I respect all the work that you've put into this, but why not do the right thing and switch to ANY other site/network?

I understand mellows view point. for one though without MGS's help I don;t think we could ever pin anything down on tusk. MGS knows more abotu tusk than anyother party in my opinion. The liquidators themselves seem to think tusk behaved fine. I don;t neccesarily agree there but how are we suppose to pin anythign on tusk? Governments will not didicate any resources to goign after onlien casinos.

I really think mgs is out biggest hope.

sorry 8 tabling my speelingf is worse than normal

I would consider changing networks if there was conclusive proof of MGS wrongdoing presented, however, to this point everything is complete speculation.

The main critism of MGS seems be their silence on the issue.

In the past I've attempted to circumvent the poker room operator in order to discuss specific software issues directly with MGS and was told emphatically that MGS never talks directly to a player.

The Unibet rep has also told us that MGS does not have the email addresses for their players, so it follows that MGS doesn't have the email addresses for the Tusk players either.

Even if MGS had the email addresses when they recieved the first correspondence that threatened litigation, their lawyers would have issued a gag order on them.

I'm sure that MGS would love to comment, however, I've been in their situation where the lawyers have told me the only comment I could make was the name and contact info for my lawyer.

from http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/17/news...oney/index.htm

And one wonders why Tusk was incorporated in Vanuatu.

In all fairness you can say that about just about any online casino. There is a reason why island of mann and indian reservations are a haven for this stuff :P

What do you all think about this. The poker/casino and affiliates have a big get togeather about 4 times a year, there usually in europe (holland one comming soon) Why dont we go there and make a fuss, wouldnt cost much n we get a hol!. I had nothing towards most of you wrapped up in this but it was my br, id finished my job good 50 nl br and then this!

Lets go to them and make our own table/corner n show the rest of the business there dirt. All the sites go to them all the big affiliates do to theres no reason why us normal people cant go there make a bit of a corner and make every one know. Id do it for a buzz if i can afford!

Microgaming was good to me, in that I enjoyed playing there and made money. Took my roll of a little while go tho as just can't trust it now personally, and will say thx for the memories (and manies).

I said this at least a month ago. Of course you should band together, of course you should make a stink, of course it's the last thing Microgaming wants, a group of angry players embarrassing them in front of their groupies. Do it.

When en where is that in the netherlands?

+1. Make some signs, print out a ton of sheets with the information to pass out, put the links to these threads on it so that anyone can read up on it later. I'm sure there's some press at these things, go talk to those reporters, etc.

Probably not enough time left http://www.amsterdamaffiliateconference.com/
ill keep an eye out for the next one they almost always have them somewhere in europe like Amsterdam or Barcalona.

http://www.amsterdamaffiliateconfere.../future-events

There logo is here down near the bottom http://www.amsterdamaffiliateconfere...x.php/sponsors so it looks like they'll be there

Been away for the last week and a half.

Can confirm 100% that Unibet player funds are held in a separate/segregated account. MG do not have access, Unibet employees & CEO do not have access to remove funds from the segregated accounts. In the advent that MG or Unibet went bust, players funds would belong to the players. Am not going to explain the intricacies of the exact set up.. But, yes, your funds are safe..

Hope that helps.

With these sorts of assumptions, no wonder you guys are getting yourselves so confused over the TUSK affair.

Assumption, as we all know, is the mother of all F-Ups and makes an ass out of you and me...

You don't need assumptions for that, you're doing a fine job on your own..


Seriously; GTFO and stop plugging your room here!

Hang on you were posting daily in here, claim 'funds are 100% safe' and then when asked to clarify exactly how disappear...

I'm pleased they are held in trust. It makes me think that Ladbrokes and Unibet are at least two safe rooms on MG. But if MG really are 'the no. 1 in player protection' etc then why aren't they making sure all their licensees hold player monies in this way?

As for the old 'ass of u and me' thing, please don't.
Without premises there can be no deductive reasoning.
If you don't assume you can't make plans, work anything out or think above the level of small mammal. You sure as hell can't play poker.

I wouldn't trust Floptimistico 100% on this. The question was if the funds are held in trust. He doesn't answer that, all he is saying is that the funds are safe and that is what they all are saying. I don't know much about legal stuff but if have got it right the funds are only safe if they are - as the legal term reads - "held in trust". There is to my understanding no other setup that guarantees that the money is safe. I've tried to establish a list over poker sites that helds the money in trust but without success. The problem is that the support people and most of the employees have no idea what trusted accounts is, so they can't answer my question properly. They just automatically answers that the money is safe without knowing what they are talking about. I feel that Floptimistico is on the very same path...

Hi Harri,

Take some time out, get a copy of our yearly reports, financials etc. Is all in there.. no need to assume...

It would be lunacy to trust any Microgaming operator. The Unibet bloke seems keen to pimp his operation at every turn. I wonder why?

Still, people are free to make their own choices.

I believe the Amsterdam conference is over, and anyway, it was only affiliates, not software providers. I'm not sure if the providers attend the Barcelona event later this year. They do definitely attend the London expo in January. As far as placards etc go, I wouldn't do anything to give anyone any opportunity to kick you out. Just be ready with your questions, be aware they'll almost certainly trot out the "we cannot comment for legal reasons" BS and have rebuttal in hand, and make them sweat. The big bods are all there, even if they only make their presence known to their affiliate buddies, so word will reach them.

Hi Flop

Managed to find your most recent report but I had a hard time interpreting it as I do not have a financial background. Maybe someone else will have better luck. If I'm derailign the thread mods are free to delete my post.

http://www.unibetgroupplc.com/pages/...008%20Engl.pdf

pages 36 and 53 outline customer balances.

I believe the LGA( Lotteries and Gaming Authority of Malta) do require player funds to be help in trust and audit this on a monthly basis. From what I have read in the past they take great care in who the give gaming licenses to.

Most of what the Unibet rep has said is nonsense, but I don't think this is one of them.

There is quite a difference between a 'segregated' account and a 'trust' account.

The accounts in Malta have to be segregated, there is no mention of trust in their legislation.

While Malta appears to have stringent guidelines when issuing licenses, (Tusk was turned down for a Malta license in 2007), there have been a number of failed Maltese licensees who were only able to partially pay out the players balances.

The EU Parliament has enacted legislation that all EU countries must have harmonized consumer protection laws by the year 2013. It appears all EU licensed gaming will require segregated players purses.

Actually in my research into player's purses held in trust, I have only found one jurisdiction that requires it, Australia's Capital Territory.

In theory, wouldn't it be impossible for players to be 100% protected? Keeping e-wallets funded etc?

You may be right on the Malta license, but I was sure it was trust and not segregated. I will see if I can find it.

Clear this up for me...are you saying Tusk only had 3,000 registered player accounts across all 28 skins with far less than 3k as active?

That is correct, the Liquidators report indicates just under 3000 creditors, (players) of which only 1/2 had filed claims.

Seems like a mind boggling low amount and since that seems to the the case then why would MGS care about rb violations if it was such a small number of players.

I remember when the skins closed that the traffic went down by a decent portion of their player base.