You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
LegalBook / Five Card Charlie / Fair Deal answers ROO.....
- Thread starter FCCSportsbook
- Start date
"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."
Well then sting how about the rest of the books get together and make a pot to pay off Roo to keep that clean image?
"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."
Surely you know his name by now and should know whether this is him or not. If not then that is not a very correct statement.
Well then sting how about the rest of the books get together and make a pot to pay off Roo to keep that clean image?
"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."
Surely you know his name by now and should know whether this is him or not. If not then that is not a very correct statement.
I'm glad that they finally took the time to answer. But I'm like a couple of others in that posing as some type of white knight is weak. Very weak. They bought the URL and the customer base. They bought the customer base to access the names of people that play. They paid all of but one of those people in the hope and belief that they would continue to play with Five Card. And they can take that 'loan' term and put it where the sun don't shine. That's the most ludicrous explanation I've ever heard. Why not just say it like it really is. We bought the place, we wanted all players but Roo and he has no recourse. And the part about chastisizing him for 'loaning' them so much????? Don't worry, I won't do something so stupid as to loan you my money. Thanks for the warning. By the way, did any of you used to work for the Clinton Admin? This stuff sounds familiar. /infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif
Pirate please Decipher......
Max I agree...
I believe that they took the fair deal name and website it hopes of making a profit on it with all of the clients of fair deal in the long run, but in order to do that they needed to leave Roo out since it was 86k owed to him which is rougly 27.6% of the debts owed...Quite a big chunk.
Plus if you pay off all of the others except 1 person then maybe it won't look so bad. Roo posted that he would even take half of the 86k and still no bite. Seems like something could be worked out between the two.
Max I agree...
I believe that they took the fair deal name and website it hopes of making a profit on it with all of the clients of fair deal in the long run, but in order to do that they needed to leave Roo out since it was 86k owed to him which is rougly 27.6% of the debts owed...Quite a big chunk.
Plus if you pay off all of the others except 1 person then maybe it won't look so bad. Roo posted that he would even take half of the 86k and still no bite. Seems like something could be worked out between the two.
That's the part that's getting glossed over. This whole 'help the industry' spin wears me out. And a Blowjob isn't sex. Same thing as Clinton. I sort of liked it better before they tried this route. As least then I didn't feel that they thought we were all idiots. And that BS about the 'loans' is a joke. He shouldn't have loaned them that much???? No, he shouldn't have won, is what they're saying. I know some other people have had good things to say about their mgt but the need to look at that post and see if they really believe it.
Before I address the issues raised in the reply by Legal Book / Five Card Charlie / Fairdeal Sports I would like to enlist the help of Sting.
In your post dated 08-16-01 you state:
“If it were anyone else I would definitely have a different stance and would do whatever to help this individual”
I am very pleased that you will be helping me.
I am not the player you think I am and do not work for anyone. I have no association with BW and have never bet with Horizon.
The above facts can easily be verified by speaking with a number of reputable sports book owners.
What surprises me, is that you have made a post insinuating certain things without any basic research. A couple of phone calls would have prevented you from posting incorrect information.
In your post dated 08-16-01 you state:
“If it were anyone else I would definitely have a different stance and would do whatever to help this individual”
I am very pleased that you will be helping me.
I am not the player you think I am and do not work for anyone. I have no association with BW and have never bet with Horizon.
The above facts can easily be verified by speaking with a number of reputable sports book owners.
What surprises me, is that you have made a post insinuating certain things without any basic research. A couple of phone calls would have prevented you from posting incorrect information.
Are You Freaking Kidding me??? Some of you here are actually backing this guy up? I completely agree with all of you who think this is TOTAL BS!!! The rest of you need to come to your senses!
Sting,
What the hell are you smoking? Are you so blind as to not see that this was a BUSINESS DECISION? They did it in the hopes of making money in the future off those existing clientele. Only problem is that they didn't expect Roo to come out in public with the info. And then they feed you this "LOAN" bullshit and the self-righteous crap about "for the good of the industry" and you fall for it, hook line and sinker. You don't even need to know what side of the country Harvard is on to see through this SH*T!
Yogi, I don't give a damn if Your Mother swears on a Bible that these guys are good people. They are a bunch of A$$holes! Who in their right mind could read that crap that Mr. Fine laid out there and buy into this? THEY SCREWED THIS GUY OVER! C'mon they "supposedly" spend 225K and don't even have the decency to offer this guy at least SOMETHING?
