Old / Expired Link
VIA AGD:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well contrary to most, Jet and I followed by a few others seem to have been correct in somewhat understanding the complicated corporate ownership structure. (prolly with intent to deceive).
B.C.'s actions have never been consistent with what their so called reps stated while B.C. stayed in the closet.
Affy's behavior is already interesting and seems to be pro-Rival once B.C. assured the affiliate community they would be paid. Nevermind the trip to the "PIT"..........Shocking, no?
VIA AGD:
.06-29-2010
Bonne Chance N.V
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bonne Chance N.V., an E-zone Company registered and licensed in the Netherlands Antilles, sublicenses Rival Powered games to the White Label operator(s) discussed in this thread. For its payment processing Bonne Chance N.V. has contracts with third party payment processors, these services are part of the White Label agreement for its marketing partners (the White Label). From time to time, its White Label partners may enter into an arrears situation due to high withdrawals. The White Label typically has a certain number of days to correct any such arrears.
It is important to note that the most typical reason for this arrears is bad promotion setup and misguided player classification. The White Label is 100% responsible for the marketing of their own property. This includes promotional design and configuration. When a White Label fails to pay its arrears it creates an awkward relationship between Operator (Bonne Chance N.V.) and the White Label partner whereas Bonne Chance N.V. is effectively bankrolling the property. ie paying the White Label's affiliates and customers.
In both this particular instance and instances in the past, Bonne Chance N.V. has taken a tough stance on its accounts receivable. Let it be clear that there currently is not, nor has there ever a doubling (or any false increase in) of hold or a 40% reserve taken on any deposits. These statements are simply incorrect."
Well contrary to most, Jet and I followed by a few others seem to have been correct in somewhat understanding the complicated corporate ownership structure. (prolly with intent to deceive).
B.C.'s actions have never been consistent with what their so called reps stated while B.C. stayed in the closet.
Affy's behavior is already interesting and seems to be pro-Rival once B.C. assured the affiliate community they would be paid. Nevermind the trip to the "PIT"..........Shocking, no?