"Your company is a joke. You wave around the fact that you are publicly traded like it somehow adds credibility to your scam operation. You were built on stolen money, and you continue to steal players money. Keep hiding behind your "rules" and your "judgments."
Once again Jay C. exposes this criminal enterprise for what it is. They have been stealing players money from day one.
Once again Jay C. exposes this criminal enterprise for what it is. They have been stealing players money from day one.
Whoson1st said:
Right or wrong, i presume their position is as follows:
They warned him not to make more steam/syndicate bets.
If he was betting online, how could they refuse the bet{s}?
Is someone going to watch his account 24/7? What if the
"steam" play is made right before tipoff?
If he was betting by phone it might take them time to figure
out if the bet was valid or not. So they accept it under the
trust that the player has amended his ways and check it out
later when they have time. Rather than during rush hour.
<TABLE class=tborder id=post2946292 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt2 width=175>SportSavant<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_2946292", true); </SCRIPT>
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: here
Posts: 13,058
</TD><TD class=alt1 id=td_post_2946292><!-- icon and title -->
<HR style="COLOR: #fdde82" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by wilheim
We will as always abide by the decision of the independent arbitration service IBAS - we therefore suggest strongly that you recommend to the client that he takes his complaint to IBAS (Independent Betting Arbitration Service) at +44 207 8812690 or www.ibas-uk.co.uk for arbitration. We will provide IBAS with all the evidence we have regarding our decision including tapes, betting data and accounts information. We will follow whatever decision IBAS makes - Further if any amount is deemed due by IBAS to the customer then BETonSPORTS, Plc will pay 200% of that figure. However, if IBAS sides with BETonSPORTS, Plc, all we ask is that the client retract his negative statements, personally.
-----------------------------------------------
BOS pays the entire cost of the arbitration in any case.
wil.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
wil, there is a MOB mentality right now, I studied this in university....
you cant win no matter what is done.
<!-- / message --></TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt2>
</TD><TD class=alt1 align=right><!-- controls --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
You know, the mob is not wrong all the time necessarily.
Which one single player in the world do you wish to stick up for the book(or any book}-- Vegas, Web, etc. with all the double-lines & harassment of all kinds?
Esp. since: if they pay the $$ in question, they would still be ahead on this player...they DO NOT lose by paying!
And right or wrong, they should pay for PR purposes-- why would they want a Pyrrhic victory? What's the sense in that? Why be so pig-headed?
If they're not dishonest, then at least they're VERY STUPID!!!!!!!!
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: here
Posts: 13,058
</TD><TD class=alt1 id=td_post_2946292><!-- icon and title -->
<HR style="COLOR: #fdde82" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by wilheim
We will as always abide by the decision of the independent arbitration service IBAS - we therefore suggest strongly that you recommend to the client that he takes his complaint to IBAS (Independent Betting Arbitration Service) at +44 207 8812690 or www.ibas-uk.co.uk for arbitration. We will provide IBAS with all the evidence we have regarding our decision including tapes, betting data and accounts information. We will follow whatever decision IBAS makes - Further if any amount is deemed due by IBAS to the customer then BETonSPORTS, Plc will pay 200% of that figure. However, if IBAS sides with BETonSPORTS, Plc, all we ask is that the client retract his negative statements, personally.
-----------------------------------------------
BOS pays the entire cost of the arbitration in any case.
wil.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
wil, there is a MOB mentality right now, I studied this in university....
you cant win no matter what is done.
<!-- / message --></TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt2>
</TD><TD class=alt1 align=right><!-- controls --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> You know, the mob is not wrong all the time necessarily.
Which one single player in the world do you wish to stick up for the book(or any book}-- Vegas, Web, etc. with all the double-lines & harassment of all kinds?
Esp. since: if they pay the $$ in question, they would still be ahead on this player...they DO NOT lose by paying!
And right or wrong, they should pay for PR purposes-- why would they want a Pyrrhic victory? What's the sense in that? Why be so pig-headed?
If they're not dishonest, then at least they're VERY STUPID!!!!!!!!
Wasn't there a thread a couple weeks ago about how BetOnSports supposedly told someone they "reserved the right to void bets that were steam plays" and then they clarified that they would not be cancelling supposed "steam bets?" Or am I thinking of a different book?
