|
|
#41
08-23-2007, 04:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: GOOD analysis ... \"EU to throw gaming under the bus\"
[ QUOTE ]
Tell your employees who may / may not be effected, well, I promised to ban internet gambling and this is the price you and the company you work for must pay. BTW, do vote for me this fall, I delivered on my promise, no Internet Gambling! obg [/ QUOTE ] Isn't this the point, obg? Those business interests looking at pain for no reason may well say, "We asked you to ban online gaming, you only half did it so now the WTO is after us - why not do it properly and save me from these sanctions? After all you are already half way there and we don't like gaming anyway" The penny therefore drops both ways - do we want to be in a situation with the current government where we are back in a fight for our lives? Last i checked we weren't doing too well in those battles... 
|
|
#42
08-23-2007, 04:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: GOOD analysis ... \"EU to throw gaming under the bus\"
I'm not shocked at all that the EU doesn't care about their gaming sector. I have known that for some time. I was merely highlighting that fact. EU sees some money on the table and they are going to take some. They can't agree among themselves how to handle cross border gaming so I never expected them to go to bat for their companies on an international stage.
The US has never negotiated in good faith at any point in the process. Maybe they will now, we can only hope. There have been at least a dozen meetings over the years. The only thing the US has suggested is that it would please them if Antigua would drop the matter. They almost always brought along a DOJ stooge to lecture Antigua on the evils of gambling. Antigua has always been willing to talk. As to them shifting to no remote gaming, sure, that's an option. But I don't think the horse racing lobby will tolerate it, even for a year. Furthermore, even if they did that, they would still owe Antigua compensation for 2003 to the present. The amount and form of that compensation will not be determined by the US, Antigua, me, or you, but by a WTO panel which is convening in the very near future. So even if they go the ban all remote gaming route, they still need to come to the table with Antigua at some point. Once the US moved to withdraw their commitments, Antigua had no control over who filed. There are pros and cons to having others involved. I have my own opinion but I will keep it to myself.
|
|
#43
08-23-2007, 05:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: GOOD Wall Street Journal Story
[ QUOTE ]
Counthomer, the problem I see in your analysis is that you think the Delaware law firm will say "oh OK, we too think online gambling is evil and are prepared to sacrifice some of our revenue to help you stop it." .... No law firm I have ever known has ever uttered the phrase "we are prepared to sacrifice revenue." This is very good news for us because it creates allies. Under the WTO ruling, its not just online horseracing the US would have to ban, its ALL gambling (at the very least its all remote access gambling, i.e., online or offtrack). Again at the very least THIS WOULD REQUIRE THE CONGRESS TO BAN INTERNET FANTASY FOOTBALL/BASEBALL FOR MONEY. Time for the NFL to change its tune too.... I am already composing the letter I will write to my representatives saying how I dont want federal laws telling me I have to compete with foreign lawyers for clients. As news of this gets out, I would expect EVERY state bar association to do the same. The point made when we first began discussing the WTO is now finally coming true; legalize and regulate internet gambling or be prepared to send billions of dollars overseas (one way or another). Cant ask for a much better reason for action than that. Skallagrim [/ QUOTE ] Only this adminstration would decide pissing off lawyers is a good idea.
|
|
#44
08-23-2007, 05:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: GOOD analysis ... \"EU to throw gaming under the bus\"
[ QUOTE ]
As to them shifting to no remote gaming, sure, that's an option. But I don't think the horse racing lobby will tolerate it, even for a year. [/ QUOTE ] Again, Jay, you make a point which is true in isolation but useless in the entirety of a WTO trade dispute. You are correct that the Horse racing lobby will hate losing their piece of the pie for a few years, but do they have the sway to prevent it against a big business lobby which is demanding all gaming to be banned to come into compliance with the WTO ruling and prevent sanctions? This is issue is way too complex to be reduced to looking at a single element or strand. [ QUOTE ] Once the US moved to withdraw their commitments, Antigua had no control over who filed. There are pros and cons to having others involved. I have my own opinion but I will keep it to myself. [/ QUOTE ] Again, I take issue. It's up to you, but I feel that if you come in here to trumpet the cause of Antigua, you should be willing to put on record your issues and concerns with their approach. Otherwise you are just one step above a shill (albeit a famous one).
|
|
#45
08-23-2007, 05:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: GOOD Wall Street Journal Story
Counthomer, I see your point, but what I think you are missing is that the solution of opening the services sector to foreign competition is not a remedy for ANTIGUA, but a remedy for the US withdrawal of its commitment under the GATS part of the WTO relating to the provision of gambling services. If the US doesnt withdraw, per WTO rules, then every country with an online gambling business will file for Antigua-style compensation offsets, if it does withdraw, it has to provide the kind of compensation the EU is now seeking.
In other words, we open up our remote gambling market or we pay. Completely eliminating ALL remote gambling AT THIS TIME would not put the genie back in the bottle (correct me if I am wrong Jay, you have researched the WTO rules far more than me). Skallagrim
|
|
#46
08-23-2007, 05:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: GOOD analysis ... \"EU to throw gaming under the bus\"
Other countries filing has nothing to do with Antigua's approach. They had no control over it. We discussed ad nauseum the pros and cons of other countries filing. You have pointed out one of the cons, the gross price went up. One of the pros is it elevates the visibility of the matter.
