Will/Could PartyPoker ever return to the US?

[Belok]

I haven't seen a full thread devoted to this recently, but if it has been exhausted, please point me to the thread and delete this one.

It now seems fairly reasonable to assume that none of the major poker sites catering to US players are feeling much heat from the Gov (at least as far as I know).

It also seems pretty unlikely that any real action is being taken based on the UIGEA...or will be taken in the near future.

This brings up the question - What is keeping Party Poker from returning to the US right now? Have they been singled out in some way that PokerStars, UB, Absolute, Bodog, etc. have not? Would they ever be able to just say "Well, this law is obviously going no where. Come on back, yanks!"

If they were technically able to begin accepting US players again, would there be any significant reason why they would NOT want to return?



My thought process leads me to believe that if they COULD return, they WOULD. Why would they pass up millions of dollars in rake? But when comparing them to stars/UB/AP/etc, I cant really see any reason why they could not.

Ideas?

[TomVeil]

My personal feeling is that they're waiting for the inevitable US regulation, and then either jump in with both feet (with some special favors from the US), or be a prime candidate for a buyout. Of course, the longer this goes, the closer I would imagine that MGM, Harrahs, etc have their own programs ready to go when the starting bell sounds. I think they would only enter back into the market if the US started REALLY dragging it's feet and they were in financial trouble. From the outset they've had a long-term strategy, and I don't see that changing.

[Legislurker]

Well something has to change first. So the question is a non-starter until something happens. As is Party is publicly traded, with publicly listed execs who do not want an arrest warrant issued for them. Either Party goes private with a legal strat in place, or something happens. So just watch the news then think if what happens means will Party come back.

[MiltonFriedman]

Basically, all Party would need to do would be file an action for Declaratory Judgement that no Federal law applies to make online poker illegal. Await the outcome, and, if successful, then they are back in the US, just like before .......

HOWEVER, they will never do even try that because if successful, it would mean their Directors and Management really screwed up last October and unnecessarily cost Shareholders billions of dollars of value.

[DrewOnTilt]

It's a moot point, really. Even if Party were to re-enter the US market, the fish pool that once was there would not simply reappear, for reasons that have already been discussed in these forums.

[MiltonFriedman]

" ..... for reasons that have already been discussed in these forums."

Which makes them correctly reasoned , jeez a bit arrogant, eh ?

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, all Party would need to do would be file an action for Declaratory Judgement that no Federal law applies to make online poker illegal. Await the outcome, and, if successful, then they are back in the US, just like before .......

HOWEVER, they will never do even try that because if successful, it would mean their Directors and Management really screwed up last October and unnecessarily cost Shareholders billions of dollars of value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree Milton. I have never agreed with the argument that because Party Gaming was publically traded, then it had to leave the US market. What about .888 before the UIGEA and BetOnSports and other publically traded online sports betting companies? They were violating the Wire Act as interpreted by the courts in Jay Cohen case long before the UIGEA.
Party Poker and .888 could just announce that they are accepting US customers only for their poker sites. They don't need to file an Action for Declaratory Judgment. But when nothing happened, they would look awfully foolish for abandoning the US market in the first place.

[TheEngineer]

I wouldn't expect anything until the UIGEA regs are published. Once that happens, their lawyers will probably reevaluate the situation. If that leads to them coming back (poker-only) or not is anyone's guess, but they must have noticed that plenty of poker-only sites are offering services to Americans with impunity.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't expect anything until the UIGEA regs are published. Once that happens, their lawyers will probably reevaluate the situation. If that leads to them coming back (poker-only) or not is anyone's guess, but they must have noticed that plenty of poker-only sites are offering services to Americans with impunity.

[/ QUOTE ]

They may also be waiting on a change in Administration. The DoJ can [censored] with you with near impunity and they may just fear the little nasty letters they send out.

[teddyFBI]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, all Party would need to do would be file an action for Declaratory Judgement that no Federal law applies to make online poker illegal. Await the outcome, and, if successful, then they are back in the US, just like before .......

HOWEVER, they will never do even try that because if successful, it would mean their Directors and Management really screwed up last October and unnecessarily cost Shareholders billions of dollars of value.

[/ QUOTE ]

But ANY site can file for such a decl. judgment and yet it hasn't happened yet.

[Rampage_Jackson]

Are they not allowed to starting some holding or new company that is not publicly traded and have that company setup and run PartyPoker? I'm assuming the answer is no, but I'm not sure why.

