GPWA Times Magazine - Issue 12 - April 2010
T here appears to be a lot of informa- tion—andmisinformation—swirling aroundregardingeCOGRAandeCOGRA’s investigation into Grand Privé Affiliates. The purpose of these questions is to clear up themisinformationandbringclarity to thesituationbybringing ina littlesunlight. Isuspect thatany informationyouprovide will also help affiliates better understand eCOGRA, and that’sagood thing. The best place to start is at the beginning of the most recent Grand Privé Affiliates chapter. We know eCOGRA ended up conducting an investigation intomoney owed affili- ates by the nowdefunct Grand PrivéAf- filiates.HowdideCOGRAendup leading the investigation?Did eCOGRA seek this assignment out? Or did Grand Privé ap- proach you? DidMicrogaming approach you?Howdidtheprocessplayout? Grand Privémanagement approached eCOGRA inNovember last year to conduct the in- vestigation. Althoughwe were in no way obliged to perform this work, I agreed to do itandatnochargesince I felt it impor- tant froman industryperspective that the situation be resolved. At no time didMi- crogamingaskus tobe involved, although they were pleased whenwe accepted the assignment.Microgaming had absolutely no involvement in theway this investiga- tion was conducted, which I think is ap- propriate given that Microgaming was never party to any agreements reached betweenGrandPrivéand its affiliates. During the course of this time, did the subject of a third-party “affiliate repre- sentative” — like Affiliate Guard Dog — joining the process come up? If it did come up, what was the thought process orwhatweretheultimatereasonsbehind why theywere not part of the investiga- tion? Sometime after accepting the as- signment I was informed that CAP and Affiliate Guard Dog had been in previ- ous discussions with GP about perform- ing thework. If GrandPrivé had reached agreement with these two organizations, I assume eCOGRA would not have been approached todo thework. Notwithstanding this, throughout the investigation I corresponded with, and sought advice from “affiliate representa- tives,” including Affiliate Guard Dog. I did not consider formally appointing an affiliate representative to assist with the investigation, since eCOGRAwould then be responsible for that party’s actions. As amatterofpolicy, eCOGRAonlyappoints staff with at least 7 years’ worth of aca- demic qualifications in the field of audit- ing, with experience at Big 4 audit firms. eCOGRA also provide its staff members with extensiveonsite andoffsite training, andhasconductedhundredsof investiga- tions and compliance reviews involving most of the leading operators and soft- ware providers in the industry. It would be a very risky proposition for eCOGRA to take responsibility for someonewhom we have never met or interviewed, and there is an incomplete appreciation of their qualifications and experience for a taskof thisnature. Why did eCOGRA choose to follow a claimsprocess rather thana comprehen- sivereviewofGrandPrivé’saffiliateback- end database? During November 2008 GP management entered into mutually agreed compensation arrangements for related future player activity with the majorityof affiliateswhoat that timehad players considered to be reasonably ac- tive. GP therefore instructedus to rather focus on ensuring the dissatisfied affili- ates were given reasonable notice of the opportunity to submit a claim. The fact that therewereonly58claimssubmitted, even though the issue was widely com- municated, I believe supported GP’s re- quest for this approach. DideCOGRAhavedirect access toGrand Privé’s databases? Or did you have to rely on reports and information given to you by Grand Privé? To eCOGRA’s knowledge, there is only one database. eCOGRAwas providedwithdirect access to thisdatabase. GPWA Exclusive On December 1, 2008, the Grand Privé Af- filiate Programwas shut down while theGrand Privé Casino remained open. Affiliates whose players remained active at the casino stopped receiving commissions, violating the promise of lifetime earnings. Angry affiliates took to the In- ternet to protest their treatment at the hands of Grand Privé. Last November eCOGRA agreed to investigateclaims filedbyaffiliatesagainst the affiliate program. Affiliates submitted 58 claims in December and, in the end, eCOGRA was able to identify $63,000 in commissions owed to26of those affiliates. The uproar in the affiliate community over eCOGRA’s report was intense. Many affiliates were shocked at how little they were to receive in comparison to what they were previously earningwithGrand Privé. Theaudit, andGrand Privé’s cooperation with the audit, were called into question. Some affiliates felt players deliv- ered through Referspot might have been exclud- ed. But, based on this interview, it seems more likely that Grand Privé deleted some affiliate- player associations from their database, making it impossible for eCOGRA to tie revenue from those players to affiliates filing claims (To read eCOGRA’s report and affiliate response to the report, use the linkGPWA.org/90.) In an effort to clarify the situation and give eCOGRA an opportunity to respond to the concerns of affiliates, theGPWA reachedout to eCOGRACEO and ExecutiveDirector Andrew Beveridge. He agreed to answer our written in- terview questions.We’ve reproduced the entire interview here after editing for spellingmistakes and typos only. The GPWA posed additional follow-up questions, but has not yet received answers. An Interviewwith eCOGRA’sAndrewBeveridge 12 An Interviewwith eCOGRA’s Andrew Beveridge
Made with FlippingBook
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDIzMTA=