 Good morning again, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning, I'm here. Well, good morning again, Commissioner Hill. Good morning, I am here. Good morning again, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning, I'm here. And good morning again, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, I am here. Excellent, we'll get started. Today is now January 5th, public meeting number 420, and we are resuming our evaluation of FGVG, like Apollo-V, and the Kaiser-Locko, LLC fanatics. You started your presentation, we were very appreciative of it, and then we had to pause for the technological piece. So I think that we're going to resume that matter now, and I think that is a great agenda that is number three. Okay, so if we can get started before hand, Mr. King, did you want to say anything, or we'll just go right, I can't remember who was doing it, it was Mr. Klinik. Scott's going to do the product demo. Just, were we going to go into executive, is there something we need to do to help try, thank you, thank you. This is fine, we're a little bit more time to get my head organized, yes. So remember, commissioners, and I appreciate that Mr. King's on top of this for me. At the conclusion of yesterday's meeting, we did discuss the appropriateness of going into executive session for this technological piece, because of course, fanatics is in a different development stage than some of our other applicants. So commissioners, you know that I have to read this into the record. Do you all have any questions before I get started for from Councilor Grossman? All right, commission anticipates that it may meet in executive session in conjunction with this review of the FPG Enterprise and OCOLLC fanatics application in accordance with GL Chapter 30A, Section 21, Subsection A, Subsection 7, and GL Chapter 23N, Section 6I. To consider information submitted by the applicant in the course of its application for an operator license that is a trade secret, competitively sensitive or proprietary, in which it disclose publicly with place the applicant at a competitive disadvantage. And or GL Chapter 4, Section 726N, certain records for which public disclosure is likely to jeopardize public safety or cybersecurity. To consider information submitted in the application materials related to security or safety of persons or building structures, facilities, utilities, transportation, cybersecurity or other infrastructure located within the Commonwealth, the disclosure of which is likely to jeopardize public safety or cybersecurity. Councilor Grossman, I'll just check. Does that work for what we? That does work. So we're all clear since this was yesterday. This is specifically to look at the demonstration of the operability of the technology that is being proposed by the applicant. And specifically the assertion and the representation we received is that it is competitively sensitive and or proprietary who would place them at a competitive disadvantage to present it publicly at this time. And Mr. Berger is going to be on watch should something more appropriately be back in the public sphere. So thank you for that. Thank you. Okay. So with that, commissioners, do I have a motion to move into executive session? Madam Chair, I move that we go into executive session for the reasons just stated by yourself and General Council Grossman. Second. Any discussion? Okay, Mr. O'Brien. Aye. Mr. Hill. Aye. Mr. Skinner. Aye. Mr. Maynard. Aye. Yes, so five, zero. Now, before we go to our new virtual room, Dave Sousa and Crystal, are we going to be transferred into a new room or should we? You will be able to move, I will move you right into it in just a moment. So I may just need to ask who will need to go in, but I know most of you. So no one should exit exit the meeting, Crystal. We need to stay on the meeting to get moved into the room, correct? Yep, we're going to use the breakout room functionality. So some of you will automatically be moved and then anyone can move in. Before you do it, just before you do it, I do need to say the public session of the commission meeting will be convened at the conclusion of the exact session. So before we get launched into a new cyberspace, but otherwise we're going to a breakout room. Yep, on your why. We moved in a couple of people. So I don't know everyone. So go ahead and enter the room. If you have been assigned, you'll go, but I need to know anyone else who has not been assigned who might need to enter that session and I can move you in. Loretta, I think you need to go, right? Karen, will you want to go ahead? Oh, lots of people are moving still. Okay, and Matt, you're good, Matt. Mike, where's Loretta? Oh, Loretta, you should have moved. You go on. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Okay, who else are we looking for? I think we could go in. Fanatics has a group, that's you. I assume so, Jason White, moving. I'm meal into. Sorry, who? Jamil from NKN, please. I don't see on my list. Oh, yes. Sorry, he already went. Caitlin, you're just stuck with me. Okay, sorry. So you have to be moved. Did you? Yeah, you're already on the list too. You should be able to just open it, Caitlin, if you're going in. Okay, all right. I see you, Kristen. Sorry, I have a little screen here. You're up, and Alice. Pretty much everyone just put me. Let's see, Andrea, you're good. Bruce, are you in with me? You're good. Scott, do you need to go over? And my iPhone as well. Oh, and Scott's iPhone. I see that. Okay, good. Two of me. Two of you. Crystal up there doing a demo of any RG stuff. I think I should go. Okay. I'm not sure who I'm allowed to have from staff, but I'll put you in, Mark. They can kick you out. I can. I think you're good. And Dave, you're, I'm just putting up my screen, right? Yeah, I'm going to drop off. Yeah, when my meeting's over. Okay, BLI and Dave, you guys don't need to go in. You're good. I think they're just waiting on this session. Okay. Yeah, no, we're good. We're good. We're waiting here. Unless they call for us. Yep. Yeah, unless they need us. And Mil has the ability to pull you in and he's in there. So we're good on both ends. All right, great. We'll let them sit up and thank you. Hey, Crystal. It failed to transfer me to the executive session. It stopped in the middle. Can you read me? I can. Thanks. I might see you. I'm going to move you in. And there you go. Okay, Dave, we can take the screen down. Thank you. Great. So this is a return to the public session of a meeting that began shortly earlier today at around 1030. It's public meeting number 420 of the Game Commission. And because we're operating virtually, I'll do a vote called Michelle Ryan. I am here. Commissioner Hill. I'm here. Okay, Skinner. I'm here. Commissioner Maynard. I'm here. And we're set to go. So thank you. Thank you to Fanatix for going through its technology with us. And that concludes the applicant's presentation. But we're fortunate now to also get the expertise from some of our consultants and our own internal experts. So we'll start with the technical components that we have members from GLI here. There's Joe. Good morning. It's still good morning, Joe. Good morning. Good morning. Good. So GLI has been helping us, as all of you know, first to write and set gaming technical standards, which are now considered to be an industry benchmark worldwide. And GLI has continuously responded to the industry by innovating new standards and testing of our regulators to be unconfident. But they are providing a safe, responsible method of revenue generation for their stakeholders and preserving integrity. So we have Joe, Benavis, and any colleague today? Are you on your own, Joe? I believe Gabe Benix here. And I thought Kevin might be able to join in, but. Hi, Gabe. Nice to meet you. Good morning, Chair. Yeah, I'm here. OK, great. I'll let you go through your process and thinking. And just want to make a brief introduction. That'd be great. Thank you. Yes. Thanks for having us, Madam Chair and members of the Commission. My name is Joseph Bonham, Director of Client Solutions for GLI. I'm here to give an overview of the submittal verification verification process regarding mobile applications and digital platforms that will be approved by the Commission. The submittal process includes the following. If it's a platform that we're familiar with, which we are in the case of Fanatics, a modification list from the last submission to one or more US jurisdictions will be requested and reviewed to set the project plan for Massachusetts, considering any changes to the platform and any specific Massachusetts rules and regulations. Since the product is not new, we will be reviewing that. We'll still review any technical architecture documentation, complete, comprehensive, and accurate descriptions and explanation of all their sports wagering systems and includes a description of all hardware devices and virtual servers, all server and client software modules, including the software versions, layout of all network communications between various software and hardware modules, and explanation of all third-party integrated systems. The post, the technical document review, the critical files are regarding compliance will be identified and documented. Then a complete project plan is put in place, taking account unique architecture and design of the platform in specific Massachusetts gaming rules and regulations. The lab will run a supervised combination of those source files, signature of those files, and combination steps, and the signatures of the compiled code. Once complete, the source code can be submitted for testing in a locked-down environment. GUI will review the player account management platform known as PAM for registration, age, identification verification, account controls, payments, reporting, responsible gaming controls, prior disclosures, and geolocation. Geolocation testing commits in two parts. A field test to verify the borders by sampling along the entire Massachusetts border while completing edge case technical tests. The field test will also cover any restricted areas as defined by the MVC. A subversive workaround detection will commence in the lab, including but not limited to VPM and proxy usage, GPF spoofing, code manipulation, and man-in-the-middle attacks. GUI will verify the sportsbook in total, if not tested previously, which this one is, for retail, oh, so, sorry, it's not for retail deployment, or review the integration of the sportsbook into the PAM for events, markets, point spread, bet acceptance, and corresponding time-sets and logging. We'll verify the enforcement of betting limits in edge cases, verify pre-event, live and live data feeds, post-event settling, the corresponding time-sets, and all logging and reporting. We'll review the change management procedures and processes. After all the technical check-offs are met, certifications can be issued once GUI verifies all the changes made from Massachusetts-specific deployment, including source code differential and change testing to the latest review version. And GUI has evaluated the product has met the Massachusetts-specific requirements. After certifications are issued and the MVC accepts them, field verification with conjunction of the MVC, more for the procedure will be finalized in the upcoming weeks. During that time, the following commence, verification at the production servers, we'll also verify critical file signatures. We'll review the internal controls for procedures to operate the sportsbook, check tech technology for configurations such as proper setup of roles in user-write management, potentially interview key personnel to ensure they know and follow the procedures from the internal controls. At this point, they'll have met the technical requirements for operations of a sportsbook in the commonwealth. And that's it. Questions for Joey? I do, but I'm also wondering if this should be added to a list for possible executive session because my question is given the technological posture of this applicant's platform. How much, what's the timeline on whether that's actually, when that would be executable? And that might be something that's more appropriate for if and when we go back and executive session. How they address them? Maybe they did and maybe it, but I'm listening to sort of the process and I'm wondering timeline-wise when GLI could actually get to testing this. We discussed the timeline- That's not a problem to just answer in this setting, I don't know. Mr. Berger? Yes, thank you. We gave our overall timeline yesterday, Matt King indicated that we'd likely, our goal is to be live at the start or around the time Massachusetts goes live is our goal aspirationally. I think questions related to specific entries that had timelines we developed, we prefer to do that in an executive session. That's what I thought, yeah. Yeah, that's what I thought. I mean, I heard the aspirational, but I have questions given that presentation we just had more specifically and I expected the answer to be that's an executive session question. Yeah, and we can certainly address nuances of exactly where we are with different features of a product if you have those questions in executive session. Okay. Can I do a follow-up? GLI, you said you're familiar with- We are familiar with the platform that- Amelka? Yes. And you've actually had issued certifications for both the two jurisdictions that they are going to be doing business with- That is correct. And I believe that's Maryland and Ohio, correct? Fanatics? Maryland and Ohio. Alex, yeah. Yes, that's correct. Yep. And so does that mean that they may be not, we may be on a more accelerated schedule of the same schedule, even though Ohio and Maryland are now launched? If you can say that, should we reserve that for executive session? Mr. Berge? Well, I think the question is we certainly want to talk about where we fit our timeline during executive session. I think we can say publicly, we've not launched it in