Mr. Jay C Once and For ALL

Search
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
537
Tokens
The question of BOS ownership of BetMill (Millennium Sports) has been posed to the RX many times over, especially by Mister Jay C, who has got his answer recently through me via Ken. Ken has raved to me in the past of how intelligent Jay C is…but apparently he still doesn’t get it, and in a post today he (Jay) tried to implicate Millennium with a so called debt owed by BOS to individual years ago. To tell you the truth, I didn’t know much about it at the time, only to the extent of what I myself read about it on forums etc. which involved the late Kenny Hense etc. From what I heard the debt wasn’t refused, only payment to the beard was. The true owner of the wagers was asked to come forward to make the claim, which he didn’t. The company (BOS) and the site explicitly stated that they don’t cater to syndicate betting, a warning that was obviously ignored at the time by Mr. **.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>

Now to the Millennium question for the last time. Back in the late 90’s some gents were looking to open a company appropriately named for that period of time….Millennium Sports. The principals of BOS (Big NASA) at that time were in the midst of building out the hotel part of the Mall San Pedro, consisting of 6 floors. Like many companies do today, instead of making a humongous investment into equipment and personnel, the principals of Millennium opted to share facilities on the 9<SUP>th</SUP> floor of the Mall San Pedro with BOS (then NASA) to see if they could make a go of the company. In return for these amenities the principals of Millennium chose to offer the principals of BOS Millennium stock, without management rights. The rest was history as Millennium Sports grew to be one of the largest sportsbooks in the world and occupies the entire 5<SUP>th</SUP> floor of the Mall San Pedro to this day. As Millennium grew it in turn became a BOS of its own in that they started to acquire other companies around the world such as <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place>Gibraltar</st1:place> off the <st1:place><st1:placeType>island</st1:placeType> of <st1:placeName>St. Kitts</st1:placeName></st1:place> in 2001, founded other companies such as Infinity, and innovated the software for WagerMall. These companies affiliated with Millennium became known as the “Millennium Group”, not companies under the BOS umbrella, a fallacy which so many posters claim. Ken has been to the Millennium offices on many occasions, and can attest to all of this. DID ANYONE EVER WONDER AS TO WHY ONLY MILLENNIUM ADVERTISES ON THE RX and not BOS? Maybe with that statement alone, you can understand that the two companies are distinctly apart and run separately, and make their own management and advertising decisions.

<o:p> </o:p>

Then in July of 2004 the management of BOS decided to go public on the British Market. The Millennium Group was offered the opportunity to bring its stock along with the stock originally owned by the BOS group into the offering. BOS became the public company because they were the larger of the two companies, but to this day they are still separately run, and each part of the “new” BOS group has the responsibility to hold up its end in profits and accountability to the stock holders and banking institutions that had so much faith to go public with them. I must add that even though the day to day decisions might be made by the same management that all of you were accustomed to dealing with in the past, larger decisions concerning advertising agreements etc must now be approved by the higher ups (the board of directors) which do not include any of the original principals of either Millennium or BOS.

<o:p> </o:p>

Lastly, Millennium Sports was designed with the recreational player in mind. Most posters on the RX would not be the type of player that the company looks for. If Millennium was a company such as CRIS, we would be up on the DB screen. The company never seeks out prop players, movers, shakers, originators, or the so called sharps. That’s why the company states under rule #4 on its site that Millennium Sports reserves the right to preclude or terminate membership and any time…with funds being returned to the player. Also the reason why the company is an annual advertiser to the RX is because the company advertises just about everywhere…for branding purposes. Even Mr. Baus received his winnings (minus his bonus) before he was banished from Millennium. Although Ken is not allowed to play at Millennium, he did so in the past, and all his winnings were paid in full. All I can tell any legitimate recreational gambler who wishes to play at Millennium is that his funds are safe, and the company has godzillions of dollars in reserve.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
4,477
Tokens
Hey Millennium, why don't you state your policy on inactive accounts with $ in it? You stole my money. You gave me the runaround for 20 minutes until I just said "keep it". I will just relay my experience with your book to anyone who asks what kind of book you run. One more thing, you don't think CRIS wants the "recreational" player too? Hell, 97% of all sports bettors lose, but thats not good enough for Millennium, they want 100% losers.
 

Like a sinner before the gates of heaven
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
1,255
Tokens
why would anyone bother with a scrub operation like millenium for?there are literally hundreds of books better then those jokers.:icon_conf
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,056
Tokens
A book you will never have to worry about getting paid with. Thanks for sharing.
 

New member
Joined
Dec 20, 2002
Messages
3,183
Tokens
Chuck Sims said:
Hey Millennium, why don't you state your policy on inactive accounts with $ in it? You stole my money. You gave me the runaround for 20 minutes until I just said "keep it". I will just relay my experience with your book to anyone who asks what kind of book you run. One more thing, you don't think CRIS wants the "recreational" player too? Hell, 97% of all sports bettors lose, but thats not good enough for Millennium, they want 100% losers.