Jay C has posted Great one. 
Taking IBAS is
ucking: .
I think we, all player should response in this case.
Let's take $$ to somewhere else. I do not have an acct with them but if I have it.......THEN I WILL TAKE IT OUT EVERY SINGLE PENNY.
This is shyt shyt shyt answer.
Why did they accept his deposit if he is syndicate player! and told him that they will give better bonus if he deposited $3000.
I believe, WIL did best he can.
Now dont take this to IBAS.
Players........... with BOS.
Please response if you thinkn they cheated.
You guys can use another OUTS. There are many good outs.
Please.
I feel so sorry, Artie.
Taking IBAS is
ucking: .I think we, all player should response in this case.
Let's take $$ to somewhere else. I do not have an acct with them but if I have it.......THEN I WILL TAKE IT OUT EVERY SINGLE PENNY.
This is shyt shyt shyt answer.
Why did they accept his deposit if he is syndicate player! and told him that they will give better bonus if he deposited $3000.
I believe, WIL did best he can.
Now dont take this to IBAS.
Players........... with BOS.
Please response if you thinkn they cheated.
You guys can use another OUTS. There are many good outs.
Please.
I feel so sorry, Artie.
Yeah, as Santo said-- IBAS is not so highly-regarded.DDz00 said:Jay C has posted Great one.
Taking IBAS is
I think we, all player should response in this case.
Let's take $$ to somewhere else. I do not have an acct with them but if I have it.......THEN I WILL TAKE IT OUT EVERY SINGLE PENNY.
This is shyt shyt shyt answer.
Why did they accept his deposit if he is syndicate player! and told him that they will give better bonus if he deposited $3000.
I believe, WIL did best he can.
Now dont take this to IBAS.
Players........... with BOS.
Please response if you thinkn they cheated.
You guys can use another OUTS. There are many good outs.
Please.
I feel so sorry, Artie.
I agree, just stand your ground.....
The Independent Betting Arbitration Service was formed in the autumn of 1998 with the Government’s approval and the support of the industry (over 95% of UK bookmakers have registered with the service). IBAS is funded by Satellite Information Services (SIS), Horserace Betting Levy Board (HBLB) and Trinity Mirror.
IBAS is a non-statutory service and its rulings are not enforceable in law. Registration with IBAS is in no way a guarantee of a bookmaker's financial strength or its ability to pay on winning bets.
Bookmakers who register with IBAS undertake to be bound by the rulings of its arbitrators. Failure to comply with an IBAS ruling would mean that a bookmaker had not honoured his obligation under the scheme - which would result in the bookmaker being publicly de-registered from the service.
Although this website will be an important communication opportunity for IBAS, it is important to emphasise that arbitrating in betting disputes is the service's principal role, offering and delivering effective dispute resolution procedures in a modern, independent structure to customers of bookmakers registered with the scheme.
SIR TRISTRAM RICKETTS, BT.
CHAIRMAN
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REVIEW
Growth and change have been key aspects of the Independent Betting Arbitration Service this past year. The number of disputes on which the IBAS Panel ruled in 2005 soared by 35 per cent to a record 1,812, while the number of applications for arbitration increased by 30 per cent, figures that reflect both the changes and growth in the betting industry.
Change has come in the expansion of betting opportunities, and growth from the new fields of betting activity and the new customers they attract. Bookmakers, who, 20 years ago attributed some 80 per cent of their turnover to horserace betting, now find that more than half their business is generated from other sources, despite the fact that horserace betting has enjoyed increasing popularity.
Such diversity in the nature of gambling brings with it not just growth but added complexity, which inevitably leads to an increasing number of betting disputes. The result has been a diverse caseload for the IBAS Panel to deliberate on: from the definition of a snowflake to a complex, £750,000 betting exchange dispute relating to the winner of an American golf tournament.
Add to this mix everything from claims that are frivolous to those involving outright fraud and you have an insight into some of the challenges faced by IBAS on a day-to-day basis.
The IBAS Service demands the highest standards. These are imperative if it is to maintain the confidence of both the betting consumer and the industry. To uphold these standards, IBAS carried out a complete review of its internal procedures so as to implement more effective, efficient ways of managing an escalating workload. Action based on the results included easier accessibility through improved telephone and IT systems. This has enabled staff to shorten the lines of communication during case management and the adjudication process.