either jurisdiction yet, but- Okay, that's what I- You're certifying. That is correct. See, to be clear, the Amelka platform, I believe has been certified in those jurisdictions, but Fanatics is not certified, Carlin. And Fanatics, just to be clear, is licensed in those jurisdictions. We disclose from a regulatory licensing standpoint, as opposed to a technology approval standpoint. Okay. Thank you. So if you could note that, Todd is a possible second session topic. All right. Any other questions for GLI? All right. Thank you, Joe. Thank you, Gabe. We appreciate it. Then we're going to move on to item 4b in our agenda and introduce Heather Hall, our Chief Enforcement Council of IEB. You want to speak about the report on the suitability of the app? Yes, thank you, Chair. And good morning, Chair and commissioners. And I note that it's almost afternoon. So as the commission knows, the IEB submitted a report regarding its review for preliminary suitability of this applicant, Fanatics. The applicant is seeking a category three sports wagering license to be tethered to Plain Ridge Park Casino. The IEB performed this review for preliminary suitability in accordance with the standards and criteria set forth in 205CMR-2501 subsection two. And as the commission knows, the IEB did not perform a full suitability investigation. As a precursor to this review, the Licensing Division in conjunction with the IEB performed a scoping review of the applicant under section 5b of chapter 23N. There are seven entities and six individuals that were designated as qualifiers in connection with Fanatics application. Those qualifiers are listed on pages two and three of the IEB report. There are some deficiencies with the application that I will get into shortly. And we do have Licensing Division Chief Kara O'Brien here as well. So with respect to the preliminary investigation, our team was comprised of contract investigators including former members of the State Police Gaming Enforcement Unit, contract investigators from the firm of RSM. And all of that was with the collaboration and oversight of the IEB. The review for preliminary suitability included a summary of Fanatics licensing status and other jurisdictions, which was disclosed in the application. And as was just previously noted, those licenses are in Maryland and Ohio. And there are five pending applications as well. The IEB reviewed the application for the applicants disclosed compliance history in other jurisdictions. And in this case, there was none. The IEB reviewed the applicants pending litigation as well. And again, in this case, there was none. The IEB also provided a summary of an open source review of the applicant and individual qualifiers. The results of those sections appear in the IEB's report. And I note that the commission received an additional Washington Post article on December 20th after the IEB report had been finalized. In addition, the commission has received a publicly available EEOC press release regarding a matter that was referenced in the IEB's report. With respect to financial suitability, a team from RSM, as you know, prepared a report that appears at exhibit one to the report. RSM worked closely with our Financial Investigations Division Chief and other members of the FI team. RSM reviewed disclosed financial information of the applicant. And in this case, that review supplemented by SEC filings of the public, well, excuse me, that's actually, that's not accurate for this particular applicant. So RSM, you know, in their report, that is attached as exhibit one. And I know they are here today to discuss that section of the report. And with respect to deficiencies, the licensing division has performed a review of the application for deficiencies. There have been some communications over outstanding items. I would just like to note that with respect to exhibit one, which is the RSM report I just referenced, I wanna note that there needs to be a correction with respect to some of the language on page 11 of that exhibit. In section 5.3 on page 11, there's a reference to the licensing division and the IEB inadvertently omitting a request for tax certifications for the entity qualifiers. The licensing division actually did request them and that was in their designation letter. And we had not received them. However, the licensing division did request them in the deficiency letter. The applicant has since submitted them and the IEB will proceed to review them if a full investigation proceeds. And I'll defer to Cara momentarily to supplement any of that. The other piece with respect to deficiencies, the IEB wants to note, as noted in the report at footnote six, which is at page 16, we are still waiting on a certification from Mr. Rubin. And with that, I will turn it over to licensing chief Cara O'Brien to provide any further information with respect to deficiencies and anything I might have missed. And we'll certainly be here for an available to answer any questions the commission might have. Thank you, Heather. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. As Heather indicated, the licensing division has completed its administrative completeness review. We provided fanatics with their deficiency letter on Tuesday, January 3rd. They have already provided a number of the items that we've asked for. And the only substantive item at this time is the certification of suitability form for Mr. Rubin. So that was noted in the report though, but we didn't reach out to her until the 3rd. That's correct. And I will also just mention that they have all, fanatics has indicated that they are getting that to us quickly as they can. Yes, that will be coming in the very short amount of time within the next couple of days, we hope. Thank you. Thank you, Karen. Thank you very much. Any questions for Karen? Heather Hall, can you, just because I didn't make a note of it, do you comment who sent the two supplemental pieces of information? And I got one was on top 20 and the other one was. Sure, the one with respect to the EEOC matter that was sent last night and I can resend that to you, chair. And I believe the other matter was sent over again this morning with respect to the Washington Post article. I can send, resend both of those so you have them. I know you probably have a lot of emails, but happy to have you to read forward. I appreciate it very much. Thank you. Thank you so much. If I can jump in a minute, the Washington Post matter was sent on December 20th. Yeah, I couldn't tell who sent it though, but I did. Oh, I look for other names. So thank you. So that's helpful. Thanks. I know I read it, but I couldn't remember who sent it to me. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Madam chair. Yes. I don't know if this is the time to bring it up or to discuss it or if this is something we would do with an executive session, but I was very concerned on the email that we did receive last night regarding the press release from the EEOC, which I believe was dated, I think it was April 19, 2019. And I would like to have some type of a discussion with the folks here regarding that issue at some point. And again, don't know this would be that time or when we go section to section, but this was a very concerning email that we received and something I think we need to hear from this group about, at least from one commissioner. I'm concerned about it, very concerned. I have a couple other questions in terms of some of the corporate structure and some of the other things and particularly also the reference to the settlement in New York on the tax issue, some of which is public. So I don't know if we wanna go through all of this and then we can circle back section by section. So I think I know that IEB raised this and actually to your point, Commissioner Hill probably will go through section by section and collect our topics that might be appropriate for an executive session. And unless you wanna be more precise in your question and allow the, carefully, and allow the applicant to express their desire to the fittingness of it for an executive session, maybe that would be helpful as we'd start to accumulate those topics. So do you want to reframe your question? Make sure it's not in the public domain so much that it's no longer appropriate for an executive session. I think what I would like to know is if we're gonna have a discussion regarding this issue and it doesn't really matter to me if we have it now, later in executive session or even in public as long as we touch upon it and get a discussion regarding it. And I would look to the applicants to tell me if this is something they wanna talk about in an executive session or is it something they can talk about publicly? If we may, we prefer to talk about certainly the EOC matter in the New York settlement matter that was discussed. We prefer to discuss those in executive session. There's those, while there have been some public recording about those, some cases the limited press release, those are subject to settlement discussions and other things that we would consider to be not right for public discussion. So we'd ask to have those candid discussions with you in executive session. So I would look to Todd, can you add that to our list? It's on the list, the only thing I would add to what Mr. Burr said is that at least the EOC matter, there is a press release about it and there was litigation filed which suggests unless it was impounded that there's a complaint that was filed in that matter which is typically a matter of public record. So any facts that are described or allegations described in that complaint would not necessarily be appropriate at least to talk about on the surface in executive session because they're public. If we wanna get into the defenses and any changes they made to their protocols and things like that that would be appropriate to talk about but it would not be appropriate to talk with the whole matter in executive session. The tax matter I'd have to take a look at, I don't remember the specifics of that and what may or may not be public but same type issue as we've done over the past weeks it's always helpful to ask the applicant to describe as much about it as possible and then determine what specific questions as a follow-up would might have and evaluate those on their own. And so adding another topic in there is also the recently filed class action lawsuit that there's alleging violations of the Sherman Act. One of the things as I go through this is this is a privately held company which is different than a lot of the other applicants if not all of the other applicants that we've seen so far. So the ownership structure in terms of who's in there who owns what, I know that there's a number of professional leagues that have ownership rights in the ultimate parent company of this applicant and that class action hits on a concern that I have in terms of control influence, that sort of thing for the applicant. And I don't know if anyone else was concerned by that or interested in hearing more detail about that but I see an applicant who has a marketing plan of sort of having a commerce base, customer base and having a plan of how to convert that into a profitable sports betting space. Most likely betting on events where there are partners who have sort of an equity stake in the parent company. So I don't know if any other commissioner was sort of given pause by that fact but the lawsuit in particular that June 10th, 22 so that's the Maryland one, the one that was recently filed and I understand that it's pending litigation that maybe limits to what can be said by you, the applicant because it's the holding company that the ultimate parent company I think is named not you guys but I don't know whether any other commissioner also has concerns or questions in that area. I think commissioner O'Brien, however, I will admit I don't understand the implications of that lawsuit quite as well as do you do? So a general discussion and information about what that class action is about would be helpful for me to start. And if I could ask for a sort of a basic overview again on the corporate structure in terms of where the applicant lies in relation with fanatics and in particular I have a more specific question about when we get to New York in terms of who filed who signed, there's a company referenced in the signature form and I can't find the exact match on the work charts that were submitted. So I think I might just need also to start off in this discussion with another overview of the corporate structure and how it leads down to this applicant. Sure and I think two points. We can certainly, we'd be certainly happy to discuss our corporate structure. I think some of the nuance again of it because we're not a public company it might be easier to discuss that and exactly a session we can walk you through on the floor structure. But I think that discussion actually would be helpful too to discussion of some of the litigation because I think if we're understanding the same litigation that you're referencing the class actions or understand and we confirm this is that no entity in the actual structure was named let me say like this, no entity in the gaming structure was named in that litigation. It relates to the commerce vertical of the business which while it has common ownership it's not actually a part of the gaming ownership structure so it's a parallel company. And then on a broader point there we prefer to discuss that. The only question you have even though it's about different vertical and executive session as that's ongoing litigation which we're currently in the process of defending. Right, which I totally appreciate and I expected that answer. I will tell you and publicly that one of the things that concerns me while that is true in terms of the structure there is heavy reliance on sort of the successful history and the posture of that ultimate parent company in terms of this is a going concern and then your product