One Million Reels BC $204,167.54 + was hit today

[thelawnet]

And I have to agree with RobWin - there are similarities with the Playtech-Joyland issue, where a 41 percent shareholder in Playtech was allegedly connected through a Trust arrangement with the company that actually owned Joyland.

Not allegedly, in fact Playtech disclosed it in a regulatory filing:

http://www.playtech.com/html/page/re...cements/26/111

The Purchased Assets are principally being acquired pursuant to arrangements with Uniplay International Limited (“Uniplay”) and Six Digits Trading Limited (together the “Uniplay Assets”), companies ultimately owned by trusts in which Mr. Teddy Sagi is beneficially interested. A trust in which Mr. Sagi has a beneficial interest owns approximately 41.06 per cent. of Playtech’s issued shares and, accordingly, he is a related party of Playtech for the purposes of the AIM Rules.

Consequently, the Acquisition is being treated as a substantial transaction and a related party transaction for the purposes of rules 12 and 13 of the AIM Rules. The Directors of Playtech consider, having consulted with its nominated adviser, Collins Stewart Europe Limited, that the terms of the Acquisition are fair and reasonable insofar as Playtech’s independent shareholders are concerned.

[mojo]

I don't mean to interrupt the playtech issue but it appears that Rival Casinos are White Labels.

I have been watching this thread and I have learned a TON! TY

White Lables puts a different spin on things. Irish Luck appears to be a WL. Which means that IL does not own the casino but simply markets it.

To explain further, Irish Luck has a contract with Rival to market this casino and earn a high percentage but it does not own the casino. Rival does. Apparently, and please correct me if I am wrong but most (all?) Rival casinos are WL.

[Pinababy69]

I had been going to go back through the thread and multi-quote a ton of posts in reply, but why bother? I read Casino City's post last night, and had to literally sit on my hands to not type some smart ass reply about his claim of back room discussions.

So I decided I would think on it...and try to come to some conclusion as to why he was so convinced of independent ownership...when, to me, it was as plain as the nose on my face, that these joints are all owned by the same people. Sorry, but people don't go to the expense and trouble of hiring top notch legal firms to "fabricate" false claims against a corporation. They obviously think they have a case, as does the solicitor involved. So I went to bed last night pondering the situation, and just before I drifted off....BAM!! WHITE LABELS!!!

That was the only explanation that would cover both Casino City's and mine conviction in our opinions.

A short time ago, I read the thread at the GPWA, and then read Mojo's comments here. All I can do is laugh my friggin head off. EVERY ONE OF THESE CASINOS IS OWNED BY THE SAME PEOPLE!!! Just as the legal documents state...ha ha ha. Rival...what a bunch of total dipshits you are.

The white label scenario completely explains all the bonus banning, delayed payments across all casinos (off and on), absurd withdrawal limits, ridiculous wagering requirements and so on. I feel like the cat that ate the canary.

Honestly, it's no wonder I don't connect with too many people anymore. Everything was there for anyone who chose to see. Of course, people choose to believe what they want...and what is CONVENIENT for them to believe.

No need to post here anymore.....I'll just sit back and wait for the all the people who promote all these places to tell all of us how white labels aren't all that bad, and about niche marketing...and so on, ad nauseum.

Going to pour another drink...this is the best fucking laugh I've had in ages. No wonder no Rival reps comment anymore...on progressive payouts or anything else. It's in direct conflict with their contractual obligations. You know..the contracts with the people who OWN these places. What a fucking joke. If I had a picture of a herd of sheep, I'd post it. BAAAHHHHH!!!

Rival, I hope that T2 Marketing kicks your ass to hell and back in court.....or that at least, you have to pay through the nose for your failure to honour your contract with them. Disguise the true ownership? Ha ha ha....what a bunch of scam artists. The best thing for players is that every one of your casinos are shut down, ASAP. Of course, the affiliates wouldn't like it too much, especially the ones who promote to the U.S. But if that new legislation goes through, you'd never get a licence anyway.

Required reading for anyone who doesn't know what white label marketing is all about, or anyone who actually cares.

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...bel-issue.html

I am so glad that my livelihood is not derived from anything to do with online gaming, and any of these scam outfits....whose sole purpose seems to be to deceive people. I may not have much money, but I go to sleep every single night with a clear conscience.

[mojo]

BAM!! WHITE LABELS!!!

I feel like an idiot. Why didn't I think of that. It all makes sense now.

Pina says it better than I could.

[jetset]

Provider-owned white labels could explain it imo, but I think it was KK who said he had actually met two of the Rival owners and believed a third was in Australia some posts back?

I guess that could be a case of "marketers" claiming to be the "owners" for reasons best known to themselves.

This is what happens when a company like Rival does not communicate with its ultimate clients - the players - on critical issues like this one, leaving everything open to speculation.

[NASHVEGAS]

Provider-owned white labels could explain it imo, but I think it was KK who said he had actually met two of the Rival owners and believed a third was in Australia some posts back?

I guess that could be a case of "marketers" claiming to be the "owners" for reasons best known to themselves.

This is what happens when a company like Rival does not communicate with its ultimate clients - the players - on critical issues like this one, leaving everything open to speculation.

Have you read Corfman's last post at GPWA????.......Then I believe City Guard's post thereafter can be explained by one of attorney Michael Lipton's articles that I referenced in a previous post. I'll post an excerpt and link on the article later......Was reading the old TIV thread.......Something is rotten in the state of Ottawa, Ontario, and prolly Barcelona!!!...........Chillin!!

[spiderlegz]

So basically the Bonne Chance Rivals are just super affiliates of Rival Gaming. No wonder there are so many popping up.

Exactly the same as the poker skins under Tusk/MPP, altough Rival is probably not a scam. But if (a very big if) Rival goes bust you know what happens..
Who knows what will happen in the court case?

