Competitive Ruling: G2 Esports and Fnatic

Riot·Sep 7, 2016·2 votes·23,825 views

TL;DR Recently, it has been brought to our attention that Fnatic and G2 Esports allegedly share financial ties and would therefore be in violation of the LCS Team Participation Agreement. League Officials have found that Jens Hilgers, a minority stakeholder in G2 Esports, has provided a loan to Sannpa Ltd, parent company of Fnatic Ltd, to support Fnatic Gear Ltd, which we classify as an indirect financial interest.

The collateral terms of the loan grant Hilgers the right of claiming an equity stake of Fnatic Ltd and Fnatic Gear Ltd if Sannpa were to default on the loan, which presents the possibility of an undue establishment of control in the future. We have mandated that Hilgers retracts his loan from Sannpa Ltd or divests his stake in G2 Esports. Both Hilgers and Fnatic have been formally warned for this transgression.

Context

Hilgers is an active investor in the esports and gaming scene, and alongside several other projects unrelated to competitive League of Legends, his personal investment holding has a minority stake in G2 Esports. Recently, Hilgers privately provided a loan to Sannpa Ltd, parent company of both Fnatic Gear Ltd and Fnatic Ltd, to bridge finance a new Fnatic Gear product line. As security for this loan Hilgers would have authority over the equity stakes of Fnatic Gear Ltd and Fnatic Ltd in the event that Sannpa Ltd were unable to pay back the loan. This is called a share charge, which essentially means that Hilgers gets first rights on aforementioned equity if Sannpa defaults.

This does not mean that any kind of direct ownership or control was established by Hilgers over Fnatic in the past or present, and similarly, it does not create a future state wherein he would be guaranteed control of Fnatic. What it does establish is a situation where if Sannpa were to become insolvent and consequently unable to pay back the loan, Hilgers would have priority over potential other creditors in claiming Fnatic's equity (and ownership) as a way to recoup the lost money from the loan.

Despite the lack of connection between both G2 Esports and Fnatic directly, we determine that the loan agreement between Hilgers and Fnatic constitutes an indirect financial interest and is therefore not permissible. We further determine that the loan agreement was not set up with malicious intent to circumvent multiple team ownership provisions and does not present a scenario in which effective control over multiple teams has presently been exerted.

Ruling

The loan agreement between Hilgers and Fnatic creates a form of indirect financial interest between both parties, which is a violation of the LCS Team Participation Agreement. However, the fact that the possibility of competitively relevant control is based on the financial collapse of Sannpa as an organization presents a scenario in which no current control, nor future meaningful control are established.

Based on this, the League:

Formally warns Hilgers and Fnatic for entering an impermissible indirect financial relationship. This will be accounted for as an aggravating factor in any future transgression of this type.
Mandates reversal of the loan between Hilgers and Fnatic, or the relinquishment of Hilgers’ ownership stake in G2 Esports

Relevant Rules

LCS Team Participation Agreement

The LCS team participation agreement states that “The Team Owner shall not (and shall ensure that the Team Managers shall not) (a) own, have or control, directly or indirectly, an equity or financial interest in more than one team engaged in play of the LoL Game in a professional e-sports league [...]”.

Q&A

Why is there no harsher punishment?

Previously, cases of clearly competitively relevant influence between teams have already been punished severely. In this particular instance, we take into account the fact that no current or future competitively relevant control over Fnatic was established. Further, we take into consideration that the involved parties were collaborative over the course of the investigation and did not intend to circumvent any of the rules we have in place. Despite this intent, we determine that a loan between two parties holding stakes in competing teams, no matter how it is constructed, constitutes an indirect financial interest, which is not acceptable. This will be reiterated with all owners to provide complete clarity on the line that is drawn in particular when it comes to indirect relationships and will be considered a serious punishable offense going forward. We would like to highlight the importance of informing the League before entering any financial relationship with parties that are involved with other teams.

Doesn’t Hilgers have Power of Attorney with the loan?

