LegalBook / Five Card Charlie / Fair Deal answers ROO.....

[FCCSportsbook]

Legalbook Sports NV has been in the offshore Sportsbook and Casino business since 1997. We have been doing business under the URL fivecardcharlie since September of 1999 and fairdealsports since March 18th 2001. Legalbook didn’t come to these forums to brag about what a great deed we did – when, without any legal or moral obligation we placed $225,000 in an account to pay off 100% of Cashew NV’s debt to all their wagering clients except ROO.

Cashew NV did business under the URL fairdealsports from August 1999 till March 17th 2001. Cashew NV, a small and poorly managed Sportsbook was broke and about to close its doors without paying anyone. Legalbook Sports NV never talked with Cashew NV. Legalbook Sports NV never purchased Cashew NV. You will see that the only thing Legalbook Sports NV did, was try to do the right thing for an industry we are proud to be a part of. I had no intention of coming out here to defend the business policies of Legalbook Sports NV, but after I read Roo’s half-truths and people giving their opinions without really knowing the facts, I am here to clear things up for everyone.

Legalbook Sports NV fully understands Roo’s frustration and helpless feeling in not being paid his $86,000 still owed by Cashew NV. The part that’s not clear to us is: Why would Roo believe that Legalbook Sports NV, a company he never sent money to or ever placed a bet with, is legally or morally obligated in any way to pay him the $86,000 he is owed by Cashew NV?

The name Cashew NV wasn’t hidden from Roo. He was well aware that Cashew NV was the company he was doing business with. Cashew NV was the business name Roo himself filled in when he sent his first bankwire to open his account. Cashew NV was the name listed on every check when Roo collected some of his winnings. Cashew NV was the name listed on Bankwires that were sent to Roo when he again collected some of his winnings. It was very clear to Roo that the Corporation he was doing business with was Cashew NV - not Legalbook Sports NV.

We understand your frustration Roo, but to come out here and misinform your fellow forum readers about Legalbook Sports NV is not the proper way to handle a problem that you are in large part responsible for. In early March 2001, Legalbook Sports NV (along with 3 other Sportsbooks) was made aware that Cashew NV was broke and couldn’t pay any of their clients. We weren’t told this by the owners of Cashew NV - we were told this by the people that provide Cashew with their software and the URL fairdealsports. The Software Company was concerned with you, the public, and wanted to see if a reputable Sportsbook was interested in paying back money to all or part of Cashew NV’s client base. Of course if the Software Company did not take this action, Cashew NV would have closed the doors, shut off their phones - and not only ROO, but every Cashew NV client would have lost all their money.

Legalbook Sports NV, along with some of the other Sportsbooks, placed a bid with the Software Company to pay back Cashew NV’s client base. We had zero responsibility to pay back this money but we felt it was in the best interest of the entire offshore gaming industry to help out in this crisis. Being responsible businessmen we also wanted to make an offer that would give us a chance to recoup most of our money. The Software Company would provide access to Cashew’s client base by giving the URL fairdealsports to the Sportsbook that made the best offer. There was NO money being given to the Software Company or to the owners of Cashew NV. This was being done strictly in the best interest of you, the clients of Cashew NV. Our offer was to immediately pay back all clients - except ROO - 100% of their money with no strings attached.

After the Software Company reviewed all offers, Legalbook Sports was informed that our offer was by far the best. This was great news for all Cashew NV clients except ROO. Legalbook Sports NV never purchased Cashew NV. At no time were we legally or morally obligated to pay any of Cashew NV’s outstanding liabilities to: lawyers, Roo, accountants, employees, landlords, advertisers, phone companies, car rentals or the dozens of other outstanding bills owed by Cashew NV. The only legal and moral obligation Legalbook Sports NV made was to the Software Company. We guaranteed them we would pay all Cashew NV’s clients (except Roo) in full whether they continued to play with Legalbook NV or just wanted to cash out all of their money.

For this guarantee, the Software Company gave Legalbook the URL fairdealsports. Legalbook now owns the URL fairdealsports (that was not the case with Cashew NV, as they LEASED the URL from the Software Company). This enabled us to make immediate payments to Cashew NV clients that were waiting as much as 6 weeks without payment. In the best interest of the Sportsbook industry (and with the hope that we would see most of our money back), we became responsible to cover the balance of every Cashew NV client, except ROO. We placed $225,000 in an account for the players - to cover all the LOANS made by Cashew NV clients to Cashew NV, except for ROO’s LOAN.

