thread and it's giving me a headache. Is this good or bad? Is UB staying or going? Simple answers please.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

Please read the article carefully before inciting a riot. This company is NOT shutting out its US business. Instead, it has sold its business to a private, offshore entity that will have fewer concerns from a legal angle.

THERE IS NO REASON, BASED ON THIS ARTICLE, TO BELIEVE THAT ULTIMATE BET WILL BE CHANGING ITS PLANS ANY TIME SOON. In fact, it is probably deseriable to have as many links in the online gambling chain as possible sold to private interests.

[Vern]

[ QUOTE ]
Please read the article carefully before inciting a riot. This company is NOT shutting out its US business. Instead, it has sold its business to a private, offshore entity that will have fewer concerns from a legal angle.

THERE IS NO REASON, BASED ON THIS ARTICLE, TO BELIEVE THAT ULTIMATE BET WILL BE CHANGING ITS PLANS ANY TIME SOON. In fact, it is probably deseriable to have as many links in the online gambling chain as possible sold to private interests.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nate,

Having read the whole thread, I think that was tehir point but they added the opinion that it was a sleezy move against the share holders. I did not get any doom and gloom on UB's continued operation from the thread, just a general impugning of the ethics of the UB operators.

[Zele]

Meh, buying shares is risky. I don't see anything particularly sleazy in this.

[fleece_me]

[ QUOTE ]
Meh, buying shares is risky. I don't see anything particularly sleazy in this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please. This company just went public in February. Here are there supposed earnings from 2005

[ QUOTE ]
2005 net income increased 104% to $23.3 million ($0.13 diluted EPS)
from $11.5 million in 2004 ($0.06 diluted EPS)

[/ QUOTE ]

If you owned shares in a company that made 23 million last year and that company was sold for NO REASON for 10 million dollars, would you be a little pissed?

They were only public for a few months.

Don't get me wrong, the ex-CFO of crypto worked at Excaspa and I am sure if CRYTPO could somehow figure out a way to take the company private and screw the shareholders they would. The difference I guess is that the shares are too diluted and they trade on a less corrupt exchange - the NASDAQ.

[Tofu_boy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meh, buying shares is risky. I don't see anything particularly sleazy in this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please. This company just went public in February. Here are there supposed earnings from 2005

[ QUOTE ]
2005 net income increased 104% to $23.3 million ($0.13 diluted EPS)
from $11.5 million in 2004 ($0.06 diluted EPS)

[/ QUOTE ]

If you owned shares in a company that made 23 million last year and that company was sold for NO REASON for 10 million dollars, would you be a little pissed?

They were only public for a few months.

Don't get me wrong, the ex-CFO of crypto worked at Excaspa and I am sure if CRYTPO could somehow figure out a way to take the company private and screw the shareholders they would. The difference I guess is that the shares are too diluted and they trade on a less corrupt exchange - the NASDAQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

company not sold for 10mil.
130 mil. 10 mil. now and 120 mil pay for the next 5.5 yrs.

[Tofu_boy]

Excapsa will receive an initial $10 million in cash and the remaining $120 million in scheduled payments over the next five and a half years

[fleece_me]

[ QUOTE ]
Excapsa will receive an initial $10 million in cash and the remaining $120 million in scheduled payments over the next five and a half years

[/ QUOTE ]

With what assurances exactly? The venerable word of Blast off media's? LOL

This company just floated for a staggering $113 million pounds in february. That's around $200 million US.

It was repurchased for $10 million and the promise that some shell company owned by we-all-know-who is going to make payments. Or what exactly?

The funniest thing is that in a few years when everyone figures out:

1) The sites were already breaking the law and
2) The people breaking the new law are the processors not the sites

these founders will probably IPO these companies again.

It is a scam of grand magnitude. To buy a 200 million dollar company for 10 million and cash on hand when there is no reason too. CRYPTO is traded on the NASDAQ for crying out loud. And their stock has been up the past 2 out of 3 days.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a scam of grand magnitude. To buy a 200 million dollar company for 10 million and cash on hand when there is no reason too. CRYPTO is traded on the NASDAQ for crying out loud. And their stock has been up the past 2 out of 3 days.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not a $200 million company...

In addition to the buyout price, cash is being returned to the shareholders.

