Slotty Vegas - UK self-exclusion breach

[dunover]

Apologies to Lisa for the reference "missus" but it was you that stated that your "connection" with the director of your Company had to do with a ring and not her business accumen/professional qualifications.

I do Betat/Slotty no dis-service but its not really them i'm trying to protect/stand up for. This is my position in a nutshell and i'll leave it at this. You seek to blacken the name of a business (and if it were any business my position would be the same) "by association". By your own admission you are naive when it comes to the business basics never mind corporate structures.
Vulkanbet is the point of issue here and you say Maxnet because they now own them are "tainted". Microgaming/BTG/Netent etc etc all supply product and deal directly with Vulcanbet so if you rogue one you rogue the lot end of.
edit: There is no double standard you gave reasons for having your partner as a director that held no water and i simply responded to those.There was no reason you could not of been the director of the company and she held the shares unless there where trust issues between you which i can't comment on

Sorry, but the tone of this getting far too personal. I see you have strong opinions here but thePOGG doesn't sell a product to casino players and never has on CM. Nevertheless he is known to admin, has been for a considerable period and is known to be of good character.
This whole issue stems from obfuscation, denials and lack of a straight answer back at the start which was originally requested by Bryan. And Bet-at certainly did and still do supply services to members here. To that end, the membership have a right to know where their money is going.

Whatever criticisms you have of thePOGG and his wife's business decisions, you discovered those perceived errors in the public domain, all out in the open. And that is the whole point.

Posters here have picked up on a passive-aggressive undertone. Can you endeavour to keep it civil. Thanks.

 

[mac72]

Sorry, but the tone of this getting far too personal. I'm see you have strong opinions here but thePOGG doesn't sell a product to casino players and never has on CM. Nevertheless he is known to admin, has been for a considerable period and is known to be of good character.
This whole issue stems from obfuscation, denials and lack of a straight answer back at the start which was originally requested by Bryan. And Bet-at certainly did and still do supply services to members here. To that end, the membership have a right to know where their money is going.

Whatever criticisms you have of thePOGG and his wife's business decisions, you discovered those perceived errors in the public domain, all out in the open. And that is the whole point.

Posters here have picked up on a passive-aggressive undertone. Can you endeavour to keep it civil. Thanks.

Never was meant to be anything else than civil Dunover. I pointed out that "The Pogg" Duncan Garvie wasn't a director of his own Company , that is public information. He offered up the fact that the Director's relationship with him had to do with a "ring" making no reference to any of said Directors professional qualifications and i did not know that person was his "wife" as her name was given as "boyle" on Companies house and his name as "Garvie" and in my part of the world we refer to someone who you are with that is not your wife as "the missus".

There is no undertone. I have a position it should be clear. You have affiliates acting like selective investigative reporters and they are the ones that have kept this going not me. Betat/Slotty were in the grey zone here -that's Bryans perogative he had a clear position for him he needed to know who owned them or he couldn't accredit thats perfectly reasonable, The Pogg could of stopped promoting them and taken a similar stance but no he has to start writing articles about "connections", a man on a mission! And since he himself is saying that they may have been previous wrongdoing with Vulkanbet or its "associated compaines/partners" yet you have all the games providers doing business with them, the UKGC giving them a licence, the payment providers offering their services etc etc none of these people have any issue but a mid level affiliate who by admission can't even manage to open a basic business bank account in the UK he has all the answers??? Does nobody see how ridiculous that sounds (had he taken them all on collectively i could of applauded that) and its worse when people that really don't have much to lose are able to run amuck and cause potential losses to others that they couldn't write the cheque for if they were deemed liable, that is the definitive "free spin"

 

[colinsunderland]

The thing is, if they refuse to say who the owners are, then people are going to think there is a dodgy reason for that. I'm not talking about sticking the owners names and addresses out there for anyone to see, but refusing to tell Bryan?

What I can say with absolute certainty is that, before they changed their name, someone at Slotty gave a screenshot of my account information to an affiliate who started spamming me. That in itself tells me they aren't to be trusted.

 

[mac72]

The thing is, if they refuse to say who the owners are, then people are going to think there is a dodgy reason for that. I'm not talking about sticking the owners names and addresses out there for anyone to see, but refusing to tell Bryan?

