Major change to our industry....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Betpartners

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.

---

BP--sorry if it seemed as if I was picking on you, personally. The beginning of your post was actually a good starting point for me to respond to.

While I do understand your concerns (and the concerns of others), IMO, I don't see this as some sinister situation that the programs are cooking up to put the squeeze on affiliates. But as I mentioned previously, we don't know what will come of this (if anything) and we just need to sit back and wait til Amsterdam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJ Silver

BP--sorry if it seemed as if I was picking on you, personally. The beginning of your post was actually a good starting point for me to respond to.

While I do understand your concerns (and the concerns of others), IMO, I don't see this as some sinister situation that the programs are cooking up to put the squeeze on affiliates. But as I mentioned previously, we don't know what will come of this (if anything) and we just need to sit back and wait til Amsterdam.

---

No problem, i never thought you was picking, just my way of saying that i understood the points you made.

I think that with this thread having started and Michael doing a poll that it is difficult to wait until after Amsterdam and i think it is a good thing that the affiliates show beforehand that their is some disquiet about what we have heard.

It does no harm for the programs to see that some are not comfortable about the idea, it may well help them frame their intentions somewhat.

I also dont think that any program has any sinister motives, but for all the best will in the world when you get a large group together they will inevitably look after their own interests.

In all honesty can you ever see a group like this doing anything detrimental to their own interests to help affiliates.

Whatever decisons they make that are good for affiliates will without doubt also be good for them.

Its not those decisons that would concern me though.

My hope was that the group would just address the trade show, so that everyone could come, see show, meet, etc. without what we saw in london where Casino City was banned long before the conference started.

If the affiliate programs set up a trade show then there is room for GPWA, CAP and others to associate a conference or social event along side.

I'm not worried that all the programs will suddenly fix prices, but what if grand prive was in this group, when all the complaining and boycotting started? How many people would be banned from that board?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wagerprofits

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

---

I don't think that is wise to wait for CAC as it's to far away and no affilates (that I know of) will be involved in the talks. We need to have some basic information on the scope of this new group so that everyone can be represented.

Quote:

---

aim of forming an e Cogra style of company is all about

---

Programs can not be impartial and neither can affiliates.
Personally if this is what the aim is I would like to see it become a fair panel and as Gamtrak said represented by all parties which means programs + people like Jeremy, AGD and the others who are essentially in the middle ASWELL AS affiliates.


...lol since I am just sticking my two cents in here, honestly I think that the meeting should be about more than just the programs. Yes 65 people is alot to have a meeting with but I do believe you guys have been able to manage something bigger with your panels. So why not have a full open conversation with people attending CAC as well as the operators or those who want to attend.

unless I am wrong ,...still assuming that this meeting will be behind closed doors

If this is like what AmCam said and its really only about the shows than great but if this is a way of reforming the industry because of two people who thought only of their pocket book and not the industry, than I would prefer to see the initial meeting a little more balanced...just my two cents :)

btw since it appears to be closed to affiliates will AMs be taking questions or suggestions with them

Guys

Please calm down, using words like cartel and union is not the way forward, this is still in the very early stages as to how the organisation will be formed it might have affiliates as part of the board but price fixing and not outing rogues will not happen i can assure you of that.

As i said this is still in the very early stages so a lots has to be sorted and things will not start to really move until CAC.

Shaun

Sorry guys I am not going to make any further comments on this, to many of the comments are being taken the wrong way as i hav esaid this is in its early stages no disscussions have been as to how it will form who will manage it who will sit in the board ect...

For this reason I think it would be better to wait until CAC.

I am more than happy to be voice any concerns/questions/suggestions that you may have, rather than posting a million questions please either email me shaun@wagerprofits.com or send me a PM i promise 100% i will raise these questions at the meeting.

Thank you

Shaun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wagerprofits

Sorry guys I am not going to make any further comments on this, to many of the comments are being taken the wrong way as i hav esaid this is in its early stages no disscussions have been as to how it will form who will manage it who will sit in the board ect...

For this reason I think it would be better to wait until CAC.

I am more than happy to be voice any concerns/questions/suggestions that you may have, rather than posting a million questions please either email me shaun@wagerprofits.com or send me a PM i promise 100% i will raise these questions at the meeting.

Thank you

Shaun

---

Sorry Shaun but even if we have got the wrong end of the stick here and our assumptions prove incorrect in the main there is one basic fact that is without doubt and that is that 65 affiliate programs are discussing forming some sort of organisation/association call it what you like but this is fact.

