RTG Information Forum

**jetset** · 9th January 2007, 08:16 PM

ATE CONFIRMS WITHDRAWAL OF MAJOR ONLINE GAMBLING EXHIBITOR

RealTime Gaming pulls out of International Casino Exhibition weeks before opening

Our InfoPowa report earlier today that turnkey provider RealTime Gaming has withdrawn from the International Casino Exhibition in London later this month has been officially confirmed by the organisers, Clarion ATE.

A spokesman for the exhibition said:

"Clarion ATE can confirm that RTG will not be exhibiting at ICEi 2007 but any contractual arrangements between RTG and Clarion ATE will not be disclosed to third parties.

"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.

"When it comes to replacement candidates, there has been no problem 'filling space' and I can confirm that we currently have 63 world-class suppliers from 20 different territories taking space within ICEi 2007, occupying net floor space of 1,525 square metres. More than half of these (35) will be making their debut appearance at ICEi. To put this into context, year-on-year the number of exhibitors has increased by 43% (44 in 2006), represented territories by 67% (12 in '06), net floor space by 73% (881.5sqm in '06), and the number of debutants by 150% (14 in '06)."

The Atlanta, Georgia-based RealTime Gaming remained silent despite requests for a comment on its withdrawal from an exhibition where it has hitherto had a regular and high profile presence.

**vinylweatherman** · 9th January 2007, 11:39 PM

So it's not just players that RTG are ignoring. I am sure the deafening silence will make the industry side realise that their attitude is less than satisfactory, and it increasingly looks like they have something to hide.

Clarion ATE have "disclosed" more by adding "but any contractual arrangements between RTG and Clarion ATE will not be disclosed to third parties" to their statement than they would have done by simply stating they had pulled out. They have officially indicated the existence of "something to keep quiet about", as any "contractual arrangements" should really be no more than renting a stand - and what IS there not to disclose about that!

Pity the poor RTG operators, or potential operators, who will find that, without any explanation, their own supplier has pulled out and left them high and dry. Perhaps RTG are afraid of being kidnapped by the FBI and sent to Guantanamo - did they screw the "wrong" player?

I rather suspect that, behind the scenes, there are some comlex corporate manouevers happening in order to shield the RTG execs from any risk of arrest as a result of their licencees operating in the US. Most likely, RTG will be sublicencing the software offshore to Hastings, and it will be Hastings, not RTG, that effectively provide remote gaming software. RTG will simply be a software company that owns a majority (or even a significant minority) of shares in Hastings, but will have nothing to do with decision making within Hastings. The Hastings board will not set foot on US soil, and RTG execs will be safe as all they will receive is an income stream from an offshore company holding, upon which they will pay US company taxes in the same way that other US companies pay taxes on subsidiary companies that conduct operations offshore that would be illegal were they to be conducted on US soil.
I believe RTG to be a private company, so there is not even the full public scrutiny of the accounts there would be for a stockmarket listed company. It will take a while to settle down, so by next year I would expect some kind of presence at the show in a new corporate form.

If I had shares in RTG yesterday, I would have none by now - make of that what you will

**jetset** · 10th January 2007, 07:44 AM

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.