Reef Club/Just My Thoughts on the Situation

[mary]

Reef Club didn't meet the "six month rule" with their management. Casinos aren't considered until they have been in operation, with the same management and software, for six months.

They had been accepted in the belief that they were a true "sister site" of Casino On Net.

If they apply after six months, the PAB's opinion will be very important, as it is the PAB that has the best information of how a casino treats players, handles withdrawals, responds to email, etc.

T and C and any management statements would also be taken into account at that time.

I don't think the OPA has ever accepted a casino over the "no" vote of the PAB. I can think of only one case in which the PAB voted "yes" and the advisory board voted "no".

 

[mary]

I had my webhead sniff the download and installation of Casino On Net and Reef Club Casino. He says he didn't see anything unusual. Looks like it communicated with one server and no email servers were contacted; no STMP protocol.

He played demo for a while to see if it would do anything, but it didn't.

If you still have the logs, we'd like to look at them. Maybe it is something an older version of the software did; maybe it was double-checking their download site.

 

[caruso]

So the reason for giving Greef Club the boot was NOT mal-practice, simply that they had been admitted erroneously?

I heartily disagree that they emerge from this business with anything other than shame. They set out their thieving stall on Day One - why should they be given a second chance? There are plenty of good operations out there that have NEVER descended to these "We reserve the right to screw you" tactics. I cannot understand how any player would be comfortable playing with a casino with this kind of a track record, or how the OPA could possibly ever consider them for "approval", even after the official waiting period.

Anyway - whatever the reason, kudos to the OPA for coming through on this one.

 

[the_cpa]

It appears that you have stated that they are not sisters casinos? What constitutes a sister then??

Cassava owns both.

I guess I'm confused as I thought there was no question as to the ownership, just the management of the two as being separated.

I would be interested in what the investigation revealed as to the relationships of the two Casinos, Cassava and Random Logic and why Reef would not be considered a sister.

My guess would have been there was an initial mixup between management levels so the reason is a little surprising. It's OK to F-up, which is forgivable IMO, as long as the damage done by the lower management was corrected and measures taken to eliminate similar problems in the future.

Although the result seems to be popular, the basis for it is somewhat of a mystery as it currently stands? We still are not understanding of exactly who owns what?

(Message edited by the_cpa on September 05, 2002)

 

[mary]

Believe me, it all won't be forgotten and forgiven.

The two casinos have different sets of owners and don't tell each other what to do.

We're still discussing CON's stated T&C's.

 

[the_cpa]

All casinos have those catch all phrases in there, in some fashion. The use of it in an abusive fashion is where the real question is.IMO

The C.O.N. manager has publicly stated they would NEVER use it in the fashion the Reef Club Manager did.
Frankly, I believe the C.O.N. Manager. When that poor guy got crucified on that Roulette promo and made good, That said it all for me! LOL Like a Timex Watch! Took a lickin and kept on tickin!

The only problem is that none of this is adding up. So once again, can you elaborate on what the investigation turned up on the ownership issues.

This is all I know and that's because it's on their sites! It doesn't appear that they're trying to hide anything that I can see.

Reef Club Casino is operated by Cassava Enterprises LTD, a registered company located in Antigua.

Casino-on-Net is operated by Cassava Enterprises LTD, a registered company located in Antigua.

Cassava holds the licence in Antiqua.

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

Neither C.O.N. nor Reef Club have their own licenses since Cassava appears to own both.

Even under a Sub License,{if that's the case}, it's Cassava's license, they operate the casinos and they ultimately determine what the two casinos can and can't do! Yes, No...Maybe! LOL

Certainly appears to be the case, anyway.

Edited to include:

My point is, this all makes them sisters and if the terms are straightened out, Players paid then Reef Club by virtue of C.O.N. should be admitted. JMO, Which I'm sure won't be popular, but just the same, you can't have a bunch of double standards either.

I see it coming: NO I Don't promote Reef Club! LOL

(Message edited by the_cpa on September 05, 2002)

 

[mary]

They are owned by the same company, but have different management. In this sense they are "sisters"

The management teams are empowered to run the two casinos differently. In this sense they are not "sisters" (the term has not been this closely defined.)

This was not made clear in their original application. They were thus mistakenly admitted.

Because they have different management with different styles and standards, Reef Club is not eligible to apply for OPA membership for six months.

Like a new casino, or a casino using new software, they will have to undergo a shake-down period to see how well they do with respect to satisfying players and conducting themselves to the OPA's standards.

To my knowledge, all players have been paid but one. That is still in discussion.