What I can say with absolute certainty is that, before they changed their name, someone at Slotty gave a screenshot of my account information to an affiliate who started spamming me. That in itself tells me they aren't to be trusted.

Colin i totally get where your coming from and i get where Bryan was coming from too. He had a criteria laid down that he had to be comfortable with the ownership of the casino's he accredited. This could easily of been handled better by betat/slotty if they were in buyout talks/takeover negotiations thay should simply of said that they couldn't discuss their ownership at that time and if that had meant the grey zone so be it. It would of been easier then to come back when all NDA's etc had been done away with and say "here we are now and this is who we are now", but that is all with hindsight hopefully they and others will learn from that.

But thats not my issue ,my issue is the "selectiveness " of this witchhunt and the 2+2 make 5 approach thats what i've been taking offence to from day one and i hope that has come across properly.

 

[cncas2123]

What I can say with absolute certainty is that, before they changed their name, someone at Slotty gave a screenshot of my account information to an affiliate who started spamming me. That in itself tells me they aren't to be trusted.

That doesnt seem to have changed, i asked CS at Betat to close my account a while back, and within a minute I got a spamming text from a casino offering me 300% deposit bonus on sign-up. It was a rogue operation, cup-a- cocoa licence, and I hadnt received any texts from that source before. I dont believe in coincidence, though i may be wrong.....

 

[mac72]

That doesnt seem to have changed, i asked CS at Betat to close my account a while back, and within a minute I got a spamming text from a casino offering me 300% deposit bonus on sign-up. It was a rogue operation, cup-a- cocoa licence, and I hadnt received any texts from that source before. I dont believe in coincidence, though i may be wrong.....

You think thats bad? Last month i received a communication by mistake from one of the top accredited sites here which was a full email history of a players complaint against them , all his personal information , all their top level management info and remarks , UKGC info etc etc. It made for great reading but thats the danger these days far too much can end up going to the wrong places at the touch of a key.

 

[lockinlove]

Hi mac72,

Lisa's asked me to ask you to stop referring to her as the "missus". It's demeaning and pretty sexist. She is masters degree educated, not some 1950's housewife. It's one thing for someone who has a significant familiarity with a person to use that type of pejorative term in a fond fashion. It's entirely different used in the patronising manner you have engaged. She was going to post herself, but it'd come from the same IP so it'd just end up looking like me running other accounts.

I don't consider it unfortunate that you don't believe me. I never expected you to. You have a clear position and agenda. Despite literally being a response to you, my reply was really intended for everyone else. You're clearly quite emotionally evoked by this issue and that's coming through strongly in your posts that are coming over more and more as a personal attacks. Trying to reason with someone who's choosing their actions based on emotion never produces any positive results.

We've gone from you attacking us for making claims you don't feel we have sound ground for to you attacking us with claims that you've no grounds for. You see a double standard there? If you have some evidence of wrongdoing, please, lay it out for everyone. We're (and I do speak for both myself and Lisa in this respect) comfortable with our company structure and the motivations behind it whether you are or not. The Directorship gives Lisa certain rights and controls that a shareholder alone (to my knowledge - and I'll admit company structuring at this level isn't one of my areas of expertise) doesn't have.

As far as the Maltese Holding company goes - that's easy and I've actually discussed this with any number of people here. We couldn't get a business bank account in the UK when we incorporated (a jump I made before understanding that requirement). Banks in the UK are pretty reluctant to engage with anything in the gambling sector. A friend in the business set us up with a company in Malta that felt they could get us the necessary account, but we had to move the business to Malta. We got over there and when the first quarter's accounts were done I became aware of accounting practices that I was very uncomfortable with (in my uninformed opinion they skated very close to tax avoidance though they are apparently very common in Malta). As such we looked to move the company back. It's taken a lot of time and money but we did eventually get a business bank account open in the UK. As such we've moved back to the UK and have removed the Maltese holding company, which would be closed by this point if we didn't have funds trapped in Malta due to the Satabank issue. As soon as that issue is resolve there will only be a UK company.

As to us not being "impressive" financially by your standards, we've never made any grandiose claims about generating huge revenues. In fact we're a mid-level affiliate at best and we consistently handicap ourselves by refusing to work with huge sections of the market that hold problematic terms or practices. Would we like to be bigger? Of course, but not at the expense of sacrificing standards. I'd rather grow slowly and feel comfortable with the approach we've taken than gain increased growth at the expense of our reputation.

