Just skim the cream - is it right?

[sportshobby]

This is a topic that has really been bothering me recently. A sportsbook recently "came to the rescue" of another ailing sportsbook, acquiring all their customers and honoring the postup funds of that book. Well, almost. They decided not to pay one winner with a large balance.

The question is, can this be ethical? Is it fair? Should the players be happy that most postup funds were honored, or should we denouce this sportsbook as self-serving and dishonorable?

If I'm a businessman and see a company going under here in the states, I'm quite sure that I DO NOT have the option of acquiring their assets and not their debts. It doesn't work that way. Likewise, I don't have the option of deciding which of their debts to take on. So why should it be any different offshore, except that there are no laws/regulation that prevent it.

I'm really surprised that this would happen; and I'm completely shocked that a sportsbook would think that this is honorable.

Other opinions welcome.

[DOUG]

SPORTS HOBBY: I DON'T A BONE IN THIS FIGHT AND SHOULD KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT. BUT, I DO WANT TO CORRECT SOMETHING YOU SAID. IN THE USA YOU CAN BUY A BANKRUPT COMPANY AND NOT ACQUIRE ALL OF ITS DEBTS. IF YOU BUY A BANKRUPT COMPANY YOU CAN SOMETIME PAY AS LITTLE AS 10% OF THE DEBT AND ACQUIRE THE COMPANY. MOST POSTERS WERE REAL HARD ON THE SPORTSBOOK WHO PAID EVERYONE BUT THE ONE PLAYER, I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER THE NANE OF THE BOOK, AND I DON'T KNOW ALL THE DETAILS OF THE TANSACTIONS. WAS THE BIG WINNER WHO DIDN'T GET PAID A CREDIT PLAYER THRU AN AGENT, A POST UP PLAYER OR OTHER ETC. MYSELF, LIKE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALL PEOPLE GET PAID, BUT LIFE JUST AIN'T FAIR ALL THE TIME. I AM DISAPOINTED FOR THE ONE PLAYER BUT HAPPY THEY DID PAY SOME OF THE PLAYERS. BUT, I FIND IT HARD TO CRITIZE ANYONE THAT TAKES OVER A BANKRUPT COMPANY AND PAYS AT LEAST PART OF THE DEBT. AGAIN I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE OR FUSS AND CUSS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS IN THIS SITUATION.

[Ronbets]

{Quoting TomOCo from across the street}

First, I have 10 credit accounts. I owe all of them, one of them quite a large amount. I can payoff the other nine, but that 10th book with the big $$$, no way. I've talked with my other 9 books and they say as long as I pay them they're cool with it and I can continue to play without regard to the one book I stiff. Hey, it's better to have 9 paid than none, or try to work out a deal to pay each of them something, right?

[<omni>]

A sportsbook is a business. And they run it like a business. The decision that they made, to make all of their potential customers happy except one makes perfect sense from a business standpoint. Is it rifht or fair. No, not at all. The best thing to do from a ethical standpoint would have been to pay everyone the same percentage of what they were owed. But then they might have everyone somewhat upset with them. Instead they opted to have everyone praising and thanking them as a godsend...except one. I'm sure they didn't tell those people that one person got totally stiffed. Only those who heard about the case here on this forum or maybe elsewhere know about it. So faith is restored to all but a few who know the truth.
It's easy for them to say that they did a good thing because they had no obligation to pay anyone. But think about the picture that they are painting for all of us. A heroic sportsbook rushes to the rescue and pays off a great deal of debt out of the goodness of their hearts.
Yep, I'm not buying that one either.
This still has to be looked at from a business perspective. What did they really gain by doing this? If they just wanted to buy a positive image, they would have made sure to pay off everybody. What they gained was new customers. Remember, not everyone was a winner. I'm sure a lot more were losers than you might think. And now, all those losers belong to them. Hell, they already got rid of the biggest winner. Eliminate a few more, and you've got yourself a nice profit. Also, don't forget that the larger the customer base they have, the easier it can be to keep their action balanced.
Never forget that this is a business world first. The books don't really want to be your friend. They want to take your money.

[Dragon]

I'm sure the players that got bailed out will all become loyal legal book customers. Legal book bailed them out and they would have to be grateful. But I would also think that the backlash from this is a big negative and something they didn't count on. I think they figured no one would ever find out, and if they did, they would take their side.

[Ronbets]

Originally posted by Dragon:
I think they figured no one would ever find out, and if they did, they would take their side.

Dragon,

SAY WHAT? Mike Fine comes in here and gives particulars. Maybe we should discuss Toni Tennille.

[neilm]

Ronbets,

I agree with Dragon on this. I don't think that they ever thought that all this negative fallout/publicity would occur.

While its true that Mike Fine entered this forum, it was only to defend himself and his company AFTER "ROO" WENT PUBLIC with being stiffed. Had Roo never come to this and other forums I highly doubt that Mr. Fine would have disclosed the intimate details, but rather championed himself as saviour of FCC's clients.

Neil

[Dragon]

Ronbets, I really don't find it that farfetched to assume that Legal Book thought it was possible no one would find out. Like neilm says, it wasn't until Roo came in that they made their speech. It's always been common practice to pay the small fish and string the big ones along, although in this case, there was never any intention of paying the big fish.

The way I see this, after giving it much more thought, Legal Book simply went about this the wrong way.

If Legal Book announced that they were going to sit down with Fair Deal, and see what they could do, and announced that they would be able to help some of the players but not all, due to their own finances and not wanting to bite off more than they could chew, would they still have been looked at the same way? I doubt it.

They would have done something no one else was willing to do. Sure, some players would be pissed, but that's their own fault for getting hooked up with Fair Deal.

They basically should have announced they were bailing out all customers with a max balance of xxx. Then, there's no harm done.

[Ronbets]

Dragon/Neil,

My bad. Thanks for the wakeup call!!