Nepenthez-his court case

Comments

  • Sandell85
    7702 posts League Winner
    Dasco wrote: »
    If I remember correctly, was futgalaxy the one that allowed you to bet on games with fifa coins?

    yeah
  • Hullock04321
    549 posts An Exciting Prospect
    Dasco wrote: »
    If I remember correctly, was futgalaxy the one that allowed you to bet on games with fifa coins?

    Yes
  • Thierry-VavaVoom
    4276 posts National Call-Up
    edited February 2017
    Dasco wrote: »
    If I remember correctly, was futgalaxy the one that allowed you to bet on games with fifa coins?

    Yes

    Damn lol thats more than just selling coins. FFS this was so obviously wrong.
  • Retro_G
    33023 posts National Team Captain
    Retro_G wrote: »
    Retro_G wrote: »
    Retro_G wrote: »
    Retro_G wrote: »
    Clancy wrote: »
    SO Nepenthez is in court for promoting gambling but EA sports who makes the game and ask you to gamble on packs isn't in court?

    Either those coins are considered real money, in which case both EA and Nepenthez push children to gamble, or it isn't....

    yeah this is a strong precedent if you're arguing packs are gambling IMO

    the thing is trading card games have being doing this for years. If they decide FUT is gambling then so is Magic the Gathering, Yu-gi-oh, and baseball cards

    You need a licence to sell baseball cards etc. The youtubers hadn't got a licence, hence the fine.

    You don't need a licence to sell cards at all. I'm very much in the 'punish him with all he deserves camp' but don't make rubbish up

    I guess panini don't pay the NHL for a licence, to sell cards associated with the brand?

    https://www.nhl.com/news/nhlpa-and-nhl-agree-to-multi-year-exclusive-trading-card-licenses-with-the-upper-deck-company/c-706745

    What does that have to do with ANYTHING? This is in reference to needing a gambling licence - which no card manufacturers need because they're selling an actual product. Pokemon don't need a licence to sell cards because it's their own product. Panini paying for right to sell official NHL cards is completely irrelevant in this scenario

    If your product is associated with an official brand such as the premier league, you need a licence.

    Oh my god you're thick as ****. This has nothing to do with any licence apart from a gambling one
    - which neither EA nor Nepenthez have. You're seriously just too f*cking stupid to argue with, Jesus Christ. Have rights to players names has nothing to do with this scenario hahahahaha. Clearly you're the one with reading comprehension difficulties, you don't even understand the situation

    You're the muppet who jumped to conclusions, thought I was defending the youtuber. Nothing I wrote even hinted at that conclusion. Nepenthez would've needed a gambling licence, for what he was doing. It's clearly obvious you've the mental capacity of a 12 year old. Have a nice day ya ❤️❤️❤️❤️!

    If you could read you thick **** I never once said you were defending him. You come across as the most stupid person on the forum. In what world did any of the crap you even mentioned relate to the situation? Talking about panini sticker rights for the NHL? Jesus Christ you're stupid

    Where you dropped on your head as a baby? "Sounds like you're trying to defend the punishment." You're as thick as two planks, don't even recall what you wrote.
  • Hullock04321
    549 posts An Exciting Prospect
    Retro_G wrote: »
    Retro_G wrote: »
    Retro_G wrote: »
    Retro_G wrote: »
    Retro_G wrote: »
    Clancy wrote: »
    SO Nepenthez is in court for promoting gambling but EA sports who makes the game and ask you to gamble on packs isn't in court?

    Either those coins are considered real money, in which case both EA and Nepenthez push children to gamble, or it isn't....

    yeah this is a strong precedent if you're arguing packs are gambling IMO

    the thing is trading card games have being doing this for years. If they decide FUT is gambling then so is Magic the Gathering, Yu-gi-oh, and baseball cards

    You need a licence to sell baseball cards etc. The youtubers hadn't got a licence, hence the fine.

