Resolved clubworldcasino processing cost $1311

[NASHVEGAS]

No comment on the rights or wrongs of this term, but to answer the question ios this "normal", that 9.5% is about spot on for Quicktender withdrawals and one would imagine this is similar to other processors. If I remember right, they charge the casinos 4.5% on deposits and 5% on cashouts.

Do they take 9.5% from your affiliate payments???

 

[Pinababy69]

There has to be more to this than meets the eye. IMO it's wrong for a casino to charge a player processing costs, but then the vast majority of casinos don't do this and it would appear CWC have only done this twice (that we know of). It's certainly not normal, which is why I suspect that there is something else.

@Tomasi: I would submit a PAB on this problem if you feel that is appropriate and I can close this thread until such a time as it is resolved. Just say the word, but the longer a public issue is discussed the harder it can become to get a PAB resolution.

Do they take 9.5% from your affiliate payments???

In fairness to Simmo Nash...he did clarify in a later post (highlighted above) that he thought it was wrong.

However, I absolutely agree with your statement/question!! Can you imagine the uproar if the affy companies did that? Ummm...let's see. You sent us too many players this month, who deposited too much money...therefore forcing us to send you such a large amount of money in commissions, that we simply have to RETROACTIVELY charge you processing costs on all past payments made to you.

Ha ha....good one.

I'm imagining the uproar now, and the blacklisting that would go on.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

In fairness to Simmo Nash...he did clarify in a later post (highlighted above) that he thought it was wrong.

However, I absolutely agree with your statement/question!! Can you imagine the uproar if the affy companies did that? Ummm...let's see. You sent us too many players this month, who deposited too much money...therefore forcing us to send you such a large amount of money in commissions, that we simply have to RETROACTIVELY charge you processing costs on all past payments made to you.

Ha ha....good one.

I'm imagining the uproar now, and the blacklisting that would go on.

Who is Simmo Nash?

Yes, I agree "he" (SIMMO) "did clarify in a later post (highlighted above) that he thought it was wrong.".......but I am a trigger happy poster

 

[maxd]

I am surprised, given the facts stated by the Op, that Tom still chose to make a sweeping statement instead of giving more details.

Tom is legally and morally bound to protect the player's private information. That includes winnings, et al. Even if he quoted you a percentage that the fees charged represented he'd be divulging more than he properly should, at least until the player gives permission for that info to be published.

I wonder how you can be on the accredited list?

I wonder how we can work so hard to ensure the proper conduct of the casinos on the Accredited list only to be undermined in a heartbeat by someone making ill-considered and uninformed statements like this.

As I see it you've been pissing and moaning about out Accredited list and various other things around the site for quite some time now. I suggest you take your sour grapes and ... stow them in a warm dark place until they ferment and turn into sweet wine.

Failing that you can chew on this: constant kvetching like that is going to earn you a troll badge and trolls get kicked to the curb.

CWC has been on the Accred list for a long time, largely because of good service and fair conduct. Anyone makes mistakes and this may -- I repeat "may" -- be one of them, time will tell.

In the meantime may I suggest a more constructive approach, perhaps focusing on the issue at hand instead of trying to burn the house down.

The last time was at Aladdin's Gold ... Did they PAB, and were they successful in recovering these fees?

I've gone back and updated that Alladdin's Gold thread: no PAB was ever filed on that issue.

And finally, @tomasi: I see you've filed a PAB on this. I heartily encourage you to take to heart what the Pitch-A-Bitch FAQ has to say on the subject of posting while a PAB is in progress:

Q: I have already, or would like to, post about my complaint on the message boards. Is that a good idea?

A: No, it is not a good idea. A PAB is a private negotiation process and it works because it gives the casino people the best possible opportunity to resolve your issue calmly and fairly in talks with professional industry people without the burden of external pressures or influence.

A message posted on the boards is quite the opposite: it creates a very public public-relations issue that the casino people generally feel forced to contain, or ignore, as best they can.

Because of the pressures involved a forum post on a given issue will usually derail any PABs that are in progress on that issue, and this is why we advise that forum posts be withheld until the PAB process has had a chance to run it's course.