For all the deaf, dumb and stupid, here's the bottom line. FCC thought they could retain most of Fair Deal's customers if they bailed them out. So they go ahead and do it, all the while supposedly going through the software company and saying "We're just buying the Domain Name..". Sure like fairdealsports.com is worth 225K? They'd be lucky to get 5K for it, ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM!
So they buy the domain, keep the site up, payoff all the customers (but one, ROO!) and start spreading out the word that "out of the goodness of their hearts," they bailed out all these people. Yes, folks it was Christmas in March down there! Yeah...SURE IT WAS!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif And don't believe that they paid off all the customers either. I'll bet over 50% of them are still with fairdeal or 5CC and they've not only lost what they used to have as a balance but a whole lot more.
A little problem arises though. They didn't expect Roo to go public. Now this has blown up in their faces. It takes them what 3 weeks or more to respond? And the best they can come up with is how it's really Roo's fault for "LOANING" fairdeal his money? And some of you actually "believe" that BULLSH*T!!!
I'm sure they could've paid Roo less than the total amount. I'm sure he would have settled for much less. But they didn't even try. They PURPOSEFULLY screwed him over.
And the insuation that the guy doesn't deserve to get paid because he's too "sharp" is just downright hilarious. Not even worthy of a response.
This was a PATHETIC attempt at saving face by Mike Fein. It was a "shady" business deal at best and it wreaks of piss-poor business ethics. If any of you can't see that, I'd suggest the following:
Pack up that computer and ship it back to whoever you bought it from. You are WAY TOO NAIEVE to be Online and the last thing you should be doing is gambling of all things. If you fall into that category then PT Barnum's famous quote was never more true than at this very moment in this very forum!
Mike Fein, It'll be a COLD DAY IN HELL before I'd ever post up with you. And you can count on my telling EVERYONE AND ANYONE the same thing!
[This message was edited by cjd333 on 08-16-01 at 04:33 AM.]
Sting,
What the hell are you smoking? Are you so blind as to not see that this was a BUSINESS DECISION? They did it in the hopes of making money in the future off those existing clientele. Only problem is that they didn't expect Roo to come out in public with the info. And then they feed you this "LOAN" bullshit and the self-righteous crap about "for the good of the industry" and you fall for it, hook line and sinker. You don't even need to know what side of the country Harvard is on to see through this SH*T!
Yogi, I don't give a damn if Your Mother swears on a Bible that these guys are good people. They are a bunch of A$$holes! Who in their right mind could read that crap that Mr. Fine laid out there and buy into this? THEY SCREWED THIS GUY OVER! C'mon they "supposedly" spend 225K and don't even have the decency to offer this guy at least SOMETHING?
For all the deaf, dumb and stupid, here's the bottom line. FCC thought they could retain most of Fair Deal's customers if they bailed them out. So they go ahead and do it, all the while supposedly going through the software company and saying "We're just buying the Domain Name..". Sure like fairdealsports.com is worth 225K? They'd be lucky to get 5K for it, ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM!
So they buy the domain, keep the site up, payoff all the customers (but one, ROO!) and start spreading out the word that "out of the goodness of their hearts," they bailed out all these people. Yes, folks it was Christmas in March down there! Yeah...SURE IT WAS!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif And don't believe that they paid off all the customers either. I'll bet over 50% of them are still with fairdeal or 5CC and they've not only lost what they used to have as a balance but a whole lot more.
A little problem arises though. They didn't expect Roo to go public. Now this has blown up in their faces. It takes them what 3 weeks or more to respond? And the best they can come up with is how it's really Roo's fault for "LOANING" fairdeal his money? And some of you actually "believe" that BULLSH*T!!!
I'm sure they could've paid Roo less than the total amount. I'm sure he would have settled for much less. But they didn't even try. They PURPOSEFULLY screwed him over.
And the insuation that the guy doesn't deserve to get paid because he's too "sharp" is just downright hilarious. Not even worthy of a response.
This was a PATHETIC attempt at saving face by Mike Fein. It was a "shady" business deal at best and it wreaks of piss-poor business ethics. If any of you can't see that, I'd suggest the following:
Pack up that computer and ship it back to whoever you bought it from. You are WAY TOO NAIEVE to be Online and the last thing you should be doing is gambling of all things. If you fall into that category then PT Barnum's famous quote was never more true than at this very moment in this very forum!
Mike Fein, It'll be a COLD DAY IN HELL before I'd ever post up with you. And you can count on my telling EVERYONE AND ANYONE the same thing!
[This message was edited by cjd333 on 08-16-01 at 04:33 AM.]
I personally think they owned fairdealsports to begin with. This was their way of not having to pay the guy out!!!
