IMPORTANT - CAP Euro Event Changes

[maxd]

... you guys lash out at mojo? ... Atleast jetset is on the right path!

Ok, my bad. I honestly wasn't trying to "lash out" at mojo. I like mojo! That's the last thing I intended.

I was just trying to say that a few pints does not a bad bunch make. This will be my 3rd time at ICE and I really enjoy it and yes, I enjoy the pints with the peeps I never get to see or rub shoulders with anywhere else.

In truth I know next to nothing about the topic at hand so ... guess I should've kept what I thought was a friendly little jibe to myself. Jetset was right, as usual, an unfortunate derail.

 

[PokerNations]

I think that Mojo is just very passionate about this issue, as I agree with others that calling attention to the beverage consumption habit of affiliates isn't really the problem here.

I think CAP is winning though, because enough time passed for people to be apathetic about their continued connection to these events and the deception that was pushed upon us.

We were told these events would be "independent" of CAP and clearly that is not the case. If this information had been brought to light a year ago when everyone was up in arms over the Cardspike and other issues, I bet the amount of folks attending this London event would be significantly less (and other competition would have sprang up to challenge it)

Now that everyone has already booked flights and rooms it's a bit more difficult to extract yourselves. But hopefully you'll reconsider future support of these events because of this connection (or someone who is more ethical than CAP will realize the ridiculous opportunity in front of them and enter this conference market to give industry members a choice of who to support with their hard earned money)

 

[Webzcas]

Most people I know were going to London anyway in January prior to the startup of Cap Euro in 2007. This was and still is in the main to visit the ICE at Earls Court.

Now that everyone has already booked flights and rooms it's a bit more difficult to extract yourselves. But hopefully you'll reconsider future support of these events because of this connection (or someone who is more ethical than CAP will realize the ridiculous opportunity in front of them and enter this conference market to give industry members a choice of who to support with their hard earned money)

My honest opinion is that there are already TOO MANY conferences.

I always go to London each and every January and have done since I became an affiliate full time in 2005. It is however convenient for me to stay in London for the full week, after attending Earls Court.

 

[bonustreak]

Well guess what? I don't have a crew. I just happened to be hanging out with a couple of friends and others who joined us. And I remember it clearly - McDonalds at Leicester Square at 1 (or so) in the morning. It was the worst burger I have ever had in recent memory. No one, including myself was drunk - at all. We had unsuccessfully searched for the Maya Bar that others had gone to and spent a couple of hours wandering around looking for it. There was nothing obnoxious about it. Funny how this crap gets all blown out of proportion.

My bad for not choosing the correct words and yes your right we were really not wondering around drunk because we never found the party..lol Had some really really bad food and went back to catch sleep before the next day's early rise for meetings.

I will try to make sure my words are written down next time so they cannot be twisted around and I have to apologize to my friends who where drug into this unprovoked attack.

BTW- Thought Paddy Partners should get a thank you as well because I think they helped out along with the Villento guys on the tab that day.

 

[jetset]

Why am I getting the feeling that everyone would rather discuss an irrelevant and minor personal experience in London last year than the topic under discussion?

Come on, guys - surely we can do better than this!

 

[The Dude]

I'm really disappointed by some of the comments I'm seeing/hearing concerning this whole LAC/CAP thing.

I see Mojo quitting the forum...for what? I haven't a clue. No one "berated" her - maybe questioned her judgment on why she felt partying on one's off time is relevant to the issue (a day prior to CAP Euro BTW not during). If Mojo was present (in London), what would she have been doing? Staying alone in her hotel room? I'd hope not.

Gamtrak has also decided to attack me personally at the GPWA board for....??? I have no clue why. I'm not even a member there so I don't know why she chose that venue to call me a "self-proclaimed 'Casino God' " When have I ever claimed to be infallible or a "god" for that matter? What the hell did I do to you GT?

Gamtrak came under fire in another thread for promoting Gambling Wages by players who have been ripped off by their casinos. Well, if you can't stand the heat - don't promote them. That's all I can say. The membership of this forum is primarily players, so if you are promoting Cool Cat Casino, Prism, etc., you should expect to be called out for it. You created this problem - not I.

And now the discussion has spiraled into mish mash, and it makes me question whether or not this thread can get back on track. If it continues in this this manner, I'll close it.

 

[jetset]

You might as well - there do not appear to be any on-topic or relevant points currently being made.

 

[BingoT]

For what all this is worth I say CM you should end this thread.

CAP
(Can Animals Party)

 

[casinojack]

I will look forward to the CM panel discussion, I will be there with my ears tuned in.

I will be attending, and I think anyplace where affilaites, players and operators can meet is a good thing; Same with forums on the internet. and like one of the poster above said though, does seem to be a tad too many.

 

[Casino City]

This is Michael Corfman, and I'm the executive director of the GPWA. Let me try to set the record straight here with some facts.

I was under the distinct impression and honestly believed that CAP was being completed removed from any involvement with the iGB events. My view was that the name change that happend nearly a year ago now represented the reality of what was happening in terms of relationship changes behind the scenes, and I had many discussions that seemed to confirm to me that was the case.

Fast forward to around a month ago. I started hearing rumors that were inconsistent with my understanding of the situation, and then also noticed CAP was listed as a sponsor of the iGB London conference and the GPWA was not listed anywhere.

In response to this information, which was all new to me, I sent an e-mail message to Alex Pratt on December 23rd which, in part, said the following:

Alex:

I'm concerned that things to not look the way we discussed them as being.

