Which Groups *DO NOT* Deserve a Seat on the PPA Board?

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
Party's position is that PokerStars (as well other sites)break some unspecified law by giving US players access to online poker. Having abandoned the US market, rather than seek judicial clarification of the UIGE's scope, Party's management seeks to choke of that market and its players.

That sort of public posture and position is scarcely in your interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make any sense to me.

Party surely wants legal access to the lucrative US market.

They believe, rightly or wrongly, that present law makes it too dangerous for them to do business here.

So presumably, it's in their financial interests to seek changes to present law. It's hard to imagine what change they could seek that we would not view as favorable.

You seem to think Party made a poor decision by vacating the US market. So what? What position are they going to take, as part of the PPA, that would not be aligned with our own?

Logic would suggest that it's the companies which still do business here - and thus, have a competitive interest in ensuring that Party and others don't re-enter the market - who would pose a potential danger. And, uh, aren't YOU one of these competitors?

From my perspective, it seems to me that people simply harbor vindictive feelings towards Party for leaving the market, and aren't really thinking about whether they're a useful ally in a political sense.