Would you rather play for a place that values players or doesnot. You know my answer. I rather play at places that values clients because I do the same in business.
If you'll remember I got into that pissing contest awhile back with another poster over this. Customer service is very important. I don't do this for a living. It's purely recreational. If I did it for a living then I'm sure it would change my perspective as well as my prerequisits on what constitues a good shop for me. If I did do it for a living only the lines and payment would matter. These two things would be number one. What happened with FCC will cost them some business. No doubt about that. And I'm not doubting you when you say they run a good shop. What is leaving a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths is how this was handled. Joe, in his last post, makes several good points. In a court of law I don't know if Roo gets paid or not. Legal blame would have to be proven. But in the court of public opinion they're fighting a losing battle. I really think they would have been better off not posting anything. I do have respect for Mike Fine to come on to these forums and open himself up for abuse. It's rare for a shop that's in turmoil to do that. But he handled it wrong. I could have accepted an honest answer. If you'll read back a lot of these hostile posts are upset about the way they tried to come off as the something they really aren't. the problem they have now is one of public perception. If they stuck Roo why not me. Whether or not they had any liability towards him it's the fact that they chose to pay off everyone but the BIG WINNER that's causing a problem. Everyone here dreams of being or actually is a BIG WINNER. And the fact that they singled him out hurts their credibility.
Why take the chance, however remote, that they might do it again. I don't doubt what you say about the mgt. there. They made a pure business decision. The players that got paid should consider themselves fortunate. If the decision not to pay anyone had made more sense then they would still be as pissed as Roo. I've been guilty as anyone of beating a dead horse but in this case I'm done. Roo is probably not going to get his money and that's unfortunate based on what we know.
Why take the chance, however remote, that they might do it again. I don't doubt what you say about the mgt. there. They made a pure business decision. The players that got paid should consider themselves fortunate. If the decision not to pay anyone had made more sense then they would still be as pissed as Roo. I've been guilty as anyone of beating a dead horse but in this case I'm done. Roo is probably not going to get his money and that's unfortunate based on what we know.
Joe,
Thanks for the nice welcome.
You're correct - we do not see the information in the same way. My job is not to change you, nor is it my inclination. Perhaps on other issues we will find agreement. But regardless, I appreciate the way in which you presented your arguments.
yogi,
I really didn't have "being boss" in mind when I made my post. I was just trying to cut corners since so much has already been said in the thread, and that seemed like the easiest way to do it. I hope that only having 11 posts doesn't mean that I should in someway refrain from participating here at RX. We all started at post number 1.
Loman,
I actually only noticed one spelling error - that being the word benefit in your first post - and I am sure it was only a typo.
I just reread your posts, and perhaps I should have put them more in a category of "wishy-washy". It could be the cynicism, as you yourself said. You seem to want to agree that the way this situation was handled was unacceptable - yet you can't quite bring yourself to do it.
Thanks for the nice welcome.
You're correct - we do not see the information in the same way. My job is not to change you, nor is it my inclination. Perhaps on other issues we will find agreement. But regardless, I appreciate the way in which you presented your arguments.
yogi,
I really didn't have "being boss" in mind when I made my post. I was just trying to cut corners since so much has already been said in the thread, and that seemed like the easiest way to do it. I hope that only having 11 posts doesn't mean that I should in someway refrain from participating here at RX. We all started at post number 1.
Loman,
I actually only noticed one spelling error - that being the word benefit in your first post - and I am sure it was only a typo.
I just reread your posts, and perhaps I should have put them more in a category of "wishy-washy". It could be the cynicism, as you yourself said. You seem to want to agree that the way this situation was handled was unacceptable - yet you can't quite bring yourself to do it.
bettorstalk.com,
I agree with all of what you say... except...
"the fact remains is they assumed the fairdeal debts and paid them all except Roo!!"
Did they?
What consideration did Cashew receive?
How did the software company engineer this "assumption"?
Clearly it was a win-win for them and Five Card. Five Card purchased the Fair Deal URL (that was the legal property of the software company and NOT Fair Deals) and "assumed" all accounts except Roo's. More than likely Five Card signed a multi-year lease with the software company.
But, were these transactions legitimate? and who owns Roo's account?
Thank you,
Joe
PS. yogi,
Back off with this 10 posts or less shit.
Roo has no obligation to post on every site. His case is legitimate as both book and player agree.
