Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 81
  1. #21
    ppw's Avatar
    ppw
    ppw is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 2006
    Location
    Littlehampton
    Posts
    71
    Thanks
    91
    Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts

    Default

    I think this is a step in the right direction, should be interesting to see what happens, looking forward to CAC to see if any more info emerges.

    Although after recent events I beleive the only way to have a fair level playing field is to have a completly independant body, maybe a govement or licencing ombudsman, fair to the companies fair to the affiliate.

    I'll cross my fingers in the mean time.

  2. #22
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    I don't see how this could be a bad thing.

    There are 65 programs (so far) on a level playing field. There is no one entity that is all powerful. No need for the middle man when affiliates and programs only need each other. From a purly business prospective, this should have been done long ago!

    There is millions of dollars annually that can directly go back into our industry rather than in the pockets of CAP. Already that is a plus! Incentives for players, affiliates and even conferences. Also, no more worries about mistreatment of the community by CAP administrators. We should not have to suffer that simply to talk to our AM's in a forum setting. This would eliminate that element of 3rd party rules.

    For average affiliates like myself, this rocks!

  3. #23
    ck8795 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,005
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    I don't see how this could be a bad thing.

    There are 65 programs (so far) on a level playing field. There is no one entity that is all powerful. No need for the middle man when affiliates and programs only need each other. From a purly business prospective, this should have been done long ago!

    There is millions of dollars annually that can directly go back into our industry rather than in the pockets of CAP. Already that is a plus! Incentives for players, affiliates and even conferences. Also, no more worries about mistreatment of the community by CAP administrators. We should not have to suffer that simply to talk to our AM's in a forum setting. This would eliminate that element of 3rd party rules.

    For average affiliates like myself, this rocks!
    In all honesty Mo do you think the casinos are going to drop those funds back into the industry and where would it go. I cant see affiliates profiting by it and why would they want to put it back. Its thier money..its not needed.

    I think people have forgotten that CAP isnt the only place for casino affiliates nor do they control the game. There are still honest and reputable people who work in between the programs and affiliates like CM, GPWA, and Jeremy's casino and poker forums.

    Personally I dont like the idea of giving control to the programs. Not that I dont trust the people I work with, but right now affiliates have a voice, you can negotiate for better terms etc and its because of the people who are the middle man between the affiliate and the program.

    In regards to AM's responding only in forums. That is there choice. If they wanted to contact affiliates properly they would do so but some choose to ignore and its because of these forums that we are able to get the programs attention,

    Personally I think anything like this should also involve Jeremy Enke, JTodd, Anthony, Micheal and other members of the community who have a strong relationship betwen both affiliates and the programs.

    Sorry I just dont like non unionized companies
    Last edited by ck8795; 4 March 2009 at 1:57 pm.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ck8795 For This Useful Post:

    Daera (4 March 2009), ppw (5 March 2009)

  5. #24
    tg12345 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2009
    Posts
    232
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 103 Times in 71 Posts

    Default

    For some unknown reason, I got to be a fly on the wall for the emails that were sent amongst the operators about this. Interesting stuff. Should definitely benefit the operators...not sure what positives there will be for affiliates...

  6. #25
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    Personally I dont like the idea of giving control to the programs. Not that I dont trust the people I work with, but right now affiliates have a voice, you can negotiate for better terms etc and its because of the people who are the middle man between the affiliate and the program.
    I understand that. I don't agree though. The control will be where it should be, with the affiliates and the programs as business partners. If programs are not being upfront affiliates are going to speak up that wont change.

    I don't see a reason why programs can't be part of the equation like gpwa and pal etc. I certainly have no intentions to abandon the gpwa. Nor should programs. I understand that the GPWA is reasonably priced and there will always be a value with affiliates here. I would hope that would not be interrupted here at the gpwa.

    The programs themselves by all rights should have a forum of their own. There will still be problems and there will still be other forums for affiliates. Guard Dog is our watchdog site and I am confident we can take our problems there when the need arises. What we don't need is middle men greedily poketing exorbadant fees. The programs have just as much right as anyone else to run a forum. It also spreads the power a bit so that this sort of mess doesn't happen again.

