Skybet changes terms to steal from affiliates

[TheGooner]

It doesn't cost much to start a small claim, assuming one has a good knowledge of contract law and doesn't need a solicitor

As long as you value your time as zero cost - and don't mind continued aggravation - then I guess it's a hobby?
Otherwise there are far better things to do with your time.


Maybe you can win - or at least be enough of a nuisance to get a change of mind from SkyBet - But it's doubtful.

I have no experience in the court system - certainly not the British system ...
I'm just basing my opinion on a general observation that the best lawyers seem to be able to win any case no matter how obvious.

(eg a certain NZ cricketer win a case over match fixing and just recently)

But I wish you every success Colin ... certainly I think many affiliates will watch with interest.

Please keep us in the loop.

[xecutable]

In a perfect world, if you wanna hurt them, hurt their revenue. How? Everyone be a noshow to the London Conference and demand books that act this way to be left out. You hurt the conference organizer revenue, you'd make them think twice before they let such companies promote themselves there.

If they get left out, they lose connection with the community and things will have to change. But it's not a perfect world, the cart keeps moving, and the dogs keep barking etc you get the idea.

[colin3005]

As long as you value your time as zero cost - and don't mind continued aggravation - then I guess it's a hobby?
Otherwise there are far better things to do with your time.


Maybe you can win - or at least be enough of a nuisance to get a change of mind from SkyBet - But it's doubtful.

I have no experience in the court system - certainly not the British system ...
I'm just basing my opinion on a general observation that the best lawyers seem to be able to win any case no matter how obvious.

(eg a certain NZ cricketer win a case over match fixing and just recently)

But I wish you every success Colin ... certainly I think many affiliates will watch with interest.

Please keep us in the loop.

I do understand your points, but my earnings were down by £130 in November, that would be almost £1500 over a year, not much, but the time I would have to put into something like this wouldn't be that much either, as I already know the law pretty well, so I do value my time, but I also value the time I put into promoting Skybet over the past few months, which seems to have been for nothing.

[Triple7]

As long as you value your time as zero cost - and don't mind continued aggravation - then I guess it's a hobby?
Otherwise there are far better things to do with your time.


Maybe you can win - or at least be enough of a nuisance to get a change of mind from SkyBet - But it's doubtful.

I have no experience in the court system - certainly not the British system ...
I'm just basing my opinion on a general observation that the best lawyers seem to be able to win any case no matter how obvious.

(eg a certain NZ cricketer win a case over match fixing and just recently)

But I wish you every success Colin ... certainly I think many affiliates will watch with interest.

Please keep us in the loop.

I do understand your point, but also principles are worth something. If you're convinced to win, this judgement could also be useful in case other programs breach contracts like SkyThieves are doing. Or perhaps some won't even try...

That's worth far more than some hours of time I think.

[TheGooner]

I do understand your point, but also principles are worth something. If you're convinced to win, this judgement could also be useful in case other programs breach contracts like SkyThieves are doing. Or perhaps some won't even try...

That's worth far more than some hours of time I think.

I think that you're a fair bit younger than me Triple7 - and less jaded.
Fair play to both Triple7 and Colin3005 - don't ever get old guys!


However, I see it as just spending wasted time on a program that doesn't want to work with me (given their recent move) and as a consequence I don't want to work with them. In the bigger scheme we are better ditching them now - rather than continuing promotion of their product.

But that's NOT to decry Colin's efforts to try legal avenues - as it certainly is a hot topic. I appreciate the enthusiasm.

It certainly helps Colin that he's in the same country (and not halfway around the world) and can use a domestic small claims court, as that is designed specifically as a cost effective way to bring a local claim against a local company.

But because it may set a precedent, and because it involves affiliate contracts (and potentially far more than Colins claim amount) I suspect that it will be sent to a more senior (and more expensive) court for a decision. Certainly if SkyBet lose they will take it there. Given the potential amounts involved - SKyBet will spend thousands of pounds on legal representation without hesitation.

My jaded thoughts are that this will take years, cost plenty, and in the end will yield nothing.
It's far easier to simply do business with better partners than try to make a rogue program behave correctly.

But it's only my thoughts, just one affiliates view.
Good luck to Colin and any others who take this legal path.

[RacingJim]

Sometimes you've just got to walk away. As Gooner says, you have to factor in how much time you're gona waste on this exercise. Legal actions can become quite drawn out and stressful, I'd rather avoid that in my life and push forward with other brands that convert better, pay better and communicate better.

[mickyfu]

Best thing you can do is drop them. I get over six depositors a month easy, and I am dropping them. If you look at clause 8.2 you will see they can legally do what they are doing. I would not waste my time.

[justbookies]

Of course they can't change contract terms at will. There is such a thing as contract law. A court will simply put a line through any term that is too general or deemed too unfair or deemed to turn the contract into a farce / joke. Affiliates are not below the law. It is not the wild west. Feel free to shoot me down but personally I find all this defeatist talk pathetic and it is the reason why affiliates will continue to be kicked in the teeth time and again. Until there is a court case, expect much more of the same.

[thebookiesoffers]

Of course they can't change contract terms at will. There is such a thing as contract law. A court will simply put a line through any term that is too general or deemed too unfair or deemed to turn the contract into a farce / joke. Affiliates are not below the law. It is not the wild west. Feel free to shoot me down but personally I find all this defeatist talk pathetic and it is the reason why affiliates will continue to be kicked in the teeth time and again. Until there is a court case, expect much more of the same.

nail on the head mate, best post on the thread

[mickyfu]

Of course they can't change contract terms at will. There is such a thing as contract law. A court will simply put a line through any term that is too general or deemed too unfair or deemed to turn the contract into a farce / joke. Affiliates are not below the law. It is not the wild west. Feel free to shoot me down but personally I find all this defeatist talk pathetic and it is the reason why affiliates will continue to be kicked in the teeth time and again. Until there is a court case, expect much more of the same.

