PDA

View Full Version : Online gaming in crisis over U.S. ban


nwest
10-02-2006, 11:15 AM
Tis a sad day:mad: :mad: :mad:


By Pete Harrison 2 hours, 54 minutes ago


LONDON (Reuters) - Online gambling firms faced their biggest-ever crisis on Monday after U.S. Congress passed legislation to end Internet gaming there, threatening jobs and wiping 3.5 billion pounds ($6.5 billion) off company values.
Britain's PartyGaming Plc, operator of leading Internet poker site PartyPoker.com, and rivals Sportingbet and 888 Plc said they would likely pull out of the United States, their biggest source of revenue.
"This development is a significant setback for our company, our shareholders, our players and our industry," PartyGaming Chief Executive Mitch Garber said.
The House of Representatives and Senate unexpectedly approved a bill early on Saturday that would make it illegal for banks and credit-card companies to make payments to online gambling sites.
The measure was sent toPresident George W. Bush to sign into law, which most analysts see as a certainty.
"We believe that this will have a very material impact on the long-term prospects of online gambling, and in particular poker," said analyst Julian Easthope at UBS. "This will lead to a rapid decline in the use of online poker sites."
PartyGaming generates about 78 percent of its revenue from the United States, while Sportingbet gets about 62 percent there.
CRACKDOWN
Shares in PartyGaming, which rakes in nearly $4 million a day from its 19 million customers, fell 57 percent by 1155 GMT.
Sportingbet, which owns sportsbook.com and ParadisePoker.com, lost 60 percent, 888 was down 33 percent and Austria's bwin.com fell 24 percent.
Bwin could be pushed to the brink, having paid heavily for Swedish online poker site Ongame earlier this year to gain access to the U.S. market, said Leopold Salcher, an analyst at Austria's RCB. "This could break their neck," he said.
Online gaming exploded in 2005 with a string of high-profile company flotations in London, which has become the industry's corporate center.
The bulk of revenue has always come from U.S. players, but the firms were located in offshore jurisdictions like Costa Rica and Antigua for fear of prosecution in the United States, where the legal status of online gaming and betting was uncertain.
Shares in Sportingbet and BETonSPORTS had already been hammered after recent arrests of senior executives on charges of illegal gambling in individual U.S. states, but investors remained hopeful online betting and gaming would not be completely banned at a federal level.
Meanwhile, big American corporations like Las Vegas-based Harrah's Entertainment Inc. were forced to sit on the sidelines as gaming money streamed out of the country.
PartyGaming said in a statement, "If the President signs the act into law, the company will suspend all real money gaming business with U.S. residents."
"Any such suspension would also result in the group's financial performance falling significantly short of consensus forecasts for 2006 and 2007," it added.

MERGER SCRAPPED
Stephen Whittaker, joint chief investment officer at Britain's New Star Asset Management, said the likely ban could be challenged.
"This represents protectionism, and the WTO have said you can't do that," said Whittaker, whose portfolio includes about 2 percent of online gaming stocks. "Overall, we'll probably remain with most of our holdings."
"We'll probably reduce one, maybe two," he added. "We want to let the dust settle a bit -- it will take a few days."
Sportingbet said a ban would hit trading and it would scrap a planned merger with World Gaming as a result.
888 Plc said the move would hit its results, as did gaming software provider Playtech, whose shares fell 42 percent.
But Paul Leyland at Arbuthnot Securities said Playtech was relatively well positioned. "The only company for which you could categorically say that redeployment is easy is Playtech," he said. "But for the others it's much more difficult."
A ban would also hit payment processors such as Neteller Plc and Optimal Group's FireOne subsidiary. (Additional reporting by Laurence Fletcher in London and Alexandra Schwarz in Vienna)

quackrstackr
10-02-2006, 11:30 AM
What's so sad about it?

Sounds to me like they already knew what they were doing was illegal. That's why the offshore accounts were set up to get around the laws already in effect.

This just slams the door on them.

john4
10-02-2006, 12:06 PM
What's the bid deal about on-line gaming? Seems like we spend an awfull lot of time protecting ourselves from ourselves.

off topic
I see the gaming laws in this state similar to the alcohol laws of some of it's counties. It just means everyone goes out of state to gamble and out of the county to drink.

nwest
10-02-2006, 01:11 PM
What's so sad about it?

Sounds to me like they already knew what they were doing was illegal. That's why the offshore accounts were set up to get around the laws already in effect.

This just slams the door on them.


I play online a few nights a week, I think it is sad that instead of fixing the "problems" ,tax issues, children gambling with mom and dad's money, people losing all thier money, ect. They just ban it all together. I saw a segment on 60 minutes a few weeks ago on this and thier are peole who are wanting to legalize the gambling to tax it and make it legal. That is the only problem they have with it, not getting thier cut. I just have a difference of opinion on gambling as a whole, I think it is stupid that in the state of kentucky we can bet on horses and spend youir whole payckeck on scratchoffs but we cannot sit our own homes and play a few hands of poker for money?

quackrstackr
10-02-2006, 02:07 PM
That's why you have laws and the whole governmental system.