1. The LAC website lists CAP as a marketing partner...
2. ......
3. I have been told that CAP retains a financial interest in the iGB conferences.
4. ......

This all seems quite inconsistent with what I understood was happening.

.....

Please understand that although this message was written in a very calm fashion, I felt deceived that the signs pointed to real financial involvement on the part of CAP. However, I knew Alex was on holiday for his honeymoon at the time, so I did not expect to receive a response right away. I did finally receive a response from Alex very shortly after he returned on January 3rd.

I sent several e-mail messages to Alex over the next couple days expressing dismay that the situation was so different than I viewed I had been lead to believe. And I also made it very clear to Alex that I viewed that he needed to publicly state the current situation. To quote a sentence from one of my e-mail messages to Alex: "I think you need to come clean that there is a business relationship with CAP still and that the nature of that relationship is one where they have a beneficial financial interest in the success of the show."

I did expect Alex would do so, and I was correct about that. In the meantime I had shared internally within our company information that Alex had shared with me. However, my view was that Alex would disclose the information shortly, as I had requested, so I did not view it as appropriate for any of our staff to comment on the matter because I felt Alex would do so and so it was appropriate to let him state the situation.

In this context I was very upset when the information that was shared within our company was used to make public posts about what was happening rather than waiting a little while for the information to be revealed publicly. As a consequence I removed posts made that I viewed as associated with knowledge of this this information.

There was no coverup at all on my part. Just a desire to give Alex a chance to state the situation on the record himself which he subsequently did.

Michael

Rob, I actually just went and read the whole thread..well, most of it anyway. Maybe you can tell me if I have this right?

Last year, MCorfman/GPWA go out of their way to "dig up the dirt" on CAP, and end up knocking them down a few notches over the whole Cardspike issue (and Absolute Slots as well?). The main concern in all of it was LACK OF TRANSPARENCY, right? So GPWA ends up benefitting from CAP's losses...long and short of it. Many programs left CAP and I would assume that GPWA's business picked up as a result?

Now...fast forward to this year and an upcoming affiliate conference. Mojo posts, wanting to know what financial/business relationship there is between CAP and the sponsors of the next affy conference, because she doesn't want to support in any way, shape or form, the owners of CAP. Reasonable request, in the interests of TRANSPARENCY. The thread goes along, and we end up with JTodd (Integrity) posting what I assume was supposed to be hush hush confidential info regarding CAP and their current affiliations. M Corfman even goes so far as to remove the thread, edit out this highly confidential info, and slap JTodd with a temporary posting ban. Am I following this so far Rob?

Then...wait for it...along comes Alex, who...LO AND BEHOLD, confirms that CAP does indeed profit financially from these conferences re: the contracts and business arrangements in place. So, one is left to assume that this is the highly confidential info that JTodd had posted, and which obviously M Corfman and GPWA/Casino City employees were privy to all along...but which affiliates who may attend one of these conventions, were not allowed to know about.

To sum it up...the same M Corfman that sought to bring down CAP a year ago, now goes out of his way to protect the very same CAP..with the very same Warren Jolly at the helm? Even to the extent of suspending one of his own employees from posting. Hypocrisy sure does make strange bedfellows doesn't it? BTW, I'm not calling Michael Corfman personally a hypocrite. It's this whole industry...it's BUILT on hypocrisy...it's the foundation.

Can you tell me if I've come close Rob? I haven't been following this saga for the last year..so this past half hour was a crash course on the latest goings on of GPWA/Casino City/CAP...and all the highly ethical people involved with all of them.

 

[RobWin]

I was under the distinct impression and honestly believed that CAP was being completed removed from any involvement with the iGB events.
Michael

So was I and I believe Jetset as well. If that was clearly not deception on the part of Alex Pratt's previous statement, then what the hell is? Another 'word play' game maybe?

And all the Alex Pratt supporters can save the comments about how that previous statement from last March is not Alex's fault...bla bla bla. You're singing to the choir!

Does no one really give a $hit about credibility anymore?
____
____

 

[The Dude]

This is Michael Corfman, and I'm the executive director of the GPWA. Let me try to set the record straight here with some facts....

Thanks Michael for giving us this info. Much appreciated.

Well, now. How about them CAPsters?

Just a couple of notes - Alex is an employee and not the man-with-the-plan at iGaming, so I still feel he's getting a lot of stick which should be directed elsewhere.

But - this sort of information should have been "out there" from the git go. Being as sensitive a subject as CAP is - this is a major screw up. Using 20/20 hindsight, CAP should have been bought out and not allowed any participation. But that's my opinion - I'm not privy to all details of the contract, and it seems as though nobody can talk about it ...yet.

Oh well - I guess we'll wait and see if this London conference will be any less entertaining than last year's.

 

[RobWin]

Just a couple of notes - Alex is an employee and not the man-with-the-plan at iGaming, so I still feel he's getting a lot of stick which should be directed elsewhere.

Yea, that may be true, and others have mentioned it here too...but I think we all realize that he is in actuality a little more than your everyday run of the mill, 'regular' employee...he is the "Publisher" ...

And he is also as it appears on all of the forums, the official or maybe even the unofficial "spokesperson" for igaming, so in that respect he does need to carry the 'credibility weight' IMO.

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

Old Attachment (Invalid)

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Old Attachment (Invalid)
____
____

 

[jetset]

At last - a return to topic and a useful post!