So let's move on - the Deposit Guarantee. I'd suggest you may want to read the terms of the seal. The answer to your question is clearly covered there. It has an upper cap of £5k. That was specifically set to account for our financial means. Regardless though, part of how the seal works is that we're careful about who we give it to. We won't give it to operators we do not trust. Because we are careful about who we issue it to we've only actually had a single instance where we had to pay out and that was against 18Bet and for a few hundred pounds when they enforced a vague 'system betting' term. The truth is that we have actually offered this kind of payout far more often against operators who didn't hold our seal and for far larger sums, some ranging up to mid-5 figures. This has been used as leverage where operators have tried to strong arm players, demanding that they get complaints removed before they'll be paid anything. We have never had to pay out in these circumstances, but had we it would have been an installment based approach as we could not cover a mid-5 figure sum immediately. And there have been other cases where we just felt that the player had slipped through the cracks - i.e. the operator weren't really in the wrong, but the player still have been caught up in a technicality - and as such paid them ourselves. Here's an example -

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

With respect to BETAT/Vulkan, your account is a little off. The company ownership says that MaxEnt now owns VulkanBet. They've not contested that. We can show that previously VulkanBet was running on 'V' branded affiliate program that only represented a single other Vulkan branded property that was hooked up to one of the servers being used to distribute stolen games. I have my own opinions on what may be going on behind the scenes here, but any public position we've taken is based on this connection. The bad Vulkan properties are being operated out of Ukraine. MaxEnt now own a Vulkan property that has shared an affiliate program with one of the bad Vulkan properties. The new MaxEnt owners are based in Ukraine. These are things we can demonstrate. Beyond that, who owns what isn't for me to say. I'm saying that these facts are enough that I don't think players should engage with this group as they are a significant concern to me.

The truth of this matter is you're doing the company you're trying to protect a disservice at this point. We were happy enough to let this issue rest where it was left before xmas, awaiting the response from MaxEnt's legal representatives if there was going to be any. By kicking this all up again, you actually just draw more attention to it, something that the operator probably doesn't want by this point.



I'm not actually sure why you're asking these questions given that you've been on our Companies House page. A bit redundant. Anyway:

i) You're absolutely right - we'll be launching a new design shortly and I'll ensure it's included in the footer information of our site.
ii & iii) There's a PO Box address on the Companies House page (and on the contact us page of the site) - that's allowed by UK regulations if your domestic residence is your registered office. As I mentioned above - mid-level affiliates. We deal with a variety of people in varying emotional states. In my opinion, having our domestic residence on a public register is a potential physical risk. We semi-regularly receive threats from complainants we haven't supported. It's a fact of life in this particular job.

I'm not going to respond to you further. I'm sure you'll have strong views on the why of that, but I don't think this conversation is really this is doing anyone any good and is simply fuelling further conflict. If anyone else here has questions about how we run our business, feel free to drop me a PM and I'll be happy to share.

TP

If you want to debate and discuss something with someone, why not just do it instead of playing the victim card to gain a moral high ground?

Just so you know, every single person on this forum has coined the term missus when speaking about their better half. Suggesting it is sexist, degrading and rambling on about your wife's credential is ridiculous. It's the same thing when a female calls their husband, hubby. You seem to have a habit of making things personal than claiming someone else is.

I dont really agree with everything Mack is saying but he has certainly been mostly mature when responding and Im starting to see a little bit of the mob mentality chiming in and handing out warnings. I know dunover doesnt think the term missus is sexist nor degrading and he is pretty vocal when it comes to social justice stuff. Why not now?

 

[ThePOGG]

Apologies to Lisa for the reference "missus" but it was you that stated that your "connection" with the director of your Company had to do with a ring and not her business accumen/professional qualifications.

I've been asked again to respond to this by Lisa as she's not really all that impressed with your explanation.