... and what does the movement of cryptos stock over the last 3 days have to do with anything!

[BluffTHIS!]

Sniper,

The crypto stock thing is obviously all part of the dastardly conspiracy that fleeced him.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Sniper,

The crypto stock thing is obviously all part of the dastardly conspiracy that fleeced him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff, do you think I should let him know that I've personally traded enough crypto stock long and short over the last few days to account for most of the stock price movement /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Nah..shhh... don't tell him... its all just a grand conspiracy... yeah that's it...

[fleece_me]

The point is that crypto and excapsa are in the same business. one made up an excuse to rob the shareholders and go private.

The whole thing is a joke I can't believe you guys would deny it.

If the whole issue is regulation and the new bill then why is Crypto up 2 of the past 3 days and why is Excapsa sold back to it's founders for next to nothing?

Sniper - how is a company with '05 23 million net profits and 50% growth not a 200 million dollar company????????????????????

You guys are a) underestimating the scuminess of the the UB founder, b) underestimating how easy it is to get away with stuff like this in a supposed crisis and c) underestimating the link between crypto and ub.

They can't both be right. Someone is lying. Either crypto will have to cease trading and close or Exscapa is lying about why it gave the company back to UB.

Sniper and BluffThis why don't you tell me why one can keep trading and the other needs to have a fire sale if it isn't fraud?

[BluffTHIS!]

Because one can't make it without US customers (UB) and can only keep them by going private, and the other (crypto) can make it with their euro customers after they dump the US players they have. It's that simple.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Because one can't make it without US customers (UB) and can only keep them by going private, and the other (crypto) can make it with their euro customers after they dump the US players they have. It's that simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[fleece_me]

What makes you think crypto's licensees don't have the same ratio of US customers as everyone else? Give me a break. It's the same 90%+ cited elsewhere.

And what about Real Time Gaming? A huge casino software provider still located stateside with the same business model as CRYPTO?

Excapsa went private for one reason and one reason only. They could of kept on operating just like CRYPTO but they saw a great opp to steal a 200 million dollar company for 10 mill and took it.

The AIM sounds like a great place to defraud the masses with zero chance of consequence.

[BluffTHIS!]

fleece,

You are obviously right and were indeed screwed, and screwed hard. Sorry we didn't see that right away. Now run along and find another high risk stock and ignore the warnings of things that could go wrong. After all, the stock market's not supposed to be gambling!

[fleece_me]

Bluff you are right it is gambling. I would never invest in Russ Hamilton venture but what is happening here should be criminal.

[Botchman]

Fleece Me I UNDERSTAND YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I HAVE GOOD READING COMPREHENSION. You said nothing about UB pulling out of the US market!!! Can I get a sticker????

[faustusmedea]

[ QUOTE ]
Because one can't make it without US customers (UB) and can only keep them by going private....

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff, can you explain why this is? I don't understand why private sites are protected anymore than a public company.

[Vern]

[ QUOTE ]
fleece,

You are obviously right and were indeed screwed, and screwed hard. Sorry we didn't see that right away. Now run along and find another high risk stock and ignore the warnings of things that could go wrong. After all, the stock market's not supposed to be gambling!

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually the stock market is not gambling by legal decree.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because one can't make it without US customers (UB) and can only keep them by going private....

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff, can you explain why this is? I don't understand why private sites are protected anymore than a public company.

[/ QUOTE ]


All the public companies (listed on stock exchange) are dumping US customers because of perceived legal liability issues, so in order to keep them, which they must because US customers are a huge majority of their player base, they (UB) have to take the company private. The already private companies like stars don't have this concern.

[faustusmedea]

Right, but I guess I am wondering exactly what kind of legal liabilities a public corp would have that a private firm would not?

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, but I guess I am wondering exactly what kind of legal liabilities a public corp would have that a private firm would not?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not so much a case of "legal liability" as it is a case of having jittery investors and being in the public spotlight. Public companies like Party have analysts, mutual fund managers, and individual stockholders hounding them constantly about every blip on the stock radar screen. Private companies do not suffer this type of intense scrutiny.

This explains IN PART the radical differences between the reactions thus far of Stars, Full Tilt, and Absolute vs. the publicly traded firms.

