In fairness, I think you may be reading a little too much into that "contractual" comment, which was in response to a specific question from us relating to the consequences of
RTG (a substantial exhibitor) pulling out of ICEi at such short notice.
And it ignores the following para, which was in response to another question we asked regarding the reasons given by
RTG for their pull-out:
"We are obviously disappointed in losing any exhibitors, but understand that any US-facing remote gaming companies have had to make some very difficult decisions over the past few months."
We still have had absolutely no response from
RTG to very specific questions we put to them. IMO it is neither professional nor wise in a corporate sense to ignore an opportunity to present your perspective on an issue, which we try give all sides in public disputes.
Your speculation on the
RTG corporate strategy would seem a logical course for a company like
RTG to follow, given its physical presence in the heart of the USA and consequent vulnerability to the enthusiastic enforcers at the DoJ. That could also be the reasoning behind the pull-out. None of us know at present.
Concerning the disruption of the disputes channel, I find it incredible that more planning did not go into this switch to Hastings BV. That's not unusual at
RTG, who often don't give the appearance of thinking ahead!
If Hastings BV is a spoof, as has been claimed, then the credibility of the CEO, Mike McMain will be at risk as he has personally given assurances that Hastings BV is intended among other things as a genuine and more effective replacement for Montana Overseas in Panama.
I've commented before now that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to start up the disputes replacement structure (wherever it is for corporate tactical reasons) before you dismantle the current channel, however inefficient.
Time will tell whether Hastings BV is a genuine and more effective disputes channel, but the present balls-up does nothing to inspire confidence in
RTG's forward planning.