INDUSTRY FORUM

Comments

  • misfit

    http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/14945921/draftkings-bails-fantasyhub-covering-outstanding-debts-players-charities

    Moderation Note: We feel this news is so big it needed its own thread. You can read the other thread for details about the issue.

  • tvsfrink

    @stoptheinsanity said...

    Lol. Project much?

    You think you know what has happened to the money FH collected. I admit that I don’t know. Which one of us thinks he knows everything?

  • tvsfrink

    I’m going to attempt one more appeal to logic rather than emotion. Please feel free to point out what I’m missing, if you want to have an actual discussion, and I’d be happy to listen. Otherwise, spare me the insults and “troll” claims because as some of you are fond of saying, we’ve heard it all before and it’s pointless to keep doing it.

    The more overlay you have, the more free entries you give out, the more 5x bonuses you hand out, the less money you have coming in, and the less money you have available to pay out withdrawals. FH gave away a ton of free stuff and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they ended up just running out of money, as opposed to (by a legal definition) stealing it.

    I have never claimed I know what happened, and it’s certainly possible they just pocketed money that was meant for charities and player payouts. If that happened, they should absolutely face criminal charges. But yelling “these bums should be in jail” without a single piece of evidence? As I keep saying, I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the way internet forums do.

    Again, if you would like to point out how I’m wrong, go for it. But spare me the stupid troll accusations. I’m not the one who isn’t willing to listen to other viewpoints. If considering all angles of a situation makes me a troll, we need to redefine what a troll is.

  • dude_abides7

    @tvsfrink said...

    You think you know what has happened to the money FH collected. I admit that I don’t know. Which one of us thinks he knows everything?

    I think I know what happened to the player money….It was, at the very least, illegally withheld from its owners’ for the better part of a month. What more evidence do you require?

    Don’t be naive. If the player money was there the whole time they wouldn’t have taken issue to people withdrawing their funds. The fact that players couldn’t reasonably suggests FH had moved the money and were spending it elsewhere. It does not matter for what.

    And you want proof? Frigging blood on the walls, blood on the floor, blood on the clothes, but you are insistent on seeing a knife. Give me a break. Draftkings basically indited these guys in their ‘bail-out’ announcement saying the industry could not afford something like this to continue.

    The circumstantial evidence here is damning, but yeah…keep waiting for the smoking gun email from Plappert to a colleague instructing him to dip into the player accounts to pay for A, B and C.

    Or we can assume that since the money was not there it was used in a manner that was illegal, unethical and certainly not with the permission of the user or to the benefit of some charity.

  • tvsfrink

    @dude_abides7 said...

    I think I know what happened to the player money….It was, at the very least, illegally withheld from its owners’ for the better part of a month. What more evidence do you require

    Is it illegal to not process withdrawals? Legitimate question. What law does that break? It’s not right to do so, but is there an actual law on the books that you can prosecute with?

    What FH did was wrong, no question. I’ve never said it wasn’t. My point was that when you bring up wire fraud and criminal actions, that is a much higher bar than unethical actions.

  • tvsfrink

    @dude_abides7 said...

    The fact that players couldn’t reasonably suggests FH had moved the money and were spending it elsewhere.

    I noticed you never answered my question. Did you play on FH? Do you have any idea how much money they actually managed to bring in?

    They owed somewhere around $300k per the ESPN story, $200k to players and $100k to charities. My guess is that they brought in far less than that, based on all the free money they gave away.

    I can admit that I might be wrong…why can’t you?

  • dude_abides7

    @tvsfrink said...

    I have never claimed I know what happened, and it’s certainly possible they just pocketed money that was meant for charities and player payouts. If that happened, they should absolutely face criminal charges. But yelling “these bums should be in jail” without a single piece of evidence? As I keep saying, I’m glad our legal system doesn’t work the way internet forums do.

    Your earlier comments indicated that you didn’t think that there was illegality that occurred and that you didn’t care as “long as people got their money back”.

    Now you are saying that you simply don’t know. Well….guess what, neither do I, but I for one want to find out. I can’t speak for everyone here, but you responded on the last page to my response suggesting/asking if an investigation was underway. I was not wheeling out the electric chair. I was suggesting we get answers. The fact that these guys were bailed out does not excuse them for what may have occurred.

    Can we at least agree that a fair investigation should occur to determine, one way or the other, if illegal actions took place?

  • dude_abides7

    @tvsfrink said...