Sting,
As an admirer of yours I find your opinion on this matter confusing.
There is no excuse for not paying a winner like Roo. "Sharp" my as*, he posted $10k and was a PARLAY player for God's sake! I GUAREENTEE you if ROO was down 300 big for the year FCC would have included him in the deal.
You mentioned Horizon, the player was ripped off there plain and simple, NASA same deal. This may be a "who butters my bread" issue but I see no reason to defend this.
BOOK of REVELATIONS
I. If thou accept post-up players money and accept wager and player wins, then Book shall pay.
As an admirer of yours I find your opinion on this matter confusing.
There is no excuse for not paying a winner like Roo. "Sharp" my as*, he posted $10k and was a PARLAY player for God's sake! I GUAREENTEE you if ROO was down 300 big for the year FCC would have included him in the deal.
You mentioned Horizon, the player was ripped off there plain and simple, NASA same deal. This may be a "who butters my bread" issue but I see no reason to defend this.
BOOK of REVELATIONS
I. If thou accept post-up players money and accept wager and player wins, then Book shall pay.
I don't know "ROO's" story, but you sound like a self-serving piece of shit!
You try to make your outfit out to be some kind of "hero" to the masses (save this Roo entity), by paying off the owed monies from this Cashew joint. Well jerk me off!
"Hey, we'll pay the hundreds, if not thousands of saps who have a few bucks coming, and they will be so impressed that they will want to stick with a "good book" and send us more cash when they get tapped!"
Does that sound about right?
But hey....Fck the guy who has some serious cash coming, and for the most part, call him an idiot for not doing his homework!
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?
Well, let's see here: Why would you pay every other client owed money by this place, yet screw this guy? You can't be "half a hero".
----------------
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.
Ahhhhh....nice wording here.
we placed $225,000 in an account to pay off 100% of Cashew NV’s debt to all their wagering clients except ROO.
This means that Roo, obviously, is shit outta luck, true enough. Why? Because he would have taken a good chunk of that money out, I am guessing! The others to whom the $225,000 was "in an account" for? I would guess that a very large portion of that list of clients had an amount of money in their accounts that was small enough that you risked they would piss it away before asking for a check from you! (Jump in at anytime here, if I am wrong.)
"Placed in an account" doesn't mean you paid anyone a red cent! Nice try on your part, though.
---------------
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.
Praise Jesus, that you can now be considred the Patron Saint of offshore gaming! Spare me the shit! You did this for you, and you alone. What a great continuation of the "sports book with a heart" theme. (unless you are the poor guy who is owed some real coin!) Did you even read this crap before you dumped it in here, or did you just assume we were all going to fall for it?
--------------------
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.
Every "book" is one employee away from becoming a "poorly managed" book.
----------------------
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. (did they?) 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.
Roo, you idiot! Why would you be so "reckless" as to win your wagers?
------------------------
Tell us what you think: Robin Hood or thief? Now that both sides of the story have been told let the voting begin.
I think you are a self-serving pile of shit.
What you did was business, and sometimes business is dirty. I could live with that, but for you to come here and act like you are just "trying to be the good guy" makes me want to puke!
Anyone with an account with your outfit should ask for their money, and take it somewhere else.
......weak assed shit, brother......weak assed shit.
You try to make your outfit out to be some kind of "hero" to the masses (save this Roo entity), by paying off the owed monies from this Cashew joint. Well jerk me off!
"Hey, we'll pay the hundreds, if not thousands of saps who have a few bucks coming, and they will be so impressed that they will want to stick with a "good book" and send us more cash when they get tapped!"
Does that sound about right?
But hey....Fck the guy who has some serious cash coming, and for the most part, call him an idiot for not doing his homework!
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?
Well, let's see here: Why would you pay every other client owed money by this place, yet screw this guy? You can't be "half a hero".
----------------
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.
Ahhhhh....nice wording here.
we placed $225,000 in an account to pay off 100% of Cashew NV’s debt to all their wagering clients except ROO.
This means that Roo, obviously, is shit outta luck, true enough. Why? Because he would have taken a good chunk of that money out, I am guessing! The others to whom the $225,000 was "in an account" for? I would guess that a very large portion of that list of clients had an amount of money in their accounts that was small enough that you risked they would piss it away before asking for a check from you! (Jump in at anytime here, if I am wrong.)
"Placed in an account" doesn't mean you paid anyone a red cent! Nice try on your part, though.
---------------
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.