People want to legalize pot so they can tax it too but most see it as a bad proposition.

One thing is for sure... this is a sure fire way of fixing the immediate "problem". ;)

Hammer
10-02-2006, 03:08 PM
What's so sad about it?

Sounds to me like they already knew what they were doing was illegal. That's why the offshore accounts were set up to get around the laws already in effect.

This just slams the door on them.

Offshore accounts were not set up to circumnavigate the existing laws. Actually, when offshore books first started kicking in in the early 90s, they were encouraged far more than the local bookie. All this legislation does is open the door for the local leg breakers and organized crime to once again thrive.

Hammer
10-02-2006, 03:14 PM
I play online a few nights a week, I think it is sad that instead of fixing the "problems" ,tax issues, children gambling with mom and dad's money, people losing all thier money, ect. They just ban it all together. I saw a segment on 60 minutes a few weeks ago on this and thier are peole who are wanting to legalize the gambling to tax it and make it legal. That is the only problem they have with it, not getting thier cut. I just have a difference of opinion on gambling as a whole, I think it is stupid that in the state of kentucky we can bet on horses and spend youir whole payckeck on scratchoffs but we cannot sit our own homes and play a few hands of poker for money?

yep, we can have all these idiots on the dole blow their check by the 5th on the stupid lottery, but responsible, tax-paying adults can't bet a few games or play a little poker online.

nwest, not sure where you play poker, but if it's at party and affiliate, get it out NOW. They have taken the first stance (as far as the huge poker market) to say they are going to suspend USA players. I think GWB signs this today to finalize it. They're also saying that NETELLER is in for it as well. I know tons of guys that have been withdrawing since this news came out in the wee hours this morning. Better safe than sorry!

Quackr, there is also going to be a huge run now on guys running poker games out of their businesses/homes and taking a rake. Up until now, the police let these slide for the most part. I can see nothing but bad coming from more of these local, rake games. Won't be long before somebody packs in a pistol and a few people get shot.

grouseguy
10-02-2006, 03:38 PM
Offshore accounts were not set up to circumnavigate the existing laws. Actually, when offshore books first started kicking in in the early 90s, they were encouraged far more than the local bookie. All this legislation does is open the door for the local leg breakers and organized crime to once again thrive.

Makes sense to me...everytime that legislators try to legislate morality, the only thing they wind up accomplishing is increasing the "black market" in whatever they are attempting to control.

Put me in with the group that doesn't think its a function of government to "protect us from ourselves".

quackrstackr
10-02-2006, 03:51 PM
Hammer, directly from the article:

The bulk of revenue has always come from U.S. players, but the firms were located in offshore jurisdictions like Costa Rica and Antigua for fear of prosecution in the United States, where the legal status of online gaming and betting was uncertain.


I guess my take on it is that illegal is illegal. Doesn't matter how you get there.

It is illegal to gamble where I live but I could go online and gamble all I want over the internet. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense and I just see this as an opportunity to put a stop to it.

Nobody is telling you that you can't go to a casino or horse track where legal.

I figure I have better things to spend my paycheck on so I certainly don't know all the ins and outs of it but have no problems with those that do. Just my observations from what I read in the article.

Hammer
10-02-2006, 04:03 PM
Hammer, directly from the article:



I guess my take on it is that illegal is illegal. Doesn't matter how you get there.

It is illegal to gamble where I live but I could go online and gamble all I want over the internet. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense and I just see this as an opportunity to put a stop to it.

Nobody is telling you that you can't go to a casino or horse track where legal.

I figure I have better things to spend my paycheck on so I certainly don't know all the ins and outs of it but have no problems with those that do. Just my observations from what I read in the article.

The article said it was "uncertain".


I guess you can also drive to Illinois and buy some merchandise and pay sales tax or click on the internet to buy and pay none? You've never done that have you?

Another thing I can't stand is that legislation gets added to other huge bills. This was all attached to the port authority legislation. You can have some huge bit of legislation and Charlie Eskimo from Alaska gets some bridge building funds added to it or Joe Twin Falls gets some funds for a water treatment plant in Idaho added. Then, if you vote against the major legislation (in this case the port stuff), you're unAmerican. Crappy!

quackrstackr
10-02-2006, 04:16 PM
Like I said. Feel free to spend your money however you like. Knock yourself out. ;) I spend my money how I like, you can spend yours how you like and I could care less.

If you feel that strongly about it, lobby to have statewide gambling legalized in the state and you can play poker wherever you feel like it.

PhilpotHunter
10-02-2006, 05:51 PM
Then, if you vote against the major legislation (in this case the port stuff), you're unAmerican. Crappy!

Welcome to my world!!!

nwest
10-02-2006, 08:15 PM
Well just signed up for my last Tounament, and cashed out the rest, this blows