That alone is something i am vehemently opposed to.

This reminds me of something in the UK, we have two seperate organisations one called the TUC that represents unions and the CBI that represents Employers.

Now both swear blind that they are not against the other, that what they do is for the good of industry etc but you know what they both do what is in their own interests when the crunch comes to it.

When a national strike is wanted and the TUC gets its act together then the country comes to a standstill, when the CBI wants employment law changed guess what they get it changed.

Any organisation that is formed from one group has that groups interests at heart and always will do.

I have said that i will wait until the full announcement is made but until such time i will be opposed to the very idea of this.

It was not us affiliates that announced this and it was not announced by the programs but by an online gambling news portal, i have to ask if it was not announced by Gambling911 would this not have been presented as a as a done deal.

I am not a major affiliate but i work with affiliate managers all the time due to my business interests and i am sure the affiliate managers that know me and there are quite a few, are reading what i am saying and thinking shut the f**k up Martin and one has already contacted me and said lets talk about this in private

You ahve done the same Shaun, thats not a good start IMO, already the programs are wanting this discussed behind closed doors.

We all crave transparancy and yet the programs are not being transparant, they are asking us to wait until a decisison has been made, wheres the consultation on this, there is none with affiliates it seems

And this is not just about price fixing, thats just the tip of the iceberg, there are so many other ways that an organisation like this can make decisions that effect the whole industry.

It is clear that this is being set up in light of the CAP fiasco and one of the complaints that programs have moaned about publicly are the high prices for certification, that in itself tells me that is one area they will combine on.

Thats just the start, what next? if as a group you can force certification prices down or inititate a seperate system what is to stop the very same organisation forcing advertising prices down and so on.

Sorry Shaun, the whole idea of this just does not fit well with me at all.

I mean what is wrong with this being discussed directly with affiliates in an open forum, i think you know why, because the very idea of this has created opposition and it is hard to justify it and thats just the idea of it.

And the more i am asked to discuss this in private the more it makes me feel uncomfortable.

Bet Partners

I feel very alone non eo fthe other operators seem to want to come on to the thread and talk about this. I know who the TUC and CBI are i am from the UK even though I live in Costa Rica.

I seriously understand all of your concerns that is why i think after such a public announcement we the operators should have somebody to follow up with affiliates, which kind of looks like me.

If i was in the postion as you are right now I would be more than angry as this is not the transparancy that we all want and crave for. In some way I can see why people are using words like Cartel and Union.

Let me put an idea out and please give me your thoughts:

Let say they organization does go ahead after the meeting at CAC how would you feel if the format was as follows:

A board of 9 people

3 Opeartors

3 Affiliates

3 from Associations - say GPWA, PAL, AGD or APCW


Lets say that these 9 people would responsible for approving programs and giving the organization seal, dealing with rougue operators even if they do not carry the seal and the ones that carry the seal, setting up say 1 event per annum.

How would you feel about that????


Thanks

Shaun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Betpartners

Sorry Shaun but even if we have got the wrong end of the stick here and our assumptions prove incorrect in the main there is one basic fact that is without doubt and that is that 65 affiliate programs are discussing forming some sort of organisation/association call it what you like but this is fact.

That alone is something i am vehemently opposed to.

This reminds me of something in the UK, we have two seperate organisations one called the TUC that represents unions and the CBI that represents Employers.

Now both swear blind that they are not against the other, that what they do is for the good of industry etc but you know what they both do what is in their own interests when the crunch comes to it.

When a national strike is wanted and the TUC gets its act together then the country comes to a standstill, when the CBI wants employment law changed guess what they get it changed.

Any organisation that is formed from one group has that groups interests at heart and always will do.

I have said that i will wait until the full announcement is made but until such time i will be opposed to the very idea of this.

It was not us affiliates that announced this and it was not announced by the programs but by an online gambling news portal, i have to ask if it was not announced by Gambling911 would this not have been presented as a as a done deal.

I am not a major affiliate but i work with affiliate managers all the time due to my business interests and i am sure the affiliate managers that know me and there are quite a few, are reading what i am saying and thinking shut the f**k up Martin and one has already contacted me and said lets talk about this in private

You ahve done the same Shaun, thats not a good start IMO, already the programs are wanting this discussed behind closed doors.

We all crave transparancy and yet the programs are not being transparant, they are asking us to wait until a decisison has been made, wheres the consultation on this, there is none with affiliates it seems

And this is not just about price fixing, thats just the tip of the iceberg, there are so many other ways that an organisation like this can make decisions that effect the whole industry.