If Reef Club and CON have identical T&C but choose to implement them differently, it would be preferable to have more explicit T&C.
This is still in discussion.

Player and OPA dissatisfaction with statements on WOL, the retroactive changes of terms, and confusion about ownership have been communicated to CON and Reef.

 

[jetset]

"All casinos have those catch all phrases in there, in some fashion. The use of it in an abusive fashion is where the real question is.IMO"

I agree with CPA here, and that was one of my reasons for voting Greef off. I do not personally think OPA members should be displaying "we can do what we like" style clauses, and when they are invoked to unfairly rob players of what is due then I think that is totally unacceptable and merits expulsion if not immediately reversed. The answer is for casinos to re-write these clauses in a more player-sensitive and honest manner - that is not difficult, yet still gives room for just solutions.

"My guess would have been there was an initial mixup between management levels so the reason is a little surprising. It's OK to F-up, which is forgivable IMO, as long as the damage done by the lower management was corrected and measures taken to eliminate similar problems in the future."

As Mary has said, this aspect is still under discussion, together with the second player complaint that remains in dispute.

 

[the_cpa]

I hope you can understand why I raise these questions.

The first official announcement was:

"The two casinos have different sets of owners and don't tell each other what to do."

The second answer after posting the information I had was:

"They are owned by the same company, but have different management. In this sense they are "sisters"

Needless to say, I don't get consulted on these matters, LOL, but I assume I'm free to voice an honest and open opinion.

Casino Kingdom and Captain Cook have different managers with a common upper management level exactly like this situation. There may be other similar situations, I haven't looked at the list that closely yet.
Either way, there is no practical difference.

Many sisters will often have a new manager assigned to take care of the new casino. Not unusual and probably pretty much the rule.

My feeling is that this is not a valid reason to disallow what is in fact a "Sister Casino"

The fact that Reef Club made good on the terms is great, but did they acknowledge that they made a mistake????

The OPA seems to want to credit for having made a mistake and I don't think that is the truth here. I don't think you did make a mistake! You did exactly what you would have been expected to based on the facts.

You do seem willing to take the blame for something you didn't do wrong and that bothers me. Almost like you are creating a reason to take the heat. You shouldn't do that, even if it pisses some people off. I realize you guys have taken some serious flaming on this thing and believe me, been there, done that and it's no fun.

Nobody seems to getting to the bottom line here.

Did the Reef Club management state they f-ed up or not?

If not, did Cassava step in and say yes you did and we are forcing you to correct your mistakes?

Or did Cassava say, the manager has our blessing to use this,{common catch all bonus abuser clause}, any ole way he wants to?

If that's the case, then the blame goes to Cassava. The management is irrelevant here.

If Cassava stepped up to the plate and took responsibility for the Reef Club management indiscretion, Kudos to them!

Reef Club should stay as long as the "C.O.N." interpretation of that clause is at least promised to be upheld by CASSAVA! I would be inclined to trust Cassava's word here. I explained why why earlier.

From there, certainly some work could be done on getting all the casinos to clarify this type of catch all term, but that applies to litterally ALL CASINOS, not just Cassava.

Cassava casinos are certainly not the Lone Rangers with respect to having this term. That should not be a factor in the decision making process in this matter.

If you do that, you may as well say there are NO Approved casinos cause they all have a clause like this.

The best you can ask for is an understanding and mutual trust that it won't be abused by "Lower Management" and corrected if it is.

I'm still hopeful that such was the case here, Cassava straighten this Shark fellow out and everyone can respect Cassava for doing the right thing and being the leader that they truly are in the industry.

I still say, Reef Club should stay, if Cassava did do what I outlined above.

You see, the bottom line is about Cassava...NOT Reef Club. And so, LOL, I rest my case!

Good Grief! or REEF, I don't work this hard for casinos I promote! LMAO

 

[caruso]

"The fact that Reef Club made good on the terms is great, but did they acknowledge that they made a mistake????"

From CPA.

Quite.

"Yes, we DO maintain the "we reserve the right..." clause, and we DID abuse it, ie. we used it as a way of justifying the witholding of legitimately won money from our customers' cashins. We appreciate that this is NOT the purpose of the "we reserve the right..." clause, which is, to protect us from GENUINE player fraud (credit cards? Chargebacks? Multiple accounts?); we apologise for this misuse/abuse of one of our T & C, and we assure all players / industry members that, realizing our error, we will NOT be repeating it".

Now THAT would go a HELLUVA long way in the damage-limitation exercise.

 

[mary]

Excellent suggestion, Mr. C.
We will see if we can arrange a deja vu experience for you in cyberspace.

