Stan James - Closed my account

[thebookiesoffers]

This firm look like they'd rather be removed from the gpwa and get the 4k fees back I guess.

I think the warning serves more purpose than removing them to the shitpit for now.

Yeah but while GPWA are ignoring it by sweeping it under the carpet they still pays the fees, so it beggers the question, do GPWA care about affiliates or getting sponsor money

[-Shay-]

Yeah but while GPWA are ignoring it by sweeping it under the carpet they still pays the fees, so it beggers the question, do GPWA care about affiliates or getting sponsor money

And this is what happens when one doesn't constantly keep pressure for programs and people to "do right".

[casinovegas]

Still nothing on this I take it..............

[thebookiesoffers]

Still nothing on this I take it..............

nothing, not one word from GPWA

[casinovegas]

Other affiliates are still promoting Stan James so it is a very, very odd thing to do, strike of some, keep others active.............makes no sense.

[12Xpert]

New tax to be introduced for Gibraltar-based firms taking UK business.

http://www.casino.org/news/gibraltar...k-gambling-tax

Only going to get tougher for a traffic-limited outfit like Stan James.

Wonder how they now feel about moving to the tax haven given that UK HMRC took the family to court over it? Anyone know how that ended or is it still ongoing. Either way, I'm looking forward to their demise. Just a matter of time.

[pinkytoe]

Stan James cuts more jobs as sale nears

http://www.egrmagazine.com/news/stan..._as_sale_nears (Paywall)

[12Xpert]

Any chance you can post the main points of the article (if you are a subscriber) without compromising the writer's copyright?

[12Xpert]

No matter, I opened a free trial account. I was right, they are f....d.

Here are the main points from the article, which you can access in full if you take a free trial.

1) Stan James reducing Gibraltar-based team
2) Looking to sell, with sale imminent
3) Caused by new UK tax regime being introduced at the end of this year
4) Staff have already been laid off including traders earlier this year

So there we have it. Stan James are broke. The UK Limited Company has been losing money for several years. Clearly the online Gibraltar arm of its business has been doing no better. Future looks grim for this name, as predicted.

Whoever buys it will get it cut price and will certainly not honour any previous affiliate deals. As with Betfair's acquisition of Blue Square, the likely scenario will involve the closure of the online brand and an assimilation of the customer base into the new bookmaker. Good riddance if that's what happens.

All the more ironic since these new tax rules have meant that most of the major brands (like Pinnacle) which accept winners will be pulling out of the UK market, leaving more space for outfits like Stan James to attract new customers. However, given that most UK punters who were using Pinnacle had probably turned to them because they'd been banned by brands like Stan James, these "accept only losers" bookmakers shouldn't be too hopeful.

[-Shay-]

Speaking of Stan James, isn't there an ongoing issue that is well past due to be addressed here?

[12Xpert]

Forget it Shay, if Stan James is being sold, no closed affiliate account will get re-opened. What will probably happen, as happened when Betfair bought Blue Square, is that ALL remaining Stan James affiliate accounts will be terminated. Game over, I think. Can't say I'm the slightest bit surprised if this is what transpires.

[12Xpert]

Stan James PR head says egmagaize story about sale of Stan James is incorrect. But they would be interested if right offer came along.

[-Shay-]

How is this investigation coming along? I think it is long past time for an update and action here.

I'm spending time working on the Stan James issues today. In that context I have taken the following actions:

1. I have placed a warning message at the top of the Stan James affiliate program page, which is located here:

www.gpwa.org/affiliate-program/stan-james-affiliates.

The warning reads as follows:



2. I have placed a similar warning at the top of the main Stan James forum page, which is located here:

www.gpwa.org/forum/stan-james-affiliates.html

3. I have moved this thread into the Stan James forum area so it will be visible to webmasters researching Stan James. The thread was originally placed in the Unethical Reports forum, and this thread currently remains visible in that forum with a redirect to its new location.

My intention has been to follow-up with Stan James when several webmasters came forward requesting to be included in an investigation. However, there was only one additional webmaster who has sent me a pm asking to be included, and in that webmasters case there was a request at the time I was initially contacted to delay for a time.