It is clear that this is being set up in light of the CAP fiasco and one of the complaints that programs have moaned about publicly are the high prices for certification, that in itself tells me that is one area they will combine on.

Thats just the start, what next? if as a group you can force certification prices down or inititate a seperate system what is to stop the very same organisation forcing advertising prices down and so on.

Sorry Shaun, the whole idea of this just does not fit well with me at all.

I mean what is wrong with this being discussed directly with affiliates in an open forum, i think you know why, because the very idea of this has created opposition and it is hard to justify it and thats just the idea of it.

And the more i am asked to discuss this in private the more it makes me feel uncomfortable.

---

Kaus

As i have said in one of my post any questions/concerns/suggestions that you have please email me shaun@wagerprofits.com or send me a PM and i will be more that happy to bringthem up at the meeting.

A number of people have sent me emails with questions and suggestions and i promise you all 100% that these will be raised at the meeting.

Thanks

Shaun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaus

Programs can not be impartial and neither can affiliates.
Personally if this is what the aim is I would like to see it become a fair panel and as Gamtrak said represented by all parties which means programs + people like Jeremy, AGD and the others who are essentially in the middle ASWELL AS affiliates.


...lol since I am just sticking my two cents in here, honestly I think that the meeting should be about more than just the programs. Yes 65 people is alot to have a meeting with but I do believe you guys have been able to manage something bigger with your panels. So why not have a full open conversation with people attending CAC as well as the operators or those who want to attend.

unless I am wrong ,...still assuming that this meeting will be behind closed doors

If this is like what AmCam said and its really only about the shows than great but if this is a way of reforming the industry because of two people who thought only of their pocket book and not the industry, than I would prefer to see the initial meeting a little more balanced...just my two cents :)

btw since it appears to be closed to affiliates will AMs be taking questions or suggestions with them

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Betpartners

I mean what is wrong with this being discussed directly with affiliates in an open forum, i think you know why, because the very idea of this has created opposition and it is hard to justify it and thats just the idea of it.

---

If there was an existing group with firm opinions, then it would be easy for a member of the group, or the group as a whole, to have a discussion about the principles and focus of the group.

But what I believe is actually the case is that there are a group of affiliate programs united by the fact that they have been mistreated. As a group it is easy for them to stand up against a common bully. Individually it is not. And as a group it is reasonable for them to try to prevent a similar bully from ever coming into existance again.

I know of two common targets here. One is the exhorbitant certification fee charged by a particular organization. The other is the exhorbitant conference exhibition fees charged to organizations that did not pay the exhorbitant certification fees. I know for a fact that both of these abuses of power are being broken by the affiliate programs and operators working together, and I think that is a good thing. And I don't think folks here have a problem with that either.

Concerns have been expressed about what might happen beyond that. And it is possible that concerning things could happen if that were the direction the group of affiliate programs and operators wanted to head. Personally, from the limited amount of information I know, I don't have any reason to presume such a direction. But I think it is a good thing for affiliate programs know that affiliates are watching and to consider that when making decisions regarding the focus of the group.

Michael

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wagerprofits

Lets say that these 9 people would responsible for approving programs and giving the organization seal, dealing with rougue operators even if they do not carry the seal and the ones that carry the seal, setting up say 1 event per annum.

---

Define rogue operator please Shaun, or any of the other 64.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wagerprofits

Bet Partners

I feel very alone non eo fthe other operators seem to want to come on to the thread and talk about this. I know who the TUC and CBI are i am from the UK even though I live in Costa Rica.

I seriously understand all of your concerns that is why i think after such a public announcement we the operators should have somebody to follow up with affiliates, which kind of looks like me.

If i was in the postion as you are right now I would be more than angry as this is not the transparancy that we all want and crave for. In some way I can see why people are using words like Cartel and Union.

Let me put an idea out and please give me your thoughts:

Let say they organization does go ahead after the meeting at CAC how would you feel if the format was as follows:

A board of 9 people

3 Opeartors

3 Affiliates

3 from Associations - say GPWA, PAL, AGD or APCW


Lets say that these 9 people would responsible for approving programs and giving the organization seal, dealing with rougue operators even if they do not carry the seal and the ones that carry the seal, setting up say 1 event per annum.

How would you feel about that????


Thanks

Shaun

---

Yes Shaun it does always seem to be just you that stands up to be counted and i feel sorry for you in this regard it is unfair and as usual you are doing a great job.