MadameX is a new poster here expressing an opinion, I do not see her having any kind of agenda.
I agree with all of what you say... except...
"the fact remains is they assumed the fairdeal debts and paid them all except Roo!!"
Did they?
What consideration did Cashew receive?
How did the software company engineer this "assumption"?
Clearly it was a win-win for them and Five Card. Five Card purchased the Fair Deal URL (that was the legal property of the software company and NOT Fair Deals) and "assumed" all accounts except Roo's. More than likely Five Card signed a multi-year lease with the software company.
But, were these transactions legitimate? and who owns Roo's account?
Thank you,
Joe
PS. yogi,
Back off with this 10 posts or less shit.
Roo has no obligation to post on every site. His case is legitimate as both book and player agree.
MadameX is a new poster here expressing an opinion, I do not see her having any kind of agenda.
There is something to this that you and I will never know.
I took more offense to the spin that was put on it than the situation.Bottom line ,plenty of offices out there,I see no need to play with this one.Five card made it out like it was a charitable deed and I don't buy it.
I stated, "It was Cashew NV DBA Fair Deal"
You asked. "Was it? Is that how they were legally set up? Or was Fair Deal merely a name with no official standing."
Yes, Joe--that's what it was--whether the DBA was legally filed or not, Cashew NV was clearly doing business as Fair Deal. How could you even ask that?
I stated, "5CC bought Fair Deal"
You asked, ""What consideration did Cashew receive?
They do not have to receive tangible property to have received consideration. For example, if they walk away with their reputations reasonably intact, that is "consideration"
"What was their (the software company's) relationship with Cashew with regard to Fair Deal?
You cannot make that statement without knowing these facts."
It's not relevant. Five Card Charlie's has demonstrated they are and were aware that a debt of 86k was to be made to disappear. Their knowledge of that part of the purchase of the entity known as Fair Deal is the relevant matter.
And they did purchase it--for consideration-- no matter how anyone tries to spin it.
Courts all over the world recognize the "reasonableness" standard--how would a reasonable person view the issue? It is usually invoked when one party tries to do what 5CC and you seem to be doing--spinning and twisting the interpretation of an event or a definition of an event. A perfect example is your statement that whether or not post up money is a "LOAN" is a matter of opinion. That's ridiculous, as shown by the backlash from the posters at this forum. A court would laugh at that, and it would not meet any reasonable person's definition of a "LOAN".
[This message was edited by 3rd&long on 08-16-01 at 10:20 PM.]
You asked. "Was it? Is that how they were legally set up? Or was Fair Deal merely a name with no official standing."
Yes, Joe--that's what it was--whether the DBA was legally filed or not, Cashew NV was clearly doing business as Fair Deal. How could you even ask that?
I stated, "5CC bought Fair Deal"
You asked, ""What consideration did Cashew receive?
They do not have to receive tangible property to have received consideration. For example, if they walk away with their reputations reasonably intact, that is "consideration"
"What was their (the software company's) relationship with Cashew with regard to Fair Deal?
You cannot make that statement without knowing these facts."
It's not relevant. Five Card Charlie's has demonstrated they are and were aware that a debt of 86k was to be made to disappear. Their knowledge of that part of the purchase of the entity known as Fair Deal is the relevant matter.
And they did purchase it--for consideration-- no matter how anyone tries to spin it.
Courts all over the world recognize the "reasonableness" standard--how would a reasonable person view the issue? It is usually invoked when one party tries to do what 5CC and you seem to be doing--spinning and twisting the interpretation of an event or a definition of an event. A perfect example is your statement that whether or not post up money is a "LOAN" is a matter of opinion. That's ridiculous, as shown by the backlash from the posters at this forum. A court would laugh at that, and it would not meet any reasonable person's definition of a "LOAN".
[This message was edited by 3rd&long on 08-16-01 at 10:20 PM.]
You're both right in this case. The spin sucked and there may be things we don't know.
Loman... Is that damn poster of LadyO up yet?
Loman... Is that damn poster of LadyO up yet?
No but if its not up by tommorow,we storm the Bastille.Got that Joe.Buenos noches ya'll.
I think he's serious. And with you being the only one around you know what that means.... no beer for you! Where's our picture? /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
I agree. That's the most irritating part of all.