    They owed somewhere around $300k per the ESPN story, $200k to players and $100k to charities. My guess is that they brought in far less than that, based on all the free money they gave away.

    OK…so you are saying it makes a difference, legally, if they stole money to pay their outstanding bills and or if they stole money to line their pockets?

    No wonder people think you are trolling dude. (I for one do not)

    So a guy robs a bank…does it matter if he uses the money to pay his bookie or to buy a 60 foot yacht?

    Theft is theft man. You want to point to the possible scenarios around the “why”. The “why” does not determine innocence or guilt here. The nanosecond these guys used those funds (regardless if it was for nefarious reasons or not) they potentially broke the law. When laws are broken and peoples’ money is withheld, someone needs to look at that.

    It looks like you are simply attempting to tether yourself to an opposite viewpoint, just for the sake of arguing with people. And you don’t understand why some would view that as annoying?

  • tvsfrink

    @dude_abides7 said...

    Your earlier comments indicated that you didn’t think that there was illegality that occurred and that you didn’t care as “long as people got their money back”.

    Now you are saying that you simply don’t know. Well….guess what, neither do I, but I for one want to find out. I can’t speak for everyone here, but you responded on the last page to my response suggesting/asking if an investigation was underway. I was not wheeling out the electric chair. I was suggesting we get answers. The fact that these guys were bailed out does not excuse them for what may have occurred.

    Can we at least agree that a fair investigation should occur to determine, one way or the other, if illegal actions took place?

    I was speaking for myself when I said I didn’t care, not for others. My concern was that everyone (myself included) gets their money, and that has happened.

    Should a fair investigation take place? Absolutely. I apologize if I gave the impression that I thought otherwise.

  • dude_abides7

    @tvsfrink said...

    Should a fair investigation take place? Absolutely. I apologize if I gave the impression that I thought otherwise.

    “This is our concern Dude. We just don’t know” – Brandt

    OK…fair enough, but inherent in the “I personally don’t care” position one could certainly infer that you don’t think an investigation is justified. That is the way I took it and, as stated, I am not someone who is eagerly looking to call you out for being a troll. It was an honest response to how you commented.

  • tvsfrink

    @dude_abides7 said...

    OK…so you are saying it makes a difference, legally, if they stole money to pay their outstanding bills and or if they stole money to line their pockets?

    No wonder people think you are trolling dude. (I for one do not)

    So a guy robs a bank…does it matter if he uses the money to pay his bookie or to buy a 60 foot yacht?

    Theft is theft man. You want to point to the possible scenarios around the “why”. The “why” does not determine innocence or guilt here. The nanosecond these guys used those funds (regardless if it was for nefarious reasons or not) they potentially broke the law. When laws are broken and peoples’ money is withheld, someone needs to look at that.

    Again, I’m asking what law was broken. You’ve thrown out wire fraud – I don’t know enough about what defines wire fraud to know if that is the case or not. But what law is there that says a DFS operator must process withdrawals upon immediate request? Of course they should do so ethically, but is there a law that says they must do so?

    I do believe this highlights the need for regulation, so that failure to pay out player withdrawals is an actual crime and not just an ethical problem.

  • tvsfrink

    @dude_abides7 said...

    “This is our concern Dude. We just don’t know” – Brandt

    OK…fair enough, but inherent in the “I personally don’t care” position one could certainly infer that you don’t think an investigation is justified. That is the way I took it and, as stated, I am not someone who is eagerly looking to call you out for being a troll. It was an honest response to how you commented.

    Fair enough on your end as well. I have no problem with you as you have shown a willingness to discuss rather than just shout TROLL!!!

    And I can’t stay mad at anyone who is a Lebowski.

  • tvsfrink

    @dude_abides7 said...

    So a guy robs a bank…does it matter if he uses the money to pay his bookie or to buy a 60 foot yacht?

    I don’t think this is an apt comparison. I think a better comparison would be if I give a bank an interest-free loan. Given how low savings account interest rates are these days, that’s basically what happens when you open a savings account. Deposits are FDIC guaranteed, and a bank refusing to pay back the money when you try to withdraw it would be a crime. But (again, as far as I know) there is no similar law in place for DFS operators.

  • dude_abides7

    @tvsfrink said...

    You’ve thrown out wire fraud – I don’t know enough about what defines wire fraud to know if that is the case or not. But what law is there that says a DFS operator must process withdrawals upon immediate request?