First off, thanks to Michael Corfman for stepping up to the plate and giving us his perspective on this disappointing industry situation, where once again dodging and diving...and indeed blatant deception... have been all too evident.

It has had a number of knock-on effects, none of them pleasant, as Michael points out.

One can only hope that this latest embarrassing lack of affiliate industry integrity will be remembered rather better than the CAP debacle early in 2009.

I have to say that I am in agreement with RobWin here that it is unlikely that Alex was uninformed on the true facts regarding the CAP involvement, given his status within iGB. He will have to live with that as a grave error of judgement imo.

In the IMO unlikely event that he was not kept informed, then that is truly an awful indictment of his employer imv.

We need to stop deluding ourselves that this was not an exercise based on deception - Michael's post reinforces that view I believe.

I would say to affiliates, by all means attend the event, but remember the foundation on which it has been built.

 

[greek39]

WTG jetset I see it the same way. I tried a million different ways to justify attending but kept coming up empty.

greek39

 

[RobWin]

One can only hope that this latest embarrassing lack of affiliate industry integrity will be remembered

Now there's the statement of the year! :notworthy
____
____

 

[spearmaster]

I don't think Alex was uninformed either - but I disagree that he deliberately tried to mislead anyone.

 

[RobWin]

I don't think Alex was uninformed either - but I disagree that he deliberately tried to mislead anyone.

So what would you call it then Spear? Would it be an accidental, impulsive, or precipitate slip of the tongue?

Can you at least qualify your statement as to why you disagree.
____
____

 

[spearmaster]

So what would you call it then Spear? Would it be an accidental, impulsive, or precipitate slip of the tongue?

Can you at least qualify your statement as to why you disagree.
____
____

Show me the statement where he deliberately mislead anyone? The one where he said 100% independent - which I took to mean that iGB had full control of the event?

Whether people like it or not, contracts DO need to be honored. I don't know what the situation is with this or not but I highly doubt CAP and iGB signed a contract on an event by event basis.

Sure, people may not like the situation. Sure, I can understand why some people choose not to support the event.

But I do not see how it is that people can pass judgement without having all the facts - in this case any contractual obligation between the two parties.

As I said, I do not believe Alex deliberately mislead anyone in any statement he made. At the very worst, he might be said to have been economical with the truth.

Now please stop trying to put words in my mouth again.

 

[RobWin]

Show me the statement where he deliberately mislead anyone? The one where he said 100% independent - which I took to mean that iGB had full control of the event?

Do you still feel that iGB has full control of the events, knowing now of the partnership arrangement with CAP?

But I do not see how it is that people can pass judgement without having all the facts - in this case any contractual obligation between the two parties.

e.g. Juries do it everyday without having all of the facts. They only have the facts that have been presented to them, just as we have here.

As I said, I do not believe Alex deliberately mislead anyone in any statement he made. At the very worst, he might be said to have been economical with the truth.

Another play on words there IMO.

Now please stop trying to put words in my mouth again.

Jeeze Spear, come on man...surely you can engage in debate without having to bring that line up every single time. NO ONE IS TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH for once and for all!
____
____

 

[Webzcas]

Kudos to Michael for posting the background as to what has transpired over the last couple of weeks.

Ok here are my thoughts on this all, although I am sure I will be repeating myself in parts.

Firstly if anyone thought that CAP/Affiliate Media did not have a finger or several fingers in the conference pie prior to Alex's statement and that of Warren Jolly's - Then they must have been living the life of a hermit for the past year. Regardless of the opening post in this thread made many months ago by Alex.

I think and I am quite sure, that most full time affiliates knew that the rebranding exercise was just that - A name change and a distancing from the CAP brand. But behind the scenes the status quo remained.

That said, the way I read the statement made by Alex was written in a way to pull the wool over the eyes and IMO was and is intentionally deceptive. However as an employee, Alex's loyalty first and foremost lies with his employers and most certainly contractual obligations and confidentiality agreements put him in a position, whereby he could not reveal the full picture.

This is not a defence of Alex ( I have not ever met him, nor have I attended any of his events in the past ), but an objective opinion I have formed standing back and looking at the whole picture. If anything, Alex has been put in an unenviable position as a result of recent events.

By JTodd making posts alluding to the fact that Affiliate Media still have a vested interest in these conferences ( I did not see the posts concerned prior to their removal ) and the subsequent unravelling of events that followed - It appears to me that these conferences as we know them will be coming to an abrupt end after London.

If I was cynical, I might assume that perhaps what we have seen occur is actually the desired outcome and set of events unfolding before us......

I would say to affiliates, by all means attend the event, but remember the foundation on which it has been built

Now onto the actual London conference. Yes I am attending as are many countless others of my peers. Does my planned attendance prior to the official announcement or indeed afterwards mean that I am quietly and conveniently ignoring what went on at the turn of last year?

Absolutely not.

But my attendance does mean I can meet with friends and also affiliate program managers who I have not seen in person since the ICE 2009.

However I will be conveying to the programs that I meet with in person my view that they should no longer support these events if Affiliate Media have a financial interest in them. I also believe many other attendees will be doing the same.

There are also some very useful sessions worthy of attending, no more so than the panel that Bryan has put together. This is in my view a fine example of using the event to benefit us all involved in the industry - Player, Operator and affiliates.