    You don't need a licence to sell cards at all. I'm very much in the 'punish him with all he deserves camp' but don't make rubbish up

    I guess panini don't pay the NHL for a licence, to sell cards associated with the brand?

    https://www.nhl.com/news/nhlpa-and-nhl-agree-to-multi-year-exclusive-trading-card-licenses-with-the-upper-deck-company/c-706745

    What does that have to do with ANYTHING? This is in reference to needing a gambling licence - which no card manufacturers need because they're selling an actual product. Pokemon don't need a licence to sell cards because it's their own product. Panini paying for right to sell official NHL cards is completely irrelevant in this scenario

    If your product is associated with an official brand such as the premier league, you need a licence.

    Oh my god you're thick as ****. This has nothing to do with any licence apart from a gambling one
    - which neither EA nor Nepenthez have. You're seriously just too f*cking stupid to argue with, Jesus Christ. Have rights to players names has nothing to do with this scenario hahahahaha. Clearly you're the one with reading comprehension difficulties, you don't even understand the situation

    You're the muppet who jumped to conclusions, thought I was defending the youtuber. Nothing I wrote even hinted at that conclusion. Nepenthez would've needed a gambling licence, for what he was doing. It's clearly obvious you've the mental capacity of a 12 year old. Have a nice day ya ❤️❤️❤️❤️!

    If you could read you thick **** I never once said you were defending him. You come across as the most stupid person on the forum. In what world did any of the crap you even mentioned relate to the situation? Talking about panini sticker rights for the NHL? Jesus Christ you're stupid

    Where you dropped on your head as a baby? "Sounds like you're trying to defend the punishment." You're as thick as two planks, don't even recall what you wrote.

    Defending the punishment is the complete opposite to defending him you thick as pig ❤️❤️❤️❤️ ❤️❤️❤️❤️. Jesus Christ.
  • Retro_G
    33023 posts National Team Captain
    Retro_G wrote: »
    Retro_G wrote: »
    Retro_G wrote: »
    Retro_G wrote: »
    Retro_G wrote: »
    Clancy wrote: »
    SO Nepenthez is in court for promoting gambling but EA sports who makes the game and ask you to gamble on packs isn't in court?

    Either those coins are considered real money, in which case both EA and Nepenthez push children to gamble, or it isn't....

    yeah this is a strong precedent if you're arguing packs are gambling IMO

    the thing is trading card games have being doing this for years. If they decide FUT is gambling then so is Magic the Gathering, Yu-gi-oh, and baseball cards

    You need a licence to sell baseball cards etc. The youtubers hadn't got a licence, hence the fine.

    You don't need a licence to sell cards at all. I'm very much in the 'punish him with all he deserves camp' but don't make rubbish up

    I guess panini don't pay the NHL for a licence, to sell cards associated with the brand?

    https://www.nhl.com/news/nhlpa-and-nhl-agree-to-multi-year-exclusive-trading-card-licenses-with-the-upper-deck-company/c-706745

    What does that have to do with ANYTHING? This is in reference to needing a gambling licence - which no card manufacturers need because they're selling an actual product. Pokemon don't need a licence to sell cards because it's their own product. Panini paying for right to sell official NHL cards is completely irrelevant in this scenario

    If your product is associated with an official brand such as the premier league, you need a licence.

    Oh my god you're thick as ****. This has nothing to do with any licence apart from a gambling one
    - which neither EA nor Nepenthez have. You're seriously just too f*cking stupid to argue with, Jesus Christ. Have rights to players names has nothing to do with this scenario hahahahaha. Clearly you're the one with reading comprehension difficulties, you don't even understand the situation

    You're the muppet who jumped to conclusions, thought I was defending the youtuber. Nothing I wrote even hinted at that conclusion. Nepenthez would've needed a gambling licence, for what he was doing. It's clearly obvious you've the mental capacity of a 12 year old. Have a nice day ya ❤️❤️❤️❤️!

