Online Casino News

WARREN CLOUD CRYSTAL GAMING: wall of silence from the brokers and management

I have now contacted Seymour Pierce, brokers for the Crystal Gaming casino group public flotation, scheduled for November 25th and cancelled, on two occasions:

Pre-float, I emailed two of the analysts with salient information the essence of which can be read in the "promo emails to which the recipient is not entitled" article I wrote earlier this year.

I received no reply from either party.

Post-float, I contacted them by phone, requesting any information that was publically dispensable as to why it had been cancelled. They requested my phone number so that the person in charge of "Crystal" could get back to me.

Again, I have heard nothing.

I will send some email backup, but at this point I can only conclude that nobody is prepared to issue any statement on the reasons behind the failure.

When a flotation of a gambling company on the UK stockmarket is publically announced, is it not reasonable to expect some kind of an explanation when it gets cancelled? Why the secrecy?


Bryan Bailey proferred the following comment in the Crystal Gaming IPO thread at Casinomeister:

...the IPO has merely been postponed - not cancelled. It's still probably going to happen, but not for a little while.

But again, why are the relevant parties maintaining this wall of silence? Why can they not state this themselves, and not leave it up to third parties to post what seems to amount to conjecture? Why the secrecy?


I also contacted the owner, Warren Cloud, on the matter. I received no response. However, in light of the message I received from him, via the Casinomeister forum software...




...maybe that isn't unexpected.

What extraordinarily unprofessional behaviour on the part of the owner of a company seeking a stock market listing and investment to the tune of $140,000,000.

Post a Comment

PriceWaterhouseCooper: references removed from online gambling sites

Casinos that use the audit services of PriceWaterhouseCooper used to display the PWC logo on their home pages - see the example below taken from a previous Microgaming casino page:




"Percentage payouts reviewed by PriceWaterhouseCooper".

This has now been replaced with:




"Payout and RNG reviwed by independent auditors".

I can find no reference to PriceWaterhouseCooper on ANY online casino page beyond the historic "payout verification" reports posted on internal pages, which have not been removed.

This would appear to be a PWC directive, since it would be a remarkable coincidence if all online gambling sites had pulled their PWC logos at the same time and for no apparent reason - but why? Are PWC looking to distance themselves from the online gambling scene?

It isn't limited to casinos, either: Ecogra, the "play it safe" seal-provider for Microgaming and Cassava casinos, have also removed all reference to PriveWaterhouseCooper: their previous independence statement, naming PWC as the official auditors...




...has been re-jigged to remove any specific reference to PWC in the current independence statement:




Again, why is this?

Lacking any official comment, we are left to speculate.

In response to the "Why did Ecogra remove all mention of PWC?" article written by the Gamblog editor, another commentator made the point that PWC may be looking to distance themselves from the online gambling scene. However, in what way does a simple removal of the PWC logo on casino homepages achieve this? The relationship remains.

Could PriceWaterhouseCooper be looking to END the relationship with online gambling?

Hopefully, official comment will be forthcoming in the near future.

Post a Comment

WARREN CLOUD CRYSTAL GAMING: the proposed public flotation on the UK stock market cancelled

The public flotation of the Warren Cloud "Crystal Gaming" casino group was due to go ahead on November 25th 2005.

The flotation has now been cancelled - see the very bottom of the Times Online Party gaming article.

Crystal Gaming has scrapped a planned £140m float. The company was due to list last Friday but that will now not happen until the new year - if at all. "We're looking at the strategic options available," said a source close to the company.

More information to be made available as and when it emerges.

Post a Comment

May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | August 2006 | October 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | December 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | March 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009 | August 2009 | September 2009 | October 2009 | November 2009 | December 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010 | March 2010 | April 2010 | May 2010 | June 2010 | July 2010 | August 2010 | October 2010 | November 2010 | December 2010 | January 2011 | February 2011 | March 2011 | April 2011 | May 2011 | June 2011 | July 2011 | August 2011 | September 2011 | December 2011 | February 2012 | May 2012 | July 2012 | August 2012 | March 2016 | April 2016 | June 2016 | November 2016 | December 2016 | March 2017 | May 2017 | June 2017 | August 2017 | August 2021 | October 2021 | May 2022 | December 2023 | May 2024 | Atom feed