It is not in IBAS’s interests to prolong disputes unnecessarily. However, for IBAS to be authoritative and robust it is vital that it is committed to being thorough in all investigations and is in possession of the full facts of a case before issuing a ruling.
IBAS will never abandon the standards it has set simply to fast-track a case in a prescribed timescale. The resolution of disputes in the modern day, sophisticated betting world can be complicated, demanding, and time consuming. Clearly, the purpose of arbitration is to bring a dispute to a conclusion based on the Panel’s independent examination of the facts, so that both parties – and there is always a winner and a loser – can accept the judgement, hopefully having acquired some knowledge from the experience.
As a professional organisation it is right that, where circumstances warrant, IBAS agrees to institute a review of a case. In 2005 the Panel revisited 76 cases in which its decision was challenged by one of the parties involved. In all these cases the Panel provided further clarification of its decision but upheld the original finding.
Although it is critical that IBAS is quality effective it must also be cost effective. Therefore 23 requests for a full review were declined as they were presented simply on the grounds of disappointment or reluctance to accept the finality of the situation.
It is gratifying to report that bookmakers demonstrated their commitment to IBAS and the principle that arbitration is effective in a non-statutory environment. Full compliance with Panel rulings was achieved throughout 2005. On 271 occasions the Panel upheld customers’ claims, which resulted in £257,063 winnings being awarded.
There has been considerable consultation between IBAS and the betting industry, with regular meetings chaired by IBAS. This initiative has been particularly productive in that it has enabled IBAS, as an independent body, to consult, encourage and engage the industry in the matter of dispute prevention.
For example, IBAS has identified deficiencies in bookmakers’ rules, made recommendations relating to best practices and suggested common approaches regarding bet settlement. It has also assisted companies in producing publicity material that offers basic guidance to inexperienced customers. This has assumed particular importance given the large number of newcomers to betting that have been attracted by high-profile televised events.
IBAS has also held discussions with the betting industry to promote the benefits brought by a model of clear, concise rules. Betting operators’ rules will continue to form the basis of IBAS adjudications and greater consistency within the industry would greatly help to eliminate a number of disputes. Work in all these areas is well under way. A consultative framework has already been set in place for 2006, and considerable progress made in eliminating some of the main causes of dispute.
In November, IBAS entered into a six-month pilot project offering arbitration services to firms in the e-gaming sector which are members of the Remote Gambling Association. At the conclusion of the scheme a report will be submitted to the IBAS board and RGA executive outlining the nature of the disputes put before IBAS during this period, evaluating the cases, and making recommendations as to whether IBAS is the appropriate organisation to offer adjudication on a long-term basis.
Royal Assent for the Gambling Act was given in 2005 and the experience, and wealth of data, within IBAS has been employed in papers submitted to industry forums chaired by the Commission as part of the consultation process.
IBAS, with its total independence, can assist the new regulator to develop and implement policy that is relevant to one of the Commission’s key objectives – ensuring that gambling is conducted fairly and openly.
IBAS has always maintained that there should be provision within legislation for all betting consumers to have the protection of guaranteed access to independent arbitration, and it is heartening that the Commission has acknowledged that independent arbitration is effectively conducted on an entirely voluntary basis.
In their latest consultation document this issue is addressed and, in summary, states that, under the codes of best practice, bookmakers’/operators’ approach to disputes requires both an internal and an external independent element. Clearly, as the incumbent arbitration body there is tremendous scope for IBAS, and I look forward to continuing productive dialogue with the Commission in the months ahead.
Finally, I would wish to thank the outgoing Chairman of IBAS, Rodney Brack, for his solid support, and welcome his successor, Sir Tristram Ricketts Bt., who has vast experience, innovative ideas and genuine enthusiasm. Looking back on previous reports it is clear that IBAS has come a long way. I am proud of the commitment and standard of service the administrative staff and panellists have provided and I thank them all, as well as the independent board members, for the support they have given over the past year.
IBAS is a non-statutory service and its rulings are not enforceable in law. Registration with IBAS is in no way a guarantee of a bookmaker's financial strength or its ability to pay on winning bets.
