You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
Is our money safe?
With another poker site going down,and players losing their money/bankroll.
My question is ,is the money we deposit on sky poker ringfenced/held in a separate account and gtd safe for us?
Comments
Sky is a pretty huge company and I am sure they wouldn't be looking to tarnish the Sky brand by diddling some customers on an online poker site.
We need to use our words carefully here, as PKR held their player funds in a segregated, ring-fenced account, but that does not necessarily mean player balances will be repaid, & in the case of PKR it certainly looks doubtful.
The quote by "mumsie" is the actual position here.
Your best insurance here is to use basic common-sense.
PKR;
a) Were in serious decline for many years.
b) Had no other significant strings to it's bow beyond poker. So if the poker site was going badly, that's it, it had no other meaningful income streams to offset those losses.
c) Joined a Network which was and is in terminal decline, & on which all participating sites give the impression of being in equally serious decline. There are no successful sites on that Network.
It's also worth bearing in mind that all players on Sky Poker have the option of withdrawing their deposits after every session, & enjoying one of, if not the, fastest withdrawal methods of any poker site.
Sky Poker is part of Sky Betting & Gaming, which is the fastest growing Online Gaming Site in Europe & extremely profitable. It is a huge company these days, & Poker is a relatively small but important part of it. I think there are many things in life and poker you can & should worry about, but the viability & financial footing of SB&G is not one of them.
I would.
Say a site is super duper protected and has 10 gold stars from the gambling commission. They have player funds nice and separate from their other funds (Lets say £50 million). They go bust and owe £50 million. Who is first in line to get the £50 million? The players or the other people that are owed money by the site? Such as a bank? This is very much in dispute as far as I am aware.
Now say Sky poker is going down the toilet. Say they have low level protection via the gambling commission... Pretend it is no longer a viable entity and is losing money left, right and centre and owes players and creditors £50 million each. Do you think the huge Sky brand is going to pay anyone that is owed and make sure their multi billion £ industry is not cast in a bad light or put it all at risk to stiff a few players?
Sky has diverse interests, many other sites do not.
I am not saying there should be concerns over our funds though.
The Gambling Commission (and its predecessor) have been (imho) pathetic in this regard. Companies in the betting sector have been allowed to make their services sound like bank accounts, when they are no such thing. In addition, they have previously sat on their hands while Busto Companies have sold "their" client details to other companies. I see PKR's Administrators are already proposing to do this.
Site/circumstances dependant?-yes. If a responsible Company chooses to cease trading at the right time, and act responsibly, people normally get paid. I'm sure Black Belt was an example of this. When operators trade past that point any remaining assets tend to be spent on Acoountancy advice rather than the Creditors. Segregating player accounts is meaningless unless punters are in some way Priority Creditors.
Do not keep money you cannot afford to lose in poker operators hands-make regular withdrawals to a proper bank account.
Personally I don't think it matters what people opinions on this matter are. The key point is in this post by Monk and the point about the 3 levels of protection. I've nicked the following from a thread next door, my question would be why on earth would ever company not be required to have a high level of protection as standard? Regardless, EssexPhil's advice is best, I keep the majority of my funds in a separate bank account and use PayPay for super fast withdrawals from most sites.
Basic
No extra protection. Money in these accounts would still be seen as part of the business if it went bust.
Medium
There are arrangements (eg insurance) to make sure that the money in separate accounts is given to customers if the company goes bust.
High
Customers’ money is held in an account which is legally and in practice separate from the rest of the company. This account is controlled by an independent person or external auditor.
Didn't know this so checked what the T&Cs said for a few sites:
PokerStars - High
Ladbrokes - Medium
Bet365 - Medium
888 - Medium
PartyPoker - Basic
Stan James - Basic
And as Neil Channing may not be amongst the half dozen who it is claimed read this thread (subject to audit), I can tell you that yes, Black Belt was closed down properly, & repaid all player balances & met all it's financial obligations. Black Belt Poker was actually a "skin" of Boyle Poker Room, & Boyle handled the "cage" for Black Belt.
no money held at a poker site can be regarded as safe. Prior to selling out to private equity sky was probably the safest but that can no longer be assumed.
Money at a regulated bank is safe up to a level way beyond most poker bankrolls.
So withdraw any funds you cannot afford to lose on a regular basis and redeposit as and when necessary if you have to.