No SUB for UK players at Nordicbet....

[baldidiot]

I did PM baldidiot regarding the comment at the LAC trying to find out who made this comment as this is not the reason we do not offer a SUB to UK players and he could not recall who said this to him.

I blame the horrendous hangover from the awards ceremony the night before

Also just for the record, SUB or no SUB, I personally think Nordic Bet are one of the best netents out there.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi,

I don't think there has been confusion, we are clear that we do not offer a SUB for UK players, which is the topic of this thread. We are very clear with our affiliates regarding which countries are our core markets and the countries that are restricted from receiving the SUB.

I did PM baldidiot regarding the comment at the LAC trying to find out who made this comment as this is not the reason we do not offer a SUB to UK players and he could not recall who said this to him.

It is not like we block players from the UK, we just don't offer an initial SUB for the casino and to insinuate that this can be conceived as "racist" is a bit over the top in my opinion.

Thanks,

Ben

It looks "racist" to some as you welcome their custom, but treat them less well than what you consider your "core" markets. The ordinary player does not understand what lies behind this, they just see what's in front of them - a nice bargain offer, but not if you are British or Greek. You want the same money from us, but expect us to want less in return for it.

The correct response of course is to feel insulted and shop elsewhere where your custom is better appreciated. The purpose of this debate is to understand WHY we have so much of this discrimination based purely on country of origin, rather than character and circumstance of the prospective player.

You may ask your affiliates to target the material correctly, but when this does not happen, the player is the one to pay the price.

I feel that no matter how much loyalty a UK player shows despite being sidelined at the start, they will ALWAYS be sidelined when compared to the perks Scandinavian customers get.

Accepting UK players' money, but giving them second class treatment, does not look good. It suggests you are happy to take our money, but not so happy when it comes to giving us the same value for it as others. There is no logical explanation for this other than that UK players are perceived as "undesirables" within the company, and to be kept separate from the rest.

It sounds like the comment given at LAC is a pretty logical explanation as to why the UK has been put on this list, and one that other operators have eventually admitted to as the cause for their own localised exclusions.

If it were down to "legal issues" or not wanting UK business, then the UK would be excluded altogether.

UK players are getting fed up with one operator or another giving us this second class treatment, and it IS, quite frankly, insulting - no matter what the reasoning behind it. It is no way to treat the first major country to go for true regulation (rather than being in it purely for the money, and banning their own citizens from playing), rather than prohibition and protectionism, which has prompted a change throughout the EU to one of creating legal frameworks to allow online operators to operate across borders, rather than the US stance of increasingly aggressive prohibition and protectionism.

In the "real world", an EU based business must NOT prevent customers from one EU country getting the same deal as is available in another. A few have even been up before the EU courts for trying this. Whilst this has not fully spread to online businesses, Apple have already had their collar felt over this very issue, and I expect online commerce generally will have to toe the line in the future.

In 2014 and beyond, there may well BE a legal impediment to Nordicbet accepting UK players at all, regardless of this argument about bonuses. If the UK is non-core, I can't see Nordicbet getting the required secondary license and registering for UK tax along with implementing an accounting system to calculate what is due. This will lead to those UK players that have decided to play anyway finding even that second class action is no longer welcome, and they will get the "your account will be closed" email.

 

[rainmaker]

VWM, you are basing your replies on speculations and not facts. You are creating problems that do not exist. And to even indicate “racism” in this thread is unacceptable in my opinion. I think you need to calm down.

Let us take Bet365 for example. Yes, their welcome bonus can be claimed by players from most countries. But they will add a different WR depending on your residence. Some examples regarding their standard opening bonus and WR:

(B+D)

UK X20
Sweden X50
Argentina X50
Finland X200
Russia X200

And players from Canada will for example have a WR of X100 if they take a VIP opening bonus etc.

My point here is that it is much better to actually deny players from certain countries a welcome bonus, rather than offering them a bonus that has an unacceptable WR. I mean, to offer players a bonus with WR of X200 is in my opinion much worse than denying them a bonus.

Casinos should either offer players a reasonable bonus, or not offer them a bonus at all. This is exactly what Nordicbet is doing. They are acting responsible.