We reserve the right to discard any PAB that where that same issue has been posted to the boards. This relates to threads started by, or contributions to other threads by, the person who filed the PAB. This applies equally to posts made before or after the PAB was filed.

In other words in the case where the material was posted before the PAB was filed we will determine whether those posts would damage or thwart the PAB process before we decide if we will proceed with the PAB. In the case where the material was posted after the PAB was filed there is a very high probability that we will suspend or discard the PAB at that point.

Once we indicate that we are finished with a PAB the person who filed it is free to post about the issue as they see fit (all the usual Casinomeister Forum Rules are applicable).

 

[Casinomeister]

Ditto on what Max said.

Do they take 9.5% from your affiliate payments???

Believe it or not, affiliates are charged the same fees for processing as players. Each type of process incurs differing fees. This is usually explained in the payment terms and conditions.

 

[Pinababy69]

Believe it or not, affiliates are charged the same fees for processing as players. Each type of process incurs differing fees. This is usually explained in the payment terms and conditions.

Retroactively, on previous payments already made?

I have no problem with a casino informing a player upfront that there will be a fee on an upcoming withdrawal....especially if the player is in the habit of constantly withdrawing small amounts...it adds up. It's this practice of applying fees to transactions that have already been finalized...it just ain't right!!

 

[Simmo!]

However, I absolutely agree with your statement/question!! Can you imagine the uproar if the affy companies did that? Ummm...let's see. You sent us too many players this month, who deposited too much money...therefore forcing us to send you such a large amount of money in commissions, that we simply have to RETROACTIVELY charge you processing costs on all past payments made to you.

Ha ha....good one.

I'm imagining the uproar now, and the blacklisting that would go on.

With respect Pina, we are talking about one isoltaed incident which we don't know the background behind. If a casino were to be doing this to all players, I suspect you would have affiliates making their voices heard (although in many instances, the food chain only affords them direct access to the affiliate program who would have to be relied upon to carry the flag).

Why? Because any savvy affiliate realises that their income comes from players who are HAPPY at a casino, and while it's true that a large number of affiliates don't consider the player enough, there are a large number who realise that a happy player is worth more commissions to them in the long term.

Certainly if this was happening, or likely to happen, on a regular basis, myself and many others I know WOULD be demonstrating how we feel, either vocally or via positioning and recommendations on our sites.

 

[Pinababy69]

With respect Pina, we are talking about one isoltaed incident which we don't know the background behind. If a casino were to be doing this to all players, I suspect you would have affiliates making their voices heard (although in many instances, the food chain only affords them direct access to the affiliate program who would have to be relied upon to carry the flag).

Why? Because any savvy affiliate realises that their income comes from players who are HAPPY at a casino, and while it's true that a large number of affiliates don't consider the player enough, there are a large number who realise that a happy player is worth more commissions to them in the long term.

Certainly if this was happening, or likely to happen, on a regular basis, myself and many others I know WOULD be demonstrating how we feel, either vocally or via positioning and recommendations on our sites.

Actually twice Simmo...but who knows about the other case? As Max clarified, the player couldn't even be bothered following up. I can tell ya if it were me, I'd be screaming for all to hear. And I would be pitching my very first bitch, lol.

I realize that we're not privy to everything that goes on behind the scenes, but I've racked my brain trying to figure out what possible reason any casino could have (especially a reputable one) to invoke this kind of term. Can't come up with one. Unless they suspected some kind of fraud. In which case, I would assume that confiscation would occur, rather than retroactive processing fees. So all I can come up with is that the player was just winning too much for the casino's liking. That being said however, I do agree that we should allow the PAB process to run its course and see how it plays out. I sincerely hope that we get to hear some sort of explanation for this, beyond it's in the T&C's and we can do whatever we like. I've defended CW before on here, more than once.....even when they've confiscated winnings of players who broke the rules. So I'm really hoping that they have a reasonable explanation for this.

