Latest AP press release

scott1 · #1 11-09-2007, 12:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
please don't let this go away. I can feel interest is waning on this subject and by the numbers AP's business seems to have gone on rather unaffected. Their lies in the beginning totally contradict so many things in this statement it's insulting to anyone who has kept up

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe anyone still plays there. The best punishment they could receive would be for every poker player to boycott the site and never sign up for a any site these people try to start in the future. It would send a message to the rest of the sites as well.

PoorSkillz · #2 11-09-2007, 12:51 PM

Hey Nat, what are your thoughts on whether Scott Tom is still associated with AP, considering that AP only mentioned that one "known perpetrator" was terminated in their latest release?

N 82 50 24 · #3 11-09-2007, 01:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Nat, what are your thoughts on whether Scott Tom is still associated with AP, considering that AP only mentioned that one "known perpetrator" was terminated in their latest release?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going to be talking about this as extensively as possible. But the general summary is that I think he retains his ownership interest and is probably at least more removed than before from operational control.

highhustla · #4 11-09-2007, 03:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Nat, what are your thoughts on whether Scott Tom is still associated with AP, considering that AP only mentioned that one "known perpetrator" was terminated in their latest release?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going to be talking about this as extensively as possible. But the general summary is that I think he retains his ownership interest and is probably at least more removed than before from operational control.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this not the most ridiculous thing ever? How can you support them on any level if this is the case? WTF?

mntbikr15 · #5 11-09-2007, 03:41 PM

Just playing devils advocate....but couldnt it be true that you cant simply "boot" an equity owner out?

*I know nothing about such things, just a thought

highhustla · #6 11-09-2007, 03:52 PM

I'm sure it is.

My point is, how can ANYONE support a company w/ this structure? Where one of the major stakeholders defrauded their customers? We can never, ever, ever support Absolute.

burningyen · #7 11-09-2007, 04:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Just playing devils advocate....but couldnt it be true that you cant simply "boot" an equity owner out?

*I know nothing about such things, just a thought

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the meeting would go something like this:

Minority shareholders: Hey Mr. 51% owner, we think you’re a slimy jerk and should be fired.
Mr. 51%: OK, let’s vote on it.
Minority shareholders: Um, OK. All in favor say aye. Aye! All opposed say nay.
Mr. 51%: Nay.
Company secretary: The nays have it.
Minority shareholders: Foiled again!

mntbikr15 · #8 11-09-2007, 04:37 PM

Haha that made me chuckle....but yea, sorta what I was wondering

mntbikr15 · #9 11-09-2007, 04:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just playing devils advocate....but couldnt it be true that you cant simply "boot" an equity owner out?

*I know nothing about such things, just a thought

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the meeting would go something like this:

Minority shareholders: Hey Mr. 51% owner, we think you’re a slimy jerk and should be fired.
Mr. 51%: OK, let’s vote on it.
Minority shareholders: Um, OK. All in favor say aye. Aye! All opposed say nay.
Mr. 51%: Nay.
Mark Seif : The nays have it.
Minority shareholders: Foiled again!

[/ QUOTE ]

N 82 50 24 · #10 11-09-2007, 04:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Nat, what are your thoughts on whether Scott Tom is still associated with AP, considering that AP only mentioned that one "known perpetrator" was terminated in their latest release?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going to be talking about this as extensively as possible. But the general summary is that I think he retains his ownership interest and is probably at least more removed than before from operational control.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this not the most ridiculous thing ever? How can you support them on any level if this is the case? WTF?

[/ QUOTE ]
My main interest is seeing a fair game and open company going forward. I've basically realized that companies can't just boot owners, but hopefully he will not have any operational control at any point. I don't really have a problem with it if he sits in Panama and collects checks though, especially because there's nothing I can do about that.