plan and your marketing plan. So there is sort of this inextricably intertwined nature of those companies and that's why I have that question. More understanding it but then also there does seem to be this connection and this reliance on that relationship even though if you look at the org chart they are not necessarily an applicant. They're obviously not an applicant per se although they are an entity qualifier. In any qualifier would be the holding company but the name allegation is a company called Fnatic's LLC which was formerly known as Fnatic's Inc. Which is actually the commerce vertical which is not an entity qualifier here. So it's subtle but we think important distinction. Right, although my understanding is when you're looking at the financing and the marketing aspect is sort of integral to the pitch. Sure, there will be some integration between the companies but again that's something that we would consider to be competitively sensitive. Right. We'll have the two companies. So we think probably this discussion generally is probably best happening in this session. So I think as we move along in the evaluation of the application section by section we'll get some clarity to on the corporate governance structure of Commissioner O'Brien and maybe our questions can be more pointed to the application responses. I'm hearing Commissioner O'Brien raised the important question as to where there are crossover investors. What really you've just pointed out is that the suitability report did of course highlight some outstanding litigation matters. Is there any other issues and we've noted those but those are more appropriate for the second session to the extent we're dealing with what is not public. And then is there any other issue that is raised in the suitability report that you want to ask Heather to address or that we may need the applicant to address now? So again, this ties into what I've already raised and again the corporate structure may clarify some of this but the section about broader customer assessments and reviews of the ultimate commerce company and how that bears on sort of reputation of the company reputation of the applicant. I would love them to discuss some of that as well. Commissioner O'Brien when you're ready for that executive session to discuss these the general counsel of the commerce business is ready to join us for that discussion as well. Very helpful. Thank you. Okay. In terms of other items that might be appropriate for executive session, I think we'd need to proceed with the RSM. Oh, yes. Yes, just right now just I'm asking just any questions whether for executive session or otherwise about Heather's reports. We have Heather right now. Any questions for Heather? No, but the RSM report is an attachment to that. So I just wanted to make sure we go. Oh, it was the exhibit. I'm sorry. Yes. Anything else? Okay. Thank you, Councillor Hall. We appreciate it. And I know that you'll stand by if we have further questions as we go through the application itself. So now we'll turn to RSM. Good afternoon, Jeff. How are you? Here. Commissioner doing well yourself. I apologize. I do have a question about the tax certifications that were received somewhat relatedly. I think I understood Heather to say that IEB has yet to review the tax certifications. Right. That's correct, commissioner. We would not be reviewing those unless full investigation proceeds. Okay. All right. So it's not something that we're missing that we won't have for this review that we had for the other reviews. Yeah. And actually, my understanding is that they have, since the deficiency letter went out, they have actually provided them. And I'm sure Kara can correct me if I'm wrong on that. No, that's what I heard too. Thank you. Okay. Anything else? Commissioners? All right. Then we'll turn to RSM. RSM US LLP is one of the leading providers of audit, tax and consulting services in the United States. RSM has been working with the Game Commission to provide insights and analyses to help each of us. I'd like to introduce some Jeff Katz. And are you alone today? I'm not alone, but the only one that's on video. Okay, good. Well, thank you. I'll let you go right ahead, Jeff, and thank you for your service. Perfect. Okay. So Jeff Katz here, I lead our strategic finance and FPNA practice here at RSM based in Boston. And so we appreciate the opportunity to present to the commission. We understand the importance of the licensing process and the importance of these meetings. We've accumulated a diverse team of professionals present on the topics requested by the commission. As Commissioner Judstine has indicated, the RSM team has been asked to join the meeting and make a presentation related to certain aspects of the applications. Please note RSM is not presenting on all aspects of the application. Specifically, RSM has been asked to provide insights based on our experience and research into the following specific application sections. Section B with a focus on estimated wagering activity. Section C with a focus on projected revenue. And lastly, section G with a focus on financial stability, liquidity, and the scenario analyses that the applicant was asked to perform. Please note that this presentation is based on documentation received as of November 21st, 2022. And the discussion prepared by our team is based on our preliminary research to date and is subject to change if new information becomes available. Questions posed to our team may require further research. And if we are unable to respond to a question before the end of this meeting, we will circulate a response to the commission as soon as practical. As instructed by the MGC, RSM conducts a preliminary review of each applicant's market share submission materials in tandem with other investigators involved in this process regarding the temporary license process. Much of the information shared is likely confidential, including market share and projections. We are happy to discuss those items in detail in an executive session. Rappers speak generally about the process by which the applicant shared such information in this public forum. In our preliminary market study, the jurisdictional rules and what other nearby markets are doing may impact any of these applicants' market size and sportsbook composition in a given state. For instance, when Massachusetts goes live, it is probable that neighboring states will see a decrease in sports wagering activity as patrons stay home and place their bets rather than crossing state lines to do so. Given the evolving nature of the online sports wagering and the varying number of platforms and different jurisdictions, it is difficult to predict the ultimate composition of the marketplace. Even after conducting extensive market research, but we can say it is being viewed as a lucrative long-term growth market by operators and industry analysts. For example, some analysts are predicting plus 10% compound annual growth rate. Speaking broadly, the online sports wagering experience of the Massachusetts applicant pool has varied levels of industry experience. They are represented both domestically and internationally, and some have decades of experience while others are still in the process of building their platform. The commission has received IEB's report addressing suitability review led by the Investigations and Enforcement Bureau that was just spoken to. That report is a review of the applicant's self-disclosed financial submission looking at a select few sections of the application, those being section C2 and G3, broadly comprising historical financial performance of sports wagering and other jurisdictions, liquidity and ability to fund upstart costs and losses, financial projections in Massachusetts, and financial impact of compliance risks, bankruptcies, and other legal items. We understand that the purview of the IEB's report was intentionally limited in scope to provide the commission with facts from which is rather own conclusion. R7 tends to speak broadly about the applicant in front of you today. The applicant has provided five years of financial information for Fanatics Holdings, Inc., the ultimate parent company of the applicant. The financials provided were related to the organization's current primary business of merchandise retailing. The sports wagering platform is still in the pre-launch phase. No financial operational data was provided for this business at this time. Section 4.2 of exhibit one to the IEB's report includes a discussion about the five year operating projections as provided by the applicant. These operating projections provide a view into the nationwide operating forecast of the applicant, not operation specifically within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We reviewed the applicant's revenue projection information and compared to market analysts, Deutsche Bank Equity Research Report, and Truist Securities Equity Research Report, gaming industry both issued in October of 2022. There, we looked into their market share projections and that's something that would be something and if we want to discuss further in an executive session. In preparing for this presentation, it was noted that the applicant provided two components of a Massachusetts specific forecast elsewhere in their general application. Handle size and tax revenue to Massachusetts. While these alone are not enough to provide much insight in the operating plan, we were able to derive a more wholesome forecast view including gross gaming revenue and hold percentage. We'll be happy to share our findings in an executive session. The plan relations turning towards liquidity fanatics is a privately held company. Due to this information not being separately publicly filed, we cannot speak to the liquidity picture of the parent company publicly. What we can say is the applicant self-disclosed. It has been planning for a nationwide simultaneous launch in all licensed jurisdictions. The planning has included preparing financial resources to support such an ambitious launch plan. We're happy to go into more detail and share figures in an executive session. It is ultimately up to the applicant's parent on how to allocate its financial resources. If faced with future losses, there is no guarantee it will continue sports wagering operations in Massachusetts, but it has the current resources to do so if it so desires. Our some will remain on the line to answer any questions the commission may have about this presentation or our written submission. If there are further specific questions on the contents of our report, we are happy to discuss those in an executive session. Mr. Skinner, did you have questions that are appropriate for the public that you wanted to weigh in? Publicly no. I'll set right now. Okay. Any questions for Jeff? I think I would ask that we have RSM provide a more wholesome financial report in the executive session. So that should go. Commissioner Brown, I see you. I was gonna ask, yeah, all the proffers during the summary, I would say yes to. And then any obviously derivative questions that we have on those topics, I think given that privately held really has to happen in executive session. Okay, Todd, you've made a note of that. Any particulars that you need from Jeff Todd for that request? You all set? I think I'm all set. Yes, thank you. Okay. Well, Jeff, if you'll exercise some patience, we're gonna go through our analysis of the application. So thank you. Absolutely. We'll see you in executive session. I assume to the applicant, you have no problem with that. We do not. Yeah, that would work for us. Okay, thanks, Mr. Commander. All right. Questioners, at this juncture, it's 12.30. I learned earlier today that we have a commissioner who needs to leave at 2.15. I mentioned that yesterday, Madam Chair. Yeah, I got mixed up. I thought it was three. So I was clarifying because I think I wasn't the only one who heard, may have heard. So thank you. So, commissioners, I'd like to see us get through the application review. What would you like for your, let's go through our timing real quick. What should we do? Can we go through the application, begin the application review now, or do people need a break? I just need a 10 minute break, Madam Chair. Did that work? Okay. Any output? Okay. Yeah, my apologies, commissioner Skinner. I did note three. I made a mistake, I guess. Oh, you know what? I'm not hearing well, so thank you. Okay, so we'll do 10 minutes and then we'll see how we go. Okay. Thank you so much. Thanks, Dave, you can take it down, please. So, commissioners, we do have a challenge because of the calendar was updated today to be at two, but apparently it was only on till three, as of yesterday, because we thought we would be concluding by three. Kathy, I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm sorry, I have to correct you. Commissioner Skinner, you're out of order and I am going to wait. Kathy, we scheduled was not just today, it's been there. Commissioner Skinner, please, the beginning. Commissioner Skinner, please let me finish. I am chairing and I want everyone to know we've got to figure out if we can't finish today by 2.15, we are not, we can't roll it over tomorrow because of our notice. So we need to be looking at our calendars for next week. I want to keep that in mind, but we want to proceed with our evaluation and we'll figure out, there's a couple of pieces of information that we're still waiting for. I know on one of the certifications is still in. So there's some work that could be done, but I'm wondering if we could all look at our schedules for next week while we're working, think about perhaps actually starting early. And I know that's really hard for certain folks, particularly those who have school children. So or, and I don't know because I know that it was a short, shorter day on the calendar, whether it was two or three. Another, some other folks have recommended could we reconvene this evening? And I don't know how that would work for the applicant or for anybody. So I just want to throw this out. We all have different moving parts and I want to respect that. And we don't have to be innovative and nimble in our thinking. So I'll pause on that issue and we'll start our review. And Commissioner Skinner, I'm sorry, but I really, I did, I have to ask for some order. And that's, there's no reason to challenge anything. We're all good. We're just all gonna try to look at it. I do have to, I do have to ask for the truth. I do have to ask that we be clear about what this time frame was on the calendar today. The meeting was scheduled until two and I worked around that. Okay, I'm sorry, Commissioner Skinner. I got daring information that was, it doesn't matter. And I misheard yesterday, it doesn't matter. We just know that we can't go through the whole day. And so I appreciate that there was this shorter day on the schedule. I am looking for some nimbleness here. Commissioner Skinner, that's all. I understand that. I'm happy to be flexible as I was yesterday when you had an event that you needed to attend. I'm more than happy to be flexible. I just asked for the same. Now if we could move forward again, and again, I'm sorry to have to raise some order. I'm also gonna ask, as we move forward for everyone to pause on their follow-up questions so that we can make sure to have every commissioner heard this and keep order of the meeting. I just, I'm gonna do that once again, just to keep our cadence going. So we will start now, and if everybody can have their minds going, we'll revisit scheduling instead of trying to solve it right this second, okay? So thank you. And thank you, Commissioner Skinner for the, and I was very appreciative of yesterday. So thank you. Okay, we will get started then with our review of the application and for the applicant, you'll, maybe you are aware of a process that we've had employed, but we'll go section by section and I'll do a temperature check with each, do each section and we'll move on. In the meantime, there'll be questions that we'll be asking. And some of them may require an executive session and that's of course what I'm concerned about in terms of timing. I am very thankful for your patience. Okay, so questions for the applicant on section B. Commissioner O'Brien, are you leaning in? I'm gonna be, I'm not the one that's gonna toggle between PDFs and hard copy. So now I'm gonna be the disjointed one today probably. It's okay though, because we can all manage. It's absolutely fine. I believe some of the questions that I have, I think it's in B and I'm not gonna be surprised at all if what you guys say to me is, geez, we gotta answer that in executive session, because when I looked at B, a lot of it, again, harken back to, look at the holding company and look at the history and the success, look at the type of database that the holding company has, the ultimate parent company I should say. And then this is how we believe that we can leverage that into a great experience and then take that database and sort of get these customers cross-populating. I have a lot of questions about exactly how that's gonna work in terms of, I think if we go to page 12 of your application, which I think is sub H, just outline of the technology that's gonna be used. Does everybody see what I'm referencing? Yeah, okay. The second paragraph, when you talk about the fanatics commerce data, sort of the customer database that will be sort of pivotal. I'm curious to know what kind of opt-ins, I mean, because that database has been developed for quite a while. So while I absolutely see sort of the genius of that in a marketing and in a launching of this product from an RG perspective, it took me back to say, well, geez, if I bought a product on a commerce site, what's my anticipation that I'm gonna get marketed and how often am I gonna get marketed based on that contact information I gave to maybe get pulled into sports betting? You know, and there's another reference where you guys use of her like novice, betters and introducing them into the market, that sort of thing. So some of the questions I have in terms of how are you gonna be able to segregate out who's of legal age on that customer database if you're gonna be actively marketing to them and or what did they opt to interrupt out of when they went on your site? In terms of, it's one thing to click a box to get marketed for product sales, it's another to get marketed to do betting. So those are the two big questions that I had about the basis of your plan in Section B. Commissioner O'Brien, if I could just follow up, I think we're thinking the same way. I think also if they're buying merchandise, I think that you were thinking the ecosystem is all wholesome. So I wondered about if an underage person is buying the jersey, how do you make sure that they don't get noticed of what's betting opportunities with your bandcatch model? So I don't know. I think that that's really one of the most, for me, the bigger question I had in the application. So we're leading the same way, Commissioner O'Brien. Sure, I'm sure when Commissioner O'Brien had to take that again, Alex Smith on the regulatory fair side. So we share your concern for the responsible gaming risk and we've actually developed some tools to address that. So at the outset, we'll say that any gaming marketing that goes out to the commerce database will have an opt-out feature. So customers that don't wanna see the gaming as can opt out easily. Anyone that we know is under 21 years of age, we will suppress marketing to those individuals to include anyone that tries to KYC with our product and fails for being underage. And we're also, we think there's really exciting opportunities to work with third-party technology providers that can help us identify and eliminate direct marketing to known miners. And it's worth noting. This cross-sell marketing will comply with all applicable regulations in the Commonwealth of New Zealand. So one of the things we haven't finished yet, obviously, is the advertising marketing. It's actually gonna be, we're gonna start that conversation next week. But in the answer, the thing that concerns me in that answer is I wanna know about the historic because it seems like you're relying on historic collection of this customer database. And I absolutely see that you're gonna segregate out, someone wants out, they don't opt in. But what was the opt-in opt-out when they became part of this fanatics database for the e-commerce purchase? That's what I'm worried about is people getting solicited because there is no screening process on the historic database. So is there anybody who can answer how you're gonna segregate that out so you're not targeting underage? Yeah, two points on that. One, all of our marketing will be in compliance with the privacy policy that next commerce has drafted. And two, to the point I made about technology providers, we've actually gone out and identified third parties that can help us screen the database and to remove underage individuals so that we'll have confidence that we're only targeting customers that are over potential customers that are 21 or older. And is there any way you can give us more information on that even in an executive session? Because I'm curious how that works. Yeah, I think in executive session we could go into more detail on that. That's right, absolutely. I'd like to understand a little bit better too. Thank you. Okay, and I think that was, it didn't really in section B, that's which, right? And so I thank you. Or maybe it was, it might have been actually a little bit later on. But it all is definitely a theme throughout the application. Other questions on section B? My question deals with your customer service operation. I believe in the material, in yesterday's presentation, you talk about Salesforce as a partner there. In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, it was announced that Salesforce is going to be laying off 10% of its workforce or about 8,000 employees. Just wondering if you have assessed any impact of that on your customer service operations and in this arena, or whether it's much too early to do that. Yeah, while it's, it's really, we believe there'll be no impact to how we address the needs of our customers based off that. Salesforce and large part will be used for email and CRM related use cases, which rather than triage of inbound customer requests. So we don't see any issue there. We also have SLA as a place with Salesforce. So I have no concerns. Let's see. Sorry. At a higher level, commissioner is going to know what I would say is, we rely on Salesforce for software, not so much for staffing. So. So your 24 seven chat, that has nothing to do with Salesforce staffing. All right, good. Thank you. What is CMR, please? CRM, it was CRM, which is customer relationship management. So basically how you think about managing your customer communications. Thank you. Other questions on being, did I understand that you, you will be opening a retail location in one of the other jurisdictions? That's correct. Maryland, maybe. Is that? That's correct, Commissioner Skinner. Okay. And is that in partnership with any other, is that in partnership with the casino or just a standalone fanatics? It's a standalone sports book. It'll be located at FedEx Field. Okay, thank you. I'm just curious about that. The list of promotion, sample promotions that you offered in B3, I think it's at the top of page seven, you list the risk-free first bet. And so just given all the scrutiny around the terminology risk-free, and it's sort of predatory nature, is that something that you intend to continue to offer? I know that there's been, Commissioner Skinner, I believe you were referring to, I think the movement amongst the top tier operators to move away from the term risk-free as part of the marketing materials. Well, because it's not just a move to move, it's not just an action to move away from it. I'm just more focused on sort of the idea that it's misleading, advertising, if you will. We would look at applying whatever the, is perceived to be the highest standard amongst the industry, our promotions in terms of transparency and simplicity to all of our promotions. Okay. Commissioner Hill, Maynard and Commissioner Hill, do you have a question and I'll turn back to Commissioner Skinner once she gets her notes together? I'm all set, Madam Chair, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard. I'm all good on this section. Okay, Commissioner O'Brien or Commissioner Skinner? I think I'm all set. I just, I had one question and again, this may fall into the, you'd have to get into more specifics in the executive session, but there's a comment that you guys make on, it's in B and you talk about how you'll be able to have a platform that allows you to aggressively compete not only with legal, but the illegal markets. And I'm just not really sure what you mean by that. Sort of you'd be able to draw from both without negatively impacting your position. What we mean by that is, as we've said, you will speak to a broader segment of the population. So there's a segment of the population that continues to operate in the black market. And we think based off our reach and our differentiated offering, we'll be able to bring more people into the regulated legal market. In other words, drawing people away from the black market and into the white one. Okay. If I could add to that, a lot of that comes from the insight of why people are in the black market and the shortcomings of the product. So that's what we meant by that. And then another question, you have some customer, your e-commerce customer database numbers that you guys put out there that are substantial. And obviously, you know, even just population-wise, Massachusetts is just a, even if everybody were part of your database, we're just a fraction of that. So I'm curious to know, and again, this may feed into the conversation with our RSM in executive session, but what does that translate to for Massachusetts? Is that right? We mentioned it. It's a little over 2 million investors. Okay. And in the executive session, we can go through in more detail what that translates to from a user's perspective in the state of Massachusetts specifically. Great. Thanks. So that for me, many of my questions were answered in the executive session, given that this is a new tool. So thank you. Commissioner Skinner, did you, I hear you say that you think that you're all set? I'm all set. All right. Then Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Hill, are you all set? All right. Then with that, I will take your temperature. Given that we'll have some, we'll get more information, I think, on this section in executive session. And actually, we should just check in with Todd. Are you comfortable with the matters that were raised that Commissioner Maynard and I asked about that they're suitable for executive session? Certainly the ones that have previously been raised are all entirely suitable. I apologize, I just missed that last one that you just brought. I think it was more, it's them drilling down on how much of that mass e-commerce database number is actually potential patrons. Yeah, they reported publicly that it's 2 million, but I think that the methodology was going to be... And then you have the other one that we raised about just the historical section of very hard to use to screen out underage. Yes, absolutely, I have that. I think those are all fair subjects and fit within the confines of the statute. Madam Chair, I think I would recommend that we hold on the temperature for section B until we have our executive session. Okay, but do we have a consensus on that? Commissioner Skinner, do you have an agreement? Okay, and I'll circle back to it. All right, now moving on to section C. Questions for the applicant? We may have dealt into a section C a little bit. I just would like clarity on the Greenfield location. I