In re: the affiliate thing. I know that YOU would be screaming about it, as would a few others, if it were a regular practice. No doubt in my mind. But there would be more who would say nary a word, and keep on promoting. Just as they do with Virtual, while on the other hand they tell players to NOT play at Grand Prive. We both know that. Those are the affiliates I was referring to. Not you, and certainly not any of the others I personally consider ethical affiliates. That's why I agreed with Nash's comment in general, but not at it being directed at you specifically.

 

[maphesto]

I wonder how we can work so hard to ensure the proper conduct of the casinos on the Accredited list only to be undermined in a heartbeat by someone making ill-considered and uninformed statements like this.

As I see it, the highest reputation level an online casino can reach is your accredited list. I did really not consider the fact that I accused the list in the same time I mentioned it towards CWC.

I suggest you take your sour grapes and ... stow them in a warm dark place until they ferment and turn into sweet wine.

Message understood! It was hard to misunderstand

In the meantime may I suggest a more constructive approach, perhaps focusing on the issue at hand instead of trying to burn the house down.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

That's why I agreed with Nash's comment in general, but not at it being directed at you specifically.

Agree, obviously it was directed at Simmo based on his original "no comment".

That said, although I did not see the need to expand, the comment was also a general comment as I thought about Grand Prive and one specific affiliate. In addition AGD and retroactive TandC issues came to mind.

 

[suzecat]

Player are not so high on the priority list of some operators and as a result they'll be 'asked' to bear more of the brunt of this recent Mastercard action and its repercussions.

Hi Maxd! Your quote was taken from the "seizure" thread. Is the OP's situation related to your quote?

 

[maxd]

@maphesto: check your PMs. I have replied there.

Your quote was taken from the "seizure" thread. Is the OP's situation related to your quote?

I have no idea. I haven't heard back from CWC yet on the PAB and wouldn't want to speculate on what they'll have to say.

 

[Pinababy69]

You know, I've been thinking on it some more. And I have come up with one possible scenario where the casino may "feel" justified in doing this. It's the type of situation that has been discussed on the forum before, albeit in relation to a different casino. And in that case, the term was NOT applied retroactively, but only to the current withdrawal in question.

Probably better not to speculate publicly though, as I don't want to damage the OP's case. I still don't feel the retroactive part is justified, even if my possible scenario is correct.

 

[Simmo!]

...I have come up with one possible scenario where the casino may "feel" justified in doing this.

Me too - wonder if we're on the same wavelength. Be interesting to compare after we know

By the way @Nash just to clear up any misunderstanding - my comment wasn't meant as a "no comment" as in Political-speak, it was a "no comment" as in this post is addressing a side issue. Can see now it was open to interpretation

 

[refre]

I agree with Pina and Simmo
Somebodys been too clever for their own good.

Freddy

 

[Pinababy69]

Me too - wonder if we're on the same wavelength. Be interesting to compare after we know

Simmo and I have compared ideas, will be interesting to see if either of us are even close.

 

[maxd]

I believe that the casino manager and I have come to an understanding on this case. Expect an announcement here soon.

 

[maxd]

Ok, to be honest when I posted I thought something was imminent.

 

[maxd]

And here we are: after discussions with CWC management on this issue two things have been decided:

1. the player in question will be refunded the processing fees that were initially charged, the $1311.
2. a new casino policy regarding the charging of these fees will be added to the casino's Terms.

 

[Pinababy69]

And here we are: after discussions with CWC management on this issue two things have been decided:

1. the player in question will be refunded the processing fees that were initially charged, the $1311.
2. a new casino policy regarding the charging of these fees will be added to the casino's Terms.

Outstanding result Max, both on the money being returned...and the terms being updated. Well done!!

Any chance at all of us finding out WHY they decided to retroactively charge the player for past withdrawals? Or would that breach confidence? Perhaps the new term will clarify things for us a bit. I'd sure like to know what prompted such a decision, and what criteria they would be using in the future to invoke such a rule....if that is indeed the update they will be applying to the revised terms.

Thanks Max.

 

[maxd]

Sorry, I don't feel I'm at liberty to discuss those details. You can ask the casino manager for that info but, with all due respect to the parties involved, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

As to the interpretation and implementation of the new Term I take comfort in the fact that the text applies to the deduction of fees in cases where the offending player has been found to be in violation of other Terms, etc.