The loan agreement contains a clause that provides Hilgers with “power of attorney” (the right to make decisions on behalf of) for Sannpa Ltd (Fnatic’s parent company). This clause, which is fairly standard for loans, would give Hilgers power of attorney only in the case of Sannpa (and therefore Fnatic) being bankrupt - in order for him to help establish his rights of Sannpa's assets in the bankruptcy process.

Is this similar to one of the problems in the TDK/REN situation?

No, there’s a few important differences. First and foremost, Hilgers did not receive any operational control or insight into Fnatic or the Fnatic team, nor did he interact with any of the Fnatic players. Secondly, Hilger's right to Fnatic's shares is only a byproduct of the loan and is conditional on a financial collapse of Sannpa, and therefore Fnatic, as a company at some point in the future. Getting control of Fnatic is not the end goal, and rather the undesired outcome. In the case at hand, it’s a minority owner of a team offering a formal loan to the team’s parent company, for a non-league venture. That said, the loan agreement does present a form of indirect financial interest and both Hilgers and Fnatic recognize the necessity of unwinding the loan.

The Kikis trade was made shortly before the loan, any connection?

League officials investigated the Kikis trade, and found no evidence of impropriety nor any connection to the loan and/or Hilgers.

62 Comments

Dark Star ChoSep 7, 201626 votes

Riot still trying to justify the Ren/Tdk ban in this article just to overshadow their blatant bias. Just admit these teams are the backbone of the EU LoL scene and enforcing rules would be too detrimental.

C9 HlGHSep 7, 20163 votes

"This will be reiterated with all owners to provide complete clarity on the line that is drawn in particular when it comes to indirect relationships and will be considered a serious punishable offense going forward."

Now that the big org know were serious! /s

Dark Star ChoSep 7, 20166 votes

"complete clarity"

-Still refuses to provide proofs to teams when they get competitive rulings, CLG and Ren/Tdk as examples

Miror BSep 8, 20163 votes

[{quoted}](name=Captain Chogath,realm=NA,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=myE7Foz2,comment-id=000500000000,timestamp=2016-09-07T16:32:56.477+0000)

"complete clarity"

-Still refuses to provide proofs to teams when they get competitive rulings, CLG and Ren/Tdk as examples

~~"complete clarity",~~ "we're allowed to do basically anything we want as the teams have zero equity, and if they choose to cry about it then we'll happily lick the tears off their poor faces while they take all the punishments we throw at them".

Meanie40Sep 7, 201625 votes

So you have ZERO evidence and kick ownership of two teams out of the league, and then you have DIRECT evidence and do relatively nothing.

Makes sense.

This also proves you have a vendetta against Monte.

C9 HlGHSep 7, 201614 votes

This 100%.. This ruling is a fucking joke and I'm done watching any EU LCS. As a fan I feel ripped off.

The CEO of ESL should not be allowed to go around seizing control (however small) of multiple league teams/orgs without repercussion. This guy will always have a horse in the race and that is bullshit. If riot ever does anything with ESL in a competitive manor these 2 teams should be disqualified.

side note: Monte? No just Badawi honestly lol. Well prolly Monte at this point as well.

Meanie40Sep 7, 20163 votes

Note also the "industry standard" pay situation (to come and work broadcasts) involves Monte as well.

C9 HlGHSep 7, 20161 votes

yeah thats why i said probably Monte at this point XD

At first it was Badawi. Then Monte got mad and started spreading the truth. Now hes a target aswell.

Yukon79Sep 9, 20161 votes

You realize that they banned both Monte and Badawi. Because Monte hired him right?

p0psiclesSep 7, 20165 votes

He's not the CEO of ESL. He hasn't been the CEO of ESL for over half a decade. So if you want to claim Riot is being biased and non-transparent you should start by telling the truth yourself.
Again you're wrong because he's not "seizing control" of multiple league organizations. He owns a minority stake in 1 team: G2.