 

[the_cpa]

Caruso, Nice job! LOL, they should copy and paste that one and just sign it!

Then they should hire you for authoring damage control situations! :lol:

Seriously though, I too think that would be the right thing here, assuming they agree of course. We all gotta eat a little crow once in while!

Seems to me it would be a small price to pay to remain on the OPA approval list. Not to mention, just the right thing to do anyway.

 

[jetset]

The point is that discussions on this T&C question and on the second OPA complaint are still ongoing in the hope that we can get one fairly explained and the re-wording on the T&C to a mutually acceptable level. That should not be a mission impossible and it is important due to the hotplate these folks have placed themselves on at WOL.

We will also probably need to issue a friendly suggestion to other OPA casinos that rewording of any similar clauses they may have might be wise.

It goes without saying that the OPA will fight tooth and nail with any casino that unfairly applies such a clause to prejudice a player.

The advisory group takes ALL factors into consideration when making decisions of this serious nature, which is the point I have repeatedly tried to make to the stampede over at WOL.

In this case that included an extensive debate over the nature of SBUs under the same ownership banner and the level of autonomy that this involved in the present case.

So, you guys are preaching to the converted - we're looking or have looked at this case from every conceivable angle despite attempts to rush the Association to a judgement.

 

[the_cpa]

I'm reading and not understanding what point your trying to make??

You all have disclosed very little actual information as to what was or wasn't covered in these discussions.

We don't have much to work with here other than the official stated reason Reef Club was added to begin with and why it was decided to remove them.

Unless I misread this:
"They had been accepted in the belief that they were a true "sister site" of Casino On Net."
and this:
"The two casinos have different sets of owners and don't tell each other what to do."

That is the information given. **The OPA made a mistake and asummed they were under the same ownership/sisters and the investigation turned up that they were under different ownership, therefore not sisters.

That is clearly not the case, but that is the official OPA reason given. It was later amended to say that the managers are different. This has no bearing on the fact that Cassava makes any final decisions and it is Cassava itself that matters here, not The Shark.

I'm not trying be diffult, but gee, what else can I say. I'm not going to pretend to be blind to what was said either. What good would that do?

I was trying not to be so blatent in making the point out of respect to the OPA. Simply put, we're not getting FULL and straight answers to the obvious questions posed, so I'll start refining the questions as we go along.

I don't understand what preaching to the converted means in the context of that post, I don't believe the OPA conviction to stick up for the player has been questioned either, as far as I can see. Why is this brought into issue?

I do question how, after all the time lapsed and a thorough investigation, that you could not have known they were under the same ownership since that is easily found and openly published by Cassava.

No offense intended to anyone, but that's what we are discussing and trying to understand.

As for the T&Cs, I think it will be a long time coming, if ever, to get all the casinos to drop those catch all terms.

Fine to work on it, but for this case, RIGHT NOW, it doesn't matter and a verbal understanding with Cassava should suffice as it does with any of the other casinos.

Just seems to me that whole thing was blown out of proportion from the git go by this Shark guy. Based on those ill conceived remarks,{that we can only assume at this point, were NOT and ARE NOT the feeling of Cassava }, the players were justified in getting pissed off! Obviously, it was poorly handled.

What we are saying now, is if that IS the CASE and Cassava has corrected the situation and sprayed Eric with a little Shark Repellant, let's put this thing back into it's proper and rightful perspective.

Get an apology and implement the already established OPA guideline as it applies to sisters and leave Reef Club on the approved list with C.O.N. It's a fair policy and personally I think it should stay in place.

Unless there is more to story??? If so please share the information so we can understand too.

*****As it sits right now, The only problem I can see is if Cassava has said they concur, or are standing by the Shark's comments! Have they said this? If not, what have they said in regards to this.

These are the questions we need you address. Anything else is superficial at this particular time. What exactly is Cassava's position?


(Message edited by the_cpa on September 07, 2002)

 

[mary]

Cassava's position is that the two different sets of managers at the two different casinos may run them differently with respect to promotions and player exclusion.

Thus, they deserve different treatments in terms of OPA membership.

Give up the term "sister", it's not useful. "Under common ownership" and "under common management" would be better.

Casinos under both common ownership and common management aren't subject to the six-month rule, because they've already established themselves.

 

[the_cpa]

I disagree. The term sister is the meat of the matter and who makes the the ultimate decisions for BOTH casinos is exactly what this is all about.

Once again, the question is being side steped Mary.

You're diggin a hole here and I'm trying to avoid that.