[ed8383]

What sites are the ones owned by Crypto?

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
What sites are the ones owned by Crypto?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that Crypto owns any sites, they just lease the software to skins. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

[faustusmedea]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right, but I guess I am wondering exactly what kind of legal liabilities a public corp would have that a private firm would not?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not so much a case of "legal liability" as it is a case of having jittery investors and being in the public spotlight. Public companies like Party have analysts, mutual fund managers, and individual stockholders hounding them constantly about every blip on the stock radar screen. Private companies do not suffer this type of intense scrutiny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, OK. I was wondering more if there was something strict about being listed when you have been declared a lawbreaker in another country, in other words a hard rule forcing them out. The reason I ask is all of these guys made what appears to be hasty moves. I mean Party pulling out didn't protect the share price, it just floodgated the inevitable. And now with Paradise being sold to a private firm for a buck, the night before signing just seems like there is some kind of hard/fast situation.

[Lucky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Excapsa to Sell Assets, Scrap Listing on U.S. Gaming Crackdown

By Keith Campbell

Oct. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Excapsa Software Inc., whose products run gambling Web sites, said it will sell its operating assets, becoming the latest company to withdraw from U.S. online gaming after Congress cracked down on the industry.


[/ QUOTE ]

Make no mistake about this or any other public company "ceasing to do business" in the United States. What is happening is the founders of these companies are re-purchasing the entities that they took public at inflated prices. In this case, Russ Hamilton, Phil H, et all.



[/ QUOTE ]

i'm confused, what do russ h and phil h actually own? If they own ub, how has this not been an issue as of yet?

[blueodum]

It is very sad because the truth of the matter is that all these enterprises were already illegal.

Only in parts of the United States.

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]


If the whole issue is regulation and the new bill then why is Crypto up 2 of the past 3 days and why is Excapsa sold back to it's founders for next to nothing?

[/ QUOTE ]

CRYP was down 18% on "Bad Beat Monday" (although intraday, it was down more than that).

CRYP is up two out of the last three days because more people decided to buy it than decided to sell it, basically. There were enough people who thought that, in the long run, the company will do well and that the current price was a good deal.

I owned CRYP before the fall and bought more when it crashed.

Why? Without getting into all the reasons (you seem to like CRYP, so you know many of them), one big one is that only 30% of its customers (well, the customers of its clients) are from the US. It is much more internationally diversified than some of the other sites, which, in my mind, makes it a safer bet in the long run.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think crypto's licensees don't have the same ratio of US customers as everyone else? Give me a break. It's the same 90%+ cited elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fleece, You really should take a look at their finacial releases... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[fleece_me]

Sniper I do not care what they say in their financial releases it is 100% B.S. And so what if it isn't? Where do we see CRYTPO's licensees pulling out of US market? If this is a licensee decision like it is at Realtime Gaming then shouldn't CRYPTO be immediately indicted? Why aren't the US based software companies being carted off in shackles? CRYPTO and Excapsa can't both be right here. One of them is wrong and/or lying. I think we know who that is.

Also, my prediction about getting stiffed for the "payments" has already come to fruition. The law hasn't even passed yet and the Excapsa website is down, the company has been sold for 1/10th of what it went public for and the founders/new owners have a great excuse not to pay anyone:

[ QUOTE ]
The Times October 13, 2006

Deferred portion of £130m Excapsa sale raises questions
By Dominic Walsh

EXCAPSA, the AIM-listed internet gambling software company, became the first company in the sector to sell its US-facing operations, signing a $130 million (£70 million) deal last night with a private Maltese rival.

However, legal sources immediately claimed that the deal, a response to the impending US ban on internet gambling, was almost certainly illegal because $120 million of the price will be deferred until after the law takes effect today.

A source said that plans by Leisure & Gaming, a quoted internet gambling operator, to sell its US-facing business appeared to have foundered over the same issue. The source said: "Because of the deferred consideration this deal will open Excapsa to conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting charges charges under the new law. They would be making money out of an illegal operation."

Last night Sportingbet was racing to seal the sale of its US operations to a private operator, although it is understood to be discussing a deal worth $1, thus avoiding legal problems.