You did hear me right: I did say LOAN. That is exactly what you are doing when you send your money to a poorly managed Sportsbook such as a Caribi, Dunes, or Cashew NV. You are giving them a LOAN. POORLY MANAGED Sportsbooks are using your money to pay for their rent, salaries, advertising, phone bills, computers, cars, lawyers, client payouts, office equipment, and numerous other bills. When they use YOUR money they are borrowing it in the hopes of paying you back. Every time you deposit money with a POORLY MANAGED book (and this only holds true for POORLY MANAGED books), you are giving them a LOAN. These poorly managed books are taking these loans without your permission, and to me that is the same as STEALING.

Don’t get me wrong, they will repay these unauthorized loans should they turn their business around and become profitable. But when things go bad and they have no money to borrow and more bills to pay - their doors will close and the phones will be shut.


When a bank buys a bad loan from another lending institution they usually pay pennies on the dollar. Without any legal or moral obligation Legalbook NV paid 100¢ on the dollar to every client except Roo that had an account and made a LOAN to Cashew NV. Roo, your loan was overly reckless and if we had to assume your LOAN we would never gotten involved with bailing out Cashew NV’s clients and paying off all the other LOANS.

Legalbook NV feels for your situation Roo, but its time for you to stop blaming everyone except the person you should blame and that is YOURSELF. You were the one that allowed yourself to get into a position where you had $100,000 in an account with a very weak Sportsbook. You’re an intelligent man Roo. A sharp guy like you should know better than to bet serious money with a Sportsbook that you just opened a new account with. You obviously knew very little about Cashew NV when you made your one and only deposit of $9985 via bankwire to Cashew NV. You made some heavy parlay bets and turned your $10,000 into $100,000. You’re one of the most well known gamblers among the offshore Sportsbooks. You only place a wager when you have a big advantage. I can’t understand why a guy like you with so many contacts would bet so much with a Sportsbook you obviously knew so little about. You can only blame yourself for this mistake. Then you expect Legalbook Sports NV (a company that never took a deposit or a bet from you) to bail you out for your mistake. We weren’t going to let your reckless LOAN prevent the rest of Cashew’s NV’s clients from getting paid their money in full. (If Legalbook Sports NV had to pay Roo his $86,000, then we would have declined to be involved in this bailout.)

No other Sportsbook made as good an offer as Legalbook in this bailout, so if we weren’t involved, then Cashew NV’s clients would have never received 100% of their money back. That might have been OK with you Roo, but the rest of the clients that weren’t anywhere near as reckless as you were with your LOAN to Cashew NV, are happy Legalbook Sports was involved with the bailout.

Legalbook Sports NV understands you’re frustration Roo, but to come out here and try to turn a great deed into an ugly one will prevent more reputable Sportsbooks like Legalbook Sports NV from coming forward and saving the day when the next book doesn’t pay their clients. Every client that has ever placed a wager with any URL under Legalbook Sports NV’s umbrella has been paid every dollar they have asked for no questions asked. You have not and never will hear of a person that wasn’t paid his or her money instantly upon request from Legalbook Sports NV. For the last time Roo, Legalbook Sports NV had no legal or moral obligation to pay off your LOAN. We have no relationship with Cashew NV. We never purchased Cashew NV or paid any of their liabilities. If you want your money, go to the people you sent it to, and bet it with - their name is Cashew NV.

But you already knew that.

In the event the people that read these forums believe Five Card Charlie and Fair Deal Sports are not safe and honorable places to wager with, please let us know and we will never bailout another failing Sportsbook again. On the other hand, if you feel Legalbook Sports NV was honorable and Five Card Charlie and Fair Deal Sports are great places to wager with, we will be happy to help out where we can when the next Sportsbook fails.

Tell us what you think: Robin Hood or thief? Now that both sides of the story have been told let the voting begin.


Thank You,
Mike Fine.

 

I agree with much of what you say.However do not make the bailout sound like an act of charity.I'm sure it was to you're benfit.

 

Very well said.

 

[wannamakeabet]

Your tone is one of rightousness, but that seems a little transparent. Looks more like a good business decision to take over the accounts and the debt minus Roo, no argument here. But your tale seems like you came in riding a white horse. Remember, yours was the best offer, there were others on the table, right?

Why was the software vendor shopping the list and debt and not the company itself? Did they LOAN fair deal the software just like Roo loaned them his money? Help me out here.

 

I can see where you are coming from but those of us who know a number of these operators in Curacao, including Mike from FiveCard, would tend to believe they would do something like this in the best interest of the industry. I DO believe this is the way of thinking among most books in Curacao who want to keep their neck of the woods clean. Wish I could say the same for Costa Rica which is essentially the backstabbing wild wild west.