    To me it is a win/win.

  7. #26
    Doolally's Avatar
    Doolally is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    February 2003
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    4,577
    Thanks
    475
    Thanked 728 Times in 570 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kaus View Post
    In all honesty Mo do you think the casinos are going to drop those funds back into the industry and where would it go. I cant see affiliates profiting by it and why would they want to put it back. Its thier money..its not needed.

    I think people have forgotten that CAP isnt the only place for casino affiliates nor do they control the game. There are still honest and reputable people who work in between the programs and affiliates like CM, GPWA, and Jeremy's casino and poker forums.

    Personally I dont like the idea of giving control to the programs. Not that I dont trust the people I work with, but right now affiliates have a voice, you can negotiate for better terms etc and its because of the people who are the middle man between the affiliate and the program.

    In regards to AM's responding only in forums. That is there choice. If they wanted to contact affiliates properly they would do so but some choose to ignore and its because of these forums that we are able to get the programs attention,

    Personally I think anything like this should also involve Jeremy Enke, JTodd, Anthony, Micheal and other members of the community who have a strong relationship betwen both affiliates and the programs.

    Sorry I just dont like non unionized companies
    I agree.

    I think it's best to have a forum, much like in here, where affiliates can discuss things openly. I'd be worried that someone speaking up in an program led forum would be more likely to be chastised.

    It's nice when the programs don't have total control even though, I'm sure at the moment, they are in it for the right reasons.

    Another fear of mine, especially with such a large group, is that they'll just band together and say, "Right, all commissions 10%." Where do we stand then? I do worry that this may be the intention.

  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Doolally For This Useful Post:

    bonustreak (6 March 2009), Daera (4 March 2009), Engineer (4 March 2009), GamTrak (4 March 2009), ntaus (10 March 2009), ppw (5 March 2009)

  9. #27
    wagerprofits is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    March 2003
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,075
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 112 Times in 73 Posts

    Default

    Kaus

    You never know some of us operators might spend more on promos which means you can attract more players.

    I could right something very controversial regarding giving control to the operators but as you all know i an never post any thing controversial, but just because operators what to set a unique offering it will change things in regards to getting great deals, if anything you should be able to get better deals more free cash floating around.

    I am not really sure what you mean by this "In regards to AM's responding only in forums. That is there choice. If they wanted to contact affiliates properly they would do so but some choose to ignore and its because of these forums that we are able to get the programs attention,".

    I agree that Jeremy Enke, JTodd, Anthony, Micheal are some of te most respected and trust worthy people in this industry but straight away I see a conflict of interest, but this is not fo rme to decide this is for all of teh operators to decided.

    Shaun


    Quote Originally Posted by kaus View Post
    In all honesty Mo do you think the casinos are going to drop those funds back into the industry and where would it go. I cant see affiliates profiting by it and why would they want to put it back. Its thier money..its not needed.

    I think people have forgotten that CAP isnt the only place for casino affiliates nor do they control the game. There are still honest and reputable people who work in between the programs and affiliates like CM, GPWA, and Jeremy's casino and poker forums.

    Personally I dont like the idea of giving control to the programs. Not that I dont trust the people I work with, but right now affiliates have a voice, you can negotiate for better terms etc and its because of the people who are the middle man between the affiliate and the program.

    In regards to AM's responding only in forums. That is there choice. If they wanted to contact affiliates properly they would do so but some choose to ignore and its because of these forums that we are able to get the programs attention,

    Personally I think anything like this should also involve Jeremy Enke, JTodd, Anthony, Micheal and other members of the community who have a strong relationship betwen both affiliates and the programs.

    Sorry I just dont like non unionized companies

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to wagerprofits For This Useful Post:


  11. #28
    wagerprofits is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    March 2003
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,075
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 112 Times in 73 Posts

    Default

    Doolally

    I dont think you could be more wrong with regards to teh commission levels.