 

[jetset]

Regarding the 'hermit' comment above - I would say that like many others I know this disgraceful situation certainly deceived me....and in any event speculation by those 'in the affiliate know' about CAP sharing the profits following Alex's assurances of 100 percent independence is not 'coming clean', and that is the point here.

It's taken over ten months for these folks to reveal the real situation, and that tends to discredit them in my book. It begs the question, had they not been pressured into doing so would we still not know the truth today?

IMO we would probably not.

The question of whether Alex - as a senior employee who is clearly a popular figure with many conference goers - was a party to the deception now becomes one of individual perception, and no amount of hair-splitting will change that. There is additionally the very personal question of whether you would risk putting your personal credibility on the line simply because you were "an employee" - just following orders, guv! I urge you to revisit the opening posts in this thread if you don't believe that.

To me, and clearly to others, this was a deliberate deception designed to disguise the involvement of a CAP that was unpopular at the time to say the least.

For those affiliates who appear to be rationalising their attendance at this year's event on the grounds that it's good for the players or whatever - you don't have to do this and distract us from the business credibility issues being discussed here - the decision is yours and everyone understands and respects that.

This discussion is to my mind not about trying to deter affiliates from attending an event that is already set up - it's about the credibility - and perhaps future credibility - of those involved in perpetrating what looks increasingly like a serious deception on the industry.

 

[spearmaster]

Do you still feel that iGB has full control of the events, knowing now of the partnership arrangement with CAP?

Yes.

Another play on words there IMO.

Nope, big difference. Being economical is simply telling the minimum necessary. Misleading is tantamount to being deceptive.

Jeeze Spear, come on man...surely you can engage in debate without having to bring that line up every single time. NO ONE IS TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH for once and for all!

Then stop saying "Would you call it blah, yada, or so on..." that IS putting words in my mouth. I can speak for myself, I don't need you to hint at what you think my thoughts SHOULD be.

BTW, you haven't indicated which statement is deliberately misleading. I have yet to see one from any of the people who think Alex has been deliberately misleading.

 

[Webzcas]

Regarding the 'hermit' comment above - I would say that like many others I know this disgraceful situation certainly deceived me....and in any event speculation by those 'in the affiliate know' about CAP sharing the profits following Alex's assurances of 100 percent independence is not 'coming clean', and that is the point here.

I agree with your comment concerning 'not coming clean', but I assumed as did others that CAP still had a finger in the pie. This is not a case of being in know, more a case of being very cynical and a fine tuned spider sense.

That is not to say everyone had the same opinion, so my comment above re 'hermit' was probably not worded correctly, so I apologise for that.

This discussion is to my mind not about trying to deter affiliates from attending an event that is already set up - it's about the credibility - and perhaps future credibility - of those behind the scenes in perpetrating what looks increasingly like a serious deception on the industry.

I disagree with you here to an extent. This discussion is of equal importance to those attending or those who were planning to attend. By attending you could be seen as condoning the deception that has transpired. This is why some high profile webmasters have decided to not attend and why others are still planning to attend. Hence why this is an area being discussed in this thread.

As regards the credibility of future events, looks like that has been lost.

 

[Webzcas]

BTW, you haven't indicated which statement is deliberately misleading. I have yet to see one from any of the people who think Alex has been deliberately misleading.

Spear from the Press Release quoted in the first post of this thread:

100% managed and produced by iGaming Business who co-founded the events with CAP two years ago.

That is clearly worded as such to indicate that CAP now have 0% involvement with these events. Thus misleading and deceptive IMO.

 

[spearmaster]

Spear from the Press Release quoted in the first post of this thread:

That is clearly worded as such to indicate that CAP now have 0% involvement with these events. Thus misleading and deceptive IMO.

I'm not sure how you can call that misleading. It says "100% managed and produced" - clear as day. It does not say "100% managed, produced and owned/operated".

 

[RobWin]

I'm not sure how you can call that misleading. It says "100% managed and produced" - clear as day. It does not say "100% managed, produced and owned/operated".

What about the last sentence in the first paragraph then, where Alex said "the event will be 100% independent"
____
____

 

[spearmaster]

What about the last sentence in the first paragraph then, where Alex said "the event will be 100% independent"

Didn't I already address this???

Show me the statement where he deliberately mislead anyone? The one where he said 100% independent - which I took to mean that iGB had full control of the event?

 

[RobWin]

Didn't I already address this???

Then why did you ask again here?

BTW, you haven't indicated which statement is deliberately misleading. I have yet to see one from any of the people who think Alex has been deliberately misleading.

And, I had already actually pointed that out in this previous post here...

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/important-cap-euro-event-changes.30084/
____
____

 

[PokerNations]

Alex said the event would be 100% independent, obviously leading a number of folks in the industry to believe they were not involved with CAP any longer.

Calling them "economical with the truth" only justifies and encourages this sort of deception in the future (and personally, I'm sick of politicians and don't need that type of garbage in our industry as well)

Definitions for "independent":


in?de?pend?ent

??/??nd??p?nd?nt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-di-pen-duhnt] Show IPA
Use independent in a Sentence
See web results for independent
See images of independent
adjective

1. not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker.

2. not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman.

3. not influenced by the thought or action of others: independent research.

4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.

5. not relying on another or others for aid or support.

6. rejecting others' aid or support; refusing to be under obligation to others.

9. executed or originating outside a given unit, agency, business, etc.; external: an independent inquiry.





I've removed a number of definitions that wouldn't apply in this situation. But to me, claiming the events were "100% independent" from CAP/Affiliate Media does not mesh at all with what the actual situation is.


