Any hope for party returning? - Page 2

DrewOnTilt · #11 07-08-2007, 02:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think that Party is more likely to be bought and rebranded than it is to come back.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's also highly possible that Party could partner with a US B&M casino in a sort of "skin" arrangement. I would be highly surprised if neither Party nor the US B&M casinos have not considered this idea as of yet. The US casino companies have the player base, and Party has the infrastructure.

Legislurker · #12 07-08-2007, 02:58 AM

I think the deal would have to be sweet, party has put a LOT of capital in keeping its player levels up in Europe and wherever they find them. Sooner or later they need to realize a return on the investment. I would think they owe it to the shareholders, but then again EU shareholders are pussies. I know its counterintuitive to imagine poker online in the USA legally without them, but it could happen.

Gregatron · #13 07-08-2007, 10:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think that Party is more likely to be bought and rebranded than it is to come back.

[/ QUOTE ]
Major online players would probably be best served to do something like this. They could supplement brand names, using both for max impact: MGM Party Poker, Harrah's Pokerstars, etc. That would seem wise from a marketing standpoint, as well as using the already existing expertise of the already established online poker sites.

Hansfutz · #14 07-09-2007, 03:13 PM

I think you make a good point. If US companies are allowed to profitably engage in online gaming, the existing big players will easily capture a large part of the US customer base because they have an established physical presence in the US and dollars to back them up.

NeBlis · #15 07-09-2007, 04:52 PM

If and when we get legal US poker sites. The new sites by Harrahs, MGM, etc will make Party look like the ugl,y poorly coded, nitemare craphole that it was. We just need the fishpond of Party not actual party poker to return

DrewOnTilt · #16 07-09-2007, 07:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If and when we get legal US poker sites. The new sites by Harrahs, MGM, etc will make Party look like the ugl,y poorly coded, nitemare craphole that it was. We just need the fishpond of Party not actual party poker to return

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding? A NIGHTMARE? I hardly think so. Party did a great job of marketing their product, and they got the fish pond and player base as a result. Unfortunately they did a piss poor job of protecting that player base.

KEW · #17 07-09-2007, 08:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If and when we get legal US poker sites. The new sites by Harrahs, MGM, etc will make Party look like the ugl,y poorly coded, nitemare craphole that it was. We just need the fishpond of Party not actual party poker to return

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding? A NIGHTMARE? I hardly think so. Party did a great job of marketing their product, and they got the fish pond and player base as a result. Unfortunately they did a piss poor job of protecting that player base.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party also as great name recognition and dominate the international market...The US does not have all the fish..

Legislurker · #18 07-09-2007, 09:40 PM

I can't see Party selling for less than 500 mill. I think it would take a VAST amount of debt financing to buy it, and I garuntee if Harrah's bought it, they would F it in its A so bad Truepoker would be bigger in 6 months. They would probably run the servers from a tent in the desert beside a wind farm.

Petomane · #19 07-12-2007, 09:53 PM

The UIGEA is blatant protectionism. The UIGEA was paid for by American corporations precisely to stamp out Party etc.

There will be internet gaming in America, but "licensed" and "regulated" meaning only open to certain entities.

American corporations couldn't compete fairly, therefore they used underhanded means to eliminate the competition. That's all the UIGEA ever was.

It's also an attempt to "own" the Internet, which is why more than gamblers should become interested in this.

What is to stop Walmart from introducing an unlawful internet commerce enforcement act and shutting down E-bay? Then operating a Wal-bay themselves?

TheEngineer · #20 07-12-2007, 10:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The UIGEA is blatant protectionism. The UIGEA was paid for by American corporations precisely to stamp out Party etc.

There will be internet gaming in America, but "licensed" and "regulated" meaning only open to certain entities.

American corporations couldn't compete fairly, therefore they used underhanded means to eliminate the competition. That's all the UIGEA ever was.

It's also an attempt to "own" the Internet, which is why more than gamblers should become interested in this.

What is to stop Walmart from introducing an unlawful internet commerce enforcement act and shutting down E-bay? Then operating a Wal-bay themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any proof?