By the way, we have a section devoted to our female posters Joe would like to talk to you about later. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
By the way, we have a section devoted to our female posters Joe would like to talk to you about later. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
First I would like to thank Mike Fine for finally responding. In addition I would like to thank all other posters that have expressed an opinion on this situation.
I understand the difficulty in drawing proper conclusions from limited data so I am happy to answer any questions readers feel may enable them to understand the situation more clearly.
I will leave the issue of a reply to Mike’s post until after this process.
I understand the difficulty in drawing proper conclusions from limited data so I am happy to answer any questions readers feel may enable them to understand the situation more clearly.
I will leave the issue of a reply to Mike’s post until after this process.
3rd&long let me thank you for your attempt to extract a clarification from Sting. As you can see he has not responded to your request or my comments that he has posted misinformation without attempting to verify the details. His implication that I am in some way dishonest is merely a ploy to create sympathy for Mike. It is obvious from his posts that he has a relationship with Mike Fine. IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE STING CAN YOU PLEASE MAKE ME AWARE OF WHERE MY GUILT LIES.
In addition can you please explain the following contradiction.
“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.
If this is the case why were you touting the book as solid?
STINGCC Certifiably CrazyFrom: San Jose, CRRegistered: 01-07-00Posts: 2968 Mad Jack is 100% correct. I was informed that Jack is no longer at Fair Deal either. Don't know any of the specifics, but I work closely with a liason of Fair Deal and have been told this book will continue to thrive as it always has. Hope this helps and I should be able to find out more by next week. posted 10-20-00 07:52 PM
In addition can you please explain the following contradiction.
“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.
If this is the case why were you touting the book as solid?
STINGCC Certifiably CrazyFrom: San Jose, CRRegistered: 01-07-00Posts: 2968 Mad Jack is 100% correct. I was informed that Jack is no longer at Fair Deal either. Don't know any of the specifics, but I work closely with a liason of Fair Deal and have been told this book will continue to thrive as it always has. Hope this helps and I should be able to find out more by next week. posted 10-20-00 07:52 PM
THIS POST BY FCC SURE DID PUT A CRAZY SPIN ON THINGS HERE THEY COULD OF AT LEAST GAVE HIM A PORTION OF HIS MONEY HELL IM SURE ROO WOULD OF BEEN HAPPY TO JUST GET HIS 10,000 GS BACK IN HIS DAMN POCKET BUT TO TOTALY SINGLE THIS PLAYER OUT WHAT A DISJUSTICE THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT WOULD JUST DRIVE ANYONE OF US
/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif
/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif
3rd&long,
-----I stated, "It was Cashew NV DBA Fair Deal"
You asked. "Was it? Is that how they were legally set up? Or was Fair Deal merely a name with no official standing."
Yes, Joe--that's what it was--whether the DBA was legally filed or not, Cashew NV was clearly doing business as Fair Deal. How could you even ask that?"-----
The reason being that if it was a legal set up, then the accounts belonged to Cashew, not Fair Deal.
This is important in trying to determine legal ownership/responsibility for debts. Though from your perspective, you may see this as splitting hairs.
-----I stated, "5CC bought Fair Deal"
You asked, ""What consideration did Cashew receive?
They do not have to receive tangible property to have received consideration. For example, if they walk away with their reputations reasonably intact, that is "consideration"-----
I absolutely agree.
What I am concerned with is if Cashew was even aware of this transfer. Ie. Did the software company have the legal right to sell the accounts?
Again, if the accounts were not legally sold, then this whole act is illegal and should be remedied. If the accounts were the legal property of the software company, then they are responsible for paying Roo off.
-----"What was their (the software company's) relationship with Cashew with regard to Fair Deal?
You cannot make that statement without knowing these facts."
It's not relevant. Five Card Charlie's has demonstrated they are and were aware that a debt of 86k was to be made to disappear. Their knowledge of that part of the purchase of the entity known as Fair Deal is the relevant matter.
And they did purchase it--for consideration-- no matter how anyone tries to spin it.-----
It is very relevant.
And no one is trying to make Roo's debt disappear. Five Card merely states that it is not their responsibility. The issue is - Where does responsibility for Roo's account lie?
And it may very well lie with Five Card...
Bottom Line - You are looking at the result and saying "This sucks - it is all Five Card's fault".
I prefer to try to determine how things got this way before assigning responsibility. (Given that your conclusion may be the correct one).