He made a personal loan to the Fnatic parent company so they could invest in non-league related revenue sources. The loan, as with any loan, had collateral. The collateral happened to be that if Sannpa happened to go bankrupt and could not pay back the loan then he would get equity in Fnatic that he could sell to make his loan money back. The chance of them going bankrupt before paying back is almost 0 and he even claimed that if it were to happen, he was going to have a third party seller sell the equity for him and he would just keep the money (not own two teams).

Still, Riot ruled that even that is not allowed and told him they had to nullify the loan (which it sounds like all parties agreed to do). He did not at any point, and will not at any point, own stock in more than one team. It doesn't sound like he's involved even in day-to-day operations with G2 and certainly doesn't sound like he learned anything or received any favors from Fnatic that would give either team a competitive advantage.

So why exactly do you think Riot should string this guy up? People get mad they punish TDK/REN for doing something allegedly much worse (insider trading of players to attempt to benefit one of the two orgs) and then demand these two orgs get punished for essentially doing nothing? Hypocritical much?

Theunknown4294Sep 8, 20161 votes

How much did Riot pay you to spew out that BS?

p0psiclesSep 8, 20165 votes

Nothing, I just have a brain unlike most of the blind Montechristo fanboys. But hey, if people wanna be sheep for their favorite little caster that's their prerogative. His fanboys are about as bad as Tyler1's cult.

If you want to come back with some evidence that anything I said in the previous post is factually inaccurate or a misrepresentation of the truth, let me know.

Yukon79Sep 9, 20163 votes

Umm what?!?! It's called a double standard. Did you read the official ruling? Did you look at the evidence in the TDK/REN incident?

The TDK/REN incident: First off there was no insider trading. The ban was for someone having ownership on both teams. Which wasn't true. Also no evidence for this ban was supplied to anyone. It was just done. The other stuff that was said by riot was all just accusations. Note: That even riot claims that. But they still got banned because there was a lot of accusations. There was no evidence there was no proof for the ban. There was plenty of evidence provided by both teams that all of the accusations to be false. Even the major reason for there ban.

So here you are. Only listing to one side of the story, and telling everyone they are wrong. Clearly you haven't done any research on either of these matter outside of Riot official statements.

They banned TWO teams outright. With ZERO evidence. Covering up the fact they have no evidence with an excuse. Saying that they cannot expose there leads. But here they do just that. The give evidence without exposing there leads. Just going to show you how corrupt they really are. But you keep on believing that Riot is that white knight in shinning armor. I guess you just don't know how bad knights really are.

ablindleaderSep 9, 20162 votes

You're a real idiot bro. When you dive into the actual nitty gritty details, the REN/TDK issue concerning ownership was nearly identical to see here. Riot argues in their decision that "Per LCS rules, any present or future right to ownership is considered a firm ownership stake regardless of the date of effect," Seeing that the contract creates a possible outcome where he could gain ownership of Fnatic, he in essence has a "future right to ownership" and therefore broke this rule. One could argue that the TDK/REN issue was far more extensive (i.e. mistreatment of players, inside trading, etc.)

Oh wait I didn't realize you're a complete idiot. Let me correct you :D before I continue making my actual point.

The collateral was based on a default of the loan. I don't know if you know this, but a loan could default without any actual bankruptcy occurring. So if let's say this guy wanted to gain majority ownership of Fnatic, while keeping some of Fnatic stakeholders, excluding the ones he does not like this would be an excellent way to do so. This is corporate espionage 101 and used to occur quite frequently in the business world (now you have to be a little more subtle).
Again going bankrupt not a prerequisite for default. All you need is someone people within the org to want a change in ownership for an "accidental" default to occur.
All claims he makes are speculation (much like the evidence Riot used for punish TDK/REN). Let's assume he has bad intentions. Would he claim any differently than what he said? Of course not. He is going to make it seem like he had no desire to get ownership, regardless. So you cannot take his statement in good faith because it's impossible to know what intention he has.
The loan was not nullified. If anything, the loan was just expedited (Thorin's interpretation is a bit skewed, but in a sense, the loan did function as intended). Unless there's lost interest, one cannot argue that the loan didn't serve the function it was intended for. It was meant as capital to start what ever device business Fnatic wanted. Apparently it was invested. The second after investment makes the original state, pre loan, irreparable. Meaning, just having them give the money back is not sufficient. It could very well be that I had capital for that loan that was tied up. Allowing me to accept the loan may have given me ample time to get capital to pay it back. Regardless the action should have never occurred.