Yes something like that would certainly be much fairer, though of course all would depend on the mechanics of it all.

Also this is just my opinion, i may well be in the minority, it is not for me to demand certain conditions, all i can do is express my opinion but a direct answer to your question is simply yes, that would be much better.

I could certainly live with that and feel much more comfortable.

It would be interesting to see what other affiliates would think to that set up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelCorfman

If there was an existing group with firm opinions, then it would be easy for a member of the group, or the group as a whole, to have a discussion about the principles and focus of the group.

But what I believe is actually the case is that there are a group of affiliate programs united by the fact that they have been mistreated. As a group it is easy for them to stand up against a common bully. Individually it is not. And as a group it is reasonable for them to try to prevent a similar bully from ever coming into existance again.

I know of two common targets here. One is the exhorbitant certification fee charged by a particular organization. The other is the exhorbitant conference exhibition fees charged to organizations that did not pay the exhorbitant certification fees. I know for a fact that both of these abuses of power are being broken by the affiliate programs and operators working together, and I think that is a good thing. And I don't think folks here have a problem with that either.

Concerns have been expressed about what might happen beyond that. And it is possible that concerning things could happen if that were the direction the group of affiliate programs and operators wanted to head. Personally, from the limited amount of information I know, I don't have any reason to presume such a direction. But I think it is a good thing for affiliate programs know that affiliates are watching and to consider that when making decisions regarding the focus of the group.

Michael

---

Michael i fully understand what you are saying and i am certain that is the whole idea behind all this.

But once a degree of power has been ascertained and they have utilised that power to stop exhorbitant fees they are hardly going to close up shop and walk away with a job well done.

Any organisation that can influence or change something does not stop there, they continue to use the power that they have gained.

I am not for one minute saying this is the intention of these programs but the managers now will not be the same managers in say 5 years time but that organisation will still be around and intentions and aims can change.

I know a lot of affiliate managers and have great relationships with them but they are at the behest of their employees at the end of the day and they can only do the bidding for the companies they work for.

Short term their aims are honourable, can we say hand on heart that in the long term this power gained would not be either abused or utilised to their own interests.

Shaun has a proposal that would negate all this, i accept that but until this is either implemented or some form of consultation is undertaken with affiliates how are we supposed to do anything other than think the worst?

Joeyl


Do i really need to define a rougue operator???

I will define what I feel a rougue operator is, please understand that i am not speaking for all 64 operators:

Predatory terms
Non papyment
Slow payment
Shaiving players
Bad tracking/no tracking
Screwing players on bonuses
Super user account

Shall i continue??????


The list is endless, but i hope we are on the same sheet.

Shaun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyl

Define rogue operator please Shaun, or any of the other 64.

---

Betpartners

Being a thick skinned Paddy/Brit I can take it.

If you have questions/suggestion/concerns ect please PM or email me shaun@wagerprofits.com and i will bring them up at CAC.

Shaun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Betpartners

Yes Shaun it does always seem to be just you that stands up to be counted and i feel sorry for you in this regard it is unfair and as usual you are doing a great job.

Yes something like that would certainly be much fairer, though of course all would depend on the mechanics of it all.

Also this is just my opinion, i may well be in the minority, it is not for me to demand certain conditions, all i can do is express my opinion but a direct answer to your question is simply yes, that would be much better.

I could certainly live with that and feel much more comfortable.

It would be interesting to see what other affiliates would think to that set up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wagerprofits

Joeyl


Do i really need to define a rougue operator???

I will define what I feel a rougue operator is, please understand that i am not speaking for all 64 operators:

Predatory terms
Non papyment
Slow payment
Shaiving players
Bad tracking/no tracking
Screwing players on bonuses
Super user account

Shall i continue??????


The list is endless, but i hope we are on the same sheet.

Shaun

---

We may well be on the same paragraph for a hot minute yes. You need not continue, because we'd be here a while adding more.

Some of the things you mention that constitute a rogue operator in your eyes, have been done by some firms listed in the 65.

As I mentioned at the GIA (1) (2) , rogues policing rogues on behalf of affiliates, because aff programmes finally realised they were getting the shaft by rogues, is far more ridiculous a concept than Ecogra being the player's friend.

Set up yet another association for gambling operators to push their point of view through no problem. Roping in affiliates, is pointless.

Why? This new assoc will give less credence to affiliate's issues, than Cap ever did.

You here as the lone gunman makes my point all made, before I've made it i'm afraid old boy.