think that according to the application, you have eight employees in the Commonwealth. And is that on the sports wagering side or anticipated to be on the sports wagering side or are they there already? I guess I'm understanding how many new positions you're proposing as a result of a Massachusetts market. Kristen, do you want to take that or do you want me to take it? What we shared are our remote employees that currently live in the Commonwealth. So those would be eight remote employees that currently reside in the Commonwealth. Employees of the... Of the game. ...budding and gaming. Correct. They're remote. They live in Massachusetts, but they are remote. Commissioner Skinner, we are a remote-friendly company. So when you think about just to use an example, our engineering team, it's distributed across the country. And so those eight would be remote employees that work for fanatic spelling and gaming. Okay, and so would they be primarily Massachusetts focused or would they be servicing other jurisdictions, Ohio and Maryland? How does that break down? I guess ultimately I'm trying to understand what you would be bringing to Massachusetts in terms of employment. Should the gaming license, the sports wagering license, excuse me, be granted? So we'll continue to grow. Those eight, to answer your question specifically, those eight employees, Kristen, you probably have specifically who they are. Those eight employees are most likely working on the platform overall versus just serving the Massachusetts business. We would look... We also have several hundred employees at the commerce business, including most of them are lids, which is the retail store that we own. As we build our business in Massachusetts, we would look to find opportunities to put employment in the state where it makes sense from a business, building the business perspective. So that could involve additional staffing around marketing activities. It could involve additional technology staffing, but we don't necessarily have a specific planned, X number of employees are gonna go in once we get our license. And do you have a breakdown of the structure of those employees? Are they directors, managers, supervisors, just with line staff that you could provide for us? We can provide that for you. Yeah, happy to provide. And we could probably save this for the discussion in the next section that talks about diversity, but I'd also be interested in the diversity breakdown of those employees as well. We can provide that for you as well. Do you... Let's just see if we have any other questions in section C and then we'll get into diversity. Well, this slide gets her documents together. Other, I think, again, I had the same question under section C about the commerce database and the makeup on it in terms of miners. Other questions? I had one comment, one question. One was made by a fellow commissioner yesterday about the lottery in terms of, there's sort of a passing nod to it in this section, but I would say that the expectation was that any licensee was gonna put a more active effort into seeing how they could work with the lottery, not just not damaged, but to come up with something that would benefit the lottery. And Commissioner Bryant, I would say we would be very open to conversations about that. We do think that we're uniquely given just our brand and the comprehensive nature of the business, I think we'd be uniquely positioned to do some interesting things and we'd be very interested in that. And then the question that I had was page 19, we're talking again about some of the potential for increased jobs in the Commonwealth. And you sort of end that last paragraph on 19 with just sort of a recitation of how you guys are integrally involved in local sports and that it would increase for a demand of mass sports news ending with ultimately this rise of viewership would lead to an increased ad revenue. Are you talking about Massachusetts-based media outlets? Are you talking about you guys putting more revenue in? Like I was, I'm a little, and the RG part of me kicks in too, to thank, geez, I don't want the only money, extra money coming in in this proposition to be an inundation of advertising in the Commonwealth for sports betting. No, I absolutely understand that consideration, Commissioner Bryant. So what I would say is the way we think about it is probably two levels. I think one is the, what we've seen time and again is that sports betting does increase customer engagement with sports. And obviously the more viewers and the longer viewership that you have, the more the local channels can chart, the more advertising local channels can sell to anybody. Because the more people that are watching the car dealer ad, you know, the more they can charge for the car dealer ad. And so that we think that the underlying engagement benefit of sports betting can help lift the overall advertising market for the Commonwealth. The secondary point and the subset of that point is, you know, we do believe that we will, and our plans call for complimenting what we do with our existing user base to compliment that with paid media, that we would look to deploy a significant chunk of that paid media to local advertising channels, whether that's, you know, targeted ads. But again, all done with a level of one, I think discretion around total amount of advertising because I share your view that, you know, if every, if two out of every three ads during a game or sports betting ads, we've done something collectively wrong. And then two, making sure that the channels that we use are effective in being targeted to the demographic that we want, which is people that are of age. Commissioners, Senator, Commissioner Maynard, Commissioner Hill, other questions is section C. We are here from RSM. Oh, sorry, Commissioner Maynard, we are here from RSM. Oh, is that right? I was gonna say my questions revolve around handles, projections and potential tax revenues with RSM. And I'm just putting that on the record. So Todd has it. Good, I think we're all covered on that anyway from our earlier conversation, but of course we'll get more on that. My apologies, Commissioner Maynard. Okay, I have to say that fanatics work in certain areas should be commended. And to the extent that we end up licensing you, we look forward to you continuing some of the community engagement work that you've done with Robert Kraft and through Michael Rubin's work. So it's, I didn't want that to be lost. We also of course will look forward. It seems as though it's in the organization's DNA and I know Commissioner Hill, you would want to see a community engagement level work done and I suspect that you'll have, should the license be given, a good partnering language part, casino to continue that goodwill on a community level basis. So just wanted to say that I appreciated the work and the report that was provided. In fact, from my perspective, other questions that are outstanding in the application has been a pleasure to read. So thank you. With that, if there are no other questions on section C, if we could move on to section D, that would be great. Richard, Senator, you had a question on the workforce breakdown. Yeah, just a lot of what we saw yesterday with the PSI application is not a whole lot to go on in terms of what the internal goals are for your workforce diversity as well as your vendor spend. So I'd be interested in understanding a little bit more about what your intentions are or what your progress has been relative to those two points. I'm happy to take this one to start and then if anyone on the team wants to join in, that's great too. Specifically related to workforce diversity, our past work has been largely around benchmarking. Where are we and what are we achieving so that we can create goals? So first and foremost, we want to improve on our diverse team. We'll do this by implementing in this quarter, Q1 of 2023 data collection and reporting on our applicants so we can create benchmarks for new applicants. That's a new ad we're bringing into our applicant tracking system. We'll also look to improve specifically on the director plus diversity. Historically, what we've seen is if we have strong diversity at our director and above level, that is a significant boost to creating diversity amongst all levels of the business. Finally, we'll look to our employees to inform us on success. We launched in 2022 an anonymous poll survey and that's specific just to the batting and gaming company to employees which asks employees a bi-weekly series of questions which are fully anonymous. Those questions ask around safety, inclusion, belonging and diversity. An example of a couple of those questions just so that you can hear them is this company strives to recruit from diverse sources. I feel a sense of belonging at this organization. This gives us data on those really important points in an anonymous way straight from our employees. Both of our scores on those questions are over 80% currently. We are in the early stages of the survey. So we recognize that oftentimes people have a high report in the beginning and then over time it will level out. So our goal is to end 2023 remaining above 70% across all engagement metrics which include those important questions. I shared yesterday, we are looking to implement recruiting with a few really specific sources this year that we are working with. So we'll work with minorities and sports network, power to fly which targets female candidates, national black engineers, women in tech and out in tech which specifically looks to support our efforts and recruit within the LGBTQ community. On the supplier spend question, so what we're targeting this year is a 3% annual growth working on creating benchmarks for quality qualified minority supplier spend across the organization with that initial target of 3% annual growth company-wide. Thank you, Kristen. Just a couple of comments. You mentioned a list of a couple of the partnerships that you've engaged in. Is that the, are those included in the 10 that you mentioned in the application? Those are- Are you targeting internships to women and underrepresented individuals? Some of those cross over, but these are by a large new this year. Okay, all right. And any of those entities in Massachusetts based? We will follow up with that information. Okay. I couldn't quite hear that question, please. I asked whether any of the entities that they're working with to diversify their employment teams from Massachusetts based. Thank you. And we'll follow up on that and we would welcome any additional suggestions or partnership with your team on that in the future as it is a goal of ours. And then I understand your 3% annual growth goal in terms of diversity spend, but it's hard to understand what that really means if we don't have your existing numbers. And so I do note that your intention is for fanatics, betting and gaming to ultimately receive downstream and benefit from the work that FHI, the ultimate parent company is already undertaken. And so I look forward to hearing more about how that's playing out should the applicant be issued a license. And maybe just to build on how we think about building diverse teams within FHI. Matt mentioned this kind of at the outset. You see the representation on our leadership team. It is not something that we take lightly. And I would point to kind of our individual and collective track record and building diverse teams. I'm a more recent hire at FBG but I can say at the prior company that I was at, I oversaw a team of over 100 people. They were 70, more than 70% women and more than 60% people of color. We take diversity, equity and inclusion incredibly seriously. And it is something that we intend to live by as we build our team at FBG. If I could add to that. That you're heading in the right direction. Go ahead. Sorry, I was just going to add from a marketing standpoint. I personally sit on the board of Marcus Graham project who is also engaged at the FHI level, which is a advertising and marketing program to get more people of color into the industry. You get them further faster. We recruit directly out of that group. And I also sit on and off as a advisor to add color, which is the largest diversity driven acknowledgement body in the advertising industry. So again, another area where we recruit and where we have a direct relationships. So from a marketing standpoint, we spent a lot of time being engaged, not only recruiting from, but getting back to and advising and teaching within. Thank you. Do you have other questions? Can I turn to another question? Yeah. Thank you. Madam chair, I just very quickly, if anybody could answer this question. I think you've, you've touched upon this. Is there any programs within your organization where in-house where you would work with your employees to have them climb the ladder of success? Yeah. Can you touch upon that? I think you did yesterday, but I can't remember exactly. Yeah. So we are currently. Building that program right now. We hired a team member. Build out that. And specifically. Gaming. So all those HR programs come directly from within. So our, our management team and our leadership team will develop, you know, internally as best we can to grow the team. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you. And you're all set. Yeah. I'm all set. The only note I would say is that I, I see the parent company as, as having a great, you know, success as, as I understand it. And it's again. Figuring out which entity is which, but I, I am. With borrow on the five employee led resource groups. I'm not sure. You know, replicate that down through your organization. But I, I am. I like it very much. And I know that you've elaborate on it today, but thank you. And in terms of the actual percentages. Do you want to just go over. Right now. The numbers I had. Were they from the parent company that were in there as opposed to York? Is that commissioner's dinner was driving it. This last one. So we have. Thank you. Christian correct me if I'm wrong. So there was one set of stats that represented fanatics overall. I would say that the. Probably the most germane. Fanatics betting and gaming status. If 52% of the, if 52% of our employee population identifies either as a woman or from a diverse background. And so, you know, we look at what the commerce business. And you kind of the broader holding company does from a program perspective and a structure perspective. It's effectively the floor of what we do. And then we look to leverage what they've done. The great work that they've done, but then also add to it where it's relevant. You know, for us as well. And I wanted to make sure I understood that correctly. So I think that that's. Knowing. Innovations and intentionality on. On your part of being benefiting from the parent company, but actually exceeding some of their. Their work. So wanted to make sure I understood that correctly. That is correct. Okay. Then. There are no other questions. We didn't take the character on. That can see because we, I assume we wanted to hold that as well because of the big piece of the finance work, which we understood why. You were able to answer those fully. Given that. In the development process. And as a private company. So, but for D. Do we. May I take the. The applicants temperature on D commissioner. Madam chair, I believe in section D. The applicant has met expectations. Mr. Skinner. Are you leaning in? I believe that the applicant has met expectations relative to section D. However, I would be. Interested in imposing a condition. Similar to what we imposed on PSI. Yesterday relative to diversity goals. And. Both employment and. Supply. Madam chair, I believe in section D. The applicant has met expectations. Mr. Skinner. I believe that the applicant has met expectations relative to section D. However, I would be. I believe that the applicant has met expectations relative to section D. And as a private company. I believe that the applicant has met expectations relative to section D. And so. I actually see a goal. And had a articulated on this. The fire spend of the 3% growth. I think if I understood. If I. Would understand where it is today. I would understand what that 3% means. And I could get over that. You know, move past that one. I would join commissioner Skinner. on the hiring piece. So I understand that we imposed that condition yesterday, but there was one caveat, Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner Mayer, that I'd like to make sure that we have been consistent. I thought that the other applicant raised a very clear point that with respect to supplier diversity, it was about establishing a goal and so in this instance, they have put in a goal. So I just, I want to clarify that. And then secondly, with respect to workforce, I think Commissioner Skinner yesterday's condition was that there was an absence of a goal and that's what we imposed. And I think I just asked if we could do some due diligence to see if that was a condition that we need to make. We need to apply consistently across all licensees and candidates. I don't think, but we have attitude that was asked for in the application. I think Commissioner Mayer's supplier diversity goal was affirmative request. So. And I do note that the 3% is listed, but again, I said earlier, that's hard to really understand when we don't have a lot of the data available to us. And so we're hoping that we could get that data so that we can understand exactly what the total total dollar amount is and similar things like that. Okay. And if we can jump in here, we'll certainly provide on that data. Kristen's working on that. And we'll have that over as soon as we're able to pull it. We would just ask any conditions imposed on us, reflect the status of our company and the new, the fact that it's newly formed. So in terms of looking back at historical numbers to compare ourselves to, we may not be able to do that, you know, similar to other more established companies. So we're just asking this should be tailored with that, with that in mind. Thank you. And so the only thing I asked to is that we do do that homework and help the Grossman to see about the other licenses that we've awarded. I've prepared the Massachusetts. I have all the Massachusetts updated data. Would it be helpful for me to share that with you guys now? Sure. Great. So as of the new year, we've actually added a new person. So we're nine employees in the Commonwealth. 78% of our employees in the Commonwealth currently identify as either gender, female or ethnically diverse or both. They span a few teams. So the primary team is 78% of the team members are on our engineering team. One is a leader, a senior manager on our risk operations team. And one is a director on our strategic partnerships team. So all of the employees are currently at a minimum level of software engineer two, which is above entry level for our software engineers. And they span up through the director level. Right. Thank you. Can you do the breakdown women? Yeah. It combined it's 78%. 33% identify as females. I've got to do a little more mental math here. Hang on. That one was easy. The 45, 40 would be diverse. Well, but I bet you might have somebody. You may have some. So many of those. Yeah. 55% identify as a diverse on ethnicity. Okay. I wanted to get the math right. Yes. Thank you. There's some over there. So does that mean that we have satisfaction on that proposed condition? I kind of said one for all about the senior manager. She's a female and the director is the African American male. And then our manager level employee is a I'm just confirming here. I believe a diverse male as well, but I need to confirm that. So I'm sorry. That's a white male. So we have an African American male director. We have a female in the senior manager position and in the staff level position, which is equivalent to a manager. We have a Caucasian male. So does that satisfy the condition that we're requesting? No, because we don't have goals. We don't have the identified rules. So you want the goals? And so that's the question. That's the part that I just want to make sure we've applied consistently because I don't believe we affirmatively pass for goals in the application. Madam chair, I would say that you were correct. I went back and looked at the application. That said, I think it's definitely within the bounds of the application for commissioner to ask those for that. And I would join the commission, my fellow commissioners in, in asking for that information and asking for it uniformly across the board. As to the condition that we've been placing, there is a goal. And I see the goal on supplier spin. It would be interesting for me to know the current spin because I don't know if let's just do quick math. If it's 0% now, I know it's not. But I'm saying if it's 0% diverse supplier spin now, that would mean that your goal is 3%. For this year, 6%, there were some look like potential to move that. If it's 10% now, that would make it 13% at the end of the year. So it would be interesting to know the base. And just a simple answer to that question would probably meet that for me. I don't know if it would for Mr. Skinner or not. And in terms of the employment goals, I was thinking, and thank you, Commissioner Maynard, for pointing out that that is not what we requested in the application. And so I was thinking more long term. We have our current licensees reporting on a regular basis on their numbers, their diversity numbers. And just anticipating that that might also be the case for the sports wagering licensees. And so I think if it's not imposed as a condition now, it's certainly something that we should require in the appropriate form. Well, I do agree with Commissioner Maynard. And I'm glad with that. We have a latitude to ask for it now. But I agree. Commissioner Skinner, I think that any licensee of the Master's Game Commission is going to want to track those statistics. So the fact that we asked now, I'm just thinking, as Commissioner Maynard said, just as long as you're consistent, I feel powerful if you're asking. I feel that the applicants are all learning that this is this commission that I'm pointing out yesterday. That's significant to me, quite to us. So the only thing I'm looking forward to on our part is to make sure we look back and find consistency. Anything else on Eve? So it would be, I think Commissioner Maynard, I have not yet heard from you. The only question I had, I had asked for the Master's Game Commission yesterday. So, you know, she just gave me the Master's Game Commission. So I'm good. Okay. I think I'll move with the commissioner's story. Commissioner Maynard's great question. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And in terms of conditions, obviously, you know, we're looking at temp licenses now, but for legal to keep a running list in terms of moving forward with durable suitability and licenses that certainly I think we should look to 23K. The CAT ones are already subject to that under 23K. So looking at what's there and carrying over when you get to the durable suitability and licenses is probably a good administrative project on our own. All right. So I'll follow up with Todd and Karen on that. All right. So and probably, so we don't have to continue the conversation so maybe get that two minutes later. All right. Then we're moving on to section B. Is everybody doing okay? Responsible game. Questions. So I'm happy to defer somebody else. I don't want to be the first one to go every time, but I'm also happy to go. People want to. Right. Commissioner Maynard, I think our early questions rolled over into responsible gaming for me. So. Right. Is that commissioner Maynard? So I think I said this, the conflict that I saw in sort of what makes a great business pitch gives me concern in the RG space. And I had a conversation with our director of responsible gaming and I asked him specifically to go through your section in the application on this. And I understand some of this is you guys are still getting your feet on the ground and you're still getting launched. And so some of the vagaries in there are our creature of that. But what I was looking for and hoping for is some more specifics in terms of as you guys are getting closer and closer to launch, which is some of sort of the employee trainings that you set out are really broad and really admirable. I just don't know how realistic they are to get into that level of detail on training on everybody. And so I'm curious to know some more specifics in terms of what the employee responsible gaming training is really going to look like. And then the one of the areas that was a little more than a little troubling to me was, and you're not the only applicant that we've said this to, which is when we specifically reference Massachusetts materials and then we ask for the applicants to relate to what we have for the RG materials. The only reference to Game Sense was literally a recitation of the question back in your answer in terms of considering and incorporating principles from the Mass Game Sense Logic model. But there were actually no specific references to the model. And so what I'm really looking for is more specifics. And if I misheard this yesterday, it sounds like you're getting a compliance committee together and that one of their tasks will be to approve your actual RG plan. And so I'm curious if you actually have an RG plan or whether that's still a work in progress. Commissioner Skinner, it's Alex Smith again. I can take that. So to start, we do have an RG plan that we submitted with our application. That plan will go before our compliance committee for review and approval. Additionally, what happened? Is that imminent or? It's scheduled for the first quarter of this year. Okay, so by March 1. Okay, we'll go by March 1. Yes, scheduled March. On the training point, again, as we mentioned yesterday, all Fanatics employees, regardless of position, will receive responsible gaming training, which we do intend to kick off shortly this month. Additionally, customer facing staff will receive enhanced additional training. We've engaged a vendor that provides in-person training. So we'll have sessions actually in our operations centers where this company will come and do an in-person presentation. On the game sense point, we're more than happy to go back and to amend the responsible gaming plan that we submitted to provide more specifics on how we intend to incorporate the game sense logic. Yeah, okay, because there's sort of self-exclusion. There's a lot of that that was not really specific in your application and your plan to Massachusetts. And while I understand you're early, you're in a posture asking us to maybe move you forward to a temple license at a launch. And so to me, you're not there yet with what you submitted on that. I would love to see you supplement specific to the application and come back. You know, we can go back to sort of the other RG questions we're going to do in executive session. I guess the last one would be, you talk about putting limits and exclusions. If you on the app determine that there should be limits on a user, you see red flies, that sort of thing. I'm just curious what training you give to employees to identify anything where you feel like a user should be subjected to those limits externally. So part of that, we kind of have a layer one, layer two review system. So our operations team will review data reports that our data scientists produce. My team's responsible for developing the criteria that they review and the escalation. So if an operator sees data in a certain range, it'll be flagged to the responsible gaming team for additional review and action. And the RG team is made up of who again? Right now it's myself. We've hired a senior manager who has significant industry experience as well. And we have headcount allotted for this year to add to that team as well once we get launched. Do you know what the headcount is, ballpark? I can provide that to you shortly. Great. Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien, I need to follow up on your question. And I want to make sure that all the commissioners heard you. But I think I heard you say that you were asking for them to come back with more on this section. If that's the case, I'd like more specificity so that I understand. I move here. You mentioned Game Sense and we did give the framework as part of the application, but we did not require applicants. To adopt the Game Sense model and there's been a variety. I think you mentioned it, that applicants. But we know that if they want to come and work in Massachusetts, they'll be working with our director. And it sounds as though that there's at least a level of desire for collaboration on that part. So what would you want specifically? And perhaps we need to have, if you've had a conversation with Director Vander Linden, then probably I'll need to hear from him as well. Yeah. So what I was really looking for is specific references to any reg or any references in that plan that we had. How, if at all, your draft RG plan have to change relative to Massachusetts. And I understand again, some people are giving us mock-ups of certain things. You're not in a position to do that right now. In terms of how it would look on your app or things like that. But I was looking for a little more specifics on exactly how the Massachusetts model is going to fit in with your experience and your advertising. Definitely. We're happy to supplement with that. And Commissioner O'Brien, I just confirmed we have two additional headcount scheduled for 2023 for our responsible gaming team. But that said, based on the success of our company, if that team is in a date of work, we'll certainly add to that and won't let that be a barrier to adding folks. Great. Thank you. Any follow-up on Commissioner O'Brien's request of the applicant? Commissioner Maynard, are you moving in? Commissioner Hill, I think. No, Commissioner Maynard, go ahead. I looked at E-1801 and I think, you know, I think all the pieces are there. A lot of what we're looking for is there. I think kind of Commissioner O'Brien's point, we do things slightly different in Massachusetts. And so it's like you're singing acapella and we have a full band. But I actually saw the pieces there and was satisfied at least at this preliminary stage with what was there. Commissioner Hill? I just want to clarify that in an executive session, we're going to hear, I hope, a little bit more about the partnership between Fanatics, the parent company, and then, of course, this company in regards to RG. Is it something we're going to hear in an executive session or can we talk about that publicly? I think our preference, since that is at this point, is incredibly sensitive. We prefer to discuss that executive session. You know, certainly, I think we touched on before. We can talk through the overall structure of the company, which Commissioner O'Brien brought up, which I think will be helpful for that, to frame that conversation. And then from there, we can talk about, you know, these things, questions about the relationship or plan relationship between Fanatics, betting, and gaming, and the legacy Fanatics commerce business. Thank you. Then I will hold my questions until the executive session, Madam Chair. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Skinner? So, and you're good meaning that you found that it meets expectations? No, is that what we're talking about? I'm sorry. Sorry, had you started that discussion? No, I hadn't. I don't know about that. I guess I was saying to Commissioner O'Brien's point, I realized I framed it in that way. She had thought that it needed more, that she was asking for more information. Do you feel like you're satisfied, or do you feel more information as well? And if so, I think it would be helpful to be specific for the applicant. But you said you're good. I think the information that's already been identified as missing would be helpful to us all once we receive it. Madam Chair, I respectfully, I, again, I think it's more a substance or style over substance. I'm not sure I know what's missing. I would be okay with this as it is. Is it a perfect version of it? No, but it's, you know, I think the pieces are there. Well, I have to say that some of the, at least one answer resonates with me that was an executive session that I wish I could share, but I can't. And I do feel that I'll perhaps agree with Commissioner Maynard that when I read through and then coupled with yesterday's presentation and today's executive session already, and given the experience of this particular applicant, I don't feel as though there's an archy deficiency here. And that's what I don't want to message. So that's why I'm looking for particulars. I think I am on the record for the different applicants because I think Commissioner O'Brien raised the fact that the game sense wasn't mentioned. And again, that wasn't a requirement of the applicant. But I do think anticipated collaboration is a fair question to ask. And I think I heard that answer today pretty clearly. So again, I mean, I don't know if I'm in agreement with Commissioner O'Brien either, but I think it's mainly because I'm not sure exactly what it is that this applicant hasn't provided that overall. One of my concerns is just that is because it's such a new company, we have a company that doesn't even have an office-wide approved official RG plan. We have drafts. And so it's one thing for companies that come in and have it and sort of tweak it and as they go with experience. And I have concerns about the model of how you're going to get your database and pull them in and some of the language that's pretty aggressive in the pitch that kind of runs counter to the RG sense for me. And so I have a concern about wanting to see more specifics. I'd love to see this approved at the corporate level before they're coming in and asking us to, you know, hit the ground running and flip the switch. So that's where I have strong hesitancies in this category. But if I may be the only one, we may come out of executive session and I may be satisfied and or I may be the only one. And from my perspective, I'd prefer to have the discussion in executive session before I render a decision as to whether or not this section meets expectations. Thank you. I also believe Commissioner Hill raised some concerns as well. Yes, that will be addressed. That will also be addressed in executive session. Right. Okay. So we'll wait for the executive session with respect to any other questions we don't want to make sure we're not just, we have again the whole response. Make sure there are any other questions that would be addressed in the executive session or that you want to ask right now on the responsible gaming submission. Is there anything else? Okay. Then we'll hold for executive session. Okay. F. Any questions on section F? The only question I have is relative to Salesforce and I wrote this down to ask in connection with my earlier concern but I wrote it down in section F because it concerns the KYC checks. Are you using Salesforce to assist with that? I know you're using them for more email focused communication with patrons but does that include the KYC checks that you demoed earlier? So the initial KYC checks will be done via SoCure and then if the customer trying to sign up is not successful in passing the automated or ID verification check facilitated by SoCure it will have to upload documentation via Salesforce to our customer service team. And so just wondering if you have a contingency for that service should Salesforce not be able to meet your expectations or have such a severe reduction in service due to the layoffs? So it's a good point on SoCure specifically. So within the next couple of quarters we will be integrating an additional KYC provider. So we'll be able to cascade a customer from one KYC provider to the other in case there is any outage or any other issues arise. Salesforce given that they're cloud based they've got impressive reliability and scalability and resiliency. We don't anticipate outages being all that common so we would have multiple points of redundancy at least on the upfront KYC checking as well as Salesforce if customers end up in the manual document upload process. We anticipate the number of customers that would end up having to manually upload documentation via Salesforce to be somewhere in the mid to low single digits. And again Commissioner I would note that the Salesforce is simply providing the software solution versus any staffing. So it's really so long as they are in line with their historical uptime and reliability of the software this Salesforce's actual staffing shouldn't necessarily wouldn't affect the performance of our application because we're doing the checks ourselves. Okay thank you I thought I understood Scott was saying something slightly different. No Matt is exactly right. Okay did you talk about the documentation that would be required should a customer not cast the initial check? That is something that Salesforce is assisting with. Did I mishear that? So our staff will be so based on the failure reason when a customer is trying to get KYC approved it could be different address and what's on file it could be a different name it could be just an error in first date or any other information that might be off from what is in the database that we're pinging via SoCure and in the future SoCure and additional KYC providers if a customer has failed for a variety of reasons depending on the failure reason you will ask the customer to provide it could be a driver's license, a passport, a utility bill depending on the failure reason that customer would upload that documentation using the Salesforce software platform our in-house team on the risk and fraud side as part of our operations team would then look at the documentation that was uploaded by the customer and then make a determination have they satisfied KYC at that point or not at which point the customer service age or the risk and fraud agent would then change the KYC failed state in the Amelko PAM into a past state and the reason code would be manual document verification and all of our staff is trained on what's sufficient what's not sufficient in terms of being able to manually approve a customer for KYC thank you that's very helpful clarification you're welcome thank you commissioner other questions on the section Madam chair I actually think the applicant has met expectations for section F I would agree same I should maybe I'll set I must know enough me yes I'm good thank you all right then I'll move on to section G executive session material yeah I think that's probably right but there may be specific questions in the application commissioner's I know without getting into specifics one of the ones I do want to delve further into is is I think sub D in that section when it talks about liquidity leverage profitability ratios etc the the answer given I understand conceptually I'm just I am looking for specifics as best can be given and so that's one of the areas I do want to talk about when we get an executive session and commissioner Brian we have somebody from the holding company that'll join us as part of executive session that can provide the up-to-date and detailed information great I I'm assuming that we've already that's covered but I also want to understand the the individual investors okay we've covered that commissioner Brian yeah I believe so because one of the other questions that I have is the entities that are designated in our application when you cross-check Maryland one of them is different and one of them asked for an entity variance to not have to be licensed in Maryland and so I wanted to ask a little bit about that because I do think there are going to be any qualifier with us and so I just wanted to ask a little bit about that too and we're certainly happy to discuss you know our ownership and holders so it's five of two I'm assuming that for us we're going to need the executive session to be able to G I mean G right to complete my apologies E and F we have we have given a green light to was still executive session I think Madam Chair I think it's I think D and F is what we've said has met expectations yeah all others we have that's right I'm sorry yeah my I read my notes I've got down right back there yes and so we'll see what we come out of from executive session it's about two o'clock commissioners we need to talk about scheduling and the course needs to be part of that discussion so I don't know if Crystal is available too to help us and Karen if this Erin's available to help us yeah I'm here and I'm looking at what we've got already I've got my calendar up and of course going to put out again I don't know everybody's individual schedules today and but I know that I want to put it out because I don't know people would be available for the evening that was asked of me and so I am I am I am reiterating that asked can we show him I would not be able to do tonight until 7 30 and and I'm out of pocket come 6 30 so okay not available at all it's already going to be a late night for me and I also have to continue to prep for tomorrow's meeting okay so that's not going to work for today now as I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting what was important for me to get across is that I was thinking we would roll it over to tomorrow morning when we first talked earlier today and I recognize that we had a notice problem and that's under our open meeting long requirements and our public records among requirements that we have to post unless there's an emergency so now I'm going to turn first to councillor Grossman is there any way that we could roll this over in the morning if the applicant were available I know that we have all the untethered coming in for a joint session