Chuck, didn't they offer to look into your situation and refund your money ? Didn't you not bother contacting them when they made you that offer ?

I'm not exactly sure when that offer was put forward, but it seems to me it was somewhere around the same time that you said that SIA screwed you on the 3-way boxing bet.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
653
Tokens
Millennium Sportsbook * said:
Even Mr. Baus received his winnings (minus his bonus) before he was banished from Millennium.

Let's set the record straight here:

I had "earned" about 60-70% of the bonus at the time you invented rules that weren't listed on the site.....

I received 0% of the bonus when you closed my account down...that constitutes theft in my book, especially from a company that has "godzillions of dollars in reserves"....

100% of posters agreed at the time that money lines should not be considered props....

Players, Beware Millenium.

BAUS
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
4,477
Tokens
Millennium

Halifax, let me clue you in. I have never ever had an account at SIA. Two years after Millennium stole my money they offered to "check" into my situation. I have wasted enough time with those thieves. What would be the condition of getting my money back? Not to spread the word that they stole my money? Forget it.
 
Last edited:

New member
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
76
Tokens
Millennium Sportsbook * said:
Then in July of 2004 the management of BOS decided to go public on the British Market. The Millennium Group was offered the opportunity to bring its stock along with the stock originally owned by the BOS group into the offering. BOS became the public company because they were the larger of the two companies, but to this day they are still separately run, and each part of the “new” BOS group has the responsibility to hold up its end in profits and accountability to the stock holders and banking institutions that had so much faith to go public with them. I must add that even though the day to day decisions might be made by the same management that all of you were accustomed to dealing with in the past, larger decisions concerning advertising agreements etc must now be approved by the higher ups (the board of directors) which do not include any of the original principals of either Millennium or BOS.

"The stock holders and banking institutions that had so much faith to go public with them," bought shares in the BOS group, not Millenium Group...

What I mean is that Millenium is part of BOS group and day to day decisions are made by the actual management as long as it does what the Board of directors tells them to do.

That is what I thought...maybe you can point me to an official statement where it says that the companies are run separately...

I'm not trying to be polemic, I just want to understand and here we have a good chance as the books and documents are public.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
6,890
Tokens
Guys there are so many books you can count on to not screw you over why play at this P.O.S. book....

If yo have to worry about a book screwing with you then no bonus or anything else is worth it....All these fly-by-night books are worthless...

Do yourself a favor and stick to the reputable ones...I will not name any here but with a little research you know which ones they are....

Places like Mil should not get the time of day from us bettors....
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
383
Tokens
"The company was admitted to trading on the AIM market on 15 July 2004. We were
very pleased that the successful placing of shares provided the business with
$44m to fund its planned expansion. As part of the process the Group acquired,
for $25m, the balance of the Millennium companies (49%) that it did not already
own. This has strengthened the Group's very successful multi brand strategy
(offering customers differently branded sportsbooks)."

Clive Parritt
Chairman
14 October 2004
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,250
Tokens
Stay away from these clowns, they only welcome losers.

Cut me off from internet betting, then i still kicked their ass over the phone:dancefool , then they finally closed my account.

thanks for the money betmill.:party:
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
24,349
Tokens
Millennium Sportsbook * said:
Most posters on the RX would not be the type of player that the company looks for...

Also the reason why the company is an annual advertiser to the RX is because the company advertises just about everywhere…for branding purposes.

What does it mean when you say for "branding" purposes?

The dictionary definition is not very helpful...

Main Entry: <SUP>2</SUP>brand
Function: transitive verb
1 : to mark with a brand
2 : to mark with disapproval : [size=-1]STIGMATIZE[/size]
3 : to impress indelibly <brand the lesson on his mind>
- brand·er noun
 

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
1,126
Tokens
Herz van Rentle said:
"The company was admitted to trading on the AIM market on 15 July 2004. We were
very pleased that the successful placing of shares provided the business with
$44m to fund its planned expansion. As part of the process the Group acquired,
for $25m, the balance of the Millennium companies (49%) that it did not already
own. This has strengthened the Group's very successful multi brand strategy
(offering customers differently branded sportsbooks)."

Clive Parritt
Chairman
14 October 2004

Curious what this means and how Millennium responds to this.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
987
Tokens
Millennium Sportsbook * said:
The question of BOS ownership of BetMill (Millennium Sports) has been posed to the RX many times over, especially by Mister Jay C, who has got his answer recently through me via Ken. Ken has raved to me in the past of how intelligent Jay C is…but apparently he still doesn’t get it, and in a post today he (Jay) tried to implicate Millennium with a so called debt owed by BOS to individual years ago. To tell you the truth, I didn’t know much about it at the time, only to the extent of what I myself read about it on forums etc. which involved the late Kenny Hense etc. From what I heard the debt wasn’t refused, only payment to the beard was. The true owner of the wagers was asked to come forward to make the claim, which he didn’t. The company (BOS) and the site explicitly stated that they don’t cater to syndicate betting, a warning that was obviously ignored at the time by Mr. **.