Shaun,

I appreciate you sticking your neck out and talking of this in the open. When you say it should be spoken about in the open and that it kinda looks like you are the one. How are other operators and AM's taking this? Are you getting any feedback from them?

With reference to your proposal i think it looks good, providing that all parties are elected by the masses on a yearly basis maybe.

Personally, i see no reason why the GPWA cannot assume this role anyway, this just seems like a seperate organisation is being set up for the sake of it. I actually feel as though this is a slap in the faace for the GPWA from the creators of this idea. (My personal opinion)

My question then is this:

Why when we already have a transparent organisation free from corruption in the form of GPWA do we need another? Could not an agreeement be made within?

I would point out that the poll so far seems to be very much against this and also assume that the majority of yes votes would be from operators and AM's, this makes the poll very against it!

Just food for thought, please let nobody be offended by my points of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wagerprofits

Bet Partners

I feel very alone non eo fthe other operators seem to want to come on to the thread and talk about this. I know who the TUC and CBI are i am from the UK even though I live in Costa Rica.

I seriously understand all of your concerns that is why i think after such a public announcement we the operators should have somebody to follow up with affiliates, which kind of looks like me.

If i was in the postion as you are right now I would be more than angry as this is not the transparancy that we all want and crave for. In some way I can see why people are using words like Cartel and Union.

Let me put an idea out and please give me your thoughts:

Let say they organization does go ahead after the meeting at CAC how would you feel if the format was as follows:

A board of 9 people

3 Opeartors

3 Affiliates

3 from Associations - say GPWA, PAL, AGD or APCW


Lets say that these 9 people would responsible for approving programs and giving the organization seal, dealing with rougue operators even if they do not carry the seal and the ones that carry the seal, setting up say 1 event per annum.

How would you feel about that????


Thanks

Shaun

---

Quote:

---

With reference to your proposal i think it looks good, providing that all parties are elected by the masses on a yearly basis maybe.

---

I agree with this. If there is to be a board we would need to vote on it.

I still am in the minority and believe that the programs should be allowed to have their own forum to protect their own interests. By having more options for programs, it narrows the field for corruption by power. Balance is key. Spread the exposure among more boards (more than one or two) and include all of us in decisions. I see nothing wrong with it if it is set up properly. I don't think it should be ecogra style. I will go out on a limb and say we would probably seek resolutions at other boards if we had serious issues.

Someone pointed out what will this forum be in 5 years? That is a good point. I think people would relax a little if it were run by a board of their peers and independant - even non gambling related - moderators. And a clear long term mission statement. If affiliates don't like it, they won't go.

Sorry you are on your own with this Shaun. More reps need to speak up here before it gets to panicky.

Chalkie

Thanks for the post.

I have only had one operator contact me so far and he is was 100% happy with what I have posted and has asked me to represent him at CAC, I have had about 20 emails from affiliate sand other users from this forum so I thank all of you for your emails and please keep them comming, your question, suggestions and concerns are needed.

It is still very early days and as stands it is still very vague as to how this group will be formed, it might end up with a board or say 9 people and the set up a code of conduct of sort, as I say still very early days, I want to let you all know that all operators that I know of hold the GPWA in very high regard and i feel that support from them and a number of other key associations it needed.

Once again as I have not be nominated as the spokes person these are only my thoughts and not the opion of the 65 operators....

Thanks

Shaun


P.S. Chalkie and never forget that the best team in the premiership is the mighty Arsenal FC.

W.B.A. 1-3 Arsenal

Barclays Premier League, The Hawthorns

Tuesday, March 03, 2009, 19:45

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chalkie

Shaun,

I appreciate you sticking your neck out and talking of this in the open. When you say it should be spoken about in the open and that it kinda looks like you are the one. How are other operators and AM's taking this? Are you getting any feedback from them?

With reference to your proposal i think it looks good, providing that all parties are elected by the masses on a yearly basis maybe.

Personally, i see no reason why the GPWA cannot assume this role anyway, this just seems like a seperate organisation is being set up for the sake of it. I actually feel as though this is a slap in the faace for the GPWA from the creators of this idea. (My personal opinion)

My question then is this:

Why when we already have a transparent organisation free from corruption in the form of GPWA do we need another? Could not an agreeement be made within?

I would point out that the poll so far seems to be very much against this and also assume that the majority of yes votes would be from operators and AM's, this makes the poll very against it!

Just food for thought, please let nobody be offended by my points of view.

---