Anyone holding these? Evil K drove the price right down and now they seem to be recovering---are they worth considering now they seem to have sorted out their finances?

i dont believe its illegal for US citizerns to hold overseas bank accounts.

How handy would that be if an offshore bank was to buy an online casino company or vice versa!!!


[Offensive language removed by MoneyAM Moderator]

Sportingbet says Credit Suisse sells stake
AFX


LONDON (AFX) - Sportingbet PLC said Credit Suisse no longer has a notifiable interest in the company's issued share capital.

On Oct 12, Credit Suisse, through Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Ltd and Credit Suisse International, said it held 13.3 mln Sportingbet shares, representing 3.15 pct of capital.

newsdesk@afxnews.com

somebody at CS will get their knuckles rapped or worse

Pommy - 11 Oct 2006 17:36 - 264 of 266
i dont believe its illegal for US citizerns to hold overseas bank accounts.

How handy would that be if an offshore bank was to buy an online casino company or vice versa!!!


[Offensive language removed by MoneyAM Moderator]

did i mention the words 'online gaming'?
does George Moron Bush work for ADVFN?
Lets see!!


MUSLIM MUSLIM MUSLIM!!!

Er, Pommy, I think you've got the wrong bulletin board.

mighty micro where do you think sporting bet will go from here after the terrific drop in share price today. results are due out this thursday.

JB ... don't even THINK about putting money in

have no fear, they will not be getting any more money off me.

I read a news alert yesterday, which I can no longer find, which explained how the brokers had now calculated the earnings potential of SBT now that the U.S. was out of the picture & I believe they set a share price of 45p as a realistic valuation.
There may be a very slim opportunity to make a little money if the momentum of the downward slide carries the sp below the 45p mark.

There was a Reuters news item yesterday with a broker note -- UBS cut SBT to "reduce" but I can't find the price target.

not too much discussion whats going on this baby needs to show some steel.

IMO anyone holding these shares (and most others in this sector, excepting those UK-focussed) needs to throw in the towel rather than show misplaced steel

Interestingly though, Shares Mag have recommended a buy for Party. Why would that not apply to SBT?

when Bush gets chucked out in November the banning will probably be overturned...thats why i'm putting my shirt on SBT,PARTY

I'm surprised you've got any shirts left, maestro, after some of the dogs you've put them on over the years.

bush has 2 years to go, these are only mid term elections maestro

You wpould have thought that the great commentator on all things US - 'maestro' would have known a bit more about the US elections. But then again I suppose they probably don't teach much politics at his nursery school.

I think SBT are better value than PRTY, my back of the envelope calc for PRTY gives a value of 20p or so compared to 65 for SBT, but dont ask for the details coz I've lost the envelope!

Here is a part of an Email that I received from Ladbrokes.

On Friday 13th October President Bush gave final assent to the Safe Port Act marking the bill's passage into law. The bill has caused significant disruption within the online gaming industry due to a clause that prohibits the processing of financial transactions for online gambling by players resident in the United States, who make up approximately 70% of online players.

Immediate withdrawal of services to residents of the USA
Publicly listed companies such as Partypoker.com & 888.com, Poker Networks including Cryptologic (Betfair, William Hill) and payment provider Firepay, have already implemented an immediate withdrawal of their services to residents of the USA. For the poker rooms this will mean a significant reduction in their player numbers but may mean they are legally compliant within their remaining markets.

Continuing to accept deposits from US players in spite of the Safe Port Act
Many non-public listed companies have taken a different interpretation of the Act. They have concluded that the Act does not alter the U.S. legal situation with respect to the offering of online poker games to US residents. This interpretation has yet to be tested in the courts. It should be noted that financial institutions such as Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland have advised their corporate clients that they are not prepared to do business with companies that take online wagers from the United States. This contradiction in approach may lead to difficulties in processing deposits and withdrawals for these operators

So, as we know, the control of U.S. gambling is going to be by prosecuting the banks if they process gaming transactions which are coded & therefore easily identifiable. The banks will comply, so the on-line gaming companies are powerless to change that.
It was my understanding that Ladbrokes, William Hill & Coral (Gala) did not have exposure to the U.S.
So nothing has changed, or have I missed something?