    If you could read you thick **** I never once said you were defending him. You come across as the most stupid person on the forum. In what world did any of the crap you even mentioned relate to the situation? Talking about panini sticker rights for the NHL? Jesus Christ you're stupid

    Where you dropped on your head as a baby? "Sounds like you're trying to defend the punishment." You're as thick as two planks, don't even recall what you wrote.

    Defending the punishment is the complete opposite to defending him you thick as pig **** ****. Jesus Christ.

    Oh my days, if I was defending the punishment, which I wasn't, that would mean I'd also be defending his case in some capacity. You're the one who keeps making assumptions. How could you came to the conclusion that I was somehow defending the fine?

    I brought up licencing as it's what the guy would've needed to be running a legitimate gambling site.
  • thegabrielNYC
    727 posts An Exciting Prospect
    edited February 2017
    @Hullock04321 is right. @Retro_G your Panini license comparison to a gambling license was just plain moronic. One is a brand license while the other is a license to be the house in a gambling situation.
    He also never said you were defending Nep but that you were giving fuel to the ones defending him by giving out wrong info.
    Also your grammar is really bad. You should study up on the whole there, their and they're words and others similar before telling someone they're stupid.
  • Dasco
    6774 posts Big Money Move
    Sandell85 wrote: »
    Dasco wrote: »
    If I remember correctly, was futgalaxy the one that allowed you to bet on games with fifa coins?

    yeah
    Dasco wrote: »
    If I remember correctly, was futgalaxy the one that allowed you to bet on games with fifa coins?

    Yes

    Okay, so I don't understand the people that are saying EA are doing the same thing. There's a complete difference to selling packs (which detail roughly what you can expect in quality, quantity and rares and similar to buying card packs irl) and getting people to bet currency that can result in losing everything (gambling).

    For some people in here, they're ignorant, bitter and will use anything as an excuse to attack someone/something else with either no or warped logic. (This isn't just EA/Nepenthez, just in general)
  • ThomasF1_GR
    250 posts Sunday League Hero
    Dasco wrote: »
    Sandell85 wrote: »
    Dasco wrote: »
    If I remember correctly, was futgalaxy the one that allowed you to bet on games with fifa coins?

    yeah
    Dasco wrote: »
    If I remember correctly, was futgalaxy the one that allowed you to bet on games with fifa coins?

    Yes

    Okay, so I don't understand the people that are saying EA are doing the same thing. There's a complete difference to selling packs (which detail roughly what you can expect in quality, quantity and rares and similar to buying card packs irl) and getting people to bet currency that can result in losing everything (gambling).

    One can buy packs with real money and with coins. Content of the pack is unknown. So you're "betting" cash/coins for a CHANCE to pack a good player who u can sell for more coins. Many people in this forum have shared their stories on how they have spent thousands of $ and coins without getting any good player, losing everything. Others post that they are pack addicts and they can't stop opening packs. I don't know about you, but for me this is gambling. Obviously not the same kind of gambling Nepenthez was promoting, but it is still gambling. Of course, the major difference is, that what EA does, is legal.
  • Mackie17
    8565 posts League Winner
    The warped logic here is ridiculous

    Whoever said it's not neps fault he influenced kids because their parents should be looking after them!?!?! Really?!?

    Like if when a adult in a position of powere influences a child to partake in sexual activity I guess that's not abuse/❤️❤️❤️❤️ cause the child's parents didn't stop it, or because the child wasn't strong minded enough to say no?

    I've known nep for about 15 years (way before his YouTube FIFA fame) and he's clever enough to know how wrong this is.
  • Hullock04321
    549 posts An Exciting Prospect
    Dasco wrote: »
    Sandell85 wrote: »
    Dasco wrote: »
    If I remember correctly, was futgalaxy the one that allowed you to bet on games with fifa coins?

    yeah
    Dasco wrote: »
    If I remember correctly, was futgalaxy the one that allowed you to bet on games with fifa coins?

