Poker News: Party Poker is for sale...will a Las Vegas casino buy it?

PartyGaming open to approaches from Las Vegas-based casinos, CEO says

By Mark Foxwell in London

Published: October 9 2007 13:59 | Last updated: October 9 2007 13:59

PartyGaming, the UK-listed online poker firm, is open to approaches from Las Vegas-based casinos regarding a sale, said its chief executive officer Mitch Garber.

Speaking in a one-to-one interview at EIG 2007 i-Gaming conference, Garber said the Gibraltar-based group with a market cap of GBP 1.23bn (USD 2.5bn) would like to hear from the major players in Las Vegas. Garber refused to comment as to whether the company was already in talks with a particular casino and remained tight-lipped as to potential main suitors.

Previously reported rumours mentioned 888.com as a possible buyer. An 888 source refused to comment.

An analyst said casinos such as The Mirage and The Bellagio could be interested. ”Online gaming is currently prohibited in the US. However PartyGaming is listed in the UK where EU legislation allows online gaming. It gives the casinos direct online access to the UK market,” the analyst said. When asked about the two casinos, a PartyGaming source said they were interested in holding talks with them.

PartyGaming’s share price today was 31.50p.

The company’s website says its shareholders include Deutsche Bank with 3.7%, Orbis Investment Management with 4.9% and Prudential with 3%.

There is no over riding Federal Law on point regarding poker. Only the almost 50 year old wire act.

The UIGEA regulations were not pushed by B&M's nor even right wing religious nuts on moral grounds. The stated reason was the banking concerns about debt collection problems over gaming transactions.

Page 27 of the proposed UIGEA reg.

"Congress determined that Internet gambling is a growing cause of debt collection problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer credit industry.23 Further, Congress determined that there is a need for new mechanisms for enforcing Internet gambling laws because traditional law enforcement mechanisms are often inadequate for enforcing gambling prohibitions or regulations on the Internet, especially where such gambling crosses State or national borders.24"

The legal determination of if the placement of a wager is determined by state law.

Foreign banks are getting rich off of US customers and the Banking Industry felt it wasn't getting enough of the reported $365 Billion sloshing around in our collective accounts a year so they whined to Congress. The gutless politicans figured "leading the fight" against the "evils" of gambling was worth some votes and donations and we are where we are today.

BUT Al is getting some really bad advice. The proposed rule if implemented will kill off shore run poker. While the smart money reads the regulation and because not once in the over 20,000 words is the word poker ever mentioned people think poker is going to be ok. Take it from me it will be dead. Others read the number of times the word exemption is used and think their part of the Banking system is exempt, they are wrong as well.

The Federal Reserve simply will block the flow of money at carefully selected choke points and not a dime of off-shore money will ever see the inside of a US bank. Not your deposits, withdraws, affiliate payments, not even your rake back payments.

If you really read the proposed regulations you'll see that the system plans to write into future banking account T&C's the ability to close accounts as well as fine people for even slipping past a single dollar on that the system itself ID's as UIG$.

Thanks to Congress the Banks themselves get to be Judge, Jury, and Executioner in this "legal" process.

What about your cherished "due process" rights?

Forget it Congress gave the bankers a liability pass for any wrong or harm they cause by any over-blocking or future legal recourse.

Close your eyes and hope Al is right if you want. Stick your head in a virtual hole and hope the Banking system doesn't get you. Keep grinding out your favorite number of BB's an hour and if you would....

Would the last one out please trun out the lights?

Please?

D$D

Well, I see it differently.

To me it signals the banks that the Fed isn't going to require them to ban a whole class of customer. Its a way to wink at customers that go to great lengths to keep their poker accounts and excuse banks from having to lose business just because of the law.

They don't have to intiate a costly screening process for every check that comes through. They don't lose business. In fact, they don't have to do much of anything that they aren't already doing.

After all, when the banks say that they got what they want - I see that as meaning they get a free pass - they get to "obey" the law and still keep their customers. The best of both worlds for them.

At least that's my take on the meaning behind the public show.

DeadMoneyDad "If you really read the proposed regulations you'll see that the system plans to write into future banking account T&C's the ability to close accounts as well as fine people for even slipping past a single dollar on that the system itself ID's as UIG$."

Well, we'll have to see how it plays out in practice, but the Feds have released a clarification of how they see the regs being applied. According to Reuters 10/01/07:

Internet gambling regulations proposed by U.S. officials on Monday stopped short of requiring U.S. banks to block checks their customers make to online casinos while forcing banks to halt debit and credit payments.

...It also bars bank customers such as online casinos from receiving Internet gambling proceeds.

The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve... concluded it was "not reasonably practical" for the banks to identify and block customers from sending checks and making some other types of transfers.

The proposed regulations were criticized by one gambling industry group, the Poker Players Alliance.

"Deputizing private U.S. financial institutions to determine what are lawful and unlawful transactions will lead to the monitoring and blocking of the personal and lawful financial transactions of many of their customers who wish to play games of skill, like poker, on the Internet," the alliance said.

The Treasury Department and Federal Reserve set a December 12 deadline for public comments on their proposal. The two regulators will then begin finalizing the regulation.

The proposed rule was posted on the Web at http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/noticeofproposedrule.pdf

Online gaming IS prohibited in the United States, just not enforced. However, if a company DID set up shop based in the US, they would get shut down. I've actually been saying stuff like that was going to happen ever since the UIEGA was drawn up. Major land-based casinos backed the bill because it will cripple sites like party poker and give them time to develop software for when US online gambling is legal. When Congressman Frank's bill passes, I guarantee you that you will see Harrah's online. You almost definitely won't find me playng there though, I think Harrah's is run by scum.

The Ruter's story was based on an interview with a banking industry spokers person who said "we don't have a problem with the reg."!!!

Of course not they go all they wanted!

They don't have to mannually sort each and every check, but run a database sort after they ID the US accounts that receive UIG deposits sometime later and then close your personal account because your money was tainted.

The Fed also assured the banks that if the UIGEA law wasn't enough they has two other methods to stop the flow of money.

One they could claim they simply didn't want the business risk as any bank can refuse you business if they so choose. Each bank making an "individual" business decision is not prior restraint of trade. The whose system doing so is!

Then there is their secrect weapon the criminals and scam artists list, the OFAC list. Another semi-secret list of people like terrorists and big narco funds movers who get that bank black balled from ever doing US business. There are whole countries on the list because of terrorism or crappy banking laws. Call your bank's compliance officer and ask to see the list!

As my 12 y.o. would say, "good luck with that....."

D$D

Everytime I see Harrah's in the news they're ****' up somehow. I think Harrah's is run by former Packard Bell execs, the guy behind the New Coke fiasco and a couple of dim-witted gangsters. Y'know, the kind in the Bugs Bunny cartoons with the thick turtle neck sweaters, who say stuff like, "Daaaaah, I dunno boss."