I suppose Cardspike didn't "not pay affiliates" but instead had a "redistribution of funds"

Quit defending CAP, as an industry we need to take a stand and say never again to companies like them

 

[Pinababy69]

I was under the distinct impression and honestly believed that CAP was being completed removed from any involvement with the iGB events. My view was that the name change that happend nearly a year ago now represented the reality of what was happening in terms of relationship changes behind the scenes, and I had many discussions that seemed to confirm to me that was the case.

Fast forward to around a month ago. I started hearing rumors that were inconsistent with my understanding of the situation, and then also noticed CAP was listed as a sponsor of the iGB London conference and the GPWA was not listed anywhere.

In response to this information, which was all new to me, I sent an e-mail message to Alex Pratt on December 23rd which, in part, said the following:

Please understand that although this message was written in a very calm fashion, I felt deceived that the signs pointed to real financial involvement on the part of CAP. However, I knew Alex was on holiday for his honeymoon at the time, so I did not expect to receive a response right away. I did finally receive a response from Alex very shortly after he returned on January 3rd.

I sent several e-mail messages to Alex over the next couple days expressing dismay that the situation was so different than I viewed I had been lead to believe. And I also made it very clear to Alex that I viewed that he needed to publicly state the current situation. To quote a sentence from one of my e-mail messages to Alex: "I think you need to come clean that there is a business relationship with CAP still and that the nature of that relationship is one where they have a beneficial financial interest in the success of the show."

I did expect Alex would do so, and I was correct about that. In the meantime I had shared internally within our company information that Alex had shared with me. However, my view was that Alex would disclose the information shortly, as I had requested, so I did not view it as appropriate for any of our staff to comment on the matter because I felt Alex would do so and so it was appropriate to let him state the situation.

In this context I was very upset when the information that was shared within our company was used to make public posts about what was happening rather than waiting a little while for the information to be revealed publicly. As a consequence I removed posts made that I viewed as associated with knowledge of this this information.

There was no coverup at all on my part. Just a desire to give Alex a chance to state the situation on the record himself which he subsequently did.

Michael

I appreciate the clarification Michael. I hope you understand that my post was based solely on what I'd read on your forum, and perception is really everything. It certainly appeared that there was a coverup in place...but after reading what you've written...it seems the coverup was on the part of Alex, and not yourself. I do understand wanting to give him the opportunity to come clean himself.

It certainly sounds like you were duped, along with many others, if what you have written is an exact accounting of the facts. If I were you, I would be none too pleased at the way things unfolded. And I hope that you guys can move forward from here, and leave CAP and whatever involvement they may have in these events, far behind. Leopards do NOT change their spots, and in no way do I believe that just because Lou is gone from AMI/CAP...they are all of a sudden an upstanding and ethical organization.

Again, thanks for taking the time to post.

 

[spearmaster]

Alex said the event would be 100% independent, obviously leading a number of folks in the industry to believe they were not involved with CAP any longer.

Calling them "economical with the truth" only justifies and encourages this sort of deception in the future (and personally, I'm sick of politicians and don't need that type of garbage in our industry as well)

As I have pointed out before, independent means that CAP/Affiliate Media no longer have any influence or say in what happens with the conferences. It does not necessarily mean they no longer derive any benefit.

Let's just go through your definitions below:

1. not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker.

Check.

2. not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman.

Check.

3. not influenced by the thought or action of others: independent research.

Check.

4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.

Check.

5. not relying on another or others for aid or support.

Check.

6. rejecting others' aid or support; refusing to be under obligation to others.

Not check as there is clearly some obligation to share revenue.

9. executed or originating outside a given unit, agency, business, etc.; external: an independent inquiry.

Check.

Since you're removed 7 & 8, I can't comment on those - but as you can see it took until point 6 for you to even get a definition which might fit the case. One can hardly call the statement "100% independent" deliberately misleading, wouldn't you agree?

I repeat again. There is a BIG difference between being "economical" and "deliberately misleading".

Furthermore, no one is defending CAP/Affiliate Media here. You sure you have your guns pointed in the right direction?

 

[PokerNations]

And how do we know there isn't more "economy" in what we've been told recently?

More than likely, CAP does have some say/influence in these events, in addition to their monetary interest.

I just don't get why you choose to defend these guys by trying to lessen the impact of their deception by saying it's not a 100% deception, but more of a play on words.

The issue is that the use of the phrase 100% independent was meant to make everyone feel like CAP had zero involvement with these events moving forward. That isn't the case and thus it is deception, plain and simple.

Trying to argue semantics is just taking us away from the real issue, CAPs' continued involvement in large industry events that impact programs, affiliates and players.

 

[spearmaster]

More than likely, CAP does have some say/influence in these events, in addition to their monetary interest.

I highly, highly doubt it.

I just don't get why you choose to defend these guys by trying to lessen the impact of their deception by saying it's not a 100% deception, but more of a play on words.

It's not meant to be a play on words. Just that some people read it differently that others. How is that even deception?

The issue is that the use of the phrase 100% independent was meant to make everyone feel like CAP had zero involvement with these events moving forward. That isn't the case and thus it is deception, plain and simple.

Was it? Did you conceive of the phrase before Alex wrote it?

Zero involvement does not necessarily mean deriving no profit.

