All Forums | Gaming Industry - US

Another forum in the works on bailout for beted clients

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 17749
Posts: 263
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2011
Posts: 216
Posted: #176

I understand what you are saying Freedom but from where all the players sit...covers is saying one thing, sbr is saying another.  Obviously one forum is lying through their teeth.  I dont know which it is, nor do i really care.  Im not sure what Dozier has to gain by claiming he sent you an email. 

Either way, I just hope the bailout gets implemented in the next couple days.

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 1995
Posts: 363
Posted: #177
No problem, rich. I understand your view.

I don't know why he'd claim that either. It's an odd thing to claim. I don't even think he knows my email anyway, and I know he hasn't contacted anybody else on our team. I asked after reading that post.

Like I said, these are trying times for companies that target the American market and people are doing desperate things to get those betED players into their preferred operations where they can profit cheaply.

I will say one thing: If everybody really was looking out for the best outcome for the players, wouldn't it make sense to allow betED to negotiate their best deal possible with their preferred choice, rather than going around trying to subvert existing negotiations with rumors and innuendo? How does that help the players? 

If anything, it just makes the negotiations drag on forever while putting the squeeze on betED to work with specific partners instead of somebody they trust and is offering the best deal.

If anything, I think this situation shows that maybe, just maybe, certain forums that claim to be strictly in it for the players might just have some hidden agendas that are not always in the players' best interests.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2001
Posts: 4487
Posted: #178
Didn't contact me either.

What a strange thing to stake your reputation on.

Strange times.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 9021
Posted: #179
The problem is: who is to say that the deal that is best for Beted is even remotely good for the players?? It's not like they carpetbagged out of town in the middle of the night...........................................



So we've basically been hanging out in the dark without any real advocate. I don't think Bill Dozer has done any bashing of you guys, but honestly we would be lemmings if we accepted any single parties word hook, line, and sinker at this point.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2001
Posts: 4487
Posted: #180
esplanade, nothing personal, but I hate your avatar.

Even when you make sense, it makes you look like you are screaming to make a point.

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2011
Posts: 216
Posted: #181
Freedom...while i hope the bailout deal is good for all partied involved.  I think beted being ahppy with the deal should obviously take a back seat to the players being happy...after all they are the ones who packed up and ran without any communication at all with the players.  Would you agree with that? 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2007
Posts: 1462
Posted: #182
Quote Originally Posted by richsox24:

Freedom...while i hope the bailout deal is good for all partied involved.  I think beted being ahppy with the deal should obviously take a back seat to the players being happy...after all they are the ones who packed up and ran without any communication at all with the players.  Would you agree with that? 
I COMPLETELY AGREE, nice post!
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 1995
Posts: 363
Posted: #183
Yes, of course the players come first, but you miss my point.

I'm saying that betED had the open floor, made their choice of a partner and are now negotiating in a free market.

But if the situation gets dragged on while betED gets publicly extorted so to only deal with the one or two preferred operations of one particular forum, well what's the likelihood that anybody will get a good deal in that situation?
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 9021
Posted: #184
OK Lou, I'll change it for you.................
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2009
Posts: 130
Posted: #185
Freedom or Lou, can you please respond to this simple question. You will have to excuse me if it was asked already. 

Covers knew processing instant banking transactions with American clients was against the UIGEA, that is obvious even to a recreational player. Covers knew BetED was one of the books giving Americans this option. Several other preferred books for covers also offered such options like Sports Interaction. 

This did not raise any concern with the Covers staff even after the poker seizures? 

In an article written by Covers shortly after they said this funding practice was money laundering. So it seems like Covers knew what to call it after the fact, but didn't have any problem promoting the site prior to the seizure. So they did not know BetED was actively engaging in money laundering prior to the seizure? What else could it be interpreted as?

People, companies, they make mistakes. Especially when faced with difficult PR situations. It's good how Covers is trying to help facilitate this deal and keep the public informed. I guess I'm just stumped that they couldn't see the writing on the well. It doesn't make any sense. 
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 1995
Posts: 363
Posted: #186
Mikie, it's hard to argue against your point. But I will try...

The poker situations were one thing. In some circumstances they actually owned the banks and processing companies involved, so it was an egregious situation they were undertaking which nobody on our realized because nobody knew the lengths they were going to.

Plus, with the fact that poker is bound to be legalized sooner or later, there was another reason to assume it was an isolated incident as the government was kneecapping the "illegal" poker sites to level the field before the industry gets regulated.

Remember as well, this is a mirror-image situation where it all depends on where you are standing.

It's only money laundering if the company in question is breaking the law. Well, if these companies were operating in legal jurisdictions where its not illegal to do what they were doing, were they actually breaking any laws? An argument could be said that they were not.

Furthermore, the WTO has ruled that the American government's stance against online gambling is, in fact, illegal. If anything, it's the government who has been breaking more laws than the sportsbooks.

It's only when you look at it from the one particular point of view of the US authorities that laws have been broken, and therefore money laundering can only be considered as a crime from that point.

So, should we have seen it? Maybe. But it didn't look very likely.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2009
Posts: 130
Posted: #187
Quote Originally Posted by Freedom@Stake:

Mikie, it's hard to argue against your point. But I will try...

The poker situations were one thing. In some circumstances they actually owned the banks and processing companies involved, so it was an egregious situation they were undertaking which nobody on our realized because nobody knew the lengths they were going to.

Plus, with the fact that poker is bound to be legalized sooner or later, there was another reason to assume it was an isolated incident as the government was kneecapping the "illegal" poker sites to level the field before the industry gets regulated.

Remember as well, this is a mirror-image situation where it all depends on where you are standing.

It's only money laundering if the company in question is breaking the law. Well, if these companies were operating in legal jurisdictions where its not illegal to do what they were doing, were they actually breaking any laws? An argument could be said that they were not.

Furthermore, the WTO has ruled that the American government's stance against online gambling is, in fact, illegal. If anything, it's the government who has been breaking more laws than the sportsbooks.

It's only when you look at it from the one particular point of view of the US authorities that laws have been broken, and therefore money laundering can only be considered as a crime from that point.

So, should we have seen it? Maybe. But it didn't look very likely.

Fair enough Freedom. I was pretty harsh in a previous post, but I'm a professional, so I'm fully aware of the complexity's at hand and I express my apologies for being so aggressive in my statements. I've used Covers since the beginning and will always use Covers. In my shoes I always felt, hey, I know something weird has to be going on that can allow Americans instant funding. I felt pretty comfortable in assuming the transactions were being processed to appear to be other types of transactions. At the same time I will say beyond any doubt, that I did not expect the Feds to attack in the manner in which they have. Certainly not under a Democratic president. I mean Kyle was the one who really started this legislation, and it's always been primarily backed by Republicans. I also see the point on Poker vs Sports, as I can never envision a legalization of sports but feel poker will come soon. So I suppose it's understandable to line that seizure with the Feds opening the door to such a legalization down the road, vs a full out assault on the entire industry. I'm thinking part of these raids are heavily based on the American deficits. They don't want our money leaving the country to wager, and they don't feel comfortable with the large scale Tax evasion that comes with it.

In your professional opinion, is the Climate still OK for the industries bigger players? For example I've used Bet Jamaica heavily in the past, great pay outs response. I would like to consider them now that ACH is basically done, it just boil down to who I can trust is the safest. Would you bet BJ on that list? If not who would you put on such a list? 

Best Regards,
Mike
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2001
Posts: 4487
Posted: #188
Mike,

I think I can speak for Freedom when I say that we think the current sites should be mostly safe, but really as Freedom's article (the one you mention) states, nothing is 100% safe anymore so you have to be smart and protect yourself a bit.

But there are some people in the industry who have been going decades now without being shut down. They were doing it back even before the internet in some cases.

That's one thing about the betED situation... people were getting a bit lax. I personally met people in places like Canada and the UK for meetings, which probably wasn't a great idea for them in retrospect, but they felt reasonably safe.

Probably 75% of the industry was going to make some sort of presence at that Dublin conference, but Black Friday scared them away.

Now, those guys have once again closed ranks and bunkered down. So you can be fairly certain that - even if it might get a bit inconvenient sometimes - it's unlikely they will ever get shut down completely.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 1995
Posts: 363
Posted: #189
Update: We did find somebody who received an email from Dozier. Thank God. I thought he was losing it.