[tangled]

I think something is being overlooked. If the US does adopt a regulated regime for online gaming, then sites will have to be licensed in some way in order to be part of the system. The US will be looking for reasons to cut out foreign companies so as to give an advantage to the US-based suppliers. One way to do that is to not give a license to any site that did not comply fully with the UIGEA. Also, the DOJ believes that any site that offered gaming in the US, violated other, pre-UIGEA laws. This is why Party is in negotiations with the DOJ now--to get a clean bill of health for later licensure. If Party comes back now, they will be giving up on getting a license if a regulatory regime comes, and they will be throwing away all the time and expense they have spent negotiating with the DOJ. Pray they don't do that because they will then be under the opinion that a regulatory system is not possible.

Remember also, if a regulatory regime does come, all the now, US-facing sites will be locked out, and the other sites that have left the US will have to start from scratch in order to, also, receive a clean bill of health.

That will leave just Party, the 888 group and some novice US sites to carve up a very big pie, making Party's self-imposed exile, in their opinion, seem profitable in the long run.

[TomVeil]

Thanks for saying that better than I could, Tangled /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[strategery]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember also, if a regulatory regime does come, all the now, US-facing sites will be locked out, and the other sites that have left the US will have to start from scratch in order to, also, receive a clean bill of health.


[/ QUOTE ]

If regulation is established, how will the DOJ be any more capable of locking out the US-facing sites than they are now? I'd bet many US players would keep playing on foreign sites if the regulations are too strict (unreasonable rake, poor game selection, etc).

[Grasshopp3r]

There is no way to effectively "lock out" anyone from the internet. Blocking sites is very difficult to achieve on a large scale. How much kiddie porn is out there that is not blocked? Terrorism training or propaganda sites?

Party and the others left because they were cowards, in my opinion. I still see them all being taken over by the US gaming industry or becoming irrelevant.

[jeffman]

[ QUOTE ]


Party and the others left because they were cowards, in my opinion. I still see them all being taken over by the US gaming industry or becoming irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

They left b/c they are a publicly traded company and the owners didn't want to go to jail. It's not like they made party poker with some noble intention of helping the world. They did it to make a buck and were very successful. I still wish party were here but I don't see how they are cowards

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
They left b/c they are a publicly traded company and the owners didn't want to go to jail. It's not like they made party poker with some noble intention of helping the world. They did it to make a buck and were very successful. I still wish party were here but I don't see how they are cowards

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd certainly agree with this.

I do wonder if any of the sites that left the U.S. market will now consider moving operations to Malta (which has no extradition treaty with the U.S.), get online gaming licenses to operate from there and re-enter the U.S. market.

[JPFisher55]

Such licensing regulations will violate the WTO as much as US current laws.

[Grasshopp3r]

Party is managed by cowards. They chose to leave instead of challenging the UIGEA and the DOJ in court. They will try to negotiate a settlement with the DOJ and throw our interests as players down the drain. They will release our account information to the DOJ.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They left b/c they are a publicly traded company and the owners didn't want to go to jail. It's not like they made party poker with some noble intention of helping the world. They did it to make a buck and were very successful. I still wish party were here but I don't see how they are cowards

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd certainly agree with this.

I do wonder if any of the sites that left the U.S. market will now consider moving operations to Malta (which has no extradition treaty with the U.S.), get online gaming licenses to operate from there and re-enter the U.S. market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Registering in Malta solves only part of the problem currently. Doing so would still subject the owners and operators to arrest if they traveled in the US. Then there is the problem of any sort of financing from any US based or entity that does a large part of their business in the US. That is why the law was written as it was, to choke off the flow of money. As dumb as Congress is most of the time, they do understand the "lifeblood" of politics and commerce is money.

D$D

[mbpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember also, if a regulatory regime does come, all the now, US-facing sites will be locked out, and the other sites that have left the US will have to start from scratch in order to, also, receive a clean bill of health.


[/ QUOTE ]

In DOJ eyes there is no difference between the sites that left after UIGEA and the ones that stayed. Both have breached the US law. The fact that even NETeller founders were charged under the Wire Act and not under UIGEA.