Bookmakers who register with IBAS undertake to be bound by the rulings of its arbitrators. Failure to comply with an IBAS ruling would mean that a bookmaker had not honoured his obligation under the scheme - which would result in the bookmaker being publicly de-registered from the service.
Although this website will be an important communication opportunity for IBAS, it is important to emphasise that arbitrating in betting disputes is the service's principal role, offering and delivering effective dispute resolution procedures in a modern, independent structure to customers of bookmakers registered with the scheme.
SIR TRISTRAM RICKETTS, BT.
CHAIRMAN
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REVIEW
Growth and change have been key aspects of the Independent Betting Arbitration Service this past year. The number of disputes on which the IBAS Panel ruled in 2005 soared by 35 per cent to a record 1,812, while the number of applications for arbitration increased by 30 per cent, figures that reflect both the changes and growth in the betting industry.
Change has come in the expansion of betting opportunities, and growth from the new fields of betting activity and the new customers they attract. Bookmakers, who, 20 years ago attributed some 80 per cent of their turnover to horserace betting, now find that more than half their business is generated from other sources, despite the fact that horserace betting has enjoyed increasing popularity.
Such diversity in the nature of gambling brings with it not just growth but added complexity, which inevitably leads to an increasing number of betting disputes. The result has been a diverse caseload for the IBAS Panel to deliberate on: from the definition of a snowflake to a complex, £750,000 betting exchange dispute relating to the winner of an American golf tournament.
Add to this mix everything from claims that are frivolous to those involving outright fraud and you have an insight into some of the challenges faced by IBAS on a day-to-day basis.
The IBAS Service demands the highest standards. These are imperative if it is to maintain the confidence of both the betting consumer and the industry. To uphold these standards, IBAS carried out a complete review of its internal procedures so as to implement more effective, efficient ways of managing an escalating workload. Action based on the results included easier accessibility through improved telephone and IT systems. This has enabled staff to shorten the lines of communication during case management and the adjudication process.
It is not in IBAS’s interests to prolong disputes unnecessarily. However, for IBAS to be authoritative and robust it is vital that it is committed to being thorough in all investigations and is in possession of the full facts of a case before issuing a ruling.
IBAS will never abandon the standards it has set simply to fast-track a case in a prescribed timescale. The resolution of disputes in the modern day, sophisticated betting world can be complicated, demanding, and time consuming. Clearly, the purpose of arbitration is to bring a dispute to a conclusion based on the Panel’s independent examination of the facts, so that both parties – and there is always a winner and a loser – can accept the judgement, hopefully having acquired some knowledge from the experience.
As a professional organisation it is right that, where circumstances warrant, IBAS agrees to institute a review of a case. In 2005 the Panel revisited 76 cases in which its decision was challenged by one of the parties involved. In all these cases the Panel provided further clarification of its decision but upheld the original finding.
Although it is critical that IBAS is quality effective it must also be cost effective. Therefore 23 requests for a full review were declined as they were presented simply on the grounds of disappointment or reluctance to accept the finality of the situation.
It is gratifying to report that bookmakers demonstrated their commitment to IBAS and the principle that arbitration is effective in a non-statutory environment. Full compliance with Panel rulings was achieved throughout 2005. On 271 occasions the Panel upheld customers’ claims, which resulted in £257,063 winnings being awarded.
There has been considerable consultation between IBAS and the betting industry, with regular meetings chaired by IBAS. This initiative has been particularly productive in that it has enabled IBAS, as an independent body, to consult, encourage and engage the industry in the matter of dispute prevention.
For example, IBAS has identified deficiencies in bookmakers’ rules, made recommendations relating to best practices and suggested common approaches regarding bet settlement. It has also assisted companies in producing publicity material that offers basic guidance to inexperienced customers. This has assumed particular importance given the large number of newcomers to betting that have been attracted by high-profile televised events.
IBAS has also held discussions with the betting industry to promote the benefits brought by a model of clear, concise rules. Betting operators’ rules will continue to form the basis of IBAS adjudications and greater consistency within the industry would greatly help to eliminate a number of disputes. Work in all these areas is well under way. A consultative framework has already been set in place for 2006, and considerable progress made in eliminating some of the main causes of dispute.