Why is this unfair? Well the issue is the punishment system for Riot is not coherent. Think of the legal system. Different counts earn someone a specific amount of years. So if I commit murder and grand theft auto, my punishment is a cumulative of both of those crimes (sometimes counts are conflated, but conflation just serves to make numbers manageable and not hierarchical.) In the Ren/TDK case riot cites a multitude of infractions and amounts them to a one single infraction: indefinite ban and the selling of a team. But how did they get to that determination? Did all the infractions together lead to this outcome or did one infraction in particular lead to it? The lack of transparency makes it so that monte and friends paint a narrative where one big ticket issue "apparent ownership" is what led to the ban and selling of the team. If their narrative is correct, then this "reversal of a loan" is a gross injustice and a blatant example of favoritism. If Riot believes the cumulative penalty of all the infractions in the Ren/TDK case led to a ban/sell. then that should have been made clear. It also doesn't help that all the evidence was kept secret, for no reason whatsoever. So yea, you have some point, but your gross misinterpretation of Riot acting reasonable is kind of naive and stupid.

Magical MobusSep 9, 20161 votes

No, this ruling is fine - the transaction was non-league related, and they corrected the problem that might have given him control of another team, and everyone moved on.

It's the REN/TDK ruling that was a joke. Requesting that your lawyer handle your legal proceedings isn't non-cooperation. He was literally going to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury yet Riot went ahead and forced the teams to be sold at a gross financial disadvantage thanks to the short, publicly announced deadline, despite the fact that there was no tangible link between the teams.

p0psiclesSep 7, 201615 votes

It's almost like some fans don't even read. They just want an excuse to rip Riot so they just draw any conclusion they want.

Minority owner of G2 offers the parent company of Fnatic a loan for a non-league venture.
That G2 owner has no other contact/ties to Fnatic and the loan would fine if it weren't for the clause where he could take some equity in Fnatic only in the case of them going bankrupt.
Riot says that's not allowed - withdraw the loan.

Fan reaction: clearly these two orgs are basically the same thing and they're totally working together and you should ban them both because we said so.

TercaDercaSep 7, 201612 votes

way to roll out disproportionate rulings for similar cases based on internal biases and grudges, A+ children running this show

EleshakaiSep 7, 20164 votes

Two people are coughing. Go to the doctor. One gets told to go home and rest, the other gets medication.

Internal biases? Favouritism? Racism? Grudges?

No. One of them had a cold, the other had whooping cough.

The reality is, most people on these forums, yourself included, lack the legal background to make a judgement call that these are 'similar' cases. They have very loose relations in context of them both loosely involving financial interest... but the scale and scope was dramatically different, and the actual problem was different.

GlaedrSep 7, 20164 votes

The funny part about this post is talking about lacking the legal background to make a judgment when Riot doesn't show evidence, so it doesn't matter what kind of background anybody has because they can't take on Riot.

EleshakaiSep 7, 20162 votes

That's actually a big part of why the analogy is so apt. To an ignorant onlooker, the doctor's judgement might look like some form of bias if, say, the patient who got a prescription was rich and the one who didn't wasn't. But the doctor still wouldn't be obliged to make the reasons for his judgement public, just to convince the masses that he wasn't biased.

The reality is that Renegades/TDK did something shady as hell, Riot investigated, the parties in question concealed as much information as they could from Riot, and they got punished for their stupidity. Fnatic/G2 had a shared financial interest, mostly by accident, who cooperated with Riot's investigation and Riot, in the end, found no evidence of foul play, so they got off with a stern warning.