Thank you,
Joe
P.S. Roo,
I never stick up for Sting, but your qoute from him is from October, 2000.
At that point, I do not think any of their problems were known.
-----I stated, "It was Cashew NV DBA Fair Deal"
You asked. "Was it? Is that how they were legally set up? Or was Fair Deal merely a name with no official standing."
Yes, Joe--that's what it was--whether the DBA was legally filed or not, Cashew NV was clearly doing business as Fair Deal. How could you even ask that?"-----
The reason being that if it was a legal set up, then the accounts belonged to Cashew, not Fair Deal.
This is important in trying to determine legal ownership/responsibility for debts. Though from your perspective, you may see this as splitting hairs.
-----I stated, "5CC bought Fair Deal"
You asked, ""What consideration did Cashew receive?
They do not have to receive tangible property to have received consideration. For example, if they walk away with their reputations reasonably intact, that is "consideration"-----
I absolutely agree.
What I am concerned with is if Cashew was even aware of this transfer. Ie. Did the software company have the legal right to sell the accounts?
Again, if the accounts were not legally sold, then this whole act is illegal and should be remedied. If the accounts were the legal property of the software company, then they are responsible for paying Roo off.
-----"What was their (the software company's) relationship with Cashew with regard to Fair Deal?
You cannot make that statement without knowing these facts."
It's not relevant. Five Card Charlie's has demonstrated they are and were aware that a debt of 86k was to be made to disappear. Their knowledge of that part of the purchase of the entity known as Fair Deal is the relevant matter.
And they did purchase it--for consideration-- no matter how anyone tries to spin it.-----
It is very relevant.
And no one is trying to make Roo's debt disappear. Five Card merely states that it is not their responsibility. The issue is - Where does responsibility for Roo's account lie?
And it may very well lie with Five Card...
Bottom Line - You are looking at the result and saying "This sucks - it is all Five Card's fault".
I prefer to try to determine how things got this way before assigning responsibility. (Given that your conclusion may be the correct one).
Thank you,
Joe
P.S. Roo,
I never stick up for Sting, but your qoute from him is from October, 2000.
At that point, I do not think any of their problems were known.
Fair Deal was having problems all last year it was known. Roo if you called OSGA they had them on but if you spoke to them they said they are working out some problems.
You should have emailed OSGA about them. When I asked OSGA about fair deal last year they told me to basically pass on this place.
Yogi thanks for the recommendations. I now take more care when deciding which accounts to open. I set a maximum balance I will let an account get to and I never take large parlay at small outs.
What people do not realize is that due to my inexperience with sports betting I made wrong decisions. Mike implies I am a super punter that understood the risk I was taking. Anyone that opens an account at Lucky’s clearly has no idea what he is doing. I fall into that category and that also cost me 50k. Mike is correct I should have known better, unfortunately I did not. I did not target Fair Deal because it had weak numbers. I opened the account because of advertising and recommendations on web sites. I had no idea what sort of numbers they had. I opened the account because I wanted another out.
MY IGNORANCE DOES NOT EXONERATE FIVE CARD CHARLIES BEHAVIOUR.
Mike is not a bad person. He probably has good intentions in regard to paying his existing customers. His mistake was in trying to dupe the forum readers with his press release and then trying to sell them his biased position. This was always going to be a hard sell and he compounded the problem by trying to do it in a manner where acceptance would only have occurred if they were all totally stupid.
The bottom line is punters need to get paid. Without punters there is no industry for him to be part of.
What people do not realize is that due to my inexperience with sports betting I made wrong decisions. Mike implies I am a super punter that understood the risk I was taking. Anyone that opens an account at Lucky’s clearly has no idea what he is doing. I fall into that category and that also cost me 50k. Mike is correct I should have known better, unfortunately I did not. I did not target Fair Deal because it had weak numbers. I opened the account because of advertising and recommendations on web sites. I had no idea what sort of numbers they had. I opened the account because I wanted another out.
MY IGNORANCE DOES NOT EXONERATE FIVE CARD CHARLIES BEHAVIOUR.
Mike is not a bad person. He probably has good intentions in regard to paying his existing customers. His mistake was in trying to dupe the forum readers with his press release and then trying to sell them his biased position. This was always going to be a hard sell and he compounded the problem by trying to do it in a manner where acceptance would only have occurred if they were all totally stupid.
The bottom line is punters need to get paid. Without punters there is no industry for him to be part of.