    Trust me when i say every signle one of use want your players, this alone means that setting a standartd is just not possible and with some brands it is not possible to have a set commission.

    I for one would never agree with this price fixing i think that kind of things stinks and I belive that this industry has no place for back rooms deals like that.

    The industry is getting a makeover and we are going to come looking a hell of a lot better.

    Shaun


    Quote Originally Posted by Doolally View Post
    I agree.

    I think it's best to have a forum, much like in here, where affiliates can discuss things openly. I'd be worried that someone speaking up in an program led forum would be more likely to be chastised.

    It's nice when the programs don't have total control even though, I'm sure at the moment, they are in it for the right reasons.

    Another fear of mine, especially with such a large group, is that they'll just band together and say, "Right, all commissions 10%." Where do we stand then? I do worry that this may be the intention.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to wagerprofits For This Useful Post:

    Renee (4 March 2009)

  13. #29
    wagerprofits is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    March 2003
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,075
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 112 Times in 73 Posts

    Default

    Mojo

    I am with you 100% i do not intend to leave GPWA I think they do a great job as for PAL .......Watch this space.....


    Shaun


    Quote Originally Posted by mojo View Post
    I understand that. I don't agree though. The control will be where it should be, with the affiliates and the programs as business partners. If programs are not being upfront affiliates are going to speak up that wont change.

    I don't see a reason why programs can't be part of the equation like gpwa and pal etc. I certainly have no intentions to abandon the gpwa. Nor should programs. I understand that the GPWA is reasonably priced and there will always be a value with affiliates here. I would hope that would not be interrupted here at the gpwa.

    The programs themselves by all rights should have a forum of their own. There will still be problems and there will still be other forums for affiliates. Guard Dog is our watchdog site and I am confident we can take our problems there when the need arises. What we don't need is middle men greedily poketing exorbadant fees. The programs have just as much right as anyone else to run a forum. It also spreads the power a bit so that this sort of mess doesn't happen again.

    To me it is a win/win.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to wagerprofits For This Useful Post:

    mojo (4 March 2009)

  15. #30
    ck8795 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,005
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Can I ask Shaun how you come to the conclusion of a conflict with Jeremy or Michael?

    I see a conflict with managers. Whos going to speak up with you guys when one stops paying? Who will speak up when one adds a bad term? Will you guys go against each other.

    My issue with it is this. I understand why you guys want to do this. I totally do but I think placing a stigma across the industry as a whole because of what one organization did is wrong. Ask people for more transparancy but dont shut them out because of two who ripped you off. With all due respect I would trust Jeremy, Michael, JTodd and those guys first before placing full trust in a program. Thats just my feelings on it

    I am sure there are a ton of affiliates who have been treated similar to what happened with the programs....

    Anyway I am interested to see what you guys have to bring. I just hope my feelings are wrong.

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ck8795 For This Useful Post:

    Daera (4 March 2009), Doolally (4 March 2009), GamTrak (4 March 2009)

  17. #31
    wagerprofits is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    March 2003
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,075
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 112 Times in 73 Posts

    Default

    Kaus

    I am sayingthat i see a conflict, i am not saying that the whole group will see a conflict.

    It it possible that somebody like Jeremy could be part of it along with sevral affiliates, but now i am jumping ahead of myself.....

    Shaun


    Quote Originally Posted by kaus View Post
    Can I ask Shaun how you come to the conclusion of a conflict with Jeremy or Michael?

    I see a conflict with managers. Whos going to speak up with you guys when one stops paying? Who will speak up when one adds a bad term? Will you guys go against each other.

    My issue with it is this. I understand why you guys want to do this. I totally do but I think placing a stigma across the industry as a whole because of what one organization did is wrong. Ask people for more transparancy but dont shut them out because of two who ripped you off. With all due respect I would trust Jeremy, Michael, JTodd and those guys first before placing full trust in a program. Thats just my feelings on it

    I am sure there are a ton of affiliates who have been treated similar to what happened with the programs....