I gave a reason for us sharing ownership of the company. At no point did I say that she lacked skills, or was lesser due to her sex or because she was married to me. When I indicated I am married to her it was simply an explanation of the personal connection that resulted in that name holding an significant role in a business I founded. I didn't suggest that she wasn't an asset in her own right, nor did in any way suggest that she was a second class person or undeserving of her role within our company. That is all meaning added by you and highlights world views you may want to give some thought to. Where you used demeaning terms to refer to her that is entirely on you.

By your own admission you are naive when it comes to the business basics never mind corporate structures.

Not what I said. I said that my understanding of the Director's position was that it provided her additional rights. Anything else is again context you have added yourself.

There is no double standard you gave reasons for having your partner as a director that held no water and i simply responded to those.There was no reason you could not of been the director of the company and she held the shares unless there where trust issues between you which i can't comment on

Whether you like the reason for the dynamic, or whether you feel it serves the stated purpose isn't really of any consequence. You raised a point and I've given an answer for it. If you think it's a lie, great. It's not a massive concern to me. I've nothing to hide here. There are several people on this site who have met Lisa and know her to be my partner, both in a business and personal sense. There are no failed companies in my past and I've never worked for any other gambling related organisations. I was a teacher prior to starting ThePOGG. There is no reason I could not be listed as the Director if we wished it to be so. We don't. Hell, hire a private investigator and have them look into me. Post it here. Just redact our address.

The double standard still exists - you have highlighted what you see as a logical incongruity, but not one you cannot connect this to any even conceived wrongdoing. You might find it curious, but that doesn't qualify what you've looked to do here. We however started with a line between a company and a group that are distributing fake games - i.e. to our mind and in our considered opinion there exists a potential risk to players based our starting point. All you've done is say you don't like our company structure.

As to trust - so if there were trust issues then she should hold the Director's position? It would give her additional rights? That works the opposite direction to. I trust her with everything. She trusted me with everything when I risked it. I reciprocate that trust by taking a secondary position and allowing her the 'final say' in what happens with what was created.

I'd also suggest that making insinuations about other people's relationships - which you do when you suggest that there are only two possible alternatives and the only one that makes sense is that the targeted party has a failing relationship - comes off as antagonising and a personal attack.

I suppose i was just making the point on the "deposit guarantee" offered. I am aware that he has limited it to £500 per claim and ringfenced 10 claims worth £5000 but i'll need to read it again when i've time to see if thats actually where the liability ends as i would of thought not. There appear to be 24odd casino's with the "deposit guarantee" and i would of thought regardless of previous history on claims that saying you'll cover the first 10 and everyone after that is left hanging wouldn't fly."

Fortunately we've never had any number of claims from players that signed-up via our links that would have even come to £5k. We just don't get that many complaints from players that sign-up via us (though we have at times reviewed complaints from players who signed-up via other sources under the Deposit Guarantee terms).

As it happens we'll actually be replacing this seal in the coming months anyway as I do have some concerns down the same lines you've highlighted and some other developments within the business have to one degree or another made this 'guarantee' redundant.

But again this is all getting very targeted and personal. It's no longer really an attempt to discredit our position on the BETAT issue, but rather an attempt to find any aspect of our service that you can discredit in an effort to validate your hostility.

TP

 

[ThePOGG]

Just so you know, every single person on this forum has coined the term missus when speaking about their better half. Suggesting it is sexist, degrading and rambling on about your wife's credential is ridiculous. It's the same thing when a female calls their husband, hubby. You seem to have a habit of making things personal than claiming someone else is.

There's nothing wrong with the term when being said fondly. I can say Lisa is my "missus" and I don't mean any disrespect or disparage her at all. The manner in which the term was used was one intended to be belittling and disparaging and that intent makes all the difference.

TP

 

[lockinlove]

There's nothing wrong with the term when being said fondly. I can say Lisa is my "missus" and I don't mean any disrespect or disparage her at all. The manner in which the term was used was one intended to be belittling and disparaging and that intent makes all the difference.

TP

I didnt read it like that, I read it as him being a little aggressive because of the situation, not because she is a female.

That doesnt seem to have changed, i asked CS at Betat to close my account a while back, and within a minute I got a spamming text from a casino offering me 300% deposit bonus on sign-up. It was a rogue operation, cup-a- cocoa licence, and I hadnt received any texts from that source before. I dont believe in coincidence, though i may be wrong.....