    Electronic transfer of funds without the owner’s permission and without having collateral funds there to support the movement is considered wire fraud.

    There is a difference between a lengthy wait period to withdraw and liquidating the player accounts and closing up shop preventing the peoples’ money from being accessed. I really can’t fathom how you can maintain that this is not breaking some type of online marketplace regulation or law?

    You seem to think that just because DFS is largely unregulated that there isn’t predefined rules and regulations as it relates to fund transfers that ALL US BUSINESSES must adhere to.

    DFS might be the wild west, but the banks to which these guys housed the accounts are in fact regulated. Money transfer is serious business, especially those that are done electronically.

    I too am not a lawyer, but I not a wet-behind-the ears college kid either who just fell of the turnip truck. I have enough experience in business and as a business owner to know when something fishy has occurred. Right now, this place smells like a wharf.

  • dude_abides7

    @tvsfrink said...

    Deposits are FDIC guaranteed, and a bank refusing to pay back the money when you try to withdraw it would be a crime. But (again, as far as I know) there is no similar law in place for DFS operators.

    There is…there are laws that prevent any business operating in the US and using US based banks to transfer funds from doing what they essentially did here. You keep acting like DFS regulation and banking regulation need to coexist in order for a DFS operator to be liable for illegal transfer of funds.

  • tvsfrink

    @dude_abides7 said...

    Electronic transfer of funds without the owner’s permission and without having collateral funds there to support the movement is considered wire fraud.

    There is a difference between a lengthy wait period to withdraw and liquidating the player accounts and closing up shop preventing the peoples’ money from being accessed. I really can’t fathom how you can maintain that this is not breaking some type of online marketplace regulation or law?

    You seem to think that just because DFS is largely unregulated that there isn’t predefined rules and regulations as it relates to fund transfers that ALL US BUSINESSES must adhere to.

    What I’m saying is it’s possible (maybe not likely, but possible) that they ran out of money. It’s possible there wasn’t any money to transfer without permission because they didn’t have any of it left. If they paid out more money than they took in, which seems possible given the way they operated (crazy bonuses, tons of free entries, lots of overlay, etc.), it’s not wire fraud because there’s no money transferred without permission. There’s nothing left to transfer, with or without permission.

    If an investigation can suss this out, and they did what you say they did, they should face charges.

    By the way, I’m not maintaining anything, I fully admit I don’t know all the ins, the outs, the what-have-yous. There’s a lot of strands to keep in my head, and while I’m far from a college kid, I have zero experience in business and haven’t pretended as such.

  • dude_abides7

    @tvsfrink said...

    I don’t think this is an apt comparison.

    Of course you don’t…and that sir is where the disconnect is found.

    If FH transferred those holding funds in the commission of a crime (using a legal banking institution at any point along the way) then they would be open to potentially serious charges.

    I don’t feel like going and back and forth here man. All I am saying is that there is a serious amount of smoke here not to at least kick in the door to look for fire.

  • tvsfrink

    @dude_abides7 said...

    Of course you don’t…and that sir is where the disconnect is found.

    If FH transferred those holding funds in the commission of a crime (using a legal banking institution at any point along the way) then they would be open to potentially serious charges.

    I don’t feel like going and back and forth here man. All I am saying is that there is a serious amount of smoke here not to at least kick in the door to look for fire.

    Allow me to restate – it is not an apt comparison under the scenario where they ran out of money rather than pocketing it.

    Your original post ended with “These guys should be facing criminal charges. End of story.” I’m simply trying to say that there is possible scenario, as I outlined above, where they shouldn’t be (legally speaking only).

  • tvsfrink

    @dude_abides7 said...

    I don’t feel like going and back and forth here man. All I am saying is that there is a serious amount of smoke here not to at least kick in the door to look for fire.

    FWIW I appreciate your willingness to discuss this rationally. I agree that it should be looked at, I did not mean to insinuate otherwise and I apologize again for making it seem like I was saying it shouldn’t be looked at.

  • carney259

    • 228

      RG Overall Ranking

    @tvsfrink said...

    What I’m saying is it’s possible (maybe not likely, but possible) that they ran out of money.

    But the point is, even if they run out of their money in their operating account, they are not supposed to dip into players money to cover their operating expenses even if they intended to pay it back. Player funds should be segregated and only used for entry fees. Thus, by definition, you can never “run out” of that money even if the company goes bankrupt. I never played on FH and I don’t know whether they ever made representations that they kept player accounts segregated, but it typically is against the law to use money that is on deposit for a particular purpose for another purpose that the depositor has not agreed to.

