ANY SLOW PAYS OR NO PAYS WITH ROYAL?

THE SHRINK · Jul 19, 2004

I have been informed that all gamblers have been paid, but I want to use this thread just to make sure...

They are planning some exciting NEW things for Football, too, but before we make a decision as to whether we will accept them back, I want to make certain EVERYONE has been paid who has asked for a payout...

Thanks,

THE SHRINK

royalfan · Jul 19, 2004

Signed up strictly for Nascar contest. Liked the book a little bit and sent over a little more. Cashed out some a month or so ago via fed ex and it showed up in the time frame they said. This was during the period they were allegedly having a lot of trouble, maybe a touch more than a month ago.

gamblingshark · Jul 19, 2004

It seems that every mod here at the RX uses different outs and gambles often, but yet nobody associated with the rx uses royal? lol, that kind of speaks for itself. Why not have someone who works at the rx deposit at royal and see how much effort is needed to get paid here nowadays?

Slash · Jul 19, 2004

There is a 10k slow pay reported at SBR.

Fishhead · Jul 19, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Slash:
There is a 10k slow pay reported at SBR.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, they sure are!!

assassin · Jul 19, 2004

2 withdrawls, no problems.
have some interesting rhe totals sometimes.
not san endorsement, just my situation.

THE SHRINK · Jul 19, 2004

I will talk with SBR and if there is indeed a slow pay ocurring, I doubt Royal will be back here anytime soon...

Hopefully, there is another side to this story...

Ken

OMNIVOROUS FROG · Jul 19, 2004

I am currently under the no play program. I can't play until I hear of some history of payouts from trusted posters, and that is a short list. Another bad victim of my 11 week run, real bad. But after all the game playing, was paid in full...Best Wishes...OF

IDENTITY · Jul 19, 2004

i just cannot comprehend anyone signing up with them now after their slow pays/no pays. why the heck would you take a chance? have they changed ownership?

doesnt make ANY sense to me.

Basso · Jul 19, 2004

Royal still has to pay me 10k. Must have heard all their excuses the last month.....

Fishhead · Jul 19, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Basso:
Royal still has to pay me 10k. Must have heard all their excuses the last month.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basso- Welcome to THE RX.

Send me an email at Strutnut@aol.com and will see if I can assist you even though they are not an advertiser at the RX.

drunkguy · Jul 19, 2004

did SHACK ever get paid out?

stormy7777 · Jul 19, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by IDENTITY:
i just cannot comprehend anyone signing up with them now after their slow pays/no pays. why the heck would you take a chance? have they changed ownership?

doesnt make ANY sense to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me either. Do you people like the added risk of whether or not you are going to be paid?

The games wagered on are enough risk for me!

JaspersLaw · Jul 19, 2004

What kind of a bonus is this outfit offering?

TOW · Jul 19, 2004

Good question, also in view of the Vegas meeting where one of the goals is to find some sort of common understanding on advertisement criteria.

In Royal's case we should look deeper into the issue. Royal has been selectively slowpaying for a while now. This "slow motion mode" has allegedly affected a nmber of players, primarily bailouts beneficiaries and sharps.

Unlike other highly touted operations that have vanished overnight, Royal still hangs in there and systematically reflorishes in Football season.

New backers, unlike the old ones, seem to react in a slower mode when financing shall be made available but differently from Betpanam ones, to mention a recent example, constantly come thru with cash.

Here we have to make a difference then : a website may easily endorse Pinnacle, for example, whereas could limit itself to have Royal as an advertiser, with a clear note that "glitches" in payouts may be expected from time to time.

Players should be made aware of this "risk" by the website accepting the book as advertiser, leaving the final decision, primarily based on the risk/reward equation, to the player.

My two cents...

stormy7777 · Jul 19, 2004

Again, why post up at a book where you know their have been recent problems? Also, why let them advertise again until they have proven themselves for a substantial length of time? It just drives me nuts when people knowingly post up with troubled books, and to even consider letting them advertise is absolutely ridiculous, you would just be adding more potential victims! (Had to vent)

Stormy

harrington · Jul 19, 2004

Hey shrink how many times are you going to endorse this shit book. I wouldn't trust these clowns with 50 bucks. Enough with Royal Sports is back. Later.

TheGeneral+ · Jul 19, 2004

For the record, I have not received a personal complaint one since we took Royal down. I think all of this will only make Royal better in the long run if they are striving to be better. They use to be a top 10 book IMO. I am hoping that we can see this again. It has been a long battle, but they are still here and it feels to me that they will be here for awhile. I wish them a very good future. I can't help but think their generosity got them in this mess, so they deserve the chance to correct their problems.

IDENTITY · Jul 19, 2004

Seriously kenny:

Is it your position that if a book slow pays and no pays people for a period of time, then decides to pay everyone out, that they are suddenly worthy of becoming an advertiser? how is that right?

Marco · Jul 19, 2004

General...when you said that in your opinion Royal use to be a top 10 book....

Were there only 10 books in operation at that time?

Count me in with harrington, Stormy, and IDENTITY.....stick to the real books with solid reputations and let Royal die its slow miserable death....ten years from now Royal is going to be at the top of the page in some poster's thread claiming he got screwed.