    Anyway I am interested to see what you guys have to bring. I just hope my feelings are wrong.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to wagerprofits For This Useful Post:


  19. #32
    GamTrak's Avatar
    GamTrak is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,261
    Thanks
    1,678
    Thanked 890 Times in 629 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kaus View Post
    Personally I think anything like this should also involve Jeremy Enke, JTodd, Anthony, Micheal and other members of the community who have a strong relationship betwen both affiliates and the programs.
    Very well said Kaus. I will not be for anything that does not have the approval or involvement of those above. I'd also like to see the guys from GIA involved as well or I can't support it.

    Everyone is out for themselves and I don't trust any one "group of folks" to look out for the entire industry as a whole.

    Having said that, I'm confident that if we all put our concerns and interest on the table we can come up with a plan that works for everyone eventually.

  20. #33
    GamTrak's Avatar
    GamTrak is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,261
    Thanks
    1,678
    Thanked 890 Times in 629 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wagerprofits View Post
    Kaus

    I am sayingthat i see a conflict, i am not saying that the whole group will see a conflict.

    It it possible that somebody like Jeremy could be part of it along with sevral affiliates, but now i am jumping ahead of myself.....

    Shaun
    There are always going to be conflicts, but I don't see how leaving any group out will accomplish much. We need folks from each sector that are trusted in order to make any lasting substancial change.

  21. #34
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    I think what programs are trying to do here by 'taking control' is to protect themselves and their interests from another lou/warren event. I don't think there are any underhanded motives here whatsoever.

    Many of us have been asking them all to stop supporting high costs at CAP. In fact, some programs do struggle to pay those fees. The trickle down effect is on affiliates. I think some real good can come out of this. We need a fresh start. So do programs. They need a chance to figure something out and, selfishly, I hope it will benefit all affiliates and not just a few.

    I will need to let the minds meet in CAC and present us with what the plan is before I jump to any conclusions. One thing I think we all agree on is that changes need to be made on how things are done with forums so that what lou/warren did can NEVER happen again.

  22. #35
    wagerprofits is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    March 2003
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    1,075
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 112 Times in 73 Posts

    Default

    Gamtrak

    I am sure that all of those people listed will approve 100%.

    I really think people need to just sit back and see what comes out of CAC, nobody is going to get screwed this is not what the aim of forming an e Cogra style of company is all about.

    Shaun



    Quote Originally Posted by GamTrak View Post
    Very well said Kaus. I will not be for anything that does not have the approval or involvement of those above. I'd also like to see the guys from GIA involved as well or I can't support it.

    Everyone is out for themselves and I don't trust any one "group of folks" to look out for the entire industry as a whole.

    Having said that, I'm confident that if we all put our concerns and interest on the table we can come up with a plan that works for everyone eventually.

  23. #36
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    2,092
    Thanks
    140
    Thanked 171 Times in 119 Posts

    Default

    I am interested to see how that will turn out. On the one hand i like to see the industry pull together and do something proactive. I think Mojo was right about the trickle down effect of the high fees, and incurred costs the programs now have to pay. On the other hand, the new group would have to have some type of accountability. What if one of the programs turns rogue?

    I am certain that there are a lot of very intelligent industry players who are addressing these issues before it comes to the table.

  24. #37
    Betpartners's Avatar
    Betpartners is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2009
    Posts
    1,597
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    315
    Thanked 784 Times in 419 Posts

    Default

    damn, i thought after my opinions on the CAP situation that i would in future be generally on the same page as everyone else and the last thing i wanted was to be on the opposite to most people again, but here goes.

    Based on what has been said so far i dont like this one bit, i think it is wrong and will turn out to be wrong in the long run.

    Now i will say up front that i dont have enough info and will wait for full details so this initial opinion is just based on what has been said in this thread and the principle of it.

    For starters it is the same as a union in that the members will look after their own interests first and foremost, nothing against unions btw.

    When one affiliate program let say does a change to it affiliate program that is not good they can be forced by this community to see the error of their ways and affiliates then have choices to move on to another program.

    If ALL 64 do the same thing then what can one do, the market is reduced.

