View Single Post
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 28th April 2006, 12:08 AM
Trezz's Avatar
Trezz Trezz is offline
crack that whip!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 816
WTGs: 0
WTGd at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks: 214
Thanked 199 Times in 126 Posts
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Reputation Points: 1168
Rep Power: 21
Trezz has much to be proud ofTrezz has much to be proud ofTrezz has much to be proud ofTrezz has much to be proud ofTrezz has much to be proud ofTrezz has much to be proud ofTrezz has much to be proud ofTrezz has much to be proud ofTrezz has much to be proud of
Send a message via Skype™ to Trezz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simmo!
My understanding is that it is simply that eGOGRA do not see dealing with affiliate issues as part of their remit.
Simmo! imo there lays the problem. Again imo this industry holds an incestuous <improperly intimate or interconnected: “Press-politics relations are notoriously incestuous” (Boston Globe). > history of letting things slide and or playing double standards when it suits, not with standing conflict of interests either.

In my mind even though this type of event may not be in their <eCogra's> charter, it would seem to me that as John Anderson is the CEO of the Company <CON - 888> directly in the firing line over such an issue it would be grounds enough for eCogra to get involved, remit or otherwise.

I'm not saying that eCogra should take a public stand on this matter. However, given that its foundation were built on funds from CON and maybe still functions with ongoing funds from this benefactor, in my view it would be a wise initiative to conduct its own in house enquiries regarding this matter. Least to prevent such issues from returning to bit eCogra on its ass.

To simple take the head in the sand route could very well turn out to be a BIG mistake.
Reply With Quote