If Betat is doing that its obviously not cool at all but I will say for certain there are quite a few casinos that do this here and I do not appreciate it. I have an email account I use for only casinos here. Somehow I have tonnes of other casinos spamming me and affiliates too. I think it might be time someone uses a different IP, fake email addresses and starts finding out which casinos are doing it and then kicking them out of the accredited list.

 

[colinsunderland]

I didnt read it like that, I read it as him being a little aggressive because of the situation, not because she is a female.



If Betat is doing that its obviously not cool at all but I will say for certain there are quite a few casinos that do this here and I do not appreciate it. I have an email account I use for only casinos here. Somehow I have tonnes of other casinos spamming me and affiliates too. I think it might be time someone uses a different IP, fake email addresses and starts finding out which casinos are doing it and then kicking them out of the accredited list.

Well I sent to proof to Bryan and never got a response, and they stayed accredited until the ownership issues. Totally agree though, any casino doing this should not be accredited. GIG's data security isn't the best either, certainly wouldn't be sending them any documents!

 

[mac72]

posted twice

 

[mac72]

I've been asked again to respond to this by Lisa as she's not really all that impressed with your explanation.

I gave a reason for us sharing ownership of the company. At no point did I say that she lacked skills, or was lesser due to her sex or because she was married to me. When I indicated I am married to her it was simply an explanation of the personal connection that resulted in that name holding an significant role in a business I founded. I didn't suggest that she wasn't an asset in her own right, nor did in any way suggest that she was a second class person or undeserving of her role within our company. That is all meaning added by you and highlights world views you may want to give some thought to. Where you used demeaning terms to refer to her that is entirely on you.




Not what I said. I said that my understanding of the Director's position was that it provided her additional rights. Anything else is again context you have added yourself.



Whether you like the reason for the dynamic, or whether you feel it serves the stated purpose isn't really of any consequence. You raised a point and I've given an answer for it. If you think it's a lie, great. It's not a massive concern to me. I've nothing to hide here. There are several people on this site who have met Lisa and know her to be my partner, both in a business and personal sense. There are no failed companies in my past and I've never worked for any other gambling related organisations. I was a teacher prior to starting ThePOGG. There is no reason I could not be listed as the Director if we wished it to be so. We don't. Hell, hire a private investigator and have them look into me. Post it here. Just redact our address.

The double standard still exists - you have highlighted what you see as a logical incongruity, but not one you cannot connect this to any even conceived wrongdoing. You might find it curious, but that doesn't qualify what you've looked to do here. We however started with a line between a company and a group that are distributing fake games - i.e. to our mind and in our considered opinion there exists a potential risk to players based our starting point. All you've done is say you don't like our company structure.

As to trust - so if there were trust issues then she should hold the Director's position? It would give her additional rights? That works the opposite direction to. I trust her with everything. She trusted me with everything when I risked it. I reciprocate that trust by taking a secondary position and allowing her the 'final say' in what happens with what was created.

I'd also suggest that making insinuations about other people's relationships - which you do when you suggest that there are only two possible alternatives and the only one that makes sense is that the targeted party has a failing relationship - comes off as antagonising and a personal attack.



Fortunately we've never had any number of claims from players that signed-up via our links that would have even come to £5k. We just don't get that many complaints from players that sign-up via us (though we have at times reviewed complaints from players who signed-up via other sources under the Deposit Guarantee terms).

As it happens we'll actually be replacing this seal in the coming months anyway as I do have some concerns down the same lines you've highlighted and some other developments within the business have to one degree or another made this 'guarantee' redundant.

But again this is all getting very targeted and personal. It's no longer really an attempt to discredit our position on the BETAT issue, but rather an attempt to find any aspect of our service that you can discredit in an effort to validate your hostility.