In November, IBAS entered into a six-month pilot project offering arbitration services to firms in the e-gaming sector which are members of the Remote Gambling Association. At the conclusion of the scheme a report will be submitted to the IBAS board and RGA executive outlining the nature of the disputes put before IBAS during this period, evaluating the cases, and making recommendations as to whether IBAS is the appropriate organisation to offer adjudication on a long-term basis.
Royal Assent for the Gambling Act was given in 2005 and the experience, and wealth of data, within IBAS has been employed in papers submitted to industry forums chaired by the Commission as part of the consultation process.
IBAS, with its total independence, can assist the new regulator to develop and implement policy that is relevant to one of the Commission’s key objectives – ensuring that gambling is conducted fairly and openly.
IBAS has always maintained that there should be provision within legislation for all betting consumers to have the protection of guaranteed access to independent arbitration, and it is heartening that the Commission has acknowledged that independent arbitration is effectively conducted on an entirely voluntary basis.
In their latest consultation document this issue is addressed and, in summary, states that, under the codes of best practice, bookmakers’/operators’ approach to disputes requires both an internal and an external independent element. Clearly, as the incumbent arbitration body there is tremendous scope for IBAS, and I look forward to continuing productive dialogue with the Commission in the months ahead.
Finally, I would wish to thank the outgoing Chairman of IBAS, Rodney Brack, for his solid support, and welcome his successor, Sir Tristram Ricketts Bt., who has vast experience, innovative ideas and genuine enthusiasm. Looking back on previous reports it is clear that IBAS has come a long way. I am proud of the commitment and standard of service the administrative staff and panellists have provided and I thank them all, as well as the independent board members, for the support they have given over the past year.
The way to really hurt this pathetic scam company is to contact financial writers for major newspapers and magazines in the UK.
This could make some excellent articles for investigative reporters.
A few articles about this scandal should truly send their stock plummeting.
Artie - if they don't pay you, I would urge you to follow through on this suggestion.
This could make some excellent articles for investigative reporters.
A few articles about this scandal should truly send their stock plummeting.
Artie - if they don't pay you, I would urge you to follow through on this suggestion.
I hope Artie take this case IBAS, but he should be tired of explain all of again.
As I am a Sports Bettors (yes i am not a big player), taking this case IBAS is not an issue.
It is ethical issue. ETHICAL.
They ACCEPTED AND CONTINUED ACCEPTING HIS DEPOSITE, BET, DEPOSITE, BET, AND MORE DEPOSITED, AND BET becasue he kept loosing.
AND THEY KNEW HE WAS a SYNDICATE PLAYER (as they are insisting NOW, i don't buy it).
STILL THEY WERE WELCOME HIM AGAIN WHEN HE DEPOSIT.......more.
NOW HE WAS WINNING. ONLY FREAKING 2 TIMES (TWICE BABY). Freeze acct and gave him partial money.
Do I have to be highly educated to see what is fair?
WTF!
As I am a Sports Bettors (yes i am not a big player), taking this case IBAS is not an issue.
It is ethical issue. ETHICAL.
They ACCEPTED AND CONTINUED ACCEPTING HIS DEPOSITE, BET, DEPOSITE, BET, AND MORE DEPOSITED, AND BET becasue he kept loosing.
AND THEY KNEW HE WAS a SYNDICATE PLAYER (as they are insisting NOW, i don't buy it).
STILL THEY WERE WELCOME HIM AGAIN WHEN HE DEPOSIT.......more.
NOW HE WAS WINNING. ONLY FREAKING 2 TIMES (TWICE BABY). Freeze acct and gave him partial money.
Do I have to be highly educated to see what is fair?
WTF!
Doug said:
Excellent point. And the reason that many books (or at least stateside bookies - locals - that I'm familiar with) will allow one syndicate player at a lower limit.
They take the 1st hit from the syndicate beard, lower the number, and let the followers bet all they want at worse numbers.
That is intelligent bookmaking.
What BOS/POS is doing is simply making excuses for theft.
Wow. BoS is ridiculous.
If BoS doesn't like his action, lower his limits or close his account. Those are "fair" countermeasures.
Shady countermeasures would be cancelling his bets BEFORE the events were played. If Artie played a game at -120 and it closed at -135, cancelling these bets is stealing 15 cents of equity on each wager.
What they did here is unacceptable - take his bets at -120, watch it close at -135, see what happens, and "cancel bets made with bonus money" AFTER the events are done.
If a book wants to cut off a sharp player who played bonuses, there is only one fair way to do that: allow the player to keep a pro-rated portion of the bonus based on how much rollover he met. The industry standard does NOT allow a book to neagte or reduce bets retroactively, based on money the player won utlizing a bonus - this is pure crap.
RX mods - you are advertising for a book that is involved in theft. TheRX knew BOS was a thief-book (refer to 500k theft a few years ago under same corporation), and continued to promote it. At this point, TheRx management is an accomplice to theft - it knew its actions were likely to lead to people getting ripped off.
Artie -
Don't bother with arbitration. Instead, do the following:
1. Sue BoS in London
2. Sue TheRX in canada, or any of its mods in whatever jurisdiction you can find them.
If BoS doesn't like his action, lower his limits or close his account. Those are "fair" countermeasures.
Shady countermeasures would be cancelling his bets BEFORE the events were played. If Artie played a game at -120 and it closed at -135, cancelling these bets is stealing 15 cents of equity on each wager.
What they did here is unacceptable - take his bets at -120, watch it close at -135, see what happens, and "cancel bets made with bonus money" AFTER the events are done.
If a book wants to cut off a sharp player who played bonuses, there is only one fair way to do that: allow the player to keep a pro-rated portion of the bonus based on how much rollover he met. The industry standard does NOT allow a book to neagte or reduce bets retroactively, based on money the player won utlizing a bonus - this is pure crap.
RX mods - you are advertising for a book that is involved in theft. TheRX knew BOS was a thief-book (refer to 500k theft a few years ago under same corporation), and continued to promote it. At this point, TheRx management is an accomplice to theft - it knew its actions were likely to lead to people getting ripped off.
Artie -
Don't bother with arbitration. Instead, do the following:
1. Sue BoS in London
2. Sue TheRX in canada, or any of its mods in whatever jurisdiction you can find them.
Artie - If you go with daringly's suggestion, might as well sue the RX for the "insurance" money as well.
Perhaps you are already registered with the RX, but under a different handle, and you chose to use the handle "Artie" for this current dispute.
The RX is in bed with these thieves, and has no problem with continuing to recruit new people to get cheated by them.
Take it to court and get the 10k from them.
Perhaps you are already registered with the RX, but under a different handle, and you chose to use the handle "Artie" for this current dispute.
The RX is in bed with these thieves, and has no problem with continuing to recruit new people to get cheated by them.
Take it to court and get the 10k from them.
The IP address argument is getting kind of ridiculous these days.
It's pretty easy for multiple people to be in different locations and have the same IP address.
I set up a web site that served 16,000 users. When we tracked the number of users by IP, guess what. We had 4,000 different users coming from the SAME IP. It's pretty common technology.
I don't think this IP thing holds any water, all you can basically say is that someone else placed bets at BoS that was coming from the same ISP in that vicinity, nothing really conclusive though.
It's pretty easy for multiple people to be in different locations and have the same IP address.
I set up a web site that served 16,000 users. When we tracked the number of users by IP, guess what. We had 4,000 different users coming from the SAME IP. It's pretty common technology.
I don't think this IP thing holds any water, all you can basically say is that someone else placed bets at BoS that was coming from the same ISP in that vicinity, nothing really conclusive though.
Yeah Artie, sue 'em in a couple foreign countries over your 3-4k bonus confiscation or whatever it is, and it will cost you I am guessing a $20k minimum retainer to hire attorneys in the UK and Canada. Doesn't make much sense does it? Crazy the things you hear and see in a mob mentality.
Getting back to reality, it is good to hear BoS has availed themselves to UK jurisdiction for the private arb service, and has also agreed to pay the arb costs ($5k in estimated costs to hire the arbitrators and administer the case sounds about right).
The cost efficient solution IMHO would be to participate in the arb.
Getting back to reality, it is good to hear BoS has availed themselves to UK jurisdiction for the private arb service, and has also agreed to pay the arb costs ($5k in estimated costs to hire the arbitrators and administer the case sounds about right).
The cost efficient solution IMHO would be to participate in the arb.