Skull PrimeSep 8, 20162 votes

I think your analogy couldn't be more inaccurate. A doctor is a professional at diagnosing and treating a patient after years of training and education. A doctor is accountable to a college of doctors/medical review board. If you don't have confidence in your doctor's diagnosis, you can seek a second opinion.

By contrast the esports team of Riot have no formal education in law or arbitration, they have no oversight or appeals process, we don't even know who's actually making the decision and because of those things they do not have the public confidence.

A better analogy would be asking your friend the accountant if you have a cold or if you have whooping cough. You might not give them the benefit of the doubt as they've not demonstrated any expertise in the field.

You can still agree with Riot's decision, that's fine, but analogizing them to a doctor? That has no basis.

Yukon79Sep 9, 20162 votes

You think riot has experienced good lawyers involved in something that they make up the rules and laws for. How naive are you? Note no legal laws were broken. Only riot rules. Oh wait those weren't broken either. So why are lawyers needed?

This involves Riot officials (kind of like a football ref), and Riot opinion. Nothing else. No lawyers needed. So the real question is. How stupid are you?

VillainousMonkeySep 9, 20162 votes

I was a soccer official for over 10 years. one of the most important things that was always stressed to me was consistency, you cant call a foul on 1 team and then not on another team for doing the same thing. The crowd and teams will hate you and nobody listens to you after that.

EleshakaiSep 10, 20162 votes

{quoted}

You think riot has experienced good lawyers involved in something that they make up the rules and laws for. How naive are you? Note no legal laws were broken. Only riot rules. Oh wait those weren't broken either. So why are lawyers needed?

This involves Riot officials (kind of like a football ref), and Riot opinion. Nothing else. No lawyers needed. So the real question is. How stupid are you?

You think a company as big as Riot doesn't have Lawyers drafting these documents for them? These are official, public-facing documents that have a TON of money involved in them. I promise you, Riot didn't just get Sam in receiving to write these.

Their team would 100% involve Lawyers to some degree, just to avoid any potential lawsuits over loopholes/inconsistent wording/etc.

Yukon79Sep 11, 20162 votes

No just no. I don't think you understand the part where no laws were involved. Lawyers may have been asked questions. But they were not involved in the decision or rule making process. They were just used as your best friend giving you advice. They didn't make any decisions here.

And they certainly didn't write any of the stuff concerning the bans. Now if someone sues them. Then they will get a major role. Until then it just a bunch of Riot madness.

Theunknown4294Sep 12, 20161 votes

You didn't even respond to any of Skull Prime's post. You literally only asked about Riot's lawyers without responding to a single word of his post

MiasmaSep 7, 20166 votes

Is this a statement by the FBI for Hillary Clinton. "Hey just because fnatic didn't get in trouble doesn't mean monte shouldn't be banned"

TrollFan01Sep 7, 20165 votes

Honest mistake so no biggie. Don't see why it's made a big deal of.

Miror BSep 7, 20163 votes

{quoted}

Honest mistake so no biggie. Don't see why it's made a big deal of.

I actually read an article on this a week ago in which riot was "investigating" some suspicious behavior between fnatic and g2, based off of multiple sources but notably this and the Kikis to fnatic thing that happened a while ago. From what I can understand, Rito doesn't want another renegades/tdk mess to happen and is thus is trying to target them before they become out of control.

p0psiclesSep 7, 20165 votes

People get mad Riot banned TDK/REN for allegedly making insider trades and intertwining their two orgs to help one of them.

People would get mad if Riot didn't investigate the claim there is some sort of insider trading going on between Fnatic and G2.

Riot does investigate the two orgs, details thoroughly why the loan was wrong but also states both teams were cooperative with the investigation, never gained any sort of competitive advantage because of it, and the Kikis trade doesn't seem to be linked in any way shape or form. But still people are mad Riot didn't burn the organizations with a pitchfork.