TP

Christ if you pulled all that out of my comments it may be some form of counselling thats required and that is said in as tounge in cheek way as i possibly can. I wouldn't have a clue what skills your wife has but it always strikes me as strange when the person who obviously set up the Company and steers it day to day isn't shown as the Director. The answer/explanation you gave didn't impress me much (please tell Lisa) as it would seem very very odd if there is trust between the two people who put up the money for the business for both to put themselves "on the hook" being directors (you in your shadow director capacity). Being a Director carries little or no advantage but can be onerous if claims are levied, if you had fallen foul of the "deposit guarantee" or a claim for loss under libel it would end up tying both of you in and piercing the corporate veil is easily done, far too many people think that because they have limited status they are protected that isn't true, i speak from experience i had one particular instance where a substantial claim was brought against a ltd company of mine over a decade ago and the claimant made out i had verbally said 5 WORDS and that was enough to pierce the corporate veil and grant an injunction against all my assets worldwide. That took nearly 2 years to get sorted , i won it in the end.
As for the rest of this i simply don't have time tonight Duncan , well actually i wouldn't know were to start with it to be honest i'm not used to debating with people whose feelings get hurt in so many ways so quickly. I think you stepped into no mans land with the article you wrote, its my view it either shouldn't of been written and you removed the companies in question from your site or you should have had the balls to stick it to everybody, games providers the lot but that's just my view i'm sure your wife will tell you what your view is (now come on guys that is funny???)

 

[Borgie]

Sorry but both of you can't resist making it personal. The pair of you spitting venom isn't attractive and the facts of your disagreement are getting lost under the cheap shots you are taking at each other.

Also longest posts ever......

 

[mac72]

Sorry but both of you can't resist making it personal. The pair of you spitting venom isn't attractive and the facts of your disagreement are getting lost under the cheap shots you are taking at each other.

Also longest posts ever......

Here's my chapter and verse : I think you stepped into no mans land with the article you wrote, its my view it either shouldn't of been written and you removed the companies in question from your site or you should have had the balls to stick it to everybody, games providers the lot

 

[colinsunderland]

Here's my chapter and verse : I think you stepped into no mans land with the article you wrote, its my view it either shouldn't of been written and you removed the companies in question from your site or you should have had the balls to stick it to everybody, games providers the lot

If the article is incorrect then the companies can quite easily get it removed. They are aware of it, so the fact the allegations are still there are pretty telling too in my view.
This isn't some Russian hacker site that are untouchable, its a site that has its address on.

 

[ThePOGG]

Christ if you pulled all that out of my comments it may be some form of counselling thats required and that is said in as tounge in cheek way as i possibly can. I wouldn't have a clue what skills your wife has but it always strikes me as strange when the person who obviously set up the Company and steers it day to day isn't shown as the Director. The answer/explanation you gave didn't impress me much (please tell Lisa) as it would seem very very odd if there is trust between the two people who put up the money for the business for both to put themselves "on the hook" being directors (you in your shadow director capacity). Being a Director carries little or no advantage but can be onerous if claims are levied, if you had fallen foul of the "deposit guarantee" or a claim for loss under libel it would end up tying both of you in and piercing the corporate veil is easily done, far too many people think that because they have limited status they are protected that isn't true, i speak from experience i had one particular instance where a substantial claim was brought against a ltd company of mine over a decade ago and the claimant made out i had verbally said 5 WORDS and that was enough to pierce the corporate veil and grant an injunction against all my assets worldwide. That took nearly 2 years to get sorted , i won it in the end.
As for the rest of this i simply don't have time tonight Duncan , well actually i wouldn't know were to start with it to be honest i'm not used to debating with people whose feelings get hurt in so many ways so quickly. I think you stepped into no mans land with the article you wrote, its my view it either shouldn't of been written and you removed the companies in question from your site or you should have had the balls to stick it to everybody, games providers the lot but that's just my view i'm sure your wife will tell you what your view is (now come on guys that is funny???)

There's no liability justifications here otherwise I wouldn't be saying this openly and as you put it ending myself 'on the hook' absolutely. There would be no contention of the 'shadow director' following the posts made in this thread, even if it wasn't blatantly obvious that wouldn't have worked before. I'm quite familiar with the term 'shadow director' and how little protecting these strategies offer. We've been through all this with the lawyers and we realised a very long time ago that anything I was on the hook for - as we co-own every major asset - she was on the hook for too. I understand what you're implying, but it was not and never has been an issue.

And as to roguing software provides - you've tried that argument before and I explained in full why we don't take this position. Your post:

Any Betat/Slotty Vegas reps on here?

My response:

Any Betat/Slotty Vegas reps on here?

There's no grounds to rogue software providers who haven't distributed fake games or profited from said games. When an operator appears to have connections to a group that has done these things there is grounds in our opinion. Disagree if you like, but our position on that issue has been clear for some time now.

