Will/Could PartyPoker ever return to the US? - Page 2

Rampage_Jackson · #11 09-04-2007, 05:03 PM

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 · #12 09-05-2007, 11:48 AM

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 · #13 09-05-2007, 12:06 PM

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

strategery · #14 09-05-2007, 01:15 PM

[ 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 · #15 09-05-2007, 01:30 PM

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 · #16 09-05-2007, 02:26 PM

[ 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 · #17 09-05-2007, 02:37 PM

[ 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 · #18 09-05-2007, 02:48 PM

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

Grasshopp3r · #19 09-05-2007, 03:27 PM

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 · #20 09-05-2007, 05:34 PM

[ 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