- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Anyone here file a claim with them?
What do you think would be a fair settlement?
thats tough. lets say we made $2000 a month from them, and we were cut off completely. We could say 20 years @ 2K a month would be reasonable as it was sure to grow. or they could say 2 years at 2K is too much because no more new players are being added.
I would want and expect at least 2X the last 12 months totals of actively working with them. So pretty much 2 years income.
2 years * average monthly income is a little bit too much in my opinion.
Its really hard to say what will be fair. Depends on the player base you had there and how long you promote them.
2 to 3 years of revenues is fairly normal for a business buy-out.
@Dominique 214736 wrote:
2 to 3 years of revenues is fairly normal for a business buy-out.
I don’t think 2-3 years revenue is normal for an online affiliate business/site. I’ve never seen any of the debates on site value suggest a 24-36 month multiplier … perhaps only 8-12 months.
Dom, you can buy ANY of my sites at 3 years annual revenue ANYTIME you want …
:hattip:
The payment should be based on the retained value of “old players” … and it would be possible to do some modelling I guess on the loyalty profile on each set of players for each affiliate and project from that – by measuring the recurring value of “old” players over the six months prior to pullout …But let’s be serious there is no way any of that will happen – this will be a quick and dirty Grand Prive and eCOGRA exercise … with a generic formula applied …
So let’s anticiapate and let’s do some modelling ourselves and see where we go …
The first thing to acknowledge is that there will be no income for new players. Affiliates didn’t market after the program closed so you cannot claim for potential new players, and it’s new players that generate a lot of the monthly incomes.
If I did some really ugly generalisations, I’d suggest that most players (90%) are lost to the casino over a couple of years (that is have a loyalty base of 1-24 months), and that the reality is that around half of depositing players are lost within 6 months, then half the remainder are lost within 6 more months, half again at 18 months etc.
Meaning a monthly revenue profile of :
Month 1 = 100%
Month 2 = 90%
Month 3 = 80%
Month 4 = 70%
Month 5 = 60%
Month 6 = 50% (1/2 lost)
Month 7 = 45%
Month 8= 40%
Month 9 = 36%
Month 10 = 32%
Month 11 = 28%
Month 12 = 25% (and 1/2 the rest lost)
…
Month 18 = 15% (and 1/2 again)
Month 24 = 10% (90% of players lost)Interestingly if I sum up the values from that profile then the first 12 months add up to 656% of month one (or 6.5 months total revenue) and the second 12 months are an additional 178%.
So, overall a projected two year value of an affiliate account using the (admittedly ugly simplistic) modelling that I suggested gives a total value of 834% of initial month value (or 8.34 months) which sits nicely in the 8-12x earnings that I mentioned that I see bandied about for site sales in forum threads.
So within the confines of this private forum I’d say that if Grand Prive offered anything above 8.34 x final month revenue then it would actually be a fair offer.
I beleive that you can argue with my modelling numbers, (and of course each site would be different and might have whales which could skew data) but I beleive that the general principal of account modelling with significant customer attrition does reflect the REAL value of players …
Food for thought?
:tongue:I got this email today. Boy am I pissed off!! I really wish they never reopened this can of worms if they weren’t going to make some effort to do it right.
I sent Sean the past 48 months of my earnings previous to the closure. Out of 48 months I had only 2 $0 months. I made earnings 46 out of the 48 months prior to closing.. including the very last month. I sent him a spread sheet with the exact payment amount for each month totalling over $53k.
So, WTF does this latest reply from him mean? It sounds to me that even though his previous reply had said they were looking into the Referspot matter…. they’re now washing their hands and saying this was not about a fair or accurate audit, but an audit done according to what Grand Prive/Referspot/Brand Box Media instructed. And it seems that was a private contract between the eCOGRA and BBM and had nothing to do with fairness or complete accuracty, but to be done only with what information was provided to them.
Am I reading this wrong? Are they washing their hands? What a crock of ****!
Hi Lori,
I trust your vacation is proving to be an enjoyable one, and thank you for the time taken to compile the information you sent through.
We have noted your concern raised as to the adequacy of the settlement amount recommended by the eCOGRA investigators.
We would like to emphasise that our mandate from Grand Prive was to review all records provided by the company in respect of the Grand Prive Affiliate Program software and related database. We were not requested to review any other affiliate program system or information, nor were we made aware of any other system or pertinent information.
We are confident that the settlement amounts have been correctly calculated based on our mandate and the affiliate and player data provided to us by Grand Prive at the time of the review. Regrettably we cannot legally perform any further investigation work into this matter unless mandated by Grand Prive management. Such a mandate has not to date been forthcoming.
Regards,
Sean
I got the same.
So GP showed them what they wanted to – none of the legacy players – and ecogra can’t do **** about it.
You know, this means that this industry is totally lawless, and it does scare me.
In the real world, GP would be taken to court and made to pay up debts before being allowed to continue it’s business, or file bancruptcy etc.
Well, I am going to spread my eggs among many many baskets, so any shenanigans like this don’t affect me ever again.
I pointed out somewhere (GPWA I think) that there is a great deal of difference between an accountant and an auditor – and between counting up numbers and conducting an audit.
It might not be obvious to the layman but the difference is similar to the difference between say a finishing carpenter and a structural engineer.
Accountants are expected to understand tax and accountancy law, and correctly categorise expenses, while Auditors are trained to sensibility test the numbers and vertify the sources of the data that is being displayed on records.
Given Sean’s response, I’d say that all eCOGRA did was an accountancy exercise, totalling up numbers provided by Grand Prive – and that there was no actual “audit” component in the exercise despite it being called such.
I’d make sure that Michael Corfman of GPWA receives a copy of this note – as he is currently trying to discuss the issue with Andrew Beveridge of eCOGRA – whom Michael describes as a straight-up person.
I am also in talks with Andrew and I agree that he is a straight forward person.
Andrew is none too happy with what happened.
Really, all he had to do is include AGD as was originally suggested to GP and this would have never happened… but I guess GP had good reason not to want any affiliates included.
ty Dom and Paul for keeping up,
i didn’t have an account with GP..
still reading everything and think you are doing a good job@Dominique 216513 wrote:
Well, I am going to spread my eggs among many many baskets, so any shenanigans like this don’t affect me ever again.
Good advice for just about any business venture or investment, even more so in this industry. It would really suck to have all or most of your eggs in the GP basket right now.
