Season 6 Discussion

[Paulie_D]

I love option 3 - Des has the skillz to get this off the ground and to make it a success.

If Des opens APAT Poker and it has to generate sufficient revenue profit to fund the next event on a month to month basis then we"re left, potentially, lurching from event to event without knowing if APAT can afford to actually put it on. So, this is an Option 2 all over again.

I"d love Option 3...if it GUARANTEED me a full season of live APAT events straight out of the gate. That"s what I want.

If it did that, I"d sign up on Day 1....but I strongly doubt that it would. And of course, a new APAT Poker site can"t start generating revenue to fund S7 if it"s competing with a sponsor during S6...sort of Catch 22 really.

Frankly, I"d prefer to pay a membership fee first (which gave me some sort of privilege...be it preferred registration or something)

[Paulie_D]

Is there a potential hybrid option?

Option 3 affiliated to Option 1 for the core events with option 2 for some "one offs"?

This is, IMHO, where we are headed but...as I just said..

And of course, a new APAT Poker site can"t start generating revenue to fund S7 if it"s competing with a sponsor during S6.

[TheSnapper]

There are two distinct elements to all these options.

Element 1: Apat schedule and announce the coming seasons list of events, venues & dates. Early announcement of dates is important to quite a few members for logistical reasons, time off work, travel arrangements etc. This is more or less common to all 3 options so, is it that much of a complication in terms of choice?

Element 2: Apat secure a sponsorship package so as to continue to provide the "Added Value" we"ve grown to love. It would appear that sadly some members now expect this added bonus even to a point where it becomes "the" key factor in their continued presence at Apat events. Would the absence of "added value" substantially effect attendance?

Already excellently stated in Rob"s post, option 1 has not yet secured a repeat sale and if we"re honest, most likely won"t ever do so. Ultimately the sponsors well will run dry. It seems to me that option 2 is simply a thirstier version of option 1 with the potential to empty the well faster. Is there a chance that the Sponsor pool may not pay as much attention to the smaller bite-sizes? How can we provide more return to our sponsorship partner/partners so as to sustain a lasting mutually beneficial relationship?

[Paulie_D]

There are two distinct elements to all these options.

Element 1: Apat schedule and announce the coming seasons list of events, venues & dates. Early announcement of dates is important to quite a few members for logistical reasons, time off work, travel arrangements etc. This is more or less common to all 3 options so, is it that much of a complication in terms of choice?

Element 2: Apat secure a sponsorship package so as to continue to provide the "Added Value" we"ve grown to love. It would appear that sadly some members now expect this added bonus even to a point where it becomes "the" key factor in their continued presence at Apat events. Would the absence of "added value" substantially effect attendance?

Already excellently stated in Rob"s post, option 1 has not yet secured a repeat sale and if we"re honest, most likely won"t ever do so. Ultimately the sponsors well will run dry. It seems to me that option 2 is simply a thirstier version of option 1 with the potential to empty the well faster. Is there a chance that the Sponsor pool may not pay as much attention to the smaller bite-sizes? How can we provide more return to our sponsorship partner/partners so as to sustain a lasting mutually beneficial relationship?

I agree with all of this...I know it"s a KEY thing with APAT that tournaments are run reg. free but perhaps, say, 10% not be too much to pay. After all, isn"t that where most of the sponsorship monies go?

Equally, if the extra prize (which is usually a seat and not extra cash) were to disappear it wouldn"t stop me turning up.

If APAT is to survive, even thrive, something, IMHO, has to change at a core level.

[Des]

Some of the assumptions over the last few posts haven"t been correct guys.

For one thing, Blue Square sponsored APAT in both season 2 and 3.  In addition, the law of diminishing returns suggests that sponsors are less likely to do as well in the second year of a relationship as in the first.  That is not to say that they don"t do well in the first; that"s not the case at all.  We"ve had continuation discussions with all of our sponsors but ultimately if we don"t get the right deal, then I"m very unlikely to go forward.

With regards the three options in my initial post on this topic; my opinion at this stage is that we potentially tie our hands with option 1 and it becomes hard to jump off that treadmill, which I think we need to to evolve.  Option 3 if delivered and supported well offers the best long term option for the business and the players.  Ultimately we may need to go through a period of option 2, to enable APAT to go forward with option 3 - nuts and all in the middle.    

To clarify something I said on option 2.  I"ve never had a deal of mine fall through so I was perhaps being cautious listing it as a concern.  In reality, once an operator has signed on as a sponsor the deal is highly unlikely to fall over.  In addition there would be nothing to stop us publishing the complete calendar so that players have sight of all events; with the later event sponsors tbc.  Ultimately we are talking about UK events and as long as you book sensibly, there shouldn"t be any issues.