This is exactly what I was looking to avoid when I initially stated that we should leave this conversation in 2018 - going over the same arguments with nothing new to add. We could have saved each other some life by doing just that.

TP

 

[mac72]

There's no grounds to rogue software providers who haven't distributed fake games or profited from said games. When an operator appears to have connections to a group that has done these things there is grounds in our opinion. Disagree if you like, but our position on that issue has been clear for some time now.

Nonsense. Betat/Slotty haven't distributed fake games or profited from said games (if you believe they have please say) and their "connection" if any to a "group that has done these things" is no stronger and i would maintain much weaker than the relationship Netent/Microgaming/BTG have with said group, its just that doesn't suit your agenda

 

[mac72]

There's no liability justifications here otherwise I wouldn't be saying this openly and as you put it ending myself 'on the hook' absolutely. There would be no contention of the 'shadow director' following the posts made in this thread, even if it wasn't blatantly obvious that wouldn't have worked before. I'm quite familiar with the term 'shadow director' and how little protecting these strategies offer. We've been through all this with the lawyers and we realised a very long time ago that anything I was on the hook for - as we co-own every major asset - she was on the hook for too. I understand what you're implying, but it was not and never has been an issue.

And this is just rubbish too i can't even work out what you mean by some of it. Yes you would in my mind be a "Shadow Director" and as such you should just of made yourself the Director and left Lisa out IMO. "On the hook" is just a general term to encompass anything to do with any liabilities in running a business, and how do you know there's no liabilty here
I don't know what you "think" i'm implying apart from common business sense but its perfectly acceptable for someone to own a Company in totality but not hold Director status and be insulated against any wrongdoing by the directors of that company, its the sensible way to do things but i bow to your experience in these matters.
You seem to see "implications" in every little thing. You write eloquently but without proper substance and it just feels way too much like your basking in your own self importance.

 

[ThePOGG]

There's no grounds to rogue software providers who haven't distributed fake games or profited from said games. When an operator appears to have connections to a group that has done these things there is grounds in our opinion. Disagree if you like, but our position on that issue has been clear for some time now.

Nonsense. Betat/Slotty haven't distributed fake games or profited from said games (if you believe they have please say) and their "connection" if any to a "group that has done these things" is no stronger and i would maintain much weaker than the relationship Netent/Microgaming/BTG have with said group, its just that doesn't suit your agenda

My agenda is that we do not want to work with any operator that is even potentially involved with the distribution of fake games. We wouldn't want to help fund this type of activity. Nor do we think that players should engage with services of this nature. I think I've been pretty clear about that.

We can show ties between MaxEnt and groups that have been distributing fake games. We can say that the owners are both operating out of the same country. We can say that it is a fairly common practice for operators to run different sites via different companies to access markets with different levels of regulation. We can say that MaxEnt denied any association with any operator involved in the distribution of fake games earlier this year. We can say that they then claim to have gone on to buy a property that shares branding with a large number of operators connected to the distribution of fake games and was being run on the same affiliate program as an operator with the same branding who have been connected to a server distributing fake games.

I have NEVER said that BETAT/Slotty Vegas have distributed fake games and you know that. I am saying that I cannot be confident of the ownership of this group. I can't be sure of the ownership of many other groups, but those groups don't also have all these connections to a group distributing fake games. There's simply too much there for my comfort.

As stated time and time again, if you don't feel those connections are anything that you should worry about, that's okay. I don't need/want/expect everyone to agree with our position. I do however think that everyone has the right to all the information so that they can make informed decision for themselves. Whether they agree with us or not is of no issue as long as they can make there mind up with as much relevant information as we can provide them.

If this is that important to you and you feel that this is all partisan agenda, I'll make you this offer: write up a rebuttal and forward it on. It won't change our position on this issue, but I will be happy to publish it on ThePOGG and link it up in the relevant article/reviews.

TP

 

[mac72]

It really does

However on this particular topic that is the standard approach from NetEnt and I don't have any particular issue with it. We've worked directly with the legal team at NetEnt to help them identify operators distributing fake versions of their games in the past and have an ongoing dialogue with their team on this subject.