That being said, it doesn't contain anything we didn't know. Lot's of people are coming out of the woodwork saying they had fantastic offers that betED.

That's the problem with a non-public process. There's no way to tell which guys are full of crap and just bitter, from the guys who have a legitimate beef. Plus there might be some great operations making shitty offers or some shitty operations making great offers - that you can only trust so much.

All I can say is that I was assured that all offers were taken seriously and they chose the best combination of offer/operator they could find and are getting to brass tacks. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the sites that was originally complaining to Dozier turns out to be the one.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 1995
Posts: 363
Posted: #190
Quote Originally Posted by Freedom@Stake:

 

That being said, it doesn't contain anything we didn't know. Lot's of people are coming out of the woodwork saying they had fantastic offers that betED.


I meant to say "that betED didn't respond to."
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2007
Posts: 1462
Posted: #191
Quote Originally Posted by Freedom@Stake:

Update: We did find somebody who received an email from Dozier. Thank God. I thought he was losing it.

That being said, it doesn't contain anything we didn't know. Lot's of people are coming out of the woodwork saying they had fantastic offers that betED.

That's the problem with a non-public process. There's no way to tell which guys are full of crap and just bitter, from the guys who have a legitimate beef. Plus there might be some great operations making shitty offers or some shitty operations making great offers - that you can only trust so much.

All I can say is that I was assured that all offers were taken seriously and they chose the best combination of offer/operator they could find and are getting to brass tacks. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the sites that was originally complaining to Dozier turns out to be the one.

Can we assume this is a done deal? I will expect to hear news today.

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2004
Posts: 14413
Posted: #192
Dozier does bring up one good point in that other books who have been taken have still made good on paying and did not throw in the towel and still had a pool of money to stay in business and continue operations. Beted may have been living by the seat of its pants without immensely deep pockets and unable to combat something like this the way others could.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 1995
Posts: 363
Posted: #193
michael, what I hear is that they have a preferred partner that they have been negotiating with and it's in the due diligence phase now.

I hope to hear something today, but it's really about how long it takes for the purchaser to make a decision - and it's a big decision.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2010
Posts: 1460
Posted: #194
so does it look/sound like there was a setback, or is it still just the same - on hold for word of an agreement?
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 1995
Posts: 363
Posted: #195
As far as I know, it's still a "Go", but the due diligence is just taking time.

Frankly, I think this makes perfect sense from the purchaser's point of view. Our source for the "quick" optimism might have had their judgement clouded by irrational exuberance, as the saying goes.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2007
Posts: 106
Posted: #196
So what do you think is the hold up ?
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 1995
Posts: 363
Posted: #197
Heard is was just due diligence. The purchaser wants to be sure they are buying a real customer list and not something that's just crap that looks good but is worthless.

So, you've got to request a sample of this and a sample of that, but you can't get the whole thing because that's what's for sale.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2010
Posts: 1460
Posted: #198
odds of a bailout this week (by friday midnight / sat morning 12:01 am)

yes it happens +900
no it doesn't (or no word of one) -1200
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2011
Posts: 216
Posted: #199
Quote Originally Posted by SnotBoogy:

odds of a bailout this week (by friday midnight / sat morning 12:01 am)

yes it happens +900
no it doesn't (or no word of one) -1200

Well, since Lou said in the other thread that he thought the bailout announcement would be by Tuesday and as of right now, its Wednesday, I gotta think the bailout announcement will happen today or at worst case, tomorrow. 

Lets just keep our fingers crossed

 

 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2010
Posts: 1460
Posted: #200
Quote Originally Posted by richsox24:

Well, since Lou said in the other thread that he thought the bailout announcement would be by Tuesday and as of right now, its Wednesday, I gotta think the bailout announcement will happen today or at worst case, tomorrow. 

Lets just keep our fingers crossed

 


so you think the fact that it was said somethign would be announced early this week INCREASES the likelihood that it would, when it's midday wednesday and it hasn't?

interesting
All Forums | Gaming Industry - US
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2024 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.