In other words in the case of dispute the original violation would still have to be shown in order to trigger the "fees" clause. And I believe that was the intent of the new term: to make it clear that the "fees" clause only applies to Terms violators, not to the general player population.

 

[Pinababy69]

Sorry, I don't feel I'm at liberty to discuss those details. You can ask the casino manager for that info but, with all due respect to the parties involved, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

As to the interpretation and implementation of the new Term I take comfort in the fact that the text applies to the deduction of fees in cases where the offending player has been found to be in violation of other Terms, etc.

In other words in the case of dispute the original violation would still have to be shown in order to trigger the "fees" clause. And I believe that was the intent of the new term: to make it clear that the "fees" clause only applies to Terms violators, not to the general player population.

I sort of figured that re: confidentiality. Ah....the life of an outcast.

Fair enough on the new term. I'll make sure to read it when it's updated, so I can get a better overall idea of what they're trying to do. But if it's breach of other terms, and they make it crystal clear, guess we'll have to live with that. As long as it's not applied just because someone won too much, or made too many withdrawals for the casino's liking....which is what it "seemed" from the postings here.

Still a good outcome, for all involved.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

I sort of figured that re: confidentiality. Ah....the life of an outcast.

Fair enough on the new term. I'll make sure to read it when it's updated, so I can get a better overall idea of what they're trying to do. But if it's breach of other terms, and they make it crystal clear, guess we'll have to live with that. As long as it's not applied just because someone won too much, or made too many withdrawals for the casino's liking....which is what it "seemed" from the postings here.

Still a good outcome, for all involved

That is a matter of perspective and granted MaxD will/can not spill the beans so one can only speculate on the facts but that is SOP (I do not trust any casino that claims it is on the up and up yet miscodes credit card transactions but that is for another thread).

I ask would players that never have heard of CM been granted the same outcome or more specifically the outcome that most concerns the OP aka returning the withheld fees?????

 

[clubworld]

I know that many of you are curious about this one, and while I cannot discuss the specifics of the OPs account I can give you some of the general back story.

Many casinos have implemented a max bet rule to protect themselves against a certain style of play (you are not permitted to bet more than a certain proportion of your bankroll on a single wager) and simply void the winnings of any players who play in this style.

I have decided not to implement such a rule as I believe that the chance of genuine players being caught by it is too high.

Instead, when we identify this pattern of play with bonuses on a players account we pay the withdrawals but require that the player covers the costs of doing so. We make this deduction from the players final weekly instalment so it may appear to be retrospective, but it fact it all stems from the same play sessions.

It is surely much better to get paid and cover the processing costs yourself than be told that you have fallen foul of a max bet clause and have the whole win voided.

After discussing this with Max I concurred that the terms we had in place covering this were not clear enough and so have agreed to pay the player and to update the terms to clarify our position on this.

Kind Regards
Tom

 

[Pinababy69]

I know that many of you are curious about this one, and while I cannot discuss the specifics of the OPs account I can give you some of the general back story.

Many casinos have implemented a max bet rule to protect themselves against a certain style of play (you are not permitted to bet more than a certain proportion of your bankroll on a single wager) and simply void the winnings of any players who play in this style.

I have decided not to implement such a rule as I believe that the chance of genuine players being caught by it is too high.

Instead, when we identify this pattern of play with bonuses on a players account we pay the withdrawals but require that the player covers the costs of doing so. We make this deduction from the players final weekly instalment so it may appear to be retrospective, but it fact it all stems from the same play sessions.

It is surely much better to get paid and cover the processing costs yourself than be told that you have fallen foul of a max bet clause and have the whole win voided.

After discussing this with Max I concurred that the terms we had in place covering this were not clear enough and so have agreed to pay the player and to update the terms to clarify our position on this.

Kind Regards
Tom

Thanks very much Tom!! I just hope when you update your terms, it is crystal clear about max bets on bonus money, etc. in relation to processing fees.

And for anyone who cares.....Simmo pretty much nailed it. I think the muppet cheated. Insider info!!