Holly Cow!!! I can't believe it!

[scrollock]

actually ive just realised as this money has come from playtech, then playtech would of had to deposited this money at monaco gold, with them only paying out $25k initially, this looks like a extra net profit on their books for this month of over $50,000.

a fairly healthy figure to have on their books considering they are in the process of selling their business on.

even if this has come from monaco gold funds, it would explain the motivation behind them wanting to pay this customer in drips till the deal is completed.

 

[venetian]

Slotchik, if you read the small print on most progressives in land based casinos you will see that they are paid out over several years. I saw three girls in Las Vegas win 2.5 million on Wheel of Fortune and they were very upset about the payout. It really took the joy out of the experience. By the end of what seemed endless hours they were all sitting with their arms crossed fighting with each other because only one could be 'the winner'. I am not taking sides here but just giving information

 

[Daffy]

actually ive just realised as this money has come from playtech, then playtech would of had to deposited this money at monaco gold, with them only paying out $25k initially, this looks like a extra net profit on their books for this month of over $50,000.

a fairly healthy figure to have on their books considering they are in the process of selling their business on.

even if this has come from monaco gold funds, it would explain the motivation behind them wanting to pay this customer in drips till the deal is completed.

lol...very astute...I pointed this out to her last week.

Casino is happy...player is happy...I am happy...hope you are happy too.

the dUck

 

[chuchu59]

I dont understand. If playtech had already paid the $76K to Monaco Gold,why would they allow the casino to pay the player in instalments as this would be bad publicity to playtech progressives. I visited the website ie winajackpot.com and there was no mentioning of the progessives,some even amounting more than a million bucks,being paid in instalments. If they had had taken playtech's money but paid only part of it out,then it could mean they are in financial difficulties with the money used to fund winnings/payouts to other players. Total crap,if you ask me.

 

[guesswest]

Even if it's not a sign of financial difficulties, they can be accumulating interest on this amount the whole time - interest the player could be getting. In that sense it means they are paying her less than she's owed. That's why when you get offered lump sums vs annual payouts on lottery wins etc, the lump sum is always significantly less money. I recognise the player in question prob doesn't want to get involved in this debate, and under the circumstances I don't blame her, but this casino according to their own T&Cs owe her this money, all at once - there's no two ways about it. That being so, it's totally reasonable to take issue with them refusing to pay her in one go, and I agree it doesn't reflect well.

 

[thelawnet]

Even if it's not a sign of financial difficulties, they can be accumulating interest on this amount the whole time - interest the player could be getting. In that sense it means they are paying her less than she's owed.

Right.

You can get what, 2.75% in the US?

So six months interest on $60,000 is about $825. Paying over 6 months, they are therefore stealing about $400 from this player based on the difference in interest versus paying out monthly.

Pretty cheap behaviour.

 

[daera]

Ducky,

What we are all trying to say is that Progressive Jackpot should be pain in full straight away and not dragged. Its like saying... hey, since you've hit a progressive of $100K, Let me put it all in my bank account and earn interest or use it to invest and etc 1st and slowly paying you back in stages.

We feel that the money should be directly paid since it's not even their money. They have no right to keep the money for themselves.

I think what the duck has been trying to say, is that the player is happy and she didn't have to take installments.

If she couldn't be paid in full at once, than we could argue what bull it was.

But the player never said that being paid in full at once was NOT OFFERED to her. It's only bullcrap if the player didn't choose what was best for her.

Casinos don't have to require winners to take payment in full, in one lump sum, to keep from getting bad press do they?

 

[paul02085]

If she asked to be paid like this then i have no problem with it. (Only reason i can see for doing this would be so as to not blow it all in one month, lol).