Praise Jesus, that you can now be considred the Patron Saint of offshore gaming! Spare me the shit! You did this for you, and you alone. What a great continuation of the "sports book with a heart" theme. (unless you are the poor guy who is owed some real coin!) Did you even read this crap before you dumped it in here, or did you just assume we were all going to fall for it?
--------------------
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.
Every "book" is one employee away from becoming a "poorly managed" book.
----------------------
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. (did they?) 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.
Roo, you idiot! Why would you be so "reckless" as to win your wagers?
------------------------
Tell us what you think: Robin Hood or thief? Now that both sides of the story have been told let the voting begin.
I think you are a self-serving pile of shit.
What you did was business, and sometimes business is dirty. I could live with that, but for you to come here and act like you are just "trying to be the good guy" makes me want to puke!
Anyone with an account with your outfit should ask for their money, and take it somewhere else.
......weak assed shit, brother......weak assed shit.
Nice post and that said it all!
cjd333:
great post! if u turn up the vitriol about 100% u'll reach my level!!! i tried to restrain myself in my post at MW but this guy mike fine and 5CC just really aggravate the hell outta me! i have never seen such arrogance or audacity in trying to explain their mistake!
and i am horrified at sting's approval of 5CC's actions! i would hope that the shrink would step in here and give his opinion! this is about the worst possible reaction we could have from a watchdog site!
great post! if u turn up the vitriol about 100% u'll reach my level!!! i tried to restrain myself in my post at MW but this guy mike fine and 5CC just really aggravate the hell outta me! i have never seen such arrogance or audacity in trying to explain their mistake!
and i am horrified at sting's approval of 5CC's actions! i would hope that the shrink would step in here and give his opinion! this is about the worst possible reaction we could have from a watchdog site!
Maybe I'm wrong but I interpretted the statement about the LOAN to infer this is how OTHER books see your post up money - NOT necessarily Five Card Charlie. Obviously, if that is how MIKE sees your money, then I have a problem with it.
If it is how I interpret what he is saying to mean - that OTHER books see your money as a loan, I'd have to say he is about 80% correct. The Shrink has covered the issue of post up money on more than one occasion. Unfortunately the stance of many operators is to view your post up money as an investment to their business (as opposed to placing in an escrow account).
The LOAN issue has pissed people off and I can understand where people are coming from if readers interpret this to be FiveCardCharlie's stance.
Unfortunately I deal with the BW types regularly through contacts of mine so I am privy to information others might not be and that I won't be disclosing here.
Very important: I DO agree he needs to be paid. Don't get me wrong here. It's just my opinion that these types of players are assuming a greater risk in going with books that we as watchdogs do not necessarily recommend and they KNOW there is an inherent risk.
ROO needs to take this up with the people he originally dealt with at Fair Deal, or the folks who helped arrange this deal, that being the software company.
Unlike FiveCard, I am not fully convinced the software company does not share some responsibility here. After all, they've always had a stake in Fair Deal from day one.
Hint Hint: Caskew owns VIP. Past press releases will show this.
If it is how I interpret what he is saying to mean - that OTHER books see your money as a loan, I'd have to say he is about 80% correct. The Shrink has covered the issue of post up money on more than one occasion. Unfortunately the stance of many operators is to view your post up money as an investment to their business (as opposed to placing in an escrow account).
The LOAN issue has pissed people off and I can understand where people are coming from if readers interpret this to be FiveCardCharlie's stance.
Unfortunately I deal with the BW types regularly through contacts of mine so I am privy to information others might not be and that I won't be disclosing here.
Very important: I DO agree he needs to be paid. Don't get me wrong here. It's just my opinion that these types of players are assuming a greater risk in going with books that we as watchdogs do not necessarily recommend and they KNOW there is an inherent risk.
ROO needs to take this up with the people he originally dealt with at Fair Deal, or the folks who helped arrange this deal, that being the software company.
Unlike FiveCard, I am not fully convinced the software company does not share some responsibility here. After all, they've always had a stake in Fair Deal from day one.
Hint Hint: Caskew owns VIP. Past press releases will show this.
On behalf of the Prescription, I would like to thank Mike for responding to this issue.
Let us give credit where credit is due. Many books would not post and hope that the issue faded away...
Readers are welcome to their opinions regarding that response (and welcome to post it), but at least he did show some consideration by posting.
However, there are a couple of clarifications I think need to be made.
First, NO post-up player "LOANS" a book money. Post-up monies are "DEPOSITS". If a book spends post up money before it is rightfully theirs, then they are stealing. Period.
Players are not responsible for books stealing post-up money.
Second, I am confused as to the ownership of the accounts. As noted, the software company owned the URL for Fairdeal. But, who owned the accounts?
