What's interesting reading this thread is Royal called me today (on my cell phone - the number I gave when I set up my account), asking me to deposit more money with them!
It was typical sales- "if you want to play on this weekend's championship playoffs I can give you a bonus..." etc.
Hey, I don't mind the bonus offer, but why the hard sell? Just shoot me a promo in my email and I'll consider it.
Of course with all misc. Royal threads, I think I may just stay away. I mean, why risk it if there are other (better) books?
Has anyone else been contacted? FYI, I played there for about 2 weeks betting a dime per bet. BTW, while I had the guy on the phone I bitched about the max Neteller withdrawal and the guy told me all books are subject to the same restriction and Royal would change it if they could. LOL!! When I started dropping some names of the other top books that allow >$2500 Neteller withdrawal he didn't believe me. I told him Pinnacle let me withdraw $8000 in one transaction and he didn't believe me. Ok, either this guy is ignorant or trying to deceive me. Either way I don't like it.
I have his name and extension if someone wants it.
It was typical sales- "if you want to play on this weekend's championship playoffs I can give you a bonus..." etc.
Hey, I don't mind the bonus offer, but why the hard sell? Just shoot me a promo in my email and I'll consider it.
Of course with all misc. Royal threads, I think I may just stay away. I mean, why risk it if there are other (better) books?
Has anyone else been contacted? FYI, I played there for about 2 weeks betting a dime per bet. BTW, while I had the guy on the phone I bitched about the max Neteller withdrawal and the guy told me all books are subject to the same restriction and Royal would change it if they could. LOL!! When I started dropping some names of the other top books that allow >$2500 Neteller withdrawal he didn't believe me. I told him Pinnacle let me withdraw $8000 in one transaction and he didn't believe me. Ok, either this guy is ignorant or trying to deceive me. Either way I don't like it.
I have his name and extension if someone wants it.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HateTheRiverCard:
Sure Dottom can I have his name and extension.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
HTRC,
His name was Scott. I have the extension written down at work. Call was around 4pm PST. He called my cell phone in the middle of a meeting, LOL... I didn't mind the call itself, just the overall concept of books calling, and the Neteller max limit thing I mentioned above.
Sure Dottom can I have his name and extension.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
HTRC,
His name was Scott. I have the extension written down at work. Call was around 4pm PST. He called my cell phone in the middle of a meeting, LOL... I didn't mind the call itself, just the overall concept of books calling, and the Neteller max limit thing I mentioned above.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dottom:
SNIP.....When I started dropping some names of the other top books that allow >$2500 Neteller withdrawal he didn't believe me. I told him Pinnacle let me withdraw $8000 in one transaction and he didn't believe me. ...SNIP<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have had books sent me >2500 NT's in chunks with the max transaction being 2500.
SNIP.....When I started dropping some names of the other top books that allow >$2500 Neteller withdrawal he didn't believe me. I told him Pinnacle let me withdraw $8000 in one transaction and he didn't believe me. ...SNIP<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have had books sent me >2500 NT's in chunks with the max transaction being 2500.
HTRC,
BTW, the reason the Neteller discussion came up was is after I said I did not want to deposit more $ he asked me why. That's when I mentioned the Neteller issue.
I specifically let him know that I hang on theRX and "a few other boards with other full-time players" (exact words in quotes). I named the boards for his benefit. So he knew I wasn't a "typical" player. I also acknowledged that the Neteller $2500 max withdrawal may be fine for 80-85% of Royal's customers, but players like me do not like having a limit on withdrawals... at least have a large limit like Pinnacle. And as I posted a while back on this same topic in a different thread, I'm more than happy to pay for the withdrawal fee- the fee is not the issue- it's the low cap on withdrawals.
BTW, the reason the Neteller discussion came up was is after I said I did not want to deposit more $ he asked me why. That's when I mentioned the Neteller issue.
I specifically let him know that I hang on theRX and "a few other boards with other full-time players" (exact words in quotes). I named the boards for his benefit. So he knew I wasn't a "typical" player. I also acknowledged that the Neteller $2500 max withdrawal may be fine for 80-85% of Royal's customers, but players like me do not like having a limit on withdrawals... at least have a large limit like Pinnacle. And as I posted a while back on this same topic in a different thread, I'm more than happy to pay for the withdrawal fee- the fee is not the issue- it's the low cap on withdrawals.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by theswami:
have had books sent me >2500 NT's in chunks with the max transaction being 2500.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I asked Royal on 12/11/2003 to do just that, and offered to pay the Neteller fee AND a Royal withdrawal fee to cover their cost. They said NO.