Now, based on what you just said, if I own 6 casinos, I can use 3 of them to screw players, make up whatever terms I want and you'll still let me have the other three on the OPA approved list. Now that makes no sense whatsoever.

You can't separate the two out because they have different casino managers. That's ridiculous.

We've already acknowledged that different promos, bonuses, etc., etc. is perfectly fine. I have no problem with Cassava's saying that, since it has nothing to do with the problem here. That's never been questioned from the beginning.

This is about the implemation and misuse of the catch all clause in the terms. This is CLEARLY not the casino managers responsibility or ultimate decision to make, it's Cassava's. What in world is thought process here?

One Company owns both places. They're either both acceptable or neither is. Your trying to create a gray area here and is none.

Why?

 

[joeyl]

Are C.O.N owned or managed by Cassava?

Did Reef Club lie to the OPA or was an assumption made by the OPA Reef were somehow related to C.O.N?

Did C.O.N at any time before Reef's approval say they were related?

 

[the_cpa]

Reef Club Casino is operated by Cassava Enterprises LTD, a registered company located in Antigua.

Casino-on-Net is operated by Cassava Enterprises LTD, a registered company located in Antigua.

Cassava holds the licence in Antiqua.

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

Neither C.O.N. nor Reef Club have their own licenses since Cassava appears to own both.

Quote Mary: They are owned by the same company, but have different management. In this sense they are "sisters"

Joeyl, At the risk of being critical, Please read the threads before asking questions that have already been answered.

 

[joeyl]

Question 1 is rethorical and leads to 2 and 3 which are relative to what was said to the OPA,not what is public knowledge..

(in short)What was said?

 

[mary]

Joey, to be honest, the selective reposting of posts that have been made here onto WOL makes it not a good idea to go into that level of detail.

It's a shame, because OPA members have a right to know, and we have the right to conduct such a discussion on our own board without harrassment.

I don't see how this conduct is helping players. All it does is deny them communication.

Anyone who is still interested can email me through this forum for a more detailed discussion.

 

[the_cpa]

I don't think anyone LIED to anyone. If you read the exchange involving the two mangers, you can see that they were careful not to say they were separately owned.
Reef Club obviously told the OPA they they were owned by the same company as C.O.N.

Under the OPA guidelines, that qualified them for the fast track entry onto the list which personally, I think is fine.

The problem I'm still having that remains unanswered, is over the determination that because the Casinos have different managers, that this in some way vindicates the ownership for the actions taken by the Reef Club manager in regards to the "Catch All" clause.

Since we have seen no formal acknowledgement from CASSAVA or the OPA that they,{Cassava}, will not allow this in the future, this remains an important and key question as it pertains to both units.

So that's where I believe it's at.

If Cassava itself says it was an unfortunate incident and we've got it under control, then that's good enough for me based solely on the great job they have done with C.O.N.

Reef Club is a legit sister, got the slap on the hand, and they should be reinstated under the rules as the true sister it is!

If Cassava can't do that for reasons unbeknownst to me, then I guess there really is a bigger problem.

For Mary,
I don't think there is anything there that can't be aired publicly.

However, since you say there is and offered; on the off chance that there is something that can't be made public, I will take you up on the offer to discuss it by email.

There doesn't seem to be many people interested in the matter anymore! Maybe they're holding back get these answers too.

Eitherway, I'm interested, so Please respond with the additional info to:
info@CasinoPlayersAdvocate.com

Thanks,
Nick


(Message edited by the_cpa on September 08, 2002)

 

[mary]

OK, I think I've got your point now; missed it before. In casino land, the refuse flows uphill...

We'll discuss this in Vegas and get back here with a coherent response so we can put this thread to bed properly and also have policy for future occurances.

 

[the_cpa]

As unfair as it may seem to some, Cassava IS one of the class acts around town. If this just slipped thru the cracks of Cassava management, I just don't feel like Their casino should take such a beating over it.

They don't open a new place very often! What are they up to? TWO! LOL

I guess I just feel like they should catch a break here. As long as the complaints and understanding of how the terms are implemented get resolved.

 

[mary]

Looks like we will be revisiting this issue sooner than we thought.

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

This is conduct identical to that of Golden Palace, Sci Fi, and CyberCroupier.

 

[the_cpa]

Yep, I just posted about this at another forum too. It appears to be that same clause again. This needs to be clarified with the brass before it gets out of control.

I will mention this too, and it isn't intended to insinuate ANYTHING towards the player, but there appeared to be an unusual and overstated effort to caution against opening "another" account. Almost as if there was a problem surrounding that point.
Maybe just standard procedure, but the last response seemed to indicate a problem there.