Sometimes you just can't win.

Yukon79Sep 9, 20163 votes

People are not mad because they didn't do anything. They are mad because of the double standard. You clearly don't get it.

TurquoiseYoshiSep 7, 20166 votes

Because people love Monte because he hates Riot. Especially when people see what they think of as "the corrupt authority" to rebel from, they try to rebel.

IKSSep 7, 20166 votes

I think it's more the fact that montecristo posted a video over an hour in length about the ban. In the video he showed emails and skype logs, as well and legal documents. That is literally infinitely times more evidence than what Riot shows. So If I have to lean one way or the other, I'm going to go with the guy that actually gives sources for his claims.

EleshakaiSep 7, 20161 votes

Pretty simple... they need to make a big deal of it to avoid there being any justifiable complaints of favouritism. They have to prove that any indiscretion will be investigated and acted upon as necessary.

In this case, the investigation proved that there was no major wrongdoing, so they just have to ensure that there are no long-term problems that come from this and ensure that everyone in the Leagues knows the potential seriousness that can come from this type of situation... and all is good.

GuardwolfSep 7, 20163 votes

I feel as though if one of your bigger organizations needs a loan for there LoL team proves that riot is not doing enough to help the owners gain profit.

PhoenixDFASep 8, 20163 votes

This is the most inconsistent ruling I've ever seen in the world of esports. Shame on you, Riot.

macdshiftySep 9, 20162 votes

Thanks for the laughs

I Like Things Sep 8, 20161 votes

Riot reminds me of the student in class that knew the answer yet refused to ever show their process of arriving to said answer. Even in a court of law evidence is displayed openly, for a myriad of reasons that make perfect sense.

However, this is not a court of law, nor will it ever be. This is an autonomous environment in which Riot is judge, jury, and executioner. That's why they'll never show their process of investigation or present their evidence to be potentially contested / refuted. They don't have to. Is it ideal? Personally I'd say a strong no. Are we in a position to change it? I'd feel luckier trying to reform China's government.

Life, eh?

EleshakaiSep 8, 20161 votes

[{quoted}](name=I Like Things ,realm=NA,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=myE7Foz2,comment-id=000c,timestamp=2016-09-08T17:47:20.823+0000)

Riot reminds me of the student in class that knew the answer yet refused to ever show their process of arriving to said answer. Even in a court of law evidence is displayed openly, for a myriad of reasons that make perfect sense.

However, this is not a court of law, nor will it ever be. This is an autonomous environment in which Riot is judge, jury, and executioner. That's why they'll never show their process of investigation or present their evidence to be potentially contested / refuted. They don't have to. Is it ideal? Personally I'd say a strong no. Are we in a position to change it? I'd feel luckier trying to reform China's government.

Life, eh?

Yet the police almost never publicly reveal their evidence.

There are specifics about when evidence is revealed and when it is not. And it is rarely allowable for a company to reveal private details relating to things like this, unless the only organization whose information is given out is their own or has given them explicit, written permission to reveal it.

I Like Things Sep 8, 20162 votes

Yet the police almost never publicly reveal their evidence.

Police also aren't tasked with conviction of the criminals they apprehend, their job ends after collecting enough evidence to have justifiable suspicion of an individual(s).

Move forward to the criminal in question arriving in court to dispute their accusation? They are most definitely allowed to examine and contest any and all evidence being used by the prosecution.

tl;dr - I'm not sure what point you were aiming to make with your statement about police.

Yukon79Sep 9, 20162 votes

Most people don't. And that's the point. He just wants you to not look at the real issue. By pointing out that some people don't do it. ~~Forgetting that~~ Riot ins't just the police but the whole system.