What would help is members promoting APAT to their friends and encouraging them to join and like our FB group etc.  Silly stuff like that is very appreciated.

To finish I spoke to a certain Mr Tapie today and he sends his regards.  

[Logie66]

I think Option 3 is the next logical step and very exciting, I also echo the words of Paulie in terms of a membership fee as a choice.  Which gives a benefit, such as earlier options on buy-ins to tournaments potentially.

I"m also sure that the vast majority of APAT members wouldn"t be adverse to supporting the initial transition to Option 3.

I for one would support this.

[Paulie_D]

[Des]

I think Option 3 is the next logical step and very exciting, I also echo the words of Paulie in terms of a membership fee as a choice.  Which gives a benefit, such as earlier options on buy-ins to tournaments potentially.

I"m also sure that the vast majority of APAT members wouldn"t be adverse to supporting the initial transition to Option 3.

I for one would support this.

Just to expand on a previous thought...

Des....

Is a reg. fee completely out of the question for APAT events? Say 10%...cheaper than most and anything else could be made up from sponsorship / revenue?

My thinking is that APAT could offer a "Season Ticket Membership" for say £75 p.a. (payable up front) which would allow 10 guaranteed seats with "free entry" across a single season. Use it or lose it like.

Some variant of that....might work.

While there is no doubting the good intentions behind this Paulie, I think it would drive active membership down as opposed to becoming a meaningful revenue stream.  But I appreciate the creativity.  

[Waz1892]

Option 3 is a very exciting prospect but quite risky I"d have thought, is making a move like this against a very unconvincing financial state wise?

Option 1, tried, tested, and very successful. Ha switching sponsors each year since S3 altered anything? Has it decreased membership, or players playong online or live?

Sponsors will of course be tighter with marketing budgets, everyone is at present.

Get the best deal possible, maybe even offer a 2 year deal, etc.

For me option 1.

[AceOnTheRiver]

[Des]

[Chipaccrual]

[Bigfella42]

General question linked to option 3. What are the costs associated with setting up an online site, both to establish it and then ongoing licences etc? Another well known forum used to have it"s own skin on i=poker but when this was lost they never set up a new site which led me to assume, maybe wrongly, that the rake they would have taken would not be sufficient to cover expenses and make a reasonable profit.

The online poker market is pretty saturated and while the APAT regs would no doubt support it, to what level would new traffic be needed to make this a viable option?

[Des]

General question linked to option 3. What are the costs associated with setting up an online site, both to establish it and then ongoing licences etc? Another well known forum used to have it"s own skin on i=poker but when this was lost they never set up a new site which led me to assume, maybe wrongly, that the rake they would have taken would not be sufficient to cover expenses and make a reasonable profit.

The online poker market is pretty saturated and while the APAT regs would no doubt support it, to what level would new traffic be needed to make this a viable option?

The strength of the deal is key here.  The site that you mention above actually generated significant revenue however it was unduly hammered every time the network had an overlay.   In addition they were liable for additional costs that I would never sign up to.  That may limit our options, but I wouldn"t sign up to any agreement that wouldn"t be beneficial to APAT.  

[TightEnd]

General question linked to option 3. What are the costs associated with setting up an online site, both to establish it and then ongoing licences etc? Another well known forum used to have it"s own skin on i=poker but when this was lost they never set up a new site which led me to assume, maybe wrongly, that the rake they would have taken would not be sufficient to cover expenses and make a reasonable profit.

The online poker market is pretty saturated and while the APAT regs would no doubt support it, to what level would new traffic be needed to make this a viable option?

The strength of the deal is key here.  The site that you mention above actually generated significant revenue however it was unduly hammered every time the network had an overlay.   In addition they were liable for additional costs that I would never sign up to.  That may limit our options, but I wouldn"t sign up to any agreement that wouldn"t be beneficial to APAT. 

This was only part of the problem encountered but yes, its all down to

a) the contract you have (and I inherited one that was nasty to the skin)
b) the policies of the network you are on

If those are right then yes to take Glenn"s point the margin on gross rake can be good


as to setting up a skin from scratch, set up costs are generally quoted at $25,000+ though as with most areas of life it depends who you know

Of course you don"t necessarily need to set up a skin from scratch. Arguably the market is too fragmented and consolidation is needed to give smaller skins on various network more critical mass/economies of scale