    Yes

    Okay, so I don't understand the people that are saying EA are doing the same thing. There's a complete difference to selling packs (which detail roughly what you can expect in quality, quantity and rares and similar to buying card packs irl) and getting people to bet currency that can result in losing everything (gambling).

    One can buy packs with real money and with coins. Content of the pack is unknown. So you're "betting" cash/coins for a CHANCE to pack a good player who u can sell for more coins. Many people in this forum have shared their stories on how they have spent thousands of $ and coins without getting any good player, losing everything. Others post that they are pack addicts and they can't stop opening packs. I don't know about you, but for me this is gambling. Obviously not the same kind of gambling Nepenthez was promoting, but it is still gambling. Of course, the major difference is, that what EA does, is legal.

    Yeah anyone comparing this to EA selling packs are just outright stupid and not even worth replying to anymore.
  • AEsey
    6053 posts Big Money Move
    Dasco wrote: »
    If I remember correctly, was futgalaxy the one that allowed you to bet on games with fifa coins?

    Yep
  • Retro_G
    33023 posts National Team Captain
    @Hullock04321 is right. @Retro_G your Panini license comparison to a gambling license was just plain moronic. One is a brand license while the other is a license to be the house in a gambling situation.
    He also never said you were defending Nep but that you were giving fuel to the ones defending him by giving out wrong info.
    Also your grammar is really bad. You should study up on the whole there, their and they're words and others similar before telling someone they're stupid.

    Is that your second account? The Panini license was in response to him/you saying that you don't need a licence to sell cards. You do need a licence when it's associated with a brand.
  • Retro_G
    33023 posts National Team Captain
    Retro_G wrote: »
    Retro_G wrote: »
    bgp1845 wrote: »
    i see this devolved into "EA's packs are totally the same thing as gambling" in record time!

    whats his sentence? wasn't the max up to a year?

    Yeah but EA are associated with FIFA, all other football authorities. They've everything covered with licences.

    Again, being associated with Fifa and footballing authorities doesn't mean you're allowed to gamble. Sounds like you're trying to defend the punishment but by making crap up you're giving fuel to the morons defending him, either talk sense or stop posting

    They've everything covered in their licence agreement, that you sign before you can play the game ya ❤️❤️❤️❤️. I suggest you read the terms. Everything in FUT is attainable from playing the game. You can't sell your players/coins for real world currency, without risking a ban.

    The gambling commission wouldn't only be taking on EA, but every big company associated with the brand. It's all legit, above board, covered with licences.

    You're the ❤️❤️❤️❤️. Nobody with any sense would say opening packs is gambling anyway. Ea don't have licences for gambling, because their products aren't gambling, so stop talking rubbish. When you buy a pack, you're buying the players inside of it, when you gamble, you aren't buying anything. You're purchasing the chance to win more money - nothing like opening packs.

    I get you're trying to defend him but you come across as stupid with your comments and give more fuel to his moronic defendants by spouting crap

    What's that, scotch mist? It's him assuming I was defending the youtuber.
  • thegabrielNYC
    727 posts An Exciting Prospect
    Take your tin foil hat off dude.
    Panini needs a branding license to sell cards that the rights belong to that league. It could be water bottles or posters doesn't have to be cards. That license covers the brand and has nothing to do with gambling. I mean I need a license to drive, are you going to compare that to a gambling license because it says license in it? :D
    You should just stop now.
  • thegabrielNYC
    727 posts An Exciting Prospect
    edited February 2017
    Retro_G wrote: »
    @Hullock04321 is right. @Retro_G your Panini license comparison to a gambling license was just plain moronic. One is a brand license while the other is a license to be the house in a gambling situation.
    He also never said you were defending Nep but that you were giving fuel to the ones defending him by giving out wrong info.
    Also your grammar is really bad. You should study up on the whole there, their and they're words and others similar before telling someone they're stupid.

    Is that your second account? The Panini license was in response to him/you saying that you don't need a licence to sell cards. You do need a licence when it's associated with a brand.