TolkmitSep 8, 20161 votes

From the Ren/TDK ruling: "Per LCS rules, any present or future right to ownership is considered a firm ownership stake regardless of the date of effect" Therefore, by Riot's own publicized rules, a minority owner of G2 had a firm ownership stake in Fnatic. He admittedly had a future right to ownership. IMO, the only reason this punishment is so light is because these are two successful teams with large fanbases. The lack of professional behavior is going to cost League long term. If they can't be fair and favor certain teams with these rulings, it opens the door to reasonable people believing they do the same in other areas as well.

EleshakaiSep 8, 20161 votes

{quoted}

From the Ren/TDK ruling: "Per LCS rules, any present or future right to ownership is considered a firm ownership stake regardless of the date of effect" Therefore, by Riot's own publicized rules, a minority owner of G2 had a firm ownership stake in Fnatic. He admittedly had a future right to ownership. IMO, the only reason this punishment is so light is because these are two successful teams with large fanbases. The lack of professional behavior is going to cost League long term. If they can't be fair and favor certain teams with these rulings, it opens the door to reasonable people believing they do the same in other areas as well.

I love watching arguments like this... because people who have absolutely no clue the complexities involved in this type of situation make these absurd demands of Riot with no understanding of what those details entail. It's beautiful to watch the degree of ignorance seen in the comments here... and even more beautiful to watch as even MORE ignorant people thumbs up the people making the ignorant comments in the first place. :)

It's so adorable.

VillainousMonkeySep 9, 20162 votes

Thats the thing, we have no details,WE DONT KNOW. does riot actually intend for us to just believe everything they say like a bunch of lemmings? you may but i just straight dont trust them any more. go watch monte's video it might make you rethink.

EleshakaiSep 10, 20161 votes

{quoted}

Thats the thing, we have no details,WE DONT KNOW. does riot actually intend for us to just believe everything they say like a bunch of lemmings? you may but i just straight dont trust them any more. go watch monte's video it might make you rethink.

Monte's a slimeball. I wouldn't trust a word that guy says... and if you trust him that much, I've got Oceanfront property in Arizona I can sell you.

RenzîxSep 10, 20162 votes

Whats ur proof that he is a slime ball? Do you have any?

VillainousMonkeySep 10, 20162 votes

I dont exactly trust Monte 100%, But i dont trust riot either. There is something to be said for him at least putting his side of the story out there

Theunknown4294Sep 12, 20161 votes

You say we make ignorant comments when this comment is biased as fuck. Just because you don't like Monte, that then means that Riot is correct when they gave zero evidence in that case? If anyone is ignorant, it would be you and that other fucking idiot who said that Jens Hilgers would only get partial equity if Fnatic went bankrupt! Which in itself is stupid as all hell because if Fnatic couldn't pay back the loan and Defaulted on it with the rest of their buisness still running, he'd get partial ownership! It isn't that hard to do research on this stuff! In fact it would barely take 5 minutes to look up the person who found out about this first. (And Despite how much Riot wants you to believe they got the scoop on this, they fucking didn't)

EleshakaiSep 12, 20161 votes

{quoted}

You say we make ignorant comments when this comment is biased as fuck. Just because you don't like Monte, that then means that Riot is correct when they gave zero evidence in that case? If anyone is ignorant, it would be you and that other fucking idiot who said that Jens Hilgers would only get partial equity if Fnatic went bankrupt! Which in itself is stupid as all hell because if Fnatic couldn't pay back the loan and Defaulted on it with the rest of their buisness still running, he'd get partial ownership! It isn't that hard to do research on this stuff! In fact it would barely take 5 minutes to look up the person who found out about this first. (And Despite how much Riot wants you to believe they got the scoop on this, they fucking didn't)

Nope, Riot is correct to not give evidence because of privacy laws. They could get in deep shit if they start releasing information relating to private individuals who are not within their organization. If my company started publicly talking about our business partners, or even former business partners, in a negative way... holy crap would shit hit the fan.

You simply don't understand how serious a crime it is to start releasing detailed private information about individuals without express written, signed permission. And that's fine, you probably don't NEED to know that. But... it's a big deal.