Online poker prohibition could be overturned
Poker Lobby & AGA groups aim to end Online Gambling Bill


The Poker Players Alliance and executives for the American Gaming Association (AGA) say they are hopeful that the recent political changes in the U.S. Congress will help them overturn the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA).

You may recall how the UIGEA was appended onto to the sure-to-be-passed Safe Port Bill when most Senators had already cast their votes and left, in the final hours before the Republican-controlled Congress adjourned for mid-term elections.

The UIGEA, while not making online poker illegal, did made it illegal for banks and financial institutions to process transactions for online gambling sites from U.S. customers when it was signed into law on October 13. Regulations that banks need to comply with have yet to be defined. A Government board has until July 2007 to define them.

AGA President Frank Fahrenkopf said the AGA previously opposed online gambling, saying, "Our policy changed back in April when we took a position that we thought the best way to go was to have an independent commission look at it."

Many analysts around that timeframe noted how online gambling actually lead to previously hesitant players coming to the physical casinos, swelling the number of overall casino visitors, which likely helped change AGA's perspective.

So the AGA board of directors will meet December 6, said Fahrenkopf, to consider whether "to support legislation in the new Congress calling for an independent study of Internet gambling to see if it can be properly regulated, controlled, taxed and licensed here in the United States."

Fahrenkopf pointed out, "My guess is that they are going to say let's go ahead and do it."

This past week Terry Lanni, chief executive of MGM Mirage who is an AGA board member, said the UIGEA is "ridiculous" because it was signed into law Oct. 13 as part of a larger port security bill -- and because it exempted horse races and lotteries, and online bets placed while on American Indian land.

Nevada Representatives Jon Porter and Shelly Berkley had previously introduced a bill to create a Congressional Commission to study Internet Gaming this past May. But the bill died. Noteworthy is that both Porter and Berkley were re-elected last week.

In contrast to the prior Congressional Commission proposed, if the AGA votes for a study it has already said it prefers an independent commission such as the National Academy of Sciences to do the study, noted Fahrenkopf, so results are free from the influence of lobbyists.

AGA's board includes CEOs from some the biggest live casinos in Las Vegas, such as Boyd Gaming CEO William Boyd, Harrah's Entertainment CEO Gary Loveman, MGM Mirage CEO Terri Lanni mentioned above, and Wynn Resorts CEO Stephen Wynn, amongst others.

Many bloggers have remarked if these well known casinos launch their own online gambling sites then a large majority of players will play at them because of brand recognition and huge marketing budgets, causing yet another re-alignment in the online gambling industry.

In an interview with Reuters news service, Fahrenkopf also remarked how the stated goal of the UIGEA was to protect American citizens. Instead, he noted, it caused many legitimate and responsible operators to pull out of the U.S. opening the way for unregulated companies to fill the void, since most US players were likely to continue gambling online.

He did not go as far as many others have to call the legislation Prohibition II, as did Pulitzer Prize-winning writer George F. Will in Newsweek's Oct 23rd edition and U.K. culture secretary, Tessa Jowell.

President of the 120,000-member Poker Players Alliance (PPA), Michael Bolcerek, said that results of the Congressional election have emboldened the PPA.

"Our members and other poker players went to the polls. They influenced the federal election," he said. "In the next 12 months we're confident that we'll get a study commission bill. We think an exemption [for online poker] is in order, as well."

Legal expert professor I. Nelson Rose, of the Whittier Law School, harshly criticized the UIGEA, saying how it is confusing and contradictory with all its exemptions, and noting how a portion of the bill even sanctions Internet betting conducted within states and tribal lands.

"It's a public embarrassment...it's a mess," said Rose. "Eventually I think they'll get Congress to change the law to do for Internet poker exactly what they did for Internet horse racing. It's an exemption but (based on) states' rights."

----

Gambling911.com News Wire

Originally published November 20, 2006 1:28 pm ET

Not sure what your reaction is based on cynic.
You seem to be of the opinion that this sector is dead in the water.
I am of the opinion that internet gambling will continue. (The rights & wrongs of the moral arguement don't, imo, come in to this yet). If Europe starts to clamp down, like the U.S., then you may well be right, but until that happens & with the gambling companies consolidating, I believe that the main players will be the only ones to survive. All the little companies will be swallowed up.
PRTY is a main player, imo, though I must admit that I have never held their shares (had SBT, 365 & 888) & for every company that they take over, their position must surely strengthen.

IMHO It's diluting....only if the new business income isn't worth the extra cost. It might seem clever to use shares, but if PRTY is itself undervalued, it would be better to pay cash (due 6-months time, when we can see what we've got)
... Since this is being sold because the owner is moving into investment (I understand), then perhaps it is a distressed sale, therefore earning enhancing. However, there comes a point where PRTY has registered all the World's gamblers and there is no point in buying small companies, unless they have a novel game (for example) which they hold some IP rights to.
The value of PRTY is not just the gamblers, these people are either wealthy, or poor - forget the poor and you have access to high-spenders who will attract advertisers (for up-market goods, etc.). That is the real value of PRTY and why I hold at these prices.
Gambling could be banned, but folk will do it anyway - so better it's Regulated, eh?
What surprises me is that the US-situation was known by all, even people outside PRTY - so why are they re-jigging their Options? Were the Execs so dumb they didn't move the business away from such a large risk....possibly not, but that should tell shareholders those execs don't deserve Options at all....

