revolution is just a dead website hanging in the air imho adding to the confusion. I'l head to bed and see what tomorrow brings with wincake and the reappearance of Shane

Wow, been out for a week and a bit and so much has divulged... Cliffs on this wincake business?

i wouldn't believe a single thing either one of them writes; that's kind of the problem here...everyone always "praying" Shane's telling the truth. C'mon, it's probably the network's fault that he didn't inform us of the re-branding; and if it is, he's out of the loop.

We have our own Curacou gaming licence, Im not sure that any other skins do that is probably why we share the lawyer there.


Definitely owned by different people and with their rebrand back to their own branding with the WinCake stuff launching you will see that in a more obvious way again.


And any confusion with Cipaco NV on Pokerscout most probably stems from when we took the lead with the rebrand of the network, but Cipaco NV is definitely a Lock company and unrelated to Cake.

And for further clarification Lock or its companies neither bought the network nor own a shareholders of the network through any other means. There is zero cross ownership between Cake/Lock.

Shane. Did you ever get a chance to chase up the change in affiliate payments as mentioned in my email you had forwarded to your man who is now in charge of affiliates but never replies to emails?

As you know the last settlement came through on the 16th of June but only included 15 of May to 1st of June leaving 2nd of June to 15th open. I had asked you if you had switched back to settling 1st to 1st but by the looks of it you haven't meaning that 16th of June - today is outstanding.

Since I haven't heard back from either you or affs maybe you care to answer here.

I forwarded your enquiry over to the affiliate department and asked them to look into it and get to the bottom of it for you.

I've just chased them up to get them to get in touch with you since they clearly haven't.

Thank you. Can you ask Armaud to maybe also get to the bottom of our emails from the 28th of March (you were CC'ed in those).

Thank you Shane for your replies. I am starting to believe you may actually just be a pawn in this mess and not a knowing participant. You honestly can't expect anyone to believe that there are no ties between Lock and WinCake and revolution can you? You expect me to believe that it is just coincidence the two sites have the same lawyers when so far any other skins I have checked do not? You expect me to believe there are no ties when the public was told Lock owned the network for over a year and is still listed as the owner on pokescout? You expect me to believe there are no ties when the respective owners have places in the same city? The skins share very similar problems with cashouts. All of this is just coincidence? Come on wake up.

Oh I also find it hard to believe that when the purchase of the network supposedly fell through that Lock just let the people involved in the new deal use the Revolution brand name. Impossible.

Well there are ties between Revolution and Lock since we took the lead in the setup of Revolution in anticipation of us completing the deal to purchase the network.

But there are no ties between Lock and Cake/Win Cake other than being a room on their network.

We have no plans to start a rival network so them continuing with the name for a while before their rebrand was of no real consequence to us.

They are finally in the process of their rebrand now with Win Cake and we should see a further roll out of that in the coming week.

You keep talking about this rebrand like it makes a difference, the same people are still involved. Let me ask you this, when the rebrand is done will pokerscout still have cipaco NV listed as the owner of Revolution? Is anything behind the sceens really going to change? NOPE!

Shane you understand Revolution was Locks baby. Once the deal died so did Revolution. The only way I see the network changing its brand to Revolution without Lock as the purchaser is if Lock at the last minute couldn't come up with the money and Cake couldn't back out. Is this what happened?

No it's my understanding they will finally correct that error during the rebrand.


We refused to join the network without the rebrand, we didn't want to just come back to Cake we wanted it to be the start of something special, hence the Revolution branding.

Once it was clear things weren't as we hoped and we didn't complete the deal nothing would be served from our end to pressure the network to rebrand immediately.

Not completing the purchase quickly took us from a position of power to position without any power meaning we have to work with the network and not put in jeopardy our place on the network.

You realize you just conflicted with yourself don't you? So you are telling everyone that Lock lost any power with the purchase falling through yet they had enough power to get Cake to rebrand the network with Lock just joining the network? And you mean to say Lock had enough power to let Cake network continue to let the public think that the purchase had gone through for more than a year?

No the rebrand was part of purchasing the network, when that didnt happen the position of power was lost.

Shane, the purchase never happened right? Revolution= Locks purchase of Cake network. No purchase of the network would equal no Revolution. You stated the rebrand happen because of Locks conditions to join the network correct? Why would Cake just give up their brand? Once Lock announced they were leaving Merge they had no choice to move networks and once the deal fell through Cake could have just sat there and not rebranded since Lock had no where to go.

Cake likely agreed to the name change because they were a dying network with huge debt (allegedly DoylesRoom stiffed them for $5-10 million a couple of years ago).

Lock probably came in and bull****ted Cake with all kinds of promises and they reluctantly agreed to give them a chance.

When it became obvious that Lock was broke and full of ****, they took the network back and quarantined Lock from the rest of network before the Lock phantom funds infected the network any worse.

The rebrand was an early condition of the purchase, the move and the purchase were one entity. The sale didn't fall through for many months after the initial rebrand and our move.

?

Those are great questions, SGT RJ, but I'll give you the real answer.

Define "backlog": The players waiting for cashout whose money was stolen by Lock, and cannot be paid at the moment.

In what manner is the backlog being taken care of? When new suckers deposit, some of that money is being used to pay operating expenses, Shane's salary, Portugal trips, etc, and the remainder is used to pay other suckers whose money we stole earlier.

How quickly is the backlog being cleared? It isn't. It's actually getting worse, as people are "making a run on the bank" as word gets out about Lock's insolvency.


I wish I were joking about the above, but sadly, the truth is highly likely to be very similar to the above.

*

But seriously, Lock can just claim that they are making progress on the backlog, and then when they're supposedly 50% of the way to unclogging it, they will claim some other processor screwed them, and will be back to square one.

You know... kind of like those Nigerian scammers who claim your $100 million is just about to hit your account, but at the last minute some damn government official in Lagos has delayed it further.

chopsy,
See this is where I believe Shane. If Jen or the "operators of Lock" would hold a stake it would be plain stupid to do so under the Lock brand or under Cipaco. They would simply register another offshore maybe even with a different frontman.

But that's just ifs and woulds...

Hence I believe Shane when when he says: "Lock is just a room on the network".

You know after reading Shane's posts I actually believe he thinks what he is saying is factual. Maybe it is and everything is just a coincidence, but there is one bit of info another 2+2 member sent me that goes against everything Shane says. In an artical in 4 flush, June 23 2012, in an email Jen Larson sent out to an affiliate I believe, she says she is the CEO of Lock and Revolution. So she was either lying then or lying now.

Even if it turns out that Lock in fact never had purchased Cake, at the very least they tried to decieve people by letting them think that Lock owned the network.

Mike,

Should we propose a new list of questions to Shame. Or should he answer all the ones (except this little re-brand issue he is spinning) that he is skipping over, ignoring, and not responding too? Was Magnum IP able to "chase down" Locks Cashier Manager? I'm starting to get worried about the "investigation".

If you can think of three interesting new questions that haven't already been asked in the existing Q-threads, go for it.

MH, I find it a pity that Shane ignores the HoldemManger question