No more Rake Back at Party Poker

[Drunk Bob]

It seems fairly clear, at least to me,that party is making an effort to maximize profits.

Why would a billion dollar enterprise keep paying 30-35% of the take too the little guys that helped build their site?

As they say in Texas,"It's jus bidness"

[gasoltub]

I have notified the moderator of my post with the MGR. Please delete it.

I'm sorry to have posted it.

[mcozzy1]

[ QUOTE ]
then goes on about how to switch to Empire instead.

Please could you post what they suggested you should do here? Thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you f*ing kidding me? People please read the terms and conditions of the forum.

Just because someone asks a stupid question doesn't mean you have to answer them. Stop indulging idiot questions.

In case people have noticed there's a lot of focus on affiliates lately. Don't post stupid things. Let things settle down. Stop with all the damn rakeback postings. Jeez, I thought the IQ level in here was supposed to be above average.

[JPNet]

If rakeback is against the T&Cs, why is it that some affiliates,not to be named, have announced that they have an agreement, with Party, to pay the rakeback in Party certificates, which can then be deposited into your poker account?

[Brainwalter]

Those affiliates say (and may be right, I don't know) that only rakeback paid in "cash", and not that paid in gift certificates, is against the T&C's.

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
March: PokerNow

April: PartyPoker


May: ???

[/ QUOTE ]

Empire.

[/ QUOTE ]

Negative captain. Empire is the exception to Party/skin's history of screwing people. I wouldn't stand behind any other skin, but Empire has full my full confidence for current and future deals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel the same way about Eurobet.

[Eratosthenes]

I think this is related to the Party IPO. When you go public you have to lay out a lot of your financial info that is now very closely held. The most important data is gross "sales" --that is, the top line. In party's case sales is rake. As long as Party is just paying affialates to go find new players to pay rake, that is OK--it is a cost of sales. When some of that money paid to affiliates goes back to the customer (player), then that is no longer cost of sales and should be deducted from the top line. The last thing Party wants to do is reduce the size of the top line right before the IPO. On the other hand they cannot leave themselves open to charges of inflating the top line by under-the-table rebates.

I think this is behind Party's new interest in rake back. If my guess is correct, I have no idea how it will work out. Many affiliates give gift certs; Party's accountants may have decided that gift certs are OK, but Neteller deposits are not.

Caution: I'm not a financial professional, but I have been sitting at the conference table when these things have been explained to the corporate management of my old company.

[SlyGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is related to the Party IPO. When you go public you have to lay out a lot of your financial info that is now very closely held. The most important data is gross "sales" --that is, the top line. In party's case sales is rake. As long as Party is just paying affialates to go find new players to pay rake, that is OK--it is a cost of sales. When some of that money paid to affiliates goes back to the customer (player), then that is no longer cost of sales and should be deducted from the top line. The last thing Party wants to do is reduce the size of the top line right before the IPO. On the other hand they cannot leave themselves open to charges of inflating the top line by under-the-table rebates.

I think this is behind Party's new interest in rake back. If my guess is correct, I have no idea how it will work out. Many affiliates give gift certs; Party's accountants may have decided that gift certs are OK, but Neteller deposits are not.

Caution: I'm not a financial professional, but I have been sitting at the conference table when these things have been explained to the corporate management of my old company.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very fair assessment I think.

[Nick-Zack]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is related to the Party IPO. When you go public you have to lay out a lot of your financial info that is now very closely held. The most important data is gross "sales" --that is, the top line.
Very fair assessment I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like it may be the real reason. My last job was as the sales manager of a privately held company that rented table linen to restaurants. I was called into a meeting several months before I left. The president of the company was trying to sell the company to a big competitor. His instructions were to increase sales at any cost in the next few months. My sales force was given the go ahead to write business that would actually cost money in the long run. The reasoning was that a company is usually sold as a multiple of sales not a multiple of earnings.

[Mike Haven]

People in this forum spend a great deal of time talking about ethics and how honest they are and how they wouldn't cheat anyone anywhere out of anything.

As I read the thread, I became merely idly curious, as you do, how ethical this affiliate was, (and by implicit association, other affiliates are), and if he had the ethics of someone I would wish to do business with, and trust my money to. End of story. No big deal. No pre-thought. Not really important at all.

Now, as an accidental by-product of my question, I've had my eyes opened in other ways altogether.