Bad Guardian (UK) Article on Poker

[Sciolist]

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2145763,00.html

[ QUOTE ]
PokerStars.com, the online poker group that operates illegally in the US, will be allowed to advertise on British TV and radio from next month even though it is not regulated by the government's new Gambling Commission

[/ QUOTE ]

Or how about:

[ QUOTE ]
PokerStars became the world's largest internet poker group in October after almost all competitors closed their US operations in the face of tough new legislation outlawing online gambling. It evades prosecution by keeping its computer servers in tax havens. The company is believed to be close to the top of the US justice department's list of rogue operators

[/ QUOTE ]
And I thought the Guardian was a liberal, sober paper. I guess not always...

[BluffTHIS!]

My money says that Mitch Garber/Party Gaming, is behind this [censored]. Party's strategy is to harm the privately held concerns still in the US market and lump them in with them. Party loses competively when Stars has the US market as a cash cow to fund competition with Party in Euroland and elsewhere. If Party can't regain access to the US market, the last thing they want is for other foreign concerns to have that access. And the stuff about stars (or any poker only site) being at the top of the DoJ's list of "rogue operators" is ridiculous. Every sports betting site on the net is ahead of any poker site not affilitated with a sports book, and casino sites are next.

If the management of Party Gaming had any balls or sense, they would do a LBO and re-enter the US market as a privately held corporation.

[JPFisher55]

If Party Gaming had any courage, they would not have left the US market in the first place. They could have stayed as a publically traded company by taking the position that they were not violating any US law, which is true.

[MiltonFriedman]

Bluff,

You are generally correct on Party trying to undercut Stars. However, I think the reported settlement talks by Party with DOJ may bear better fruit, including re-entry to the US .... with a large enough pricetag to cost PStars dearly.

There is no need to risk an LBO.

Re-entry, coupled with a nice alliance/JV with Harrahs would boost shareholder values at both Party and Harrahs.

Just speculation of course.

[davmcg]

[ QUOTE ]
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2145763,00.html

[ QUOTE ]
PokerStars.com, the online poker group that operates illegally in the US, will be allowed to advertise on British TV and radio from next month even though it is not regulated by the government's new Gambling Commission

[/ QUOTE ]





[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't come as a surprise that an ignorant journalist ignores the facts for the sake of the story. I wonder if Stars lawyers will be telephoning the author of this drivel. It's pretty serious to accuse a business of criminality, so he had better know exactly what laws Stars are breaking.

[MiltonFriedman]

How about the Guardian ? Wouldn't it have deeper pockets than some scrivener ?

[davmcg]

[ QUOTE ]
How about the Guardian ? Wouldn't it have deeper pockets than some scrivener ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well obv they'll go after the Guardian if they choose to do so, but if I was Stars lawyer I couldn't resist having a conversation with the clueless idiot.

[Richas]

The article is fairly negative but let's look at the meat.

The UK will allow sites based in the EU to advertise. They have agreed a set of standards for the ads published by the gambling commission and the industry has been bullied into agreeing that they will only advertise after 9pm. The actual news is fine by me.

The Guarian is a bit contradictory many of their columnists are anti gambling in that Methodist leftie don't let the poor waste their money sort of way yet Vicky Coren has a great weekly Poker column for them.

Meanwhile the anti gambling Daily Mail has its own gambling site that until other anti gambling types pointed it out did not meet the standards in UK law including links to help, proper +18 verification and the advertisng code (they showed people who were too young). UK has its own hypocrisy but this is a step forward not back.