Sky Bet?!

[Punters Lounge]

The jury is out for Ladbrokes with me. I have a deal with them and they 'sorted me out' when they were shafting everyone, but Ladbrokes Coral Group has become so dishonest I am unsure whether to continue with them or not despite the deal. I don't trust their stats or how they will behave in future. I have thousands of players with them, but may decide to just give them up. Unsure at moment. Hence the mixed messages for both reviews. I have stopped sending traffic just for now while I work out if I can keep working with them.

If you want to compare annual revenues then you may find you are an even smaller affiliate than me. But this isn't a pissing up the wall contest. Maybe keep your ego and anger in check. If you edit out the macho **** and insults on your posts, we are on the same side and I agree with what you are saying. Just choosing to take a different route, but I hope we can all help each other.

I wasn't talking about you with regards to "angry small affiliates" and I don't give a crap about who has more revenue. My interest is in creating a betting community people love, something we've achieved over the years. Earning millions and billions holds no interest, just a nice life.

[justbookies]

I wasn't talking about you with regards to "angry small affiliates" and I don't give a crap about who has more revenue. My interest is in creating a betting community people love, something we've achieved over the years. Earning millions and billions holds no interest, just a nice life.

Thank you. In that case I misunderstood your reference to "angry small affiliates" and I am sorry for my rudeness as a result of that mistake. I 100% agree with you.

I also understand your concerns that a unilateral action by individual affiliates could fail and then undermine a class action that follows.

[baldidiot]

You'll have to swallow that probably, but it would get covered in any legal action. I'm not sending them ****, and you doing so may cause problems in any lawsuit. Cut them off now.

That's what I was thinking. I'm just crossing my fingers that a couple of previous registrations convert this month to push us over the limit.

[BettingOn]

Having recently left the gambling affiliate sector (selling out to a bigger affiliate), I can't help but add my perspective from the 'outside'.

Firstly, while I hope the proposed law-suits are successful - individual or class - I have a contact who works for Sky Bet who says that the owners lawyers are very confident of their legal position. I hope they are wrong for your sakes.

I am beginning to think I 'got out' at the right time - especially when the death knell is being rung for the whole gaming affiliate industry in places:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...rs-affiliation

As has been mentioned by others already, Sky Bet is currently in a unique position in terms of marketing / customer acquisition and Super 6 has become a great means of harvesting new customers. In fact, I found when promoting Sky Bet to social media groups where I knew some members that a large percentage of new 'referrals' were told they already had a Sky Bet account when they swore that was not the case. In fact they had signed up for Super 6 or perhaps other such competitions under the same group umbrella and thus could not open a 'new' affiliated account.

Most certainly the business is being ripened for a sale and this move, assuming it isn't successfully challenged, makes it a more appealing investment. Clearly it is underhand, immoral and deceitful - but what do you expect from a bookmaker or private equity firm?

It is also perhaps worth sitting back and reflecting upon how bookmakers themselves consider affiliates. Sure they all go to conferences and build ever bigger stands, with affiliate manager lapdogs selling their companies and cutting deals. But I know of one prominent operator where the head of gaming regularly referred (internally) to affiliates as 'leeches' - clearly not seeing the irony of that coming from a bookmaker.

Don't trust any of them is my advice - and good luck defending or being compensated in this instance.

[justbookies]

One random piece of info that you may want to mention to your legal counsel if you have not already, is that in order to continue to gain access to the stats, and so continue as an affiliate at all, you had to tick a box agreeing to changed terms or conditions. If you did not tick that box there was no access and the affiliate deal was over without discussion.

[pendil]

One random piece of info that you may want to mention to your legal counsel if you have not already, is that in order to continue to gain access to the stats, and so continue as an affiliate at all, you had to tick a box agreeing to changed terms or conditions. If you did not tick that box there was no access and the affiliate deal was over without discussion.

had a dispute some years ago with bookmaker (can't say who) ,and this was a major point for me - unless you ticked that box and agreed to new terms your account was in effect closed.

the route i took was through the Office of Fair Trading (now called the CMA) who verbally gave an opinion to me that the new terms were invalid as i did not have the choice to accept or reject - i had to click yes for access to my account.

went right to the day i told this bookmaker that i was to lodge complaint at Office of Fair Trading but they backed down and paid me the disputed sum,plus some extra.

so,try to get this acceptance of new terms made invalid before you proceed any further.