I was *with* Alex in Macau when this whole thing was going down. No one else involved in this discussion has even MET Alex, I bet. None of you know that Alex is possibly the easiest-going guy you'll ever met, never lifted a finger in anger, don't think I've ever seen him furrow his brow even. And I know he is no bullshitter, certainly he's never done it to me in the years since I've known him.

The first thing I said to him when I saw him is "Is your phone on?" and he said it had been ringing off the hook. He spent most of that night and the next couple of days dealing with the situation, in between some noodles and Bruce Lee slots, and me haranguing him about how he had to cut CAP off to the largest extent possible (but then again I paid for the noodles with my comps, and he won at the slots).

As far as I am concerned, he did so. However, I was not and am not privy to the contract between the two sides, nor are any of us.

Personally, I'd love to see Alex come out and say just how much longer before the existing contract is over - but I highly doubt that will happen - though I'd bet it can't be far off anyhow.

 

[AussieDave]

Hi All,

Well I've just finished reading this thread which came about by reading the one over at the GPWA. The catalyst being mojo's requested exile.

The only decent reason I could find for anyone attending is Bryan

The reason I am going is for my

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

which I feel supersedes any affiliate conflicts/dilemmas/bitch-and-moaning/rogueness etc. since it deals primarily with the players and what they want.

Or have I missed something

However it seems really strange to me that when the AU (Affiliate Union) issue was raised here (and just about everywhere else), the BIG drama was about a founding member financially supporting a known rogue casino group (VCG).

Yet some of the same people who took issue on that count, and were also the loudest in crucifying the AU (who incidentally mojo, chalkie and I had no idea about the VCG connection), are here in this thread and others contradicting their core values, as displayed in their total umbrage for the AU fiasco.

Am I the only one to find this comical, apparently not!

This industry is its own worst enemy.

It seems to me, through every sordid bit of dirt that spews out of this industry, that instead of actions being based on what is the right thing to do, actions are dictated to by industry politics.

Screw integrity the mighty buck rules again

If CAP/Warren/Lou are gaining financial benefit from this event, then who in their right mind would want to line their pockets with cash; directly or indirectly for that matter

I've said it before, too many cliques, hidden agendas and way too many politics rule this industry. Semantics and Spin Dr speak seems to fall easily from some people's tongues depending on the situation at hand.

But hey what would I know...I'm just the village idiot and the AU fall guy



Cheers



Dave

 

[dominique]

If CAP/Warren/Lou are gaining financial benefit from this event,

Just a fact to keep things straight, I am not voicing any opinions here:

When assets were split, Lou received Effectice Media and Warren received Affiliate Media. Only Affiliate Media has a financial interest in the conferences.

 

[RobWin]

Zero involvement does not necessarily mean deriving no profit.

LOL...:notworthy

Old Attachment (Invalid)

____
____

 

[PokerNations]

LOL...:notworthy

Old Attachment (Invalid)

____
____

Lol, well played. Reminds me of watching the episode of the Daily Show where they had one of the Justice Departments lawyers from the Bush Administration talking about "interrogation techniques" that were essentially "torture" but they were trying to define them as something that was acceptable outside of torture to get around the treaty they signed saying we wouldn't be involved in torture practices.

That's the thing about legal and political stuff, they can twist everything around. They could write a law that says "anyone wearing a pink shirt will be hugged" and then 1,000 pages down in the legal code toss in:

"for the purpose of this law, pink means green, shirt means hat and hugged means shot"

 

[triple777s]

I asked this over at GPWA with no answer given, so i will ask it here....

When CAP got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.....any contracts that were in place then....should of been null and void? Correct.....If you are in a c ontract with another company and that other company gets caught stealing, lieing, etc.....doesn't that give you a easy and legal out of any binding contracts?

So why didn't Igaming...and anyone else who had contracts with Warren or Lou opt out of these contracts and break free cleanly?

 

[The Dude]

When CAP got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.....any contracts that were in place then....should of been null and void? Correct.....If you are in a c ontract with another company and that other company gets caught stealing, lieing, etc.....doesn't that give you a easy and legal out of any binding contracts?

So why didn't Igaming...and anyone else who had contracts with Warren or Lou opt out of these contracts and break free cleanly?

I don't think it's really that simple. CAP or Affilliate Media did some pretty underhanded and unethical things - business-wise. I don't think this would nullify any contracts, and further, we don't know what these contracts entail, so it's pretty much a moot issue.

All we have here is an event being run by an entity that has a relationship with another (CAP). How deep is this relationship? We can only ponder and speculate. Something to think about in the loo.

And to pose some questions here: is the player affected? How does this all fit into the player's perspective? Do the players care whether or not CAP has a finger in the LAC pie? Do they care whether or not I host a panel with high profile players (and Max) involved?

That's what I want to hear.

 

[Pinababy69]

I don't think it's really that simple. CAP or Affilliate Media did some pretty underhanded and unethical things - business-wise. I don't think this would nullify any contracts, and further, we don't know what these contracts entail, so it's pretty much a moot issue.

All we have here is an event being run by an entity that has a relationship with another (CAP). How deep is this relationship? We can only ponder and speculate. Something to think about in the loo.

And to pose some questions here: is the player affected? How does this all fit into the player's perspective? Do the players care whether or not CAP has a finger in the LAC pie? Do they care whether or not I host a panel with high profile players (and Max) involved?

That's what I want to hear.