Who said they changed it at will? Clause 8.2 could have always been there for all I give a f***. It is irrelevant to me. They can scrounge all the money they like back off the small time affiliates. I certainly will be pushing them no more traffic. They have already done me over this year with dirty tactics.

I honestly would rather push my traffic to BGO, and they did me over. But there is one thing about BGO, my traffic converts a damm sight better than SKY. SKY may hold their player better, but I would rather get my 25%, than some cheap 5% if my conversions fall.

[-Shay-]

Who said they changed it at will? Clause 8.2 could have always been there for all I give a f***. It is irrelevant to me. They can scrounge all the money they like back off the small time affiliates. I certainly will be pushing them no more traffic. They have already done me over this year with dirty tactics.

I honestly would rather push my traffic to BGO, and they did me over. But there is one thing about BGO, my traffic converts a damm sight better than SKY. SKY may hold their player better, but I would rather get my 25%, than some cheap 5% if my conversions fall.

Why does it have to be "either one shitbag firm or another"? Why not pick someone with quality in this hypothetical?

[mickyfu]

Why does it have to be "either one shitbag firm or another"? Why not pick someone with quality in this hypothetical?

I think because I have found BGO to be the best converter for me. I dislike them for what they have done, but I would be stupid to let that get in the way of money.

I am always testing new brands anyway, and one I see coming up is Leovegas, good conversion, TV advertised so has trust. Seems to be getting better than BGO.

I loved SKY for player retention, I still actually have my very first player in the gambling niche still playing. However I have morals. I have helped several people out to get into the business, some doing OK and some not. But when I looked at my friends account last month (a person who is struggling) and he only had £125 in a month, £125 that I helped him with, and that £125 is on 5% and should have been £625 (my maths may be off, I'm no academic), I feel a moral right to take my traffic and take that £500 back. This way I feel they are not robbing my friend(s), I feel they are letting themselves down as a respectable affiliate program.

[-Shay-]

I think because I have found BGO to be the best converter for me. I dislike them for what they have done, but I would be stupid to let that get in the way of money.

I am always testing new brands anyway, and one I see coming up is Leovegas, good conversion, TV advertised so has trust. Seems to be getting better than BGO.

I loved SKY for player retention, I still actually have my very first player in the gambling niche still playing. However I have morals. I have helped several people out to get into the business, some doing OK and some not. But when I looked at my friends account last month (a person who is struggling) and he only had £125 in a month, £125 that I helped him with, and that £125 is on 5% and should have been £625 (my maths may be off, I'm no academic), I feel a moral right to take my traffic and take that £500 back. This way I feel they are not robbing my friend(s), I feel they are letting themselves down as a respectable affiliate program.

If they (bgo) have stole from you once or betrayed your trust, they will do it again. If the money is good for you, then it is good for them as well and companies that openly steal the way both bgo and sky have will continue to do so.

I have left both "listed" but they are both buried to the point where it is extremely unlikely that either will get another referral from me again.

I would rather continue developing a relationship with another brand or hell... even begin building one with another brand than to continue on after either of those programs pulled the rug out.

I cannot and will not do business with a company that changes the terms on me after the fact. The players already sent to them have a deal that was agreed to already (when the players were sent). That deal (for those players) should remain in force full stop.

[DanHorvat]

Hey guys sorry I haven't been online in a while, I had my own legal case to take care of and it required my full attention.

By the way, courts aren't that scary. You go there and you win. Or you don't. Thinking about it at home doesn't count, and you don't know in advance whether you'll win or not. Sometimes you win because the other side didn't file a document in time.

I'm very disappointed with the defetist talk by some affiliates and with the stand-off attitude of GPWA.

There are quite a few people who pledged to donate money for the legal costs, including my own small contribution. Someone find a lawyer.

[freebetsfreetips]

Interesting. I have to admit we just sort of thought "oh well" but actually I'm interested in opposing this as it seems very much to be the way things are going at the moment with our margins getting squeezed in every way possible.

[RacingJim]

In the month of November I lost £515 due to this change. Another £200 down so far in December.

Could be worth a small claims court case this! Either that or find a sure fire way to drive some signups to them each month, might be worth doing some PPC.

[-Shay-]

In the month of November I lost £515 due to this change. Another £200 down so far in December.

Could be worth a small claims court case this! Either that or find a sure fire way to drive some signups to them each month, might be worth doing some PPC.

Court

[Pokerworx]

I got £190 today, should of been 4 or 5 times that. The annoying thing is even if I was clearing the minimum 6 depositors as soon as the football season ends I wouldn't hit it. I looked through my account, sent them £104174.83 in deposits in the last 5 years and they screw me like this.

It would be cool is a company like PAS or one of them to get an account going with these so we would all hit the minimum every month. I might even be open to selling the site if anyone is easily hitting the target, could be worth something more to you.

[RacingJim]

The annoying thing is even if I was clearing the minimum 6 depositors as soon as the football season ends I wouldn't hit it.

A very good point that could affect a multitude of small affiliates, seasonal lulls are part and parcel of most businesses, especially sports betting. This quota nonsense is so predatory.

[-Shay-]

Someone needs to take this one to court.