[NASHVEGAS]

Provider-owned white labels could explain it imo, but I think it was KK who said he had actually met two of the Rival owners and believed a third was in Australia some posts back?

I guess that could be a case of "marketers" claiming to be the "owners" for reasons best known to themselves.

This is what happens when a company like Rival does not communicate with its ultimate clients - the players - on critical issues like this one, leaving everything open to speculation.

JACKPOT (imnsho)

A fair and balanced article excerpt and link below (imho) but needs additional legal clarification as there was a late 2006 amendment/Bill known as 1952 ,iirc, which as I read may state the legal issues below are only applicable to the Provence of Ontario. I have tried without success to confirm current law. I have no reason to believe at this time that there have been any additional amendments, modifications or other but I do not have a current written legal opinion (whatever they are worth,lol)

The above said, Rival Gaming becomes involved in an alledged breach of contract dispute with a CANADIAN MARKETING COMPANY. Negotiations for ~ 2 to 3 years including demands for payment by T2 (per exhibits) before ultimately legal action commences in late 2008......maybe the article will aid in speculating on and/or connecting some dots per se ((including the possible truth (OOPS) on Rival Gaming ,lol, pulling out of Canada among several other recent courses of action)) with this highly ethical, transparent and accountable online gaming company .

http://www.gaminglawmasters.com/juri...MDLMay2006.htm

"The Advertising and Marketing of Online Gaming in Canada
By
Michael D. Lipton, Q.C.
& Kevin J. Weber

Advertising and Marketing Online Gaming and the Canadian Criminal Code"

"Generally speaking, “real money” online gaming enterprises with “substantial connections” to Canada violate the gaming and betting provisions of Part VII of the Canadian Criminal Code (the “Code”).For this reason, online gaming enterprises that involve Canadian individuals must move as many aspects of their operation offshore as possible to minimize connections.

Different considerations come into play when offshore online gaming and betting operations advertise their services to Canadian residents using Canadian-based advertising and marketing firms and Canadian media outlets.

Assuming that an online gaming enterprise has minimal connections to Canada (operation and conduct entirely outside Canada),is it legal to market the website to Canadians bettors and gamers?......................................."

NV NOTE: The 4 defendants/Rival et al et al et al, among others reside in Canada per the filed "MOTION....", fyi!!!






SIDENOTE: I am sorry but respectfully request no future PM's/emails requesting legal documents unless you are an established member of this forum. Where possible, I have complied with everyone's request except for a few members who are new. Once again, I apologize for my above request......BTW, there may be others with access to some legal documents who may be willing to comply with new members requests. I will not mention whom though so please do not request from moi...TY and Peace

[NASHVEGAS]

I've had pretty extensive discussions with the folks at Irish Luck relating to this matter and based on those discussions it seems quite certain they are not the same folks as Rival.

Michael

Mr.Corfman,
I hope you will clarify and/or elaborate on your above statement as the statement above may be a misrepresentation (without intent imo) pursuant to certain allegations by T2 based on one's interpretation of your above statement.....TIA,Garry

[Pinababy69]

This just posted at the GPWA:

http://www.gpwa.org/forum/irish-luck...180966/p7.html

Hi All,

Please accept my apologies for not posting sooner, however Sloto'Cash management wanted to get the full story from Rival before making our position clear.

We are satisfied the jackpot was returned to the progressive fund, as both the 1st and 2nd progressive jackpot were won with No Deposit bonus's. For those not clear on how the progressive jackpot accumulates, for every amount wagered by the player the casino operator's pay a percentage to the progressive pot.

We feel the promotion has indirectly damaged Sloto'Cash's reputation and would like to clarify the following:

Sloto'Cash is independently owned and operated by Deckmedia N.V and is in no way affiliated to any other Rival Casino.
Sloto'Cash operate's their own 24/7 support, retention and financial services in-house.
All financial transactions are made through Sloto'Cash's own processors.
Play on any progressive jackpot is excluded from no deposit promotions at Sloto'Cash, unless otherwise specified and in these cases there would be no max cash out on progressive jackpots.
The progressive jackpot is paid to players as one lump sum and is not subject to weekly withdrawal limits at Sloto'Cash Casino.
We cannot comment further at the moment, but would like to assure affiliates we will continue to act as a responsible casino operator.

Best Regards
__________________
Wael
affiliate@slotocash.com
http://www.slotocash.com

Kudos to SlotoCash for making a public statement.

And I have to add that it was the one Rival I wasn't sure about in re: Rival ownership. I do believe they are a stand alone operation, given the numerous postings on this forum regarding payouts, bonuses, the processor they use, etc. None of their day to day operations seem to be in line with ALL the other Rivals.

I am extremely happy to see the public statement re: progressive jackpot payouts. That is the way it should be done.

That was professional and addressed the most critical points that have been brought up in this thread and others. Given that statement, and nothing but positive feedback from players, this is one Rival that I would even consider promoting if I were in that end of the business.

I, nor anyone else, will ever convince affiliates to stop promoting these places, nor players to stop playing there. But I can't stress enough, that Slotocash's statement is the way that business SHOULD be done. And I would urge all of you to start pressuring all the other Rivals (via email, phone, livechat, message board postings, thru the affiliate program) to address the issue of lump sum payments as regards their progressives. 5K a month or whatever it is, is NOT acceptable. If someone wins a progressive, they need to be paid out in one payment. No wiggle room. So do your part, and let them know that it's not acceptable any other way.

EDIT: I wanted to add that in my previous posts where I offered an opinion/speculated on Rival ownership, I wish I had included a disclaimer re: SlotoCash. I never was sure about them...they never fit the mold. For that, I apologize to Sloto. As to the rest of the Rivals, pffffttt.