I am familiar with Fair Deal and simply cannot see how FiveCard could possibly have benefitted from purchasing them other than to help in keeping Curacao's image clean - and I am sure that was the intent of the other books involved as well.

The software company was around back in 1998 when Curacao's TISS Sportsbook agency fell apart. They know the damage that situation caused and for some time the word on the street was NOT to play with books based out of Curacao. The Fair Deal matter would surely have been a disaster for many of the books operating there since the island thrives on its squeaky clean image.

It simply is NOT so unusual for a sportsbook to come in and help out another. WWTS used to do this all the time in Antigua back in the day. I have heard some books there asked for loans at some point.

I'm doubtful that either the Fair Deal name or client base is really all that useful in my opinion. Any other company - MAYBE - but not Fair Deal.

Having met the owners of FiveCardCharlie in person, I have to accept what they are saying.

 

By the way, I would have done the same thing that Mike did in assuming the accounts of everyone else at Fair Deal to insure they get paid, minus ROO since I have some idea where Mike is going with this and I know the pattern all too well having to listen to this type of player whining left and right at the expense of other HONEST players.

 

I may be wrong.But I know very few people in this industry that would across the street unless they can earn off it.I'm probably getting a little cynical.

 

[olddog]

Thank you for bailing out Fair Deal customers-whatever your ultimate motives. I had an account there, but fortunately had bet it down to zero before they stopped paying out.

However, I've wondered why you didn't pay everyone 66 cents on the dollar, including Roo? Are you intimating that Roo cheated or just bet into a book with weak odds? ("You(Roo) only place a wager when you have a big advantage. I can’t understand why a guy like you with so many contacts would bet so much with a Sportsbook you obviously knew so little about. You can only blame yourself for this mistake"). It sounds like Roo beat several books out of big sums of money and somehow did this unfairly or with an infair advantage?

Again, bottom line-thanks for bailing out Fair Deal customers.

 

[Buzzsaw]

<<<No other Sportsbook made as good an offer as Legalbook in this bailout>>>

Is it possible none of the best offers included stiffing Roo? That would give FCC a $87k headstart on any offer that included paying ALL the customers.

The sad part is Roo was getting paid, what was it $5k a month.

 

[wannamakeabet]

Is/Was Roo a sharp? That's what I thought when I first read it and I think that's what you're implying. Shrink? Is this merely a hybrid tale of the "wise guy rule"?

 

[Tex]

Roo,
I have a question for you. If you had a chance to buy a business from someone valued at 312,000 but they had accepted your offer of 225k would you buy it or would you feel as if you still owed them 87k and not take the deal ?

 

You were foolish to take such a half assed approach. Why pay everyone but one player? Because he had the most money and might have been the sharpest player. That is just plain wrong. Don't blame Roo for being successful, that is his goal. Yes maybe he could have taken his money out sooner but he still deserved to be paid his $86,000 especially since you forked over $225,000 out of the goodness of your heart. If you are going to go the extra mile go the full mile not 3/4 of it. It is just the principle of all or nothing. It really seems almost to me that this was almost a sort of anti-wiseguy manuever. Well Roo won almost 10 times his post up and makes big plays so lets just not pay him. This way we save money and he gets screwed and we don't have to worry about him beating us out of our money. To me this seems sort of like a NASA type of garbage.
One other point how are players supposed to know if a book is being responsible with our post up money? I mean these books are thousands of miles away and in foriegn countries. All we can do is call them, email them, and go to forums to share experiences with then. We aren't there in person to see what really happens with our accounts. We don't recieve an audit of their financial position. All we can do is try and guess on their stability based on information available to us. Often times there various temporary problems with numerous books that usually corrected in a short time. If its the customers fault for "LOANING" money to the book for an account, then they might as well withdrawl all of it at the slightest problem with your logic. I posted and played with Dunes last year because everything I read or heard about them was very positive and encouraging. They also had both great customer service on phone and email. Also very good clerks that were easy to understand on the phone. I was treated first class all the way. I posted $2000 in September, was up to $5500 in October, but lost it all in December. I stopped playing but then all I saw was Dunes collapse and become the scourge of the industry. I never saw any warning signs through December. I was just unlucky I lost my money on bad bets not through their mismanagement. Now I am almost glad I did than rather than be a screwed over winner at Dunes. In reality this whole industry is just a gamble based on trust. There are no truly sure things offshore, anything is possible. I think if you just paid Roo then you would be truly be Robin Hood the hero but until then you came up short by discriminating against him.