Let me clear a few things up for you regarding the player who was stiffed $500,000.

1. Payment to the "beard" was refused.

The man had an account there, the man bet his account, the man asked to be paid money to him, not anyone else. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHERE HE WAS GETTING HIS PICKS FROM? Your comment about the "true owner" of the plays is true comedy.

2. The company and the site explicitly stated that they don't cater to syndicate betting.

WRONG, Since you were not involved let me fill you in since I was privy to this stuff as it developed. This player in question sent serious money, bet, and lost. He was subsequently wined and dined in the US by someone from NASA/Bet on Sports. He sent more money, serious money, bet, and won. He bet more for the following weekend. The company then determined that he was moving for someone else. He probably was. They cancelled his pending bets, canclelled his winning bets from the weekend before, and I believe sent him back his deposit. Thus putting him out about $500,000 in winnings not to mention the pending bets that were wrongly cancelled days after being accepted.

At the time, the web site and the rules made NO mention of syndicate play. How do I know this? Because when I was talking to Shrink about this whole situation as it was evolving, I said if that's what they want their policy to be, not that I agree with it, they have to put it in their rules since it wasn't in there already. THAT IS WHEN IT WAS ADDED TO THEIR RULES, EX-POST FACTO, on the advice of Shrink, after talking to me. So it might have been a legitimate defense to stiffing a player in the future, but it shouldn't have applied to the case at hand.

So Gary wants to make a dog and pony show out of it and say if the person the beard was moving for comes forward and claims the bet then he'll get paid. It's all irrelevant, they took this man's action the week before, they sent one of their emissaries to wine and dine him, and then they realized what he was doing. Sorry, pay the man. He's not asking to be paid under any other name then the one he sent the money and played under.

3. Claiming you are a separate company from BOS/NASA

I can't even keep track anymore. For years I heard that you were Gary's brother-in-law, that Gary owned half, that NASA owned half. It really doesn't matter anymore. Your story below about them going public and you selling your stock along with them is one of the most ridiculous business claims I have ever heard. So if I have a store in the same building as someone else, and he is going public, I can sell into his offering with him? I don't think so.

From what I read, BOS took some of the money raised in the offering to buy the part of Millenium Group they didn't already own. Who did own that part? I've taken some real eyebrow-raising questions as a former trader about that from more than one reporter.

For you to sit here and say you are run separately doesn't pass the laugh test. Like it or not, you are part of the same company, BOS. Your own site proudly announces that you are publicly traded as BOS. How can you be part of BOS and not be part of BOS at the same time? Maybe Gary gives you a lot of autonomy, but at the end of the day, you are part of them.

4. Why do you advertise here and not them?

I don't know. I really can't answer that, that's why I didn't get into it the other day. I said let the owners of this site explain it because I can't. I really have no beef with you.

A question was asked about BOS and I posted an honest answer. Somehow your name came up and I said I couldn't answer the question, which I still can't.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
896
Tokens
Jay C, you are 100% correct on your details of how it went down. You didn't add that you know who sent over guys too the BOS building too collect and they were met by "THUGS" with machine guns and handed a pretty good beating. Very sad on BOS'S part as they handled the situation completely wrong. Old story that will never get resolved.
 

ODU GURU
Joined
Feb 26, 1999
Messages
20,881
Tokens
Very true story and I was one of the guys who went over there to Nasa's (that was there name back then) office to work out a settlement between the parties...

Unfortunately, when the gambler was offered THREE different options, he chose one that wasn't honored either...

It amazes me about the guy who went there and got beaten up badly. I believe he was a lawyer...

THE SHRINK
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
537
Tokens
Jay C said:
Let me clear a few things up for you regarding the player who was stiffed $500,000.

1. Payment to the "beard" was refused.

The man had an account there, the man bet his account, the man asked to be paid money to him, not anyone else. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHERE HE WAS GETTING HIS PICKS FROM? Your comment about the "true owner" of the plays is true comedy.

2. The company and the site explicitly stated that they don't cater to syndicate betting.

WRONG, Since you were not involved let me fill you in since I was privy to this stuff as it developed. This player in question sent serious money, bet, and lost. He was subsequently wined and dined in the US by someone from NASA/Bet on Sports. He sent more money, serious money, bet, and won. He bet more for the following weekend. The company then determined that he was moving for someone else. He probably was. They cancelled his pending bets, canclelled his winning bets from the weekend before, and I believe sent him back his deposit. Thus putting him out about $500,000 in winnings not to mention the pending bets that were wrongly cancelled days after being accepted.