  • dude_abides7

    @carney259 said...

    But the point is, even if they run out of their money in their operating account, they are not supposed to dip into players money to cover their operating expenses even if they intended to pay it back.

    Bingo. +1

  • Keith3101

    • 2015 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    @tvsfrink said...

    What I’m saying is it’s possible (maybe not likely, but possible) that they ran out of money. It’s possible there wasn’t any money to transfer without permission because they didn’t have any of it left. If they paid out more money than they took in, which seems possible given the way they operated (crazy bonuses, tons of free entries, lots of overlay, etc.), it’s not wire fraud because there’s no money transferred without permission. There’s nothing left to transfer, with or without permission.

    I guess this is where our views differ. When I said stole everyone’s money, I didn’t mean they pocketed the money and ran. My guess is they “borrowed” player funds with every intention of replacing them once funding came through. (Funding they probably thought had zero chance of falling through.) Using player funds to cover overlay/bonuses is still “borrowing”. In my eyes, that’s stealing. You seem to think that would be a poor business decision but not theft. I’m far from an expert on the law and maybe they didn’t technically commit a crime because DK made everyone whole. If that’s the case, I think we need a new law in place.

  • tvsfrink

    @carney259 said...

    it typically is against the law to use money that is on deposit for a particular purpose for another purpose that the depositor has not agreed to.

    I guess that’s one of my ultimate questions, is this against the law or only something they shouldn’t have done? You said “typically” but does it apply in this case? Which law prevents it? Did they have something in the TOS that allowed it? Would it even protect them if they did? I don’t know. I agree it was wrong, I just don’t know if it was illegal.

  • tvsfrink

    @Keith3101 said...

    I guess this is where our views differ. When I said stole everyone’s money, I didn’t mean they pocketed the money and ran. My guess is they “borrowed” player funds with every intention of replacing them once funding came through. (Funding they probably thought had zero chance of falling through.) Using player funds to cover overlay/bonuses is still “borrowing”. In my eyes, that’s stealing. You seem to think that would be a poor business decision but not theft. I’m far from an expert on the law and maybe they didn’t technically commit a crime because DK made everyone whole. If that’s the case, I think we need a new law in place.

    I agree that there should be a law in place to prevent this (if there isn’t one already). It’s why I support regulation, even if it means the rake has to go up. I’d rather pay a little more rake to know my money is safe.

  • dude_abides7

    @Keith3101 said...

    I’m far from an expert on the law and maybe they didn’t technically commit a crime because DK made everyone whole. If that’s the case, I think we need a new law in place.

    Let me try and help you out here. You rob a bank and get caught, but by the time you are caught you have spent all the money. I come in and pay the bank back, to the dime, what you stole.

    Does this mean that you did not commit an offense worthy of some type of legal punishment?

    DK playing the role of ‘white knight’ does not change the legal implications IMO as it relates to Plappert and the gang.

  • WhiskeyTavon4

    • 909

      RG Overall Ranking

    • 2017 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    • x2

      2014 DraftKings FBWC Finalist

    Also. Can we put to rest this false notion that keeps getting tossed around that Fantasy Hub had huge overlay. They simply didnt. They had a couple large hoops tournaments that overlayed by a few thousand dollars but I doubt in their entire existence they overlayed more than 20-25k. Their market was small. You could get down maybe $400 on an NBA wednesday or friday and they were small tournies. Same with NFL. They just didnt offer a lot of guaranteed contests and never had any real overlay. Fantasy Draft overlayed more in one week than Hub did in its entire existence. Who knows what went on with these clowns and how much coin they ever really had to start with but the structure of their site and how many guaranteed contests they had every night was certainly right in line with a site of their size.

  • X Unread Thread
  • X Thread with New Replies*
  • *Jumps to your first unread reply

Subforum Index

RotoGrinders.com is the home of the daily fantasy sports community. Our content, rankings, member blogs, promotions and forum discussion all cater to the players that like to create a new fantasy team every day of the week.

If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, crisis counseling and referral services can be accessed by calling 1-800-GAMBLER (1-800-426-2537) (IL). Gambling problem? Call 1-800-Gambler (NJ/WV/PA), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (CO) or 1-800-BETS OFF (IA). 21+. NJ/PA/WV/IN/IA/CO/IL only.