SLOUCH

<BR>

 

right vs wrong
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see this thread at both popular forums, so I am going to copy my reply to both. The thing that strikes me as odd is posters at each forum seem to be taking different views....now, my point is this.....both are watchdog sites (and very good ones, I might add)....but, if you were an outsider looking in, wouldn't you ask yourself why the easy going posts at one site and the harder ones at the other? That is my prespective.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am just looking from the outside in.....but how does not paying 1 customer justify anything. Wrong is wrong.....now if I were to look at this book to post up with, I would have to think in the back of my mind "hey, they screwed someone and in their mind it was okay" "what keeps them from doing that to me?"
I must say, with other books that have clearly good records, I would not consider this book that has stiffed roo. To come to a site and try to explain is even funnier....but, I am totally shocked by those that I respected also backing up the books explaination. It will not alter my opinion of those individuals, but it does surprise me.

 

Someone who people have high regard for in this business told me they are good people. I was very glad to see them post the other side. Just look at this as the FDIC a small bank people would only be covered for 100,000 but a bank like Citibank, Chase, Bank America and Banc One people are covered up too the full amount. The federal government would not let them go under. An example of this is 1991 Citibank was on the verge of going under they had been insolvent. Also it was pointed out by Mike this guy should have known better than to leave funds at fair deal.

 

[olddog]

I believe Roo went from 15 dimes to 60 or 70K on one big parlay win and never had a chance to get his winnings out.

 

[BettingProphets]

If you have any more good plays post em here for us please

BP

 

[3rdlong]

This obnoxious BS is your idea of a response?

"We weren’t going to let your reckless LOAN prevent the rest of Cashew’s NV’s clients from getting paid their money in full."

This is a heck of an arrogant spin: ROO was reckless, jeopardizing himself and everyone else; the post-up and all winnings were a "LOAN".

"When a bank buys a bad loan from another lending institution they usually pay pennies on the dollar. Without any legal or moral obligation Legalbook NV paid 100¢ on the dollar to every client except Roo that had an account and made a LOAN to Cashew NV. Roo, your loan was overly reckless and if we had to assume your LOAN we would never gotten involved with bailing out Cashew NV’s clients and paying off all the other LOANS."

You compare yourselves to a bank, then say ROO's post-up and winnings were an "overly reckless" loan? Are you out of your mind?

I might have respected an honest answer, such as:

"We couldn't make this deal with ROO's balance included, especially since he is a sharp/wiseguy and therefore not a customer we would want to keep, anyway. So we came up with a story about only being able to save North American clients and tossed him overboard."

And PLEASE don't ride in on your self-righteous high horse to "save" any book I'm posted up with--I've got a couple of "reckless loans" out there. I'd rather take my chances with the low bidder than listen to any of that "LOAN" garbage.

[This message was edited by 3rd&long on 08-16-01 at 05:45 AM.]

 

[wannamakeabet]

We're sure the owners of the book are cool guys sting and that's not the point. After rereading the post, the use of the word "LOAN" is probably the most sickening uses of the word ever seen in sportsbook P.R. They must have used it 10 times and every time in caps.

Granted the management was shit, but how is ANY player EVER supposed to know THAT THEIR DEPOSIT MONEY IS A LOAN IN THE EYE OF AN OPERATOR. Even if that's your view I would have never posted such language considering that the entire goal of both operators and marketers is to try and build credibility to the entire industry.

You should have just stuck with your strengths, which is prompt payment and customer service. Instead, you bashed the poor book and their biggest winner after you pillaged their assets.

 

I agree with everything my friend 3rd & Long mentioned and would add....

Lets see Five Card, you guys are the high and mighty of helpers in the Sports betting industry but in your statement you decided to blast two other books, the Sands and Caribi. That shows class????

Now those two books may have it coming from US but why would the All Mighty Savior of the Sports Book Industry be blasting away.
One might ask, just where was your helping hand in those two cases?

No "loan" from me either.
Deal me out of Five Card Charlie.

LV711

 

This same player, if he is who I think he is or WORKS FOR, will be in another fine book in a matter of months and everyone will come down on that book for taking a stance against him.

Remember Horizon and the bonus deal? A fine book ripped to shreds and I am willing to bet its the same player - Roo.

If it were anyone else I would definitely have a different stance and would do whatever to help this individual...but gimme a break - it's the same pattern again and again, and the folks on Curacao are best equipped to detect it. I am willing to bet that Roo is one of BW's bumbling self-serving whiners who make everyone else's lives miserable...thus the lack of sympathy.

I respect BW but he's got some of the biggest clowns working for him, which has been proven time and time again. They love to hit weak books and try to put them out of business....then they cry because they are not getting paid.

The only good thing about this is they help some of us realize who NOT to play with early on.