I too believe d- is harsh at this time. I myself have been hard on Royal in recent times but have direct knowledge that certain improvements have been implemented. My major concern was about management having access to sufficent funding at all times and a more professional and timely dealing with vendors and agents. Both issues have been adressed the right way.
Albeit I understand some of SBR's concerns I do not agree on two major issues he posted which I believe are deceiving, to say the least.
Funds : a trusted third party has been appraised about available funds, which exceed three times players escrow . The account John has "verified", blatantly violating local banking laws, is the operation account ( payroll and so on ). No sports books holds its eggs in the jurisdiction they operate from. Not one, including VIP, Pinnacle and so on. Posting otherwise is a lie, and John should refrain from that.
The case he mentioned about the player and his Court case is over a year old. I was at helm of Royal when the case occured. I have explained the nature and content of that case to many parties, including SBR. He seems to be the only one who doesn't understand it, which is not a big problem, at least until he uses it to fit his anti-Royal agenda.
I was in Curacao last week and word on the street is that this player, who is aware he does not have a solid case, has promised SBR a "cut" on the collection.....its a rumor, but its out there.
Before John chimes in and spews his venom let me summarize the case :
The player made several deposits via credit card and placed a number of wager circumventing limits. All wagers exceeding the limits were cancelled prior to the game going off the board and the player was informed accordingly. His wagers within the limits won and he received his payout ( 20 dimes ) after 48 hours of the event.
While reviewing his account ( a normal procedure with any book when anomalies such as circumvention of limits occur ) Royal found out that the player had an history of chargebacks on losing bets ( and in one case even when winning ) with several books, including, but not limited to bet365, bowmans ( here the player deposited with credit card, got his payout via neteller and then charged back his initial credit card deposit ) and VIP.
Given the circumstances Royal's management decided to refund the player's credit card's deposits. All were refunded. Royal holds reference of such transaction which the player never acknowledged. So much for the case.
I personally believe that Watchdogs should always try to dig as deep as possible before making statements which may hurt their reputation.
Most recently SBR posted a note on his Web site about Royal adressing the book as "deadbeats". Provided Royal has indeed gone through some extraordinary changes over the past two years no player has ever been stiffed. Some had to wait an unreasonable amount of time for their payout in the past, but ALL have been paid. On top of that Royal has provided a great service to the Industry rescueing over 500 players through several bailouts. Ignoring this fact is proof of a one sided agenda. Adressing Royal as "deadbeats" is an unacceptable lack of respect. I believe SBR owes Royal an apology for that.