From Mike's statements:
"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 would appear that Cashew NV was the owner of the accounts.
So how did the software provider "sell" them?
I am unfamiliar with the contract between Fairdeal and the software provider, perhaps the accounts were pledged as collateral for the software/URL lease or perhaps there was some other arrangement...
Regardless, if the accounts were indeed owned by the software provider, then they are responsible for paying Roo off, not Five Card.
If the accounts were owned by Cashew NV, then they are still responsible for paying Roo off and Five Card is party to an illegal act - the purchase of accounts from the software provider who did not own them - and should immediately rectify that.
As Sting has noted, perhaps the software provider (do these guys have a name?) may have had some stake in the book.
Their relationship with Fairdeal (and more importantly the determination of ownership of the accounts) needs to be known before responsibility for Roo's account can be determined.
Thank you,
Joe
Let us give credit where credit is due. Many books would not post and hope that the issue faded away...
Readers are welcome to their opinions regarding that response (and welcome to post it), but at least he did show some consideration by posting.
However, there are a couple of clarifications I think need to be made.
First, NO post-up player "LOANS" a book money. Post-up monies are "DEPOSITS". If a book spends post up money before it is rightfully theirs, then they are stealing. Period.
Players are not responsible for books stealing post-up money.
Second, I am confused as to the ownership of the accounts. As noted, the software company owned the URL for Fairdeal. But, who owned the accounts?
From Mike's statements:
"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 would appear that Cashew NV was the owner of the accounts.
So how did the software provider "sell" them?
I am unfamiliar with the contract between Fairdeal and the software provider, perhaps the accounts were pledged as collateral for the software/URL lease or perhaps there was some other arrangement...
Regardless, if the accounts were indeed owned by the software provider, then they are responsible for paying Roo off, not Five Card.
If the accounts were owned by Cashew NV, then they are still responsible for paying Roo off and Five Card is party to an illegal act - the purchase of accounts from the software provider who did not own them - and should immediately rectify that.
As Sting has noted, perhaps the software provider (do these guys have a name?) may have had some stake in the book.
Their relationship with Fairdeal (and more importantly the determination of ownership of the accounts) needs to be known before responsibility for Roo's account can be determined.
Thank you,
Joe
Absolutely - I would like to see anything you have, Sting, that suggests VIP is in any way, or ever has been, linked to Cashew NV.
The fact is that this company used the same software as us - did/do they own us? Hell no - and I would appreciate you confirming this in this public forum - to avoid any confusion on the part of players here.
VIP Sports has no business relationship with Cashew NV, Legalbook NV, Fair Deal - or any of the other companies licensing software from the same place as us - just to be clear.
FWIW I can vouch for the fact that Mike Fine acted with genuinely the best interests of the players at heart. I was one of the other books asked to bid for the Fair Deal URL etc, and I took a look and decided it was not worth much at all. I am not familiar with the intimate detail, but I can assure you all that Legalbook NV is a decent, safe place to bet, and the managers/owners there are as good as at any offshore book - VIP included!
Thanks
Alistair - VIP Sports
Alistair Assheton<BR>VIP
The fact is that this company used the same software as us - did/do they own us? Hell no - and I would appreciate you confirming this in this public forum - to avoid any confusion on the part of players here.
VIP Sports has no business relationship with Cashew NV, Legalbook NV, Fair Deal - or any of the other companies licensing software from the same place as us - just to be clear.
FWIW I can vouch for the fact that Mike Fine acted with genuinely the best interests of the players at heart. I was one of the other books asked to bid for the Fair Deal URL etc, and I took a look and decided it was not worth much at all. I am not familiar with the intimate detail, but I can assure you all that Legalbook NV is a decent, safe place to bet, and the managers/owners there are as good as at any offshore book - VIP included!
Thanks
Alistair - VIP Sports
Alistair Assheton<BR>VIP
Joe,
"Let us give credit where credit is due. Many books would not post and hope that the issue faded away..."
They posted because the issue would not go away--this wasn't a timely response on their part.
They have twisted the truth into a pretzel.
First, they had to transform ROO's post-up and winnings into a "LOAN", then they compare themselves to a bank that doesn't want to buy a "LOAN" that went sour.
"Let us give credit where credit is due. Many books would not post and hope that the issue faded away..."
They posted because the issue would not go away--this wasn't a timely response on their part.
They have twisted the truth into a pretzel.
First, they had to transform ROO's post-up and winnings into a "LOAN", then they compare themselves to a bank that doesn't want to buy a "LOAN" that went sour.