Speaking for myself...yes. I care about all of it. I don't just care whether or not I get paid when I play. I don't just care about player issues. I care about the whole kit and caboodle. I don't think you can truly separate player issues from affiliate issues from casino issues anyway. They are all intrinsically tied together, in one way or another. What affects one, affects all eventually. I wish there were more players who cared about more than just their OWN playing experience, and more affiliates who cared about more than just their next payment.

I hate apathy, period.

Really wish I could have been there for that panel discussion....course, at least this way, others will have a chance to speak.

 

[greek39]

Really wish I could have been there for that panel discussion....course, at least this way, others will have a chance to speak.

And Pinababy69 that is the tragedy of the whole thing. These conferences are like watching reruns of The Simpsons.

However, I am hopeful the players panel really sends a clear message and make that very important difference.

greek39

 

[spearmaster]

So why didn't Igaming...and anyone else who had contracts with Warren or Lou opt out of these contracts and break free cleanly?

I'm pretty sure that if iGB had any legitimate reason to nullify the contract, they would have.

Rob, you are a barrel of laughs. Your last response shows you care zilch about the issue, rather preferring to score brownie points here or there.

 

[jetset]

Hi All,

Well I've just finished reading this thread which came about by reading the one over at the GPWA. The catalyst being mojo's requested exile.

The only decent reason I could find for anyone attending is Bryan



Or have I missed something

However it seems really strange to me that when the AU (Affiliate Union) issue was raised here (and just about everywhere else), the BIG drama was about a founding member financially supporting a known rogue casino group (VCG).

Yet some of the same people who took issue on that count, and were also the loudest in crucifying the AU (who incidentally mojo, chalkie and I had no idea about the VCG connection), are here in this thread and others contradicting their core values, as displayed in their total umbrage for the AU fiasco.

Am I the only one to find this comical, apparently not!

This industry is its own worst enemy.

It seems to me, through every sordid bit of dirt that spews out of this industry, that instead of actions being based on what is the right thing to do, actions are dictated to by industry politics.

Screw integrity the mighty buck rules again

If CAP/Warren/Lou are gaining financial benefit from this event, then who in their right mind would want to line their pockets with cash; directly or indirectly for that matter

I've said it before, too many cliques, hidden agendas and way too many politics rule this industry. Semantics and Spin Dr speak seems to fall easily from some people's tongues depending on the situation at hand.

But hey what would I know...I'm just the village idiot and the AU fall guy



Cheers



Dave

Whilst I don't agree with everything you write here (I believe this issue revolves around business credibility as well as the questionable behaviour of the parties involved, and not predominently affiliate politics) I think you make some valid points...and the selective morality, sidetracking and use of semantics is certainly an interesting feature of the central debate over deception.

My question really should be put to Chalkie White, I guess....but I'll ask it here anyway seeing as you have introduced AU into the discussion.

What is the Affiliate Union's take on this issue? This new affiliate body, which I am told is attracting members, was outspoken and received some media coverage in the Grand Prive affair where it took a solid moral position.

Does it have the same concerned approach on the current debate over CAP's profiting from the LAC, and whether the AU's founders were deceived by the initial announcements of 100 percent independence or not? It would be interesting to hear its perspective, imo.

 

[jetset]

Just a fact to keep things straight, I am not voicing any opinions here:

When assets were split, Lou received Effectice Media and Warren received Affiliate Media. Only Affiliate Media has a financial interest in the conferences.

And who did the deal with Alex/iGB....the owner of AM, who it appears also calls the shots at CAP and was a leading figure in the ducking and diving of early 2009 surrounding Cardspike et al?

BTW is this confidential contractual information (details on the split)? Has this been publicised elsewhere, if so a link would be appreciated.

 

[jetset]

All we have here is an event being run by an entity that has a relationship with another (CAP). How deep is this relationship? We can only ponder and speculate. Something to think about in the loo.

And to pose some questions here: is the player affected? How does this all fit into the player's perspective? Do the players care whether or not CAP has a finger in the LAC pie? Do they care whether or not I host a panel with high profile players (and Max) involved?

That's what I want to hear.

Whilst players will be watching this thread with interest, I think the central discussion is understandably more of direct interest to affiliates wrestling with the juxtapositioning of the questionable history of CAP with the conference and iGB, and of course the increasingly bitter debate about deception, which puts an ethical slant on it.

There is no doubt in my mind that your player panel is a valuable opportunity to educate affiliates, but that is in my opinion more of a side issue here. I'm more concerned about how the affiliate industry views the recent disclosures going forward, and whether this further deception will just be accepted as the norm for an industry that has some warts as well as good aspects.

I believe that this is not just a case of "All we have here is an event being run by an entity that has a relationship with another (CAP)."

CAP has admitted it is profiting from the affair, whilst showing little sign that the management has changed its questionable tactics experienced with such disgust last year....and we have the (to my mind) very serious liklihood that a deliberate industry deception has occurred, admitted only under pressure from the GPWA.

I would not like to feel that the gravity of the issue is being diminished here.

Once again, this is not about deterring affiliates from attending, or rationalising such attendance - it's about whether there was a deception and the acceptability of CAP again apparently pulling the wool over industry eyes and how that impacts the future credibility of those concerned.

 

[Webzcas]

Hi All,

Well I've just finished reading this thread which came about by reading the one over at the GPWA. The catalyst being mojo's requested exile.