I don't play there anymore.
have had books sent me >2500 NT's in chunks with the max transaction being 2500.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I asked Royal on 12/11/2003 to do just that, and offered to pay the Neteller fee AND a Royal withdrawal fee to cover their cost. They said NO.
I don't play there anymore.
I have a question for Shrink and/or a Mod?
I read the Royal chat from MW...It appears that Royal explained the cashout problems by pointing to transitional issues and "signatory rights." How does this explanation dovetail with the report here at Rx that EVERYONE WAS PAID when that was not true? The post and the explanation do not seem to fit.
I read the Royal chat from MW...It appears that Royal explained the cashout problems by pointing to transitional issues and "signatory rights." How does this explanation dovetail with the report here at Rx that EVERYONE WAS PAID when that was not true? The post and the explanation do not seem to fit.
HTRC,
Scott's extension was 1625. Please pass this info along. I think others here also agree that cold calling, especially for re-uping to an offshore book, should be frowned upon. I have to give my real contact info in case the book needs to verify my identification or get in contact with me on important matters... but many of us try to keep our sports play separate from the rest of our lives (i.e. employers, wives, etc.)
Email, no problem. I never frown on any email communication as long as it's not affiliate spam. If it's from a book it gives me more info on what's happening. But please, no phone calls!!
Thanks,
dottom
Scott's extension was 1625. Please pass this info along. I think others here also agree that cold calling, especially for re-uping to an offshore book, should be frowned upon. I have to give my real contact info in case the book needs to verify my identification or get in contact with me on important matters... but many of us try to keep our sports play separate from the rest of our lives (i.e. employers, wives, etc.)
Email, no problem. I never frown on any email communication as long as it's not affiliate spam. If it's from a book it gives me more info on what's happening. But please, no phone calls!!
Thanks,
dottom
Dottom..
I Spoke with Royal Sports to discuss what you had stated and they told me that over the last few days they have been contacting many if not all the individuals that had payments processed recently. Given what occurred recently with some negative publicity they felt they needed to insure that players felt reassured that Royal Sports was financially stable and that this was just a blip on the radar screen. Like I stated before, I have never been a fan of Cold Calling which is why I inquired about the situation. Hope that helps.
Thanks
HTRC
I Spoke with Royal Sports to discuss what you had stated and they told me that over the last few days they have been contacting many if not all the individuals that had payments processed recently. Given what occurred recently with some negative publicity they felt they needed to insure that players felt reassured that Royal Sports was financially stable and that this was just a blip on the radar screen. Like I stated before, I have never been a fan of Cold Calling which is why I inquired about the situation. Hope that helps.
Thanks
HTRC
HTRC: thanks for the data!
Just FYI, when I got the call from Royal asking to re-up, the first thing that went through my mind was "uh oh, they need my post-up money so they can pay others". I'm probably just paranoid, but their cold-calling had the opposite efffect on me!
Cheers,
dottom
Just FYI, when I got the call from Royal asking to re-up, the first thing that went through my mind was "uh oh, they need my post-up money so they can pay others". I'm probably just paranoid, but their cold-calling had the opposite efffect on me!
Cheers,
dottom
Wil.. to my knowledge all payments are being processed on time, provided there isn't another reason such as ID verification and such, but as stated before if anyone has a problem I will continue to assist if they email me, but it does seem as though it is full steam ahead. Some questions were answered last night by Kevin King of Royal Sports in a chat hosted at MW,Chat Recap hope that helps.
Dottom.. I will make sure that is passed on as well, I do agree that given the timing and the industry in general this year that what you thought would have crossed the minds of others as well. Thanks for the feedback once again.
HTRC
Dottom.. I will make sure that is passed on as well, I do agree that given the timing and the industry in general this year that what you thought would have crossed the minds of others as well. Thanks for the feedback once again.
HTRC
Swami I assume this is the post you are referring to:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> posted January 15, 2004 12:31 PM
I have a question for Shrink and/or a Mod?
I read the Royal chat from MW...It appears that Royal explained the cashout problems by pointing to transitional issues and "signatory rights." How does this explanation dovetail with the report here at Rx that EVERYONE WAS PAID when that was not true? The post and the explanation do not seem to fit.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First of all I cannot speak for Shrink, which I am sure you realize. imo. It became apparent why the original title that was posted, was based on what Shrink believed to be true at the time, as he later posted:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> posted January 10, 2004 09:31 AM
Good feedback from all of you and a great job by our mods while I was away...
I acted out of good faith from what was told to me by ROYAL SPORTS yesterday as they were willing to send me all of their transaction reports to prove that all gamblers had been paid. I declined their willingness to send them to me, since that would really not mean much, but the bottom line was I believed ROYAL.
I will call them again since it is warrented to get to the bottom of this.
Once I gather their response to what has transpired on this thread, I will have ROYAL or myself report back here...
Thanks,
Ken
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Since then The Mods (especially the General) have been working with HTRC to get anyone who has'nt been paid - get paid. I honestly believe that Royal is working in good faith to get all of their payment requests processed in a timely fashion. Do they have some outstanding cases with unusual circumstances, definitely. Are everyday, run of the mill, payouts being handled promptly, I believe this to be true. Quite frankly I am not sure if I answered your question or not. Again only IMO. I believe it has become a moot point whether or not the thread title was true or not, as apparently the vast majority of players have been paid by Royal.
wil.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> posted January 15, 2004 12:31 PM
I have a question for Shrink and/or a Mod?
I read the Royal chat from MW...It appears that Royal explained the cashout problems by pointing to transitional issues and "signatory rights." How does this explanation dovetail with the report here at Rx that EVERYONE WAS PAID when that was not true? The post and the explanation do not seem to fit.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First of all I cannot speak for Shrink, which I am sure you realize. imo. It became apparent why the original title that was posted, was based on what Shrink believed to be true at the time, as he later posted:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> posted January 10, 2004 09:31 AM
Good feedback from all of you and a great job by our mods while I was away...
I acted out of good faith from what was told to me by ROYAL SPORTS yesterday as they were willing to send me all of their transaction reports to prove that all gamblers had been paid. I declined their willingness to send them to me, since that would really not mean much, but the bottom line was I believed ROYAL.
I will call them again since it is warrented to get to the bottom of this.
Once I gather their response to what has transpired on this thread, I will have ROYAL or myself report back here...
Thanks,
Ken
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Since then The Mods (especially the General) have been working with HTRC to get anyone who has'nt been paid - get paid. I honestly believe that Royal is working in good faith to get all of their payment requests processed in a timely fashion. Do they have some outstanding cases with unusual circumstances, definitely. Are everyday, run of the mill, payouts being handled promptly, I believe this to be true. Quite frankly I am not sure if I answered your question or not. Again only IMO. I believe it has become a moot point whether or not the thread title was true or not, as apparently the vast majority of players have been paid by Royal.
wil.
Thanks Wil, I appreciate your response.
It seems clear to me (and any reasonable person) that Royal LIED to Shrink and the fact that there were transitional and signatory rights issue has nothing to do with the fact that they told him EVERYONE WAS PAID and this was NOT true.
The issue is not "moot." The fact that what I wrote in the prior paragraph is true and Royal still has a banner here says something about this site and the book.
If my comments are not true feel free to respond or have Shrink do so. If there is no response, I understand that too.
Thanks again.
It seems clear to me (and any reasonable person) that Royal LIED to Shrink and the fact that there were transitional and signatory rights issue has nothing to do with the fact that they told him EVERYONE WAS PAID and this was NOT true.
The issue is not "moot." The fact that what I wrote in the prior paragraph is true and Royal still has a banner here says something about this site and the book.
If my comments are not true feel free to respond or have Shrink do so. If there is no response, I understand that too.
Thanks again.
Swami - Your opinion is noted. FWIW. I can't forsee the banner coming down based on an interpatation that Royal purposely lied to anyone. I can only assume you are unwilling to give anyone any credit for helping the players that were paid. That is fine with me. As I have told you in the past, believe what you want. The thread has become extremely lengthy, and shows a lot of effort put forth by some individuals. I am satisfied with the results achieved by all the principals involved, again thats only good FWIW.
BOL. wil.
BOL. wil.
