|
|
#11
06-12-2007, 12:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Hey, he worked on Wall Street for 25 years, ....
Do not bother him with facts ....
|
|
#13
06-12-2007, 12:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am calling you out., Stranger.
Ok, Uncle Miltie. You want a name, I can only give u initials. RP.
Here's a hint. The person was in a totally different business before this. As far as Wall Street goes, u seem to be rather antagonistic. Maybe u owned Winstar, or maybe ur just a bitter guy by nature. Who knows? You wrote: "It was the public capital markets which held Party shares, appointed Party's myopic management... Sorry, but shareholders dont appoint management. They serve at the behest of the Board of Directors. For a guy with the name of "Milton Friedman", you seem to know very little about the financial markets. How come I'm not surprised?
|
|
#14
06-12-2007, 12:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hey, he worked on Wall Street for 25 years, ....
I see. Nice.
|
|
#15
06-12-2007, 01:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You are basing your claim on a supposed discussion with Ruth ?
As for your supoosed RP "source", how much Party stock do you think Ruth actually held in October, 2006 ?
How much influence do you ascribe to her after Party went public ? Be careful, Stranger, such conversations would be discoverable in the event of Party shareholder litigation. In any event, you have it VERY backwards ... going public, and inviting public scrutiny was integral to an EXIT strategy for Party's founders. They INVITED public scrutiny because their business WAS legitimate and they could access the capital markets. All that took place BEFORE 2006. The hand at the rudder of Party was not Ruth's in 2006. Was Party incompetent in assessing legislative risk, I think so. Was it at all related to your reasoning, not in 100 years. Was their decision to cut out the US market unwise, probably NOT in the long run. It was an interesting response, the fruit of which may ripen in the current ongoing discussions with DOJ.
|
|
#16
06-12-2007, 01:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Online Poker, or \"Why didnt the sites attempt to fight the UIGA\"?
Gibralta or Malta or other places aren't hide-outs. All companies with a government licence in the EU will be under scrutiny from those governments and what is more important the governments are under scrutiny from the EU. a) you can not get a licence unless you can prove that your card dealer software is sufficiently random, and does not contain any "spike the action" features, and that your servers are secure. b) you will have to put up guarantees that the funds in your possesion are safe, more or less like a bank has to. c) you will be required to process the data from play to detect cheating in any form Please tell me you're joking. Anyone could get a license in Gibraltor or Antiqua by putting up $250,000 10 years ago. Some online poker operators run sportsbooks as well. Some were previously illegal bookies in the US. Obviously, this is a very honest upfront crowd. Some are now fugitives from justice. You trust these people? Good luck.
|
|
#17
06-12-2007, 01:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are basing your claim on a supposed discussion with Ruth ?
"As for your supoosed RP "source", how much Party stock do you think Ruth actually held in October, 2006 "
Why dont u read Party Gaming's financials and see for yourself? "How much influence do you subscribe to her after Party went public ?" I couldn't tell you that; I honestly have no idea. BTW, the word is ascribe, not subscribe. But coming from a guy that does knows so little about the financial markets....
|
|
#18
06-12-2007, 01:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am calling you out., Stranger.
[ QUOTE ]
You wrote: "It was the public capital markets which held Party shares, appointed Party's myopic management... Sorry, but shareholders dont appoint management. They serve at the behest of the Board of Directors. For a guy with the name of "Milton Friedman", you seem to know very little about the financial markets. How come I'm not surprised? [/ QUOTE ] ....and the board of directors serve at the behest of the shareholders. If the shareholders don't like management and the board refuses to change management, the shareholders can change the board at the annual meeting. Management also has a fiduciary duty to act in a way that protects the the assets of the shareholder within the bounds of the law. If management is seen as not acting in the best interests of the shareholder, they will be subject to numerous lawsuits. Management has to balance the implications of legal action by the governement for breaking US law with potential legal action by the shareholders. In Party's case, they took a conservative position that eliminates the risk from doing business in the US, but they also would believe they have a defensible position with their interpretation of the statute in case shareholder suits are brought. If the shareholders don't agree with this position, they have the remedy of changing the board or suing.
|
|
#19
06-12-2007, 01:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You now \"honestly have no idea\" ???
Thanks for the proof-read.
Funny that you now admit you "honestly have no idea" of what influence your supposed source may have had at Party in the year or so leading up to the October UIGE Act. That may be the first "honest" thing you have written, Stranger. No more questions. (By the way, I am not really Milton Friedman, any more than you are a knowledgable 25 year veteran of Wall Street with any insight into the political thought process at Party in 2006.)
|
|
#20
06-12-2007, 01:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Online Poker, or \"Why didnt the sites attempt to fight the UIGA\"?
They didn't fight the legislation because the predictions were that "100%, it ain't gonna happen; they've been trying to do it for a dozen years, and haven't done anything yet." Frist snuck it into the Port Security bill. So it was a surprise attack. I do believe it's really that simple.
Do I think some of the sites are rigged? Probably. But not most of them.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