PRTY and several others were 80/95% reliant on USA for their income and profitability ..... Just a few, like 365, wisely with hindsight, focussed on UK and Europe ..... I fail to see that PRTY will become a properly profitable company any time in the near future if at all - unless you fondly believe that US will change its stance within the next 6/12 months or even within the foreseeable future (i.e. 2/3 years).

I don't know what PRTY's market cap is now, but clearly a fraction of what it was just a few months ago ...... on your logic, that should have made PRTY a cheap snack for someone ..... very clearly no one thought the company of the slightest interest and today's non-movement of PRTY indicates that the market considers similarly (and it is rarely wrong).

Your money; you do as you like, but in my not at all humble opinion, you could make far better use of it in a myriad of other "proper" companies.

Sorry cynic, I think PRTY has interests in Europe and the far East, so whilst US was the Lion's share of profits, it wasn't the whole lot.
Punters were panicked and fell for the low sp, despite good funding and gambling being on the increase. Better to have it in the open than risk it going underground IMHO.
The US situation occurred because good men were caught-out (off guard), the leglislation ws not intended to cover modern gambling over the internet since it hadn't been invented...that's my take...the reality is that US gambling is stopped for now; so PRTY needs to address all other areas PDQ.

Not sure that I agree, hangon(your post 37). Surely most of the revenue comes from punters who sit for hours in online poker rooms & steadily lose their money? And also I can't believe any company would consider that they have the entire global market of gamblers! I do agree that it is very surprising that non of the U.S. facing companies saw what was coming.

Cynic - If the strategy of 365 was correct, then their acquisition was a very good move by SKY. Thus, qed, SKY should now be an attractive share??? :o)

hangon ..... my memory, alzheimerish as i am, is that PRTY achieved at least 90% and maybe 95% of its profits from USA ..... Shares Mag did a synopsis a couple of months back.

harry ..... your premise is not quite logical .... BSB (assume its one and the same) may or may not be a good investment - not currently on my radar ..... while it is true that BSB thought (correctly?) that 365 was something of a snip, it depends how significant an impact that will have on their overall profitability.

Let's suppose for a moment cynic is right, then what possible logic is there to re-jig Exec Options (that old Win-Win freebe) because now the sp has fallen so far they have no incentive? ...seems to me they had the moral incentive (to maintain shareholder value), but not the Competance.
The clampdown on US gambling was entirely expected and demanded robust activity to reduce dependance on the US...but they did nothing as far as I see....if the accounts come out soon, we will see this all too clearly.
It really grieves me that Directrors can issue themselves with large chunks of our company.....Options should be illegal.
For small research companies with no cash there is some logic, so as to keep the Team together until the product reaches the Market....I suggest that when the MKT cap is less than the Turnover, all options should cease, without reward. Furthermore it is possible that any company with a turnover over 2m should not be allowed to offer inducements like Options.... except where a company sp has fallen over more than 12-months and new execs are brought-in then those joining might be justly rewarded with Options (but not many) based on the notion that the sp is restored to former levels for at least 3months. I believe all Options, bonuses and such rewards should be subject to Shareholder appoval with a minimum shareholder presence of 50 non-employees, at the AGM.
I hold PRTY.

http://www.partybets.com
doing really well...

yup .... when PRTY rockets by a whole 0.25p it's time to break out more champagne!

If you included shorting, you'd crack open a bottle every minute or so. Then you probably wouldn't give a fizz what was happening to SP.

bought back in this morning at .32p 30,000 shares. It looks like they are ready to take off with consolidations.

janet...good move,shame about Oxus though

Prty was a top performer on the opening day of this years Hemscott uk stock challenge competition. Long may the rises continue and good luck to all other holders.

well Cynic - shares are up 20% in the last week, nice profit as I predicted, probably room for more.

i still do not like the share at all, though i am more than happy to admit that you are right, at least at the moment! ..... Figures are hard to dispute (lol), albeit that it is from an historical low point

Dont panic lads.........UBS released 160 million new PRTY shares today at a price of 30.5p. .......... All the deals going through at that price are in fact purchases and not sales. Approx 400 million purchased by 10 am............ Tommorrow I would expect a huge increase in the SP when the dust settles and the market realises the full extent of this floatation.

Thanks for this reassurance Oily. I wondered what was going on.

Turbot

oily ..... i am not only thick but also far from a lover of this share .... but why on earth should anyone "expect a huge increase in the SP when the dust settles and the market realises the full extent of this floatation"?

By huge, I mean about 10% rise of 3 or 4 pence. The reason I believe it should rise is that the market makers have oversold the floatation shares by about 3 fold. The brokers will have to go back to the market and purchase about 240 million shares, to fill all the orders they have sold. That amount of trade is approx the equivalent of 10 days trading. Surely the price will rise unless the market allows the new share holders to sell their allocations at 2 pence profit approx per share in which case the price could fall. Of all the tranactions yesterday, one in particular caught my eye because, it was for 60 million shares at a cost of 18.3 million. Who invests that kind of money unless they are sure of what they are buying. Once the chancers and profiteers have cleared out, I feel this will rise against todays price................. What are your thoughts on this cynic?

i think the company is shit ....... i think you will also find that the founders are still bailing out of millions and millions of their shares, and if i saw correctly, so is (at least) one of the institutions