    Affiliate programs do need affiliates but a set up like this will look after their own interests primarily and even if their are affiliate representatives involved their voice will be reduced when up against 64 programs.

    They are not setting this up for affiliates but for themselves and their own protection and interests.

    And that is just a start, 64, the number will raise dramatically i am sure.

    When you get a block like this the power they will then retain over affiliates will be huge, we as affiliates can take on one program but 64, no way.

    I am sure that the programs will say its good for everyone etc and it may well be in the end but be assured any decisons made will first and foremost be in the best interests of the programs and not the affiliates and with so many programs involved they can and will force their will, simply because they will have the power to do so.

    Thats my opinion now, it may well change once i know the full details, but this just feels real wrong to me and i am very uncomfortable with it.
    Last edited by Betpartners; 4 March 2009 at 7:26 pm. Reason: additions and errors corrected

  25. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Betpartners For This Useful Post:

    GamTrak (4 March 2009), ppw (5 March 2009)

  26. #38
    greedygirl's Avatar
    greedygirl is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2002
    Location
    skid row
    Posts
    272
    Thanks
    64
    Thanked 104 Times in 47 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Betpartners View Post
    Based on what has been said so far i dont like this one bit, i think it is wrong and will turn out to be wrong in the long run.

    Now i will say up front that i dont have enough info and will wait for full details so this initial opinion is just based on what has been said in this thread and the principle of it.
    We DO need to wait a bit to see what is being put in place. IMO, there are many assumptions and predictions in this thread, without many facts. From what I understand, there is simply a group of programs that will meet in Amsterdam to determine whether or not they would attempt to fill what they see is a void, following the CAP issues.

    If you look at the list of the 64 programs, the bulk are honest and fair programs. Making a jump to say that this will be some sort of unionized situation seems quite unfair. Further, should the 64 decide to go forth in setting up their own forum (or whatever, for that matter), we all have a choice on whether to participate or not.

    For the time being, my hope is that we can all contribute constructive ideas and opinions, without assuming the worst. I absolutely believe that with the lessons learned at CAP we can find a way for both sides (programs and affiliates) to work better together, provided we don't take the 'us against them' approach.

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to greedygirl For This Useful Post:

    AmCan (6 March 2009), mojo (4 March 2009)

  28. #39
    matted's Avatar
    matted is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    June 2004
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    2,685
    Thanks
    118
    Thanked 328 Times in 222 Posts

    Default

    Sorry folks - I am willing to wait and see how it goes, but in general I do not see this as a positive step forward. It could be - depending how it is used. If it's a group promising fair treatment of affiliates, then great. If it is to protect against unethical webmasters or players, then great. And even better, if it is to work together on finding ways to pay affiliates, then I applaud the effort.

    But, there are reasons (at least in the United States) why there are anti-collusion laws. When businesses band together, it is usually to the detriment of their customers. And with the casino management involved, I see this as a money grab, as if the economic slowdown isn't affecting affiliates as well.
    Owner, Cognitive Powers, Inc.
    Soon to be ex-webmaster
    Facebook, Twitter, and Linked In

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to matted For This Useful Post:

    ppw (5 March 2009)

  30. #40
    Betpartners's Avatar
    Betpartners is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2009
    Posts
    1,597
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    315
    Thanked 784 Times in 419 Posts

    Default

    DJ Silver i am sure most are respected if not all and you are correct in that a lot is assumption that is why i qualified my comments at both the start and end of my opinion.

    But something like this if true and i ahve no reason to belive it is not is not something i perosnally think is good.

    I miss used a word i said union, i should have said cartel and that is what it would become.

    And just because they would have a forum would only mean we could complain after the fact, there is no way decisons would be made publicly on a forum, they would make decisons in private.

    If not then they could use this forum couldnt they

    Sorry to be on the opposite of you but i dont see how this is a benefit to us at all.

    They may save money on certification fees and such like but to think they would pour this on to affiliates i believe is wrong, if anything they would use these savings for direct marketing and possibly dilute the market for affiliates.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •