Dang ! let me help you out here. Betpanam started slow paying (with the first scattered no pays) at the end of December 2003.
This is from your wire:
Quote:
|
1/22/2004 5:54:00 AM BetPanAm (SBR rating C-) dogged by complaints of Neteller payout requests given only the option for ** - BetPanAm admits a change of CEO and lack of planning caused short term slow pays - SBR initially downgraded PanAm on Jan 2nd, 2004 and extended that downgrade today to an SBR rating of C-
|
So...3 weeks later you still had them at C- ... in a no pay fashion.
Now tell me...have you tried to broker a sale ? Not that I'm aware of. The only one desperately trying was their CEO, who repeatedly contacted books in costa rica trying to broker a deal.
This is not about business John, its about proactiveness vs. mere reporting (without going into the details of the accuracy).
3 weeks of no pays....with another 3 weeks of slow pays before vs. 3 days of suspension of banking operations (RCS) due to an ongoing transition.
6 weeks of slow/no pays vs. not one single case in 9 months John.
You are right. We can all be fooled by a bookmaker. But when we know the entire story is PRIMARILY up to us to secure players balances FIRST, then play our "games".
This is the HUGE difference in our sites' phylosophy.
Jay is right, if all books would manage their business on a corporate model we would not have to cover all angles as we do today. The vast majority industry is not mature for a corporate approach yet. This is why we shall priviledge proactiveness vs. mere (more or less accurate) reporting.
Sometimes letting the chips fall where they have to is the worst thing we can do. Sometimes WE have to make sure the chips fall in the right place.