At the time, the web site and the rules made NO mention of syndicate play. How do I know this? Because when I was talking to Shrink about this whole situation as it was evolving, I said if that's what they want their policy to be, not that I agree with it, they have to put it in their rules since it wasn't in there already. THAT IS WHEN IT WAS ADDED TO THEIR RULES, EX-POST FACTO, on the advice of Shrink, after talking to me. So it might have been a legitimate defense to stiffing a player in the future, but it shouldn't have applied to the case at hand.

So Gary wants to make a dog and pony show out of it and say if the person the beard was moving for comes forward and claims the bet then he'll get paid. It's all irrelevant, they took this man's action the week before, they sent one of their emissaries to wine and dine him, and then they realized what he was doing. Sorry, pay the man. He's not asking to be paid under any other name then the one he sent the money and played under.

3. Claiming you are a separate company from BOS/NASA

I can't even keep track anymore. For years I heard that you were Gary's brother-in-law, that Gary owned half, that NASA owned half. It really doesn't matter anymore. Your story below about them going public and you selling your stock along with them is one of the most ridiculous business claims I have ever heard. So if I have a store in the same building as someone else, and he is going public, I can sell into his offering with him? I don't think so.

From what I read, BOS took some of the money raised in the offering to buy the part of Millenium Group they didn't already own. Who did own that part? I've taken some real eyebrow-raising questions as a former trader about that from more than one reporter.

For you to sit here and say you are run separately doesn't pass the laugh test. Like it or not, you are part of the same company, BOS. Your own site proudly announces that you are publicly traded as BOS. How can you be part of BOS and not be part of BOS at the same time? Maybe Gary gives you a lot of autonomy, but at the end of the day, you are part of them.

4. Why do you advertise here and not them?

I don't know. I really can't answer that, that's why I didn't get into it the other day. I said let the owners of this site explain it because I can't. I really have no beef with you.

A question was asked about BOS and I posted an honest answer. Somehow your name came up and I said I couldn't answer the question, which I still can't.

Jay C

From what I hear about you, and the praises passed on by the Shrink to me concerning you, I indeed have a great deal of admiration for you. I know a lot about your past history from what I have read concerning your occupation and insight to become a pioneer in the industry. I have read every document involving your case, including your attempted appeal to the Supreme Court. I have spoken with your attorney in NY on two occassions (of course nothing concerning you or about your case). You and I started out about the same time in the industry in one capacity or another, and most know how I arrived on the scene as well. Excuse me when I sometimes speak in the second or third person as I do it for a reason, as some of the people neither of us adore use the RX forum to acquire information to pad their indictment files.
1. There is no blood or any type of relationship between Millennium principals and BOS ownership. The principals of Millennium were with another company in the Equus building when the owners of NASA hit the country of CR in the summer of 1998 on the same floor. A mutual friendship between bookmakers occured at that point. The new principals that evolved to form Millennium in the early spring of 1999 had several options...and chose the option as was explained to you earlier.
2. In this business, as you well know, it sometimes is better not to get involved in other companies' affairs that don't concern you, especially when it's none of your business. From what I have heard about this guy from BOS that you referred to...it's best to avoid getting into his own business...and the less said the better if you know what I mean. The ** affair was not a Millennium issue, and something they should never been blamed for or included in any sense. Bottom line- Millennium was a concession for shares in ownership. From what I heard, the principals in Millennium would never had made this deal unless they could operate the business as they saw fit, and independently. Keep in mind, from what I have heard, the principals of Millennium were savy individuals, and Millennium was offered similar deals with SBG and ABC prior to going into the Mall San Pedro...which turned out to be the wisest choice.
3. Lastly, your issue with the stock market. Maybe the US and British markets are different, I don't know, I've never taken up playing the markets, and have none of the know how, or experience, that you have. However, from what I have heard....BOS was looking to go to the market for about three years...with or without the Millennium group. From what I understand the guy from BOS wanted to throw his shares of Mill into the offering but the investment bankers would only go along with the deal if ALL the shares of the MILL group was put into the hat. So from what I heard BOS went public and simultaneously the remaining shares of MILL were bought at that time. It was announced publicly, in all essence, that the Mill group was BOS's first acquisition after going public...as the records so state. The original players in ** affair as you might want to believe either way to this day are not structured in ownership, not even in a deceiving way, as many people could go to prison in Britain if it was so. This is not to say some interested parties don't own some stock in the new BOS company, and are interested in the BOS group doing well in its future endeavors.
Entiende, mi amigo?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,108,590
Messages
13,452,666
Members
99,423
Latest member
lbplayer
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com