[cjk73]

The US may not be able to effectively "lock out" sites they disapprove of, however, if all the fish come back it will likely be to the "US Approved" sites....this has the same impact as being locked out to the "non-approved" sites as all business will follow the fish.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Party and the others left because they were cowards, in my opinion. I still see them all being taken over by the US gaming industry or becoming irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

They left b/c they are a publicly traded company and the owners didn't want to go to jail. It's not like they made party poker with some noble intention of helping the world. They did it to make a buck and were very successful. I still wish party were here but I don't see how they are cowards

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed. if i had 1/10th as much cash as the leadership of party has there is no way i would risk anything, shareholders be damned.

[Rzitup]

[ QUOTE ]
Party is managed by cowards. They chose to leave instead of challenging the UIGEA and the DOJ in court. They will try to negotiate a settlement with the DOJ and throw our interests as players down the drain. They will release our account information to the DOJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://cartalkforum.com/images/smilies_funny/smiley-orly-ostrich.jpg

[Grasshopp3r]

All of that information is controlled by Party. What do you think Party will do? Go put your head in the sand, but Party has done nothing to indicate that they are not going to kowtow to the DOJ.

In other news, Party stock has sunk to the lows that it reached right after it pulled out. This most recent collapse in its stock price factors in the UIGEA effect. Party is looking more like a takeover candidate for MGM.

[BluffTHIS!]

Grasshopper,

Rzitup is Mike O'Malley the poker room manager of party who has previously shown himself in the zoo to be worthy of zero cred.

[Grasshopp3r]

I would love to see Party come back, but I think that the only way it happens is through a takeover by one of the US gaming companies.

[BluffTHIS!]

lbo ldo

[Rzitup]

[ QUOTE ]
Grasshopper,

Rzitup is Mike O'Malley the poker room manager of party

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif

[ QUOTE ]
who has previously shown himself in the zoo to be worthy of zero cred.

[/ QUOTE ]

cred in the zoo! /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
cred in the zoo! /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah. You get it when you tell the truth all the time and follow through on promises you or your staff makes. Which is why you don't have any cred. Your word isn't worth spit. But after all you work for Party Poker, started by a smut queen and currently run by Mitch who is the opposite of the agile leaders well-run corps have.

[Rzitup]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
cred in the zoo! /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah. You get it when you tell the truth all the time and follow through on promises you or your staff makes. Which is why you don't have any cred. Your word isn't worth spit. But after all you work for Party Poker, started by a smut queen and currently run by Mitch who is the opposite of the agile leaders well-run corps have.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a retired poker player, I don't have a staff. My word is worth everything in "real life". /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[BluffTHIS!]

Which means you've just implicitly admitted (gloated even) that when you speak for Party Poker on these forums, either under that account or your other Mike O'Malley one, that you are just a lying spouter of PR and spin for your masters. I guess that's what they pay you to do.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
cred in the zoo! /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah. You get it when you tell the truth all the time and follow through on promises you or your staff makes. Which is why you don't have any cred. Your word isn't worth spit. But after all you work for Party Poker, started by a smut queen and currently run by Mitch who is the opposite of the agile leaders well-run corps have.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a retired poker player, I don't have a staff. My word is worth everything in "real life". /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are really a rep of Party Poker, which I doubt, then tell me why Party Poker didn't take the stance that offering online poker to US citizens is legal because of all the reasons that TruePokerCeo has stated and then continue to serve the US market. Why leave 2/3 to 3/4 of your customer base and fall from the No. 1 online poker room to No. 3? Oh and No. 4 appears to be on your heels.
At least Poker Stars and Full Tilt thank you, but I do not.

[Rzitup]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a retired poker player

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are really a rep of Party Poker

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Rzitup]

[ QUOTE ]
Which means you've just implicitly admitted (gloated even) that when you speak for Party Poker on these forums, either under that account or your other Mike O'Malley one, that you are just a lying spouter of PR and spin for your masters. I guess that's what they pay you to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have masters either. But I maybe would like some! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Merkle]

[ QUOTE ]
But after all you work for Party Poker, started by a smut queen

[/ QUOTE ]

smut queen?

[Legislurker]

Can we put this in the zoo?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But after all you work for Party Poker, started by a smut queen

[/ QUOTE ]

smut queen?

[/ QUOTE ]


Porn actress who in her aging years started online porn sites and used that cash cow along with Dikshit's technical expertise to start party poker.

[2easy]

Not that it matters to the argument you are putting forth, but Ruth Parasol was hardly ever a porn actress, (unless you consider being a lawyer obscene.)

[Josem]

in a previous thread, rzitup claimed that he has ceased working for party.

there seems to be no reason to doubt him on this point.