at the very beginning so it would be sometime after that well this certainly doesn't seem like an emergency unless anyone feels otherwise so for starters I don't think we can just post the meeting in that fashion well I guess I should expand why I said that you know we we do have a statute that has an element of timeliness being that's imposed on us so I just maybe emergency and just wondering if that's something that we could explore but it sounds like no I mean to be frank it doesn't sound like an emergency to me but you know I don't know what the jurisprudence exactly is on that point I'd be surprised if this would qualify but I would not advise that approach rolling over is not great practice it has been done it's been looked at in a number of different contexts and it's the attorney general's office is the entity that opines on this there are some instances where they've allowed it some instances where they said it is not a good idea particularly where it's a high stakes matter as this one would seem to be so it is certainly not good practice to roll things over in an unnoticed faction like this but there have been instances where it has been done okay so with that guidance we probably need to look into the next week and Karen are you able to give some insight on that yeah so I'm looking at it right now next week starts the 9th currently we have meetings on Monday Tuesday Wednesday and Friday on the untethered applicants those are scheduled to start at 8 at 10 a.m and then we have a public meeting we are scheduling for the 12th so some options we have for continuing this and finishing this next week if we do have to post notice so say we wrote it up and posted it first thing tomorrow morning we would need two days that would put us at the the morning of the 10th one option would be given where you are we could do the meeting on this applicant from 8 a.m to 10 a.m and then start with I think better is the one that's starting at 10 so you could do that or you could post it and continue it in the evening on the 10th same kind of situation for the 11th or the 13th whether you want to do it before or afterwards if you want to do it I think the 12th we just went through in the agenda setting meeting really really a lot going on there so I'll defer to the commissioners whether they want to do it either before or after that meeting as another option but it really comes down to early morning and start and finish it up then or in the evening after we conclude at say four o'clock on any of those meetings that's the availability for next week we are very busy right now I can do an early morning meeting but I don't know how the other commissioners feel about that I can take the next available time yeah mornings are tougher for me given my circumstances so I would need a little time to plan accordingly so if you did Tuesday or Wednesday Wednesday is probably easier for me to do an early morning than Tuesday to be blunt but I could do my best on Tuesday I can do evenings as well that week but I understand that that's not going to work for you commissioner also madam chair through you commissioner brian did you say Wednesday would be the better day for you yeah so I'm just checking and I could do an early morning that day as well okay I can do early mornings um commissioner brian I was going to say Tuesday works better for me but but I can you know I can I can work around what I have going on can we um can can we get it done in two hours commissioners that we start at eight yeah that's the other question well can it be written to finish this and then roll into the next one I mean it's supposed to a hard stop it would be that evening or the next morning or well but if it was written to continue to start at eight continue with this and then move into drapking would we need the hard stop if we need to sell 1015 and then started drafting the 1015 does that work I like that if it does work well my concern is this is going to become a perpetual issue we're really trying to reserve a full day for and honestly but I I don't want to I don't want to say yes now because I don't know what the question there's a pretty robust agenda for executive session and I don't I don't want to be having an external deadline to say you have to stop and and decide the commission over and that's fair so when you said rolling in I would prefer not to roll into the untethered applicants time and I this applicant is really I'm asking for a lot of flexibility here if we didn't get done on Wednesday morning from eight to ten would we roll over into Thursday eight to eight to ten or that evening which is I know I think we're going to start the public meeting on 12 at nine but I would say we could roll it over into eight ten applicants now I'm going to turn to you Mr. King I am very sorry that you're having to navigate this with us you your commission has a lot on the agenda so it's totally understood I think in Adam jump in I think we will make this is a top priority for us so we will make whatever schedule the commission can allot to us we'll make that work yes from our perspective that we agree thank thank you so with that work that's two mornings of early and I know that's smart to navigate for some of us but that would be the idea of commission or Brian because otherwise I think it would just become a potential problem we won't yeah I just say with the caveat that you know I don't want anybody's time to be cut off hard stop if there's questions now I think that we would intend I mean this is what it would just make me that would roll over to the next day you'd be comfortable with that yeah if we have to okay and then so that means the crystal changing the the start of the 12th meeting to 10 so that we were giving four hours um for this I really think that we'll we'll be able to conclude this uh analysis and evaluation um in those four hours it just means that we'll have some extra coffee at our side um Richard's Richard how you feeling about that that works I was going to just make a suggestion and that's you know we could avoid some of these conditions especially around the diversity information if that information happened to be supplemented between now and next week just throwing that out there for the applicant to hear and then the other thing for the commission and for for us is this has happened a few times now I wonder if it makes sense Todd to start noticing you know the applicant and the applicant after it yeah well the other thing can I I want to it's not this really was intended to stop the next the next weeks are one agenda on Todd allowed that for that so it is rolling through um and we should be all set going forward uh commissioner Maynard so that if we put this in somehow we'll have to figure it out that it's in the morning elements but it will roll over right Todd this will work because we just posted yesterday it's an amendment now yeah you can mark a meeting for as many days as you want and if you happen not to use them that's fine not I would prefer that I mean we did that this week we did that this week and so we'll do the same thing but I'm I'm trying we'll make sure to cover us on the on the agenda I just want to make sure we're covered on for us and realistically that we will be able to be there for those four hours and in commissioner Maynard they have to be a agenda now like this week we just kept on continuing so but today we thought we would be finished that's why we're starting with the untethered that makes sense commissioner Maynard but did I misunderstand no I just think that you are more positive about uh the time that we need that then I am and I would just notice it I mean I would start noticing all of these for every day just so we have the flexibility to do what we need to do and if we have to come back the next morning it won't put an applicant a week out which I hate to do we'll see commissioner Maynard we have actually marked the untethered ones for eight or nine days or what have you so that has been done there it wasn't done here but so it was done starting this week all the way through here we covered it but we didn't we were more optimistic apparently commissioner Maynard on this one so yes I agree Karen yes so what I'm hearing though is we're all set for the untethered as far as that scheduling but what I'm hearing the concern is if you don't finish this application in the two hours we want to notice it so you could go into another time period but we don't want to interfere with the schedule we've already got so we'd have to be like another eight to ten another day it's going to be two eight go day to day basically in Thursday I think commissioner Maynard would say roll it over to even Friday in case yeah but I'm hearing a commitment from the commissioners for eight to ten on on Wednesday and Thursday and then I need to know now well I'll let our applicant go but before we adjourn today we need to just make sure we're very clear on our scheduling going going forward and then I think for for the the next six applicants that will come before tomorrow so does that work I'm hearing the four hours with a the caveat that we would either add time on the end of one of the days or or add another morning on Friday should we need more time I think commissioner Maynard brought up a really good point there are some outstanding pieces including from Commissioner O'Brien much would like to see this would be a time Mr. King if you want to get any clarity on that because that we are giving some good news is there some time we also will have some time to get Mr. Rubin's certification in by then that was outstanding IEB did you get the agreement that you were looking for that was outstanding I'm not sure if I heard that clearly that was a copy of the agreement that you have with PPC if not do you have that direction Lillio scare we have the the memorandum of understanding that was referenced I don't believe we have anything further and we have submitted that that full agreement so so the team should have that and I believe we just submitted Mr. Rubin certification we just yeah just request that link for it so as soon as we get the link from license saying that will be submitted today excellent so that's taking care of responsible gaming is there any question you want to ask the follow-up on that Mr. King and Dean I think the instructions are pretty clear but Adam or Alex do you are there any follow questions that you have noted my understanding we need to update the Massachusetts responsible game plan that we submitted to include how we specifically plan to incorporate the game sense logic and any other specific requirements from the Commonwealth is that correct yep I think that and also probably it sounded like Commissioner Brian you were looking for some additional detail on the RG training that we were going to deliver yeah sure and then if you have any mock-ups for executive session in terms of how you think some of those messaging and our hotline and stuff we're going to look in your app we can take that down and let us see what we can pull together okay yeah and and the to your point commissioner Maynard on this supply diversity and then commissioner Skinner with respect to workforce if they are able to establish goals between now and then and come back to us that would be a supplement that we accept wait so that's the goodness is there anything else that was outstanding that we want to okay just madam chair it sounds like we should also prepare us a supplement that just potentially provides a little bit more specificity around the suppression of name on projected under 21 individuals from the commerce database just to be able to address that that point as well definitely yeah yeah so my question that I want to make sure it's not executive session but if I must if I am a 28 year old buying a jersey I get my cash credits will I be directed somehow to not only use them for buying a lid you know buying a hat somewhere or buying another jersey but possibly also going to the sports wagering that's my question now so the next question would be okay now and longer 28 but I'm a 19 year old buying do I get the same marketing yeah so the dual intersection there I understood it from one way versus the other okay so that would be really helpful I think I think that's really the issue that I am having a conflict with that so for me it's historic too you've got these historical entries into your database and so it's not just prospectively how are you going to handle it but what's the mechanism for looking retrospectively for filtering all that understood thank you for the specificity we understand the concern and we believe we can address it that would be really helpful so maybe a little time as it is now turning out we're making lemonade right out of moments so here we go all right so we're at 214 I want to be respectful of our stop time to the applicant thank you so much commissioners will convene in the morning that start time from the 6th it's am if there's any questions around we really are building in a pretty full day of work for each of the untethered so if there's any concerns about scheduling and I kind of hope that we can you know make it a full day if it's a 10 o'clock stop that we're at least getting to four or five so that it's a one one stop I think that was the plan caring when you know you're imagining it's a it's a full day of work so I know all of us have challenges the only thing I can say is that too we will not be voting or making deliberation at the end of those we'll be doing that on from the last couple of days as we discussed this setting so that that's another piece of the business for us to consider all right with that everybody great work today I appreciate the applicant I know we all do do I have a motion to adjourn move to adjourn second okay any questions all right commissioner brian hi mr hill hi mr skinner hi mr maynard hi and I vote yes so thank you everybody's we'll see you next week thank you thank you thank you