Do you believe that the credibility of the WTO is at stake here? Tiny Antigua wins a case and can't get any compliance. The developing trade community is watching, the same countries the US is always pitching to make more and more concessions. Another good point in today's NY Times article, "One day they're out there saying how scandalous it is that China doesn't respect WTO decisions," Van Den Hende said. "But then the next day there's a dispute that doesn't go their way and their attitude is: The decision is completely wrong, these judges don't know what they're doing, why should we comply?" That can't help the US's image and promoting further liberalization around the world.
|
|
#47
08-23-2007, 05:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: GOOD Wall Street Journal Story
[ QUOTE ]
Counthomer, I see your point, but what I think you are missing is that the solution of opening the services sector to foreign competition is not a remedy for ANTIGUA, but a remedy for the US withdrawal of its commitment under the GATS part of the WTO relating to the provision of gambling services. If the US doesnt withdraw, per WTO rules, then every country with an online gambling business will file for Antigua-style compensation offsets, if it does withdraw, it has to provide the kind of compensation the EU is now seeking. In other words, we open up our remote gambling market or we pay. Completely eliminating ALL remote gambling AT THIS TIME would not put the genie back in the bottle (correct me if I am wrong Jay, you have researched the WTO rules far more than me). Skallagrim [/ QUOTE ] No COuntHomer makes a point. The US could cancel the withdrawal and then probably comply with the Antigua case by eliminating all remote gaming. But it still leaves the US with the Antigua's sanction from 2003 to the present. They may still have to face IP sanctions from Antigua. The US's best option is to come to the table with Antigua.
|
|
#48
08-23-2007, 05:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Antigua may have to throw gaming under the bus as well.
Jay, I'll offer my opinion on Antigua's self-interest.
Anything it can get which it thinks can allow it to replace online gaming as an industry. Antigua embraced online gaming because it needed something other than tourism ... at which it frankly sucks. Antigua cannot afford to pass up any reasonable aid/development package. Antigua has always screwed up on management of its economy. It depended upon the rising tide of gaming to float its boat. That tide IS receding; regardless of the recent US legislation, online gaming was fleeing Antigua already for more competitive jurisdictions and markets. IF the Wire Act is knocked for a loop by the WTO, why would anyone move/return to Antigua ? If the US decides to kill off horseracing, and resolve its issue that way, how would Antigua thrive ? ..... by taking some development aid package to settle past claims. Antigua needs to REPLACE online gaming. You know Antigua. Do you think the Spencer government would not seek to replace online gaming if it could do so ? If it also can portray the issue in racial terms, it would be politically popular. Or, you might ask Allen Stanford or whoever holds Antigua's paper. Antigua has pretty good tourism resources, i.e great beaches and an English speaking population. It can shift call centers from online gaming to other industries as a short-term employment matter. If it gets its banking in order, then it can still operate as a tax advantaged jurisdiction. Finally, consider this in looking at what Antigua will do .... It is a Commonwealth nation, yet it did not make the cut on the UK gamingwhitelist. No whitelist, no support from the UK, Antigua better switch to a new industry.
|
|
#49
08-23-2007, 05:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: GOOD analysis ... \"EU to throw gaming under the bus\"
[ QUOTE ]
Other countries filing has nothing to do with Antigua's approach. They had no control over it. We discussed ad nauseum the pros and cons of other countries filing. You have pointed out one of the cons, the gross price went up. One of the pros is it elevates the visibility of the matter. Do you believe that the credibility of the WTO is at stake here? Tiny Antigua wins a case and can't get any compliance. The developing trade community is watching, the same countries the US is always pitching to make more and more concessions. Another good point in today's NY Times article, "One day they're out there saying how scandalous it is that China doesn't respect WTO decisions," Van Den Hende said. "But then the next day there's a dispute that doesn't go their way and their attitude is: The decision is completely wrong, these judges don't know what they're doing, why should we comply?" That can't help the US's image and promoting further liberalization around the world. [/ QUOTE ] The whole issue here is how this fits into the big scheme of things. Can you explain why we are willing to pay off the EU? I can't. Can you tell me how we see this dispute in the entire trade picture? If you can't then your posts aren't helpful, as they basically take a huge issue and ignore 95% of it to try and make a point that suits your vested interest. Furthermore, if we can't see how this all fits in, how can we assume it plays in our favor? The way I see it is that it could go either way, and no one has yet to post anything that I feel convinces me in either direction.
|
|
#50
08-23-2007, 05:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: GOOD Wall Street Journal Story
[ QUOTE ]
The US's best option is to come to the table with Antigua. [/ QUOTE ] You can't make a statement like that without giving some basis for it. It may be in our interest to negotiate on that specific aspect, but what is in our long term interest? My guess is that since gaming cannot be controlled or prohibited effectively, then it must be regulated and taxed (this is bad for us the player, but the best scenario for US Inc). How would I go about this, well I would want to give all the domestic players the best chance of success. We are way behind in the game at the moment, so lets level the playing field by scorching the earth for a few years. That is just one opinion, and one option. The possibilities are endless. This is a big money game, being played on many tables at once. There is no way to know whether this is good or bad for us.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
