It is understandable that Bet365 resist zeroing negatives at a month’s end. After all they do suffer the loss and by zeroing negatives at the end of every month it does remove the sharing of liability, especially when they offer 30% and especially when they reward all cross-channel activity. They do pay fastest too.
I do not agree with the last poster that there are plenty of other options in the non-usa sportsbook market. If you look at all the firms then actually there is only one, in my view, that offers the same or better scenario than Bet365 (VCbt who do zero negatives and do reward cross channel). Only two other credible companies I can think of offer a deal that equals Bet365 (& one of them currently takes forever to pay). Of the other firms – many firms appear to be offering great deals but they actually are only offering separate channel deals (Lad, PadPow, Btfrd et al take a bow), which I find the most offensive ‘term & condition’. Or they have some other unique little short-sighted way of heavily reducing an affiliate’s commission (BlSq).
However, while I sing their praises, I think Bet365 are losing out here. If they are losing affiliates who can introduce clients who are capable of doing enough turnover to do 30k of damage then that is not good for Bet365. After all, bookies need turnover and if the negative carryover issue is turning existing affiliates, who have proved their ability to introduce clients and decent turnover, away (such as the last poster) then that is bad for Bet365. Posts such as the last one must sadden Bet365.
I have a suggestion. It is a compromise and compromises tend to suit nobody. But I really think this will solve the problem for Bet365 and ensure they retain affiliates caught in the ‘negative equity’ trap. Why not zero negatives that exist at the end of every quarter? i.e at the end of March, June, September, December.