I would repeat that I would like to include additional webmasters in the investigation since I believe larger numbers are more effective, and more likely to have an impact. However, at the present time I am going to press forward with the two webmasters who have specifically come forward and requested that we investigate their particular situations.

Michael

[MichaelCorfman]

There is no good excuse that I have not posted here recently. The fact is that I had nothing new to report, and making a post saying that is just embarrassing, so I had avoided it.

But I can at least make clear what I know, what my views are, why, and what I intend to do.

Upon request I was promptly provided details for one account that was closed for the period from January 2013 through the closure in the middle of 2014. The statistics showed a loss of several thousand pounds during that time period, and commissions paid of several thousand pounds (because even though the punters lost overall, there were some months of wins and some months of losses). In my discussions with Stan James, they were adamant that it was simply bad business to accept more players from this affiliate, and they were closing the account because they could not afford to keep a business relationship with those characteristics in place.

My personal opinion is that fluctuations are normal, and that today's winners could easily be tomorrow's losers. So I expect cutting off the affiliate in this situation would likely prove to be a bad business decision, even ignoring the politics. What I could completely understand, and what I would do personally if I were the operator and the decision were mine, would be to invoke the provisions of the terms of service that allow negative carryover to be implemented for this account. However, based on the discussions I had with Stan James, it seemed clear that option was not considered because the business decision was to decline to want to accept any new player referrals from the affiliate based on the performance of the referred players over the past year and a half.

In that context, I've thought about this particular situation a great deal. I think the decision made was the wrong one. I think it was short-sighted. But as bad as I think the decision was in this particular case, and as stupid as I think it might be, I also don't believe it was made with the intent to be greedy or otherwise unethical or immoral.

This has left me in a state of being discouraged. The situation would be easy if I viewed it were driven by unethical behavior. Stan James would have been removed as a sponsor a long time ago were that the case. But, the contract we have with sponsors does not allow us to terminate a sponsor relationship in the middle of a sponsorship term unless there is legally unethical behavior involved. Stan James has been very clear that they view they have acted in a legally responsible fashion, and that they view we have no legal grounds to terminate the existing contract during its term.

Before, I did what was clear to me could and should be done. That was to highlight the situation so that the issues involved were visible to anyone considering working with them. It was also very clear to me that I was not going to be able to get the situation reversed. Stan James is emphatic that they believe their actions are both reasonable and legally permissible.

Now, where I view I have particularly fallen down on the job is that it is quite possible that the situation could be different with respect to other affiliates, and so I should investigate the situation with respect to the other two affiliates who would like us to look at the matter. I have not done that even though Anthony and Universal4 have been pestering me about following up for some time. I did take the first step and received confirmation from Stan James that they would provide account information upon authorization from the affiliates in question. But beyond that I have allowed this to remain a yellow sticky "must do" note attached to my monitor for several months.

I'm traveling for the next week, but after that I know Anthony will resume his several-times weekly reminders in which he is getting increasingly impatient with me. And so I will follow-up and investigate the two additional reports I do have to follow-up on to see the picture they paint as well.

Michael

[-Shay-]

Thank you for the update. I personally very much appreciate it, Michael.

[thebookiesoffers]

as much as I appreciate following this up it has nothing more in it from when you first commented on it. mainly because they used dates from one select period when my account was a lot older than 1st January 2013. I also asked for all info to be shared with me which stan james provided about me, my account and case and nothing yet.
so to sum up for me, by using select dates to close an account and not the whole history is unethical and if they didn't want to get anymore players fine, but to steal the ones i have already sent................

[Voids]

That post would definitely win the speaks the most, but says the least award for this year.

[grem]

Will stop sending traffic since they will close the account anyways.

[Zuga]

I never actively promoted these guys. But I have pretty much reduced the little traffic they were getting from me, ever since this topic was published.

Now I find out they have suspended our poker/sports acct. This is what I get when I try to login : " Your account is currently suspended. If you require further information then please contact affiliates@stanjames.com "

Funny enuff I havent got any email and or explanation from them.

oh well, not much of a loss..

[universal4]

Once again, programs should understand that an inactive affiliate costs them nothing, and can still help with branding.

BUT, affiliates that actively suggest NOT to promote a program or property due to actions spoken of in many posts above CAN hurt the branding of a group.

Rick
Universal4