Meanwhile, two of Britain's biggest banks are to stop dealing with internet gambling companies that continue to target US punters. Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), both of which have big banking operations in the US, have decided that the legal and reputational risks of continuing to deal with US-facing operators are too great. Although most of the big quoted operators have drawn up plans to close or sell their US operations, many private operators, including Bodog.com and PokerStars, intend to continue dealing with US punters.

PokerStars, which has a banking relationship with RBS, insisted that the impending US ban does not alter the US legal situation with respect to online poker. It said that whereas the new law, expected to be signed today by President Bush, effectively outlawed gambling on "a sporting event or a game subject to chance", poker was exempt as a game of skill.

Barclays said: "We are contacting our customers to ensure that they will conduct their operations in full compliance with the legislation."

[/ QUOTE ]

What a beautifully orchestrated, premeditated heist we have just witnessed.

P.S. I don't see these people running for cover. Why? Because they have no powerless shareholders to scam (http://www.realtimegaming.com)

And let's not all forget to laugh at the "private Maltese rival". Amazing the stuff they come up with.

[fleece_me]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because one can't make it without US customers (UB) and can only keep them by going private....

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff, can you explain why this is? I don't understand why private sites are protected anymore than a public company.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point. The private sites aren't protected any more. The problem with public companies is the boards are made public and subject to indictment in the United States.

There is no difference. What they are doing has been and always will be illegal in the united states. This law changed nothing. It made something that was already illegal a little more illegal. The public companies are using it as an excuse to take the companies private and bilk the shareholders.

It is happening and anyone in the industry will tell you the same thing. How do you think Sportingbet found dozens of buyers for all the World Gaming sites so quick? LOL. They didn't. They sold them all for $1? One dollar? Give me a break. It is a scam to defraud the shareholders.

Sportsbook.com is the biggest sports book in the world and it was sold for a dollar?

LOL

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
Annie Duke and Phil H made 30 million each.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like there's going to be another $30 million in the poker economy soon.

[fleece_me]

Here is more proof that what I said is indeed happening. The whole entire thing is a sham beyond our wildest imaginations. These guys are transferring businesses worth hundreds of millions of dollars for practically nothing.

At least with UB they made it a few million, but the principle is the same: Give the company back to the founder for next to nothing and screw the shareholders.

[ QUOTE ]
Sportingbet NEWS ALERT

Questions have arisen regarding the sale of the Sportsbook.com
business by Sportingbet, after one possible bidder suggested it was
sold on the cheap.

Calvin Ayre, founder and chief executive of Bodog, said: "I would have
bought Sportsbook for millions if they had not cut off negotiations."

Ayre was speaking after it was confirmed this morning that his company
had bought the gaming operations of Betcorp this morning for US$9m
(£4.8m). Including liabilities, the full enterprise value was US$11m.

Sportsbook.com was sold for US$1 just ahead of President Bush signing
the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act to a company called
Jazette Enterprises. The ownership of Jazette remains undisclosed.

Ayre suggests he got in touch with Sportingbet chief executive Andy
McIver ahead of the sale of Sportsbook.com to Jazette to register an
interest.

The suspicion that Sportsbook.com was sold for less than Sportingbet
could have got for the operation is sure to cause some concern to
shareholders in the company. There might also be questions raised
about the sale by Leisure and Gaming of its VIP business, also for US$1.

Ayre said he was still in the market for further acquisitions. "I am
still interested in purchasing more operations of public companies if
any do get floated to tender, including looking at taking over
Sportsbook or VIP if shareholders are interested in a better offer."

A spokesperson for Sportingbet acknowledged there had been other bids
for the business but offered no further comment.

Sportingbet sealed the deal with Jazette on 12 October, the day before
Bush signed the Act, on legal advice that it should not continue to
provide gaming services to US-based residents following the signing.

Sportingbet received a cash consideration of US$1 and also disposed of
excess liabilities amounting to approximately US$13.2m. Sportingbet
also estimated the cost of severance and closure would have come to
another US$14m.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Salmon]

I fail to see anything unethical in what UB has done.

Unless their investors were as thick as bricks and are congenital open mouth breathers, they must have known that this was a high risk investment, i.e. they could make a huge bundle or lose almost their entire initial investment. They HAD to have known the risks assuming they had more than two neurons to rub together.

UB merely did what UB had to do to stay in business.