The only decent reason I could find for anyone attending is Bryan

Well then Dave, I would say you are being very naive in your outlook here. All the main affiliate programs will be in London, boycotting the event will not change that fact and will only have an adverse affect on the affiliates who cancel their plans to go. Whilst it may be seen as taking the moral high ground, by deciding not to attend at the last minute, it will not affect the income derived from the event or affect the profit made by Affiliate Media. As I believe all the programs and sponsors of the event have already shelled out for their booths and the subsequent events being held.

However what affiliates can do, is convey to those affiliate managers they meet with that they are not prepared in the future to frequent events whereby Affiliate Media have a financial interest.

This in turn will provide a very clear message to the programs that it is not in their interest to contribute to these events financially if Affiliate Media are involved.

Remember also, that those affiliates that attend do not pay any money to the event organisers.

Or have I missed something

Yes, quite a bit. Read the above.

However it seems really strange to me that when the AU (Affiliate Union) issue was raised here (and just about everywhere else), the BIG drama was about a founding member financially supporting a known rogue casino group (VCG).

Absolutely right and nothing strange about it at all. As an affiliate I do not want someone representing my interests who openly promotes a known rogue group. The fallout and drama that followed also proved that emotions of some concerned were not kept in check. Hardly a good advocate for a body which is proposed to professionally represent the interests of affiliates.

Yet some of the same people who took issue on that count, and were also the loudest in crucifying the AU (who incidentally mojo, chalkie and I had no idea about the VCG connection), are here in this thread and others contradicting their core values, as displayed in their total umbrage for the AU fiasco.

I think you will find, re-reading the various threads on this issue here and elsewhere, that the proposed union imploded after coming under scrutiny from various affiliates. I include myself in that. The fact that it did not get off the ground and past this issue, proves to me anyhow, that it was a non starter in it's original form.

Am I the only one to find this comical, apparently not!

This industry is its own worst enemy.

I don't find it comical at all. What is amusing about asking some serious questions? If a proposed union cannot field and answer questions from the community it is proposing to represent, then what good will it do in representing 'us' with the programs we work with?

It seems to me, through every sordid bit of dirt that spews out of this industry, that instead of actions being based on what is the right thing to do, actions are dictated to by industry politics.

Screw integrity the mighty buck rules again

True to a certain extent. But not from where I sit. I value my integrity and reputation in the industry very highly. It takes years to build up, but can take seconds to destroy. Look at Affiliate Media as a case in point.

For every 'bad' affiliate there is a 'good' affiliate that values the players they promote casinos, poker rooms and sportsbooks to.

If CAP/Warren/Lou are gaining financial benefit from this event, then who in their right mind would want to line their pockets with cash; directly or indirectly for that matter

Already answered above. Bottom line is, the programs are already booked to attend. By affiliates not attending, it will only hurt those affiliates who choose at the last minute not to go.

I've said it before, too many cliques, hidden agendas and way too many politics rule this industry. Semantics and Spin Dr speak seems to fall easily from some people's tongues depending on the situation at hand.

But hey what would I know...I'm just the village idiot and the AU fall guy

Unfortunately you get politics in every industry and every company. Try working for a FTSE100 listed PLC. I can assure you the politics involved there are just the same. It is how you handle and deal with situations that allows you to steer your business along the right path.

 

[AussieDave]

My question really should be put to Chalkie White, I guess....but I'll ask it here anyway seeing as you have introduced AU into the discussion.

What is the Affiliate Union's take on this issue? This new affiliate body, which I am told is attracting members, was outspoken and received some media coverage in the Grand Prive affair where it took a solid moral position.

Does it have the same concerned approach on the current debate over CAP's profiting from the LAC, and whether the AU's founders were deceived by the initial announcements of 100 percent independence or not? It would be interesting to hear its perspective, imo.

Hi jetset,

Although I still own the affiliateunion.org domain and the home page is still up (which I've just yanked) I have no intention of opening.

The GAU rose from the ashes with both Paul (Chalkie) and Paula (mojo) at the helm.

It should be noted that Paula (mojo) has since resigned her position and no longer has any involvement with the GAU.

So yes I'm unable to answer any questions regarding the GAU.

I merely used the AU fiasco as an example of divergent behaviour by some people; how they flip to the pipers tune, and what seems synonymous with this industry.

Maybe Paul (Chalkie) will come over and answer these questions. I'm sure someone will make him aware of this thread.


Cheers



Dave

 

[AussieDave]

Hi Webzcas,

The fallout and drama that followed also proved that emotions of some concerned were not kept in check. Hardly a good advocate for a body which is proposed to professionally represent the interests of affiliates.

Throw whatever slant you like on it but peoples integrity came directly under fire.

Are you telling me you wouldn't stand up for your ethics (if they were 100% legit), with complete gusto and fierce determination if they'd been brought into contention

I said what I wanted to say. And after all it's just my opinion.

I'm rather flattered that you'd spend so much time dissecting a post, you seem to think is posted by someone without a clue



Cheers



Dave

 

[zebedy]

And to pose some questions here: is the player affected? How does this all fit into the player's perspective? Do the players care whether or not CAP has a finger in the LAC pie? Do they care whether or not I host a panel with high profile players (and Max) involved?

That's what I want to hear.

I think the average player wouldnt have any clue as to what CAP or LAC are about or they even exist so probably dont care. its mostly a concern for affiliates.

As for attending its probably unfair to expect affiliates to pull out at this late stage if they have forked out money, unless they could get refunds ?.

With the ones that do attend at least they can spread the word around about the facts that have just come to light as i expect there will be some that still dont know. and now you all know about CAPs involvement you can make plans to boycot all future events they are involved with.