Re: Party fiasco - Surely someone must have known?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I find it hilarious that so many posters here seem to think that Party, a multi-billion dollar publicly traded company, just sort of decided on a whim to cut off the skins without talking to the skins or looking at the contracts or anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, never thought they acted on a whim. This appears to have been very well planned from their end, and carried out in a way that as the poster stated, caught people with their pants down. Neither the sites nor the affiliates seem to have known this was coming yesterday.

It's the apparent secrecy and sudden action that makes me wonder if the skins may have some legal recourse. They may very well not. It will depend on the contracts, and to a degree, the skill of legal counsel for all involved.

Re: Party fiasco - Surely someone must have known?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's the apparent secrecy and sudden action that makes me wonder if the skins may have some legal recourse. They may very well not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they have any recourse. They had a contract to play on the Iglobalmedia shared table platform. Guess what? They're still there.

Re: Party fiasco - Surely someone must have known?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think they have any recourse. They had a contract to play on the Iglobalmedia shared table platform. Guess what? They're still there.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are probably right......if so, they had their contract very well worded. The skins could argue they entered into the contract with the understanding that "shared platform" meant "shared with Party platform" not a separate platform for the skins only. Not sure that argument would hold up though.

Re: Party fiasco - Surely someone must have known?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I find it hilarious that so many posters here seem to think that Party, a multi-billion dollar publicly traded company, just sort of decided on a whim to cut off the skins without talking to the skins or looking at the contracts or anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

El D, the number of people that truly know nothing of the business landscape they are trying to make some $$$ from continues to astonish me!

Anyone that read thru PartyGamings financial release last month and listened to the CEO interview (available on cantos.com) knew something like this was coming, and soon!

Re: Party fiasco - Surely someone must have known?
 

Cantos.com article

Q.
You currently white label on behalf of 'skins', so first of all, what is your skins policy going forwards, and is PartyPartners your solution?

A.
Let me just start answering that by explaining the difference between what a skin is and what an affiliate is. An affiliate is someone who drives traffic to our sites. Someone might have a website called bestplacetoplaypoker.com. Someone goes to that site, they get redirected to PartyPoker and for that, they typically would get a commission on the "rake" generated by that player over time.

We have over 5,000 active affiliates (and an active affiliate is an affiliate who would get paid a cheque last month), which is a core strength within our marketing armoury.

At the same time a skin, of which we have four, is a white label. People play on their sites when they go on the screen and they see there, for example, Empire Poker but, behind the screen, is all the technology and all the tables of PartyPoker. So that is the difference between an affiliate and a skin.

Obviously your question about skins is a timely one. There were some very compelling reasons for us having skins when the business started, to drive player liquidity. Those compelling reasons don't exist today and from that point of view, we've made it clear that it's not our intention to add more 'skins' going forwards.

Re: Party fiasco - Surely someone must have known?
 

Actually, I would highlight these two statements...

"We have over 5,000 active affiliates... which is a core strength within our marketing armoury."

"Obviously your question about skins is a timely one. There were some very compelling reasons for us having skins when the business started, to drive player liquidity. Those compelling reasons don't exist today..."

If you actually listen to the interview, the power of these two statements hits home even more!