[MiltonFriedman]

"What is happening is the founders of these companies are re-purchasing the entities that they took public at inflated prices. In this case, Russ Hamilton, Phil H, et all."

(That sounds wrong. According to other sources, UB was purchased by Absolute's owners, not the former UB software owners.)

"The same thing happened with Leisure and Gaming (the VIP Group) and is potentially happening with Sportingbet and WWTS."

BetWWTS was bought by BoDog, who had nothing to do with it in any of its former incarnations.

Before you cry big tears for shareholders, research the BetOnSports offering memorandum which literally warned potential investors in that IPO that they could go to jail for buying any shares.

[MiltonFriedman]

Did you even read any of the offering documents for these companies ?

[MiltonFriedman]

I know there are all sorts of sites with much less than 90% US player base.

(What effect the BetFair dumping of Crypto will have when it takes effect is a different issue than diversification of their customer base.)

By the way, WHY is this in the legislative forum and not Stocks ?

[Sniper]

Hi Milton,

fwiw, I reminded the leg mods a while ago, that they could move threads like this to the finance forum, if they so desired.

[fleece_me]

[ QUOTE ]
I reminded the leg mods a while ago, that they could move threads like this to the finance forum, if they so desired.

[/ QUOTE ]

We need a crimes and misdomeaner forum. Seriously, Milton how can you not find quarrel with selling something for 1 dollar that someone else would have paid millions for?

I don't think anyone here understands what a massive property sportsbook.com was. It was big enough to allow them to buy Paradise. It was the envy of all sportsbook operators. Sportsbook.com was a huge, huge operator and they were sold for 1 dollar.

And this is excusable for what reason? There is risk in investing in internet gambling companies?

Of course there is risk. Legal risks, not risks that companies are going to be given away, back to the founders, for zero money.

They sold something for 1 buck that someone else would have paid millions for. What distorted reality do you people live in where any of this is acceptable?

[MiltonFriedman]

"Seriously, Milton how can you not find quarrel with selling something for 1 dollar that someone else would have paid millions for?'

1. Excapsa: You have been beatinbg a drum about the sale by Excapsa being an "inside job" by Russ Hamilton and Phil Hellmuth. The actual facts are that the purchaser was NOT an insider. Rather, it was Absolute Poker's owners. They paid $10 million, plus another $120 million in dept. Did they get a great deal ? Yes .... but it was not an inside job, sorry.

2. Sportsbook sale: You are frothing at the mouth over this one. Did you forget that the Seller also shed about $27 million USD in liability, including shutdown liability, if operations had been discontinued ? (Whether such a sale really dumps liabilities that easily may be questionable, if the buyer defaults on them, but just because Calvin Ayres says he would have paid more upfront, it may not have been a bad "fire sale" of US facing assets.)

Did you really get that burned on all these investments or are you just a railbird with a loud voice ?

[El Diablo]

fleece,

Much of what you say about UB/Excapsa and the scheming involved in/around that venture is absolutely correct.

However, what others say about the risks of investing in offshore gaming companies traded on potentially questionable exchanges is also very true.

[MiltonFriedman]

"Much of what you say about UB/Excapsa and the scheming involved in/around that venture is absolutely correct."

My information had the purchaser as a third party, Absolute Poker, actually. My source is pretty good.

However, you are a well respected poster in these parts, so I have to ask:

Are you saying that the purchaser was NOT Absolute Poker or some other third party ?

Are you saying that a $57 Million cash disbursement, plus a $120 million Note are not an appropriate price for a US facing operation that was publicly valued at $200 million before the legislation ?

I have no financial interest in UB or Excapsa, but where do you get any information that the sale is an "inside" job or even unfairly priced ? If there were no "inside job", the the OP's claims fall apart. You seem to confirm his story, on what basis ?

[El Diablo]

MF,

I know no details about the deal itself and most definitely did not confirm anything about their latest transaction.

"Much of what you say about UB/Excapsa and the scheming involved in/around that venture is absolutely correct."

I was just making a much more general comment about various capital structure issues and other shady stuff involving those entities that a number of insiders there have commented on.

Again, I have no idea about anything having to do with the latest transaction (which is why I used the term "venture" instead of "deal"), my apologies for not being clearer as I can see how that could reasonably be inferred from my statement.