Some software providers within the market have taken a black ball approach to any party found distributing fake games. The result, the fake games continue to be offered. NetEnt look to rehabilitate operators by looking to engage legitimate games in place of the fake ones. The results are that there are less fake games on the market. Personally I don't like seeing these operators supported in any manner, but who am I to deny the clearly more effective strategy when it comes to trying to ensure that less players are exposed to these rip-offs.

In this manner NetEnt have never worked with the fake game operators themselves and as such there's no grounds to blacklist them. However the operators themselves have, and I've yet to see a single operator who's been caught offer to refund the losses from players who have engaged with these fake games, so they remain on the blacklist. Pretty straight forward..

So Netent rehabilitate the Fake Game Operators by getting them to use Netent's real games therefore entering into a contract for supply from Netent - But Netent have never worked with the fake game operators , BEAM ME UP SCOTTY THIS IS TOO MUCH

 

[ThePOGG]

And this is just rubbish too i can't even work out what you mean by some of it. Yes you would in my mind be a "Shadow Director" and as such you should just of made yourself the Director and left Lisa out IMO. "On the hook" is just a general term to encompass anything to do with any liabilities in running a business, and how do you know there's no liabilty here
I don't know what you "think" i'm implying apart from common business sense but its perfectly acceptable for someone to own a Company in totality but not hold Director status and be insulated against any wrongdoing by the directors of that company, its the sensible way to do things but i bow to your experience in these matters.
You seem to see "implications" in every little thing. You write eloquently but without proper substance and it just feels way too much like your basking in your own self importance.

I was suggesting that you feel I'm trying to use Lisa as a liability shield via hiding behind corporate structuring. I am saying that as all of our assets are co-owned, that whatever she is 'on the hook' for, I am 'on the hook' for too and vice versa, regardless of which of us is Director. The shadow director issue, which is where a company hides who's really in charge because they either are not allowed to be a Director or are looking to escape liability, isn't relevant as I'm perfectly entitled to be a Director and even if we switched positions, if I'm sued, all Lisa's assets are at risk as well. With regard to libel laws, by and large it's not the business that bears responsibility, it's the author. As I'm the author of the more inflammatory articles posted on the site, I bear the liability anyway. As I co-own all of Lisa's major assets, her assets would be at risk in the same manner she is whilst acting as Director if someone sues for something I post. It's six to one or half a dozen in that respect.

TP

 

[ThePOGG]

So Netent rehabilitate the Fake Game Operators by getting them to use Netent's real games therefore entering into a contract for supply from Netent - But Netent have never worked with the fake game operators , BEAM ME UP SCOTTY THIS IS TOO MUCH

NetEnt have never worked with the suppliers of fake games or profited from distributing them. The fake game casino site has worked with the suppliers of fake games and has profited from distributing them.

TP

 

[mac72]

I was suggesting that you feel I'm trying to use Lisa as a liability shield via hiding behind corporate structuring. I am saying that as all of our assets are co-owned, that whatever she is 'on the hook' for, I am 'on the hook' for too and vice versa, regardless of which of us is Director. The shadow director issue, which is where a company hides who's really in charge because they either are not allowed to be a Director or are looking to escape liability, isn't relevant as I'm perfectly entitled to be a Director and even if we switched positions, if I'm sued, all Lisa's assets are at risk as well. With regard to libel laws, by and large it's not the business that bears responsibility, it's the author. As I'm the author of the more inflammatory articles posted on the site, I bear the liability anyway. As I co-own all of Lisa's major assets, her assets would be at risk in the same manner she is whilst acting as Director if someone sues for something I post. It's six to one or half a dozen in that respect.

TP

And you didn't think it wise to maybe move all of your joint assets over to Lisa's sole ownership , leave her out of the Company and protect what you both had from any liability?. And before anybody mentions the potential liability of giving everything to their partner i can guarantee you there are solicitors desks all over the Uk with agreements pre-signed reversing that position to protect people from screwing one another over while protecting them from external claims.

 

[mac72]

NetEnt have never worked with the suppliers of fake games or profited from distributing them. The fake game casino site has worked with the suppliers of fake games and has profited from distributing them.

TP

Thats a different position than before. Lets make this easy can someone/anyone identify please a Casino site that used to have fake games and now has proper ones?