Let me just also mention that we are talking about one welcome bonus here. Yes, players from UK are not eligible for a welcome bonus at Nordicbet Casino, but this does not mean that you will not be eligible for any later promotions.

 

[vinylweatherman]

VWM, you are basing your replies on speculations and not facts. You are creating problems that do not exist. And to even indicate “racism” in this thread is unacceptable in my opinion. I think you need to calm down.

Let us take Bet365 for example. Yes, their welcome bonus can be claimed by players from most countries. But they will add a different WR depending on your residence. Some examples regarding their standard opening bonus and WR:

(B+D)

UK X20
Sweden X50
Argentina X50
Finland X200
Russia X200

And players from Canada will for example have a WR of X100 if they take a VIP opening bonus etc.

My point here is that it is much better to actually deny players from certain countries a welcome bonus, rather than offering them a bonus that has an unacceptable WR. I mean, to offer players a bonus with WR of X200 is in my opinion much worse than to actually denying them a bonus.

Casinos should either offer players a reasonable bonus, or not offer them a bonus at all. This is exactly what Nordicbet is doing. They are acting responsible.

Let me just also mention that we are talking about one welcome bonus here. Yes, players from UK are not eligible for a welcome bonus at Nordicbet Casino, but this does not mean that you will not be eligible for any later promotions.

Whether it is called racism or something else, it's the same underlying principle. People are being treated differently based purely on their origin. It does not matter what form this takes, neither is better than another. the internet is global, not tied to a specific country, so customers should be treated the same, as they all originate from planet Earth. Genetic makeup and skin colour is just one form of racism, based on physical appearance. This is a different form, based not on genetic makeup, but place of birth. It actually has a legal description, "indirect racism".

South Africa had it's hated apartheid regime, yet they said it was not "racist" because it did not exclude one race from a service or location. What it did was enforce separate locations and services for different races, with the claim that apart from this enforced segregation, neither group was "second class", as they had their own versions for each service.

This excuse did not wash with the rest of the world, and the government still suffered sanctions.

It seems casinos justify doing this without having to give a reason, but when a GOVERNMENT decides that ALL casinos be excluded from participation in their country's domestic market, they go screaming in indignation to the WTO at being denied access to a part of the global market.

The market is either global it isn't. casinos can't argue that there should be no impediment due to national borders when it suits them, yet decide that national borders ARE applicable when the same global approach does not suit them.

I come from the downtrodden group of "countries considered inherently evil" by so many operators, so my opinion is bound to be different from that of a member of a country that is in the favoured group.

It has NOTHING to do with our government interfering as in the case of US players who are angry about receiving second class service from online operators.

It makes no real business sense either, as the internet enables customers all around the world to access a service provider, so EVERY extra customer represents an additional source of revenue, and business is all about maximising the revenue stream which in turn feeds through to profits.

The Nordicbet rep has just denied that this is about players from the UK not easily converting into returning depositors after taking the bonus, so with this credible business reason out of the way, what's left.

Why is it often the SAME group of countries that get picked on all the time?

It's not just the UK, but Greece and Canada seem to be getting picked on an awful lot for this second class treatment.

We can refuse to play at such operations, but this does not mean we should also look the other way and take it lying down. Giving them a hard time over this should make them uncomfortable, with the eventual aim of stamping this practice out, and getting the internet back to how it was intended, a global arena with no discrimination based on location or origin. It used to be like this, but "big business" spoiled it, and then used their muscle and money to lobby "big government" to interfere too, which is how UIGEA was born.

We now have an internet that has variable content depending on where a user lives. Available services also change based on location, as does the price of these services, and it has nothing to do with exchange rates and local taxes.

When China does it, they are an "evil totalitarian regime", but when the US does it through things like SOPA and of course UIGEA, it is all in the name of "national security" and fairness to all. We now have individual businesses doing it, so are they "evil", or trying to be "fair to all".

A member here last year posted a link to news about devastation due to natural disasters in the US, guess what - I am not even allowed to see "news" because I am in the UK. How is this any different from China blocking their own citizens from seeing news from the US. It seems evil if the government does it, but absolutely OK if a private business is doing it.

From what I can find out, this censorship of US content is almost unique to the UK, and of course, China.