[Sherlock]

The jury is out for Ladbrokes with me. I have a deal with them and they 'sorted me out' when they were shafting everyone, but Ladbrokes Coral Group has become so dishonest I am unsure whether to continue with them or not despite the deal. I don't trust their stats or how they will behave in future.

exactly the same here

[RacingJim]

I am beginning to think I 'got out' at the right time - especially when the death knell is being rung for the whole gaming affiliate industry in places:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...rs-affiliation

I think a couple of articles by the same person in the gambling-hating, capitalism-hating Guardian does not signal the death knell for a whole industry now does it.

When put together with the Skybet screw and other article on Football365 along the same lines, I'm more inclined to think this is Skybet tapping up their contacts for relevant timed articles to set the narrative and try to provide them with some justification for their affiliate screw.

[Planet Mark]

+1 RacingJim

For those not in the UK, the Guardian are a left wing / wooly liberal rag who are experts in pushing buttons of semi-intellectual failures about how unfair their pathetic little lives are.... need to keep this news piece it in context!

[freebetsfreetips]

I hope this is right and not a case of burying heads in the sand.

[mickyfu]

No you don't know me, if you did, you wouldn't have just said that. You're reacting with anger, which is the wrong move. You sound quite immature with your posts, this needs a cool, surgical approach and not let's fire 7 nukes at them. Do what you want to do.

He is 100% right. What is immature is all the people jumping around saying I'll do this I'll do that, because talk is cheap on an anonymous forum, very very very cheap.

Here's my stance. They have already robbed me twice now. I ain't going to get robbed a third time paying their court costs. Big deal, move on it happens. I should have ditched them when they scammed 20% off me, I didn't, I'm stupid. Won't fool me a third time paying their court costs though. You really think Sky haven't thought this through? It will be water tight. I'd rather put my time and effort into recovering losses than gaining more loss.

Where are the court wins against the 5%? What about Foxy? What about IGT? It's all part of the business. Just look on the bright side. You ain't slaving away at a 9 - 5 as someone's little bitch for £7 an hour.

[MannyBetting]

He is 100% right. What is immature is all the people jumping around saying I'll do this I'll do that, because talk is cheap on an anonymous forum, very very very cheap.

Here's my stance. They have already robbed me twice now. I ain't going to get robbed a third time paying their court costs. Big deal, move on it happens. I should have ditched them when they scammed 20% off me, I didn't, I'm stupid. Won't fool me a third time paying their court costs though. You really think Sky haven't thought this through? It will be water tight. I'd rather put my time and effort into recovering losses than gaining more loss.

Where are the court wins against the 5%? What about Foxy? What about IGT? It's all part of the business. Just look on the bright side. You ain't slaving away at a 9 - 5 as someone's little bitch for £7 an hour.

Wow, you're right. I guess no big company has ever lost a legal claim before. They do have more money than I do, so I should probably just roll over and let them do what they like.

I can't quite work out why it's in their interests to fool me into paying their legal costs. How are they going to benefit from that exactly?

I'll ignore what my solicitor tells me, as you're saying their case is water tight, so he must be wrong. Instead I'll just take your advice and stop being so immature.

[mickyfu]

Wow, you're right. I guess no big company has ever lost a legal claim before. They do have more money than I do, so I should probably just roll over and let them do what they like.

I can't quite work out why it's in their interests to fool me into paying their legal costs. How are they going to benefit from that exactly?

I'll ignore what my solicitor tells me, as you're saying their case is water tight, so he must be wrong. Instead I'll just take your advice and stop being so immature.

I have no interest in arguing here. Come back and tell me when you have won. And as you are continually pissing money into the cause, I'll be working on recovering my losses. Good luck, and that is if your cause even makes it off this page.

Yes big companies have lost. Woop Dee doo, cause the vast majority of them win. But let's all talk the big man here. Cause like I said. Talk is very cheap on forums.

And here is the joke. You have a solicitor and advice within such a short space of time.

A.) You are lying.
B.) Your solicitor is a compo chaser

[MannyBetting]

I have no interest in arguing here. Come back and tell me when you have won. And as you are continually pissing money into the cause, I'll be working on recovering my losses. Good luck, and that is if your cause even makes it off this page.

Yes big companies have lost. Woop Dee doo, cause the vast majority of them win. But let's all talk the big man here. Cause like I said. Talk is very cheap on forums

Rest assured none of the comments made by myself or anyone else on this thread were to impress you or anybody else.

[Triple7]

Where are the court wins against the 5%? What about Foxy? What about IGT? It's all part of the business. Just look on the bright side. You ain't slaving away at a 9 - 5 as someone's little bitch for £7 an hour.

I agree with your point that it will be difficult to win in court with terms that are written very one-sided by the casino. It sounds like San Marino beating England at Wembley.

But if you do nothing, in the end every single program will do things like this and you will have to look for another business. Or play somebody's little bitch for a few bucks an hour.

[MannyBetting]

A.) You are lying.
B.) Your solicitor is a compo chaser

If you say so. You're clearly the expert.

[mickyfu]

Rest assured none of the comments made by myself or anyone else on this thread were to impress you or anybody else.

Rest assured, I don't need impressing and have read it all before. Like I said, come back and tell us all about it. Look forward to hearing all about your success at taking Sky to court.

I'm just being realistic here. Nothing more. Try it some time.

[mickyfu]

I agree with your point that it will be difficult to win in court with terms that are written very one-sided by the casino. It sounds like San Marino beating England at Wembley.

But if you do nothing, in the end every single program will do things like this and you will have to look for another business. Or play somebody's little bitch for a few bucks an hour.

No in reality you save money. You have already been screwed, don't screw yourself again, just to try and spite Sky. Because it won't happen. That's all I have to say. I won't waste my time arguing, especially when most of the arguing will be done by people who won't even make it into a solicitors office.

[justbookies]

Rest assured, I don't need impressing and have read it all before. Like I said, come back and tell us all about it. Look forward to hearing all about your success at taking Sky to court.

I'm just being realistic here. Nothing more. Try it some time.

Realistic or defeatist?

I have had some initial advice from a solicitor too, or maybe I am also a liar. I know Punters Lounge has had legal feedback, he is no liar. The advice I have received still needs to be distilled and then it requires a barrister to consider it and, if they believe in it, then the case can be taken to court. That is the route I am going down. If a barrister agrees more with your view than mine then maybe it will be harder to progress.

If I was below the 5 depositors a month level like yourself then I would have either acted legally 2 years ago or given up the fight 2 years ago.

I agree talk is cheap, I have said that on this thread. I have made the same accusations. True, who knows who is bluster and who is the genuine article. But you can't knock people who want to pursue court action. It may win, it may lose. But aggressively criticising people who want to stand up for themselves legally, and do the entire industry a favour in the process, seems strange. The way it is going, there will be no more programs to promote. Then we may all have to be someone's bitch. Right now I dont want to be SkyBet's bitch.

[mickyfu]

Realistic or defeatist?

I have had some initial advice from a solicitor too, or maybe I am also a liar. I know Punters Lounge has had legal feedback, he is no liar. The advice I have received still needs to be distilled and then it requires a barrister to consider it and, if they believe in it, then the case can be taken to court. That is the route I am going down. If a barrister agrees more with your view than mine then maybe it will be harder to progress.

If I was below the 5 depositors a month level like yourself then I would have either acted legally 2 years ago or given up the fight 2 years ago.

I agree talk is cheap, I have said that on this thread. I have made the same accusations. True, who knows who is bluster and who is the genuine article. But you can't knock people who want to pursue court action. It may win, it may lose. But aggressively criticising people who want to stand up for themselves legally, and do the entire industry a favour in the process, seems strange. The way it is going, there will be no more programs to promote. Then we may all have to be someone's bitch. Right now I dont want to be SkyBet's bitch.

I wasn't below 5. I was on and off below 5. Like I said. Come back and tell us all about it, if it ever gets off this page.

The money you **** up the wall (if it ever makes it off this page) on court costs. I'll invest back into sites to recover the 5k or so a month they screwed me out of.

Again, instead of trying to create a big man childish argument. Why don't you just come back when you have beat Sky and say, there you go dick head.

I'll tell you why. Because it ain't going to happen. So this childish argument is all you have.

And I'll leave it here. I barely come here, and there's a reason. Be back in 6. Tell me all about it son. Ta ta for now.