    What's even funnier is you think someone created a second account to tell you that you're wrong.
    It's pretty clear that you're either an idiot, a troll or just really dense. Your choice.
  • AEsey
    6053 posts Big Money Move
    edited February 2017
    Retro_G wrote: »
    @Hullock04321 is right. @Retro_G your Panini license comparison to a gambling license was just plain moronic. One is a brand license while the other is a license to be the house in a gambling situation.
    He also never said you were defending Nep but that you were giving fuel to the ones defending him by giving out wrong info.
    Also your grammar is really bad. You should study up on the whole there, their and they're words and others similar before telling someone they're stupid.

    Is that your second account? The Panini license was in response to him/you saying that you don't need a licence to sell cards. You do need a licence when it's associated with a brand.

    What's even funnier is you think someone created a second account to tell you that you're wrong.
    It's pretty clear that you're either an idiot, a troll or just really dense. Your choice.

    yeah the second account is nonsense mate you shouldn't come up with arguments like that
    (time to back myself up on my 3rd account now)
  • ChrisFIFAPS4
    290 posts Sunday League Hero
    jumpman23 wrote: »
    @ChrisFIFAPS4
    jumpman23 wrote: »
    he wasnt just promoting site he was the owner of an illegal gambling site

    @jumpman23 read the articles properly he wasn't the owner. Dylan Rigby was the owner and gave Nep a portion of profits and a position in the company in return for Nep promoting to his subs.

    "Douglas admitted a charge of being an officer of a company that provided facilities for gambling without an operating licence and a further allegation relating to the advertising of unlawful gambling. "

    read above statement from article you refer to then go to google and find out what you are commenting on prior to replying thinking you are smart

    PLEASE LOOK AT THIS
    https://companycheck.co.uk/company/09140132/GAME-GOLD-TRADINGS-LIMITED/companies-house-data

    kids on here sticking up for nepz and trying to correct people

    I await your apology

    @jumpman23 and I await your apology

    UHMmLjJ.jpg


  • AEsey
    6053 posts Big Money Move
    And @ChrisFIFAPS4 is right about this so he is owed an apology
  • pob125
    3797 posts National Call-Up
    Seriously,this forum could argue about water being wet :D

    HvWWO1E.jpg
  • AEsey
    6053 posts Big Money Move
    pob125 wrote: »
    Seriously,this forum could argue about water being wet :D

    HvWWO1E.jpg

    Mate we all know that its dry

  • pob125
    3797 posts National Call-Up
    Lol.
  • Hullock04321
    549 posts An Exciting Prospect
    YesEA wrote: »
    Retro_G wrote: »
    @Hullock04321 is right. @Retro_G your Panini license comparison to a gambling license was just plain moronic. One is a brand license while the other is a license to be the house in a gambling situation.
    He also never said you were defending Nep but that you were giving fuel to the ones defending him by giving out wrong info.
    Also your grammar is really bad. You should study up on the whole there, their and they're words and others similar before telling someone they're stupid.

    Is that your second account? The Panini license was in response to him/you saying that you don't need a licence to sell cards. You do need a licence when it's associated with a brand.

    What's even funnier is you think someone created a second account to tell you that you're wrong.
    It's pretty clear that you're either an idiot, a troll or just really dense. Your choice.

    yeah the second account is nonsense mate you shouldn't come up with arguments like that
    (time to back myself up on my 3rd account now)

    Haha mate you've made yourself out to be a complete gloit. The only child here who would consider making a second account to carry on losing an argument is you hahahaha. Panini having a licence to own the rights to sell a brands cards is sooooooooo far away from a gambling licence. You've proven you're a moron so lay off it now.
  • Hullock04321
    549 posts An Exciting Prospect
    Retro_G wrote: »
    @Hullock04321 is right. @Retro_G your Panini license comparison to a gambling license was just plain moronic. One is a brand license while the other is a license to be the house in a gambling situation.
    He also never said you were defending Nep but that you were giving fuel to the ones defending him by giving out wrong info.
    Also your grammar is really bad. You should study up on the whole there, their and they're words and others similar before telling someone they're stupid.

    Is that your second account? The Panini license was in response to him/you saying that you don't need a licence to sell cards. You do need a licence when it's associated with a brand.

    I could re-sell sealed packs of Pokémon eBay without a licence. You do not need a licence to sell cards. What panini's licence is for is to the right to be producer of the official cards - completely different.
  • Sandell85
    7702 posts League Winner
    might be a good idea to close this thread :D
  • Romarinho
    468 posts Sunday League Hero
    I am lost in between so much love. How could the kid lose 600 pounds in one day? I tought fut Galaxy only accepted FIFA coins. You cannot relate coins to real money. AM i missing something?

    Please dont call me stupid! I have a degree! I swear!
  • Hullock04321
    549 posts An Exciting Prospect
    Romarinho wrote: »
    I am lost in between so much love. How could the kid lose 600 pounds in one day? I tought fut Galaxy only accepted FIFA coins. You cannot relate coins to real money. AM i missing something?

    Please dont call me stupid! I have a degree! I swear!

    If I remember correctly I think you could deposit money with a credit card, and the money would be changed to coins which you could transfer back to Fifa coins if your bet won. (Could be wrong).
  • Retro_G
    33023 posts National Team Captain
    Retro_G wrote: »
    @Hullock04321 is right. @Retro_G your Panini license comparison to a gambling license was just plain moronic. One is a brand license while the other is a license to be the house in a gambling situation.
    He also never said you were defending Nep but that you were giving fuel to the ones defending him by giving out wrong info.
    Also your grammar is really bad. You should study up on the whole there, their and they're words and others similar before telling someone they're stupid.

    Is that your second account? The Panini license was in response to him/you saying that you don't need a licence to sell cards. You do need a licence when it's associated with a brand.

    I could re-sell sealed packs of Pokémon eBay without a licence. You do not need a licence to sell cards. What panini's licence is for is to the right to be producer of the official cards - completely different.

    That's different, you're selling on as a 3rd party. The manufacturer does need a licence, when it's associated with a brand. You still haven't explained how i was defending the youtuber, you're quoted above.
  • Hullock04321
    549 posts An Exciting Prospect
    Retro_G wrote: »
    Retro_G wrote: »
    @Hullock04321 is right. @Retro_G your Panini license comparison to a gambling license was just plain moronic. One is a brand license while the other is a license to be the house in a gambling situation.
    He also never said you were defending Nep but that you were giving fuel to the ones defending him by giving out wrong info.
    Also your grammar is really bad. You should study up on the whole there, their and they're words and others similar before telling someone they're stupid.

    Is that your second account? The Panini license was in response to him/you saying that you don't need a licence to sell cards. You do need a licence when it's associated with a brand.

    I could re-sell sealed packs of Pokémon eBay without a licence. You do not need a licence to sell cards. What panini's licence is for is to the right to be producer of the official cards - completely different.

    That's different, you're selling on as a 3rd party. The manufacturer does need a licence, when it's associated with a brand. You still haven't explained how i was defending the youtuber, you're quoted above.

    You have serious trust issues don't you hahaha. Thinking I made a second account to reply to you hahahaha. Hard time with the women do you? And no, you don't need a licence to sell cards, you need a licence to produce and official set for specific brands. Hence why Pokémon don't need a licence to manufacture or sell their own products. On top of that, EA TOS states that you cannot sell anything related to ultimate team as a third party.

    Ps, the pathetic thing you're badgering on about was a typo. Time you grew up and backed off now mate? Clearly got some issues over there.
  • TheRealMadGamer
    1920 posts Fans' Favourite
    edited February 2017
    rankon. wrote: »
    He seems a nice guy; I wouldn't wish him jail time

    He made nearly 200k from underage gambling. He's just as bad as Ea sports. The only difference is Ea can just say opening pacs isn't really gambling. When we all know it 100 pecent is.
This discussion has been closed.